P.S. Brandon Roy is killin'em

[Guest Walter]

8-14 for 16 points.

Ouch. It burns.

W

[sinctybldh]

of course he is. He is the guy I wanted and now we get the joy of watching him turn into a stud while we get to watch our first round stiff play for us. Makes me sick to my stomach.

[sinctybldh]

killing me. i hate this gm we have. they get a potential stud and we get a stiff. not fair.

[joannes3000]

Brandon Roy is the only legit scoring option on the team other than Randolph. Of course he's gonna get his. Granted he still has to make his shots, but come on now. This is going to turn in the same CP3 argument all over again.

[Diesel]

It should not because neither Joe Johnson nor Brandon Roy are PGs.

The streets would have cried Bloody murder if we would have drafted another 2 or three with our needs being 1, 4, and 5...

I think the people with perfect hindsight vision are just pissing and moaning on this one.

For if we had Roy...

He would have come in and play those 3 minutes that Johnson sat on the bench...

[deester11]

Haven't posted in a while, but I gotta say BEFORE the draft and the Summer Leagues, I wanted Roy OR we could have used our position to get more/better talent for the team. I've been a huge Shelden detractor and still think it was a worse pick than Marvin over Paul.

Roy is going to be the real deal. Sigh.

[mrhonline]

This belongs in the Around the League forum.

[drzachary]

Quote:

---

This belongs in the Around the League forum.

---

Agreed.. At first I thought that I had simply missed him in last night's Hawks game, then I couldn't find a player named "Brendan Ray" or "Brandon Roy" or "Bosco Rothschild" or whatever it is in our box score. Then I realized Walter's talking about some other player from a different team! Boy, is my face red.

[gsuteke]

Quote:

---

It should not because neither Joe Johnson nor Brandon Roy are PGs.

The streets would have cried Bloody murder if we would have drafted another 2 or three with our needs being 1, 4, and 5...

I think the people with perfect hindsight vision are just pissing and moaning on this one.

For if we had Roy...

He would have come in and play those 3 minutes that Johnson sat on the bench...

---

simply because it does not suit the agendas of those participating in this thread.

if you want Roy then we need to trade Joe. they play the same position boys and girls.

[mrhonline]

Agreed.

And it is possible to like the Hawks' new rookie AND Brandon Roy. (But, don't tell anyone).

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

Brandon Roy is the only legit scoring option on the team other than Randolph. Of course he's gonna get his. Granted he still has to make his shots, but come on now. This is going to turn in the same CP3 argument all over again.

---

I can write just as equally. SW is the only interior defender and we know we don't have a post scoring optiton so of course he's gonna block shots, rebound, and he should be our top interior scorer, but it ain't happenin'. This is much worse than the CP3 argument.

Maybe when you have the Iggy/Deng argument (lesser), the CP# argument, and then the Roy argument in consecutive years the GM sucks?!? DUH?

W

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

This belongs in the Around the League forum.

---

This player like CP3 reflects our GM's ineptitude. Paul posts were consistently a part of last year's "homecourt" as a complaint towards our GM. If Chris Paul can be debated in "homecourt" then so can Brandon Roy. Especially after it appears our GM sucks SHOULD have more traction around here.

W

[Sothron]

I agree with Walter. If we swept all of our idiot GM's mistakes under the rug then the only forum to post in AT ALL would be "Around the League".

[Yeti]

Quote:

---

It should not because neither Joe Johnson nor Brandon Roy are PGs.

---

Roy may not be Speedy's size, but the writeup I saw said that Roy "ran the offense" in the second half when Portland took over the game.

[Diesel]

It's great to say that you like Roy..

The question is where would we have played him?

The second thing that goes unstated is that he refused to come and workout for US and for Charlotte. He didn't want to be here.... It was suggested that Just like we had a deal for Shelden, there was a deal for Roy already in place too.

So why are we making such a deal out of us not getting him??

[mrhonline]

Quote:

---

I agree with Walter. If we swept all of our idiot GM's mistakes under the rug then the only forum to post in AT ALL would be "Around the League".

---

What does Brandon Roy's game have to do with the Hawks? Absolutely nothing.

