We are not ready for a big.

[Diesel]

I think we have a case of tunnel vision and this is what must be overcomed before we can start to look at bigs.

The first question is the main question.

Are we ready for a big?

The answer is no.

We have no where to put them.

Many of you have bought BK's plan so hard, that you can't see anything else. BK's masterplan was to get a bunch of guys 6'7" -6'10" and let them play every position. His thinking was that if they were athletic enough and if they were versatile enough then they would create matchup issues. This was proven when he went after JJ and called him a PG.

So now, we have this team of players who are out of position and we have bought that this is where they should be. Too many of us are willing to believe BK's positional appointment than to believe what we know is true based on skillset.

So now we have a new GM. Our team has holes. The question is are we ready to get a big man.

Do this for me.

Name one big man that you would really like... and let's say that the basketball gods just gives him to us.

Where will he play?

How will that effect the team?

Who are you benching Horf and Smoove?

Why would you trade Smoove away when we have him signed to a cheap contract and he's still improving and more importantly, he's rarely hurt?

These are our issues. We have these players who are good players and we've pigeonholed them into positions that BK decided.

I think if he were really a designer, Sund should have come in with the power to clean house. Woody is still following the BK plan. There are some players from the BK days that are following the BK plan. The house has been rinsed with water, but nobody has wiped it down. It's still dirty.

[buckeye242424]

Are you speaking of the FA bigs available now, or a center in general? I mean, if the "gods" gave us Dwight Howard, I'm sure we could find a place for him...

[Diesel]

Are you speaking of the FA bigs available now, or a center in general? I mean, if the "gods" gave us Dwight Howard, I'm sure we could find a place for him...

'

Let's use Howard.

What would be your lineup?

[buckeye242424]

'

Let's use Howard.

What would be your lineup?

Does it even matter? He would start at center. There's no debate there. I don't care if were paying Smoove 57 mil to come off the bench. If the Hawks had Howard, he would fit in just fine.

[Diesel]

Does it even matter? He would start at center. There's no debate there. I don't care if were paying Smoove 57 mil to come off the bench. If the Hawks had Howard, he would fit in just fine.

That's because you don't care about our salary cap. If we had Howard, somebody would have to go. Why would it have to be Smoove? Why not Horf coming off the bench?

This is what I'm talking about.

BK has us tuned to believe that becuase he drafted them, they must be what he said they are. Right now, Smoove is better than Horf. Period. Yet, there's a faction who would trade Smoove to "make room" for Horf if we had a C to come in.

We're not ready yet because we refuse to be honest with ourselves about our players.

[buckeye242424]

That's because you don't care about our salary cap. If we had Howard, somebody would have to go. Why would it have to be Smoove? Why not Horf coming off the bench?

This is what I'm talking about.

BK has us tuned to believe that becuase he drafted them, they must be what he said they are. Right now, Smoove is better than Horf. Period. Yet, there's a faction who would trade Smoove to "make room" for Horf if we had a C to come in.

We're not ready yet because we refuse to be honest with ourselves about our players.

Ok. Horf coming off the bench. Horf and Smoove off the bench. Who cares? Howard's more productive than anyone on our team. I don't exactly understand what you're trying to say. But, if you're saying if in some dreamland, a miracle fantasy land, we could get Dwight Howard....but we can't because we're not honest about our players? Trade anyone! Get rid of anyone! Make room!!! Who cares who it is....

[KrishATL]

this might be one of the more ridiculous threads i've seen...we're not ready for a BIG??? ummm, from the looks of it, we're quite desperate for one. and damn, if Dwight Howard fell on our laps, we wouldn't know what to do with him???

now that i think about it, why am i even justifying any of this in my head...

think Diesel sparked one too many firecrackers.

[NJHAWK]

We need another rebounder. Mcdyess would be cool. Somebody who Woody can go to when Smoove is playing bad and pouting. Someone who can show him how to box out and rebound his position. Josh will be out of position no matter where you put him because he was nothing more than a great athlete who is slowly, very slowly but surely learning how to play basketball. A guy like Mcdyess would be just the guy for Woody to use to show Smoove what he needs from him. " You see that Josh, that is what I want you to do when I put your ayss in there. If you do that you will play, if not you will sit".

