Here's what we need to discuss and dissect.

[Diesel]

"Their starting five has been intact for only 20 of the 50 games."

For only 20 games have we had our full compliment of players.

We need to gather up those games, look at the record and look at the teams we played and then we can start talking about how good this team can be and what do we need to fix.

[gsuteke]

I think the Hawks need a trade man.

Problem is outside of Bibby's contract I'm not sure they have an attractive piece to move.

[frosgrim]

I think the Hawks need a trade man.

Problem is outside of Bibby's contract I'm not sure they have an attractive piece to move.

Yup, there is very little that the Hawks could trade that would really help. To get Amare or Bosh requires at least a 2-1 and that kills the little depth the team has.

For me, this season is going to have to come down to a little more development. The team still has to aim for 45 wins and winning their first round playoff series (well that depends on who they draw). The development piece comes from the core learning how to win, which is huge for this group. They have to learn how to close teams out, both at home and on the road. They have to learn how to measure their efforts so that they don't get down by 10+ in the first half. And, they have to develop a true #2 option. Bibby shouldn't be that #2 guy, it should be either Marvin or Smith.

Next season is about really building a complete team.

First, use the draft to get either a one diminsional post player (either defense or offense, but at least do one of those well), or another wing palyer that can create his own shot. The pick is going to be in the late teens or early 20s, so we really can't expect that much of a player, but he should help.

Step 2, get a real HC that the team believes in. Woodson has just shown his a$$ too many times for this team (and fanbase) to trust him.

Step 3, do something with Childress. Use him to get another draft pick/player, or just sign the guy. Not that there was the cap room for him this year, but, IMO, the Hawks would be about 3-4 games better if Childress was on the team (along with Flip & Mo).

Step 4, evaluate if the core should be kept in tact. Are JJ, Marvin, Smith and Horford the group we can ride to a championship? If not, then figure out which needs to go to get that guy that completes the group. E.g., does trading Smith for Bosh make the Hawks that much of a better team? What about Horford for Aldrige or another big with a rookie contract?

None of these steps should be mutually exclusive. They are all part of the puzzle and moves have to be made in conjunction with each other. Sund is going to earn his $s this offseason.

[Packfill]

Yup, there is very little that the Hawks could trade that would really help. To get Amare or Bosh requires at least a 2-1 and that kills the little depth the team has.

For me, this season is going to have to come down to a little more development. The team still has to aim for 45 wins and winning their first round playoff series (well that depends on who they draw). The development piece comes from the core learning how to win, which is huge for this group. They have to learn how to close teams out, both at home and on the road. They have to learn how to measure their efforts so that they don't get down by 10+ in the first half. And, they have to develop a true #2 option. Bibby shouldn't be that #2 guy, it should be either Marvin or Smith.

Next season is about really building a complete team.

First, use the draft to get either a one diminsional post player (either defense or offense, but at least do one of those well), or another wing palyer that can create his own shot. The pick is going to be in the late teens or early 20s, so we really can't expect that much of a player, but he should help.

Step 2, get a real HC that the team believes in. Woodson has just shown his a$$ too many times for this team (and fanbase) to trust him.

Step 3, do something with Childress. Use him to get another draft pick/player, or just sign the guy. Not that there was the cap room for him this year, but, IMO, the Hawks would be about 3-4 games better if Childress was on the team (along with Flip & Mo).

Step 4, evaluate if the core should be kept in tact. Are JJ, Marvin, Smith and Horford the group we can ride to a championship? If not, then figure out which needs to go to get that guy that completes the group. E.g., does trading Smith for Bosh make the Hawks that much of a better team? What about Horford for Aldrige or another big with a rookie contract?

None of these steps should be mutually exclusive. They are all part of the puzzle and moves have to be made in conjunction with each other. Sund is going to earn his $s this offseason.

I think it would take a lot more then Horford to get Aldridge.

[frosgrim]

I think it would take a lot more then Horford to get Aldridge.

Possibly but that wasn't the intent of the phrase. It was more of "do we need to do something like this" scenario. The intent was to think about the next move with the core players, not necessarily put out full trade proposals.

[Packfill]

Possibly but that wasn't the intent of the phrase. It was more of "do we need to do something like this" scenario. The intent was to think about the next move with the core players, not necessarily put out full trade proposals.

