Where's Diesel now

[Peoriabird]

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.

Diesel is so amazing! I hope that all of his so called Diesel supporters can once and for all see him for the fraud he is! You have been exposed Diesel plain and simple. Your credibility on this board should be zero at this point

[bronnt]

Wait, JJ doesn't automatically become better when Marvin isn't on the floor?

:no-no:

[jhay610]

When Joe was playing well w/o Marvin it was because he was benefiting from better "chemistry." Now he is to blame because he isn't playing the same way against Boston as he was when Marvin was in the lineup (which by that same logic would imply that the "chemistry" is not as good now against Boston as it was when Marvin was playing).

This argument is absurd. When the Hawks win, its because they are a better team without Marvin; when they lose, Marvin wouldn't have helped anyway. You can't have it both ways.

[HamHawk]

The grass is always greener. . . .. , but have you ever turned grass over? It's brown because it's dirty. Too many factors from too many angles to say that Marvin has affect for sure one way or the other.

[Diesel]

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.

Did the Hawks play better? Sure, the score was tighter... however, that's not because of Marvin.

In fact, if that's your story, you've done a very poor job of proving it. Moreover, there's a stronger case that I brought up that we probably could have won early in the year if Marvin wasn't the defensive player on Pierce. Pierce went to the line 16 times in that game and hit the game winner while shooting 57% and hitting 34 points. I guess you want to blame Solo for that?

Point is that over the course of the season, many different dynamics happen. We all have talked about how tired Joe looks these days. In fact, you can probably chart Joe's performance overall versus how many breaks he gets in the season. Since we've had Joe, down the stretch of the season, we've played poorly. Even last year... we backed into the playoffs...

That's just one varible.

There's also injury and the effect that injury has had on Woody's rotation.

However, with all those things to consider, Marvin still is not the one to credit for our play earlier this year... If you believe he is.. Prove it.

[Diesel]

The grass is always greener. . . .. , but have you ever turned grass over? It's brown because it's dirty. Too many factors from too many angles to say that Marvin has affect for sure one way or the other.

Go back and check the dialogue.

From My part, I never said that we were winning because we didn't have Marvin.

I said we were winning and we didn't MISS Marvin.

I also said that our offensive chemistry looked better without Marvin and that Marvin should come of the bench. The chemistry statement may be up for question, however, I don't think anyone here can make a claim that the games that we have lost, we would have won if Marivn were playing. Marvin is just a non-factor.

[exodus]

Go back and check the dialogue.

From My part, I never said that we were winning because we didn't have Marvin.

I said we were winning and we didn't MISS Marvin.

I also said that our offensive chemistry looked better without Marvin and that Marvin should come of the bench. The chemistry statement may be up for question, however, I don't think anyone here can make a claim that the games that we have lost, we would have won if Marivn were playing. Marvin is just a non-factor.

Actually what you said is that JJ and Smith elevated their games with Marvin out. Where is that elevator now?

You said the offense flowed much better, that our chemistry and ball movement was better without Marvin. Where is that chemistry now?

Basically you are saying that no matter what happens in the games the Hawks don't need marvin (if the Hawks win or lose they don't miss marvin, that is the Diesel POV). The outcome of the game and the way the Hawks played have no relevance.

However it wasn't long ago that the outcome of the games did matter. You were so quick to proclaim that the JJ was better at the 3 and the offense had much better chemistry because of what you saw in the games.

the bottom line is that the outcome of the games and the way the Hawks play only have relevance when they fit your Marvin hating agenda.

[Diesel]

Basically you are saying that no matter what happens in the games the Hawks don't need marvin (if the Hawks win or lose they don't miss marvin, that is the Diesel POV). The outcome of the game and the way the Hawks played have no relevance.

Nope, I said and I still stand by that we don't NEED MARVIN STARTING... I think he'd be great coming off the bench.

So I pose the question to you that PBird has yet to answer.

Why are you so against Marvin coming off the bench?

