Billy Knight haters

[Sasquatch]

Billy Knight = Matt Millen...

7

Hawks made the playoffs last year. Will make the playoffs this year with home court in the first round. Billy left the team better than he found it: talent, character, and cap!

When is the last time Detroit Lions made the playoffs.

Ridiculous comparison. Pure hate.

Great job Billy!

[HawkItus]

Pete Babcock

and honestly Billy did get judged on the team he assembled. With complete control he hired Mike Woodson and drafted his players. That team won 13, 26, 28, and 37 games. That was his team. He decided to walk away because he couldn't get a longer deal and permission to fire Woodson.

[exodus]

3? Let's not leave Memphis out of this thread.

LOL I wont even go there.

The following are the BK draft standards for each year according to sturt.

2004 "least likely to fail" Of course sturt fails to recognize the contradiction of this standard. After all BK and the owners are supposed to be taking the long term view and since there were only 2 players under contract at that time there is only one standard that would make sense, the BPA standard.

sturt also fails to explain how a slow, skinny SG who shoots from his chin would be the least likely to fail given the scarcity of similar players who were successful.

2005 "BPA Best Potential Player" In order for this standard to make sense the perceived gap in long range potential between Marvin and Paul/Deron would have to be big enough to compensate for facts that;

a) the Hawks had a bucket of wings on the roster already and

b) Paul/Deron played a much more important position

c) Paul/Deron actually filled a need.

I dont remember any of the national pundits at that time who felt that way, even the ones who had Marvin at the top of their draft board. Ford had Marvin at the top of his but still said that for us Paul would be the better pick. yet somehow sturt actually believes that the BPA standard was the correct one in 2005, but not 2004. L O L

2006 "Fill a need" This was the logic used to pick Shelden. After all a team that is successful just needs to fill the holes on their roster.

Problem is that the Hawks weren't a good team. They were a 30 win team. Not only that Shelden was the opposit of the BK prototype long/athletic player.

But of course the logic makes perfect sense according to sturt even though was boo'd at Phillips and mocked nationwide. surely BK knew better than everyone else and it is just a wild coincidence that Shelden has been a complete bust.

[TheTrueSiete]

Hawks made the playoffs last year. Will make the playoffs this year with home court in the first round. Billy left the team better than he found it: talent, character, and cap!

When is the last time Detroit Lions made the playoffs.

Ridiculous comparison. Pure hate.

Great job Billy!

Billy drafted wing after wing after wing... Matt drafted receiver after receiver after receiver... Easy comparison... Pure truth...

7

[Sasquatch]

Steve Kerr (and Sarver before him, even when the team was winning 60 a year people were talking about how stupid they were for selling picks)

Donny Walsh

Bickerstaff

Paxson

Every GM in the league gets critical coverage from the local media and fans - go on realgm, listen to sports radio from other cities.

This guy is trying to pull a fast one!

We will start with Steve Kerr. I peeped his "tenure".

Under his "leadership". That team has gone from winning 61 games a couple of years ago to winning 37 games this year and STRAIGHT OUT OF THE PLAYOFFS. And complicating it by firing a good coach. To suggest that this compares to Billy is nuts! Billy Knights team got BETTER ever year. Not worse.

I think it is fair to say that Steve Kerr is being judged by the failure of his team. This is a totally different standard than what was applied to Billy.

Great job Billy!

I love your team!

[exodus]

Anything other than saying Billy failed is bogus. Any attempt to call anything else fair and balanced is on par with Fox News being fair and balanced.

Ironically enough i seem to recall a spirited defense of Fox News by sturt in the past. I avoid political discussions here but i do think it is kind of funny you say that.

[Sasquatch]

Billy drafted wing after wing after wing... Matt drafted receiver after receiver after receiver... Easy comparison... Pure truth...

7

Billy's "wings" made the playoffs. Matt's receivers did not.

Case closed.

Great job Billy!

I love your team!

[Sasquatch]

Pete Babcock

and honestly Billy did get judged on the team he assembled. With complete control he hired Mike Woodson and drafted his players. That team won 13, 26, 28, and 37 games. That was his team. He decided to walk away because he couldn't get a longer deal and permission to fire Woodson.

Crazy.

Billy's team got better every year. They made the playoffs last year and took the nba champs to game 7. They have a shot at 50 this year.

They have: great talent, oustanding youth, good character, good cap health.

Great job Billy!

[exodus]

Crazy.

Billy's team got better every year. They made the playoffs last year and took the nba champs to game 7. They have a shot at 50 this year.

They have: great talent, oustanding youth, good character, good cap health.

Great job Billy!

No they didn't get better every year. He inherited a mediocre, overpaid team and blew it up. He didn't inherit a 13 win team, he created it.

I don't even have a problem with this part of his plan but what you are saying is flat out wrong.

Also it isn't hard to improve when you start at 13 wins.

[Sasquatch]

No they didn't get better every year. He inherited a mediocre, overpaid team and blew it up. He didn't inherit a 13 win team, he created it.

I don't even have a problem with this part of his plan but what you are saying is flat out wrong.

Also it isn't hard to improve when you start at 13 wins.

Name the General Managers judged according to the standard you have for Billy. Nobody has cited one case.

Case closed.

The Hawks are good! I'm loving it!

Great job Billy.

BTW. I will be certainly tracking every player that gets picked after every one of Sund's picks.

[DrReality]

Billy Knight = Matt Millen...

7

Good one.

[TheTrueSiete]

Billy's "wings" made the playoffs. Matt's receivers did not.

Case closed.

Great job Billy!

I love your team!

Matt just got fired...

Therefore that "case" is still open... By the way, Sund's acquisitions made us a better playoff team...

7

Edited March 20, 2009 by TheTrueSiete

[exodus]

Name the General Managers judged according to the standard you have for Billy. Nobody has cited one case.

Case closed.

The Hawks are good! I'm loving it!

Great job Billy.

BTW. I will be certainly tracking every player that gets picked after every one of Sund's picks.

I already pointed out John Nash who got fired for his draft screwups. He was judged by the same standard by the fans although maybe not by ownership. After all BK left of his own free will.

Do you really think that saying "Great job Billy" in every post is helping your argument?

:jeer:

[Plainview1981]

Ironically enough i seem to recall a spirited defense of Fox News by sturt in the past. I avoid political discussions here but i do think it is kind of funny you say that.

I don't like CNN either... But some of those people on that news channel drive me nuts. They got alot of loud mouths.

[TheTrueSiete]

I already pointed out John Nash who got fired for his draft screwups. He was judged by the same standard by the fans although maybe not by ownership. After all BK left of his own free will.

Do you really think that saying "Great job Billy" in every post is helping your argument?

:jeer:

What's funny is I said Matt Millen... Millen's drafts were based off "talent" instead of need, which is precisely what Knight did... So, by his assumptions, if Detroit makes it to the playoffs next year everyone should praise Millen?

:no-no:

7

[sturt]

LOL I wont even go there.

The following are the BK draft standards for each year according to sturt.

2004 "least likely to fail" Of course sturt fails to recognize the contradiction of this standard. After all BK and the owners are supposed to be taking the long term view and since there were only 2 players under contract at that time there is only one standard that would make sense, the BPA standard.

sturt also fails to explain how a slow, skinny SG who shoots from his chin would be the least likely to fail given the scarcity of similar players who were successful.

2005 "BPA Best Potential Player" In order for this standard to make sense the perceived gap in long range potential between Marvin and Paul/Deron would have to be big enough to compensate for facts that;

a) the Hawks had a bucket of wings on the roster already and

b) Paul/Deron played a much more important position

c) Paul/Deron actually filled a need.

I dont remember any of the national pundits at that time who felt that way, even the ones who had Marvin at the top of their draft board. Ford had Marvin at the top of his but still said that for us Paul would be the better pick. yet somehow sturt actually believes that the BPA standard was the correct one in 2005, but not 2004. L O L

2006 "Fill a need" This was the logic used to pick Shelden. After all a team that is successful just needs to fill the holes on their roster.

Problem is that the Hawks weren't a good team. They were a 30 win team. Not only that Shelden was the opposit of the BK prototype long/athletic player.

But of course the logic makes perfect sense according to sturt even though was boo'd at Phillips and mocked nationwide. surely BK knew better than everyone else and it is just a wild coincidence that Shelden has been a complete bust.

Nice, though natually inaccurately worded summary.

Unlike ex, I don't really have time to do this a dozen times a day, so I'm not going to get sucked into it.

Suffice it to say that Billy had some criteria for what he was looking for.

One was not making trades that might have landed temporary success at the expense of draft picks, even if it meant, yes, losing for awhile. Another was to take the best combination of BPA (best player available) and LLB (least likely bust) in the draft. And another was to draft long guys who could create match-up problems.

- Childress was the least likely bust among three players who, if internet writers are to be believed, were generally close in talent. Look it up. And picking up Smoove didn't work out too badly either.

- Williams also was the least likely bust. There were concerns that Deron might be too slow. There were concerns that Paul might be too small. The concerns about Williams were only that he probably would not develop his game fully for a few years. Fortunately, he also was most widely reputed to have a high ceiling. (In fact, no one likes to mention it now, but there were bou coup "draft experts" who were fooled by Paul.)

- Having obtained enough long players, the strategy--as deeply mysterious and complex as this may seem--evolved that summer from building the talent base to fillilng holes, as supported by the fact that Speedy was also signed. Shelden was, indeed a reach, but the bigger sin was that word got out that Shelden was the Hawks' target, which seriously limited what BK could do.

And, (laughing) yes, it does make sense to fill holes when you have such a young core who, it only stands to reason, were far from their peak at 30 wins.

I know this really really disturbs you, ex. And I give you credit for recognizing that it should disturb you. For all of your crap that essentially endorses a win-now mentality, the painfully slow but rewarding development plan that BK began and for the most part executed is justifed today... and with every win, I know a part of you rejoices and a part of you cringes.

This team, if kept together, is going to be particularly good for several seasons, not unlike the story of the Mavs' development during Sund's years there.

