Teague to discuss his playing time with Drew

[spotatl]

macdaddy- Woodson gave Shelden 18 minutes a game his rookie year. He got about the same production out of Shelden as Denver is- the difference is that in Denver or Boston he only had to live up to the expectation of being a minimum salary player and not to be a top 5 pick.

I don't think that Teague showed anything last year to deserve more minutes than he got. I don't think you should just throw players out there if you don't ahve any reason to believe that they will succeed. Let them work on their game in practice or the D-League. As a coach- if you don't think a player can be useful even in spot minutes then I really don't see the point in continuing to put them out there every game just so the fans can see it for themselves. (since evidence shows that they won't see it anyway)

And there were just 11 games last season that Teague didn't play which to me is pretty reasonable for a guy taken where he was in the draft and who showed what he did last season.

Edited November 29, 2010 by spotatl

[GameTime]

You just describe Acie Law which is who Teague is reminding me of with every game that passes.

That is why you have to put some blame on Woody's development of them. Acie didn't play like that at all in college. Teague definitely didn't play like that at all in college. Teague plays off-guard (SG) when Craw/JJ is in. That is not what makes him most successful.

[TheTruth]

I was a HUGE supporter of Teague last year and felt--rightfully so--that Woodson did not give the kid a chance to develop...especially since our existing starting PG had so many deficiencies [age and defense being the primary contributors].

Drew, to my relief, gave Teague consistent minutes early on in the season. Problem is, Teague still looked tentative, still had not improved his girlish jump shot, still showed few PG skills, and when he led the second unit at PG, the offense looked to have no structure or form.

In this league, if you can shoot but play no D, you can stick around a long time. Ask Jamal Crawford. If you can defend, but not shoot, it becomes much harder. If you are a PG and can do neither very well, while combining that with no decent PG play, it probably just isn't in the cards for you to have a long career.

When picked, we were hoping Teague would become our PG of the future. Now, if he doesn't start showing some serious promise, he WILL soon find himself without a future in this league.

[spotatl]

That is why you have to put some blame on Woody's development of them.

Why is that? Acie has had at least 4 coaches since leaving the Hawks and none of them have wanted him. There are tons of guys who can't make the jump from college to the pros- its not the coaches fault that the GM picked a bad player. Acie was a poor draft pick, this isn't a case of Woodson squandering talent. If Acie had blossomed in any of his other stops then sure you can put that on Woodson, but when he has 4 other coaches including 2 that will be in the hall of fame and none of them want the guy then I really don't see how you can still blame Woodson.

Edited November 29, 2010 by spotatl

[NineOhTheRino]

Teague has not shown me jack. Produce if you wants more burn.

[Sothron]

I was a HUGE supporter of Teague last year and felt--rightfully so--that Woodson did not give the kid a chance to develop...especially since our existing starting PG had so many deficiencies [age and defense being the primary contributors].

Drew, to my relief, gave Teague consistent minutes early on in the season. Problem is, Teague still looked tentative, still had not improved his girlish jump shot, still showed few PG skills, and when he led the second unit at PG, the offense looked to have no structure or form.

In this league, if you can shoot but play no D, you can stick around a long time. Ask Jamal Crawford. If you can defend, but not shoot, it becomes much harder. If you are a PG and can do neither very well, while combining that with no decent PG play, it probably just isn't in the cards for you to have a long career.

When picked, we were hoping Teague would become our PG of the future. Now, if he doesn't start showing some serious promise, he WILL soon find himself without a future in this league.

We already had a guy just like this. Is Royal Ivey still in the NBA somewhere? OKC? Don't know and don't care to google it. He was a great defender but had no shot and no ability to run an offense.

[tremor]

It's to early to judge JT. He had some good moments here and there but still doesn't seem to be confident and "empowered" to do what he would like to. He should get reasonable minutes with starters, not with Craw, when 2/3 of plays are isos Jamal, or in garbage time when no plays are played whatsoever and no one really cares. But it's really hard to fight for minutes with Mike when he's leading the NBA in Effective Field Goal Pct with whooping 63.4% thanks to 52% from three point land.

[Cwell]

im not too sure about Teague. I mean even Acie had good to great games every once and a while, but Teague on the other hand, very rarely any good games, a decent game from him is like 6 pts and 4 assists. He hasn't done a single thing in any stretch to warrant more minutes

Edited November 30, 2010 by Cwell

[DJlaysitup]

.... In my opinion after the first week of the year Woody never pick any spots for guys outside the 7 player rotation other than absolute garbage time. Which really isn't experience. The thing about Woody is he either lied to the press delibrately or was unable to heed his own advice. He's the one who talked about not running Joe into the ground and "I've got to find ways to get the bench involved" etc. and so on. He just never could do it....

