TheNorthCydeRises

Quote: Quote: I also don't understand why putting Smith at the 3 would make him any less effective. He could still play around the basket on offense, while Andersen mostly hangs out on the perimeter to shoot jump shots. If anything, it would make him more efficient by getting rid of some of his awful jumpers. I think the thought is that defensively he struggles more with faster perimeter players than with PFs and that offensively he would spend more time on the perimeter - although you correctly point out that this wouldn't necessarily be the case. Travis Outlaw.

Quote: The bottomline Northcyde is that you need to quantify how much Smith makes up for our defense and compare his impact with Marvin's impact. Oh there is no doubt that Smith has a greater impact on defense than Marvin. The problem though, is that if you put him at SF, you either force the Hawks to constantly play zone ( which you can't do all the time in this league ), or you expose him to guard players much quicker than he is. Like you said, Smoove is a rover. Not a great "on the ball" defender like AK47. That's the reason why although he's a tremendous shot blocker, he didn't make any of those all-NBA defensive squads. At PF, he does get punked down low sometimes, but he creates much more havoc defensively with even the threat of a shot block. Quote: You say everything has to be changed to accomodate Smith? Oh No my brother. Smith was here before Marvin. By the end of his rookie campaign, it seemed like Smith had earned the Sf Spot. However, one GM who has since quit made the mistake of drafting Marvin anyway. So it's not Smith who has to be accomodated.... It's Marvin. No it isn't. Marvin is a SF, almost the prototype of a SF. Whether Smoove is here or not, Marvin does not have to be moved around in order to maxmize his potential. To maximize Smoove's potential, he HAS to play the 4. Horford's toughness will enable him to be a success, whether he plays the 4 or the 5. I've compared Smoove to Diaw ( NOT TALENT WISE ), but how they can be most effective for a team. In Diaw's case, he was best when he played either the 4 or the 5 in Phoenix's system, especially when Amare was out. Why? Because he could take those slower guys off te dribble with ease, and get to the rim. He looked like a rising star at times. The minute Amare came back, and Phoenix tried to use him more at the 3, was the time when all of the grumblings about Diaw started to resuface. Because he wasn't playing "point" center anymore, he started to revert back to tht passive-aggressive player that he was here. Add Shaq to the mix, and the situation got worse for Diaw as a player within that system because he played SF much more, making him even more passive-aggressive to the point where D'Antoni stopped using him as much. When WOODY decided to go with Smith as his PF, it was the best thing that ever happened to Smith's career, because it gave him an opportunity to be a legit scoring threat, along with the defense he already brought to the table. Woody, and the 8 games he sat out because of the hernia injury, helped him see that if he just started to go to the rim, that he could be a better offensive player. He still loves the jumpshot, but he also knows he has to get to the rim as well. Put him back at SF, and you run a big risk of taking that scoring element right out of his game, because he'll settle for the jumper even more. Quote: Smith has a bigger impact on the games. Smith has higher potential. Smith seems to actually work at his craft and you can see the improvement in his play year by year. No one will dispute that. But it's the Smith that plays the 4, not the 3, that has him on the verge of becoming a star. Marvin at the 3 hs ALWAYS been better than Smith at the 3. Quote: If there's a choice to be made, it's not about Smith and Horf... Horf is the PF. It's about Smith and Williams. And in this case, Williams has earned his spot on the bench or in a trade. It only comes down to Smith and Marvin ONLY if we get a bonafide legit center here that obviously helps us to be a much better team . . and . . if Horford needs to be alongside that center at PF. But until we get that legit center ( aka - a center who can play the position better than Horford ), you keep Horford at the 5, and Smoove at the 4 until further notice, because it presents the bst chance we have at winning games.

