It's been a horrible ?decade--?2 decades with the Knicks, but they clearly have now found a way to overcome their let's-call-them administrative challenges. It took a lot of time a lot of distancing Dolan, but they now seem like they've turned a corner and become at least a respectable team. And it really just took a single season (plus some lead-in time for cap management). Last night was celebrity row at the Garden, and you feel like "they're back". Great game, by the way....
So something similar WILL happen with the Giants at some point. Mara seems like less of a problem than Dolan, and sooner or later he will get somebody in charge of football who has the skills to make them at least a respectable team, and it can happen pretty quickly when it turns. The situations aren't identical, but there are similarities.
So after having given up on the Knicks for a long time and now being back, I am sticking with the Giants and waiting for the turnaround. When will it happen? You got me.
Randle was an all NBA player averaged 25 10 and 5, that is a star
How many teams is Randle the third best player on?
Lakers, Warriors, Nets…. And that’s probably it.
Not to mention all the really good teams have been in the west for like 20+ years
Lol name those teams please
Quote:
it's not worth quibbling about. The reality is, he may be playing teams where he would be the 3rd or 4th best player.
How many teams is Randle the third best player on?
Lakers, Warriors, Nets…. And that’s probably it.
Congratulations! You named the teams that are the contenders. Add in the Bucks as contenders. (Randle would be #2 there IMO)
Maybe add in the Clippers (if George and Leonard are healthy) and the Suns (Booker, Ayton, Paul)
That's what the NBA is. Super teams. The Knicks are doing a good job, but until they have a star ball handler, they aren't a contender.
Quote:
it's not worth quibbling about. The reality is, he may be playing teams where he would be the 3rd or 4th best player.
Lol name those teams please
Lakers, Warriors, Nets, Suns, Clippers (health permitting). And that's not even talking about teams that have a superstar with a good surrounding cast, like the Bucks.
Quote:
In comment 15423664 KDavies said:
Quote:
it's not worth quibbling about. The reality is, he may be playing teams where he would be the 3rd or 4th best player.
Lol name those teams please
Lakers, Warriors, Nets, Suns, Clippers (health permitting). And that's not even talking about teams that have a superstar with a good surrounding cast, like the Bucks.
Lakers he would be 3rd agreed..
Warriors id argue until Thompson comes back he is 2nd..
Nets 3rd agreed
Suns he is better than ayton, paul is debateable because of age..
Clippers he is 3rd if everyone is healthy..
But you do realize the Kbicks have probably 1 of the best benches in the NBA right? they also have probably the best depth..Knicks arent jist Julius Randle..
Quote:
In comment 15423674 nygiants16 said:
Quote:
In comment 15423664 KDavies said:
Quote:
it's not worth quibbling about. The reality is, he may be playing teams where he would be the 3rd or 4th best player.
Lol name those teams please
Lakers, Warriors, Nets, Suns, Clippers (health permitting). And that's not even talking about teams that have a superstar with a good surrounding cast, like the Bucks.
Lakers he would be 3rd agreed..
Warriors id argue until Thompson comes back he is 2nd..
Nets 3rd agreed
Suns he is better than ayton, paul is debateable because of age..
Clippers he is 3rd if everyone is healthy..
But you do realize the Kbicks have probably 1 of the best benches in the NBA right? they also have probably the best depth..Knicks arent jist Julius Randle..
Yes, I realize that. Believe me, I much prefer teams like the Bucks (built around 1 star) or the Knicks, or the Heat as currently constructed, or the Bulls winning championships. I just don't think Randle is the best player on a championship team with the current NBA. To be contenders, I think the Knicks need another star in the backcourt. I don't think it's a particularly controversial opinion.
Quote:
In comment 15423681 KDavies said:
Quote:
In comment 15423674 nygiants16 said:
Quote:
In comment 15423664 KDavies said:
Quote:
it's not worth quibbling about. The reality is, he may be playing teams where he would be the 3rd or 4th best player.
