Knicks · Bargs: Do you agree with Jackson when it comes to Bargnani? Do you think Bargnani can be a “surprise” for the Knicks (page 4)

bargs ain't about it

nyvector16 wrote:I'm with ya nixluva..

I remember a few games last year where Bargs was a beast on defense, in particular against Dwight Howard.
I also remember the announcer stating: "I can't believe I'm gonna say this, but what are the Knicks going to do on defense when Bargnani hits the bench?"

A few of those games he had some very inspiring blocks and generally played with Passion... but then he got hurt.

If healthy, Bargnani will have a great 14/15 season... and of course it will help that it is a contract year.

Yeah it looks like he's in great shape from the pictures i've seen. He looks more toned and bigger across the shoulders. His arms look more cut than I remember last year. As I've said Phil let everyone know they had to come to camp in great shape. I doubt Bargnani, in a contract year, wouldn't come in to the season in great shape. Phil is gonna look to raise his value as well. You can't trade guys who look like they can't play. He'll put Bargs in prime position to shine this year.

He really did look very good at times on both OFF and DEF, and when he was starting to gel with CA, Tyson Chandler instantly regains the starting position despite not playing for 2 weeks or even practicing

Then CA had to readjust again to how the DEFENSES were playing him, the rest of the team, and with the Center position, he grew frustrated though Woodson always gave him the more opportunity to put up great numbers

RonRon wrote:He really did look very good at times on both OFF and DEF, and when he was starting to gel with CA, Tyson Chandler instantly regains the starting position despite not playing for 2 weeks or even practicing

Then CA had to readjust again to how the DEFENSES were playing him, the rest of the team, and with the Center position, he grew frustrated though Woodson always gave him the more opportunity to put up great numbers

Did you read any of the info. in the article in the poll? The team was so bad with Bargnani on the court. Of course the second they could get him out of the starting lineup and someone serviceable in, they did. Melo and the Knicks both benefited from that (see article).

Bonn1997 wrote:

RonRon wrote:He really did look very good at times on both OFF and DEF, and when he was starting to gel with CA, Tyson Chandler instantly regains the starting position despite not playing for 2 weeks or even practicing

Then CA had to readjust again to how the DEFENSES were playing him, the rest of the team, and with the Center position, he grew frustrated though Woodson always gave him the more opportunity to put up great numbers

Did you read any of the info. in the article in the poll? The team was so bad with Bargnani on the court. Of course the second they could get him out of the starting lineup and someone serviceable in, they did. Melo and the Knicks both benefited from that (see article).

It didn't appear like that watching him play for the Knicks. When he played center he was effective. There were a lot of factors involved in the really bad start. Bargs wasn't around for the run for the playoffs when the team went 16-5. There was a long period of time when the team record was better with Bargs in and Tyson out. I used to post it when I Tyson was brought up. The only stat that I think is accurate from the article is the one applied to court time shared between Anthony and Bargs. It would be interesting to see if Tyson was on the court then as well. Bargs was most effective as a 5 last year.

Past Metrics: Bargs will be awful. Extrapolate the past into the future is the safe assumption.

Forward thinking: Forget the draft position, look at age and skill set. The kid can play at the NBA level but has yet to be consistent and healthy in two seasons.

Fan: hopeful he can put it together, new coaching and a system that if he can fit in would give us production.

Hater: Once bad, always bad. I hope he sucks because otherwise Im wrong and its not about cheering team on, its about this fan being correct!

Nalod: Looking forward to seeing if the kid can turn his career around with Zen, health, and be Pau in the triangle. Pau is HOF player, Bargs is not but that don't mean he can't give us 15 and 6 this season!!

CrushAlot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

RonRon wrote:He really did look very good at times on both OFF and DEF, and when he was starting to gel with CA, Tyson Chandler instantly regains the starting position despite not playing for 2 weeks or even practicing

Then CA had to readjust again to how the DEFENSES were playing him, the rest of the team, and with the Center position, he grew frustrated though Woodson always gave him the more opportunity to put up great numbers

Did you read any of the info. in the article in the poll? The team was so bad with Bargnani on the court. Of course the second they could get him out of the starting lineup and someone serviceable in, they did. Melo and the Knicks both benefited from that (see article).