Quote: Now I see why you have no faith in the guy. You hate Duke and Anderson is doing well in a league a Duke player owned. LOL @ you thinking it's better to skip NCAA to avoid getting your game "defined" by Duke. LOL . . I'm U of Tennessee alumni. I hate Florida and Memphis, not Duke. Quote: Tell that to Boozer, Battier, Brand, Deng, Duhon, Dunleavy, Ferry, Hill etc. etc. All, with the exception of Deng, stayed a while and have (are having) decent NBA careeres. Don't forget about all the average players that became well known for playing at Duke.. Laettner, Redick, Williams (Jay and Sheldon), Hurley etc. etc. I'm not going to get into a Duke battle with you, so I'll just say this. Almost every guy that comes out of Duke, is heraled as being a potential star or superstar, based of what kind of player they were in college. If people constantly criticize Marvin for not being a star player seeing that he's a lottery pick, then you have to do the same thing for guys like Battier, Deng, Ferry, Redick, Hurley and Jay Wlliams ( who both struggled mightily in their first year in the league ), Shelden, William Avery and JJ Redick. Coach K's system is about the success of the team, not necessarily about showcasing the talent and skill of individual players. That's why Duke, as a program, consistently wins. But it's also why a lot of their megastar players in college, don't see their games translate into stars in the pros. That's what i meant by "a college system". Bobby Knight did the same thing with his players at Indiana. It was team before individual talent. Kentucky and Tubby Smith employed the same philosophy.

Quote: Well if Woody is coming back you can expect that everyone's shot numbers and percentages will be lower than we would like. However, having a legit shooter at the C position will allow for EVERYONE's %'s to go up. He will spread the floor and allow JJ to not get doubled as often while also allowing Horford and Smoove to operate/drive around the basket. The opposing teams C will constantly be near the top of the key. Fawk your numbers, I'm more interested in actual offensive production. Save that crap for your fantasy league. Why do people get mad because I'm not drinking this Andersen kool aid? I'm just trying to point out legitimat questions. And the opposing team's center isn't following Andersen out to the perimeter. A team will switch, so that their main rebounder or shot blocker can stay close to the rim. That's exactly what we do with Horford and Smoove. If Andersen is out by the 3 point line, he'll end up with a SF on him most of the time. That will give Andersen the ability to shoot over the guy. If we were playing the Spurs, Duncan isn't following Andersen out behind the line. He'd either be on Horford in the first place, or switch to him. Hopefully, he'll knock the shot down if a smaller man is on him. If Andersen can shoot as well as Marvin from midrange, that will be good.

Quote: Here's the problem. You don't know how these guys would respond at these positions. Would you play Karl Malone at C instead of PF? Then why are you so willing to keep Horf at C?? Everybody knows that Horf is a prototypical PF. When he plays against physical bigs, he don't show up as well as when he plays against transformed PFs. That's because he's a PF. Us playing him at Center, is us delaying his growth. PERIOD. I'd rather play Smoove at Center than to play Horf there. I think Horf is going to be an allstar PF... but I can't see him as an allstar C. Maybe a 12/10 C but definitely not allstar. Good post Diesel. And it keeps proving my point. Everything has to be adjusted, in order to accomodate Josh Smith. I made a thread about this very subject last August, because I could kind of see this coming, if it became obvious that Horford was a better PF than Smoove. It's the Kirilenko situation all over again, because it was obvious that Boozer had the skills to play PF, and take shots away from Kirilenko. And once Utah obtained Deron, his role in the Utah offense diminished even more. But here's what we know about Smith: - Smith is about to get paid like he's the 2nd best player on the team. - Woody has made it a point to try to make him one of the main scoring options on this team, for better or for worse. - Smith, as an athletic PF, played well enough this year for people to consider him to be a rising star in this league. Overall, he had his best offensive year. - Smith, when he plays the 4 has shown flashes of being a dominant rebounder and is definitely a force blocking shots. - Smith was the worst jumpshooter on the Hawks, and one of the worst in the league - Smith led the Hawks in turnovers So yes, we at least know how Smoove will respond at SF, because he is not good on the perimeter at all. But the main issue, is if Horford @ C . . Smoove @ PF . . and Marvin @ SF . . . . is a better lineup than Andersen @ C . . Horford @ PF . . and Smoove @ SF? We know what we get with the current lineup. They're undersized, and have to really battle night in and night out. Last year, that lineup gave us over 42 ppg and 23 rebs. With that 2nd lineup, a lot of that hinges on how Smoove plays on the perimeter, and if he's willing to give up shots to Horford. If Smoove struggles at SF, Horford would almost have to be a 24 ppg and 12 reb guy, to compensate for Smoove's shortcomings on the perimeter. Quote: You underestimate Andersen too. He's not some 17 year old europlayer. This guy has won 3 championships. He should come in experienced. If you watched the end of the season, you would have noted that Horf played better next to a C...even Zaza. NBA experience is totally different than FIBA basketball. Remember Sarunas Jasikievicus(sp)? The PG for the Gold Medal Lithuanian team that beat Larry Brown's Team USA in the 2004 Olympics? That cat was heraled as a guy that could definitely play in the NBA, because he played so well vs the USA. So he comes to the NBA and the Pacers sign him. Then all of the reasons why that guy wasn't drafted in the first place coming out of Maryland, comes straight to the surface. He's too slow. He can't defend well at all. He's not that good of a playmaker. And because he's playing against elite level athletes every night, he'll struggle to even function in the league. The vast majority of international players that come to play in the NBA, come when they are young, not when they are older. The NBA is totally different from international basketball. So when those players come over here when they are young, they're more able to adjust their game to NBA level. One of the things you notice about today's NBA is that while everyone claims that they want guys who have stayed in college longer, the reality is that the majority of the guys who go on to be good to great players, are those freshmen and sophomores that declare early. Sometimes, it's better to get a guy into the league, before his game gets defined by the college system that he's in ( see Duke and Indiana ). The same seems to hold true for international players. So you damn right I underestimate Andersen, a guy that plays in a league that is more about finesse and team ball movement, as opposed to the individual skill and physical nature that the NBA tends to focus on. If a guy like Trajan Langdon can be a star over there, I'm sure that JJ Redick or even Salim could dominate that league as a scorer. Yeah, I'm leery of Andersen, if the best big man he's going up against, is former Sixer anf T-Wolve Marc Jackson.

