ESPN thinks Knicks can win after Game 1

[P2]

LINK.

ESPN seems to think that we are lucky to be coming out with a victory after in night's game, describing it as "they stole one". They think that Anthony shouldn't have been called for the offensive foul, and that Celtics in 7 sounds a little more realistic than Knicks in 6. YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME! Celtics in 5 sounds MUCH more realistic than Knicks in 7 by 1 point.

Wow, they think the Knicks can really keep pace with us. They are laying it out like the series now depends on the health of Billups. OMFG!!! Yet when the Heat or Bulls almost blow their games, they say the other teams were just lucky to have such good games, and still lost.

This drives me really mad. I just want to make the ESPN cats shut the f§&% up!

[MVP]

Nothing new. But we also didn't show anything yesterday to prove that we will beat the Knicks in 4/5 games. The game could have gone either way. If we continue to play like we did in game 1 then the series will go to 6-7 games. But hopefully we will play better in game 2, especially on the offensive end where we were brutal in the 1st half.

[Moranis]

overreact much

[Silent Storm]

The Celtics play the right way because they share the ball and operate as a unit. ESPN and the media in general love to glorify the individualist players who live in the spotlight due to their inflated egos. I expect nothing logical coming from ESPN.

[OsirusCeltics]

The Celtics play the right way because they share the ball and operate as a unit. ESPN and the media in general love to glorify the individualist players who live in the spotlight due to their inflated egos. I expect nothing logical coming from ESPN.

Couldn't...have...said...it... better

[OsirusCeltics]

Just today on ESPN first take, they had a segment called "Who's to blame for the Knicks' lost?"

Seriously? Wow Lol

[Lucky17]

LINK.

ESPN seems to think that we are lucky to be coming out with a victory after in night's game, describing it as "they stole one". They think that Anthony shouldn't have been called for the offensive foul, and that Celtics in 7 sounds a little more realistic than Knicks in 6. YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME! Celtics in 5 sounds MUCH more realistic than Knicks in 7 by 1 point.

Wow, they think the Knicks can really keep pace with us. They are laying it out like the series now depends on the health of Billups. OMFG!!! Yet when the Heat or Bulls almost blow their games, they say the other teams were just lucky to have such good games, and still lost.

This drives me really mad. I just want to make the ESPN cats shut the f§&% up!

Is this what you're talking about?

4. What's your take on Knicks-Celtics Game 1 and the rest of the series?


Royce Webb, ESPN.com: I really thought for a few minutes there that we were just days away from another epic Heat-Knicks playoff battle. And maybe we still are. But it feels a lot more like Celtics in seven than it does Knicks in six after Boston stole one on its own parquet floor. One wild card among many: How is Chauncey Billups' knee?

Jared Wade, Hardwood Paroxysm: We knew the Celtics were the better team, but the Knicks showed the world that the disparity is not as great as it may have seemed. Their dearth of defense is their well-known Achilles' heel, so it was impressive to see them kick off the postseason by holding Rajon Rondo, Paul Pierce and Kevin Garnett to 16-for-44 shooting. As in Game 1, Boston will still pull out the series, but the Knicks might not be as far away as some thought.

J.M. Poulard, WarriorsWorld: A lot is riding on Billups' health, but Amare Stoudemire and his teammates showed that they are not afraid to go right at the Celtics. This should be a physical series in which teams exchange a lot of big shots in the fourth quarters. Carmelo Anthony will have to play better for the Knicks to have a chance to win this series, but the truth is, I'm not sure he will.

Matt McHale, By the Horns: The Celtics still haven't really re-established their identity since the Kendrick Perkins trade, but they have the talent to go toe-to-toe with anybody. Meanwhile, the Knicks haven't set the world on fire since trading for Carmelo Anthony, but they have the offensive firepower to potentially beat any team on any given night. I genuinely wouldn't be surprised to see six more games that are as competitive as Game 1.

Robert Silverman, KnickerBlogger: In Game 1, neither team put forth its finest effort, but the Knicks showed more defensive moxie than we'd seen since Jeff Van Gundy patrolled the sidelines. To still fall short's gotta smart. The keys now are (a) whether losing an utterly winnable game is a "we can play with these guys" rallying cry or sends them into a funk, and (b) the severity of Billups' injury. The thought of Anthony Carter getting more than 20 minutes a game is enough to make any 'Bocker backer queasy.

Three of five say Boston takes the series, and the other two don't say one way or the other (although it sounds like they think the Knicks have a hard road).

