The difference between the Hawks and

[Vol4ever]

the Celtics, Majic, and Cavs.

We have all been aggravated with the shot clock fiasco in Cleveland and deservedlt so BUT that was not the main problem in the game for the Hawks.

The Hawks cannot finish games, and therin lies the problem with this team. The Hawks coule d use a BIG 5, and yes, they could use a veteran 1 but if they just execute down the stretch things would be fine. The other 3 teams in the east know how to finish a game. When the Hawks MOVE the ball they are scary, but when they start the one on one thing, they fall apart and that is what is happening at the end of the games. We do not have a true lead guard, Teague might be one day, but at this point we could use a veteran lead guard and down the stretch in games the offense could be set up to go to JJ and Craw. Bibby is a great shooter and nothing more.

Your thoughts................

[Buzzard]

the Celtics, Majic, and Cavs.

We have all been aggravated with the shot clock fiasco in Cleveland and deservedlt so BUT that was not the main problem in the game for the Hawks.

The Hawks cannot finish games, and therin lies the problem with this team. The Hawks coule d use a BIG 5, and yes, they could use a veteran 1 but if they just execute down the stretch things would be fine. The other 3 teams in the east know how to finish a game. When the Hawks MOVE the ball they are scary, but when they start the one on one thing, they fall apart and that is what is happening at the end of the games. We do not have a true lead guard, Teague might be one day, but at this point we could use a veteran lead guard and down the stretch in games the offense could be set up to go to JJ and Craw. Bibby is a great shooter and nothing more.

Your thoughts................

Closing out games is learned in playoff type enviroments. Bibby is the only player on our team that has that kind of experience. Horford has it from two NCAA championships; but he does not get the damn ball in the 4th quarter. As much as we like to relish the seven game series with Boston, we still got blown out on their court and barely won most of them on ours.

JJ is not a player that carries a team in adverse conditions. Everytime we lose a game in the 4th quarter it only reinforces this fact to himself and his teammates over and over again. I really think Horford can become that stone cold killer if Woody ever gives him a chance to develop that mindset.

Edited January 3, 2010 by Buzzard

[DJlaysitup]

I really think Horford can become that stone cold killer if Woody ever gives him a chance to develop that mindset.

I agree with that 100%. You can't develop an inside force by not giving him touches.

Typical Hawks play on offense:

PG brings it across the 1/2 court line and passes it to JJ or Craw (God help us if any team presses us)...JJ or Craw dribble for awhile and jack up a bad shot. Long rebound and Horford gets it and passes out to Bibby who shoots immediately and knocks down a two (or misses)...whoopee.

Thing is - - we have to MOVE the ball. Our two SGs are either selfish or they aren't listening to the coach or Aaaargh! When we get an offensive rebound since the shot wasn't close and came off hard and Horford passes out to a guard (NEW SHOT CLOCK).....we just fire it up again without trying to get an easy inside basket (pulling my hair out).

Edited January 3, 2010 by DJlaysitup

[sillent]

Closing out games is learned in playoff type enviroments. Bibby is the only player on our team that has that kind of experience. Horford has it from two NCAA championships; but he does not get the damn ball in the 4th quarter. As much as we like to relish the seven game series with Boston, we still got blown out on their court and barely won most of them on ours.

If you watched our games the last couple of years( not just look at te stats) you would notice most of our wins and losses were determined by close games. Whether we came back or just held on they were close games. This is the first season in a while where most of our wins were decided by blowouts.

[itsslomotionbaby]

yea thats another thing i noticed near the end of the nicks game 3 players just standing around the arc passing the ball back and forth no back door trailer plays or anything

[Blunt91]

yea thats another thing i noticed near the end of the nicks game 3 players just standing around the arc passing the ball back and forth no back door trailer plays or anything

I was watching some of the Magic/Bulls game last night. I noticed that the Bulls were taking the ball to the basket. They only took long jumpers when the opportunity presented itself, and they ended up beating the Magic. The hawks try to get into a shooting match with teams like the Magic who are generally a better shooting team. You can't get in a shootout with a team that likes to shoot, you need to come up with a different strategy to win.

