yardbarker

NCAA Wiretap Headlines

Chicago and Indiana are better

Moderators: moocow007, magnumt, mrpoetryNmotion, NoLayupRule, Knickstape1214, Brooklyn_Yards, j4remi, Thugger HBC, GONYK, Thorn

Post#181 Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
Wed Feb 20, 2013 6:33 pm by fresko024

i'll give you Chicago but I don't think Indy is better than us..
fresko024
Sixth Man
User avatar
Posts: 1,854
And1: 205
Joined: Dec 31, 2010
Location: Bergen County, NJ
Top

Post#182 Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
Wed Feb 20, 2013 6:34 pm by fresko024

StephNYKurry wrote:Listen man, if you exclude the previous game where we didn't have our full compliment of players

First game this year: Knicks in a walk
The last game between the two teams last year: Knicks up double digits in the fourth only to blow the lead
And the back to back: Two lopsided Knick wins, one of which the Knicks were up 30 at the end of 3

Ain't nobody gonna tell be that the Pacers are better than the Knicks. Just not buying it.


agree with you 100%...the Bulls, on the other hand, were better both times we played them but I feel like when we have all of our players healthy, we'd be better than the Bulls
fresko024
Sixth Man
User avatar
Posts: 1,854
And1: 205
Joined: Dec 31, 2010
Location: Bergen County, NJ
Top

Post#183 Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
Wed Feb 20, 2013 7:52 pm by Smokey9782

So yea.... uhhh the Pacers are better, too.
Smokey9782
Veteran
User avatar
Posts: 2,799
And1: 85
Joined: Feb 24, 2011
Top

Post#184 Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
Wed Feb 20, 2013 8:12 pm by greenhughes

What was that about the Pacers?

Physical teams have the Knicks number.
“I just thought they were more aggressive than us,’’ Woodson said.
greenhughes



RealGM
User avatar
Posts: 14,014
And1: 3,087
Joined: Feb 25, 2010
Location: Who runs the world? Girls! Yeah, I said it.
Top

Post#185 Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
Wed Feb 20, 2013 8:13 pm by Leaguepass

Also can someone slap Woodson and his horrible 3 guard line-up...that **** doesn't work...I mean..it really doesn't work against strong physical teams at all. Seriously I sometimes wonder what the heck these coaches get paid for. To put Kidd on Stephenson and Shumpert on George...seriously SMH.
Leaguepass
Starter
Posts: 2,148
And1: 134
Joined: Jul 9, 2012
Top

Post#186 Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
Wed Feb 20, 2013 8:13 pm by Leaguepass

Also can someone slap Woodson and his horrible 3 guard line-up...that **** doesn't work...I mean..it really doesn't work against strong physical teams at all. Seriously I sometimes wonder what the heck these coaches get paid for. To put Kidd on Stephenson and Shumpert on George...seriously SMH.
Leaguepass
Starter
Posts: 2,148
And1: 134
Joined: Jul 9, 2012
Top

Post#187 Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
Wed Feb 20, 2013 8:19 pm by Leaguepass

The way Woodson uses Shumpert we might as well just trade him......Paying a coach millions to put your best perimeter defending guard on a 6'8 forward.
Leaguepass
Starter
Posts: 2,148
And1: 134
Joined: Jul 9, 2012
Top

Post#188 Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
Wed Feb 20, 2013 9:14 pm by mrpoetryNmotion

I don't think the Knicks want to see either of these teams come playoff time.
mrpoetryNmotion



Forum Mod - Knicks
Forum Mod - Knicks
User avatar
Posts: 7,007
And1: 547
Joined: Jun 28, 2009
Location: Purgatory
Top

Post#189 Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
Wed Feb 20, 2013 10:15 pm by Mr_Perfect

fdr2012 = Isiah
Image
Mr_Perfect
Lead Assistant
User avatar
Posts: 4,615
And1: 1,584
Joined: Apr 30, 2012
Top

Post#190 Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:23 am by seren

I am really impressed by Paul George. He is turning himself into a franchise player. Dude is only 22. He plays both ends of the floor. He can shoot. He can rebound. He gets you steals. He directs the traffic.

