Jason Terry was a key figure in the Dallas Mavericks' rise to the NBA Finals two short years ago.

The Mavericks needs to see that player again. If they don't, this team will find itself in the lottery instead of the playoffs.

Is it fair to dump the team's fortunes at Terry's feet these last few days of the regular season? No. But life in the NBA isn't fair. If it was, the Mavericks would have a healthy Dirk Nowitzki and Jerry Stackhouse right now.

That's the thing. Josh Howard has averaged slightly more than 30 points since Nowitzki went down. The Mavericks need to add 18 to 22 points from Terry every night to have a chance.

That hasn't happened. It took Terry two games to score 18 points after Nowitzki went down. He's gotten a little better since but still hasn't provided a consistent offensive presence.

With Nowitzki and Stackhouse healthy, the Mavericks could live with Terry's sporadic contributions.

Not now.

David Moore

Q: Do you think the Mavs risk missing the playoffs? The lack of defense and clutch shooting is evident. Apparently, Eddie Jones and Devean George are the best defenders who can't shoot, but they are also not defending. Jason Terry is a shooter who can't defend, but he also is not shooting. Josh Howard got off to a great start, but has been MIA in 2008. Are there eight other teams that will play better down the stretch than the Mavs?

MOORE: I want to be sensitive here, so let me put this as delicately as I can for all of you MFFLs – heck, yeah they're at risk. Nothing, absolutely nothing, this team has done in recent months should make you feel comfortable about their playoff chances.

I can't argue with your comments regarding Jones, George and Terry. But I would argue that Howard has played some of his best ball of the season since Nowitzki went down with his injury.

Now, it's no longer about eight teams playing better in the stretch than the Mavericks. It's about two – Golden State and Denver. The best-case scenario for the Mavericks is to finish as the No. 7 seed, and that will be tough.

Q: I was at the first Mavericks game on Oct. 11, 1980, when I was 8 years old, and I have been a lifelong fan ever since. I do not like the trade of Jason Kidd for Devin Harris straight-up, much less including (DeSagana) Diop and two first-round picks. But since it was made with the goal of winning, I am loyally supporting the Mavs. However, if the plan is to rebuild if the trade doesn't work, why in the world did the Mavericks trade the 2010 first-round draft pick? The Nets would have easily made the trade without it, and it has no monetary value required to make the numbers work. Because the Mavericks will certainly rebuild if the Kidd experiment doesn't work, this is a vital piece to remaking the team since it will likely be a high lottery pick. Please explain the logic (or lack thereof).

Stuart

MOORE: I'm dubious of your attempt to inject logic into the NBA decision-making process, but let's go with it.

First of all, I don't think the Nets would have done the deal without those two first-round picks. They made it clear around the league that was the price to do business. You can argue if they were bluffing or not, but I've spoken to several general managers who said New Jersey wanted a good, young player and those picks to part with Kidd.

The Mavericks, meanwhile, believed those picks would be in the late- to mid-20s because Kidd's arrival would keep them contending for the championship during that stretch.

We'll see.

Q: A lot of people have been down on the Jason Kidd trade because of his record against good teams. I personally do not think the trade was a bad thing, in fact, it has helped Dirk and Erick Dampier a great deal. I like a lot of what I see when the Mavs are running and cutting and passing. Kidd is not a great scorer, but he makes the other players around him better. I think the bigger issue is that Avery Johnson is unable or unwilling to come up with an offense that complements and uses Kidd's abilities. Avery is still too much in love with his system and thinks Kidd should conform to it.

It does absolutely no good to have Kidd if all he does is dribble down the court and pass to Dirk at the high post for an isolation play. The isolation offense is somewhat at fault for our poor showing in the playoffs, especially to Golden State. The Mavs become too one dimensional and easy to defend.

Do you think Deron Williams would be as great as he is if he played for Avery? Avery was not a Hall of Fame point guard, so why does he think every point guard he coaches should emulate him? It is no wonder that Kidd's offense is struggling with Avery constantly glaring over his shoulder. A great coach finds a way to get the most out of his team's talent. Can he put together a winning combination and get the most out of these players?

Randy in Spicewood

MOORE: I've received more and more e-mails that express this opinion, although I must say not all of them are as well written as this.

Randy, is there any way you can take Big Ed's place? But I digress, a quality found in virtually every story written by Big Ed.

Can the Mavericks get the best of Kidd's creative ability in Johnson's structured environment? That's the crux of the issue. An isolation offense, by definition, is more predictable than a motion offense. That doesn't mean it's less effective if you have the right players. Before Kidd, this had become a paint-by-the-number offense. Kidd can connect the dots in a different and more unpredictable way.

Will it happen? Probably not to the extent everyone would like to see this season. Johnson and Kidd have both compromised. That's not always a good thing. It can create a watered-down product.

Johnson had to be more creative with Nowitzki out, and I think you've seen that Kidd has been given more freedom to make things happen. Everyone can get on the same page with an off-season to prepare. That is what Johnson does well. Prepare. But I doubt you will see this work at peak efficiency the rest of the season.

