nycericanguy wrote:

DLeethal wrote:

nycericanguy wrote:Josh Hart's defense, rebounding, passing, hustle and overall IQ is huge and I'd take that over a rusty Randle who has shown the propensity to get frustrated when his offense isn't going well and not get back/hustle on defense.

When you look at what Hart and MIles have done it's essentially made us better than having RJ & IQ.

Hart is awesome, I do want to mention something I thought about yesterday watching him get cooked by JWill though. We have a lot of really good team defenders, Hart and DDV included. They are disruptive and create a lot of havoc and turnovers. They do however get cooked by 1:1 mid range maestro's though. I think it's why Hart got cooked so bad against Butler last year and you saw it again last night. He just can't disrupt 1:1 shotmakers for some reason. Miles (at guard) and OG are needed for those guys.

i agree and we are just lacking size overall right now. we have 4 starters 6'4" and under, hard to ask those guys to defend bigger players night in and night out AND do it for 40 minutes.

OG/Mitch would give us size and more depth. Solves alot.

Fortunately for us I think OG/Mitch are more likely to come back than Randle. Randle has been out since Jan 27th and he's still in pain, I just dont see him being able to come back at a high level.

Yet you are not concerned with JHart at 4 instead of Randle?

FYI JB shot less than 5 FTs/game(4.9) in March, his lowest of the season while his scoring average is top 5 in the NBA. For context, the 3 above him averaged 7.5 Luka, 11.1 Giannis, & 7.2 SGA. So, when you lose by a basket or a point, 2.2 more foul shots matter, especially in a home game. For even more context, Dec 7.3, Jan 6.5, & Feb 7.6 FTs/game. Jalen is getting blitzed more in March than ever before, shouldn't the numbers be going up and not down?

I'd be super pissed to pay for expensive seats last night and for the game to end like this. A loss vs a tough top-tier team is fine given fair calls on both sides. I was pissed about investing 3 hours at home to watch it with no cruise drink package at home, lol.

nycericanguy wrote:i dont wanna hear about refs, its a cop out and every team has grievances.

me personally i like that they are letting them play more, offense was just getting too easy. I read somewhere that Lillard's free throw rate has been cut in half since the ASB.

It's not just us or Brunson. And yes Brunson got hit on that last play, but it was after he had shot it and it didn't affect the shot.

Overall more physical play allowed favors us, especially if we get OG and Mitch back.

HofstraBBall wrote:

nycericanguy wrote:

DLeethal wrote:

nycericanguy wrote:season ends in 2 weeks, playoffs start in 20 days... or just about 3 weeks.

2nd round would start over a month from now. That could be a realistic time frame to get at least 1 of those guys back.

OG can come back at anytime and help massively right away, so I'm not worried about him stepping in even if it's mid playoffs. Randle needs ramp up time he's the bigger worry now.

agreed, I keep saying I think OG/Mitch coming back is more important than Randle.

OG and Mitch can step right in and defend at a high level, and OG can hit the 3.

Randle... just too many question marks there and he's a guy that has shown he needs time to find rhythm. If his offense isn't good he's hurting the floor spacing, and hurting our defense. Hopefully he can come back in the last few games but I just don't see it. If he comes back in the 1st round cold turkey he could end up hurting us more than anything. Not the popular opinion but our defense, shooting and overall team IQ has been higher without Randle. Randle is a guy that needs to be ON and ready to help us.

Don't get your take. OG with some of the best talents in the East did little to make them any good.(Toronto). Randle with very little talent around him single handedly took us to playoffs for the first time in 20 years. Not saying OG on this roster is incredible but just that once again, Knicks fans underestimate the importance of Randle.

This post needs some fact checks.

For starters, we were in the playoffs in 2013, so the 20 year thing doesn't check. But let's chalk that up to hyperbole.

Second, the fact that Toronto underutilized Anunoby isn't a knock on Anunoby, its a knock on Toronto. Toronto's talent was very much akin to NY's. The similarities between FVV/Barnes/Siakam and Brunson/Barrett/Randle are intriguing. In Barnes and Barrett, you have guys that are highly touted yet at the bottom echelon of efficiency in the league. In FVV and Brunson, you have guys that are generally efficient but tend to need the ball in their hands to be effective -- high usage players. In Randle and Siakam, you have relatively low efficiency all stars with relatively high usage. They put up volume numbers, but you will see a lot of low efficiency shots and turnovers in traffic. That said, they both seem to have a specific gravity on the offensive side of the court that requires defensive attention, because they will both burn you on mismatches. Meaning you can't look past them the way you potentially could with OG. Neither Siakam nor Randle are specifically known for athleticism or defensive prowess. Siakam is the better passer, generally, and Randle has the stronger body/frame and uses that to rebound pretty well.

