TheNorthCydeRises

That wouldn't suprise me one bit. It's an obvious reason for that though. We saw that reason last night.

All of this cynicism now . . . yet, people have been bashing Marvin for over two months straight now. Now they wonder why he didn't play down the stretch? If Woody would've subbed for Mo Evans ( who was playing decent ball ) at the beginning of the 4th, people would've criticized Woody for not trusting his bench. It's a lose - lose situation when it comes to Woody and anything decision he makes.

SMH @ Phoenix never does it. Heck, they did it against US last Friday night. Played their 4 main bench guys + either Grant Hill ( 1st half ) or Jason Richardson ( 2nd half ). http://www.popcornmachine.net/cgi-bin/gameflow.cgi?date=20100219&game=ATLPHO The baffling thing about this bench, is that Crawford is essentially a starter. He's not your average bench player. But the rest of those guys are inconsistent as hell. IAnd only one of them ( two if you count West ) can claim that it's because of youth and inexperience. The rest of those cats are veteran players. They simply play like crap on most nights.

Yep . . . that's the only difference. He's playing far better this season than he has in the past 2 years here.

The bashing comes from the fact that people don't respect anything that man does. Never have. Everything bad is blamed on him and everything good is attributed to the players doing it themselves or "self-managing" themselves ( I saw that on the AJC blogs ). Hoopsstats.com data according to efficiency . . . the Hawks have: #2 ranked backcourt ( despite Bibby's struggles . . . Boston is #1 ) #3 ranked starting lineup ( despite Bibby's and Marvin's struggles . . . Lakers are #1 ) #7 ranked team in the paint ( Mainly due to JJ's floater and our post guys finishing at the rim . . Orlando #1 ) #9 ranked team in the NBA ( Cleveland is #1 ) #13 ranked team out of the paint ( Only because Bibby and Marvin are inconsistent with their jumper . . . Oklahoma City #1 ) # 15 ranked frontcourt ( a little surprising . . then again . . we're only getting consistent quality production from 2 frontcourt players . . .Cleveland ranked #1, because of you know who ) #24 ranked bench ( the 2nd lowest ranking of any current playoff team . . Charlotte is #25 . . San Antonio #1 ) With this fan base though, the positive rankings have nothing to do with him, but the negative rankings have everything to do with him. The truth is, Woody has a hand in both the positive and negative of this team. But there are far more positives than negatives, when looking at the Hawks. It's funny though. If a player doesn't develop, it's Woody's fault. If he does develop, he did it on his own.

Bibby and Marvin's fault. Neither guy has hit the open shot this year with consistency, when JJ swings the ball to them. Those are the 2 guys in which JJ used to rack up assists from. It's like when Lebron has a low assist game, it's usually not because he's shooting a lot. It's because those other guys are missing wide open jumpshots. @ benhillboy: JJ in 2009 averaged 5.8 assists per game. He averaged 2 assists per game by people making a three point shot. In 2010, JJ averages 4.6 assists per game. His three point assist number is down to 1.4 a game. This correlates directly with Bibby missing shots and with him not taking 3 point shots. It's also interesting to see that in 2007 and 2008, JJ averaged 1.8 and 1.9 assists per game on jumpers made from 16 - 23 feet ( long range 2 pt shots ). In 2009 and 2010, JJ only averaged 1.3 and 1.2 assists per game from long jumpers. Who was the main guy shooting those types of shots outside of JJ? Marvin Williams. In 2007, he shot 43% FG on the long 2 point jumper. In 2008, he shot a whopping 45% FG on the long 2 point jumper. ( NOTE: Crawford this year is shooting 45% FG on the long 2 pt shot ) In 2009, Marvin was still a pretty good 41% FG on the long 2 pt shot. But in 2010, Marvin's shooting from that range has dipped all the way down to 34% FG. The "useless" shot that people hated around here from him ( the 20 - 22 foot jumper with him just inside the 3 point line ), is the shot we could desperately use from him right now. And maybe he is starting to abandon the 3 point shot. He's only taken 7 threes this month in 9 games, making only 1. But for the month, he's shooting 48.6% FG, which if it holds up, would be the highest FG% in a month this season for him.

Bingo. That 2nd unit has way too many defensive lapses, that are compounded when Crawford doesn't score a little. Solo was a fouling machine, but at least he was somewhat active on the defensive end, when it came to deterring shots.

