Chickenstanley

If the moderators were willing to do their job, they would have already mentioned this to you. You were personally insulting people. Yes, that is the manner in which I addressed you. People are going to treat you like you treat them. A pot does not have to be of a different color to accurately call a kettle black. If I weighed 500 lbs and so did you, would I lose credibility for calling you fat? The entire premise of such logic is silly. The former debate: Not going there. I'm still dizzy. CS

Exodus, I was simply curious why you were allowed to break the rules with many of your posts. Maybe it has something to do with your being a "$ Supporter" --- and this being Dolfans' Dictatorship and NOT a democracy ? Whatever... As for the previous "argument" that you speak of...... If you don't understand the following concepts, I suggest you ask someone to explain them to you. They are: 1. You cannot prove a speculation 2. It is child's play to cast doubt on any speculation 3. The vast majority of everything that you (and everyone here) writes about is speculation 4. No statistic(s) you can research and quote changes numberrs 1 thru 3. It would be easy to deconstruct all of your speculative posts the same way I did during the "last argument". But there would be no reason to do that because *speculation* is the main reason that this forum exists and the reason we all enjoy coming here. I would only like to ask you to please attempt to tone down the personally insulting tone of your posts (like the examples I mention previously). The posters here are likely decent human beings who do not deserve to be called stupid, have their attention spans or abilities to read called into question (outright or insinuated) and talked down to repeatedly by you. Comments of this nature just do not serve any useful purpose within a post and are not necessary to make your point. Outside of this, your "viewpoints" are generally very well presented -- but are frequently littered with this childish playground-type tone that you tend to use. Many people here have been through this stage over the years and have long since grown-up and become confident enough in their own intelligence to stop posting in the manner as you are still doing. CS

I see that being a forum loudmouth/know-it-all has it's priveledges around here! Enjoy with me these posts where Exodus clearly attacks the poster --- and NOT the content of a post. ______ "You are the classic case of someone who sees what they believe instead of believing what they see." "You never let the facts get in the way of your agenda" "Can you even read?" ------------ And a bonus.... "...... but it looks like you forgot that too just like you forgot that i was the one who brought the subject up in the first place." Now I'm beginng to understand.... CS

In the end... I think it takes being extremely dominant in at least one major facet of the game -- so dominant that it totally disrupts any other team's major strength and ability to execute. Among the choices you listed, only 1. Great Offense or 2. Great Defense would be a possible answer, in my opinion. CS

Is this supposed to be one of those riddle's where the question actually answers itself? CS

Timing may be as important as season-long stats. Just like a team needs to be able to get a basket during crunch time --- they also need to have the ability to lock-down their opponents *in crucial situations.* I don't think the Spurs or Pistons were necessarilly great offensive teams --- but they had the system and personnel to get the key basket in crucial situations. The 80's Lakers were also able to lock-down when needed. It wasn't the trademark of these teams, but the capability was there. Some of the teams we've mentioned were so good on one side of the ball, it's likely they rarely needed to exert their full capability on the other side to win most games. Thus, possibly resulting in statistics that did not reflect the full-extent of their capabilities. CS

I don't necessarily (or even at all) disagree with your hypothesis, Diesel. In fact, I believe that league rules will continue to trend in a manner that will discourage winning via defense in the future. Someone will come along with a model that wins and also doesn't fit into any familiar mold. Then everyone will try to copy them as opposed to creating the next winning model. There have been many prolific offensive teams during the past 30 years. The Alex English Nuggets, The Iceman Spurs, many Golden State teams, the D'Antonio Suns --- to name a few. None have been able to beat the teams I mentioned in my previous post. Or even seriously contend for a championship, for that matter. As for the 80's Lakers, they were likely much better defensively than many give them credit for. Michael Cooper may have been the best on-ball defender in history. Let's also look at the 80's Sixers, whom I left out before. They had three great defenders in Caldwell Jones and Bobby Jones who played huge roles in their success. And Mo Cheeks was 1st team All-Defense, if I remember correctly. Then they threw in Moses who was an off-the charts rebounder --- and the rest was history. Of course they also had probably the most difficult man-on-man cover I've ever seen outside of Michael Jordan --- in Andrew Toney. But a team with nothing but defense as it's calling card would likely be just as inept as those great offensive teams that never amounted to anything. It obviously takes some balance. To me, the Hawks have enough adequete pieces defensively. And seem built to run offensively. But they often do not make good/correct decisions and it results in turnovers. We have the talent. But in another post, I mentioned that some (all) great players seem to have almost an uncanny ability to see things in slow-motion -- and this rare ability seperates great players from merely talented ones. I haven't seen this sixth-sense in any of our players. I've seen flashes of it --- and we have litterally blown teams out of the gym while those flashes have lasted. Unfortunately, Teague would need to play a pivotal role in such an up-tempo scenario --- but it seems that he doesn't have any ability whatsoever to make correct decisions in a fast game. He constantly throws the ball right to opposing players who are no more than a foot or two away from him --- as if he can't even see them standing there. CS

