Official Game Thread: Hawks - Suns

[macdaddy]

I think that is fair to predict a little better record. You know, just like the JJ teams had:

2009-10 53 wins

I think it is unfair to this to have expected them to give either Miami or Indiana a "tough" challenge in the second round (assuming they advanced). Indy or Miami would have handled this team with little trouble come the post-season regardless of the regular season results.

Thus, it was the same pattern as the old teams except that the old teams were much more locked into their roster than this team is. The predictability of this mediocre result is why I advocated starting Schröder and picking up a stud in the lottery rather than opting for a first or second round playoff exit like we did. It was foreseeable that we would never challenge either Miami or Indiana.

If people haven't figured out yet that having regular season success against the truly elite teams means very little in the playoffs for a team like the Hawks then bless their optimism, because it is really cute.

But strange things can happen even if they don't happen that often in the nba playoffs. This season was such of fustercluck in the east that we easlily could have faced the raptors or wiz in the first round while the nets took out indy or the heat. I wasn't much of a believer until i saw that Bud knew what he was doing and we had guys who played intelligently and more importantly can shoot. Being able to shoot and score in pressure games is something the Hawks haven't been able to do in a long time. But i'm pretty optimistic that we'll be in the mix next year.

[Admin]

I think that is fair to predict a little better record. You know, just like the JJ teams had: 2009-10 53 wins I think it is unfair to this to have expected them to give either Miami or Indiana a "tough" challenge in the second round (assuming they advanced). Indy or Miami would have handled this team with little trouble come the post-season regardless of the regular season results. Thus, it was the same pattern as the old teams except that the old teams were much more locked into their roster than this team is. The predictability of this mediocre result is why I advocated starting Schröder and picking up a stud in the lottery rather than opting for a first or second round playoff exit like we did. It was foreseeable that we would never challenge either Miami or Indiana. If people haven't figured out yet that having regular season success against the truly elite teams means very little in the playoffs for a team like the Hawks then bless their optimism, because it is really cute.

So the playoffs come and we suddenly get worse while Miami and Indy get better? I'm not buying that at all as this system gives those teams fits. Hell last year we gave Indy a heck of a fight with Josh on the team and LDs system. I'm nt saying we'd win but we'd go out in a tough 6 or 7 against them IMO.

[AHF]

I wish I could bet against you guys. The Hawks in the ECF this season was a day dream from the pre-season. Second round of the playoffs was the upper range of possible outcomes and what we are seeing now is the low range of possible outcomes. Many of us said this before the season and it remains true.

[AHF]

So the playoffs come and we suddenly get worse while Miami and Indy get better? I'm not buying that at all as this system gives those teams fits. Hell last year we gave Indy a heck of a fight with Josh on the team and LDs system. I'm nt saying we'd win but we'd go out in a tough 6 or 7 against them IMO.

We lost 4-2 by an average of 15.75 points per loss.

We got beaten badly, IMO. That was NOT in any way shape or form a tough 6 game series. We only got within 10 points of them once in those 4 losses.

[Vol4ever]

[Guest]

We lost 4-2 by an average of 15.75 points per loss.

We got beaten badly, IMO. That was NOT in any way shape or form a tough 6 game series. We only got within 10 points of them once in those 4 losses.

Considering we were slated to get swept 4-0...................

[AHF]

Considering we were slated to get swept 4-0...................

We went from a projected embarrassment and ended up getting soundly defeated. That doesn't make it competitive. If we lost a few of those games by a more approachable margin then you could argue competitive (i.e., "if a few balls just bounced our way we could have won 4-2 instead of losing 4-2"). If we won 3 games and took it to game 7 then at least we could be competitive by the Celtic definition ( i.e., "we may have gotten destroyed in the games we lost but at least it came down to one game and that is close enough that we could have won the series on a given night"). When you lose by 15+ ppg and don't make it to game 7, you got handled without too much difficulty. The Bucks and Heat in 09 and 10 were significantly more competitive against us in the first round than we were against the Pacers, IMO, and I don't think anyone is around here saying we got lucky against those guys.

