REHawksFan

To answer my own rhetorical question... SFs Starting Game 1 of 2024 Playoffs: Jason Tatum Caleb Martin Kelly Oubre OG Anunoby Aaron Nesmith Kris Middleton Franz Wagner Maxi Strus Brandon Ingram Lou Dort LeBron Michael Porter Brad Beal Jaden McDaniels / Kyle Anderson Derrick Jones Paul George How many of these guys would Hunter start over? 4? 5? It's not a lot. And Centers: Portzingus Bam Adebayo Embiid I. Hartenstein Miles Turner B. Lopez Paulo Banchero Jarod Allen Jones V. Chet AD Joker NUrkic Gobert Gafford Zubac How many would Clint start over? I can make an argument that Clint would only start over Gafford. Maybe? The point is, if we want to improve the Hawks, we HAVE to upgrade the roster. Hunter and Clint are fine off the bench, but they are no longer starters, imo. To answer your question, I said in another thread I like the BI and Daniels for DJM plus salary trade. That would solve the 3 issue. For Center, I'm not sure. It would be best through the draft if there was a player that was a sure thing, but since there's not, it would need to be through trade. Maybe we start OO but he hasn't proven to be healthy consistently. So I'm not clear on that one yet. But I'm pretty confident that I don't want to run it back with Clint starting.

Edey is faster than he looks. He's so big that he just covers a lot of ground when he moves. So even though he looks slow, he's still plenty fast enough to defend against these teams in college. I've already said I've seen enough from him to be willing to take a chance and draft him. Worst case scenario in my mind, we have a superb backup 5 that causes all sorts of problems in limited minutes off the bench. Best case scenario, we have a top end starting C for years to come. Given the weakness of the draft overall, I'm comfortable drafting Edey at 10 under either scenario. With all that said, I also believe we won't know for sure how he translates until he's actually in the NBA. We can look at the fastest teams in college all day long, but it still isn't the same as defending an elite NBA athlete. None of the teams in that video have 5 NBA players running up and down the floor. So the video is nice, but it doesn't really answer the question of whether he can stand up to NBA athletes.

POA defense is always a problem, but the biggest problem this year was the C position, imo. I'm just not bringing back Clint or Hinter to start. I'm fine with both off the bench, but starting is a no go. How many teams in the playoffs would either start for? Not many I'd imagine.

Starting Hunter and CC is a hard pass for me. I'm intrigued by Miles but you aren't doing anything to fix the biggest weakness from this year. Keep Hunter, but off the bench. Let CC go or come off the bench.

So are you starting: Trae Bogie Miles JJ CC? I still think we need to upgrade from Clint

I can't go into next year with Hunter and Vit as the primary sf on the roster. Gotta upgrade there. I like Vit a lot, but I'm not starting him off the jump. And Hunter starting is a no go for me.

I gotta admit, it's kind of staggering to see Dre rank: - 7th in WAR on the team - 7th in RAPTOR - 10th in PER - 11th in WS/48 - 10th in BPM - 13th in VORP I know he adds value that doesn't always show up in advance metrics, but yikes. Hard to imagine that he ranks so poorly on a lottery team that won 36 games and played numerous g leaguers throughout the season.

Just making stuff up now. Good grief.

This is going to sound insane and I'm fully aware of it, but hear me out.... The Hawks making a run to the ECF is the singular event that set off a chain reaction of bad decisions. Had the Hawks only made the 2nd round and then lost to Philly or had they lost to NYK, it is highly likely that they don't decide to level up on their rebuild timeline and start skipping steps. It is also at least possible that they don't hire Nate to be the full time HC and who knows who they bring in. But going as far as they did earlier than expected reset everyone's expectations. They hired Nate (an unequivocally average, old school coach), raised the expectations to build off the ECF run, and short cut a lot of the typical steps in the rebuild (like allowing time for internal growth). The next year they got bounced by Miami when they didn't have a 2nd ball handler so they did the reactionary thing and traded the future for DJ and here we are. The point is, I think the ECF run is the thing that started the FO down the road of changing directions. And it's highly likely that this decision didn't come with universal acceptance within the organization. So they start changing plans mid stream, hire more people with more voices, and it's chaotic and rudderless. Or so it seems. Create plan Start plan Continue plan Implement plan Complete plan Deviate from plan is not part of the process. But making the ECF in Year 3 of the plan was also not part of the process. So here we are.

