Y'all are right...We don't need A.I.

[Johnnybravo4]

I mean look at all this offense we have tonite. We were so potent against those Lakers. Our youth is unmatched. Our perimeter defense is amazing. Our style is impetuous, our defenses impregnable. We are ferocious.

Who needs cap money, I mean we should wait until that stud defensive big comes along. So what if our attendance sucks? We are improving. We are a whole 8-11. Hey its the East, we are technically the 8th seed. And who needs games on TNT or ESPN? Sports South and their blurry camera works just fine.

Woody is a great coach. We just need to get healthier. We are the youngest team in the league. Be patient, we only want to win 35 games anyway. Maybe Greg Oden will slip to the 10th pick. Thats right we won't have that pick. Maybe he will slip to 20th. It could happen.

Our youth will eventually grow up and we'll make the playoffs sometime in the 2009-2010 season. And of course we'll resign Marvin, then Smoove then JJ to an extension. Childress may resign for the MLE. Who needs A.I. We are the effin Hawks!

[VarsitySlacker]

Are you watching the games, Bravo? Because if you were, you'd realize that this post is absolutely useless.

The Hawks are shooting 42%. Without Joe Johnson. Unforuntaely, the Kings are shooting 60%. Why is this? Because the entire team is running layup drills, and Brad Miller and Ron Artest are mopping up every rebound they can. And when people drive on Zaza down low, the entire team collapses on him because they know Zaza doesn't play defense, in which case the ball gets kicked back outside. It's like playing four on five, eventually it catches up with you.

But you're right. Trade for AI, and he'll get those extra 10 rebounds a game and box out Brad Miller, right? He'll boost the team offense past 42% because he's a sharpshooter, right? And when JJ gets back, just imagine how awesome this team will be, what with a frontcourt of Zaza, Shelden, and Marvin. And when Zaza demands more money, he can leave, and we can start Solomon in his place.

[exodus]

Philly was 5-13 with AI. If AI is so great that means the rest of the team must REALLY suck.

Yet last night they almost beat Orlando, who has the best record in the east, without AI. And they shot 52% from the field, compared to 44.5% normally.

Why was their shooting percentage so high? Because they were missing Iversons 41%.

[Johnnybravo4]

Youre right. Who needs a guy who scores 31 pts and avg 8 assists, and can play the passing lanes. I mean his team stinks too, and so what if he has no help the caliber of JJ. I mean Chris Webber doesn't need knees. Iguodala shouldn't have to do more than dunk. And the fact that Korver is a streak shooter shouldn't stop AI...he is a hall of famer after all.

[VarsitySlacker]

Quote:

---

Youre right. Who needs a guy who scores 31 pts and avg 8 assists, and can play the passing lanes. I mean his team stinks too, and so what if he has no help the caliber of JJ. I mean Chris Webber doesn't need knees. Iguodala shouldn't have to do more than dunk. And the fact that Korver is a streak shooter shouldn't stop AI...he is a hall of famer after all.

---

And you ignored my point entirely (and rehashed the point that I made in the other thread, mind you)

This team does not need more offense. They shot 42% without their best (arguably two best) shooters. They need defense. And while Iverson plays the passing lanes, he is NOT going to box out Brad Miller, is not going to pull down 10 offensive boards a game, and is not going to stop the layup drills.

EDIT:

FURTHERMORE, according to the Boston Globe, the Celtics offered up Jefferson, West, Telfair, and Ratliff, and are willing to throw in a first rounder if need be. Are you prepared to exceed that offer, JohnnyBravo? Because I don't think anyone else here is.

[Johnnybravo4]

A good offense makes for good defense...see phoenix/dallas.

Having AI allows you to break down the defense, he gets to the free throw line and causes the other team to build up fouls. A.I. plays passing lanes well and causes turnovers. But maybe you're right. You don't need Hall of famers to win in this league. You need Brad Miller, and Saer Sene...I get it now.

[VarsitySlacker]

I keep asking for low post defense. And you keep coming back to me with offense and passing lanes.

I want post defense. Not Brad Miller.

I have NO interest in Sene. You have me confused with Waltar.

I want someone who can stand in the middle and look intimidating, alter some shots, and grab some rebounds. I want someone who can stop Brad Miller from scoring at will. If you'll look back, I wanted Zach Randolph, because, even though he's a weak defensive player, he's big and strong. He will collect rebounds. And if a guard comes running down the lane, he will foul them. And they'll think twice before doing it again.