Agreed, but there were a lot of factors involved that have seemed to make the Hawks the graveyard of picks over the years. BK has been huge in this...as well as Woody. I mean we draft a guy at 6 (Chillz) on a very young team and he expects to be our SF. Then we turn around and draft Marvin at 2 (another SF) ?? Hawks say they want the "best available talent" for like three years - then we a 180 and starts drafting for need at PG when our pick is too late. We get Acie - then Teague. Granted we all would have been thrilled if JT would have come in and lit it up in Woody's last year - but he was the 6th PG taken in that draft. There is a reason for that.

Bottom line (IMO) is that the Hawks have been the dumbest drafting team in the modern era of the NBA (considering the level of picks we have had). We had high 1st round picks and very good 2nd round picks for years.

Now that all those bad years are behind us we have a starting lineup made of two free agent acquisitions, a PF who was basically a shot in the dark local High School kid, a total no-brainer in Horford, and Marvin. The quality on our bench is all F/A.

I really hope Teague doesn't settle into the "Mario minute" role...but our overall drafting has been the main culprit in my opinion. :kickcan:

P.S. - and after all that (and even after enduring the Speedy contract years)...we are still pretty good! The only thing I can liken it to is...if you give a bad poker player enough chips, they will at least make the final table. Sooner or later they will make their flush with a 6-4 off (Smoove)

Edited December 1, 2010 by DJlaysitup

[CBAreject]

Agreed, but there were a lot of factors involved that have seemed to make the Hawks the graveyard of picks over the years. BK has been huge in this...as well as Woody. I mean we draft a guy at 6 (Chillz) on a very young team and he expects to be our SF. Then we turn around and draft Marvin at 2 (another SF) ?? Hawks say they want the "best available talent" for like three years - then we a 180 and starts drafting for need at PG when our pick is too late. We get Acie - then Teague. Granted we all would have been thrilled if JT would have come in and lit it up in Woody's last year - but he was the 6th PG taken in that draft. There is a reason for that.

Bottom line (IMO) is that the Hawks have been the dumbest drafting team in the modern era of the NBA (considering the level of picks we have had). We had high 1st round picks and very good 2nd round picks for years.

Now that all those bad years are behind us we have a starting lineup made of two free agent acquisitions, a PF who was basically a shot in the dark local High School kid, a total no-brainer in Horford, and Marvin. The quality on our bench is all F/A.

I really hope Teague doesn't settle into the "Mario minute" role...but our overall drafting has been the main culprit in my opinion. :kickcan:

P.S. - and after all that (and even after enduring the Speedy contract years)...we are still pretty good! The only thing I can liken it to is...if you give a bad poker player enough chips, they will at least make the final table. Sooner or later they will make their flush with a 6-4 off (Smoove)

I concur, except I might argue that we did a 180 and drafted for need in the Shelden Williams year, when the best player was BY FAR Brandon Roy, whose name even told us that he would be the ROY. If we'd still wanted a PF, we could've taken a player who projected equally as well in Paul Millsap (that, of course was the draft I wanted and posted multiple times). The Acie Law (I called him the 4th best PG of that draft at the time) and Teague picks were "need" picks as well, as you stated.

I might further argue that the Hawks are the worst drafting team of ALL-TIME, and I don't think it's close. I can remember 4 impact first-round choices in the history of our team, and those are Josh Smith, Al Horford, Kevin Willis, and Jason Terry. There have been a couple mediocre picks to mix in there, but the rest have been just piss poor. Jon Koncak #5, Marvin Williams #2, and Shelden Williams #5 are clearly the worst, but how many Dermarr Johnsons, Doug Edwards, and Adam Keefes have dashed draft-night hopes? And all this is just when you consider what we've wasted our picks on. Just think of the picks we've traded away. There was Rajon Rondo's pick in the JJ deal. There were 2 1st rounders, including a #8 in the Lo Wright deal. Then there was another #8 in the Glenn Robinson deal. What does it matter, though? They couldn't possibly have been used on anything of talent, so you might even argue we should've traded them all, and you'd be right.

[DJlaysitup]

I concur, except I might argue that we did a 180 and drafted for need in the Shelden Williams year, when the best player was BY FAR Brandon Roy, whose name even told us that he would be the ROY. If we'd still wanted a PF, we could've taken a player who projected equally as well in Paul Millsap (that, of course was the draft I wanted and posted multiple times). ...

Good point - how did I forget Shelden at #5 for need (+BK telegraphed the pick like an ameteur). I also was a big Milsap backer and we could have gotten him in the second round. The missing on high seconds really got on my nerves.

To be fair - even though I wanted Milsap, I thought the "Landlord" would be better than he was. Thank goodness for him he has seemed to find a home in Denver and doesn't have to share rooms in the doghouse any more.