Quote: The Hawks were giving up around 105PPG the second half of the season. What is Anthony going to do to improve that? Answer: NOTHING. Scoring 110PPG got his team embarrassed and swept in the first round. The only team that got swept was Denver. I would take Brand over Anthony at this point. The Hawks defense would probably improve atleast. Riiiiiiight. And the offense would stay exactly the same with Melo on the Hawks? Subtract Smoove and Bibby from the Hawks, and add Melo, and we have a good shot to beat Boston. Subtract Marvin and Bibby from the Hawks, and add Melo, and we beat Boston in 6 games.

This fan base is funny. Complain about Marvin's lack of versatility in his game, an Smoove's BBIQ and shot selection all day long . . but wouldn't want JJ to team up with a top 5 SF in this league? Once again, here is the main ingredient for most championship teams. Have 2 guys who are legit All-Stars, plus a 3rd guy who is very good JJ + Melo + Smoove or Horford. Or ish, Smoove and Horford and JJ and Melo. Melo is an ELITE basketball player, arguably a top 10 player in the league. Yet people don't want him? Insanity. Melo solves just about every offensive problem this team currently has. He can score on the block, giving us a potent low post scorer. He can make the 3. He can create off the dribble. He shoots almost 50% FG. He's a great rebounder for a SF. And he can pass. This is just another instance of Hawksquawk not thinking clearly.