Edited July 4, 2009 by NJHAWK

[Diesel]

Ok. Horf coming off the bench. Horf and Smoove off the bench. Who cares? Howard's more productive than anyone on our team. I don't exactly understand what you're trying to say. But, if you're saying if in some dreamland, a miracle fantasy land, we could get Dwight Howard....but we can't because we're not honest about our players? Trade anyone! Get rid of anyone! Make room!!! Who cares who it is....

My point is that as educated fans, we don't know what positions our players play so if we were to get a big, we wouldn't know what the best remedy for the team would be. Now, we've used Howard. Obviously the best big in the game right now and over the next ten years. However, we're more likely to get somebody like Tyson Chandler or Brenden Heywood at BEST... so what then? Is the plan the same... bench Smoove bench Horford bench Horford and Smoove?

Or do we as fans break into our camps of "I like Smoove because he's from Atlanta" and "I like Horf because he has a great personality".

This is our problem. IN the real world. Just like with our guard situation. We have no clue of what to do if we ever get talent because we have been fed lies so much that now we believe them and propagate them.

[DrReality]

David AndersEn

[buckeye242424]

My point is that as educated fans, we don't know what positions our players play so if we were to get a big, we wouldn't know what the best remedy for the team would be. Now, we've used Howard. Obviously the best big in the game right now and over the next ten years. However, we're more likely to get somebody like Tyson Chandler or Brenden Heywood at BEST... so what then? Is the plan the same... bench Smoove bench Horford bench Horford and Smoove?

Or do we as fans break into our camps of "I like Smoove because he's from Atlanta" and "I like Horf because he has a great personality".

This is our problem. IN the real world. Just like with our guard situation. We have no clue of what to do if we ever get talent because we have been fed lies so much that now we believe them and propagate them.

I agree with that assumption. Which brings me back to my initial question. This years FA bigs, or any big. Of course we would make room for Dwight...that's why I brought him up....but I see what you're saying with a player like Heywood, or Wilcox. I don't know Diesel...BK's plan was to bring in a bunch of guys that are interchangeable, and we're still seeing it. Even with adding Crawford. Is he a PG, 2, 3?

It is a problem. I see your point.

[Diesel]

I agree with that assumption. Which brings me back to my initial question. This years FA bigs, or any big. Of course we would make room for Dwight...that's why I brought him up....but I see what you're saying with a player like Heywood, or Wilcox. I don't know Diesel...BK's plan was to bring in a bunch of guys that are interchangeable, and we're still seeing it. Even with adding Crawford. Is he a PG, 2, 3?

It is a problem. I see your point.

More clearly. I think that the truth is that we're holding on to the past mantra and not flexible enough to accept what is needed (Unless the big is head and shoulders better than everything we have). What good is it to go out and get a big who can play like a Heywood, if our plan is to sit him on the bench and play him the 14 mpg that Horf doesn't play? Or only expect to play him when we have a matchup situation.

Back to the topic... with our mindset, we're not ready for a big.

We see this especially in the guards.

Jamal Crawford.

For the last two years, Crawford was considered Snubbed for the allstar game.

Now, we get him and automatically, he's a bench player?

Why?

Because we're so set in our roster that we can't see playing the best player?

We will see.

[buckeye242424]

More clearly. I think that the truth is that we're holding on to the past mantra and not flexible enough to accept what is needed (Unless the big is head and shoulders better than everything we have). What good is it to go out and get a big who can play like a Heywood, if our plan is to sit him on the bench and play him the 14 mpg that Horf doesn't play? Or only expect to play him when we have a matchup situation.

Back to the topic... with our mindset, we're not ready for a big.

We see this especially in the guards.

Jamal Crawford.

For the last two years, Crawford was considered Snubbed for the allstar game.