(For what it is worth, I also see the Pacers as having more substantially upgraded the talent on their team than we have since last year with both internal improvement especially from George and Stephenson and with external upgrades in Scola, Butler, Turner, Watson, etc. I think this reflects in their huge improvement in their record [last year 32 losses; this year 13].)

[macdaddy]

I had to go back and look and the storyline of the series was that the home team won by double digits in the first 5 games. Our game 3 win was by 21. And this was basically the Hawks relying on Petro to play minutes for the first time all season. Indy should have run over us given the talent gap between the two teams.

[AHF]

I had to go back and look and the storyline of the series was that the home team won by double digits in the first 5 games. Our game 3 win was by 21. And this was basically the Hawks relying on Petro to play minutes for the first time all season. Indy should have run over us given the talent gap between the two teams.

They did run all over us in their wins and I don't think that a face-off between a 49 win team and a 44 win team should be a sweep, but I get your point that Indy was more talented. The gap between a healthy Hawks squawd and a healthy Pacers squad has grown this season. IMO, that series against the Heat last year was a critical growth point for the Pacers.

So starting from the point that the Hawks "should have been run over" by the 2012-13 Pacers, you know they didn't stand any chance of beating the vastly improved 2013-14 Pacers which leaves us at the same point: we weren't competitive from the first tipoff of the season against Miami or Indiana.

[Admin]

They did run all over us in their wins and I don't think that a face-off between a 49 win team and a 44 win team should be a sweep, but I get your point that Indy was more talented. The gap between a healthy Hawks squawd and a healthy Pacers squad has grown this season. IMO, that series against the Heat last year was a critical growth point for the Pacers.

So starting from the point that the Hawks "should have been run over" by the 2012-13 Pacers, you know they didn't stand any chance of beating the vastly improved 2013-14 Pacers which leaves us at the same point: we weren't competitive from the first tipoff of the season against Miami or Indiana.

Again that's your opinion, but it's not based in fact as our healthy team this year beat theirs and nearly beat them again. I'm just not sure where you're coming up with the conclusion that we'd have no shot against them as we've proven we do this year. Results this year against the Pacers:

Won by 10 at home

Lost by 4 at home

Lost by 10 on road

The starters who lost that game by 10, on the road, to the Pacers regular starters:

Martin

Millsap

Ayón

Korver

Teague

So again I ask, why couldn't a healthy regular starting lineup of the Hawks give them all sorts of hell in the playoffs?

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Again that's your opinion, but it's not based in fact as our healthy team this year beat theirs and nearly beat them again. I'm just not sure where you're coming up with the conclusion that we'd have no shot against them as we've proven we do this year. Results this year against the Pacers:

Won by 10 at home

Lost by 4 at home

Lost by 10 on road

The starters who lost that game by 10, on the road, to the Pacers regular starters:

Martin

Millsap

Ayón

Korver

Teague

So again I ask, why couldn't a healthy regular starting lineup of the Hawks give them all sorts of hell in the playoffs?

Because the Hawks wouldn't be able to take a game in Indy.

For some reason, we have some psychological hold over the Pacers when we play in Philips. But on the road, we don't have a star that is mentally tough enough and talented enough to carry us to victory. And honestly, this was the case even when Horford was healthy. And it was the M.O. of the Joe Johnson Hawk teams during their 5 year run. JJ did do it a few times. But most of the time, he was a bust on the road during the playoffs. And the Hawks paid for it with double digit losses.

Right now, Paul George is at the point in his development in which he can end games out on the road. He plays much better on the road, than he does at home.

Last year's Pacers team was a very good home team, but barely under .500 on the road. This year's Pacers team is a dominant home team, and wins 63% of their games on the road ( 17 - 10 so far this season ).

There is a very dangerous belief amongst our fan base that we can compete against the elite level teams, with mid-level talent . . . if they are coached right and believe in the "system".

Nah man. You need talent in this league.

Phoenix is a real nice story this year. But as of right now, they're currently the 8th seed. If they have to play OKC or San Antonio in the 1st round of the playoffs, they'll be lucky to take one game. And that's because they are not a sound defensive team, nor a team that has that "guy" who can carry the team when role players in the "system" start to sell the Suns out.

