Packfill

Quote: Quote: Is it wrong to want the team to actually be a good basketball team? I didn't realize I needed to turn my fan-card in because I wanted the Hawks to succeed and and was not allowed to criticize the organization for the mistakes it has made in the rebuilding process. You can criticize the coaches, the organization, and the players all you want. But don't let your support of the team diminish because they make a move that you don't like or keep a coach that you hate. There are fans on this board that will flat out stop following the Hawks if we traded or didn't re-sign Josh Smith. Their fan loyalty should be to the TEAM, not just one particular player. I think Diesel pointed this out one time when discussing why Marvin should be moved. JJ is my favorite player. I'll be pizzed if JJ isn't given an extension sometime next year, but that will in no way, shape, or form affect how passionte i am about the Hawks. I'm just And you see that so often in sports. People becoming fans of a player, the the team. But once the player leaves, they don't like the team anymore. All of those Celtic fans came from the dead this year. Having spent a good deal of time in Boston I can assure you that there are many more die hard Celtics fans then Hawks fans, so to suggest they came "from the dead" this year is a gross mischaracterization. Obviously the more casual fan is going to be drawn to a more successful team, but that is true of every village, town and city in the country. It is also naive to think that poor decisions by management that result in a poor product on the floor would not have an impact on the zeal of the fan base. It is no fun to go to games where the team is just going through the motions.

Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: We have Josh Smith ..What other pf do we have???Horford plays center, and David Andersen has not signed with the Hawks. Solomon Jones He's a scrub . There's a reason why people don't like when Woody sits Smith and Horford a long time when they get early fouls.It's because our backup big men stink. The reason is Zaza... not Solo. If Solo play more than 4 mins/game, then you can justify he's a scrub... but until then you are just talking out of your ass. If a player doesn't produce on this team playing 4 mins/game, doesn't mean he's a scrub. If the coach know how to use him, he'll be our Jason Maxille by now. Sometimes, the fact that a player does not get any playing time is a due to the fact that the player is a "scrub," particularly when that player is not getting minutes on a big-man needy team. I am not saying Solo is a "scrub," because Woody is a mitigating factor, but so far there is little evidence to suggest he deserves significant minutes.

That is just stupid.

Quote: Now we were supposed to be a 45 win team, let some tell it. If we would've won 41 games, people would be whining about how we didn't win 50 games. At the beginning of the season, making the playoffs was the goal. Being competitive was also a goal. Now, those things don't matter because we only won 37 games and "backed" into the playoffs? The playoff run doesn't matter, because the best team in the league blew us out in Game 7? We win 11 of 16 games before we finally clinch the berth, yet, we backed in because we couldn't win road games against the people desperately trying to catch us? Get the (( bleep )) out of here! Coach, I'm glad that guys like you and Swat said that you'll continue to support the team, regardless of who is the coach. That is my postion as well. I wouldn't be overjoyed to see Woody back, and not a high caliber coach like Avery Johnson. But I'm not going to pout like a (( bleepin )) 4-year old and act like we couldn't possibly have a successful season with Woody at the controls. For all of you "fans" that claim that you will not support the team as much, if Woody is retained, YOU CAN AND WILL BE EASILY REPLACED ! Just like a longtime season ticket holder last season, who was so unsatisfied of the progression of the Hawks, that he didn't buy season tickets last year. He still may have attended Hawks games, but i wonder how many of our 25 HOME WINS + 3 PLAYOFF HOME WINS did he witness live last year? He felt that his time and money would be better off doing other things, which is his choice. But his impatience as a fan may have led him to miss out on the great home campaign we had last year. JackB complains, but didn't the Hawks win almost everytime you watched them at Philips? Frog won't get season tickets if Woody comes back. Well, rest assured, someone will get your tickets, and you'll miss out on seeing this team win 25 - 30 home games next year. Let some people talk, this team is going to go on the decline next year. Even if we win 43 games and get a #5 seed in a bad Eastern conference, that won't be enough . . even if we beat the #4 seed in the playoffs. Every fan of this team should be geeked up about the Hawks and our future, especially ifwe retain the core guys and add a few good bench players. Yet, mo-fos fully expect other teams to just pass us by like a broken down car on the interstate, because Woody is supposed to be sooooooooooooooooooooooooo horrible. Please. So Coach, Swat, Dol, and others . . . let those cats act like fairweather fans. Let them act like because we're not good enough to compete for a title yet, thst they shouldn't waste their time rooting for the Hawks next year. Those types of fans can and will be easily replaced. And they'll be right back in the fold, if we start consistently winning games. I'll personally put plastic over their seat on the Hawks bandwagon, until they return. Is it wrong to want the team to actually be a good basketball team? I didn't realize I needed to turn my fan-card in because I wanted the Hawks to succeed and and was not allowed to criticize the organization for the mistakes it has made in the rebuilding process.