It didn't appear like that watching him play for the Knicks. When he played center he was effective. There were a lot of factors involved in the really bad start. Bargs wasn't around for the run for the playoffs when the team went 16-5. There was a long period of time when the team record was better with Bargs in and Tyson out. I used to post it when I Tyson was brought up. The only stat that I think is accurate from the article is the one applied to court time shared between Anthony and Bargs. It would be interesting to see if Tyson was on the court then as well. Bargs was most effective as a 5 last year.

http://www.82games.com/1314/13NYK14.HTM

great post... look at "Production by Position" and you see when Bargs as at the 4 it was a bloodbath, but Bargs at the 5 was a positive. Good job calling it like you see it. Nailed it.

CrushAlot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

RonRon wrote:He really did look very good at times on both OFF and DEF, and when he was starting to gel with CA, Tyson Chandler instantly regains the starting position despite not playing for 2 weeks or even practicing

Then CA had to readjust again to how the DEFENSES were playing him, the rest of the team, and with the Center position, he grew frustrated though Woodson always gave him the more opportunity to put up great numbers

Did you read any of the info. in the article in the poll? The team was so bad with Bargnani on the court. Of course the second they could get him out of the starting lineup and someone serviceable in, they did. Melo and the Knicks both benefited from that (see article).

It didn't appear like that watching him play for the Knicks. When he played center he was effective. There were a lot of factors involved in the really bad start. Bargs wasn't around for the run for the playoffs when the team went 16-5. There was a long period of time when the team record was better with Bargs in and Tyson out. I used to post it when I Tyson was brought up. The only stat that I think is accurate from the article is the one applied to court time shared between Anthony and Bargs. It would be interesting to see if Tyson was on the court then as well. Bargs was most effective as a 5 last year.

What do you mean "the only stat that's accurate"? You think the author made calculation errors with the others? You tend to dismiss them as if you think he did.

fishmike wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

RonRon wrote:He really did look very good at times on both OFF and DEF, and when he was starting to gel with CA, Tyson Chandler instantly regains the starting position despite not playing for 2 weeks or even practicing

Then CA had to readjust again to how the DEFENSES were playing him, the rest of the team, and with the Center position, he grew frustrated though Woodson always gave him the more opportunity to put up great numbers

Did you read any of the info. in the article in the poll? The team was so bad with Bargnani on the court. Of course the second they could get him out of the starting lineup and someone serviceable in, they did. Melo and the Knicks both benefited from that (see article).

It didn't appear like that watching him play for the Knicks. When he played center he was effective. There were a lot of factors involved in the really bad start. Bargs wasn't around for the run for the playoffs when the team went 16-5. There was a long period of time when the team record was better with Bargs in and Tyson out. I used to post it when I Tyson was brought up. The only stat that I think is accurate from the article is the one applied to court time shared between Anthony and Bargs. It would be interesting to see if Tyson was on the court then as well. Bargs was most effective as a 5 last year.

http://www.82games.com/1314/13NYK14.HTM

great post... look at "Production by Position" and you see when Bargs as at the 4 it was a bloodbath, but Bargs at the 5 was a positive. Good job calling it like you see it. Nailed it.

That could just be random fluctuation. Going back a few years, the pattern doesn't hold up. In 2010-11 and 2012-13, he got killed at center.

Bonn1997 wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

RonRon wrote:He really did look very good at times on both OFF and DEF, and when he was starting to gel with CA, Tyson Chandler instantly regains the starting position despite not playing for 2 weeks or even practicing

Then CA had to readjust again to how the DEFENSES were playing him, the rest of the team, and with the Center position, he grew frustrated though Woodson always gave him the more opportunity to put up great numbers

Did you read any of the info. in the article in the poll? The team was so bad with Bargnani on the court. Of course the second they could get him out of the starting lineup and someone serviceable in, they did. Melo and the Knicks both benefited from that (see article).

