Mostly without Amare Stoudemire. Hypothetically if Amare was healthy last season. How do you feel the season would have went in terms of games won during the regular season and playoffs?
They win less in the regular season but are more built for the playoffs.
With a healthy Amare, we beat the Pacers.
Good question and one we will never know. A healthy Amare is a top player in the league but We have only seen this for 2/3 in his first season. It was magnificent!
The chemistry and spacing issue is still unanswered.
I think we go to ECF's and with Miami vulnerable who knows? But I think we get by Indy.
Melo would not have as much wear and tear and maybe he don't lead the league in scoring, but thats ok.
If JR, Tyson and Melo were healthy in the playoffs we would have beaten the Pacers even without Amar'e. though I've noticed history has been re-written to make out the Pacers were vastly superior to us. And all that 'straight up' nonsense about Hibbert has been forgotten too. The fact is the nba blatantly change the way the game is called to make Hibbert into a star- it was pathetic!
smackeddog wrote:If JR, Tyson and Melo were healthy in the playoffs we would have beaten the Pacers even without Amar'e. though I've noticed history has been re-written to make out the Pacers were vastly superior to us. And all that 'straight up' nonsense about Hibbert has been forgotten too. The fact is the nba blatantly change the way the game is called to make Hibbert into a star- it was pathetic!
so what if george hill were healthy, and what if granger was healthy and playing?
pacers were just better, bigger, stronger, faster, younger.... the end...
Also the pieces to that team fit.. a healthy amare is still oil and water with carmelo.... doesn't really matter if they are healthy, they both were healthy vs boston a couple of years ago and we damn near got swept...
pacers have a very good TEAM... that is on the rise.... they didn't win because we had injuries, they had injuries as well. they won because they are built better with better pieces and their best player George is the best all around player in the series and he impacts both ends, pretty much a game changer..
tkf wrote:smackeddog wrote:If JR, Tyson and Melo were healthy in the playoffs we would have beaten the Pacers even without Amar'e. though I've noticed history has been re-written to make out the Pacers were vastly superior to us. And all that 'straight up' nonsense about Hibbert has been forgotten too. The fact is the nba blatantly change the way the game is called to make Hibbert into a star- it was pathetic!
so what if george hill were healthy, and what if granger was healthy and playing?
pacers were just better, bigger, stronger, faster, younger.... the end...
Also the pieces to that team fit.. a healthy amare is still oil and water with carmelo.... doesn't really matter if they are healthy, they both were healthy vs boston a couple of years ago and we damn near got swept...
pacers have a very good TEAM... that is on the rise.... they didn't win because we had injuries, they had injuries as well. they won because they are built better with better pieces and their best player George is the best all around player in the series and he impacts both ends, pretty much a game changer..
Granger takes minutes from Paul George (who is a much better player)- a healthy Granger would have meant poorer defense and more chucking. Pacers are a good team, and I like their defense, but I still think we could have beaten them if healthy.
This Melo/Amar'e talk was relevant 2 years ago. Now Amar'e is a bench player (20mins if that) and has a post game- it's not an issue anymore.
This myth that the Pacers were light years ahead of us, simply wasn't true- we had a better season record, and our series was pretty close considering our main players were ailing.
My biggest problem with the knicks last year wa sthat after they went up 3-0 on the Celtics they kind of let their guard down the rest of the playoffs. 54 wins is nice but tahts not enough anymore. this team needs to have a legit playoff run. Personally i think we match up better against Miami than any other team in the east. But we need to play more physical basketball against etams like indy and chicago and the nets
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.
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.
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.
smackeddog wrote:tkf wrote:smackeddog wrote:If JR, Tyson and Melo were healthy in the playoffs we would have beaten the Pacers even without Amar'e. though I've noticed history has been re-written to make out the Pacers were vastly superior to us. And all that 'straight up' nonsense about Hibbert has been forgotten too. The fact is the nba blatantly change the way the game is called to make Hibbert into a star- it was pathetic!
so what if george hill were healthy, and what if granger was healthy and playing?
pacers were just better, bigger, stronger, faster, younger.... the end...
Also the pieces to that team fit.. a healthy amare is still oil and water with carmelo.... doesn't really matter if they are healthy, they both were healthy vs boston a couple of years ago and we damn near got swept...
pacers have a very good TEAM... that is on the rise.... they didn't win because we had injuries, they had injuries as well. they won because they are built better with better pieces and their best player George is the best all around player in the series and he impacts both ends, pretty much a game changer..
Granger takes minutes from Paul George (who is a much better player)- a healthy Granger would have meant poorer defense and more chucking. Pacers are a good team, and I like their defense, but I still think we could have beaten them if healthy.
This Melo/Amar'e talk was relevant 2 years ago. Now Amar'e is a bench player (20mins if that) and has a post game- it's not an issue anymore.
This myth that the Pacers were light years ahead of us, simply wasn't true- we had a better season record, and our series was pretty close considering our main players were ailing.
they beat us because we live and die by 3 pointers and they were #1 against that. then there's hibbert.
the end.
the way to beat them is to shoot well in the midrange and that means a good pick and roll game with good step-back jumpshooters.
knicks didn't have a single play featuring a step-back jumper.
the end.
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...
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?
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?
We have offensively challenged coach and main scorers who cannot play structured bbal.
How this can work against exceptionally coached top teams of the NBA?
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.
Amar'e was healthy 2 years ago? I guess his back injury happened in the offseason not pregame.
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?
George sucked that series offensively and defensively. He just had Hibbert saving him. Shooting 30+% for a series usually is frowned upon but he is a young buck so it gets overlooked. He did look very good the following series against the shorter and slowed Wade. Very good outing.
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.
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.
