Yahoo's Power Rankings Are In

[therealbig3]

Our team won 49 games last year...we lost no players of value, and added KG/Pierce/Terry/Kirilenko (not to mention Livingston and Anderson, who will be very useful players for us). If you take away KG and Pierce...we're still a much improved team over last year, which means we're a 55ish win team WITHOUT KG and Pierce.

Think about it, forget about KG and Pierce for a second...we're replacing Wallace, Bogans, Marshon, and Humphries with Kirilenko, Livingston, Terry, and Anderson. Every single one of those players is a massive improvement over their counterpart.

[jerseyjac]

Our team won 49 games last year...we lost no players of value, and added KG/Pierce/Terry/Kirilenko (not to mention Livingston and Anderson, who will be very useful players for us). If you take away KG and Pierce...we're still a much improved team over last year, which means we're a 55ish win team WITHOUT KG and Pierce.

Think about it, forget about KG and Pierce for a second...we're replacing Wallace, Bogans, Marshon, and Humphries with Kirilenko, Livingston, Terry, and Anderson. Every single one of those players is a massive improvement over their counterpart.

In a nut shell, that is probably the easiest way of explaining, lets say to a Knick fan, how the Nets are a better team than last year from top to bottom.

[treiz]

Our team won 49 games last year...we lost no players of value, and added KG/Pierce/Terry/Kirilenko (not to mention Livingston and Anderson, who will be very useful players for us). If you take away KG and Pierce...we're still a much improved team over last year, which means we're a 55ish win team WITHOUT KG and Pierce.

Think about it, forget about KG and Pierce for a second...we're replacing Wallace, Bogans, Marshon, and Humphries with Kirilenko, Livingston, Terry, and Anderson. Every single one of those players is a massive improvement over their counterpart.

I agree with you, all I'm saying is I care more about a higher seed than our regular season record. We can have the 11th best record in the league, as long as we have the 3rd seed at least and that's very feasible I'll be happy, and I think most people here will be too.

I know it's an improvement I'm not denying that, but taking these yahoo pre-season rankings seriously is just silly.

[vincecarter4pres]

Our team won 49 games last year...we lost no players of value, and added KG/Pierce/Terry/Kirilenko (not to mention Livingston and Anderson, who will be very useful players for us). If you take away KG and Pierce...we're still a much improved team over last year, which means we're a 55ish win team WITHOUT KG and Pierce.

Think about it, forget about KG and Pierce for a second...we're replacing Wallace, Bogans, Marshon, and Humphries with Kirilenko, Livingston, Terry, and Anderson. Every single one of those players is a massive improvement over their counterpart.

I agree with you, all I'm saying is I care more about a higher seed than our regular season record. We can have the 11th best record in the league, as long as we have the 3rd seed at least and that's very feasible I'll be happy, and I think most people here will be too.

I know it's an improvement I'm not denying that, but taking these yahoo pre-season rankings seriously is just silly.

I don't think thats possible. I know youre just making an example for arguments sake, but point being, top 3 seeds in the East will probably be in the top 8 league wide, maybe more like top 5.

[Quiet-Dude]

Less pressure for the guys, the better.

[treiz]

I don't think thats possible. I know youre just making an example for arguments sake, but point being, top 3 seeds in the East will probably be in the top 8 league wide, maybe more like top 5.

It might be unlikely but it's possible