Quote: You be specific. Why does anyone owe you some kind of scouting report on Andersen? I don't know what to expect from him. I don't know anything about him aside from his Euro stats. I think they should try him out as a bench player and see what he can do. If he can shoot and play even passable defense, then I think he should get at least around 20 minutes a game. See, now that wasn't hard to do. I'm just trying to get a feel of what the board expects of him. So if he's good enough, you expect him to at least be our 7th man off the bench, which should put him ahead of Zaza on the depth chart. Quote: Is our starting 5 really so great that he shouldn't be able to break in if he's good enough? I don't get why you think there aren't shots to go around. There's only one person on the entire team who can actually shoot day in and day out. Well, if JJ and Bibby are our backcourt, they're going to take about 25 - 30 shots a game between them next year. (( JJ around 16 - 20 FGA, Bibby around 8 - 11 )) Smoove took 14 shots a game last year. (( take away his 3's, and he shoots 48% FG last year )) Marvin 11.5 ( if he took 14 shots like Smith did, he averages 18 ppg. )) Horford took under 10. (( He'll need 10 - 14 shots this year, in order to be that legit threat offensively. So yeah, I think shots are going to be a real big issue, because the 2 guys that need to shoot less, Bibby and Smoove, won't be happy givng up some of their shots. I see Andersen, if he's able to shoot 50%, taking no more than 5 - 6 shots a game. So if his typical game is 3 - 6 FG, and one of those FGs is 3-pointer or a few FTs, I could see him averaging 8 ppg ( at the max ). Quote: It would not hurt my feelings at all to see Marvin moved to the bench and a starting lineup of Bibby/Acie, Joe, Smith, Horford and Andersen. Not that I'm expecting him to be a starter, but if he could consistently hit shots and play defense, I don't think Marvin exactly earns his keep as a starter on a regular basis. Marvin shot 46% FG last year, and was our 2nd best perimeter shooter, even without the 3s. And speaking of shots being taken away, Bibby's presence got Marvin more open looks, but fewer shots per game. People are all over Marvin, even though he had 4 months this yar in which he shot over 46% FG this year, and consistently 80% from the line. He had a horrible February, but everything else was solid, from a shooting standpoint. Yet, people are all over him because he's not playing at a star level. He was a huge reason why we got off to the start that we did last year. He was EASILY our most consistent player during November and December. Playing Smoove at SF reduces him to a Kirilenko-like role player. I'm sure that won't set well with him, just like it didn't for AK 2 years ago. As for where Andersen will get minutes . . . PG: Bibby 32 / Acie 16 G: JJ 40 / Chill 8 SF: Marvin 32 / Chill 16 PF: Smoove 36 / Horford 12 C: Horford 24 / Andersen 12 / Zaza 12 Now if Andersen is significantly better than Zaza, he may phaze Zaza completely out of the rotation, and get his 20 mpg. If he's anything less than instant offense though, he'll have a hard time getting more than 10 minutes a game.

Quote: Quote: It's Josh Smith that this organization and coaches keep having to adjust to, in order to keep him on the floor. Adding a center and moving Smoove to the 3, doesn't help this team. It just creates different problems that will hinder us. If this is the problem, you change the defense. You have to understand... historically, you always put your worse defender at Sf anyway. Also, when you're talking about the ability to play Zone defense, we should be able to hide Smoove's inabilities. I think Smoove works better as a rover anyway. He gets Punked by bigs who know how to use their body. We're talking 3 quick fouls in the first half in a playoff game. On top of that, you play Horf out of position, so now he's trying to play Center... that doesn't make sense. It would be nice if David Andersen can come in and provide us with 13-15 points in 24 minutes and give the last 24 to Zaza. I don't know why Wood never experimented with differnent kinds of matchup Zones. Lastly, Smoove's mentality is not going to allow him to be a pF. Diesel, your post illustrates EXACTLY what I'm talking about. Everything has to be adjusted, in order to accomodate Josh Smith, not anyone else on the team. Horford CAN be effective during his time at center, he just won't be potentially dominant. It would't surprise me one bit to see Horford average 15 ppg and 11 rebs from the center spot next year. Those types of numbers are almost all-star numbers, if they don't put those hybrid PF/Cs on the all-star ballot as a center. But for Smith at SF, everything has to be adjusted and controlled, in order for him to even be remotely successful at that position. According to you, we can play zone to protect him on defense . . or pull him out of a game everytime he throws up a long jumper to try to break that habit. So in essence, we'd have to take some of his aggressiveness on both ends of the floor away from him, if he plays SF. Why? Because he lacks the skills to play SF at a high level in this league. His FG%, points, and rebounds will all go down down if he plays SF. His assists may go up, but so will his turnovers and number of perimeter jumpers. But keep him as an athletic 4, and he has all-star potential if he plays smart and plays tough. You DON'T trade Smith, or move him to the 3, just so that Horford can play PF full time and have Zaza/Andersen split time at center. That's insanity. But you DO trade Smith if you can get a significant upgrade at PF or C. Gasol was a significant upgrade. Brand would be a significant upgrade. Okafor MIGHT be, because he's more of an inside player than Smith. Otherwise, we have to keep him at the 4, and encourage the kid to be more of a force on the inside. This is about Smith, and not the people surrounding him. It's he that has to play to his strengths as a player, and get tougher. As for hoping that Andersen could be able to average 13 - 15 points in 24 minutes . . . lol. NO WAY IN HELL COULD HE DO THAT So I guess we're going to make ANDERSEN the main scoring option while he's in the game, and make sure he gets 11 - 13 FGA and 4 - 6 FTA in 24 minutes? Ish, if he does that, he's a shoo-in for ROY next year. See, that's why I wanted some of you to put expected numbers behind what some of you expect of Andersen. He'd have to take the 3rd or 4th most shots on the team next year, to achieve those PPG numbers.

