This team is special

[Wretch]

To put it mildly the Nique teams played against some of the best teams in the last 30 years of NBA history (at least) so the bar is a little higher for the current Hawks in the watered down modern era of the game.

I have to agree with Soth here. Jordan's Bulls, Showtime Lakers, Bird's Celtics, Stockton & Malone, Ewing's Knicks, The Bad Boys, Dream's Rockets, Blazers with Drexler, Buck, Porter, & Kersey. Those teams back then...good grief. And we were right there at the head of the pack. Not to mention that team had the one thing that no other Hawks team has had - one of the league's ELITE (who should have made the top 50). Nique was absolutely unstoppable. JJ and Smitty are good, but Nique was in a whole other class and he got his in a MUCH more physical league.

Discounting Nique's teams, this is by far my favorite Hawks team and I think it has the potential to be special. Moreso than any other. As has been said, if this team plays with focus, INTENSITY, and moves the ball on offense, man...we are hard to beat.

[niremetal]

I have to agree with Soth here. Jordan's Bulls, Showtime Lakers, Bird's Celtics, Stockton & Malone, Ewing's Knicks, The Bad Boys, Dream's Rockets, Blazers with Drexler, Buck, Porter, & Kersey. Those teams back then...good grief. And we were right there at the head of the pack.

I seriously have never seen an era where people don't say "the teams are not as good now as they were back in the good ol' days." People early in the decade said that the Kobe/Shaq Lakers and the Duncan Spurs would never have made it against Jordan's Bulls or Hakeem's Rockets. People in the 90's derided Jordan's Bulls and Hakeem's Rockets as teams that never would have won a title against Magic's Lakers or Bird's Celtics. People in the 80's said Magic's Lakers and Bird's Celtics wouldn't have stood a chance against the Wilt/West Lakers or the Russell/Cousy Celtics, which was the first great team to develop after the founding of the NBA.

History has only judged one era of basketball as being historically weak: The mid-to-late 70's, when the NBA and ABA were raiding each other for talent and the era of free agency first began, which made for more roster turmoil than any other period in NBA history. I don't think historians will view this era as particularly weak when all is said and done.

Oh, and the Hawks were never, ever "right there at the head of the pack."

Edited April 22, 2010 by niremetal

[Wretch]

We are all entitled to our generalizations. Though, the common thread amongst the players, coaches, analysts, fans, etc. that I have heard over the years tend to favor the strength of the league during the 80's to early 90's - especially those of us old enough to have been there. I also said nothing about any era being weak, just that Nique's teams played during a tougher time. To each his own though.

Not sure what the logic or reasoning is behind your last comment, but I'll just assume that you mean we've never been THE best team in the league. No we haven't, and that was hardly my POV either. During any given season, in any given sport, you have bottom feeders, middle of the pack, and the head/top/front runners - whatever you want to call them. The Hawks have most certainly been one of the front runners if for nothing but posting a solid record. Nique's teams did this when the front of the pack was ridiculously talented.

These Cavs, Lakers, Magic, & Mavs...vs Showtime, The Bulls, The Bad Boys, & Drexler's Blazers? lol

OOOOOOOOOOOOOK.

Edit - OMG...These Celtics vs. THOSE Celtics?

Edited April 22, 2010 by Wretch

[Sothron]

Wretch to me it isn't even those teams but that second teir teams then were better than top teams now. Remember those Cavs teams of Price/Ehlo/Nance/Daughtery etc? Run TMC? The Sixers and Suns with Barkley? Don Nelson's Bucks? Reggie's Pacers? The Ewing Knicks? I can keep going but to me those second tier teams (where I'd put the Hawks in that time) were better than the top teams in today's NBA. Trying to compare these Hawks then isn't fair because of how easier it is now.

[Wretch]

No doubt. And we were competitive against the best of the best back then, let alone the 2nd tier of teams.

[AHF]

Oh, and the Hawks were never, ever "right there at the head of the pack."

I agree with this. The Hawks were in the "also-ran" category during the Nique era. They were only close to getting out of the second round of the playoffs once.

I'll also agree that the very best teams of the 80's and 90's would dominate any team today but they also were significantly better than the also rans during their eras. Teams like Malone's Jazz or Ewing's Knicks are not similarly so much better than Kobe's Lakers or Dwight's Magic.

[Joker]

Gasol + A Healthy Bynum says what's up. But yeah, that is a crazy stat line. We expect them to dominate in this series because they have no interior presence to challenge them now that Bogut is down. Now, if they can do this against the Magic...

