Moderators: Clav, Domejandro, ken6199, bisme37, Dirk, KingDavid, cupcakesnake, bwgood77, zimpy27, infinite11285
Wizop wrote:bronxknicksfan1 wrote:
And with all that, the Pacers still aren’t better than the Celtics
And yet they won the season series. Celtics declined some this year.
ballzboyee wrote:It's hard to really judge this Knicks team. Detroit almost took them to seven games, and they very easily could have lost that series as every game was decided by a couple of points. After blowing multiple 20+ point leads I think it's basically a borderline miracle that Boston did not eliminate them. You have to give them credit for storming back, but nine times out of ten that's not happening, especially on the road. Also the Knicks getting blown out by a Boston team that not only did not have Tatum but also with Porzingis basically not being able play is very troubling. I think Porz played 12 minutes and had like 1 point. How do they get blown out by that Boston team in a close-out game? Knicks were a .500 team after the all-star game. Their overall record is not that great when you realize they got swept against nearly ever good team they played in the regular season. They were 0-4 against Boston, 0-4 against Cleveland, 0-2 against OKC, 0-2 vs Clippers, 0-2 vs Warriors, 0-2 vs Lakers, etc. They had so few quality wins in the RS. They padded their record through by beating up on the worst teams in the league in the East like the Wizards, Toronto, 76ers, Charlotte, Miami, etc. They basically had to sweep all of those teams otherwise they are a sub forty-five win squad.
On paper this Knicks teams is ever so slightly above average. Definitely not an elite team. Maybe they are just getting hot at the right moment or maybe they matchup well with the Pacers and this carries them to the Finals. But, generally, teams are what their regular season record reflects, especially when you starting talking about tier one matchups in the playoffs. Pacers closed the season on fire and were 20-9 after the all-star break. Pacers lost three of four against the Bucks in the RS and in the playoffs almost swept them. Cleveland actually did not play bad at all n their series against Indiana, the Pacers just displayed a flawless brand of unbeatable basketball. They were just utterly dominant. The series against Cleveland was an insane display of just masterful coaching and execution at all levels.
In summary, a lot red flags in my book for the Knicks. I'll take the Pacers to win in six or seven games.
ArksNetsSince99 wrote:scrabbarista wrote:I've thought about this for forty-eight seconds.
Pacers in 6!!!!!!
What took you so long ?
bronxknicksfan1 wrote:ballzboyee wrote:It's hard to really judge this Knicks team. Detroit almost took them to seven games, and they very easily could have lost that series as every game was decided by a couple of points. After blowing multiple 20+ point leads I think it's basically a borderline miracle that Boston did not eliminate them. You have to give them credit for storming back, but nine times out of ten that's not happening, especially on the road. Also the Knicks getting blown out by a Boston team that not only did not have Tatum but also with Porzingis basically not being able play is very troubling. I think Porz played 12 minutes and had like 1 point. How do they get blown out by that Boston team in a close-out game? Knicks were a .500 team after the all-star game. Their overall record is not that great when you realize they got swept against nearly ever good team they played in the regular season. They were 0-4 against Boston, 0-4 against Cleveland, 0-2 against OKC, 0-2 vs Clippers, 0-2 vs Warriors, 0-2 vs Lakers, etc. They had so few quality wins in the RS. They padded their record through by beating up on the worst teams in the league in the East like the Wizards, Toronto, 76ers, Charlotte, Miami, etc. They basically had to sweep all of those teams otherwise they are a sub forty-five win squad.
On paper this Knicks teams is ever so slightly above average. Definitely not an elite team. Maybe they are just getting hot at the right moment or maybe they matchup well with the Pacers and this carries them to the Finals. But, generally, teams are what their regular season record reflects, especially when you starting talking about tier one matchups in the playoffs. Pacers closed the season on fire and were 20-9 after the all-star break. Pacers lost three of four against the Bucks in the RS and in the playoffs almost swept them. Cleveland actually did not play bad at all n their series against Indiana, the Pacers just displayed a flawless brand of unbeatable basketball. They were just utterly dominant. The series against Cleveland was an insane display of just masterful coaching and execution at all levels.
