TheNorthCydeRises

Quote: Quote: What Part of Smith playing PF looks damn good? His disregard for the post on offense? The way he lets bigs get their position, get the ball, so that he can go for the block? IF you're really honest, the truth is that Smith is a good player and he shows a lot of tenacity but he does not look damn good as a PF. He doesn't do the things that PF should do good or consistently. With your logic, what part of Marion playing PF looks damn good? How about Kirelinko? (and the comparison between him and Smoove keeps getting missed by you...) So Smoove won't be a "traditional" PF (just like these guys aren't "traditional" PFs). These guys don't play in the post, but instead rely on freakish athleticism and length to change the game in other ways. So freakin what. They still are effective PFs. But, I will agree that we need to see how Horford and Smoove play together. Can Horford be to Smoove what Amare is to Marion? Can he be what Boozer is to Kirelinko? If so, then we are straight fellas. If not, it's a bit more interesting. atlien . . . the objective is to get Marvin out of here. YOu know that . . lol.

I sure hope that both can happen. If it does, we're definitely good to go. If neither happens, we better hope that Horford is at least the next Carlos Boozer. Personally, I totally agree with Lascar about Smoove's game. He has a much better chance of being a great PF, than he does being a great SF. And you're right about Marvin on the inside, and what he needs to do to become more efficient.

When you look at Marvin's 5 spots in which he takes the most shots, other than going to the rim, you come up with these numbers: Left side wing/baseline 15 ft to 3-pt line: 40% Left side elbow 15 ft to 3-pt line: 44% Right side wing/baseline 15 ft to 3-pt line: 45% Right side elbow 15 ft to 3-pt line: 47% Straightaway shot 15 ft to 3-pt line: 31% His problem is obviously finishing at the rim. His 48% around the rim is horrible. He needs to be 55% and above. If he's to become a "star", he either needs to be a consistent 47% + shooter from mid-range, or at 60% finisher around the rim. I don't know which is more likely to happen . . . - Smoove becoming a better mid-range shooter? - or Marvin becoming a better finisher around the rim?

Quote: Quote: You've seen Smoove's http://nba.com/hotzones chart from last year right Walter? When you look at that chart, that should scare the ish out of you. That doesn't bother me that much with one exception. I am not worried much about his 3 point shooting. If you remember back in november he was jacking up way to many 3s. But then he quickly cut back and took an average of around 2 per game the rest of the season. I think over time he will become more selective and a better shooter from 3. If he takes 1.5 - 2 3s per game and shoots 30-35% i am fine with that. I think he can get there. I also think he can be a reasonable midrange shooter. He seems to shoot better off the dribble because he does a better job of getting his legs into the shot. His high arc works better on midrange shots than it does from long range. He also showed more moves close to the basket this past season. My big area of concern is the 5-10 foot area. this is his worst area by far. Hopefully Hakeem has helped him in this area because i think that is really the key for him. What I'm looking at, are the areas he shoots the most from. When you look at the areas he shoots most from, other than around the basket, it's from the elbow out to the 3-point line, on both sides of the court. His percentages? left side elbow jumper inside 3-pt line: 32% FG ---------------------- outside 3-pt line: 31% FG right side elbow jumper inside 3-pt line: 27% FG ----------------------- outside 3-pt line: 26% FG That's what scares me. Now when he shot from straightaway from the FT line to the 3-pt line, he shot 42% FG. I can definitely live with that shot. He at least needs to shoot 40% FG inside the 3-point line on those shots, for him to be effective at the 3 . . if he plays it. But until then, he must be in attack mode, going to the rim, to maximize his offense. In other words . . . he has to play like Diaw played in Phoenix 2 years ago.

Quote: What Part of Smith playing PF looks damn good? His disregard for the post on offense? The way he lets bigs get their position, get the ball, so that he can go for the block? IF you're really honest, the truth is that Smith is a good player and he shows a lot of tenacity but he does not look damn good as a PF. He doesn't do the things that PF should do good or consistently. I agree . . . somewhat. Now what part of him looks good playing SF? The way he let's people blow past him, so he can get a possible blocked shot from behind? His weak handles out on the perimeter that limits him from creating his own shot off the dribble? The way he constantly misses wide open jumpers? Smith is good because of his athleticism, hustle, and the way Woody and the coaches simplified his offensive game in the 2nd half of the season. He's so much more aggressive when he plays the 4, compared to when he plays the 3. At least at the 4, he can use his dribble to get past the bigger, but slower defenders at that position. And at the 4, he's a much more active offensive rebounder, and rebounder period. When Woody moved Smoove to the 4, it transformed his offensive game, just like Diaw's did, when D'Antoni moved him to the 4/5 spot in Phoenix. But if you play both of those kids at the 3, they're aren't nearly as effective of ballplayers. They become passive, complimentary players, instead of impact players.

