Let's just make it a poll

[Guest Walter]

Is SW, should he bench JS or MW or be a bench player himself, more valuable to this developing team with positional needs at Pg and C than the consensus more talented Roy or Foye at Pg along side JJ O-R the center with the most upside and potential to change a game defensively in Sene, none of whom bench MW or JS and one of whom may himself allow for a 2-SF starting lineup?

People may not like my delivery but this consider this poll beyond my delivery. This isn't just a question of BPA vs "need". We all know he wasn't the BPA! Still, SW solves none of our positional needs and only addresses our interior defense need poorly, at a less desirable position, and at the cost of benching one of our prospects. Talent-wise he's less than JS or MW and as a result starting him in lue of them means we may not need a "true" center but we most definately need a more talented one (i.e. JO). Thus, we still need a rare center and we still bench JS or MW even after we used a 5th overall pick and traded away Al Harrington for nothing.

Anyhow, back to the poll...

[gsuteke]

Walter this is hardly a scientific pole.

the question along with the fact that there are 3 no vs 1 yes answer makes this poll totally whack.

that being said the yes votes will come out on top.

if you'd made the poll fair the #s would truly be staggering.

[Guest Walter]

...the reasons only indicate WHY you don't think SW was the best choice for us. All you do is add together the total number of "no" and compare them to the "yes" collumn. The added information goes to the heart of my point. SW isn't even the best defensive prospect we could have gotten for our team because he doesn't have the potential of Sene, doesn't play a position of need, and benches our very best prospects.

Quote:

---

that being said the yes votes will come out on top.

---

...and you think SW was the best choice for us?

W

[Guest Walter]

Lascar after the draft,

Quote:

---

"Which is why it might be better to gamble on a guy like O'Bryant who COULD be a good starting C and gives us size, rather than a guy like Shelden who at BEST exacerbates our problem of having too many SF's. If we draft a PF, it should be one that we hope can at least play some minutes at C."

---

Sorry, Lascar, I didn't mean to rehash your point. You said it in other posts also. I liked Sene better but I liked each of Simmons, O'Bryant, and Sene for the above reason and the point is the same. SW creates as many problems for us as he solves by not resolving our interior defensive need AT CENTER where it's prefered regardless and where we needed it. That's a horrible indictment of a #5 pick who was a talent reach to being with. He even complicates our trading of Al for peanuts. Weren't we trading him so that JS and MW got significantlly more minutes and each a starting role?

W

[gsuteke]

i give you the Atlanta Hawks #5 pick and arguably the BPA at number 5......

Out of Connecticut Small Forward Rudy Gay!

if you can live with that then i guess your vote is valid. otherwise maybe you were drinking some of Walter's koolaid.

[Guest Walter]

You have to consider heart and BB IQ and not just athleticism and I see Gay as lacking both. Is he a better prospect than SW. Yes, but Gay is about the only such player that would have served this team somehow less than SW. Still, he has more trade value, so work out a trade during the draft.

Drafting SW, AGAIN, doesn't address our prospect needs at Pg or center. Those needs remain. Drafting SW undercuts any argument for trading Al for peanuts in order to open up a starting opportunity for both MW and JS.

Only the dumb would find a role player to be the BPA at 5 and only the short sighted would choose an interior defender that benches one of our two best prospects over than a better defensive prospect with more upside at center.

W

[Diesel]

How about we let them play a few "real" games first. There's nothing that you can come up with that suggests that Shelden is NOT the BPA... Moreover, YOU Certainly refuse to entertain the fact that he's the BPA at the position we needed the most.

You would rather us play players out of position than for us to find a player who can play the position.

Let me ask you a question...

If we could trade Shelden for Boozer (and not have to consider the Salary) would you do it??

Better yet, would you bench Boozer??

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

You would rather us play players out of position than for us to find a player who can play the position.

---

Actually, yes, when the talent difference is so great between SW and MW or JS and SW does not address our prospect needs at C and Pg. I've always stated that if we could get a true center prospect I would actually WANT to see what MW and JS could do on the court together when they aren't forced to try being something they are not. I've also suggested trading MW or JS for an equal talent at another position of need (and with doing so we would need another potential star).