OG's impact here is irrefutable. His injury history is his weakness. But if I could have either a healthy OG or a healthy Randle back (but not both), I think you have to take OG first. His low offensive usage while shooting well from the corner with a huge wingspan is what opens the floor for Brunson. His point of attack defense takes the opponent's best offensive player out of the game. Randle is certainly more likely to score than OG in pretty much any situation, but he is also more likely to turn the ball over or have a defensive lapse.

Simplest proof is just plus minus. Randle has a career plus minus of -1109. Anunoby has a career plus minus of +1194. The team that outscores its opponents wins and OG is more likely to outscore his opponents than Randle.

Don't get me wrong, I would like both or either back, but I think it is hard to argue against OG here.

martin wrote:Do you guys remember the good old days of early Jan?

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://www.twitter.com/TheDunkCentral/status/1744814601902960911

January was probably the best Knicks basketball of my lifetime.

martin wrote:Do you guys remember the good old days of early Jan?

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://www.twitter.com/TheDunkCentral/status/1744814601902960911

EwingsGlass wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

nycericanguy wrote:

DLeethal wrote:

nycericanguy wrote:season ends in 2 weeks, playoffs start in 20 days... or just about 3 weeks.

2nd round would start over a month from now. That could be a realistic time frame to get at least 1 of those guys back.

OG can come back at anytime and help massively right away, so I'm not worried about him stepping in even if it's mid playoffs. Randle needs ramp up time he's the bigger worry now.

agreed, I keep saying I think OG/Mitch coming back is more important than Randle.

OG and Mitch can step right in and defend at a high level, and OG can hit the 3.

Randle... just too many question marks there and he's a guy that has shown he needs time to find rhythm. If his offense isn't good he's hurting the floor spacing, and hurting our defense. Hopefully he can come back in the last few games but I just don't see it. If he comes back in the 1st round cold turkey he could end up hurting us more than anything. Not the popular opinion but our defense, shooting and overall team IQ has been higher without Randle. Randle is a guy that needs to be ON and ready to help us.

Don't get your take. OG with some of the best talents in the East did little to make them any good.(Toronto). Randle with very little talent around him single handedly took us to playoffs for the first time in 20 years. Not saying OG on this roster is incredible but just that once again, Knicks fans underestimate the importance of Randle.

This post needs some fact checks.

For starters, we were in the playoffs in 2013, so the 20 year thing doesn't check. But let's chalk that up to hyperbole.

Second, the fact that Toronto underutilized Anunoby isn't a knock on Anunoby, its a knock on Toronto. Toronto's talent was very much akin to NY's. The similarities between FVV/Barnes/Siakam and Brunson/Barrett/Randle are intriguing. In Barnes and Barrett, you have guys that are highly touted yet at the bottom echelon of efficiency in the league. In FVV and Brunson, you have guys that are generally efficient but tend to need the ball in their hands to be effective -- high usage players. In Randle and Siakam, you have relatively low efficiency all stars with relatively high usage. They put up volume numbers, but you will see a lot of low efficiency shots and turnovers in traffic. That said, they both seem to have a specific gravity on the offensive side of the court that requires defensive attention, because they will both burn you on mismatches. Meaning you can't look past them the way you potentially could with OG. Neither Siakam nor Randle are specifically known for athleticism or defensive prowess. Siakam is the better passer, generally, and Randle has the stronger body/frame and uses that to rebound pretty well.

OG's impact here is irrefutable. His injury history is his weakness. But if I could have either a healthy OG or a healthy Randle back (but not both), I think you have to take OG first. His low offensive usage while shooting well from the corner with a huge wingspan is what opens the floor for Brunson. His point of attack defense takes the opponent's best offensive player out of the game. Randle is certainly more likely to score than OG in pretty much any situation, but he is also more likely to turn the ball over or have a defensive lapse.

Simplest proof is just plus minus. Randle has a career plus minus of -1109. Anunoby has a career plus minus of +1194. The team that outscores its opponents wins and OG is more likely to outscore his opponents than Randle.

