Chicago and Indiana are better
Moderators: Jeff Van Gully, dakomish23, Capn'O, j4remi, Deeeez Knicks, NoLayupRule, mpharris36, GONYK, HerSports85
Chicago and Indiana are better
-
- Starter
- Posts: 2,148
- And1: 134
- Joined: Jul 09, 2012
Chicago and Indiana are better
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.
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.
Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
-
- Starter
- Posts: 2,148
- And1: 134
- Joined: Jul 09, 2012
Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
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.
Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
-
- Head Coach
- Posts: 6,127
- And1: 2,931
- Joined: May 01, 2012
Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
We know.
Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
-
- Banned User
- Posts: 3,084
- And1: 70
- Joined: Nov 03, 2012
- Location: Lets Go!
Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
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.
People here are delusional. Bulls lost to just about every .500 team other than us.
Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
- aggo
- RealGM
- Posts: 14,154
- And1: 5,748
- Joined: Mar 14, 2006
Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
Noah is better than Chandler.
Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
-
- Head Coach
- Posts: 6,127
- And1: 2,931
- Joined: May 01, 2012
Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
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.
Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 58,966
- And1: 30,697
- Joined: Feb 25, 2010
Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
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.
Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 58,966
- And1: 30,697
- Joined: Feb 25, 2010
Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
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?
Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
- RutgersBJJ
- General Manager
- Posts: 8,749
- And1: 125
- Joined: Oct 05, 2008
Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
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.
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
Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
-
- Starter
- Posts: 2,148
- And1: 134
- Joined: Jul 09, 2012
Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
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.
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.
Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
-
- Starter
- Posts: 2,148
- And1: 134
- Joined: Jul 09, 2012
Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
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.
Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 58,966
- And1: 30,697
- Joined: Feb 25, 2010
Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
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.
Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
-
- Starter
- Posts: 2,148
- And1: 134
- Joined: Jul 09, 2012
Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
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.
Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
- MSG
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,678
- And1: 88
- Joined: Mar 12, 2011
Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
I think we could beat Indiana in a 7 game series because their offense sucks but Bulls with Rose are certainly stronger than us.
Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
- waya
- RealGM
- Posts: 14,818
- And1: 5,134
- Joined: Feb 14, 2007
Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
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.
And Rose will not be the same player he was, at least not this season.
Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
-
- Banned User
- Posts: 3,084
- And1: 70
- Joined: Nov 03, 2012
- Location: Lets Go!
Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
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.
Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
-
- Banned User
- Posts: 3,084
- And1: 70
- Joined: Nov 03, 2012
- Location: Lets Go!
Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
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.
Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 13,158
- And1: 6,596
- Joined: Mar 13, 2012
Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
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.
I wish I could ban some of you guys for sheer stupidity.
Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
-
- Head Coach
- Posts: 6,127
- And1: 2,931
- Joined: May 01, 2012
Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
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.
Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 13,158
- And1: 6,596
- Joined: Mar 13, 2012
Re: Chicago and Indiana are better
Didn't you know? 31-22 qualifies as being a scrub team.
You just can't stop posters from embarrassing themselves on this forum.
You just can't stop posters from embarrassing themselves on this forum.