Quote: I would take shots away from Bibby because he can't shoot more than half the time. Childress also can't hit an outside shot for the most part. You could also eliminate all of Josh Smith's jumpers. Not that difficult to figure out. Have you not realized that the Hawks biggest problem is when JJ gets double teamed and Bibby can't hit a shot? I don't know why it's so hard to believe they need another shooter to come in and take some shots. This year's strategy led to a 37-45 record. Be specific though. How many minutes should Andersen see per game? How many shots should he take a game? How many points should he average? And what do you expect him to shoot from the field? Only JB has even remotely try to answer those questions. He expects Andersen to put up Zaza like numbers from 06 - 07. I just want to get a feel for what you guys truly expect from Andersen. Specific things, not just general statements about his perceived role.

Avery got that soft azz Dallas team to the NBA Finals, when they finally started to play a little defense. He even found a role for Diop, a guy that most people thought was a complete bust. Avery would even go with Diop during crunch time sometmes, instead of Dampier. And it made them a better team and enabled them to reach the Finals. But he never could get the leader of the team, Dirk, to play tough. It wasn't Avery's fault that Dallas failed the past 2 years. And Avery didn't trade his best post defender and their ultra quick young PG. But the coach will always take the fall. And while people say that Avery made a mistake by changing up his starting lineup against Golden St, they forget that Golden St had beaten Dallas 9 out of the previous 10 times before that playoff series. Avery had the balls and common sense to try something different, since his regular lineup never worked against Golden St. Avery micro-managing a game might be exactly what the Hawks need, seeing that we like to play what looks like "park basketball" at times. If Avery can get us to play more disciplined on both ends of the floor, then I'm all for that.

2 of the biggest pipe dreams on this board are: - Marvin will become a star player. I believed that at one time, but i have to come to the realization that Marvin's destiny will probably that of a very good role player that has the capability of being an efficient scorer alongside a star player. He'll never be "the man", as far as I can see. But he definitenly isn't a bust or a guy who isn't still improving. I could see him averaging 18 - 20 ppg with 50% FG shooting during the peak of his career, ONLY, if a team trusts him enough to be the #2 scoring option. Other than that, he'll be a realiable, but unspectaclar 14 - 17 ppg scorer who plays in the league for another 7 - 10 years. - Josh Smith can develop enough to effectively play SF Josh is where he is right now because he can beat most PFs down the court or off the dribble. He cannot do this wth SFs. On defense, he'll have trouble with slashing SFs that can get to the rim. He's also one of the worst outside shooters in the league. He also has trouble handling the ball under even light defensive pressure. So if he can't beat SFs off the dribble, or knock down open jumpers, or dribble effectively when pressured, how in the world can he play SF AND continue to be our #2 or #3 option in the offense? His shot at being a big time player, is continue to play the 4. But he has to get tough. It's Josh Smith that this organization and coaches keep having to adjust to, in order to keep him on the floor. Adding a center and moving Smoove to the 3, doesn't help this team. It just creates different problems that will hinder us.

Quote: I watched that vid and I must say...While I feel he may not be a serious contender, his game is nothing like a Bullard or Zhizhi. Some of those shots he was hitting were very tough contested legit moves in a legit league. He's much more athletic and (seemingly) touch than anyone you guys are comparing him too. A legit league that saw former Duke and Cleveland Cavalier player Trajan Langon win their Final Four MVP and a league where former NBA journeyman, Marc Jackson, might be the best center in the league? As for videos, didn't people on this board learn anything from the Yi hype last summer? Project Andersen's numbers for next season then ... numbers you expect from him: - minutes - points - FG% - 3FG% I won't address the other categories, seeing that people only expect offensive production out of DA.

