TheNorthCydeRises

It's early in the game, but Dallas is already up 12. And they built a lot of that lead without Dirk in the game because of foul trouble. But the group of players they have on the floor are so solid, especially from a scoring standpoint, that they easily built that lead to 12. Dirk is 1 - 5 FG for 2 points, but they have a 12 point lead? Why? Jason Terry - 9 points on 4 - 6 shooting Deshawn Stevenson - 9 points on 3 - 3 shooting from 3 point range Jose Barea - 6 points on 3 - 5 shooting Shawn Marion - 6 points on 2 - 5 shooting Ish . . even old azz Brian Cardinal came into the game for 3 minutes and knocked down a 3. And on the defensive end, they go zone and limit Miami's offense while they were knocking down shot after shot. Of course, as I typed this, Miami goes on a 7 - 0 run and the lead is down to 5. But how huge was it for the reserves to play that well with Dirk basically being a non-factor right now? It'll be interesting to see if Dirk has a lot of energy to close out this game in the 4th quarter, based off of what the complimentary players did in those minutes while Dirk was inactive. ***************** LOL . . hell of a run by Miami. They were down 12 when I started typing this. Then Eddie House comes in, and they go on a 14 - 0 run to go back up 2. House is 3 - 3 from three.

But back to the question Q: Can the Hawks win a championship with JJ as the #1 guy? A: If you construct a team that has 2 other LEGIT All-Star caliber players ( preferably one that plays in the post and at PG ) . . or a great all-around defensive team that can rebound . . . YES.

Well heck man . . if that's the argument you're going to make, that applies to JJ as well in the playoffs. In 2011, he faced the 1st ( Chicago ) and 3rd ( Orlando ) best defenses in the league In 2010, he faced the the 2nd ( Milwaukee ) and 3rd ( Orlando ) best defenses in the league In 2009, he faced the 3rd ( Cleveland ) and 11th ( Miami ) bese defenses in the league In 2008, he faced the top defense in the league ( Boston ) So he's lost in the playoffs to teams that had an average defensive ranking of #2 and had an average regular season win total of 63 wins. Does JJ get graded on the curve or get the benefit of the doubt, because the team that knocked us out each of the last 4 years was no less than the 3rd best defensive team in the league? Or better yet, what would JJ's numbers look like if he faced teams ranked below #5 in the league defensively. (( thinking to myself )) . . so you're telling me that Dirk hasn't faced a defense that was in the top 3 in the league in 4 playoff series this season . . but JJ has faced a TOP 3 defense in 6 of the 7 postseason series he's ever played in Atlanta? Wow. But no . . I'm not going to excuse JJ from playing like Jordan vs those teams. Forget having an easier road, he should be able to beat those top 3 defensive teams, regardless if his teammates show up or not.

Question . . . Weren't Smith and Horford better than anyone on the Chicago frontline as well? If the answer to that is YES, then what happened during the playoffs . . especially when it concerns Mr. Horford? Having individual talent is great. You need that in this league. But you need the RIGHT kind of individual talent. Kyle Korver is a great shooter. But he can't create his own shot. So does that mean that a team can make Korver it's "go-to guy"? If not, doesn't the same apply to Horford and Smith? Jamal has never been Terry's equal. Place a Jason Terry on the Hawks instead of Jamal Crawford, and we'd not only get better shooting, we'd get better PG play and defense, even though JT isn't a true point. Dallas is just a beautifully constructed team Superstar ( Dirk ) - CHECK 2nd scorer who can ball ( Terry ) - CHECK playmaking/defensive PG ( Kidd ) - CHECK defensive/rebounding center ( Chandler ) - CHECK defensive SF ( Marion ) - CHECK instant offense off the bench ( Barea ) - CHECK 3 point shooters ( Dirk, Terry, Kidd, Peja, Stevenson ) - CHECK But maybe the most important part of the team, is that their "core" have been through many playoff wars. Kidd, Marion, Dirk, Terry, and Peja have all been through the rigors of the playoffs, and know what to expect and how to play in them. Experienced players who can still ball, but also understand how playoff basketball should be played. That's the reason why they're up 3 - 2 over the team full of all-stars.

