EFF indicates we have TOO LITTLE TALENT

[exodus]

This is what makes the Shelden pick all the more indefensible. Sure Shelden was allegedly going to fill a need (even though his lack of length/skill argued otherwise) but he had no star potential at all.

the argument against Roy is that he is too much like JJ. SO EFFIN WHAT? How is that a bad thing?

JJ is 230 pounds and very strong. He is only 1/4" shorter than Smith and Marvin. He could easily play the 3.

Just imagine if we had Roy/JJ starting next to each other at the 2/3. Think JJ would be getting doubled all the time?

Yeah that would leave Childress and Marvin SOL but they are mediocre players. They aren't on JJ/Roys level and never will be.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

I say 75%, because it's hard to base this just off of your top 2 guys. And since basketball is a team game, there are many other factors that the stats may or may not show, that enables a team to win or lose.

HOWEVA . .

Like Walter said, this is a superstar/star league. And most NBA Championship caliber teams have at least 2 all-star caliber players, plus a very good #3 guy, that leads them to victory night.

...because the price of being right in this instance is a heavy on for the Hawks, particularly if they do not realize it soon like many HS fans have not.

I feel like I'm closer to 100% right. Gasol COULD have been that guy for us. His addition with JS would have given us a top 2 player EFF of 22.00 instead of 19.04. That EFF would have been 10th in the league for the top 2 players on a team. In the EC we could have likely been a 3-4 seed next year all other things remaining similar. We went the Bibby route instead (13.27). I'm simply not that impressed no matter the name. And the cost wasn't that different for the two.

W

[Gray Mule]

Some things you can measure by cold, hard stats. Our Hawk's stats prove that we're not

really that good. As if we didn't already know this by watching the games and taking a

look at the standings.

However, some things can't be measured by stats. There is no known way to measure

and put down on paper how much or how little a player or a team has.

Heart. Desire. Coachability. Instincts.

Where are the stats for these? They don't exist. They are those intangible things

that can, and often does, make the difference between good and great.

Add to those intangibles, motivation. This comes from several different places.

Some people are self motivated. Others have to be pushed into it. Knowing

when and how to motivate players can be a great asset to a great coach.

Having the knowledge to impart, getting the team to listen and to motivate every

player to do their very best sounds like a winning combination - Somewhere the

Hawks have lost some of this.

Many times, a team of lesser talent will win. They don't rely on simply being better.

They are well trained, execute properly and play with heart. Those Intangibles

mentioned carry them to victory.

We may lack great talent, as Walter has shown, but what about those "other"

things I'm talking about? Where are they for our beloved Hawks? Talent can't

be enhanced greatly. But these other necessary parts can and must be if this

Hawks team if to preform up to expectations.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

This is what makes the Shelden pick all the more indefensible. Sure Shelden was allegedly going to fill a need (even though his lack of length/skill argued otherwise) but he had no star potential at all.

the argument against Roy is that he is too much like JJ. SO EFFIN WHAT? How is that a bad thing?

JJ is 230 pounds and very strong. He is only 1/4" shorter than Smith and Marvin. He could easily play the 3.

Just imagine if we had Roy/JJ starting next to each other at the 2/3. Think JJ would be getting doubled all the time?

Yeah that would leave Childress and Marvin SOL but they are mediocre players. They aren't on JJ/Roys level and never will be.

Yep. I have to say that the SW pick actually shocks me to this day. Not even considering the lack of any tryouts including SW or the promise to him at 5 (which prevented us from making any trades on or before draft day). It still shocks me. The MW pick I knew was stupid but the SW pick SHOCKED me. Even after all the rumors that we would pick SW, my jaw still drops. I don't think there is another GM in the league that would have made that mistake. Isaiah, McHale would make others, some of them the product of a limitless pocket in NY, but no other GM would have made that mistake IMO. It was simply ghastly and obvious. We also already knew that MW wasn't going to be a superstar so it was imperative we tried to get one. Vent over.

W

[Atlantaholic]

Quote:

---

This is what makes the Shelden pick all the more indefensible. Sure Shelden was allegedly going to fill a need (even though his lack of length/skill argued otherwise) but he had no star potential at all.

the argument against Roy is that he is too much like JJ. SO EFFIN WHAT? How is that a bad thing?

JJ is 230 pounds and very strong. He is only 1/4" shorter than Smith and Marvin. He could easily play the 3.

Just imagine if we had Roy/JJ starting next to each other at the 2/3. Think JJ would be getting doubled all the time?

Yeah that would leave Childress and Marvin SOL but they are mediocre players. They aren't on JJ/Roys level and never will be.

I've alway thought that was the worst of the two picks (the other being the MW pick obviously)

At least Marvin had superstar potential coming out. He doesn't really seem to have that type of potential from what I've seen.. but at least during the draft it was believed he would be a franchise type player. Obviously the pick was retarded because we already had three SF's under contract, but it is defensible.

The Shelden pick is ABSOLUTELY indefensible... completely. Nobody had Shelden projected in the top 10 except BK. 29/30 Gm's would have picked either Roy or Foye... either of them would have been 100000 times better pick then Shelden... He is one of the all time worst top five draft choices in the history of the NBA. Roy is a perennial All Star and I would gladly trade both Childress and Marvin for him in half a heart beat.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Quote:

---

...because the price of being right in this instance is a heavy on for the Hawks, particularly if they do not realize it soon like many HS fans have not.

I feel like I'm closer to 100% right. Gasol COULD have been that guy for us. His addition with JS would have given us a top 2 player EFF of 22.00 instead of 19.04. That EFF would have been 10th in the league for the top 2 players on a team. In the EC we could have likely been a 3-4 seed next year all other things remaining similar. We went the Bibby route instead (13.27). I'm simply not that impressed no matter the name. And the cost wasn't that different for the two.

W

You're only 75% right because you're only looking at this from an efficency standpoint only. Efficiency is a decent stat to look at for evaulating individual players, but you can't use it to see how well a team plays defensively. And that's been one of the major problems with the Hawks for about 2 months now.

Our offense has improved recently, but we still lose because we're having major problems defending people. I never thought that would be a major problem this year. As much as people whine about our offense, it's actually those pizz poor defensive quarters that have been killing us.

When you look at Detroit, they're not a team that is going to have individual players with high efficiency numbers. But they win because they play excellent defense on most nights. Chicago won last year, because of their effort on the defensive end. This year, they're struggling to defend and score.

The efficiency numbers only tell part of the story with us. When we let short-handed teams without their key guys beat us, that's more to do with our horrible mindset as a basketball team, than our lack of highly efficient players.

No way we should be dropping games to Seattle, or the Clips without Maggette and Kaman, or Charlotte without Gerald Wallace, or routinely losing 15 point leads in the 2nd half. If we were even a halfway decent defensive team these days, we'd be at least a .500 team right now.

As a team, we just break down way too frequently on defense.

[thefloydian]

1. Stats lie

2. What do we need more talent for? To win a title? Well, obviously that's the case. I don't think anyone's arguing that. However, do you honestly think the Hawks will ever win a title given the current situation? I think most Hawks fans would be content to just make the playoffs, and this squad is talented enough for that.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

1. Stats lie

No they don't. They just don't tell all of the truth. But in this case they tell far more truth than HSers do about this team! Think about it. Not a single UNDERestimated winning percentage about the Hawks in the last 3 years from HSers! That's unbelievable and it makes the res of what many HSers say more questionable than any stat.

Quote:

---

2. What do we need more talent for? To win a title? Well, obviously that's the case. I don't think anyone's arguing that. However, do you honestly think the Hawks will ever win a title given the current situation? I think most Hawks fans would be content to just make the playoffs, and this squad is talented enough for that.

Well, you got me there. But if the Hawks owners were willing to take on Bibby's $14.5 Million contract then Gasol's wouldn't have been much different. Moreover, he would have given us a top 10 top 2 duo. THAT isn't just playoffs but in the EC it's conference finals worthy. We would still have a coaching question, but at least the talent would have been there. As it stands now, the talent isn't. Our top two talent is on level with the bottom 10 teams. You'll never contend with that.

W

[Lascar78]

Quote:

---

What do we need more talent for? To win a title? Well, obviously that's the case. I don't think anyone's arguing that. However, do you honestly think the Hawks will ever win a title given the current situation? I think most Hawks fans would be content to just make the playoffs, and this squad is talented enough for that.

Good point. Clearly we don't have the talent to win a title. But I think that we have the talent to be a 4 seed or so in the East, just like we were on the 1st of the year.

[TroyMcClure]

Quote:

---

Well, you got me there. But if the Hawks owners were willing to take on Bibby's $14.5 Million contract then Gasol's wouldn't have been much different. Moreover, he would have given us a top 10 top 2 duo. THAT isn't just playoffs but in the EC it's conference finals worthy. We would still have a coaching question, but at least the talent would have been there.

Walt, I've seen and played enough ball to know 3 years ago that this was the worst coach that I had ever seen. This team could play much better. However, it's almost impossible to consistently win playing streetball against NBA teams. That's what Woody gives us. You know that. He is simply one of the worst ever. You are not factoring that in. At all. When, in point of fact, it's a huge factor in the equation. You're going to have to marry these arguments for me to be on your side, here.

You can rail on most HS'ers opinions all you want. Mine hasn't changed and I know I'm right. History and evidence support me. Mike Woodson is one of the, and I'll be generous here, ten worst coaches in the history of the NBA. Probably worse. To even try to glean an opinion based on numbers compiled under his "offense" is silly.

We have duplicity and need to shape the roster. But we could have won 40+ games the last two years, imo. Why we haven't is obvious to me. It's not a lack of talent. It's a lack of coaching and ownership. I have been completely right about what would happen the last four years. I'm on record here at HS for the last two. I've been totally accurate about Woodson and what our record would be. I said we wouldn't sniff 35 wins this year. I don't smell anything close to that.

How would you feel about our talent if we had 10 or so more wins right now? My guess is that your evaluation of said talent would be slightly higher. You simply can't make a legitimate argument without dealing with the Mike Woodson factor.

[thefloydian]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

1. Stats lie

No they don't. They just don't tell all of the truth. But in this case they tell far more truth than HSers do about this team! Think about it. Not a single UNDERestimated winning percentage about the Hawks in the last 3 years from HSers! That's unbelievable and it makes the res of what many HSers say more questionable than any stat.

Quote:

---

2. What do we need more talent for? To win a title? Well, obviously that's the case. I don't think anyone's arguing that. However, do you honestly think the Hawks will ever win a title given the current situation? I think most Hawks fans would be content to just make the playoffs, and this squad is talented enough for that.

Well, you got me there. But if the Hawks owners were willing to take on Bibby's $14.5 Million contract then Gasol's wouldn't have been much different. Moreover, he would have given us a top 10 top 2 duo. THAT isn't just playoffs but in the EC it's conference finals worthy. We would still have a coaching question, but at least the talent would have been there. As it stands now, the talent isn't. Our top two talent is on level with the bottom 10 teams. You'll never contend with that.

W

I agree that they should have tried to get Gasol, but I'm not sure that this team would be in the conference finals even if they had him.

[ATLSmith]

I think you need to look at the total talent on the team, not just the top two players.

Would any of you trade teams with Cleveland if Lebron wasn't included? I don't think so.

Okay, just dreaming here, but the Hawks squad + Lebron would be sick.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

I think you need to look at the total talent on the team, not just the top two players.

Would any of you trade teams with Cleveland if Lebron wasn't included? I don't think so.

I think you just made my point, because we ALL would exchange rosters with Cleveland WITH Lebron included.

This is the NBA. Not college. Not the rec league. With the 24 second clock often teams don't even distribute to 5 players on offense and certainly not at game's end or in the playoffs when knuckles tighten and releases shorten. Also, this is the best league in the world so ANY advantage becomes HUGE. You need 2-3 stars to superstars and they have to be comparable to the league's best to make for a contender. They're the ones that touch the ball possession after possession. THAT'S the standard. If your top two don't measure up, you can as much as kiss a winning record much less contention goodbye.

While I'd love to have a competent starting 5, I'd prefer 2 top 10 team comparable superstars over such a team without them and I'd prefer 1 MVP and one player like Michael Redd or JJ over that. It's just the nature of the NBA game.

W

W

[TroyMcClure]

Quote:

---

How would you feel about our talent if we had 10 or so more wins right now? My guess is that your evaluation of said talent would be slightly higher. You simply can't make a legitimate argument without dealing with the Mike Woodson factor.

What's up, Walt? Let's have a little back and forth on this one.

[BusBoyIsBack]

Quote:

---

Good point. Clearly we don't have the talent to win a title. But I think that we have the talent to be a 4 seed or so in the East, just like we were on the 1st of the year.