It didn't appear like that watching him play for the Knicks. When he played center he was effective. There were a lot of factors involved in the really bad start. Bargs wasn't around for the run for the playoffs when the team went 16-5. There was a long period of time when the team record was better with Bargs in and Tyson out. I used to post it when I Tyson was brought up. The only stat that I think is accurate from the article is the one applied to court time shared between Anthony and Bargs. It would be interesting to see if Tyson was on the court then as well. Bargs was most effective as a 5 last year.

What do you mean "the only stat that's accurate"? You think the author made calculation errors with the others? You tend to dismiss them as if you think he did.

It's not accurate in the sense that he should have taking everything into consideration.

It's like saying, this guy had a accident, he's a bad driver, but doesn't take into consideration the Icy roads, bad breaks, and zero visability.

Bonn1997 wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

RonRon wrote:He really did look very good at times on both OFF and DEF, and when he was starting to gel with CA, Tyson Chandler instantly regains the starting position despite not playing for 2 weeks or even practicing

Then CA had to readjust again to how the DEFENSES were playing him, the rest of the team, and with the Center position, he grew frustrated though Woodson always gave him the more opportunity to put up great numbers

Did you read any of the info. in the article in the poll? The team was so bad with Bargnani on the court. Of course the second they could get him out of the starting lineup and someone serviceable in, they did. Melo and the Knicks both benefited from that (see article).

It didn't appear like that watching him play for the Knicks. When he played center he was effective. There were a lot of factors involved in the really bad start. Bargs wasn't around for the run for the playoffs when the team went 16-5. There was a long period of time when the team record was better with Bargs in and Tyson out. I used to post it when I Tyson was brought up. The only stat that I think is accurate from the article is the one applied to court time shared between Anthony and Bargs. It would be interesting to see if Tyson was on the court then as well. Bargs was most effective as a 5 last year.

What do you mean "the only stat that's accurate"? You think the author made calculation errors with the others? You tend to dismiss them as if you think he did.

I am not sure about these stats. Is the author referencing time on the bench during games that Bargs played or is he including when Bargs was off the court for injury.

I am not sure about these stats. Is the author referencing time on the bench during games that Bargs played or is he including when Bargs was off the court for injury. If it is the later then I don't think it is an accurate stat.

CrushAlot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

RonRon wrote:He really did look very good at times on both OFF and DEF, and when he was starting to gel with CA, Tyson Chandler instantly regains the starting position despite not playing for 2 weeks or even practicing

Then CA had to readjust again to how the DEFENSES were playing him, the rest of the team, and with the Center position, he grew frustrated though Woodson always gave him the more opportunity to put up great numbers

Did you read any of the info. in the article in the poll? The team was so bad with Bargnani on the court. Of course the second they could get him out of the starting lineup and someone serviceable in, they did. Melo and the Knicks both benefited from that (see article).

It didn't appear like that watching him play for the Knicks. When he played center he was effective. There were a lot of factors involved in the really bad start. Bargs wasn't around for the run for the playoffs when the team went 16-5. There was a long period of time when the team record was better with Bargs in and Tyson out. I used to post it when I Tyson was brought up. The only stat that I think is accurate from the article is the one applied to court time shared between Anthony and Bargs. It would be interesting to see if Tyson was on the court then as well. Bargs was most effective as a 5 last year.

What do you mean "the only stat that's accurate"? You think the author made calculation errors with the others? You tend to dismiss them as if you think he did.

I am not sure about these stats. Is the author referencing time on the bench during games that Bargs played or is he including when Bargs was off the court for injury.

I am not sure about these stats. Is the author referencing time on the bench during games that Bargs played or is he including when Bargs was off the court for injury. If it is the later then I don't think it is an accurate stat.

Both look bad for Bargs. You can get the stats at 82games.com.