Lol name those teams please
Lakers, Warriors, Nets, Suns, Clippers (health permitting). And that's not even talking about teams that have a superstar with a good surrounding cast, like the Bucks.
Lakers he would be 3rd agreed..
Warriors id argue until Thompson comes back he is 2nd..
Nets 3rd agreed
Suns he is better than ayton, paul is debateable because of age..
Clippers he is 3rd if everyone is healthy..
But you do realize the Kbicks have probably 1 of the best benches in the NBA right? they also have probably the best depth..Knicks arent jist Julius Randle..
Yes, I realize that. Believe me, I much prefer teams like the Bucks (built around 1 star) or the Knicks, or the Heat as currently constructed, or the Bulls winning championships. I just don't think Randle is the best player on a championship team with the current NBA. To be contenders, I think the Knicks need another star in the backcourt. I don't think it's a particularly controversial opinion.
I agree with that 100% most teams need 2 stars to win a ship, Bucks won because Middleton and Holiday stepped up..
No star is really winning by themselves
I am not defensive, I hope the Knicks do well, but I am not going to sit here and say "wel, gee wiz, I wish we were the Knicks." I wish we were the Nets, tbh.
Quote:
In comment 15423540 Heisenberg said:
Quote:
In comment 15423531 KDavies said:
Quote:
a regular season game. Whoopdie doo.
True, problem is the Giants are struggling to even do that.
Correct, but nearly 50 years without a title is not something I'd strive for.
Plus it's the NBA. Regular season doesn't matter much. Playoffs is all about star power. Though I do like Thibs, they won't contend for a title with this team.
Only the most delusional Knicks fans are saying they'll contend with this team. But the Knicks are the most functional sports organization in NY right now and it's not particularly close.
I'd say the Bills right now.
1. you didn't get the point the OP was making. the Knicks went from a clueless organization, with a meddling owner, with no plan or direction, and now have a stable front office with a plan both short term and long term. Neither of which you seem to have the capability to recognize.
2. the NETS- if they don't win this year, they are screwed cap wise for years to come. Their stars aren't getting any younger, and their contracts are a disaster waiting to happen.
3. you have to reach competitive level, BEFORE you can contend for a title. That's normally how it works. That's how Brooklyn attracted Durant, they become competitive first. The Knicks will likely win 50 games this year. That's competitive, which achieves the short term goal- making the franchise viable again.
Quote:
In comment 15423687 nygiants16 said:
Quote:
In comment 15423681 KDavies said:
Quote:
In comment 15423674 nygiants16 said:
Quote:
In comment 15423664 KDavies said:
Quote:
it's not worth quibbling about. The reality is, he may be playing teams where he would be the 3rd or 4th best player.
Lol name those teams please
Lakers, Warriors, Nets, Suns, Clippers (health permitting). And that's not even talking about teams that have a superstar with a good surrounding cast, like the Bucks.
Lakers he would be 3rd agreed..
Warriors id argue until Thompson comes back he is 2nd..
Nets 3rd agreed
Suns he is better than ayton, paul is debateable because of age..
Clippers he is 3rd if everyone is healthy..
But you do realize the Kbicks have probably 1 of the best benches in the NBA right? they also have probably the best depth..Knicks arent jist Julius Randle..
Yes, I realize that. Believe me, I much prefer teams like the Bucks (built around 1 star) or the Knicks, or the Heat as currently constructed, or the Bulls winning championships. I just don't think Randle is the best player on a championship team with the current NBA. To be contenders, I think the Knicks need another star in the backcourt. I don't think it's a particularly controversial opinion.
I agree with that 100% most teams need 2 stars to win a ship, Bucks won because Middleton and Holiday stepped up..