Now, we get him and automatically, he's a bench player?

Why?

Because we're so set in our roster that we can't see playing the best player?

We will see.

I'm guilty. I've penciled in Horf as a starting Forward/Center for our team as long as he's here...mostly because I love the way he plays, and yes, his attitude. Same with Smoove because he's been here, and he's exciting to watch. I do think, however, that these two have been the best players at those positions the last few years...but I can understand what you're saying if we were to bring in a BIG this year.

I would like to add that many people, here, like to look at draft position as a rite of passage of playing time and starting positions. People like to put all the blame on Woody for Acie Law not making it here. Right or wrong? Who's to say? But just because he was the ninth pick in the draft doesn't instantly mean he was going to be our pg of the future. Maybe Acie...just isn't that good??

Like you said. We will see.

[MaceCase]

More clearly. I think that the truth is that we're holding on to the past mantra and not flexible enough to accept what is needed (Unless the big is head and shoulders better than everything we have). What good is it to go out and get a big who can play like a Heywood, if our plan is to sit him on the bench and play him the 14 mpg that Horf doesn't play? Or only expect to play him when we have a matchup situation.

Back to the topic... with our mindset, we're not ready for a big.

We see this especially in the guards.

Jamal Crawford.

For the last two years, Crawford was considered Snubbed for the allstar game.

Now, we get him and automatically, he's a bench player?

Why?

Because we're so set in our roster that we can't see playing the best player?

We will see.

Snubbed, really? I guess Ricky Davis demanded recounts on every Allstar game during the early 2000s. With the case of Crawford going to the bench its simple really, Joe is a better 2guard and Bibby is a better PG. You don't sacrifice their production to accomodate for a new piece just because he can score 19ppg and you think Joe is better at the 3. The same would be said if we did acquire a player of Howard's talent, would we now move Smoove to the 3? The answer is no, his advantage is at the 4 so he will remain at the 4. Horf is a PF in size but he has proven that He can play the 5 so if a Howard is aquired Horf now becomes the super sub at both frontcourt positions.

Now if we acquired a Kevin Garnett then Smoove would be the one that goes to the bench while Horf starts because Kevin is a far greater PF and Horf can play the 5. When Smoove comes in KG will slide to the 5 for spells at the C position because he has proven he can be capable there. You in no way start KG at 5 because that is not his primary position and many of his advantages get canceled out there. The same is true of Joe, he can dominate most 2guards but slide him to the 3 and he no longer has that advantage. His height, weight and strength are negated because most forwards have those same talents themselves. We'd give up this advantage why? Because you don't like Marv is why.

If we aquire a lesser big he better bring something to the table that our frontcourt doesn't possess otherwise what's wrong with bringing him off the bench? Why screw over your starting 5 just to accomodate for someone who doesn't do anything greater than them?

[Diesel]

Snubbed, really? I guess Ricky Davis demanded recounts on every Allstar game during the early 2000s. With the case of Crawford going to the bench its simple really, Joe is a better 2guard and Bibby is a better PG. You don't sacrifice their production to accomodate for a new piece just because he can score 19ppg and you think Joe is better at the 3. The same would be said if we did acquire a player of Howard's talent, would we now move Smoove to the 3? The answer is no, his advantage is at the 4 so he will remain at the 4. Horf is a PF in size but he has proven that He can play the 5 so if a Howard is aquired Horf now becomes the super sub at both frontcourt positions.

Now if we acquired a Kevin Garnett then Smoove would be the one that goes to the bench while Horf starts because Kevin is a far greater PF and Horf can play the 5. When Smoove comes in KG will slide to the 5 for spells at the C position because he has proven he can be capable there. You in no way start KG at 5 because that is not his primary position and many of his advantages get canceled out there. The same is true of Joe, he can dominate most 2guards but slide him to the 3 and he no longer has that advantage. His height, weight and strength are negated because most forwards have those same talents themselves. We'd give up this advantage why? Because you don't like Marv is why.

If we aquire a lesser big he better bring something to the table that our frontcourt doesn't possess otherwise what's wrong with bringing him off the bench? Why screw over your starting 5 just to accomodate for someone who doesn't do anything greater than them?

Did you do your homework? or did you just put fingers to keyboard and start mindlessly typing?

Had you done the Homework, you would find that Crawford in 2009 came in 6th place among guards in the allstar voting. Ahead of Nash, Kidd, and Roy. He also had 2 times as many votes as Joe Johnson.

You don't sacrifice their production to accomodate for a new piece just because he can score 19ppg and you think Joe is better at the 3. The same would be said if we did acquire a player of Howard's talent, would we now move Smoove to the 3? The answer is no, his advantage is at the 4 so he will remain at the 4. Horf is a PF in size but he has proven that He can play the 5 so if a Howard is aquired Horf now becomes the super sub at both frontcourt positions.

Here's our big disagreement. We see this totally different. When you have versatile players (as we do), you don't bench a 19 point per game player simply because you're used to a certain arrangement. What the hell did you trade for an impact player for if your plan is to put him on the bench. Your thinking is the problem here. You think as if we're some great offensive team and that we're championship quality... The problem is that we're not and what makes us not championship quality is that we don't have the right pieces in the right places.

Crawford is a 2. Joe can play and has played 3 before. Remember in Phoenix when they had him and Qrich on the floor at the same time? With Nash at the Point? Joe looked good enough playing SF that we spent 70 million dollars to get him. Even then, BK didn't know where to play Joe because he had just made the biggest mistake in franchise history by not drafting Chris Paul. With 6 SFs in the lineup, BK floated that Joe would be PG. Then it was SG. Well, my friend, now that we have gotten some talent on this team, it's time to go back to what is natural. We have Bibby at the PG. We have Crawford at the 2. We have Joe at the 3. That's the natural order of things.

If we were to get Howard. And Horf had turned the corner as a Pf... Smoove would not sit on the bench. He would play Sf unless Joe was there.

[MaceCase]

Did you do your homework? or did you just put fingers to keyboard and start mindlessly typing?

Had you done the Homework, you would find that Crawford in 2009 came in 6th place among guards in the allstar voting. Ahead of Nash, Kidd, and Roy. He also had 2 times as many votes as Joe Johnson.

Here's our big disagreement. We see this totally different. When you have versatile players (as we do), you don't bench a 19 point per game player simply because you're used to a certain arrangement. What the hell did you trade for an impact player for if your plan is to put him on the bench. Your thinking is the problem here. You think as if we're some great offensive team and that we're championship quality... The problem is that we're not and what makes us not championship quality is that we don't have the right pieces in the right places.

Crawford is a 2. Joe can play and has played 3 before. Remember in Phoenix when they had him and Qrich on the floor at the same time? With Nash at the Point? Joe looked good enough playing SF that we spent 70 million dollars to get him. Even then, BK didn't know where to play Joe because he had just made the biggest mistake in franchise history by not drafting Chris Paul. With 6 SFs in the lineup, BK floated that Joe would be PG. Then it was SG. Well, my friend, now that we have gotten some talent on this team, it's time to go back to what is natural. We have Bibby at the PG. We have Crawford at the 2. We have Joe at the 3. That's the natural order of things.

If we were to get Howard. And Horf had turned the corner as a Pf... Smoove would not sit on the bench. He would play Sf unless Joe was there.

Hold on let me remember, for the allstar game fans vote in the starters correct? Then coaches vote in the rest right? So in essence being voted 6th amongst guards (I will include both PG and SG) is still the equivalent of finishing with that medal that comes after bronze. What's that called again? Oh yea it doesn't exist because it is not a snub. Fans didn't nominate him and the same coaches that have blessed our great Joe Johnson didn't see him worthy. I'm sure Yi Jianlian was top 5 on all ballots too.

