Yah but they were the 3rd seed. We owned the Lakers, were 2nd best on the road in the NBA by one game (1st in western conference) and we had the best offense by far. There weren't really any super teams last year so why on earth were the Kings not title contenders last year? Why aren't they this year? If you look at the west again this year there aren't really any super teams, just like last year. Most playoff teams this year (and play-in) will hover between .500 and about 10-15 games above .500. Do you think if we knocked out the Warriors that we couldn't have handled the Lakers? We own the Lakers, and they know it. The next step would have been playing Denver, who we were only 1-2 against in the regular season.
Personally where I think you don't get it right is that there are no super teams in the west. No dominating 60 win team. The one seed will probably have 55 wins and the last play-in team will probably have between 42-45 wins. Every team in the playoffs are title contenders, and the Kings are no different. We are a good team. A VERY good team. On paper we are as good as any team in the NBA and on the floor we have already proved we are. Do you think we will take a step back like the 2nd year of the Webber era where they were the 8 seed, barely above .500? This team, at this point in their evolution, is better than the Webber, Divac team. Not to mention teams that play together longer (meaning GOOD TEAMS) only get better. The core is back, and we added more 3pt shooting (which is kind of where the league is headed).
I am saying we will be a 55-59 win team this year and will be in the top 1st to 4th team in the west and will have another Pacific Division title.