In summary, a lot red flags in my book for the Knicks. I'll take the Pacers to win in six or seven games.
To start…when did the Pistons almost take out the Knicks? Almost took them out in 7? They were down 3-1 and lost in 6. That isn’t exactly almost taking out anyone.
Knicks coming back against Boston down +20 twice…yeah, they did the improbable against the defending champs. That doesn’t happen. Kinda says a lot about this team that did it not once, but twice on the road. As for getting blown out by Boston in a game without Tatum…they still had another All Star forward with 2 All Defensive team guards out there playing for their pride being down 3-1 when they were fully healthy. Knicks played like ****…then promptly disposed of them in a 38 point blowout the next game.
Bringing up the team’s regular season record against top teams…what’s the point of this? Let’s point out that they were 2-1 against the Pacers this season if that matters so much. Or 2-0 against the Nuggets. or 2-0 against Memphis. Or 3-0 against the Bucks. It’s easy to cherry pick certain matchups and try to create an agenda against a team. But guess what? As you said, the Celtics were 4-0 against them…got taken out in 6 games.
And please, the Cavs had Garland out there playing on a sprained toe. Mobley was on a sprained ankle. Hunter had a dislocated thumb. That team wasn’t close to looking like they were in the regular season since Donovan was out there playing hero ball to make up for those injuries. This isn’t to say that the Pacers wouldn’t have won that series regardless, but making it seem like those injuries didn’t have an impact is laughable.
If the Knicks haven’t proven anything in these playoffs, the Pacers have done much less.
benhillboy wrote:I respect the hell outta the Knicks starting 5 and yet I can’t watch them for more than a few minutes. Still better than the Celtics who I would have to be paid $100 tax free to watch a full game telecast. I watched the Pacers all season on my dime and thoroughly enjoyed it.
Regardless of opponents and “who beat who when and how healthy they were” yada yada it’s the playoffs at the end of the day. A team that scores 118 to 112 surrendered in the tournament shouldn’t have much of an issue with one at 107 to 106.
The Knicks runs are usually sparked by Hart throwing his body all around the arena. His hustle and nose for the ball are real basketball skills but not by much lol. Meanwhile the Pacers runs are spearheaded by timely defensive swarming (if Nesmith and Nembhard aren’t locking down iso) and genius level ball movement. The Basketball Gods will reward the far more polished product.
IMF wrote:bronxknicksfan1 wrote:?s=46
Kat doesn’t scare me. I’ve always thought he was a paper tiger, guy who puts up numbers but isn’t a winning player. Minnesota looking stronger with Randle in his place is certainly interesting.
A lot of casual takes in this thread, especially the defense comments. Pacers are the #8 defense since January, this is not the 2023 Pacers. Every Pacers series thread so far has had some overconfident dudes who don’t watch games saying their team is gonna win in four or five. We’ll see.
bronxknicksfan1 wrote:benhillboy wrote:I respect the hell outta the Knicks starting 5 and yet I can’t watch them for more than a few minutes. Still better than the Celtics who I would have to be paid $100 tax free to watch a full game telecast. I watched the Pacers all season on my dime and thoroughly enjoyed it.
Regardless of opponents and “who beat who when and how healthy they were” yada yada it’s the playoffs at the end of the day. A team that scores 118 to 112 surrendered in the tournament shouldn’t have much of an issue with one at 107 to 106.
The Knicks runs are usually sparked by Hart throwing his body all around the arena. His hustle and nose for the ball are real basketball skills but not by much lol. Meanwhile the Pacers runs are spearheaded by timely defensive swarming (if Nesmith and Nembhard aren’t locking down iso) and genius level ball movement. The Basketball Gods will reward the far more polished product.
