TheNorthCydeRises

Riiiiiiight. Like it has ever been cool to call a black man some sort of an "ape" reference in this country . . . unless he's referring to it on his own. Like there are a ton of Black athletes calling themselves some sort of "ape" to describe themselves. I'm just pointing out the obvious here. Let me ask you this. Why did the name "Kong" all of a sudden pop up when coming up for a nickname for Siler? You could've came up with every other conceivable name other than that. So why "Kong"? I'll let you explain that one. It's a reason why LeBron's "Vogue" cover with Giselle Bundchen last year, stirred up so much controversy. ESPN's Jemele HIll's article on this: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=hill/080320 The Vogue cover, compared to the King Kong poster back in the 1930s. http://blogs.abcnews.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/03/18/abc_king_kong_vogue_080318_mn.jpg So tell me again. Why the name "Kong" for Siler . . . when you could've chosen a plethora of other names to describe a strong dude in the middle? [ Note to the Squawk: I'm not going to drag this on after he answers this post ( if he answers it ). I just want to understand what his mindset was, when the name "Kong" popped into his head to describe Siler. And Brotha, this isn't personal. This is just me stating my objection to what you are calling this big black man. ]

Zaza is the only center with legitimate "center type" size on the team. That's why the Hawks re-signed him. He'll at least body up on people with that size. That's the only appeal that Siler presents to me . . . his size, not his ability.

And he needs to raise that NJSI above a .750 index. Every "shooter" on the Hawks last year was above a .750 index. Crawford came in at .738. Smith was .621. Both guys just need to take the ball to the hole, or lay off the 3-ball, if the shot isn't falling.

That's the hope for Crawford . . that he can pick up the slack when JJ is having an off night. But there's no denying that Crawford is not only a volume shooter, but a streaky shooter at that. And until he starts proving that he can be a consistent shooter, Woody has to limit his minutes according to how well he's shooting. He can't get time, just to be getting time, because his presence on the floor will KILL YOU if his shot isn't going. I want Crawford taking no more than 13 shots a game ( and even that may be too many ). People love referencing that 50 point game @ Charlotte he had last year. But to illustrate just how streaky he really is, they fail to mention that he went 3 - 15 FG for 6 points the night before in Atlanta . . . and 7 - 21 FG for 18 points 2 nights after the Charlotte game in Orlando. He shoots 17-18 FTs in the Charlotte game . . but only shoots a TOTAL of 2 FTs in the ATL and Orlando game combined. He's the poster child for streakyness

If all 3 teams are healthy, we're not overtaking any of them. I fully believe that all three of those will win 62+ games ( along with the Lakers and Spurs ) The max I think we can win, is 55 games ( 50 - 52 games is more realistic ). The Hawks still have to prove that they can consistently beat teams on the road. Right now, I see us maybe winning 20 - 22 road games max, while possibly winning as many as 28 - 33 home games. We need 2 of the 3 youngsters ( Smith, Horford, Marvin ) to develop into highly efficient players. If this happens, the Hawks sholuls just about beat every bad to mediocre team 80% of the time, and beat the good teams at least 50 - 60% of the time. or We need Crawford ro have a career year ( shooting wise, not point wise ). The usual 40% shooting Crawford would still make the Hawks as schizophrenic as ever. A 45% shooting Crawford will have us in good position to at least give that 3rd team a run for its money in the playoffs.

I agree. IF he makes the team, have low expectations for this guy. If he's playing on a nightly basis, it probably means that something is SERIOUSLY wrong with someone on the frontline. Unless he comes right in, and outplays Zaza ( which would still indicate that something is wrong ) And you already know what the argument will be come December: "Siler is in Woody's Doghouse" . . . or . . . "Woody is failing to develop Siler". I do hope the kid makes the team though. His experience is a nice story to tell to all of those top level D-II guys, that may not think they have any shot at playing in the League.

If Siler does make this team, we either need to find out what REAL nickname his friends call him, or have a vote on what his nickname should be. Me myself, I'm not comfortable calling a 7 foot - 300+ pound brotha . . . "Kong". That name is ONLY cool, if he gladly accepts being compared to a large fictional ape. Like the rapper Gorilla Zoe. If he's cool being called "gorilla", then that's one thing. Otherwise, Ima call him Zoe.

