TheNorthCydeRises

I was definitely against the move. I flat out hated Jamal Crawford's game. But I got to hand it to Woody, he's using the guy perfectly. And most important, he's managing him perfectly. He's going to let Crawford do his thing, but he's not going to let Crawford lose games for him either. When Marvin was struggling at the beginning of the year, it was easy to go with Crawford, and let him finish games. But now that Marvin has started to come around somewhat, it's not a given that Crawford is going to be on the floor to finish a game, especially if we have a lead or if Marvin is playing decent ball. And although Jamal does have the ability to be a playmaker, Woody has clearly defined his role as strictly an instant offense type scorer, ala Jason Terry. He hasn't put any pressure on him in trying to be a playmaker, which I think has been good for him. He's also made sure Jamal knew his role and how to play it, before worrying about the playing time of the other bench players. It was important to establish him as the leader of the 2nd unit, and it was important to play him with JJ as well. And the lineup that I thought would be a defensive nightmare, ( the Bibby - Crawford - JJ guard lineup ), has turned out to be our best scoring lineup and not bad at all defensively ( mainly because it forces other teams to keep up with us scoring ). The only thing Woody has to really watch with him, is Jamal reverting back to strictly relying on his jumper. He has to stay on him to drive the ball on occasion. Earlier in the year, Jamal saw 30% of his shots being right at the rim. Now, that number has been reduced to 21%. This is why his FG% has dropped from over 50% to 46%. So that's the only thing Woody needs to watch with him on offense. He has to stay on him about not taking quick long range jumpers, because he really isn't shooting a higher percentage on his jumper this year. To me, he's taking way too many 3's, instead of taking the 18 foot jumper that he can knock down with consistency. Defensively, he's still a work in progress. Woody and the staff have to constantly stay on him about his defense. Overall, the additioin of Crawford has been a B+ . . . and I wouldn't have ever thought that in a million years.

What I don't get, is why people would think what Woody said is BS? Anybody who has played organized sports before, will tell you that starters will get more leeway to mess up, more than a bench player. Why? Because the starter is more than likely able to make up for his mistakes, with great play. That's not a given for a bench player. That player is on the bench for a reason. - Should Nate McMillian get blasted for not developing Jerryd Bayless, when he has Steve Blake and Andre Miller to go to at the 1? - Should Phil Jackson take time to develop Adam Morrison, when he has Ron Artest and Lamar Odom that can play the 3? - Should Stan Van Gundy make more time for Brandon Bass, when he has Rashard Lewis and Ryan Anderson who can play the 4? - When Big Baby Davis comes back, should Doc Rivers continue to play Shelden Williams 13 minutes a game? The fact is, when you have talented veteran players playing in front of a talented young player, the coach is going to opt to play the talented veterans . . until . . the talented young player proves that he can be an asset night in and night out ( and not just against horrible teams ). In our case, we have Bibby and Crawford who can play the point. So there is no urgency ( key word: urgency ) to develop Teague right away. In his case, his playing time is going to be determined by how he plays in practice, and in the short stretches he plays in games. So when he comes into a game, he has to have the mindset that he's going to make something happen. That's why when Woody says, "if he plays one minute, he better make it count", it's true. It simply means that when a bench player is called upon, they better be ready to produce in some sort of fashion, whether it be offensively and defensively. Because if they aren't, the coach can easily replace him with the starter, and play him extended minutes. JJ Redick, for years, was NOT READY. He'd come into a game, even in garbage time, and play just like that . . straight garbage. But when he did get a chance to play decent minutes last year ( mainly because of injuries to other guys ), he made the most of it. Now, JJ is a nightly part of the Magic rotation, and producing in his role. If a guy like Teague had Tyronn Lue and Anthony Johnson playing in front of him, then yeah, Woody should definitely play him at least 20 minutes a game ( if not name him the starter altogether ). But that's not the case. Unfortunately for him, he has two veteran guards who can play his start. So if he doesn't consistently play at a high level, even in limited minutes, the coach can easily opt to go with the vet players. The bench earlier this year, was flat out losing leads, playing horrible defense, and was only as good as Crawford's scoring. Now, it seems as if they're more comfortable playing with each other, and are starting to compliment each other well on both ends of the floor. But on a team like ours, where we basically have 6 starters ( because Crawford plays starters minutes ), you don't sacrifice wins, to let everybody get a set amount of playing time. I know it's hard for some people to do, but they just need to start trusting Woody about this.