I think on paper we are still better than them, but that is only on paper. Nobody seems to show up. We need our guards to play a better game. This group ain't getting it done.
seren
RealGM
Posts: 19,781
And1: 611
Joined: Jul 20, 2002
Top

Post#191 Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
Thu Feb 21, 2013 1:27 pm by deputy

I'm a die-hard Bulls fan and there's no way the Bulls would beat the Knicks in a 7 game series this season (without Rose).

The Bulls are built to compete and win games on a nightly basis. But, as currently constructed, they are not built to win a 7 games series against a top team like Miami, Indy or the Knicks.

Now, the Pacers certainly as a problem. I'll give you that.
deputy
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,296
And1: 47
Joined: Jun 24, 2008
Location: NYC
Top

Post#192 Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
Fri Feb 22, 2013 3:49 am by frizzledizzle

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.


Everything you said is inaccurate.

You say Granger hasn't been their best player since 2010? Who exactly was their best player last season in your mind? I'll give you a hint, it was Granger.

You say they don't have the offense to get out of the first round and yet they'll be adding a guy that can average 20-5-3 that's a pure shooter without giving up anything to add him. You don't think his return will improve scoring? If you hadn't noticed, the guy starting in his place(Lance Stephenson) is only averaging 8.5. Granger averaged 18.7pts last season. And ironic you say they won't get out of the first round and yet they were in it every single game with the Bulls two years ago leading in the final minutes, got out of the first round last year and were up 2-1 on the Heat in round 2. That was with a first year head coach who had no offseason to prepare. A new power forward and point guard as starters. The power forward was coming off an acl tear and the point guard didn't take over starter until the end of the season. If you hadn't noticed, George Hill and David West have been playing better this season. That doesn't even include Paul George who is having a breakout year.

You say they have a losing record to teams above .500 and Granger makes them mediocre at best but that's funny because they're 4-1 against the #1/#2 seeds in the East, had the 5th best record in the NBA last season, are only .5 games out of 2nd place in the East and just smoked the #2 seed without Granger. Up until this season, he was the best player. With the growth of Paul George and the resurgence of David West, you now have three guys on par with the Danny Granger of the past. Again, Pacers with Granger as the only real threat pushed the #1 seed Bulls to the edge when Paul George was a rookie and didn't have David West or George Hill. Last year they pushed the Heat to the edge by going up 2-1 with new starters and a young team, three starters were 25, 25, and 21 years old. Now the team is no longer new, they have chemistry, West is in full form, Paul George has taken the next step, they've added a legit center off the bench in Mahinimi, the growth of Stephenson will make the bench stronger with Granger's return and they're only .5 games back with a starting line up of 32, 26, 26, 22 and 22 years old. That leaves room for a lot of improvement with arguably the team's best shooter and team leader returning tonight or tomorrow.

PG 6'2 George Hill ------ 26 years old
SG 6'8 Danny Granger - 29 years old
SF 6'9 Paul George ----- 22 years old
PF 6'9 David West ------ 32 years old
C 7'2 Roy Hibbert ------ 26 years old

PG 6'0 D.J. Augustin -------- 25 years old
SG 6'5 Lance Stephenson - 22 years old
SF 6'5 Orlando Johnson --- 23 years old
PF 6'9 Tyler Hansbrough -- 27 years old
PF 6'9 Jeff Pendergraph -- 25 years old
C 6'11 Ian Mahinimi --------- 26 years old

I believe that will be along the lines of the Pacers starters and bench in the playoffs. I don't know how much Orlando and Pendergraph will play but Orlando has been sniping from downtown making 50% of his 3's on the season and Pendergraph has come out of nowhere the past few games to put up nice numbers. He's only played a few minutes here and there throughout the season until the past three games. His numbers over the past 3 games...

23min 3/5fg 9pts 7rebs 2ast
25min 5/8fg 10pts 8rebs 1ast 2blk
17min 7/11fg 14pts 10rebs 1ast

So if the Pacers want to go 10 or 11 deep in the playoffs, you've got a 50% shooter from 3 and a PF/C that can get you a double double. If you're forced to go even deeper, you've got experienced players in Sam Young and Gerald Green. You're rather not see Gerald Green but that's really deep when he's your 12th or 13th option.