( lol . . I knew I shouldn't have ever mentioned Horford ) When I talk about Smith's and Horford's post up, I'm not talking about whose post up is better. I'm strictly talking about HOW and WHERE they post up. When Horford posts up, he usually tries to get in that 10 feet and in area, and makes himself a big enough target to receive the ball. His hand is up and he usally has some body contact with the defender when he catches the ball. You're right about Horford banging into people when he gets the ball in that area, and usually throwing up a tough shot that he probably won't make. He needs a go-to post move of his own, to make him a nore potent threat down om the low block. When Smith "posts up", he usually receives the ball at the elbow of the FT line ( 14 - 18 feet from the basket.. ) On some occasions, his back is back to the basket, and his hand is up to receive the ball . . . so technically, that is a post up. Most of the time though, the Hawks are going through a play, and throw the ball to Smith ( without any resistance ), when he flashes up to the elbow. I guess the major difference, is that when Smith catches the ball that far away from the basket, defenders aren't all up on him when he does turn to face the basket. In fact, they back off of him, hoping that he'll take that 15 - 17 foot jumper that he normally misses. Early in games, he'll almost always shoot the jumpshot from that range. If he misses a few, or if Woody gets onto him, that's when you'll see him start driving the ball to the hole, even when his man backs off of him.

When I think of Smith posting up, I see him catching the ball with his back to the basket . . . .but he's 15 feet away from the basket when he gets the ball. (i.e. - he's in the high post position ). He's not at the desired 10 feet and in, like most true low post players. Once he gets the ball in that area, that's when he turns and faces-up his man, to take him off the dribble . . or shoot the flat-footed jumper. He hardly ever catches the ball down on the low block ( ala a Boozer or an Elton Brand ) If I were to compare Smith's "post-up" to Horford's "post-up", I'd have to vore that Smith doesn't truly "post-up".

Al Harrington ( agree . . . although it's hard to hate on Al, because he does have skills. ) Rudy Gay ( disagree . . . it's not his fault the Grizzlies don't win. Rudy is a baller ) Stephen Jackson ( agree . . . . he had a terrible NJSI last year ) Andrea Bargnani ( agree . . and Raptor fans will hate his contract in year 3 ) Danny Granger ( strongly disagree . . . Granger is the real deal. The rest of his team is just soft as hell. Granger does remind me a lot of Big Dog in his prime though ) David West ( agree . . . David has seemed to fallen off a bit ) Mehmet Okur ( agree . . . he was hurt, but if Okur had Bill Laimbeer's toughness, he'd be the ish ) Richard Jefferson ( disagree . . . I was suprised he did as well as he did without Jason Kidd ) Jamal Crawford ( of course I agree . . . Jamal has been "fool's gold" for a minute now. I just hope he's at least "real silver" for us ) Jermaine O’Neal ( strongly agree . . . JO was garbage last year. He was supposedly the missing piece for Toronto. Then they promptly got rid of his azz ) Charlie Villanueva ( agree . . . he's strictly a scorer, and almost a complete liability on the defensive end ) Jeff Green ( indifferent . . . . Haven't seen enough of Jeff to have an opinion one way or the other ) Richard Hamilton ( disagree . . . they had no business taking him out of the starting lineup, and messing with his minutes ) Thaddeus Young ( disagree . . Thad, for as young as he is, is a nice player ) Michael Beasley ( disagree . . . he should've been starting in the first place. Sit Haslem down, and let Beasley get major minutes )

I hope it's true. It'll be interesting to see what the contract is. But dang . . if it is true, someone beat Sekou to the "tweet"?

A Hawk scrub from the recent past: Obinna Ekezie ( fo-sheezy ) * 6-9 . . 270 lb center from Maryland --- I believe he and Joe Smith were teammates back in the late 90s. * Played on the 2004 - 05 Hawks team that won 13 games . . his last NBA team he played on * Wow . . . he actually started in 31 games * Stats: 5.5 pts 4.3 rebs 43% FG 77% FT 17 min a game I remembered his name, because I actually saw him on CNBC Sunday night, on their special about how Africa could benefit from the global recession. Ekezie owns a travel website that tries to get people to visit African tourist cities/destinations. I think it's called ZEEP. Having said that, this Joe Smith talk is getting a little extreme. I know we need a few more big bodies, but . . . . this is Joe Smith we're talking about . . . not Luis Scola. Joe is technically a bum himself. And he's definitely not the difference in us competing for a top 3 spot in the East. Yeah, it would be nice to add Joe to the squad, but not at an inflated price, and DEFINITELY not for a 3 year deal. I'm even leery about giving him a 2 year deal, seeing that it will potentially take away possible money that we should give to JJ in 2010. If Horford or Smoove gets hurt, Joe isn't going to step in and keep us afloat. We're still are going to miss Al or Josh tremendously. It's Joe friggin Smith we're talking about When Woody talks about adding BIGS, he means big bodies like Zaza. It wouldn't surprise me if we add 2 big scrub centers for one year minimum dealss, if we miss out on Smith.