LOL . . where was the "best player on the team" during the playoffs? And he can't use the "I'm playing out of position" excuse either. Horford played PF over 60% of the time and looked like a shell of himself against PFs that could play him a little tighter and take away his jumper. And how did JJ have a down season in 2009 - 10, when statistically he had his 2nd best season while in Atlanta and made 3rd team All-NBA? Horford and Smith mean more to winning than JJ . . . but everytime JJ plays mediocre to bad, the Hawks can't win. Meanwhile, when those guys play like garbage, and JJ balls, the Hawks can win. Something does not compute. Talk to me when either Horford and Smith can get the ball during crunch time in the post, and make a shot over somebody without being set up by someone else. Until they can do that, they'll ALWAYS be a complimentary player to JJ.

That lineup looks a whole hell of a lot better on paper when you actually look at it. JJ is still the best player on that team. But now, you have Kidd as his PG, Marion as a defensive SF, and Chandler as a defensive C who can block shots. Plus an upgrade in Terry off the bench as the 6th man, and a better upgrade in Haywood instead of Zaza. Yeah . . . that team could contend for the title. Even if you eliminated Smith from that squad, you still could insert Haywood at center and move Chandler to PF PG - Kidd G - Johnson F - Marion PF - Chandler C - Haywood JJ wouldn't be able to give you the lights out production of Dirk, but it would give other guys a chance to do a little more. Even without Smith on the roster, that's a formidable team.

At the very least, we would need Marvin to transform his game in the same way Trevor Ariza did for the Lakers during their title run. Right now, we would need more out of Marvin, in order to balance out the team more and be more competitive vs elite teams. I personally would start Teague before Hinrich on all of those lineups, but the lineup with Smith and Noah on the frontline does give us very good shot blocking and rebounding, with Noah being the active body at all times around the rim. The team this year was a lost cause, from JJ on down. But with the way Horford played this postseason, any of those centers would've given us a better chance to advance. The 2000 Indiana Pacers squad that got to the NBA Finals and took the Lakers to 6 games, consisted of these players - Jalen Rose ( leading scorer at 18.2 ppg . . also averaged 4.8 rebs and 4 assists - 47% FG - 39% 3FG ) - Reggie Miller ( averaged 18.1 ppg - 45% FG - 41% 3FG ) - Rik Smits ( center who averaged 12.9 ppg - 5.1 rebs ) - Dale Davis ( 10 pts - 9.9 rebs ) - Mark Jackson ( 8.1 pts - 8 asst ) - Austin Croshere ( 6th man . . 10.3 pts - 6.4 rebs ) - Travis Best ( 8.9 ppg - 48% FG - 38% 3FG ) - Sam Perkins ( 6.6 ppg - 41% 3FG ) That was their top 8 players. Not impressive by any stretch of the imagination. No All-NBA players on that squad. Only one All-Star selection ( Miller ., . and that was mainly due to his reputation ). That team had the #1 rated offense that year in the league. Reggie ups his game big time during the playoffs ( 24 ppg ) , along with Rose ( 21 ppg ), providing that 1 - 2 punch needed in the playoffs. And the other guys were solid enough most nights to compliment what those two gave the Pacers. Too much Shaq though, and the Pacers lost in 6. That Pacers team though got the most out of everybody, and had enough shot creators on that team to take that team very far. Jackson played his role as the floor general, while Davis did the dirty work on the inside. If Smits hadn't fallen off so much by that time, who knows if the Pacers could've challenged the Lakers a little bit more.

From the outside looking in, the people of Atlanta just don't see it. But from a talk radio standpoint, yeah, Atlanta is horrible. Even worse than Nashville. From a crowd standpoint in the playoffs, I attended Game 3 in Atlanta, followed by Game 3 in Memphis the next day. The atmosphere wasn't even close. It wasn't even close to the atmosphere 3 years ago, when the Hawks were going toe to toe with Boston. Memphis was rocking. But that's a college basketball town that transformed their energy to the Grizzlies. For Falcons games, the atmosphere is live, but not even close to what it is at Titans games. I would say that Miami is worse though. That's a true bandwagon town right there. But yeah, Atlanta is bad.

