[ IMAGES: Images ON turn off | ACCOUNT: User Status is LOCKED why? ]

this year's squad vs last year's playoff team
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum
« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
technomaster
Posts: 23348
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 6/30/2003
Member: #426
USA
4/1/2012  2:51 AM
All things considered, we have a far superior roster vs the team that got swept by the Celtics in the playoffs last year.

Chandler instead of a perpetually gimpy Turiaf. The additions of Shumpert, Smith, and Jorts. And Baron and Bibby.

We may not have Linsanity (and that WILL hurt), but there's no doubt we'll have a heck of a lot more quality depth, and we won't need to rely on Landry Fields to be a superstar... because against most teams, he's not.

“That was two, two from the heart.” - John Starks
AUTOADVERT
mrKnickShot
Posts: 28157
Alba Posts: 16
Joined: 5/3/2011
Member: #3553
4/1/2012  2:55 AM
technomaster wrote:All things considered, we have a far superior roster vs the team that got swept by the Celtics in the playoffs last year.

Chandler instead of a perpetually gimpy Turiaf. The additions of Shumpert, Smith, and Jorts. And Baron and Bibby.

We may not have Linsanity (and that WILL hurt), but there's no doubt we'll have a heck of a lot more quality depth, and we won't need to rely on Landry Fields to be a superstar... because against most teams, he's not.

We are better I think but Baron is far from Billups, Fields was way better last year, Amare out ... It woulda been really nice to go into postseason at full strength. I don't think we can do better than the 8th seed and that means Chicago which does not bold well for us but who knows ...
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
4/1/2012  8:18 AM
We are less bad
gunsnewing
Posts: 55076
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 2/24/2002
Member: #215
USA
4/1/2012  10:52 AM
Shump this year > Fields last year

not even close
VCoug
Posts: 24935
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 3/28/2007
Member: #1406
4/1/2012  11:00 AM
I'd agree but we're almost certainly going to play a tougher opponent than we did last year. If we make the playoffs.
Now the joy of my world is in Zion How beautiful if nothing more Than to wait at Zion's door I've never been in love like this before Now let me pray to keep you from The perils that will surely come
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
4/1/2012  11:19 AM
gunsnewing wrote:Shump this year > Fields last year

not even close


On defense yes but there's a huge difference in their shooting efficiency.
ChuckBuck
Posts: 28851
Alba Posts: 11
Joined: 1/3/2012
Member: #3806
USA
4/1/2012  11:20 AM
gunsnewing wrote:Shump this year > Fields last year

not even close

I'll take Shump over last year's Fields, this year, next year, overall career over Fields anyday. The guy is just that more impactful on the game.
gunsnewing
Posts: 55076
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 2/24/2002
Member: #215
USA
4/1/2012  11:32 AM
Bonn1997 wrote:
gunsnewing wrote:Shump this year > Fields last year

not even close


On defense yes but there's a huge difference in their shooting efficiency.

From the outside looking at Fields 47% FG you are fooled into thinking Fields is a good shooter. When you look deeper into his numbers you see that he is shooting 24% from 3 and has no midrange game and only scorers occassionally around the rim. Averaging 8.9pts to shump's 9.9 and shump plays less minutes. Shump is averaging more steals too and better FG% from the perimeter.

Last year Fields played well because the team wasn't as talented. I'm sure his numbers would look more impressive playing for the Bobcats too
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
4/1/2012  11:41 AM
gunsnewing wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:
gunsnewing wrote:Shump this year > Fields last year

not even close


On defense yes but there's a huge difference in their shooting efficiency.

From the outside looking at Fields 47% FG you are fooled into thinking Fields is a good shooter. When you look deeper into his numbers you see that he is shooting 24% from 3 and has no midrange game and only scorers occassionally around the rim. Averaging 8.9pts to shump's 9.9 and shump plays less minutes. Shump is averaging more steals too and better FG% from the perimeter.

Last year Fields played well because the team wasn't as talented. I'm sure his numbers would look more impressive playing for the Bobcats too


I might have been unclear but I was comparing last year's field's to this year's Shumpert since the topic is comparing this and last year's playoff teams.
gunsnewing
Posts: 55076
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 2/24/2002
Member: #215
USA
4/1/2012  12:31 PM    LAST EDITED: 4/1/2012  12:32 PM
yea then why is Fields still starting this year.

but he's not for long once Amare comes back or they bench him for Novak

I was just pointing out the misconception that Fields is an efficient offensive player this year because his FG is "47%" lol
smackeddog
Posts: 38390
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 3/30/2005
Member: #883
4/1/2012  12:53 PM    LAST EDITED: 4/1/2012  12:57 PM
gunsnewing wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:
gunsnewing wrote:Shump this year > Fields last year

not even close


On defense yes but there's a huge difference in their shooting efficiency.

From the outside looking at Fields 47% FG you are fooled into thinking Fields is a good shooter. When you look deeper into his numbers you see that he is shooting 24% from 3 and has no midrange game and only scorers occassionally around the rim. Averaging 8.9pts to shump's 9.9 and shump plays less minutes. Shump is averaging more steals too and better FG% from the perimeter.

Last year Fields played well because the team wasn't as talented. I'm sure his numbers would look more impressive playing for the Bobcats too

Who ever worked with Fields on his 3 pt shooting this offseason should be banned from working with any nba player ever again!- not only has he completely lost his accuracy, his mechanics look absolutely terrible.