Edited January 3, 2010 by Blunt91

[Buzzard]

If you watched our games the last couple of years( not just look at te stats) you would notice most of our wins and losses were determined by close games. Whether we came back or just held on they were close games. This is the first season in a while where most of our wins were decided by blowouts.

I said JJ does not lead us in adverse conditions very well, Bibby has most of our NBA playoff experience, and Horf with his play in the NCAAs may be that down the stretch type player we need. None of this has anything to do with stats, so I do no understand your point. And I have league pass, I get it every year.

Edited January 3, 2010 by Buzzard

[Packfill]

I said JJ does not lead us in adverse conditions very well, Bibby has most of our NBA playoff experience, and Horf with his play in the NCAAs may be that down the stretch type player we need. None of this has anything to do with stats, so I do no understand your point. And I have league pass, I get it every year.

I would argue that as a team the Hawks have sufficient playoff experience to know what it takes to win close games at this point. The team also is very much a veteran squad at this point (I realize Horford, Smithand Williams are still relatively young, but each is sufficiently seasoned in the NBA at this point) so it comes down to mindset and execution. The team is heavily reliant on jump shots and Woody is not a great tactition, so those are also areas to work on certaintly.

[Buzzard]

I would argue that as a team the Hawks have sufficient playoff experience to know what it takes to win close games at this point. The team also is very much a veteran squad at this point (I realize Horford, Smithand Williams are still relatively young, but each is sufficiently seasoned in the NBA at this point) so it comes down to mindset and execution. The team is heavily reliant on jump shots and Woody is not a great tactition, so those are also areas to work on certaintly.

I would say those two statements are not in agreement. In order to win close games someone has to be a good tactician even if its our PG taking over and running something. And jump shots are not what good veteran teams look for down the stretch; its what they settle for if the opposing team plays balls out D on them.

Edited January 3, 2010 by Buzzard

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Let's be real folks. The weaknesses of this team has always been there. It's just that the guys who were making shots earlier in the year, aren't making them in the last 3 games for some reason. Defensively, we're just not getting the job done. That's where the tightening up needs to happen. Also, the Hawks need to start securing defensive rebounds a lot better.

4th quarter shooting the last 3 games ( OT stats in Knicks game not included ):

Johnson: 1 - 3 . . 5 - 10 . . 2 - 4 . . . . TOTAL: 8 - 17 ( .471 )

Bibby: 0 - 1 . . 1- 3 . . 1 - 3 . . . . . . TOTAL: 2 - 7 ( .286 )

Horford: 0 - 3 . . 0 - 1 . . 0 - 1 . . . . . .TOTAL: 0 - 5 ( .000 )

Smith: 3 - 5 . . 0 - 2 . . 2 - 2 . .. . . . TOTAL: 5 - 9 ( .556 )

Williams: n/a . .n/a . . 2 - 5 . . . . . . TOTAL: 2 - 5 ( .400 )

Crawford: 1 - 3 . . 0 - 2 . . 1 - 5 . . . TOTAL: 2 - 10 ( .200 )

Evans: n/a . . n/a . . 0 - 1 . . . . . . . . TOTAL: 0 - 1 ( .000 )

People blame JJ, but JJ is obviously doing his job. It's the complimentary players, especially Crawford, that need to be better. When he's looked upon to be our 2nd guy, he's the one that really needs to help JJ. He did a great job of that in the first Cleveland game for 3 quarters. But recently, he hasn't done his job.

Other people simply need to step up folks. On both ends of the floor.

[smithrules]

I would say those two statements are not in agreement. In order to win close games someone has to be a good tactician even if its our PG taking over and running something. And jump shots are not what good veteran teams look for down the stretch; its what they settle for if the opposing team plays balls out D on them.

The problem was that when we were up by 15 woody went with the bench instead of putting the nail in the coffin! We started playing like it was another one of our blowouts with marvin taking charge and crawford chunking and before you know it the knicks were hot. The other reason woody lost this game is instead of double, or triple teaming nate, we tired to single cover him with bibby, horford, smith and JJ at the top of the key! Basically we put on the breaks and then became to stubburn to change our defensive stratedgy!

