TroyMcClure

Useless words that apparently you have a hard time reading. He said he was tougher than Josh and as of right now I'd have to agree. That doesn't mean he was a tough physical player, it means he was tougher than Josh. You don't have to have played the game to agree with that.

So you're telling me one of the best passing PF's (arguably) to ever play the game (averaged 4+ assists) is selfish? OK. I'm not Webber fan (I've hated him since college) but some of the opinions I am reading seem to be based on their loathing of a player moreso than reality. The guy averaged 20 and 10 for a loooong time and would have had a ring had it not been for the zebras. To say he isn't a winner, is lazy and selfish (basketball wise) is flat out ridiculous.

In what world is a big man who plays small, tougher than a smaller man who plays big? Not mine. Or Josh Smith's. He's the size of a 3 playing 4. But Webber was just so tough, standing at the top and passing half the time? Whatever.

Get off your high horse. Especially considering "bball knowledge". Webber was considered around the league to have a good jump shot. In fact, that was one of his strengths as a player. In fact I remember the Lakers wanting him because he would have fit in to their triangle offense effectively with that jump shot. Saying it was a weakness to his game shows your true agenda. That or your actual limited knowledge. Do me a favor and look up how, at the time, the rest of the league felt about his jump shot. I think you might learn something.

Do me a favor and look up how, at the time, the rest of the league felt about his jump shot. I think you might learn something.

First off, that is in practice, an impossibility. So for you to propose it is just dumb. Secondly, the ability to hit a shot and the ability to know when to properly take it in the context of the game, are two different things. and you will never find any legitimate player say Webber had a great j. No one.

And again, if he hit so many j's, why all the first round defeats? Maybe because the team's success was incidental to Webber's?

NM, I did it for you...

Lakers Looking At Adding Webber

Hooped Up | January 15, 2008

Now that their franchise-center-in-training will be taking at least an eight-week break, the Lakers are perilously thin in the middle.

Kwame Brown has started 178 games in his seven-year career, and newly anointed backup Ronny Turiaf is more of a power forward.

In an update provided by a team source, Chris Mihm is at least two weeks from returning, if not longer, from a sore right Achilles tendon.

Thus, the Lakers are sifting through the free-agent bin and coming up with such names as Chris Webber, P.J. Brown, and DJ Mbenga.

The Lakers were intrigued by Webber a year ago and have been in contact with his representatives. They think he fits the mold of a triangle-offense player — good passer, good jump shot — but are concerned about his physical condition. Webber, who will be 35 in March, has not played since last season. He averaged 11.2 points, 7.2 rebounds, and 29.9 minutes in 61 games with Philadelphia and Detroit but did not re-sign with the Pistons after their playoff run.

Bballone.com...

Chris Webber was a dominating in force in the fab five. He had it all, talent, speed, strength and a jump shot that will get you from anywhere. The fab five sophomore was a no doubt choice in the 1993 NBA draft. After leading his heavy preseason favorite Michigan Wolverines to the 1991 NCAA Championship game, playing Duke in the Superdome for the prized Championship trophy and bragging rights for that year.

Auburnjournal.com...

Webber was a genius in the high post. He could pass like Magic Johnson, drive to the basket, back his man down or straighten up and shoot a jump shot. He had some of the best hands ever seen on a basketball court and a knack for rebounding, which has been one of the Kings’ Achilles heels since he left.

You get the picture. You can argue the man's heart, you can argue his defense (or lackthereof) you can argue pretty much anything else but one thing you can't argue is the fact the man had an above average jump shot. Arguing anything else is strictly agenda driven or bball IQ deficient.

Dude, put down the pipe. So, the annonymous opinion of blahblah.com and such PROVES your point? Seriously, that's just stupid. Find at least one quote from a HOF shooter and maybe I'll reconsider.

