Diesel's theory on offensive production.

[exodus]

When you watch the continuity get better without Marvin... Exactly...

When you watch us get beat by a better team with better coaching... Exactly.

Look back over the past few losses we had. How many of them can we attribute to Woody? It's been Woody's switching defense and Woody's bad subbing pattern that has been to blame for these losses. Like I said the other day, we've come a long way with Woody but if we're going to be a next echelon team then Woody is going to have to change the way he coaches... That's independent of Marvin.

Those "better teams" were missing their franchise players.

The Hawks have been losing games because of Woody for years. Woody didn't suddenly become a bad coach when Marvin got hurt.

[tonegully]

Please come back Marvin.

[Peoriabird]

Look back over the past few losses we had. How many of them can we attribute to Woody? It's been Woody's switching defense and Woody's bad subbing pattern that has been to blame for these losses. Like I said the other day, we've come a long way with Woody but if we're going to be a next echelon team then Woody is going to have to change the way he coaches... That's independent of Marvin.

So when the Hawks lose a close game to teams with their super stars with Marvin in the line up on the road with the same coach its Marvin's fault! But when they get blown out by the exact same teams without their super star at home, its the coach's fault! That makes sense in a Diesel kinda way! Not! :thumbsupsmileyanim:

[mattlanta]

Someone on the chat yesterday said that they heard Acie Law say that Marvin was out for the season... can anyone confirm or debunk this rumor?

[Diesel]

So when the Hawks lose a close game to teams with their super stars with Marvin in the line up on the road with the same coach its Marvin's fault! But when they get blown out by the exact same teams without their super star at home, its the coach's fault! That makes sense in a Diesel kinda way! Not! :thumbsupsmileyanim:

Point Blank

Do you believe if Marvin had played we would have won? Yes or NO?

[Peoriabird]

Point Blank

Do you believe if Marvin had played we would have won? Yes or NO?

My point is if you are going to use one way of determining his value, stick with it. Your point was he was not needed because the Hawks were winning without him. But the minute they started losing, your strategy changes. Now if anyone else had taken this approach, you would be all over them like a cheap suit by insulting their intelligence etc. But for some strange reason, you see nothing wrong when you do the same thing that you so harshly criticize other of doing! Please explain this to me!

[FrankWhite]

Did Marvin have any positive impact when we played Boston or Cleveland with him?

[Diesel]

My point is if you are going to use one way of determining his value, stick with it. Your point was he was not needed because the Hawks were winning without him. But the minute they started losing, your strategy changes. Now if anyone else had taken this approach, you would be all over them like a cheap suit by insulting their intelligence etc. But for some strange reason, you see nothing wrong when you do the same thing that you so harshly criticize other of doing! Please explain this to me!

So you have several hundred posts taking up for a guy you know would not have made a difference. Figures.

[Peoriabird]

So you have several hundred posts taking up for a guy you know would not have made a difference. Figures.

Does anybody know this guy? What is his deal?

[Diesel]

Does anybody know this guy? What is his deal?

It's you PBird. You're the one who is making a big ruckus about Marvin this and Marvin that... but when asked point blank... would Marvin have made a difference in any of our losses.... You start backing up like a stripper giving a lap dance!

You start talking about measuring sticks and evaluations. Point blank... would he have made a difference.

NO!

[Peoriabird]

You start talking about measuring sticks and evaluations. Point blank... would he have made a difference.

NO!

That"s just your opinion and I've stated my opinion on numerous occasions only to have you reject it so what the point of restating it. But I am curious about your logic though. If you start threads pointing out how the Hawks are better off without Marvin and your main evidence is their record without him, How do you explain how the Hawks have a worse record at home without Josh Smith, or without Josh Smith and Al Horford. Maybe you thought that Marvin was holding JJ back and in Marvin's absence, JJ would average over 30 ppg for the rest of the season. But whatever you thought would happen isn't happening so you went to a new plan to legitimize your beliefs! You bias is transparent Diesel and to further discuss anything logically with you is fruitless Maybe you can go and start a fight with Exodus since that is your main goal anyway but until you explain your change in strategy to me, this discussion is over!