Quote: I'd like to throw Allen Iverson out there for consideration among the best athletes. His athleticism is what has allowed him to be a huge star at a severe disadvantage due to his height. He is an incredible athlete. I agree with Iverson. His quickness is just amazing. I will say this about "best athlete," it is hard to pick one guy since there are alot of things that go into the equation. Joe Johnson, for example, is not a very sudden or explosive athlete, but his body control and coordination are what make him such a good player. Kobe has more raw atheltic ability then Joe and he has that body control which makes him so much fun to watch - just so smooth. Josh Smith can jump out of the gym but just does not have the control that other guys have. I still think Jordan is the best athlete I have seen play basketball. He had such a great comnination of explosiveness, quickness, coordination, strength and fearlessness that it will take someone truly extraordinary to knock him off the top spot.

If Sund retains Woody then I will become immediately skeptical of his abilities and question whether Gearon is really running the place.

Has anyone compared Eric Gordon to DWade? Seems like they are the same size and Gordon has similar athletic ability? I haven't seen enough of him to tell.

Quote: Quote: There was a post a few months ago that showed how Al's numbers stacked up against some of the best bigs rookie years, Al was right there with all of them in terms of points, boards and blocks, I will try to find it when I have some time. Your assertion about Melo is certainly your choice, but for me a guy that wilts under pressure and causes off-court issues is worth less than a consistent post player, all other things being equal. Furthermore, I think I am reading your question differently than you intended. If you are only referencing this year's statistics, then yes, Melo is a better scorer than Al. In terms of defense and boards, Al is better. However, I am thinking more in terms of potential careers. Al, to me, has a significantly brighter future than Melo, unless Melo toughens up mentally and stops getting into bad situations off the court. I agree with this completely. Melo's personality and off-court problems knock him off my list, despite all his talent and great scoring ability. And whenever I see him, I always get this sneaking feeling/idea/question of- has this guy already maxed-out as a player? Is this as good as he'll ever be? I don't know why I even wonder about that- but I do. I put Horford on my list for the same reason as I put Al Jefferson, because I think their future potential is enormous as young, intelligent and motivated, highly talented, high character, tenacious defending, physical as hell, bruiser type big men. I will take those kind of players every day. They are extremely valuable to me. Jefferson shot a cool 50% from the field and put up 21/12 for an absolutely terrible team, and he's only 23. He's freaking awesome, and not that many people seem to realize that. If you are going to include Horford and Jefferson don't you also have to include Andrew Bynum, since he is younger then both and but up better numbers then Horford?

Quote: Is that what this is about? Second guessing damn never every single person that said Marvin was the best player in the draft and should be the Hawks pick? It's funny that nobody seems to remember saying that Felton would be the better of the PGs or that Paul was too small, Deron would be too slow, etc. Now everyone makes it seem like they were all screaming for Paul, but a simple search on here back to 05 shows that is complete BS. We should change the tag line for this place to "The Essential Messageboard for Select Memory Fans of the Atlanta Hawks". I disagree.

Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: The people giving Woody an F are just haters. Please define "hater". I don't hate the man. I don't even know him. I do hate the fact that he's our coach. I hate the fact that he can only muster 37 wins. I hate the fact that he has no "B" game plane. I hate the fact that his "A" game plan rarely works. I hate the fact that we are a young team who still manages to get very little "experience". I hate the fact that he thinks he is above working on anything himself. How can he expect his players to improve and work on things when he isn't even able to acknowledge some of his own flaws? I didn't GIVE him an F because I'm a hater, he EARNED the F because he is the worst coach in the NBA as of this post. So how many games should we have won this year? I don't think 47 was an unreachable number. The way the East panned out and the fact that our injury bug moved on AND taking the Eastern Champs to 7 games I think 45+ was reachable. Please don't ask if that's the number I thought of at the beggining of the year because that has absolutly nothing to do with me grading Woody based on this year and what I saw. Plus I don't really remember what I might of guessed. Why don't you tell me why we will win more than 37 next year with the same squad and same coaches? I know going by BK's "plan" that should put us around 42 wins. So, I'll buy that. Should be a fine year. Wow. Just wow. We're now a team that were supposed to win 45+ games? That's living in fantasy land my friend. To do that, we'd either have to have been one of the best home teams in the league by winning 32+ home games ( with one of the weakest crowds in the league, until the playoffs started ) . . or . . we'd have to become a .500 team on the road. We weren't equipped to do neither of those things this year. I started a thread at the beginning of the season entitled, "Can the Hawks win 25 home games". The 25 home win mark is usually the magic number for reaching the playoffs. I looked back over about an 8 - 10 year period. And around 80% - 85% of the teams that won 25 home games, got into the playoffs. So my theory was if we could win 25 home games, and 16 road games, that those 41 wins should get us in the playoffs. This year, we got those 25 home wins, but only 12 on the road. And how convienent that NOW the 3 home wins vs the Celtics matter, when most discount them as just the Hawks playing way over their heads because of the crowd. Forget that boston was the best road team in the league up until that series with us. Those wins matter, unless you're trying to make a case for Woody, then they don't matter. The difference next year, if we keep this team intact, should be the matuation of our young players and at least a little stability AND TALENT at the point and center spot for the first time since we had Mookie and Deke. The wild card for us may be Andersen, and how Woody integrates him into the rotation IF Andersen's game can make the transition to NBA level. As for Woody and his coaching, he'll continue to do the things that he needs to do in order for us to win games: - emphasizng defense and especially rebounding - properly defining roles for our main rotation guys - motivating the team at all times, even when things go bad - continuing the offensive development of Josh Smith, something he gets absolutely no credit for, but should, because it was his idea to establish him as the 2nd offensive option and play him at the 4. - hopefully becoming better with in-game adjustments, especially on offense. That has already become a little better with bibby at the helm ( minus his performance in the playoffs ) How many games did Portland win? They have a younger team then the Hawks.

I think LeBron, Dwight and CP3 have to make any list, after that you need to make a choice between Deron, Bosh, Wade and Anthony. Obviously the younger guys are at a disadvantage, particularly rookies Horford and Durant.

Who are the five best players to enter the NBA in the past 5 years (so 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 drafts):

