TheNorthCydeRises

Get him in the game.

Coach . . . resist the temptation. You already know how the movie ends with this one.

Quote: More like He's beating the entire stable of horses.

I'll be there, but I haven't bought my ticket yet. I think I'll do it tonight online.

Quote: Quote: Murphy, a career .892 free throw shooter, was there to help Smith shoot more consistently from the foul line, where he shot a career-high 387 free throws last season (up 95 FTAs from his previous high), but made only .693 percent of them, down 26 percentage points from 2005-06. Very good news. Smith really needs to improve at the line. And again it runs counter to Diesels nonsense about working with Murphy on his perimeter game. Where's Diesel? OK . . now THIS makes sense, in regards to working with Murphy. Calvin would be a great guy to work with in regards to FT shooting. If Smith could shoot 75% - 80% FT, that would be huge for the Hawks. I'm sure Calvin may have taught him a thing or two about shooting mechanics on the line and with his jumper. He just needs to stop taking jumpers after he misses 2 in a row. That should be the rule with Smoove. Miss 2 jumpers in a row, and you have to drive to the hole, no questions asked.

Quote: Quote: For the last time, Crit is a project no question, but WRIGHT isn't. This is not a joke people he really is a franchise type player and will put up at least 14-18 ppg as a rookie. Yeah i remember that clown pretending he was a scout. What a joke. As far as Smiths contract goes the Hawks are in a strong negotiating position. There are going to be a lot of RFA next summer and few teams under the cap. If Horford and Marvin have strong years that will also help the Hawks cause. I am not worried about Smiths contract at all, especially now that Belkin seems to be less of a threat. Question: Did Charlotte lock up Okafor yet?

Quote: Quote: You're worring about nothing Ex. If the goal is to be average then you are right there is nothing to worry about. Don't tell me that you're going to be one of those, "not satisfied until we win a title" type fans, are you? The goal this year is to just get in the dance. Once we get in, then we'll see what kind of noise we can make. IF we make the playoffs this year, we can then see what we need to add or tweak. If the Hawks beat Detroit in the first round, then lose 4 - 1 in the 2nd to Cleveland, the season is DEFINITELY a success. Quote: Quote: is that almost all of the guys listed in the top 10, are the same athletic PF/C types, that Horford is. Almost every one. Even as you go down that list, you still see the same thing. Correct. You see athletic guys with significantly higher reaches than Horford. Boy . . you sure are putting a lot into that extra 2 - 3 inches. Significant? LOL. So the standing reach of 3 inches, is more of a factor to rebounding, than acutally boxing out your man and sealing him off so that you're in the best possible position to get the rebound? Gotcha . . lol. Quote: Quote: All 4 of those guys finished in the top 10 in rebounding. Ahead of Bosh, Chandler, Boozer, I forgot to delete that sentence. I had first went to ESPN's site, to check the NBA stats on rebounding. I was shocked to see names like Shawn Marion, Troy Murphy ( who has a standing reach of 8' - 9.5"), Chris Webber, and Antoine Jamison were in the top 1 of rebounding . . . ahead of guys like Bosh, Chandler, and Boozer. I then double checked nba.com to see if that was right. That was when I noticed that ESPN had listed the 2005 - 06 rebounding leaders, instead of the 06- 07 guys.

Quote: Quote: Obviously standing reach helps rebounding, Lets look at the top rebounders in the league last year. Garnett Chandler Howard Boozer Camby Okafor Jefferson Bosh Duncan Ben I know that Chandler, Jefferson, Okafor and Howard have standing reaches of at least 9'2". It is pretty safe to assume that Duncan, Camby, and Garnett do as well. Boozer and Bosh have a standing reach of 9'1". No telling what Bens is. Is standing reach the only factor in rebounding? of course not. However it is obviously a big help. Well, why isn't the guy with the BIGGEST standing reach in the league, not on your list of guys? The funny thing about this list Ex, is that almost all of the guys listed in the top 10, are the same athletic PF/C types, that Horford is. Almost every one. Even as you go down that list, you still see the same thing. The biggest standing reach guy in the league, Yao Ming, is #18. Dalembert is #20. You hardly see ANY of thoe 7 foot - 270 pound stiffs that play center for a wide variety of teams across the league, near the top in rebounding. But you do see a lot of 6-9 to 6-11 guys who weight 240 - 265 pounds, near the top. You're worring about nothing Ex. Horford will be able to step right in and contribute in a big way. And if he gets 30 minutes a game, look for him to pull down 8 - 10 rebounds a night, easily. All 4 of those guys finished in the top 10 in rebounding. Ahead of Bosh, Chandler, Boozer,