I guess you're right though... sitting at #3 and going 6-1 against the #1Heat/#2Knicks/#5Bulls without your best player/team leader up until this season is really mediocre. Your assertion that the Pacers won't get out of the first round is very logical. The team made it out of the first rounds last year, have improved without Granger but they'll definitely get bounced in the 1st round. And you're right, they should totally be the #2 seed over Melo, Amare, Chandler being led by a 22 year old... come on Paul Durant aka Lebron George, step it up!
frizzledizzle
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,804
And1: 130
Joined: Jul 25, 2010
Top

Post#193 Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
Fri Feb 22, 2013 3:56 am by frizzledizzle

Leaguepass wrote:
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.


This guy gets it.

Pacers have a 22 year old filling Granger's in shoes more than one way. Paul George is 22 and has taken over as the alpha for the team. And the starter filling Granger's roll, is 22 year old Lance Stephenson. Granger is a much better scorer and shooter than Stephenson. He's also got 3 inches on him. So with the return of Granger, an already long team gets longer and you've now got 4 starters that are excellent shooters instead of 3. Like LeaguePass said, Hill, PG and Granger can hit it from downtown all-day and West can hit mid-ranger jumpers all day. On top of shooting, they're not just long but they've got size to go with the length and are physical.
frizzledizzle
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,804
And1: 130
Joined: Jul 25, 2010
Top

Post#194 Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
Fri Feb 22, 2013 3:59 am by frizzledizzle

Butch718 wrote: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.


lol!!!

It is pretty amazing how some people talk about other teams as if they suck.

Talking about the Pacers getting bounced in the first round after they were up 2-1 on the Heat in the second round last season is classic.
frizzledizzle
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,804
And1: 130
Joined: Jul 25, 2010
Top

Post#195 Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
Fri Feb 22, 2013 4:10 am by frizzledizzle

fdr2012 wrote:The standings speak for themselves. The are the 5th seed in the East. We are the second. I'm not sure at what you're trying to say here. The definition of "scrubs" is subjective. I define Deng as "scrub". He's probably an above average player in the league, but I hate his game and I don't think he's a particularly talented basketball player.


Are your posts real life?

Deng was the 7th overall pick, is going to his second straight all-star game and made an all-nba team on defense. That's what you consider a scrub? So I guess outside of 20 players, the NBA is made up of scrubs or something. The fact that you don't think he's talented is funny as it stands but even more so because he's not particularly athletic. So the mere fact he's accomplishing what he does makes him extremely talented since he can't rely on athleticism as much as some.

Also funny that you say the standings speak for themselves when the Bulls are missing a 23 year old MVP. Not like they had the NBA's best record back to back season when he was healthy. Oh wait, they did.

If you take out the 3 games they won against us, they are 7-15 against .500 teams. That's not a good record. 30% against .500 teams constitutes "losing to just about every team" in my book.


Again, is this real life?

Two seconds ago you say standings speak for themselves while not acknowledging that the Bulls would be much better with Rose and now instead of letting their record stand on its own merit against teams above .500, you make an argument that takes away three of their wins lol!!!!

Your thought process and knowledge of the game is simply terrible.
frizzledizzle
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,804
And1: 130
Joined: Jul 25, 2010
Top

Post#196 Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
Fri Feb 22, 2013 4:15 am by frizzledizzle

Leaguepass wrote:
fdr2012 wrote:
Butch718 wrote:I see what you did there. They're a playoff team now. Not just a bunch of scrubs. Gotcha. :wink:

Add Golden State and Utah as .500 plus teams that they've beaten.

Didn't you just post this earlier?


The standings speak for themselves. The are the 5th seed in the East. We are the second. I'm not sure at what you're trying to say here. The definition of "scrubs" is subjective. I define Deng as "scrub". He's probably an above average player in the league, but I hate his game and I don't think he's a particularly talented basketball player.


Butch718 wrote:Way to contradict your previous posts. I thought they lost to just about every .500 team other than us? I thought they got torn apart by any and every decent team? You do realize all those teams you listed that the Bulls have beaten constitute the majority of the best teams in the Eastern Conference. The only team with an above .500 record in the East that they haven't beaten is Indiana.

Anyway, I can't wait to see you backtrack out of this one.


If you take out the 3 games they won against us, they are 7-15 against .500 teams. That's not a good record. 30% against .500 teams constitutes "losing to just about every team" in my book.


Huh, what?Why should one take that out?