JJ and Gasol would be about equal if they played with each other. What did Gasol ever do when he was the main guy in Memphis? He didn't even win a playoff game. Both JJ and Pau could alternate being the #1. Could a team of . . PG - Fisher G - Johnson F - Odom F - Gasol C - Bynum . . win an NBA title 2 years ago? I don't know, but that's a damn good team, and an upgrade over anything JJ has ever played with. I know JJ could still put up 20 ppg - 4 rebs - 4 or more assists on that squad though. JJ couldn't will the team to win like Kobe can, but guys like Pau, Bynum and Artest would get more chances to make plays, mainly because JJ will willingly pass the ball to them. And JJ would have enough moments for that team to definitely make him a contender. Why overlook the fact that when Kobe didn't have a legit #2 beside him, that the Lakers struggled big time, despite the efforts of Kobe? They were trying to win games with Smush Parker, Lamar Odom, and Luke Walton taking critical shots. Why do you think Kobe literally threatened to not exercise his player option and become a free agent in 2008? The dude needed help. And he got it. Fisher was the PG in the same mold that Ron Harper was the PG for Jordan. He was a guy who could defend the position, while making timely shots when Kobe passed him the ball. Gasol was the legit #2 guy that he needed in order to keep him from having to shoot 25 times a game for the Lakers to win. Heck, the Lakers could throw out a frontline of 7-0 ( Bynum ). . 7-0 ( Gasol ) . . and 6-10 ( Odom ) if they wanted to. Yes, Rondo was the "real PG" when the Celtics won the title. He was a solid, playmaking PG that averaged almost 7 assists in the playoffs that year. His role was to run the offense, and play defense. He had 21 pts - 7 rebs - 8 asst - 6 stls in the closeout game vs the Lakers that year. Arenas had 2 seasons in which he averaged 25 points - 5 rebounds - 6 assists. He was a 3rd teamer ONLY because he played on a weaker team than Chauncey Billups and Steve Nash. The year Carter made 2nd team all-NBA, Iverson was the MVP that aveaged 31 ppg, and Kidd got one of those popularity votes as a true PG ( 17 ppg - 10 asst - 6 rebs - 41% FG ), posting good numbers but not 1st team worthy. Not when Vince averaged close to 28 points - 6 rebounds - 4 assists - 46% FG You're still not understanding what Diesel and I are talking about, when it comes to balance. The problem isn't with Horford's skills as a player. The problem is that we need SOMEONE to play in the paint the majority of the time on offense. And it would be real nice if that player could create his own shot and score down on the block. There are players less talented than Al or Josh, that may be a better fit for the team, simply because they play in the paint more. If Horford ( or Smith ) made this adjustment to their games, and could be efficient scorers/defenders in the lane, the team would be much better off. I see now we're about to get into a pissing contest over whether some of the guys I name, are better than JJ. Switch out Noah with Horford, and we become a far better defensive and rebounding team, even if we did lose a little offense. The same thing would happen if we switched out Horford for Bynum or possibly even Bogut. PG - Teague G - JJ F - Marvin F - Smith C - Bynum That's a better squad than what we threw at people this season, but you still see where the potential problems are. - Teague would have to develop into at least a consistent scoring and passing PG who could continue to defend fairly well - Smith would have to try his hardest to lay off the jumper, and play close to the rim - Marvin would have to shoot better, especially when wide open. It's a better fitting lineup all around, with Bynum getting the opportunity to become that low post scorer that we need. Could it win a title? Probably not. That team would need people currently on the team to step up and be more consistent, including JJ himself. But it's funny how people were all giddy after we won Game 4 and tied the Chicago series 2 - 2. Folks were split 50/50 that we could beat the Bulls. But now that the season is over, there's just no way we could've done anything, had we had a better mix of complimentary players here. All Horford has to do, is play bigger and inside more, and be effective when he does it. Either he or Smith MUST do this, with the way this team is currently constructed.

