REHawksFan

4 minutes ago, NBASupes said:

UCONN got better players at every position but center. Smith and Castle is close for this level Smith being a tad better and Castle being superior talent wise but the rest is obvious. Newton is better than Jones. Spencer is way better than Loyer. Kanaban is better than Gillis and Kaufman-Renn. Purdue gotta play better if they want to win. Way better because they aren't as good as UCONN 

UCONN plan is to run Edey out the building and pull away late. Seems to be their strength anyway. Will be interesting to see how Edey handles it in the 2nd half. 

I also wonder how much better he can be if he's only playing 28-30 min a game instead of 38-40 he's playing now. 

It feels like Edey could block every shot attempt in the paint if he wants to. Half the time he doesn't even contest, but when he does....woo boy. Block party.

And offensively, I've see enough different moves to believe he's not solely a post up player with one move. He's been impressive. 

Maybe too impressive for the Hawks.

11 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

 

 

Baby steps...

1 minute ago, kg01 said:

And I'mma need Nique and Bawb to stahhp talking about how well we're playing offensively.

If we're playing well, and DEN has 111 in 3 qtrs, how do you describe what they're doing?

They whipping our arse, kg. 

Yeah...the sugar coating gets old sometimes. I'm ok with a little homerism on the hometown broadcast, but they take it too far sometimes. Just call a spade a spade and say they gettin their asses kicked. 

10 minutes ago, hawkman said:

The Hawks look gassed. Bad transition defense and jacking up bad shots is a telltale sign of fatigue.

Well at least they are better defensively. Only allowed 111 points on 60%+ shooting. In. Three. Quarters. 

3 minutes ago, Nash said:

This missed layup is a proof that Bruno will never survive in this league. What a scrub jc

Jokic also missed a couple of bunnies. What a scrub. 

14 minutes ago, NBASupes said:

if he doesn't go to the quick hook

He seems to get the ball and gather every time before going into his drop and shot. I can invision a lot of steals if he takes that much time in the NBA.

Needs to catch and go. Or catch and send it outside. Quick decisions are going to be his friend because it takes a sec to get his big body going. 

6 hours ago, Bonzaii58 said:

 

Good stuff.  Loving hearing these dudes talk life and how much they love each other and their teammates.  Reassuring that the media garbage is just that...garbage.  

Interesting things:

• When they adamantly stated they are both PGs (and not the GMs or Coaches)
• Bruno being the guy that plays hardest in practice ("gotta work for them minutes")
• Pop's text to DJ after the C's game. LOL
• Trae saying he gotta play D in order to come at guys for not playing D

Imagine the Hawks drafting a guy that most said was too small to be successful in the NBA.

Imagine the Hawks drafting a guy that most said was too big to be successful in the NBA. 

Now imagine the two of them dominating the NBA for years. Hawks would be the most hated team in the NBA.

LOL

Starters:

58 pts on 61 shots

15 ast / 19 TOs

8-27 from 3pt

Putrid offense.

Defensively, good effort. Very fortunate that Dallas missed a ton of wide open shots. 

6 minutes ago, Nash said:

Dre's handle is a huge problem for this team. I don't trust the guy with the ball in his hands even for a second. Just atrocious 

In traffic for sure. He's ok coming up the floor if no one is guarding him. 

Given up 93 through 3. Ungood.

-5 in 3pt makes and -7 in FGA overall.

-5 in TOs

1 hour ago, AHF said:

Clint coming alive makes a big difference to the team regardless of who else is playing.  The correlation between how well he is playing and how often the team is winning is strong over the last several years.

This just underscores the thought that we desperately need to upgrade the center position either through the draft or trade.  I always liked Clint, but he's lost a step and, to me, cannot be trusted to be elite consistently.  

It's like that old country song......"I'm not as good as I once was, but I'm as good once, as I ever was."  That's Clint.  

11 hours ago, JayBirdHawk said:

 

 

I don't think it's a stretch to say that he and Bogie have been the two most valuable players to the Hawks this year.  And while Trae is still the best player on the team, it may not be long before JJ takes that mantle from him.  He ain't there yet, but you can see the talent just oozing from him.  

49 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

How about this...since the acquisition of another star point guard, Trae's value to the team has diminished. The team is able to perform a little bit better without him in the line up. Having said that the opposite might be true if you switch Murray and Trae. Therefore if they both essentially bring the same value which isn't additive then Murray carries more value by default because his salary.

This is a much more reasonable statement than all the other stuff you have posted.  I disagree that Trae and DJ "essentially bring the same value" to the team as Trae's offensive value is a known (massively in his favor vs DJ) but his negative defensive value on this particular team under Quin's coaching is an unknown imo.  I want to see Trae playing with Bruno and Vit and JJ and DH now that they are all playing more sound defensively.  I don't think it's a given that those players will revert to sucking defensively when Trae comes back.    

23 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

I just posted numbers...you decide

For numbers to have any meaning they require context.  You provided no context for any numbers. 

7 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

Comparing the impact of a player 5 years ago during his rookie season to his impact now is ridiculous!  Please change your way of evaluating players current impact immediately!  Jimmy Butler is was no where near the impact player he is today during his rookie season.

Using your own metrics, Trae has had a positive impact on the Hawks every year since his rookie year until this year.  Yet this year, Trae has had arguably his best all around year offensively and defensive.  And you say he doesn't impact winning or the team is better without him. 

Make that make sense. 

The only way that makes any sense at all is to acknowledge what we all know, your metrics don't tell the story.  

3 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

@AHF I thought that you already warned this guy once this week..

LOL

And 2, you are actually hanging your hat on the fact that Atlanta beat boston 1 time?  That's your argument?  A game that required the starting PG to score 44 pts on 44 shots in order to win by 1 pt?  That convinced you, huh?  
 

8 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

All of the above

net rating with said player -2 without +.6

record with 22-29

without 13-11

Boston was completely healthy

This is actual lunacy.  I have to think you are just trolling the board.  

So your argument is because they beat Boston 1 time without Trae, the team must be better without Trae?  

You ignore all of the many other differences between early season struggles and late season success and just make the blanket statement that the team is better without Trae.  

Lunacy.  

2 hours ago, macdaddy said:

I'll admit to being critical of Garrison a lot but it's pretty obvious why he is playing.  Now that things have regressed to the mean it exposes that we are a very average 3 point shooting team. These are the top 4 who also happen to be 4 of the best teams in the league

Boston has 4 guys >40% and 6 guys shooting better than Bogi from 3.  

Very average indeed.  If we looked at only the Top 6 Hawks by %, they'd still not rank in the Top 4 at 38.35% (would rank just ahead of Phx for 5th).   

We have 3 plays over 40% and they've barely taken 200 shots between them. 

OKC has 8 players that have combined for nearly 1,000 attempts.

Bos has 4 players but they've combined for 1,400 attempts

LAC has 4 players for 1,300 attempts

Min has 4 players for 1,100 attempts

29 minutes ago, AHF said:

Peo - What standard are you using to evaluate whether someone hurts the team?  Is it negative +/- stats or perhaps record with and without that player or something else?  If we're going to go down that path, I want to make sure I understand it and then we can discuss whether that standard makes sense and see how it applies to each player's career.

He's using whatever data point supports his opinion at the moment.  Right now it's win loss record because that's what he thinks says the team is better without Trae.  He never mentioned win loss record until the team went through the recent winning streak without Trae. Doesn't matter that the teams they played were without significant pieces.  That part doesn't prop up his opinion.