Author Topic: Celtics still better than Knicks?  (Read 8038 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Celtics still better than Knicks?
« Reply #15 on: December 18, 2011, 04:18:15 PM »

Offline GreenFaith1819

  • NCE
  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15402
  • Tommy Points: 2785
Yep..still better than the Knicks, even with the addition of BDavis.

He will help them, but they need a bit more.

IMO, they would've been better off convincing Chauncey to come back.

chauncey could not have come back.  you aren't allowed to re-sign an amnestied player within the same season.

Nice catch (TP). I'm still trying to navigate these new rules.

So basically because of his contract (and the signing of Tyson), Billups became expendable, I'm guessing?

I'm just not seeing how Tyson will bring NY monumental success.

Re: Celtics still better than Knicks?
« Reply #16 on: December 18, 2011, 04:31:13 PM »

Offline Kane3387

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8269
  • Tommy Points: 944
  • Intensity!!!
I think this will end up being like 2010 and seeding won't be that important to us. I can see us being a sixth seed and being fine with that because we will be healthy.


KG: "Dude.... What is up with yo shorts?!"

CBD_2016 Cavs Remaining Picks - 14.14

Re: Celtics still better than Knicks?
« Reply #17 on: December 18, 2011, 05:12:03 PM »

Offline smw6230

  • Drew Peterson
  • Posts: 2
  • Tommy Points: 0
will the knicks commit to playing defense? im not really scared of them until they do

Chandler's value to the Knicks is that he gives them a legitimate front of the basket defender. What has killed them defensively recently was that they had nobody, except Amare and he really isn't a 5, who could change shots, rebound, and control the front of the rim. Baby killed NY in playoffs last year near the basket. At 7'1 with long arms and athletic ability Chandler gives NY a legitimate defensive backstop so to speak. Chandler will also make Amare a better defender because with him as an anchor taking opposing centers Stoudmire can go back to his more natural defensive position of weakside defender.

Also lets remember games like the Celtics/Knicks series last year are often decided on 2/3 possessions. An offensive rebound here, a defensive rebound there, a blocked or altered shot is all that it takes to swing a game and a series.

Re: Celtics still better than Knicks?
« Reply #18 on: December 18, 2011, 05:48:48 PM »

Offline hpantazo

  • Tommy Heinsohn
  • *************************
  • Posts: 25355
  • Tommy Points: 2756
will the knicks commit to playing defense? im not really scared of them until they do

Chandler's value to the Knicks is that he gives them a legitimate front of the basket defender. What has killed them defensively recently was that they had nobody, except Amare and he really isn't a 5, who could change shots, rebound, and control the front of the rim. Baby killed NY in playoffs last year near the basket. At 7'1 with long arms and athletic ability Chandler gives NY a legitimate defensive backstop so to speak. Chandler will also make Amare a better defender because with him as an anchor taking opposing centers Stoudmire can go back to his more natural defensive position of weakside defender.

Also lets remember games like the Celtics/Knicks series last year are often decided on 2/3 possessions. An offensive rebound here, a defensive rebound there, a blocked or altered shot is all that it takes to swing a game and a series.

I agree that adding Chandler helps the defense, but until I see the other guys on the roster committed to playing team defense, and I see DiAntoni teaching team defense, both of which are highly unlikely, I am not worried about them being better than the celtics.

As for Baron Davis, signing him sure is a good idea for them, but a longshot at best at working out for them. He hasn't been good or healthy in over 4 years! Even when he is healthy, he is lazy and a chucker, not the kind of guy to help get shots for Amare, Melo, and even Chandler.

Re: Celtics still better than Knicks?
« Reply #19 on: December 18, 2011, 06:01:33 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34731
  • Tommy Points: 1604
I think the Knicks will have the better record, but I'd still like the Celtics in a 7 game playoff series.  Also, I like what the Knicks did this off season and I think too many people are underestimating Landry Fields, Toney Douglas and the old men of Bibby and Davis.  Fields and Douglas are only going to get better and are pretty solid shooters to begin with.  Bibby and Davis still have some solid basketball in them and with both of them they can split the load so as not to wear out. 
2025 Historical Draft - Cleveland Cavaliers - 1st pick

Starters - Luka, JB, Lebron, Wemby, Shaq
Rotation - D. Daniels, Mitchell, G. Wallace, Melo, Noah
Deep Bench - Korver, Turner

Re: Celtics still better than Knicks?
« Reply #20 on: December 18, 2011, 08:33:47 PM »

Offline PosImpos

  • NCE
  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12383
  • Tommy Points: 903
  • Rondo = Good
Yep..still better than the Knicks, even with the addition of BDavis.