Bonn1997 wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

RonRon wrote:He really did look very good at times on both OFF and DEF, and when he was starting to gel with CA, Tyson Chandler instantly regains the starting position despite not playing for 2 weeks or even practicing

Then CA had to readjust again to how the DEFENSES were playing him, the rest of the team, and with the Center position, he grew frustrated though Woodson always gave him the more opportunity to put up great numbers

Did you read any of the info. in the article in the poll? The team was so bad with Bargnani on the court. Of course the second they could get him out of the starting lineup and someone serviceable in, they did. Melo and the Knicks both benefited from that (see article).

It didn't appear like that watching him play for the Knicks. When he played center he was effective. There were a lot of factors involved in the really bad start. Bargs wasn't around for the run for the playoffs when the team went 16-5. There was a long period of time when the team record was better with Bargs in and Tyson out. I used to post it when I Tyson was brought up. The only stat that I think is accurate from the article is the one applied to court time shared between Anthony and Bargs. It would be interesting to see if Tyson was on the court then as well. Bargs was most effective as a 5 last year.

What do you mean "the only stat that's accurate"? You think the author made calculation errors with the others? You tend to dismiss them as if you think he did.

I am not sure about these stats. Is the author referencing time on the bench during games that Bargs played or is he including when Bargs was off the court for injury.

I am not sure about these stats. Is the author referencing time on the bench during games that Bargs played or is he including when Bargs was off the court for injury. If it is the later then I don't think it is an accurate stat.

Both look bad for Bargs. You can get the stats at 82games.com.

Their two different things. He was out when the team played well down the stretch. That is going to sway things.

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

RonRon wrote:He really did look very good at times on both OFF and DEF, and when he was starting to gel with CA, Tyson Chandler instantly regains the starting position despite not playing for 2 weeks or even practicing

Then CA had to readjust again to how the DEFENSES were playing him, the rest of the team, and with the Center position, he grew frustrated though Woodson always gave him the more opportunity to put up great numbers

Did you read any of the info. in the article in the poll? The team was so bad with Bargnani on the court. Of course the second they could get him out of the starting lineup and someone serviceable in, they did. Melo and the Knicks both benefited from that (see article).

It didn't appear like that watching him play for the Knicks. When he played center he was effective. There were a lot of factors involved in the really bad start. Bargs wasn't around for the run for the playoffs when the team went 16-5. There was a long period of time when the team record was better with Bargs in and Tyson out. I used to post it when I Tyson was brought up. The only stat that I think is accurate from the article is the one applied to court time shared between Anthony and Bargs. It would be interesting to see if Tyson was on the court then as well. Bargs was most effective as a 5 last year.

http://www.82games.com/1314/13NYK14.HTM

great post... look at "Production by Position" and you see when Bargs as at the 4 it was a bloodbath, but Bargs at the 5 was a positive. Good job calling it like you see it. Nailed it.

That could just be random fluctuation. Going back a few years, the pattern doesn't hold up. In 2010-11 and 2012-13, he got killed at center.

last year is all that matters. Remember the Knicks are a 37 win team right?

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

RonRon wrote:He really did look very good at times on both OFF and DEF, and when he was starting to gel with CA, Tyson Chandler instantly regains the starting position despite not playing for 2 weeks or even practicing

Then CA had to readjust again to how the DEFENSES were playing him, the rest of the team, and with the Center position, he grew frustrated though Woodson always gave him the more opportunity to put up great numbers

Did you read any of the info. in the article in the poll? The team was so bad with Bargnani on the court. Of course the second they could get him out of the starting lineup and someone serviceable in, they did. Melo and the Knicks both benefited from that (see article).

It didn't appear like that watching him play for the Knicks. When he played center he was effective. There were a lot of factors involved in the really bad start. Bargs wasn't around for the run for the playoffs when the team went 16-5. There was a long period of time when the team record was better with Bargs in and Tyson out. I used to post it when I Tyson was brought up. The only stat that I think is accurate from the article is the one applied to court time shared between Anthony and Bargs. It would be interesting to see if Tyson was on the court then as well. Bargs was most effective as a 5 last year.

http://www.82games.com/1314/13NYK14.HTM

great post... look at "Production by Position" and you see when Bargs as at the 4 it was a bloodbath, but Bargs at the 5 was a positive. Good job calling it like you see it. Nailed it.