If you create a thread discussing Knight's mistakes (and would that ever be original), then a discussion of Roy, Paul, or whomever would be pertinent. But posting his stat line as a thread (twice, I might add) is not relevant to the Hawks, and is simply going to create arguments. It belongs in the Around the League forum, as did the Chris Paul threads last year. (And I said the same thing last year).

Let's have some respect for the moderators, and follow their guidelines.

(FWIW, I also think we need a "game thread" forum, for threads dealing with one specific game).

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

What does Brandon Roy's game have to do with the Hawks? Absolutely nothing.

---

That's your opinion, but I believe entirely otherwise. I believe it (Paul, the Harrington trade, etc.) highlights BK's ineptness (as GM of the Hawks).

I mean would it be Hawks' related to discuss Al Harrington this year? I believe so because it reflects what the Hawks passed on or gave up on for peanuts.

Whether you agree or not the Homecourt Forum has consistently over many years included the discussion of players passed over by the Hawks in the draft generally as a reflection of management's ability. Childress over Deng and Iggy, Josh Smith over JR Smith (right move but still discussed), MW over Paul, SW over Roy. We use to discuss Tony Parker, Tinsley. All the 2nd rders we passed on for Hanno (or whoever). We've always done this.

It simply sounds like you do not like the discussion because you disagree with seriously criticizing BK. You have not complained about it before when it meant criticizing Babcock.

Quote:

---

If you create a thread discussing Knight's mistakes (and would that ever be original), then a discussion of Roy, Paul, or whomever would be pertinent.

---

So all I need to do to appease you is title it "Knight's Mistakes"? Come on, man. This is utterly petty on your part.

Quote:

---

But posting his stat line as a thread (twice, I might add) is not relevant to the Hawks, and is simply going to create arguments.

---

I apologize for posting it twice. I honestly couldn't find the thread. I just skipped down the site too fast and missed it. As far as creating arguments, we need to have some here because too many people are blind to how flawed this team is and have been for too long. Wanting to believe in BK is one thing but this guy is a disaster of a GM and hiring Woody just might be his worst decision. If highlighting his mistakes starts an argument call it progress because too many have been giving him passes for too long.

Quote:

---

It belongs in the Around the League forum, as did the Chris Paul threads last year. (And I said the same thing last year).

---

Well you've stated all I have to do to justify it in the Homecourt Forum to you is title it "Knight's mistakes", so I will do so for your benefit.

Quote:

---

Let's have some respect for the moderators, and follow their guidelines.[/quotes]

Way to assume the moral high ground there. You are a FAR better person than those of us who are fed up with Woody and BK.

W

[Sothron]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I agree with Walter. If we swept all of our idiot GM's mistakes under the rug then the only forum to post in AT ALL would be "Around the League".

---

What does Brandon Roy's game have to do with the Hawks? Absolutely nothing.

If you create a thread discussing Knight's mistakes (and would that ever be original), then a discussion of Roy, Paul, or whomever would be pertinent. But posting his stat line as a thread (twice, I might add) is not relevant to the Hawks, and is simply going to create arguments. It belongs in the Around the League forum, as did the Chris Paul threads last year. (And I said the same thing last year).

Let's have some respect for the moderators, and follow their guidelines.

(FWIW, I also think we need a "game thread" forum, for threads dealing with one specific game).

---

I think we can have a discussion on the players our inept GM missed out on in the Homecourt Forum since the precedent for that has been very well established. Trying to push the conversation into a seldom used board to cover up for Knight is humorous but also stifling of real conversation.

I'm not exactly sure how discussing Knight's failures is disrespectful to the moderators unless one of them is actually Knight.

[drzachary]

Hm, I agree with MrH, but I don't think it has anything to do with 'covering up BK's mistakes.' It simply has to do with the vast annoyance caused by mentioning that we don't have other team's players, over and over.

Simply because it was done in the past doesn't mean it should be done now. An example of this would be the behavior outlawed by the site rules: we did it in the past, we shouldn't do it now!

I think the best suggestion I've heard recently on here is to have a separate Game Thread forum.. that's the real meat of the discussion anyways, at least now that the season is on.

[Sothron]

Then I would respectfully suggest if anyone finds it a "vast annoyance" to discuss something other than "Yay team!" threads then they should simply not read the threads that point out the truths of our failure of a general manager and/or head coach. That way everyone is happy.