Don't get me wrong, I would like both or either back, but I think it is hard to argue against OG here.

Good points. Agree about the Melo Knicks being the other time in the last 20.
Point was that many fans are quick to underestimate a player who single handedly brought us to the forefront of credibility. How quickly some are able to ignore what he has done and claim a guy who has played 17 games with us is more important.
You are fact checking so that would be the first thing that would pop out at me.
Meaning, having the assumption a 17 game participant has more historical data than a 3 time All Star who misses almost no games. I'll take Randles sample size over the guy that is always hurt and has played 17 games, although he played at a very high level.

Also disagree about Toronto "under utilizing OG". He has the same basic role here. JB and Randle being 1 and 1A in the offense.
Think everyone can have their own opinion as to who is more important, Randle or OG. My point is I will go with the one who has the longest history of being so.
But again, I'll take OG and Randle in the lineup any day. Just think the talk of how we don't need Randle is just another case of fans not appreciating what Ramdle brings. It's what I have been hearing for the last three year's. If you look at it further, it would be like saying JB is not that good, needs a superstar and is not a number one. Given the 15-13 record without Randle. Imho

nycericanguy wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

nycericanguy wrote:

DLeethal wrote:

nycericanguy wrote:season ends in 2 weeks, playoffs start in 20 days... or just about 3 weeks.

2nd round would start over a month from now. That could be a realistic time frame to get at least 1 of those guys back.

OG can come back at anytime and help massively right away, so I'm not worried about him stepping in even if it's mid playoffs. Randle needs ramp up time he's the bigger worry now.

agreed, I keep saying I think OG/Mitch coming back is more important than Randle.

OG and Mitch can step right in and defend at a high level, and OG can hit the 3.

Randle... just too many question marks there and he's a guy that has shown he needs time to find rhythm. If his offense isn't good he's hurting the floor spacing, and hurting our defense. Hopefully he can come back in the last few games but I just don't see it. If he comes back in the 1st round cold turkey he could end up hurting us more than anything. Not the popular opinion but our defense, shooting and overall team IQ has been higher without Randle. Randle is a guy that needs to be ON and ready to help us.

Don't get your take. OG with some of the best talents in the East did little to make them any good.(Toronto). Randle with very little talent around him single handedly took us to playoffs for the first time in 20 years. Not saying OG on this roster is incredible but just that once again, Knicks fans underestimate the importance of Randle.

This post needs some fact checks.

For starters, we were in the playoffs in 2013, so the 20 year thing doesn't check. But let's chalk that up to hyperbole.

Second, the fact that Toronto underutilized Anunoby isn't a knock on Anunoby, its a knock on Toronto. Toronto's talent was very much akin to NY's. The similarities between FVV/Barnes/Siakam and Brunson/Barrett/Randle are intriguing. In Barnes and Barrett, you have guys that are highly touted yet at the bottom echelon of efficiency in the league. In FVV and Brunson, you have guys that are generally efficient but tend to need the ball in their hands to be effective -- high usage players. In Randle and Siakam, you have relatively low efficiency all stars with relatively high usage. They put up volume numbers, but you will see a lot of low efficiency shots and turnovers in traffic. That said, they both seem to have a specific gravity on the offensive side of the court that requires defensive attention, because they will both burn you on mismatches. Meaning you can't look past them the way you potentially could with OG. Neither Siakam nor Randle are specifically known for athleticism or defensive prowess. Siakam is the better passer, generally, and Randle has the stronger body/frame and uses that to rebound pretty well.

OG's impact here is irrefutable. His injury history is his weakness. But if I could have either a healthy OG or a healthy Randle back (but not both), I think you have to take OG first. His low offensive usage while shooting well from the corner with a huge wingspan is what opens the floor for Brunson. His point of attack defense takes the opponent's best offensive player out of the game. Randle is certainly more likely to score than OG in pretty much any situation, but he is also more likely to turn the ball over or have a defensive lapse.

Simplest proof is just plus minus. Randle has a career plus minus of -1109. Anunoby has a career plus minus of +1194. The team that outscores its opponents wins and OG is more likely to outscore his opponents than Randle.

Don't get me wrong, I would like both or either back, but I think it is hard to argue against OG here.