True, all-star games, MVP's, All NBA's, are opinion and not reality. The reality lies in the statistics over a 13 year career, which I mentioned in a previous post. Webber's career will get HOF discussion, how could they not? I could care less about how Webber's jumper looks, or Smooves....the bottom line is if it was effective. Webber's jumper was extremely effective. His last few years, he was playing on one leg and had to rely solely on his jumper. Bird's jumper wasn't the prettiest or most fundamental shot in basketball, but I would say he could shoot!

I would take a Chris Webber five years into his career over Smoove in a heartbeat. Where do we sign up! If only it was possible....

I could care less about how Webber's jumper looks, or Smooves....the bottom line is if it was effective. Webber's jumper was extremely effective.

You should be banned from Hawksquawk for knowing so little about basketball as to say that. Yeah, it was effective. For the defense!

By the way, shooting isn't magic. How something looks generally has a lot to do with how it works. That's why real shooters generally don't have wack shots.

Larry had great form. He had huge hands and held the ball a little on either side. He had a huge window and had great wrists. Webber threw up line drive bricks with no give. Please.

Yep . . . it's totally ridiculous.

Because when a guy averages 20.7 ppg . . 9.8 rebs . . and 4.2 asst for his entire career . . . it's just totally inconceivable that he is a borderline HOF. Webber is one of the top 10 best passing big men of all time.

The Sacramento Kings had 13 consecutive losing seasons before Webber got there ( 15 if you include the years the Kings were in Kansas City ). As SOON as Webber got there, they started winning.

The only thing that will keep this guy out of the Hall of Fame, is the Michigan scandal ( which pretty much erased his college career from the books ), and the Kings inability to really make major noise in the playoffs ( mainly because they couldn't get past the Lakers ).

Webber as a player was LIGHT YEARS ahead of Smith. Even a young Chris Webber was much better than Smith. Smith has more athleticism and is better defensively. Webber was far better offensively and a far better rebounder . . and a little tougher than Smith.

Who are the PFs that played in Webber's era? Barkley . . Malone . . Duncan ( even though I still say he's a center ), Garnett . . Nowitski . . Stoudemire. All of those guys are either in the HOF, or are probably going into the Hall of Fame. Webber is a name that should be mentioned right behind those guys.

Some of you guys don't need to let your emotions blind you from being objective.

PG - Bibby

G - JJ

F- Williams

PF - Webber ( either the young Webber, or the one in his prime )

C - Horford

You put him on this current Hawks roster, and take Smith off, and you have a legitimate NBA title contender. Especially with Webber's rebounding and passing ability? Please.

I'll take #4 over #5 any day of the week.

Have you ever played basketball, northcyde? Saying Webber was tough is just stupid. What did he ever do that displayed toughness? Seriously. Those are just useless words.

The video game dumping of Josh for Webber tells me a lot about your knowledge. Also, I've never seen Webber make a great pass that wasn't a back door, princeton offense layup. That was the primary play basically of their offense, by the way. And let's see where Smith gets to in his career. Really funny how little importance you place on defense. You just glossed over it, as if it were nothing.

Webber was A SELFISH, lazy, tall dude with good hands. That's it.

So, if it was ALL Webber when they were getting better, why isn't it ALL Webber when they choked against the Lakers... or in the first round like 4 times after that? Truth is, it was a team and he, as a leader, failed them.

People can hate on Webber for his basketball IQ, his commentary and analysis of the game, and his legal issues...but what he did on the court cannot be argued. Stating Smoove is twice the player Webber was is not accurate. Over his long career with multiple teams, he averaged almost 21 points, 10 boards, and 4 assists a game. He made five all-star teams, and was an all NBA First team selection. Those numbers will get some Hall of Fame buzz for crying out loud! In his prime, he was one of the best PF's in the game.

