Chickenstanley

" ......... We don't know - He's never been a head coach." _________________________________________________ Sounds a bit like the Miami Heat basketball team, huh? Oh no, excuse me, they're the NBA's leading title contender ---- without ever playing one single game together and having absolutely no track record with the current unit. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "This writer is very smart. He know all the answers, doesn't he!" ________________________________________________ Of course all writers are smart! Aren't you with the program G-Wolf? Because they decide to (simply do their job and) type something/anything ---- *some* members of this forum consider them so brilliant as to use their (purely speculative) *typings* as evidence for debating purposes. And because they constantly type the words LEBRON JAMES & MIAMI HEAT --- many on this forum (and others) seem compelled to constantly do the same. We don't need brains beacuse the press so graciously provides them for us. Unless this forum is actually involved in a thread about an actual game with Miami, I think the moderators should suspend anyone who types (or makes any reference) to Lebron James on this forum. And ditto for any mention of the silly, totally meaningless reference of "All-Star". Let it stop somewhere --why not here? CS

I say (and this is somewhat tongue-in-cheek) that what the Hawks need is to somehow steal the Bobcat's coach, Larry Brown. He is the only * common element* that I have seen who has been able to cause teams with less-than-championship caliber talent to go on unlikely Championship runs. What he did by (not beating, but destroying) the Shaq/Kobe/Jackson Lakers with the Pistons was quite an accomplishment. Then you think back to Philly and that run against the (same) Lakers with Deke/Iverson. And even further back to his Indy days with basically lower echelon talent ---- they were a hair (and a referee's whistle) from eliminating the Jordan/Jackson Bulls. I would almost bet that the Hawks would appear in the finals (at least) once within the next three years if we had a three commitment from Brown (or someone who is his equal in this respect) Otherwise, I don't believe the Hawks have any shot whatsoever with the current roster. There's going to be another Larry Brown-type coach at some point, we can only hope it turns out to be LD. The odds aren't with us, though. CS

Actually, it was Kevin McHale (and not Bird) that opposing teams felt they had no match for on the great Celtic's teams of the 80"s. Larry Bird (quoted in a book) once said that "Kevin could average 50 pts a game, if he wanted to". It's just that McHale wasn't a gym rat and took virtually nothing seriously ---including his job. This is why Bird and McHale reportedly did not, for the most part, get along with each other. Robert Parrish was quoted as saying (in the same book) that "Kevin is better than everybody he plays against". Charles Barkley : "Kevin McHale is the best basketball player I ever played against." Horace Grant: "....There's no way to play him". Bill Walton: "The best low-post player I ever played against, outside of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar." Billy Cunningham (76ers coach): "It's McHale that keeps me awake at night" John Bach (Bull assistant) Considers McHale the best low-post man to ever play the game. McHale (at 6-10) was so versatile that he was regularly assigned to guard the great small forwards of that era ---- such as Worthy, Dominique, Dr. J, etc. Partly because he was a great defender and also because Bird could not guard anyone ---which further calls into question who was really the key to that Celtic's dynasty. He could also shoot mid-range and defend the paint almost as well as anyone in the league. Sadly, McHale was cut-down somewhat early in his carreer (in the late 80's) as result of playing on a broken ankel/foot in one of the last Celtic runs. He never fully recoverd and was forced to retire. Even more sadly was that he didn't take the game (or anything) very seriously. Karl Malone (or Duncan) may go down as being "the greatest PF". I won't debate that. But I don't think there any chance either was actually the "best" to ever play. I think it was McHale --hands-down. CS

To me, it might have to boil down to........ If I were an opposing team/ player or coach -------which player(s), among those mentioned, would I have felt I had the least chance (or prayer) to counteract. To that question, I would answer (in no specific order): Jordan, Kareem, Chamberlain and Shaq. After that, it get's difficult! I believe they all are equally lethal both offensively and defensively. I'll eliminate Wilt because he was thoroughly outplayed by Kareem (Alcindor) heads-up while he was still fairly young. I'll eliminate Shaq because he seemed to fizz-out at a young age and was a tremendous free-throw liability. (as was Chamberlain) Now we are down to Jordan -vs- Kareem. I believe we have to, at this point, remove any bias by eliminating the players that surrounded each of them ----- and imagine a real-world basketball game with each teaming with 4 generic players of the same size and ability at each position. Who wins? I say it's Jordan. He controlled the basketball. Kareem needed someone to pass it to him. Kareem could dominate the middle defensively. But Jordan had much more range defensively --- and could affect more (all) areas of the court. Jordan could also get a rebound or steal, but Kareem could not get either and go coast-to-coast. And I agree with Diesel that Jordan was the tougher competitor ---although Kareem was absolutely not soft. His level of effectiveness at an advanced age certainly dwarfs Jordan's. But Jordan matched unequaled talent with the mentallity of a "stepped-on-rattlesnake-possessed-by-the-devil". A combination that we may never see again in our lifetimes. CS