Good points. Agree about the Melo Knicks being the other time in the last 20.
Point was that many fans are quick to underestimate a player who single handedly brought us to the forefront of credibility. How quickly some are able to ignore what he has done and claim a guy who has played 17 games with us is more important.
You are fact checking so that would be the first thing that would pop out at me.
Meaning, having the assumption a 17 game participant has more historical data than a 3 time All Star who misses almost no games. I'll take Randles sample size over the guy that is always hurt and has played 17 games, although he played at a very high level.

Also disagree about Toronto "under utilizing OG". He has the same basic role here. JB and Randle being 1 and 1A in the offense.
Think everyone can have their own opinion as to who is more important, Randle or OG. My point is I will go with the one who has the longest history of being so.
But again, I'll take OG and Randle in the lineup any day. Just think the talk of how we don't need Randle is just another case of fans not appreciating what Ramdle brings. It's what I have been hearing for the last three year's. If you look at it further, it would be like saying JB is not that good, needs a superstar and is not a number one. Given the 15-13 record without Randle. Imho

we were 17-15 WITH Randle before the OG trade though.

And then went on that 15-2 run, we are 16-1 this year when OG and Brunson play together.

Just because TOR had a bad year and decided to rebuild doesn't mean they didn't have success with OG overall.

Didn't mean to make it an OG vs Randle thing, just saying OG is more plug and play and probably helps us more than Randle at this point.

Agree, not trying to make it an OG vs Randle thing.
It's a dismiss Randles importance thing.
When you say JB and OG were 16-1 it seems to suggest Randle was somehow not also on the court for almost all of those?
Specifically mentioned Randles 3 time All Star play over several years vs 17 games OG has played as empirical data that would argue the point some are making that OG is more important than Randle.

DLeethal wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

nycericanguy wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

nycericanguy wrote:

DLeethal wrote:

nycericanguy wrote:season ends in 2 weeks, playoffs start in 20 days... or just about 3 weeks.

2nd round would start over a month from now. That could be a realistic time frame to get at least 1 of those guys back.

OG can come back at anytime and help massively right away, so I'm not worried about him stepping in even if it's mid playoffs. Randle needs ramp up time he's the bigger worry now.

agreed, I keep saying I think OG/Mitch coming back is more important than Randle.

OG and Mitch can step right in and defend at a high level, and OG can hit the 3.

Randle... just too many question marks there and he's a guy that has shown he needs time to find rhythm. If his offense isn't good he's hurting the floor spacing, and hurting our defense. Hopefully he can come back in the last few games but I just don't see it. If he comes back in the 1st round cold turkey he could end up hurting us more than anything. Not the popular opinion but our defense, shooting and overall team IQ has been higher without Randle. Randle is a guy that needs to be ON and ready to help us.

Don't get your take. OG with some of the best talents in the East did little to make them any good.(Toronto). Randle with very little talent around him single handedly took us to playoffs for the first time in 20 years. Not saying OG on this roster is incredible but just that once again, Knicks fans underestimate the importance of Randle.

This post needs some fact checks.

For starters, we were in the playoffs in 2013, so the 20 year thing doesn't check. But let's chalk that up to hyperbole.

Second, the fact that Toronto underutilized Anunoby isn't a knock on Anunoby, its a knock on Toronto. Toronto's talent was very much akin to NY's. The similarities between FVV/Barnes/Siakam and Brunson/Barrett/Randle are intriguing. In Barnes and Barrett, you have guys that are highly touted yet at the bottom echelon of efficiency in the league. In FVV and Brunson, you have guys that are generally efficient but tend to need the ball in their hands to be effective -- high usage players. In Randle and Siakam, you have relatively low efficiency all stars with relatively high usage. They put up volume numbers, but you will see a lot of low efficiency shots and turnovers in traffic. That said, they both seem to have a specific gravity on the offensive side of the court that requires defensive attention, because they will both burn you on mismatches. Meaning you can't look past them the way you potentially could with OG. Neither Siakam nor Randle are specifically known for athleticism or defensive prowess. Siakam is the better passer, generally, and Randle has the stronger body/frame and uses that to rebound pretty well.

OG's impact here is irrefutable. His injury history is his weakness. But if I could have either a healthy OG or a healthy Randle back (but not both), I think you have to take OG first. His low offensive usage while shooting well from the corner with a huge wingspan is what opens the floor for Brunson. His point of attack defense takes the opponent's best offensive player out of the game. Randle is certainly more likely to score than OG in pretty much any situation, but he is also more likely to turn the ball over or have a defensive lapse.

