yardbarker

NCAA Wiretap Headlines

Chicago and Indiana are better

Moderators: moocow007, magnumt, Brooklyn_Yards, Thugger HBC, j4remi, GONYK, Thorn, mrpoetryNmotion, NoLayupRule

Post#1 Chicago and Indiana are better
Wed Feb 20, 2013 2:53 am by Leaguepass

If you take a stap back and look at the teams and how the season has gone it is very obvious IMO. Both Indiana and Chicago are missing their best player and team leader but they are just a 2-3 games behind us. Both their defenses are 10 times better than our defense...their rebounding and their ability to play physical is better than us--all things that'll show during the playoffs. I've watched both teams closely the past 4 weeks and I have come to the conclusion that the Bulls are a legit 57-62 win team if fully healthy while the Pacers are a 53-58 win team. Anybody rolling their eyes hasn't seen the size ,athleticism and toughness Indiana plays with. I'd personally put the Knicks just a very very slight notch below Indy....as a 50-53 win team. In fact I believe the Bulls would beat us in 5 or games (if at full strength) while a series with Indy would go the full distance.
In any case....I think this is one of the main reasons you hear the Knicks brought up in trade scenarios so often....I believe management has the same type of view---I think if they viewed the Knicks as second best in the east they'd shut everything down and let the season progress but I'm certain our FO is (like many fans) aware of the fact that we have gone 14-12 since our 18-6 start , mainly against mediocre competition. Believe it or not, we are currently 23rd in strength of schedule. On top of that we have had our best player healthy for most of the part and playing his best, mvp type of season while Indy and Chicago are without Granger and Rose. Just the thought of our small ball line-up **** going against Deng/Boozer/Noah or Granger/West/Hibbert makes me cringe.

I'm not a fan of mixing everything up all the time....but at this point it is very legitimate to say that our current record is mainly due to an abnormally hot shooting start. After 20 games we had guys that usually shoot like 40% from the field and 35% from 3 ...shooting like 46% from the field and 45% from 3. I remember looking up those stats and Kidd,Felton,Smith for instance---all were shooting well above 44% from the field and 40% from 3.
Leaguepass
Starter
Posts: 2,148
And1: 134
Joined: Jul 9, 2012
Top

Post#2 Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
Wed Feb 20, 2013 2:57 am by Leaguepass

That said let me add that I don't think we'll get anything significant done (like trading Stat). If Stat had been healthy all season long it would have been a different scenario but teams must be crazy to even entertain the idea of taking Stat. Maybe in the offseason when he has "only" two years left one could persuade some team into trading for him if Shumpert is attached but even that is highly unlikely.
Leaguepass
Starter
Posts: 2,148
And1: 134
Joined: Jul 9, 2012
Top

Post#3 Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
Wed Feb 20, 2013 3:02 am by Mr_Perfect

We know.
Image
Mr_Perfect
Lead Assistant
User avatar
Posts: 4,603
And1: 1,567
Joined: Apr 30, 2012
Top

Post#4 Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
Wed Feb 20, 2013 3:05 am by fdr2012

GTFO. Chicago is a scrub team. The only player who would start for us is Deng, and he's not even good. The only advantage they have is the coach.

People here are delusional. Bulls lost to just about every .500 team other than us.
fdr2012
Banned User
Posts: 3,084
And1: 69
Joined: Nov 3, 2012
Location: Lets Go!
Top

Post#5 Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
Wed Feb 20, 2013 3:07 am by AggO

Noah is better than Chandler.
AggO
Banned User
Posts: 8,600
And1: 494
Joined: Mar 13, 2006
Top

Post#6 Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
Wed Feb 20, 2013 3:08 am by Mr_Perfect

fdr2012 wrote:GTFO. Chicago is a scrub team. The only player who would start for us is Deng, and he's not even good. The only advantage they have is the coach.

People here are delusional. Bulls lost to just about every .500 team other than us.


Dude, really, stop the nonsense. The Bulls have wrecked us and play amazing defense. They have two All-Stars and a third still nursing an injury. They're no scrub team.

You're talking about delusional yet you're insulting a Bulls team with the best defense in the league.
Image
Mr_Perfect
Lead Assistant
User avatar
Posts: 4,603
And1: 1,567
Joined: Apr 30, 2012
Top

Post#7 Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
Wed Feb 20, 2013 3:15 am by greenhughes

fdr2012 wrote:GTFO. Chicago is a scrub team. The only player who would start for us is Deng, and he's not even good. The only advantage they have is the coach.

People here are delusional. Bulls lost to just about every .500 team other than us.