We are the most talented young team in the Eastern conference. 2nd most talented in the league.

The idea that this roster can't win a title is false. Our head coach makes it seem that way by minimizing our talent.

Al Horford has top 10 C potential

Josh Smith has top 10 PF potential

Marvin Williams can be a top 10-15 SF

Joe Johnson can be a top 10 SG

That's a helluva lot more talent than people are acknowleding

[Atlantaholic]

I'm not saying that we are as talented as we should be... because we sure as hell aren't.

But this argument by Walter is freaking retarded.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Quote:

---

We are the most talented young team in the Eastern conference. 2nd most talented in the league.

The idea that this roster can't win a title is false. Our head coach makes it seem that way by minimizing our talent.

Al Horford has top 10 C potential

Josh Smith has top 10 PF potential

Marvin Williams can be a top 10-15 SF

Joe Johnson can be a top 10 SG

That's a helluva lot more talent than people are acknowleding

LOL . . this is exactly what Walter is talking about.

Horford is closer to being a top 10 C, than Smoove is at being a top 10 PF. Marvin may not even be a top 20 SF at this point, because there are a few backup SFs who are better than Marvin. Only JJ is a top 10 SG, on some nights.

The problem Bus, is that a team's top 2 players are usually very good offensive players. Only JJ can be considered to be a very good offensive player ( at times ). Smoove is closer to being a defensive star. Horford is all-around solid, but neither great offensively or defensively. Marvin is the same way.

If Smoove is out of the game, the defense falls off tremendously. The same goes for JJ and the offense.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

How would you feel about our talent if we had 10 or so more wins right now? My guess is that your evaluation of said talent would be slightly higher. You simply can't make a legitimate argument without dealing with the Mike Woodson factor.

What's up, Walt? Let's have a little back and forth on this one.

Why not make the hypothetical "What if we were 82-0?" I think Woodson costs us at most about 5 games a year over what he wins us, that still leaves talent as our greatest obstacle.

W

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

We are the most talented young team in the Eastern conference. 2nd most talented in the league.

The idea that this roster can't win a title is false. Our head coach makes it seem that way by minimizing our talent.

Al Horford has top 10 C potential

Josh Smith has top 10 PF potential

Marvin Williams can be a top 10-15 SF

Joe Johnson can be a top 10 SG

That's a helluva lot more talent than people are acknowleding

LOL . . this is exactly what Walter is talking about.

Horford is closer to being a top 10 C, than Smoove is at being a top 10 PF. Marvin may not even be a top 20 SF at this point, because there are a few backup SFs who are better than Marvin. Only JJ is a top 10 SG, on some nights.

The problem Bus, is that a team's top 2 players are usually very good offensive players. Only JJ can be considered to be a very good offensive player ( at times ). Smoove is closer to being a defensive star. Horford is all-around solid, but neither great offensively or defensively. Marvin is the same way.

If Smoove is out of the game, the defense falls off tremendously. The same goes for JJ and the offense.

Exactly,

People here just make boastful claim after boastful claim about their beloved Hawks only to OVERestimate the win total projections by 10 games and look the absolute fool.

BBIB, shouldn't be allowed to grade our talent without a objective support. He's the fairy princess of fairy land about our talent. BBIB, NO MORE WORTHLESS CLAIMS about top 10 this and that. We're in the worst EC I've ever seen and look ugly in it. Bring some facts. Otherwise, remain the talent fairy princess of HS.

W

[TroyMcClure]

Quote:

---

Why not make the hypothetical "What if we were 82-0?" I think Woodson costs us at most about 5 games a year over what he wins us, that still leaves talent as our greatest obstacle.

W

That hyperbole doesn't work for me. Save that ish for someone else. It's about chemistry. The coach has to find it sometimes. Does Houston's talent suggest it could win 20 in a row? No. Not even with Yao. Without Yao for half of it... certainly not. But there they are. To suggest that we couldn't have a handful more wins at this point is absurd.

Walt, you are so off on this it isn't even funny. Woodson costs us every game. He puts us at a disadvantage when he wakes up in the morning. He is a cancer. 5 games. That is a complete joke. I know you understand the game better than that. That is the most naive thing I've ever heard from you, I think.

You're going to have to do more than that. Could you explain how you got to 5 games? Worst coach in history. 5 games, huh?