Crawford is not a PG. Crawford is not a 6th man.

[Diesel]

If you really think that Crawford should come off the bench, then we should have traded Speedy for an exemption and a late first rounder and signed Flip.

Crawford is more than Flip. This guy is a possible 19-20 ppg scorer. He's not a bench player.

He's not coming here to make up for the loss of Flip. If we wanted Flip, we could have and we can still sign flip for much cheaper than we're paying Crawford. Crawford is starting material.

In fact, he has been a starter since 2003. It's mighty arrogant of us to get this great deal and start to think that just because we got him for bench players that he's a bench player. This guy is a starter.

Crawford is not our answer at PG. We will get somebody else. Weather it's Hinrich or Ridnour... We're not through dealing and we will get a PG in the draft (more than likely).

[Lascar78]

Given the fact that Joe starts at SG, crawford will either play PG or come off the bench for us. This is not that complicated.

He should be a 6th man like Jason Terry and Manu Ginobili are sixth men.

However I unfortunately suspect he may start at PG for us.

[coachx]

Plenty of solid 19 ppg scorers (FROM LOSING TEAMS) have gone to playoff teams to be 6th men.

This is not a knew trend to put scorer, with limited defense, at 6th man. Look at J. Terry, A. Jameison, L. Odom, S. Marbury, L. Barbosa, M. Finley, M. Ginobli, A. Harrington, B. Gordon, are all active NBA players who have been 6th men at some point in their careers. All of these guys are as good or better then Crawford.

Averaging 19 ppg for 25-30 is similar to averaging 13 ppg for a 47-50 win team.

[khaos7]

Or maybe...just maybe we can revamp our starting line up. Lets say we resign Bibby and/or lose Marvin (or move him to the bench):

PG Bibby

SG Crawford

SF Johnson

PF Smith

C Horford

Johnson has the size of a SF. That could work. The only issue is, we'll lose something on defense. Neither Bibby nor Crawford are much on defense. However, offensively, we'd be pretty potent.

[atlien]

I tihnk there is a 70% chance that he is our 6th man next season. But that's a GREAT role for him (the way coming off the bench as an "offensive spark plug" worked for Flip).

We need more shooters/scorers. Crawford can be deadly playing 30-35 minutes as the 6th man.

[Diesel]

Given the fact that Joe starts at SG, crawford will either play PG or come off the bench for us. This is not that complicated.

He should be a 6th man like Jason Terry and Manu Ginobili are sixth men.

However I unfortunately suspect he may start at PG for us.

The fact is that Joe can play and it is probably better for him to play Sf. Joe is getting older. He doesn't have to chase those fast SGs around. Put him at Sf, let him hang in the midcourt. Take some of the ball handling responsibility off him. Crawford was a starter, put up 20 points as a starter for the Knicks. Can be a starter for us.

[Packfill]

Or maybe...just maybe we can revamp our starting line up. Lets say we resign Bibby and/or lose Marvin (or move him to the bench):

PG Bibby

SG Crawford

SF Johnson

PF Smith

C Horford

Johnson has the size of a SF. That could work. The only issue is, we'll lose something on defense. Neither Bibby nor Crawford are much on defense. However, offensively, we'd be pretty potent.

That would easily be the worst defensive backcourt in the NBA by a wide margin. No thank you.

[mrhonline]

Most Warriors' fans and Knicks' fans seemed to think he's best fit as a 6th man.

[Diesel]

Plenty of solid 19 ppg scorers (FROM LOSING TEAMS) have gone to playoff teams to be 6th men.

This is not a knew trend to put scorer, with limited defense, at 6th man. Look at J. Terry, A. Jameison, L. Odom, S. Marbury, L. Barbosa, M. Finley, M. Ginobli, A. Harrington, B. Gordon, are all active NBA players who have been 6th men at some point in their careers. All of these guys are as good or better then Crawford.

Averaging 19 ppg for 25-30 is similar to averaging 13 ppg for a 47-50 win team.

All with the exception of Ginobili (which nobody can explain), Barbosa and Jamison were on the down side of their career. All with the exception of Ginobili (which nobody can explain) had an equal or superior player playing in front of them. The point is that Crawford is not on the downside of his career (although benching him for no reason can make that happen)... moreover, we don't really have anybody in front of Crawford. At this point our SG/SF space is occupied by Joe, Mo, and Crawford. Neither Marvin or Chillz or Flip is signed to a contract. There's nobody that is equal or superior to crawford definitely needing that space.

I think there are 2 things here.

Some people believe that since we gave up bench fodder to get him, that he must be bench fodder? That's false. That would be like saying since we traded Shelden for Bibby that Bibby has to sit on the bench.

The other is that somebody believe that just because we draft a guy that we should never trade him or bench him.

[AHF]

I see him as a 6th man ala Ben Gordon. We still need a PG.

[Swatguy]

If you really think that Crawford should come off the bench, then we should have traded Speedy for an exemption and a late first rounder and signed Flip.

Crawford is more than Flip. This guy is a possible 19-20 ppg scorer. He's not a bench player.

