View Single Post
07-09-2013, 06:01 AM
Steve Kournianos
Steve Kournianos's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 18,303
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Zil View Post
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?
This is just a ridiculous rationale. So obviously every team needs to win in 4 or 5 games for it to be considered noteworthy. Got it.

There is zero difference between winning the first three games of a series before closing it out to winning every other game. You win the friggin series.

Yup, Knicks get no credit for winning two games IN BOSTON.

A lot of people were predicting the Knicks would struggle when they ran into an elite defense in a playoff series.

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.
OH, I get it. The Knicks came up two games short of the CF because they wanted Carmelo Anthony and Tyson Chandler instead of Galinari, Jordan Hill, Royce White and Gordon Hayward.

Outstanding theory.

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.
Make up your mind. Are you pissing on the Knicks for who they draft or for not having the pick to draft anybody?

Let's stick to the present -- none of the players the Knicks drafted since 2007 are better than who the Knicks had last year or this year, nor would any of those draft picks develop into players who can create a 50-plus win team out of nothing.

Chandler, Galo, Robinson, Lee, Frye, Ariza, Hill, Fields -- please. The Knicks are not a 54-win team with those players. Only one -- Gallo -- is an NBA starter on a winning team, and he is as durable as Martin havlat.

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.
Seriously. They went from a lottery team, to an 8th seed, to a 7th seed, to a 2 seed. Who cares what happened under Isaiah? They have obviously fixed that problem.

Funny you mentioned those names -- Rondo, Granger, Bynum, Aldridge -- they were all on couches watching the 2013 playoffs by the time the 2nd Round began.

Jamal Crawford is nothing more than a JR Smith-type volume shooter.

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.
Smith and Crawford are easily two of the three best 6th men in the NBA. But who needs those types, right?

The Knicks don't even need Stoudamire. He's a role player at this point. They were one of the best teams in the NBA for most of the season without him.

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.

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.
Yeah, they really struggled defensively during that 13-game winning streak, and closed out the season 16-3 -- holding opponents under 100 points in 14 of the last 19 games.

Yeah, such a shame they traded a defensive stalwart like Novak and replaced him with Bargnani.

What problems? Did you even watch the Knicks this season?

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.
The 2006 Rangers slumped into the postseason, lost the division title, then got swept in the 1st round without a fight

The 2013 Knicks strormed into the playoffs fresh off a 13-game winning streak with wins over OKC, Memphis, Miami and Indiana, won the division, won their opening round, and lost in a hard-fought 2nd round.

Yup. Nice comparison.

Steve Kournianos is offline