TheNorthCydeRises

Quote: watch them play..thats how we should play OK . . go get us Baron Davis, and we can play like that. LOL . . people want this team to run. Who is going to lead the break? Salim may be the fastest guy on the team right now. You want Salim leading the break and making decisions? BTW, it's AMAZING what healthy bodies will do for a ballclub. Davis and Richardson have missed a big chunk of the season. Now that they are back, G-State looks a whole lot better. They're 8 - 4 since Davis' return, and making a big time push for that 8th seed. LOL . . and did Nellie really start Al at CENTER? Then again . . I did suggest that Woody start Salim and Solomon, along with Marvin, Chill, and Smoove. So that lineup would look a lot like that Golden St lineup. But instead of Nellie's 4-guard, 1-forward lineup . . we'd come with 4-forwards and 1-guard.

That's the logical explanation. But at some point, you have to give kids like Solomon and Salim extended minutes, and see if they can help you more than they hurt you. You know that Lo isn't going to give you much, other than occasional position defense . . maybe occasional is a bad word. Sporadic is probably the right word. You know that Lue isn't 100% healthy, so he isn't going to be the Lue that we saw at the beginning of the year. AJ is fine, but even he may need to take a backseat these days to Salim, and see if he serves the team better as Salim's backup. AJ should still probably play in crunch time over Salim though, even if Salim is the starter. To me, he has nothing to lose by playing the kids who can have a big impact on a game, one way or the other.

Woody says that he's going to play the guys who defend and rebound . . . yet, Solomon Jones got a DNP last night. The PG penetration is exactly the reason why we acquired Speedy Claxton, to slow down or stop all of that, so it doesn't surprise me that opposing PGs are exploiting that now. Woody isn't the worst coach in the league, because the players have to take some pride in what they do. But I always said that if Woody has one MAJOR flaw, is that he's stubborn. Stubborn to the point where he seems as if he doesn't think "outside the box" at times, and go with something radical to shake up the team. And his trigger finger to pull the youngsters out of games, is far more itchy, than with the vets who may give the same type of pizz poor effort. It's the same type of ish that did in Larry Brown with the Knicks last year. I would really like to see this lineup start for the rest of the year. G - Salim ( and no, that doesn't necessarily mean that Salim strictly plays the point. He can Chill can alternate initiating the offense. But him being in the game, especially without a legit perimeter threat on the team, does help us . . even if he gives up points on the other end. ) G - Chill F - Williams F - Smith F - Jones or Shelden ( doesn't matter to me which one starts. I just want to see one of them play 30 minutes a game. Let them take their lumps against the bigger post players, and see if they can make enough positive plays to help the ballclub. ) At least with that group, the effort and energy level will somewhat be there at all times. Even if they make mistakes, the effort on both ends of the floor should be there. And hopefully, the extended PT will help them in the long run. Last night's game was living proof that ALL of our kids need to continue to develop. Smoove, Chill, Marvin, Salim, the whole bunch. If you sit anybody for the rest of the year, sit the veterans who you know aren't going to get any better. But the kids are FAR from being developed. Roll with the kids, and see if they can win games. Play the vets with spot minutes. But I want to see those 5 play 30 - 35 minutes a night minimum. And I want them to play to win with that group.

