DurzoBlint wrote:Solace wrote:NYKMentality wrote:Solace wrote:NYKMentality wrote:The very moment/instant that our Knicks fell to the three seed, we had a thread in which welcomed us to the three seed. I only thought it was fair to return the favor, while welcoming our Knicks back to the two seed after Indiana's loss tonight. Lets build off this two game win streak while sticking with Miami moving forward and/or possibly gaining ground on Miami. We're 6 1/2 games back of the one seed, and will we catch Miami for the one seed? Chances are, no. But, I'm not giving the Miami Heat the one seed until they've first locked it up and/or earned it. Still 28 games remaining (along with two head to head matchups against Miami).
Either way, we're currently the number two seed 54 games into the regular season, and that's something that we (as a franchise/fan base) haven't been able to say in quite some time.
We're only tied right now. Although if you want to talk about welcoming, what happened to Chicago? Dropped to the #6 seed, might drop to #7 if they keep this up.
Nah my dude, we're the official two seed. .630 (Knicks) when compared to .621 (Pacers). Indy has two more loses when compared to our Knicks.
http://espn.go.com/nba/standings
Ok I guess, but we've played 4 less games.
Anyway, what happened to Chicago? I do NOT want them in the first round, I don't care what seed we are.
I said that a couple of weeks ago...That I don't want the Knicks to face Chicago or Indian. Someone chimed in with "Indiana" isn't for-real and that Chicago won't play the same during the playoffs. Chicago has the PLAY HARD GENE hardwired and those are the teams that truly give us problems. Not because of the talent but, because of the relentless defense.
Chicago is being overrated. Yes, they've beat our Knicks three times, but does that make them the better team? If so, can I say the Knicks are better than the Spurs (2-0) and Miami (2-0)? Can't have it both ways...
We all know they've been without Rose, but during our first loss (8 points) we were without the likes of Shumpert, Melo, Stoudemire and Camby.
During our second loss (4 points) we were without the likes of Shumpert, Stoudemire, Camby and Rasheed (now replaced by Kenyon Martin).
During our third loss (7 points) we were without the likes of Shumert, Camby and Wallace (now replaced by Kenyon Martin).
In short, the Bulls have been without Rose, but they (in return) haven't seen our Knicks of today (roster/talent wise).
It's easy to write off the Knicks and talk up Chicago, but who's to say Rose comes back for the postseason? And even if he does, who's to say he's the same Derrick Rose?
The Knicks are 34-20. The Bulls are 33-25. The Bulls have only gone 5-8 during their last 13 games. Lost by 32 against Denver, lost by 14 against San Antonio, lost by two against Boston (without Rondo), lost by 19 against Miami, lost by 30 against OKC and lost by 3 against Cleveland (just to name a few during their past 8 loses).
But yet, Knick fans around here are talking up the Chicago Bulls as if they're actually playing "good basketball" without Derrick Rose. When in all actual reality? They haven't been...
Believe it or not, but for as much negativity that's surrounded our Knicks in regards to posters here on UK, our Knicks have at least gone 8-5 during our previous 13 games while Chicago has only 5-8. But yet, the Bulls are being talked up by some of this fan base? Nice to know.
3/1/2013 8:50 AM