Quote: Quote: Quote: Give it three to four years. This coming from the guy who said Brandan Wright would be able to contribute immediately. Funny. He would with the Hawks, it was a different type of team. LOL . . no he wouldn't. He'd be fighting bench minutes with Solomon. And actually, G-State was the perfect team for him to go to. If any team could've made a 6-9, rail thin PF work, it would be the Warriors. But he's probably in a dog fight with Patrick O'Bryant, to see who can get off the bench first in a game. 3 - 4 years is right. By then, maybe Brandon will be 235 - 240 lbs and able to use his body the right way.

Quote: Quote: Seems to me that Horford's 6-10 . . 245 frame, fits right in line with these guys. Unfortunately you play basketball with your hands not your head. Sheldens lack of reach really makes it tough for him to be effective in the NBA. Horford's reach is 3" higher but still far below many of the players you listed. Horfords standing reach is 8'11". Now look how that compares to the '04 draft class. http://www.draftexpress.com/measurements.p...&draft=15&sort= 3.5" shorter than Okafor. 4.5" shorter than Howard. Keep in mind that they are all the same height. Come on now Ex. You know that there is more to basketball, than just physical attributes. Intelligence and fundamentals plays a HUGE role as well. If we just went by physical attributes, how in the world did a player like Larry Bird average 10 rebounds for his entire career? He was only 6-9 . . in the 220 - 230 range. Yet, he was one of the best rebounding small forwards ever to play the game. You know why he was able to do that? Because he was so much smarter than the vast majority of players on the court. He knew how to use his body. He knew when and where the ball was coming off the rim. And he didn't mind putting a body on people either. The same goes for Dennis Rodman, who consistently battled PF's and C's, even though he had the body of a SF. He might be THE best rebounding small forward to ever play the game. You're putting all of your stake on mere inches in reach, wingspan, and vertical, like that has always been the determining factor of greatness in this league. You know better than that Ex. Then you got guys like Kwame Brown and Eddy Curry, who have the bodies and physical attributes to dominate everybody, but can't. All of these 7 footers in this league, that have standing reaches well above Horford, should be able to dominate him. LOL . . you and I both know that is a lie. With Shelden, I think it's all about desire. Chuck Hayes, who is 2 inches shorter than Shelden, had a much better year than he did last year. But anybody that watched Chuck at UK, knows that he was one of the smartest players in college basketball in those days. And Chuck played PF for the Rockets last year, in spot minutes, at a level much higher than Shelden. But I guess Chuck's .5 standing reach advantage, is all that he needs, in order to outplay Shelden? Come on now. Chuck is just a smarter player, and has more desire than Shelden, right now. Melvin Ely had a 9-3 standing reach. By your assessment, he should be at least an average center right now. And Diop's 9-5 standing reach, should make him just a dominant rebounder right now, instead of the part-time defensive stopper that he really is. And that kid really doesn't rebound or block shots as well as he should. All he does, is get in the way of people.