When I look back over the last 30 years or so, I find that defense, more so than strong low-post scoring jumps out as the most common element of championship teams. But then again, the rear-view mirror is not always the best place to discover what is about to appear in your windshield. The '80's Lakers ---- Strong inside scoring (Kareem) + Trancendant talent at point guard. Both were the best to ever play at those two positions. Not likely duplicable ever. The 80's Celtics. ---- Strong inside scoring + tremendous rebounding + great defensively Bad Boy Pistons -- Weak inside scoring (Laimbeer was a high post jump-shooting center) Tremendous defense. Not likey duplicable because of rule changes. Jordan Bulls ---- No low post scoring. Best player to ever play. Possibly most versatile combo forward to ever play. Tremendous defense. Shaq/Kobe Lakers -- Strong inside scoring + Kobe Spurs --- Strong inside scoring + tremendous defense. Larry Brown Pistons --- Weak low post scoring . Tremendous defensively. 2008/current Celtics -- No real low-post scoring threat. Tremendous defensively. CS

"Pay attention, did you honestly thoroughly read my comments?? Because this is twice now that you are trying use words that I did not type to prove your point. Look back at my original comment" ______________________________________________________________________________________ Welcome to Hawksquawk! CS

Pippen was a great defensive player. Jordan was a great defensive player. Both Rodman and Horace Grant were great defensive players. Not just good. But great. Jordan has since commented something like.." Our offense put people in the stands, but it was our defense that the Championships". Billups, Prince, Wallace and Wallace ---were all great defensive players. The team they totally destroyed (the Shaq/Kobe Lakers) was the most dominant since the Jordan era. There was no asterisk ala the Houston titles while Jordan was retired. And yes, they had probably the only coach that could have used that team to explode that Laker dynasty. CS

For some reason I am asking myself how/why someone in Austrailia could possibly have developed such as fixation on.........................Nick Van Excel? But maybe some things are better left to the imagination :) As for always being there for his son......... Yep, coaching in Atlanta and jet-setting around the country with the Hawks is certainly my idea of being there for ones' children. Geez, if only we could all be there for our children as much as Nick Sr. has been over the last twenty years or so --- I'm certain someone would ceate a special *Fatherhood* award in honor of us for such sacrifice ! CS

Why? So Joe could have gone 8-29 (instead of 6-20)? This team needs someone who can keep a PG out of the paint! Marvin needs to get his arse out of ATL and back on the court. I personally got up from many falls worse than his (even on asphalt) and continued to play that same day and daily afterwards. This is pathetic, in my opinion. He insults every one of us who play (or have played) for the enjoyment of the game. (i.e -- a large percentage of the fan base.) Sorry, I'm not buying him being too injured to play. Jordan or Bird would never have considered missing a game after leaving the court with the ease that Marvin did. And neither would I. And I never made $100,000 a game (for staying home and watching TV --- so maybe that's why?) He couldn't even make the F****ng the TRIP!! Unreal. CS

"Don't see him making the All Star team - he's been out an playing poorly. The fans wont vote him in (did he ever get voted in?) So its probably up to the coach to pick him. Maybe if he has a really great month of Jan he could. Since Al probably makes it, they won't need to put a Hawk into the game. He's going to have to go on a tear to avg 20 per game. Don't see it.............................................." ____________________________________________________________________ OK. So he may not be selected to play in a totally meanignless exhibition game. And your point is? If I already made $21,000,000 a year playing basketball, they couldn't pay me enough to play basketball that weekend. Sorry, but anything to do with the "all-star game" or being selected an "all-star" is just mindless drivel to me. CS