[celticinorlando]

trying to drum up interest. my feeling is that the knicks won't recover from this loss

[KobeShesNotConsenting!]

Nothing new. But we also didn't show anything yesterday to prove that we will beat the Knicks in 4/5 games. The game could have gone either way. If we continue to play like we did in game 1 then the series will go to 6-7 games. But hopefully we will play better in game 2, especially on the offensive end where we were brutal in the 1st half.

I dont agree at all. I think 3 out of the 4 other knicks games were up for grabs as well but celtics out toughed them for the win in the end. It's a pattern: knicks get hot in the first half and then c's turn up the d and do enough to win. If we continue to squeak by the knicks in tough games there's no reason this can't be 5 games.

[GreenEnvy]

I pretty much figured game 1 would come down to the wire, with the Knicks having a real possibility to take game 1. Luckily we executed down the stretch and our defense in the second half was great. I also thought regardless of what happened in game 1, win or lose, the Celtics would play significantly better in game 2, in more of a statement game.

The Celtics dominated both second halves of the games against the Melo Knicks. They just need to put forth a better effort in the first halves and the Knicks shouldn't be overly difficult.

I expect the C's to come out real strong tomorrow backed by the crowd still buzzing from last night. Win game 2, split in MSG, close out at home.

The Knicks can make this a long series, but the Celtics can just as easily make it a short one.

[jasail]

Very surprised ESPN would favor an offense first, explosive and exciting team with young stars.  As opposed to a defense first, methodical old team, that has already one. 

We are the EC version of the Spurs.  They never got respect from ESPN, it was always about the LakeShow, the Suns or the Cavs. 

I'd rather be a fan of a winner, then a media sensation.

[Senninsage]

Trust me, this doesn't mean we'll sweep the Knicks, or even that we'll win in 5, but trust me when I say that the Knicks needed that victory last night, and the fact that they didn't get it, will prove significant.

Those wins have a mental aspect that can't really be placed in stats. They can give one team more confidence, and they can really deflate or be very costly for another team.

I feel that such a loss for the Celtics came in game 3 last year of the finals against the Lakers. There is no reason the Celtics should not have won that game. Everything for the Celtics was clicking when it mattered the most. KG even looked like KG of old, but Ray had a really bad night that game, after coming off one of his greatest shooting performances ever in game 2. I think us not taking that win ultimately robbed us of an opportunity.

Even Pierce, who was off for most of game 3, started to deliver when it counted most late in game 3, same for Davis. We should've had game 3 of the Finals, and we should be defending NBA champions as I'm typing this now. But the Celtics were so good that they actually managed to give themselves another great opportunity to win the Championship in game 7, but then we couldn't hold our lead, and gave up way too many rebounds.

[Dybdal]

How ESPN hating on the celtics is something new, i cant really fathom.

But that said its allways funny to see Marc Stein make a complete donkey out of him self by contradicting him self continuesly, seems he cant figure out if he wants to be the sports guy or the Charles Barkley.

2. What's wrong with the Lakers, and will they solve it this postseason?

Marc Stein, ESPN.com: Not gonna lie. For the first time since the Cleveland game, I'm starting to (A) doubt them when they say it's just a focus thing and (B) question their ability to get through four long playoff rounds. They're too old to make hard work of teams they're supposed to handle.

4. Which Gasol would you want this postseason: Marc or Pau?

Marc Stein, ESPN.com: Would love to say Marc. Something about his name is a grabber. Not yet, though. This first playoff weekend was off-the-charts good. But we have to be careful not to get swept up in the moment with hasty proclamations.

We have to be careful about making hasty proclamations, like the Lakers suddenly becomming to old after the All-Star Break... oh wait [dang]! UN-DO... UN-DO!

[GreenEnvy]

Very surprised ESPN would favor an offense first, explosive and exciting team with young stars.  As opposed to a defense first, methodical old team, that has already one. 

We are the EC version of the Spurs.  They never got respect from ESPN, it was always about the LakeShow, the Suns or the Cavs. 

I'd rather be a fan of a winner, then a media sensation.

Not this year's Spurs. I can see a similarity between us and the '03-'07 Spurs. I feel we have more firepower and options on offense (granted, that we rarely utilize). And when clicking on all cylinders, our defense is a thing of beauty. We can clamp down and give the opposition no open looks.

[Roy H.]

After the Celts muddled through the last third of the regular season, and after they played a very lackluster Game 1, can you really blame analysts if they're not convinced we're going to roll to an easy victory?