Who here wants Finley?

[Diesel]

Hotlanta is right.

Theo made no real difference. That's the problem when you have a good shotblocker and no other defensive pieces around him. What made Philly so good a few years ago was that Ivy was steal leader and Hill, McKie, Snow, and even Geiger were all good defenders. That amplified Theo's efforts. However, Theo is not a good rebounder and he doesn't score much. Now, we put him with low quality defensive pieces.... He will not shine. IN fact, all of his weakness are evident. Teams like Washington send Bigger Players to go after this UNPROTECTED shot blocker. Why did I say Unprotected? Well, in Philly, Theo had Hill and Geiger. Bigger guys who really protected him and allowed him to float the way he does. Well, here' he has Reef. Reef is an undersized PF. He can't keep bigger guys like K. Brown, Grant, Thomas from challenging Theo. You say Theo was a force in the middle? He is not the intimidator that Deke was. IN fact, it's the opposite. Players would try to go over Theo because they know he's 240 and not able to stop them.

Be Real.

If we were to Trade Theo and get back Finley...

And Lineup Finley in place for Glover and Nazr in place of Theo...

We'd be a much stronger offensive team.

[Guest]

Actually,Theo only weights like 225 or something doesn't he?

[Diesel]

I was giving him the benefit of the doubt. He's listed as 225. On TV he looks slightly bigger than Reef who's listed 235 but may be closer to 240. I call Reef undersized alot because he's not 6'10 (he's more like 6'8). He has the weight but he's built like Laphonzo Ellis (SF). I think Reef has excellent post moves and even though he's not 6'10, he's still a PF because of the way he plays the game. He just needs to strengthen up ala CWebb if he wants to compete with these Younger bigger faster players coming in:

Amare Stoudamire, KG, Bosh, K. Brown, etc.

[mrhonline]

In reply to:

---

Over the last 2 years.... From Oct to Jan we have a combined record of 33-62 (34.7%)

Over the last 2 years.... From Jan to the end of the season, we have a combined record of 35-35 (50%).

---

O.K., Mr. Historian, why don't you recall for all your fans what position JT played during the majority of those earlier games. Or have you simply chosen to ignore the fact that this team has played better when it doesn't have two small guards in the backcourt?

Let's see - Jacque Vaughn, Mike Wilks, and Dan Dickau. Now they really are a winning combo, huh! Let's see - Kruger's failures and Stott's inexperience - important factors in why Big Dog "underachieved," but completely unrelated to the YOUNGER JT's experiences? Hmm...

In reply to:

---

Now, you can try to justify these numbers however, you like. You can try to say it was Big Dog's absence if you want... However, I suggest you look at the schedule. In the beginning of the year, we take our West Coast Road show.. That usually is a brutal road trip. The fact that we are a horrible road team should tell you that the first half of the season, going on the road will unevenly affect our record. As has been shown here.

---

Whether we keep Dog or not, we aren't going to win the majority of the games out west. That's a useless argument. The core of this team is simply not good enough. We both know that. But what killed this team was not the early road trip, but it's inability to turn things around in December & January. If that's not solely Big Dog's problem, then it's also not solely JT's problem.

As for "justifying" my argument, I'll only point to Stan Kasten's remarks, the majority of posters on this board, and a number of journalists who agree that Big Dog negatively affected this team. If that's not enough for you, so be it.

In reply to:

---

UNTIL you can completely remove the fact that our schedule gets much easier in the second half.... There's really nothing to talk about. We're a better home team. Down the stretch we had 13 out of 17 home games... In fact, there's no way that you can convince me that had Grob played, we would have not won those games anyway! And probably would have beaten N.O. Away.

---

I already showed that the Hawks beat teams in that "easier" stretch that they were unable to beat with Dog AT HOME. But, as usual, you refused to acknowledge that:

In the 13 games played w/o BD -

Wins vs.

1. Phi (2-1 record vs. w/ BD)

2. Hou (0-1 w/ BD)

3. NO (we also lost to them w/o BD, so I ruled it null...)

4. Was (0-2 w/ Dog, 2-0 w/o)

5. Mem (0-1 w/ BD)

6. NJN (0-2 w/ BD)

7. Cle (3-0 w/ BD)

8. Orl (1-1 w/ BD)

Losses vs.

1. Mil (2-1 w/ Big Dog)

2. Bos (0-2 w/ Big Dog)

3. Det (2-1 w/ Big Dog)

4. NO (see above)

The Hawks played worse vs. Milwaukee w/o Dog, but it's probably the only game of the year he got "up" for...The loss to Detroit was one that the Hawks had every opportunity to win. They didn't, but it's not like Big Dog would have made much of a difference - he's not clutch.

------

Road games:

1. Detroit - 102-99 (-3) loss w/o Dog, 91-80 (-11) loss w/ Dog

2. Milwaukee - 97-88 (-9) loss w/o Dog, 120-93 (-27) loss w/Dog

3. New Orleans - 92-77 (-15) loss w/o Dog, 106-94 (-12) loss w/ Dog

4. Boston - 86-66 (-20) loss w/o Dog, 105-98 (-7) loss w/ Dog

So the Hawks played better vs. two teams without Dog and better with him vs. two other teams. Not exactly conclusive evidence that they played better on the road with him, is there?

The Hawks were 8-28 with Dog on the road - hard to play much worse.

-------

In games lost at home to EC playoff teams w/Dog:

1. Boston, lost by 10

2. Detroit, lost by 4

3. New Jersey, lost by 7

4. Philadelphia, lost by 21

When you consider that we beat New Jersey AND played better vs. Detroit WITHOUT BD, your argument falls through.

Look at the home games this way:

Philly - 79-77 Win w/o Dog, 110-89 Loss w/ Dog

Washington - 91-89 Win w/o Dog, 109-99 Loss w/Dog

New Jersey - 97-92 Win w/o Dog, 101-94 Loss w/Dog

Orlando - 100-84 (+16) Win w/o Dog, 97-89 (+8) Win w/ Dog

Cleveland - 109-89 (+ 20) w/o Dog, 96-91 (+5) Win w/ Dog

Five wins without Robinson

VS.

Three losses & two tighter wins with Robinson.

--------

In games lost at home to WC playoff teams w/ Dog:

1. Minnesota, lost by 10

2. Phoenix, lost by 14

3. Dallas, lost by 18

4. Portland, lost by 2 (OT)

5. LAL, lost by 17

With the exception of Portland, none of the games were remotely close. We may have played "better teams," but we lost pretty badly in the process.

Trade Big Clog for someone who can help JT develop. He's cheaper, younger, and more important to the team's development as a whole than Big Clog. From almost every basketball standpoint, it makes more sense to give JT a shot at being the point and giving him another ballhandler.

It cuts down on several of the Hawks' biggest problems:

1. Defense

2. Turnovers

3. Chemistry

What do they lose:

1. A little scoring. But with the reductions in the three problem areas above, the scoring shouldn't be missed on most nights.