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.

I never said that Popp wasn't a great coach.

However, in order to validate Greatness as a Coach, I would have to see you coach without Having the Best PF in history playing for you.

Jerry Sloan continues to prove Greatness but is never recognized.

Phil Jackson has proven greatness to an extent. (Phil not coaching NJ speaks volumes).

There are other coaches who have won championships but have moved from team situation to team situation that have proven that they are indeed great coaches.

Then there are others who have won championships but have moved to another situation and proved that they were in the right place at the right time.

Do you think KC Jones was a great coach?

Do you think that Bill Russell was a great Coach?

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?

I could ask the same question about Ray Allen. If, as with Ray, it wins us a title by he's 33, I can deal with paying too much at 34.

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?

Talent doesn't win without teamwork in basketball. Same Lakers going for a threepeat.. got UPENDED by the Detroit Pistons. It was not that the Pistons were so talented or so well coached, it was that that Laker team was so flawed. The same was true in 2003. In fact, had it not been for the refs, the Philadelphia Sixers would have won at least 1 more game in their series with the Lakers. In fact, that Lakers were handed a win against the Portland Trailblazers for one of their first championships. You don't remember Smitty and Pippen taking Kobe to school?? You don't remember Sheed getting thrown out of the game and suspended from the next one for LOOKING at the refs? Uhm... That has never happened again?!?!???

I agree with you that Duncan is far better than JSmoove. That's the point. Duncan putting up legendary numbers with a veteran team and a Young PG who scored 14 per.. won a championship. That's not so hard to believe.

Not that what he did in the finals is important.. but:

2003 -- Tim Duncan, San Antonio

Averaged 24.2 points, 17.0 rebounds and 5.3 blocks to lead the Spurs to 4-2 victory over the New Jersey Nets. Duncan scored 21 points and added 20 rebounds, 10 assists and eight blocks in Game 6 of the NBA Finals at the SBC Center to eliminate the Nets.

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.

First off, the Lakers with Shaq and Kobe were not necessarily a lock. They were two massive egos that were very non-complimentary at times. Secondly, just like Hakeem and a bunch of Role players winning a championship, having a dominant big man is the easiest way to get to a championship. I think Duncan turning in the performance he turned in speaks volumes... 20 year old Tony parker was still double figures in points. 14+ per game. We'd be doing cartwheels in the middle of freaking Piedmont Park with Gay Men watching and clapping if Teague could reproduce what Tony Parker (at age 20) did in those playoffs.

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

Let's backtrack a minute...

Winning a championship doesn't automatically make you a great coach.

Sometimes, great teams just fall into your lap.

The NBA is made up of so many retreads that it's hard to make my point...

But

Bill Fitch won a championship with the Celtics.

I watched Fitch coach NJ and LAC... I was not impressed.

In fact, given my own team with players needing a coach and if I had to choose between Jerry Sloan, Bill Fitch, and Gregg Poppovich... I'm picking Jerry Sloan everytime.

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.

Yeah, you were right, Parker did shoot 40%. I misread his stats from the year before.. when he was 19 year old parker and he shot 46% while scoring 15.5 ppg in the playoffs. Point is, Parker played two years with Paris Basket Racing - Professional team. He was not some untalented player that needed a lot of polish. He was a good player... By the time his second year rolled around, he had become the starter of the Spurs and was playing good. His playoff scoring averages are great for a PG.

Next, Shaq averaged 27-15-4 in a championship year.

Finally, I don't think Popp did much but point and say give the ball to Duncan. When you have Duncan putting up 34/24 in a game, that's not on the coach. Our when you have Stephen Jackson dominating the Mavs Series alongside Duncan, that's not the coach. That's like Saying Woody is responsible for our winning when Joe goes out and scores 28 and Josh gets 6 blocks.

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 Horf came out in the playoffs and averaged 24, 15, and 5.. I guarantee we'd win it all.

The other thing is that Duncan had good players. It doesn't matter that Parker looked poor in the year. IN the playoffs, he was 46% from the field and 34 from three getting nearly 15 points per game. Captain Jack got him 12,4, and 3. Remember, Duncan didn't need much. Their team was built on good defense and stable offense. Bruce Bowen played and was in his prime.

During the playoffs that year, NO team took them to 7.

Laker Series 1

Laker Series 2

It's a shame that Dirk missed games in their series.

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.

The team he had in 2003...

First:

Duncan averaged 23, 13, 4.

He also had Parker, Stephen Jackson, Steve Smith, Manu Ginobili, Bruce Bowen, David Robinson, Malik Rose, and Speedy Claxton.

They beat the NJ Nets in the finals. (not a hard task).

I will give it to you that that was Parker's worst scoring effort in the playoffs.. He went 14.7, 3.5, and 2.5 ...

In those playoffs, Uncle Timmy raised his averages to 25, 15, and 5. DAYUUM.

I would think it would be hard to find one player that would be able to match that kind of playoff average! That's dominance.

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

It's not just about height. It's about weight to, but since we're having a debate about a hypothetical situation. Do you honestly think Wilt Chamberlain, Bill Russell, and Bob Petit would have put up such outstanding numbers playing in today's NBA ? Seriously. Do you think Wilt the Stilt would come into the league, even in his prime, and average 30/23 ?

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.

ON this topic.

I think we need to point out this...

Young Karl Malone was less skilled than Al offensively. He was a player who was really able to improve his game at the pro level. But Young Karl Malone had John Stockton and the whole city of Utah there to support his development. It's not even fair to compare Al to matured Karl Malone because Malone was a first option scorer who scored 20 points per. Skillwise, Malone was one of the best finishers of the game and he could hit a high post shoot. IF Al gets the consistency to hit a high post shot, who knows where this comparison can go.

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.

the point I was making was more about the size of the nba. there just wasn't big players back in those days like it is now. I'm not saying they wouldn't still be good but I'm almost certain that their production wouldn't be as great.

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.

I think it will come down to finances vs. Winning.

Just Like Donovan McNabb.

Philly has held on to McNabb all this time.. but now to write that one more check knowing that you are not going to win the Superbowl is hard. Especial when Vick is cheaper.

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.

I like Reggie better in his prime than Ray but I can totally see where reasonable minds differ on this. I don't think any team with Ray as its best player makes the NBA finals, for example. I also give Ray Allen significantly more credit for the Celtics championship than I give Steve Kerr with the Bulls but it is a similar situation. It is nice that they won a championship as no-D, perimeter gunners that couldn't hold the jockstrap of their team's best players but they were clearly complimentary pieces that could have been replaced by a dozen other guys without changing the bottom-line result.

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.

OH MY BAD , I I the Roy was gonna be out along time. t

The Knicks, Wizards , kings and nets all have losing records that's 4 ,

The heat are just 500 and the fact they they blew us out at home says more our sorry play in the last 2 games vs the Heat then anything else.

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.