KB21 Posted March 2, 2003 Report Share Posted March 2, 2003 http://cbs.sportsline.com/nba/story/6218758 You know, it just really irks me that Pete continues to pigeon hole Jason Terry as a shooting guard because he can score and is looking for that big point guard that he's never going to find. Jason Terry is a point guard. He is better when the ball is in his hands, and when he plays point guard, he can control the basketball. You move him to the 2, and you take the ball out of his hands. If he's dealt this offseason to Seattle or Milwaukee, or any other team that will show interest in him, he's going to play point guard for that team. But for Atlanta, he doesn't fit what Pete Babcock thinks a point guard should be, so he's pigeon holed as a shooting guard. And it seems like it doesn't even matter how well Jason Terry plays at the point guard position. Pete is always going to look at him as if he's a short shooting guard. Jason Terry played extremely well as a POINT GUARD from January through the end of last season, but Pete still drafts Dan Dickau in the draft. Now, Pete is using references to a "Big Point Guard" again. What this is going to boil down to is that Pete will probably deal Jason Terry to Seattle in the offseason. The Sonics are going to be very interested in getting him, and probably will be willing to part with one of what will be their 2 lottery picks for him. This is because Pete is going to see that the "big point guard" just isn't there. Look at the top point guards in college basketball at the moment: TJ Ford is 5-11 Chris Thomas is 6-1 Luke Ridnour is 6-2 Marcus Banks is 6-1 Maurice Williams is 6-1 Jameer Nelson is 6-0 Chris Duhon is 6-1 Where are these big point guards? What will happen is Pete will deal Jason Terry. Terry will go to Seattle, where Nate McMillan will have confidence in him as a point guard. He won't be jerked around from the 2 to the 1 from game to game, and he will flourish. Atlanta will lose their only clutch player in the process all because he doesn't fit the mold of what our illustrious GM thinks a point guard should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyman3 Posted March 2, 2003 Report Share Posted March 2, 2003 im not willing to quit just yet. the only year Jason Terry had a good coach was his very first year with Lenny Wilkens. He didnt even have a mentor! Wasn't it Bimbo Coles who also shared the other PG duties with Jason Terry? I wish there was a way we could have kept Mookie Blaylock, so he could show Terry the ropes. Rookie year doesnt mean anything... u cant tell how good a player will become by looking at his first year stats (esp these days with all these young ballers). that being said, i dont think we should give up on JT... it could be a BIG MISTAKE! he doesnt have to be a traditional "pass-first, 6th sense vision" type PG... i mean, who is these days? prob 4- Stockton, Kidd, Dre Miller, and Nash. - we need to RESIGN TERRY (its not like we're attracting any free agents as of lately), get a GOOD VETERAN NBA COACH, and some good role players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Walter Posted March 3, 2003 Report Share Posted March 3, 2003 JT can be great as a 1, but under a GM with no confidence in him as a 1 and a coach who screwed him over at the 1 for a 10 day CBAer, he is the one that is screwed. Hopefully, a new coach will come in (since it appears Babs won't be out). I like what Silas did with Davis. Maybe him. Maybe Doc. [censored], just about anybody I think can do more for JT at the point than Babs or Stotts. W Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Playmaker0017 Posted March 3, 2003 Report Share Posted March 3, 2003 KB21, JT can play the PG spot, but I don't think he will ever be a top PG. He will be a top player... but not a top PG. He can move the ball up court with the best of them. He can shoot with the best of them. But -- he can't pass that well and he has ZERO ability to break a team down and dish the ball. He racks up MONSTER assists off of jump shooters. But, he isn't CREATING the looks for anyone. He isn't threading a great pass downlow to Reef for an easy dunk. He isn't breaking the knees of his defender and causing the defense to collapse. He doesn't do that. Do I think we should keep him? Yes. I think he is better than our other options... BUT I think we should attempt to deal Big Dog for some role players and obtain Kenny Anderson and Steve Smith in the offseason. Play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 3, 2003 Report Share Posted March 3, 2003 JT is a stupid undersized SG with a low basketball IQ and he can't do anything other than shoot.When you feature guys like him no wonder why you lose by 25 points often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Playmaker0017 Posted March 3, 2003 Report Share Posted March 3, 2003 HotLantaDude, Systems make and break a