Horford and Smoove

[foeteen14]

I like Al Horford a lot, he plays with passion and will probably be a great leader one day. but, why do people believe he is or will be a better PF than Smoove. He had a great rookie season, but he didn't dominate on the court. he's a hustler, he out works his opponents. all that being said i don't see him EVER being the offensive, defensive, or playmaking threat Smoove is at PF. the only thing he will EVER do better than Smoove is rebound. it might just be me, but i think many of you over value horford and his potential and undervalue smoove and his potential. please give me some reasons why many of you think the way you do on this issue.

[Antmillennium]

Because some people are delusional and don't actually pay attention to what happens on the court. Others, for some reason or another, just don't like Josh Smith and would like to see him traded no matter what. Why? I don't know. Josh Smith is 22 years old, very raw, and he still put up pretty good numbers. He has the potential to be special. However, some people are so enamored with measurables that they value having an above average Center on the team over having a good player with the potential to be special on the team.

[AnakinJoe]

Quote:

---

I like Al Horford a lot, he plays with passion and will probably be a great leader one day. but, why do people believe he is or will be a better PF than Smoove. He had a great rookie season, but he didn't dominate on the court. he's a hustler, he out works his opponents. all that being said i don't see him EVER being the offensive, defensive, or playmaking threat Smoove is at PF. the only thing he will EVER do better than Smoove is rebound. it might just be me, but i think many of you over value horford and his potential and undervalue smoove and his potential. please give me some reasons why many of you think the way you do on this issue.

For me, it's a simple issue of Horford is a proven winner. And everything that he did last season showed (again) that he is a winner. I don't know that Smith is a winner. I don't know that he has won at any level, high school or AAU. I do know Horford won 2 consecutive NCAA championships. It was Horford who played well in Boston during the playoffs (and not just at home). It was Horford who tried to motivate the team with the showing of the "When We Were Kings" video. And it was Horford who gave effort every minute of every game and was one of the few rookies in years to come within a hair of a 10/10 year.

Since I'm more interested in a winning team than having a superstar on my team, I'd choose Horford each and every time. His potential of 16 & 12 may not match Smith's potential, but I liken it to Antawn Jamison vs. T-Mac. T-Mac will almost always look better but I'm guessing that Jamison will enjoy FAR more team success than T-Mac. And, I'm more confident that Horford will fulfill his potential than I am that Smith will reach his optimal level. The fact that there is even a debate about who to build around, when Horford has played 80 NBA games and Smith 300 is another indication of Horford's impact on this roster and Smith still trying to fulfill his potential.

[AnnArborHawk]

Quote:

---

very raw

If you've been in the league 4 years and are still considered "raw" it's either because you're athletic but have no basketball skills or have both but are not very smart.

Everyone talks about how great Josh is going to be, but his head might get in the way.

[AnakinJoe]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

very raw

If you've been in the league 4 years and are still considered "raw" it's either because you're athletic but have no basketball skills or have both but are not very smart.

Everyone talks about how great Josh is going to be, but his head might get in the way.

That's why I try to point out (often) that Smith has played over 300 NBA games and like 10,000 minutes. That's not small sample nor can it be ignored because of his age.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

very raw

If you've been in the league 4 years and are still considered "raw" it's either because you're athletic but have no basketball skills or have both but are not very smart.

Everyone talks about how great Josh is going to be, but his head might get in the way.

That's why I try to point out (often) that Smith has played over 300 NBA games and like 10,000 minutes. That's not small sample nor can it be ignored because of his age.

His production can't be ignored either. He averaged 17/8 while being the only guy in the league in the top 10 in blocks and steals.

People excuse Horford's lack of offense since he is a rookie but he is the same age as Smith and obviously had the benefit of college instruction.

Okafor averaged 15/11 in his rookie year. Howard averaged 12/10 straight out of high school.

Looking at guys Horford was compared to last summer Amare averaged 13.5/9 straight out of HS. Zo averaged 20/10 with 3 blocks in his rookie year.

It isnt like Horford put up huge numbers.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

very raw

If you've been in the league 4 years and are still considered "raw" it's either because you're athletic but have no basketball skills or have both but are not very smart.

Everyone talks about how great Josh is going to be, but his head might get in the way.

That's why I try to point out (often) that Smith has played over 300 NBA games and like 10,000 minutes. That's not small sample nor can it be ignored because of his age.