Truth be told Diesel . . . a lot of the current playoff teams have 8 to 9 man rotations. They're not trying to play 10 and 11 guys and get them decent playing time, like a lot of people want to see around here. And yes, those other teams see their entire bench rotation play together for short stretches ( whether they go 8 or 9 deep or 10 deep ). I don't know what NBA some of you guys watch. All I have to do, is go through the Sunday games. Boston vs Denver ( Boston played their 4 subs together in the 2nd and 4th quarters. Denver played their 3 subs together during those same times ) http://www.popcornmachine.net/cgi-bin/gameflow.cgi?date=20100221&game=BOSDEN Orlando vs Cleveland ( Magic went 9 deep, and played their 4 bench players together at the end of the 3rd/beginning of the 4th . . Cleveland did the same thing ) http://www.popcornmachine.net/cgi-bin/gameflow.cgi?date=20100221&game=CLEORL Houston vs New Orleans ( Your boy Rick Adleman does it all the time with his entire 5 bench players . . even with the lineup changes Houston had, he still does it ) http://www.popcornmachine.net/cgi-bin/gameflow.cgi?date=20100221&game=HOUNOR Phoenix vs Sacramento ( Phoenix did it in the 2nd quarter, even before they took control of the game in the 2nd half ) http://www.popcornmachine.net/cgi-bin/gameflow.cgi?date=20100221&game=SACPHO Detroit vs San Antonio ( Detroit did it with their 4 bench players . . . San Antonio only goes 8 deep, and their 3 play together ) http://www.popcornmachine.net/cgi-bin/gameflow.cgi?date=20100221&game=SASDET Utah vs Portland ( both Utah and Portland went 9 deep, and they played their 4 together ) http://www.popcornmachine.net/cgi-bin/gameflow.cgi?date=20100221&game=UTHPOR Oklahoma City vs Minnesota ( OKC did it with their 4 main bench players ) http://www.popcornmachine.net/cgi-bin/gameflow.cgi?date=20100221&game=OKCMIN Woody simply needs to find 2 other guys outside of Crawford, that he can roll with,shorten the rotation . . .and forget about the rest of the bench. That won't sit well with people because most feel that we're "so deep" or should try to go 10 deep. See Diesel . . . if people want to go 9 - 10 deep, those guys have to play together for short stretches all at once, because our two best 5 man lineups are: - the starting lineup - and the lineup in which Crawford replaces Marvin in the starting group. When you're trying to work 9, 10, 11 guys into the lineup, but you try to protect them by playing them with 3 starters, you're reducing the amount of minutes that your two best lineups are on the floor. It's possible to work those guys in the game with the starters. But if you're going to get the max out of people, the rotation needs to be shortened and Woody should just go with 8 guys who he can count on. That way, those bench guys can get a steady 10 - 15 or even 20 minutes a game. And Woody did just that in the 2nd half. Instead of trying to work in the 5 bench guys, he simply went with 3 ( Crawford, Joe Smith, Mo Evans ). And he played them together too, for a short stretch. One more thing . . . the Teague - Crawford - Evans - Joe Smith - Zaza lineup is our 4th most used lineup. http://www.82games.com/0910/0910ATL2.HTM I agree that they should never be on the court at the same time. The rotation simply needs to be shortened, and go with 3 bench players that are going to help you the most, with the 9th and 10th man getting spot minutes at best.

I have no problem with giving them more responsibilities. But people need to understand who the scorers are, and who the complimentary players are. There are nights in which Horford and Smoove will have the advantage, and we're right in going to them. But the difference between JJ and those guys, is that JJ has the advantage almost EVERY night. Josh Smith post game is dependent on him getting to the rim. If he can make a move that has him getting to the rim, his post game is good. If he has to settle for a baby hook or a tough shot, his post game is bad. He's better in the post than he ever has been, but that's not his strength as an offensive player. He's a "face the basket" type player. And I really like him in the "point forward" role, in which he's driving and trying to create for people off of his passes. Woody is giving him the freedom to do that lately, and it makes him a better player. I just want these guys to play to their strengths as players. The same goes for Marvin. It was great that he developed his 3 point jumper a little last year, but I truly believe that as he tried to become a 3 point shooter, it took away from his midrange game. He used to be almost automatic with his 21 foot jumper. Now, that part of his game has completely left him. He's a horrible midrange shooter now, and not a very good 3 point shooter. Recently though, he's pretty much abandoned the 3 point shot, only attempting 6 threes this month. And for the first time this year, he's shooting close to 50% FG for a whole month. So with Horford, I just want the guy doing what he does best . . shooting that 12 - 18 foot jumper. Him trying to back down a 7 footer who has 30 pounds on him, is a losing situation for him. But if he played to his strength, he'd be OK on most nights. I simply don't want Horford and Smoove to do things that they're not really good at. Back to the basket post offense is one of those things.