Quote: it's very simple to me: Although we needed a point, we were still in the stage where we didnt know what we had..we didnt have JJ, and we didnt know how smooth and chill were going to develop...we were STILL at the point of obtaining talent. People act as if we were a complete club and all we needed was that point guard. And that was not the case. Sure we needed a point guard. But also we needed a center (remember many people hoping Bogut would fall?). And we also needed a SG. But what we needed more than anything, was talent. What is it that Walter always says about talent. We needed to get real superstar talent in here. And MOST thought Marvin was that player. 8 our of 10 GMs (maybe 9 actually) would have made the same call. So I have never felt that BK should have been bashed for that call, especially since players drafted below others consistently come and outperform. Those things happen. HOWEVER if you want to be realistic about what BK should be bashed for, it was the Shelden pick. That pick was horrendous because noone would have done it, it was really a boneheaded pick, made even dumber by the promise. You do NOT promise a player when you are going to pick him several slots higher than ANYONE thinks he'll go. Even if you think he is a lock and you are definitely going to draft him, you don't promise him. Because when you do that, you not only tip off other GMs but more importantly, YOU CEMENT YOUR OWN OPINION ON WHO YOU WILL PICK. Anyone could come into a workout and blow folks away but at that point you have already become defensive towards other opinions and are not going to be open-minded. BK should be bashed for that pick. But not for the Chris Paul pick. The problem is the Hawks couldn't find out what they had in Smith and Childress until obtaining a decent point guard. That is part of the reason why they are still figuring out what those two guys bring to the table and how best to utilize them.

Quote: Well, I pretty much have to agree with what you're saying sturt. No one predicted that Chris Paul would come in and quickly become a top 5 player in the association. ALL the talk going into the draft was about Bogut and Williams, who most people though were can't-miss. This is despite exodus pulling the most positive things said about Chris Paul and putting up the most negative things said about MWill before the draft. DraftExpress did turn out to be insightful, but they were hardly the only source in the world. I don't think anyone talked about Bogut and Marvin as can't miss prospects in the same way people talked about Oden and Durant last year, or will talk about Beasley and Rose.

You could argue that BK undervalued the point guard position throughout his tenure with the Hawks, forcing him to draft law this year and subsequently trade for Bibby.

Milwaukee doesn't get as much of a bad rap in the 2005 draft because they didn't have a desperate need for a point guard like the Hawks and they didn't draft two small forwards in the first round of the 2004 draft. That much is obvious.

Quote: Quote: Even had Paul been drafted, he wouldn't have fallen under this point, Dies... he'd be another name under #3. Sure, Paul has arguably turned out to be an elite player, but if anyone was predicting that at the time, they weren't part of any consensus. Among those who wanted BK to draft Paul or Deron Williams, most were only looking for BK to fill a need with a good player, not as if Paul or Williams were going to become elite players. But BK wasn't looking to fill a need, especially with all of those predicting great big things for MWill. If Billy didn't get the best player out of this deal, he failed at his job. It doesn't matter what anybody here says, we are not paid to be a GM and our job is not to figure out the best player. That's Billy's JOB and he failed. Period. Okay, FIRST, for this particular line of conversation under the heading of this post, let's not let the point get lost so soon after it was made... Paul was not regarded as an elite player, therefore, thinking in retrospect--since that is what one must to do in order to stay on topic and thus be relevant to THIS thread--even had BK chosen the player that most considered to be a #3-#5 pick for this draft, it is clear that, by the measure of ALL who did not have Paul as the number one pick on their list, PAUL WOULD HAVE MET THE CRITERIA FOR #3 IN THIS PLAN, not #2. Therefore... if BK had chosen Paul, it would have been indicative that BK felt like he had built up enough core talent assets, and could now move on to addressing the holes in the roster. It could be argued, then, that BK's mistake was in failing to recognize that he had enough core talent assets on the roster already, and could have went ahead to address the roster's remaining needs. SECOND... what Hotlanta reveals to us is valid. GMs are paid to be perfect... and when they aren't, they receive the criticism they deserve. Paul was regarded as an elite prospect. There are multiple primary sources that evidence he was regarded as one of the top point guard prospects to come along in years.

So Beasley will be about the same size as Josh Smith? Josh Smith measured 6'7" without shoes.

Wow, Alonzo Mourning had a 7'6" wingspan. Shaq was 7'7". Crazy.

Quote: When the cornerstones of your franchise are 22, loaded with potential, and play inside - you are well ahead of the rest of leauge. Name another team that can state the same???? Its like having Brand and Morning right before the erupt - except on the same team boys! Well, Portland has Aldridge and Oden.