If you can find me some proof - ANY proof that shows how Allen Iverson will improve our post defense, then I will fully support you in your endeavors to acquire him. You say a good offense will create a good defense, and cite Dallas and Phoenix. Dallas, if you'll notice, has two big strong bodies, Dampier and Diop, who man the post. Stiffs? Maybe. But they're effective stiffs. throw in Nowitzki, who once again, is not a stellar defensive PF, but he gets rebounds, which turn into points. A good defense creates a good offense.

As for Phoenix, they defy tradition. No, they don't have a strong defensive presence. If you'll notice, they give up 107(!) points per game. However, they have Steve Nash, who is, time and again, the best player in the NBA. Better than Iverson. Better than LeBron. Does he score better? No. But he allows everyone on his team to score better, because he has court vision. Iverson, while he does get a bum rap for his poor teammates, does not have the same vision. THis is why it is not worth trading the farm for him.

Again, once you can prove to me how Iverson can help our post defense, I will gladly convert to your side. In the meatime, however, I do wish that you don't get in a pissy fit and post the same phrase "we're only aiming for 30 wins" in every thread about the Hawks because everyone else agrees that having two stellar guards and no frontcourt is not the way to win, but you're too caught up in your fantasy basketball world where stars = wins to understand that defense wins ballgames.

[cyman3]

Quote:

---

according to the Boston Globe, the Celtics offered up Jefferson, West, Telfair, and Ratliff, and are willing to throw in a first rounder if need be. Are you prepared to exceed that offer, JohnnyBravo? Because I don't think anyone else here is.

---

i kinda (key word "kinda" ... not desperately) want IVERSON here. i think he'll do more good than bad. i do think he can help the hawks. given the right trade proposal, id do it!

but i dont think im willing to top the CELTICS offer. Assuming that trade offer is true... i dont think we can beat it w/o giving up too many valuable assets.

most im willing to do is give up a combination of role players. for ex- WRIGHT, CLAXTON, + 1 more player?.

because if IVERSON doesnt plan it, we wouldnt miss out on much. we could easily find role players. we could also trade IVERSON again (ala RASHEED WALLACE) and get more role players.

but im not willing to take a huge gamble on IVERSON. im willing to take a small risk, but not a big risk.

lets keep it at that.

[Johnnybravo4]

Quote:

---

I keep asking for low post defense. And you keep coming back to me with offense and passing lanes.

I want post defense. Not Brad Miller.

I have NO interest in Sene. You have me confused with Waltar.

I want someone who can stand in the middle and look intimidating, alter some shots, and grab some rebounds. I want someone who can stop Brad Miller from scoring at will. If you'll look back, I wanted Zach Randolph, because, even though he's a weak defensive player, he's big and strong. He will collect rebounds. And if a guard comes running down the lane, he will foul them. And they'll think twice before doing it again.

If you can find me some proof - ANY proof that shows how Allen Iverson will improve our post defense, then I will fully support you in your endeavors to acquire him. You say a good offense will create a good defense, and cite Dallas and Phoenix. Dallas, if you'll notice, has two big strong bodies, Dampier and Diop, who man the post. Stiffs? Maybe. But they're effective stiffs. throw in Nowitzki, who once again, is not a stellar defensive PF, but he gets rebounds, which turn into points. A good defense creates a good offense.

As for Phoenix, they defy tradition. No, they don't have a strong defensive presence. If you'll notice, they give up 107(!) points per game. However, they have Steve Nash, who is, time and again, the best player in the NBA. Better than Iverson. Better than LeBron. Does he score better? No. But he allows everyone on his team to score better, because he has court vision. Iverson, while he does get a bum rap for his poor teammates, does not have the same vision. THis is why it is not worth trading the farm for him.

Again, once you can prove to me how Iverson can help our post defense, I will gladly convert to your side. In the meatime, however, I do wish that you don't get in a pissy fit and post the same phrase "we're only aiming for 30 wins" in every thread about the Hawks because everyone else agrees that having two stellar guards and no frontcourt is not the way to win, but you're too caught up in your fantasy basketball world where stars = wins to understand that defense wins ballgames.

---

Varsity you are brilliant! We should get a 6'7 260 lb offensive player to improve our post defense.

And maybe if we get these fictional big men you refer to, we could actually run an offense. I mean who wants the best penetrator in the league? Running offenses are so overrated. We should get real defensive...pick up Dan Gadzuric and put him in the front court with Solomon Jones and Adonal Foyle...that'll show em

[Johnnybravo4]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

according to the Boston Globe, the Celtics offered up Jefferson, West, Telfair, and Ratliff, and are willing to throw in a first rounder if need be. Are you prepared to exceed that offer, JohnnyBravo? Because I don't think anyone else here is.