. . because this could EASILY be Smoove in 2 - 3 years. The exact same situation, complaining about the exact same things.

Quote: Quote: So based on your logic, it is better for Smoove to continue to shoot 3's that he makes at a 25% clip because he LIKES to shoot them than it is for him to be forced to develop a post game and take shots closer to the basket that he makes at a much higher rate? What's easier? 1) To FURTHER develop a perimeter shot you WANT to develop. 2) To develop an ENTIRE POST GAME you appear to not want to develop. Post skills are the hardest thing to learn in basketball. Hands down. MANY young players extend their range to the 3pt line every year. You won't see but a rare, RARE, if ever, few coming out without already possessing post moves who ever develop them to the point of legit success with them. Al Jefferson? He came out with a plethora of post moves AND A DESIRE TO PLAY THE POST! Josh Smith lacks both enough that it makes no sense to try and pair him with a Pf at center. Might as well conceed 3 RPG and 3% in FG% to your opponent. Frankly, JS wouldn't have to change his game much at all to play Sf since that is how he plays the "power" forward position anyhow. Lastly, Trace, it isn't just about JS. It's about what's best for Horford or other players we intend to build around. I-F JS suffers a little because he plays Sf and Horford gains A-LOT because he plays Pf A-N-D the team gains anything because of that "transition", then the move is the right one. Quote: With that logic, why ask Marvin to be more aggressive and drive to the hoop? I mean he LIKES to shoot J's and unlike Smoove, he actually makes them at a decent rate! LOL Quit arguing against yourself Traceman. I stated that I would rather JS play Sf I-F Horford is proven best suited at the Pf and the team isn't significantly better with him at center than Pf. I believe that will be proven the case, however, JS being asked to play Sf is not equal to him being asked to shoot the 3 ball more. Hell, JS wants to lay and plays like a SF anyway. It would be more a change of the title of his position to reflect the way he already plays. Regardless, it's a little easier to learn to drive to the basket than to learn a post game. I know you play basketball or have at some point. A post player is the very last person to develop. Post play is the hardest thing to develop. Asking a guy who wants to be a Sf and who doesn't prefer the post to develop a post game isn't even remotely close to asking a Sf to drive the [censored] basketball to the hoop. Hello? Quote: The bottom line is that regardless of who starts, there are plenty of minutes to go around in the front court and there are plenty of combinations that we can use based on the strengths/weaknesses of the other team. That's considerably naive. ZaZa, SW, Horford, JS, MW, Childress at the 3, 4, 5. That's 24 MPG for each. So much for "plenty of minutes". Somebody's getting cut out. And this is why I say that we can't sign Smoove to a long term deal. Not until we see how he meshes with Horford, and how the team overall meshes with the new guys. You've seen Smoove's http://nba.com/hotzones chart from last year right Walter? When you look at that chart, that should scare the ish out of you. The kid is in the same situation as Andrei Kirilenko. He could very well be looking at a guy who is head and shoulders a better offensive player than he is at the 4. And if, like you fear, Horford isn't nearly as effective at the 5, the team will be forced to make a decision between Marvin, Chill and Smoove. If we choose Smoove to play the 3, it's a very good possiblity that his offensive production could fall straight through the floor, just like AK's did last year. Then, we have a disasterous situation on our hands, if Smoove is making 10+ million. If you ask me, the best SF on the team right now is Childress. But because Chill isn't likely to improve much more than he is now, Marvin is getting the chance to see if he can "blow up". LOL . . it might just be Chill that is the best option at the 3, if Horford blows up at the 4.

And that 2 out of 30 ( 7% number ) is so misleading, it's pitiful. Quite a bit of those high scoring PF, see significant minutes at center. The center beside the PF is a complete stiff. But like you said teke, we've gone through this 1000x before.

Quote: Quote: If he's not the solution there at center on the defensive end, the choice either has to be Shelden or Smoove ( strictly off of his athleticism ). If Horford becomes a very good offensive PF, you at least have to protect him on the other end, with a player who can play tough defense against the other team's best frontline player. I'm afraid that might be wishful thinking, unfortunately. Horford will get the "Marvin Williams" treatment in that his 'potential vs. cost' will give him a major advantage over the other forwards. In other words, Horford was drafted knowing that either Smith or Shelden will have to be traded if Al can't man the center position. Well I don't have a problem with that, if the trade nets us a legit big man or a bonafide 2nd scoring option that can get us 20 ppg. A lot of people around here are absolutely convinced that Smoove is the next star in the making here. I hope they're all right. But if Horford is that "star", then I have no problem parting ways with Smoove or Shelden, to make sure that not only Horford can maximize his star power, but to make the Hawks a better team overall. Until then, let's hope that the Marvin, Smoove, Horford frontline has such an athletic advantage over people, that it becomes a tremendous asset for the Hawks.