I said "a strong case could be made for" Kareem being the best to ever live. And I believe that it could be. But I wasn't attempting to make that case with my post or insinuating that was my opinion. That's a debate I could have all-day long with only myself and never manage make any headway. Anyway, it might prove interesting to look-up statistics that only take into account *road* games/wins. Since virtually all serious contenders (and great players) tend to excel on the road, this may provide a bit better yardstick ---- if any regular season stat is going to be used. CS

I see where you're coming from AHF. It is a fairly decent stat, at first glance. (and maybe at a second glance as well) I'm just not so sure that I can come down on it completely because I don't know how to value wins properly in a league where there are only several elite teams ---- and the rest are playing the role of the Washington Generals. Are all wins really created equal? And should they all carry equal value? Or should we wait until the end of the season to get an accurate assesment? All good questions, I believe. What I'm saying is: If the Lakers or Celtics sweep the Wolves/Nets---- and so do the Hawks ---does this indicate that the Hawks are *really* equal to the Lakers or Celtics? And just because the Hawks swept Boston in the regular season --- were we *really* comparable to Boston when all the cards came out in the end? We know better, if we're willing to be honest with ourselves. This is what brings the analysis of a player's performance/stats in wins into question, to me. I believe it can be indicitive of a great player, but does not necessarilly indicate one. By the way, the 80's Kareem/Lakers example was intended to look at Kareem's last several years. Not his stellar carreer that preceeded this period, in which a strong case could be made that he was the greatest player to ever live ---and likely was high up on most any statistical category. CS

"Al = Hawks in Playoffs" "No Al = Hawks in lottery" _________________________ I couldn't agree with this more. And don't believe that I've written anything that would lead one to believe that I felt otherwise. If I did, then it was a misunderstanding. CS

C2C, I never claimed anything (or any stat) was "junk". In fact, I said as much in an earlier post. My opinion is that a player who is not "great" in (at least) one major aspect of the game ----cannot be deemed a "great player". I don't believe that, on a scale of one to five, that a player who has all 3.75's - 4.5's is worthy of calling a "great" player. It's the players who rate '5' (or 5 plus) in one or more categories that are the real difference makers in most games and especially in the playoffs and title runs. I do respect the stats that are being generated from those on the other side of this debate. And the time and effort they take to generate. But in the end, do many (or any) of you honestly feel that the Hawks are a favorite to win on any given night (and especially in the playoffs) based on your confidence in Al Horford's game? Regardless of what any statistics say about him? If so, that is your opinion and you are welcome to it. But it is not mine --- and I've watched almost every game the Hawks have played since he was drafted. CS

If any of you watch "Classic" or NBA TV" of Laker's games from the late 80's, you may notice an interesting phenomenon. In the crucial half-court situations with titles on the line, Kareem was STILL the Laker's first option in almost every situation. Even in his late 30's and early 40's. Again, I'm not a stat guy, but I'm guessing that at that point in his career, Kareem didn't rank very high by most any statistical measure. Yet, he was the go-to guy on a peirinial Finals participant. And don't say that he was being "carried" by Johnson, Worthy, etc --- this makes no sense to me. No way any team repeatedly goes to a guy who is "being carried" when Championships are on the line. If Kareem is not comparable to Al "because he is an all-time great", (and it's deemed an unfair comparision), then is there some set of statistics that are kept seperately for "all-time" greats"? I mean, his stats at the time (likely) didn't indicate "greatness" or even above average. But I would certainly not be willing to wager that that Laker team would have been better off with Al Horford as opposed to Kareem. I think stats *can* indicate a great player. But I also think players can be great without having great stats. Diesel's example of Kobe above is a good example. Still, I don't want to lose Al, but he's given me no reason to consider him "great", a franchise player or "untouchable. CS