People kill me trashing Acie Law. He's not as good as Teague, but just about everyone on this board wanted Acie to start, based off of his play in garbage time. Matter of fact, Woody did start Acie about 5 games into his rookie season. But he got hurt in that Charlotte game in which he had 7 assists in the first half, and his NBA career has been hell ever since. It all worked out though. Because if he play well enough to be the permanent starting PG, we wouldn't have traded for Bibby. Teague just needs to keep doing what he's doing . . . impact a game as soon as he enters. If he can keep doing that, and keep that 2nd unit from losing leads or making decifits larger, then he'll get consistent playing time for the rest of the year. We'll see if he can do this against higher caliber teams in the few games coming up. He'll be up against Jamal Tinsley ( Memphis ), Eric Maynor ( Utah ), and has Ty Lawson coming up next week @ Denver.

And what I said still stands. It's not like we're going to find a replacement for that dude via a trade, or by Lebron or Wade coming here. His performance in the playoffs, in my opinion, was because he was a little TOO unselfish. He was way too passive to me, considering Marvin was hurt and Horford ended up getting hurt. Believe it or not, he didn't have a single game in which he took more than 19 shots in a game during that playoff run. He deferred to a cold Flip way too much in my opinion, in his attempt to try to play "team ball". This season, I see a totally different mentality in JJ. He's tried to put the team on his back this year, and people are blasting him for playing "selfish basketball" ( despite leading the team in assists ). Fact is, star players in playoff games routinely play "selfish" and try to win the game. Honestly, the ONLY thing separating JJ from being a next level player, is his inability to draw a lot of fouls ( or get a lot of calls ). The superstar players take a ton of shots, and live on the foul line. If we can keep up this pace, maybe JJ will start getting some of those phantom calls that Lebron gets. Very good players get paid in this league. And some of those very good players get paid like superstars. 17 - 18 mill a year isn't a max deal. But if a team offers him a max deal, the Hawks simply need to go over the top of that, by offering that 6th year with a little more money. JJ is a big reason why the Hawks are where they are right now. So when push comes to shove, the organization needs to act like it.

JJ has had to guard everybody from Deron Williams to Kevin Garnett at some point in his career. Compared to the rest of the guys on the squad, he's definitely our best perimeter defender.

Cause I think the league was trying to take us out the picture by the All-Star break. We had 5 back to backs in our first 17 games. We even played 4 games in 5 nights once in November ( and went 3 - 1 during that stretch ). Then you look at this schedule starting with the Cleveland back 2 backs till February. Stern and the NBA was trying to eliminate us with this schedule, if you believe in conspiracy theories.

If we can get through that stretch with an 11- 6 record, that'll be impressive as hell. Last year's team may have gone 6 - 11 through this stretch. Being healthy, especially along the frontline, is almost critical during that part of the season.

You illustrate all the reasons why he's getting 15 million . . then turn right around and say "unless he takes a drastic pay cut, you don't want him here?" What you need ask yourself is how many 2 guards in the league can do all of the things that Joe Johnson does with the Hawks. Or better yet, what guards could you switch out with JJ, and get absolutely no dropoff in offense AND defense. That list is VERY SHORT. - Kobe Bryant - Dwyane Wade - Brandon Roy - Andre Iguodala ( maybe ) That's it folks. The top three on that list, are worth every penny their team can pay them. You know that Kobe and D-Wade are max contract guys. Brandon Roy, when his current contract is done, is possibly close a max contract guy. I guess you would want JJ to make Iggy money ( around 13 mill a year ) Losing a guy that can get you 20 - 5 - 5, simply because you don't want to overpay to keep him, isn't a smart move in this league. There are so few guards that can play both offense and defense in this league, that a versatile player like that shouldn't be taken for granted. That looks like what you're doing. Simply taking JJ for granted. That dude isn't flashy. He's just consistent as hell. Every team we play focuses on stopping HIM before any other player on the team. You say JJ can't shoulder the load on a regular basis. LOL . . that's all he's been doing ever since he's been a Hawk. What Joe Johnson have you been watching? He shoulders the load as well as any 2-guard in the league, not named Kobe or Wade. Dude hasn't played with a PG that could get him easier looks ( which is why he doesn't have a ridiculously high FG% ). Dude also hasn't played with a great low post option that would allow him and the team to play inside-outside basketball. Now, knowing all of that, do you really want JJ to go somewhere else, simply because you don't think he's worth more than 15 mill a year? He probably won't get a max deal, but he could easily get 17+ mill a year. You're letting the captain of our team walk because of that? If we let him go, and he teams up with some other star or up and coming star in the East, we can forget about ever winning anything here. Josh Smith is a great talent, but he'll never be a guy that you can depend on as a go-to scorer. Horford, the same way. Marvin the same way. Crawford can do it, but he's been unsuccessful in every situation in which he had to be a volume scorer ( along with his horrible defense ). JJ is the offensive glue to the team, and by far our best perimeter defender. Say we let him go though. Chicago is a star 2-guard away from being a legit threat in the East. Both Lebron and Wade would LOVE to add JJ to their team. What happens if the Knicks can't get Wade or Lebron, so they try to get 2 stars, like Amare & JJ or Bosh & JJ? If anything, you pay JJ to keep other teams from getting him. If Phoenix still had JJ, do you know how dangerous that team would be? Nah . . the Hawks should NOT play around with this. They'll ultimately evaluate his worth depending on how he plays in the playoffs, if they don't decide to possibly get "the best possible value for him" in a mid-season trade, reminiscent of what we did with Dominique. If we have to give him more money per year, or give him more money throughout the life of his contract, the Hawks need to do everything possible to keep that dude here. Giving JJ a 6yr - 96 mill deal ( 16 mill a year ), means that an opposing team would have to be willing to pay him 19 - 20 mill a year over the max 5 years someone else can give him, just to match our 6 year deal. Depending on how JJ wants his money, they could easily structure that contract where we'd actually be paying him less money in the first year, than he's getting this year. Now is he worth the money? Absolutely. If paying him that type of money keeps us a viable contender in the East for years to come ( which it would ), he's worth the money. Unless you're willing to take the risk of losing him . . or trading him for a lesser player . . and risk the Hawks slipping back into the Eastern conference pack . . or out of the playoffs altogether.