Simplest proof is just plus minus. Randle has a career plus minus of -1109. Anunoby has a career plus minus of +1194. The team that outscores its opponents wins and OG is more likely to outscore his opponents than Randle.

Don't get me wrong, I would like both or either back, but I think it is hard to argue against OG here.

Good points. Agree about the Melo Knicks being the other time in the last 20.
Point was that many fans are quick to underestimate a player who single handedly brought us to the forefront of credibility. How quickly some are able to ignore what he has done and claim a guy who has played 17 games with us is more important.
You are fact checking so that would be the first thing that would pop out at me.
Meaning, having the assumption a 17 game participant has more historical data than a 3 time All Star who misses almost no games. I'll take Randles sample size over the guy that is always hurt and has played 17 games, although he played at a very high level.

Also disagree about Toronto "under utilizing OG". He has the same basic role here. JB and Randle being 1 and 1A in the offense.
Think everyone can have their own opinion as to who is more important, Randle or OG. My point is I will go with the one who has the longest history of being so.
But again, I'll take OG and Randle in the lineup any day. Just think the talk of how we don't need Randle is just another case of fans not appreciating what Ramdle brings. It's what I have been hearing for the last three year's. If you look at it further, it would be like saying JB is not that good, needs a superstar and is not a number one. Given the 15-13 record without Randle. Imho

we were 17-15 WITH Randle before the OG trade though.

And then went on that 15-2 run, we are 16-1 this year when OG and Brunson play together.

Just because TOR had a bad year and decided to rebuild doesn't mean they didn't have success with OG overall.

Didn't mean to make it an OG vs Randle thing, just saying OG is more plug and play and probably helps us more than Randle at this point.

Agree, not trying to make it an OG vs Randle thing.
It's a dismiss Randles importance thing.
When you say JB and OG were 16-1 it seems to suggest Randle was somehow not also on the court for almost all of those?
Specifically mentioned Randles 3 time All Star play over several years vs 17 games OG has played as empirical data that would argue the point some are making that OG is more important than Randle.

There are certain components all championship level teams need. Without Randle we don't have our second guy, plain and simple. OG might make us really good again, but we need all of our guys back for a real shot. As posted above, that run in January was special and the pieces all looked like they were performing at a championship level, and so did the team as a whole.

MIA made the finals last year without Herro and we were right there with them. I think if we had DDV, OG and this years versions of Ihart and Miles last year instead of RJ, IQ and Randle, we beat MIA and have a shot at the finals. We really lacked shooting and having 3 snipers in OG, Miles and DDV I think we would have won.

Certainly it would be amazing to have everyone healthy, but I think even with just OG back we could make a title run, improbable but at least have a shot.

nycericanguy wrote:

DLeethal wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

nycericanguy wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

nycericanguy wrote:

DLeethal wrote:

nycericanguy wrote:season ends in 2 weeks, playoffs start in 20 days... or just about 3 weeks.

2nd round would start over a month from now. That could be a realistic time frame to get at least 1 of those guys back.

OG can come back at anytime and help massively right away, so I'm not worried about him stepping in even if it's mid playoffs. Randle needs ramp up time he's the bigger worry now.

agreed, I keep saying I think OG/Mitch coming back is more important than Randle.

OG and Mitch can step right in and defend at a high level, and OG can hit the 3.

Randle... just too many question marks there and he's a guy that has shown he needs time to find rhythm. If his offense isn't good he's hurting the floor spacing, and hurting our defense. Hopefully he can come back in the last few games but I just don't see it. If he comes back in the 1st round cold turkey he could end up hurting us more than anything. Not the popular opinion but our defense, shooting and overall team IQ has been higher without Randle. Randle is a guy that needs to be ON and ready to help us.

Don't get your take. OG with some of the best talents in the East did little to make them any good.(Toronto). Randle with very little talent around him single handedly took us to playoffs for the first time in 20 years. Not saying OG on this roster is incredible but just that once again, Knicks fans underestimate the importance of Randle.

This post needs some fact checks.

For starters, we were in the playoffs in 2013, so the 20 year thing doesn't check. But let's chalk that up to hyperbole.