[Diesel]

That"s just your opinion and I've stated my opinion on numerous occasions only to have you reject it so what the point of restating it. But I am curious about your logic though. If you start threads pointing out how the Hawks are better off without Marvin and your main evidence is their record without him, How do you explain how the Hawks have a worse record at home without Josh Smith, or without Josh Smith and Al Horford. Maybe you thought that Marvin was holding JJ back and in Marvin's absence, JJ would average over 30 ppg for the rest of the season. But whatever you thought would happen isn't happening so you went to a new plan to legitimize your beliefs! You bias is transparent Diesel and to further discuss anything logically with you is fruitless Maybe you can go and start a fight with Exodus since that is your main goal anyway but until you explain your change in strategy to me, this discussion is over!

My logic.

OK, I'll play.

When I watched the Hawks play (and I wasn't the only one) without Marvin durnig our 8 game win streak. It was not the fact that we were winning. It was the confidence and the chemistry we showed while we were winning. We blew a team (PTL) out and the game was over Early. We had a lot of confidence and chemistry.

My point was... We have better chemistry without Marvin. IN fact, I went so far as to say that WE DIDN'T LOSE ANYTHING WITHOUT MARVIN.

Now to continue your game. When Smoove or Horf didn't play of course our record would be worse at home. Sheez, we couldn't even beat NJ. IN fact we suffered because we couldn't match up with other teams bigs. Rookie Brook Lopez had a field day with us when Josh wasn't here.

My point is not saying that we are better off without Marvin and with nothing in return. My ponit is that MAYBE MARVIN SHOULD PLAY OFF THE BENCH.

Honestly, PBird... if your mama could come in and get us 8 points, 4 rebounds with no turnovers or dumb fouls, she should be playing for us too... BUT NOT AS A STARTER.

My feelings about Marvin as a starter is that our chemistry is better without him. He might improve coming off the bench. Just like he played at UNC.

So now... let's question your logic.

Why wouldn't you want Marvin coming off the bench if our team has better chemistry without him?

He still gets to play and contribute.

Hell, he probably will be the feature guy off the bench.

What is your problem with Marvin off the bench?

I'll will wait to see you evade this question like you did the other.

[Peoriabird]

My logic.

OK, I'll play.

When I watched the Hawks play (and I wasn't the only one) without Marvin durnig our 8 game win streak. It was not the fact that we were winning. It was the confidence and the chemistry we showed while we were winning. We blew a team (PTL) out and the game was over Early. We had a lot of confidence and chemistry.

My point was... We have better chemistry without Marvin. IN fact, I went so far as to say that WE DIDN'T LOSE ANYTHING WITHOUT MARVIN.

Did you miss the beginning of the season or something? We looked much better during that streak than during the 6 game winning streak without Marvin because not all of those games were at home. We had another Home winning streak where we looked just as good in December with Marvin. So yes your logic continues to be faulty. The Hawk have been and will continue to be a streaky team regardless of who is in the line up until their players mature. But please just do me one favor. Stop making up stuff to fit your agenda and then we can more effectively communicate on this Message board!

[HamHawk]

Too many variables for such an endless argument over one player. . . . .and not even our all star. I know, I know, and I get what you guys are getting at. But do you really think you can say with any degree of certainty that he was or was not the difference maker? I just can't follow that. . .

Edited April 5, 2009 by HamHawk

[Highpozt2]

The Benefits of Marvin coming off the bench.

1. JJ can play the Sf.
   
2. Acie or Flip can play more time with Bibby and JJ on the court.
   
3. Marvin can bring energy to the reserves
   
4. Marvin can work on his aggressiveness off the bench.
   
5. It can be just like playing at UNC for Marvin... Roy knew something.
   
6. The high post is open for Horf and Smoove to work.
   

When I first saw JJ at SF I said that makes no since, then I thought JJ is 6'8" and as good as he is he has a very hard time staying in front of quicker guards. The fact is Bibby and JJ are good, but relatively slow just as Tony Parker. I am still holding a flicker of hope that Acie will be able to be effective in the rotation. He appears to be quicker defender at the 1 position but of course he will remain behind Bibby and Flip