Understood.

Has anyone done a ranking of the high school class of 2004 recently?

[Traceman]

"Their starting five has been intact for only 20 of the 50 games."

For only 20 games have we had our full compliment of players.

We need to gather up those games, look at the record and look at the teams we played and then we can start talking about how good this team can be and what do we need to fix.

I posted on this last week. Actually, I think it is only 19 games where we have had our full compliment of players (Marvin missed the first game) and we are 13-6 in those games.

[exodus]

I posted on this last week. Actually, I think it is only 19 games where we have had our full compliment of players (Marvin missed the first game) and we are 13-6 in those games.

This is a complete non issue. If you look at the number of games where our opponents had their starting lineup intact i would bet it is less than 19 games.

There have been only 2 games all year where we were missing two starters. In contrast i can think of 3 games (GS, Houston and the Clipps) where they were missing 3 starters.

[Traceman]

This is a complete non issue. If you look at the number of games where our opponents had their starting lineup intact i would bet it is less than 19 games.

There have been only 2 games all year where we were missing two starters. In contrast i can think of 3 games (GS, Houston and the Clipps) where they were missing 3 starters.

I don't think it is a non issue at all. We don't have the top level talent of some of the teams out there and we don't have the quality depth of a lot of teams. A missing starter hurts us a lot more than a missing starter hurts teams like ORL, CLE or LAL. As long as those teams have D Howard, LeBron and Kobe, they have a chance. We don't have a guy like that.

What we have is 5 quality starters and most nights, when those 5 take the floor, they are as good as most starting 5's in the league. We simply aren't good enough or deep enough to win consistently without ANY of them.

The bottom line is we are only a good team if all 5 starters are relatively healthy. Take ANY of them out of the lineup and we are a .500 team at best.

[gsuteke]

Translated - the team as put together today is flawed.

I think we all knew that going into this season.

[Traceman]

Translated - the team as put together today is flawed.

I think we all knew that going into this season.

We need some veteran depth (preferably up front) that is for sure. Just a guy like Kurt Thomas or Joe Smith would be great.

[exodus]

I don't think it is a non issue at all. We don't have the top level talent of some of the teams out there and we don't have the quality depth of a lot of teams. A missing starter hurts us a lot more than a missing starter hurts teams like ORL, CLE or LAL. As long as those teams have D Howard, LeBron and Kobe, they have a chance. We don't have a guy like that.

What we have is 5 quality starters and most nights, when those 5 take the floor, they are as good as most starting 5's in the league. We simply aren't good enough or deep enough to win consistently without ANY of them.

The bottom line is we are only a good team if all 5 starters are relatively healthy. Take ANY of them out of the lineup and we are a .500 team at best.

Depth is part of what makes a good team. If the Hawks are 100% healthy and other teams are missing 1, 2 or 3 starters of course the Hawks will have a good record.

Injuries have to be looked at equally between the Haws and their opponents.

[TroyMcClure]

Take ANY of them out of the lineup and we are a .500 team at best.

That's about what we are, anyway. We've been over .500% for half a year now, but the schedule is absolutely brutal after the All-Star break. We'll see. All I know is that we can win without any of these guys. We can't win with Woody, though. We have just as much talent as anyone in the NBA, save a few teams.

[crimedog]

Teams with superstars can generally deal with injuries better than those without them, provided the injury isn't to the superstar (see DWade's Heat play terrible with him obviously a step slow).

The Hawks don't have a superstar and therefore rely on more peices to play, and play well, for them to get peak performance. The likelihood of all the Hawks' most important peices both being on the court and playing well is a lot lower than say the Cavs who essentially need Lebron to be a good team or the Spurs who can play .500 ball with Tim Duncan and a mix of scrubs and near-retired guys.

What does it mean? That the Hawks don't have an MVP caliber player on the team. What can we do about that? Nothing unless someone is down for a REALLY bold trade.

[TroyMcClure]

We need some veteran depth (preferably up front) that is for sure. Just a guy like Kurt Thomas or Joe Smith would be great.

You are acting like we have a coach or something.