Your problem is you don't understand balance or chemistry within the game of basketball. You just want to throw every single guy that can put the ball in the basket out on the court at the same time and not account for those 40 or so minutes total that starters are resting on the bench. Those minutes are critical my friend, you can't just outscore teams in 1st and 4th quarters while doing nothing in the 2nd and 3rd and expect to win.

Crawford is not this impact player that you speak of, I'm sorry but snap back to reality. He was a scorer on bad teams plain and simple. He wasn't an allstar (or even close for that matter) he wasn't even a great scorer he was simply a guy that could put up points with a lot of shots.

Joe needs shots, Bibby needs shots, Crawford needs shots, Josh needs shots. You simply can't be effective having 4 out of your 5 starters all needing the ball at once unless you consider seeing 5 different iso's on 5 different possesions effective. Even then none of these guys would be able to get into rhythm because guy x guy y and guy z need their touches.

Irregardless of positions Joe needs the ball so in essence he will not and cannot share the floor with many other players with the same mindset for 37 minutes.

Factor in positions and now you have Crawford is a combo guard. That means he can sub in at either guard spot and rather than pigeon hole himself into being a facilitator or outlet for Joe he can focus on what he knows, which is create his offense. That's why he is here, he is here to score. That is all he knows how to do that is all he is going to do.

You seem to also keep referencing Joe's time playing "SF" in Pheonix as your model for him being effective at that position and your main argument for this "we're not ready" thread. Your evidence is flawed because D'Antonis offense does not feature any specific positions. Thats why you can see a 6'8" 230 pound Diaw play "C" there. Joe was not a "SF" there he was the secondary ball handler next to a 6'6" 240lb SF/SG in Q Brick and a 6'7" 230lb SF/PF in Marion. By most accounts being the second ball handler after a PG would make you the SG wouldn't it?

Your skillsets are what determine your real position not your size or what it says in the gameplan. If you can't be as effective at one position than you are at the other then that is your secondary position or you should'nt be playing it all. If Horf was better at PF than Smoove and we acquired a Howard we wouldn't play Josh at SF because he can't play SF.

Flash back to the Jailblazers when they had all Sheed, Randolph and Reef playing for them at the 5,4 and 3 and ask them how effective that was playing guys out of position just to get all their best players on the court.

Edited July 5, 2009 by CrawfulToCrawesome

[Diesel]

Hold on let me remember, for the allstar game fans vote in the starters correct? Then coaches vote in the rest right? So in essence being voted 6th amongst guards (I will include both PG and SG) is still the equivalent of finishing with that medal that comes after bronze. What's that called again? Oh yea it doesn't exist because it is not a snub. Fans didn't nominate him and the same coaches that have blessed our great Joe Johnson didn't see him worthy. I'm sure Yi Jianlian was top 5 on all ballots too.

Your problem is you don't understand balance or chemistry within the game of basketball. You just want to throw every single guy that can put the ball in the basket out on the court at the same time and not account for those 40 or so minutes total that starters are resting on the bench. Those minutes are critical my friend, you can't just outscore teams in 1st and 4th quarters while doing nothing in the 2nd and 3rd and expect to win.

Crawford is not this impact player that you speak of, I'm sorry but snap back to reality. He was a scorer on bad teams plain and simple. He wasn't an allstar (or even close for that matter) he wasn't even a great scorer he was simply a guy that could put up points with a lot of shots.

Joe needs shots, Bibby needs shots, Crawford needs shots, Josh needs shots. You simply can't be effective having 4 out of your 5 starters all needing the ball at once unless you consider seeing 5 different iso's on 5 different possesions effective. Even then none of these guys would be able to get into rhythm because guy x guy y and guy z need their touches.

Irregardless of positions Joe needs the ball so in essence he will not and cannot share the floor with many other players with the same mindset for 37 minutes.

Factor in positions and now you have Crawford is a combo guard. That means he can sub in at either guard spot and rather than pigeon hole himself into being a facilitator or outlet for Joe he can focus on what he knows, which is create his offense. That's why he is here, he is here to score. That is all he knows how to do that is all he is going to do.