He will help them, but they need a bit more.

IMO, they would've been better off convincing Chauncey to come back.

chauncey could not have come back.  you aren't allowed to re-sign an amnestied player within the same season.

Nice catch (TP). I'm still trying to navigate these new rules.

So basically because of his contract (and the signing of Tyson), Billups became expendable, I'm guessing?

I'm just not seeing how Tyson will bring NY monumental success.

the knicks had to amnesty chauncey in order to get far enough under the cap to sign Tyson.
Never forget the Champs of '08, or the gutsy warriors of '10.

"I know you all wanna win, but you gotta do it TOGETHER!"
- Doc Rivers

Re: Celtics still better than Knicks?
« Reply #21 on: December 18, 2011, 10:25:05 PM »

Offline Snakehead

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6846
  • Tommy Points: 448
in a condensed 66 game season i have a feeling the knicks will have a better record.  they have more impact young guys and their 3 best players are in their prime (under 31).  i think a condensed season tends to favor teams with multiple potent scoring options, and that means the knicks have an advantage.  it's harder to play good team basketball and find guys who are open when everybody is tired.  conversely, easier to take advantage of tired defenders if you have really good one-on-one scorers.  amare / melo will win quite a few games by themselves (same applies to LeBron / Wade).

in the playoffs, im not so sure who will be better.  health may determine that question more than relative talent on either roster, though.
Yup it's barely sinking in on me how bad the schedules are its going to suck for veteran teams. I don't think there is much rest either between the season and playoffs. Then in the early rounds back to backs.

Ugh I am in the same place as both of you.  The condensed season actually had me more optimistic, til suddenly there was the "every team will have to play a back-to-back-to-back" talk and since then it has only been worse news.

On a good note, I hope we can play a little deeper and I'm pretty happy with our bench (though Green would of been huge).  Get the young players some PT maybe.

But our record is only going to suffer unfortunately.
"I really don't want people to understand me." - Jordan Crawford

Re: Celtics still better than Knicks?
« Reply #22 on: December 18, 2011, 11:18:34 PM »

Offline xmuscularghandix

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7620
  • Tommy Points: 280
The Celtics are still better than the Knicks. Boston swept New York and they blamed it on the loss of Billups... then the Knicks released him. Chandler was amazing last season but theres about 8 seasons that suggest he won't do it again.

Will score 1,000,000 points but ultimately suck. It's D'Antoni's calling card.

Re: Celtics still better than Knicks?
« Reply #23 on: December 19, 2011, 02:32:22 AM »

Offline Celtics18

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11688
  • Tommy Points: 1469
in a condensed 66 game season i have a feeling the knicks will have a better record.  they have more impact young guys and their 3 best players are in their prime (under 31).  i think a condensed season tends to favor teams with multiple potent scoring options, and that means the knicks have an advantage.  it's harder to play good team basketball and find guys who are open when everybody is tired.  conversely, easier to take advantage of tired defenders if you have really good one-on-one scorers.  amare / melo will win quite a few games by themselves (same applies to LeBron / Wade).

in the playoffs, im not so sure who will be better.  health may determine that question more than relative talent on either roster, though.
Yup it's barely sinking in on me how bad the schedules are its going to suck for veteran teams. I don't think there is much rest either between the season and playoffs. Then in the early rounds back to backs.

Ugh I am in the same place as both of you.  The condensed season actually had me more optimistic, til suddenly there was the "every team will have to play a back-to-back-to-back" talk and since then it has only been worse news.

On a good note, I hope we can play a little deeper and I'm pretty happy with our bench (though Green would of been huge).  Get the young players some PT maybe.

But our record is only going to suffer unfortunately.

I think you guys might be wrong about this.  I think teams with one or two guys who are responsible for such a large segment of the scoring load may struggle more with this condensed season. 