This is EXACTLY what you are doing. At least you recognize it. OK. It's just all a little too convenient. You are essentially saying we should believe the unsourced negative stuff (and your personal opinion) but not believe any sourced positive stuff. Why not just admit YOU don't like him and want others to join you? At least that would be more intellectually honest than this charade of un-sourced articles and your view from the stands.

I think you see what you want to see. You sit in the stands and expect to see a malcontent and suddenly everything he does is looked at and viewed as negative. The truth is you don't know one way or the other whether his teammates love him or hate him. It's all just supposition. And it's done so in a definitive manner, which is what I take umbrage with. So to be clear, you are suggesting we should believe "unnamed sources" over guys that are actually on the record saying Trae is a good teammate? Do you not see how crazy that sounds? I know you'll just say that I won't believe anything but that's just not true. If JC or Huerter or Lou Williams or any of the current team guys came out and said Trae was a bad teammate or was a malcontent, I'd take that extremely seriously. But none of that has happened. Right now we have "unnamed sources" and your observations from sitting in the arena. We also have actual teammates saying the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you are claiming. So which to believe?

That's just a deflection. The numbers are what they are. They don't lie. Reading your post and this quote comes to mind... "The fool is the one that sees the facts, knows the truth, but still believes the lies." An old Eagles song also comes to mind... "Ain't no way to hide your lyin eyes..."

Y'all just keep in mind that just like last year, we are talking about a sample size of 81 voters out of over 500 NBA players this year. And 6 (SIX!!) voted Trae as most overrated. It's not like the entire NBA is voting him most overrated. He got 6 votes which - just like last year - gets a giant shoulder shrug from me. The lack of respect in the all star voting is FAR more egregious, imo.

Aside from the complaining to the refs (which literally every star in the NBA does), all of the rest are 100% your opinion based on nothing. Give me a break. Unless you are with the team, there's is ZERO chance you know anything about Trae's attitude or his connectedness to the team.

Trae's too small. Trae's too slow. Trae's too weak. Trae's too blah blah blah. Not a mention about Brunson from the eggsperts. Brunson is what, 0.5" taller and has a wingspan that is 1.0" longer? Give me a break. If the Hawks put the right guys around Trae they can absolutely win a title with him.

Depends on who you ask. There are some here that think it's a lost cause and nothing will ever change until the ownership changes. There are others that think we are just a piece or two away from being really good. You asked if it's naïve to believe they WILL turn it around. I think it's perfectly logical and reasonable to believe they CAN turn it around. Will and Can are two totally different things, obviously. I'd say it's probably more naïve than reasonable to believe they WILL turn it around, but that's only because they haven't really taken the first step to turning it around - spend money. Until they do that, it's hard to believe they are committed to winning at the highest level. But, imo, it's perfectly reasonable to believe they CAN turn it around. I think I read that Ressler is like the 7th richest owner in the NBA. So it's not like they are hurting for money. They just need to commit to spending enough to get better. IMO, the ship has sailed on the internal development approach. So it's time to implement the spend till you have a title approach. Can they do that? Absolutely. Will they?

Distance Miles on Offense per NBA.com/stats: Trae is 2nd on the team at 1.40 miles per game on offense. And here is where that ranks in the entire NBA (26th out of 572 players): Trae has the same distance miles as Steph Curry on offense. The difference is he does most of his with the ball while Steph does most without. But some basic math shows the allocation like this: Trae on Offense: 3,250 feet per game WITH BALL / 4,140 feet per game WITHOUT BALL Steph on Offense: 2,200 feet per game WITH BALL / 5,190 feet per game WITHOUT BALL Bottom line: Claiming Trae does nothing but stand around on offense without the ball is patently false.