That could just be random fluctuation. Going back a few years, the pattern doesn't hold up. In 2010-11 and 2012-13, he got killed at center.

last year is all that matters. Remember the Knicks are a 37 win team right?

Last year isn't all that matters. BUT this is mostly last year's team returning.

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

RonRon wrote:He really did look very good at times on both OFF and DEF, and when he was starting to gel with CA, Tyson Chandler instantly regains the starting position despite not playing for 2 weeks or even practicing

Then CA had to readjust again to how the DEFENSES were playing him, the rest of the team, and with the Center position, he grew frustrated though Woodson always gave him the more opportunity to put up great numbers

Did you read any of the info. in the article in the poll? The team was so bad with Bargnani on the court. Of course the second they could get him out of the starting lineup and someone serviceable in, they did. Melo and the Knicks both benefited from that (see article).

It didn't appear like that watching him play for the Knicks. When he played center he was effective. There were a lot of factors involved in the really bad start. Bargs wasn't around for the run for the playoffs when the team went 16-5. There was a long period of time when the team record was better with Bargs in and Tyson out. I used to post it when I Tyson was brought up. The only stat that I think is accurate from the article is the one applied to court time shared between Anthony and Bargs. It would be interesting to see if Tyson was on the court then as well. Bargs was most effective as a 5 last year.

http://www.82games.com/1314/13NYK14.HTM

great post... look at "Production by Position" and you see when Bargs as at the 4 it was a bloodbath, but Bargs at the 5 was a positive. Good job calling it like you see it. Nailed it.

That could just be random fluctuation. Going back a few years, the pattern doesn't hold up. In 2010-11 and 2012-13, he got killed at center.

last year is all that matters. Remember the Knicks are a 37 win team right?

Last year isn't all that matters. BUT this is mostly last year's team returning.

Well then last year's 37 win team was a random fluctuation.

50+ wins, here we come!

franco12 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

RonRon wrote:He really did look very good at times on both OFF and DEF, and when he was starting to gel with CA, Tyson Chandler instantly regains the starting position despite not playing for 2 weeks or even practicing

Then CA had to readjust again to how the DEFENSES were playing him, the rest of the team, and with the Center position, he grew frustrated though Woodson always gave him the more opportunity to put up great numbers

Did you read any of the info. in the article in the poll? The team was so bad with Bargnani on the court. Of course the second they could get him out of the starting lineup and someone serviceable in, they did. Melo and the Knicks both benefited from that (see article).

It didn't appear like that watching him play for the Knicks. When he played center he was effective. There were a lot of factors involved in the really bad start. Bargs wasn't around for the run for the playoffs when the team went 16-5. There was a long period of time when the team record was better with Bargs in and Tyson out. I used to post it when I Tyson was brought up. The only stat that I think is accurate from the article is the one applied to court time shared between Anthony and Bargs. It would be interesting to see if Tyson was on the court then as well. Bargs was most effective as a 5 last year.

http://www.82games.com/1314/13NYK14.HTM

great post... look at "Production by Position" and you see when Bargs as at the 4 it was a bloodbath, but Bargs at the 5 was a positive. Good job calling it like you see it. Nailed it.

That could just be random fluctuation. Going back a few years, the pattern doesn't hold up. In 2010-11 and 2012-13, he got killed at center.

last year is all that matters. Remember the Knicks are a 37 win team right?

Last year isn't all that matters. BUT this is mostly last year's team returning.

Well then last year's 37 win team was a random fluctuation.

50+ wins, here we come!

Actually, it was the predictable and predicted result of several roster downgrades.