Here is the question though, why couldn't the Hawks and Grant agree to a contract? This article suggests he was the first choice (scary as that may be). Was the inability to get a contract due to financial/economic considerations (salry/number of years) or other issues (authority, etc.)?

Quote: Yep. The Joe Johnson deal should be a black mark on Bryan Colangelo's resume. The Suns got very little for Joe Johnson in that deal. Well, the Suns have not yet been hurt in the win column so it is hard to feel too bad for the Suns. The Suns problem remains interior toughness and JJ wasn't going to provide that.

Quote: http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=team...ype=team_report Quote: After 30-plus years in the NBA, new Hawks general manager Rick Sund can appreciate a situation where a team hatches a plan to rebuild a franchise and actually sees it through. That’s why he wasn’t at all shy about voicing his desire to Hawks ownership to continue that process as Billy Knight’s replacement. It took nearly three weeks, since his interview, and the last minute breakdown of negotiations with another candidate, Cleveland’s Chris Grant, before it actually happened. But now that he has the job, Sund is eager to get started. “They stayed with the plan,” Sund said. “From ownership to Billy to the coaches to everyone involved. They stayed with the plan. There are highs and lows in the process. And you’re not totally there yet. But you love to see that type of progress.” Something to chew on for those who consider the whole idea that BK had a plan to be wishful thinking... another person--in this instance, someone who has been an outside observer and whose opinion ought to count for something-- gets it, in spite of the highs and lows in the process that others irrationally focus upon. And don't tell me he was patronizing his new employer... the man could have said all kinds of positive things and accomplished that, without saying this. Plus, there's no indication that he's the disingenuous type. Now what was "the plan?" I can't quote anyone, but the puzzle of what was intended just isn't (and hasn't been) that hard to put together. 1. Dismantle the old team, get as far below the cap as possible, and grin-and-bear-it while your team naturally accumulates high draft picks... pick up other draft picks and young free agents as opportunities present themselves. DONE... the part of the plan that no one has ever disputed. 2. Identify a young player, either through the draft or free agency, whose talent you evaluate as being the kind that you can build a franchise around. Be aggressive in obtaining that person. If the opportunity presents itself, identify a second player who plays the opposite post from the first, and take the same course of action. DONE... JJ... and then, there was a hot pursuit to acquire the pick to get Dwight Howard... however, the second player never really came to fruition according to plan. 3. Draft, at first, with the idea of accumulating assets more than accumulating assets at particular positions; draft for the long term, not the short; be as content to go with the player with a lower ceiling if, in your evaluation, the higher ceiling candidates also have a higher potential to bust. Always take 2nd round picks seriously and do your homework. Be careful in free agency... only obtain young players on the cheap who appear to have a future but have somehow fallen through the cracks. DONE... Diaw, Childress, Smoove, MWill, ZaZa... and Ivey, Salim, and Solomon. 4. At the point where the asset base seems to have mostly accumulated, use the draft and free agency to fill-in around the primary assets you've gained. DONE... though certainly with some substantive lows... Shellhead and Speedy... to go along with the apparent highs... Horford and Law 5. Keep the primary assets together as best you can, with a mind toward developing a higher level of chemistry than can otherwise be developed. DONE... WITH CAVEATS... until the acquisition of Bibby, the roster was essentially without significant turnover through the BK years... and of course, the great thing about the Bibby trade is that none of the core assets of the roster were affected... but, of course, the caveat is that it is NOW that we get to find out if #5 remains intact. Now.... Whether any particular poster here agrees with my presentation of the facts here (sure to be a handful, but I'm not kidding myself as-if the majority concurs)... perhaps you would agree that Sund's history with Dallas in the franchise's infancy seems particularly congruent with this situation, and that he's likely to follow a similar path to when the Mavs got to the playoffs for the first time in 83-84, and to how the Mavs proceeded over the next few years... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_trans...vericks#1984-85 What immediately stood out to me as I looked at this... is that, before there was Petro, Swift, and Sene... there was Wennington, Blab (who can forget?), and Tarpley... Tarpley's career ended in a drug-related thud, but at first, he gave the Mavs a serious inside presence. That stood out... and, maybe more(?) significantly to our situation... that trades intended to add players to the core of the team during those years were non-existent... though, trades intended to give up some current talent for future draft picks occurred on occasion. So, unless the man has had a change of heart... and that does happen, of course... if he conforms to the Mavs history, it would predict that Smoove and Chilz will be re-signed and "#5" will remain intact. What's more.... if his experience with the Mavs teaches us anything about what we're about to experience, I would remind you that d*ck Motta remained the coach of the Mavs from inception through the team's first four playoff appearances. Of course, the difference is that Motta had amassed a significant coaching resume prior to coming to Dallas, most of it with the Bullets as I recall (and thus, many games against the Hawks)... and further, Sund had no professional relationship with Woodson prior to this season... so it's not as easy to reach a conclusion about the name of the Hawks' 08-09 head coach with any confidence. I thought BK said the plan was to build a championship contender, or am I mistaken about this? History tells us that the only teams in the past 25 years to win a championship without one of the top 5 players in the game on their roster is Detroit, which accomplished that feat three times (twice with I. Thomas, who some may argue was a top 5 player, but I don't think so). Both those Detroit teams had the advantage of having hall-of-fame coaches. Obviously "top 5" players are hard to get. Those are guys competing for MVPs each year and when you have a chance to get one, you do so, but if you miss that chance then that can cripple a franchise.

