Here's what we need to discuss and dissect.

[Diesel]

Translated - the team as put together today is flawed.

I think we all knew that going into this season.

Before you translate it, can we look at the numbers? Who did we play during those 19 games. Who did they have playing. I seem to recall us playing a healthy hornet and a healthy magic team and winning (away games at that). What about the rest? What about the 6 losses?

[exodus]

Why is it Diesel and friends refuse to deal with the issue of opponents injuries?

corrected

[Diesel]

corrected

Well, (speaking for myself) I'm not trying to determine if the other team suffered from bad luck.

I'm trying to determine what is deficient for the Hawks. I think looking at our team when we have a full compliment of players is a much better way of doing that than by looking at our team with Zaza at C or Mo at SG.

If you didn't have an agenda, you'd be able to understand that.

[exodus]

Well, (speaking for myself) I'm not trying to determine if the other team suffered from bad luck.

I'm trying to determine what is deficient for the Hawks. I think looking at our team when we have a full compliment of players is a much better way of doing that than by looking at our team with Zaza at C or Mo at SG.

If you didn't have an agenda, you'd be able to understand that.

We are deficient in terms of depth, frontcourt size and backcourt speed. Of course we knew all of that before the season.

[macdaddy]

So I guess the reason we play with no energy and don't give effort (as the players say) is that some of our guys are injured? Are the guys on the floor depressed about the other's injuries?

[TroyMcClure]

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.

Good stuff, dog! I'm just giving you a hard time. I think we see things in a similar light. As far as the example, I think it is apt. Sloan is remembered as a mean, tough sg-sf, who could defend anyone. He is also one of the greatest coaches in the history of the game. What will Webber be remembered for? That dunk on Sir Charles... maybe his post entry passes?... Lying to a federal grand jury?... Being accused of sexual assault? Dude was as soft as they come. I hear him use that term and type of language often. He got 20 and 10, but never understood the game or had a true desire to win a title. Very selfish, mediocre basketball player. Dollar for dollar, I'll take what a Matt Bonner, as Traceman refered to, gives you, over what a Webber type gives you, any day of the week.

Sloan coached his team to back to back finals appearances. If not for the greatest player ever and arguably the greatest coach ever, he would have had 2 titles. Doesn't mean much to me that he didn't win it. Does the example seem a bit more in perspective now? Sloan and Webber are only similar in that they both played in the NBA.

[AHF]

Good stuff, dog! I'm just giving you a hard time. I think we see things in a similar light. As far as the example, I think it is apt. Sloan is remembered as a mean, tough sg-sf, who could defend anyone. He is also one of the greatest coaches in the history of the game. What will Webber be remembered for? That dunk on Sir Charles... maybe his post entry passes?... Lying to a federal grand jury?... Being accused of sexual assault?

Probably the single thing he will be remembered for more than anything else is the boneheaded timeout he called while at Michigan. Every time someone screws that up now, Webber gets remembered.

[Diesel]

So I guess the reason we play with no energy and don't give effort (as the players say) is that some of our guys are injured? Are the guys on the floor depressed about the other's injuries?

Hell, could be.

The point is that unlike a lot of the modern day clubs, we actually have a team and it seems that they are interdependent on one another to be successful. i.e. We have no true superstar. That being the case, it's very difficult to say what losing one major cog does to our team.

However, the fact that we have played 60% of our games with at least one of our major cog missing and we still have a winning record is astounding. Morever, just a mere guess at what we need without considering how we play when everybody is here is so uneffective. " Hell, we need a big simply because we don't have a 7 footer?" Well what happens when we have all of our players healthy?

I invite you to game 1 on the season. Everybody healthy (we were actually missing Marvin but)...

We outrebounded D. Howard and the Magic 53 to 45. We shot 44% from the field despite only hitting 5 3pters (25%). Do you look at this performance and say "wow, that Atlanta team really needs a big"? Or do you say, "That Atlanta team handled the Magic." Pessimist speak up.

I think the real change in the season may have happened when Smoove first got hurt. Since that point, he has been playing tentatively. Smoove hasn't been right since game 6. Our team hasn't been completely healthy since game 6.

So don't guess with a weak basis (Zaza playing C)... however, look at our games with everybody healthy and let's examine them.

[macdaddy]

Hell, could be.

The point is that unlike a lot of the modern day clubs, we actually have a team and it seems that they are interdependent on one another to be successful. i.e. We have no true superstar. That being the case, it's very difficult to say what losing one major cog does to our team.