My position on Smoove stays constant. He doesn't get a deal until next summer. It's kind of amazing though what has gone on around here,in regards to Smoove. All summer, people spend countless hours and days bashing Marvin on everything. It was assumed that Smoove was working so hard, that he'd come out like a demon. Then you look at what is going on this preseason. Individual evaulation is important in preseason. More important than team evaulation, in my opinion. I was definitely looking forward to this kid at least shooting 45% FG in the preseason, to show everybody how hard he's worked on different aspects of his game. Instead, he's a PF shooting 39% FG. Unacceptable in my book, even in games that don't count. Even with JJ's struggling from the field ( for him 44% FG is struggling, although, this is exactly what Michael Redd is shooting for the preseason ), you can at least point to him shooting a blistering 46% from 3 point range. No way this kid would get a contract from me in the next 10 days. He definitely has to earn his money now.

Nic, I just think that people are afraid to really BELIEVE in Horford. That's natural for a fan base that isn't used to winning, especially not in recent times. Horford projected draft slot, by me, in previous drafts: 2006: #1 ( ahead of both Aldridge and Bargnani ) 2005: #1 ( no doubt he goes before Bogut, Paul, or Marvin ) 2004: #2 ( ahead of Emeka but behind Howard ) 2003: #2 ( Detroit would've taken him, instead of taking a chance on Darko. Not to say that Horford is the 2nd best player in this draft, because I'd have him behind Melo. ) 2002: #2 ( ahead of Jay Williams ) 2001: #1 ( Kwame Brown went #1 that year ) 2000: #2 ( behind Kenyon Martin, only because K-Mart was an athletic freak at Cincinnati) 1999: #3 ( behind Steve Francis and Elton Brand. Vancouver still would've taken a guard ) 1998: #1 ( Olowokandi went #1 that year ) 1997: #2 ( behind Tim Duncan ) So in the past 11 drafts, Horford probably goes #1 in 4 of them, and no lower than 2 in every one except the 1999 draft. Regardless if he plays C or PF, we might have a special player here regardless. As far as the sizes of centers that you listed, when they first came into the league . . . here they are: courtesy of databasebasketball.com: Amare: 6-10 . . 245 Howard: 6-10 . . 240 Wallace: 6-9 . . 240 Okafor: 6-10 . . 257 Mourning: 6-10 . . 240 Curry: 6-11 . . 285 Camby: 6-11 . . 220 Okur: 6-11 . . 249 Magloire: 6-11 . . 259 E. Thomas: 6-9 . . 256 Duncan: 7-0 . . 248 Dalembert: 6-11 . . 250 Seems to me that Horford's 6-10 . . 245 frame, fits right in line with these guys. And if he adds 10 - 15 pounds, like some of these guys have, he'll be just the right size for center in this league. Think of Horford as a Chris Webber type. The ideal size for a PF, that can play center. The only question with Horford playing center is this: does he have the mentality to play the position? If he doesn't mind one bit mixing it up on the inside, and is willing to battle with any size player, then Horford playing center won't be a problem at all. And in those 15 - 20 minutes a night he plays PF, we might be able to rest JJ during that period, and make Horford the #1 option, if he's good enough offensively to handle it. This isn't even an issue to me. I'm MUCH MORE concerned about Josh Smith's mentality as our PF and I am about Horford playing center.

Quote: Quote: If he's to play the 4 for us, he has to be the attacker he was in March and April I've already proved this horribly wrong. He was actually playing great from January through April, and was putting up basically the same numbers WITH JJ in Jan/Feb as he was without him in March/April. He also shot 50% in December. Shooting 50% in December is great. But he only averaged 13.4 ppg and only had 3 games out of the 11 he played in, in which he scored more than 17 points. Atlas, the difference between you and me, is that I don't want Smoove being a complimentary player this year. I want him to be a 20 and 10 player. A player that is a legit #2 option on this team. To acheive those numbers, he MUST be on the attack. And he MUST play PF when doing it, because he can't do what he did in March and April, playing SF. In January, he shot a respectable 46% FG, along with 15 ppg and 7 rebounds. Once again, good numbers for a complimentary player. February, he played great at the beginning of the month, but tailed off after the all-star break. 17 ppg, 8.6 rebs, 2.9 blks, and 42% FG. That FG% was so low, because he shot horribly after the all-star break. I want to see the Smoove that averaged 20.3 ppg, 9.5 rebs, and 3.5 blks in March, that shot 46% FG, while going to the FT line 97 times in 15 games that shot 72% from the line. Not the complimentary player he was in January. He played good in January and February. He played great in March and April.