Every other coach will sub in their 2nd unit in the 2nd quarter, to get those guys playing time. So why is it a great problem when we do it? Because those guys are sorry. Not a problem when Boston plays their 4 or 5 together . . or Orlando . . . or Phoenix . . or Portland . . or just about any other good team in the league. I mean damn . . those guys can't play as a unit for 3 whole minutes? Isn't that the same squad that was so-called taking it to our starters in preseason practices? At least Mo did make all of his shots this game. It's been a minute since we got a 4 FGM game out of him. I know one thing though. Woody's goal should not be to try to go 10, even 9 deep every game. Three of those guys have to be able to play with each other on the floor. Those guys shouldn't need 3 or 4 starters on the floor with them, for some of them to be able to function.

Honestly, when you see what is currently going on right now, I'm glad Woody left those guys in. If they can't even play 5 friggin minutes as a unit, why are people even bytching about them playing? And this is Utah's 2nd unit folks . . . not their starters . . and our bench looks like absolute garbage out there. Yet, people want to go 10 - 12 deep? LOL . . . please. People will criticize Woody to death if we end up losing tonight. But I'm glad he left those guys in to suffer like that. We can afford to di ish like that with our record. Now, let's see if the starters will simply roll over and die, or if they'll respond to the adversity. That bench is SORRRR-RRRRRY. Even Crawford isn't doing anything.

Jack . .. now you're overreacting a little bit. Smoove is the same guy who had like 6 - 8 pts and 5 assists in that 3rd quarter alone. He played a damn good game until that 4th quarter. He just played horribly and didn't make good decisions in the 4th. But villifying the dude for all of his negative traits, doesn't diminish the fact that the guy has had a pretty good season this year. Good enough for people to consider him as being an All-Star game snub. He and that team simply relaxed and had a horrible quarter last night. If they pull off the win tonight, and heplays well, people will be back praising the guy again. He has a very tough challenge tonight in the form of Boozer and Milsap. Let's see how the dude responds tonight.

Josh was great in that 3rd quarter, where he was playing almost a point forward type position. He has about 5 or 6 assists in that quarter alone. But he's not a scorer, and people shouldn't ever believe that he can be one. He's a great transition player, a great hustle player, a great weak side shot blocker, and a pretty good passer. Those are the strengths of his game. Scoring the basketball isn't a strength. Superstar and Josh Smith should not be spoken in the same sentence. He can and should be a All-Star one day. But he's going to be utility All-Star, not a scoring All-Star. Some of everybody has to take the blame for that loss. JJ and Horford the least . . . . Smoove, Zaza, Crawford and Woody ( for leaving Zaza in the game too long ), the most.

When Smoove and Horford have it going, it's because they're being fed the ball in ideal scoring position. Both of these guys see around 65% of their made baskets coming via assists, which is an indication that you can't simply throw the ball to them in the post, and expect them to score. A lot of times, they're feeding each other the ball. But as far as creating their own offense, they're not that good of scorers yet in their careers. Josh Smith shoots so terrible from outside of 5 feet, that he should hardly ever be trusted to give you ISO post offense, unless he has a DISTINCT advantage over his man. Josh is best when he gets the ball 12 - 15 feet from the basket, and he can face his man up and take him off the dribble. When his back is to the basket, his game is significantly diminished. And we're not going to talk about his jumpshooting. That's been discussed ad nauseum. The same really goes with Horford, although he is a better back to the basket post scorer than Smoove. He sees more of his made shots assisted than Smoove does, because he can knock down the 12 - 16 foot face up jumper. He's a catch and shoot guy, not a post guy. 6 of Horford's 7 made shots in the 3rd quarter, came via assists. 5 of them coming from Smoove. For the game, 7 of Horford's 10 FG makes came via assists. In one way, this is the main case made by people for more ball movement in the offense. On the other hand, it simply proves that these guys can't create their own offense in the post, like other good post scorers do. This means that this team will continue to battle bouts of horrible offense, if our defense isn't creating offense ( like it was in the 3rd quarter ) . . or if our shooters go cold. They simply can't be trusted to be go-to scorers for a chunk in a game.