This is a nice thread. Hopefully it doesn't take the route of many and become personal. Admittedly, I am not a "stat guy". And that is not a shot at those who are. It's just that I would not personally worry about Al's affect on (any given) game enough to clasify him as being "great" or "untouchable". It shouldn't take, in my opinion, reaching for some fancy or obscure statistic(s) to make the argument for a player being "great" versus simply "damn solid". So far, no one has convinced me that Al has achieved "greatness" by any historical measure of "greatness". By any of the major categories that I listed in a previous post. (scoring, passing, defense, etc). Or by being a major contributor to a serious championship run. I also think that stats of many players on (less than) very high caliber teams are not as reliable as they might first appear. I mean, someone has to put up good numbers and stats on every team. But, in no way, do I feel it should be blindly assumed that this is any indication of the caliber of player that they are. I can remember leading leagues in scoring myself while knowing that I couldn't have even started for the best team in the league. (this is a gerenral opinion about the value of stats - and not connected to anything to do with Al or this thread) If 5 -10 of us suddenly became an NBA team, a couple of us would give the appearance of being decent NBA caliber player's ---based on statistics. But we all know that would not actually be the case, don't we? Throughout all of this, I have made no prediction with regard to Al's potential progress going forward. CS

AHF, There is nothing I dislike about Al Horford or his game. I am arguing the point that (it seems that many) Hawks fans overvalue Al as a pure basketball player becaue of the intangibiles that he brings to the table. Along with the fact (or impression) that he has no real glaring weaknesses on the court. And yes, at the rate he is going, one could make the case that his "curve of improvement" (if continued --- big if) would lead him to "greatness" eventually. One could also make the case that the many players considered "great" historically have been much better or even "great" (in at least one aspect of the game) with much less experience or much earlier in their career's, or at a younger age than Al. My case is aimed at the fans who seem to think we can basically chuck everyone else and build around Al ---- as if he were already a "known" "great" player. If he becomes that, so be it. Great for the Hawks. I'll be as happy as anyone here! But many fans are putting him into this category now. I believe it's a case of "betting on the come" ----with the logic behind their bet being made because Al's intangibles are so compelling that it actually strikes emotion in many fans ---and clouds their vision. Your statement/point that "Al was an All-Star" was............. puzzling. Certainly you don't expect this forum to join you in this assumption that an exhibition game (loaded with politics in the selection process) holds any serious debate value (no question mark). For all I love about Al, nothing about his game has shown me anything that leads me to believe that opposing coaches/teams stay up at night attempting to figure out a way to counteract his abilities. To me, only a player that could cause such a reaction out of opposing teams deserves to be considered "great". Or a player to "build around". Or to be deserving of the "untouchable" status that he seems to hold with so many Hawks fans. CS

In my opinion, Horford might become a player the caliber of Horace Grant. But at this point, he is not the interior defender (or even close) that was Grant was. Grant was a "great" interior defender. While Diesel wants to argue that all Al hasn't done yet is "arrive" offensively, my argument is that he hasn't arrived at the status or being a "great" (on court) player on any front. He is not "great" defensively. He is not a "great" rebounder. He is not a "great" scorer. He is not a great" passer. These are the basic things that basketball player do. Name me some (Hall of Fame or HOF *caliber*) players that were not "great" in (at least one) of these areas. There are plenty of Horace Grant's. I can just hear it now. "We don't need Jordan or Pippen, all the need is a piece or two around Horace Grant" I strongly *suspect* that Horford IS actually "great" at the following things. inspiration leadership character effort coachability But while these are charcteristics are quite admirable if you're introducing him to your sister ----- they haven't (and probably never will) win championships or create the Hall of Fame basketball players needed to win titles ----- without some serious talent to go along with. I believe many Hawks fans are grossly overvaluing Al as a basketball player based on (their perception of) his possessing the above qualities. CS

If Sy is a good perimeter defender and has any (other) basketball skills, he should be an upgrade over Mario West. If this is the case, he may be playable in key defensive situations late in games. Playing J. Crawford or Bibby in these (have-to-get-a-stop) situations is almost like going 4-on-5. CS