I disagree, the Magic do since D12+decent player is better everyone else.

[Joker]

Why? No Hawks team has made it past the second round since the move to Atlanta.

People act as if the Nique teams were some golden age. In reality, that team's peak was 57 wins during the regular season (followed by a 4-1 drubbing in the second round) and a 50-win regular season followed by a 7-game defeat in the second round. And the team never finished in the NBA's top third in attendance, so it's not like it was a golden age as far as a rockin house either. Our peak was lower than where the Magic and Nuggets are right now.

It is kind of sad that this team can be mentioned with the best Hawks teams of all time. But it can, because the Hawks have a rather depressing history.

Agreed

[Diesel]

Wretch to me it isn't even those teams but that second teir teams then were better than top teams now. Remember those Cavs teams of Price/Ehlo/Nance/Daughtery etc? Run TMC? The Sixers and Suns with Barkley? Don Nelson's Bucks? Reggie's Pacers? The Ewing Knicks? I can keep going but to me those second tier teams (where I'd put the Hawks in that time) were better than the top teams in today's NBA. Trying to compare these Hawks then isn't fair because of how easier it is now.

I have to say this.... Run TMC!!!!

That brought back memories. Chris Mullen was the most fundamental since Kirk Rambis and until Duncan. I remember he had a commercial trying to show the 1-2 step!?! But nothing beat, I got skills. I still say that today. However, Mitch needed to fire his freakin agent. That dude was way to good to be so unknown.

I used to love a Wayne Embry Cavs team. Those guys would come to dominate. I never understood why they couldn't win anything, other than them having injuries and Jordan.

Barkley + KJ + Marjle + Chambers... = no championship.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

I have to say this.... Run TMC!!!!

That brought back memories. Chris Mullen was the most fundamental since Kirk Rambis and until Duncan. I remember he had a commercial trying to show the 1-2 step!?! But nothing beat, I got skills. I still say that today. However, Mitch needed to fire his freakin agent. That dude was way to good to be so unknown.

I used to love a Wayne Embry Cavs team. Those guys would come to dominate. I never understood why they couldn't win anything, other than them having injuries and Jordan.

Barkley + KJ + Marjle + Chambers... = no championship.

It's funny how perception doesn't necessarily indicate how good a team really was. Run TMC never won more than 45 games in a season ( matter of fact, Mullin - Hardaway - Richmond only had one winning season together in 3 years ), and was pretty much a 3 man team overall. It wasn't until the Warriors acquired Billy Owens for Mitch Richmond, and Sarunas Marciulonis flourished as the super 6th man, that the Warriors had a very successful season.

Yeah . . RUN TMC were exciting to watch, and had the cool nickname . . but so are the 2010 version of Golden St.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Why? No Hawks team has made it past the second round since the move to Atlanta.

People act as if the Nique teams were some golden age. In reality, that team's peak was 57 wins during the regular season (followed by a 4-1 drubbing in the second round) and a 50-win regular season followed by a 7-game defeat in the second round. And the team never finished in the NBA's top third in attendance, so it's not like it was a golden age as far as a rockin house either. Our peak was lower than where the Magic and Nuggets are right now.

It is kind of sad that this team can be mentioned with the best Hawks teams of all time. But it can, because the Hawks have a rather depressing history.

Keep in mind what this is partially about. It's partially about not giving Woody any ounce of credit for the success of the team. So for the people who truly dislike Woodson, he has to do something that no one else hasn't done in the history of the franchise since it's been in Atlanta, in order to justify his return in their eyes.

When you look at the Hawks from an offensive and defensive rating standpoint, the 2009 - 2010 Hawks are most similar to the 1987 - 1988 Hawks ( the most successful postseason Hawk team in Atlanta ) that took Boston to 7 games. And they pretty much shared the same qualities that this current crop of Hawks possess. The 2009 - 10 team is definitely one of the best in franchise history . . with the 1986 - 87 squad being the best ( even though they kind of choked in the playoffs ). That's why I've constantly made it a priority to say this, ever since we got off to that great start. If they get to the EC Finals, then they'll definitely be the best team in Atlanta Hawks history.