Bonn1997 wrote:

franco12 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

RonRon wrote:He really did look very good at times on both OFF and DEF, and when he was starting to gel with CA, Tyson Chandler instantly regains the starting position despite not playing for 2 weeks or even practicing

Then CA had to readjust again to how the DEFENSES were playing him, the rest of the team, and with the Center position, he grew frustrated though Woodson always gave him the more opportunity to put up great numbers

Did you read any of the info. in the article in the poll? The team was so bad with Bargnani on the court. Of course the second they could get him out of the starting lineup and someone serviceable in, they did. Melo and the Knicks both benefited from that (see article).

It didn't appear like that watching him play for the Knicks. When he played center he was effective. There were a lot of factors involved in the really bad start. Bargs wasn't around for the run for the playoffs when the team went 16-5. There was a long period of time when the team record was better with Bargs in and Tyson out. I used to post it when I Tyson was brought up. The only stat that I think is accurate from the article is the one applied to court time shared between Anthony and Bargs. It would be interesting to see if Tyson was on the court then as well. Bargs was most effective as a 5 last year.

http://www.82games.com/1314/13NYK14.HTM

great post... look at "Production by Position" and you see when Bargs as at the 4 it was a bloodbath, but Bargs at the 5 was a positive. Good job calling it like you see it. Nailed it.

That could just be random fluctuation. Going back a few years, the pattern doesn't hold up. In 2010-11 and 2012-13, he got killed at center.

last year is all that matters. Remember the Knicks are a 37 win team right?

Last year isn't all that matters. BUT this is mostly last year's team returning.

Well then last year's 37 win team was a random fluctuation.

50+ wins, here we come!

Actually, it was the predictable and predicted result of several roster downgrades.

You know what I was thinking since we're talking about Bargs and records

The Raptors won 48gms last year and they did this after trading one of their marquee named cancerous players.

They're bringing back the same team plus a couple additions this year

They have a coach on the bench who was under Carlisle I believe when Dallas won a chip 3yrs ago.

Their fans believe they can duplicate last year, maybe win a few more games

Why do we think we can win our division and think the Raptors over achieved possibly regressing and missing the playoffs altogether?

Didn't they win 48gms much the same we won 54gms

Did we feel after winning 54gms we'd drop down to like a 7th or 8th seed last year?

My gut says Raptors do fall back to earth a tad, maybe 42-43 wins this season

F500ONE wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

franco12 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

RonRon wrote:He really did look very good at times on both OFF and DEF, and when he was starting to gel with CA, Tyson Chandler instantly regains the starting position despite not playing for 2 weeks or even practicing

Then CA had to readjust again to how the DEFENSES were playing him, the rest of the team, and with the Center position, he grew frustrated though Woodson always gave him the more opportunity to put up great numbers

Did you read any of the info. in the article in the poll? The team was so bad with Bargnani on the court. Of course the second they could get him out of the starting lineup and someone serviceable in, they did. Melo and the Knicks both benefited from that (see article).

It didn't appear like that watching him play for the Knicks. When he played center he was effective. There were a lot of factors involved in the really bad start. Bargs wasn't around for the run for the playoffs when the team went 16-5. There was a long period of time when the team record was better with Bargs in and Tyson out. I used to post it when I Tyson was brought up. The only stat that I think is accurate from the article is the one applied to court time shared between Anthony and Bargs. It would be interesting to see if Tyson was on the court then as well. Bargs was most effective as a 5 last year.

http://www.82games.com/1314/13NYK14.HTM

great post... look at "Production by Position" and you see when Bargs as at the 4 it was a bloodbath, but Bargs at the 5 was a positive. Good job calling it like you see it. Nailed it.

That could just be random fluctuation. Going back a few years, the pattern doesn't hold up. In 2010-11 and 2012-13, he got killed at center.

last year is all that matters. Remember the Knicks are a 37 win team right?

Last year isn't all that matters. BUT this is mostly last year's team returning.

Well then last year's 37 win team was a random fluctuation.

50+ wins, here we come!

Actually, it was the predictable and predicted result of several roster downgrades.

