Tired of Excuses for This Team

[Wretch]

We're losing against good teams because we have no inside play. You can call it what you like, but even if we had Kobe instead of Joe, we'd still lose against good teams because we don't have a consistent inside game. No goto guy in the post. We have a finesse PF and a High Post PF. Neither of those guys do well down low. We have the nerve to call one a C because he's 6'10. Offensively, we do move the ball and when our shot is on, our shot is on but in the absence of a true scoring low post player, this is what we will see. The problem is how do we go about getting a low post scorer?

Here's where your thoughts of making a big move and taking a chance comes into play. We have to be willing to be different. Being different means recognizing that we're not going to be everything that we have seen in past champions. Sometimes, you have to be willing to be the Supersonics or the showtime Lakers. What are you saying Diesel? Put offense ahead of defense. Earlier this season, it was rumored that we could get Love for Smoove. If that was available, we should have gone after it. There may have been some truth because Love doesn't get along with his coach. Still Love is a low post BEAST. The argument against getting Love.... " the defense this and the defense that.". Here's the loser welfare mentality of Hawks fans. The truth is that we might not ever have a team that can be considered defensive. But we can definitely move towards being more balanced and dangerous offensively. We have talent. Offensive talent. Do you know how much teams fear Joe and Jamal when they are healthy? Do you know how much teams would far those guys if we had Horf in the High post and a dominating force in the low post? Yeah, it would be great to get Deke. It would be great if Collins morphed into Deke and could dominate the lane and get us 5 blocks and 16 rebs ever night... that would be great. However, when I awaken from the slumber, I realize that this team has to take advantage of it's talent and at the same time not try so hard to be conventional that we lose every advantage that we do have.

This is everything that I've been saying, but less huffinpuff...lol. But I agree:

You need a balance inside and out. Bibby gives us suspect defense, no penetration, no breaking down of the defense, no drawing the defense - just an outside shot. Just like Horf, just like Smoove, just like Crawford, just like JJ, just like....Marvin.

-Wrectch, back in the "smokescreen"

Glad we are in agreement. But it doesn't discount the fact that we can't trade baskets with the best in the league and we're not going to stop them. Kobe instead of JJ would make a huge difference. Kobe is already one of the all time great scorers - the guy can flat out put the ball in the basket. His dribble penetration is better than JJ's, his shot is better than JJ's, his 3 pointer is better than JJ's, his post up is better than JJ's - working with Hakeem has given a great player another ridiculously powerful edge, and I would take his clutch shooting over Joe Johnson 7 days a week, twice on Sunday. Not to mention the fact that Kobe is an All NBA 1st team caliber defender. It'd make a difference.

Not disagreeing with the point about Kevin Love:

BTW...I just realized something. Some of you cats were talking about Kevin Love and I really didn't pay attention to it...but that dude is putting up 20 and FIFTEEN rebounds per game... Yes it's just some big numbers and I don't know about being a face...but 20/15? HOT. DAMN. Didn't he go out the other day and drop a 30/30 or something too? Just saying...doesn't strike me as a savior but, DAMN. I know there's talk about softness and whatnot, but guys that pull down boards like that? That's one of those things you have to look at and not just brush off. That is 15 opportunities per game he's giving your team to score...and he's shoveling you 20 points too? I dunno man.... I dunno.....

-Wretch, aka Captain Obvious

Again...we agree on a lot. Shouldn't be surprising though, because I read much of what everyone has to say and look at many of the positives and negatives. The defense Smoove brings is one thing, but 20/15 is nothing to sneeze at.

[Wretch]

When I look back over the last 30 years or so, I find that defense, more so than strong low-post scoring jumps out as the most common element of championship teams. But then again, the rear-view mirror is not always the best place to discover what is about to appear in your windshield.

The '80's Lakers ---- Strong inside scoring (Kareem) + Trancendant talent at point guard. Both were the best to ever play at those two positions. Not likely duplicable ever.

The 80's Celtics. ---- Strong inside scoring + tremendous rebounding + great defensively

Bad Boy Pistons -- Weak inside scoring (Laimbeer was a high post jump-shooting center) Tremendous defense. Not likey duplicable because of rule changes.

Jordan Bulls ---- No low post scoring. Best player to ever play. Possibly most versatile combo forward to ever play. Tremendous defense.

