Jonah Posted January 9, 2011 Report Share Posted January 9, 2011 Whenever anyone talks about the Knicks they talk about their record not being impressive due to their strength of schedule. How good do you guys feel this team is. I wrote a pretty long article on it and thought it would be a good discussion starter. Here a paragraph that sums it up: Look at their record however you like. You can see their record as it is, 21-14 or you can see it as 25-10. If you choose to see it at 25-10 and accept that 4 of the games that they lost in the early stages of the season should have been wins you will probably now regard the Knicks as a top team in the east despite their “easy” schedule. They would be 25-10, good for the 3rd best record in the east and people would be talking about how far the Knicks can go, and rather then how the Knicks should be better. No matter how easy of a schedule the Knicks had, they have played very well this year and should be considered a team that could do damage in the playoffs. despite their schedule how good do you feel this team is? (rest of article can be found by click on my sig) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JYD Posted January 9, 2011 Report Share Posted January 9, 2011 They are good, but they are not on the level of the top 4 teams in the East...and I think that's been obvious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fish7718 Posted January 9, 2011 Report Share Posted January 9, 2011 (edited) Eh I don't like playing that 'should have won' game. Either you win or you didn't. Every team in any sport can play the 'should have won' game. Top 4 East? Maybe 1. Boston2. Miami3. Orlando4. ??? Chicago ??? Atlanta ??? New York?? I'd say Chicago Atl and NY share the second tier in the east, top of the tier will get the home court Edited January 9, 2011 by STATCity Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingfish Posted January 9, 2011 Report Share Posted January 9, 2011 Chicago is a far better team then New York. The real contest is between NY and ATL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NomarFachix Posted January 9, 2011 Report Share Posted January 9, 2011 Chicago is a far better team then New York. lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oliver P Posted January 9, 2011 Report Share Posted January 9, 2011 (edited) Yeah there ain't such a thing as "should have won games", we are 21-14 and that's definitely good enough... Especially considering the fact that most people didn't think that we were a playoffs team. However we had a bad start because our new players, especially Amaré, needed time to adapt to their new team. We definitely have to take that in consideration. And now we can clearly see that we are a playoffs team indeed and that, contrary to what many people thought, Amaré doesn't need Nash to be a superstar. And I don't believe that we're a top 4 team as well, no one is better than the Celtics, Magic, Heat and Bulls in the East. But we are a top 5 team. I believe that the Hawks reached their peak last year and they can only decrease now IMO, I think that we definitely can be better than them this year. This year I think that we could make it to the second round at the very best, but I doubt that though. I think we'll play the Bulls or Magic in the first round and give them some trouble (we can win two or even three games against them) but it's gonna be very hard to beat one of the top 4 teams this year. Anyway we're playing the way I expected so far, so I'm plenty satisfied with our team. Edited January 9, 2011 by Oliver P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitro Posted January 9, 2011 Report Share Posted January 9, 2011 (edited) Knicks are a good team, but there are a few major concerns going forward: 1) They desperately need another big man that can defend and rebound. The Celtics have Shaq, Perkins, JO, KG, and Big Baby. The Magic have Dwight. The Heat have Bosh, Z, Dampier, Haslem and Anthony. The Bulls have Noah, Boozer, Gibson and Thomas. All the Knicks currently have is Amare and Turiaf; one being a questionable defender and decent rebounder, and the other being a hustle guy that is a decent defender but a poor rebounder. Neither have prototypical size or strength to match up against those other teams. In the post-season, when things slow down, being at a size disadvantage is a major problem. 2) Depth. The Knicks have been running a 7-9 man rotation the entire year, and in their high-paced system, that can really wear down a team. The Knicks bench is pretty horrible, so if they want to continue winning games, D'Antoni will need to keep that same rotation. However, as the days and weeks go by, and as the Knicks' schedule begins to get more difficult, I really wonder if they won't start to slow down because of how thin their bench is. 3) Can Amare, Felton, Chandler and Fields maintain or improve on their level of play that they've been at the first 35 games? Those first 3 players are having career years, and Fields is a rookie who has surpassed all expectations. It is very, very possible they can keep it up, but it is unlikely that any combination of those players won't go into a slump at some point. And if one or multiple of those players are slumping, can the Knicks keep winning games? Overall, I really like this Knicks team. They are a helluva fun to watch and play hard, which is really all you could ask for as a fan. I think they are at the very worst a top 6 team in the East, with Miami, Boston, Orlando, Chicago and maybe Atlanta being ahead of them. At best, they are a top 4 team, as Atlanta is always a major question mark in the post-season, and so far this season it appears NY has Chicago's number which could carry over into the post-season. But if they ever want to crack the top 3, they will need an elite perimeter scorer (whether it be Melo or a guy like CP3 who can take over games with his scoring), and more depth in the frontcourt. Edited January 9, 2011 by Nitro Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Check my Stats Posted January 9, 2011 Report Share Posted January 9, 2011 (edited) They are still a treadmill team until they bring in Melo (hey this is not necessarily a bad thing don't get mad). Also to the dude loling at the Bulls being better, you are off your rocker if you think the Knicks can hold a candle to the Bulls. Edited January 9, 2011 by Check my