We didn't beat OKC and LAL on back to backs in a weekend. The Knicks beat us two consecutive days by a combined total of 29 points. One loss can be a fluke, but there's something alarming when it happens back to back days to the same team.
All I'm saying is that I think that too many people on this forum and around the NBA in general have written the Knicks off. Do I think we could beat them in the playoffs? Absolutely. But would I be the least bit surprised if they beat us.
Also, the Knicks would have likely steamrolled the Magic just like we did. And we won one more game against the Heat than them, but they had to contend with Bosh for the entire series.
Also, I don't remember OKC or LAL beating us at all. Also, I don't remember us having a 4th quarter meltdown against OKC and LAL last season which lead to an epic 40 - 17 4th quarter comeback.
That's the problem with cherry-picking results, my friend. Anyone can do this :D
Personally, I'm not going to write them off just yet for the simple reason that this is the first full season under Woodson. I'll have to wait and see how they perform before I judge them.
About the Heat series though. It's not a matter of 4 - 1 vs 4 - 2. It's the matter that both teams lost the series. The Heat never beat the Pacers by 33 points. I repeat, 33 points. Also, the Knicks were never ahead in the series. We were ahead 2 - 1 at one point. Their only win came after they were already down 3 - 0.
I can see why some people have not written the Knicks off. I can see why they still consider them formidable opponents. And I do as well. But the idea of them being better than us just because they have sexier names is preposterous.
This is the actual power rankings... And I don't see how a team that finished 5th in the league and lost in 6 to the eventual champs in the 2nd round and then added talent to the bench plus should grow some talent in 3 of the 5 starters doesn't put us a notch or two higher than we are here...
I can see how everyone not named Philly or Clippers are ahead of us though...
The Clippers are way overrated... All offense no D...
And I'm not sold on Bynum being a savior in Philly... As others have pointed out he has some major maturity issues to overcome and is very injury prone... I don't see him leading them past a playoff birth this year... They scream first round out to me...
And Dallas at 10 is absurd...
A few thoughts:
You cannot overlook Bynum's history of immaturity when talking about the Sixers. For years he was kept in check in LA by Phil, Kobe, Gasol, Fisher, etc. We saw how he reacted to a new, younger coach last season and I wasn't impressed. In addition to very real concerns over his injury history, I think there are huge question marks surrounding his ability to be a franchise player - especially in a tough media market. Consider me unimpressed by Philly.
As far as the Clippers, unless Vinny Del Negro was replaced, I don't see them doing much. They're almost like a mid-2000s Phoenix Suns redux. Sexy pick, I'll be watching them on league pass, but I don't think they're one of the 10 best teams in the league.
Boston has come in with the age questions each of the last 3 years. At some point they are going to break down, but until I actually see it happen, I have no problems with them where they are on this list.
If Minnesota's roster played for the New York Knicks or Brooklyn Nets, I seriously feel like they would crack the top 10 in a lot of these rankings. Rubio coming back (assuming he's fully recovered from his knee injury) is going to be huge - they were on track for a playoff spot before he got hurt last year. Wouldn't surprise me to see them challenging the Utah/Dallas/Memphis slots in the West.
I have no idea what Portland will do this year, but Lillard will be a treat to watch. Wouldn't be surprised at all to see them in the playoffs.
I also understand how San An and Boston are put above us with the way their veterans pushed them to another level later last season... But those aging teams have Indiana and Denver respectively waiting to overthrow them...
I'm just glad this year we're arguing over whether or not we should be a little above or below 8th best in the league.
The problem with these rankings is they really are mostly just looking at the stat sheets, and not taking into consideration all of the intangibles. Sexy names are nice, but as the Knicks have proven you need more than sexy names, and a sexy name doesn't always mean that player is more talented either. I think this is missed most of all with Bynum. Not only does he have maturity and injury issues, but as far as I can remember outside of maybe his first season or two he hasn't spent a season as the best post player on his team. At best he was the third best player on the Lakers any given season, put him in a situation where he is the focal point and given his maturity issues I see him as being put in a position where he is just as likely to be an epic failure as he is to be their savior.
I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on the Clippers, but not on the 76ers. Not when they had to give up Iggy.
Its important to remember that when the Knicks beat us twice we were without George Hill, who even though he wasn't starting he was more important than DC at this point.
Besides, I am sorry but the Knicks lost Lin and we saw how well Carmelo and Amare work without Lin. They don't work, like at all.
The media always hypes the teams with the superstars or that made a big move in the offseason. The teams that dont make much noise get overlooked and undervalued.
The Clippers and Sixers are not better than the Pacers. Indy should be at least #6. Boston had a mediocre regular season and caught a lucky break in the playoffs with Rose going down.
As for the Sixers, they should not be ahead of us by any means. They added Bynum and that's about it. They are relying on Turner to make a big improvement and I don't think it'll happen.
Also, I have a lot of doubts about the Nets. They added some decent pieces on paper I guess, but the biggest name was Joe Johnson and I don't think he automatically makes them a contender by any means. Imo the Nets will be anywhere from an 8th seed at worst, 5th seed at their complete best.
i think the #8 ranking is at least arguably fair. I think were better than the Clippers and the 76ers, but I can see how most others would disagree. The Clippers are obviously loaded with talent, and should be better this year with Crawford, a full season of Billups and Grant Hill addressing the weaknesses in their roster from last year.
And people forget that the 76ers had arguably at least as good a postseason as the Pacers did. They pretty handedly beat the 1 seed without Derrick Rose (we did the same against a worse Magic team without Dwight) and took the Celtics to 7, who came within a good 4th quarter of beating the Heat. And regardless of how much theyll miss Iggy, their improvements from last year are more apparent than ours (Nick Young, Dorrell Wright and the clear cut 2nd best center in the league) and their room for internal improvement is at least as great as ours (Evan Turner and Jrue Holiday mainly).
If we were objectively trying to look at the situation from the outside, I think opinions here would change. If the 76ers signed Mahimni, Green and DJ in teh offseason (and drafted Miles Plumlee), and we traded say Danny for Andrew Bynum, I guarantee you most people here would be laughing at the 76ers offseason acquisitions, probably saying they didnt get any better at all, while we were poised to win the East.
The Pacers were better last year, and now get to grow. The 76ers lost the heart and soul of their team and added pieces that might work well together. Thats a big MIGHT
And the Clippers are not better than the Pacers? :lmao: