Conley/Stuckey vs Horford/Law

[exodus]

On draft day it seemed like the two biggest camps here wanted Conley/Stuckey or Horford Law. I wanted Conley/Stuckey and i still think we would be better off with those two.

Both Conley and Stuckey are really coming into their own now. Conley is averaging 9 ppg on the season and his production is picking up rapidly. Last month he averaged 15/6. On the season his EFG% on jumpers is better than Marvins. He is shooting 38% on 3s.

Stuckey is averaging 14/5 on the season and averaged 17 ppg last month. At the time of the draft i felt like he would be the perfect guy to fill the role Childress tried to play but couldn't, backing up the 1 and 2.

Meanwhile Horford is averaging 10/8. The logic for drafting Horford is that we needed size and inside scoring. We still have those needs even with Horford. Law obviously hasn't worked out as hoped.

If we had Conley and Stuckey our pg issues would be solved long term. As it stands now there is no clear answer.

[Cwell]

I wanted Conley and whatever big was left in that draft. Right now i'd rather have Horford and Law though.

[AHF]

Can I take Horford and Stuckey?

Horford > Conley

Stuckey > Law

[crimedog]

I wasn't on here at the time but I was a big Conley guy and shifted to a Calderon for Chil+11 guy when I heard that might be on the table.

I thought what we did with the 11 should depend on who was available and who could be traded for.

I wasn't too upset with Horford, I wasn't a bit Law fan but I can be a hater occasionally. Al obviously worked out as he was pretty instrumental in making the playoffs last season which I think was big.

That being said, for those that don't see Al as a long term solution at the 5, having Conley and Stuckey/Young would have allowed the Hawks to move the AJ/Lue/Blo/Shelden pupu platter earlier in the season for a different big man.

On the other hand, as I mentioned in the other thread, Conley's ascent (and I'm a huge fan of his) has largely to do with switching from a coach that ran everything through his 2-guard (sound familiar) to one that allows Conley to run the show. Woody is very firmly in the first camp.

While Conley's recent play is vindication for my promotion of him as possibly the 3rd most talented player in the draft, we'd still be running everything through Joe. I guess we made the right pick with Al unless we would be willing to switch up offensive strategies and I can't count on that.

I do still think that long term Conley will be the better player though.

I'm verbose today. Sorry.

Edited February 11, 2009 by crimedog

[Traceman]

On draft day it seemed like the two biggest camps here wanted Conley/Stuckey or Horford Law. I wanted Conley/Stuckey and i still think we would be better off with those two.

Both Conley and Stuckey are really coming into their own now. Conley is averaging 9 ppg on the season and his production is picking up rapidly. Last month he averaged 15/6. On the season his EFG% on jumpers is better than Marvins. He is shooting 38% on 3s.

Stuckey is averaging 14/5 on the season and averaged 17 ppg last month. At the time of the draft i felt like he would be the perfect guy to fill the role Childress tried to play but couldn't, backing up the 1 and 2.

Meanwhile Horford is averaging 10/8. The logic for drafting Horford is that we needed size and inside scoring. We still have those needs even with Horford. Law obviously hasn't worked out as hoped.

If we had Conley and Stuckey our pg issues would be solved long term. As it stands now there is no clear answer.

I woudn't trade Horford alone for Stuckey AND Conley. Wouldn't even think about it.

Al is outperforming both of them on the season despite the fact that he has been injured quite a bit (see efficiency ratings for all 3). His 10/8 is an efficient 10/8 as the 5th option in our offense and it is going to get significantly better as he gets healthier.

Bibby brings veteran leadership to the team that we desperately needed that neither Stuckey or Conley could have brought.

As for Acie, I'm not so sure that he wouldn't outplay Conley if he were in Conley's situation but NEITHER of them is in Bibby's league as shown by the 20/10 schooling Bibby gave Conley eariler this season.

Finally, the BEST option would have been Horford/Stuckey which is the preference that I and several others liked. Conley should never have been in the mix in my opinion.

[CBAreject]

"GTFOH", "LMAO @ U", and a bunch of homeristic vitriol

Now everyone pat me on the back for putting him in his place

[Guest]

"GTFOH", "LMAO @ U", and a bunch of homeristic vitriol

Now everyone pat me on the back for putting him in his place

When was the last time you actually contributed to this board? The last time I remember was when you and Walter got buddy buddy with the tanking talks. Now you just like to comment on how no one makes solid arguments and everyone posts just so someone else on the board will come along and agree. A sort of "hey look I am right because everyone else who posted in this thread agrees with me! [insert picture]". Oh and you also make lame comments on the Braves (like how they don't have Reyes anymore).

Seems like a contradiction to me, you chide people for not making solid posts but at the same time your last solid post came in discussion of whether or not we should tank (or maybe your posts on Crittenton being better than Law, I can't remember if those were any good or not).

[Admin]

I don't think there were any Conley and Stuckey camps were there? I believe that the 2 biggest camps were Conley/best big left and Horford/best PG left and then you had all sorts of debates about which PG that was between Law, Stuckey, and Critt.

I believe Horford is the best player of them all and easily fills our biggest need of a starting center as opposed to a backup PG, especially considering that Law has shown when he gets PT that he can put up good stats.

[CBAreject]

When was the last time you actually contributed to this board? The last time I remember was when you and Walter got buddy buddy with the tanking talks. Now you just like to comment on how no one makes solid arguments and everyone posts just so someone else on the board will come along and agree. A sort of "hey look I am right because everyone else who posted in this thread agrees with me! [insert picture]". Oh and you also make lame comments on the Braves (like how they don't have Reyes anymore).

Seems like a contradiction to me, you chide people for not making solid posts but at the same time your last solid post came in discussion of whether or not we should tank (or maybe your posts on Crittenton being better than Law, I can't remember if those were any good or not).

Isn't it a chicken and egg argument, my friend? Did I get so sick of the "lmao's" and "GTFOH's" and finally give up on you people? Or did I just come on here to blast people for being stupid?

Do you really think it's the latter? Did I really make 3000 posts out of chiding? You say that my "last solid post" was about tanking, but do you remember how people treated me about that topic? Oh, they were all so glad to keep the #3 pick, but they spat venom at me for months along the way.

See the problem with a person's being stupid is that his very stupidity precludes his understanding that he is stupid. As such, so many of them think they understand all. Remember when Diesel took on 10 guys with advanced engineering and math degrees from Ga Tech, insisting that he knew the lottery odds better than they did? He never backed down, never considered that he may be wrong, and probably still thinks he was right. It was probably the most steadfast display stupidity I've ever seen.

I can make a thorough and well-written post about any topic, and it will be met with "lmao, u a dufus" from some person who never completed a college degree and doesn't even understand argumentation. Am I supposed to enjoy trying to have discussions with those sorts of people? That's what most of them are on here.

I never said you were uneducated, and despite your surly, grudge-holding demeanor, you generally seem to know what you're talking about. But most of these people are idiots, and they don't realize it. I don't understand why you would want to defend them.

[Admin]

CBAReject you have been warned again today after being warned yesterday and if you think saying "most of these people are idiots" and your various other insults is okay then I suggest you stop posting here. For now your warning level has been increased again and you are now on moderator preview for all posts for the next 30 days.

[h2t]

Stuckey would be stuck on the bench here just like Acie. So yea Horford/Acie >>>>>>>>>> Conley/Stuckey.

[Swish]

@CBAreject:

You know, they say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again. Seems like you've fallen into this trap. You say that we are idiots, yet you are thirsty for more?

[Guest]

Isn't it a chicken and egg argument, my friend? Did I get so sick of the "lmao's" and "GTFOH's" and finally give up on you people? Or did I just come on here to blast people for being stupid?

True, both ways are equally plausible.

I never said you were uneducated, and despite your surly, grudge-holding demeanor, you generally seem to know what you're talking about. But most of these people are idiots, and they don't realize it. I don't understand why you would want to defend them.

I am not defending people here, I am questioning why you have turned from a reasonable poster to now a poster who would rather make social comments on this board than contribute with thought provoking posts. It seems as if your posts have turned into the very thing that drove you away from being a reasonable poster. Replace the "LMAO" or "GTFO" that you criticize with something like "you homers" or "you need others to justify your response" as I try to paraphrase.