Quote: Quote: Boozer plays hardly any center. It may not say it on the stat sheet, but Boozer's role is definitely center in Utah (even if Okur technically gets the designation). It's Boozer who is doing all the inside stuff. In fact, Boozer might be Horford's best comparison. Pretty good observation. Boozer is definitely more of the "center" on offense, seeing that Okur would much rather stay on the outside and play like Dirk. Defense is the potential problem folks. We know we're not getting any from ZaZa. Smoove doesn't want to take on the physical banging at center. And while we're hoping Shelden can be tough in the middle, the jury is still out on him as well. So the option we hope works on the defensive end, is Horford. If he's not the solution there at center on the defensive end, the choice either has to be Shelden or Smoove ( strictly off of his athleticism ). If Horford becomes a very good offensive PF, you at least have to protect him on the other end, with a player who can play tough defense against the other team's best frontline player. And that's the reason why you usually see a "stiff" at center, when you have a bonafide offensive threat playing the PF. Initially what I'm hoping for out of Horford, is that he's good enough offensively to become the primary scoring option during certain points in the game when JJ isn't on the floor. Too many times last year, did this offense looked completely lost when JJ was out of the game. A legit inside scoring threat at least does something to alleviate that problem.

Quote: I believe that Al Hoford could be a VERY good Pf in this league. However, we likely intend to play him at center and have similar investments at Pf and Sf. WHAT IF Horford demonstrates that he is considerably better at NBA Pf than C as I believe. What then? I believe we either made: 1) the wrong choice in Horford because he cannot be EXPECTED to play a majority of minutes at NBA center next to a Pf like JS and isn't a player with a high enough upside potential or 2) we made an arguable choice (assuming we trade Horford or want to play Horford at Pf) depending upon whatever following move we make reguarding our forward glut. That doesn't mean this drafting decision was entirely wrong, but Horford would have to demonstrate comperable numbers at center vs Pf along with his numbers resulting in better overall team numbers with him at center vs Pf. If not we would have to trade him (not my preference) or play him at Pf and get equal or greater value for whomever we traded to justify it. Trade example: MW/SW for JO (or JS/cap filler for Gasol...albeit my preference is NOT to trade JS). Maybe there is another way to look at it. I just see these as the two main decision tree branches. W No one's preference is to trade Josh Smith. But if Horford is a stud PF, that can't play center, it's Smoove that doesn't have a legit position to go to, especially if he doesn't develop that mid-range jumper. I addressed this very subject during your "hiatus", but I'll quickly re-visit my position on this again. If this is the case, then . . 1) Play Smoove at SF, Horford at PF, and either ZaZa or Shelden at C. 2) Play Smoove at C, Horford at PF, and Marvin/Chill at SF 3) Bring Smoove off the bench ( ala Robert Horry ), and play Shell/ZaZa at C, Horford at PF, and Marvin/Chill at SF. Whomever plays SF needs to be able to knock down the open mid-range jumper. If Smoove still can't do it with consistency, he can't be trusted to play the position. Smoove at center could work, IF . . we played a lot of zone on defense, and have him be in the high post on offense. Bringing Smoove off the bench is ONLY an option if BOTH Horford and Marvin are playing very well at the 3 and the 4. But to start the season, I want to see how the Marvin at the 3, Smoove at the 4, Horford at the 5, lineup works together. I got a funny feeling though, that either ZaZa or Shelden is going to start at the 5, with Horford coming off the bench. At least initially.

In the first two games that Smoove was out, we were also without Chill and Lue. LOL . . during that stretch, Speedy had an 11 point, 7 assist, 8 steal game against the Cavs. But the Hawks still lost by 13 because JJ shot 4 - 17 and Marvin and Shelden had 11 points between them. Salim really blew his chance during that stretch, to really step up and be an integral part of the team. Marvin stunk it up, with the exception of one game, as well.