You seem to also keep referencing Joe's time playing "SF" in Pheonix as your model for him being effective at that position and your main argument for this "we're not ready" thread. Your evidence is flawed because D'Antonis offense does not feature any specific positions. Thats why you can see a 6'8" 230 pound Diaw play "C" there. Joe was not a "SF" there he was the secondary ball handler next to a 6'6" 240lb SF/SG in Q Brick and a 6'7" 230lb SF/PF in Marion. By most accounts being the second ball handler after a PG would make you the SG wouldn't it?

Your skillsets are what determine your real position not your size or what it says in the gameplan. If you can't be as effective at one position than you are at the other then that is your secondary position or you should'nt be playing it all. If Horf was better at PF than Smoove and we acquired a Howard we wouldn't play Josh at SF because he can't play SF.

Flash back to the Jailblazers when they had all Sheed, Randolph and Reef playing for them at the 5,4 and 3 and ask them how effective that was playing guys out of position just to get all their best players on the court.

So you want to use allstar lineups as a means to tell where a player should play?

IN 2007, The WC allstar starting 5 was:

PG Tracy McGrady Houston Rockets

SG Kobe Bryant Los Angeles Lakers

SF Kevin Garnett Minnesota Timberwolves

PF Tim Duncan San Antonio Spurs

C Yao Ming1 Houston Rockets

Tracy McGrady was the PG! I guess those fans really know what they are doing?

Moving on.

"Your problem is you don't understand balance or chemistry within the game of basketball. You just want to throw every single guy that can put the ball in the basket out on the court at the same time and not account for those 40 or so minutes total that starters are resting on the bench. Those minutes are critical my friend, you can't just outscore teams in 1st and 4th quarters while doing nothing in the 2nd and 3rd and expect to win."

I preach the balance of chemistry here and have done so since the before BK. Here's the deal. You need to first realize that those positions that you believe so strongly in are not what you believe. Joe is not JUST a SG, he's a SF. He played it in the 2nd half of the season. He's 6'7 235. Do you realize how big Joe is? For a reference Josh SMith is 6'9 230. That's our starting PF. For a historical reference, Scottie Pippen was 6'8 228. Pippen was the prototype for all of these long Sfs.

Speaking of Balance, the reason I would rather see Bibby, Crawford, Joe is to give our offense more option. Joe will get doubled and tripled. Our Frontcourt doesn't have 1 player capable of creating for themselves. If you want to talk about Balance, where's the offensive balance when Joe's doubled and there's nobody else to pass to but Bibby?? That's why Flip came in so handily this season. Flip only virtue is that he could create. He however was not starter material. Crawford on the other hand is. You can check the numbers... you will see that we were a better team with Joe, Bibby, and Flip on the floor at the same time. This is the balance we need from Crawford.

The numbers don't lie... When Joe played Sf and Flip played SG, we were better than any analogous team with Flip on the bench and Joe at 2. So we bring in Crawford who is a better scorer than Flip and you want to sit him on the bench?

Like I said, your thinking has been molded by BK and you can't see the truth.

You seem to also keep referencing Joe's time playing "SF" in Pheonix as your model for him being effective at that position and your main argument for this "we're not ready" thread. Your evidence is flawed because D'Antonis offense does not feature any specific positions. Thats why you can see a 6'8" 230 pound Diaw play "C" there. Joe was not a "SF" there he was the secondary ball handler next to a 6'6" 240lb SF/SG in Q Brick and a 6'7" 230lb SF/PF in Marion. By most accounts being the second ball handler after a PG would make you the SG wouldn't it?

No.

You are what you can defend...

When Pippen played for the Bulls, he was the primary ball handler. That didn't make him the PG. He was still the Sf.

In the showtime Lakers offense, Byron Scott only touched the ball when he shot the ball. He wasn't a secondary ball handler. That distinction went to Worthy. Still, Scott was the Sg.

The same is true for Craig Hodges when he was a Bull. He didn't touch the ball until he shot the ball. Still the 2.