Stats Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NomarFachix Posted January 9, 2011 Report Share Posted January 9, 2011 I know, they were totally troubled holding a candle to them in their two matchups this year too. Knicks may not be better, but Bulls are not better by far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JYD Posted January 9, 2011 Report Share Posted January 9, 2011 Chicago is a far better team then New York. The real contest is between NY and ATL.Yeah Chicago is definitely better. They are in the top tier of teams. lolLook man, Chicago is definitely a better team despite us beating them on Christmas. They are going to continue to get better once Noah is back, too. Knicks are a good team, but there are a few major concerns going forward: 1) They desperately need another big man that can defend and rebound. The Celtics have Shaq, Perkins, JO, KG, and Big Baby. The Magic have Dwight. The Heat have Bosh, Z, Dampier, Haslem and Anthony. The Bulls have Noah, Boozer, Gibson and Thomas. All the Knicks currently have is Amare and Turiaf; one being a questionable defender and decent rebounder, and the other being a hustle guy that is a decent defender but a poor rebounder. Neither have prototypical size or strength to match up against those other teams. In the post-season, when things slow down, being at a size disadvantage is a major problem. 2) Depth. The Knicks have been running a 7-9 man rotation the entire year, and in their high-paced system, that can really wear down a team. The Knicks bench is pretty horrible, so if they want to continue winning games, D'Antoni will need to keep that same rotation. However, as the days and weeks go by, and as the Knicks' schedule begins to get more difficult, I really wonder if they won't start to slow down because of how thin their bench is. 3) Can Amare, Felton, Chandler and Fields maintain or improve on their level of play that they've been at the first 35 games? Those first 3 players are having career years, and Fields is a rookie who has surpassed all expectations. It is very, very possible they can keep it up, but it is unlikely that any combination of those players won't go into a slump at some point. And if one or multiple of those players are slumping, can the Knicks keep winning games? Overall, I really like this Knicks team. They are a helluva fun to watch and play hard, which is really all you could ask for as a fan. I think they are at the very worst a top 6 team in the East, with Miami, Boston, Orlando, Chicago and maybe Atlanta being ahead of them. At best, they are a top 4 team, as Atlanta is always a major question mark in the post-season, and so far this season it appears NY has Chicago's number which could carry over into the post-season. But if they ever want to crack the top 3, they will need an elite perimeter scorer (whether it be Melo or a guy like CP3 who can take over games with his scoring), and more depth in the frontcourt.I think you've hit on all the major points. They do have problems on the interior defensively and depth wise. I think Chicago is better. 1. Boston2. Miami3. Orlando4. Chicago5. New York6. Atlanta They are still a treadmill team until they bring in Melo (hey this is not necessarily a bad thing don't get mad). Also to the dude loling at the Bulls being better, you are off your rocker if you think the Knicks can hold a candle to the Bulls.Basically, but they can take the Bulls to 6 or 7 games and possibly upset them in a 7 game series...but overall I'd agree the Bulls are better now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitro Posted January 9, 2011 Report Share Posted January 9, 2011 I know, they were totally troubled holding a candle to them in their two matchups this year too. Knicks may not be better, but Bulls are not better by far. Well, to be fair, the Bulls didn't have either Boozer or Noah in both of those games. I do agree, though, that the Knicks do match up well with the Bulls. As I said in my first post, they definitely would have a shot against them in the first round. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oliver P Posted January 9, 2011 Report Share Posted January 9, 2011 Yeah Chicago is definitely better. They are in the top tier of teams. Look man, Chicago is definitely a better team despite us beating them on Christmas. They are going to continue to get better once Noah is back, too. I think you've hit on all the major points. They do have problems on the interior defensively and depth wise. I think Chicago is better. 1. Boston2. Miami3. Orlando4. Chicago5. New York6. Atlanta Basically, but they can take the Bulls to 6 or 7 games and possibly upset them in a 7 game series...but overall I'd agree the Bulls are better now. So... let me get this straight : you think Chicago is better right ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloo Posted January 9, 2011 Report Share Posted January 9, 2011 Knicks are good.. I believe they can be better though. They are a top 6 team at best, right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NomarFachix Posted January 9, 2011 Report Share Posted January 9, 2011 Look man, Chicago is definitely a better team despite us beating them on Christmas. They are going to continue to get better once Noah is back, too. I don't disagree, but it's not by far. The "by far" is what I was lol'ing at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NomarFachix Posted January 9, 2011 Report Share Posted January 9, 2011 Well, to be fair, the Bulls didn't have either Boozer or Noah in both of those games. Absolutely fair point. But I don't think singularly either player turns a loss into a blowout win, which is what "by far" would justify. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JYD Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 Boozer played in the game on Christmas... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitro Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 Boozer played in the game on Christmas... ...which I acknowledged. Let me rephrase: In neither game did the Bulls have both Boozer and Noah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JYD Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 ...which I acknowledged. Let me rephrase: In neither game did the Bulls have both Boozer and Noah.Whoops. I thought you said they didn't have either in each game. My fault man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.