Packfill

I am no expert, but Bogut did not appear to me to be as athletic as Duncan. He reminds me of Brad Dougherty - good center who can score, rebound, pass and generally plays intelligent basketball. Dougherty was not a great center though in comparison to his more athletic contemporaries like Hakeem, Ewing, and Robinson. That does not mean I would not take him first, just that he is not a prospect in the class of a Robinson, Ewing, Hakeem, Shaq, etc. Dougherty was a number 1 pick I believe.

I never would have pegged you as a Bogut supporter.

I would much rather give Al Harrington that contract. He is the better player. I think Harrington works better at forward with Josh Smith because they are both tweener types and thus can be rotated defensively depending on match-ups. Yes the Hawks can run plays for Al, which is a good thing because they do not have anyone else they run plays for. Also, given how well Josh Smith and Josh Childress rebound, does it really matter if Al is a great rebounder? The real weak point is center, so I rather spend 8-10 million on a Dalembert then 7 on Swift.

I agree completely. Swift is just not tough enough to warrant a large contract.

I don't think it is a stretch to say Deron Williams should be a top 5 pick. He would be a great fit on the Hawks.

So Roko Leni-Ukic is no longer in the draft?

Most mocks and fans had Josh Smith in the top 10 last year. The year before that they had Sophocles Shortsinidis (I apologize for the spelling) as a lottery pick.

If the Hawks don't get the first pick then I rather they just pick the point guard they think is best at 2, whether that is Paul or Williams. Both will likey be gone by the 4th pick, which means the Hawks would be left to sift through alot of questionable talents.

I just read that for the month of April Smoove has averaged 15.1 points, 9.2 rebounds and 2.2 blocks. I agree, Swift would be an incredible waste of money.

He is listed in several places as 6'9" and 225 punds, which is the same size Josh Smith is listed at. How can he possibly play center for the Hawks? Swift has never been able to beat out Lorenzen Wright to start in Memphis. Lorenzen is not a bad player, but certainly not a game changer. Given Swift's injury history, lack of basketball intelligence, reported lack of toughness, I cannot see any reason to waste $6+ million on the guy - especially when Josh Smith is already better.

Well, I think Woodson is trying to cover up the fact that the Hawks have a few players who are defensive liabilities. I also think, for the zone to work, the Hawks players need to be more active. A couple times Diaw or Josh Smith would not get out to cover the wing after a cross-court pass.

Does Swift bring anything to the table that Josh Smith does not already provide? Just seems to me that Josh Smith is already the better player, they offer similar athletic ability and are about the same size. Sure it is nice to have depth but I rather have a slightly different player in Al Harrington to provide different looks to the opposition.

We should probably wait until after the draft lottery to spill each others blood over who will be the better pick. I think if the Hawks get the first pick, then Bogut makes the most sense. If the Hawks end up with the second or third pick, then Paul or Deron Williams make the most sense.

Quote: You still got to watch the games... Not the stats... 7.6 rebs... Low. Yes.. But watch the game. This guy controls the middle. Watch the games. This guy intimidates. Watch the games. This guy has good post moves. Watch the games. This guy gets good position for rebounding. Watch the games. There is nothing soft about him. Watch the damn games... First off, let me say that I agree with you in that I think Frye will be drafted in the middle of the first round, as he is an athletic big man with a proven track record. I also would be ecstatic coming away from the draft with Williams and Frye. That said, comparing him to Mourning is a mistake. Calling him a dominator is a mistake. He absolutely does not intimidate like Mourning, not even close. Frye is a good player, and may be a good pro, but his upside is along the lines of a P.J. Brown or Antonio Davis, not Alonzo.

We can't defend the three because the zone the Hawks play is useless. They need to man up.

I was at the game. Entertaining, but there was absolutely zero defense played by either team the entire game. The zone the Hawks play is awful and constantly results in open jumpers. That said, the Hawks young players do show tremendous promise. Childress seems to do a little of everything and always seems to be in the right place. I would attribute that to his strong basketball IQ - he just knows how to play the game, get good positioning, and when to cut to the basket. Diaw is incredibly smooth on the court. His shot was not falling tonight (even still he ended up with 20 points) but his form is excellent and it really should just be a matter of repitition in the off-season for him. Once he consistently zeros in he will be a solid shooter. Josh Smith is a freaky athlete. Clearly he was the top athlete on the court last night. He did make a couple of nice post moves in the seond half and his jumper does not look to bad. What he really needs to work on is driving to the hoop and dribbling. I thought Lue played fairly well, and he would make a nice back-up, but he does not have the creativity that you want at the point guard position - a good point guard can go a long way towards creating easy scoring opportunities for his teammates, and Lue does not do that. He just does not have great floor vision - Childress and Diaw are better at seeing the court in my opinion. He can score some, but that is about it. Ivey, also does not seem to have that innate passing ability that good point guards have. He also would be a good back-up because he shows signs of being a very good defender off the bench. It was a tough game to really evaluate players because of the lack of defense, but I think the Hawks are stockpiling some good talent that will help them win in the years to come.

