20 replies to this topic

[Diesel]

People think we lose to teams just because they are over .500.  I say, that's just a coincidence. When you see the Hawks, you see one thing.  We are a perimeter team.  Even with Horf, our two best inside players are Zaza and Teague.  Everybody else is trying to make it rain from outside.  This is why I talk about not being built right.  We're not built the right way.  We don't have that inside scorer/defender that balances out the team.  The reason why we're 9-3 without Horf starting is because Horf when inserted in the lineup, doesn't improve our inside game that much.  He's a pick and pop guy.  The Hawks need that inside presence that can score.
However, it's not a teams record that makes us succumb to them, it's our inability to have that scoring balance.  So, when we're on, we're unstoppable, when we're off.. blowout.

Teague has improved us.  Teague is that PG who will not just sit outside, but we still need that inside player who will try to dunk everytime he touches the ball. Until we find that in trade or FAcy, we're going to be here.  BTW, Martin is not the guy but he's a good pickup for the vet min.

[MaceCase]

So your analysis is that the team just so happens to be coincidentally "off" against over .500 teams but "on" against sub .500 teams?
Provocative....

[Sothron]

It is more than just a coincidence. Good teams usually are good defensive teams which means they run out on shooters and fight through screens to contest shots. You have teams like Mempis with a guy like Tony Allen who does  a great job in denying someone even the chance to get the ball on their spot (Joe does this for us as well) for example. I don't disagree that we aren't built right because we have NO inside game at all. The closest we get are the handful of post ups that Al or Josh would get or the few times Joe posts up or attacks the paint with his floater. We need a low post big man in the worst way.

It is much easier for a good team to shut down a jumpshooting team than a team with a balanced offense. You have to either honor the double team on the inside or give up shots on the outside.

[Wretch]

Diesel, on 03 February 2012 - 12:51 PM, said:

People think we lose to teams just because they are over .500.  I say, that's just a coincidence. When you see the Hawks, you see one thing.  We are a perimeter team.  Even with Horf, our two best inside players are Zaza and Teague.  Everybody else is trying to make it rain from outside.  This is why I talk about not being built right.  We're not built the right way.  We don't have that inside scorer/defender that balances out the team.  The reason why we're 9-3 without Horf starting is because Horf when inserted in the lineup, doesn't improve our inside game that much.  He's a pick and pop guy.  The Hawks need that inside presence that can score.
However, it's not a teams record that makes us succumb to them, it's our inability to have that scoring balance.  So, when we're on, we're unstoppable, when we're off.. blowout.

Teague has improved us.  Teague is that PG who will not just sit outside, but we still need that inside player who will try to dunk everytime he touches the ball. Until we find that in trade or FAcy, we're going to be here.  BTW, Martin is not the guy but he's a good pickup for the vet min.

I agree that we're not built right and that we live and die by the jumpshot.  I also agree that we need inside scoring.  That doesn't tell the whole story though.  On any given night, we lack discipline, focus, and hustle.  We lack LEADERSHIP.  The better teams are also focused.  They play with a sense of urgency and pride consistently.  They have one mind/one goal, everyone knows their role, and they operate like a machine.  There is no quit - there is only DO.  

Outside of a guy like Dwight, a no BS coach, and just a major transplant....I don't think there's a fix readily available.  Not for the guys that think there's some magic bandaid we can pull off the waivers somewhere.  

The biggest change will have to come from within these dudes.

[Dolfan23]

MaceCase, on 03 February 2012 - 12:56 PM, said:

So your analysis is that the team just so happens to be coincidentally "off" against over .500 teams but "on" against sub .500 teams?
Provocative....

I don't see that being the case as we've had games where we are "on" against +.500 teams, it just happens less often because those teams are better defensively.  Diesel absolutely has a point though about our problems being related to not being able to score inside, although not being able to rebound or defend down low are just as big of a problem.

[MaceCase]

Dolfan23, on 03 February 2012 - 01:58 PM, said:

I don't see that being the case as we've had games where we are "on" against +.500 teams, it just happens less often because those teams are better defensively.  Diesel absolutely has a point though about our problems being related to not being able to score inside, although not being able to rebound or defend down low are just as big of a problem.

Therein lies the problem I have with the asinine statement, Dol.  It's not a coincidence at all when we lose to good teams if you are going to also state the inherent problem the team has which just so happens to be an aspect that good teams are commonly capable of exploiting......thus why they win games and have a good record....

[LastDon]

Dump AL for Kaman and the hornets 2012 1st unprotected...take the 14 million and make a run at dwight this summer...And I agree with everything Diesel said about Al being a pick and pop guy and not much of an improvement over Za Za in OUR balanced offensive. However I think if featured on a team AL could be 17/18ppg player in the right system..

Edited by LastDon, 03 February 2012 - 03:03 PM.

