knickscity wrote:

tkf wrote:

knickscity wrote:

misterearl wrote:"If a tie is like kissing your sister, losing is like kissing you grandmother with her teeth out"

- George Brett

Shump is brutally honest. Despite winning 54 games and showing resilience, the season was a failure.

The Answer Man needs a vacation.

Shump is the smartest player on the team, if everyone played with his heart and character, the Knicks would be preparing for game two against Miami today.

I am just curious.. do you think that most knick players didn't play hard? with heart? really? other than a couple, I think the knicks played as hard as they could... at some point you are going to run into a team that is better than you.. this was the case, the pacers were more physical, bigger, more talent, younger... they were better and more complete in so many areas....I don't think it is fair to both the knicks and Indy to say that the knicks didn't play with a lot of heart.... priggs, felton, chandler, copeland all played their hearts out....

The players themselves admitted they got outworked and didnt bring the effort, and most openly complained about the offense in particular and some complained about the defensive sets as well.

Whether the Pacers are better has no dog in this thread, the Knicks for the most did not compete.

Shump was the only player that consstently brought it, made it tough for both opponents best players in each round, and ironically wound up being one of the tops in offensive rating as far as the starters go, and that's normally his weakness.

I just don't agree with that which leads me to the point of the pacers being better,which does have a dog in the thread when we are talking about lack of effort leading to losses... I really don't think it was lack of effort... if the players admitted to getting outworked then shumpert has to be included, unless the players singled out who played hard and who didn't.. right?

hey, I am a shumpert fan, but I think there were some other guys out there giving all they had... they just didn't have enough to get it done.. It happens..

knickscity wrote:

tkf wrote:

knickscity wrote:

tkf wrote:

knickscity wrote:

misterearl wrote:"If a tie is like kissing your sister, losing is like kissing you grandmother with her teeth out"

- George Brett

Shump is brutally honest. Despite winning 54 games and showing resilience, the season was a failure.

The Answer Man needs a vacation.

Shump is the smartest player on the team, if everyone played with his heart and character, the Knicks would be preparing for game two against Miami today.

I am just curious.. do you think that most knick players didn't play hard? with heart? really? other than a couple, I think the knicks played as hard as they could... at some point you are going to run into a team that is better than you.. this was the case, the pacers were more physical, bigger, more talent, younger... they were better and more complete in so many areas....I don't think it is fair to both the knicks and Indy to say that the knicks didn't play with a lot of heart.... priggs, felton, chandler, copeland all played their hearts out....

The players themselves admitted they got outworked and didnt bring the effort, and most openly complained about the offense in particular and some complained about the defensive sets as well.

Whether the Pacers are better has no dog in this thread, the Knicks for the most did not compete.

Shump was the only player that consstently brought it, made it tough for both opponents best players in each round, and ironically wound up being one of the tops in offensive rating as far as the starters go, and that's normally his weakness.

I just don't agree with that which leads me to the point of the pacers being better,which does have a dog in the thread when we are talking about lack of effort leading to losses... I really don't think it was lack of effort... if the players admitted to getting outworked then shumpert has to be included, unless the players singled out who played hard and who didn't.. right?

hey, I am a shumpert fan, but I think there were some other guys out there giving all they had... they just didn't have enough to get it done.. It happens..

I dont share this view, there were clearly guys out there who could have played better and some did not show up at all.

But it matters little, the players admitted they didn't bring it in certain games, especially in game 1 at home, which kinda sets the tone for an entire series.

The Knicks did not compete in most of their games.

The topic of the thread has nothing to do with the Pacers being better, thus irrelevant thought.

ok, so lets go with that.. which means you would have to include shumpert in that bunch.. therefore saying we wish others played with his heart and integrity as if he played with more than the others, is not really accurate then.

And how are the pacers being better irrelevant when the tone is that had everyone played as hard as shumpert, the knicks would still be playing? if we come to the conclusion that isn't the case, well it must be something else.. right? therefore it is relevant...

Anyways:

Good times...

So what team was better- the one we were in that hot start (Sheed and Brewer playing well) or the one we were with the hot finish (K-Mart plus JR playing out of his mind)?