Shaq/Kobe Lakers -- Strong inside scoring + Kobe

Spurs --- Strong inside scoring + tremendous defense.

Larry Brown Pistons --- Weak low post scoring . Tremendous defensively.

2008/current Celtics -- No real low-post scoring threat. Tremendous defensively.

CS

Y'know...I'm not going to disagree. I talk alot about offense, all stars, and clutch shooting...but by far, I am a guy that loves good ol' fashioned defense. LOL, I mean...wasn't I taking a whole bunch of bullets for saying my all time team would include Mutombo at center over a lot of Hall of Famers?

I guess my main point is a given. Because the All Time great players are the ones who are remembered for winning the big games. Those teams don't get there without those special players who play inside and out. But once they get there, what separates the champions? It's not scoring...because both teams are doing that - recall the duels between greats MJ/Magic, Bird/Magic, Ewing/Hakeem, Nique/Bird. It's the little things - hustle, defense, bench play, coaching...and sometimes an X-factor (Ron freaking Artest last year...omg.)

So...if you throw out having All Star talent (whether inside or out) which is a given, defense is the key hands down. I'll never disagree with that. On a side note though, if we were to turn this into a defensive club, then we should have gone after a guy like Tyson Chandler - been high on him for years.

[Wretch]

BTW...thanks for all the kind words everyone. Especially Diesel, means a lot for you to give me some props like that...even though I really don't like the attention.

K...back to the shadows.

[Diesel]

You hit the nail on the head diesel. I've barked forever about a low post player on this team. I was ticked when Utah got Jefferson out of Minnesota this summer. Low Post scorig wins in the playoffs, everyone else is a pretender.

Lakers - Gasol

Boston - Garnett, Davis

Orlando - Howard

Spurs - Duncan

Now, if we bring in Nash and Grant Hill that will improve the team, because Nash can still break down defenses with the best of them., but it still doesnt address the low post game. Grant Hill is a smart player but is nearing retirement also. I would not give up Marvin for a one year rental and that might be a sticking point.

Here's where my thinking differs from yours. With Nash here, I believe he legitimizes us. Remember, Nash is a two time league MVP. That means that he has the goods. People shy away from Atlanta because we don't have the sack to be a contender. Moving for Nash and HIll says, here's our sack. Nash will definitely improve our offense and Hill and Nash will increase our BBIQ. If we take Joe, Josh, and Horf uptempo, we might not need a low post game. With that lineup, I believe we would be twice as strong as Phoenix when they Had Joe and Amare. Twice as strong. Horf is a big who can rebound and defend. Joe is a better player and Smoove is as good as Amare was then. Would it lead to championship... maybe not, but FAs would see a team that they would want to play for.

[Diesel]

This is everything that I've been saying, but less huffinpuff...lol. But I agree:

Glad we are in agreement. But it doesn't discount the fact that we can't trade baskets with the best in the league and we're not going to stop them. Kobe instead of JJ would make a huge difference. Kobe is already one of the all time great scorers - the guy can flat out put the ball in the basket. His dribble penetration is better than JJ's, his shot is better than JJ's, his 3 pointer is better than JJ's, his post up is better than JJ's - working with Hakeem has given a great player another ridiculously powerful edge, and I would take his clutch shooting over Joe Johnson 7 days a week, twice on Sunday. Not to mention the fact that Kobe is an All NBA 1st team caliber defender. It'd make a difference.

About Kobe. I'm a Kobe fan Now. But I would be re missed if I didn't bring up Lakers after the Shaq trade. Right after the Shaq trade with Butler, Odom, Kobe, etc etc... they were built similar to us. They had no post scoring because they had no real post player. AND what happened?

Even Kobe couldn't make the difference. One year they didn't even make the playoffs.

The difference came when they got Gasol.

Now for everybody crying Defense here and defense there, I offer the Lakers. I would go so far as to say that none of the Laker Championship teams have ever been great defensive teams. I think if we get a post scorer, we would be in that mold. Not the Detroit Piston, Chicago Bull Mold.

[drzachary]

Here's where my thinking differs from yours. With Nash here, I believe he legitimizes us. Remember, Nash is a two time league MVP. That means that he has the goods. People shy away from Atlanta because we don't have the sack to be a contender. Moving for Nash and HIll says, here's our sack. Nash will definitely improve our offense and Hill and Nash will increase our BBIQ. If we take Joe, Josh, and Horf uptempo, we might not need a low post game. With that lineup, I believe we would be twice as strong as Phoenix when they Had Joe and Amare. Twice as strong. Horf is a big who can rebound and defend. Joe is a better player and Smoove is as good as Amare was then. Would it lead to championship... maybe not, but FAs would see a team that they would want to play for.