@ macdaddy: Yeah I know man. Who knew that we fans were that important to the revenue stream of a franchise. I mean, because if the Hawks played in front of an empty arena, we would still be able to spend anything we wanted to get whomever we wanted, because ownership could care less about the profit margin of their franchise. The excuses have to stop for this fan base as a whole, not coming out to support the Hawks like they should on a nightly basis. We win 70 - 75% of our home games. We're 6 - 3 at home in the playoffs the last 2 years. If the fans don't come NOW, they'll never come. And if the fans don't come, the extra revenue that can be generated, won't come either. I don't know the correct numbers, but let's go through a hypothetical scenario. Let's say the Hawks took in 475K a game at the gate, and say a team like Chicago took in 675K at the gate. That's a 200K difference a game. Over the course of a 41 game home season, Chicago would generate 8.2 million dollars more a game than the Hawks, just from ticket sales. And some people don't see the significance in that? People don't think that may be a factor in whether ownership will spend more money or not? As far as the "if you build it, they will come" concept, that's all well and good. But to me, ownership has already proved that they will spend money to improve the team, starting with the move to get Bibby and by matching Smith's offer sheet from Memphis. But the Atlanta fan base is so fickle, that we still lag behind most other teams, when it comes to generating revenue. And the one thing they probably could do to rapidly improve the team ( trade Josh Smith for a veteran impact player ), they won't do, because ownership probably knows that they'd lose 25% of their season ticket holders if they traded him for a person that the fans didn't like ( i.e. - Amare ). *************** @ the board: And let's be completely real about some things. - Joe Smith, or any other scrub big man we add to this team, is NOT keeping us from being contenders in the East. Smith could do nothing with Dwight Howard either. - For us to contend, we need at least 2 of the 3 youngsters ( Smith, Horford, or Marvin ) to improve significantly. For the team's sake, I hope it's Smoove shooting 50%+ FG, grabbing close to 10 boards a game, and has developed at least one go-to post move. - Woody wants BIGS, not a backup PF. If a guy like Joe Smith couldn't play the 5, I doubt we'd be going after him. But Woody would prefer a traditional big, at least the size of Zaza.

With Crawford on the team, he may get even less FGAs in the 4th. Marvin isn't a primary ball handler, so it's only so many ways he can get touches, nor less additional shots: - Woody calls a play for him ( yeah right ) - He gets an offensive rebound - Someone passes to him when open - He gets a steal and goes coast to coast ( ala Smith ) Marvin might get 3 shots in the 4th qtr tops. 4 if the guards are really being pressured on the ball.

@ GrayMule: I've always viewed you like E.F. Hutton. When you typed, I definitely "listened" ( or read ) what you had to say. While most of us are on here constantly arguing about just about everything, you always chime in with a precise and "to the point" assessment of a situation. I appreciate that element that you bring to this board. @ scout: I definitely agree with you, from the "passionate fan's" perspective. I think we'd all love to have a Mark Cuban-like owner, who would be willing to spend anything to put a good or great product on the floor. Cuban doesn't mind one bit overpaying for players. But Scout, your response is exactly why I posted the Hawks 2-year home record of 62 - 27. Last year alone, we were a 33 - 12 ballclub at home. So winning 70 - 75% of our home games isn't enough? We have to beat all of the top level teams at home also, before people start consistently going to the home games? If that's the case . . . we just can't blame ownership for not investing what they can into the team. We fans must take part of the blame. While this team is highly inconsistent on the road, they've been damn good at home for 2 years now. I think it's time for our fan base to stop acting like we're entitled to have a "winner", and start acting like a fan base that is going to be behind their team, no matter what. It's an argument I've made on here before, so I won't go all the way back into it. But it's kind of hypocritical for Hawks fans as a whole, to expect management to do everything possible to put a winner on the floor . . when the fan base as a whole still didn't manage to support the team enough to get us out of the bottom 5 in the league, when it came to ticket sales. 75% home winning percentage last year, still yielded those revenue numbers? That may be the reason why they're not willing to overpay for non-essential guys.