Sorry Walter. While the rest of the "anti-tankers" may have jumped ship, I'll stay on board by myself, and man the ship. Here's the fundamental difference between a person like me, and a person like you. You believe that the ONLY HOPE for this franchise, is to land either Oden or Durant. I believe that the ONLY HOPE for this franchise, is if JJ, Smoove, Marvin and possibly Childress continue to develop into consistent players. And even if they develop, I understand that pieces will still have to be added in the future, to further solidify the team. Those pieces could be star players, or role players. We don't know yet. You believe that landing Oden is vital to building a championship team. I say that we have to get to playoff level first, before anybody even talks about winning titles, with or without Oden. The fact is this. Even if we're lucky enough to land Oden or Durant, it'll make no difference if guys like Smoove and Marvin are inconsistent, shooting 43% FG, and still making head-scratching plays that kill this team. Or guys like ZaZa still can't play defense when Oden gets in foul trouble. And that doesn't include the other inconsistent players we have on the squad. We have to continue to develop the kids we have here now, in order to be better in the future. We need a full team effort to win. Not just great play from a few guys. Of course I'd take Oden or Durant. But I'm fully prepared to see this team blossom without Oden, because I believe that they can. And personally, I just can't get excited about putting all of my hope into the Draft Lottery. I'd rather see Marvin, Chill and Smoove finish the season on a strong note . . AND . . get lucky in the draft . . than to see them fizzle out, with the coach limiting their minutes. But that's just me. This is obviously not the sentiment of the board. You've been accusing people all year of having no plan. The truth, is that your only plan is to HOPE that we get lucky in the draft. Other than that, you've been tossing out ridiculous propositions like obtaining Sene or Luke Ridnour, who isn't even the PG leader of his own team. Or you toss out a bunch of unrealistic trade proposals, like trying to get Andrew Bynum, when the Lakers aren't giving up the kid for nothing. Or that ridiculous Pierce/Jefferson for JJ/( insert name or draft pick here ) The plan for this team is simple. Develop the kids, and get them adequate support to help this team overall. And we can do that without "wishing upon a damn star" and hope the Tooth Fairy leave us some money under the pillow. ************* Let's say we fall off the face of the earth, and get that #3 spot record wise. When the lotto balls start to fall, and the 4 separate numbers come out, we already know that the team in the #3 slot has a 84.4% chance of NOT landing the first pick in the draft. That's set in stone. LOL . . I just can't get excited about that. But I guess for the rest of you guys, it'll keep you going until May 22nd. Since most of the pro-tank crowd have lost complete confidence in this team, this is the only thing you guys have to look forward to. Sorry if I refuse to be in that "wishing well" camp. And contrary to popular belief on this board, the Hawks, even at #3, do NOT have a 30%+ chance of landing a top 3 pick. After the first pick, which we know is set in stone at 84.4% failure, the 2nd and 3rd pick probabilities are not set in stone. That percentage is determined by what team gets the first pick. And that percentage for the #3 team NEVER gets higher than 29% favorable in either of the first three selections. For example. If the team with the worst record gets the #1 pick, the Hawks have a 79.2% chance of NOT getting the 2nd pick. That would be the best odds we could have for obtaining the 2nd pick. The equation for this is simple. - 1,000 lottery combo chances total for all 14 teams. - Worst record has 250 of thsoe chances. - 3rd worst record has 156 of those chances. If worst record gets the top pick, 250 of those chances come off the board for the 2nd pick ( even if one of the worst pick lottery combinations pop up again in the drawing process. They'll just discard that combo, and keep drawing until a combo that doesn't fit the team that got the #1 pick comes up ) 1,000 total chances - 250 worst team chances = 750 total chances for 2nd pick. 750 total chances - 156 chances for #3 team = 594 chances that we DON'T have to get that 2nd pick. 594 / 750 = 79.2% chance we don't get the pick. Here are the percentages for the rest of the picks. - if 2nd worst get the #1 pick - 80.5% chance not getting the pick - 4th worst - 82.3% - 5th worst - 82.9% - 6th worst - 83.4% - 7th worst - 83.7% . . . - 14th worst - 84.4% So after that is done, the final slot is chosen. If the lottery holds to form, and the 2 worst teams in the lottery get the top 2 picks, the Hawks still have a 71.7% chance of NOT landing the #3 pick And that's the best we can hope for in the 3rd slot. If someone were to tell any of you that Marvin would have a 71.7% chance of being a bust, the board would be all for trading him as quick as possible. You guys wouldn't even try to spin it as . . "well, Marvin has about a 30% chance of being good to great, so we should keep him." The sentiment would be totally different in that situation. But I understand where you guys are coming from. You have to HOPE for SOMETHING, I guess. And Oden is your Obi-Wan-Kenobi. Durant is your Luke Skyywalker. The fact is that the lottery is just that . . the lottery. It's the same process that see people buy $100 or $200 dollars worth of Mega Million tickets ( Powerball tickets for me in Tennessee ), and think they have a better shot than the guy or gal that buys a $3 quick pick. When it's all said and done, the only thing that matters is how the balls fall out. And no matter how many chances you have, you have NO CONTROL over how the balls fall out. It's the same process that saw Golden St leapfrog the T-Wolves, Clippers, Sixers, and Bullets in 1995. - saw the Raptors and Sixers leapfrog the Griz in 96 - saw the Griz get passed over AGAIN in 97, dropping from worst to 4th - saw the Clips drop from #2 to #4 in 99 - saw the Nets go from #6 to #1 in 00 - saw the Warriors go from #2 to #5 in 01 - saw the Rockets go from #5 to #1 in 02 - saw the Cavs, who deserved the pick, get the top pick in 03 . . how convienent for the Cavs, to get the home state prodigy, when the 7 of the previous 8 teams with the worst record DIDN'T get the top pick. - see Milwaukee go from #6 to #1 in 05 Hell, if you go by the 11 year sample of this current lottery, you almost want to be the #3 team . . or the #5 or #6 team, instead of the #1 or #2 team. Bottom line. The lottery is a crapshoot that you can't plan for. That's why a team like Philly, who could definitely use a Durant to team with Iggy, isn't worried about "tanking". They're just playing out the season, and letting the chips fall where they may. If it is the Hawks "destiny" to land the #1 or #2 spot, they will get one of those two positions. If not, which pretty much may be the scenario, you have to play the cards that are dealt to you, discard a few, and hope you get better cards to play with ( that you choose ). (( stepping off the podium )) Your turn Mr. Speaker.

Not true Hotlanta. I'm not going to waste a lot of typing on this, because I've never seen you post ANYTHING positive about this team. What injuries do, is disrupt the chemistry of a team. You've watched enough basketball to know this. Here's a number range for you Hot. 60 - 65 games. That represents the number of games that we've had 2 or more key players on this team not be available for us in a particular game. Teams, for the most part, just don't overcome those odds. Especially not young teams. -No posting scoring -No defense -No PG -No center -No standout rebounders -No desire -No Depth You know, that sounds a lot like the Dallas Mavericks of 2 years ago, when JT first came to the team. They did have 2 things that we don't have now. An all-NBA player, the desire to win because they had been in a few playoff wars, and a lot of depth. All of those other things you listed weren't a factor in the success of their team. Their defense is much better now, but they still lack a center, post scoring. The Hawks were way too competitive this year, even with the players out and all of our deficiencies, to make me believe that this team couldn't win 40 games this year. No way we're 27 - 44 with a 80% healthy Hawks squad for the year. We definitely need a banger on the inside, no doubt on that. But our team has shown that they can be efficient enough offensively and sound enough defensively, to compete with even the best teams this year. One more year of experience, and a few more moves, will continue to see this team improve. The glass is 5/8ths full for the Hawks . . not 5/8ths empty.

Our flaws as a team have a lot to do with youth. I know people get tired of hearing that, but it's the truth. Young teams just don't win in the NBA, because they do stupid things. The kids do a lot of great things. Then they'll do something that will completely drive you crazy. And when they make the mistake, they know that it's a bad one. But as far as the Memphis discussion, consider this: Vancouver/Memphis draft positions since 1995: 95: #6 - Big Country 96: #3 - Reef 97: #4 - Antonio Daniels 98: #2 - Mike Bibby 99: #2 - Steve Francis ( who pitched a hissy fit and got his trade wish ) 00: #2 - Stromile Swift 01: #3 ( from us in the Reef trade ) - Gasol . . and #6: Battier 02: #4 Drew Gooden ( enter Jerry West as GM ) - Makes a move to bring in solid veteran players like James Posey and Bonzi Wells to the team, who immeadiately helps them offensively and most importantly defensively. Makes some nice trades to get underachieving players off the squad. Hires Hubie Brown to coach during the 02-03 season. 03: #14 Marcus Banks 04: no draft pick ( I think they traded it away, but I forgot to whom. I think Utah got it, seeing that they had three 1st round picks that year. ) 05: #19 - Hakim Warrick 06: #24 - Kyle Lowry A lot of you forget that Memphis won 49 games last year, and had posted 3 consecutive seasons of over .500 basketball. But West wanted to remake the team to be a more athletic one, because they couldn't get out of the 1st round of the playoffs. The ONLY reason why they're in the situation that they're in now, is because of Gasol's injury situation. And the same goes for us. But the majority of fans of the Hawks put the injury situation low on the totem pole. LOL . . tell Milwaukee that they're season wasn't ruined because of injury. LOL . . just a mere 2 weeks ago, a lot of you were talking about how this team is playing so well without JJ, that he might be expendible. Now that we're losing with the kids, we're the worst team in the NBA . . LOL. This board is hilarious. Without all of the injuries to this team, the Hawks are a middle of the pack team that was very capable of winning close to 40 games this season . . even with all of our flaws and deficiencies. But you can't go through the amount of injuries that we went through, and expect everything to still be OK. And most importantly, you can't JUDGE this team on how good or bad they are, because of the injuries. This board bases their opinions on what they see on a daily basis, and not from a long term or rational perspective: - If Salim throws up 37 points in a game, he should be starting. He could even be our 2nd option. I guess it doesn't matter if he shoots 40% FG, he can still do it. - If Chill has a lackluster 2nd half, he's not aggressive enough, even if he does have an overall game in which he scores 20 points and grabs more than 10 boards and shoot 50% FG. - If Smoove commits 7 turnovers, he's a dumb player. Forget the fact that he may have 7 assists in that same game from the forward position. Conversely, he's our best player( even better than JJ ) despite that 5 of his 7 turnovers were passes or plays he had no business trying to make. - If the team wins without JJ, we don't need him. Forget that the team has won 21 games when JJ scores 29 points or more, we don't need him because our ball movement is so good without him. - If Solomon Jones gets 2 blocks in 7 minutes, he can be the future at center, even though he's undersized and a hack machine. - If Marvin doesn't look to put up 15 shots a game, or get his shot blocked trying to go to the hole, he has no heart and is a complete bust. He may be 4 - 8 FG in the game and playing team ball, but because he's not trying to be a superstar, he has no heart. Conversely, some say that Marvin still be a "superstar" in a few years, even if he has shown no indication of having a "superstar" mentality. These are the type of knee-jerk opinions that we see on a daily basis on this board. It's hilarious to me. These are the Hawks in a nutshell: - If healthy next year, our veteran PGs are going to help this team tremendously, because they all bring different things to the table. And if push comes to shove, you could play the guy that is playing the best during crunch time. And for you Speedy critics, don't count on Speedy posting the worst numbers of his career two years in a row. - JJ is the best player the Hawks have had since Dominique. This was his first year of being truly "the man". He'll be more than ready to handle the double and sometimes triple teams next season. - Smoove is establishing himself as a viable 2nd option to this team. A true 5-tool player. He will also improve next year. A nice 2nd fiddle to compliment JJ. - Childress is a poor man's combo version of Shawn Marion and Tayshawn Prince, for all of the little things he does. He is the Hawks version of Jose Oquendo ( for you longtime baseball fans, especially of the Cardinals ). - Marvin will be a solid #3 guy for us, sometimes even taking the #2 role when/if Smith has a bad game. Like Childress and Smith, he's a young player that is rapidly improving. If I were BK, I'm only looking to add two things to this team. One is obviously a big man who can play defense, and score somewhat efficiently. Not a guy that puts up big numbers, but just a guy who can come in and shoot over 50% FG and not let his man have a field day on the offensive end. We just need consistent efficiency from the 5 spot. ZaZa runs too hot and cold to be counted on as a starter. The 2nd thing I'd look to add, would be a slasher. It could be from the PG position or from the SG position. But we could use a player that can get to the hole just about anytime he wanted to. Most of your good teams have this kind of player, even if he's not a star player. Keep this team together. Don't make a move with the young forwards, unless you can bring an IMPACT player to the mix. Get a new coach if you feel that Woody has done all he can with this group. If Nique feels that he can make better personnel decisions than BK, consider letting him go too.

LOL . . he was in foul trouble. He didn't take the night off. Woody made the decision to go with Salim, instead of having Marvin in the game, because Salim was red hot. That was Marvin's first bad game in almost 2 months. It's funny. Anybody says anything remotely critical about Josh, and you Smoove fans come running to his defense. But you Smoove fans expect Marvin to be dang near perfect. How about viewing both guys with the same amount of objectivity? The fact is that this is not a one-man team. And we don't have enough talent on this team to just arbitrarily just get rid of somebody. And all of these players are works in progress. Even JJ can significantly improve his game. And both Smoove and Marvin need to be more consistent players. They don't have to be perfect, just consistent, and make better decisions.

LOL . . it's always a Smoove fan that tries to get rid of Marvin for whatever reason. Marvin and Smoove can easily co-exist. They didn't have a problem co-existing the game before, when Smoove and Marvin led the team in points. And you still need a bench. Childress is a very good guy to bring off the bench. While I'll definitely agree that we need a low post scorer and a guy who can bang on defense, Smoove should be the one trying to serve that purpose on this team, not Marvin or Childress. Marvin and Chill are better off playing the spot up jumper and slashing game. Both of them are more of the prototypical 3, than Smoove is. Smoove could benefit greatly, if he transform his game to have both inside and outside qualities. He could be a Rasheed Wallace type offensive player, if he works on his post game, and learns how to play position defense in the post. The problem with trading one of the kids, is that you just don't trade them for some scrub "banger", just to balance out the team. And it's not like those teams are willing to give up those types of players willingly anyway. I'm all for trading one of the kids in some package deal for a "star" player . . or a player who is very good at a need position. ( no . . guys like Luke Ridnour or Danny Fortson don't need to be in this discussion ). But you can't trade a player who could be a vital starter or bench player. Good NBA teams not only have balance, they have DEPTH. Trading Marvin or Chill, may balance out the team, but it may not make it better because we might just lose some depth. Best thing for this team is to tell Smoove to add 5 - 10 pounds to his frame, and be around the 250 lb mark at the start of next season. And send him to a big man's camp so that he can learn how to bang better. Make him watch tapes of Ben Wallace. Something. If Smoove played closer to the basket, he could be a consistent 11 rpg guy, strictly off of his athletic ability. He's the guy that should be getting offensive rebounds and putbacks, after one of the guards or SF misses a shot.

LOL @ Ex. If Dirk would post people up on the low block, he may could average 35 ppg. But because he wants to be a SG, he'll always limit how effective he can be offensively, even though he's a damn good offensive player. Troy is right when he says that basketball games are won inside-out. But the league is rapidly changing. If you can score from point blank range, that's just as good as scoring from the post. That's why the "points in the paint" stat is so critical for us. It doesn't matter how we score in the paint, just that we get point there, whether it be from post-ups or lay-ups off penetration. And that's the whole reason why Smith is better at the 4 right now. Because at the 4, he can get to the basket against the bigger PF's that he faces. Defensively, of course Smoove needs work. Offensively, he's maximizing his talent to the fullest. It's funny. Some people on this board had the audacity to complain about us giving up that bum Boris Diaw, because we didn't use him right, but Phoenix did. LOL . . last I checked, Boris wasn't a 4. But Phoenix even played that kid at the 5 many times last season. And what made Diaw so effective, was his ability to take big centers off the dribble and get to the basket . . or shoot the ball from mid-range, before the center could rotate to him. Defensively, Diaw was a complete liability against low post scorers. But offensively, playing Diaw at the 4 and 5 spots, is what worked for them. Now that he's playing more at the 3 and the 4, instead of at the 4 and 5, his offense has suffered because he can't score as easily against the 3's. He'll pass the ball off much more now. And one thing the board hasn't pointed out is this. Smoove has a better chance of learning how to effectively defend in the post, than he does learning how to effectively defend on the perimeter. In the post, all he needs to do is learn how to keep his man from getting too deep in the post, and play good ground defense once his man does get the ball. On the perimeter, this kid will constantly get beat off the dribble by a slasher, because Smoove's lateral quickness isn't the greatest. Chill is a much better lateral defender on the perimeter than Smoove. Send Smoove to big man camp. Have him watch LOTS OF FILM of Larry Nance. And he'll be a better player because of it. Last summer, I hoped that Smoove would model his game after Nance, who was a good on the ball defender, a great help shot blocker, and a guy who had the combo game of knocking down mid-range jumpers, grabbing offensive boards, and occasionally posting people up and scoring on them with a jump hook. And Nance was 6-10 bout only 205 - 215 lbs. He was a SF, without great SF skills, but talents that would let him excel at PF. Nance in his 2nd year in the league: 16.7 ppg 8.7 rpg 2.4 apg 2.6 blk 1.2 stls 55% FG 67% FT Smoove, so far this year: 15.5 ppg 8.4 rpg 3.2 apg 2.8 blk 1.0 stls 44% FG 68% FT And his FG% is low, mainly because he still tries to play that SG/SF role . . instead of that SF/PF role. Playing Smoove at the 4, will improve his FG%, possibly up to the 50% range in future years. He may reach 46% FG by the end of the year. If he keeps playing at the 4, he'll turn from the "Black AK-47" . . to the "modern-day Larry Nance". Keep the kid at the 4, and hope his career is on par, or a little better, than Nance's.

Quote: That's BS too JB. Just because there are a sea of PGs and one Sf doesn't mean you just pick the Sf. Nor do you make draft choices (that high) to prove a point to a player. The point here is very simple: It's definitely very difficult to find good PGs and Centers in this league. We had an opportunity and we picked a player for which we had 5 others who could play the same position. That makes BK dumb. Very true. But with that logic, the Hawks would pass on Kevin Durant, and take a guy like Mike Conley Jr or Acie Law IV instead, because they need a PG more than they need an athletic scorer. But do the Hawks pass on Durant, just because they have Marvin, Smoove, and Chill in the mix right now? I don't think so. We take Durant, and we STILL would need a PG. But do you pass on a talent like that, in order to take a need player? This board is funny like that. When we go with the "potential and the talent", BK gets criticized because everyone knew that we needed a PG. When he goes with the "need player", BK gets criticized, because everybody wanted the guy or guys with talent, even though they didn't play a position that we were weak at. He went for the potential star talent, when we didn't have a bonafide star on the team. He went for need talent, when we had a star and a few more potential star players on the squad. LOL . . but hindsight says that he should've did everything in reverse. Hindsight is great for disgruntled fans. GMs in this league are terrified of missing out on a young player who have "supposedly" great potential. They don't want to miss out in the next Kobe, T-Mac, LeBron, Garnett, or Stoudamire, just because they're young and raw. The safer, more sound picks, usually get passed up. Sometimes the GM is right. Sometimes they're wrong. When they make mistakes, but the player is talented, he can be used as trade bait in order to get the need player. For us, that player may be Marvin, or Chill, or Shelden that is dealt. But we had to see which guy had the most potential, instead of putting our future in just 2 of those guys, and hoping they pan out. Evaulate them for a few years, and when your team gets good enough to be a playoff team, but needs extra help, deal one of them to get the "need player".

Troy . . you also know that injuries can flat out destroy the chemistry of a ballclub . . if you played basketball. I played the game too, and not just at the rec centers. When you have a bunch of young players on your team, they more than likely won't win because of the dumb mistakes that they make. Just look at Georgia Tech. Surely Tech's coach isn't an idiot, but his ballclub sure played dumb in the tournament, even though from a talent standpoint, they were far superior than UNLV. But when you have young players, they sometimes do what they want to do, and not what is best for the team. The same applies in the NBA. As far as Salim goes, he was actually playing well in this stretch with JJ out. Take away the 1st half of the Washington game, in which he shot like three 3's, missed another shot and played like the "Mason" . . as Ex likes to call him . . . Salim is shooting close to 47% FG . . over 90% FTs . . and has a 2 to 1 assist to turnover ratio . . in the past 8 games. Even last night, he came into a situation in which the Hawks needed quick offense, so he started to revert back to his "Mason" personna. When he plays under control, Salim has been pretty good the past 7+ games.

Quote: Quote: Maybe you was watching Doleac outwork Zaza or Lo keep Shaq at bay in the 4th and then you blinked, but even though Miami didn't exploit it a lot (why would you need to when you have the layup drill going) but anytime Haslem wanted to score, he could easily get position on Smoove. My reference is of the fact that Smoove often gives up Posting position. I don't think Smoove is doomed, I just think that it's a part of his game that is missing. If you put the two side by side, Shelden is a much better positional defender than Smoove. It may take us sending Smoove to a big man camp for the next few years if you want him to really be a PF. I would also try to get Smoove some time with Clifford Ray.. Hell all of our big men. Ok fair enough...but again you said Haslem had his way...with 10pts? 5 for 10 shooting? I saw the game. Haslem made an impact with hustle and drawing charges, not offensively. Its ok if you have a point to express, but you don't have to go overboard to validate it. He does have things to work on. We all know that. Smoove's biggest problem, both offensively and defensively is trying to do everybody elses job. But who's fault is this really? Is it his fault he is both the best SF and PF on the team? He's the 4, only because he defends it. We can all agree on something...It's time for this franchise to make a decision. If Smoove is your 4 of the future, send him to the big man camps you suggested. If not, its time to clear out some bodies. What? Someone exaggerated on the board, in order to prove their point? Noooooooooooo. Not on this board . . LOL. Good post HnJ. And yes, Smoove should go to a big man's camp, and develop at least one "go-to" post move, and learn how to play position defense better. But like I said in my previous post. Dirk, Lamar, and Shawn aren't true 4's either. Yet, they play the position very well, especially on the offensive end. LOL @ Smoove isn't a 4. Well how many SF's have you ever seen average 20 ppg . . 9 rebs . . and over 3 blocks for the month? The only one who I can think of, who puts up those numbers from the combo 3/4 position like Smoove plays . . is Shawn Marion. Nice to see the kid playing like him, with even better offensive skills.

Smoove just has to work on that aspect of his game defensively. He'll get stronger and become more savvy on how to play true PFs. But it takes "heart" to want to be a good defender. Smoove has to translate that same passion he has on offense, and put it to use on defense . . and not just from a shot blocking standpoint. But as to the point that Smoove isn't a 4 . . you could say these guys aren't 4's either: Dirk Nowitzki Lamar Odom Shawn Marion But all are pretty effective when they play the 4 spot. Maybe by early as next year, Smoove could be better than Odom, and possibly better than Marion. Using Smoove offensively at the 4 works better for this team, than using him at the 3. Defensively, it works better too, because Smoove has worse ball defense on good 3's, than he does on good 4's. So playing him at the 4 is what is best for this team. And his numbers on both ends prove this.

Quote: Quote: 2)Since 1997 ( Tim Duncan ), the only top 3 pick that has made it to the NBA finals, is Kenyon Martin. I wonder how many 14th picks have similarly LED a team to the title (twice) since 1997. Hmm? In a vacuum stats look one way. In context they look 1800 degrees another. Seriously, what's better? This team or this team with a top 3 pick in this draft? It's not a trick question. Also, 1997 isn't that long ago in the basketball world, especially with Duncan taking up two of those years and Martin another. Lebron is what? 23 yrs old? There are three exceptions for us: 1) Oden and Durant are as good as any two players at the top of any draft in 10 years. This is NO ORDINARY DRAFT! 2) WE ARE NOT A 3rd WORST TEAM! No matter what our record may end up. Thus, any top 3 pick added to this team could significantly and dramatically improve it's championship hopes whereas top 3 pick, even the best of top 3 picks, added to bad team and they go from a 20 win to 40 win team at best. 3) If I could expand the scope to include top 5 or 7 I would, but we can't keep our pick under these circumstances. We are artificially limited to "top 3"! Expand it to top 10, I bet the odds go up considerably. Big deal. W Walter, all I did was state the facts about the top 3 picks in the draft. You're the one acting like a top 3 pick this year will change our destiny. That ish is just not true. Only Oden and possibly Durant will change anything. And we'll have to either trade Durant, or one of more of the kids immeadiately, in order to bring another guy to the mix, in order for Durant to realize his potential. I can't expand the discussion to top 10, because you're focusing on the top 3. Of course if you have a bunch of top 10 picks on your team, your team SHOULD be better. But you can't have a bunch of YOUNG top 10 picks on your team. You have to mix the young guys with established veterans that may have not played up to their potential when they were "the man". That's the history of the league Walt. Look at Dallas. When you look at their draft picks over the past 10 years, their picks are no better than ours. They even had three 1st round picks in 2000, with the best player in that mix being Etan Thomas. They're a team that went out and spent a ton of money to bring the type of guys that it took to elevate them to championship level. Guys like Dirk, JT, JJ, Dampier, and Stackhouse were all brought in via trades, because their original teams gave up on them. To continue to stock this team with draft picks, without bringing in veterans, will probably not help our situation. Even your obsession with Javaris shows just how clueless you are about all of this. This obsession here of developing a young PG is all well and good. But you have to obtain guys who have an NBA mentality as well. You can't mortgage your future in a young kid like Javaris, and expect him to be a good PG in 2 years time, when he constantly makes mental mistakes right now that limit his greatness. Let the kid stay in school for 2 more years, and see if he can get the mental part of the game down pat. If he does, he may turn out to be a find. If not, he'll be the next Shawn Livingston. The one thing that the past 10 drafts have shown us, is that teams are putting a lot of stock into young kids that don't have NBA ready games. They're basing a lot of their decisions on "potential", much like we did with Marvin. And when you do that, you have to wait 2 - 3 years for them to develop. Meanwhile, the team you currently have may or may not be there when the kid actually develops. Which also means that the entire makeup of the team may be different. It's Oden or bust for us in this draft. And if we do get the #3 pick, we'd almost have to use it on Acie Law, in order to get a guy that is NBA ready. People would scream to the hills if we did that. But if you want to build a "championship team", those are the types of moves that you have to do. We still have one more year with the current group to determine who should go and who should stay. When we decide that, we can then trade one of more of these kids for that disgruntled borderline all-star caliber player that can instantly help us in the short term. But it's like Diesel says. At some point, you have to stop depending on the draft, and develop what you have here to the fullest. You just can't keep recycling guys like the Clippers did throughout the 90s and what the Bulls did for about 5 years, and expect instant results. You have to be in it for the long haul. Oden and Durant should instantly help this team . . IF . . the kids we have now, are solid and consistent NBA players. If they aren't, it doesn't matter who we pick up in the draft. That's why most of your good teams trade for talent, to upgrade their situation, instead of relying on the draft to get there. And that's why teams that rely on the draft, don't normally get to championship level.

PlayaPat, these guys are hilarious. They're mad at Marvin because he wants to be a TEAM PLAYER, and not some primadonna ball hog that takes all the shots. They want him to do like Kobe did in his rookie year, where he thought he was the man and had the green light to take every bad shot possible. What people don't realize, is that most #2 picks come into this league with the opportunity to be "the man" right away. Most #2 picks don't come to a team with a potential all-star player ( JJ ) and a very good offensive player ( Harrington ) already in the lineup. Chris Paul came into a situation where he was almost instantly the best player on the team, and had to shoulder a burden offensively. Deron came into a situation where he was instantly the best PG on the squad, and would get a chance to play major minutes from the jump. Marvin came into a situation where you already had 2 main scoring options, in addition to 2 other forwards that was ahead of him on the learning curve that we were also trying to develop ( Smoove and Chill ). This year is really Marvin's first opportunity to make an impact on this team, and even that was delayed by 19 games at the beginning of the season. But the people all over Marvin will say that these are just "excuses" instead of realizing that these are FACTS. LOL . . this is what the kid is averaging in March. 13.8 ppg 4.1 rebs 45% FG 91% FT ( which is incredible ) He's become one of the most consistent players on this team, yet, these idiots constantly come at Marvin, because he doesn't "want" to be a star? LOL . . that ish is hilarious to me. Meanwhile, while we were winning 4 straight without JJ, you didn't hear a PEEP out of these clowns about Marvin's play. Not ONE WORD. Marvin had 17 points and 8 boards in the Boston loss, yet, people act like he should've had 27 and 12. And LOL @ the notion that because Marvin "supposedly" doesn't watch or isn't passionate about basketball off the court, that it somehow effects his play on the court and his desire to be great. Tell that ish to Karl Malone, who has said plenty of times that he NEVER watched basketball or other people, unless he was actually playing in the game or watching his daughter play. If JJ is going to be the star, and Smoove is going to be the 2nd guy, Marvin is going to turn out to be a very good #3 guys for us. Let the kid develop his game and stop expecting ish to just magically happen overnight. It took 2.5 seasons for us to see the potential in Smoove. It took 2.25 seasons to see Chill turn into a consistent player. But Marvin is supposed to be a star overnight, just because he's the #2 pick, but the #3 option AT BEST on the team? LOL @ that logic. Lay off the kid. He's doing exactly what he's being told to do. And he's becoming a very consistent player.

Quote: He sucked today, especially down the stretch. No way do I want him. He needs one more year of school, maybe 2. He's definitely not NBA ready because his mind isn't NBA ready.

First, let's list the guys who have been top 3 picks since the lottery made it's debut in 1985 till the 2005 draft class. 1985: Pat Ewing, Wayman Tisdale, Benoit Benjamin 1986: Brad Daughtery, Len Bias, Chris Washburn 1987: David Robinson, Armon Gilliam, Dennis Hopson 1988: Danny Manning, Rik Smits, Charles Smith 1989: Pervis Ellison, Danny Ferry, Sean Elliott 1990: Derrick Coleman, Gary Payton, Chris Jackson ( Mahmo Abdul-Rauf ) 1991: Larry Johnson, Kenny Anderson, Billy Owens 1992: Shaquille O'Neal, Alonzo Mourning, Christian Laettner 1993: Chris Webber, Shawn Bradley, Anfernee Hardaway 1994: Glenn Robinson, Jason Kidd, Grant Hill 1995: Joe Smith, Antonio McDyess, Jerry Stackhouse 1996: Allen Iverson, Marcus Camby, Shareef Abdur-Rahim 1997: Tim Duncan, Keith Van Horn, Chauncey Billups 1998: Michael Olowokandi, Mike Bibby, Raef LaFrentz 1999: Elton Brand, Steve Francis, Baron Davis 2000: Kenyon Martin, Stromile Swift, Darius Miles 2001: Kwame Brown, Tyson Chandler, Pau Gasol 2002: Yao Ming, Jay Williams, Mike Dunleavy 2003: LeBron James, Darko Milicic, Carmelo Anthony 2004: Dwight Howard, Emeka Okafor, Ben Gordon 2005: Andrew Bogut, Marvin Williams, Deron Williams 21 years worth of top 3 picks here. Here are some things of note. 1)In almost ALL of these drafts, there has been at least one pick out of the top 3, that turned out to be no more than just a good player, not a superstar or a franchise-changing player. That's significant to note in our situation, seeing that the two "franchise changing" players in this draft are Oden and Durant. That makes whoever gets that #3 spot this year, a candidate to pick up a player that will be only "good", but nowhere near great, when he comes into the league. 2)Since 1997 ( Tim Duncan ), the only top 3 pick that has made it to the NBA finals, is Kenyon Martin. And you can make a pretty good deduction that even he doesn't make it, if not for Jason Kidd coming from Phoenix in the Marbury deal. And the only reason why Kidd was traded, was because of the domestic violence issues he was having at the time. 3) Of the #1 picks in this sample, only Tim Duncan, David Robinson, and Shaquille O'Neal have won NBA Championships. This is the reason why people act like crack fiends to get Oden. A great big man is usually a good building block in order to be a winner. The question you have to ask yourself is this . . . is Oden "great", or is he just "good, but a little overhyped". The one thing about Duncan, Robinson, and Shaq, is that they were probably better offensive big men, than they were defensive big men. They could dominate games on both ends of the floor on a consistent basis, no matter who they were matched up against. Oden can dominate on the defensive end, but he isn't an offensive force just yet in college. Maybe if he stayed in school another 2 years, he'd be the total package offensively and defensively. If he comes out this year, he could hold his own defensively, but will he develop into a great offensive center? And his development in the NBA may have a whole lot to do with who will feed him the ball from the PG position. 4) The vast majority of top 3 picks FAILED to elevate the original team that drafted them, to "conference championship contender" level . . especially in the last 15 years or so. Partially because of expansion in the NBA, the quality of players each team have, has been watered down considerably. And with the youth of some of these teams, the experience of these players also contributes to the lack of success that some of these guys go to. Take the difference between David Robinson entering the league, compared to Alonzo Mourning. Robinson was drafted in 1986, but didn't enter the league until 1989, because of his 3 year commitment to the Navy. The year before Robinson entered the league, the Spurs were 21 - 61 and had this lineup of core players: Willie Anderson, Alvin Robertson, Johnny Dawkins, Cadillac Anderson, Frank Brickowski, and Vernon Maxwell Because of the poor record, the Spurs were able to get the #3 pick in that draft, and take Sean Elliott. So when the 1989 season started, it was almost like the Spurs obtained the #1 and #3 pick in the draft. This was their team in 1989, which went 56 - 26. David Robinson, Terry Cummings, Willie Anderson, Rod Strickland( who was obtained in a trade ), Sean Elliott, and Vernon Maxwell. Many people think the immeadiate turnaround of the Spurs was due to Robinson. And it was . . . just not totally. Cummings would be a solid #2, and sometimes #1 scoring option for that team ( 22.4 ppg ). Adding Strickland gave them a very nice PG to run the show, after being in the shadow of Mark Jackson in New York. And Elliott could have time to mold himself into a very good player by playing off of Robinson and Cummings. We all know the story of the Robinson led Spurs. They had the talent, but they seemed to come up short all the time. And they drew the label of being "soft", especially Robinson. The Hall of Fame center in Robinson, only led the Spurs to the WCFinals only once . . before he got additional help in Tim Duncan. Switch gears and look at Alonzo Mourning. Kind of like the Spurs, the Hornets were able to obtain the top pick in Larry Johnson the year before. Zo and LJ did great things in Zo's rookie year, reaching the 2nd round of the playoffs, but that team was far from being a contender of anything. They flat out missed the playoffs the following year, and were one and done the next year. Mourning bolts to Miami, where he had more success team-wise, but could never get over the hump. 5) Of the guys on this list that have played in the NBA Finals, the vast majority had to be on the same team, to get there. And that means that they couldn't do it by themselves. They needed help . . . major help. - Duncan, Robinson, and Elliott - Kidd and Martin - Mourning and Shaq - Ewing and Larry Johnson When you look at Denver, they currently have 3 former Top 3 picks, in Iverson, Carmelo, and Camby. It hasn't paid off for them yet, but maybe it will next year. One thing is for sure, only Iverson was able to get there by himself. The rest needed help, or ride the coattails of a better player. ********** The fact is this. If you're looking to build a championship caliber team, you better get: - 2 All-Star caliber players - a #3 guy who could be a star on another team, but is a very good complimentary player on your ream - a defensive specialist - an offensive specialist ( whether it be a slasher or a 3 point artist ) - and about 3 - 4 other guys who are very solid basketball players. Championship teams have very few holes in their lineup. And not just in the starting lineup. I'm talking about on the entire team. Even with Duncan, he came to a team that already had 2 all-star caliber players and some very solid role players. That team didn't change overnight, because of him. Do your own research into how effective or ineffective a Top 3 pick can be on a squad.