Quote: So how did we run so well against PHX and Golden State?? We went 3-1 against 2 Western playoff teams that are also the 2 fastest paced teams in the league. Because Davis and Nash didn't play in two of those games. And in the other game we won vs G-State, the Warriors went 1 - 15 from 3 point range. All teams look better against the Warriors and Suns, because both of them are also horrible defensive teams. And please don't cite the steals that G-State had. If you do that, that means that Iverson is a great defensive player, because he gets a lot of steals as well. Quote: What does that have to do with being a good coach? "Ok guys, as soon as you get the rebound, RUN as fast as you can to the other end! Who cares if you turn it over or if you can't dribble?" You actually have to setup a fast break offense so the players have a place to go and a setup to follow, not just tell a player to run/dribble to the other end. LOL . . I didn't say that made Woody a "good coach". See, that's where some of you get me wrong at. I've NEVER said in any of my posts, that Woody was a good coach. I've always said that he was an average coach. What I did say, is that Woody encouraged guys like Chill and Smoove to push the ball into the frontcourt, because of the lack of a speedy PG who could push tempo. He'd rather them push it into the frontcourt, then get it back to the PG to set up offense. And some of the people praise guys like Smoove and Chill for "starting fast breaks" because they do that. So if they praise Smoove and Chill, they have to praise Woody, because Woody told them to do that. That's what he had to do, since we didn't have a floor general here. Quote: Ivey started over 60 games in 05-06, he played about the first 5 minutes of the first quarter, and about 5 minutes to begin the 3rd quarter. So how was "Lue" getting lit up at the beginning of the 3rd? Lue would be out on the floor on occasion, at the beginning of the 2nd half for offensive reasons, because we'd be losing. We needed his offense, but he'd still give it back on defense. Quote: See, you are still failing to address Woody as a coach. You are simply making excuses as to why he COULDN'T have succeeded. Noone is arguing that we didn't have a flawed roster (trust me I have bigger problems with BK), but that doesn't mean that you can't evaluate Woodson on HIS PERFORMANCE alone. I addressed it, in the other post. Like I said, the problem that most of you guys have with my assessment of Woody, is that I don't agree that he is a horrible coach. Most of you think he's the anti-christ. I think he's an average coach. To me, he's just like Lawrence Frank or Eddie Jordan. The only thing that makes them better in most people's eyes, is that they win more. Well, they win more because they have 2 superstar PGs running the show. Put Woody on the Wizards, and Jordan on the Hawks, and I don't see much difference in the destiny's of those teams. A horrible coach will find a way to completely mess up a good thing. Ron Zook, is a horrible coach. Lon Krueger, was a horrible coach. I think Woody and Stotts were better than Krueger. If the Falcons go 3 - 13 this year, and the main reason for that record is the lackluster play of Joey Harrington, does Bobby Petrino get the blame because he can't turn him into a decent QB? Harrington has been a "deer in the headlights" QB his entire career. Norv Turner is one of the worst coaches in the NFL . . record wise. But watch people call him a "good coach", because he now coaches the Chargers, and they keep on winning. Now if Norv is really a bad coach, he'll find a way to mess up things in San Diego.

Quote: Quote: Atlas, it's obvious that we're going to be on two very different sides of this. So I'll ask you 4 questions. - How many WINS should Woody have had last year, with all of the injuries? - How many WINS should Woody have had last year, if everyone would've been realtively? Now . . replace Woody with, say . . I don't know . . Mike D'Antoni. - How many WINS does D'Antoni get as Hawks coach, with all the injuries? - How many WINS does D'Antoni get as Hawks coach, if everybody was healthy last year? 4 simple questions Atlas. Answer them if you dare. What does this have to do with ALL the things I pointed out in my reply to you? This has NOTHING to do with all of Woodson's horrible inadequacies, none of which you want to address. Again, you aren't addressing Woodson as a COACH, you are letting his performance go based on what he did not have. I'm not predicting win totals, but I feel like D'Antoni would've won at LEAST 5 more games in either situation. IMO we'd have been a playoff team EASILY with a healthy team and D'Antoni as our coach. We are easily better (talent wise) than Orlando, the only advantage they have is Dwight, who isn't a dominant player yet. At least you 1/2 way answered the question. Wow . . so even a playoff coach like D'Antoni, is only at least 5 games better? I guess that means that Woodson, if in Phoenix, still gets that team to the playoffs, even if they aren't as dominant or flashy. I sure Woody still runs the pick and roll to death with Nash and Amare. Woody's deficiencies as a coach to me? - I don't like the way he uses Marvin. I think that Chill is better suited to be a starter, because he's a better complimentary player. I would've loved to see Marvin being used like Popovich used Ginoboli or how Skiles used Ben Gordon. Even young guys like T-Mac, learned how to be good scorers, by being the main option with the 2nd unit. I wish Woody would've done that with Marvin, to make him a more potent offensive weapon, instead of a complimentary player. - I don't like how he treats the young guys, as opposed to the vets. Shelden and Salim can hardly make mistakes out on the floor, without being yanked. Lue and Wright dang near get away with murder, before being yanked. His tolerance is much lower with the younger guys. He probably got that from being with Larry Brown. - Offensively, I would've had JJ in the post A LOT more. Seeing that we didn't have a post game to begin with, JJ was the best post player we had. I would've liked to see him post up at least 25% of the time. - Defensively, of course, see more of Shelden and Solomon, instead of Wright. After about the first 2 months of the season, it was pretty obvious that while Wright might have been the best position defender on the team, he wasn't a guy who could get you rebounds or even block shots. Because of that, Shelden definitely should've played more, and maybe put in Solo for 5 - 10 minutes a game. Everything else people complain about, Woody couldn't do much more about, because of the personnel issues. That's why I say that he's an average coach. I mean, even you admit that a playoff coach like D'Antoni might have missed the playoffs last year, with all the issues we had. If Woody doesn't win this year, with the talent he has now, then I'll downgrade Woody to horrible coach status.

Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Well . . what would you do? Especially if you didn't have a reliable floor general on the floor? It's not a coincidence that the best looking offenses, have very good PGs running the show. A good PG with good leadership and decision making skills, is a vital part of a good offense. Hopefully, Law will change that around for us this year. There is no excuse in my mind for not having a better offensive game plan. College teams routinely have a much better defined offensive system than Woodson's Hawks teams. The "walk-it-up-the-court," halfcourt system the Hawks usually employ is a terrible fit for this team. The personnel were not well suited for a halfcourt offense the last few years, IMO. Personally, I think he just wanted a slower pace so that it would look closer when the team lost rather than gamble on losing by larger deficits some games but winning more on the whole. A lot of our wins came when teams that specialize in fast-paced offense forced us to move to an uptempo game. Surprise, surprise that guys like Smoove, Chillz, Marvin, JJ, etc. flourish in that higher tempo offense. The car will not start without "Spark plugs". You seem to disregard the fact we Had No "fast-paced" point. So we Had Not the personnel to run all willie-nilly. And you blame Woodson for that? Seems to me, he knows the personnel, you guys just have wants. Umm..kay. (1) There was NO effective offensive system out there. If you call repeating the same two man game an offense then I guess Woodson really gave us what we needed. Unlike college teams that can effectively run motion offenses, Princeton offenses, uptempo offenses, etc. We had no system at all. I would love to hear you identify the offensive system that Woodson has put into place during his coaching tenure. I've never heard it described. (2) Re the uptempo note. The lack of a PG? The PG is very helpful but you don't need a superspeed PG to play transition basketball. You don't need a "fast-paced" PG. The best transition pg ever wasn't a speedster (Magic). Many teams have run very successful uptempo systems without good PGs. What I am telling you is not that we have the ideal personnel for uptempo. However, I am telling you that uptempo was better suited to last year's personnel than half-court basketball. And the proof is in the pudding that our PGs didn't really killed us in our uptempo wins against uptempo teams who forced us to play their pace. Here were the top four teams in terms of scoring and our results against them. We did very well against uptempo teams because it took advantage of our athleticism (which is MUCH less meaningful in the halfcourt). Note that even the games we lost were competitive: Total: 5-4 Phoenix 1-0 120-111 Golden State 2-0 115-94 106-105 Denver 1-1 98-96 87-100 Washington 1-3 95-96 92-93 100-97 85-98 Good Lord AHF. The 4 top offensive teams you listed, also have Nash, Baron Davis, Allen Iverson, and Gilbert Arenas running the show there. 4 of the quickest and most potent scoring PGs in this league. And those 4 teams almost encourage guys to jack it up from anywhere. They're also 4 of the WORST defensive teams in the league. Because of that, EVERYBODY looks better offensively, when they play those teams. So it kind of blows the theory out of the water that you don't need a good PG to run efficient offense. You show me a good offensive team with a bad PG, and I'll point out to you that they probably have a dominant low post option on the blocks. But I doubt that you're going to find a good offensive team with a bad PG AND no consistent low post option. The Hawks had neither of those last year. And 3 of those wins last year against those teams, came when one of those guards weren't playing or on the team Denver - no Iverson in the 98 - 96 win Phoenix - no Nash in the 120 - 111 win Golden St - no Davis in the 106 - 015 win TEams like Phoenix, Denver, Golden St, and Washington, take a ton of outside shots. The missed shots will give a team a chance to get back into a game, or keep a lead. And that's exactly what the Hawks did in those wins. When we miss outside shots, we lose . . cause we dang well can't throw the ball inside to somebody, and hope they can score.