I think we fans need to start looking at this from the business side of the equation. We keep saying "why don't the Hawks do like the other teams, and spend some money on pieces that will make us more complete"? The more I think about this, the more I believe . . ."why should they?" I'll repeat this stat again, in case others didn't see it in past threads. In the past 2 seasons, including the playoffs, the Hawks are 62 - 27 at HOME. That's a 70% winning percentage. Yet, the Hawks . . . - gave away an average of over 5600 FREE TICKETS away each game, the most by any team. - took in less than $500K a game at the gate, which put us in the bottom 5 of the entire league So my thing is . . . if the Hawks can't get the type of fan support that you see in Denver, Cleveland or even Sacramento, why should the ownership spend as much money as they can, to improve the product? We all talk about a few MEASLEY millions of dollars, like that isn't mich money. LOL . . but it really is though. If the Hawks pay a guy like Siler a minimum rookie deal, to play 0 - 10 minutes a game . . . should they also pay a Joe Smith 2 million to also play 0 - 10 minutes a game? The fans say YES . . it's ONLY a 2 - 3 million investment in 2 big-sized players. But the owners may be like . . "hold up, you fans want us to spend 3 million on guys who may or may not help us . . but some of you won't even go to the games to help our revenue numbers?" It could be that tight financially, or that petty of a situation here folks. The lack of game revenue is keeping ownership from spending money the way that the fans want them to spend it. I think the Hawks have a set in stone, payroll number that they want to operate at for next season. Exceeding that number is out of the question. I think they may have tried to negotiate a deal with Marvin that definitely paid him less than 8 mill a year. In fact, I bet the deal they tried to negotiate with him, paid him less than his QO of next year. And even if they did offer him an 8 mill per deal, I bet the first 2 years pays him less than the QO ( 6 mill - 7 mill - 8 mill - 9 mill - 10 mill ). So now they may be in a situation in which they may reluctantly match an offer in that price range for Marvin, but still aren't willing to go over their designated payroll operating number. All of these things are probably coming into play, when we talk about even signing scrub big men. The ASG are probably pinching pennies as we speak. We just don't have the revenue stream that some of these other teams have. LOL . .and all of this is just a prelude for the REAL big decision that the ASG needs to make within the next 6 - 12 months. And that is what to do with the guy that is most responsible for putting the Hawks back on the NBA map . . . Joe Johnson.

That 6 - 7% difference is actually quite huge. It's the difference between being a horrible shooter from 3 point range, and an average shooter from that distance. It's like comparing a 50% shooter to a 43% shooter. It won't be easy at all for that 43% shooter to raise his shooting % to 50%. A 30% shooter from that range is a highly inconsistent and pretty horrible shooter. A guy like that may go 1 - 1 . . miss 7 in a row . . then go 2 - 2. You need to check out my jumpshot ratings system I created in a thread I did last month entitled "The Northcyde Jumpshot Index". It gives information on the so-called jumpshooters in this league, and gives an index number to measure their jumpshooting overall. While KB21 and most of Hawksquawk may not agree of how I came up with the ( NJSI ), the index accurately measures who are the great, average, and bad shooters in this league. And of course, when I did a measurement of Josh Smith's jumpshooting, his index number stuck him in the HORRIBLE category of shooters. Basically, Smith needs to play exactly how people would play with him on a video game . . . almost strictly around the rim. Ain't nobody shooting a lot of jumpshots or 3s with Smith, when they play NBA 2K or NBA Live.