I would be delighted to see you attempt to answer this, but I doubt that you will.

[exodus]

Nope, I said and I still stand by that we don't NEED MARVIN STARTING... I think he'd be great coming off the bench.

So I pose the question to you that PBird has yet to answer.

Why are you so against Marvin coming off the bench?

I would be delighted to see you attempt to answer this, but I doubt that you will.

So now you are trying to change the subject. Here is your direct quote.

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.

No matter what the outcome of the game is, we don't miss Marvin. The outcome of the actual games is irrelevant to you..... unless of course it fits your agenda.

if you happen to like the outcome of the game then you will used it to say JJ is better at the 3, the chemistry is better without Marvin blah blah blah.

Trying to change the subject isn't going to change the fact that the outcome of the game only matters to you if it fits you agenda.

If you want to know why i want Marvin to start just look at Mo's numbers. he scores more coming off the bench. His lack of scoring is causing problems for the Hawks early in games, especially with JJ struggling. Mo can't create off the dribble at all. He has only taken 72 foul shots in 77 games.

Marvin can take guys off the dribble and get to the line regularly. He has gotten to the line nearly four times as often as Evans. We need that right now with the offense bogging down. Evans has gotten to double figures only once in the last 6 games.

Not to mention that Marvin is easily a better defender than evans, as every non-Marvin hater can see. I would much rather Marvin be guarding a high scoring wing than Evans.

Edited April 6, 2009 by exodus

[Peoriabird]

So now you are trying to change the subject. Here is your direct quote.

No matter what the outcome of the game is, we don't miss Marvin. The outcome of the actual games is irrelevant to you..... unless of course it fits your agenda.

if you happen to like the outcome of the game then you will used it to say JJ is better at the 3, the chemistry is better without Marvin blah blah blah.

Trying to change the subject isn't going to change the fact that the outcome of the game only matters to you if it fits you agenda.

If you want to know why i want Marvin to start just look at Mo's numbers. he scores more coming off the bench. His lack of scoring is causing problems for the Hawks early in games, especially with JJ struggling. Mo can't create off the dribble at all. He has only taken 72 foul shots in 77 games.

Marvin can take guys off the dribble and get to the line regularly. He has gotten to the line nearly four times as often as Evans. We need that right now with the offense bogging down. Evans has gotten to double figures only once in the last 6 games.

Not to mention that Marvin is easily a better defender than evans, as every non-Marvin hater can see. I would much rather Marvin be guarding a high scoring wing than Evans.

Plus the Hawks have a tough time rebounding the ball and Marvin is again clearly a better rebounder than Evans. Ex, I have give you a gold star for continuing to respond to this man in such a rational fashion. This guy lies, makes up stats, changes his argument, and throws out insults constantly! I was too frustrated to even respond to him today.

[Johnnybravo4]

Well just because we can't beat Boston without Marvin, doesn't mean we aren't better without Marvin. I mean they are only the effin WORLD CHAMPS.

[Peoriabird]

Well just because we can't beat Boston without Marvin, doesn't mean we aren't better without Marvin. I mean they are only the effin WORLD CHAMPS.

I don't think that they are world champs without Kevin Garnett sorry

[Diesel]

So now you are trying to change the subject. Here is your direct quote.

So now you're trying to say that My point since Marvin has gone out has not been that maybe we would be better off with Marvin coming off the bench??

For somebody who talks about reading... You sure miss it... Now go and ignore the 400 other times I mentioned Marvin coming off the bench and pull up something that is a part of the same argument and try to call it my point...

[NineOhTheRino]

So now you are trying to change the subject. Here is your direct quote.

No matter what the outcome of the game is, we don't miss Marvin. The outcome of the actual games is irrelevant to you..... unless of course it fits your agenda.

if you happen to like the outcome of the game then you will used it to say JJ is better at the 3, the chemistry is better without Marvin blah blah blah.

Trying to change the subject isn't going to change the fact that the outcome of the game only matters to you if it fits you agenda.

