Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2013 11:33 pm
i'll give you Chicago but I don't think Indy is better than us..
Sports is our Business
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=1234783
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.