And that's the same thing that would've happened to the Hawks in this year's playoffs, if they had to face Miami or Indy. Even with a healthy Horford, you'd have to count on guys like Korver, Scott, and Mack to give you major contributions on a nightly basis. And that's because guys like Horford or Millsap can't "flip the switch" and put up a superstar like game in a playoff situation.

Edited March 5, 2014 by TheNorthCydeRises

[Admin]

Because the Hawks wouldn't be able to take a game in Indy.

For some reason, we have some psychological hold over the Pacers when we play in Philips. But on the road, we don't have a star that is mentally tough enough and talented enough to carry us to victory. And honestly, this was the case even when Horford was healthy. And it was the M.O. of the Joe Johnson Hawk teams during their 5 year run. JJ did do it a few times. But most of the time, he was a bust on the road during the playoffs. And the Hawks paid for it with double digit losses.

Right now, Paul George is at the point in his development in which he can end games out on the road. He plays much better on the road, than he does at home.

Last year's Pacers team was a very good home team, but barely under .500 on the road. This year's Pacers team is a dominant home team, and wins 63% of their games on the road ( 17 - 10 so far this season ).

There is a very dangerous belief amongst our fan base that we can compete against the elite level teams, with mid-level talent . . . if they are coached right and believe in the "system".

Nah man. You need talent in this league.

Phoenix is a real nice story this year. But as of right now, they're currently the 8th seed. If they have to play OKC or San Antonio in the 1st round of the playoffs, they'll be lucky to take one game. And that's because they are not a sound defensive team, nor a team that has that "guy" who can carry the team when role players in the "system" start to sell the Suns out.

And that's the same thing that would've happened to the Hawks in this year's playoffs, if they had to face Miami or Indy. Even with a healthy Horford, you'd have to count on guys like Korver, Scott, and Mack to give you major contributions on a nightly basis. And that's because guys like Horford or Millsap can't "flip the switch" and put up a superstar like game in a playoff situation.

I'm not saying we'd beat them but we would make it tough games in Indy and we'd win 2 of 3 in Atlanta. It would probably be a 6 game and out series but we would not get rolled by them. For whatever reason we are a tough team for them and especially so at home.

Now Miami, I know we have given them trouble at times this year but I think they'd beat us more easily in the playoffs than we've shown against them in the regular season.

[Diesel]

I know how the schedule looked then. I still feel the team was on a nice trajectory as it played well against elite teams such as the Heat, Thunder, and Pacers this season. Should have beaten the Heat twice actually. If healthy i feel strongly this team would have won 50 and gone to second round where they would have been a tough out in playoffs.Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

With Horford, the Hawks were 4-7 against teams that are above .500 now.

[AHF]

I'm not saying we'd beat them but we would make it tough games in Indy and we'd win 2 of 3 in Atlanta. It would probably be a 6 game and out series but we would not get rolled by them. For whatever reason we are a tough team for them and especially so at home.

Now Miami, I know we have given them trouble at times this year but I think they'd beat us more easily in the playoffs than we've shown against them in the regular season.

I think that we get beaten in 4 or 5 by Indiana but I will sign onto a best case scenario of getting bounced in 6 games. Which leaves us with a best case scenario of a second round exit -- the same thing we saw from the JJ Hawks.

We can agree to disagree, but this was my view before the season and I see absolutely no reason to change that view. Committing to that path this year means no top lottery pick (academically possible at least if we outtank others down the stretch) and no big FA next season. I can live with the latter more easily than the former.

Edited March 5, 2014 by AHF

[Jody23]

How do you figure that's the best we can hope for with over 20 games left? We can easily slip out of the playoffs and into the lottery with just a tiny bit of luck as we're only 3 up on Detroit and 3.5 up on Cleveland. Then who knows what can happen with the ping pong balls. One or both of those teams pass us and we're looking at the 10th-11th pick or maybe even better.

I'm hoping one or more of those teams overtake the Hawks, but I just don't see it. Those teams have been some kinda awful this year. Edited March 7, 2014 by Jody23