I never suggested dumb down our talent to merely fill a position. If that were the case why not just pay for a UFA Pf. Wilcox was available. Why not him? At least he could step in at center better. That certainly wouldn't be my choice but it's better than using a 5th pick to bench your best prospects. That's a waste on both ends.

W

[Diesel]

Quote:

---

yes, when the talent difference is so great between SW and MW or JS and SW does not address our prospect needs at C and Pg.

---

What is your proof that there is a "Talent Difference"?

[unknownjdb]

Quote:

---

i give you the Atlanta Hawks #5 pick and arguably the BPA at number 5......Out of Connecticut

Small Forward

Rudy Gay!

---

NO, the BPA in the current league setup for OUR situation would have been Foye, quickly followed by Roy. With this being said, I'm fine with Sheldon because he gives depth to the team and will not drastically decrease either of Smith's or Marvin's minutes. This is especially true because of the pickup of Claxton, a veteran PG who can start and make an immediate impact. He may not be as good as Foye or Roy but he will get us closer to our goals in a quicker manner.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

What is your proof that there is a "Talent Difference"?

---

SW was a 4 year player. Why? Because he's more talented than straight out of HS 1sts or Freshmen #2 picks? Come on. I've watched SW for 4 years. He improved very little in that time, little height and length, questionable athleticism, and his game is very limited despite all the experience.

I'll be happy to let stats speak for themselves. Compare SW to the similarly aged, experienced Roy and Foye at week 4, 8, 12, 16, whenever.

W

[KB21]

If Rudy wasn't the BPA, he was the player with the most potential available.

However, it's obvious that Billy and his coaching staff decided that they wanted to address their interior defensive problems in this draft.

[KB21]

I don't think you can even compare Roy and Foye to Claxton, because they play different positions. Roy and Foye are shooting guards, while Claxton is a pure point guard.

If we are going to sit here and discuss who was the best player for the Hawks, then that answer is the player they took for two reasons:

1. They obviously felt improving their interior defense was their top priority.

2. They also obviously felt that they needed a true point guard as opposed to a combo guard, which is something that I really didn't anticipate. This conclusion can be drawn because they did try to trade back into the first round to get one of the point guards that was dropping, presumably Marcus Williams....who is a true point guard, even if he is unathletic.

[Diesel]

I say the same.

However, if you are comparing careers... let's think for a moment.

At draft time, Smoove was a 16 pick of the draft who was outright called a BUST. Marvin is touted for his "potential" but hell, Tim Thomas and Tyson Chandler had potential. Potential means nothing.

Out of the three, Shelden is the only battle tested player drafted... Need I mention the accolades?

Two time NCAA defensive player of the year.

Finalist for the player of the year award.

First team all american.

MVP of the World University Games.

Team USA player of the year...

How do you think he got all this?

Becuase of his community service??

Quote:

---

Williams, from the GW perspective, was above needing help. No one in the losing locker room had anything but praise for Williams, who as Duke’s Landlord performed his last collegiate eviction in North Carolina on Saturday, blocking seven shots and giving any GW driver a mental block.

“We saw today, J.J. is their best overall player, but Shelden means so much more to their defense than he gets credit for,” said Pinnock, who missed 11 of 15 shots. “He changes just about every shot, just his presence down there changes the flow of the game.”

George Washington (27-3) shot a dismal 30.9 percent, which wouldn’t beat Atlantic 10 foe Duquesne, let alone top-seeded Duke. Some of that was their inability to run a half-court set; Williams was the other reason.

“Every shot that was in the lane, he altered,” Duke’s DeMarcus Nelson said. “That’s the luxury of having him on the court. Every one of them, he altered.”

---

[CBAreject]

As at least a part-time researcher, I have to agree with gsuteke here. The problem is not simply that the 'no' options simply outnumber the 'yes' options. Rather, the chief trouble is that the "reasons" you give for 'no' choices are quite persuasive, themselves. Perhaps some voters who would first think 'yes' will have their minds changed by 3 separate reasons for 'no' balanced by zero reasons or 'yes'.