Whether we have Andersen, another big, is a moot point. This is all about Josh Smith. If he plays the 4, he HAS to get tougher. If he contines to play weak, he will always be a schizophrenic offensive player. That means the kid has to mix it up on the inside, especially on the offensive boards. As long as he continues to play like Rasheed Wallace, he will always struggle as an offensive player, regardless of who our center is. What I would like to know from the Andersen fans, is what kind of numbers do you really expect for him to put up here, with JJ, Bibby, and Smoove taking over 60% of the shots. Do you give Andersen more shots than Marvin? Horford? Acie? Chill? Seriously. Do some of you expect Andersen to come in here, and even average 8 ppg, with all of the players we currently have on the roster right now? Who are you taking shots away from, in order to maximize Andersen's effectiveness on the offensive end? Some of you need to be careful putting your hopes and dreams into Andersen. He might be no more than the next Matt Bullard, instead of a guy who can be a key cog off the bench. But back to the topic . . . this is all about Josh Smith, and no one else. Al has proven that he will at least battle at center night in and night out. Smoove picks and chooses when he wants to battle. When he does decide that he'll battle every night, he'll be a 10 - 12 rpg guy, see his FG% go up, and really be a force in this league, regardless of who is playing center for us. But Smith HAS TO PLAY THE 4. You play him at the 3, you better do like Utah did Kirilenko, and drastically reduce the number of shots he takes, unless he scores the vast majority of his points via offensive rebounds and off the fast break.

Quote: Under any other coach Acie would have made a lot more progress. That's one of the things that drives me crazy about Woody. The bench needs a commitment about how many minutes to expect so they can develop. He's never done that and it hurt us in the playoffs. What hurt us in the playoffs, was the guy that some are advocating to start over Acie. Bibby flat out sold us out, and Rondo made him look very slow and old. People need to realize that although we don't make the playoffs without Bibby, he's also a guy that is in decline. Wishing for the Bibby of 7 years ago to just show up next year, is just that . . . .wishing. It's not happening folks Acie needs to start, period. Give Bibby Lue's old role as "the closer". But if Bibby isn't making shots, keep him out of the game because he'll kill you defensively. If he's not making shots, he doesn't need to play 30 minutes a game. Ish, maybe not even 20 minutes.

Magic was a freak of nature though. He could literally play all 5 positions. Kareem was great and didn't meed Magic. Worthy was great, but Magic made him a top 50 player. Byron Scott was a very good 2 guard who definitely benefitted from Magic's passing as he penetrated and kicked it out. Plus Magic was clutch and hit big shots. I may have put Paul too high, because to me, he hasn't had that one defining moment in his career yet. He's just been great all-around so far, but hasn't had that "ball in your hand with time running down" moment, to win a game. But Paul right now is a better passing version of Isaiah with similar scoring ability.

Quote: Straight from the Stus. Magic, Isiah, Stockton, Chris Paul, Price, Kidd, Kevin Johnson, and Parker. Since you put past PGs on the list, you have to rank them while they were in their prime. 1) Magic 2) Stockton 3) Paul 4) Isaiah 5) Kidd 6) KJ 7) Price 8) Parker