Quote: [ I agree. I mean, who else start a player for a bunch of games but only have about 10mins/game? Yeah what does this do to the confidence of your players Woody? Again, how easy it is to say a want without seeing reality. The only time Ivey EVER started was when our only other healthy PG was Lue. Lue has repeatedly said he is more comfortable and more effective coming off the bench. He is spark plug and a scorer, not a floor general with a defensive mindset which is the prefereable role for a teams starting PG. Woody saw the pieces he had to work with and put those pieces where they fit the best. It is widely known that average at best oppposing PGs have career days vs our peremiter defense. So he started our best defender at the PG poisition to try and keep the opposing PG from starting the games hot and in attack mode. Makes sense enough to me. Then we blame Woody for not running more. Ivey, Lue, AJ, and a broken down Speedy are not exactly tempo pushers. It is not like he was slowing down a Kidd, Nash, Parker, Ford, or some lightning rod of a PG who is capable of running an uptempo system that could out run and out think the opposing team. Like the WSP song...."Make Sense To Me " Coach . . . these cats want Smoove to push the tempo, and pass to JJ for the slam. I mean, everybody talks about us running. How do you run without a PG? This team ran when we buckled down and played tremdous defense. That's what sparked most of our running opportunities. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it was actually WOODY who encouraged guys like Smoove and Chill to grab rebounds and push the ball into the frontcourt. And he did it mainly because we didn't have a PG who could push the tempo. And like you said about Lue . . Lue would not only rather come off the bench and be a scorer, he's a horrible defender. And Ivey was used for that purpose alone . . to defend at the beginning of halfves. I remember complaining a lot during the 05 - 06 season, about how Lue was getting lit up at the beginning of the 3rd quarter. And a lot of other posters were too. Ivey, while he didn't provide any offense, kind of stopped the defensive turnstyle at the PG spot for a while. Woody saw the pieces he had to work with and put those pieces where they fit the best. That's exactly how I see Woody. Of course he didn't make all the right moves, but he did what he could, seeing how flawed the roster was. No reliable PG, nor a reliable low post option. Good teams at least have one of those things. WE didn't have any. But somehow, Woody was expected to have this team "walking on water", even with the injuries? LOL.

Atlas, it's obvious that we're going to be on two very different sides of this. So I'll ask you 4 questions. - How many WINS should Woody have had last year, with all of the injuries? - How many WINS should Woody have had last year, if everyone would've been realtively? Now . . replace Woody with, say . . I don't know . . Mike D'Antoni. - How many WINS does D'Antoni get as Hawks coach, with all the injuries? - How many WINS does D'Antoni get as Hawks coach, if everybody was healthy last year? 4 simple questions Atlas. Answer them if you dare.

Good year for Marvin: Shooting: 47% or above FG, around 85% FT, and 33% 3FG ( This is the thing I want him to improve on, more than anything else. And if he becomes a better finisher from close range, it will. If he really becomes a good finisher around the rim, he has a chance to shoot around 50%. It is not imperative that Marvin increases his shooting range. If anything, I want him to do exactly what Luou Deng did, and become a mid-range MONSTER. Deng also finished well around the rim. ) Points: 15 - 18 ppg ( Marvin is either going to solidify himself as the #2 scorer on this team, or he's going to play within the team concept, and not try to force much. Horford is the wild card in how much Marvin averages a game. The more points Horford gets, the less likely Marvin will be that #2 scorer. Marvin's ability to knock down free throws may also help him in the scoring department. ) Rebounds: 5 - 7 per game ( I don't see Marvin becoming a more efficient rebounder. If Shelden's minutes increse, Marvin won't get many chances at rebounds. Smoove, Horford, and Shelden all have a shot to be over 6 rpg, with Smoove and Horford maybe grabbing 8 boards a game ) 16.9 ppg . . 5.3 rebs . . 2 asst . . 49% FG . . 84% FT . . 33% 3FG I would consider that a very good year for Marvin.

Diesel, I think we all know that the ownership situation probably played a big role for Woody lasting this long. With the situation the way it is, it would've been very hard to find a legit coach to replace Woody. A guy like Adleman wouldn't have come here. This is NOT an attractive job, no matter what the fans want to think. The same reason why big time free agents usually don't want to come here, is the same reason why we can't get a big time coach. But seriously, look through the Eastern Conference and the coaches in it. Who would've stepped in here last year, and got us to the playoffs? I can name maybe 3 of them. And one of them definitely ISN'T Flip Saunders.

