Something to think about and consider!

[tomac]

What we need is a true floor general. I want a point guard who understands that it's his responsibility to make sure that the ball goes where it needs to. I was hoping that Acie would turn out to be that player, but I've seen him be a little too hesitant and unsure at times. I know that part of that is due to coaching, but that "General" instinct isn't something that you develop. You either have it or you don't. Personally, I don't think that Bibby has that. He isn't a playmaker. He's an outside scoring option.

When I look at Hinrich, Blake, and Alston (who I like on some levels), I don't see floor generals. I just see complementary pieces. TJ can be, but he isn't consistant in that respect either. Duhon is the closest to the description. With that said, I don't want him either. I wnat a young gun with a leadership mentality. He doesn't even have to be the greatest shooter. He just needs to be a great facilitator with a High BBIQ and a stout defensive presence. I see several of those type of PG's in this draft, with Lawson fitting the description very well. We need a leader of men who will control ball distribution.

[AHF]

Josh Smith didn't improve this year, he regressed in several areas. Down 1.5 points, down more than 1 block, down 1 rebound, down 1 assist and down 13% in FT shooting. He did improve by 4% in FG and 3pt shooting though so those were pluses but overall he regressed this past season.

I agree his overall game regressed, but his scoring clearly improved. Even with a career low FT% 100 points below his prior career low, he still posted the best TS% of his career by a significant margin.

The blocks and rebounds were his biggest regression, IMO, where he posted career lows in RB% and block%s.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/s/smithjo03.html

I am hopeful the blocks and rebounds were more a product of his injuries and that we saw some legit offensive improvement last season (FT% notwithstanding).

Improving his rebounding fundamentals would have been a nice byproduct of playing injured but I didn't see that happen.

[exodus]

I don't consider the best player from a draft to be the best player immediately but if you prefer then fine Marvin was considered to be the player who would be the best from that draft. And I'm not trying to say there was a huge gap between Paul/Deron and Marvin, but there was a gap. Marvin was far and away considered the consensus #2 pick and some mocks had him going #1.

You have definitely confused me here.

[Admin]

We had to take him? Marvin was a bench player who choked in every big game of the NCAA tourney. He averaged 10 ppg. He had shown no goto moves. The only thing he showed was nice form on his jumper and the fact that he was 6'8 and athletic. It was a pure potential pick.

We also already had 5 SFs on the roster (3 of which were drafted in the 1st round in the past 2 seasons) and needed a PG more than any other team in the NBA. Marvin was only ranked about 8-9 in his high school rankings the year before and was below late first rounders like Smith. He couldn't even lead his high school team to a winning record.

He also came to his workouts out of shape while Chris Paul said he had his best workout here and stated that he WANTED to play for the Hawks.

If there ever was a dumb pick, that was it.

If Paul and Deron had question marks, than Marvin was a snowball's chance in hell.

I don't disagree that Marvin was the wrong pick and I have numerous posts from back then showing my support for Deron as our pick and I didn't like the way that Marvin played in the tournament either but even with that he was clearly the consensus #2 pick and at the time we didn't want to be the time that passed on the next North Carolina star.

[Admin]

You have definitely confused me here.

I (me personally) am not saying there was a huge gap and I felt that Deron was the best player from that draft.

The "experts" who did all of the mocks had Marvin at #2 many more times than Paul or Deron. That to me signals a huge gap in their opinion otherwise Paul and Deron would have been the #1 or #2 pick in many of those mocks and they weren't.

[Admin]

I agree his overall game regressed, but his scoring clearly improved. Even with a career low FT% 100 points below his prior career low, he still posted the best TS% of his career by a significant margin.

The blocks and rebounds were his biggest regression, IMO, where he posted career lows in RB% and block%s.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/s/smithjo03.html

I am hopeful the blocks and rebounds were more a product of his injuries and that we saw some legit offensive improvement last season (FT% notwithstanding).

Improving his rebounding fundamentals would have been a nice byproduct of playing injured but I didn't see that happen.

He did seem to be a lot more efficient as a scorer but overall I feel like he regressed this year which falls in line with what Wurider said in his initial post that Smith has not improved every year. I really don't know what to attribute his decline in rebounding, shot blocking, and FT shooting to but I hope the first two were because of injuries and I think that the FT shooting was an aberration since he seemed to get back on track in the playoffs.

[exodus]

I (me personally) am not saying there was a huge gap and I felt that Deron was the best player from that draft.

The "experts" who did all of the mocks had Marvin at #2 many more times than Paul or Deron. That to me signals a huge gap in their opinion otherwise Paul and Deron would have been the #1 or #2 pick in many of those mocks and they weren't.

Keep in mind that a typical mock draft isn't taking positional importance or team needs into account. It is just a talent evaluation.

When you take posititional importance and team needs into account it leads to a different conclusion. Even Ford (who i believe had Marvin ranked #1) said we should pick Paul.