If you want to know why i want Marvin to start just look at Mo's numbers. he scores more coming off the bench. His lack of scoring is causing problems for the Hawks early in games, especially with JJ struggling. Mo can't create off the dribble at all. He has only taken 72 foul shots in 77 games.

Marvin can take guys off the dribble and get to the line regularly. He has gotten to the line nearly four times as often as Evans. We need that right now with the offense bogging down. Evans has gotten to double figures only once in the last 6 games.

Not to mention that Marvin is easily a better defender than evans, as every non-Marvin hater can see. I would much rather Marvin be guarding a high scoring wing than Evans.

So now you're trying to say that My point since Marvin has gone out has not been that maybe we would be better off with Marvin coming off the bench??

For somebody who talks about reading... You sure miss it... Now go and ignore the 400 other times I mentioned Marvin coming off the bench and pull up something that is a part of the same argument and try to call it my point...

You two should get a room already. good lord yall go at it like an old married couple. :inlove1:

Edited April 6, 2009 by NineOhTheRino

[exodus]

So now you're trying to say that My point since Marvin has gone out has not been that maybe we would be better off with Marvin coming off the bench??

For somebody who talks about reading... You sure miss it... Now go and ignore the 400 other times I mentioned Marvin coming off the bench and pull up something that is a part of the same argument and try to call it my point...

Marvin coming off the bench is a completely separate issue from the Hawks performance since Marvin has been out. I addressed the issue of Marvin coming off the bench in my previous post as everyone but you can see.

However you still haven't addressed why the outcomes of the games only matter when they fit your agenda.

When JJ had a few good games without Marvin you were in full celebration mode, proclaiming that JJ is better at the 3, elevated his game without Marvin and that the chemistry was better with Marvin out. But when JJ sucks for a few games and the offense stagnates your respose is that Marvin wouldn't have made a difference anyway.

It seems Agendaman can morph into Double Standard man at a moments notice.

Edited April 6, 2009 by exodus

[Diesel]

Marvin coming off the bench is a completely separate issue from the Hawks performance since Marvin has been out. I addressed the issue of Marvin coming off the bench in my previous post as everyone but you can see.

However you still haven't addressed why the outcomes of the games only matter when they fit your agenda.

First off.. the original point was that we don't miss Marvin's contribution SO, maybe he should come off the bench when he gets back... I know you get worked up by the we don't miss Marvin's contribution part.... but that's just part of the evidence supporting the point. NOt the point.

Secondly, we play some of the best teams in the league... by any right better than us top to bottom and we lose. Does that change anything? Marvin doesn't make up for our lack of coaching. Marvin doesn't make up for Joe's slump against good defensive teams or Bibby's inconsistency. Moreover, had we had Marvin, we would have probably still lost those games... So the outcomes of games that we would have lost either way is irrelevant to the conversation.

Would Marvin have stopped Tony Parker? No!

Hell, Marvin allowed Paul Pierce to have a career day when he was supposed to be defending him.

Thirdly, about your comment about Marvin being better than Mo. You and I both know that Mo doesn't bring consistency to our offense. However, our offense was consistent when Flip was in the game and Joe Moved to Sf. Now, you want to focus on Mo because he gets the starts.. But those starts are about as Meaningful as Royal Ivey's starts last year and the year before.. Woody has some coaching idea that you bring in an energy player (scorer) off the bench and not as a starter. I have always had a problem with that belief. However, under good coaching, We'd start Bibby, Flip, and Joe. Flip puts pressure on most defenses because he's a scorer who attacks the rim. Joe is stronger than most 3s and he's faster than most 3s and 4s on the switch. This is the offensive flow that I and others noted with Marvin out. Did it work against the best defensive teams... Not down the stretch, but there are a lot of variables to still consider.... many of which have to do with Woody's coaching and his ability to make adjustments.

So my contention is still that Marvin should be coming off the bench and above you have the reasons why.

