Horford / Millsap - Why Keep Both?

[Diesel]

Did any of you watch our system FAIL against the Pacers?

 

We didn't beat the Pacers.  We almost beat the Pacers.  Our offense was gimmicky but in the end it failed.   Games 6 and 7 should be rewatched if you haven't watched them.  What you will see is the second dumbest coach in the game figuring out how to beat us.

 

Here's why we almost beat the Pacers..  Their coach was dumb and stubborn.

Whenever Indy went to the small lineup and covered us, they stopped us every time.

Indy's coach worked all series to get Hibbert out of his funk.  That was to our advantage because while he was in his funk, we played them 5 on 4.

However, once they figured us out, we loss.

 

I have to say that because some of you want to build around the gimmick that Bud used because we lacked interior size.

You don't build around gimmicks.

Just because our gimmick almost worked it doesn't mean that you don't need a dominant interior player or slasher.

My God, you guys act like From Russel to Shaq was some type of Fluke?

 

Moreover, in the finals, I watched Tim Duncan shoot what had to be 60% to win and you say you don't need a big.  Hell, Game 1, I thought he went back in the time machine because he couldn't be stopped.  Also, who is to say that the Spurs doesn't get Beat by the Thunder if Ibaka is not injured for the first two games of that series.  Yes, the most dysfunctional team in the league or 2nd most OKC could have beaten the Spurs if their Big would have been healthy for the whole series.  Their play was like night and day with him on the floor.

 

So when you talk about Team building... I don't think we should subscribe to knee jerk gimmicks that got us into the playoffs with 37 wins... nor should we start making parallels that don't fit because we don't have a DUNCAN or a PARKER... But we need to evaluate what we do have and determine exactly what do we need to be without weakness.

[Diesel]

"Diaw killed Miami with no look passes to guys slashing and guys playing on the interior." - no look passes to guys slashing, yes but to guys playing on the interior? no, if that means guys playing in the post, in classical post position, with their back to the basket, no!

 

From what I noticed, the spurs executed very little post offense, most everything consisted of ball movement, player movement without the ball, and selfless passing of the basketball to the player with the best shot, whether by slashing to the hoop from the perimeter/ through the lane (not in post position mind you) or passing out to the perimeter for 3.

 

Everyone on the court for the Spurs moved without the ball, and that is the key. When our system is working right everyone is moving without the ball and/or setting up for an open 3 ball from the perimeter.

 

Yes.  It was ball movement. but you have to be blind if you didn't see a lot of those passes going to guys underneath.  When Diaw had the ball, everybody moved.  That's what made it pretty.  However, what made it work was high percentage shots.  We have no Diaw.  Most of our offense ends up at the perimeter not inside.  If San Antonio is Superman, then we're Bizzaro.

[willthepureshooter]

Did any of you watch our system FAIL against the Pacers?

We didn't beat the Pacers. We almost beat the Pacers. Our offense was gimmicky but in the end it failed. Games 6 and 7 should be rewatched if you haven't watched them. What you will see is the second dumbest coach in the game figuring out how to beat us.

Here's why we almost beat the Pacers.. Their coach was dumb and stubborn.

Whenever Indy went to the small lineup and covered us, they stopped us every time.

Indy's coach worked all series to get Hibbert out of his funk. That was to our advantage because while he was in his funk, we played them 5 on 4.

However, once they figured us out, we loss.

I have to say that because some of you want to build around the gimmick that Bud used because we lacked interior size.

You don't build around gimmicks.

Just because our gimmick almost worked it doesn't mean that you don't need a dominant interior player or slasher.

My God, you guys act like From Russel to Shaq was some type of Fluke?

Moreover, in the finals, I watched Tim Duncan shoot what had to be 60% to win and you say you don't need a big. Hell, Game 1, I thought he went back in the time machine because he couldn't be stopped. Also, who is to say that the Spurs doesn't get Beat by the Thunder if Ibaka is not injured for the first two games of that series. Yes, the most dysfunctional team in the league or 2nd most OKC could have beaten the Spurs if their Big would have been healthy for the whole series. Their play was like night and day with him on the floor.

So when you talk about Team building... I don't think we should subscribe to knee jerk gimmicks that got us into the playoffs with 37 wins... nor should we start making parallels that don't fit because we don't have a DUNCAN or a PARKER... But we need to evaluate what we do have and determine exactly what do we need to be without weakness.