Quote: Actually, Kobe has some real leverage with his no-trade clause, and that's why I think there's no way JJ leaves Atlanta. He wouldn't want to play here otherwise. If Kobe even considered coming to Atlanta, it would be for Josh Smith & Co. They already did a trade for a bunch of mid-leve talent, when they traded Shaq. To do it again, would drive that fan base crazy. So if I'm the Lakers, I'm looking to get a star player + a damn good complimentary player, in exchange for Kobe. Nothing less than that. If Kobe doesn't play in ATL without JJ, and if the Lakers don't make a trade unless it involved JJ, then the deal might as well not be discussed.

I got a little carried away with Smoove's shooting numbers. Damn . . that's too bad too. He was 6 - 20 going into last night, with shots from 15 feet and out. He went 6 - 10 last night, which actually made him 12 - 30 on those shots ( 40% FG ). Subtract the 7 three pointers ( 1 - 7 from three ), he's 11 - 23 on his midrange shot. ( 47.8% FG ). That's still DAMN GOOD for him, but it puts him slightly behind Marvin. Still, the point is still valid, both good and bad, about Smoove and his outside shooting.

. . when that whole AK47 soap opera started last month. I'm not pushing the panic button on Smoove, but I do want to see his shot selection improve. In defense of him last night, he was 6 for 10 on his shots from 15 feet and out, and he made 5 of his first 6 shots. So in the 5 preseason games, that would make him 11 for 26 on his shots from 15 feet and out ( 42.3% FG ). And here's something else. If you subtract the 7 three pointers that he's taken this preseason, he'd be 10 for 19 on his actual midrange shot . . ( 52.6% FG ). That my friends, would be the BEST MIDRANGE SHOOTING ON THE TEAM THIS PRESEASON. Better than JJ's 12 for 27 shooting from that range ( 44.4% FG . . . JJ has been excellent from 3 point range, by the way, at almost 46% ). Even better than Marvin's 12 - 24 from that range ( 50% FG ). I can definitely live with that from Smoove as an outside shoter. His problem, is that he's very streaky, and when he's off, he doesn't know when to stop shooting and take the ball to the hole. He needs to do like Marvin has done, and completely resist the temptation of taking the 3-pointer. But as the PF on the team, he still needs to make the commitment to take the ball to the hole, to get the opposing players on the frontline in foul trouble. If he's to play the 4 for us, he has to be the attacker he was in March and April, not the Rasheed Wallace-like player that likes to stay out on the perimeter.

1) The Lakers aren't doing any deal with us, unless it involved JJ . . . period. If I were a Laker fan, I'd be mad as hell, if all I got back for Kobe, was Smith, Childress, and M. Williams. 2) I think this situation is a little different from the Minnesota one, in that both Minny and Boston were desperate to do something. Boston got to keep their superstar in Pierce, while the T-Wolves, who didn't want to pay Garnett 20+ million, then risk losing him for nothing after this season, bit the bullet and took on all of Boston's young talent. Right now, the Lakers don't feel that they have to do something RIGHT NOW. If this was next year, wtih Kobe's player option coming up in 2009, the feeling there would be much more critical. 3) If you trade Horford, we're right back where we started from, with no legitimate inside scorer. 4) I wouldn't even consider doing the deal anyway. Not now. Not until I see how these group of Hawks come out during November. The best thing about our tough schedule out of the gate, is that we really get to see where this team is at vs elite teams. 5) Why bail the Lakers out of this situation? If Kobe is unhappy, let his azz be unhappy. He'll opt out in 2 years anyway, and then we can get into the bidding war for his services. 6) A Kobe trade might get us in the playoffs, but it doesn't make us a title contender, because we'd lose JJ in the process. And it's a very real possibility that we lose Kobe after 2 years anyway, when his player option comes up in 2009. In all, it's too risky of a deal for the Hawks to make, if they're trying to build a winner for the long term. If a deal does go down for Kobe, it'll be more to put fannies in the seats, than about winning.