If Derrick White and Jrue Holiday and their 8 All Defensive team selections between them couldn’t stop Brunson in iso situations…I’m wondering how Nesmith and Nembhard will be the ones to do it. And how will they contain KAT? Pacers are a bottom 5 team when it comes to points in the paint. Who’s going to stop Mitch from grabbing offensive rebounds? Knicks have 2 of the best defensive wings in OG and Mikal…have the Pacers faced anything like that so far in the playoffs? It’s easy to just look at scores, but let’s look at the context of them too.
bronxknicksfan1 wrote:?s=46
Safe to say…Andrew Nembhard won’t be the one to stop Brunson
Marrs-Law wrote:Really looking forward to this one. I can argue back and forth about which team is better etc., but at worst I don't think the Pacers are much worse than the Knicks. If it gets to six or seven (which, at worst for the Pacers, I think it will) I have much more confidence in the Pacers' experience, depth, and coaching than a run-into-the-ground Brunson.
As for who had the better Eastern Conference semi-finals, I won't bother to contest that the Knicks faced a better team than the Pacers did. I do, however, think it is much more impressive to definitively crush the 60+ game winning 1 seed (albeit somewhat injured) than come back from multiple 20-point deficits because your opponent would rather brick threes than let their elite forwards get inside the arc.
oh, Hali > Brunson. Pacers in Six
ballzboyee wrote:It's hard to really judge this Knicks team. Detroit almost took them to seven games, and they very easily could have lost that series as every game was decided by a couple of points. After blowing multiple 20+ point leads I think it's basically a borderline miracle that Boston did not eliminate them. You have to give them credit for storming back, but nine times out of ten that's not happening, especially on the road. Also the Knicks getting blown out by a Boston team that not only did not have Tatum but also with Porzingis basically not being able play is very troubling. I think Porz played 12 minutes and had like 1 point. How do they get blown out by that Boston team in a close-out game? Knicks were a .500 team after the all-star game. Their overall record is not that great when you realize they got swept against nearly ever good team they played in the regular season. They were 0-4 against Boston, 0-4 against Cleveland, 0-2 against OKC, 0-2 vs Clippers, 0-2 vs Warriors, 0-2 vs Lakers, etc. They had so few quality wins in the RS. They padded their record through by beating up on the worst teams in the league in the East like the Wizards, Toronto, 76ers, Charlotte, Miami, etc. They basically had to sweep all of those teams otherwise they are a sub forty-five win squad.
On paper this Knicks teams is ever so slightly above average. Definitely not an elite team. Maybe they are just getting hot at the right moment or maybe they matchup well with the Pacers and this carries them to the Finals. But, generally, teams are what their regular season record reflects, especially when you starting talking about tier one matchups in the playoffs. Pacers closed the season on fire and were 20-9 after the all-star break. Pacers lost three of four against the Bucks in the RS and in the playoffs almost swept them. Cleveland actually did not play bad at all n their series against Indiana, the Pacers just displayed a flawless brand of unbeatable basketball. They were just utterly dominant. The series against Cleveland was an insane display of masterful coaching and execution at all levels.
In summary, a lot red flags in my book for the Knicks. I'll take the Pacers to win in six or seven games.
Marrs-Law wrote:Really looking forward to this one. I can argue back and forth about which team is better etc., but at worst I don't think the Pacers are much worse than the Knicks. If it gets to six or seven (which, at worst for the Pacers, I think it will) I have much more confidence in the Pacers' experience, depth, and coaching than a run-into-the-ground Brunson.
As for who had the better Eastern Conference semi-finals, I won't bother to contest that the Knicks faced a better team than the Pacers did. I do, however, think it is much more impressive to definitively crush the 60+ game winning 1 seed (albeit somewhat injured) than come back from multiple 20-point deficits because your opponent would rather brick threes than let their elite forwards get inside the arc.
oh, Hali > Brunson. Pacers in Six
and if you truly believe haliburton is anywhere near Brunson then sure your entire post then makes sense to me, 5 games before you join Cancun Cunningham and Bahamas Brown bronxknicksfan1 wrote:Marrs-Law wrote:Really looking forward to this one. I can argue back and forth about which team is better etc., but at worst I don't think the Pacers are much worse than the Knicks. If it gets to six or seven (which, at worst for the Pacers, I think it will) I have much more confidence in the Pacers' experience, depth, and coaching than a run-into-the-ground Brunson.