I'm done.

[sturt]

So, by his assumptions, if Detroit makes it to the playoffs next year everyone should praise Millen?

I'll play your game, putting aside the fact that Detroit can't even begin to claim that they've gotten better each season.

If Detroit makes it to the playoffs next year with players that Millen obtained, what would that tell you?

That Millen was wrong about the players obtained? Or, that Millen sucked at choosing coaches? Or... that he should have chosen better uniforms or a better place for training camp or wasn't choosing the most effective performance-enhancing supplments?

You're a smart guy. What conclusion would you reach?

I do my best to set you straight, but so far it ain't working. There's a point where you have to think it through cause I can't do that part for you.

[exodus]

Childress was the least likely bust among three players who, if internet writers are to be believed, were generally close in talent. Look it up. And picking up Smoove didn't work out too badly either.

You say i mischaracterized your position. How so, because i used the word "fail" instead of "bust". Is that how i "inaccurately worded" your position?

As usual you give no logic reason why the draft criteria in 2004 was "least likely to bust". It is the correct criteria because you say so. typical sturt.

Given that BK and the owners had, in your words, a "long term view" there was absolutely no reason not to take the BPA in 2004 given that all 3 of the players under consideration were wings and the fact that the Hawks had so few players under contract.

You also can't give any current successful players whose game resembles Childress yet you confidently dub him "least likely to bust". again typical sturt.

- Williams also was the least likely bust. There were concerns that Deron might be too slow. There were concerns that Paul might be too small. The concerns about Williams were only that he probably would not develop his game fully for a few years. Fortunately, he also was most widely reputed to have a high ceiling. (In fact, no one likes to mention it now, but there were bou coup "draft experts" who were fooled by Paul.)

LOL now you have completely changed your tune, i guess in an effort to say that i mischaracterized your position. Bravo. Of course i could just call you a liar but there is no fun in that.

In fact Marvin was drafted because he was seen as potentially the best player several years down the road. There was never any mention of him being the least likely to be a bust and in fact this is the first time you have ever spoke of him being such.

Marvin was just a freshman bench player while Paul and Deron were seasoned, successful college performers. If anything Marvin was seen as more likely to bust than those two.

Any concerns about Deron's speed were erased at the combined and Paul measured 6' barefoot which is taller than expected. Paul was actually picked as most likely to be ROY in that draft class.

Having obtained enough long players, the strategy-

Enough long players? They are still undersized inside even after drafting Horford who is longer and has far more athleticism than Shelden.

as deeply mysterious and complex as this may seem--evolved that summer from building the talent base to fillilng holes, as supported by the fact that Speedy was also signed. Shelden was, indeed a reach, but the bigger sin was that word got out that Shelden was the Hawks' target, which seriously limited what BK could do.

These moves were not remotely mysterious to me. They were just flat out dumb. They didn't fit BK's plan at all and, not coincidentally, turned out to be two of his biggest errors.

I don't see what hole Shelden could really fill given that his standing reach is 4" shorter than Marvins. It does look like Shelden could make NBA history though. he could be the first top 10 pick who hasn't had their option picked up for the last year of their rookie contract.

If anything Roy was the prototypical BK player, versatile enough to play multiple positions and having a 40" vertical.

The Hawks current success has been without Childress, Shelden and Speedy. Put one of Paul/ Deron/Roy on this team and things look completely different.

This team, if kept together, is going to be particularly good for several seasons, not unlike the story of the Mavs' development during Sund's years there.

Bibby and Flip are both UFA's and both have had huge years. Keeping the team together is easier said than done especially with a smaller cap going forward, Marvin and Horford to resign and a new CBA looming.

By all means keep living your delusion about BK being a good GM. What is he doing now? Why hasn't he been hired by someone else?

[sturt]

I don't like CNN either... But some of those people on that news channel drive me nuts. They got alot of loud mouths.

The "spirited defense" was in the point that you suggest Hotlanta... essentially that two cable networks lean left and one leans right, and that, at least Roger Ailes (Fox) acknowledges that his network is what it is.

Check that... we just recently learned that even Ted Turner himself acknowledged, albeit inadvertently, that he regarded CNN as being left of center (... "inadvertent" because he was making a statement about the beginning of Headline News and his thoughts that maybe that network would be better positioned as a counterbalance politically to CNN).

Every network has loud mouths because conflict sells. It's the essence of all entertainment. We watch Survivor to see people fight each other. We watch 24 to see people fight each other. Sunday night's Apprentice is being marketed as "Dennis Rodman's Meltdown," and will probably get the best ratings for the night as a result. The news obviously is no different.

All I can say is that I miss you, Tim Russert.

[sturt]

blah blah etc etc

Unlike ex, I don't really have time to do this a dozen times a day, so I'm not going to get sucked into it...

I know this really really disturbs you, ex. And I give you credit for recognizing that it should disturb you. For all of your crap that essentially endorses a win-now mentality, the painfully slow but rewarding development plan that BK began and for the most part executed is justifed today... and with every win, I know a part of you rejoices and a part of you cringes.