All-Star games and the voting that goes with them, have no basis in reality. Reef had ver similar numbers. What does that tell you? He will get no Hall of Fame buzz. There are two sides to the game. Offense and defense. Smoove did more in his first two years defensively than Webber did in a lifetime. And aesthetically speaking, anyone who thinks Webber's shot looked better in form than Smoove's, clearly doesn't know the first thing about shooting a basketball properly. And if you don't think who you are as a person can come into play as to who you are as a player, you really don't know much.

Losing in the first round 4 times at the peak of your game isn't exactly inspiring. In what world did the Kings "challenge" for a title? They had one chance against the Lakers. Due in large part to Webber, they lost. If he had been a real man, maybe that history is different. But he's not, and it isn't.

LOL @ Wade lying on the ground. I looked at the banner several times before i finally noticed it.

That is the best. It would be nice to have the whole starting 5, though. Still, it's awesome.

Thanks, Dolfan!

I know this thread is about Josh and the jumpshot, but this hate on Webber is just dumb. For five straight years he was "All-NBA". For 7-8 years he was there with Malone, Duncan and Barkley. And you guys call him "a bum".

So when someone says, "Hawksquawk doesn't know about ball", there it is.

Webber knows basketball.

He was right there with them... on a video game. If you had ever actually played competitive basketball for a coach, you would have a different opinion. I've already spelled out in other threads why Webber was useless and how the Kings success had a whole lot more to do with guys like Turk and Bibby and Vlade than it did with Webber. Besides, it wasn't much success. They got beat in the 1st round like 4 times. Real quick though, he was allergic to post play and rebounding with real men. He was also in love with his ability to brick open 17 ftrs all day. And as your video games don't tell you, he was completely worthless as a defender. And let's not even get into what kind of a man he is and what leadership abilities he did not have.

Webber doesn't know basketball. He knows being almost 7 ft tall and he had good hands. There is a lot more to understanding basketball than that. Like knowing if you are the biggest guy on the court and you have no j, it might help your team more if you play in the post and rebound. But soft, selfish, ignorant guys with "talent" never seem to get that. But that's because they think of themselves before the team.

Josh Smith is twice the player Webber was. Bothi n heart and mind.

I didn't see it. I really have stopped watching since Webber has been on. He brings nothing to the table. He's not funny but thinks he is. Any statement made by him regarding basketball and "how it's done" or something like that, should be disregarded. His set shot, what do you call it... brick heave, was one of the ugliest things I've seen on a court. And he threw it up with regularity. The fact that he thinks he can criticize Smith is comical.

Kenny, Chuck and Ernie are the best. Webber and Payton just bring the i.q. down so far that it hurts to watch.

Yep I read a lot of ignorant words in this thread for sure.

If you are trying to be funny, which I think you are... you aren't. Seriously, Dolfan. Please explain to me how saying it basically isn't a big deal if we lose in even the very first round, isn't the attitude of a loser. We made zero moves to get better for the playoffs. That tells me he's happy just to make them... in perpetuity. And for the millionth time, it's a lot easier to feel the way you do, if you weren't born and raised in Atlanta and view the Hawks as the only team you've ever cared for. This organization, good or bad represents my city. I would personally be happier if we looked capable and competent. We haven't been that since the 90's, and we won't ever be as long as these jokers run this franchise into the ground. This mild success that you may be feeling right now is so fleeting. It could vanish by next year. And I've got a strong feeling D-Wade is going to be too much for these Hawks. But that's not a big deal to Sund or you, I guess.

“If we win the first round, we’re satisfied with that, but it doesn’t mean that if we lose the first round that, well, it’s a total disappointment,”

These are the words of a loser. You are either driven to be a champion or you aren't. Far too many people in the Hawks organization, aren't. If this is the attitude, expect to see Woody around for a very long time.

And dude had the nerve to put himself in the same breath as Jerry West. That's just ignorant. Even disregarding West as a player, it is still ridiculous. When he wins a few titles and trades for Kobe, then we can talk about his relative comparability with the likes of a Jerry West.