In today's game. A few years ago, Tim Duncan had the ball run through him. For all practical purposes, he was the secondary ball handler. Would you assume that Duncan was a 2?

You are what you can defend.

On that Phoenix team, Joe Johnson defended Sfs. Marion defended Pfs. And Rich defended SGs.

Your skillsets are what determine your real position not your size or what it says in the gameplan. If you can't be as effective at one position than you are at the other then that is your secondary position or you should'nt be playing it all.

Normally, I agree with this with 2 corollaries.

1. You are what you can defend. IF you are an excellent ball handler, excellent passer, and you can't defend PGs... then you're not a PG. Ask Jordan why he stopped being a PG under Doug Collins.

2. The determining factor as to if you can be effective at a position requires more than just 5 minutes at that position while playing 36 minutes at the other.

Horf will probably be an excellent PF, however we have allowed team makeup to determine his position. Because we have Smoove and because we need a C and because he is 6'10 then Horf you must be a C. That's the absolute wrong way to determine position. This is a huge part of our problem. Then when we call on Horf to play PF for that 1 or 2 games out of the year, he looks bad. You know why? You're asking him to do something that he hasn't trained for. If he's a PF/C, then he should spend some time playing PF and some time playing C every game. Not just used as an emergency fill in when Smoove is hurt.

Edited July 5, 2009 by Diesel

[MaceCase]

So you want to use allstar lineups as a means to tell where a player should play?

IN 2007, The WC allstar starting 5 was:

PG Tracy McGrady Houston Rockets

SG Kobe Bryant Los Angeles Lakers

SF Kevin Garnett Minnesota Timberwolves

PF Tim Duncan San Antonio Spurs

C Yao Ming1 Houston Rockets

Tracy McGrady was the PG! I guess those fans really know what they are doing?

Moving on.

First, you are the one that brought up that he was "snubbed" for the allstar game the last two seasons. This was based on the fact he was 6th amongst guards in fan voting, even though the fans are only allowed to vote in 2 guards despite position. So by your own admission the same people that snubbed him are the same idiots that voted for him to 6th in the first place?

I preach the balance of chemistry here and have done so since the before BK. Here's the deal. You need to first realize that those positions that you believe so strongly in are not what you believe. Joe is not JUST a SG, he's a SF. He played it in the 2nd half of the season. He's 6'7 235. Do you realize how big Joe is? For a reference Josh SMith is 6'9 230. That's our starting PF. For a historical reference, Scottie Pippen was 6'8 228. Pippen was the prototype for all of these long Sfs.

You do realize that Mo Evans was our starting SF when Marvin went down and also happened to guard opposing SFs right? Joe didn't start at SF despite being 6'7" how come? Wouldn't that be the best time to start Flip and slide Joe over seeing as that was our best possible lineup? How come we didn't attempt that? Maybe you're basing your whole theory on Joe being tall and maybe those couple games Mario started.

Speaking of Balance, the reason I would rather see Bibby, Crawford, Joe is to give our offense more option. Joe will get doubled and tripled. Our Frontcourt doesn't have 1 player capable of creating for themselves. If you want to talk about Balance, where's the offensive balance when Joe's doubled and there's nobody else to pass to but Bibby?? That's why Flip came in so handily this season. Flip only virtue is that he could create. He however was not starter material. Crawford on the other hand is. You can check the numbers... you will see that we were a better team with Joe, Bibby, and Flip on the floor at the same time. This is the balance we need from Crawford.

The numbers don't lie... When Joe played Sf and Flip played SG, we were better than any analogous team with Flip on the bench and Joe at 2. So we bring in Crawford who is a better scorer than Flip and you want to sit him on the bench?

Like I said, your thinking has been molded by BK and you can't see the truth.