Yes they do. Iverson needed an elite defensive team around him, anchored by one of the games all-time best shot blockers, and a very good perimeter defender in Aaron McKie, and even he couldn't beat the Lakers but once. Kobe needed a very good post scorer and an elite perimeter defender, along with a decent center and a versatile 6th man forward. Before that, the Lakers were a team just like us. It's like I listed in a post earlier this morning. Guys like T-Mac, Grant Hill, Vince Carter and Gilbert Arenas were all considered to be superstars at one point in their careers. And as that superstar, none of them reached the Finals, because they lacked some of the key elements championship teams need to get to that next level. If you're not a lights out defensive team, you better be a damn good and efficient offensive team with multiple scorers who can get it done.

I didn't bring up PER, you did. And I'm not comparing JJ to Hall of Fame players and how they played. I'm comparing their situations. LMAO . . since when has Marvin ever cut toward the basket? Marvin stays glued to the corner, hoping someone will pass him the ball. He doesn't even go to the lane to rebound, let alone cut to the basket. Now you're just making up stuff. JJ is a 5 time all-star. He's a guy that kills people one on one. So to prevent that, teams double him to take the ball out of his hands and make others beat them. Deng gets killed by JJ in Game 1, Chicago starts doubling. By Game 3, Barkley is talking about how the Hawks never cut to the basket or to open spaces. JJ normally leads the team in assists. Why? Because he's the main guy that gathers enough attention toward him so that he can make the pass to the open man. And it's been like that for 6 years. Even in the game that you cite, it was JJ's huge 1st half that got us that lead. Smith and Horford played well in that game, especially in the 2nd half, and contributed to the win. Jamal and JJ won the Orlando series with their scoring ability. Either way you slice it, it was Joe Johnson that was a major part in every win we had this postseason. ( 6 - 0 when he scored 20+ points ). And that's his job . . to play as well as he can so that the team can win. Fortunately for us, he does have the ability to play at a high level at times. And he had 2 highly efficient games in the Chicago series. ( Games 1 & 4 ) No sir. No moving of goalposts. Just stating what JJ may need around him in order for HIM to maximize all of his abilities. People constantly complain about ISO ball. Well, the best way to alleviate that, is to get a PG who can run the team and find open people. If Teague becomes that, it will help this offense tremendously and should get JJ a lot more easier shots. JJ is already a successful player ( 5-time All-Star ). But in order for the team to get to that next level, we need the right skillset of players to make the team, and him a better player. If we don't trade Smith or Horford for that skillset, one of them needs to develop the skillset that we need. Which means that one of those guys need to play on the inside about 70% of the time. A floor general and a low post scorer changes everything around here.

