dlpin

Being a sportswriter requires opportunism. 90% of the day to day coverage of sports is dull and irrelevant. So when there is a hot topic, the must try to "cash in" to get ratings/recognition/etc. Now, regarding the "love" or lack thereof that the media has shown towards the haws, I'll say this: - Nothing I have ever heard by any sportswriter, journalist or radio personality regarding the hawks comes even close to the negativity displayed by most hawks fans who called in to 680 and 790 this week. And I say this as an "outsider," a non-Hawks fan.

So you are saying he isn't "validated" as a great coach, not that he isn't a great coach? What, exactly, is the difference? And so winning 4 titles with Duncan, "not validated." Never winning anything with Malone and Stockton, "validated?" Needing, Jordan, Kobe and Shaq to win every one of his titles, validated?

Ray was the 3rd best player on that team and was already overpaid at that point, and his role really was just convincing KG that the celtics were determined to spend as much as needed to get a championship. Is the hawks ownership willing to pay the same amount of money that significantly overpaying a player for the last 3 years of his contract don't matter? That is the question, really. If they resign JJ, will the ownership be aggressive and bring other players over, spending as much as needed? Or is their plan to resign JJ and really, really hope that either Horford or Smith become as good as KG was? You see, overpaying a player is only problematic when ownership has a set budget. The celtics didn't have one, will the hawks?

I think that the best hope for the Hawks is to sign and trade joe johnson for some good value. He might be worth the max next year. And even after that. But a max 6 year deal takes him till the age of 35. Do you really want to be paying 20 mill plus to a 34, 35 year old sg?

Dude, what are you talking about? The lakers WON 3 titles. They weren't "going for a threepeat." They had one. And the team that stopped them from winning number 4 was the Spurs in 03, not the Pistons in 04. And who is disputing that Duncan was an amazing player? The point is that the Spurs were a better coached team that got by teams with more talent (and no one disputes that Shaq in his prime+Kobe is more talent than Duncan in his prime + Parker). Only team to stop Shaq in his prime years of 26 to 30. But I'm done here. You are the only person in the universe who doesn't think Popp is a great coach.

You keep saying "if player X was in the hawks." But the hawks have more weapons than that. If the second best player on the hawks was a 20 year old point guard who scored 14+ on 40% shooting, the hawks wouldn't even be in the playoffs. Part of that is because Duncan is much better than JJ, but also because Popp is much better than Woodson. And it's not a matter of Shaq and Kobe being a lock. It is a matter of the lakers (and the mavs the second time around) having much, much better talent than the Spurs. In fact, I can't think of a single season when the Spurs underperformed based on their talent level, and quite a few where they overperformed.

Or Howard+Lewis, too

Of course winning a championship doesn't make you a great coach. But a great coach wins even when he doesn't have the best talent (which is why I think Phil Jackson is overrated, he never won without the best talent). In 1999 and 2003, the Spurs clearly did not have the most talented team. Duncan was great and had an unbelievable post season, but the Lakers had Shaq in his prime plus a young Kobe, just to mention one person. Bill Fitch won a championship with a team composed of 4 hall of famers (all between 23 and 32 years of age then) plus a very good role player (Cedric Maxwell). There is no comparison to Popp winning a title with Duncan and a 20 year old Parker.

You are reading those numbers wrong again. Shaq averaged 27-15-4 the year they were beat by the Spurs. The championship years he had more points, but the year they lost to the spurs was the year he had career high in playoff assists. And the point wasn't that Parker wasn't good. Just that he wasn't anywhere near the level of a 24 year old Kobe. Finally, having the best player doesn't mean anything without a good coach. Lebron averaged 35-9-7 last year's playoffs and we all know how that turned out. KG averaged 24-15-5 in '04 and they didn't even make the finals.

If Horford averaged that, the hawks might win because they'd also have JJ, Jamal, etc. And you talk as if those numbers were earth shattering. While very good, Shaq averaged 27-15-4, which is almost identical. The difference was that the next best player on the spurs was a 20 year old Parker (he shot 40% in the playoffs, not 46), while on the lakers it was a 24 year old Kobe who was averaging 32 points a game and shooting 40% from the 3 point line. Nowitzki missed a few games, but the series was already 2-1 spurs when he went down. Yes, they won with defense, but that is something that is coached. Popp outcoached Nelson and Phil Jackson, and that is why they won.

Parker was a sophomore who shot 40% from the field and 26% from the 3. Manu shot 38% from the field. Duncan was outstanding, but there is absolutely no doubt that they were not the more talented team. The lakers had Kobe and Shaq in their prime. The mavs had Nowitzki, Nash, and Finley in their primes. That right there are two teams with 2 mvps each at or around their prime that they beat with a 20 year old point guard, a 37 year old center, a 24 year old head case and Duncan. As great as his numbers were, shaq wasn't very far behing with 27-15-4. 99 and 03 the Spurs beat the lakers pretty much because Popp outcoached Jackson.

