99 replies to this topic

[AHF]

Diesel, on 11 March 2010 - 03:52 PM, said:

IN case you missed it, we play Zone.

Secondly, In case you missed it, Smith is one of the better passers on our team and most of the time, he still works out of the high post.  That's the main problem.  We have two bigs working primarily from the high post.  Neither of them has a consistent Low post offense.

Moreover, moving Smith to PF was perceived as the easy move because we were already logjammed at the 3 with Marvin and Chiillz being able to share those minutes.  STILL, Smoove shot more three pointers in 2006 than Marvin has shot over his first 3 years.

We have talked about it continually about Smoove not having the mentality of a post player.  He's getting there, but don't think he did it the day that Al left.  152 freaking three pointers Ex more than 2 a game..  With a poor percentage.  99 the next year.  Come on.  It has been a gradual progression towards learning to be a PF.  He's still developing.  He still needs assisting in the post.

And thank goodness we got him away from the SF position where he was chucking increasing numbers of 3pters and where he would never be able to be an impact defender like he can at the 4!  I am not remotely a fan of Josh at the 3 given that his 3pt shot peaked back in 2005-06 while his inside game has developed for the better every year (agreed that he started from a very raw place).

[Diesel]

AHF, on 11 March 2010 - 04:00 PM, said:

And thank goodness we got him away from the SF position where he was chucking increasing numbers of 3pters and where he would never be able to be an impact defender like he can at the 4!  I am not remotely a fan of Josh at the 3 given that his 3pt shot peaked back in 2005-06 while his inside game has developed for the better every year (agreed that he started from a very raw place).

Actually, I don't believe it would have been any different.  IN our offense, you could have called him what you wanted, he would have done the exact same thing on offense.  It's that whole versatility.  Chillz supposedly played Sf.  Back in 2007-2008, Marvin shot 10 three pointers, Chillz shot 60 three pointers, & Smoove shot 99 three pointers.  Think about that for a minute.  Smoove shot more three pointers than our starting and BU SF... as a PF.  I  don't think that renaming him Sf would have increased his chances to shoot threes.  IN fact, I think he would have played the game the same way offensively.

[exodus]

Diesel, on 12 March 2010 - 05:06 AM, said:

Actually, I don't believe it would have been any different.  IN our offense, you could have called him what you wanted, he would have done the exact same thing on offense.  It's that whole versatility.  Chillz supposedly played Sf.  Back in 2007-2008, Marvin shot 10 three pointers, Chillz shot 60 three pointers, & Smoove shot 99 three pointers.  Think about that for a minute.  Smoove shot more three pointers than our starting and BU SF... as a PF.  I  don't think that renaming him Sf would have increased his chances to shoot threes.  IN fact, I think he would have played the game the same way offensively.

yeah i am sure he would have doubled his inside scoring in one year if he had stayed at the 3.  

[AHF]

Diesel, on 12 March 2010 - 05:06 AM, said:

Actually, I don't believe it would have been any different.  IN our offense, you could have called him what you wanted, he would have done the exact same thing on offense.  It's that whole versatility.  Chillz supposedly played Sf.  Back in 2007-2008, Marvin shot 10 three pointers, Chillz shot 60 three pointers, & Smoove shot 99 three pointers.  Think about that for a minute.  Smoove shot more three pointers than our starting and BU SF... as a PF.  I  don't think that renaming him Sf would have increased his chances to shoot threes.  IN fact, I think he would have played the game the same way offensively.

I don't think he would have been the same offensively if he had stayed at the 3 because I think he would spend more time on the perimeter from the 3, and I think staying at the 3 would have been a problem defensively.

[Diesel]

AHF, on 12 March 2010 - 10:04 AM, said:

I don't think he would have been the same offensively if he had stayed at the 3 because I think he would spend more time on the perimeter from the 3, and I think staying at the 3 would have been a problem defensively.

You ever noticed that when we played JJ at the three, he still did the same things that he does as a 2?

You ever notice the same thing with Chillz playing the 3?  Chillz would actually work the baseline from side to side regardless of what position he was playing.

My point is that I think designations for Woody are just defensive.  I think offensively, he doesn't have a set job for his players.  That's why when Craw comes in a plays... Joe Johnson's role doesn't change even though he's supposed to be playing the 3.  Joe still plays from the top of the key to the high post (in fact it's Craw who plays in the corner on the perimeter).  Even funnier is that Craw comes in and plays the 2, but he doesn't do any of the things that Joe does as a 2.

I think our designations are almost meaningless as far as offense goes.  I think we have a role offense not based on classical designations.  When Joe is on the floor, he's the primary ball handler.  PERIOD.  When Craw is on the floor with Joe, he's another set of hands waiting for a pass.  When Joe goes off the floor, Craw takes over Joe's role.

Therefore, when you see Smoove playing, I think he does the same exact thing regardless of weather you call him a 4 or a 3 or a 5.

[AHF]

Diesel, on 12 March 2010 - 10:47 AM, said:

You ever noticed that when we played JJ at the three, he still did the same things that he does as a 2?