If that's the case, why are people complaining so much about JJ? If people know this is what the league is about, why all of the complaints? - Arenas was considered to be a superstar for 2 or 3 years, with a legit #2 in Jamison and a good #3 in Butler. But once again it's about balance. That team could've used more of a low post scorer at the 4 to compliment Arenas, than a jumpshooting 4. Because when you have a jumpshooting 4, if he has an off night, it hurts the team all around. And we're not even going to talk about Arenas, who when he was off, continued to jack up absolutely horrible shots instead of actually playing PG. - When Redd was a premier scorer in the league, the number #2 guy was Mo Williams. Bogut was nowhere near as a player back then, as he is now. - As much flack as T-Mac has received over the years, people need to keep in mind that the best players he played with in Orlando were Drew Gooden and Darrell Armstrong. Grant Hill was hurt too much to form that 1 - 2 punch. It's too bad that he and Yao couldn't get the type of chemistry needed to take the Rockets to that next level. And T-Mac shouldn't be in this group. T-Mac for about a 6 - 7 year stretch was a superstar. - The same goes with Vince Carter. In Toronto, the best player he played alongside was his cousin T-Mac and Antonio Davis. It looked like he had a shot in Jersey playing alongside Kidd. But even though Jefferson was a good #3 guy, what they needed was a low post scorer that was the #3 guy. When Nenad Kristic is your best low post player, that isn't going to work. Vince, by most accounts, was considered to be a superstar for 3 - 4 years as well. - Grant Hill for about a 5 year stretch, was a top 10 player in the league. People forget how really good that guy was. Grant essentially was a mini- Lebron in the mid - late 90s. He played with guys like Allan Houston for one year I think, an aging Joe Dumars, and Jerry Stackhouse at the very end of his Detroit career, before he start getting hurt all the time. Never played with a low post scorer worth a damn. And we all know about his career in Orlando. With as much as he stayed hurt, it's amazing that he's only missed like 3 games in 3 years in Phoenix, and hasn't been significantly injured once. - Stackhouse started to emerge as a good player right as Hill was about to exit Detroit. But if Iverson was the poster child for a "volume shooter", Stack was his little brother. Stack's one good playoff type team was in 2002 in which they made the East Semifinals. That team laid the foundation for what would be the Detroit title team in 2 years, with Ben Wallace already in place, and Stack being traded for Richard Hamilton. - Richardson had 2 or 3 All-Star caliber years in Golden St, even if he didn't make the team. He played with Baron Davis, a pretty good scoring/passing PG. Of course, it's Golden St though. They needed that post player. So when you look at all of this, even guys greater than JJ couldn't get it done because of the balance of the team. Most of those guys would've gone further, had they had a #2 guy who could score down low. After Shaq left, Kobe struggled just like these guys to get it done, until he got the legit #2 who was a low post scorer. It's amazing to see that the 18 of the last 20 NBA titles were won by 5 guys. - Jordan with 6 - Shaq with 4 - Duncan with 4 - Olajuwon with 2 - Kobe with 2 ( without Shaq, of course ) The Big 3 in Boston, and the anomaly in Detroit, were the only 2 teams to break though during this time. And both of those were elite defensive teams. So I guess that's the answer to this whole question. Knowing that JJ isn't nowhere near the player listed among those 5 guys, he could possibly be the #1 guy on a team that won the title. . . if that team was an ELITE defensive team that had enough competent offensive players that could get it done. Getting to the Finals with a more balanced team is one thing. Winning the whole dang thing is another. Maybe a squad that looked like this could get there, if they played up to their defensive abilities. Here are some possible stats too. PG - Miller ( 12 ppg - 7 asst ) G - Johnson ( 21 ppg - 4 rebs - 3 asst ) F - Iguodala ( 15 ppg - 6 rebs - 5 asst ) PF - Smith ( 15 ppg - 9 rebs ) C - Bogut ( 14 ppg - 10 rebs ) With this squad JJ is still going to be the #1 scoring option on offense, but the guys playing defense around him are going to be much better. And you'd have enough offensive firepower to possibly get it done, especially if the bench contained 2 shooters from 3 point range. If the Hawks were to do the "Detroit model", this is what it would look like. That team would have 4 shot creators, 3 good passers, a guy who could score in the low block in Bogut ( even if the injury has limited his offensive game somewhat ) and a guy in Smith that could possibly freelance a little more and hopefully play more at the rim.

He knows this. He's watched this team enough to know why JJ gets doubled. And it seems as if every time he lights someone up, the "JJ Rules" are applied the next go around.