10 years from now, history is going to look back on this era of basketball, and say "damn . . . there were a LOT of good players and teams during this time "

- Duncan, Parker, Ginobli and the Spurs

- Kobe and the Lakers

- Lebron and the Cavs

- Steve Nash/Amare Stoudemire and the Suns

- Deron Williams and the Jazz

- Dirk, Jason Kidd and the Mavs

- Carmelo Anthony, Chauncey Billups and the Nuggets

- Dwight Howard, Vince Carter and the Magic

- Pierce, Garnett, Ray Allen and the Celtics

Those 9 teams can play in any era of basketball and excel. You may have to add a tough role player or two in order to make the team tougher, but those teams wouldn't have had much problem playing back in the 80s and 90s. And of the names that I posted, only maybe Vince Carter and GInobli may not be Hall of Famers when it's all said and done. And Ginobli may even make it in, based on his prowess as an international player.

It's natural to downgrade the current era that we're watching, because most of us will always believe that the game in previous eras was better. Truth is, those teams would've had MAJOR PROBLEMS stopping a Lebron James . . or dealing with a 7 footer that could shoot like Dirk Nowitzki . . or a guy like Melo who is a Dominique-esque type scorer . . or the pick and roll of Nash and Amare ( which is comparable to Stockton and Malone ) . . or a Jordan-lite scorer like Kobe.

Edited April 23, 2010 by northcyde

[Sothron]

I find it funny that just about every coach, player, agent, sports writer and fan of the game would admit the 80's and early 90's were by far the peak of the NBA but this one guy on this board.

Take those teams you just mentioned and put them in that era with those rules and they'd struggle to win let alone do anything in the playoffs.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Having said all of that . . . I do agree with Exodus. LOL . . we've only won 2 playoff games. Two games we SHOULD'VE WON. And it is to be expected for Smoove and Horford to have great numbers vs the Bucks frontline ( or lack therof ).

LOL . . some of you guys just go to the extremes with how this team is characterized. Let us lose Game 3, and I'm sure we'll see negative posts come out the woodwork about how sorry this team is.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

I find it funny that just about every coach, player, agent, sports writer and fan of the game would admit the 80's and early 90's were by far the peak of the NBA but this one guy on this board.

Take those teams you just mentioned and put them in that era with those rules and they'd struggle to win let alone do anything in the playoffs.

Soth . . that's complete BS. Because you're assuming that these current crop of players aren't good enough to adjust their style of play, to fit the style of play in the past. Nobody is stopping Kobe or Lebron James . . in ANY ERA. The Celtics Big 3 of 3 years ago could've won a title in ANY ERA.

The big difference with the teams in the past, is that you didn't have 5 to 7 extra teams in the league that further dispersed the talent in the league. But the top level teams all have enough talent across the board to win back in the 80s and 90s.

So basically, what you're saying is that the 1987 - 88 Hawk team that lost to Boston, would be a favorite to win an NBA title in this era? That team won 50 games back then. In this era, they may win 55 games tops ( which is a number that some people though this team should've won ). That team isn't going to dominate this era of basketball or be a favorite over the Lakers or Orlando to win a title.

I'll give you that those elite teams that didn't win titles during the Bird - Magic - Jordan eras would win titles in this era. Guys like Drexler in Portland, Payton in Seattle, and Malone in Utah would win titles in this era. But don't act like all of those other 2nd tier teams were head and shoulders over the teams in this era. And there's no way a team like ours would only win 40 games back in the 80s or 90s.

[Joker]

Soth . . that's complete BS. Because you're assuming that these current crop of players aren't good enough to adjust their style of play, to fit the style of play in the past. Nobody is stopping Kobe or Lebron James . . in ANY ERA. The Celtics Big 3 of 3 years ago could've won a title in ANY ERA.

The big difference with the teams in the past, is that you didn't have 5 to 7 extra teams in the league that further dispersed the talent in the league. But the top level teams all have enough talent across the board to win back in the 80s and 90s.

So basically, what you're saying is that the 1987 - 88 Hawk team that lost to Boston, would be a favorite to win an NBA title in this era? That team won 50 games back then. In this era, they may win 55 games tops ( which is a number that some people though this team should've won ). That team isn't going to dominate this era of basketball or be a favorite over the Lakers or Orlando to win a title.

I'll give you that those elite teams that didn't win titles during the Bird - Magic - Jordan eras would win titles in this era. Guys like Drexler in Portland, Payton in Seattle, and Malone in Utah would win titles in this era. But don't act like all of those other 2nd tier teams were head and shoulders over the teams in this era. And there's no way a team like ours would only win 40 games back in the 80s or 90s.