Quote: Only Biedriens has potienial to be an Hawk and even that will cost us. Face it, if we keep Smith for the price he demanding then we are no different then the Bulls or any other team. At best a playoff team, at worst late lottery. We are never going to contend. Josh Smith will never be the player many of you wished he would be and I been saying that all alone. Look at the playoffs series with the Celtics. Marvin: two good games, three average games, and two terrible games Josh Smith: two great games, one average game, and four terrible games. That's not the type of player you invest 10 mil in, regardless even MAX. He is not that good, he can be a very good player on the right team and the Hawks aren't that. We would have to trade Horford and JJ and build around Smith and that's asinine. Different coach is good for some but not everyone. Do you think a different coach is going to make Redd play harder on a non .500 team. Do you think a different coach made Chauncey, Rip, and Ben mesh. No, it's all about the roster and the chemistry they built. With Smith we are never going to have great chemistry. He does dumb sh!t too much and the style that would best fit us as a team, doesn't fit Josh at all. He a fan fav. guess what so is Keith Brooking but I feel the Falcons were better without him starting then otherwise. Just because someone a fan favorite doesn't mean you keep him, especially at a ricudilous price that he will probably attract. I think the problem with Josh, is that everybody keeps telling him that he's going to be a superstar if he does this, this, and this. Like I said before the season, it's kind of like what Kirilenko was going through, before the Jazz added Boozer and Deron. Yeah, he has talent and is a very exciting player to watch. But AK47 has some SERIOUS limitations as a player, especially offensively, that will always keep him from being a true star player from a scoring standpoint. He's a tremendous complimentary player though. But as soon as Sloan got a legit PF and PG to replace Malone and Stockton, he knew he had to reduce the offensive role of AK and convince him to be the all-around defensive glue of the team. This series, more than any other player on this team, illustrated what is great and what is horrible about Smoove. We already knew it, but his good and bad traits were magnified during the playoffs. Next season will be interesting. If Horford improves his offensive game, he's going to have to get more touches. Smith is just too erratic of a scorer to be the #2 option on this team, especially when he shoots sub 45% FG from the PF position. And we all know why he shoots that low. If Smith changes his mentality toward his offensive game, and becomes almost exclusively a player that plays 15 feet and in, he'll become more efficient offensively and will have a chance to be a star. But as long as he plays out on the perimeter, keeps shooting long jumpers, refuses to drive the ball 75% of the time, and thinks he's Magic Johnson on the break, he's going to have consistency problems that will always limit him as a player. People keep waiting on his jumpshot to improve. It's not going to happen folks. What can improve, is how he can score on the inside. But he has to get tougher and more aggressive, in order for that to happen. In other words, he can't be soft, and play PF. And he doesn't have the skills on offense to play SF. The kid just has to get tougher

Most players, regardless of the spot, are loyal to a coach. It's not unusual at all for JJ to want Woody back. As for Woody vs Avery, you'd have to think that Avery is the better coach. But this team will never be as good as people hope, until we get consistent PG play and someone who can consistently score in the low post. We need those 2 things, regardless of whose coaching this team. The only way the team currently constructed can win, is if we do what Woody always told them to do, and that is play defense and rebound the ball first, then get out and run. For all of Woody's shortcomings, he has been right about what we needed to do to win. If he is retained, he'll be on a very short leash anyway.

Quote: Quote: The problem here, is that JJ is the guy who should be getting set up, not him having to set everyone else up. JJ should have the same role in our offense, as Paul Pierce in Boston's. Instead, JJ has to play a Lebron type role for us, especially when Bibby is playing like crap. But that's unfair to JJ, because he isn't nearly as fast, strong, skilled or athletic as LeBron. Boston doesn't ask Pierce to literally play the point and set up everybody, or be the decoy scorer to set up less talented guys. What we do with JJ, is like asking Ray Allen or Michael Redd to score, and set everybody up. It just shows you just how good JJ is, because JJ can at least halfway do it. But if we had a PG that could break defenses down, JJ would be the prolific 3-point shooter/slasher/playmaker on the team ( ala Pierce ), and even a guy like Chill might be able to get more open looks on those corner 3's he likes to shoot. And Marvin would get a ton of open looks. The PG is the problem, not he SFs. Good PGs don't exactly grow on trees, and they aren't easy to get. And please name a successful team that sucked at threes as bad as we do. If our starting lineup remains the same, that means we will essentially have ONE 3pt shooter on the floor most of the time who is also our best player receiving all the attention, that doesn't work. Do you realize WHY JJ recieves all that attention? Because we can't make open shots and make teams pay for it. Atlas, Bibby is the PG. He's the one that should be creatng for JJ, not the other way around. Against mediocre or bad defensive teams, Bibby had little problem finding JJ for open 3s, and even finding his own offense. Against Boston, he had trouble just bringing the ball up the court against Rondo. Those first 2 games are the reason why JJ had to be the pseudo PG in the first place. Chill, if wide open, can hit the 3 at least 35% of the time. Marvin does need to extend his range to 3 point land, but he even can hit wide open 20 footers. You could put Peja Stoyokovic in place of Marvin, and we'd still have the same problem with the offense, because of the PG situation here. Teams would still double JJ to take the ball out of his hands. And a good team like Boston would double JJ, but stay at home on Peja, giving guys like Horford, Smoove, and Bibby open jumpers. Bibby was the key to that series. If he hit shots while playing the point, that would keep Boston somewhat honest on defense. They didn't really start doubling JJ until he lit up Ray in Game 4. If we had a penetrator like TJ Ford, that would've opened things up even more for JJ. But a team won't survive long, when your best shooter also has to be your top playmaker and your post presence.

