arkrud wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

franco12 wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

franco12 wrote:we were an over rated 54 win team. Meaning we weren't as good as our record.

We got off to a fast start- but a month or two in, when Kidd stopped being effective, we essentially became a 500 team.

I disagree. The Knicks had so many injuries that they overcame and needed a big run down the stretch to clinch the Atlantic and get the second seed.

who under forty and without a history of injuries (Amar'e) was out for us? You fill roster spots with guys on the wrong side of 40, you end up with injuries.

Now - what did hurt us in the play offs was JR and Melo both getting hurt- though I think we would have lost to Indiana anyway as I think we were exposed for being too simplistic and shallow talent wise - I mean, once you stopped Melo, who was our threat? JR who was more likely to shoot 4 for 20 as he would be 14 for 20?

Your complaint is with the roster. Guys were hurt. Tyson was hurt and sick. Melo, Tyson and JR essentially were the big three last year for the Knicks. Shump was erratic and coming back from injury. As you said, Amare's health will always be an issue. Hopefully the age of the guys on the roster was addressed. Metta, Bargs and Beno in the rotation and a full year of Shump with a training camp should help a lot.

Excuses, excuses, excuses...
How about take the responsibility and look at the reasons we are the 5th team in the East at best?
How team can improve if we have all cool already?

BULL!!! The Knicks lost players to injury last year and other guys broke down in the playoffs. The problem started with not knocking off the Celtics earlier. This allowed the Pacers to blitz us in game one and really messed up the Knicks for the rest of the series. I'm not giving the Pacers as much credit as the media and some Knicks fans. Yes they're good, but I think the Knicks are better when they are healthy. The Knicks were FAR from healthy in that Pacers series.

This year if they can save STAT for the playoffs. Just play him very limited minutes so he can be healthy in the playoffs. The rest of the Knicks squad is much stronger than the team last year. All of the weak links are gone!
This is the best roster we've had in this run. I think we have too many Debbie Downer Knick fans who can admit this team is actually stronger than the one we had last year where we won 54 games. From top to bottom this roster is better than the team we started the year with last year.

CrushAlot wrote:

arkrud wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

franco12 wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

franco12 wrote:we were an over rated 54 win team. Meaning we weren't as good as our record.

We got off to a fast start- but a month or two in, when Kidd stopped being effective, we essentially became a 500 team.

I disagree. The Knicks had so many injuries that they overcame and needed a big run down the stretch to clinch the Atlantic and get the second seed.

who under forty and without a history of injuries (Amar'e) was out for us? You fill roster spots with guys on the wrong side of 40, you end up with injuries.

Now - what did hurt us in the play offs was JR and Melo both getting hurt- though I think we would have lost to Indiana anyway as I think we were exposed for being too simplistic and shallow talent wise - I mean, once you stopped Melo, who was our threat? JR who was more likely to shoot 4 for 20 as he would be 14 for 20?

Your complaint is with the roster. Guys were hurt. Tyson was hurt and sick. Melo, Tyson and JR essentially were the big three last year for the Knicks. Shump was erratic and coming back from injury. As you said, Amare's health will always be an issue. Hopefully the age of the guys on the roster was addressed. Metta, Bargs and Beno in the rotation and a full year of Shump with a training camp should help a lot.

Excuses, excuses, excuses...
How about take the responsibility and look at the reasons we are the 5th team in the East at best?
How team can improve if we have all cool already?

The Knicks won the atlantic, and finished second in the east. They improved their team this offseason. Name one espn prognosticator that picked the Knicks to win the Atlantic and finish second in the east last year. If you want to base your predictions on what those guys said that is fine. Just know that they swung and missed big time last season.

Yeah I find it funny how guys like to pound them when the Knicks fail to reach their potential with basically poor teams and then no one gives any credit to the team for being better than the Media thought they were gonna be last year. If I make a prediction and the team fails to make the playoffs then I get blasted but no one says a peep when the Knicks actually play well and I wasn't wrong about them. Guys can't have it both ways. If the Nets had a better record last year then I could see being so pessimistic. This team had a bad playoff run, but it wasn't a bad team. They simply didn't hold up health wise. Key players broke down. Now the roster has been improved and still some Knick fans can't appreciate that.