[TheNorthCydeRises]

If you watched our games the last couple of years( not just look at te stats) you would notice most of our wins and losses were determined by close games. Whether we came back or just held on they were close games. This is the first season in a while where most of our wins were decided by blowouts.

And in most of those close games, it was either JJ or Bibby or Josh making huge plays or shots for us. That's why I'm not deeply concerned about the 3 game collaspes. The first Cleveland game we definitely should've lost. We played well enough defensively to possibly win, but we couldn't do anything right offensively. The 2nd Cleveland game, we should've won, but we had to battle a lot of ish up there, including the refs and a horrible shot clock operator. The Knick game we should've won, but it took a Kobe-esque performance by Nate Robinson to beat us.

The fact that we routinely destroy teams is an indication that we're a very good team. All teams go through a little adversity during a season though. We simply have to watch them, and see how all of this plays out.

People were ready to push the panic button after the Hornet, Magic, and Piston losses . . then we go on another winning streak. We have a much tougher stretch of games coming up, but I think this team is mentally tough enough to hold the fort and win some of those games.

That's the one good thing about being 10 games above .500 . . . . you do have a little room for error, especially if the people ahead of you aren't pulling away from you.

Edited January 3, 2010 by northcyde

[TheNorthCydeRises]

The problem was that when we were up by 15 woody went with the bench instead of putting the nail in the coffin! We started playing like it was another one of our blowouts with marvin taking charge and crawford chunking and before you know it the knicks were hot. The other reason woody lost this game is instead of double, or triple teaming nate, we tired to single cover him with bibby, horford, smith and JJ at the top of the key! Basically we put on the breaks and then became to stubburn to change our defensive stratedgy!

But people have been wanting to see the bench all year. When they don't get into the game, people whine and cry. When they mess up, people whine and cry. It's been obvious to me all year that our bench is nowhere near as good as people think they are. If they were, the 2nd unit of other teams wouldn't routinely handle our bench.

Our bench is essentially Jamal Crawford. If he's off ( like he's been the last 2.25 games ), then our bench tends to be horrible. If JC plays anywhere near how he's been playing throughout the season, we win the Knick game easily and maybe have a better shot at winning one of the Cleveland games. I've never trusted the dude, because I know how streaky he can be.

Personally, I'm hoping for Mr. Consistency ( Marvin ) to get back on track. I want to see the Marvin that would routinely get us an automatic 12 - 18 ppg, by hitting his midrange jumpers. He looked to be turning the corner a little in the Knick game, because he got his shot going a little bit.

We are what we are . . . a jumpshooting team. If the jumpers aren't falling, we need to drive. If we drive, and we can't finish or can't get calls ( which we aren't ), we simply need to shore up the defense.

[Buzzard]

But people have been wanting to see the bench all year. When they don't get into the game, people whine and cry. When they mess up, people whine and cry. It's been obvious to me all year that our bench is nowhere near as good as people think they are. If they were, the 2nd unit of other teams wouldn't routinely handle our bench.

Our bench is essentially Jamal Crawford. If he's off ( like he's been the last 2.25 games ), then our bench tends to be horrible. If JC plays anywhere near how he's been playing throughout the season, we win the Knick game easily and maybe have a better shot at winning one of the Cleveland games. I've never trusted the dude, because I know how streaky he can be.

Personally, I'm hoping for Mr. Consistency ( Marvin ) to get back on track. I want to see the Marvin that would routinely get us an automatic 12 - 18 ppg, by hitting his midrange jumpers. He looked to be turning the corner a little in the Knick game, because he got his shot going a little bit.

We are what we are . . . a jumpshooting team. If the jumpers aren't falling, we need to drive. If we drive, and we can't finish or can't get calls ( which we aren't ), we simply need to shore up the defense.