I don't think it is very easy finding a true franchise point guard. To me the two best points guards in the league are Kidd and Nash based on the impact they have on their teamates level of play. If the Hawks think Paul or Deron Williams have that type of ability, then by all means I am behind drafting them ahead of Bogut. I think Bogut will be good but he does not strike me as a franchise maker in the O'Neil or Duncan sense, or even a dominant presence along the lines of Patrick Ewing, Alonzo Mourning, David Robinson or Hakeem. I only saw a few of Bogut's games but he did not, to my untrained eye, exhibit the defensive presence that the aforementioned centers did at the college level, at that defensive presence is what made them all so good. Ewing, Robinson, Mourning, etc. scared people in a way that Bogut does not do.

Living in NY I get to see precious few Hawks games either live or on TV. I got an e-mail this morning from my boss' assistant offering me and a co-worker two tickets each for Sunday's Knick game, basically as a thank you for working on a big project. I have not been to a Knicks game all year - I am not a big fan of their product right now - so a free ticket 6 rows from the court sounded good to me. I have not been paying close attention to the schedule but when I got the tickets, low and behold, the game is against the hawks. I finally get to see Childress and Smith live.

What has Childress done that would deserve sending him to the bench? Childress is a rookie, and will improve, so I don't see the need to bring in a two guard to start over him.

Jackson is a good player, but he has horrendous shooting percentages even on a team with other offensive weapons.

Harrington is a starting forward on most teams in the league. Whether he is power forward or small forward is not as big an issue as whether a player is a "point" guard or not. I also don't think he has to be compensated for on the defensive end. If the Hawks had a point guard who could at least slow down drives into the paint and a center who was not invisible Harrington's defense is not a great liability. I don't think Al is a superstar by any means but he is a solid player who, coupled with Smith and Childress, provides the Hawks with a nice young foundation upon which to build.

I agree with you. Everyone wants to run off Al. I like him. I think the Hawks can be very successful with Childress, Smoove and Harrington starting at the 2, 3 and 4 - regardless of which actual position each plays. The key obviously is bringing a decent center and quality point guard. For this reason I am leaning towards hoping the Hawks draft the best point guard available - whether that be Williams or Paul.

This will be an interesting off-season for the Hawks. Currently in the NBA there does not seem to be one single formula for success. Teams like the Lakers and now the Heat are successful because they have a truly dominant big man and a multi-talented athletically gifted wing. That is an impossible forumla to copy because Shaq is one of a kind. The same could be said of the Spurs with Duncan. Only difference being that instead of a truly great wing they have a collection of players that fill out the picture. Detroit, is an interesting paradigm in that there is no one dominant player. Ben Wallace is the closest but his dominance is somewhat limited in that he brings little to the table offensively. That said, his defensive prowess certainly allows the team to succeed without a true superstar offensive weapon. The Pistons are a well coached, opportunistic team that gets contributions from multiple sources, but really everything revolves around defense. Phoenix this year, and the Nets in years past thrive because of the brilliance of their point guards. Make no mistake, Nash and Kidd unquestionably elevate their teammates level of play. Both teams have talented athletes on the wings, but the point guard play sets the tone for those teams. So you have three pasic paradigms of success - truly dominant big man, defensive team approach or truly gifted pass-first oriented point guard. In the draft, at this point the top two to three picks are likely Bogut and Deron Williams and Chris Paul, if he is in the draft. Bogut certainly looks to be an excellent center prospect, question is - is he a dominant big man or just a very good big man? Is he more Duncan or more Brad Miller/Z. Ilglauskas? Is Deron Williams or Chris Paul a Jason Kidd or Steve Nash type point guard? If Bogut is considered the next Duncan, you take him, no questions asked. If not, then you get to the question of how good are Williams and Paul. If either is a Kidd/Nash, you take that player. If neither is at that level, then you are back to Bogut even if he is not the next Duncan.

I like him alot as a prospect, but I don't think he is a defensive monster in the making. Okafor was a defensive monster in the making at UConn, but he is still working on that at the NBA level. He does have some nice skills, excellent athleticism and good size.

Lindros at the time was considered a once in a lifetime prospect, Bogut is not. I highly doubt any player would refuse to come to Atlanta. Infact, Atlanta would likely be an attractive destination for many because of its new south cosmopolitan vibe. Heck, if someone is willing to go to Cleveland, Detroit, Milwaukee, Charlotte, New Orleans, Toronto, or Memphis they are going to be willing to go to Atlanta.