[Admin]

Keep in mind that a typical mock draft isn't taking positional importance or team needs into account. It is just a talent evaluation.

When you take posititional importance and team needs into account it leads to a different conclusion. Even Ford (who i believe had Marvin ranked #1) said we should pick Paul.

I certainly agree with you there and if I were the GM I would have missed out on Paul but at least we would have had Deron. With that being said I can understand why we picked Marvin based on the overall consensus of his potential and the "vision" that BK had of having a 6'9 team that could switch and cause problems with length. Unfortunately Marvin hasn't yet become who we hoped and probably won't ever get to that level and also unfortunately we missed out on possible HOF PGs.

[AHF]

Keep in mind that a typical mock draft isn't taking positional importance or team needs into account. It is just a talent evaluation.

When you take posititional importance and team needs into account it leads to a different conclusion. Even Ford (who i believe had Marvin ranked #1) said we should pick Paul.

I am someone who believes that the team with the best player usually wins a playoff series and that only the brightest stars have a good shot at a championship (the Detroit Pistons being the exception that proves the rule). When Atlanta was picking in the 2005 draft, they were a pretty bare bones bunch. They needed a star. Marvin Williams was uniformly viewed (at least in the press) as the guy with the highest upside and most star potential. Even though our team needs were higher at other positions, I strongly believe in taking the BPA unless the gap is miniscule (which is not what people thought at the time). I rely on my GM and scouts to shop for talent and go for the BPA when I am rebuilding a team essentially from the ground up. The one time I would deviate from that is if there is an impact big man - then I would consider going with him over a more talented g/f because impact centers are such rare commodities.

So my biggest fault with the Marvin pick is not the idea of taking the BPA available, it is failing to identify the BPA.

[Kimsey]

The team was doomed when BK had all those high picks aside from Horford. The Portland deal that would have sent pick #3 and a future first/Darius Miles for the #2 pick was a no brainer.

[Packfill]

I don't disagree that Marvin was the wrong pick and I have numerous posts from back then showing my support for Deron as our pick and I didn't like the way that Marvin played in the tournament either but even with that he was clearly the consensus #2 pick and at the time we didn't want to be the time that passed on the next North Carolina star.

Two things:

1. The Hawks biggest need entering the 2005 draft was at point guard. The alleged "gap" between Marvin and the two franchise point guards available, was small and given that BK had wasted his lottery pick the year before on a small forward . . .

2. What "North Carolina star" has anyone missed out on since Jordan? I am drawing a blank, or are you comparing Marvin to Jordan?

[AHF]

Two things:

1. The Hawks biggest need entering the 2005 draft was at point guard. The alleged "gap" between Marvin and the two franchise point guards available, was small and given that BK had wasted his lottery pick the year before on a small forward . . .

2. What "North Carolina star" has anyone missed out on since Jordan? I am drawing a blank, or are you comparing Marvin to Jordan?

Entering the draft, we had a potential star in Josh Smith who was playing SG, a player at SF who seemed like a good role player, a mediocre vet who wasn't long for the team (Al), and zero at PG and C. This was a team going nowhere. If Marvin was truly the BPA, I wouldn't have a problem with taking him even with 20/20 hindsight showing that our F roles could have been filled adequately by the Joshes.

Where didn't we have a need for a star player?

2. The only UNC guys who you can call stars that I can think of that teams missed on were:

* Golden State and Philly missed out on Rasheed Wallace;

* The Clippers and Nuggets missed out on Vince Carter and Antawn Jamison.

[Packfill]

Entering the draft, we had a potential star in Josh Smith who was playing SG, a player at SF who seemed like a good role player, a mediocre vet who wasn't long for the team (Al), and zero at PG and C. This was a team going nowhere. If Marvin was truly the BPA, I wouldn't have a problem with taking him even with 20/20 hindsight showing that our F roles could have been filled adequately by the Joshes.

Where didn't we have a need for a star player?

2. The only UNC guys who you can call stars that I can think of that teams missed on were:

* Golden State and Philly missed out on Rasheed Wallace;

* The Clippers and Nuggets missed out on Vince Carter and Antawn Jamison.

The JJ deal was in the works prior to the 2005 draft. Paul was the best college point guard in a long time, Deron too, Marvin was a back-up forward . . .

There is some irony in the fact that one of the picks the Hawks traded as part of the JJ deal turned out to be Rajon Rondo.

In some sense though, the 2005 draft would not now be looked back upon as such a miss for the Hawks if they had managed to do something useful with their high lottery picks in the 2004 and 2006 drafts. Three misses in a row - one an outright bust - is the real problem.

[AHF]

The JJ deal was in the works prior to the 2005 draft.

The Hawks couldn't even talk to him before the draft and went after Ray Allen before JJ. There was no bird in the hand at that point.

Paul was the best college point guard in a long time, Deron too, Marvin was a back-up forward . . .