Did the bench play well last night? We can't have it both ways. It was the starting 5 that built that lead in the 3rd. Teague came in and did a good job at the end of the 3rd quarter. With us being up 17 going into the 4th quarter, I think most people expected that the bench was going to get extended minutes. Then, with JJ and Horford out, Golden St scored 7 pts in 2 minutes, and Woody subs. Woody's fatal mistake though, was leaving in Zaza until the 7 min mark. In that 4th quarter, Zaza sucked. Crawford uncharacteristically sucked. Smoove sucked. And Marvin was a non-factor in the 4th. Teague had to be subbed out, just to get JJ back into the game ( although I guess Woody could've subbed out Marvin ) So while people say "play the bench", what do you do when the bench players play like crap? And to be honest folks, they've been playing like crap all year. So it's like Dennis Hopper in the movie "Speed" . . . . . (( talking like Dennis )) "Pop Quiz HOTSHOT . . . You have a so-called "deep bench" that plays like crap 75% of the time. You want to get the starters rest, but even if you sub for 2 of them, the team may totally collapse both offensively and defensively. Now what do you do? What do you dooooooooooooo?"

I'm just glad we play tomorrow night. No time to even let this loss sink in, with a game tomorrow night. A win at Utah erases all of this. LOL . . now we have to follow up the worst loss of the season, with one of the best wins of the season. Unbelievable that Utah came back and won that game, after looking so terrible in the first half of that game. Beating a red hot Utah team will be a gigantic win.

LOL . . really? Who was talking NBA Finals with this team before the season started? Most people were worried if we could push past the 2nd round, and possibly get to the EC Finals. But NBA Finals? LOL . . who was talking about winning a championship back in October? Especially after that Orlando preseason blowout? It was instant doom and gloom around here after that loss. People went crazy. WOW . . so which one is it? Is this team a "rosy turd" . . . or a team that you look at as being able to contend for a spot in the Finals? I know which one Hotlanta would say. Because they can't be both. If the team looks like a rosy turd, even though it's winning, why are people expecting them to contend for a spot in the Finals? I think the problem was that a lot of people overhyped how good our bench really was from the get-go. That bench wasn't good last year, and only the addition of Crawford was a quality one. And even I was skeptical of him, considering his past play on previous teams. But some of you acted like signing Joe Smith and Jason Collins were just what this team needed to solidify the rotation. LOL . . no . . . those guys were cast-offs that no one else wanted. I can buy that. But like I said previously, some of you simply overhyped the entire team, knowing that the strength of our team was with the starting unit. And now, even that is in doubt, seeing that JJ, Smith, Horford, and Crawford are the 4 guys that usually come to play on a nightly basis. The rest of the squad shows up every now and then. The problem around here, is that people have agendas. Certain people have nothing good to say when the Hawks win. But when they lose, all heck break loose. That's why the OP says that everyone "panics". The truth is, the Hawks may simply not be ready to play for a championship yet. So if they aren't, acceptance is the next step for some of you. Sometimes, you have to be realistic about the Hawks, instead of expecting them to win every game ( especially tough road games ). It's the sweeping generalizations about the fate of this team that occurs after one win or one loss, that the OP is talking about. LOL . . and yes . . the board would be "boring" if that didn't take place. But it is kind of annoying. It's just certain things that you know will and won't happen on this board, according to whether we win or lose.

How long can you keep this excuse up about Teague though? At what point does Teague have to simply TAKE playing time from Bibby? Teague actually played well in the Clipper game on the defensive end. But the kid has to become a complete backup PG. And he has to play consistently good defense. Would it hurt the kid to make a lay-up? Blaming Woody gets old, especially when you can CLEARLY see the deficiencies in a player.