Again you do not create balance by putting more weight on one side of the scale. You can't have three wing scorers over a long period of time. Adding more shooting focus on the perimeter doesn't solve the offense it just makes it more one dimensional. It even further stunts the development of our post players, all those shots that the perimeter guys jack are post opportunities that they are missing out on. You may be able to get away with 3 guard lineups in sprints but not through out an entire game. They will look exciting, they will put up some points but then uh oh the other side of the ball comes up, you know the Yin to the offense's Yang. What's that called again? Ah yes Defense

They will get killed on defense and rebounding and incase you weren't aware those are the factors that get the offense all those opportunities to jack up threes.

Next

No.

You are what you can defend...

When Pippen played for the Bulls, he was the primary ball handler. That didn't make him the PG. He was still the Sf.

In the showtime Lakers offense, Byron Scott only touched the ball when he shot the ball. He wasn't a secondary ball handler. That distinction went to Worthy. Still, Scott was the Sg.

The same is true for Craig Hodges when he was a Bull. He didn't touch the ball until he shot the ball. Still the 2.

In today's game. A few years ago, Tim Duncan had the ball run through him. For all practical purposes, he was the secondary ball handler. Would you assume that Duncan was a 2?

You are what you can defend.

On that Phoenix team, Joe Johnson defended Sfs. Marion defended Pfs. And Rich defended SGs.

Joe was the SG plain and simple and if he is what he can defend, well then he defended the best perimeter threat be they Kobe, Parker, or Artest because Richardson, a SF, could not . And when Nash went to the bench and Barbosa came on Joe then became the PG. He handled the ball and assisted allowing Barbosa to have a career season being a scoring guard off the bench (just for reference of an offensive threat that can start yet comes off the bench). Joe was a SG/PG coming out of college and Richardson a SF. Richardson was let go that year by the Clippers because he shared the same position as Corey Maggette who happens to be another SF. Why is it all of a sudden (because you need this to be true to even have an argument) that Richardson would now be a SG in Pheonix?

Next

Normally, I agree with this with 2 corollaries.

1. You are what you can defend. IF you are an excellent ball handler, excellent passer, and you can't defend PGs... then you're not a PG. Ask Jordan why he stopped being a PG under Doug Collins.

2. The determining factor as to if you can be effective at a position requires more than just 5 minutes at that position while playing 36 minutes at the other.

Horf will probably be an excellent PF, however we have allowed team makeup to determine his position. Because we have Smoove and because we need a C and because he is 6'10 then Horf you must be a C. That's the absolute wrong way to determine position. This is a huge part of our problem. Then when we call on Horf to play PF for that 1 or 2 games out of the year, he looks bad. You know why? You're asking him to do something that he hasn't trained for. If he's a PF/C, then he should spend some time playing PF and some time playing C every game. Not just used as an emergency fill in when Smoove is hurt.

I don't understand you here? Josh can't guard SFs and doesn't have the handles and especially the shooting of an SF so therefore by your own admition he is not a SF. Al, as Sund will tell you, can't guard today's PFs so that is why he is a C. Because he "trained" to bang with players in the post, not chase them through screens and around the perimeter. Your same theory in reverse now states that because he is not 7 feet tall that is why he is not a Center...... despite the fact he has all the skillsets of a Center.

Ahh we are clear now, you are the one that is blinded not us. You are the one that is stuck in looking at a players height and build and say that is what determines his position rather than his skillset. It bothers you that a 7footer in today's NBA can shoot a 3pointer with accuracy.

"But thats not what 7footers doooooo. 7footers are Centers, they supposed to rebound and block shots not shoot jumpeeeers."

BK got us 4 6'8" players and somehow like magic they fell into SG, SF, PF, and C. how would that be? It's not because he pigeon holed them its because its their skillset that determined their position for them.

Lebron came out of highschool playing PG but in the NBA he can't guard PGs so they moved him to SF

BUT WAIT

He has the height of an average PF and the weight of an average C being 6'8" 260lbs so he should play in the paint with his back to the basket right?

But no his advantage is at the SF position, he kills slower guys with his quickness, smaller guys with his strength and shorter guys with his height. Why move him to PF and have him play with his back to the basket where he is pedestrian at best? Because he's big......

come on now

Edited July 6, 2009 by CrawfulToCrawesome