Edited April 6, 2009 by Diesel

[exodus]

First off.. the original point was that we don't miss Marvin's contribution SO, maybe he should come off the bench when he gets back... I know you get worked up by the we don't miss Marvin's contribution part.... but that's just part of the evidence supporting the point. NOt the point.

So where is the evidence.

My problem isn't whether or not Marvin should come off the bench. My problem is the countless posts you made using the results of the games to draw conclusions (JJ better at the 3, chemistry better without Marvin, etc). Then when the outcomes of the games aren't to your liking you completely dismiss them.

Secondly, we play some of the best teams in the league... by any right better than us top to bottom and we lose.

Playing the best teams in the league without their best players shouldn't be such a struggle. We played the Spurs without Duncan and with Manu scoring only 2 pts on 1-7 shooting. We nearly beat a healthy Spurs team in San Antonio with Marvin. We played Boston twice without KG AND his backup and they killed us. When we played a healthy Boston with Marvin we had the lead until a last second shot by Pierce. Young got hurt in the first quarter against Philly and he was by far their best offensive player in March yet they still handle us. JJ usually owns Orlando. He has for years.

You were going on and on about How JJ lit up Posey. What 3 have the Hawks faced lately who has a 3 that plays better D than Posey?

You need to make up your mind. I have a very simple question for you. Do the games played without Marvin matter or not?

Edited April 6, 2009 by exodus

[Diesel]

So where is the evidence.

My problem isn't whether or not Marvin should come off the bench. My problem is the countless posts you made using the results of the games to draw conclusions (JJ better at the 3, chemistry better without Marvin, etc). Then when the outcomes of the games aren't to your liking you completely dismiss them.

Playing the best teams in the league without their best players should be such a struggle. We played the Spurs without Duncan and with Manu scoring only 2 pts on 1-7 shooting. We nearly beat a healthy Spurs team in San Antonio with Marvin. We played Boston twice without KG AND his backup and they killed us. When we played a healthy Boston with Marvin we had the lead until a last second shot by Pierce.

JJ usually owns Orlando. He has for years. You were going on and on about How JJ lit up Posey. What 3 have the Hawks faced lately who has a 3 that plays better D than Posey?

You need to make up your mind. I have a very simple question for you. Do the games played without Marvin matter or not?

In those games you mention though.. Marvin was not a factor in the original game. He scored, but we could have expected as much giving Flip more time. Moreover, his defense is horribly overrated. Paul Pierce has been writing get well soon letters to Marvin because he misses the big games he has when Marvin plays him.

34 points, 16 FTA.. 57% shooting..

come on man. Marvin was a factor against us in that game.

[exodus]

In those games you mention though.. Marvin was not a factor in the original game. He scored, but we could have expected as much giving Flip more time. Moreover, his defense is horribly overrated. Paul Pierce has been writing get well soon letters to Marvin because he misses the big games he has when Marvin plays him.

34 points, 16 FTA.. 57% shooting..

come on man. Marvin was a factor against us in that game.

Do you think that just maybe Pierce will excert himself a bit more in a game that goes down to the wire than he will in a blowout?

Your response just proves my point. You pick and choose what games matter while ignoring the games you don't like. If you want to pick and choose i can so the same thing.

Who was Orlando's great defender at the 3 who shut down JJ?

I asked you a direct question and you didn't answer it so i will ask again. Do the games played without Marvin matter or not?

Edited April 6, 2009 by exodus

[Peoriabird]

Do you think that just maybe Pierce will excert himself a bit more in a game that goes down to the wire than he will in a blowout?

Your response just proves my point. You pick and choose what games matter while ignoring the games you don't like. If you want to pick and choose i can so the same thing.

Who was Orlando's great defender at the 3 who shut down JJ?

I asked you a direct question and you didn't answer it so i will ask again. Do the games played without Marvin matter or not?

I think that Diesel needs a standing 8 count because he sounds pretty punch drunk in this thread!