Truth. The thing I will never fathom is why folks that claim to be Hawks fans can clamor for guys that literally play the same way Trae does all the while bemoaning Trae. Just dumb.

Sitting here watching the Pels / Kings game and wondering why Edey can't be a similar player to JV? Not like JV is a high flyer or anything. He's big. He's smart. He's good around the rim.

Trae's avg dribbles per touch and avg seconds per touch have come down each of the last 2 years. He's getting better at getting off the ball a little quicker. Oh, and look at the leaders in this category: 1. Brunson - 5.57 dribbles 2. SGA - 5.47 3. Trae - 5.39 4. Ja - 5.28 5. Dame - 5.13 6. Garland - 5.12 7. Luka - 4.81 8. Harden - 4.80 Doesn't seem to be a problem for these other elite PGs. Trae is literally no different from them. He just has his own teams fans that love to criticize him.

I selected keep both which is completely contradictory to what I think should happen. I just have a feeling that's what's going to happen. We'll see I guess. I definitely don't think it works with both, but there's part of me that thinks the Hawks will just chalk this year not working up to injuries and they'll make other changes rather than splitting up Trae and DJ. I think Quin really likes both players and thinks it can and will work with both. I think Trae and DJ both want to stay and make it work. I don't see it, but that's my thought on what the Hawks will do. If I was the GM, I'd try to trade DJ to the Pels for BI and Dyson Daniels and then focus my attention on upgrading the C position.

"We've been doing this long enough to know that injuries are part of it and you've got to plan and prepare for that." Checks notes..... EIGHT NBA caliber rotation players on the roster this year - 3 of which are injury prone. SMH

Along these same lines, I put this chart together the other day after I saw a comment from @JayBirdHawk questioning the roster construction since the ECF run. I decided not to post it as after I made it I couldn't find the comment again (wasn't sure which thread it was in). Anyway, feel free to delete if it doesn't fit with your thread. So this chart shows the Top 15 Hawks players in Minutes Played and their respective PER. It shows each year starting with the ECF run. My idea was to chart the players in and out each year to see if the caliber of overall roster was improving or declining with the team transactions. I assumed it was declining but wanted to see it for myself. Instead, the chart sort of took on a life of its own. The color codes show red as "Below Avg" play (League average PER is 15), the yellow is "Above Average (PER between 15 and 20), and the green is the upper tier in the league which is above 20. The 20 benchmark was more of a feel on my part as the data suggests it reflects anywhere from 85th to 92nd percentile depending on the year. I did the same chart with WAR, PIE, WS, etc... but they all show the same general trends so I'll just post this one. The next to the bottom set of rows shows the total minutes in each category and the weighted average PER for those minutes. The bottom set of rows shows what % of the total minutes played is reflected in each category. I think there are several instructive things shown here. Trae and Clint are the top 2 players in PER every year which only underscores @NBASupes often mentioned opinion that the 5 is the biggest / most important position for Trae. Their success goes hand in hand. In the ECF year, the top 5 players by PER were in the top 7 of minutes played. Playing your best players the most minutes is a good strategy. The ratings for several players seem to decline each year. Solo - I miss the perceived benefit of Solo minutes The Green level of play goes from 22.7 to 23.7 to 22.0 to 20.5 this year. That means that this year, the top level players (again Trae and Clint) were just barely at the upper level. We basically had 5 above average players and 10 below avg players It's interesting to track the "Core" and then the "Others" each year. I forgot some of the "Others" were ever on the Hawks. LOL We go from 7 above avg / upper level players in ECF run to 5 the following year (excl Dieng) to 5 the next year to 6 this year but the PER ratings drop each year. I know there's not 1 stat the fully captures the complete impact of a player. I know DH has value to the Hawks above the "Below Average" rating shown in the chart. The question is how much? Anyway, I thought this might be an interesting way to look at the year over year trend for the Hawks in terms of roster construction. Also, for reference, here is the same chart for Boston this year just to show their player profile. Hint: there's a lot of yellow and green at the top.

Read the first few paragraphs. Not reading anymore of your nonsense. Have a nice day.