The only thing that Hotlanta and I have agreed on this season are: * Rebounding was the main concern with this team to start the season * The bench, outside of Crawford, is weak The whole "we have a strong bench" slogan that the fans and Woody tried to tell people, just wasn't showing up on the court. The 2nd unit has been playing bad about 75% of the time all year. But I also agree with Atlantaholic. If Bibby and Marvin would just make some dang open jumpers, this offense wouldn't go through those long scoring lulls. Even with our "problems", this team, when you look at them by month, has been pretty steady. We're going through maybe a bad week maybe week and a half of games, then correct that problem with two to three good weeks.\ The Hawks play just like Denver and Utah though.

Yeah I saw that analysis last week done by that Chicago blog I think? And I think you have expounded on what he was talking about. I do have a problem with equating PER to the effectiveness of a SG, because I don't think the average shooting guard in this league has a PER of 15. The average PER around the league of all players may be 15, but I would venture that the number is lower for SGs, simply because they don't get to stuff the stat sheet, and are usually judged by how well they shoot the basketball. To me, the PER stat is skewed toward those guys who can rebound at a high rate and shoot a high percentage from the field ( which is why you usually see big men/rebounding forwards at the top of the PER list, along with the high shot, high volume scorers ). You take a guy like Ray Allen, who had the best shooting numbers of his career last year ( 48% FG - 41% 3FG - 96% FT . . . at age 33 ), but his PER was 17.3 ( only the 11th best PER of his 14 year career . . . and only 1.3 points higher than Marvin's 16 PER last season ). The major difference was his Usage %, which at 20.4%, was the lowest of his career before this year. When a player isn't used as much, his numbers usually drop ( see Marvin Williams again ). Now that drop could be due to diminishing skills, injuries that hamper what he can do physically, or the emergence or addition of other players who are viable scoring options. And that's the first point I want to address concerning a JJ extension. JJ's usage as a player, especially in the next 3 years, is still going to be relatively high. * Josh Smith doesn't look like he's ever going to develop a jumpshot, and may make a transition to becoming more of a Diaw-like point forward on offense. * Horford has a chance to develop into a decent scorer, but I don't ever see him developing into a go-to scorer. I don't see a Carlos Boozer type scorer out of him, as long as he has to play center. Even if he played PF, he may not get to that level. * Any hopes of Marvin becoming a main option type scorer is rapidly going out the window. He's a complimentary guy all the way. * People had high hopes for Teague, but I don't know if he can even become as good as Speedy Claxton in his prime. His struggles in his rookie season say probably not. * Crawford can and has been a #1 type scorer. An erratic one, but he can be. But his status on this squad will be in question after next year as well. So until somebody steps up and can prove that they can be even close to a #1 option ( or a #2 option the caliber of Crawford ) . . or if we draft a scorer that rapidly blossoms . ., or trade for a guy who can be a main scorer . . JJ is going to have to be the guy not only in the immeadiate future, but maybe even beyond year 3. And if JJ is still your best scoring option on the team at age 31, his usage is still going to be in the low to mid 20% range. In the case of Finley, it wasn't necessarily that his skills started to rapidly decline after age 31 or 32,000 minutes ( although it did some ), it was because Dirk Nowitzki rapidly developed into one of the most lethal scorers in the league. This dictated that Dirk get more and more looks, and Finley become a 2nd option scorer. When Finley led the league in minutes played in the 2000 - 01 season ( at age 27 ), a 22 year old Dirk Nowitzki had already established himself into just as efficient ( if not more efficient ) of a scorer than Finley. At that time, Finley's usage was 24.9% with Dirk's being 23.8%. Flash forward 4 years later, and Finley ( at age 31 ) had seen his skills decline a little, but the amount of looks he got decreased dramatically, due to the emergence of the 26 year old Dirk. Dirk's usage was 28.7%. Finley had dropped all the way down to complimentary scorer usage ( 19.5% ) As of right now, JJ doesn't have that scorer ( outside of Crawford ), that could dictate that he get less shots and gets used less in the forseeable future. And his ability to create and make shots, especially the fadeaway jumper, will keep him being a viable scoring option for a long time. The only thing that can slow this dude down in the next 3 - 4 years, is a major injury or a bunch of nagging Iverson-like injuries . . . something that he's steered clear of for the most part of his career ( other than the face smash early in his career ). Even his calf injury that caused him to miss 30+ games, I think, was a management call to "tank the season". If push came to shove, he could've played through that. *************** And I disagree that JJ is more like Finley. Now their circumstances, rise to stardom, and overall numbers are similar. Very similar. Damn near identical. But their style