Virtually everything you hear from these bozos is just ignorant on some level.

or watch a Boston Celtics game where Tommy Heinson and his stupid Tommy Points is doing the announcing. The most homer announcer I have ever heard. I can't handle watching their games when he is doing the color.

Really, what do you expect? He played for them during their glory years. He bleeds green and white. I wish we had an organization that grew players that bled our colors. Then maybe they wouldn't have changed.

Thanks for the rip at Coach Kiffin. I'll remember that down the road.

Coach Kiffin? You're high, right? Coach Kiffin. lol! I would never take a shot at such an accomplished defensive coordinator. Oh, you mean Lane Kiffin, the lying toolbag that can't keep his mouth shut. Sorry, but even as a Bama guy I had grudging respect for Field Goal Phil and his staff. That's saying a lot, too. They struggled without Cutcliffe both times, but that could have been corrected. It will take a decade to correct the, ahem, Coach Kiffin hiring.

How pissed Nique got when Smoove jacked up that 3 pter in the third? Fortunately, Smoove hustled and blocked the shot right after that, but I could feel Nique cursing. The broadcast went silent.

I'm sure he couldn't have been more pissed than every 2 guard he ever played with felt every time he drove without looking to kick out for an open j. Seriously, I love the guy, but he's not one who should criticize shot selection.

I disagree because no one thought of this team as a contender, even with the 7 game winning streak. So we aren't frauds. We are what we are mediocre. Which is fine, because mediocre is on par with even the best of the Atlanta Hawks teams past.

He means they are a fraud of a good team. Mediocre is not fine, by the way. Those of us that are old enogh, or simply able to remember, will tell you that the whole process of "blowing it up" was to produce a serious title contender. Now, ten years later and suddenly, mediocrity is just fine. Well, it isn't. And just for the record, any team with Smitty, Mookie and Deke would flat out kill these pretenders. Those were very good, mentally competent teams with a coach who had a clue. Not exactly how you describe the recent offerings. And let's not even compare the 80's Hawks. They were smart and more athletic than our current squad.

Spurs lost David Robinson and didn't miss a beat. That's not really a knock on Speedy. He definitely was a "defensive pest." Even with Atlanta. Solid player that could never stay healthy. I wouldn't expect anything out of him now, though.

HE was replaced by Tim Duncan. Speedy wasn't. It's a knock that Jacque Vaughn could do his job better. How could anyone be a "pest" when they were barely in the league? In the past, people had to earn a title like "pest" by playing that way for a very long time. At best, he held his own in spot duty for a team full of champions. My guess is Craig wasn't ever the focus of any team.

I agree with everything Benhillboy has said, except for the coaching angle. Josh would be a fine player for Jerry Sloan or Phil Jackson. Both wildly different, but both have the ability to communicate a philosophy and gameplan. It's all Woody. Josh is extremely talented. Woody is a moron of the highest order and it's not even a question to me, that a more motivated, intelligent coach would get the very best of Josh Smith. Is it a shock that a kid barely old enough to buy a drink would struggle from time to time at the NBA level, playing what is basically streetball? Not to me. It is a shock that people continue to blame him almost more than Woody. He's a kid. Woody should know better. He doesn't though, and he's done more to hurt Smoove than to help him. It's just another example of why the ASG doesn't deserve to own a team. We are wasting very good years and alienating one of our important pieces... and for what? Mike Woodson? Crazy pills, anyone?

This is a good idea for a number of reasons. If Speedy can be the defensive pest he is known to be, he could be very useful if we should get into a series with Boston or Miami.

We also may need to showcase him a little bit in order to set up a future trade.

The only downside is that it probably dries up the insurance payments! Maybe the insurance payments stopped when he announced he was healthy in the paper. But I don't give a crap about that. If he can ball, we need him.