This is a good thread! I believe that most all NBA players have a pretty high basketball IQ -- when watching film, TV or when sitting on the bench. Afterall, they have all been exposed to and taught proper decision-making from the time they were very young. Most of us even have a pretty high basketball IQ ourselves when we are watching games. But what is the difference between some players who bacically have the same level of athletic/basketball skills? I think it's speed -- as in speed of recognizing the correct play and making the correct decision. I think the correct play (and correct thought) are virtually simitaneous with the great players. Virtually no lag time. To almost see things happening in slow-motion. Whereas other players need that extra split/nano second (or longer) to recognize the correct play. I'd bet that Smoove could sit next to any of us at a game and likely agree with our assessment of his decision-making. But we'd all have the luxury of that extra split-second or two that he doesn't have when he's on the court. Whether this can be coached or taught? --- I'm leaning toward believing it would be quite difficult to teach. CS

I admit that I don't understand the DNP for Teague tonight either. It almost seems like LD goes into each game with a plan and seems stubbornly determined not to veer away from it. Tonight's plan seemed to be to play small (i.e. not play Collins, Thomas). I can appreciate LD for developing a game plan and even for varying it according to the opponent --- but he doesn't seem to react quickly enough when it isn't working. It was obvious to me early-on that Horford wasn't going to be able to guard Okafor in the post. For all Horford is, he doesn't seem to defend the post well lto me. Reardless of how quiet CP3 was in the first half, everyone including the cat in my lap knew that it was just a matter of time before CP3 exploited Bibby -- which would in-turn break down our entire defense. Teague had played better and more confidently than I've ever seen in the several games prior to this one. Yes, he still has been turnover prone, but he's seemd to be gaining the confidence to risk making a mistake--- and as a result has made many great plays. He did not deserve this DNP, in my opinion --- especially considering that his specialty (speed, defense at the point) was our biggest concern against this opponent. LD's weakness looks to be an attitude of "I've already made-up my my mind, so don't confuse me with the facts". Woody only had one game plan. LD is better than this. But he seems a bit too slow in reacting when his plan for a particular game isn't working. CS P.S. Has anyone noticed that Smoove seems to start each year leading the league in blocks and then his blocks fall off of a cliff? He's a total no-show on defense these days and isn't earning the privilege to jack-up his jumpers on the other end :)

"......but it seems we're struggling to win against great teams." _____________________________________________________ I think pretty much every team struggles to win against great teams. The Hawks don't have a corner on this market. At the end of the season, the Lakers regular season record will include a blow-out loss in Milwaukee. A home loss to Indiana. And probably a few more that can be added before the season ends. Their record last year included being blown-out in Atlanta and Miami --- and also a Christmas day embarrasment against Cleveland. Yes, it happens to the Lakers less frequestly than it does the Hawks. But I think the Hawks have been significantly more competitive on the road this season. And have finally seemed to come out of our inexplicable funk at home. I'm cautiously optomistic about our chances for a better playoff showing than we've had the last two years. The team that doesn't seem penetrable to me is Boston. Road or home --- injuries or healthy --- they just seem less prone to any let-downs than any other team at the moment. No way they do they let Orlando blow them out like San Antonio did tonight, in my opinion. Dallas may be more of a contrender than anyone believes. Tyson Chandler's presence has really seemed to make a huge difference in their entire mojo. But can he stay healthy? Sorry, but I just don't buy into the Knicks, Chicago or Miami at present. They're nothing more than big market press hype until proven otherwise --- to me. Again sorry --- but if Joaquim Noah can possibly be considered a top center in the NBA --- it's a miracle to me that the NBA is still in existence! This guy would likely not even have made an NBA roster in the 70's or 80's! CS

I've said it before and I'll say agan it now. YES! Larry Brown is the only coach that comes to mind that has been able to take Hawks-level talent to the NBA finals, semi's and even a title. And he's done it more than once with three different teams. I have no problem with the job LD is doing. But would consider to be a Larry Brown a huge upgrade ---- and the Hawks to be a legitimate contender if he were to take over. CS

How does anyone really know the legitimacy of press drivel, such as .... " he's expected to miss (X) games/weeks with an injury"? It's much easier to sell the public on a guy who "works hard and comes back early" --- than it is to have to tell them that a guy making $250,000 a game -- is not even back on the job when he was expected to be. We don't know anything. Only what we actually see. Otherwise, it's only second-hand information related to us by people who make their living promoting the league and it's players to us. CS