I'm sorry, but of course he is. And if you don't think so, just look at the teams that won in 99 and 03. Sure, he had Duncan and Robinson those years. But in 99 Robinson was 33 and a shadow of his former self, and Duncan a sophomore. The third best player was a 30 year old Sean Elliot battling kidney disease. That team swept Shaq in his prime. In 03 Manu was a rookie and nowhere near as good as he is now, Parker was 20 years old, and David Robinson was an old man. And they beat the threepeat lakers and a Dallas team with Nowitzki, Nash and Finley all in their primes. In 05 and 07 they might have had the most talented team in the league with Parker, Manu and Duncan all in their primes. But in 99 and 03 there were teams that were clearly more talented than they were, and they still won with relative ease.

How the hell did Lebron end this game with 0 pf? I know he got a technical, but to even get that one he had to be way over the top. And then how the hell wasn't he ejected when he entered the celtics' huddle to talk trash? If any other player entered the opposing team's huddle during a time out to talk trash and instigate, wouldn't they be ejected and suspended?

espn just reported it as a dislocated elbow, sprained wrist, broken hand: http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=5053689

I'm not going to vote, but for what it's worth, Ray Allen said the toughest defender he's played against. http://www.celticsblog.com/2010/3/26/1392429/mookie-blaylock-for-sure-i-had-the

He wouldn't average those numbers because the game is slower paced, but he would still absolutely dominate. Heck, Bill Russel was so athletic that he was offered a spot on the US track team for the 56 Olympics. He ran the 440 yard event in college (which he ran in under 50 seconds) and was ranked the 7th best high jumper in the world. As high as Howard jumps he has absolutely nothing on Russel. Meanwhile, Rasheed Wallace dominates Howard defensively even though he has man boobs due to basketball IQ alone. And you talk about this as if centers today are these huge beasts. Pau Gasol is one of the top centers and weighs 250. Patrick Ewing's playing weight was 240. A 240lb Ben Wallace held shaq to 20 points or less in 2 out of games in the 04 finals and is still a starter to this day. Chris Andersen is a heck of a defensive player and weighs 228.

This is nonsense. As I've pointed out before, Stockton didn't become a starter or play more than 25 minutes a game until 87-88, and Malone was already a gifted offensive player well before that. Malone was much better than Al offensively from the very start. Shaq is 7'1 325 lbs, Howard is 6-11, 240 lbs. In comparison, Wilt was 7'1, 275 lbs, Kareem was 7'2, 225lbs, Bob Lanier was 6-11, 250lbs. Only Russel was a bit smaller, at 6'9, 215lbs. Keep in mind that the listed heights for NBA players now is generally using sneakers, and back then it was barefoot. Sure, they would be great back then too, but not really greater, especially when you consider that without expansion they would be playing a top notch center every night.

Yes, it is a horrible comparison. And when every other hawks fan says it's a horrible comparison, that is because it goes beyond homerism. Horford is to Malone what 14.2 ppg and 9.5 rpg is to 27.7 ppg and 12 rpg. That is, good, but still not even close. You are trying to compare the 4th best player on a 50 win team to the best player on a 47 win team.

Horford is not, and, barring a miraculous improvement after 3 years in the league, will never be an MVP candidate. Nor will he ever be the best player on a finals team. By the way, Sloan wasn't in Utah until 89. Before then Utah had Frank Layden (career 277-294) as a coach. And Stockton didn't become a starter in that Utah team until 1987. So, just to give an example: in 86-87, when Stockton was still a bench player averaging 22 minutes a game, and with a coach with a career losing record, a 23 year old Karl Malone averaged 21.7 ppg and 10.4 rebounds, being the best player by a very wide margin on a 44 win team. This isn't an attack on Horford, as he is a solid player who most teams would love to have. He is just not on the same level as Malone.

Difference is that the NFL has a hard cap, so if they let McNabb go they can instantly use all that money to upgrade several positions. The nba doesn't have a hard cap, so the only plus of JJ walking is the owner's wallet getting fatter, as you wouldn't be able to sign someone of equal value.

You know what is the problem with this? Lebron is big and has the refs on his side. You start going at him, he will probably respond in kind given his size, with the difference he will not be called for ANYTHING. Just to give you an idea of how protected he is, the last time he had more than 4 fouls in a regular season game was almost two years ago, on 4/2/2008.

The guy is the kings blogger, so he is hardly a celtics fan. Now, granted that I am a celtics fan, so I may be biased. But is it so outrageous if someone says the celtics are better than the hawks? Keep in mind, I'm not even arguing whether the celtics are better. The hawks may very well be better. But the question is: if someone disagrees with that, is that so incredibly absurd? The celtics are half a game ahead, despite only recently being fully healthy for the first time in a long time. I mean, vegas still gives the celtics better odds than the hawks. This doesn't mean that they are right, but just that many gamblers seem to agree with the sacramento blogger. Again, Im not saying that the celtics are better, just that thinking they are doesn't make anyone an idiot. Is Washburn and everyone else who picks the hawks to make the finals or conference finals an idiot? After all, they are picking the hawks over either the cavs or the magic (or both).

this is just theater so as not to give the nba any fodder to block the move. Ill bet $100 that he will end up with the cavs.

Reggie MIller reached the finals is a significantly weaker east, and Ray Allen was within a poorly officiated game against the 76rs of doing it too. the 2005 sonics were better than both teams. And it's not clear to me Reggie Miller was even the best player in that Pacers team.

Which is my point. My point is not that the celtics are the contenders they used to be. Just that they are playing better than they were, and the hawks are playing worse than they were. There is no reason for the celtics to be worried about the raptors but not the hawks.