I'm defending him because most of you have absolutely no clue of what you're talking about, especially about the substitutions. This isn't NBA Live 08, where you can play players damn near as long as you want. In the real world, most players can only go at a high level for 6 - 10 minutes at a time. People act like we had a lot of options to bring off the bench to replace these guyswhen they got hurt. We quickly forget that guys like Cedric Bozeman and Matt Freije were playing significant minutes back in Nov and Dec. Even in Lorenzen's case, even though he sucked, he had to play on most nights. Hell . . I think Ivey started at PG most of January, because neither Lue nor Speedy was healthy. And citing that Marvin being hot in the 1st quarter, then being taken out, is a point not worthy to stand on. I'm not a Marvin basher, but come on now. The guy shot 42% last year. He might . . might have had 5 games in which he scored 10 points in the 1st quarter, let alone any quarter. And even in those games in which he did score early, it's not like he had a monster game. Did Marvin even break the 25 point barrier this year? And how were we supposed to reduce JJ's minutes last year? The main guy that would take his place as a scorer ( Lue ), was hurt for 1/2 of the year. So what do we do? Give Salim heavy minutes every game, even if he's ice cold and playing no defense? And everytime JJ would leave the game, this team would flat out COLLAPSE. His injury might be a blessing in disguise for this season, because those guys finally learned to play without him on the floor. This year is different, beacause we actually go a legit 10 deep. We can possibly survive two injuries this year ( outside of JJ ), because of that depth. This year Woody has no excuse, unless 4 guys get hurt at the same time. I mean damn, we've had NBDL players get decent minutes on this team. All I do, is call Woody an average coach. Not a great one. Not even a good one. He's average. I don't think a guy like Lawrence Frank, or even an Eddie Jordan, are better coaches. Give either those teams both Lue and Speedy, and give us Kidd or Arenas, and I bet that we'll have the better record. There are a LOT of coaches around this league, who wouldn't have done a better job than Woody, under the same circumstances. The elite coaches . . yes. A guy like Mike Dunleavy, Sr? Hell no!! And always remember. It was WOODY who planned to play Josh Smith at the 4. He didn't have to put him there. He could've left him out on the wing, and played Marvin at the 4, seeing that Marvin is a little heavier than Smoove. So whether you guys like it or not, WOODY gets a lot of the credit, for Smoove's improved playin the 2nd half of the season.

Quote: BK definitely hasn't given Woody much to work with. That said, Woody hasn't exactly put the players he DOES have in a position to win. Key things he does wrong. #1: Timed substitutions. No matter what or who we are playing, the same players sub in and sub out at almost the exact same time EVERY game. When playing different teams, sometimes you need to switch that up. For example, Marvin would almost always sub out mid 1st quarter, REGARDLESS of how well he was playing. He'd score 10 straight points, but Woody's stopwatch would go off and he'd take him out, and we wouldn't see him until mid 2nd. Also Royal Ivey starting 60+ games in 05-06, but only playing about 10 minutes per game. Easily one of the WORST arguments made against Woody as a coach. Almost EVERY coach on EVERY level of basketball, has a "timed" substitution pattern, especially in the 1st half of games. In high school and in college, I knew EXACTLY when I was going to come out of a game, or go into a game. But it's funny that people actually use this against Woody as a coach. And here's what people don't even see with the Marvin sub. Yes, Marvin almost always goes out of a game at the 6 minute mark in the 1st quarter, for Chill to take his place. But he almost ALWAYS comes right back in at the 2 - 3 minute mark to sub for who? JOSH SMITH or JOE JOHNSON! Sometimes he comes in and takes Smoove's place at PF with Chill staying at SG. Sometimes, it's JJ that takes a breather, with Chill moving to SG and Marvin playing SF. Sometimes he comes in with another big ( like Shelden ), and Shelden plays PF, Marvin SF, and Chill SG. Every team on every level of basketball does this during the 1st half of games. It's much more important to have a player like Marvin relatively fresh in the 4th quarter and down the stretch, than it is to keep him in the game longer than usual in the 1st quarter, just because he's made 3 - 5 jumpers. And hell, the offensive dropoff between Marvin and Chill isn't significant anyway. Chill comes in the game most times, and immeadiately scores a few buckets. I know people think Woody is an idiot, but a lot of you don't even know how the game works. Quote: #2: No offensive gameplan. I know we don't have the greatest offensive players, but we have absolutely NO movement or plays ran on offense at ALL. It's basically, give it to JJ or Lue and let them create. Well . . what would you do? Especially if you didn't have a reliable floor general on the floor? It's not a coincidence that the best looking offenses, have very good PGs running the show. A good PG with good leadership and decision making skills, is a vital part of a good offense. Hopefully, Law will change that around for us this year. Quote: #3: No ability to adjust. He doesn't know how to adjust in certain situations. He'll just stick with the same sub pattern and hope it works. This is just flat out not true. And this is why I say that EVERYBODY on Hawksquawk should record EVERY game this season. Every one of them. Just because some of Woody's adjustments don't work ( because they are countered by the other team ), doesn't mean that he isn't making adjustments. December 6th vs Denver . . No Marvin, Childress, Speedy, or ZaZa ( because he got suspended for that cheap shot he threw in Utah ) We're already shorthanded to begin with. Starting lineup: Lue, JJ, Smoove, Shelden, Lorenzen . . with Salim set to probably be the 6th man. Hawks actually play well in the 1st half, taking a 4 point lead into the locker room. The 3rd quarter was different though. The Hawks go ice cold midway in that quarter, and don't make a single FG from the 6 minute mark until the end of the quarter. Meanwhile, the Nuggets are sparked by Diawara, a guy that subbed in for Melo early in the 3rd quarter because Melo had picked up foul #4. A 4 point lead turns into a 14 point decifit at the end of the quarter. The Hawks start to make shots at the beinning of the 4th quarter, but they now couldn't stop Melo, who had came back into the game. And even though the Hawks had made 5 of their first 6 shots to begin the quarter, they were still down by 14. Hawks tall timeout with a little under 9 minutes to go. That's when Woody makes the adjustment . . . go zone. Hawks personnel on the floor: Lue, Salim, JJ, Smoove, Shelden. JJ will play at the top of the zone, with Lue and Salim playing the wings. Smoove and Shelden will handle each side of the baseline. Denver's personnel grouping of Boykins, Diawara, Evans, Melo, and Klezia, isn't a good one to be going against a zone. So the Nuggets pretty much tried to force-feed the ball into Melo. Coming out of the timeout, Woody calls a play for JJ that immeadiately has him taking the ball to the hole. JJ makes the lay-up and draws the foul. Denver tries to get the ball to Melo, but Shelden steals it. Hawks go on fast break, ending with Lue hitting a 20 foot jumper. LOL . . Lue goes back down court, talking, trying to fire the team up. Hawks are now down by 9. Next possession, Denver tries to get it to Melo again, but Evans has the ball stolen by JJ. Hawks go quickly on offense, ending up with Shelden making a driving basket in the lane in which he also got fouled on. Shelden makes FT and the Hawks are down by 6. The personnel the Nuggets had on the floor didn't want to force a 3-point shot. So the Zone worked perfectly for the Hawks. Karl gets some of his boys back into the game ( Dre Miller and Camby ). But even with this move, you still have Miller, Boykins, and Evans on the outside. Decent offensive players, but not 3 point shooters. In the zone, the Hawks were closing out hard on all the shooters, making them go inside. Next Nugget possession, Denver looks lost as hell, passing the ball on the perimeter. None of those guys want to shoot because they're not wide open. Miller tries to hit Melo in the paint, but Shelden deflects that ball. The ball bounces off the backboard, Smoove grabs the rebound, and starts the break. He makes a very dangerous, but great cross-court pass to Salim, who them passes to a wide open JJ in the corner. JJ knocks down the 3, and the Hawks are right back in the game, down by 3. The Hawks go on to win the game by two, with Shelden drawing the foul on Camby, and hitting 2 FTs. Then he and Smoove help make the stop at the end of the game. On this occasion, Woody's adjustment worked. Some nights, it doesn't. That's basketball, and sports in general for ya. Quote: #4: His insistance on playing Lorenzen Wright. That alone speaks for itself. Now THAT, I can't disagree with. Quote: I still get sick of his patented "stare" it just annoys me. He seems to not have much control over the team, or if he does, it seems the players don't really buy into it. I'm sure he'd still be a good assistant, but he's clearly overmatched when it comes to head coaching. He just doesn't really know what he's doing. Most assistants who won a championship have some idea of what they're doing. Woody definitely isn't the best coach in the world, but he's far from the worst. If the rookies live up to the hype, it'll be intersting to see how Woody handles them. If he pulls a Larry Brown, and not play the rookies much, just because they're young, then I'll have a problem with Woody as well. But as of right now, he's just an average coach to me, who really hasn't had the proper personnel in place to be a consistent winner.