I still just don't see where Al causes the type of match-up problems for other teams that players deemed to be "great" have traditionally done. His biggest strength is his mid-range jumper. And yet he could not use it to exploit Howard to any meaningful degree. And Howard is exactly the type of center that it should exploit. I reitterate that I do like Al and believe him to be the heart and soul of the team. And an extremely important player. But nothing has led me to believe that he is "great" or talented enough to build an elite NBA team around. CS

Thank you guys for an actual answer. I like Horford as well, but don't see him as anything more than a very nice piece of the team. Not a player who seems to "do no wrong" in the eyes of most fans. And certainly not a player to "build around." I mean..... He's not a great rebounder (so far) ala Rodman, Buck Williams, Oakley, Walton, Camby, Barkley, etc, etc. Not a great scorer ala Karl Malone, McHale, Amare, Dirk or even Dan Roundfield. He's not a great shot-blocker ala Camby, Smoove, Howard, or even Joel Anthony. He's certainly not a great post-up guy ala McHale, Barkley, Kareem, Hakeem, Shaq or even Brook Lopez. He's not a great post defender ala Horace Grant, Rodman, Walton, Hakeem, McHale, Kendrick Perkins, D. Howard or old Sixers like Bobby Jones/Caldwell Jones. He doesn't have great handles ala Anthony Mason, Lamar Odom, Scottie Pippen, etc. Not a great post-passer ala Bogut, Walton or Gasol. I don't feel he's tough ala Mahorn or Oakley, Rambis. (Not that I've seen, anyway). Yes, he is "developing" a nice mid-range jumper. But I still don't feel he's the type of outside threat (at this point) of players such as Dirk, Bill Laimbeer, Kukoc, or even Tom Chambers, etc. I just don't see any aspect of Al Horford's game that causes other teams to lose sleep at night. Or to cause the Hawks staff to sleep soundly before playing any team because they know that he's going to be on the floor. My opinion is still that this unconditional love is more based on the fact that Horford plays hard, plays consistently, plays within himself and doesn't whine to the refs ---- is being completely overvalued by Hawks fans and misinterpretated as him being a great player. CS

And still. No one can actually put into words what (exactly) Al Horford is so great "at." Why the unconditional love? What is so great about his game to deserve this love that he seems to attract on all Hawks-related forums? And don't tell me because he was an "all-star". That is a silly exhibition game that should not even be discussed in a serious forum. Along with the selection process, for that matter. One of those ----- the more they talk about it on TV and in the press---the more this forum believes it credible and falls "sucker" to their pitch--kinda' things. I stiil want someone to step up and answer the initial question. My opinion is that the love comes from the fact that Horford doesn't take bad shots, make juvenile faces at the refs or attempt to play outside of his abilities. Notice that I didn't mention anything that should garner such love. Just stuff that should be expected of him. This doesn't make him a player that is untradeable or one to "build around", imo. CS

My guess is somewhat worse, although I hope I am wrong. It's what they will do on the defensive end that has me worried. If a defense-first coach (Woody) couldn't get them to buy into defense, one has to wonder about a coach who has done nothing but talk about offense. Assuming the defense is on par with last season, this proposed "new offense" could be quite helpful in late-game situations---especially on the road. But if the defense isn't there, there's nothing the new offense can do to win road games. It's all about the road! Teams that don't win on the road (circa 25+ games) rarely advance very far in the playoffs. This season the Hawks play only 41 meaningful games to me. The road games. I believe their record in these 41 games will be a great indicator of how we all feel about the team next June. CS

Seems I remember rumours of a locker room "cancer" existing in the Hawks locker room at the end of last season as well. And we have basically the same squad returning. I haven't heard anything more on this since Woody was fired --- but my take on it at the time was that it was a player ( or players) ----not Woody necessarilly. If having a cancer-free locker room was a key to winning titles, it seems unlikely that the Jordan Bulls or Shaq/Kobe Lakers would have ever won as much as they did --if one can believe most of the stuff was written about them. I guess a team can either choose to feed on cancer ---- or allow it to feed on them. CS