Amare and Melo are going to really have to work extra hard if they are taking close to twenty shots per game each in four games a week. 

Our ability to spread the wealth and have different members of the big four step up on different nights is going to work to our advantage, in my opinion.

 At least that's what I'm hoping.  I'm hoping the same is the case with James and Wade in Miami and Derrick Rose in Chicago.
DKC Seventy-Sixers:

PG: G. Hill/D. Schroder
SG: C. Lee/B. Hield/T. Luwawu
SF:  Giannis/J. Lamb/M. Kuzminskas
PF:  E. Ilyasova/J. Jerebko/R. Christmas
C:    N. Vucevic/K. Olynyk/E. Davis/C. Jefferson

Re: Celtics still better than Knicks?
« Reply #24 on: December 19, 2011, 03:00:14 AM »

Offline danza

  • JD Davison
  • Posts: 3
  • Tommy Points: 0
If we are healthy, we are still better. I agree with an earlier post. If the Knicks dont commit to defense they are still a ways off being contenders.That being said they ain't easy beats either.

Re: Celtics still better than Knicks?
« Reply #25 on: December 19, 2011, 06:22:46 AM »

Offline 2short

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6080
  • Tommy Points: 428
The Celtics are still better than the Knicks. Boston swept New York and they blamed it on the loss of Billups... then the Knicks released him. Chandler was amazing last season but theres about 8 seasons that suggest he won't do it again.

Will score 1,000,000 points but ultimately suck. It's D'Antoni's calling card.
yep
and the fact that the nba is now a pg dominated league, they are seriously lacking in that department, davis can still compete but bibby is a backup who can no longer defend

Re: Celtics still better than Knicks?
« Reply #26 on: December 19, 2011, 06:51:14 AM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34731
  • Tommy Points: 1604
The Celtics are still better than the Knicks. Boston swept New York and they blamed it on the loss of Billups... then the Knicks released him. Chandler was amazing last season but theres about 8 seasons that suggest he won't do it again.

Will score 1,000,000 points but ultimately suck. It's D'Antoni's calling card.
yep
and the fact that the nba is now a pg dominated league, they are seriously lacking in that department, davis can still compete but bibby is a backup who can no longer defend
And yet the PG dominated teams don't win the titles, which matches NBA history.
2025 Historical Draft - Cleveland Cavaliers - 1st pick

Starters - Luka, JB, Lebron, Wemby, Shaq
Rotation - D. Daniels, Mitchell, G. Wallace, Melo, Noah
Deep Bench - Korver, Turner

Re: Celtics still better than Knicks?
« Reply #27 on: December 19, 2011, 07:33:22 AM »

Offline Celtics4ever

  • NCE
  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20135
  • Tommy Points: 1335
They should have the edge in the inside game, however, we should be able to beat them in the backcourt.   Melo, is not a solid defender, Amare, can at times but often lacks focus, but Chandler, is a good defender.   

They are a good PG away from being really tough.  I also think they are a matchup nightmare for MIA now.   I think we match up better against them given Rondo and Ray Allen.  PP and KG will find a way to contribute each night, one can't say that about LeBron and Bosh.

So, yes, I think for now we are better than the Knicks.   I also think we have a better bench and coach by a fair bit.

Re: Celtics still better than Knicks?
« Reply #28 on: December 19, 2011, 07:56:08 AM »

Offline GreenFaith1819

  • NCE
  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15402
  • Tommy Points: 2785
NY signed Baron Davis, which will help them, but evidently they are content with him not being available for 8-10 weeks:

http://espn.go.com/new-york/nba/story/_/id/7365817/baron-davis-new-york-knicks-agree-deal-sources-say

I guess Boston is looking at a backcourt of Douglas, Bibby and Landry on Christmas.

Re: Celtics still better than Knicks?
« Reply #29 on: December 19, 2011, 09:04:39 AM »

Offline heyvik

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2163
  • Tommy Points: 77
i truly believe that the loss of Green this year, is a huge blow to Banner 18. Not blaming JG or Danny. our Bench could have been great, now its just ok...and yes i think it could be

1 Bulls
2 Heat
3 Knicks
4 Celtics
5 Orlando

6-8....does it really matter?