I just want to get a clear understanding of this, so that everybody is on the same page. This should be interesting.

Quote: Any player who is drafted in front of Wade,Bosh and Melo wins by a mile! Exactly ! Damn . . I should've read the thread first, instead of responding to the question right off the bat.

Darko by a LANDSLIDE !! LeBron was the ultimate media hype job, but he could back it up. The #3 pick, Melo, just won a championship. The #4 pick, Bosh, was a freshman phenom out of GA Tech. And the #5 pick, Wade, dropped a triple-double on #1 seed Kentucky, to get Marquette to the Final 4. You not only have 4 all-stars in the top 5 of that draft class, those 4 players may be potential HALL OF FAME players. There's no question that Darko's hype as the next great European player, elevated him to a status he had no business being. Imagine the Pistons, with either Melo, Wade, or Bosh. That's scary. Yet, they chose Darko. As much as Yi was hyped, Darko was hyped even more, because people were absolutely convinced that this kid would be an all-star caliber player in 2 - 3 years. He'll be lucky to be a low quality starting center.

Sleeper for what? To finish .500? I'm not a Falcon's fan, but I do know that even if Vick was there, part of the reason why they would struggle this year, is because of the defense. Now with your main playmaker gone, who is going to make the plays for the offense? If the Falcons do have a record of .500 and over, it will all be because of Petrino. But the history of the league works heavily against Bobby, seeing that college coaches hardly ever succeed in the NFL . . unless you happen to have 3 future Hall of Famers on offense ( see Jimmy Johnson & Barry Switzer ) And that 12 . . . That's not 12th overall in the NFL is it? LOL @ that if it is.