He's not coming here to make up for the loss of Flip. If we wanted Flip, we could have and we can still sign flip for much cheaper than we're paying Crawford. Crawford is starting material.

In fact, he has been a starter since 2003. It's mighty arrogant of us to get this great deal and start to think that just because we got him for bench players that he's a bench player. This guy is a starter.

Crawford is not our answer at PG. We will get somebody else. Weather it's Hinrich or Ridnour... We're not through dealing and we will get a PG in the draft (more than likely).

I believe you are correct in the idea of Crawford as a starter. The guy can bust 40 pts twice in a week. I do not want to think Flip is not needed. Flip is needed. Flip is neccesary on the court and the locker room. So, do sign Murray also. The movement this week changes all possibilities. Washington getting two starter quality guards mean Javaris is more than expendable. Jarvis I believe can be a second-third 1/2 guy on the bench. Expanding Joe to the 3/2 position opens up moving Marvin towards a Felton/Sessions/Hinrich acquisition. Signing Chillz to back up the 3/2 positions would solve the "Move Marvin" scenario. If Chillz is not signable a Rodney Carney or Jarvis Hayes to back up Joe at the 3. All of this makes #19 a BAP pick.

[Lascar78]

The fact is that Joe can play and it is probably better for him to play Sf. Joe is getting older. He doesn't have to chase those fast SGs around. Put him at Sf, let him hang in the midcourt. Take some of the ball handling responsibility off him. Crawford was a starter, put up 20 points as a starter for the Knicks. Can be a starter for us.

I understand that moving Joe to SF is your latest way to bash Marvin, but no thank you.

[atlien]

From Dime Magazine (I agree with this 100%):

"Crawford could play PG for the Hawks if they lose Mike Bibby in free agency, but we’re seeing him as a Ben Gordon/J.R. Smith-type scoring two-guard who can start or come off the bench. Since Joe Johnson is big enough to play the three, you can run a crunch-time lineup of Bibby-Crawford-Johnson-Josh Smith-Al Horford. Good move for ATL … "

While not the best defensive lineup, that would be a great crunch-time lineup.

[macdaddy]

Sund has said that we need a scoring PG because on this team the PG brings the ball over half court and throws it to Joe. Crawford is Bibby's replacement. We're not going to tie up big money and have both of them. They are redundant. Flip will be back. We will need his defense. The design of this team is for the PG to be an offensive threat.

Edited June 25, 2009 by macdaddy

[Lascar78]

From Dime Magazine (I agree with this 100%):

"Crawford could play PG for the Hawks if they lose Mike Bibby in free agency, but we’re seeing him as a Ben Gordon/J.R. Smith-type scoring two-guard who can start or come off the bench. Since Joe Johnson is big enough to play the three, you can run a crunch-time lineup of Bibby-Crawford-Johnson-Josh Smith-Al Horford. Good move for ATL … "

While not the best defensive lineup, that would be a great crunch-time lineup.

Crunch-time or on occasion, yes. As a starting group, that's a big no.

[atlien]

Crunch-time or on occasion, yes. As a starting group, that's a big no.

Agreed. Marvin should still be the starting 3.

[Diesel]

Most Warriors' fans and Knicks' fans seemed to think he's best fit as a 6th man.

When you consider their teams.

Remember, in GS he was surrounded by Ellis and Stephen Jackson. Not to mention Morrow and some other cats... Playing him off the bench was going to become the only answer for GS. That doesn't mean that he was a bench player, just a bench player for them.

In NY, similar story. They brought in QRich. Coaching struggled to determine which of them should be the starter. But while he was healthy, Crawford was the starter. That kinda made it hard for Qrich to shine.

So of course, it's hard for their fans to see him as a starter.. but that's what he is... for us. Right now, we have limited players at the 2 and 3. That's an opportunity for Joe to move to 3 and us to play JC as a starter. We might even bring back Flip!

[Packfill]

Sund has said that we need a scoring PG because on this team the PG brings the ball over half court and throws it to Joe. Crawford is Bibby's replacement. We're not going to tie up big money and have both of them. They are redundant. Flip will be back. We will need his defense. The design of this team is for the PG to be an offensive threat.

This is the first I have heard anyone say Flip brings value as a defender. I am not sure I see it, but if the comparison is only to Crawford and Bibby then it may make sense.

[GameTime]

In NY, similar story. They brought in QRich. Coaching struggled to determine which of them should be the starter. But while he was healthy, Crawford was the starter. That kinda made it hard for Qrich to shine.

:lol6:

Diesel you are too much sir.

I do agree that he needs 30-35 minutes regardless. Starting or not.

This is the first I have heard anyone say Flip brings value as a defender. I am not sure I see it, but if the comparison is only to Crawford and Bibby then it may make sense.

Crawford has the potential to be a great defender with his wingspan and athleticism. Maybe Woody (lol?) can bring that potential to light. Now since he actually has to something to play for (PLAYOFFS?) and all.

Edited June 25, 2009 by GameTime

[mrhonline]

I take solace in the fact that Flip became a more efficient offensive player and a better defensive player under Woodson.