However, the fact that we have played 60% of our games with at least one of our major cog missing and we still have a winning record is astounding. Morever, just a mere guess at what we need without considering how we play when everybody is here is so uneffective. " Hell, we need a big simply because we don't have a 7 footer?" Well what happens when we have all of our players healthy?

I invite you to game 1 on the season. Everybody healthy (we were actually missing Marvin but)...

We outrebounded D. Howard and the Magic 53 to 45. We shot 44% from the field despite only hitting 5 3pters (25%). Do you look at this performance and say "wow, that Atlanta team really needs a big"? Or do you say, "That Atlanta team handled the Magic." Pessimist speak up.

I think the real change in the season may have happened when Smoove first got hurt. Since that point, he has been playing tentatively. Smoove hasn't been right since game 6. Our team hasn't been completely healthy since game 6.

So don't guess with a weak basis (Zaza playing C)... however, look at our games with everybody healthy and let's examine them.

Now I'm starting to think we are arguing the same case. The truth is I think we are a good team and really just blame the coach for letting them play lazy. I blame the players too but its his job to kick their butt. So I think we could be deeper I'm not crazy about trading major pieces.

Interestingly I saw this in today's article

The Hawks’ reserves have played far better than many expected this season. Atlanta has compiled a 17-13 record in games without Johnson, Horford, Josh Smith and Marvin Williams.

So I'm not sure what all this means other than we have won healthy and hurt. But we have not played that well for the last month+ and I think everyone can admit that. The truth is I don't think anyone is going anywhere other than guys who aren't playing anyway. And there's no way Woody gets fired at this point. The team is not traditional but its proven it can be successful. I just think Woody isn't playing to our strenghs and I don't have confidence he will. I can just hope the players figure it out themselves.

[crimedog]

Probably the single thing he will be remembered for more than anything else is the boneheaded timeout he called while at Michigan. Every time someone screws that up now, Webber gets remembered.

That was the only time in my life I've seen my dad throw something at the TV.

[crimedog]

Dollar for dollar, I'll take what a Matt Bonner, as Traceman refered to, gives you, over what a Webber type gives you, any day of the week.

Sloan coached his team to back to back finals appearances. If not for the greatest player ever and arguably the greatest coach ever, he would have had 2 titles. Doesn't mean much to me that he didn't win it. Does the example seem a bit more in perspective now? Sloan and Webber are only similar in that they both played in the NBA.

You can say if not for some of the most blatantly terrible reffing, the same GOAT coach, and the MDE, Webber would also have a title while being the best player on the team... not justa coach.

As far as taking Bonner over Webber because Webber didn't try as hard as he could? Not for me. I'm not a big Webber fan, I'd take contemporaries like Dirk and KG over him 8 days a week. On the other hand, once he was in the right system he got results and you can't argue with results. Matt Bonner? Well he's a hard working guy and all, but really its incomparable. You need a guy like Webber on your team for Bonner to be worth anything.

[TroyMcClure]

You can say if not for some of the most blatantly terrible reffing, the same GOAT coach, and the MDE, Webber would also have a title while being the best player on the team... not justa coach.

You need a guy like Webber on your team for Bonner to be worth anything.

You can say if not for some of the most blatantly terrible reffing, the same GOAT coach, and the MDE, Webber would also have a title while being the best player on the team... not justa coach.

When did Webber get to the Finals? So, no, I can't say that. He could have gotten there if he was half the man Vlade Divac was. Much easier to throw up bricks and try to make pretty back door passes in the princeton offense.

The Kings didn't get screwed. They did it to themselves. In large part, due to Webber, imo. You seem to be missing the point. No one needs Webber types. What did he win? Ask his college teammates if they respect him. All of their banners are torn down because of him. He's, as I said, a selfish, very mediocre basketball player. He could never shoot, but did so often. And he never got a rebound that meant anything. You really need to be in the paint for that to happen, though.

Webber types are a cancer. Seriously, who wants a slow footed big man with no ability or desire to defend, who can't shoot at all, but does so anyway? He was just a joke of a player. Not the kind of guy I'd go to war with. You can tell guys who are competitors, that would be good no matter their size. Webber was tall. That's it. Take away 4 or 5 inches. Make him 6'8". Dude would not have sniffed an NBA court. No competitive desire (as a team member). It was always all about Webber.

I'm sure someone once said "You need a J.R. Rider for Ty Corbin to be anything". See what I mean? Just because you shoot or handle the ball a lot, doesn't mean you should have.

Edited February 10, 2009 by TroyMcClure

[crimedog]

When did Webber get to the Finals? So, no, I can't say that. He could have gotten there if he was half the man Vlade Divac was. Much easier to throw up bricks and try to make pretty back door passes in the princeton offense.