player. Is JT a top five PG in a great system - probably not. Maybe top ten. He has the skills to be great, but hasn't learned the role. He still is better than a lot aof teams' PGs. Play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWISH9061 Posted March 3, 2003 Report Share Posted March 3, 2003 That Pete Babcock hasn't been fired and people still think that JT is PG. Pete should have been fired the day after he let Kruger go. Enough said about that. But JT at the point. He's not a PG, never will be and there's no coach on this earth that can make him a point. He doesn't have the inate skills to be a good point guard at this level and I just don't understand why some of our fans keep insisting that he can. JT lacks the vision, court awareness, and basketball instincts needed to be a true PG. He's a poor ball defender and consequently he's a liability on both ends of the floor - IMO. So even if we did get that "big" point he'd still hurt the team. I like him as a person and do think he's got game but I for one would like to see him moved....but then again I'd like to see the whole squad get moved.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d2v16DKG Posted March 3, 2003 Report Share Posted March 3, 2003 My response is that it matters not if we consider JT a PG or a SG. What the Hawks need so they don't continue to lose by 20 points against decent teams is two people in the backcourt who can handle the ball. We only have one person (JT) and by halftime it catches up to us and we start throwing the ball away. Why we did not keep Mike Wilks I will never understand!!! He has to play JT and Dickau together or we will continue to lose by 20 points!! Glover has limited dribbling abilities and Newble is worse. Who disagrees?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Diesel Posted March 3, 2003 Premium Member Report Share Posted March 3, 2003 trade? If we traded Terry/Nazr to Seattle and got back Barry/Ollie/James/1st... I say we have done well. I think Barry is just as much a good shooter from Outside as Terry. We need James' rebounding and inside toughness. That first rounder could be anybody. I mean, I would want Darko... But Ridnour or Ford or Duhon would make a good catch too. Then... We look to move Theo. Why? Theo/SAR is a plan that doesn't work. Theo is a good shot blocker but doesn't do much else. Before the draft... Theo to Philly for Coleman and their first. Clears Cap space and gives us a mid range pick. However, I don't like that trade much. Theo to Dallas for NVE gives us an excellent ball handler... BUT we would have to get a good Pick out of Dallas. Better would be: Theo to Memphis for Swift/Battier or Theo/CC for Lo/Dickerson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Diesel Posted March 3, 2003 Premium Member Report Share Posted March 3, 2003 Players make the system... not the other way around. For instance. J Kidd went to a system that Marbury failed with. There were "chemistry" problems. However, that trade made NJ a much better team. The problems were not all the systems fault. It was that it needed the right type of player. To add to that... If you traded JT for JKidd for a month. I bet within Week 2, this Hawk team would start an undefeated streak. Everything rises and falls on leadership. To futher prove that point. Some years back... Clemmons stepped out of Phil Jackson's shawdow to coach the Dallas Mavericks. He took the triangle offense. He failed. The system failed. It failed because it needs the players to make the system work... Not the other way around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traceman Posted March 3, 2003 Report Share Posted March 3, 2003 Kidd is simply better than Marbury and in most systems, Kidd is going to be the more effective player. That being said, Marbury WILL be more effective in systems that maximize his talents and minimize his deficiencies. As for us trading JT for Kidd, of course we would be much better right away. Kidd is a much better player than JT. Period. As for the triangle, I think that's why Chicago is struggling now. That system does not fit the talents of the players. I think Jordan's and Pippen's Bulls and Shaq's & Kobe's Lakers would still have won just as many championships running a more conventional NBA offense. Those teams had/have the best players (and a very good coach) and that is why they won, not the system. As bad as Lon's offense was, if he were running that offense with Shaq and Kobe on the floor, it would have resulted in a lot more wins and probably a title or 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Playmaker0017 Posted March 3, 2003 Report Share Posted March 3, 2003 Diesel, We are saying the same things, just in reverse order. Both concepts hold true though. You are always the sum of your weakest parts. A great system with bum players is going to yield a bum result. A bum system