It would be better to have a simple YES/NO poll if you want it to be unbiased. After all, the reason isn't important, is it? What you're trying to find out, definitively, is whether people are for or against the pick. Who cares why, unless, that is, you want to sway them...

BTW, I voted "no", so my opinion has nothing to do with my objective valuation of your skewed poll.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

After all, the reason isn't important, is it? What you're trying to find out, definitively, is whether people are for or against the pick. Who cares why, unless, that is, you want to sway them...

---

As my point is thta SW was a poor selection no matter what the Hawks were going for, BPA or need. I don't expect everyone to share that but I am wantin g to know why people believe what they do. You could turn the post around very easily. You could put several "yes" options indicating for example "while SW plays Pf and not C...yes he still was the best decision." But those read awful clumsy and make less sense.

W

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

If Brandon is the highest rated player on the board, then that's a problem the Hawks will have to fix another way.

I absolutely am not for reaching for a player simply because he plays a certain position

...If I had to guess who the players that the Hawks will rate the highest in the draft, the list would look something like this:

1. Andrea Bargnani, F/C, 7'0", 240 lbs, Benneton Treviso

2. LaMarcus Aldridge, C, 6'11", 245 lbs, Texas

3. Tyrus Thomas, F, 6'9", 225 lbs, LSU

4. Brandon Roy, G, 6'5", 190 lbs, Washington

5. Rudy Gay, F, 6'9", 220 lbs, Connecticut

6. Ronnie Brewer, G, 6'7", 210 lbs, Arkansas

7. Tiago Splitter, C, 7'0", 240 lbs, Tau Vitoria

8. Randy Foye, G, 6'3", 220 lbs, Villanova

Quote:

If the draft falls the way I believe it will,

Roy will be the best player on the board

.

Quote:

The only thing we need at the so called point guard position is a guy that can help Joe get the ball up the court, play off the ball, and hit the open jumper.

That's why Brandon Roy is a good fit for a back court mate to Joe Johnson. He brings good ball handling skills, good decision making, good vision, and good size to the position

.

Quote:

Atlanta may have their choice of Brandon Roy and Randy Foye, who are two of my favorites in this draft.

---

W

[gsuteke]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

After all, the reason isn't important, is it? What you're trying to find out, definitively, is whether people are for or against the pick. Who cares why, unless, that is, you want to sway them...

---

As my point is thta SW was a poor selection no matter what the Hawks were going for, BPA or need. I don't expect everyone to share that but I am wantin g to know why people believe what they do. You could turn the post around very easily. You could put several "yes" options indicating for example "while SW plays Pf and not C...yes he still was the best decision." But those read awful clumsy and make less sense.

W

---

Walter if you turned the poll around it would be overwhelmingly "yes."

in fact you're getting owned right now considering the circumstances and you made up the rules here my friend.

to be short about this post a summary of what your thoughts are on the matter (which you have 6 or 7 times now) and move on.

if you've been paying attention to the past few threads you've started one can view the sentiment of the board in general. whether they agree with you or not they're moving on. i suggest you do the same.

[Guest Walter]

Half wanted SW (unbelievable) and the other didn't. I didn't expect everybody who didn't want him to not want him for my reasons. In 3 years if not much sooner the current 50% who prefered SW won't be happy with their decision but will oddly enough be fuzzy on the details.

W

[Spiral]

I put my face in my hands when we drafted Shelden, but I was over it a few days later. I wanted Randy Foye or trade down and get Shelden later. I was really hoping for Rondo, but that didn't happen either. What I don't understand is why you continue to beat this into the dirt. I didn't want Shelden either, but I feel we will have to suck it up and hope for the best. You know BK is not going to move him, so why even hope for it? I really don't get why you keep doing this, I wish we would've drafted _________ instead or think of our lineup with if would've drafted __________ & traded __________ & signed ____________ and fired __________ and then massaged ____________'s balls with a __________, but no, we had to draft Shelden. It's like the Marvin Williams thing all over again. (which I wanted Deron, not Marvin) I think most here did not want Shelden at 5, but I bet hardly anyone wants to say anything because they were over it back in June. I agree with alot of your points, but damn dude, it's like you seemingly turn every thread into this same worn out subject.