Premium Member mrhonline Posted January 11, 2003 Premium Member Report Share Posted January 11, 2003 Here's some interesting numbers: When Big Dog leads the team in scoring: 6-8 When Terry Dog leads the team in scoring: 1-9 When Glover leads the team in scoring: 0-2 When Wilks leads the team in scoring: 0-1 When Rahim leads the team in scoring: 7- 2 (Yes, I know, it doesn't add up right, but Rahim & Robinson tied one game). Tonight's game was the first time Terry lead the team to a win by scoring the most. I'm open for interpretation, but how can you not expect Rahim to step up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swolehawk2 Posted January 11, 2003 Report Share Posted January 11, 2003 The key to this observation is at what position is JT playing when he leads us in scoring? If he is at PG we probably will suffer. At the two and the pg is playing relatively good defense we will probably when most of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member mrhonline Posted January 11, 2003 Author Premium Member Report Share Posted January 11, 2003 Well, but I think it's obvious that the offense should run through Rahim...getting him to step up is another question. Wow, we all have done a 180 over the last 30 games re: JT. And, you're right, he is going to score a lot of points at the SG spot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Diesel Posted January 11, 2003 Premium Member Report Share Posted January 11, 2003 What position is JT playing when these others lead our team in scoring? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member mrhonline Posted January 11, 2003 Author Premium Member Report Share Posted January 11, 2003 I think you guys are actually looking at things the wrong way. I think it's been more common this year for JT to "step up" when no one else does, meaning he leads the team in scoring because he is the closest thing to a "leader" right now. But is that best for the team? Wouldn't they be much better with JT as the 2nd or 3rd option? (I am not implying that he doesn't have the skills to be a #1 option, but that the Hawks are better suited with Rahim as that player). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 11, 2003 Report Share Posted January 11, 2003 Even if ahve another ball handler and scored 98PPG we still would be giving up 97PPG and still only be a mediocre team......Another ball handler isn't going to improve defense. Til we are averaging 98PPG and giving up about 93-94PPG we will be a bad team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 11, 2003 Report Share Posted January 11, 2003 another ball hanlder who can play at the 2 would do that though - Ira'd move back to his natural position at sf, hopefully we'd have some deep ball threats, and the roles would be more defined... Big DaLg is responsible for giving up 4 pts a night imo...the rest of the team simply plays more like a TEAM on boht ends of the court Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Playmaker0017 Posted January 11, 2003 Report Share Posted January 11, 2003 WeaselDom, I think we pitch the IRA idea. Get rid of Big Dog. Ira is a world class bum in my opinion. He hasn't done anything like he did last year. He moved WAY down my cool list this year. Play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 11, 2003 Report Share Posted January 11, 2003 I agree that his intensity has been down ever since the Lakers game this year...and that I've been extremely disappointed in his play this year... however, let's face it, he's better off at the three - where we played him the second half of last season when everyone raved about his hustle and D. With his offensive capabilities, he's a sf, no doubt about it. He's plenty quick to guard pretty much anyone at the 3, most at the 2... with his ballhandling and shot, size and athleticism, he's a three - almost the true definition of of a 3. Move him back there and see what happens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Playmaker0017 Posted January 11, 2003 Report Share Posted January 11, 2003 Weaseldom, I agree, he is definately a three. But I think Ham has the hustle that Ira has lost. I watched Ham last night and he really worked. He does some dumb things, but also some strong things. I'd rather a guy play his guts out and fail, then a guy mope and fail. Play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Diesel Posted January 12, 2003 Premium Member Report Share Posted January 12, 2003 Not true. If what if we're averaging 107 and giving up 99? Are we still Mediocre? You need to look at the History of Dallas. Last yr, Dallas was not a good defensive team at all. In fact, they led the league in points against. But they also led the league in points scored and had a very good record. This yr they have fined tuned by making their team defense better. What you keep suggesting is that we need better individual defenders. That's not true. What we really need is to get our offense running to the point that we OUTSCORE. Then like Dallas, we can fine tune our team defense. We fix our offense by getting another ball handler on the floor. I told you this summer that Ty Corbin Jr. was not a good match with this offense built to outscore. We are not built to be a defensive team. We'd need too many individual pieces to get there... However, that doesn't mean that we can't win as a team that OUTSCORES. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 12, 2003 Report Share Posted January 12, 2003 The problem is the Hawks aren;t as talented as Dallas. Dirk is better than Shareef Nash is better than JT Finley is better than Puppy Dog LaFrentz is a better offensive player than Theo Nick is better than any of the Hawks bench players The Hawks don't have the talent to average 107PPG and that is the problem. The hawks at best are going to average 98PPG so in that case you have to give up 93. Problem is you think this team is more talented than it really is. It's really dumb to say the Hawks should average 107PPG when the deepest teams in the league doesn't even do it.Get real Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Diesel Posted January 12, 2003 Premium Member Report Share Posted January 12, 2003 In reply to:he problem is the Hawks aren;t as talented as Dallas. Dirk is better than Shareef Nash is better than JT Finley is better than Puppy Dog LaFrentz is a better offensive player than Theo Nick is better than any of the Hawks bench players Before the NVE/Lafrentz trade, Dallas was the top scoring team in the league. Working from that, let's look at their big three vs ours as Scorers. Dirk is better than Reef as a Scorer. However, Big Dog Is a better scorer than Finley. And JT is definitely a better Scorer than Nash. Howard was a better scorer than Theo. The main point is that we have a team that can outscore but what we need is a PG that can run the offense. If we had a PG like Andre Miller. Miller, JT, GRob, SAR, and Theo. Don't you think that team could OUTSCORE? While Miller might not be on our radar... The same logic applies. JT is a SG that can put up 20 on any given night. We need a ballhandler to run the offense. After we have established an offense, we work on team defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 12, 2003 Report Share Posted January 12, 2003 You bring up alot of ifs and buts...... Finley is a better scorer than Puppy Dog. Finley is also alot better player. My point is the current team doesn't have the talent to average 107PPG.Miller is not on the roster is he? And still I don't think the Hawks could average 107PPG. You overrate the Hawks talent level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Diesel Posted January 12, 2003 Premium Member Report Share Posted January 12, 2003 In reply to:Finley is a better scorer than Puppy Dog. This statement is just not true. Finley scores 20.1 ppg with a FG% of 41.8%. Big Dog scores 20.5 ppg with a FG% of 43.0% Say what you want. If Big Dog was shooting 41%, you would want him out. Finley might be a better defender.... MIGHT BE? But as a 39 mpg starter, he's not a better scorer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swolehawk2 Posted January 12, 2003 Report Share Posted January 12, 2003 I'm startin to wonder if u know anything about the game. Finley is the better player period...Dog is not a scorer he is a jump shooter!!...he is a [censored] good jump shooter though ..scorers can create shots with the dribble...Dog can't do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 12, 2003 Report Share Posted January 12, 2003 I'll take Finley over Big Dog as a scorer anytime.Finley is sometimes a third freakin option. Just saying Puppy Dog averages this and Finley averages this doesn't work.Games and stuff isn;t won on paper.Get it throught your head. lol you act like games are won on paper.Not wonder you thought this team would be alot better than it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Diesel Posted January 12, 2003 Premium Member Report Share Posted January 12, 2003 In reply to:I'm startin to wonder if u know anything about the game. Finley is the better player period. If you would have read the topic, you would have noticed we were talking about scorers.... Yes, Finley is a better player... But Scoring wise... I think not. Big Dog plays Less MPG, puts up More PPG at a Better Fg%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now