with great players is going to yield bum results. (ie. The Hawks) The Bulls wouldn't have been effective, and you would never have worn Jordan shoes on your feet if Jordan was asked to hang out on the perimeter and bury jump shots. Did Jordan make the "Triangle Offense" ... certainly. But ... the "Triangle Offense" put Jordan in a position to maximize his skills. Now, going to your example of Kidd/Marbury -- is that the player or the system that allowed Kidd to perform at such high levels? Unfortunately, the answer doesn't prove my point -- I think Kidd made the system. He is probably the best or second best PG in history, in my opinion. But, the system didn't play AWAY from his strengths. I guess, it goes back to football for me... because I understand the intricacies in football a little better. Put Vick in a situation, under a coach who would NOT allow him to run - and he falls shorter. Put him in a system that allows him to showcase his skills, he will succeed. Play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KB21 Posted March 3, 2003 Author Report Share Posted March 3, 2003 What the Triangle offense effectively did for the Chicago Bulls was get everyone on the court involved. Michael Jordan transposed his game from a guy who scored 35 points a game and got zilch from his teammates to a guy who scored 30 ppg while getting more production from his teammates. You have to be a very disciplined player to play in that system. I've read Phil Jackson's book, and he states that Jordan wasn't sold on the system at first, but he worked within it anyone. Soon, the wins were piling up because it wasn't all Jordan anymore. Right now, the Bulls aren't getting that discipline within the system. Jay Williams struggles with the system because it hampers what he's always been able to do; control the basketball. So, he will often play out of the system, and the results haven't been good for him. He's going to have to find a way to push his game to the next level within that system. I don't think Eddy Curry and Tyson Chandler really understand what that system is trying to achieve yet. The reason Jamal Crawford outplays Jay Williams in that offense is because he's not a true point guard that has to have the ball in his hands. He also doesn't have the need to shoot the ball a lot, so he plays well within that system even though his coach doesn't have confidence in him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Diesel Posted March 4, 2003 Premium Member Report Share Posted March 4, 2003 Had we traded JT for Miller straight up... Both teams would have prospered. JT is a PG that can play in a system whereby the Sf runs the offense. Miller could work here where he has many options to pass to or create for himself. And that's not a case of Miller being a better player than JT... Just realizing which player works for what System. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Diesel Posted March 4, 2003 Premium Member Report Share Posted March 4, 2003 About the triangle... Jordan was already a great player before the Triangle. So the triangle didn't maximize his potential. In fact, it limited him. Remember before the triangle... Jordan was the same Jordan that dropped 63 on the Celtics. Jordan was the same Jordan who played PG for 3/4 of a season and averaged about 8 assists per game. Jordan was the same Jordan who averaged about 32 his rookie year. What the Triangle did was give the BULLS focus. It made a dominant C a non neccesity. It made a good PG a non neccesity. It made Pippen the ball handler. It made Jordan a goto guy. The triangle was not the reason for success either. The triangle was actually an offense that resulted in lower scoring. However, it was Phils attention to defense that made the bulls great. The great thing about that system is that it worked for the personnell. In Dallas. Clemmons had a great team. Mash, Kidd, Jackson, McCloud. However, the system did not work. Reason being... Kidd doesn't fit in a triangle. The triangle takes the ball out of his hands. Him as a Shooting PG really doesn't work. Mash can run the offense from the 3 and JJ was able to score as a 2... But they lacked rebounding. They lacked good shooting from the PG. Had they traded Kidd for say....Ty Hill and Mark Price... They might have done better. As far as Vick... I'm a Hokie. I've watched Vick his whole career. If you put him in Dan Marino's offense under Marino's coach (who probably wouldn't have let him run as much)... Vick would have still been the best QB in the league. It's not Just his running. He has a GUN... Accurate. Before Vick was a guy named DrukenMiller. He was a good QB... He played for exceptional Hokie teams. However, if Vick would have had the same teams that Drunk had... Vick would have beaten Nebraska, Fla State, and Miami in his three years at Tech. He's just an awesome QB. If the Falcons ever get