Second, the fact that Toronto underutilized Anunoby isn't a knock on Anunoby, its a knock on Toronto. Toronto's talent was very much akin to NY's. The similarities between FVV/Barnes/Siakam and Brunson/Barrett/Randle are intriguing. In Barnes and Barrett, you have guys that are highly touted yet at the bottom echelon of efficiency in the league. In FVV and Brunson, you have guys that are generally efficient but tend to need the ball in their hands to be effective -- high usage players. In Randle and Siakam, you have relatively low efficiency all stars with relatively high usage. They put up volume numbers, but you will see a lot of low efficiency shots and turnovers in traffic. That said, they both seem to have a specific gravity on the offensive side of the court that requires defensive attention, because they will both burn you on mismatches. Meaning you can't look past them the way you potentially could with OG. Neither Siakam nor Randle are specifically known for athleticism or defensive prowess. Siakam is the better passer, generally, and Randle has the stronger body/frame and uses that to rebound pretty well.

OG's impact here is irrefutable. His injury history is his weakness. But if I could have either a healthy OG or a healthy Randle back (but not both), I think you have to take OG first. His low offensive usage while shooting well from the corner with a huge wingspan is what opens the floor for Brunson. His point of attack defense takes the opponent's best offensive player out of the game. Randle is certainly more likely to score than OG in pretty much any situation, but he is also more likely to turn the ball over or have a defensive lapse.

Simplest proof is just plus minus. Randle has a career plus minus of -1109. Anunoby has a career plus minus of +1194. The team that outscores its opponents wins and OG is more likely to outscore his opponents than Randle.

Don't get me wrong, I would like both or either back, but I think it is hard to argue against OG here.

Good points. Agree about the Melo Knicks being the other time in the last 20.
Point was that many fans are quick to underestimate a player who single handedly brought us to the forefront of credibility. How quickly some are able to ignore what he has done and claim a guy who has played 17 games with us is more important.
You are fact checking so that would be the first thing that would pop out at me.
Meaning, having the assumption a 17 game participant has more historical data than a 3 time All Star who misses almost no games. I'll take Randles sample size over the guy that is always hurt and has played 17 games, although he played at a very high level.

Also disagree about Toronto "under utilizing OG". He has the same basic role here. JB and Randle being 1 and 1A in the offense.
Think everyone can have their own opinion as to who is more important, Randle or OG. My point is I will go with the one who has the longest history of being so.
But again, I'll take OG and Randle in the lineup any day. Just think the talk of how we don't need Randle is just another case of fans not appreciating what Ramdle brings. It's what I have been hearing for the last three year's. If you look at it further, it would be like saying JB is not that good, needs a superstar and is not a number one. Given the 15-13 record without Randle. Imho

we were 17-15 WITH Randle before the OG trade though.

And then went on that 15-2 run, we are 16-1 this year when OG and Brunson play together.

Just because TOR had a bad year and decided to rebuild doesn't mean they didn't have success with OG overall.

Didn't mean to make it an OG vs Randle thing, just saying OG is more plug and play and probably helps us more than Randle at this point.

Agree, not trying to make it an OG vs Randle thing.
It's a dismiss Randles importance thing.
When you say JB and OG were 16-1 it seems to suggest Randle was somehow not also on the court for almost all of those?
Specifically mentioned Randles 3 time All Star play over several years vs 17 games OG has played as empirical data that would argue the point some are making that OG is more important than Randle.

There are certain components all championship level teams need. Without Randle we don't have our second guy, plain and simple. OG might make us really good again, but we need all of our guys back for a real shot. As posted above, that run in January was special and the pieces all looked like they were performing at a championship level, and so did the team as a whole.

MIA made the finals last year without Herro and we were right there with them. I think if we had DDV, OG and this years versions of Ihart and Miles last year instead of RJ, IQ and Randle, we beat MIA and have a shot at the finals. We really lacked shooting and having 3 snipers in OG, Miles and DDV I think we would have won.

Certainly it would be amazing to have everyone healthy, but I think even with just OG back we could make a title run, improbable but at least have a shot.

It would be a fluke like Miami was last year. And Denver toyed with them in the Finals.

You need two legit scorers, the right mix of defenders and shooters, a guy playing top 10 caliber ball. These things are prerequisites.

Maybe we could make a miracle run to the finals and get annihilated by Denver like Miami did without Randle but it's not a legit contending team. The team was saw a flash of in January COULD be.