The Kings didn't get screwed. They did it to themselves. In large part, due to Webber, imo. You seem to be missing the point. No one needs Webber types. What did he win? Ask his college teammates if they respect him. All of their banners are torn down because of him. He's, as I said, a selfish, very mediocre basketball player. He could never shoot, but did so often. And he never got a rebound that meant anything. You really need to be in the paint for that to happen, though.

Webber types are a cancer. Seriously, who wants a slow footed big man with no ability or desire to defend, who can't shoot at all, but does so anyway? He was just a joke of a player. Not the kind of guy I'd go to war with. You can tell guys who are competitors, that would be good no matter their size. Webber was tall. That's it. Take away 4 or 5 inches. Make him 6'8". Dude would not have sniffed an NBA court. No competitive desire (as a team member). It was always all about Webber.

I'm sure someone once said "You need a J.R. Rider for Ty Corbin to be anything". See what I mean? Just because you shoot or handle the ball a lot, doesn't mean you should have.

Ha, I judge teams by results. Chris Webber was talented, but not as talented as a the all-time greats that win multiple titles. Webber didn't get enough out of his talent on the whole of his career, but he did win. He certainly wasn't a Marbury-esque loser... and again, he has as many titles as Malone, Stockton, and Sloan combined... you know? They lost to MJ, OK well Webber lost to Shaq.

You say you'd take Bonner over Webber dollar for dollar? What the hell does that even mean? MJ had a 33 million dollar contract in 97', "dollar for dollar" I'd take Flip Murray over that because if you made Flip Murray 19 times better, he'd be better than MJ. Unfortunately that means absolutely nothing.

Again, I'm not the biggest fan of Webber but the most used definition of scrub is what Trace said, which is a guy with average or below average ability. Chris Webber wasn't that and he wasn't a loser, he led teams far better than what a guy like Joe Johnson has ever led.

Webber a champ? Obviously not. Choker? Probably. Underachiever? Possibly. Scrub? Not unless you want to impose your own definition on everybody else but I'm not sure that gives you a carte blanche for sanctimoniousness.

Edited February 10, 2009 by crimedog

[TroyMcClure]

Ha, I judge teams by results. Chris Webber was talented, but not as talented as a the all-time greats that win multiple titles. Webber didn't get enough out of his talent on the whole of his career, but he did win. He certainly wasn't a Marbury-esque loser... and again, he has as many titles as Malone, Stockton, and Sloan combined... you know? They lost to MJ, OK well Webber lost to Shaq.

You say you'd take Bonner over Webber dollar for dollar? What the hell does that even mean? MJ had a 33 million dollar contract in 97', "dollar for dollar" I'd take Flip Murray over that because if you made Flip Murray 19 times better, he'd be better than MJ. Unfortunately that means absolutely nothing.

Again, I'm not the biggest fan of Webber but the most used definition of scrub is what Trace said, which is a guy with average or below average ability. Chris Webber wasn't that and he wasn't a loser, he led teams far better than what a guy like Joe Johnson has ever led.

Webber a champ? Obviously not. Choker? Probably. Underachiever? Possibly. Scrub? Not unless you want to impose your own definition on everybody else but I'm not sure that gives you a carte blanche for sanctimoniousness.

Dollar for dollar means what it says. Personally, I'd take a Zaza. This isn't a video game. It's real life. Stats aren't everything. Reef was one of the dumbest players I've ever seen. He continually hurt his team. But he got 20 and 10. Who cares if a stupid coach and Gm let a mediocre player take shots he shouldn't be taking and make decisions that he shouldn't be making? Webber hurt his team on the court and against the salary cap. The Kings are talking about moving again, only a few years removed from Webber. Obviously, they made the wrong choice hitching their wagon to him. Employing quality character people like Webber can really help the franchise, you know?

Whose talking about imposing? It's my opinion. Which is well formed, I might add. Webber had averaga ability in my mind. He was just tall... and could dribble a little. That was like a new thing then. Remember?

By the way, the Warriors dumped him, he went to Washington and complained and sucked. Then he went to the Kings, where... he lost in the FIRST round 4 times! Made it to the CONFERENCE finals once. Lost because he was soft.. and thankfully he's done. Unfortunately, we are forced to hear his opinion nightly now. His record really isn't impressive.

The Kings success had a whole lot more to do with Adelman, Turkgolu, Divac and Bibby than it did with Webber. That team could have done some things if Webber played like a man. He didn't.

My whole point is guys that think like Webber epitomize what is wrong with the game.