Chicago with Rose is better than this squad. They play better team defense and are better coached. Same for Indy ( Granger is on his way back too). People thought Indy was a joke last year and that in itself was the joke. Both teams are better than the Knicks. Point, blank, period.
“I just thought they were more aggressive than us,’’ Woodson said.
greenhughes



RealGM
User avatar
Posts: 13,817
And1: 2,970
Joined: Feb 25, 2010
Location: Who runs the world? Girls! Yeah, I said it.
Top

Post#8 Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
Wed Feb 20, 2013 3:17 am by greenhughes

Leaguepass wrote:If you take a stap back and look at the teams and how the season has gone it is very obvious IMO. Both Indiana and Chicago are missing their best player and team leader but they are just a 2-3 games behind us. Both their defenses are 10 times better than our defense...their rebounding and their ability to play physical is better than us--all things that'll show during the playoffs. I've watched both teams closely the past 4 weeks and I have come to the conclusion that the Bulls are a legit 57-62 win team if fully healthy while the Pacers are a 53-58 win team. Anybody rolling their eyes hasn't seen the size ,athleticism and toughness Indiana plays with. I'd personally put the Knicks just a very very slight notch below Indy....as a 50-53 win team. In fact I believe the Bulls would beat us in 5 or games (if at full strength) while a series with Indy would go the full distance.
In any case....I think this is one of the main reasons you hear the Knicks brought up in trade scenarios so often....I believe management has the same type of view---I think if they viewed the Knicks as second best in the east they'd shut everything down and let the season progress but I'm certain our FO is (like many fans) aware of the fact that we have gone 14-12 since our 18-6 start , mainly against mediocre competition. Believe it or not, we are currently 23rd in strength of schedule. On top of that we have had our best player healthy for most of the part and playing his best, mvp type of season while Indy and Chicago are without Granger and Rose. Just the thought of our small ball line-up **** going against Deng/Boozer/Noah or Granger/West/Hibbert makes me cringe.

I'm not a fan of mixing everything up all the time....but at this point it is very legitimate to say that our current record is mainly due to an abnormally hot shooting start. After 20 games we had guys that usually shoot like 40% from the field and 35% from 3 ...shooting like 46% from the field and 45% from 3. I remember looking up those stats and Kidd,Felton,Smith for instance---all were shooting well above 44% from the field and 40% from 3.

Did we not know this in the off-season?
“I just thought they were more aggressive than us,’’ Woodson said.
greenhughes



RealGM
User avatar
Posts: 13,817
And1: 2,970
Joined: Feb 25, 2010
Location: Who runs the world? Girls! Yeah, I said it.
Top

Post#9 Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
Wed Feb 20, 2013 3:19 am by RutgersBJJ

Weird because they both have losing records to teams above .500.

And if you think Danny Granger is Indiana's best player I'd love to know what you are smoking that transported you back to 2010. They also are one of the few teams with an easier schedule than us. If anything get ready to watch them fall to the 5th seed while the Bulls win the Central division.

They are literally far and away the worst offensive team considered a "contender" in either conference. Even adding Granger only would bring them to mediocre at best.

Indiana is ridiculously overrated. They should be the #2 seed right now with the schedule they had. Regular season defense can inflate your record, but the playoffs are a different game. Everybody plays defense there, and Indiana frankly doesn't have the offense to get out of the first round.

Bulls are definitely a problem. Hopefully they cut Nate for luxury tax reasons when Rose comes back. They will probably pass us in the regular season, but as a playoff team they don't scare me. We're both 1 man teams, but our superstar won't be only 3 months removed from returning from an ACL injury.
RIP Jared Jeffries. Gone but never forgotten...2006-2012
RutgersBJJ
General Manager
User avatar
Posts: 8,747
And1: 115
Joined: Oct 4, 2008
Top

Post#10 Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
Wed Feb 20, 2013 3:20 am by Leaguepass

IMO there is no question that a healthy Chicago team is better than us. That team would be winning around 60 games if healthy. And in contrast to Tyson , Noah plays 120% every single possession. It's a very close call between those two.
They have essentially a big, strong frontline with 3 terrific rebounders in there and Derrick Rose in the backcourt along with a bunch of solid role players.


The tougher call is between us and Indy. I see them slightly better because they play much less erratic and much stronger and more physical defense.
Leaguepass
Starter
Posts: 2,148
And1: 134
Joined: Jul 9, 2012
Top

Post#11 Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
Wed Feb 20, 2013 3:32 am by Leaguepass

RutgersBJJ wrote:Weird because they both have losing records to teams above .500.

