REHawksFan

As I think about the series more and more, figuring out a way to play around the rim and deal with Nerlens Noel seems to me to be a big deal. I've seen the Knicks maybe a 7 or 8 times this year and I've been impressed with Noel's defensive presence. He's active and can block a ton of shots. If he's able to disrupt Trae in the lane that could impact the lobs and the floaters. Need to have a plan for him, imo.

I agree Randle isn't in the same stratosphere as Steph, but he's still plenty capable of going off vs the Hawks. That said, I'm with you to let him eat and focus on the other guys cuz I don't think he's putting up 60+ to beat the Hawks. Limit guys like Barrett, Rose, and Bullock and Hawks win imo.

Could be true but people that show up when it's convenient to trash a players game and then disappear when said player is playing well aren't worth listening to or paying attention to. Just my opinion obviously.

Also, Knicks look like a tired team

Kornet shooting 3s like Cam

I just disagree. I'm not into the fear thing. I thinkbit will be a tough series but ALL playoff series are tough unless you are the 1 or maybe 2 seed in the 1st round. Objectively, I think you have to look at the context in which the 3 games played out. This season more than most with all the injuries and upheaval with the Hawks. I can't look at these 3 games and then look at the rest of the season and objectively think the Knicks are the better team. Sorry. I just can't. This current, healthy Hawks team rarely wilts in the last 5 minutes. This current healthy Hawks team gets production from Bogie. This current, healthy Hawks team gets 4 quarters from Trae rather than 3. Those things didn't happen in the 3 games vs the Knicks. So no. I don't watch the games and think the Knicks are just better because they hit late shots at the end. I watch and see Hawks teams that were clearly inferior to one the Knicks will see in the playoffs. And I say that full well knowing that the Knicks are really good. They are mentally tough and play physical and really well vs the Hawks. And I still say the Hawks are better.

I do agree though that Randle is a bad match for us without DH. But I don't think he's such an elite player that he can beat us single handedly. And after Randle, the next best 4 or 5 players are all playing for the Hawks.

I think we watched different games if you think the Knicks were clearly the better team in all 3 games. Game 1: Hawks lead most of game and were tied with 4 to play. Lose by 5 and everyone at the time screams that they blew the game. Game 2: A struggle all game but only down 2 with 3:50 to play before Hawks give up a late run to lose by 11. Game 3: Hawks lead nearly all game and were pulling away when Trae goes down. Hawks were up 9 at the time. End up losing in OT. Not sure how you see the Knicks being the better team.

Oh. Gotcha. Yeah I'm not buying into that line of thinking. Hawks are the better team and I don't think its particularly close as long as they are healthy.

Of course they don't. But I'm not following how that's relevant to the discussion?? I may be missing something though.

I said last week that going on the road to start vs Knicks may not be a bad thing. For two young teams without a ton of playoff experience, the nerves may be big early in the series. That puts a ton of pressure on the home team to not lose home court early on. Plus, Hawks are just the better team.

Then don't take 7 games to dispense of those fools.

Just depends on if Bucks want Heat or Knicks. They can certainly lose to the Heat if they want to.

And Harden, but yeah. Think of it as a compliment that he's on hardens level to draw attention. LOL

14 paragraphs and this is the only mention of Trae or the foul calls: "The NBA has issues to modify with the game itself as well. Most agree the product has shifted too far in the offense's favor, that the scoring is unnaturally inflated. In the offseason, the NBA plans to address the unnatural shooting motions of star players like James Harden and Trae Young that get foul calls under the rules in the NBA -- but would get eye rolls on the playground." The rest is about Dolan and revenue sharing during the pandemic, young refs, concerns of how to get fans back to arenas, and mid-season tournaments.

Was just about to post this one.

Not me. I want them in the 8 seed vs Philly. I think they'd get embarrassed and then still not have any chance in the lotto to get a high pick. IF the greenies are bounced from the playoffs, I'd bet money they end up with a top 3 pick in the "random lottery".

The inexperience is the only question mark I have heading into the 1st round of the playoffs. I honestly believe the Hawks are the best team and will be the best team in any 4/5 matchup. The question is whether the moment is too big for them. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. I do not however buy into the whole playoff boogieman thinking where teams that lack experience are automatically overwhelmed by the big bad playoff experience and end up limping out of it in the first round. I think that's hogwash. Yes, some teams get blown out. But I think it's more likely a scenario that most teams making their first playoff appearance are doing so as the far inferior team. They squeak into the playoffs and end up as a bottom seed against a much better team that also has playoff experience. And so yes, they mostly end up getting overwhelmed and losing. But I really don't think the reasoning is the lack of playoff experience as much as it is being the inferior team. But that isn't the case with these Hawks. Maybe in the 2nd round it would be. But not the 1st. I just don't think the lack of experience is in and of itself a reason to be pessimistic. It's just an unknown.