I think it's a bad idea for a number of reasons. He's not a defensive pest. That is a total fantasy. Dude played half a year for the Spurs and everyone thought he was good or something. Notice they quickly replaced him and didn't miss a beat. Seriously, people have overvalued this guy as a defensive player for far too long. Hell, he's not even a player anymore. Most any pg could blow by him or shoot or pass over him and he is without a doubt a liability on the offensive end. He would in no way be a use to the Hawks or any team with a desire to win. Dude is straight over, and he wasn't much to begin with. Again, if his name was John Claxton, he would have been out of the league as soon as he got in it. He should have been playin in Turkey for the last 8 years or so.

Who exactly would trade for him now? If anyone wants him, it's for a falling contract. All he needs is a pulse, not a showcase.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/multimedia/41653782.html

Let's be honest, Bill Walton has been stoned more often than he's been sober since his playing career ended. But that doesn't make this any less funny. Enjoy.

He didn't sound high at all, imo. I don't think he gets high a lot. it's not like he's Willie Nelson. He has various jobs that demand quite a bit. He just sounded like he was being silly with someone who he values highly in the world. Just typical Bill.

Exactly!

Which raises serious questions.

About a year ago, I put up a poll asking if Atlanta fans were more upset over the Chris Paul draft issue or the Brett Favre trade issue. The obvious reason being that nobody ever took the heat that BK took when it came to the Favre issue.

Do you know it was overwhelmingly more "outrage" over the Chris Paul issue?

Get this:

1)Chris Paul has never won a championship, Favre has.

2)Chris Paul has never won MVP, Favre has.

3)Chris Paul has never even won a playoff series (if I recall correctly)!

Which leads me to one inescapable conclusion. This is about hate.

Billy takes more heat over the Chris Paul "issue" than the Portland GM that drafted Sam Bouie over Michael Jordan who is the greatest player of all time!

How do you explain this?

HATE.

Whatever point you thought you were making is irelevant. Two different sports. Besides, Favre was a 2nd rounder with half an intestine and a propensity to get sh*t faced in Buckhead. He said himself that he would have never even come close to the success he has had in Green Bay if he had stayed in Atlanta.

You made a poll on Hawksquawk, what do you think is of more interest? The Hawks or The Packers?

It's not about hate, it's about intelligence and perspective. And nobody really hates on Portland. Their fans certainly haven't. And the national media was very understanding, given the fact of what MJ became. It's ok to take a chance on a 7 ftr.

:computer8:

long...

convoluted...

no money shot...

You should never multiply entities beyond necessity.

A gm has done a good job if you have a good team with a good future.

This is the definition of the Atlanta Hawks.

Case closed.

Great job Billy!

I love this team!

I love the outlook!

You are either 12 yrs old or you have no capacity to remember before 2000. The old Hawks had a better team and I'm not even going to get into Wilkens vs. Woodson. The whole point was to build a team that could go beyond the 2nd round, not to it! So, excuse me if my panties aren't in a wad over this organization and the teams they put before us. My apologies to any sensitive ladies. Crimedog is right, BTW.

They didnt pioneer grunge music. They didnt even pioneer the seattle scene. There were several bands there for years that didnt get credit because mtv hit that scene late and Nirvana had the right song, right video and the "dumb luck" of mtv timing with smells like teen spirit. Seattle bands like Green River, Malfunkshun, Mudhoney, Soundgarden, AIC and other were what started that scene. However grass roots rock like Neil Young for instance were playing stuff like that for years. The " grunge" bands who lightened up their sound like Nirvana and "put together" bands like Pearl Jam were the ones who blew up big time with a combo of altered " softer" sound and timing. If you listen to Nirvana before teen spirit they are a true grunge band but that sound didnt sell much so no matter what anyone says they lightened up to sell records and it worked big time. Same thing with bands like Bad Radio and Green River forming softer bands like MLB and later Pearl Jam.