good offensive linemen, they're going to the Superbowl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Playmaker0017 Posted March 4, 2003 Report Share Posted March 4, 2003 Diesel, I won't debate the triangle offense with you. I self-admit to basketball knowledge deficiencies. BUT -- Vick. Has zero accuracy and a cannon for an arm. Don't exaggerrate his abilities. Vick, right now, could not get by on his arm alone. The reason the offense was potent this year was that defenses didn't know how to play the pass. They didn't know whether to rush Vick or to stay back and wait for him. Either method left the pass more open, because you have non-committal linebackers. Would Vick have beaten those teams if he had a better team? I don't know. No one knows. Vick's asset right NOW is his legs. In the FUTURE it will be his arm. But, he couldn't have made a living at QB this year if he didn't have footspeed. As for being under Marino's coach... Vick would not "STILL HAVE BEEN THE BEST QB IN THE LEAGUE" for two reasons: (1) He wasn't the best QB in the league this year. SO he couldn't STILL do anything. (2) He doesn't have the arm accuracy yet. Vick is a product of media hype. As in all sports, the media needs a darling. And why not Vick? He WILL be great. He speaks well. He's good looking. He's semi-intelligent. And most of all, he's exciting to watch. Play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Diesel Posted March 4, 2003 Premium Member Report Share Posted March 4, 2003 We can finish this in Other Sports.... However, one thing. I say that Vick was the Best QB because he was responsible for more of his teams wins than any other QB. Philly replaced McNabb and they still won. Collins has a great defense playing behind him. So does Johnson. Bret Farve is always good, but he has good OL and DL. IN San Fran, T. Owens is the man. However, when you look at the Falcons. Vick is a one man gang. He doesn't have great recievers... Shoot, they drop as many as they catch. He definitely don't have great Lineman. And the Defense will lose you more than they can win you. However, Vick is the Captain. He takes that ball and he wins. Might not show up in the Stats... However, ask Minn, GB, Charlotte, N.O. who is the best QB they faced? I gaurantee you, they all will say Vick.. and that's not because he is a media darling....That's because he's [censored] good. The best this yr. Now, if you give Vick the same weapons as Brad Johnson or Give Vick a T. Owens and a JJ to throw to.... The next thing you know the falcons go undefeated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 4, 2003 Report Share Posted March 4, 2003 owever, ask Minn, GB, Charlotte, N.O. who is the best QB they faced?" None of those teams are any good.GB as shown in the previous week by the Jets was a very overrated team. Look at who plays in the Packers division....Lions/ Minnesota/Bears.GB beat a aweful lot of bad teams. NO and Minn doesn't play defense anyway.The Falcons actually only won about a game more than they did the previous season.....but the Falcons played a weak schedule this year and didn't have to face the 49ers twice and the Rams twice.....Was the Falcons really that much better this year?They got slaughtered twice by Tampa Bay and couldn't score againest Philly... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Diesel Posted March 4, 2003 Premium Member Report Share Posted March 4, 2003 In reply to:Was the Falcons really that much better this year?They got slaughtered twice by Tampa Bay and couldn't score againest Philly... Tampa Bay... Superbowl Champs. Philly.... .NFC runner up. As far as the Jets beating GB. Those Jets were a really good squad. What you have mentioned in all your critique... is the best teams of last yr and how they were better than the Falcons or beat teams that the Falcons beat... Did you honestly think before you said any of that? Tampa Bay was Hands down THE BEST team in the NFL. They Beat the [censored] out of Oakland in the superbowl. And Because the falcons lost to them twice... The Falcons should feel bad? Give me a break. I won't answer any more of this in this forum. However... Give me a brake Atlanta hater. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 4, 2003 Report Share Posted March 4, 2003 My point was that the Falcons beat a whole bunch of weak defensive teams.If I am not mistaken the Falcons also struggled with the Ravens and lost to Seattle...They lsot their way into the playoffs. NO is one of the worst defensive teams in the league and that was the best team the Falcons beat in the regular season.The Packers wasnt that good,go look at their schedule and that is proof enough. Besides,the falcons have been sucessful againest Saints and Panthers for YEARS. I'm saying the Falcons didn't fair well againest teams that brought it on defense. 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