This team is hard to figure out....

[Diesel]

We have outrebounded 3 teams:

New Orleans Gm 2

Portland

Phoenix.

We have shoot better than 50% from 3 pt area 3 times:

Chicago

Seattle

Phoenix

There are some interesting trends about us.

We should have beaten Chicago and N.O game 1. Even though our three point % were bad against NO game 1, we should have won it.

Seattle outrebounded us but they also shot themselves out of the game going 1-18 from 3.

We went 15-18 from 3 against the Suns and we barely won.

There are 3 things that contribute to our winning:

1. Our ability to hit the outside shot.

2. Our overall Shooting Percentage.

3. Our ability to get the rebound.

But there's a fourth thing:

JT.

In the 2nd N.O. games, We went 5-15 from three. We also rebounded OK. BUT the main difference to anyone that watched the game was how smoothly JV ran the offense. JT needs to learn to run the offense better. The Seattle and Phoenix wins are a result of good shooting... Especially from outside. However, we need to have a more reliable way to win. Mainly by increase our overall FG%. That is done through good play running.

[shoutime72]

i totally agree with you. watching the performance of the game against the suns was, well i don't even know what to say about that. but somehow they pulled it through. i feel that the point guard position is the most important one and if you do not have a true point guard on your team, then your wins will become few and far between. the JV played against the suns was acceptable, but do you think it will be enough against jason kidd and the nets? the hawks have great talent but until they can address their point guard issues and learn how to play together then they will continue to be the same as they were for the past couple of seasons. holla at ya boy

[Gray Mule]

Share your thoughts on some questions I have.

Is Terry Stotts smart enough to be a winning coach in

the N.B.A.? We know from watching that he has been

able to set up some nice plays after a time out. This is

only one small aspect of being a coach, but is this something

we can look at as a gauge?

How smart are the assistant coaches that the Hawks now

have? Are they capable of helping the players that we

have on the current roster improve their game? If not,

why do we need them?

How smart are the players on the roster? Do they have

the I.Q. to learn and retain what they learn, or, are they

simply super jocks, great athletes, who play on their

ability alone and not use very much brain power?

The reason I'm asking? Well, sometimes the Hawks play

like they really know what they are doing. An example

is when they execute one of those plays after a time out.

Other times, they run up and down the court, like a dog

chasing a car, apparently lost. They rebound sometimes.

Other times, they appear lost.

These Hawks remind me of the commercial for the candy

bars --- Mounds & Almond Joy. You've heard it:

"Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't!"

This is not just for Diesel-- Everyone jump in and share

what you think about it!!

[Diesel]

1. Is Terry Stotts smart enough to be a winning coach in the N.B.A.?

I think this is an interesting question. I think Stott has good experience and people around him... But with all his experience, he's still learning. I think it would have benefited him a lot to have a couple of more veterans with Winning experience on the team. Somebody like Smitty would have been nice to say what needs to be said... The parts of coaching:

A. Defining roles. IN a sad way, I think Stotts have defined some roles. I say sad because I don't agree with how he has defined them but he's much better than Lon's do what you want system.

B. Plays. I keep hearing of this exhaustive play book that Stotts has created. That's good. I think he has a very good guy in Armond Hill on the bench with him. The problem is time. If we have a playbook, it will be some time before this team is able to operate them and that still will be according to the aptitude of the PG.

C. Motivator. Yes, the coach must motivate. Stotts has been bad at this until recently. The fact that he's not afraid to bench anybody is good. He needs that kind of attitude to bring in better focus. Still, he has to work on small things like our players arguing with the refs.

D. Setting Goals. Every coach should set a goal for his team. I think Stotts have shyed away from that in the press. I can only hope that he has some between he and the team.

2. How smart are the assistant coaches that the Hawks now

have?

We have some pretty good ones. I like Hill. He's an experienced guy. Has been a head coach in college but his better experence came from playing at Princeton. I like Larry Smith. He was a part of Houston's winning seasons. He was also a good player in College and pros. Boylan has a lot of experience. He's a guy who has more bench experience than most coaches. I remember him being an assistant to "The Great ONe" back in Cleveland. I think he worked with Mark Price and with Reef in Vancouver. I don't know where he went after that.

I think that's it. I think Harold Ellis will make the move from Scout to Coach sooner or Later.

3. How smart are the players on the roster?

Each player is as smart as his experience. What I mean by that is that you hardly ever see a "smart" rookie. I think all players have an aptitude to learn and adapt. Of all of our players, I would say that one who has shown the most aptitude about the game are Theo, Jackson, and Vaughn. Or at least these are the guys that make the least number of mental errors.