You are pretty much right, but Pearl Jam was not a "put together" band, as you say. Andrew Wood overdosed and they no longer had a band. They knew Jack Irons, original RHCP drummer, and he knew Ed. That's how Ed got a tape of most of the songs that would be TEN and penned many of the lyrics and sent the tape back with vocals. That's not "put together", by a record executive. That's dudes who like the same sound getting together. And Bad Radio was in San Diego, and not really much of a band. And there sound was a lot softer than Pearl Jam. Much, much softer.

Also, I owned an LP and a cassette tape of Bleach, and the sound is just about the same as on Nevermind. Just no world class producer at the helm.

This is just my opinion, but it seems people don't actually listen anymore. They hear it, but they don't listen. It's all about the fluff. That's why the suicide matters to people. Nirvana was a lot more complex than many people think, though. Especially on In Utero. That is an exceptional album.

I don't think so. Nirvana was a terrible band with a self-loathing leadman. They helped put the final nail in the coffin for rock music and now it hasn't come close to recovering. The influence from the self loathing loser Kurt Cobain can still be found in rock now. Now rock music is filled of loser bands playing pity party music for white outcast high school losers.

So no, it's not even close... But you got to switch it to Nirvana<<<<Mellencamp

Thank you Nirvana. :clap:

f*** Nirvana.

You just don't have the ear for it, but that's ok. Nirvana was a great band. For a variety of reasons. But foremost, Kurt was a gifted song builder with an ear for hook as well as fury. Dave Grohl was an absolute beast with the skins and he has proven to be quite a gifted leader of a band himself. And honestly, there music was less pretentious than Mellencamp.

Having said that, and not with the time or desire to fully get into this subject, Mellencamp is really good. He had a great run and I'm down with just about all of the Farm-Aid type of guys. He's a great American, the truck commercials notwithstanding.

This is a stupid thread.

The Cavs have lost to one team at home this year. I guess all of those other teams that have lost to the Cavs in Cleveland are bad.

Hotlanta, are you even a fan? All I read EVER are complaints from you.

Mods, is there an "ignore" feature on here?

You're like a troll...you roam around until there's a loss or a bad game and you just feed off any negativity. Get a life.

Yes, he's a fan. You guys always wanting to rip on him remind me of a high school mob that can't think independent of the others. You guys should get a life. As far as the Hawks go, he's at least 70% accurate I'd say, if not more. People who shoot the messenger because of the message are just so not worth the time of any person with critical thinking skills. To be fair, many of you "troll" as you say, looking for him so you can say " you're such a troll, blah, blah, blah, etc". Talk about lame.

If you are such a "fan" you should know all about Hawksquawk and all of it's features. Of course there is a "ignore" feature.

Glad the positive attitude works for you. You're going to need it. Enjoy the Lane Kiffin era!

Yes, but you also forced Cleveland to put their starters back in. Mo Williams, big Z, and Delonto West came back in. Apparently Mike Brown decided he didn't want to see his scrubs lose the game. Why didn't we see Atlanta try to steal that victory back? We're in an actual race for home court, here-we can't just GIVE wins away.

And then, after we somehow got a stop with our bottom five, we didn't call a timeout, down 6 with 15 seconds, and put shooters on the floor and attempt to get a three. Is it really some kind of disrespect to attempt to win a close game at the end after you already have pulled your starters? Got to pull a Herm Edwards here-"You play to win the game."

They didn't even try. If you had anyone on the floor besides Flip who could score, you could given a couple of fouls-they had Darnell Jackson the floor-and tried to prolong the game, and Joe had been hot shooting, and Mo had hit a few threes...isn't it a disrespect to the fans to just GIVE away a game when you're jockeying for playoff positioning?

Bronnt is totally right. It's disrespectful not only to the fans, but to the game of baketball itself. Just another example of why he is the worst professional coach in modern history, Maybe of any sport. Hmm, I think there is a future thread there.

If you just said "no, he's not the worst", ask yourself if you want a coach who can even be in the argument for worst coach of any sport in modern history. And believe me, he's in the argument.