Bonn1997 wrote:49 wins in the regular season and 1st round in the playoffs!

gunsnewing wrote:A lot of us predicted this outcome or expressed concern only to be called haters, trolls & reactionary fans. No one is pounding their chests. Me? I'm past the point of delusion

We called it like just who you are. You were trolls back then and you are still trolls.

newyorknewyork wrote:

arkrud wrote:

knickscity wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

franco12 wrote:we were an over rated 54 win team. Meaning we weren't as good as our record.

We got off to a fast start- but a month or two in, when Kidd stopped being effective, we essentially became a 500 team.

I disagree. The Knicks had so many injuries that they overcame and needed a big run down the stretch to clinch the Atlantic and get the second seed.

Sounds like you're agreeing they were overrated.

54 wins... Knicks had a lot of players on the team who knew how to win games (Melo, JR, and Woody not included).
Now all of them are gone and replaced with other losers so it is unlikely to have better regular season next year not talking about playoffs...

A lot of players on the team who knew how to win games now all of them are gone? You mean Jason Kidd? Sheed, Camby, Thomas played only a hand full of games. You can't mean Novak and Copeland.

Artest plays the defense and provides the toughness that Novak and Copeland don't as well as knocks down the 3s. Udrih is the better offensive player then Kidd at his old age. Andrea should be able to out produce what Camby gave us last season. Kmart & Prigs were brought back.

This team having a worse season then last yr wouldn't be because of the players we lost but would be due to the upgrades on the teams around us.

Also lets not forget that there was a point in time last season where we started James White and Ronnie Brewer as our wings.

arkrud wrote:

nixluva wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

arkrud wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

franco12 wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

franco12 wrote:we were an over rated 54 win team. Meaning we weren't as good as our record.

We got off to a fast start- but a month or two in, when Kidd stopped being effective, we essentially became a 500 team.

I disagree. The Knicks had so many injuries that they overcame and needed a big run down the stretch to clinch the Atlantic and get the second seed.

who under forty and without a history of injuries (Amar'e) was out for us? You fill roster spots with guys on the wrong side of 40, you end up with injuries.

Now - what did hurt us in the play offs was JR and Melo both getting hurt- though I think we would have lost to Indiana anyway as I think we were exposed for being too simplistic and shallow talent wise - I mean, once you stopped Melo, who was our threat? JR who was more likely to shoot 4 for 20 as he would be 14 for 20?

Your complaint is with the roster. Guys were hurt. Tyson was hurt and sick. Melo, Tyson and JR essentially were the big three last year for the Knicks. Shump was erratic and coming back from injury. As you said, Amare's health will always be an issue. Hopefully the age of the guys on the roster was addressed. Metta, Bargs and Beno in the rotation and a full year of Shump with a training camp should help a lot.

Excuses, excuses, excuses...
How about take the responsibility and look at the reasons we are the 5th team in the East at best?
How team can improve if we have all cool already?

The Knicks won the atlantic, and finished second in the east. They improved their team this offseason. Name one espn prognosticator that picked the Knicks to win the Atlantic and finish second in the east last year. If you want to base your predictions on what those guys said that is fine. Just know that they swung and missed big time last season.

Yeah I find it funny how guys like to pound them when the Knicks fail to reach their potential with basically poor teams and then no one gives any credit to the team for being better than the Media thought they were gonna be last year. If I make a prediction and the team fails to make the playoffs then I get blasted but no one says a peep when the Knicks actually play well and I wasn't wrong about them. Guys can't have it both ways. If the Nets had a better record last year then I could see being so pessimistic. This team had a bad playoff run, but it wasn't a bad team. They simply didn't hold up health wise. Key players broke down. Now the roster has been improved and still some Knick fans can't appreciate that.

Very good. We will have something to keep following the Knicks games.
I predicted 45 wins and exit from second round. They did better.
But the reasons they did better are not any more.
So I am back to my predictions of 45 wins but they will be kicked out in first round this year.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. The idea that the Knicks will only win 45 games and lose in the 1st round is so utterly ridiculous that I feel sorry for you. I really can't see why we should believe that the Knicks will suddenly be unable to beat the teams they already beat last year with an improved team. I still wish just one of you doubters would come up with a legit explanation for why this team is gonna win so many fewer games.
The Knicks didn't have a bad season, just a bad playoff series. If they were a bit healthier who knows they might have gotten to the ECF's.