@ thescout Because JJ isn't on the trading block maybe? U mean, Kobe and Lebron are locked up to long term deals. Are there any trade rumors about people wanting those guys? I do agree with your initial statement though. Either keep trying to get better players around JJ, or trade JJ for pieces that can improve this team. And since JJ isn't going anywhere, the former needs to take place. @ C to C So this is the argument now? That JJ's PER doesn't match up. So PER is the determiner of who is the better player. So Horford shouls be our go to guy right? He by far has the best PER on the team, so everything should be running through Horford I guess. PER says that Kevin Love is the best PF in the league, 4th best player overall, and should've made 1st team All-NBA PER says that Derrick Rose should've finished behind Kobe, Dirk, Wade, even Love, and that Lebron should've won the MVP. But poor Joe Johnson, with the average PER, gets treated like Jordan from the opposing team, for all of the double teams he sees? And when JJ passes the ball, and people miss jumpers to take assists away from JJ, JJ's PER doesn't increase. I mean, call me crazy if I were to think that if JJ played with better players, specifically a more balanced team with a good pass first PG and low post scorer, that his efficency may increase instead. I guess that's a crazy thought though. I wonder how a guy like Reggie Miller would look, had he have to handle the ball like a pseudo PG, get everybody else involved, and create his own shot, instead of running around like a chicken with it's head cut off? It is what it is though. 75% - 80% of the playoff games that we did win, was because of him. But hey, lets get rid of THAT GUY, because PER says that we got 2 better players that can get it done It is what it is though.

In JJ's case, it would have to be on a team in which the next 2 guys on the squad would have to have close or equal talent. A team like the 2000 Milwaukee Bucks with Cassell - Ray Alen - and Big Dog ( when he was a good scorer ) comes to mind. An old school team like the mid-80s Dallas Mavericks with Blackman - Harper - and Aguirre A team that actually got to the Finals, were those New Jersey teams with Carter - Kidd - Jefferson . . along with an aging Mutumbo one year. The Seattle team with Payton - Kemp - Schremph The mid - late 90s Pacer team with Reggie Miller - Smits - Mark Jackson . . and later on Jalen Rose. So it would have to be the right mix. A mix in which those 3 could collectively lift themselves up. Here's the thing about All-NBA teams. They tend to recognize the guys who play at an elite level. But they also recognize guys who may not be having a stellar year stat wise, but are one of the main cogs on a good to great team. That's how JJ can be 3rd team All-NBA last year on a 53 win Hawk team, but not even be considered in 2006 - 07 when he averaged 25 pts - 4 rebs - 4 assists - 47% FG . . but barely makes the All-Star team as an injury replacement, let alone get no recognition for an All-NBA squad.

PG - Ellis G - Johnson F - Marvin F - Horford C - Dalembert That starting 5 would be the best starting 5 in Atlanta since the 1988 Hawks team that took Boston to the limit. It's a lineup that is balanced both offensively and defensively. And hey, maybe Ellis becomes the #1 over JJ. Who knows? All I know is that the days of doubling JJ would be gone, because Ellis would make teams PAY for doubling JJ, by taking the ball all the way to the rim. And Dalembert wouldn't be drifting outside of 10 feet of the goal. If we could get ANYTHING tangible out of Marvin, we would continue to be a threat in the East. yep . . . sometimes even in one quarter

The major problem is our inability to control play around the rim. And that's on offense and defense. And it emcompasses everything from scoring attempts around the rim, to defense around the rim, to rebounding on both offense and defense. So my main move would be to alleviate that problem on both ends of the floor. As the Owner, the major problem are the plethora of mid-level contracs we've given out to guys who are underproducing.

Nique was starting to become an erratic scorer and a high volume shot guy. But even back then, a young me in college understood the need for a go to type scorer, especially when the playoffs came around. And frankly, I felt that they OWED IT to Nique to let the season play out, and see if he could bring home a title to ATL. With no Jordan around, and us fighting for that #1 seed, I knew that was our best chance EVER to win anything. I really didn't care about what we could or couldn't get back if NIque left. All I was worried about was how could this team finally make a run at a title, with my favorite player on the team. I literally shed a tear when I heard about that trade. I knew we had fugged up. But I knew it was coming as well. But Lenny didn't like the fact that Nique's mindset was all offense, with little emphasis on defense and playing team ball. So he co-signed that trade. I think he may have even spearheaded it. You bring in Manning, who looks to be an upgrade, but he didn't have a go-to scorer's mentality. And that ish KILLED US in the playoffs. He didn't play bad. But we needed more because we didn't have many shot creators on the team. All the Hawks had to do, was let the market set his price. If they didn't like it . . move on. What seemed like a smart basketball move, turned out to bite us in the azz, because the Hawks didn't even negotiate or agree to sign Manning to an extension before the season was over. The fact that ended up losing BOTH guys, was just a slap in the face, and typical of what was to come for the next 15 years from management. Even back then, management was incompetent.