We lost because we beat ourselves by turning the ball over late in the 4th quarter with the lead. Come on Diesel, you're reaching too much to prove a point thats already been debunked. Edited July 9, 2014 by willthepureshooter

[Hairydawgz]

If they didn't want Sap with Horford, they wouldn't have signed him in the first place. From what I understand, C/PF are interchangeable in this system. I think we have two of the best to play these positions as it is, more so if we add Monroe.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Spurs]

Hawks ball movement is not gimmicky. They were just not the better team. That's fine. Keep working the system and the team will get better. Continuity is a thing the spurs rely on along with player development. The hawks will get better as long as everyone is healthy. 

[Diesel]

We lost because we beat ourselves by turning the ball over late in the 4th quarter with the lead. Come on Diesel, you're reaching too much to prove a point thats already been debunked.

 

 

No reach.  Even game 5.. when we had a blowout lead, it became scary because they went small and started taking chunks out of our lead.  Guys like Copeland, Hill and Bihimi started aiding George... Our turnovers took place because when they played Smaller, they could cover all of our once open guys and force us into bad passes.   Will... it was a gimmick.  We shouldn't try to build around the gimmick.

[Diesel]

Hawks ball movement is not gimmicky. They were just not the better team. That's fine. Keep working the system and the team will get better. Continuity is a thing the spurs rely on along with player development. The hawks will get better as long as everyone is healthy. 

 

True.  Ball movement is great.

 

But we're a CHEAP replica of the Spurs.  We're a fake Louis Vuitton bag.

 

 

We're going out saying... We're running the Spurs System... these players are just like the Spurs.

 

When the truth is:  We have no Duncan.  We have no Diaw.  We have no Parker.  We don't have the years of experience that they have... and because of free agency, it's doubtful that we ever will.

 

All that we are is a team that runs a similar offense as they and plays team defense like they do.

We are not the Spurs... So let's stop lying to ourselves saying that we have what they got.

[buckeye242424]

We're the Hawks.. Having Horf and Sap as our starting 4 and 5 is pretty damn good. Can't complain...

[Diesel]

We're the Hawks.. Having Horf and Sap as our starting 4 and 5 is pretty damn good. Can't complain...

 

I'm for staying pat... however, I am not for staying still and knowing that we have a free agent to be who just may move and we lose em for nothing.  (Josh Smith).

 

I will not accept Addition by Subtraction for either Horf nor Millsap.

[IBelieveInFerry]

I'm for staying pat... however, I am not for staying still and knowing that we have a free agent to be who just may move and we lose em for nothing.  (Josh Smith).

 

I will not accept Addition by Subtraction for either Horf nor Millsap.

Smith had no trade value after his final season in Atlanta and he wasn't going to be resigned here in Atlanta which is different than Paul or Horford's situations.  Not only do they have value around the league but the Hawks are interested in keeping them long term.  Which is the total opposite of Josh Smith's situation

[Diesel]

Smith had no trade value after his final season in Atlanta and he wasn't going to be resigned here in Atlanta which is different than Paul or Horford's situations.  Not only do they have value around the league but the Hawks are interested in keeping them long term.  Which is the total opposite of Josh Smith's situation

 

 

Smith had trade value... Not equivalent but some.  We triaged Smith.  It was a cap move.  However, I'm seeing that Ferry doesn't have moves at hand.

[Guest]

Smith had trade value... Not equivalent but some.  We triaged Smith.  It was a cap move.  However, I'm seeing that Ferry doesn't have moves at hand.

 

Better be careful.  The Ferry-iers will have a field day explaining how he had all this strategery in place we were just too blind/dumb to see it.

 

I'm not totally in panic mode but we're real close to bringing back the same team and hoping for 'organic' improvement.  Sounds like the Sund years to me.

Edited July 10, 2014 by kg01

[Guest]

Smith had trade value... Not equivalent but some. We triaged Smith. It was a cap move. However, I'm seeing that Ferry doesn't have moves at hand.

Again, the only team remotely interested in Josh was the Bucks offering up the long term contracts of Udoh, Mbaha Moute and Udrih which would mean we would not have had any capspace to sign Millsap. Sometimes no deal is the best deal. Edited July 10, 2014 by JayBirdHawk