of play as players are/were different. Even when JJ was in Phoenix, he didn't solely rely on Steve Nash to get him the ball in good spots to score the basketball. JJ was as much of a slasher as he was a catch and shoot guy in Phoenix. JJ has always been a player that has created his own offense to score, even more in our "true PG-less" system. Finley was more of your traditional SG, who relied on the system and the PG feeding him the ball, to get him good looks. Finley was extremely good at coming off curls and screens, and catching and shooting from midrange and deep. Finley was more of a poor man's Reggie Miller, with better athleticism and less of a pure jumper, than anything else. When you consider style of play, JJ is much more comparable to Paul Pierce than he is to Finley. Both JJ and Pierce are guys who is athletic, but not freakishly athletic, that usually have to create their own offense to score, usually in the midrange. They both use their size to their advantage. They both basically take their time to score, not playing at a fast pace. Pierce is/was superior because of his innate ability to draw fouls ( or flopping to draw fouls ). Both can handle the ball and pass well enough to be the primary playmaker on their respective team. Both guys, when used in the post, are effective scorers and passers. Finley was a very good player, but he wasn't as versatile as JJ. *************** Now the minutes played issue. JJ is going to have a career that will approach 37,000 - 40,000 minutes played by the end of his new contract. To play anything beyond that, and still be effective, he'll probably have to play off the ball and finish his career as a catch and shoot guy. To be honest, a lot of the guys named on that list, weren't nearly the physical specimen that JJ is, nor had the conditioning that he has. The reason why Miller was able to play at a relatively high level well into his 30s, was because of his conditioning. It's his style of play that will lead to his longevity in this league. While we would like for him to draw more fouls and get to the FT line, the fact that he doesn't may preserve him for the next 5 - 7 years. As a scorer, he not only has the floater, he's developed the fadeaway jumper from as far as 20 feet. The fadeaway is one of Kobe's favorite shots and a shot that kept Jordan playing at a relatively high level, when he started to lose his athleticism. The question for JJ, is when is he going to start suffering those nagging injuries that keep him out of the lineup? Year 3? Year 4? Year 5? If he pulls a Karl Malone, and virtually stays injury free, JJ can continue to be a 20 ppg - 5 rebs - 4 asst guy that shoots in the mid-40s FG for 3 - 5 years. Especially if the Hawks doesn't see or get a guy who can create and make his own shot as efficiently as JJ does. You give the dude a very good PG that can make him work less offensively, and his numbers could be even higher in the near future. This is why if Chicago gets their hands on him, and teams him up with Derrick Rose, it's all over for us, without making a major trade. *************** Finally . . the long term contract. And here's what people need to understand about that. When a guy is coming off of his rookie contract, and gets that next deal, the expectations are that he'll be at least as good, if not better, in the last year of the deal, than he was on the first year of his deal. At this point, he should be peaking, or close to peaking, as a player. The 2nd big money contract is usually based on what a team thinks a person is worth NOW, and how his talent can help them NOW as a team, than what he'll be worth 5+ years from now as a player. He's getting paid based off of what people IMMEADIATELY expect from him right now. His demand as a player is highest right now, so the price people are willing to pay for his services will increase as well. This is why teams will sign a star player who is in his mid - late 20s to an expensive long term deal. And a lot of those big money guys toward the end of their contract, end up being "hired guns" for aspiring playoff or championship contenders, looking for that player to put them over the top or advance them further in the playoffs. People are worried about the wrong thing, if they're worried about if JJ will be worth the money going into Year 4 and 5 of his contract, at age 32 and 33. His contract is actually more tradeable at that point in his career . . IF . . he's still a good, but not very good player. The question is . . is he worth the money NOW? Is he the type of player NOW that will help us make deep runs in the playoffs? The alternative to not signing JJ, is to hope and pray you find a "diamond in the rough" type player, and him develop into that lead guy and possible all-star. Refusing to overpay for JJ, but signing 2 complimentary players, does not help the Hawks at all. If we don't re-sign him, someone like Horford or Smith needs to rapidly develop ( ala Danny Granger ). If the window of opportunity for the Hawks is within the next 1 - 3 years, this is the time to retain as many of our star players as possible, and add stars if need be. But first, we need to see what he does in the playoffs. If he really steps his game up and leads us, the Hawks will do whatever possible to bring him back. If he plays lackluster ball, they'll probably let him go. I think he knows that his future contract will be determined by what he does from late April to late June.