---

i kinda (key word "kinda" ... not desperately) want IVERSON here. i think he'll do more good than bad. i do think he can help the hawks. given the right trade proposal, id do it!

but i dont think im willing to top the CELTICS offer. Assuming that trade offer is true... i dont think we can beat it w/o giving up too many valuable assets.

My offer of Speedy, Childress and Wright trumps that deal because it avoids them having to trade Iverson into the division. I'd even sweeten the deal by switchin Marvin with Childress. One of them are going to leave eventually anyway.

most im willing to do is give up a combination of role players. for ex- WRIGHT, CLAXTON, + 1 more player?.

because if IVERSON doesnt plan it, we wouldnt miss out on much. we could easily find role players. we could also trade IVERSON again (ala RASHEED WALLACE) and get more role players.

but im not willing to take a huge gamble on IVERSON. im willing to take a small risk, but not a big risk.

lets keep it at that.

---

[VarsitySlacker]

Quote:

---

Varsity you are brilliant!

---

I try.

Quote:

---

We should get a 6'7 260 lb offensive player to improve our post defense.

---

I'll admit my bust here. I though Randolph was taller than he actually is. He sure plays taller than it.

Quote:

---

And maybe if we get these fictional big men you refer to, we could actually run an offense.

---

Maybe we could. Because then our offensive possessions wouldn't consists of *CLANK* ball goes to other team.

Quote:

---

I mean who wants the best penetrator in the league?

---

Everyone does. However, you're the only one who wants to pay the price we have to for him.

Quote:

---

Running offenses are so overrated. We should get real defensive...pick up Dan Gadzuric and put him in the front court with Solomon Jones and Adonal Foyle...that'll show em

---

A fast break offense is very effective, because of it's nature. You score before the other team is situated. Two or three players can dash down the court (SPARKED BY A REBOUND ON THE DEFENSIVE END) and score while the other team scrambles to recover. The Center is not needed to play an offensive role unless the fast break fails. By that standard, I'd love to man Gadzuric at the Center. I'd love for Solomon to bulk up and play the center as well. I could stomach Foyle, were it not for his contract.

Iverson is a great player. I'm not arguing that. But every team in this league has a star guard or forward. The only team that Iverson was EVER able to take the whole way was 2001. What was different about 2001? He had Dikembe Mutombo in his prime cleaning up the boards and challenging shots all the way to the finals. Before then? Nothing. Since then? Nothing. What made the difference? A defensive big.

[BusBoyIsBack]

We need Iverson because we can't win without Joe Johnson?

That is ridiculously stupid logic.

[Johnnybravo4]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Varsity you are brilliant!

---

I try.

Quote:

---

We should get a 6'7 260 lb offensive player to improve our post defense.

---

I'll admit my bust here. I though Randolph was taller than he actually is. He sure plays taller than it.

Quote:

---

And maybe if we get these fictional big men you refer to, we could actually run an offense.

---

Maybe we could. Because then our offensive possessions wouldn't consists of *CLANK* ball goes to other team.

Quote:

---

I mean who wants the best penetrator in the league?

---

Everyone does. However, you're the only one who wants to pay the price we have to for him.

Quote:

---

Running offenses are so overrated. We should get real defensive...pick up Dan Gadzuric and put him in the front court with Solomon Jones and Adonal Foyle...that'll show em

---

A fast break offense is very effective, because of it's nature. You score before the other team is situated. Two or three players can dash down the court (SPARKED BY A REBOUND ON THE DEFENSIVE END) and score while the other team scrambles to recover. The Center is not needed to play an offensive role unless the fast break fails. By that standard, I'd love to man Gadzuric at the Center. I'd love for Solomon to bulk up and play the center as well. I could stomach Foyle, were it not for his contract.

Iverson is a great player. I'm not arguing that. But every team in this league has a star guard or forward. The only team that Iverson was EVER able to take the whole way was 2001. What was different about 2001? He had Dikembe Mutombo in his prime cleaning up the boards and challenging shots all the way to the finals. Before then? Nothing. Since then? Nothing. What made the difference? A defensive big.

---

I think you didn't realize I was being facetious...but you want Gadzuric here so probably not.

[Johnnybravo4]

Quote:

---

We need Iverson because we can't win without Joe Johnson?