And if you think Danny Granger is Indiana's best player I'd love to know what you are smoking that transported you back to 2010. They also are one of the few teams with an easier schedule than us. If anything get ready to watch them fall to the 5th seed while the Bulls win the Central division.

They are literally far and away the worst offensive team considered a "contender" in either conference. Even adding Granger only would bring them to mediocre at best.

Indiana is ridiculously overrated. They should be the #2 seed right now with the schedule they had. Regular season defense can inflate your record, but the playoffs are a different game. Everybody plays defense there, and Indiana frankly doesn't have the offense to get out of the first round.

Bulls are definitely a problem. Hopefully they cut Nate for luxury tax reasons when Rose comes back. They will probably pass us in the regular season, but as a playoff team they don't scare me. We're both 1 man teams, but our superstar won't be only 3 months removed from returning from an ACL injury.



Indiana doesn't have that guy they can go to for 25 points in the playoffs but between Hill,George,Granger,West and Hibbert they have 5 guys that can score 10-20 points on any given night. All their players also buy into a team concept and play the right way, they move the ball , play through the post etc.---and on top of that Hill,George,Granger AND West are all very good/solid shooters. Hill,Granger and George are all about 38% career shooter from 3...and all of them move the ball and can catch and shoot. West is terrific from the midrange--they are weel coached and play tough,physical defense. It WILL translate into the playoffs.
Leaguepass
Starter
Posts: 2,148
And1: 134
Joined: Jul 9, 2012
Top

Post#12 Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
Wed Feb 20, 2013 3:32 am by greenhughes

RutgersBJJ wrote:Weird because they both have losing records to teams above .500.

And if you think Danny Granger is Indiana's best player I'd love to know what you are smoking that transported you back to 2010. They also are one of the few teams with an easier schedule than us. If anything get ready to watch them fall to the 5th seed while the Bulls win the Central division.

They are literally far and away the worst offensive team considered a "contender" in either conference. Even adding Granger only would bring them to mediocre at best.

Indiana is ridiculously overrated. They should be the #2 seed right now with the schedule they had. Regular season defense can inflate your record, but the playoffs are a different game. Everybody plays defense there, and Indiana frankly doesn't have the offense to get out of the first round.

Bulls are definitely a problem. Hopefully they cut Nate for luxury tax reasons when Rose comes back. They will probably pass us in the regular season, but as a playoff team they don't scare me. We're both 1 man teams, but our superstar won't be only 3 months removed from returning from an ACL injury.

We by far have the worse defense of any said contending team. Defense is more important in the playoffs.
If Chi-town does not scare you in the playoffs (with Rose)then you my friend need help.
“I just thought they were more aggressive than us,’’ Woodson said.
greenhughes



RealGM
User avatar
Posts: 13,817
And1: 2,970
Joined: Feb 25, 2010
Location: Who runs the world? Girls! Yeah, I said it.
Top

Post#13 Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
Wed Feb 20, 2013 3:32 am by Leaguepass

RutgersBJJ wrote:Weird because they both have losing records to teams above .500.

And if you think Danny Granger is Indiana's best player I'd love to know what you are smoking that transported you back to 2010. They also are one of the few teams with an easier schedule than us. If anything get ready to watch them fall to the 5th seed while the Bulls win the Central division.

They are literally far and away the worst offensive team considered a "contender" in either conference. Even adding Granger only would bring them to mediocre at best.

Indiana is ridiculously overrated. They should be the #2 seed right now with the schedule they had. Regular season defense can inflate your record, but the playoffs are a different game. Everybody plays defense there, and Indiana frankly doesn't have the offense to get out of the first round.

Bulls are definitely a problem. Hopefully they cut Nate for luxury tax reasons when Rose comes back. They will probably pass us in the regular season, but as a playoff team they don't scare me. We're both 1 man teams, but our superstar won't be only 3 months removed from returning from an ACL injury.



Indiana doesn't have that guy they can go to for 25 points in the playoffs but between Hill,George,Granger,West and Hibbert they have 5 guys that can score 10-20 points on any given night. All their players also buy into a team concept and play the right way, they move the ball , play through the post etc.---and on top of that Hill,George,Granger AND West are all very good/solid shooters. Hill,Granger and George are all about 38% career shooter from 3...and all of them move the ball and can catch and shoot. West is terrific from the midrange--they are weel coached and play tough,physical defense. It WILL translate into the playoffs.
Leaguepass
Starter
Posts: 2,148
And1: 134
Joined: Jul 9, 2012
Top

Post#14 Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
Wed Feb 20, 2013 3:37 am by MSG

I think we could beat Indiana in a 7 game series because their offense sucks but Bulls with Rose are certainly stronger than us.
Image
MSG
Analyst
User avatar
Posts: 3,678
And1: 88
Joined: Mar 12, 2011
Top

Post#15 Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
Wed Feb 20, 2013 3:39 am by waya

Granger is far from Indiana's best player. If they were smart they would trade him as soon as possible before people realize that. Their offense will stay miserable.

