REHawksFan

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.

This is game 69. Take the W and move on. Are there things to correct? Always. But the idea that they shouldn't be happy they won is dumb, imo.

The hell you say. Nothing lucky about it. Apologize for nothing in this league.

Once again Trae's off the court and the scoring stops.

If it's not the number 1 priority this offseason I'm gonna lose my mind.

Still can't run consistent offense with Trae on the bench. SMH

I don't see any way that the Hawks play the Buck in round 1. Not even concerned with the 6 seed. Only way for that to happen is hawks fall apart or Miami win out. And neither is likely to happen. Heat have a horrible schedule so they'll likely lose at least one if not 2-3. Don't really see a way they pass the Hawks. So to me, the only options are Knicks in the 4/5 or Heat in the 4/5. I think the Heat would require Knicks to either fall apart or the 3-way tie.

If the Hawks want the 4 seed, it starts with winning all four games. That puts them at 41-31. Then, they either need the Knicks to lose 2 OR lose 1 and tie the Heat as well. I'm assuming losing 2 isn't likely at this point so the tie scenario is as follows: 1. LAL or Boston beat Knicks 2. Miami wins out (@Bos, Philly, @Mil, @Det) All 3 teams would be 41-31 and Hawks would earn the 4 seed vs Heat as 5 seed I believe. Knicks would lose the tie break and be 6 seed I think. IF Boston beats the Heat, then best case scenario for Hawks would be Lakers AND Boston beating the Knicks to make them 40-32. In that scenario, the Heat would either be 5 if they tied NYK or Knicks would be 5 if Heat and C's had worse record. Celtics are already at 33 losses so best they can do is 39-33 if they win out. Most likely scenario is Hawks get the 5 vs the Knicks, imo. This is because I don't see the Knicks losing twice or the Heat winning out. Stranger things have happened, but I'm not seeing it. Best guess from me: 4. Knicks 41-31 5. Hawks 41-31 6. Heat 39-33 7. Celtics 37-35

A win and a Boston loss would wrap up a top 6 seed I believe. Given we hold the tie break over Miami, I'm fine with that outcome.

Paul George.....smh. How many shots he gonna brick in this game? Clips no help at all.

I was thinking last night that if the Hawks and Knicks face off in Round 1, there's bound to be a TON of nerves in that 1st game because so much of both rosters will be making their debut. It will actually, imo, put added pressure on the home team to win so as not to lose homecourt advantage. For a young team making its first appearance in the playoffs, early success is going to be HUGE for momentum and just to settle them down. I say that to say I'm not convinced the team with homecourt would necessarily have a huge advantage in that particular series.

Games like tonight and against the Pistons where they had a let down after a big win are what give me pause about their chances in the playoffs. Just not sure they are ready for the big moment.

Huerter arguably ignited the comeback with his play in the 3rd. It was Snell that should have been benched for Dunn.

I may have to check out early from this one for my own sanity. So infuriating.

Defense is effort. And they aren't showing any on that half.

Why can't we have nice things?

So disappointing

Sloppy to start.

I say BKN because they don't play much defense so the hawks would have a fighting chance with all the offensive firepower we have. With that said, the Nets have the potential to just overwhelm when their big 3 are all healthy. So I don't actually think the Hawks would win, but I think they'd stand a better chance vs the Nets than the other 2. Next would be the bucks because I just don't trust Bud in the playoffs. Philly would be the worst due to Embiid and Doc imo. But none of them are invincible if the Hawks are healthy. They could all be beat.

I'm gonna be honest and say this would feel a lot like the Pistons game if they lost tonight after beating up the "best team in the west." Not saying the Pacers are on the same level as the Pistons at all, but the Hawks have Trae back whereas they didn't for Detroit. Losing would be deflating, imo. 5-0 with all the momentum in the world riding into HOSTING the playoffs.

Hawks just need to go 3-2 to clinch top 6 (40-32 overall) as either the Heat or Celtics will finish with at least 32 losses. That seems immensely doable to me. And with the Hawks winning last night, homecourt is also more in play now. My thing is health. If healthy, I think the Hawks can and will beat any of their potential 1st round opponents.

Knicks are currently 37-29 with 6 games to play: @PHX, @LAC, @LAL, SA, CHA, BOS Celtics are currently 35-31 with 6 games to play: @CHI, MIA, MIA, @CLEV, @MIN, @NYK The knicks could realistically go 3-2 or 4-1 leading up to the bos game. That would put them at 40-31 or 41-30. The celtics could realistically go 5-0 or 4-1 leading up to the last game. That would put them at 40-31 or 39-32. The winner of the last game of the season between these two would get the tiebreaker if necessary. So as long as the two teams are within a game of each other, the winner gets the 5 seed and faces Hawks as the 4 seed. I'm now saying the 4 seed because after beating the Suns (combined with the Knick loss), the Hawks have a manageable schedule to go 4-1 or 5-0. That would put the Hawks at 41-31 or 42-30. I think 42-30 about guarantees the 4 seed and 41-31 would make it possible but not a certainty. Question: What happens if Knicks, Hawks, and Celtics are all 41-31 with each holding a tiebreak over one other team?? What is the secondary tiebreak? Regardless, it's looking more and more like one of these two teams would be the Hawks 1st round opponent. Any preference?

The healthier this team gets the less I know how and where JC fits. He juat seems like he's in the way most of the time. Like an afterthought.