Quote: Not that I ever didn't believe, but with this franchise, you never know. Yesterday, I felt like we did good just by not hiring Grant, and I was willing to give Sund a chance. After reading Sekou's blog and reading some Sund blips, I am cautiously optimistic. I was not happy that BK was let go, but maybe we will come out of this okay. I really like that he seems high on Acie (Acie IS the future and we need to trade Bibby's expiring next season!), so we will see how he does. But, all you negative nancies calling this a bad hire can take a hike. Diesel, exodus, others...you were all wrong about Horford (and myself and others were RIGHT) and hopefully you will all be wrong about Sund. FIRE WOODY!!!!!!!!!!! I think most people are taking a wait and see approach with Sund. If he retains Woody then that is a very bad sign indicative of a puppet GM. If he brings in a good coach and takes care of the Hawks free agents then most people will be on board, even if he is not a "sexy" hire or particularly dynamic. I have a question on trading Bibby though. Let's say Law is playing o.k. but hasn't really overtaken Bibby towards the trading deadline, do you still trade Bibby if the Hawks are in the playoff picture?

Quote: I like Smoove alot but there is no way we should give him a max or near max deal based on his potentially being a better player. Let someone else take a gamble. He is not a max player. To me a max player is someone who is an allstar. Don't come with the he will be a future allstar crap. Hell Speedy could be labeled a future allstar. No one knows what the future holds. Smoove has been the 2nd option on this team for two years now. We know what he is now. I don't want to get burned. Just look at Michael Redd and the Bucks. Watch what happens in Orlando when the big contracct they gave Lewis bites them in the ass. Remember when Detroit made us sign Konkak to a big contract? This was his contract year. Let his play of this year determine how much he is worth. Same goes for Marvin next year. He is not worth the max. I say 5 years 50 million dollars. He is still young and will get another big contract if he pans out. I like Smoove and I like the team we have now but overpaying him now will kill us down the line. I think that we can survive with: ACIE/Bibby JJ Marv Horford ZAZA/SOLO I am in now way suggesting we let him walk so don't get it twisted. If we max him god forbid Marvin decides to play up to his potential next season. Then he is going to want his money. Then Horford is going to be due in a few years. Then JJ will be ready to reup. I really would not want to be the one who has to make this decision but I really feel that it will come down to Smoove vs. Horford. Good Luck Mr. Sund and welcome to the ATL!!! Um, they gave JJ a max deal and he was not yet an all-star. Horford is three years away from a big contract so he is not part of the equation yet.