Like I said, it was missing out on the BPA that was the problem - not the position. If Marvin was better than Paul, the PG need would not be an issue.

There is some irony in the fact that one of the picks the Hawks traded as part of the JJ deal turned out to be Rajon Rondo.

More significant that we missed out on Rondo and others for another wasted lottery pick where we failed to take the BPA or even close to it.

In some sense though, the 2005 draft would not now be looked back upon as such a miss for the Hawks if they had managed to do something useful with their high lottery picks in the 2004 and 2006 drafts. Three misses in a row - one an outright bust - is the real problem.

Exactly. We totally missed on BPA each of those drafts which is the real problem.

[AtLaS]

Entering the draft, we had a potential star in Josh Smith who was playing SG, a player at SF who seemed like a good role player, a mediocre vet who wasn't long for the team (Al), and zero at PG and C. This was a team going nowhere. If Marvin was truly the BPA, I wouldn't have a problem with taking him even with 20/20 hindsight showing that our F roles could have been filled adequately by the Joshes.

Although Smith was playing SG, he was seen as an SF at the time but just couldn't find playing time at the position given the current makeup of the team. Childress averaged 10 ppg for the year after starting off the season terribly and really showed a lot of promise the 2nd half of the season. We had also drafted Diaw as a rookie the year before. We didn't know that Harrington wasn't going to be resigned at the time, he was still young and a go to player for us.

Although I agree that it's tough for a 13 win team to draft on need, I just don't think the gap was big enough to pass on it in that draft. It's not like Marvin was a can't miss, must be drafted pick. He was a bench player. He choked in UNC's biggest games of the tourney. He was ranked below all the top HS players who went in the draft the year before. He was out of shape in workouts. His HS team didn't have a winning record. He had shown no go to moves in the half court, no post up ability, no dribbling skills, nothing. he was simply a 6'8" athletic guy who had good form on his jumper.

Had he had a freshman season like a Carmelo, Durant, Beasley, etc than I can completely understand taking him. But he didn't have an impressive freshman year at all. He was taken as the BPA, the best PROJECT available. It just never seemed a logical pick, even at the time.

[AHF]

Although Smith was playing SG, he was seen as an SF at the time but just couldn't find playing time at the position given the current makeup of the team. Childress averaged 10 ppg for the year after starting off the season terribly and really showed a lot of promise the 2nd half of the season. We had also drafted Diaw as a rookie the year before. We didn't know that Harrington wasn't going to be resigned at the time, he was still young and a go to player for us.

Although I agree that it's tough for a 13 win team to draft on need, I just don't think the gap was big enough to pass on it in that draft. It's not like Marvin was a can't miss, must be drafted pick. He was a bench player. He choked in UNC's biggest games of the tourney. He was ranked below all the top HS players who went in the draft the year before. He was out of shape in workouts. His HS team didn't have a winning record. He had shown no go to moves in the half court, no post up ability, no dribbling skills, nothing. he was simply a 6'8" athletic guy who had good form on his jumper.

Had he had a freshman season like a Carmelo, Durant, Beasley, etc than I can completely understand taking him. But he didn't have an impressive freshman year at all. He was taken as the BPA, the best PROJECT available. It just never seemed a logical pick, even at the time.

Are you disagreeing with the assessment BK made that Marvin was the best player available or are you saying that you would be ticked today if we had drafted a stud SF who was better than Chris Paul because we already had raw small forwards on the roster?

Again, I fault BK for not getting the BPA right. I don't fault him for the idea that we needed to get a star in that draft. Clearly, Paul is the guy under the BPA theory with the benefit of hindsight so I don't want to get confused when we talk about need or BPA as the approach to take after a 13 win season.

[Sothron]

If you don't think Paul is a game changer you need to go to the store and buy a clue. He was an MVP candidate last year.

Utah and NOH both sucked in 2005. Picking after us they got franchise players. Roy is Portlands franchise player and two time All-Star. We picked Shelden instead.

The Hawks had the chance to get franchise players and blew it. It has nothing to do with luck.

It is easy to say just stand pat and just tweak but that ignores reality. When you have a bench of guys on their rookie contracts sooner or later financial reality will hit when their rookie contracts are up.

The only pgs the Hawks have under contract for next season are Acie and Speedy. The Hawks are undersized with a weak bench. Nice job BK. :sad:

Doesn't it kinda blow your mind as a Hawks fan to think our team right now could have something like Deron or Paul or even Roy at PG? :sad:

[DrReality]

Might as well agree with the tweaking idea because that is all that will happen.

[exodus]

Doesn't it kinda blow your mind as a Hawks fan to think our team right now could have something like Deron or Paul or even Roy at PG? :sad:

It just makes my stomach turn. So many years of blown picks for as long as i have followed the team.

[Wurider05]

It just makes my stomach turn. So many years of blown picks for as long as i have followed the team.

That stuff is water under the bridge. There will be no do over. Hell we did better than those teams in the playoffs didn't we!!