As for who had the better Eastern Conference semi-finals, I won't bother to contest that the Knicks faced a better team than the Pacers did. I do, however, think it is much more impressive to definitively crush the 60+ game winning 1 seed (albeit somewhat injured) than come back from multiple 20-point deficits because your opponent would rather brick threes than let their elite forwards get inside the arc.
oh, Hali > Brunson. Pacers in Six
Donovan/Garland> Brunson
Embiid/Maxey/Tobias > Brunson
Cade > Brunson
Tatum/Brown > Brunson
Now we got Hali > Brunson. Prove them wrong again, my GOAT.
LFGK wrote:bronxknicksfan1 wrote:Marrs-Law wrote:Really looking forward to this one. I can argue back and forth about which team is better etc., but at worst I don't think the Pacers are much worse than the Knicks. If it gets to six or seven (which, at worst for the Pacers, I think it will) I have much more confidence in the Pacers' experience, depth, and coaching than a run-into-the-ground Brunson.
As for who had the better Eastern Conference semi-finals, I won't bother to contest that the Knicks faced a better team than the Pacers did. I do, however, think it is much more impressive to definitively crush the 60+ game winning 1 seed (albeit somewhat injured) than come back from multiple 20-point deficits because your opponent would rather brick threes than let their elite forwards get inside the arc.
oh, Hali > Brunson. Pacers in Six
Donovan/Garland> Brunson
Embiid/Maxey/Tobias > Brunson
Cade > Brunson
Tatum/Brown > Brunson
Now we got Hali > Brunson. Prove them wrong again, my GOAT.
Fixed.....laughable actually
Capn'O wrote:ballzboyee wrote:It's hard to really judge this Knicks team. Detroit almost took them to seven games, and they very easily could have lost that series as every game was decided by a couple of points. After blowing multiple 20+ point leads I think it's basically a borderline miracle that Boston did not eliminate them. You have to give them credit for storming back, but nine times out of ten that's not happening, especially on the road. Also the Knicks getting blown out by a Boston team that not only did not have Tatum but also with Porzingis basically not being able play is very troubling. I think Porz played 12 minutes and had like 1 point. How do they get blown out by that Boston team in a close-out game? Knicks were a .500 team after the all-star game. Their overall record is not that great when you realize they got swept against nearly ever good team they played in the regular season. They were 0-4 against Boston, 0-4 against Cleveland, 0-2 against OKC, 0-2 vs Clippers, 0-2 vs Warriors, 0-2 vs Lakers, etc. They had so few quality wins in the RS. They padded their record through by beating up on the worst teams in the league in the East like the Wizards, Toronto, 76ers, Charlotte, Miami, etc. They basically had to sweep all of those teams otherwise they are a sub forty-five win squad.
On paper this Knicks teams is ever so slightly above average. Definitely not an elite team. Maybe they are just getting hot at the right moment or maybe they matchup well with the Pacers and this carries them to the Finals. But, generally, teams are what their regular season record reflects, especially when you starting talking about tier one matchups in the playoffs. Pacers closed the season on fire and were 20-9 after the all-star break. Pacers lost three of four against the Bucks in the RS and in the playoffs almost swept them. Cleveland actually did not play bad at all n their series against Indiana, the Pacers just displayed a flawless brand of unbeatable basketball. They were just utterly dominant. The series against Cleveland was an insane display of masterful coaching and execution at all levels.
In summary, a lot red flags in my book for the Knicks. I'll take the Pacers to win in six or seven games.
What it's looking to me like is that the Knicks paced themselves during the regular season for a deep playoff run. We didn't really see this level of defensive intensity all year and Thibs didn't really run diverse gameplans the way he has in the playoffs. We didn't have Mitchell Robinson until March and he took awhile to ramp up. While technically a role player, he's been really critical to what we've done defensively this playoffs and when he's in we're back to being the elite offensive rebounding team we were last season. When he did come back, we didn't have Brunson so still not a full arsenal. Then, Detroit was a great tuneup. Not star studded but a very tough team that can stay in any game with their defense, and with an up and coming star player who I think is going to plant himself firmly in the Top 10 next season.
