Where's Diesel now

[thecampster]

Now where did all the "hawks are better without marvin" threads go Diesel? Still think we are better without Marvin.

[Swish]

campster,

Just let it goooooooooooooooo....

[tonegully]

The offense looks so better without Marvin..LOL.

[Diesel]

Now where did all the "hawks are better without marvin" threads go Diesel? Still think we are better without Marvin.

Just ask yourself...

Could we have beaten Boston in Boston had Marvin played?

If your answer is no, then just take a good dose of STFU and call me in the morning.

Don't confuse bad coaching with missing a clumsy player who makes very little impact. In fact, if Marvin plays, Flip doesn't get his 21.

[mrhonline]

Just ask yourself...

Could we have beaten Boston in Boston had Marvin played?

I asked myself, and the answer is yes:

http://www.nba.com/games/20081112/ATLBOS/boxscore.html

By your logic, the Hawks were better vs. Boston with Marvin. (It's flawed logic either way, but using YOUR logic, you are wrong).

[exodus]

Just ask yourself...

Could we have beaten Boston in Boston had Marvin played?

If your answer is no, then just take a good dose of STFU and call me in the morning.

Don't confuse bad coaching with missing a clumsy player who makes very little impact. In fact, if Marvin plays, Flip doesn't get his 21.

So if the Hawks win a game they don't miss Marvin and if they lose a game they don't miss Marvin. Diesel logic at it's finest.

[DrReality]

D's logic is dictated by who he is arguing with and what is the oppsosite position from what they are taking.

[High5]

I don't think Diesel watches the games unless Marvin is playing. He doesn't know any other player.

[Diesel]

So if the Hawks win a game they don't miss Marvin and if they lose a game they don't miss Marvin. Diesel logic at it's finest.

Uhm.. No.

My POV is that we don't miss Marvin's contribution win or lose. I don't think we have won more games without Marivn, I don't think we have lost more games without Marvin. I think Marvin is a non-factor. I do believe that our offense can be more efficient when Marvin is not in the game, however, you have to account for coaching also.

I think it was the rest of you who said we don't need Marvin from my statement.

I said that Marvin is better suited coming off the bench. That's not a statement of not need. Maybe we don't need Marvin starting.

[exodus]

Uhm.. No.

My POV is that we don't miss Marvin's contribution win or lose.

That is exactly what i said.

So if the Hawks win a game they don't miss Marvin and if they lose a game they don't miss Marvin.

There is no difference between the two statements yet somehow you think you are correcting me. You must be channeling Dolfan.

What happened to the Hawks offense being better without Marvin? They struggled to score against the Celtics without the DPOY (shooting 35.6) for the second time.

What happened to JJ being better at the 3?

Edited April 4, 2009 by exodus

[Diesel]

That is exactly what i said.

There is no difference between the two statements yet somehow you think you are correcting me. You must be channeling Dolfan.

What happened to the Hawks offense being better without Marvin? They struggled to score against the Celtics without the DPOY (shooting 35.6) for the second time.

What happened to JJ being better at the 3?

Maybe it's your logic that needs to be checked.

If you don't understand not missing a person's contribution, you should definitely be checked.

What makes me laugh is how you guys see us lose a game to the Celtics (in boston) a place that we have lost in for the last 8 meetings and you say..

Where's Diesel now that we've lost. Where's his commentary about Marvin? My commentary is... Marvin would not have made a difference. We would have still lost. Now if you are not going to address that point, then what are you talking about? I take it from your flaccid, non-commital on this argument that you know in your heart that Marvin would not have made a difference last night or in any of our losses... so what does Ex do...

Attack Attack attack...

Well, can't say I didn't call it.

Check the sig.

Edited April 4, 2009 by Diesel

[tonegully]

We almost beat Boston in Boston with Marvin playing and KG was playing. Without Marvin we got blown out in Boston this year.

[exodus]

Maybe it's your logic that needs to be checked.

If you don't understand not missing a person's contribution, you should definitely be checked.

What makes me laugh is how you guys see us lose a game to the Celtics (in boston) a place that we have lost in for the last 8 meetings and you say..

Where's Diesel now that we've lost. Where's his commentary about Marvin? My commentary is... Marvin would not have made a difference. We would have still lost. Now if you are not going to address that point, then what are you talking about? I take it from your flaccid, non-commital on this argument that you know in your heart that Marvin would not have made a difference last night or in any of our losses... so what does Ex do...

Attack Attack attack...

Well, can't say I didn't call it.

Check the sig.

Let's try this one more time. What is the difference between this statement

My POV is that we don't miss Marvin's contribution win or lose.

and this one?