<<< doesn't panic. Phoenix is a good team at home. Last night's loss was disappointing though, seeing that it was basically their 2nd unit who outplayed us and the fact that Nash had a horrible game ( by his standards ). When you hold Phoenix to 88 points, that should be an automatic win for the other team, because they're not a good defensive team. But we can't expect to win when we get outrebounded by double digits and give up a ton of offensive rebounds. JJ has had to carry us on the road all year ( especially against good teams ). Last night was a game in which he probably should've been . . . (( gasp )) . . . selfish, and took about 25 shots. It's too bad that, other than the Smiths, the rest of the team played like garbage. Horford and Crawford trying to produce in the 4th quarter was just a bit too little, too late. Oh well . . go to Oakland and take care of business ( that's an ESPN game by the way ) and try to steal a game @ Utah on Monday. If we can do that, going 3 - 1 on the trip is a very good result. Knowing Crawford, because he played like crap last night, means that he'll try to put 30 on the Warriors.

Hopefully, this fan base will get it, once the playoffs come around. Talking about who they will and will not pay. All it'll take is for us to get to the EC Finals ( and JJ to be a major reason for that ), for the talk of "we shouldn't pay this guy "x" millions of dollars. For those of you worried about JJ's game declining, whose game is he most like . . . . Vince Carter or Paul Pierce? Thought so. JJ is one of the most well conditioned athletes in the NBA. And he plays a low-impact style of game. The style that could keep him playing at a relatively high level for at least the next 5 years. Contrary to popular belief, that dude is actually getting BETTER as a basketball player. Since he now has help ( in the form of Crawford and the improvement of Smith and Horford ), he's not seeing teams double and sometimes even triple teaming him as much. This allows him to go one on one. Yeah, peple hate that . . . until he makes a shot . . which happens a lot more than people give him credit for. That guy is Kobe-lite, in the amount of difficult shots he makes. And even if his game does decline, you're still talking about a guy who has enough basketball skills and shooting ability to be a solid #2 or an efficient #3 guy, IF he has a ggod PG who can feed him the ball in the right spots. If over the life of a 6 yr deal, JJ gets us to at least 1 NBA Final, and very close on one or two more occasions, If he's one of the key guys in helping us win a title . . . that max contract is PAID IN FULL, as far as I'm concerned. But if Chicago gets their hands on him, WE'RE SCREWED, unless we find a star ( borderline superstar ) player to replace him . .. plus hope Horford and Smoove play at an All-Star level . . . plus hope Crawford won't be dramatically affected by JJ's departure ( or if he can play off the "new" star ). If JJ and Derrick Rose team up, they're overtaking us. That's a poor man's Jordan and Pippen right there.

The winner of the last Hawks vs Magic game, wil win the division.

I guess they didn't. Why do they think that Cleveland went out to bring in Shaq? Maybe it had something to do with Dwight absolutely destroying the Cavs in that East Final.

This sounds like all of the hype concerning the Joe Smith signing. Honestly, the last thing we need on this team, is another jumpshooter . . . especially not a jumpshooting big who is going to be away from the basket and not be able to get offensive rebounds. And it's not like this dude is going to get more than 5 shots a night with the Hawks, not when you have Crawford leading the 2nd unit. And like I said in the other thread, his shooting this year on his jumpshots is no better than Marvin's. S if you hate Marvin, you'll end up hating Z. Is Big Z better than Zaza? Yeah. So which big do you sit? Zaza or Joe Smith? Because if we pick up Big Z, you may as well make hin the first big man off the bench. I said before the season that we shouldn't give Joe Smith more than 10 min a game. In Big Z's case, no way should he play over 15 min, if we acqired him. Not a move to act like it's going to put us over the top IMO. If we get him, I hope he proves me wrong. Joe Smith definitely didn't.