In the early part of the 2000's, I agree. But to win one now, they do not stand a chance. I would take this Utah team over Stockton and Malone's. I would take that PTL squad over today's but I do not expect either to win the championship in both eras. Overrating the past is something that always happens for some reason, in every sport. Only Baseball was better then than now. Football and Basketball are better now than they were in the 90's and parts of the 80's. The middle and late 80's were tough but not better than today's game. What we should all do is watch a lot of tape from those days and make an opinion. Making an opinion on nostalgia is not going to prove anything. This is why I hate talking about MJ with his fans.

[niremetal]

I'll give you that those elite teams that didn't win titles during the Bird - Magic - Jordan eras would win titles in this era. Guys like Drexler in Portland, Payton in Seattle, and Malone in Utah would win titles in this era. But don't act like all of those other 2nd tier teams were head and shoulders over the teams in this era. And there's no way a team like ours would only win 40 games back in the 80s or 90s.

I love me some Blazers, but I highly doubt that the Drexler-Porter-Robinson-Kersey-Williams crew would make it out of the West today. Same with the Payton-Kemp-Schrempf-Hawkins-Perkins Sonics. Frankly, it's too bad the Bulls and Rockets never made it to the Finals against each other, because those were the only historically "great" teams from the 90's. The Jazz you can make a case for too, although Malone and Stockton didn't even have a second-tier supporting cast until they were a bit past their prime. I mean, the late 90's Jazz consisted entirely of aging players and mediocre role players.

History wipes away all memory of the scrubs that played on teams from past eras, which leaves people with a skewed memory of how good the teams actually were.

In the early part of the 2000's, I agree.

Really? Because I honestly think the Spurs and Lakers from those years would have beaten any of the also-rans from the 90's. Hell, I would say the early-2000's Kings might be the best team from the past 25 years that didn't win a title. Webber-Divac (one of the most underrated players of his time)-Bibby-Peja-Christie with Bobby Jackson and Hedo coming off the bench and Adelman coaching...that team was stacked.

Edited April 23, 2010 by niremetal

[Sothron]

No offense guys but I don't really care what your opinion is on this. As I said before practically every one of consequence feels the NBA was at its best in the 80's and early 90's, I'm old enough to have seen it then and now and they are absolutely correct. I wouldn't put any team in today's game above any of those first or second tier teams back then. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

[niremetal]

No offense guys but I don't really care what your opinion is on this. As I said before practically every one of consequence feels the NBA was at its best in the 80's and early 90's, I'm old enough to have seen it then and now and they are absolutely correct. I wouldn't put any team in today's game above any of those first or second tier teams back then. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Wow. Arrogance much? Everyone of consequence, which makes it sound like there's a consensus about something over which there is CONSTANT debate? Get real.

Edited April 23, 2010 by niremetal

[Sothron]

Wow. Arrogance much? Everyone of consequence, which makes it sound like there's a consensus about something over which there is CONSTANT debate? Get real.

It is a consensus. I don't see anyone debating this that is old enough to have watched (or played/coached) the 80's/early 90's game compared to now. Its like someone trying to say the steroid era in baseball didn't really happen.

[niremetal]

It is a consensus. I don't see anyone debating this that is old enough to have watched (or played/coached) the 80's/early 90's game compared to now. Its like someone trying to say the steroid era in baseball didn't really happen.

No, there isn't.

I've read plenty of books talk about the 60's being the Golden Age of the league in terms of the best players and teams. I've seen plenty of commentators and experts say the same thing. I've seen plenty of pundits talk about how Magic and Larry made the NBA more-watched than any other era in history, but that their teams wouldn't have stood a chance against Russell's Celtics.

I've also seen PLENTY say that the players and teams today could run with the teams from those eras, because players are faster, stronger, and better-conditioned. In fact, the first Google result for NBA + Golden + Age is a fan result saying that it's the 80's and early 90's. But the first result by an "expert" says that it's today. The first book result that comes up talks about the 60's. Searching for "strongest era" and "best era" comes up with a similar mish-mash of fan posts.

And a LOT of experts will also tell you that it is impossible to compare across eras because of differences in style of play, travel arrangements, the length of playoff series, and knowledge of training/diet/etc. Hell, I heard Bob Costas say that talking about players being "better" or "taller" today is irrelevant because Bill Russell might have been 7'2 and even stronger than he was if he had grown up in an era where they had a better understanding of adolescent nutrition.

You have decided to be condescending and arrogant about this, but really, you're just talking out of your butt and not backing up your sweeping statements with anything but your own personal opinion. There is zero consensus on this. This is a subject of constant debate and discussion among "experts" and fans alike. Stop pretending that your personal opinion and selective memory is the end-all and be-all.

Edited April 23, 2010 by niremetal