Do I hold grudges? I don't try to but I could see where it may seem that way. It isn't as if I try to continually hold a grudge against a specific, however if a subject ever gets retreaded then I do become hot-headed.

You say that my "last solid post" was about tanking, but do you remember how people treated me about that topic? Oh, they were all so glad to keep the #3 pick, but they spat venom at me for months along the way.

Honestly there are certain posters I don't pay much mind to on here. Those are the one's that simply ride with the crowd and never come up with original ideas. But there is still a substantial amount of posters who do give insightful comments. Why not try and ignore the "stupid" ones and focus on the "intelligent" ones?

[Guest]

Back then I was on the Conley and then the best available (its hard to project who exactly would be available then). I don't see any reason to change why I thought that, our PGs were pathetic and we needed someone who we could grow at PG. Conley still looks like a promising player, the most promising out of the entire group of PG/SG in the draft. He also fit in with our defensive mentality.

Now its hard to say. If we take Conley then we don't get Bibby but also we might have been able to swing a trade for a big man. As the team is constructed right now, clearly the answer is Horford and Stuckey/Law depending on how you allow me to answer. But if we could have insight on how the team could have looked with trades, then I may very well tell you Conley. Its a hard question to answer and also one that has so many variables attached to it that it isn't very pragmatic.

[Packfill]

I definitely wanted Conley at 3 (whoops). My uninformed understanding is that he has been underwhelming this season at best. He is still very young so maybe he gets it in time, but I am not holding out much hope - though I think his chances may be better then Laws.

Horford has been good, but not great. Same is true of Stuckey.

This clearly was BK's best draft as it is the only one you can't say he categorically flubbed his lottery picks.

[exodus]

I woudn't trade Horford alone for Stuckey AND Conley. Wouldn't even think about it.

Al is outperforming both of them on the season despite the fact that he has been injured quite a bit (see efficiency ratings for all 3). His 10/8 is an efficient 10/8 as the 5th option in our offense and it is going to get significantly better as he gets healthier.

Bibby brings veteran leadership to the team that we desperately needed that neither Stuckey or Conley could have brought.

As for Acie, I'm not so sure that he wouldn't outplay Conley if he were in Conley's situation but NEITHER of them is in Bibby's league as shown by the 20/10 schooling Bibby gave Conley eariler this season.

Finally, the BEST option would have been Horford/Stuckey which is the preference that I and several others liked. Conley should never have been in the mix in my opinion.

We have the same needs now that we had before we drafted Horford. We need inside scoring and someone who can defend big post players. Horford can do neither. he is barely a speed bump to Dwight Howard who we will have to deal with for years. He can't score on Howard either.

We could get Horfords 10/8 from a veteran big like Joe Smith.

Bibby has been a good short term rental but he is hardly a long term answer at the point.

[uga2006]

Stuckey isn't a world beater people. I've watched him enough to know that. If Law got the same PT that Stuckey got I believe Law would put up better numbers overall.

[frankthetank966]

I dont think any Hawks fan will argue that Horford is more valuable to this team than Conely. We already have Bibby starting and we need Horford at C/PF. The only argument in this thread would be Stuckey vs. Law. However, we have not seen Law as much as we would like. Stuckey is getting great playing time while Law remains on the bench in key games. Last night's game vs. WAS gave Hawks fans a good idea of what Law is capable of.

[LOL_Hawks]

Can I take Horford and Stuckey?

Horford > Conley

Stuckey > Law

And those are my sentiments on the topic as well.

[coachx]

I wanted Horford and Law on draft day.

I am still very happy with Horford but a little dissapointed in Law (mainly due to playing time ). However, if Law were put in the same situation losing situation in Memphis that Conley is in I believe Law would have more success since young players are let loose to develop, at the expense of winning, with no veterans taking their playing time. That is comparing the #4 and #11 pick.

In hindsight I wish we would have taken Stuckey over Law. Who wouldn't ? That being said, I have still not given up on Law.

Things could be worse though. We could have taken Critt at #11 and Yi at at #3. There was a sizeable camp for those 2 players as well.

Edited February 12, 2009 by coachx