The problem here, is that JJ is the guy who should be getting set up, not him having to set everyone else up. JJ should have the same role in our offense, as Paul Pierce in Boston's. Instead, JJ has to play a Lebron type role for us, especially when Bibby is playing like crap. But that's unfair to JJ, because he isn't nearly as fast, strong, skilled or athletic as LeBron. Boston doesn't ask Pierce to literally play the point and set up everybody, or be the decoy scorer to set up less talented guys. What we do with JJ, is like asking Ray Allen or Michael Redd to score, and set everybody up. It just shows you just how good JJ is, because JJ can at least halfway do it. But if we had a PG that could break defenses down, JJ would be the prolific 3-point shooter/slasher/playmaker on the team ( ala Pierce ), and even a guy like Chill might be able to get more open looks on those corner 3's he likes to shoot. And Marvin would get a ton of open looks. The PG is the problem, not he SFs.

Quote: Of course, as does Marvin and Childress. Do you not realize that it's MUCH harder to penetrate when teams pack the lane and basically force you to shoot? Actually, guys like Marvin and Chill create their shot more than most of those spot-up 3-point shooters, because they do have the ability to put the ball on the floor and draw fouls. They get to the FT like almost 2 to 3 times more than those other guys too. But they both need to be set up, like those shooters, to maximize what they can do. And the lane is not packed in our offense. When Chill is in the game, he's usually in the corner either behind or right on the 3 point line. Marvin usually sets up just inside the 3 point line. So there's more than enough room for a good PG to work and create. Acie has no problem beating his man off the dribble and getting to the rim. His problem is making the right decision, once he gets into the lane. Bibby doesn't have the speed to beat good defending PGs off the dribble. That's why he struggled so much in this series. That, and he can't shoot worth a damn.

Quote: Quote: Offensive movement will spread the floor out as well, this team isn't built like that anyway. Does Marvin need to develop the three, yes, same for Chilldress becoming more aggressive at shooting threes. Exactly, this team was built terribly. Which is why we need to trade Marvin/Chill and get a legit starting SF who can knock down the 3. The fact that all the top teams can shoot the three should tell you that. If James Posey was our starting SF (hypothetically) we'd have been a better team this year. Chill and Marvin are not the major problem with our halfcourt offense. It's the lack of a consistent post scorer along with the lack of a consistent creator at PG. Shooters like Posey and Kapono can't create their own shots either. They need people to draw their man away from them, in order to be effective. It's the penetration abilities of these PGs that make these shooters effective, not the other way around. If we had a legit low post scorer, we could play inside-out more often. What make the Celtics so good at times, is that KG can not only give them low pot scoring, he's an excellent passer out of the post. Yes it would help if Chill and Marvin could be more versatile at SF, but they're not the major problem with the halfcourt offense. If we had a creator at the point, he could get Chill easy looks when cutting to the basket, or get Marvin more open looks from 18 - 21 feet. It doesn't help this offense one bit that our best shooter also has to be the main playmaker.

LOL @ writing to the ASG, when they've been one of the main problems. Maybe THE main problem.

Quote: The inability to be mentally prepared and execute on the road is on the coaching staff. It's shocking how inept the team looked today in the biggest game of most of these guys' careers. Obviously, Woodson isn't cutting it. I am proud of what the team has done this series. However, this series proves a few undeniable facts. 1. We're too talented to have finished with just 37 wins. 2. Woodson is not the coach to take us to the next level. Some of you still want to put all of the blame on the coach, when the truth stares you right in the face. When AJ played good in December, we won. When Bibby was playing good ball in March, we won. When Bibby played halfway decent in this series at home, we won. When our PGs have played like garbage this year, we've almost always lost. Of course, you can do this with some other aspects of our team, but the PG spot is still an enigma with this squad that causes us to win or lose. Many people said that Bibby had to have a great game today in order for us to win. He didn't . . again . . and we get blown out . . again.