You know what I was thinking since we're talking about Bargs and records

The Raptors won 48gms last year and they did this after trading one of their marquee named cancerous players.

They're bringing back the same team plus a couple additions this year

They have a coach on the bench who was under Carlisle I believe when Dallas won a chip 3yrs ago.

Their fans believe they can duplicate last year, maybe win a few more games

Why do we think we can win our division and think the Raptors over achieved possibly regressing and missing the playoffs altogether?

Didn't they win 48gms much the same we won 54gms

Did we feel after winning 54gms we'd drop down to like a 7th or 8th seed last year?

My gut says Raptors do fall back to earth a tad, maybe 42-43 wins this season

I think the circumstance were much different with us and the rapts. No one else in the divison has made as significant a move as the knicks have, in terms of addition by subtraction.

F500ONE wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

franco12 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

RonRon wrote:He really did look very good at times on both OFF and DEF, and when he was starting to gel with CA, Tyson Chandler instantly regains the starting position despite not playing for 2 weeks or even practicing

Then CA had to readjust again to how the DEFENSES were playing him, the rest of the team, and with the Center position, he grew frustrated though Woodson always gave him the more opportunity to put up great numbers

Did you read any of the info. in the article in the poll? The team was so bad with Bargnani on the court. Of course the second they could get him out of the starting lineup and someone serviceable in, they did. Melo and the Knicks both benefited from that (see article).

It didn't appear like that watching him play for the Knicks. When he played center he was effective. There were a lot of factors involved in the really bad start. Bargs wasn't around for the run for the playoffs when the team went 16-5. There was a long period of time when the team record was better with Bargs in and Tyson out. I used to post it when I Tyson was brought up. The only stat that I think is accurate from the article is the one applied to court time shared between Anthony and Bargs. It would be interesting to see if Tyson was on the court then as well. Bargs was most effective as a 5 last year.

http://www.82games.com/1314/13NYK14.HTM

great post... look at "Production by Position" and you see when Bargs as at the 4 it was a bloodbath, but Bargs at the 5 was a positive. Good job calling it like you see it. Nailed it.

That could just be random fluctuation. Going back a few years, the pattern doesn't hold up. In 2010-11 and 2012-13, he got killed at center.

last year is all that matters. Remember the Knicks are a 37 win team right?

Last year isn't all that matters. BUT this is mostly last year's team returning.

Well then last year's 37 win team was a random fluctuation.

50+ wins, here we come!

Actually, it was the predictable and predicted result of several roster downgrades.

You know what I was thinking since we're talking about Bargs and records

The Raptors won 48gms last year and they did this after trading one of their marquee named cancerous players.

They're bringing back the same team plus a couple additions this year

They have a coach on the bench who was under Carlisle I believe when Dallas won a chip 3yrs ago.

Their fans believe they can duplicate last year, maybe win a few more games

Why do we think we can win our division and think the Raptors over achieved possibly regressing and missing the playoffs altogether?

Didn't they win 48gms much the same we won 54gms

Did we feel after winning 54gms we'd drop down to like a 7th or 8th seed last year?

My gut says Raptors do fall back to earth a tad, maybe 42-43 wins this season

a few of us did, yes.

That drop last year was about so many factors. No way any team could win if they had their top guards slump the ours did last year. Felton, JR, Shump all fell off dramatically for most of the beginning of the season. Tyson breaking his leg couldn't be predicted. Woodson's decisions on lineups and changing the way the team played so successfully the previous season was a major mistake. Overusing Melo. Underusing STAT. Once he started doing a better job the team settled down and started winning more games. Unfortunately Woody still sucks as a coach and so it didn't matter.

Bargs played well at Center in some lineups. There were some bad lineups that didn't work, but blaming it on Bargs is just crazy. I said it last year that it's easy to pick on Bargs as the reason even when it was Felton, JR and Shump unable to hit the side of a barn. This system is much better in that a guy like Bargs will touch the ball much more and remain focused more since he's going to be in the middle of the plays.