Q: Is Paul Westphal stabbing Avery Johnson in the back?

MOORE: I'm not sure where you heard this, but the answer is absolutely not. After Westphal was hired, Johnson was asked why. The first word he used to describe the Mavericks assistant coach was loyal. Everyone Johnson spoke to talked about Westphal's loyalty.

Not once has Westphal ever uttered a disparaging word about Johnson in my presence. I haven't heard that he's done it with anyone else, either. That's not Westphal is about. He respects Johnson and genuinely likes him.

Q: Jason Kidd might be a future Hall of Famer and one of the best point guards over the last decade, but I wonder why Avery sometimes keeps Kidd on the floor at the end of a close game, especially when the Mavs are trailing. Everybody knows that he is not the guy who will shoot the lights out and won't get an open-court situation to pass the ball "Kidd-style" at the end of close games. I would keep Jason Terry and Jerry Stackhouse in the backcourt when it comes down to the final two minutes. What do you think ?

Michael Genentz, Bremen, Germany

MOORE: Interesting point. In the interest of full disclosure, I must tell you I wrote a column that criticized Johnson when he removed Kidd for the final 34.5 seconds of a loss to San Antonio earlier this season. So I think you can guess where I'm coming from.

Kidd isn't the best shooter on the court, but neither was Johnson when he was the point guard for a San Antonio team that won a championship. You keep Kidd on the court because he makes plays. He gets the ball to the right person, gets tough rebounds and bolts down court on a one-man fast break or strips the ball from the opponent's center when they try to force the ball into the post.

I understand what you're thinking with Terry and Stackhouse. I did, too. But then I did some digging and found that the Mavericks aren't particularly effective when Terry and Stackhouse are on the court together. It's not one of the team's better combinations.

Q: Regarding the spot for the shooting guard, I would like to suggest something new. Stackhouse is nice at the two, but I like him and Terry more on coming off the bench together. Why do the Mavs even need a scoring shooting guard to open the game? Need I remind you of one Eddie Griffin that was the starting shooting guard for one Dallas Mavericks team that reached the Finals?

I'm for putting Josh Howard at the two spot (could get some nice mismatches) and Devean George at the three. I would like your opinion on the subject.

Tom, Tel Aviv, Israel

MOORE: That makes some sense. Ideally, the Mavericks would like to find another young, athletic perimeter player and make him and Howard interchangeable at shooting guard and small forward.

The thing is, George's shot has been off this season. The reason the Mavericks haven't used this combination more is that George hasn't scored consistently enough to force team to honor him defensively.

Q: Am I going blind? I watch Nowitzki, and many times I see him fumble passes and rebounds. The guy has been given a pass because he is a great shooter and scorer. And he is. But he is also a poor catcher, below-average passer, mediocre rebounder and poor driver (because he abhors contact), and his defense is so bad that my 96-year-old mother wants to go one-on-one with him. Will we ever get a balanced report on this guy?

Tom Connors, Plano

MOORE: After what was written and said about Nowitzki after the Mavericks' playoff failure against Golden State, I'm not sure he would say that he's gotten a pass. I believe an accurate view of Nowitzki's strengths and weaknesses has been painted through the years.

As for his defense against your 96-year-old mother, well, I'll give you that. If your mother can still play at the age of 96, I'd take her over any defender the NBA has to offer.

Q: A friend and I were at work talking Mavs basketball, and we both have the same question: Love the Jason Kidd deal and totally understand why the deal was made. Now why is it, in close games since the deal was made, Avery only has one play to try to win the game? I know I don't need to go into detail. Everyone has seen it, Dirk going for the game-winning shot or to tie the game. He always has triple-coverage on him, and everyone else in the NBA knows the play. Then you have Terry on the other side of the court, not covered, hands in the air waving for the ball. Is it me, or is something wrong with this picture?

Big Mike

MOORE: You're right. The Mavericks' predictability in these situations is something that must change. The ball should still find its way into Nowitzki's hands most of the time, but it needs to get there in different ways.

Q: Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Mavericks have only retired two players' numbers – Rolando Blackman and Brad Davis. Blackman I get. But with all due respect, why did they retire Brad Davis' number, as opposed to some other notable superstars such as Mark Aguirre?

Dell Perez, Atlanta, Ga.

MOORE: You're right. Those are the only two players that have their jersey hung from the rafters.

Why Davis? Well, he embodied the personality of the Mavericks in their formative years. A good player who worked hard, played the right way and gave it all he had. He was given a second chance to play in this league by the Mavericks and made the most of it. His impact on the franchise goes beyond what he contributed on the court. I know some of you – maybe many of you – will disagree.

But as someone who followed the Mavericks back then, I believe he deserves the honor.

If you are waiting for Aguirre to be put in, don't hold your breath. I won't argue why or why he should not have his number retired. This is all you need to know: Mark Cuban owns the team now, and he doesn't intend to retire any one else's jersey unless they are part of a team that wins a championship.