I don't think we're giving the Knicks enough credit/respect

[Roy H.]

If they are as bad as many here are making out, we must not be contenders because we don't look like we're much better than they are out there...

I think that's the worry a lot of people are having, precisely.

This, so far is a lot like the Atlanta series a few years back.....Except this series will end in New York after 4 dogfight games.

I know that's the comparison that a lot of people make.  I don't see it.  At home, we absolutely crushed the Hawks.  On the road, it was clear that there was a let down, and we struggled in those games.  However, at least to me, there was never any genuine debate over which team was better.  The Celtics showed that they were fully capable of stomping on the Hawks throats when they wanted to.

Here, it's been completely different.  Rather than two blowout home wins, we've had two nail-biters.  Perhaps people are putting too much emphasis on the team struggling in those two wins, but I don't think that this series has looked anything like the Atlanta series did.

Coach, is there any debate as to which team is better now?

Honestly, I think that a pretty fair argument can be made that the two teams are pretty evenly matched.  That's certainly the view that the Knicks fans are adopting, and a lot of pundits are talking about how we're lucky to be up 2-0.

[Finkelskyhook]

Apparently I'm in the vast minority on this one, but I still don't think the Knicks are anything special. No, they're not the Twolves, but they're not good, either.

Agreed -- Knicks are a slightly above average team. They pale in comparison to the Celtics who are an excellent squad and a legitimate title contender.

And the team the Knicks had on the floor the other night in the second half but absolutely atrocious. They would struggle to win 20 games. Abysmal.

Well, at least somebody sees it; at least I'm not completely losing my mind. 

Also, Carmelo is a good player, but I don't think he's in the same class as Lebron, Wade, or Kobe.  The talent is there (or a very small step below) but he hasn't fully committed himself to defense.  The defensive talent is probably there, but the commitment, effort, and consistency isn't.

Basically, I see Carmelo as not being that much different that 2006 / 2007 Paul Pierce.

As much as that comparison sickens me, it's pretty accurate.

Paul was a better than average defender pre-Rivers and a horrible defender pre-Garnett.  I think that was partially a product of a defensive scheme that wouldn't work for third graders as a full-time defense.  But the reality was that as the team's captain and it's only elite player, (like Anthony) the effort wasn't there.

[ScoobyDoo]

Our effort and intensity level, as well as our consistency are all "pathetic". The only thing more pathetic than the above three items and it trumps, by itself, the combined patheticness of all of them - is our effort on the boards.

Krstic -  7' and 250
JO - 7' and 260
KG - 7' and 253
Big baby - 6'9" and 300
Pierce - 6'6" and 230 - beast on the boards for his size...

We should compete very well against any team, including the Lakers, on the glass.

No excueses.

It's about discpline, heart, desire and will power on the glass.

We have all the size, length and strength we need but we have none of the above characteristics on the glass - no discipline, no heart, no toughness, no desire, no will power.

Get it or go home in the second round.

I agree with Roy (?), we should be crashing this Knicks team like armadillos on a Texas freeway.

But we're not interested, it doesn't matter to us. Apparently the team thinks it's just fine to be shoved around and bullied by Bill Walker and Jared Jeffries all night like they were Charles Oakley and Dennis Rodman.

Wake up, grow a set and find a heart.

This playoff run may be the last for this big three - their last chance to get a ring together, to make a legacy for themselves.

Shouldn't that be enough motivation all by itself, to get nasty from minute one?

The time is right now, not tomorrow and not the "next game". NOW, this minute, every minute.  

[Chris]

If they are as bad as many here are making out, we must not be contenders because we don't look like we're much better than they are out there...

I think that's the worry a lot of people are having, precisely.

This, so far is a lot like the Atlanta series a few years back.....Except this series will end in New York after 4 dogfight games.