And Rose will not be the same player he was, at least not this season.
Image
waya


RealGM
User avatar
Posts: 11,254
And1: 1,021
Joined: Feb 13, 2007
Top

Post#16 Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
Wed Feb 20, 2013 4:05 am by fdr2012

Mr_Perfect wrote:
fdr2012 wrote:GTFO. Chicago is a scrub team. The only player who would start for us is Deng, and he's not even good. The only advantage they have is the coach.

People here are delusional. Bulls lost to just about every .500 team other than us.


Dude, really, stop the nonsense. The Bulls have wrecked us and play amazing defense. They have two All-Stars and a third still nursing an injury. They're no scrub team.

You're talking about delusional yet you're insulting a Bulls team with the best defense in the league.


Where were you when they lost by 30 to Denver? Chicago is a bad team that consistently loses to any good team they face. Have you checked the standings lately? There's a reason we're 2nd and they're 5th.

Deng is not an allstar and Noah isn't better than Chandler. Without Rose, they're a scrub team.
fdr2012
Banned User
Posts: 3,084
And1: 69
Joined: Nov 3, 2012
Location: Lets Go!
Top

Post#17 Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
Wed Feb 20, 2013 4:07 am by fdr2012

greenhughes wrote:Chicago with Rose is better than this squad. They play better team defense and are better coached. Same for Indy ( Granger is on his way back too). People thought Indy was a joke last year and that in itself was the joke. Both teams are better than the Knicks. Point, blank, period.


You haven't watched any of the Bulls' game obviously if you're saying that. I've watched them play. Other than 2 games against us, they suck and they get torn apart by any and every decent team. Chicago is not a good basketball team. Only thing good about them is their coach.
fdr2012
Banned User
Posts: 3,084
And1: 69
Joined: Nov 3, 2012
Location: Lets Go!
Top

Post#18 Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
Wed Feb 20, 2013 4:23 am by Butch718

Chicago sucks so bad that they're only 4 games back in the loss column out of second place minus their superstar in Rose. They only happen to have one of the league's top defenses too. The way some of you guys underestimate certain teams is laughable.

I wish I could ban some of you guys for sheer stupidity.
Butch718




Head Coach
User avatar
Posts: 7,497
And1: 1,164
Joined: Mar 12, 2012
Top

Post#19 Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
Wed Feb 20, 2013 4:24 am by Mr_Perfect

fdr2012 wrote:
Mr_Perfect wrote:
fdr2012 wrote:GTFO. Chicago is a scrub team. The only player who would start for us is Deng, and he's not even good. The only advantage they have is the coach.

People here are delusional. Bulls lost to just about every .500 team other than us.


Dude, really, stop the nonsense. The Bulls have wrecked us and play amazing defense. They have two All-Stars and a third still nursing an injury. They're no scrub team.

You're talking about delusional yet you're insulting a Bulls team with the best defense in the league.


Where were you when they lost by 30 to Denver? Chicago is a bad team that consistently loses to any good team they face. Have you checked the standings lately? There's a reason we're 2nd and they're 5th.

Deng is not an allstar and Noah isn't better than Chandler. Without Rose, they're a scrub team.


Lol.
Image
Mr_Perfect
Lead Assistant
User avatar
Posts: 4,603
And1: 1,567
Joined: Apr 30, 2012
Top

Post#20 Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
Wed Feb 20, 2013 4:32 am by Butch718

Didn't you know? 31-22 qualifies as being a scrub team. :lol:

You just can't stop posters from embarrassing themselves on this forum.
Butch718




Head Coach
User avatar
Posts: 7,497
And1: 1,164
Joined: Mar 12, 2012
Top

Next

Return to New York Knicks


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bigfnjoe96, cammlm, casesuggs6, ezmoney707, Fat Kat, Google [Bot], Hitman33, jonny31623, King of Canada, Meat, moocow007, nyJnyKnyY, postcall, RshahNyC, ShumpShump, sol537, SonOfMars, Trav_NYK, Workforce250, Zooropa