I voted for Smoove. Surprised? I think if Smoove will make a commitment to get the ball to the rim, that his shooting percentage will go way up. And if that happens, we'll definitely be good to go. The way I see it, Josh much realize that by taking jumpers, he's bailing out the other team's PF. He must make people commit to him, while going to the hole. If he's able to pick up some cheap fouls on a Bosh-like player, that will benefit the Hawks tremendously. So I WANT Smoove to be that 2nd option . . but only if he drives the ball to the hole. But like Peoria said, we can't have him being the 2nd option, and him shooting 43%. The only way you can let a 43% shooter be your 2nd option, is if he goes to the FT line a ton, or if he makes a lot of threes.

Offense can only get you so far. To win, you MUST play defense, or be able to get key stops at the end of games. The Hawks shot 50%+ in some games last year, and still lost. I'd pretty much bet that when this team played good defense, we won more . . than when we played great offense.

Quote: Are you seriously comparing a group of guys from an obscure message board to the US women's national team and suggesting that means women are playing good basketball? An average D3 men's basketball team could easily win the WNBA championship. That's not good basketball. First off . . . GrayMule always understands. We need to start calling him "Obi-Wan" Gray Mule. Now . . back to what I was going to originally post. ****** See . . this is what I'm talking about BDawg. Just flat out no respect for the women's game, because they can't do some of the things that the men can do. The reason why I mentioned the "Hawksquawk All-Star team", was to see just how far the disrespect went. Once again, the major difference between men and women in basketball, has to do with height, speed and strength. When you talk about how to play the game, from a fundamental and strategy standpoint, there is very little difference, if any at all. I've heard people say that Pat Summitt couldn't coach a men's basketball team on the college level, because college basketball is played "above the rim". Are you serious? She's the same woman that had her 3-time national championship team in the late 90's, running Tex Winter's triple post offense. You know . . the same offense that Tex employed with the Bulls, when they won all of those titles? Matter of fact, she went to Tex herself to see how it was run. She can coach the game, regardless of who she's coaching. The ONLY problem she might run into with the men, is getting their total respect. But hell, men who coach men run into that problem too. ( see Woody and Smoove ) From a skill standpoint, Diana Taursi plays the game at a very high level. Same goes for Candace Parker. A woman like Seimone Augustus may have the best mid-range shot in basketball . . men or women . . period. But most men who call themselves hardcore basketball fans, for whatever reason, can't appreciate the same traits that make a guy like Kevin Durant special, if they see those same traits in a woman like Candace Parker. That's the difference between a pure basketball fan . . and a fan that just watches the NBA or college. Some people who watch NBA ball, can't stand college ball. And vice versa. If you can't watch both NBA and college, including the women, you don't appreciate the skill and mental capacity it takes to play basketball on any level. Ish . . I can watch a bunch of 8-year olds play junior league basketball, and enjoy it for the different skills that each kid brings to the table. Like Obi-Wan said . . I can appreciate the game when it isn't played above the rim. It doesn't take a highlight dunk to get me excited about the game. A great pass gets me excited.

Will Shelden flip off the Hawksquawkers in attendance, for dissing him all weekend?

Quote: Next year's Vice President just entered the game. LOL . . . hopefully.

JJ's mid-range jumper isn't falling at all. But he's 3 - 5 from three point range, and has 7 assists. I'll take that.

Quote: Man, am I glad that quarter is over. Sounds like Josh Smith's head isn't fully in the game tonight. Maybe not all-around. But offensively, he's 7 - 12 from the field. Wow @ Jefferson's stat line: 20 points . . 15 rebounds

Quote: As a team we are just shooting jumpers, That needs to change... Speaking of jumpers . . . Smoove is shooting 6-9 on his shots from 15 feet and out.