View Single Post
Old
07-08-2013, 05:41 PM
  #355
Zil
Registered User
 
Zil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 4,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GWOW View Post
I won't even get into the "struggled to close out" the Celtics BS. They beat them, and in three of the games they blew them out.
They had a 3-0 series lead and then almost got taken to a game 7. That's not struggling to close a team out?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GWOW View Post
As for Indiana, you can't overlook the fact that Anthony played all 12 playoff games with a torn labrum, and Chandler had a neck, back and wrist injury after a week of the flu heading into the postseason. When healthy, the Knicks had no probelm dealing with Indiana and Hibbert.

I don't want to discredit Indiana. They were the better team and deserved to win. But the idea that the Pacers were an elite team and the Knicks were not before the series started is garbage.
A lot of people were predicting the Knicks would struggle when they ran into an elite defense in a playoff series.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GWOW View Post
What draft picks were available for the Knicks to build around? Thomas traded them all, and amassed a cap ceiling where the only way for Walsh to fix the franchise was to lump picks in with bad contracts in his attempts to trade them.
That's because they keep flushing picks down the toilet. Walsh didn't to trade the picks to move those contracts. He could've just waited them out. It's just that everyone was falling over themselves to take a shot at LeBron. And they sure as **** didn't need to flush a first rounder just to acquire Bargnani, a guy Ujiri was actively trying to dump. Repeatedly throwing away picks is why the Knicks continuously find themselves with limited options and get forced into overspending on free agents.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GWOW View Post
And when the Knicks tried to build on draft picks, it didnt work. The fans wanted a competitive team, and Walsh helped build them one.

Here's a history lesson for you: 1994 -- how were those Knicks built? They lucked out with Ewing -- Oakely, Mason, Starks, Smith, Harper -- all acquired via trade or free agency. The only other draftees -- Davis and Anthony -- were role players.

How about the 1999 team? Sprewell, Houston, Childs, LJ, Camby -- all acquired via free agency or trade.
Those aren't arguments against drafting. Those are arguments against poor management. There's a reason why those 90s Knicks teams never found a second franchise caliber player to pair with Ewing and get them over the hump. Just to pull one example out of a hat: In 1987 the Knicks had the fifth overall pick, but they traded it for Gerald Henderson and the 18th pick. You know who that pick became? Scottie Pippen. Do you know who else was available at that point? Reggie Miller. I think they might've won a championship or two if they hadn't flushed that pick.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GWOW View Post
No, it wouldnt have been better, because they tried that method already. From 2005 to 2010, they did not improve a lick in the standings and were nowhere near a playoff team. They had Lee (draft pick), Robinson (draft pick), Channing Frye (draft pick), Balkman (drfat pick), Collins (draft pick) -- even at their all-star best as Knicks, it did nothing for them in the standings. You're talking about 5-7 years with plenty of picks, no cap space, no results.
Again, that's not an argument against building through the draft. It's an argument against poor management. Obviously it's not going to help if you're run by morons who blow the picks. With those picks they passed up Andrew Bynum, Danny Granger, and Rajon Rondo. They also flushed the picks that became LaMarcus Aldridge and Joakim Noah in the Eddy Curry trade. That might've had something to do with their failure to move up the standings. Your argument makes a compelling case against Isiah Thomas, not against drafting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GWOW View Post
Crawford had the best numbers of his career as a Knick -- did nothing in the standings.
Jamal Crawford is nothing more than a JR Smith-type volume shooter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GWOW View Post
Who's aging? Besides Prigioni, who was highly productive last season and basically relegated Kidd to the bench.

Smith is 27
Chandler is 30
Melo is 29
Bargnani is 27
Shumpert is 23
Felton is 29
Hardaway is 21
Stat is 30

That's 8 players -- the main rotation -- all 30 or younger.
Let me put it another way. This roster has no upside. It is what it is. Barring a dramatic move, they have no chance of legitimately contending for a title. Plus, Stoudemire is breaking down regardless of his age.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GWOW View Post
And you want to alk about defense?

Defense?

The Knicks led all teams in the postseason in PPG allowed, 3rd in turnovers forced, 4the in FG% allowed.
In the postseason the Knicks faced the 18th (Boston) and 23rd (Indiana) ranked offenses in the league. That might have something to do with those numbers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GWOW View Post
In the regular season, they were 7th in the league in PPG allowed, 10th in turnovers forced, 2nd in FG's attempted per game. They were 18th in FG% allowed, but they were 6th in the league in point differential.

They're not the Bulls, but they're certainaly not a porous.
They started the season defending extremely well and then dropped off as the season progressed. This roster is going to rotate Stoudemire and Bargnani at power forward. That's going to cause them problems on the defensive end.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GWOW View Post
Like I said before, every team has weaknesses. The fact that the Knicks play in a weak conference and they have age on their side means they can still compete and challenge for a title.

To me, if you are a 50-plus win team, top-3 seed with home court regardless of conference, you are a title contender.
But they weren't title contenders. Were the 05-06 Rangers, who came within two points of a top three seed, cup contenders? No. They don't have enough. One extremely talented scorer (Anthony), two nice pieces (Chandler and Shumpert), and a bunch of mediocre role players whose performances fluctuate wildly (everyone else) do not add up to a championship roster. Even if they'd squeaked by the Pacers, the Heat would have murdered them. If the Heat didn't exist, there's no way they would've beaten the Spurs either.

Zil is offline   Reply With Quote