[TroyMcClure]

or the Spurs who can play .500 ball with Tim Duncan and a mix of scrubs and near-retired guys.

I thought you were better than that, crimedog. It's funny, only in the last 15 years or so has being an intelligent, team oriented professional become equal to being a scrub. My theory is that only guys who don't play throw around those kinds of words. Guys like Chris Webber throw that word around. Interestingly, I thought he was a complete scrub. I guess he thought all of those bricks he threw up from 19 ft instead of posting up or rebounding like any real man were pretty. See, in my world, guys who don't know their limitations and continually hurt the team trying to shine, are the real scrubs. Just my opinion, though. And probably Jerry Sloan's.

[Traceman]

Depth is part of what makes a good team. If the Hawks are 100% healthy and other teams are missing 1, 2 or 3 starters of course the Hawks will have a good record.

Injuries have to be looked at equally between the Haws and their opponents.

Depth is certainly one component of a good team but health (or luck with regard to health) is just as big of a component. Had the Hawks of the mid to late 90's lost Deke, Mookie or Smitty for any significant amount of time, they would have been TERRIBLE.

I don't think all injuries are created equally and I don't think injuries affect teams the same way. Some teams are fortunate to be able to fill in behind injured starters with players who are at least CLOSE to the player they are replacing. We don't have that luxury. There is a signifcant drop off between our starters and our bench.

Finally, although every team deals with injury issues, some teams should KNOW they are going to deal with injury issues. HOU (T Mac & Yao), TOR (O'Neal), UT (Boozer) should be expecting those guys to miss significant time as they have more often than not for most of their careers. Meanwhile, all 5 of our starters have been pretty durable.

[Traceman]

I thought you were better than that, crimedog. It's funny, only in the last 15 years or so has being an intelligent, team oriented professional become equal to being a scrub. My theory is that only guys who don't play throw around those kinds of words. Guys like Chris Webber throw that word around. Interestingly, I thought he was a complete scrub. I guess he thought all of those bricks he threw up from 19 ft instead of posting up or rebounding like any real man were pretty. See, in my world, guys who don't know their limitations and continually hurt the team trying to shine, are the real scrubs. Just my opinion, though. And probably Jerry Sloan's.

I could be wrong but I think he was using the term "scrub" to describe NBA players with "average" or below NBA talent. We have all been guilty of doing that from time to time. Obviously, any player who gets regular PT in the NBA is a pretty dang good basketball player in the big scheme of things. Matt Bonner would be unguardable at the Y.

[crimedog]

I could be wrong but I think he was using the term "scrub" to describe NBA players with "average" or below NBA talent. We have all been guilty of doing that from time to time. Obviously, any player who gets regular PT in the NBA is a pretty dang good basketball player in the big scheme of things. Matt Bonner would be unguardable at the Y.

Yes thanks Trace. Sorry Troy, was using scrub vernacularly (eg. main line of Hill-Mason-Udoka-Bonner-Duncan is made of amazing college players who are better athletes than 99% of the population but really only has one "starting caliber" player even if I'd love to have all of those guys on our bench... compare that team to one that features Parker and Gino).

You may have your own definition of "scrub" but it isn't necessarilly the accepted or correct one:

scrub 2 (skrb)

n.

1. A straggly, stunted tree or shrub.

2. A growth or tract of stunted vegetation.

3. An undersized or poorly developed domestic animal.

4. An undersized or insignificant person.

5. Sports A player not on the varsity or first team.

6. Australian Remote rural land; the bush.

.

Interesting thing about Chris Webber and Jerry Sloan, neither has a title and they were both very successful comparitively. I agree with you that Webber should have hit the post a lot more and played harder on D but I don't think using those two dudes as examples is the best way to drive home your point on how scrubs win games.

[Diesel]

This is a complete non issue. If you look at the number of games where our opponents had their starting lineup intact i would bet it is less than 19 games.

There have been only 2 games all year where we were missing two starters. In contrast i can think of 3 games (GS, Houston and the Clipps) where they were missing 3 starters.

A non-issue?

Is this diversion??

Why is it that all the Hawks "fanbase" refuse to deal with the issue of our injuries?

Uninjured we are 13-6.

The question is who, what, why, and where for those games...

Nonissuue????

It's the main issue.