I know that's the comparison that a lot of people make.  I don't see it.  At home, we absolutely crushed the Hawks.  On the road, it was clear that there was a let down, and we struggled in those games.  However, at least to me, there was never any genuine debate over which team was better.  The Celtics showed that they were fully capable of stomping on the Hawks throats when they wanted to.

Here, it's been completely different.  Rather than two blowout home wins, we've had two nail-biters.  Perhaps people are putting too much emphasis on the team struggling in those two wins, but I don't think that this series has looked anything like the Atlanta series did.

I agree.  I really don't think it is anything like the Atlanta series.

If I had to compare it to any recent series, it would be the Bulls series in '09, where the Bulls played way above their heads, made huge plays when they needed to, and every game was a nailbiter...but even that has some real differences.

Really though, I don't think the comparisons are needed.  Here's how I have seen this series:

Game 1: C's barely won because they did not really start playing defense until the second half, and Rondo was completely stumped by the defense, meaning they had to really work hard to pull off that ugly win.  The Knicks played well, but not spectacular.

Game 2: The Knicks, and particularly Carmelo played out of their minds.  They rose to the occasion with Billups and Amare out, plus, they had a bit of a perfect storm.  With the way the C's decided to play the game (trapping Melo, leak out on rebound opportunities), combined with the Knicks basically putting 4 energy guys next to Melo, led to the Knicks grabbing every long rebound, which really extended the game, allowing Melo to single handedly keep his team in it.

There were certainly some problems from the C's in game 2 (scheme-wise as well as personnel-wise), but the result ended up being an overmatched team playing a close to perfect as they could.  Yes, I know they didn't shoot a high percentage, but that is not what I am talking about perfect.  They didn't have the shooters healthy to shoot a high percentage.  But they played the exact game they needed to play to give themselves a chance to win, and sometimes those performances just happen, and it is really hard to judge the C's against that.  

All I know is that the C's played much better overall in game 2 than in game 1, so the Knicks couldn't have played any worse, even given how shorthanded they were.  

I think game 3 and 4 are going to tell us a lot more about this C's team though.  I don't think the Knicks can do what they did in game 2 again, and the pressure is really going to be on in MSG.  

[EJPLAYA]

Do people think the Lakers are in trouble? Lets get real. We just won 2 games we probably shouldn't have. We literally had the worst rebounding game of the season and still won. That is incredible. If people think we are going to get out rebounded by 20 every game thats just ridiculous

If we are going to get real, we also have to admit that in one of those games they were without 2 of their best three players and yet we barely pulled it out and could have lost. They aren't as bad as many on here would like to believe, and we aren't as good.

David West has not played for the Hornets and have you seen the big men NOH has?

What about the Pacers and the Bulls? They don't even have a best player and the Bulls are struggling

So your argument is "They suck too"?!

[CelticG1]

Do people think the Lakers are in trouble? Lets get real. We just won 2 games we probably shouldn't have. We literally had the worst rebounding game of the season and still won. That is incredible. If people think we are going to get out rebounded by 20 every game thats just ridiculous

If we are going to get real, we also have to admit that in one of those games they were without 2 of their best three players and yet we barely pulled it out and could have lost. They aren't as bad as many on here would like to believe, and we aren't as good.

David West has not played for the Hornets and have you seen the big men NOH has?

What about the Pacers and the Bulls? They don't even have a best player and the Bulls are struggling

So your argument is "They suck too"?!

YUP!!

What was your argument again?

[LB3533]

Both teams have under performed IMO.

[SHAQATTACK]

That surely is not my feelings last week or today. I think Boston drew one of the tuffest first round teams , well , next to the SA who got Memphis ( itch kitty).

I sorta expect Boston to get beat in game three.  If anything, I fear the Knicks , they can beat Boston reguardless of the history.

Game three maybe a blood bath , if both are hard headed as usual about letting the other get the upper hand

[LooseCannon]

Why so?  The two guys aren't that much different.  Prior to 2008, Paul never played much defense, but he carried mediocre to bad teams, hitting some big shots and having some playoff success in the process.  That's Carmelo's career to date.  Great scorers, poor defenders despite having defensive talent, pretty good at everything else.