Mr. Sothron, I did not intentionally misspell your username. It was a mistake on part. I apologize. As for my actual longevity here, many who have been here for years can verify that I have been on/off this forum since the early part of the decade. It would be silly to atttept to convince you that I am not a regular poster using a different name. I thought the idea was to respond to the post and not the person anyway, so what difference would this make anyway --- even if it were true? This practice is a classic show of weakness. I have had my share of problems with other posters over the years --( as have many others). If this makes me a troll in your mind, that is beyond my control or concern. CS

Mr. Sothran, You are continuing to embarass yourself with your responses. Responses along the lines of: "Because everyone should know ______ ". (and) Because everyone is saying _____" does not answer the simple question I asked you. Then you attempt to judge me (personally) by my number of posts. If this is the route you want to take please answer, these questions: Do you know my name? My height? Weight? Background? Where I live? My occupation? My marital status? I'm guessing that the only thing you know about me is my number of posts. Is this not true, Sothran? Mr. Sothran, I have nothing against you and have enjoyed many of your posts over the years and most have been above average, actually. But I have no belief that you can or will attempt to address my questions intelligently. So I will let you go. CS

Mr. Sothran, There was no need to refer to my account as a "joke". This borders on a personal insult and Dolfan does not allow such things on HIS forum. I did not refer to your post as a "joke". I made the claim that it was baseless and then asked you to explain yourself. Play the ball -- not the man. Without ever having played a single game, it seems ludicrous (to me) to assume a team is the "best team in the NBA". You still have not offered this forum any basis that this team is what you claim. Why? That they have 3 Top 15 players? Who's rank is that? I'm not aware of any rank on players that is anything more than one person after another's opinion. What night are you ranking them? When the weather is hot or cold? When the stock market is up or down that day? When which play is needed? Point all of us to something concrete, please. That people whose livliehood's depend on the success of the NBA are promoting this Miami team --- is supposed to taken as some serious basis for your remark? Was that not a surprise to you? For goodness sake, they made a complete spectacle out of the James "DECISION"! Did you really think they would stop promoting him after that? And you never even explained to us exactly what you meant by "best team". That they will win the title? The most regular season games? Draw the most fans at opposing arena's? Have the most highlight clips on SportsCenter? Can you not answer a simple question? As far as I can tell, you have posted nothing to convinve anyone that "Miami has the best team" as of this writing. CS

Unreal. If the Magic manage to get Carmelo and get him to sign that three year extension in the process what in the world can the Hawks REALISTICALLY do to counter this? Let's be honest here: the Heat already have the NBA's best team and the Magic are an elite team as well in our own division. Now you possibly add Carmelo freakin' Anthony to Orlando? :cant believe:

This one I agree with you on. The scuttlebutt coming out of this mysterious "LD thing" thing sounds like 16 turnovers per game to me. And no mention of defense. The Hawks biggest weakness as a team has been ROAD WINS! It's highly unlikely a team is going to win consistently on the road without a very strong defense. And also one that limits it's turnovers. Defense and limited turnovers keep teams in games on the road. Woody had this right --- but could not actually pull it off. I don't care about winning 33 home games and losing 25 road games by the score of 121 - 115. Some of you "stat guys" tell me what the chances are of making it to the Finals with under 25 road wins? Or even the conference finals? And what are historical odds of this happening? The only "quality wins" for this team will come on the road this year. Home wins mean nothing anymore and are "expected" --- at this point in the teams progress. CS

Are you freakin' kidding me? If Rasheed came to the Hawks he would be our best post-up scorer as well as interior defender! And in our top 3 three-point shooter's. While this fact certainly does not bode well for the Hawks, this is another one of your opinions that is quite puzzling --- if indeed, you are actually being serious. There is no case that can be made that this man was not a significant factor on a team that came within one game of the NBA title ----- less than 2 months ago --- and thus, could not possibly be categorized as being "no longer effective". Were you actually watching the playoffs and still formed this opinion? CS

Unless he is actually playing in a game I am watching ---- I "JUST SAY NO" to any mention of the name (verbally or written) of LeBron James. Enough is enough with this individual. I simply use my TV remote/mute or mouse to avoid anything to do with him. It's not necissarilly hate for James, it's just that I will not be manipulated into thinking about him --- by the press/promoters of the NBA. Same goes for the Miami Heat team (which ironically, just like James, has not won a damn thing ---- and doesn't deserve mine or anyone else's constant attention. CS