You can't ignore his age either. If he joined the league at age 15 and had played over 300 games 3 years ago would you think his development was done? The guy is the same age that John Stockton was when Stockton was averaging 5.6 ppg; that Bill Walton was when he was averaging 12.8 ppg; and two years younger than Rasheed when he was averaging 12.8 ppg. His experience has definitely shown weaknesses in his game as well as areas in which he has improved. Assuming that improvement was over because he has played 300 game makes no sense to me.

[AnakinJoe]

Quote:

---

His production can't be ignored either. He averaged 17/8 while being the only guy in the league in the top 10 in blocks and steals.

People excuse Horford's lack of offense since he is a rookie but he is the same age as Smith and obviously had the benefit of college instruction.

Okafor averaged 15/11 in his rookie year. Howard averaged 12/10 straight out of high school.

Looking at guys Horford was compared to last summer Amare averaged 13.5/9 straight out of HS. Zo averaged 20/10 with 3 blocks in his rookie year.

It isnt like Horford put up huge numbers.

You will NEVER see me compare Horford to Amare, Zo nor Howard. NEVER, I don't think he is that type of player. Okafor (without the blocks), yes. But for me, it's not about the stats only, it's about the intangibles that help transform a losing team into a playoff team. And Horford has it and Smith doesn't. There have been a handful (if that many) ulrta-athletes like Smith who have played an integral role for an NBA champion. Guys like Smith, the Matrix and AK-47 are great fantasy players and are great stat-stuffers. But their individual success has not translated well in the post-season. And if you're building a team, don't you have to build around players who can get you the golden basketball? Give me Caron Butler in his prime over T-Mac in his prime everyday of the week and I'll more than likely will be still balling in June when T-Mac is enjoying the Jamaican beach.

[crimedog]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

very raw

If you've been in the league 4 years and are still considered "raw" it's either because you're athletic but have no basketball skills or have both but are not very smart.

Everyone talks about how great Josh is going to be, but his head might get in the way.

That's why I try to point out (often) that Smith has played over 300 NBA games and like 10,000 minutes. That's not small sample nor can it be ignored because of his age.

What has that sample told us? He is an above average offensive player and an excellent defender who grows as a player annually...

You know who else is a proven winner at the college level? Marvin Willims, Ray Felton, Sean May, and Rashad McCants. I love that Horford has competitive experience but that doesn't trump production and any argument about Smith's SIGNIFICANT advantage in production generally comes down the things that are flat out false (Horford doesn't turn the ball over like Smith, Horford is a very efficient scorer, or my personal favorite, Horford is actually a better defender than Smith) or things that are impossible to qualify (Horford is a winner so what he does means more to the team, Horford is a harder worker, Horford has a higher bball IQ).

I love Horford, I think he's going to be great but Ex' pointed something out. Horford's stats are a lot more in line with guys like Joe Smith, Bogut, Juwan Howard's rookie years than with a guy like Gasol's let alone an Elton Brand. What Horford has on most rookie bigs is rebounding but his offensive numbers show as much need for improvement, if not more, than Smith's did as a rookie.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

But for me, it's not about the stats only, it's about the intangibles that help transform a losing team into a playoff team. And Horford has it and Smith doesn't

That is just flat out nuts.

Smith has come through in the clutch over and over and over. Not only that his energy on both ends energizes the team. Whenever he is out the team looks totally flat.

Smith is the one who lit up the DPOY for 56 points in games 3 and 4.

Horford has been solid but he hasn't been an impact player on either end. He has no take charge in his game. He is too timid to take advantage of slower players. Timidity is not an intangible in my book.

[Admin]

Quote:

---

Horford has been solid but he hasn't been an impact player on either end. He has no take charge in his game. He is too timid to take advantage of slower players. Timidity is not an intangible in my book.

Did you actually just refer to Horford as "timid"?

It's one thing for you to talk about the value of Smith and I absolutely agree with you on what he brings to the team and IMO the only negatives are his temper and his inconsistency, but he is 22 years old and that is pretty normal. He is one of the rare 5 tool players in the basketball and has the ability to be a superstar ... but for you to refer to Horford as "timid" makes it seem like you have an agenda here. Horford may very well be the LEAST "timid" player on the team.

[Admin]

Quote:

---

You know who else is a proven winner at the college level? Marvin Willims, Ray Felton, Sean May, and Rashad McCants.

