We should have kept Mike Wilks

[Blunt91]

I didn't see the game against the Cavaliers friday night but from what you all are saying is we played very sloppy and had alot of turnovers. Its' funny that we had very few turnovers in the win over the sixers when Wilks played major minutes then when JT comes back to run the point we play sloppy. It is obvious that we need a capable point guard to compete on a high level. I don't think Wilks is a starter in the league on a regular basis but he has the game to be a very good backup. He is kind of like Jacque Vaghn but doesn't provide the clutch shooting.Our offense flowed so much beter in that game and WIlks got everyone involved.It is also clear that if we had of solved the Point situation and had a true scorer/shooter at the 2guard to begin the season we would be in the playoff hunt.Kruger would probably still be here as well.

[chillzatl]

Denberg said that Wilkes will be brought back after the trade deadline IF he isn't picked up by someone else first. judging by the way he played, he could very well end up with another team.

But like I said, it's the same old story. It's what we've been needing from day one. We either need a hybrid SG/PG in a SG's body. Or we need to move JT for a real PG. If JT were 6'5", mike wilkes would be perfect for us at the PG. WE wouldn't need a star quality scoring PG. But JT is small, so wilkes isn't going to be our answer.

[Guest]

We need somebody better than Wilks.He's a nobody

and he will never accomplish anything in the NBA.We

really need someone more quilified.

[Guest]

Once thing I've noticed about JT is that he is

finishing better on the break.

[chillzatl]

why don't you take the time to actually explain what you mean. I never said that Wilkes was the answer to our problem. If we had a SG with ability of JT and the SIZE of a real SG, Wilkes would be fine. Because he plays good defense and can distribute the ball. That's all we would need in that situation.

I find it odd that someone who has stated that "he doesn't even watch the games anymore" thinks he's even remotely qualified (not quilified) to comment on how good Wilkes is or is not though.

[Guest]

If we had a SG with ability of JT and the SIZE of a real SG, Wilkes would be fine. Because he plays good defense and can distribute the ball."

Distribute the ball?He and his 3APG?

Wilks isn't a starting caliber player on any team.He's

a CBA bum.He's a IR player.He will hustle enough to

try and earn a contract like Ira did(Ira sucks on defense

this year)but then he will be the bum the Bucks didn't

want.

[Guest]

You can keep his 35%fg 2.8APG 5PPG but I'll

take a NBA caliber player.

[chillzatl]

Post deleted by chillzatl

[Guest]

You know what I'm talking about.You get all giddy

over CBA scrubs.Ira's a great player!Wilks is a good

player!If these guys were not playing for the Hawks

(Nobody loves scrub players more than the Hawks)

they wouldn't be in the league period.

Wilks is a bum.No other team wants him for anything

other than a 12th man.Your just so stupid that you

fall in love for every player that hustles for a contract.

You don't know [censored] about the game of basketball.

The only thing I've seen from you is a little sissy

boy.Your nothing but a wimp.

So Wilks is more passive on his shot and moves the

ball around better.But if I had his shot I wouldn't

shoot either.

[chillzatl]

Post deleted by chillzatl

[Guest]

You lack the stuff to even come close to insulting me. "

It's not hard to insult a goofy looking person like

you.

Just like you were all over Ira's di(k last year.Wilks

would hustle til he got a contract...You obviousally

can't tell talent from a scrambling scrub looking for

a good contract.

[chillzatl]

Post deleted by chillzatl

[Guest]

Did you get that one from your remedial english class in one of those safe Dallas schools?"

Atleast there isn't all the theifs out here.It's a hellva

lot better than downtown Atlanta I can tell you that

now.As if the people in downtown are respectable

people.All they look to do is look mug you.

I'm not even going to bother discussing ball with you now. You've proven over and over that you don't have the ability to do it."

You are the one that doesn't have the ability.You think

all the CBA'ers of the league are good.

[Guest]

You have yet to even explain your problem.All I

was doing is commenting not even directly at

you.

[chillzatl]

lets put all that behind us, it was all in good fun. If I went too far, i'm sorry, seriously. Nothing personal.

My point is, you say that mike wilkes has no talent and will never be anything. My point was that there are LOTS of players in the league that a few years ago werein the exact same position that he is in.

Wilkes has proven that he can run an offense and do so without turning the ball over. I mean watch the game, the Bob and Stinger commented on it ALL THE TIME. He's a solid young player who has shown he has potential. IF, and I say IF, we had a SG that could defend his position AND score(which JT cannot do), wilkes would be plenty effective for our needs.

Just like guys like Eric Snow, Travis Best and Charlie Ward do/did. He doesn't have to be a star. We would have other players to handle that. We need someone steady, who can handle the ball, get it to guys in the right spots and not turn it over. WIlkes has proven that he can do that.

Instead of even acknowledging this. Something that has been proven by the stats and by people who are close to the game, with a history in it and more knowledge in it than yyou and I. You just say he's a "scrub". You don't give any insight into why this is or any reasoning behind it. You just call him a scrub. Even though it's contrary to the stats and what some othe professionals seem to think. To give you another example. Against the spurs a few games ago. They were commenting on how wilkes was able to throw shareef a lead pass in the post and how neither JT nor Dickau can consistantly do that correctly. That shows the guy has skills.

You then go on to throw up his "3apg" as reasoning behind this. Though you fail to even mention that he was only averaging like 12 minutes per game and wasn't even giving up one turnover per game. 3 assists to LESS THAN ONE turnover per game is pretty damned solid.

So again, I'll say it. In the right situation, wilkes would be fine for us because he can do what we would need. Pass the ball, get it to guys at the right time and not turn it over. If you disagree, fine, disagree. But at least show the knowledge to explain your position.

[Guest]

Well ass Charles Barkley said"All these guys have

talent"

but I think people just get to carried away with backups

at best.

He has no shot what so ever...His passing isn't great

he just moves the ball around better than the two

guys we have.that doesn't make him a good player.

He averages 2.8APG in 25MPG

His defense is the only thing really decent about him

and considering he wants a contract it's a tough sell

to me that he will actually keep it up.