Schedule: ( back 2 backs not spaced ) vs CLE @ CLE vs NY @ MIA vs NJ vs BOS @ ORL @ BOS vs WAS vs PHO vs OKC vs SAC vs CHA @ HOU @ SA vs BOS @ ORL LOL . . isn't that a coincidence?

Talk of championship shouldn't even cross peoples minds right now. Just enjoy these wins for what they are . . . good wins. And if we can't bat Orlando, we can't win a championship. Hopefully though, we'll put ourselves in a position so that we won't have to face them until the EC Finals. It's plenty of room on the bandwagon. Get on now while the going is good.

They did it on both ends of the floor. And you have to love how Evans and Teague came right into the game, and immeadiately started to make plays and shots. That's what the other bench players outside of Crawford have to do . . . immeadiately come in the game and start affecting it. LOL . . . as of right now, Teague has created 12 points ( 2 pts of his own and 10 pts from assists ) . . and Mo is perfect from the field 5 - 5 ( 3 - 3 3FG ) for 13 points. Gotta love how they put the foot on the pedal to start that 2nd qtr. Let's hope for a repear performance in the 4th.

So if 2nd place Boston had a 33 - 19 record, and the Hawks had a 30 - 22 record ( which means that we've gone 15 - 16 in that stretch ), you'd be cool with that, because of our proximity to 2nd place?

You may very well be right. This team is going to be tested severely in January. So what's the minimum record do you want to see this team have at the All-Star break?

There's no telling how many kids 16 and under are voting on the ESPN poll. Maybe 20 - 25%? The kids love Lebron. Also, you could easily switch Altanta and Denver. People talk about our "bad losses", but Denver has losses @ Charlotte, @ Detroit, @ the Clippers, and a horrible home loss vs Minnesota. If we were to use Hawk fan logic, the Minnesota loss is more damaging, than their Laker win was encouraging. They're still a real good team though.

I bet that's a direct result of the Hawks not giving away so many tickets anymore ( especially the upper level tickets ). They gave away an average of 5500 tickets a game last year. Philips Arena looks as empty as ever, but the gate revenue is up? Yeah, it's either that, or they're selling more premium seats.

We're 15 - 6 after beating the Bulls on Dec. 9th I count that we have 31 games to play before the All-Star break That's 52 total games. What is the MINIMUM Won - Loss for the Hawks to have at the All-Star break . . . in your opinion?

The most impressive win? The win @ Boston. Having said that, I agree with JackB. A loss is a loss, no matter who it was against. It's just hard for me to dwell on the losses, when we've had some very good wins this season.

That's the big one for me. Smith used to commit quite a few turnovers on the fast break, by either trying to do too much, or because he wasn't aware of people coming from behind him to poke the ball away. That, and he's not trying to lead every fast break.

Matter of fact, I'll drop 2 facts: - Hawks are 8 - 4 vs teams below .500 this season. - Nicolas Batum played a TOTAL of 62 minutes in 6 games vs Houston in the playoffs last year.

I watch enough Blazer basketball to know that Batum is about as good of a defensive player as Mo Evans ( if that ). I also know that he's not going to get 25 minutes a night, because he's a one-dimensional player. Please don't talk like this guy is a difference maker. He's not a lockdown defender. He's a better defender than Webster, and maybe slightly better than Outlaw. Before that team was decimated by injuries, Portland was seen as one of the deepest teams in the league ( if not tTHE deepest ). I didn't see anybody on Hawksquawk say . . "we should have a little bit of an easier time against the Blazers, because Nicolas Batum is out." LOL . . . No. People were much more worried about Outlaw, because he's traditionally played like Vince Carter-lite against us. Nicolas Batum . . . . shoot . . . Royal Ivey used to start too, because he was the best defensive option at PG for Woody 4 years ago. This thread will get off-track now, so let me just cite this, and I'm on to a new subject. Let me look it up first for accuracy, and I'll be right back. Nicolas Batum ( shaking my head ) . . . . I guess he's Raja Bell now.