You nailed it before when you asked how he is going to backtrack. He just alters stats to try and make his arguments sound better. Unfortunately for him, his arguments are terrible and his attempt at making a point is a constant failure. If you were debating him about the Heat or Thunder being the best team in the NBA, he'd probably comeback with "Well if you take away Lebron or Durant, they wouldn't be".

"You mean that 40-10 team??? Oh yeah, they're scrubs. If you take way these 40 wins, they'd be 0-10."

:D
frizzledizzle
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,804
And1: 130
Joined: Jul 25, 2010
Top

Post#197 Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
Fri Feb 22, 2013 4:22 am by frizzledizzle

fdr2012 wrote:I'm not going to be "objective" about the Bulls, just like I'm not "objective" about Al-Qaeda. I'm also not "objective" about Adam Lanza and a few other things. Sorry, I thought this was the Knicks forum. If you're really 30 and have been a Knicks fan through the 90s and still can't understand this, then there's not much more I can say.


So you admit the stuff you're saying is stupid and you're only saying it because you don't like a team and refuse to acknowledge the truth. It's pretty sad when someone admits they're not being objective yet they continue to argue. That just means you admit you're not reasonable and your argument is dumb.


fdr2012 wrote:
Leaguepass wrote:Huh, what?Why should one take that out?


Because that's my argument - other than against us, they have been terrible against .500+ teams.


Whaaaat???? lol!!!!

So you say the Bulls are scrubs and point out their record against .500 teams is terrible except against the Knicks. In other words, you believe the Knicks are scrubs and worse than the Bulls?

Sometimes it pays off being up in the middle of the night. I probably would have missed all of this otherwise, hilarious.
frizzledizzle
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,804
And1: 130
Joined: Jul 25, 2010
Top

Post#198 Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
Fri Feb 22, 2013 4:27 am by frizzledizzle

JustaKnickFan wrote:
fdr2012 wrote:If you take out the 3 games they won against us, they are 7-15 against .500 teams. That's not a good record. 30% against .500 teams constitutes "losing to just about every team" in my book.

7/15 is 47 percent if you're rounding up.

Anyway, I think the Knicks are more talented than either, and have a chance to beat both if they manage to start playing good enough defense to make those teams struggle to score.

It's on Woodson now, to make the Knicks a better defensive team.



That's not accurate. 7-15 is not 7 divided by 15. It would be 7 divided by 22. Because they've won 7 of 22 games. But they've actually won 10.
frizzledizzle
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,804
And1: 130
Joined: Jul 25, 2010
Top

Post#199 Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
Fri Feb 22, 2013 4:45 am by frizzledizzle

Thugger HBC wrote:If those teams were better, they'd have the better record.

You are what your record says you are.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2



This is just not a good argument.

If that's true, why did the #8 seed Knicks end up in the championship?

You also have the Nuggets beating the Sonics and the Warriors beating the Mavs.

You also have to factor in the fact they don't play the same schedule and also injuries. I'm sorry but I can't believe people act the Bulls and Pacers wouldn't have a better record with Rose and Granger. The Bulls only had the NBA's record the past two season with Rose and are winning with Nate freakin Robinson who has been cut and bounced around. If Rose and Granger return and both teams are healthy for the playoffs, they're a much better team than their record shows. Actually the Pacers started off 4-7/10-11 and have since gone 29-14/23-10. That's basically 70%(69.7%) in their last 33 games. And if you are what your record says, I guess the Pacers will beat the #1Heat/#2Knicks/#5Bulls in the playoffs since they're 6-1 against them. Is that how it works?
frizzledizzle
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,804
And1: 130
Joined: Jul 25, 2010
Top

Post#200 Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
Fri Feb 22, 2013 4:49 am by frizzledizzle

Knicker23 wrote:Pacers can be a tough team, but don't see them with enough offense to be a real threat. And they don't have the kind of D the Bulls have, at least against the Knicks, so I can't say I'm all that threatened by them.

Bulls defense however is on another level when it comes to Knicks.. they just have our number. And if things remain as is when Rose gets back, they'll be tough.


Pacers defense is better than the Bulls...

#1 in points allowed
#1 in opponent field goal percentage
#1 in rebounds
frizzledizzle
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,804
And1: 130
Joined: Jul 25, 2010
Top

PreviousNext

Return to New York Knicks


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: David Blaine, ennui, ezmoney707, lilroddyb, rajajackal, Sark, Travis Knight, xTheHunterx, Yahoo [Bot]