No star is really winning by themselves
The Bucks won because they had a superstar and the Lakers and the Nets were injured. The Nets came within a milimeter of beating the Bucks with KD, a half healthy Harden, and no Kyrie. The Bucks do not even sniff a championship if they are healthy--and the bucks are infinitely better than the Knicks
1. you didn't get the point the OP was making. the Knicks went from a clueless organization, with a meddling owner, with no plan or direction, and now have a stable front office with a plan both short term and long term. Neither of which you seem to have the capability to recognize.
2. the NETS- if they don't win this year, they are screwed cap wise for years to come. Their stars aren't getting any younger, and their contracts are a disaster waiting to happen.
3. you have to reach competitive level, BEFORE you can contend for a title. That's normally how it works. That's how Brooklyn attracted Durant, they become competitive first. The Knicks will likely win 50 games this year. That's competitive, which achieves the short term goal- making the franchise viable again.
The Nets will have 2 of the 3 locked up for the next four years very soon. But ok.
The Nets did not get Kyrie and Durant because they became competitive, they literally traded everyone who made them competitive and then fired Atkinson at the first sign of trouble. They got KD and Kyrie because those two knew they could mold the Nets into their own image and the de facto bosses. That is why Steve Nash is there. So, who is really clueless?
Third, KD, Harden, and Kyrie if he plays are so far from being done it is obscene. They are still three of the top 10 players in the game. They basically have LB exception on all of them and that means they will be competitive for 3-5 years. So, again, who is clueless.
And, again, a short term plan that is only about "recruiting" is a really crappy plan to be honest. The Knicks had one good year and you guys are acting like they are model franchise. Kinda sounds like the same "clueless" people around here who wanted to make Joe Judge into the almighty based on one slighty better than expectations season.
It appears you still don’t get the point
Harden and Durant healthy of course the nets will be contenders once they get to the playoffs..
and you miss the point of course, no one said the Knicks are contenders but 2 years ago did you think the Knicks would be in the position they are in now? the answer is no
Quote:
people on this board.
1. you didn't get the point the OP was making. the Knicks went from a clueless organization, with a meddling owner, with no plan or direction, and now have a stable front office with a plan both short term and long term. Neither of which you seem to have the capability to recognize.
2. the NETS- if they don't win this year, they are screwed cap wise for years to come. Their stars aren't getting any younger, and their contracts are a disaster waiting to happen.
3. you have to reach competitive level, BEFORE you can contend for a title. That's normally how it works. That's how Brooklyn attracted Durant, they become competitive first. The Knicks will likely win 50 games this year. That's competitive, which achieves the short term goal- making the franchise viable again.
The Nets will have 2 of the 3 locked up for the next four years very soon. But ok.
The Nets did not get Kyrie and Durant because they became competitive, they literally traded everyone who made them competitive and then fired Atkinson at the first sign of trouble. They got KD and Kyrie because those two knew they could mold the Nets into their own image and the de facto bosses. That is why Steve Nash is there.
This isn’t true. The Nets winning 42 games in 2018 and making the playoffs and showing they had competent management was part of what convinced Kyrie and KD to go there. I can say this with 100% certainty. They would have been able to mold the Knicks to their liking too.
Quote:
come talk to me when the Knicks are competing for titles and I will tell you "the knicks can do it!" or that they have a plan to get a title other than sign someone else not on the roster.
It appears you still don’t get the point
Yeah, it was a great one. Celebrity row was filled for opening night. Wow, where do I got to get that logic--the same logic that had this board eating out of the hands of Joe Judge before this season. All summer we heard on this board be optimistic the Giants are headed in the right direction. So, after one game, on opening night we are going to be lectured by Knicks fans about being the model franchise. Give me break.
Anyway, we (or at least I) agree to disagree.
Quote:
In comment 15423725 Essex said:
Quote:
come talk to me when the Knicks are competing for titles and I will tell you "the knicks can do it!" or that they have a plan to get a title other than sign someone else not on the roster.