I see what Spotatl is talking about now. Confirmation Bias. Nicolas Batum? Seriously? Nicolas Batum? Wow. I'll let this go after this post. When you bring up Nicolas Batum, it's time to end the discussion. If you're going to use that excuse, you need to excuse the Hawks from losing the New Orleans game and the Knicks game, because we lose Bibby early in New Orleans, and Smoove got ejected in the 2nd quarter of the Knick game, when we were only down 4. I think those two guys would've made a little more difference than Nicolas Batum in a game. I'll also focus on the fact that we're 5 - 2 vs the top 10 teams in the league. We're also 6 - 4 on the road . . . on pace to go 25 - 16 ( which would be the best record in franchise history ). You can focus on the negative if you want. But let me see if I can lock you in on a position. We're 15 - 6 right now. We have 31 games left until the All-Star break. We have an absolutely brutal schedule in January that will really test this team. What record do you want the Hawks to have at the All-Star break? Go ahead and lock in your answer.

We've already done that though . . . with the win @ Boston. Instead of Van Gundy, Jon Barry was teamed with Mark Jones and Mark Jackson. No . . the topic wasn't that we were a pretender. They all believe that we're for real. Even to the point of Jon Barry saying that we all know who the top 4 teams are going to be, and we also know that there won't be any upsets in the first round. Mark Jackson disagreed, citing that Miami could pull off a 1st round upset, strictly because they have Dwyane Wade. The topic now is . . can we be an elite team? They cited the bad losses we had on the road to lesser teams, plus the Knicks loss, as proof that we're not elite yet. LOL . . duh? They definitely believe that we're for real though. Just maybe not good enough to overtake Orlando and Boston. They have Cleveland down on our "level" right now, as the team we have to fight it out for to get the 3rd seed.

Buzz, it's the opposite way. I'm looking at the total picture. But you're the one placing all of this emphasis on the 3 bad losses vs Detroit, New Orleans, and New York. You're the one that's thinking that the Hawks are closer to the team that loses @ Detroit, than the team that wins @ Portland. All of a sudden, with tonight's win, we've won 4 of our last 6, with 2 major blowouts at home, and a grind it out win @ Dallas. Like I told that Ken Strickland guy on the Hawks ajc.com blog, how one views the Hawks, depend on how many games back you want to go. We've won 3 of our last 4 . . . or We've won 4 of our last 6 . . . or We've lost 4 of our last 8 . . . or We've won 6 of our last 10 . . or We've won 8 of our last 12 . . . or We've won 11 of our last 15 . . . or We've won 15 of the 21 games we've played this season Take your pick.

Great post. It's just like the scenario I illustrated in my last post. I think it's no way possible ( unless they completely surprise me ) that this team can win 83% of their games, when scoring 100 or more points. ( edit ) But on the flip side, I don't see us continually failing to break the 90 point barrier against "bad" teams either. I can't see Jersey holding us under 90. . . or Indiana . . or Minnesota. Both scenarios are unlikely in my opinion. The Hawks are somewhere in between that. But they are playing like a team that will win 50+ games. They're beating good teams on the road and are avoiding losing streaks. But they also have brain lapses from time to time. That's a mark of a 50+ win team, but not necessarily a 60+ win team. I didn't know people were expecting the Hawks to be a great team this year though. (/edit) When it comes to Woody, the bar will continually keep getting raised and raised and raised, until we win a title. Then they'll raise it again, expecting us to repeat. People will always find someting to complain about, instead of being satisfied with the overall big picture. But I just don't get why people are using the bad losses as the main characteristic of how the Hawks play, instead of the good wins. If anything, they cancel each other out. Personally, I'm not going to get concerned about this team, until they go on a 3+ game losing streak. I've seen enough out of this team, especially from the core, that they're a mentally tough bunch that doesn't allow themselves to get to high after wins, and too low after losses. And the coach has a lot to do with that mindset.

OK . . if that's how you want to look at it . . fine. We're 1/4th way through the season. Hawks are 4 - 4 ( .500 ) when scoring less than 100 4 * 4 = 16 . . . . 4 * 4 = 16 Hawk projected record when scoring less than 100: 16 - 16 Hawks are 10 - 2 ( .833 ) when scoring 100 or more 4 * 10 = 40 . . . . 4 * 2 = 8 Hawk projected record when scoring 100 or more: 40 - 8 Hawk projected overall record: 56 - 24 ( with 2 games to be added ) So let's say I'll add a win and a loss. Hawk projected record: 57 - 25 ?????? So what's the problem again?