You ever notice the same thing with Chillz playing the 3?  Chillz would actually work the baseline from side to side regardless of what position he was playing.

My point is that I think designations for Woody are just defensive.  I think offensively, he doesn't have a set job for his players.  That's why when Craw comes in a plays... Joe Johnson's role doesn't change even though he's supposed to be playing the 3.  Joe still plays from the top of the key to the high post (in fact it's Craw who plays in the corner on the perimeter).  Even funnier is that Craw comes in and plays the 2, but he doesn't do any of the things that Joe does as a 2.

I think our designations are almost meaningless as far as offense goes.  I think we have a role offense not based on classical designations.  When Joe is on the floor, he's the primary ball handler.  PERIOD.  When Craw is on the floor with Joe, he's another set of hands waiting for a pass.  When Joe goes off the floor, Craw takes over Joe's role.

Therefore, when you see Smoove playing, I think he does the same exact thing regardless of weather you call him a 4 or a 3 or a 5.

I think Smith liked being on the perimeter and had to be handled into spending less time on the perimeter and that with another post player in the game he would have been harder than ever to get away from taking jump shots at the 3.

Accepting  your point for the purposes of argument, however, I think that putting him as a 3 for defensive purposes would have been a huge mistake.

[Diesel]

AHF, on 12 March 2010 - 11:48 AM, said:

I think Smith liked being on the perimeter and had to be handled into spending less time on the perimeter and that with another post player in the game he would have been harder than ever to get away from taking jump shots at the 3.

Accepting  your point for the purposes of argument, however, I think that putting him as a 3 for defensive purposes would have been a huge mistake.

Well, for at least 3 years, people have been urging Smoove away from the 3 point line.  I don't think Woody mandated it, I think Smith finally realized that it would be best for the team.

Still, we play primarily zone so it wouldn't matter what designation you gave Smoove. (at the end of the day).

Let's not be fooled, Smoove doesn't play PFs on-ball that great either.  Did you see last night's game.  How many times did Blatche just blow past Smoove?

My thing is this.  IF the Hawks get Carlos Boozer...

We should shrug our shoulders and say Smoove needs to come of the bench or Horf needs to come off the bench.  Boozer gives us a post presence on offense.  Something that we don't have now.  Smoove could play the three in that circumstance.
Or if we were to get Bynum... I say Same deal.

Our offense is just a matter of skillset not classical role.

[spotatl]

Diesel- the Hawks defense gets killed when a team can drag Smith to the perimeter on defense. ITs a big part of why the Magic kill the Hawks. Its why the Knicks give the Hawks so much trouble. Its why I am horribly worried about what happens when the Hawks play Cleveland. Paying Smith at SF on defense would mean that problem is there EVERY game.

[AHF]

Diesel, on 12 March 2010 - 12:03 PM, said:

Well, for at least 3 years, people have been urging Smoove away from the 3 point line.  I don't think Woody mandated it, I think Smith finally realized that it would be best for the team.

Still, we play primarily zone so it wouldn't matter what designation you gave Smoove. (at the end of the day).

Let's not be fooled, Smoove doesn't play PFs on-ball that great either.  Did you see last night's game.  How many times did Blatche just blow past Smoove?

My thing is this.  IF the Hawks get Carlos Boozer...

We should shrug our shoulders and say Smoove needs to come of the bench or Horf needs to come off the bench.  Boozer gives us a post presence on offense.  Something that we don't have now.  Smoove could play the three in that circumstance.
Or if we were to get Bynum... I say Same deal.

Our offense is just a matter of skillset not classical role.

Smith will be a round peg in a square hole regardless of what team he is on or who else is on the roster as long as he is playing small forward, IMO.  For his development, the shift to the 4 was clearly, clearly the right move.

If a team got Kobe and Durant when JJ was a young player o then JJ needs to not be playing the 2 or 3 for them.  For JJ's development as a younger player, though, he would still clearly be best served to be at the 2 or 3 where he is guarding swingmen and where he was playing on the perimeter offensively- regardless of how loaded his team was at the 2/3 slots that would be where he would be best served as a player.  The same principle applies in my mind to Smith at the 4 versus at the 3 - regardless of what talented players were on his team, he needed to be developed as a PF and gotten away from the perimeter both on offense and defense where he would have been much more as a 3.  (Before we get sidetracked on a non-issue, I will say that I see the 2 and 3 positions as being pretty interchangable wing positions and that I see a big difference between the 3 and 4 position).

Edited by AHF, 12 March 2010 - 12:15 PM.

[Diesel]

spotatl, on 12 March 2010 - 12:09 PM, said:

Diesel- the Hawks defense gets killed when a team can drag Smith to the perimeter on defense. ITs a big part of why the Magic kill the Hawks. Its why the Knicks give the Hawks so much trouble. Its why I am horribly worried about what happens when the Hawks play Cleveland. Paying Smith at SF on defense would mean that problem is there EVERY game.

defensively, you handle that with a zone,  Preferably one where Smoove can float and play rover.