Our best possible lineup

[GameTime]

Yes. I think Bibby is better player and better fit for the Hawks. Teague is a project, he will need time to develop so I don't expect much from him next season.

How is Teague more of a project than anyone in the draft?

He averaged 19-3.3-3.5 Last year. You are posting like he hasn't played at all.

[AHF]

How is Teague more of a project than anyone in the draft?

He averaged 19-3.3-3.5 Last year. You are posting like he hasn't played at all.

You are also posting like EDS would consider other underclassmen like Brandon Jennings and Jrue Holliday something other than a project.

[Packfill]

I don't know if Bibby is better the Crawford. He's a better leader for sure but Bibby's age is showing and when he's not knocking down 3s (which is often) he's not a huge factor. And hey I really like him. I give him most of the credit for getting us there. I'd love to have him back. I'm just saying I don't think the Hawks will bring him back.

Teague may be a project but I think Sund was smart to get a project that can shoot and handle the ball. This makes him pay some dividends while he's developing.

Is Crawford a factor when he is not knocking down 3s? He is argueably more of a streak shooter then Bibby and less of a distributer. The Hawks were so much better with Bibby versus Tyronne Lue, another streak shooting combo guard, because of Bibby's improved playmaking skills (not that they are on the level of the true elite point guards like Kidd, Paul, Williams and Nash).

Also, Crawford is basically the same age as Bibby when the Hawks acquired Bibby (i.e., a little less then two years younger), and is an equally unwilling defender.

And while Teague has talent it just seems slightly unrealistic to expect a low draft pick, that obviously needs further refinement and development to his game, to make a large immediate impact. There are plenty of examples of college combo-guards making good on their promise (such as Devin Harris, Jason Terry, Allen Iverson, Bobby Jackson, Nate Robinson, etc.), but there are even more examples where they do not become major contributors (i.e., Marcus Banks, Troy Bell, Dejuan Wagner, Quincy Douby, Acie Law, etc.).

I don't see any reason why Teague can't at least become an Aaron Brooks type of contributer by year two, but year one might be a stretch.

[Packfill]

How is Teague more of a project than anyone in the draft?

He averaged 19-3.3-3.5 Last year. You are posting like he hasn't played at all.

Slow down and take a deep breath chief. Every draft pick in the past two decades has been a project with the possible exception of Tim Duncan. Several of the guys taken a head of Teague are even bigger projects then he is (meaning they have even more skill/experience development needed then Teague). I would characterize guys like Rubio, Thabeet, Jennings, Holiday, Derozan and a few others as easily within the category of bigger projects then Teague since each has either significant skill development, experience or physical maturity issues to address. That doesn't mean they won't necessarily have an impact, but it means they still have a ton of growth left before becoming the players their draft position indicates they should be.

Teague, however, anyway you slice it, has a lot to learn and work on before he becomes a starting caliber point guard and possibly even a solid bench contributer.

[Crank]

Is Crawford a factor when he is not knocking down 3s? He is argueably more of a streak shooter then Bibby and less of a distributer. The Hawks were so much better with Bibby versus Tyronne Lue, another streak shooting combo guard, because of Bibby's improved playmaking skills (not that they are on the level of the true elite point guards like Kidd, Paul, Williams and Nash).

Also, Crawford is basically the same age as Bibby when the Hawks acquired Bibby (i.e., a little less then two years younger), and is an equally unwilling defender.

Crawford gets to the line more than Bibby waaay more . Crawford is just as good open court playmaker as Bibby and neither are good as halfcourt playmakers and how could they in the iso Joe offense when its not even a requirement . So when talking about the playmaking aspect of both players unless we were to change our offensive style of play then its a wash.

Ive been researching and trying to find some stuff about Crawford but Ive yet to find anything to show where he started the regular season as the point guard since he played for the Bulls. It has always been as shooting guard but then something changes and he ends up at the point guard spot. So who know really how he would respond if given the role of pg in training camp and kept in that role the entire season.

The one thing I do know when comparing these players is that if Flip and Bibby got it going 20 points would be great for them well if Crawford gets it going youre talking about 30,40, and even points as being a possibility. If you could put that next to Joe it really forces the opposing coaches to have to game plan for our point guard something they didnt have to do for Flip or Bibby .

My hope is that we keep both though because good teams dont swap out talent they stack it

[Wurider05]

The thing to remember is that Bibby was basically playing shooting guard for us last season. We had to sg's in our starting lineup last season. At worst things will remain the same if Crawford is our starting pg. Bibby wasn't a playmaker at all he was just out there chucking. Crawford may drive to the lane a way more than Bibby.

Edited June 26, 2009 by Wurider05

[AHF]

The thing to remember is that Bibby was basically playing shooting guard for us last season. We had to sg's in our starting lineup last season. At worst things will remain the same if Crawford is our starting pg. Bibby wasn't a playmaker at all he was just out there chucking. Crawford may drive to the lane a little more than Bibby.

Bibby shot but he didn't need to hold the ball. He promoted ball movement. I don't think we'll see that from Crawford. On the flipside, Crawford should drive about 10x as well and can't be worse defensively. I see them as pretty different players.

[Buzzard]

Bibby shot but he didn't need to hold the ball. He promoted ball movement. I don't think we'll see that from Crawford. On the flipside, Crawford should drive about 10x as well and can't be worse defensively. I see them as pretty different players.

Really different. I have never seen a report that stated Crawford was a pure PG or had the skills to be a full time PG. He can distribute just as JJ can; but they both have a lot of TO's and hold on to the ball to long just like most shooting guards do.

I don't know what Sunds and Woodys plans are but Crawford and JJ as our primary backcourt is a scary situation for me. I like it for situational offensive and defensive sets when we want to go big but dont like it for the bulk of a game.

No, I think there is more to this than just a JJ/Crawford backcourt duo. Crawford does give us great scoring flexibility. He can play minutes at the 1 and 2, JJ can play at the 2 and 3, then the rest can help as needed when we want that scoring punch in the lineup together.

[Flight]

Team A's defense would get murdered in the backcourt. Team B could probably hold opposing offenses better. Both will score at will tho.

[frankthetank966]

Team A

Bibby/Teague

Crawford

JJ

Smoove

Horf

Team B

Crawford/Teague

JJ

Marvin

Smoove

Horf

Which lineup do you think will get us farther next season and why??

Team A will give up 110 ppg a game easily!! Team B I see ball movement again being a problem. What the hell are we doing here??

A!

[DrReality]

The issue becomes our bench and getting better 6 thru 9. And to do that we have to retain some guys. But Crawford and Teague definately help that. There were times we struggled with scorers off the bench. If Flip was hot we were fine. If not we sucked.