I too would take Nash for one year. It's not just that we're getting Nash, is that he would make every player on our team better. We've not had a guard that's done that since... since before I was watching the Hawks.

[Vol4ever]

Y'know...I'm not going to disagree. I talk alot about offense, all stars, and clutch shooting...but by far, I am a guy that loves good ol' fashioned defense. LOL, I mean...wasn't I taking a whole bunch of bullets for saying my all time team would include Mutombo at center over a lot of Hall of Famers?

I guess my main point is a given. Because the All Time great players are the ones who are remembered for winning the big games. Those teams don't get there without those special players who play inside and out. But once they get there, what separates the champions? It's not scoring...because both teams are doing that - recall the duels between greats MJ/Magic, Bird/Magic, Ewing/Hakeem, Nique/Bird. It's the little things - hustle, defense, bench play, coaching...and sometimes an X-factor (Ron freaking Artest last year...omg.)

So...if you throw out having All Star talent (whether inside or out) which is a given, defense is the key hands down. I'll never disagree with that. On a side note though, if we were to turn this into a defensive club, then we should have gone after a guy like Tyson Chandler - been high on him for years.

Yep I agree about Chandler and he was available, we would not spend the money apparently.

[frosgrim]

First off, anyone who compares Boston fans to Atlanta fans in any way, shape, or form needs to have their head examined. Parents pass down team loyalties in Boston like family heirlooms. In Atlanta, most of the population wasn't even born in the city and the natives who are there are generally apathetic towards pro sports, which didn't even arrive in the region until the 1960's, and basketball (which is the third most popular sport at best in the South and was the last to arrive professionally). Yeah, they roast their teams for every flaw. But at least they show up to the damned games to do it.

Second, there is absolutely no sense comparing the attendance situations of the Celtics and Hawks specifically. Never has been. The Celtics were the NBA's original dynasty. They, the Lakers, and the Knicks could trot out a D3 squad and still turn a profit. The Celtics' attendance when they lost 50 games in 06-07 is better than the Hawks' attendance was when they won 50 games last year. The Hawks' attendance issues have been consistent throughout its existence, including the time of Nique and Turner. The Hawks finished dead last in the NBA in attendance in Nique's last full season as a Hawk, despite the fact that 15 teams finished with worse records that year. Never once has the team finished in the top third of the league in attendance. ASG has done a crappy job building the roster, but blaming them for poor hometown support is ridiculous. The Hawks have always had terrible hometown support and their attendance has always lagged well behind their ranking in the standings, and anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves.

That's the thing that annoys me. Blaming ASG for doing a crappy job of building the team is fair. But blaming them for the fact that fans don't support the team is a cop out, because fans not showing up is old hat for Atlanta pro sports teams generally and for the Hawks especially.

You're missing the point. The comparison to Boston is to say that when a team starts to loose, fans stop coming. As I said, since the Hawks don't have a track record of winning, they don't have the fanbase to come out to games.

2nd, Boston's attendance #s dipped pretty bad during the Walker years. May not have been as low as Atlanta's but it was serious enough to let ownership know they had to try something different and soon. The Red Sox had awful attendance in the last year before the hiring of Epstien. The stadium was practically empty.

Again, the idea is that even in a great sports city like Boston, you start to lose and fans stop coming. In a place like Atlanta, where there is no solid season ticket base, you have to start winning in the playoffs to get fans to notice. The Hawks had a chance to capitalize on the Boston searies from a few years ago, but they didn't. The ASG has to be held accountable at some point in this mess. They are the ones who own the team today. No one said they had to buy the teams. They knew the lay of the land and should have had some sense of what it would take to bring fans out. If Gearon really thought just winning in the regular season would do it, then he hasn't been paying attention to what drives sports attendance in this city.

[Chickenstanley]

I don't necessarily (or even at all) disagree with your hypothesis, Diesel. In fact, I believe that league rules will continue to trend in a manner that will discourage winning via defense in the future. Someone will come along with a model that wins and also doesn't fit into any familiar mold. Then everyone will try to copy them as opposed to creating the next winning model.