It appears you still don’t get the point
Yeah, it was a great one. Celebrity row was filled for opening night. Wow, where do I got to get that logic--the same logic that had this board eating out of the hands of Joe Judge before this season. All summer we heard on this board be optimistic the Giants are headed in the right direction. So, after one game, on opening night we are going to be lectured by Knicks fans about being the model franchise. Give me break.
Anyway, we (or at least I) agree to disagree.
No you still don’t get the point. Nobody called the Knicks a model franchise. They said they turned it around and made the playoffs last year and have an upward trajectory. Not sure how this is the same as the Giants going 6-10 and people looking for positivity.
1. you didn't get the point the OP was making. the Knicks went from a clueless organization, with a meddling owner, with no plan or direction, and now have a stable front office with a plan both short term and long term. Neither of which you seem to have the capability to recognize.
2. the NETS- if they don't win this year, they are screwed cap wise for years to come. Their stars aren't getting any younger, and their contracts are a disaster waiting to happen.
3. you have to reach competitive level, BEFORE you can contend for a title. That's normally how it works. That's how Brooklyn attracted Durant, they become competitive first. The Knicks will likely win 50 games this year. That's competitive, which achieves the short term goal- making the franchise viable again.
This is basically what I was trying to say. You are what your record is, and they finished a four seed and 10 games above .500. You've got to walk before you can run.
And right now they are 1-0 with the best record in the league? Now we can start talking about contending for a title. I just want the Giants to get there first and worry about the next step later.
Quote:
In comment 15423552 KDavies said:
Quote:
In comment 15423540 Heisenberg said:
Quote:
In comment 15423531 KDavies said:
Quote:
a regular season game. Whoopdie doo.
True, problem is the Giants are struggling to even do that.
Correct, but nearly 50 years without a title is not something I'd strive for.
Plus it's the NBA. Regular season doesn't matter much. Playoffs is all about star power. Though I do like Thibs, they won't contend for a title with this team.
Only the most delusional Knicks fans are saying they'll contend with this team. But the Knicks are the most functional sports organization in NY right now and it's not particularly close.
I'd say the Bills right now.
Uh yeah I guess? My brain kinda considers Buffalo the midwest lol. I don't think of them as "NY".
My father used to say "I'm going to live to see the Giants win the Superbowl", and in fact he did, three times. So I'm getting older, and now I'm thinking the same way. I'm going to live long enough to see #5! And, you know, 6 and 7....
Quote:
In comment 15423565 Heisenberg said:
Quote:
In comment 15423552 KDavies said:
Quote:
In comment 15423540 Heisenberg said:
Quote:
In comment 15423531 KDavies said:
Quote:
a regular season game. Whoopdie doo.
True, problem is the Giants are struggling to even do that.
Correct, but nearly 50 years without a title is not something I'd strive for.
Plus it's the NBA. Regular season doesn't matter much. Playoffs is all about star power. Though I do like Thibs, they won't contend for a title with this team.
Only the most delusional Knicks fans are saying they'll contend with this team. But the Knicks are the most functional sports organization in NY right now and it's not particularly close.
I'd say the Bills right now.
Uh yeah I guess? My brain kinda considers Buffalo the midwest lol. I don't think of them as "NY".
So, East Rutherford is in NY, but Buffalo isn't? Ok then...
Who said they were more functional than any of those franchises? Jesus Christ you’re making up arguments that nobody here is making.
The point was they figured it out how to right the ship.
Chicago is a team I am going to follow closely on NBA League Pass. Interesting team.
Quote:
with limited attendance, Covid protocols and violations, etc, but they are a more functional franchise than the Yankees, who have made the playoffs in each of the last how many years. Or the Islanders or the Nets (who were both contending for a title). Even the Rangers are probably better off going forward than the Knicks, they certainly have a lot more pieces than the Knicks do. This thread is utter insanity.
Who said they were more functional than any of those franchises? Jesus Christ you’re making up arguments that nobody here is making.
The point was they figured it out how to right the ship.