Not that I'm trying to chide you Smoovezilla, but what makes you of the opinion that neither team played well? How would you define a game that was "well played"? Is it *impossible* that this game could have actually been quite well-played by both teams? It probably didn't fall anywhere in between. CS

On the Bibby three at the end following the timeout........... What was the LAST thing the defense would have expected the Hawks to do in that situation? Exactly what they did. Kudo's to LD! That play was obviously planned. Very decisive. No hesitation on Bibby's part in taking the shot. No surprised look on his or anyone's face afterwards. No opposing coach would have ever prepared it's defense for a three-point shot, early in the clock --- from a team in the Hawks' situation at that moment. Ingenious! And would still have been even if the shot hadn't fallen. Just think about it. You're on the road. You're not likely going to get any borderline call to get to the line. Their defense is obviously set to guard against anything ---- other than one totally unexpected thing. You only need one open look (any open look) for a chance to finally get a monkey off your back. That's how you do it. CS

"Very ugly win tonight, but I'll take it." _______________________________ So, how then would you describe Orlando's loss? CS

Just my take... 1. I personally think that the SCREAMING the announcer is unbearable. 2. I personally think the constant BLASTING of music at extreme decibels is ridiculous and obnoxious. 3. They only open two damn doors and you have to stand in a huge line just to get in place! And to make matters worse, the don't open the doors until 1 hour before game time. NO WONDER EVERYBODY SHOWS UP LATE. THEY ARE ALL OUTSIDE STANDING IN LINE A F***ING WAITING TO GET IN. 4. I don't care to be constantly getting up to let drunks out/in to get ANOTHER (extremely overpriced) drink. 5. I don't care to miss numerous plays because the damn beer guy is often standing in my line of sight. 6. The seats have no leg room for a person who is over 6 feet tall. 7. There are usually at least 5000 girls in the stands that look much better than the cheerleaders. Mostly look like prostitutes to me! 8. The mascots and other drivel that are designed for entertainment are plain silly and always accompanied with more SCREAMING over the PA system. Someone please tell me --- what the hell is enjoyable about such an experience? As opposed to kicking back at home in my recliner with a $.50 cent Martini after supper and watching the game on TV? With my $100-$200 still in my pocket! If it weren't for my wife enjoying attending when we are in town --- they couldn't pay me equal money to endure all that ___ to attend a game. CS

Now here is an interesting debate in the making! Is Smoove *good* in the paint? Or is he not very good in the paint? Does *good in the paint* mean that he is actually ---good in the paint --- or does it mean that he simply shoots a higher percentage from the paint than he does on jumpers and threes? Can a player who is *bad in the paint* actually be mistaken for being *good in the paint* because he is so inept from virtually any other spot on the court? Does being totally inept in one area mean one is automatically adept in another area that they are not totally inept in? At a quick glance, this doesn't seem logical. Smoove usually shoots over 50% from the free-throw line every year. Maybe we should station him there on offense? There is a large sample size to back-up this suggestion. We've spent a lot of time debating, whinning and bitchin' over Smoove shooting jumpers and three's --- with the assumption (from best as I could gather) that he (and the team) would be much better off with him shooting in the paint. But have we totally neglected to explore the possibility that it might not be in the best interest of the team for Smoove to ever shoot at all --- unless it is a lay-up or a dunk? Rodman wasn't any good in the paint (except for the occasional lay-up or put-back) --- despite his (very misleading) high shooting percentage from there. CS

Does it make anyone (other than me) wonder if this elbow condition was never mentioned by JJ in order to assure there would be no hang-ups in getting his MAX contract? CS

Has anyone heard whether Rasheed Wallace is serious about his retirement --- or just waiting until late in the season to sign-on with a playoff team? I would like to have him. He does a better job on Howard than almost anyone else and can still post-up anyone (when you can talk him into it) and can spread the floor with the three. (Read: move Howard away from the basket further than Horford can) He was a factor in Boston's playoff run last year --- and played quite well all the way through game 7 against the Lakers. I think the guy can still play. If he is willing to play, someone (Miami, Orlando, Chicago, LAL) will sign him later in the season. He would bring the Hawks interior defense and a post game that we don't currently have. Spare me the BS about his attitude. It's no worse than Smooves'. CS