You think Dallas doesn't have talent? Dirk is the clear #1. JT is the clear #2. And Jason Kidd ( a hall of fame PG that still plays at a high level on most nights ) runs the show. Chandler is a better center ( not necessarily a better player, but a better center ) than Horford. Marion isn't an all-star level forward anymore, but he still is a good energy player and defender. And Stevenson is considered by many to be a very good perimeter defender. Better individual talent does not = better team. Just because most of our fans rate Horford and Smith to be good to great talents, doesn't mean that they're very good talents vs elite level teams. JJ falls short of being a superstar on the level of other superstars, while Horford and Smith fall short of being on the level of very good PFs and Cs.

I love the thread. Hell . . Dominique in his prime couldn't win a title in ATL, but some other superstar greater than JJ would? Diesel . . the real issue is the makeup and talent on this team. Would Lebron come in and make Horford and Smith better? Would his ISOs kill the team when his jumper is off? And the 64 million dollar question would be . . . who becomes the 2nd option? If JJ is an ideal 2nd or 3rd option on a championship team, what are Horford and Smith? If most championship teams win by having a legit superstar . . . a #2 guy that is an all-star that can play like a #1 at times . . . and a #3 guy who is solid enough to play at an all-star level at times . . how does that change the Hawks fortunes. I think if you replaced JJ with a Lebron or Kobe, the blowout losses would disappear, and we'd be a better road team. But the lack of a legit #2 scorer would kill us vs the elite teams.

I don't know who gave you the -1, but I gave you a +1 to get you back to zero. I agree. You have to shoot a team out of a zone. Now granted, the way to ATTACK the zone, is to get the ball into the middle. But the whole purpose of doing that is to have the zone collapse to that man, so that the middle man can kick it to a baseline runner going to the goal, or to a shooter that is wide open on the perimeter. Even if it is a guard who attacks the middle, the same principle applies. If you can't make wide open shots when a team is in a zone, you're dead.

LOL. . what supporting cast? Jamal played great at times. Josh played decent. Horford, other than rebounding, was garbage. Marvin was garbage. Zaza, for his role, pretty much played well at times. See . . this is exactly what I'm talking about. JJ got it done in 4 games, but people complain about him not getting it done all 6 games. Dog him for not being a superstar, but expecting superstar play out of him . . even though you know he isn't? The real question is, when JJ doesn't have it going, why can't people step up to the plate big time, and win a game for us? Other guys much better than JJ have been in the same situation, and have gone down in flames as well. Kobe damn near wanted to leave his team because of this. It wasn't until he, and others in his situation got adequate help, that the team could win games even when the star didn't play at his highest level. It is what it is though.

This coming from a fan base that had a FIT when JJ had his Twitter account a few years back, posting some of the antics he was talking about. Those few twitter postings showed that JJ had a little more personality than people led on to believe. And they didn't like what they saw. With JJ, it very well could be that he purposely stays low key at times, but opens up around friends and might even be somewhat of a jokester. But most of us fans don't know what these players are like in real life. All we see are the few glimpses we witness in press conferences and on the court. LOL . . I remember those Hawk karaoke vids at Philips a few years back. They were hilarious. And the shark tank . . dang . . I want one.

Joe Johnson in the 4 Orlando wins 22.3 ppg 7.3 rebs 3.8 asst Jason Richardson in the entire Orlando vs Atlanta series 10 ppg 4 rebs 1.2 asst When JJ played bad, the team lost . . regardless of what everybody else did. When JJ played decent to great, the Hawks won. But only 2 votes LOL . . typical of the non-love that JJ receives.