ONe thing you have to consider though is that the players are an extension of their experiences. None of these guys have been coached by a great coach save maybe Vaughn, Jackson, and Theo. Still, JT, SAR, Hendu, and Even Glover.. Needs a kick in the pants from time to time. That's why I would love for Fratello to be coach. Not because he's a great coach, but he's a guy capable of lighting a fire under these guys and helping them to overcome mental errors. Many of the problems we have are from:

1. Not Hustling.

2. Mental Errors.

3. Other coaching defects.

Can Stotts clear it up? I don't know. I think he's showing that he's willing to change.

[Gray Mule]

Good analysis. In spite of the fact that this is the second

season for Terry Stotts, I feel that this is still a

learning experience for him and his players.

In the half season last year, he never had a full coaching

staff behind him. Then, this season, with everything

left hanging for so long, he, his staff and all the players

were at a big disatvantage.

After starting 0-3, they have gone 3-3 and won 2 on

that dreaded west coast swing. If they can play .500

ball for the next 20-26 games, the Hawks should be

in pretty good shape to take off and soar. I hope so.

Thanks again, Diesel.

[emeans]

This team can score points. In the 1st half of the Clippers game they were shooting over 70%. In the 1st half of the Golden State game they were shooting at a very high percentage.

But guess what? They were still behind at the end of each quarter even when the other team was shooting around 30%.

I was scratching my head!!!! How does this happen? This is not logical.

When this team is winning or scoring well, this team gets very sloppy with the ball and when they are scoring they start playing very poor defense.

Now personally I think this is where the coaching is important. I don't think a Larry Brown or Rick Carlisle coached team would go through these horendous lapses where we are shooting 70% and still losing. Stotts need to figure this out or let someone else have a shot at coaching this team. 70% shooting and still losing is very unacceptable and frustrating!!!

[skaughtybee]

The reason a team that shoots 70% in the first quarter, then loses the game is because they focus to heavily on the outcome of specific actions.

If we are taking bad shots and playing recklessly, but still scoring...the fact that we are scoring should not reinforce that this is sustainanble long term behavior.

This is the responsibility of the coaching staff. They have to sell and reinforce the right system, and praise and curse players based on execution of a plan.

If a player takes and makes an ill-advised three, then does it again the next time down the court - bench him!

The fact that he made the first one will (adventageously) gain more defensive pressure on the same shot the next time. This is where you exploit a defense for their bad judgement, and burn them where it would've been easier to score in the first place.

Sound familiar? This is what opponents have regularly done to the Hawks since Lenny left.

-Skaughtybee

[emeans]

Excellent Points!! And you are totally right about this being the responsibility of the coaching staff.

One thing I can say about Lenny is that his teams played consistent defense.

[Traceman]

We are in the top 7 in the league in opponents FG%, where we struggle is preventing teams from getting 2nd (and 3rd) shot opportunities. We are dead last in allowing offensive rebounds, we are dead last in overall rebounding differential and we are 27th (out of 30) when it comes to total rebounds per game allowed.

Combine the above with the fact that we are dead last in TOs per game and TO differential and you have found out 2 biggest problems.

We shoot it fine, if we don't turn it over first. We also do a good job of forcing a poor shot on the initial shot on D, we just give up 2 many 2nd chance opportunities.

[Highpozt]

Go to Yahoo NBA Stats team defense (im sure you know the rest) and look up what team has given up the most shot attempts and you will see yours truly the rim shaking Atlanta Hawks. We give up more offensive rebounds and second shot attempts than any team in the NBA at least before the Suns game. We were shooting lights out in the first half I think it was the Clippers and they were only down 4 points before they stomp us in the second half. The way the Hawks can solve that problem is what they used to call the hustle points rebounds, steals and recovering loose balls. When the heat and Knicks would go deep in the playoffs it was often poor shooting but 100% on Hustle points. Dennis Rodman at his prime should be the picture next to the definition of Hustle Points. Is there a Hawk that can do that level of dirty work????

[Diesel]

Losing Ekezie was bigger than many thought.

Many here wanted and still wants to rank Ekezie by what he did at Vancouver or Maryland or Italy or somewhere else. All that's well and good but it doesn't mean a thing. What's important was that he brought in the possibility of somebody who could pull down 8-10 rebounds in limited time. What was he averaging... 14 rebounds? It was ALL Hustle.