I can appreciate what you are saying here but Marvin was a 6th man and a freshman. Horford was the team leader and they won back to back championships with him leading the team.

I don't think anyone can call Smith a winner or not a winner at this point in his career, but Horford definitely seems to have that ability to make everyone else around him better and that's what winners are often defined by.

[AnakinJoe]

Quote:

---

You can't ignore his age either. If he joined the league at age 15 and had played over 300 games 3 years ago would you think his development was done? The guy is the same age that John Stockton was when Stockton was averaging 5.6 ppg; that Bill Walton was when he was averaging 12.8 ppg; and two years younger than Rasheed when he was averaging 12.8 ppg. His experience has definitely shown weaknesses in his game as well as areas in which he has improved. Assuming that improvement was over because he has played 300 game makes no sense to me.

Nope, I don't assume that his improvement is over. But I do think that his production is not likely to get much better. I think the improvement will be fewer turnovers and better field goal shooting once he learns better shot selection. As he learns to allow his backcourt to handle the ball more, his assists will go down but his A:T ratio will improve. I'm hoping that he will take fewer perimeter shots and get more free throw attempts. But do I think he'll be a 20/10/3 guy? No. His age (IMO) is a factor in his decision-making. But as he makes better decisions, that may not translate into better numbers on the board. And that is good. In fact, that is GREAT. I'd rather have him scoring 16 points on 48% shooting than 20 or 43% shooting. And I'd rather have 3 assists and a 2:1 ratio than 5 assists and a 1:1 ratio. Better decision-making tends to translate into wins, especially post-season wins. Also, as he gets older, he'll likely will end up playing with better players. That will also negatively impact his individual numbers, while hopefully resulting in more team wins. Take a look at his numbers before/after Bibby. His scoring was down while the team played better. There are a ton of factors to consider before assuming that the numbers we see now can only get better.

[jhay610]

"Being a winner" has a lot to do with the convergence of place and time. Was KG a "winner" before last year? If you asked that question at this same time last year, you would have guys coming from out of the woodwork to call him another T-Mac or VC, a guy who was all flash and no substance and would never win anything.

Is he a winner now? Basketball is a team sport, right? You gotta have skill 1-5. While I appreciate Horf's "winner's attitude," would anyone give a damn if he had that same attitude but instead of attending UF in college, he attended, say....UGA? What would his collegiate legacy be then?

Something similar to Michael Beasley's maybe?

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Horford may very well be the LEAST "timid" player on the team.

When a guy stands around with the ball 18 feet from the basket looking for someone to pass to while his man is 5 feet off him that is being timid. Horford does that more than anyone on the team by far.

Too often the opposing defense is playing 5 on 4 because Horford won't do anything with the ball.

[Admin]

I have always seen KG as a winner because he made others around him better and he has had success in the playoffs with mediocre teams. I mean he went to the WCF with Sam Cassell and Latrell Sprewell at the end of his career.

To me it's all about whether or not you make the players around you better. Some guys have that ability and some don't.

[Admin]

I don't think that's because he is timid. It's just not his game. Would you rather him put the ball on the floor and possibly turn it over? I just think that's him knowing the limitations of his game.

When he is in the paint he is FAR from timid. He's as much of a beast down there as anyone in the league.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

I don't think that's because he is timid. It's just not his game. Would you rather him put the ball on the floor and possibly turn it over?

So he can't make an 18 footer? His skills are so lame that he can't beat someone like Big Z or Bogut off the dribble?

If that is the case then i surely don't see his value as being even remotely as high as Smith's.

Either he is timid or his offensive skills suck. Take your pick.

Quote:

---

He's as much of a beast down there as anyone in the league.

Please he is too small to back down people consistently and his post game was spotty. He was consistently forced to shoot his jump hook from too far out because he couldn't back up defenders.

[TanAdam]

What i don't understand is why we have to get locked in these battles where we have to trash one hawks player in order to prop another up. It is asinine. Can't we at least make the comparison with a player on another to Smoove so that we don't all take a [censored] on a Hawk. Some of you guys make no sense.

[Admin]

You are clearly not watching the same team/player that the rest of us watch. In fact I just watched the Boston-Atlanta games the past couple of days and saw several times where Al knocked down the outside jumper. God forbid he actually looks to pass the ball and run the offense rather than doing something that isn't his strength.