So if the Hawks win a game they don't miss Marvin and if they lose a game they don't miss Marvin.

Edited April 4, 2009 by exodus

[Diesel]

We almost beat Boston in Boston with Marvin playing and KG was playing. Without Marvin we got blown out in Boston this year.

Did Marvin make the difference?

I think the difference was made with Joe and Bibby stepping up...

Hell, did Marvin even score more than Flip?

[Diesel]

Let's try this one more time. What is the difference between this statement

and this one?

There's no difference. What do you say all the time.. Reading is fundamental..

Go back and read. I was responding to your statement that what I had said was "illogical". After explaining to you how i get to that statement, I was summarizing.

Edited April 4, 2009 by Diesel

[exodus]

There's no difference. What do you say all the time.. Reading is fundamental..

Go back and read. I was responding to your statement that what I had said was "illogical". After explaining to you how i get to that statement, I was summarizing.

Actually what you said was

Uhm.. No.

Then you proceeded to "correct" by saying "My POV is that we don't miss Marvin's contribution win or lose". What possible reason would you have for repeating what i just said if you didn't think you were correcting me?

We played Boston twice this year with Marvin (and with KG playing) and have played Boston twice without Marvin (and with KG out). Which games did the Hawks look better in? Do you think Boston is a better team without KG?

Edited April 4, 2009 by exodus

[jhay610]

To use diesel's words, sounds like the excuse machine is cranking up.

[Peoriabird]

Did Marvin make the difference?

I think the difference was made with Joe and Bibby stepping up...

Hell, did Marvin even score more than Flip?

Boston games with Marvin and KG

In Boston 103-102 without Smoove and with Paul Pierce hitting a buzzer beater to win

In Atlanta 88-85 with JJ missing 2 free throws that would have tied the game in regulation

Boston Games without Marvin or KG

In Atlanta 99-93 where the Celtics led big and the Hawks made it close in the end

In Boston 104-92 where the results were never in doubt

So you tell me Diesel, is there a difference in those games?

[Diesel]

Boston games with Marvin and KG

In Boston 103-102 without Smoove and with Paul Pierce hitting a buzzer beater to win

In Atlanta 88-85 with JJ missing 2 free throws that would have tied the game in regulation

Boston Games without Marvin or KG

In Atlanta 99-93 where the Celtics led big and the Hawks made it close in the end

In Boston 104-92 where the results were never in doubt

So you tell me Diesel, is there a difference in those games?

In Boston, Joe and Bibby combined for 44 points.

Flip and Mo combined for 29 points.

Marvin scored 14 points.

Marvin was not the difference maker.

The truth is that over the season, Joe hasn't played as well.

Joe had 28 points in that game. It was our 7th game.

We played Boston since and Joe has yet to get over 15.

&

Flip scored 21 against Boston a few days ago.

Again, had Marvin played, Flip would have sat the bench. We really don't miss the Marvin experiment. When he comes back, he needs to come off the bench.

BTW... Who was Marvin the defensive stopper guarding that game?

Paul Pierce?

34 Points Paul Pierce?

Game winning Shot Paul Pierce?

15 of 16 from the line Paul Pierce?

56% shooting Paul Pierce?

Yeah, we don't miss Marvin's contribution. In fact, the only person who misses Marvin is Paul Pierce.

Edited April 5, 2009 by Diesel

[exodus]

In Boston, Joe and Bibby combined for 44 points.

Flip and Mo combined for 29 points.

Marvin scored 14 points.

Marvin was not the difference maker.

The truth is that over the season, Joe hasn't played as well.

Joe had 28 points in that game. It was our 7th game.

We played Boston since and Joe has yet to get over 15.

&

Flip scored 21 against Boston a few days ago.

Again, had Marvin played, Flip would have sat the bench. We really don't miss the Marvin experiment. When he comes back, he needs to come off the bench.

BTW... Who was Marvin the defensive stopper guarding that game?

Paul Pierce?

34 Points Paul Pierce?

Game winning Shot Paul Pierce?

15 of 16 from the line Paul Pierce?

56% shooting Paul Pierce?

Yeah, we don't miss Marvin's contribution. In fact, the only person who misses Marvin is Paul Pierce.

Did the Hawks play better against Boston with Marvin (and KG) or without Marvin (and without KG)? Do you think Boston is a better team without KG?

FYI over his last 5 games Mo is averaging 6.2 ppg shooting 28%.

14>6

Funny how you were so quick to say Joe plays better without Marvin but then you point to JJ's scoring against Boston as an excuse as to why the Hawks played better against Boston with Marvin.