As well as losing his shooting (you're right, his stats are misleading), he still hasn't mentally recovered- last year he was confident, and was complimented for never making mistakes and for playing like a seasoned vet. This year he looks like a scared rookie, he turns the ball over in ridiculously unforced situations and just seems to be generally bumbling (defense is poor too)- it's hard to believe it's the same player. For me thats the biggest deteriation in Fields.

Didn't he also say that aside from his three point shooting, he had also been working on his mental approach to the game in the offseason? Ha- I wonder if it was the same guru who helped him with his 3 pt shot! I hope he didn't pay that guy...
technomaster
Posts: 23348
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 6/30/2003
Member: #426
USA
4/1/2012  2:43 PM
I don't think the Bulls are really THAT great. They have a great coach who without a doubt gets the most out of his players day in and day out. The only issue being that when the playoffs come around, they can't play any harder than they already play, whereas a team of slackers like the Knicks that don't always play to 100% often have more in the tank to step it up a notch.

Who'd have thought Woodson's Knicks were even capable of playing this hard! I would have liked our chances against any team with Lin at PG, but even with the team that's played post-Lin/Amare, we're so extremely dangerous with our cast of big wings and our 3pt shooting. We're the classic team that could get hot and spoil a top seed's playoff run.

The only issue with that is, because of injuries, the Knicks have not truly gelled nor have clear strategy in tight games. We do have a solve for that - we have one of the premier closers in the game in 'Melo, so long as the Knicks can keep the game close, we have enough players who can score off of broken plays (Melo, Smith, Baron) or make the opportunity score if left open (Chandler, Shumpert, Smith, Novak) to steal wins.

mrKnickShot wrote:
technomaster wrote:All things considered, we have a far superior roster vs the team that got swept by the Celtics in the playoffs last year.

Chandler instead of a perpetually gimpy Turiaf. The additions of Shumpert, Smith, and Jorts. And Baron and Bibby.

We may not have Linsanity (and that WILL hurt), but there's no doubt we'll have a heck of a lot more quality depth, and we won't need to rely on Landry Fields to be a superstar... because against most teams, he's not.

We are better I think but Baron is far from Billups, Fields was way better last year, Amare out ... It woulda been really nice to go into postseason at full strength. I don't think we can do better than the 8th seed and that means Chicago which does not bold well for us but who knows ...

“That was two, two from the heart.” - John Starks
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
4/1/2012  2:50 PM
If we do have a superstar SF, high impact C, and good role players at the other positions (that's what we were told after all), the team should not have trouble in round 1 in the weaker conference. I don't think an injury to a PG we didn't expect to have and Amare should let them off the hook in the 1st round in the East (2nd or 3rd round would be another story).
gunsnewing
Posts: 55076
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 2/24/2002
Member: #215
USA
4/1/2012  2:54 PM
I've been saying it all along the Bulls are overrated especially come playoff time
raven
Posts: 22454
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 9/2/2002
Member: #316
Canada
4/1/2012  3:20 PM    LAST EDITED: 4/1/2012  3:24 PM
gunsnewing wrote:I've been saying it all along the Bulls are overrated especially come playoff time

Do you take into account that Rose missed 20 games and Hamilton played less than 20?

Nearly 80% win in regular season is pretty good for an overrated squad.

Do you honnestly see us beating them in a 7 games series?
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
4/1/2012  3:25 PM
raven wrote:
gunsnewing wrote:I've been saying it all along the Bulls are overrated especially come playoff time

Do you take into account that Rose missed 20 games and Hamilton played less than 20?

Nearly 80% win in regular season is pretty good for an overrated squad.


Agreed; I think the Bulls are very good. Rose is awesome and they have several good offensive and defensive players.
gunsnewing
Posts: 55076
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 2/24/2002
Member: #215
USA
4/1/2012  3:28 PM    LAST EDITED: 4/1/2012  3:30 PM
taking their style of play and performance during the postseason last year, They are the 90s Knicks. Not eough fire power to win it all
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
4/1/2012  3:34 PM
gunsnewing wrote:taking their style of play and performance during the postseason last year, They are the 90s Knicks. Not eough fire power to win it all

We never had an MVP caliber player. I loved Ewing but he was never close to being the best player in the league.
gunsnewing
Posts: 55076
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 2/24/2002
Member: #215
USA
4/1/2012  3:38 PM    LAST EDITED: 4/1/2012  3:56 PM
philly got to the finals with AI and even less a supporting cast but teams are just stronger now. More talent in the league than a decade ago
tj23
Posts: 21851
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 4/20/2010
Member: #3119
4/1/2012  3:45 PM
We went from being an offensive team who was very good to a very tough defensive team. But we still have Melo who can go off and we're seeing the development of Shump. I like this team a lot better, but what does history say? Our team somewhat reminds me of the Pacers last year. A lot of shooting from granger and a team that's tough defensively. But If JR and Shump show up and Melo can play consistent I think we become a dangerous team.
« Reply To Topic
this year's squad vs last year's playoff team
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum

©2001-2025 ultimateknicks.comm All rights reserved. About Us.
This site is not affiliated with the NY Knicks or the National Basketball Association in any way.
You may visit the official NY Knicks web site by clicking here.

All times (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time.

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy