TheNorthCydeRises

Vol . . name an instance in which Jesse, Al, or even Barkley has said something against white people, without talking about a bigger issue as a whole. Jesse and Al were all over the Don Imus comments about the Rutgers women's basketball team a few years back. People thought Imus had the right to say whatever he wanted . . . even if it's calling a bunch of Black women college players 18 - 22 years old . . "nappy headed hoes". If Imus wanted to call a bunch of black girls that have done nothing to him some "nappy headed hoes", that's fine. That's his 1st Amendment right. But when he does that, I don't want to see him crying when there is a big time backlash against what he said. Of course Jesse and Al speak against things for financial gain. But they don't speak against white people in GENERAL. They speak against the "system", which just happens to be ran by White people, for the most part. If a black kid gets killed by a wannabe neighborhood watch guy, they're going to speak on it. If a Black man gets dragged behind a truck by a bunch of white guys, they're going to speak out about it. If a very popular White radio personality calls a bunch of Black college girls some "nappy headed hoes", they're going to speak out about it. Jesse and Al come from the Civil Rights Era. They've fought against systematic racism or perceived discrimination most of their lives. They have never came out and said . . "all white people are bad and evil". It's just that some white people hate when they come on the scene and blows up a story in the media. And when Jesse has said something out of pocket . . he's been called out on it. Back in 1984, he called New York City "Himeytown" . . . referring to all of the Jews in the city. He supposedly said that "off the record", but it got out. He got ripped to shreds for that comment. Then a few years ago, he said that he wanted to "cut Obama's nuts off". This was after one of Obama's speeches on the responsibility of Black men. That was caught on camera, but off the record. He got ripped to shreds for that too. We're living in a world in which information is instantly obtained. So when you say or do something stupid ( like Michael Vick fighting dogs . . or Riley Cooper saying "I'll fight every n-igger here" at a country concert ), people are not going to let you get away with it or even let you live it down. But one again, Sterling isn't just a player, he's an owner in a position of great power. He has the power to hire and fire people. And if he has a pattern of discrimination ( which he does ), people will call him out on it.

Can you name some instances in which an African-American in power, has made a remark about whites, and not been called out on it? Here's a news flash. If a white person says a remark about a Black person, he/she probably IS a bigot. If a black person says a negative remark about a white person, he/she probably IS a bigot. If you're calling a woman a b-tch, you probably don't think highly of women. Most of us in the real world aren't going around calling other people names. So why turn a blind eye to those that do? Especially if they are in a position of power? When you turn a blind eye to it, that's worse than calling them out on it. It'll be like watching your friend drink himself to death, but denying that he's an alcoholic.

LMAO @ trying to compare all 3 of those groups/people together. Jesse and Al doesn't speak for all Black people. And they don't actively speak against white people either. What they DO do, is speak against perceived discrimination against Black people, or put themselves in the middle of controversial racial situations. People just hate those two, because they turn the media attention on a situation way up. This isn't simply a situation of somebody just saying something. This is an owner of an NBA franchise flat out saying that he doesn't want ( or would prefer not to ) have Black people at his basketball games. Especially if they're friends with his little playtoy, while cheating on his wife. You don't let people in positions of power to just say anything they want, especially when it comes to possible discrimination. The only thing worse than being "butt-hurt" over what people say . . . is allowing people to say anything they want without any repercussions. People have the 1st amendment right to say what they want. But we also have the 1st amendment right to call their azzes out on it, and take action if need be.

Maybe not by 1 . . . but a few million would do the trick, since everything is about TV ratings these days. Instead of him not watching the Hawks or any of the other playoff team, how about not watching the Clippers when they're on TV? You affect their TV ratings number, and maybe the league ( and the networks especially ) would take notice at that. The league will do something significant to Sterling. Whether it be a big fine, trying to force him to step down or sell the team, or even franchise penalty like taking away a 1st or 2nd round pick. They'll be under pressure to do something big. If they don't, that's when you'll see a big backlash. I remember the Marge Schott drama in Cincinnati, when she called her black players "million dollar n-ggers". She and her camp tried to shine it up, and said that she called them "million dollar babies". But even then, she really didn't get in real trouble, until she said some things supporting Hitler. She was a terrible owner as well. So instead of the knee-jerk reaction to Sterling, let's see what the league does. People hate when Jesse Jackson gets involved in anything, because the spotlight gets turned up 1,000,000 watts when he does or says something about an issue. Trust and believe that the national media will be all over this on Monday, and the story will really blow up. The NBA isn't stupid. No way they'll let Sterling get away without doing something significant to him.

Rick Sund: "We like our core." Don't EVER forget that statement. Because that was the statement that kept us in the middle of the playoff pack, and not make a major move to shake the "core" up. This group does play and fight hard. But always keep in mind what the big prize is. And to get that big prize, about 1/2 of these guys probably need to go. We are simply not good enough across the board to get where we want to go. We're just in the perfect storm right now, because we're facing a so-called #1 seed that has played like a #8 seed since the All-Star break. Had this been a series vs the Heat, I'm sure everyone would be singing a different tune right now.

We are not the Spurs

Missing on Al Jefferson was huge, in my opinion. Millsap has been very good though. But one playoff win vs a good, but struggling team, is not cause for a parade in front of Philips. Win the series, and then we can call this season an overachievement. Lose the next 4 games in the series, and I guarantee that it will leave a bitter taste in fans mouths. So the more realistic thing would be for the Hawks to push the Pacers to 6 or 7 games, before losing. If they do that, you can give the team and coach a "little league" clap for their effort. Just understand that it will still be up to the GM to bring in the talent we need, so that we can face a 6 or 7 seed in the 1st round, instead of a 1 or 2 seed in the 1st round. The GM simply can't miss opportunities to bring in significant players to this roster. The East, while bad overall, is improving on the top end.

No way. What Hornacek did in Phoenix with that roster was incredible. They were a team many thought would surely be tanking for a top pick. Casey in Toronto. Thibodeau in Chicago. Clifford in Charlotte. Even former Hawks coach Terry Stotts in Portland ( who went from 33 wins last year to 54 wins this year ). Stotts probably has to get the vote for Coach of the Year. Bud is a good coach, but no way he wins Coach of the Year. Those votes go in before the playoffs anyway.

If we win Game 2, that means that the Pacers would have to win at least 2 games in Atlanta to win the series. Fact: Since a 100 - 90 victory back on Dec 22, 2006 . . a game in which JJ scored 31 points, but Stephen Jackson put in 27 and Al Harrington scored 20 . . . the Indiana Pacers have only beaten the Hawks TWO TIMES at Philips Arena since 2006. Now granted, this is by far the most talented Pacer team we've played in that 9 year stretch. And one of those wins came in Game 6 of last year's playoff series. But Philips is normally a Death Trap for the Pacers. So for them to have to win 4 out of 5 games to win the series, and have at least 2 of those wins come at Philips, they BET NOT lose Game 2.

ESPN was saying that the Pacers lost to the "lowly" Hawks. That's the term they used to describe us back in 2004 - 2006, when we had trouble beating anybody. It's just funny that after all of the "praise" that they have given us in getting rid of JJ and Josh, adding Bud and the GM, and getting more cap flexibility, that they're back to acting like we're the Sacramento Kings or something. That's why people shouldn't be overjoyed when they say something good about us, and dismiss it totally when they say something bad about us. They don't know the Hawks. Never have. And probably never will.

He's definitely a very good coach. The Hawks were well prepared today. The main issue with this team is talent, not coaching. The defensive scheme they ran today was excellent. I didn't like them leaving Korver in Isolation at times, but even then, he adjusted to that and started doubling. The guy that's getting exposed, is Vogel. The Pacers have offensive players on that bench, namely Chris Copeland. If you have to sacrifice a little defense to insert some offense, you have to do that . . . especially if your offense sucks. And as long as he sticks with Hibbert getting major minutes, he's putting the Pacers at a disadvantage.

Teague's new theme song" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0bs_0FEWrs

No he hasn't, and no he wasn't.

YES . . . Tim Duncan is. He's still a better rebounder than both of them. He's a much better defender than both of them. And he's a better offensive player than Millsap. Back in December when the Hawks were fully healthy, Duncan went for 23 points and 21 rebounds. Then he dang near did it again in late January, going for 17 points, 16 rebounds and 4 blocks. His game is so fundamentally sound, that he could probably play at a high level for another 3 years, if his body held up.

Forgot to post this the other day. Congrats to Jordan for getting that career high of 41 points on the last night of the season. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJb4rZnvWvI And the "legend" is now in the playoffs. Good luck Jordan.

And watch . . . these rising star players are going to get max money, with the fringe star players getting overpaid as well. For example, watch the bidding war that will be over Lance Stephenson this summer, if he has a real good postseason.

Oh wow. So now, all of a sudden, the league is making boo-koo money, and the players in a few years will be like WTF? So Coon predicts that the players will walk out on the agreement in 3 years. What if the owners play hardball, and not give the players some of what they will looking for? Will they risk not bringing in the new money coming in from the TV Network deals? Can't trust what the owners say worth a damn.

This season is definitely not a success. It wasn't a failure, but calling it a success means that it was good. The only way this season will be a success, is if this team really pushes the Pacers in 6 or 7 games in the playoffs We didn't do anything this season, that hasn't been accomplished in seasons' past. People can use code words like "culture" and "foundation", but can't name anything specific that will indicate how this season will contribute to the success of the Hawks next season . . or 2 seasons from now.

Pretty much as expected. I thought they'd be around a .500 team between the 6th - 8th seed. The team was better than I expected on offense, but was horrific at times on defense. I think Dennis is a borderline bust, because the one thing he was supposed to do well coming into the league ( play defense ) . . he really can't do well. He may have to add 20 lbs to his frame in order to be an effective NBA player. Props to Millsap for keeping this team afloat when Horford went down. Teague was up and down, but I'm satisfied with him overall. Korver''s lights out shooting was a joy to watch. Just wished he wasn't so easily shut down at times. Carroll is the unsung hero of this season. He was by far our most important defensive player, and he improved his offense. And Bud is a legit coach. No doubts about him. I just have doubts about the GM. But I expected this team to play like a .500 team, and they pretty much did.

They were a B- . .C+ in midseason. The final grade of C is acceptable In the grand scheme of things, the losses we had post Horford, would've been more than likely losses with Horford. People act like we'd be 10 games better if Horford played though.

Dikembe most definitely. A defensive rebounder and rim protector is sorely needed on this team. Joe Johnson would be 2nd, because we also need more talent on the wing and a potential closer at the end of games. Also as a side note, the 2009 - 10 ISO heavy squad was a better offense than this year's ball movement team, for 3 reasons - far less turnovers - more offensive rebounding which led to more 2nd chance points - more people who could create their own shot when a play broke down. LOL @ the Sheed votes. That dude was just chucking up shots in that 1 game he played here. He blocked a lot of shots, but he shot like 8 - 24 and missed all of his 3s. Bob Sura > Sheed

Only starter they had in the game was Jefferson in that 4th quarter. It was their bench that won the game for them.

Surely you're not comparing Lance to Austin are you?

Hawk fans love to talk themselves out of liking good players. Sounds like the Al Jefferson convos of last year. Stephenson is on the verge of becoming a damn good player. Possibly Scottie Pippin lite.

Hilarious. After all of that abuse he took for about 2 months, he gets some props from the league. Good job Jeff. Just don't have any more bad games, or else you'll get ripped to shreads.