martin wrote:Hell yes

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://www.twitter.com/nba_newyork/status/2091680044900827427

We got the culture.

Dafuq?

https://www.espn.com/nba/futures

is it a bias because no team has repeated the past decade or is it just deja vu stupid anti-Knick BS all over again?

All teams need the luck/preperation of good healthy. So if you give that to Philly they are contending on paper.
Did either of OKC or Spurs lose a major piece? But knicks might have with Mitch.

We right there on top of the east. For that matter we could win 60 and philly squeeks in with injuries but they get it together for players thats a different ending.

Knicks been getting all kinds of love and lets be honest, they were the underdog in the finals still and despite NOT HAVING THE LEAD 69% OF THE TIME WON IN 5! That **** was amazing/fun and defied logic and the odds. It was not a cinderella story......They were always seen as a team that could contend.

I don't care about preseaon hype or any of this. It gets sorted out on the court and the knicks did that!

Nalod wrote:Anti Knick BS? We paranoid?
Look, we are fans so we gonna feel "Slighted". Fact is knicks had an amazing playoff run and was injury free. OKC second best player was mostly hurt and Spurs have a player who could be the next MVP. Both those teams won 60 or better games. OKC won its chip and then had best record last year. They are worthy. Spurs? Young team only gets better. Knicks given their age in comparison might have hit their ceiling.

All teams need the luck/preperation of good healthy. So if you give that to Philly they are contending on paper.
Did either of OKC or Spurs lose a major piece? But knicks might have with Mitch.

We right there on top of the east. For that matter we could win 60 and philly squeeks in with injuries but they get it together for players thats a different ending.

Knicks been getting all kinds of love and lets be honest, they were the underdog in the finals still and despite NOT HAVING THE LEAD 69% OF THE TIME WON IN 5! That **** was amazing/fun and defied logic and the odds. It was not a cinderella story......They were always seen as a team that could contend.

I don't care about preseaon hype or any of this. It gets sorted out on the court and the knicks did that!

I'm firmly convinced the film "Everything Everywhere All At Once" was named after you

ramtour420 wrote:

Nalod wrote:

ramtour420 wrote:What are you guys taking about. Nalod is trolling you lot. Making it sound like the Spurs won that series but somehow didn't. We nearly swept them, if you remember. Played 5 vs. 8. Wemby is a dirty player and weak mentally. Come on now. Nalod trying to rewrite history already....it hasn't even been that long

Knicks in 5 yes. SAS held the lead 69% of the time over that series.
Yes we nearly swept them.
Wemby dirty had nothing to do with a moral outcome. His weak mentality was his fatigue.

Not rewriting history. It was glorious becuase the games were close. Were they not?
We had to come back from many deficits. Does that make the outcome any less better? No. But it was not wire to wire domination when we read "Knicks in 5".

Fact is SAS had won 60 games and were favored to win the series. Im not reqwriting history or running around taking reciepts for all who questioned a knick championship. I have long been discussing the parity of the league and the lack of an "It Team" and that every year teams can surge to make a run. Indiana the season before made the finals and took OKC to game 7 with Haliburton's achilees hanging on a thread. Yes, he is a jerk but like him or not the guy was doing all kinds of clutch heroic **** not just against knicks. They surged in the second half of the season.
Knicks this past season was viewd by many as "They could do it" but had yet to demonstrate a full season of chemistry and at one point lost 9 in a row while Mike Brown was doing his thing. History? I said early last season its the last 20 games that would matter with the new coach. ANd yes, game 4 vs. ATL and beyond the team did something that was epic and they blew thru a tired Philly team and a flawed Cleveland who with knicks were preseason favorites for the east.

OKC was missing a key man in Williams but otherwise was so very deep and SAS had enough with the dirty and weak Wemby to get thru them. Knicks proved to be the better team. Knicks were well rested. Knicks were healthy. Knicks were more mature. Knicks were mentally stronger. Yet SAS was up 69% of the time. Rerwight history? All I said was that I questioned what happens if we don't win game 4? You that insecure about an intelectual question? Your fandom need to demonize and label Wemby? Fact is the ******* jerk that is Haliburton and the "Dirty and mentally weak" Wemby both got their team to the finals. Their "Flaws" were not enough to prevent that was it?

Im my freshly renovated home study I have to the right of me hanging a 24x18 framed picture of OG tipping the ball in. The single greatesst knick moment in over 50 years! What made it great was overcoming yet another deficit. It meant NOT having the series tied going back to Sas. It proved to be a kick in the stomach that they could not over come. The glory from the tension of that deficit was amazing! To me respecting the opponent makes the achievement even greater!

I know what happened. You do too. My insecurity about an intellectual question...Look, where I am coming from, I am just questioning your motifs. I interpreted them as trolling. I am allowed to read between the lines and have that opinion, right? Am I wrong? You can tell me I am wrong, it's no problem.

Your opinoin respected but is trolling what we call it when we disagree and I give my view?
If so, this is bad?

We nearly swept them. Yes. But I saw ****ty reffing, Wemby getting away with some dirty play, and then getting tired.
In some aspects the Spurs were better. I thought the series was very close then some other fans. But I saw a great Knick team do great things! Most fun as a fan in my adult life!