There have been many prolific offensive teams during the past 30 years. The Alex English Nuggets, The Iceman Spurs, many Golden State teams, the D'Antonio Suns --- to name a few. None have been able to beat the teams I mentioned in my previous post. Or even seriously contend for a championship, for that matter. As for the 80's Lakers, they were likely much better defensively than many give them credit for. Michael Cooper may have been the best on-ball defender in history.

Let's also look at the 80's Sixers, whom I left out before. They had three great defenders in Caldwell Jones and Bobby Jones who played huge roles in their success. And Mo Cheeks was 1st team All-Defense, if I remember correctly. Then they threw in Moses who was an off-the charts rebounder --- and the rest was history. Of course they also had probably the most difficult man-on-man cover I've ever seen outside of Michael Jordan --- in Andrew Toney.

But a team with nothing but defense as it's calling card would likely be just as inept as those great offensive teams that never amounted to anything. It obviously takes some balance.

To me, the Hawks have enough adequete pieces defensively. And seem built to run offensively. But they often do not make good/correct decisions and it results in turnovers. We have the talent. But in another post, I mentioned that some (all) great players seem to have almost an uncanny ability to see things in slow-motion -- and this rare ability seperates great players from merely talented ones. I haven't seen this sixth-sense in any of our players. I've seen flashes of it --- and we have litterally blown teams out of the gym while those flashes have lasted.

Unfortunately, Teague would need to play a pivotal role in such an up-tempo scenario --- but it seems that he doesn't have any ability whatsoever to make correct decisions in a fast game. He constantly throws the ball right to opposing players who are no more than a foot or two away from him --- as if he can't even see them standing there.

CS

[MaceCase]

About Kobe. I'm a Kobe fan Now. But I would be re missed if I didn't bring up Lakers after the Shaq trade. Right after the Shaq trade with Butler, Odom, Kobe, etc etc... they were built similar to us. They had no post scoring because they had no real post player. AND what happened?

Even Kobe couldn't make the difference. One year they didn't even make the playoffs.

The difference came when they got Gasol.

Now for everybody crying Defense here and defense there, I offer the Lakers. I would go so far as to say that none of the Laker Championship teams have ever been great defensive teams. I think if we get a post scorer, we would be in that mold. Not the Detroit Piston, Chicago Bull Mold.

You've consistently used this example and been consistently wrong. The Lakers in every Finals appearance dating back to the 70s have been a top ten defense all but twice which were 2000 and 1982. In their last three appearances they've been rated 4th, 6th and 5th on defense to go along with being ranked 11th, 3rd, and 3rd on offense. Perhaps you don't consider being top 10 or top 5 for that matter to be great but I consider it a fallacy nonetheless to say that the Lakers are a team that have won consistently with offense while eschewing defense.

This team has managed to improve it's defense slightly from the previous seasons to get us to a tenth ranking but the offense has faltered especially from last season's lofty mark. Now this may be just due to implementing the new system but I do agree with you though that perhaps one piece can increase our rankings on both sides be it at PG or C.

[Sothron]

Here's where my thinking differs from yours. With Nash here, I believe he legitimizes us. Remember, Nash is a two time league MVP. That means that he has the goods. People shy away from Atlanta because we don't have the sack to be a contender. Moving for Nash and HIll says, here's our sack. Nash will definitely improve our offense and Hill and Nash will increase our BBIQ. If we take Joe, Josh, and Horf uptempo, we might not need a low post game. With that lineup, I believe we would be twice as strong as Phoenix when they Had Joe and Amare. Twice as strong. Horf is a big who can rebound and defend. Joe is a better player and Smoove is as good as Amare was then. Would it lead to championship... maybe not, but FAs would see a team that they would want to play for.

I would give up Marvin for a one year rental just to get rid of his contract let alone bring in a Nash/Hill combination.

[Diesel]

I don't necessarily (or even at all) disagree with your hypothesis, Diesel. In fact, I believe that league rules will continue to trend in a manner that will discourage winning via defense in the future. Someone will come along with a model that wins and also doesn't fit into any familiar mold. Then everyone will try to copy them as opposed to creating the next winning model.