It is totally up to the coaching staff to recognize what is working on a game to game, even quarter to quarter basis. Figuring out after the fact that Crawford is having a off night does us no good. Same with Marvin and Evans. JJ from just about anywhere, Horf, and Smoove in the paint were our hot hands against the Knicks. Marvin did ok. Crawford and Bibby ( both sucked wind on D) were horrible. If we can see this before the game is over, why does Woody let Craw, a bench player, take more shots in the 4th than these three starters, JJ, Smith, and Horf, who were having good games?

Its just amazing to me that things like this happen. Crawford was cold as ice, yet Woody kept him in the game amd continued to let him shoot in the 4th quarter.

Edited January 3, 2010 by Buzzard

[dlpin]

The problem with the Hawks is not a problem of "closing out" games. The problem with the hawks is a problem of atrocious defense that can't stop other teams when they get hot. There is a reason the Hawks are 17th in points allowed per game, 13th in points allowed per 100 possessions, 20th in opponent's eFG%, and 18th in defensive rebound %.

All teams go cold on offense from time to time, but that is when defense wins the games. The 2008 celtics and the 2004 pistons were also jump shooting teams, but they won games with defense when the shots werent falling.

[Buzzard]

The problem with the Hawks is not a problem of "closing out" games. The problem with the hawks is a problem of atrocious defense that can't stop other teams when they get hot. There is a reason the Hawks are 17th in points allowed per game, 13th in points allowed per 100 possessions, 20th in opponent's eFG%, and 18th in defensive rebound %.

All teams go cold on offense from time to time, but that is when defense wins the games. The 2008 celtics and the 2004 pistons were also jump shooting teams, but they won games with defense when the shots werent falling.

Points allowed per game is only important if we are a low scoring offense which we are not. Point differential is a much more valid stat. Defensive rebounds is always a concern.

Closing out games is getting stops and making shots. I agree with you about our defensive effort in the 4th quarter; and I agree 100% that the Celtics with Garnet, Perkins, and Rondo and the Pistons with Billups, Sheed, and Big Ben would have stopped Nate dead in his tracks on at least 1/2 his possesions in the 4th quarter. They would have mugged him before letting him take over a game like that. Lets be real, Nate Robinson is not Isiah Thomas; but our defense sure as hell made him look like it...

Edited January 3, 2010 by Buzzard

[dlpin]

Points allowed per game is only important if we are a low scoring offense which we are not. Point differential is a much more valid stat. Defensive rebounds is always a concern.

Closing out games is getting stops and making shots. I agree with you about our defensive effort in the 4th quarter; and I agree 100% that the Celtics with Garnet, Perkins, and Rondo and the Pistons with Billups, Sheed, and Big Ben would have stopped Nate dead in his tracks on at least 1/2 his possesions in the 4th quarter. They would have mugged him before letting him take over a game like that. Lets be real, Nate Robinson is not Isiah Thomas; but our defense sure as hell made him look like it...

That's why I listed more than the PPG stats.. 20th in opponent's eFG% is pretty bad too.

[Packfill]

But people have been wanting to see the bench all year. When they don't get into the game, people whine and cry. When they mess up, people whine and cry. It's been obvious to me all year that our bench is nowhere near as good as people think they are. If they were, the 2nd unit of other teams wouldn't routinely handle our bench.

Our bench is essentially Jamal Crawford. If he's off ( like he's been the last 2.25 games ), then our bench tends to be horrible. If JC plays anywhere near how he's been playing throughout the season, we win the Knick game easily and maybe have a better shot at winning one of the Cleveland games. I've never trusted the dude, because I know how streaky he can be.

Personally, I'm hoping for Mr. Consistency ( Marvin ) to get back on track. I want to see the Marvin that would routinely get us an automatic 12 - 18 ppg, by hitting his midrange jumpers. He looked to be turning the corner a little in the Knick game, because he got his shot going a little bit.

We are what we are . . . a jumpshooting team. If the jumpers aren't falling, we need to drive. If we drive, and we can't finish or can't get calls ( which we aren't ), we simply need to shore up the defense.

Not sure Marvin can be "Mr. Consistency" given his play this year, unless you are characterizing him as consistently mediocre to irrelevant.