"Only the most delusional Knicks fans are saying they'll contend with this team. But the Knicks are the most functional sports organization in NY right now and it's not particularly close."
From this thread
Quote:
In comment 15423773 Essex said:
Quote:
with limited attendance, Covid protocols and violations, etc, but they are a more functional franchise than the Yankees, who have made the playoffs in each of the last how many years. Or the Islanders or the Nets (who were both contending for a title). Even the Rangers are probably better off going forward than the Knicks, they certainly have a lot more pieces than the Knicks do. This thread is utter insanity.
Who said they were more functional than any of those franchises? Jesus Christ you’re making up arguments that nobody here is making.
The point was they figured it out how to right the ship.
"Only the most delusional Knicks fans are saying they'll contend with this team. But the Knicks are the most functional sports organization in NY right now and it's not particularly close."
From this thread
So one poster proves your point. Sure.
Quote:
I don't think the Bulls are contenders either. Even though they do have Lavine, Vucevic, DeRozan, Ball, Williams, White. I just don't think that's enough star power. Lavine I'd put at about Randle level. Not going to argue with anyone who thinks Randle is better. I think they need a better second guy, as I don't think Lavine is close to Giannis level.
Chicago is a team I am going to follow closely on NBA League Pass. Interesting team.
Yeah, they are very much like the Knicks. A lot of excitement around the fanbase, and both teams will be a heck of a lot better than they have been. Besides the starters and Coby White, they picked up Caruso who is a great defender.
Quote:
In comment 15423706 Ceez2.0 said:
Quote:
In comment 15423565 Heisenberg said:
Quote:
In comment 15423552 KDavies said:
Quote:
In comment 15423540 Heisenberg said:
Quote:
In comment 15423531 KDavies said:
Quote:
a regular season game. Whoopdie doo.
True, problem is the Giants are struggling to even do that.
Correct, but nearly 50 years without a title is not something I'd strive for.
Plus it's the NBA. Regular season doesn't matter much. Playoffs is all about star power. Though I do like Thibs, they won't contend for a title with this team.
Only the most delusional Knicks fans are saying they'll contend with this team. But the Knicks are the most functional sports organization in NY right now and it's not particularly close.
I'd say the Bills right now.
Uh yeah I guess? My brain kinda considers Buffalo the midwest lol. I don't think of them as "NY".
So, East Rutherford is in NY, but Buffalo isn't? Ok then...
Exactly, lol.
First step is playoffs. They did that. Now they need to win in the playoffs. Nowhere near? They were the 4 seed last year. That's better than being a 20 win team. GOtta start somewhere.
Quote:
there is no if ands or buts about it, he is a star..
Rj averaged 18ppg on a playoff team and is starting to show 2 way potential and is only 21
Robinson is a difference maker when he is healthy..
Toppin has already shown improvement, he is not going to be a star but he is a good player..
The Knicks are not a middling team, they are an ascending team..
Come on, you are overvaluing your own players, which we have seen done so often on this website. Randle showed last year in the playoffs what kind of player he is, a good one--not a star. When defenses got down to business, he was taken out--no ands, ifs, or buts about it.
RJ is a limited player.
You are basically counting on some unsigned person on another roster. The Knicks won't even be the best team in their own city for the next 4-5 years.
WTF is the point? You're screaming from the hilltops about shit that isn't even quantifiable at this point. You know what is? The KNicks are winning. They are improving. Somehow you know for a fact that Randle isn't great simply because he didn't play great over a FIVE game series? Throw out the other 80-90 games?
You sound more like a Knicks hater.
Save me the bullshit that only super teams win NBA titles. And WTF defines a super team anyway? The Mavs, Pistons and Bucks all won titles in an era where "only" super teams win NBA titles. The Bucks took a 2nd round pick in Middleton and turned him into a legendary Robin type.
Save it. Every time someone says this team or that can never win a title, one of those teams does. And that person is never called out for being wrong.