Inside we lack strength and Hustle. So we get KILLED on the offensive glass. That's a problem. Either we need a mindset change or we need a personnell change. I can't fault Reef at all. He's been pulling down 10-11 a night. I think the problem is that for all of his Shot blocking, Theo brings NO rebounding.

Our answer is personnell change.

There's somebody who we can go after...

Dampiere. He's killing the West though. I wanted Damp this offseason. However, I don't think he's attainable.

Another player is Foyle. He's 6'10, 265. Last year he averaged 2.5 blocks per game in 21 minutes of play. He also had 6.0 boards. He's the right size for the job but it would require trading Nazr. Don't get me wrong, I love Nazr's new look, I just think that Nazr can't play the level of defense our team needs or Stotts doesn't know how to use him effectively.

It would probably be a three way deal. Maybe something like Nazr to PTL. KobeStopper to GS. Foyle/Filler to us. Something like that.

Then we will have a guy we could sub in for 22 minutes or so who could pull down some boards and play some defense.

Can you imagine:

Foyle/Theo/Jackson/Glover/JT on the floor together. Who's going to score??

[Plainview1981]

I think with Eric Dampier it's a case of motivating him.

Could Stotts get him going the way Musselman has? I

really don't know....I know one thing, Damp looks like

a mean person. He doesn't look like someone I'd want

to know.

Don't you think zone defense is also contributing to the

teams rebounding problem?

[Playmaker0017]

Hots,

WOW! You actually had something cool to say other than "he sucks"... AWESOME!

HEHE!

Seriously, I think the zone is REALLY hurting our rebounding - but I think it also stems from us not doing the basics, like boxing out. People want hustle and such, and that is great, but defensive rebounds aren't really all about hustle... they are about execution. People need to take care of the fundamentals and the defensive rebounds will take care of themselves.

Play.

[Diesel]

I don't disagree about Rebounding form. Rodman and Barkley proved that there's an art to rebounding. BUT behind that art (which every player knows: Box out, timing, etc), the main ingredient is that the player has to want the ball. When Rodman was pulling down 20 and 22 rebounds per game, his mindset was not about what color his hair was that day, his mind was that "I want the ball". That's why He'd push, grab, dive, Hustle until he got it. Same with Barkley. When I watch Theo, Theo doesn't want the ball.

I said it's either a mindset or a personnell change needed. Well, Theo has never been a good rebounder. Maybe Blocking Shots put Theo out of position?

I would love to have Damp for that purpose. But Damp right now is Blazing. No way GS trades him. However, Foyle isn't bad either... Nazr for Foyle (three way).

[Traceman]

much too blame as Theo is, maybe even more so. Theo can't give help D ALL THE TIME and still get back in position to get the rebound. That is when Reef HAS to take care of the glass. If someone comes in the lane and Theo gives help, the other guys, particularly the PF, have to take care of the glass. That is why Philly played well with Theo and Ty Hill up front. Hill took care of the glass when Theo gave help. If Theo were to stop trying to block all those shots and just concentrated on rebounding, I'm sure his rebound numbers would go way up but is that what is best for the team? I don't think so. I think he needs to continue to give help because the rest of our guys are not great defenders. That being said, the other guys need to step up their board work.

[Diesel]

No...

Look over his career.

Theo has NEVER been a good rebounder. When he was with Detroit... Not good. When he was with Philly... Not good.

BTW,

That's an interesting theory you have on Theo. It's a shame that with Philly he never had over 8.3 rpg. However, you say it's because Hill boarded and Theo played help out defense. However, did you notice that when Deke went to Philly he was grabbling 12.5. That's more than 4 rebounds more than Theo. That's with the same team... By your theory, Deke's rpg shouldn't have been that high because he was playing on a good rebounding team?

Oh, well.

The fact is that Theo has a career high of 8.3 rpg. That says that he's not a good rebounder. I don't think it matters if he was playing help out defense or not... He's just not good.

[Weez]

Hill and Lynch weren't on the team anymore with Deke...and that changes the complexion quite a bit i'd say, esp. given the toughness of both players...

and how many shots did Deke block?

[Traceman]

abused him last night?

Reef - 37 min, 25% fg, 12 pts, 4 rebs

K Mart - 33 min, 50%, 23 pts, 14 rebs

Those stats don't even come close to showing just how bad K Mart dominated Reef last night. Best PF in the East my a$$. Not as long as K Mart is still around.