Quote: Quote: I don't cheer against my team under ANY circumstances. We need more fans like you! I wish the tankers would go choose another team...It's embarrassing to have people claiming to be "fans" actually cheering for us to lose. I understand the "tankers" position. It's just that their thinking is highly flawed. I got an hour left at work. I'm about to post a thread about the top 3 picks since the lottery. It'll be interesting reading, if I can get it done within the next hour.

Good post Bus. And of course, I'm cheering for the Hawks all the way. I don't cheer against my team under ANY circumstances.

LOL @ hot. PP is an all-star caliber player, and probably makes the All-Star team this year, if he didn't get hurt. Of course he makes a difference for the C's. Celtics have won 6 of their last 9 games.

Quote: JJ did try to dribble through double teams a lot rather than passing out quickly. It looked like he felt he had to carry the load himself. Hopefully now he realizes that the young guys are developing and he should trust them more. JJ does trust the young guys. He has no problem deferring to them. It's just that when you get down by 7 - 9 points because the young guys are turning the ball over ( Smoove - 9 turnovers in the Knicks game ) . . or not making their shots ( Marvin going through those 4 - 5 straight miss lulls in his game ), then the star player has to take things into his own hands. The youngins need to be consistent. If that happens, we'll be a better team, even with JJ plays. Smoove has gotten 15 shots up in a game before, but never came close to making 10 - 15 . . let alone 12 of 15. And when is the last time ZaZa grabbed 15 rebounds? Salim with a 13 point, 5 rebound, 4 assist game? These kids need to do this when JJ plays, not just when he's out. If they do this when he plays, we'd win games more comfortably, and JJ wouldn't have to play 40 minutes a game.

Quote: really when it came to utah and phoenix, they had a much better situation going into rebuilding than we did. utah had two HOFers still on the team when they started to slide so they were still able to put up the sense that they were a legit team. they also hit it big in the draft with AK47. but the jazz still were criticized when they gave out the deals to boozer and okur, it hasn't been smooth sailing for them and their fans gave their GM the same flack that we give BK. only now that they've had time to adjust to the team are they good. don't forget that they weren't a playoff team either for a while. phoenix benifits alot from keeping their draft picks. they drafted and developed four of their starters, and used another rookie (joe johnson - traded rookie year to them) to aquire another. they were able to get free agents later on (nash, thomas' and bell) later on but they had to endure a couple bad seasons before showing others that they were ready to compete. Good post. I'll add a few things to it. I don't think citing Phoenix and Utah as examples of how a franchise goes from zero to playoffs is a good example for us at all. Consider this: Phoenix has had two sub-500 seasons in the past 7 years. But before each of those seasons, they made the playoffs by winning 51 games in 00 - 01, and 44 games in 02 - 03. So it wasn't like they were totally going through a rebuilding phase when they were losing. People forget that Kidd was the PG in Phoenix at that time. And the ONLY reason why they let him go, was because of the domestic violence issues that he and his wife were having. Phoenix then trades Kidd in exchange in Marbury. Plus Phoenix lost their 3rd leading scorer from the 00 - 01 season ( Cliff Robinson - 16 ppg ) in that deal. The 01 - 02 Suns featured Marion, Marbury, and Anfernee Hardaway. And they were the ONLY double digit scorers on that team. They didn't have enough talent to compete. That's why they fell off that year, winning 36 games. So then that franchise takes a huge gamble on a high school kid in a 2002 draft that only saw ONE HS kid get drafted. He turns out to be an instant stud, and the Suns win 44 games the next year. The 03 - 04 Suns were pretty much destined to be a 40 - 50 win team, but Amare got hurt in December of that year, which led to the Suns sliding dramatically. Couple that with the franchise and fans being disappointed in Marbury's inconsistent play, and it spelled disaster for the Suns that year. Actually, the franchise and the fans expected Marbury to really elevate his play after Amare went down. And he actually played well, from an assist standpoint when Amare was out. But his shooting was erratic at best, and it cost Phoenix a lot of close games. So he became the scapegoat for why Phoenix was losing, instead of the obvious reason of Amare being out. But their foundation was already set with Marion, Amare, and Joe Johnson, who had improved dramatically that season. So when they got the opportunity to get Nash away from Dallas, the cycle was pretty much complete for them. ********* When you look at Utah, they've never fallen completely off the map, even with Stockton and Malone retiring. The year after their 2 Hall of Famers left the Jazz, Utah still managed to win 42 games, even though they didn't make the playoffs. And the only reason why they won 26 games during the 04 - 05 season, is because their "do-it-all guy" AK47 got hurt at the end of November, and the Jazz went into a 2 month freefall while he was out. That's the ONLY season since the 1982 - 83 season, in which the Jazz has had a sub-500 season. *********** Our situation is a lot like what the Bulls went through after Michael, Scottie, and Dennis left Chicago, than anything. Like that Chicago team, we had to totally rebuild from scratch, and struggle to get quality free agents to the team. Remember, they used to be a team with a lot of young players that also had trouble attracting that big time free agent. A lot of people expected T-Mac to actually go to Chicago, but he turned them down and went to Orlando. And Chicago had to give up some assets in order to get a good player ( at the time ) in Jalen Rose, to try to build the team around. The difference between us and them, is that when we acquired JJ, we didn't give up guys like a Josh Smith or Josh Childress in the process. But when they acquired Rose, they gave up a Brad Miller and a Ron Artest. People complain about how our GM mortgaged our future when we gave up Diaw + the 2 1st round draft picks. Imagine if BK would've done what Chicago did, and gave Phoenix three players that they currently had on the roster. Phoenix right now . . with Josh Smith, Diaw and Josh Childres, would be flat out SCARY right now, with a tremendously deep bench. At least BK kept the assets that he had then, in order to get the player he wanted. Chicago did just the opposite, and eventually saw Brad Miller and Ron Artert turn into 2 very good players for about 3 seasons. When you look at what the Bulls could've had, the lineup in 01 - 02 season, if they still did the Rose trade, but KEPT Elton Brand, could've looked like this. C - Curry ( 2001 draft pick ) PF - Brand F - Artest G - Jalen Rose PG - Travis Best With guys like Brad Miller, Trenton Hassell, Ron Mercer, Jamal Crawford, and a vet like Charles Oakley . . comprising their bench. So in essence, the Phoenix and Utah situations are NOTHING like ours.