[sultanofatl]

I'm sorry I know people hate to hear it, but Josh Smith is the answer and the problem.  If he had played under control, in the paint, and had not been so sloppy with passes etc. we would have kept our tempo and probably gotten a nice lead.   Either Josh has to go, or we need a dominant player who will him into a more appropriate role.

[LastDon]

With Al Horford we are not going to win a championship..plus Al isn't coming back this year..its time for this organization to take a risk dump salary and get in the Dwight Howard Sweepstakes..

[Jody23]

sultanofatl, on 03 February 2012 - 03:11 PM, said:

I'm sorry I know people hate to hear it, but Josh Smith is the answer and the problem.  If he had played under control, in the paint, and had not been so sloppy with passes etc. we would have kept our tempo and probably gotten a nice lead.   Either Josh has to go, or we need a dominant player who will him into a more appropriate role.

Maybe a package of Smith and Hinrich could return a player that could change the dynamic of the team for the better.

[Diesel]

MaceCase, on 03 February 2012 - 12:56 PM, said:

So your analysis is that the team just so happens to be coincidentally "off" against over .500 teams but "on" against sub .500 teams?
Provocative....

Well, on the surface.  I think Good coaches can smell us coming and good teams have players who can do what needs to be done to stop us...
1.  Crowd Joe.
2.  Outrebound us.
3.  Clutter Teague's path to the rim.

However, most coaches are too one tracked to think that way.  In fact, most coaches still rely on the playbook of us from 2 and 3 years ago where if you just be physical with us, we will shrink.  Physical doesn't get it, but outrebounding us and crowding Joe will.
When you look at our losses.. (I haven't done the numbers yet)... I would guess that you see:
1.  We were outrebounded by double digits.
2.  Joe's FG% was low or his point production was low.
3.  Teague didn't score too much.

Tmac is not built to save us everynight.
We made a living hiding our weakness with Bibby and Craw.
We look good because we have better defense.  We look bad because our shooting from outside is still our meal ticket.

[Diesel]

Wretch, on 03 February 2012 - 01:57 PM, said:

I agree that we're not built right and that we live and die by the jumpshot.  I also agree that we need inside scoring.  That doesn't tell the whole story though.  On any given night, we lack discipline, focus, and hustle.  We lack LEADERSHIP.  The better teams are also focused.  They play with a sense of urgency and pride consistently.  They have one mind/one goal, everyone knows their role, and they operate like a machine.  There is no quit - there is only DO.  

That's the elephant my friend.  Coach Larry has done alot to help our guys elephant.  Elephant is that emotional part of your brain that makes you do.  The elephant can be easily confused and discouraged.  When our shots are not falling and we're behind on the scoreboard, you see our elephant give up.  So even though our team knows what to do.. their elephant is out of the game and they quit.  The elephant is the same for every player in the league.   Some coaches do a better job of motivating the elephant than others.  If we had successes, you wouldn't see that as much.  The more success we have, the more confidence our elephant gets. However, we haven't won nothing (championship). Without the experience of winning something, it's hard to believe that you can.   A quick fix for the elephant is a championship coach.  That's why I wanted a name coach.  Another quick fix is a star player like Dwight.  Leadership is relative.  How many times have I heard Horf being called this teams lockerroom leader.   Horf came from a winning tradition but winning down there and winning up here are two different things.  Daly used to flash the rings to motivate.  Hawks coaching never had that quality.  Hawks players had some motivation with Deke.  I think if Josh goes to the Allstar game, the motivation will increase 10 fold.

[Diesel]

MaceCase, on 03 February 2012 - 02:23 PM, said:

Therein lies the problem I have with the asinine statement, Dol.  It's not a coincidence at all when we lose to good teams if you are going to also state the inherent problem the team has which just so happens to be an aspect that good teams are commonly capable of exploiting......thus why they win games and have a good record....

Nope.  You have to understand my point.  We're going to face some bad teams that can outrebound us and score in the paint and our shooting my be off.  And we're going to wonder... what happened?  We're going to say, we should have beaten them.  However the truth is coincidentally those bad teams that we have beaten so far, lacked those ability or we had a very good game shooting from outside.
So there's nothing asinine about it.

LastDon, on 03 February 2012 - 03:02 PM, said:

Dump AL for Kaman and the hornets 2012 1st unprotected...take the 14 million and make a run at dwight this summer...And I agree with everything Diesel said about Al being a pick and pop guy and not much of an improvement over Za Za in OUR balanced offensive. However I think if featured on a team AL could be 17/18ppg player in the right system..

That's not a bad fix.  The question is what would the pick do for us? and what can kaman do for us this year?

[Jody23]

I wonder what a package of Josh and Hinrick could fetch?

[High5]

The Hawks are a flawed team and good teams are usually able to exploit those flaws. Real groundbreaking stuff.