Posted by SupremeCommander:

Posted by Pharzeone:

Posted by SupremeCommander:

Seeing as how seven game series come in May and June, I don't see how any rational fan could take Isiah's team over Layden's. Layden's squads were consistently in the playoff race throughout, but always came up a little short. Yes, Isiah's team is more athletic, but so what? This current team is much more a collection of players than an actual team. And one more thing: Layden's team while incredibly un-athletic played better defense.

Then, there's the Allan Houston factor. When in doubt, go with the best player. If still in doubt, follow that up with the second best player: Latrell Spreewell.

Another thing... if we're going to go with healthy bodies, why doesn't McDyess get to play? He dominated in the preseason if memory serves me correctly. How come the Isiah Knicks get off the hook with every injury and the Layden Knicks don;t? That hardly seems fair to me, because Isiah gets the benefit of his full architecture whereas Layden doesn't. That is a major flaw to this discussion.

I began with I give you McDyess. Still 37 wins. If you have to resort to dominating pre season games to help your arguement then I say it a lost one at that. But I still say that a team that has starters who played significant minutes in the NBA finals should have more wins than 37. Blue makes it even worst when he gives them credit for playing hard to get those wins. LOL, I guess Isiah is right it is all about the injuries. 37 wins to 32. This team is bad that team was worst for whatever reason. And tkf is right that team had trouble with any athlethic team. But I get it. This team very bad and all other teams very good. Sorry if I am objective. Two bad teams.

I edited out the last paragraph while you were posting... but, yes, they are both terrible teams. I still maintain though that the Layden Knicks would destroy the Isiah Knicks, especially when you consider every one of Isiah's team has a penchant for choking when it matters most. Layden's team was consistently bad whereas Isiah's team has streaks of decency amidst a sea of putridity.

Posted by Pharzeone:

Blue, they finished with 37 wins, man. There's no mystery. They played most of the season with their starters (unless you want to count McDyess). This current team has 32 wins and the season isn't over yet. This team is starting rookies and 2nd year players. WTF. I still don't understand why they only finished with 37 wins.

Posted by Bonn1997:

That team was 8 games under .500. Our current team, playing in an easier eastern conference and joke division, is fifteen under and headed for eighteen.

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by Pharzeone:

Posted by 4949:

I still don't understand why they only finished with 37 wins.

Key injuries. That was always the case. I remember it all too well, including the punch that knocked out Van Gundy.

Houston 82 games played
Thomas 81 games played
Eisley 82 games played (he was the starter not Ward)
Sprewell 74 games played
Anderson 82 games played

Our top 5 has missed 74 games. McDyess alone missed 82. And not having a healthy McDyess hurt that team more than losing our players for 74 combined since a healthy McDyess is by far the best player from either the 2002-3 or 2006-7 Knicks' roster.

Since you guys want to keep up the debate. I will go a step further. Since McDyess never played a regular season game at that point have a bigger impact than starters that played during the season? LOL. So you are saying that Houston and Sprewell were worst than the likes of Marbury and Crawford that they needed McDyess more.

Posted by Pharzeone:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by Pharzeone:

Posted by 4949:

I still don't understand why they only finished with 37 wins.

Key injuries. That was always the case. I remember it all too well, including the punch that knocked out Van Gundy.

Houston 82 games played
Thomas 81 games played
Eisley 82 games played (he was the starter not Ward)
Sprewell 74 games played
Anderson 82 games played

Our top 5 has missed 74 games. McDyess alone missed 82. And not having a healthy McDyess hurt that team more than losing our players for 74 combined since a healthy McDyess is by far the best player from either the 2002-3 or 2006-7 Knicks' roster.

Since you guys want to keep up the debate. I will go a step further. Since McDyess never played a regular season game at that point have a bigger impact than starters that played during the season? LOL. So you are saying that Houston and Sprewell were worst than the likes of Marbury and Crawford that they needed McDyess more.

??????!!!! How did you come up with that? If McDyess was healthy, the team probably wins 45+. My initial argument was without McDyess. With McDyess, there's no contest. The Layden Knicks team wins 4-1 or sweeps.

Posted by Pharzeone:

Posted by 4949:

Posted by Bonn1997:

That team was 8 games under .500. Our current team, playing in an easier eastern conference and joke division, is fifteen under and headed for eighteen.

There's yet another great point.

You can't escape the fact that team finished with H2O playing 82 games, Sprewell playing 74, KT playing 81 games. LOL, now that team gets a pass because they never played with McDyess who never played a regular season game to that point. This KNick team played like crap and that Knick team played like crap. How is the eastern conference weaker now as compared to then? The Nets dominated the weak east.

Posted by Pharzeone:

Posted by 4949:

Posted by Bonn1997:

That team was 8 games under .500. Our current team, playing in an easier eastern conference and joke division, is fifteen under and headed for eighteen.

There's yet another great point.

You can't escape the fact that team finished with H2O playing 82 games, Sprewell playing 74, KT playing 81 games. LOL, now that team gets a pass because they never played with McDyess who never played a regular season game to that point. This KNick team played like crap and that Knick team played like crap. How is the eastern conference weaker now as compared to then? The Nets dominated the weak east.