Well . . that's because we don't have good post up players. I mean, JJ might be our best post-up player, with AJ a close 2nd. Marvin and Smoove still need to work on their post games, and they seem to only be effective when they're posting someone up who is much smaller than they are.

Actually, Smoove played the 5 for most of the 2nd half. Maybe he's our Ben Wallace type center. A Big Ben that can score. Big Ben . . 6-9 . . 240 lbs Smoove . . 6-9 . . 235 lbs LOL . . maybe we already have our center here. Just tell Smoove to do whatever he did last summer, and put on another 10 pounds of muscle. Then you can make room for Shelden at the 4, and be set for next year. PG - Speedy/AJ G - JJ F - Marvin F - Shelden F/C - Smoove Send Smoove to one of those Big Man camps, and see if he can develop a post move or two. Then use his quickness and new strength against the 5's in this league, ala what Camby does.

I know people have already explained it, but here is the last play, as I saw it. And since I RECORD all Hawks games on SportSouth, even when I'm seeing the game live at a sports bar, I've viewed the final 2.8 seconds over and over by now. The Play: - Play is obviously designed for either Marvin or JJ, diving toward the baseline toward Chill. With the way Marvin broke toward the ball, I think he was actually the 1st option in that play. If he catches the ball at point blank range, he probably gets fouled, goes to the line, and hits 2 FTs. - If not, JJ was the 1st option, seeing that he was coming hard toward Chill from the wing to the baseline. He would've had a chance to either make a move and take a 15 footer, or get the ball to someone else . . possibly even Childress . . if multiple defenders came at JJ to disrupt the shot. - But by looking at the play, I think Marvin and JJ were the two options ONLY if the Wizards decided to play everyone man-to-man. But they didn't. They played zone on that play, with Lue's defender ( Arenas ), slacking off of him to help to the middle in case JJ or Marvin got the ball. All 5 Wizards defenders were below the dotted circle in the lane. So Lue was obviously the last option. And he ended up being the guy who was wide open. Inbounds Pass: - Childress threw the ball in at 3 seconds, not 4. You could see the ref counting down. And his count was relatively slow. - Before Childress inbounded the ball, you could see one of the Hawks assistant coaches pointing toward Lue. Chill then threw the ball to Lue about 1/2 second later. - Lue, who was all alone at the top of the arc, was waving his arms to receive the pass. But for some odd reason, he drifted about 15 feet back, maybe so Chill could see him better. The Play DESTROYER: - Deshawn Stevenson. LOL . . and I slowed this down and watched it for about 5 minutes. Deshawn actually breaks toward Lue, a split second before Childress even started his motion to throw the ball to him. I don't know if Deshawn saw the assistant coach pointing toward Lue, or if he saw Lue by himself behind the 3 point line. - But when you look at this play over and over, he was the ONLY Wizard player that was looking at his man, Childress, and what Lue was doing. Arenas was closer to Lue, but his sole focus was on JJ. Same with Haywood and Butler looking at Marvin. If Deshawn doesn't break toward Lue, Lue could've comfortably taken one dribble, and shot a wide open 3 to possibly win the game. What could the Hawks done differently?: - If anything, Lue should've just slid to the left side of the 3 point line about 10 feet, instead of drifting so far backwards. If he just drifts to his left, and not back and to the left ( LOL . . that sounds like Kevin Costner in the movie JFK describing Kennedy's head being blown off . . back . and to the left, back . . and to the left, back . . and to the left ), Stevenson may still get to him, but he's about 15 feet closer to the basket. And it may have enabled him to make a pass to an open man. - One other point. By the time Lue caught the pass and landed on his feet, Deshawn was all over him. At that time, the guy who was immeadiately open, was SMOOVE, not JJ. JJ didn't break open until after Lue took that first dribble. But Smoove was open at the 3 point line, the minute Deshawn left him to race out to Lue. So if anything, Lue could've caught the ball, and immeadiately swung it to Smoove, who would've had Haywood running at him, but may have been able to get off his 3-point attempt before Brendan could disrupt his shot. Verdict: Childress is excused of all blame on that play. Blame Stevenson for having great defensive awareness, to destroy that play.