There's other scenarios that they don't mention. Hawks 1-0, Heat 2-0, Knicks 1-1 would give Hawks 4, Heat 5, Knicks 6 as well. Also if either team goes 0-2 the Hawks would be either the 4 or 5. Also, there's an interesting scenario developing with Milwaukee that could impact the Hawks. The Bucks are 1 game back of BKN and 2 back of Philly. They can't fall past 3 but could theoretically advance as high as 1 since they hold the tie break over both teams. BUT, here's something interesting: BKN hosts Chicago on Saturday at 1:00 and hosts Cleveland on Sunday. Bucks host Heat on Saturday at 8:00 and then play at Chicago on Sunday Philly hosts Orlando twice. IF the Nets beat the Bulls early on Saturday, the odds of the Bucks getting to either 1 or 2 are slim at best given the remaining opponents of each. So the Bucks would be overwhelmingly likely to be the 3 seed at the start of their game with the Heat. That puts their potential opponents as Heat, Knicks, or Hawks with the Heat and Knicks being most likely (Atl would have to lose to Houston to fall to 6). When Bucks play Heat on Saturday night, they could find themselves in a scenario where a Win would make their 1st round opponent most likely the Heat but a loss would make their opponent most likely the Knicks. The Bucks lost 2 out of 3 to NYK and have split with Miami but you'd have to think they'd rather play the Knicks with their lack of playoff experience than face the Heat in Round 1. So do they rest their starters vs the Heat to help avoid the Heat in the playoffs? A Heat win would almost assure the Hawks of the 4 seed vs the Heat with the Knicks falling to 6.

I could be way off, but I expected this after last night. The 2nd of a b2b. The night after clinching in a hard-fought game. It just seemed predictable that several players would have "soreness" tonight. On a related note, while the last 2 games are ultra important for home court, I question whether the organization actually thinks home court is as important as the fans do. Once they were locked in to the actual playoffs, I think they were content with that.

Sometimes watching the Hawks is exhausting. Tonight was one of those times for me. Seemed like it was 1 step forward then 2 steps back all night then a flurry at the end to win. Great win. Now get two more and rest up for a playoff run.

Miami wouldn't win a 3way tie with Hawks and Knicks.

You continue to ignore the original question which is what I responded to in the first place. That is........Why do you think being a superstar (or whatever other name you prefer) equates to shooting all game and not playing team ball? Why are superstar player and team player mutually exclusive to you? Or maybe a better question is what do you see as Trae's role on the team? If not to be the best player, then what? Cuz it sort of seems like you and some others just want a newer version of the 60-win team that didn't have any elite players but a bunch of really good players that all played their roles well and formed a really good team that had no prayer of beating the team with the superstar player. Is that the sort of team you are looking for?

My definition of "superstar" isn't rigid. It's basically just the grouping of elite players in the NBA. Is it Top 5? Top 7? Top 10? It depends on the time. But it's the elite players. And to be clear, I'm pushing back on your own definition of superstar where you say Trae has to shoot all game and not be a team player. I think that's a bunch of BS. I'm not saying he's in the Top 5 right now. I think his trajectory is pointing towards eventually being that. But he's not there yet. He's still growing. But even as he grows, he's elevating the players around him and the TEAM as a whole. I can tell you this, there aren't 5 guys in the NBA that can do the things he does offensively on a regular basis. Trae is absolutely the Hawks leader and best player. I don't give a flip what any list you bring up says. When Trae sits, Clint's impact on the offensive end is nominal. He literally disappears. The TEAM falls apart more often than not when he's not on the floor. Just last night he sat to start the 4th and saw a 17 point lead turn into 4 pts. In the regular season, teams routinely scheme to get the ball out of his hands because they know how unguardable he is. If that doesn't point you to an elite future, I don't know what to tell you. This is how ridiculous our fanbase is about Trae: On a night where he literally led the team to victory putting up 36 / 9 / 6 on 50% shooting and accumulating a +18 +/-, we've spent pages on the game thread debating how good he is. And yet, Huerter played 37 min, went 3-12 for 7 pts and no one says a word. And I'm not picking on Kevin. The point is every game turns into a referendum on Trae and how good he is or isn't. And that's among people that claim to be Hawks fans!! Despite his numbers being down, I actually think this year he's shown tremendous growth in the way he manages a game and controls a game. His impact is off the charts, despite what any analytic says (and I'm a numbers guy all day long).

I guess my question is why does superstar to you mean "shoot all game and say to hell with team ball?" Giannis is a superstar, do they not play team ball? That's a hallmark of Bud-ball. LBJ is perhaps the greatest superstar of all time. Do the Lakers not operate as a team? How about Philly with Embiid? They've got tons of guys that score and facilitate. Denver with Joker? Steph with GSW during their run with Draymond, Klay, and KD? I'm not sure where the idea that the TEAM couldn't exist if a superstar player existed came from, but it's not borne in reality, imo. The hallmark of a superstar player is that he makes his teammates better. He elevates the team. And yes, when the TEAM is in trouble, a lot of the time the superstar player goes to work to pull the game out. I haven't seen anyone on this forum or other suggest that Trae take 50 shots a game. Or 40. Or 30. I haven't seen anyone suggest he take all the shots or even a majority of them. And I'm probably Trae's 2nd biggest stan on this board. What has been said is Trae needs to be the leader and take control rather than be passive. Sometimes that means scoring and other times facilitating. The great thing about Nate has been the institution of a TEAM concept around Trae that was void with LP. So now the TEAM doesn't HAVE TO have Trae go nuclear to win. He can play poorly and still see the team win. But ultimately, he's a superstar because he makes guys better and is one of the top players in the NBA.