Paul Pierce was an underrated defender prior to 2008.  He may still be.  He didn't rack up block/steal stats and he may have been rightfully accused of not always giving 100% on defense, but at least some advanced metrics suggest that he was clearly an above-average defender, at worse.

[Roy H.]

Why so?  The two guys aren't that much different.  Prior to 2008, Paul never played much defense, but he carried mediocre to bad teams, hitting some big shots and having some playoff success in the process.  That's Carmelo's career to date.  Great scorers, poor defenders despite having defensive talent, pretty good at everything else.

Paul Pierce was an underrated defender prior to 2008.  He may still be.  He didn't rack up block/steal stats and he may have been rightfully accused of not always giving 100% on defense, but at least some advanced metrics suggest that he was clearly an above-average defender, at worse.

I agree with what FinkelSH said earlier.  Pierce was a pretty good defender early in his career, but later (in the tanking era) he really fell off.

[dtrader]

Why so?  The two guys aren't that much different.  Prior to 2008, Paul never played much defense, but he carried mediocre to bad teams, hitting some big shots and having some playoff success in the process.  That's Carmelo's career to date.  Great scorers, poor defenders despite having defensive talent, pretty good at everything else.

Paul Pierce was an underrated defender prior to 2008.  He may still be.  He didn't rack up block/steal stats and he may have been rightfully accused of not always giving 100% on defense, but at least some advanced metrics suggest that he was clearly an above-average defender, at worse.

He's one of my fav. players, but I think PPs defense is overrated now.  I hear all the time during games, commentators talk about him possibly being "the best defender at the SF position".  He's a solid defender, and he can elevate his play to reach "best defender at SF" levels for short periods, but on average I think he's just a "good" defender at his position

[Roy H.]

Why so?  The two guys aren't that much different.  Prior to 2008, Paul never played much defense, but he carried mediocre to bad teams, hitting some big shots and having some playoff success in the process.  That's Carmelo's career to date.  Great scorers, poor defenders despite having defensive talent, pretty good at everything else.

Paul Pierce was an underrated defender prior to 2008.  He may still be.  He didn't rack up block/steal stats and he may have been rightfully accused of not always giving 100% on defense, but at least some advanced metrics suggest that he was clearly an above-average defender, at worse.

He's one of my fav. players, but I think PPs defense is overrated now.  I hear all the time during games, commentators talk about him possibly being "the best defender at the SF position".  He's a solid defender, and he can elevate his play to reach "best defender at SF" levels for short periods, but on average I think he's just a "good" defender at his position

I'd put Paul in the "very good" category, but I agree that he's not the best SF defender.  Lebron and Deng are both better, in my opinion.

[dtrader]

Why so?  The two guys aren't that much different.  Prior to 2008, Paul never played much defense, but he carried mediocre to bad teams, hitting some big shots and having some playoff success in the process.  That's Carmelo's career to date.  Great scorers, poor defenders despite having defensive talent, pretty good at everything else.

Paul Pierce was an underrated defender prior to 2008.  He may still be.  He didn't rack up block/steal stats and he may have been rightfully accused of not always giving 100% on defense, but at least some advanced metrics suggest that he was clearly an above-average defender, at worse.

He's one of my fav. players, but I think PPs defense is overrated now.  I hear all the time during games, commentators talk about him possibly being "the best defender at the SF position".  He's a solid defender, and he can elevate his play to reach "best defender at SF" levels for short periods, but on average I think he's just a "good" defender at his position

I'd put Paul in the "very good" category, but I agree that he's not the best SF defender.  Lebron and Deng are both better, in my opinion.

I guess I'd agree with "very good".  Just hearing people say "best" puts me off.  I'd put lebron, deng, sefalosha, crash, and artest (even now at 70% of his peak) all above him on D.