Your statements still don't take into account that the 2003 - 04 T-Wolves were a beautifully constructed team with 3 guys who could assume the #1 scorer role, who were surrounded by specialty role players. They were a better constructed team than us. And in that year, Cassell + Spree > Smith + Horford. Cassell and Spree could do something that Smith and Horford couldn't . . and that is create their own shot and score at a high level at times. Spreewell's role on that team was that of a 3rd scorer. He was as streaky as they came during the regular season that year. It still didn't prevent him from scoring 20+ points in a game 34 times, and even 30+ points in 6 games. His mediocre PER still doesn't discount how important his role as a 3rd scorer was on that team. A 3rd scorer that didn't need people setting him up to score. He could get his own shot. And when playoff time came around, he upped his game to compensate for the hobbled Cassell, and averaged 20 ppg - 4 rebs - 4 asst. And if you want to put an emphasis on PER, he raised his PER to 17.7 in the playoffs. Most important though, he was able to elevate his game at times to borderline superstar level during that playoff run. - 31 vs DEN ( 11 - 17 FG ) - 25 pts vs DEN ( 8 - 16 FG ) - 25 pts - 10 rebs - 6 asst vs SAC - 34 pts - 7 rebs - 6 asst vs SAC - 27 pts - 4 rebs - 5 stls vs SAC - 23 pts - 6 rebs - 5 asst vs LAL - 28 pts - 4 rebs - 5 asst vs LAL - 27 pts - 4 rebs - 5 asst vs LAL That's a so-called "3rd option" doing that. An "old man". But he was able to take his game to that next level at times during the playoffs. Of course, he's Spreewell, so he had a few stinkers during that playoff run too. But when you can get a star level game out of a 3rd option in 50% of the games you play, he becomes a major asset to the team. All I know is we couldn't get our 3rd option to do that this year . . or any year. As for the rest of the players, Hassell was widely regarded as one better perimeter defenders in the league that year. Hoiberg was one of the league leaders in 3 point shooting and had a ridiculous TS% of .611. Johnson was a better version of Jason Collins. People are simply delusional to think that guys like Smith and Horford are better than JJ, or even close to being better than him. If they were, the Hawks would win a lot more games when JJ had an off game. It would mean that when JJ went 4 - 15 FG in a game and scored 11 points, someone else would be able to consistently step up ( key word: CONSISTENTLY ) and post a high scoring point game and carry us to a win. That's what real good 2nd and 3rd options do, when the star struggles. For years we'd searched for that 2nd option to team alongside JJ. And the only guy that stepped up to fill that role was Jamal Crawford. Smith can do it every now and then, but the limits in his offensive game makes him an unreliable guy to be a #2 option or even a #3 option at times. There is no doubt that JJ is an inconsistent 1st option scorer. To me, his mentality is not aggressive enough to become the volume shooter that a 1st option needs to be at times. His passive play is more of a detriment to him at times, than him missing shots. Sometimes as the lead guy, you have to be willing to go 8 - 22 from the field, instead of settling to go 5 - 15. Take those extra 7 shots and see if you can make 4 or 5 of them, and see if it benefits the team. Too often, JJ is passive at the beginning of games, which enables teams to build a lead on the starting 5. Then if Jamal can't pick up the slack on the 2nd unit, a 6 point lead quickly balloons into a 12 point lead, and there's not much we can do about it unless the team starts playing lockdown defense. I think it was AHF earlier in this thread that said that if Boozer replaced someone like Smith, that JJ and Boozer ( the Boozer that Chicago thought they were getting ) couldn't get us to that next level. I think they'll get us closer. but maybe not to the Finals. But add a 3rd guy of slighly less or equal value, say an Andre Miller playing the point, and I believe that a JJ - Boozer - Miller trio, with JJ being the lead guy, could get us there. That would be the balance that we need as a team. But we'd have to have decent role players around them to supplement what they could or couldn't give us. Minny's top 3 players played better than our top 3 players. And their role players played better than our role players. That's how they won 58 games and got a #1 seed in the West that year. Had Cassell not gone down at the beginning of the Laker series that year, it would've been interesting to see if the T-Wolves could've beaten that team. They had the stars and the role players to beat them.