The media makes it seem like the Knicks stood pat and didn't make any improvements. The sad thing is that some fans have bought into this garbage too. Knicks are no less a threat to get to the ECF's than any other team in the East.

newyorknewyork wrote:

nixluva wrote:

arkrud wrote:

nixluva wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

arkrud wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

franco12 wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

franco12 wrote:we were an over rated 54 win team. Meaning we weren't as good as our record.

We got off to a fast start- but a month or two in, when Kidd stopped being effective, we essentially became a 500 team.

I disagree. The Knicks had so many injuries that they overcame and needed a big run down the stretch to clinch the Atlantic and get the second seed.

who under forty and without a history of injuries (Amar'e) was out for us? You fill roster spots with guys on the wrong side of 40, you end up with injuries.

Now - what did hurt us in the play offs was JR and Melo both getting hurt- though I think we would have lost to Indiana anyway as I think we were exposed for being too simplistic and shallow talent wise - I mean, once you stopped Melo, who was our threat? JR who was more likely to shoot 4 for 20 as he would be 14 for 20?

Your complaint is with the roster. Guys were hurt. Tyson was hurt and sick. Melo, Tyson and JR essentially were the big three last year for the Knicks. Shump was erratic and coming back from injury. As you said, Amare's health will always be an issue. Hopefully the age of the guys on the roster was addressed. Metta, Bargs and Beno in the rotation and a full year of Shump with a training camp should help a lot.

Excuses, excuses, excuses...
How about take the responsibility and look at the reasons we are the 5th team in the East at best?
How team can improve if we have all cool already?

The Knicks won the atlantic, and finished second in the east. They improved their team this offseason. Name one espn prognosticator that picked the Knicks to win the Atlantic and finish second in the east last year. If you want to base your predictions on what those guys said that is fine. Just know that they swung and missed big time last season.

Yeah I find it funny how guys like to pound them when the Knicks fail to reach their potential with basically poor teams and then no one gives any credit to the team for being better than the Media thought they were gonna be last year. If I make a prediction and the team fails to make the playoffs then I get blasted but no one says a peep when the Knicks actually play well and I wasn't wrong about them. Guys can't have it both ways. If the Nets had a better record last year then I could see being so pessimistic. This team had a bad playoff run, but it wasn't a bad team. They simply didn't hold up health wise. Key players broke down. Now the roster has been improved and still some Knick fans can't appreciate that.

Very good. We will have something to keep following the Knicks games.
I predicted 45 wins and exit from second round. They did better.
But the reasons they did better are not any more.
So I am back to my predictions of 45 wins but they will be kicked out in first round this year.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. The idea that the Knicks will only win 45 games and lose in the 1st round is so utterly ridiculous that I feel sorry for you. I really can't see why we should believe that the Knicks will suddenly be unable to beat the teams they already beat last year with an improved team. I still wish just one of you doubters would come up with a legit explanation for why this team is gonna win so many fewer games.
The Knicks didn't have a bad season, just a bad playoff series. If they were a bit healthier who knows they might have gotten to the ECF's.

The media makes it seem like the Knicks stood pat and didn't make any improvements. The sad thing is that some fans have bought into this garbage too. Knicks are no less a threat to get to the ECF's than any other team in the East.

45 wins and a first rd exit isn't unrealistic, it is a possibility. Its also not outlandish to rate Miami, Indy, Bulls, and Nets over the Knicks. To not acknowledge these possibilities would be foolish Nix.

Agreed. The Knicks are an old team that's a year older and that didn't keep up with the rate of inflation (the improvement of other teams) in the conference.

Bonn1997 wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

nixluva wrote:

arkrud wrote:

nixluva wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

arkrud wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

franco12 wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

franco12 wrote:we were an over rated 54 win team. Meaning we weren't as good as our record.

We got off to a fast start- but a month or two in, when Kidd stopped being effective, we essentially became a 500 team.

I disagree. The Knicks had so many injuries that they overcame and needed a big run down the stretch to clinch the Atlantic and get the second seed.

who under forty and without a history of injuries (Amar'e) was out for us? You fill roster spots with guys on the wrong side of 40, you end up with injuries.