That is ridiculously stupid logic.

---

You are right, because having a hall of famer as another option is real illogical. Where does Hawksquawk find these people?

[VarsitySlacker]

No [censored] you were being facetious. If you had bothered to read my post, I responded to your facetiousness in order to prove how it was not the case.

And is Gadzuric a better alternative over Zaza? In my mind, yes. Dan, stiff as he is, is a true center. Zaza is Eurotrash no better than Peja Drobjnak, and we dropped him. Though I'll be the first to tell you that I'm not familiar with how he plays, or his defense. And, obviously, I'm terribly down on Zaza right now for the last two games.

I'd rather (And I know a lot of Squawkers agree) we started Shelden at the C spot the next game, because at least he plays physical. Kurt Thomas was an effective C for New York for a while, and he's not much bigger than Shelden. But he played HARD-NOSED DEFENSE. That's all I ask, tough, physical play from the C spot. In my mind, Dalembert is the ideal C to play when the other four players are strong on offense. I would have loved Tyson Chandler. I'd be happy with Desagnia Diop, because he plays hard. You, on the other hand, are happy with a team whose only players over 6'10 are Zaza and Solomon Jones, only one of which can play defense.

[joannes3000]

I was a huge fan of bringing AI to the team during the offseason but man, this is a knee-jerk reaction if I've ever seen one. I'd rather us hold onto cap space hoping to use it to fill a need (more interior defense) rather than use the cap space for the sake of using it.

I want Iverson here for the same reasons as last time. He's a proven scorer, and given our loss of Al's ppg, that would give us another offensive option. Can't ever have too many of those. He plays defense well in the same sense that Smoove plays defense well. I see Iverson as more of an opportunistic defender than a lockdown on-the-ball defender.

I don't want Iverson because of his cap figure and what it could potentially mean. I like the flexibility we have with roster and cap space. We'd be giving up a lot of both to acquire him. What do you suppose we offer up? Chillz? Smoove? Another 1st round pick or two? Shelden? Marvin? JJ? With what Boston is going to offer, we'd be crazy to even think of matching.

The cost of essentially gutting the young nucleus we've built far outweighs the possibility that we get into the playoffs this year and possibly next year. We'd be going right back to the same point we were at when we were trading for guys like SAR and Big Dog. No vision for anything other than the bleak present. I'd rather us go without AI and the possible 40 wins and increased attendance.

[Johnnybravo4]

Flexibility to do what? Pick up whom? We had 15 million and only got Lorenzen Wright and Speedy Claxton. We got turned down by a 90 year old Sam Cassel

[joannes3000]

Quote:

---

We'd be going right back to the same point we were at when we were trading for guys like SAR and Big Dog. No vision for anything other than the bleak present.

---

Again, I feel AI is in a different class altogether than SAR or Big Dog in the sense that AI is a viable #1 offensive option. However, I go back to my original point in that we'd be derailing our longterm goal of competitiveness in the hopes that we can compete this year and possibly the next two seasons.

Before we got JJ, I would've been 100% for the deal, even if it cost us Marvin (granted we get a pick also). After we got JJ I was still ok with it in the hopes that AI can be on good behavior. After seeing how our team has started coming together, even at this point, I'm no longer willing to gut our nucleus for a short term solution.

If we were talking about a younger guy like Dwight Howard, then it'd be a different story. For a gracefully aging veteran like AI, the cost of the presumed improvement he'd bring is outweighed by the cost of the presumed improvement we'd have without him.

[lawman]

i think every one knows a interior defense sucks and that we need to save cap room for an defensive presents on the inside............BUT if some one can name some possible players we can bring in that will fit that bill i will be very surprised; due to this minor circumstance i feel that if we can score 115 a night by adding A.I to our team then we should do it...........the only way to combat poor defense is to do what the sun's, and mav's do which is to score!score!score!

[Johnnybravo4]

Quote:

---

i think every one knows a interior defense sucks and that we need to save cap room for an defensive presents on the inside............BUT if some one can name some possible players we can bring in that will fit that bill i will be very surprised; due to this minor circumstance i feel that if we can score 115 a night by adding A.I to our team then we should do it...........the only way to combat poor defense is to do what the sun's, and mav's do which is to score!score!score!

---

Exactamundo. Joanne wants to save money for you to build a team. That never happens and won't happen in a salary cap system. Windows aren't 8-10 years, they are mostly 3-5. Unless your goal is to make it to the second round every year you have to make bold moves.