Also, the KNicks needed to crawl before they walked. Maybe Randle isn't part of the next Knicks title team, maybe the Knicks never even sniff an NBA title with or without Randle, but the Knicks are where you want them to be and no amount of stupid proclamations changes that.
Save me the bullshit that only super teams win NBA titles. And WTF defines a super team anyway? The Mavs, Pistons and Bucks all won titles in an era where "only" super teams win NBA titles. The Bucks took a 2nd round pick in Middleton and turned him into a legendary Robin type.
Save it. Every time someone says this team or that can never win a title, one of those teams does. And that person is never called out for being wrong.
Also, the KNicks needed to crawl before they walked. Maybe Randle isn't part of the next Knicks title team, maybe the Knicks never even sniff an NBA title with or without Randle, but the Knicks are where you want them to be and no amount of stupid proclamations changes that.
A super team is when a bunch of star players get together and join a team, rather than building a team around a superstar. Do you really need that defined. ie Wade, Bosh, and LeBron with the Heat. Durant, Harden, and Kyrie with the Nets.
If was to make a wager on who wins a championship first the Knicks or the Giants give me the Giants. Not that the Giants are even on their way to starting to build a championship team but in the NFL a team can go from really bad to really good in a few years. That's not happening in the NBA. IMO this current Knicks team has a 0.0 chance of winning an NBA championship ever. Unless they hit a Rangers type lottery fortune and/or add a true superstar that won't change.
That doesn't take away from how great last night's game was to watch. It's been a long time since Knicks deserved their fan base. Efforts like night last they do.
If was to make a wager on who wins a championship first the Knicks or the Giants give me the Giants. Not that the Giants are even on their way to starting to build a championship team but in the NFL a team can go from really bad to really good in a few years. That's not happening in the NBA. IMO this current Knicks team has a 0.0 chance of winning an NBA championship ever. Unless they hit a Rangers type lottery fortune and/or add a true superstar that won't change.
That doesn't take away from how great last night's game was to watch. It's been a long time since Knicks deserved their fan base. Efforts like night last they do.
I agree. I’ve always found Knick fans to be much softer on the Knicks than the Giant fans are on the Giabts. Knick fans are more pie in the sky imo.
Quote:
of playing "meaningful" games in the last month of the season equals success then kudos to the Knicks. After more than two decades of being a national laughing stock they might accomplish that if they stay healthy.
If was to make a wager on who wins a championship first the Knicks or the Giants give me the Giants. Not that the Giants are even on their way to starting to build a championship team but in the NFL a team can go from really bad to really good in a few years. That's not happening in the NBA. IMO this current Knicks team has a 0.0 chance of winning an NBA championship ever. Unless they hit a Rangers type lottery fortune and/or add a true superstar that won't change.
That doesn't take away from how great last night's game was to watch. It's been a long time since Knicks deserved their fan base. Efforts like night last they do.
I agree. I’ve always found Knick fans to be much softer on the Knicks than the Giant fans are on the Giabts. Knick fans are more pie in the sky imo.
Wait til we land LeBron!
How did so many people miss the point of this thread?
How did so many people miss the point of this thread?
I dunno, maybe because I don't think the Knicks are an example of anything yet. Thibs also had a great first year in Chicago where I believe he won 60+ games and never got near that again. He also was not a rousing success in Minnesota either, so, yeah, maybe people don't want to be lectured with the Knicks model yet. That is just my opinion. Maybe do something better than get walloped out of the playoffs before Atlanta and then win your home opener the next season before you say "this is how to do it."
This was my point. IF "you are what the record says you are", then the 1-5 Giants suck and the 41-30 Knicks were a pretty good (not competing for a championship) team. Will the giants finish 11-5? (not bloody likely). Could be. Will the Knicks finish 1-81? Could be. But I would rather be 41-30 than 5-11 if you look at last year. We can worry about beating the Hawks next April.