Now - what did hurt us in the play offs was JR and Melo both getting hurt- though I think we would have lost to Indiana anyway as I think we were exposed for being too simplistic and shallow talent wise - I mean, once you stopped Melo, who was our threat? JR who was more likely to shoot 4 for 20 as he would be 14 for 20?

Your complaint is with the roster. Guys were hurt. Tyson was hurt and sick. Melo, Tyson and JR essentially were the big three last year for the Knicks. Shump was erratic and coming back from injury. As you said, Amare's health will always be an issue. Hopefully the age of the guys on the roster was addressed. Metta, Bargs and Beno in the rotation and a full year of Shump with a training camp should help a lot.

Excuses, excuses, excuses...
How about take the responsibility and look at the reasons we are the 5th team in the East at best?
How team can improve if we have all cool already?

The Knicks won the atlantic, and finished second in the east. They improved their team this offseason. Name one espn prognosticator that picked the Knicks to win the Atlantic and finish second in the east last year. If you want to base your predictions on what those guys said that is fine. Just know that they swung and missed big time last season.

Yeah I find it funny how guys like to pound them when the Knicks fail to reach their potential with basically poor teams and then no one gives any credit to the team for being better than the Media thought they were gonna be last year. If I make a prediction and the team fails to make the playoffs then I get blasted but no one says a peep when the Knicks actually play well and I wasn't wrong about them. Guys can't have it both ways. If the Nets had a better record last year then I could see being so pessimistic. This team had a bad playoff run, but it wasn't a bad team. They simply didn't hold up health wise. Key players broke down. Now the roster has been improved and still some Knick fans can't appreciate that.

Very good. We will have something to keep following the Knicks games.
I predicted 45 wins and exit from second round. They did better.
But the reasons they did better are not any more.
So I am back to my predictions of 45 wins but they will be kicked out in first round this year.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. The idea that the Knicks will only win 45 games and lose in the 1st round is so utterly ridiculous that I feel sorry for you. I really can't see why we should believe that the Knicks will suddenly be unable to beat the teams they already beat last year with an improved team. I still wish just one of you doubters would come up with a legit explanation for why this team is gonna win so many fewer games.
The Knicks didn't have a bad season, just a bad playoff series. If they were a bit healthier who knows they might have gotten to the ECF's.

The media makes it seem like the Knicks stood pat and didn't make any improvements. The sad thing is that some fans have bought into this garbage too. Knicks are no less a threat to get to the ECF's than any other team in the East.

45 wins and a first rd exit isn't unrealistic, it is a possibility. Its also not outlandish to rate Miami, Indy, Bulls, and Nets over the Knicks. To not acknowledge these possibilities would be foolish Nix.

Agreed. The Knicks are an old team that's a year older and that didn't keep up with the rate of inflation (the improvement of other teams) in the conference.

Just like I can accept the possibilities of a 45 win season and a first rd exit. I could accept the possibilities of another 50+win season and getting out of the first rd again. There is nothing set in stone about this team. There are teams that got better and teams that got worse, stood pat, or improved but not drastically like Boston, ATL, Philly, Toronto, Miluakee, Washington, Orlando, Bobcats.

Then there is the aspect that we really only have Brooklyn in our division that is on par with us. Indy, Bulls, Pistons, Cleveland will all be battling it out and will end up lowering each others seeds. Miami has no serious comp in there division. They should run away with the first seed again. Our goal has to be to win the division again which at worst gives us a 3rd seed.

Bonn1997 wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:A lot of us predicted this outcome or expressed concern only to be called haters, trolls & reactionary fans. No one is pounding their chests. Me? I'm past the point of delusion

People who say that are clueless and intolerant and probably paid by Dolan .

Vmart wrote:It doesn't matter where you finish in the division what matters is making the playoffs and raising the hardware. It doesn't matter where you lose in the playoffs, it just means you didn't win a championship.

I'm really not going out on a limb on this the Knicks aren't going to win a championship. I also know for a fact that 100% of the board agrees with me.

A teams biggest acquisition cant be a 7 foot JR Smith.

It is more likely this team will lose in the first round than make the ecf.

I'd be surprised if they get back to the second round.