If we're using this data set that the thread starter presented, these are Marvin's numbers: 16.3 ppg ( is what I came up with ) 6.2 rebs 1.5 asst 0.8 blks 0.6 stls 46.3% FG 37.9% 3FG 85.1% FT Very interesting numbers. I wonder what his PER and TENDEX numbers would be, with these stats? Marvin is just consistent as hell. Nothing real spectacular . . just consistent. He had 2 games in that stretch in which he scored less than 10 points and 6 games in which he scores 20 points or more. If I do have one major criticism of Woody, it's how the emphasis has seemed to be put to make Josh Smith a key offensive player, instead of Marvin. Josh has more of the desire to be great more than Marvin, there's no question about that. But as an offensive player, Marvin is the one with possibly more talent and skill to blossom into a good offensive option. I keep going back to Andrei Kirilenko when describing Smith, but I think that comparison is correct. If Josh doesn't develop an inside game, or completely abandon his jumper, he's never going to get much better than he is right now. As much as people want to believe it, Smith will NEVER be a good jumpshooter ( i.e. - hit 40% of his jumpshots ) So in my mind, the guy to try to develop has always been Marvin, because he can play a perimeter wing position, and the post position ( high or low post ), although his post came is definitely as shaky as Smith's and Horford's at times. LOL . . with Marvin being compared to Deng, it's mighty interesting to see what happened to Deng, once the Bulls added Rose. His numbers dropped across the board, even before the season-ending injury. Instead of the #2 option that he's been for the past 3 years ( and he was the #2 option folks ), he pretty much became the #3 option. With Gordon now gone, he should go back being the #2 option, with Rose being "the man". Deng's numbers should rise because of Gordon's absence.

I was in the same camp as JohnnyBravo 2 years ago about getting Curry. I was all for trading Speedy and Chill, for Curry, so we could add a scoring big man to the mix. Ironically, money wise, it would've had virtually the same effect as us trading Speedy and Law Crawford. So would I rather have Crawford for Curry? No, because Curry is nowhere near the 16 - 20 ppg, 50+ percent FG scorer that he was 3 years ago. But if he were halfway motivated, and was a 12 ppg scorer that still shot 50+ percent . . . definitely.

This will be a good experience for him. From what you described, it seemed as if he started to make "energy" type plays in the 2nd half, which is his strength. I wonder if the coaches told him the same type of things that Woody always tell him, in order for him to play more under control. If those coaches tell him the same things that Woody has told him for the past 5 years, maybe he'll realize that Woody was telling him right all along.

Overall, Hak is a better player than Joe Smith. If the Hawks do plan to run more, Hak would be an ideal backup PF to add to this team. Unfortunately, Hak is good enough to garner attention from other teams that nay be either better than us, or more. So that means that we'd either have to overpay a little for him to get him. ( sigh ) It's like I've been telling you guys. Marvin is essentially the 4th big man on this team. I just hope Memphis doesn't het a little froggy, and offer Marvin a sizeable deal to try to steal him from us. If they do, things will get very interesting around here.

All I know, is that in the Laker game, Gasol and Odom totally punked this entire frontline. I believe they jumped all over us in the 2nd qtr when Odom was in the game w/the 2nd unit. As for Smith not getting any rebounds, well . . . when you don't box anybody out and don't play any defense, I think Odom had like 17 rebounds and Gasol had a triple-double. I think Horford affects Smith's rebounding a little, but with Smith's athletic ability, he should be a 10 rpg guy anyway. But he'd rather try to "perfect" his jumper, than to be a relentless crasher of the boards . . ala what an undersizeed Shawn Marion used to do. Even if Smith is out on the perimeter, he still can crash the boards. He just doesn't do it like he should. Most of the offensive rebounds the Hawks give up, are almost always because of someone not boxing their man out. And most of the time, it's #5. Play Smith at the 3, and his rebounds would even be lower, because he won't crash the offensive boards, and properly box out on the defensive end. If Horford being on the floor hampers Smith's rebounding, then he should stop assuming that Horford will get every rebound.

I had a feeling on what this question was about, but I thought it was going to be for all the coaches. If you're only focusing on the East, and you take Brown and Doc off the list, I'm definitely taking Woody vs the field. The only other coach in the "field" that has been with their team longer than Woody, is Lawrence Frank. I wonder what the average salary of "the field" is?

That team would easily lose 50 games. They'd look similar to those Clipper teams that used to be stocked with lottery picks, but no vet players. Unless you had 3 very consistent vets to bring off the bench to support those young guys, they'd get beat at least 3 times a week in the NBA.

That's the Smoove I want to see. The one that runs the wing out on the break, instead of being the main ball handler on the break. Ummmm . . . unless he has a future hall of famer in his path: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAB2IbWpPnA