So this isn't really the same team you saw and the regular season data is not really looking at the team we see before us now. They're finally fully healthy and Brunson is performing at a level that he previously held back from so we didn't burnout early like last season.
bronxknicksfan1 wrote:LFGK wrote:bronxknicksfan1 wrote:
Donovan/Garland> Brunson
Embiid/Maxey/Tobias > Brunson
Cade > Brunson
Tatum/Brown > Brunson
Now we got Hali > Brunson. Prove them wrong again, my GOAT.
Fixed.....laughable actually
I forgot about them saying Maxey was better
LFGK wrote:Capn'O wrote:ballzboyee wrote:It's hard to really judge this Knicks team. Detroit almost took them to seven games, and they very easily could have lost that series as every game was decided by a couple of points. After blowing multiple 20+ point leads I think it's basically a borderline miracle that Boston did not eliminate them. You have to give them credit for storming back, but nine times out of ten that's not happening, especially on the road. Also the Knicks getting blown out by a Boston team that not only did not have Tatum but also with Porzingis basically not being able play is very troubling. I think Porz played 12 minutes and had like 1 point. How do they get blown out by that Boston team in a close-out game? Knicks were a .500 team after the all-star game. Their overall record is not that great when you realize they got swept against nearly ever good team they played in the regular season. They were 0-4 against Boston, 0-4 against Cleveland, 0-2 against OKC, 0-2 vs Clippers, 0-2 vs Warriors, 0-2 vs Lakers, etc. They had so few quality wins in the RS. They padded their record through by beating up on the worst teams in the league in the East like the Wizards, Toronto, 76ers, Charlotte, Miami, etc. They basically had to sweep all of those teams otherwise they are a sub forty-five win squad.
On paper this Knicks teams is ever so slightly above average. Definitely not an elite team. Maybe they are just getting hot at the right moment or maybe they matchup well with the Pacers and this carries them to the Finals. But, generally, teams are what their regular season record reflects, especially when you starting talking about tier one matchups in the playoffs. Pacers closed the season on fire and were 20-9 after the all-star break. Pacers lost three of four against the Bucks in the RS and in the playoffs almost swept them. Cleveland actually did not play bad at all n their series against Indiana, the Pacers just displayed a flawless brand of unbeatable basketball. They were just utterly dominant. The series against Cleveland was an insane display of masterful coaching and execution at all levels.
In summary, a lot red flags in my book for the Knicks. I'll take the Pacers to win in six or seven games.
What it's looking to me like is that the Knicks paced themselves during the regular season for a deep playoff run. We didn't really see this level of defensive intensity all year and Thibs didn't really run diverse gameplans the way he has in the playoffs. We didn't have Mitchell Robinson until March and he took awhile to ramp up. While technically a role player, he's been really critical to what we've done defensively this playoffs and when he's in we're back to being the elite offensive rebounding team we were last season. When he did come back, we didn't have Brunson so still not a full arsenal. Then, Detroit was a great tuneup. Not star studded but a very tough team that can stay in any game with their defense, and with an up and coming star player who I think is going to plant himself firmly in the Top 10 next season.
So this isn't really the same team you saw and the regular season data is not really looking at the team we see before us now. They're finally fully healthy and Brunson is performing at a level that he previously held back from so we didn't burnout early like last season.
Been saying it for months, held OG back, kept Mitch out till he was exactly ready. It's ok, they will see for themselves in a few days on how stifiling they can bez they held Boston to nearly 11 points less then their seasons avg, when Mitch/KAT/OG/Bridges/Brunson are in together, good luck Indi
oikosnomos wrote:ArksNetsSince99 wrote:knicksNOTslick wrote:It's not like the dude wearing a Pacers jersey was just walking down the street minding his own business. There was a Knicks crowd that was there.
So it seems to me he was looking for trouble. I get it, Knicks fans shouldn't have done what they did. But he was also wrong. Dude was trying to be a troll. You can't act all shocked after that.
Stupid entitled kids , nothing else
How many times have we seen a situation like this devolve into this man being beaten unconscious? People turn evil in a mob. You can't assault people for being annoying or trolling.