There have been many prolific offensive teams during the past 30 years. The Alex English Nuggets, The Iceman Spurs, many Golden State teams, the D'Antonio Suns --- to name a few. None have been able to beat the teams I mentioned in my previous post. Or even seriously contend for a championship, for that matter. As for the 80's Lakers, they were likely much better defensively than many give them credit for. Michael Cooper may have been the best on-ball defender in history.

Let's also look at the 80's Sixers, whom I left out before. They had three great defenders in Caldwell Jones and Bobby Jones who played huge roles in their success. And Mo Cheeks was 1st team All-Defense, if I remember correctly. Then they threw in Moses who was an off-the charts rebounder --- and the rest was history. Of course they also had probably the most difficult man-on-man cover I've ever seen outside of Michael Jordan --- in Andrew Toney.

But a team with nothing but defense as it's calling card would likely be just as inept as those great offensive teams that never amounted to anything. It obviously takes some balance.

To me, the Hawks have enough adequete pieces defensively. And seem built to run offensively. But they often do not make good/correct decisions and it results in turnovers. We have the talent. But in another post, I mentioned that some (all) great players seem to have almost an uncanny ability to see things in slow-motion -- and this rare ability seperates great players from merely talented ones. I haven't seen this sixth-sense in any of our players. I've seen flashes of it --- and we have litterally blown teams out of the gym while those flashes have lasted.

Unfortunately, Teague would need to play a pivotal role in such an up-tempo scenario --- but it seems that he doesn't have any ability whatsoever to make correct decisions in a fast game. He constantly throws the ball right to opposing players who are no more than a foot or two away from him --- as if he can't even see them standing there.

CS

I agree. I think that winning with just defense is slowly being ushered out. Boston, San Antonio, and Orlando are examples of that but now you have Miami, LAL, and a few others who are breaking that mold. I think we can live out Bk's hope if we were to get our hands on nash. He's not defensive but he is the guy who I believe will make the offense work. He picks apart defenses and can run the uptempo game. I like Bibby, I do. But Bibby is just an OG. He is not a game manager... and Bibby excels doing OG stuff. Like being the decoy shooter. That is why Joe has led this team in assists for so long. However, you bring in Nash, he gives us new life and I betcha he averages at around 10 apg.

[Diesel]

You've consistently used this example and been consistently wrong. The Lakers in every Finals appearance dating back to the 70s have been a top ten defense all but twice which were 2000 and 1982. In their last three appearances they've been rated 4th, 6th and 5th on defense to go along with being ranked 11th, 3rd, and 3rd on offense. Perhaps you don't consider being top 10 or top 5 for that matter to be great but I consider it a fallacy nonetheless to say that the Lakers are a team that have won consistently with offense while eschewing defense.

This team has managed to improve it's defense slightly from the previous seasons to get us to a tenth ranking but the offense has faltered especially from last season's lofty mark. Now this may be just due to implementing the new system but I do agree with you though that perhaps one piece can increase our rankings on both sides be it at PG or C.

Top 10 what does it mean?

Last year, LAL (NBA Champions ranked 10th in defense.).. Atlanta hawks = 9th.

2007-2008, LAL (NBA Champions ranked 19th in defense).. Atlanta hawks = 14th.

2000-2001 LAL (NBA Champions ranked 23rd in defense)... Atlanta Hawks = 16th.

What does it mean?

What does it mean when we're better than them defensively and they win the championship and we don't win squat?

To me it means that more defense is not the answer.

[MaceCase]

Top 10 what does it mean?

Last year, LAL (NBA Champions ranked 10th in defense.).. Atlanta hawks = 9th.

2007-2008, LAL (NBA Champions ranked 19th in defense).. Atlanta hawks = 14th.

2000-2001 LAL (NBA Champions ranked 23rd in defense)... Atlanta Hawks = 16th.

What does it mean?

What does it mean when we're better than them defensively and they win the championship and we don't win squat?

To me it means that more defense is not the answer.

We've gone over this before. You are looking at a caveman defensive stat that doesn't take into account pace or efficiency, two things that are far more telling than just how many points an opponent scored. Go look at B-R again, look at all the past champions ORTG and DRTG and tell me if that has been a far more definitive measure for them than just taking a tally of how many points are scored.

[Chickenstanley]

Timing may be as important as season-long stats. Just like a team needs to be able to get a basket during crunch time --- they also need to have the ability to lock-down their opponents *in crucial situations.*

I don't think the Spurs or Pistons were necessarilly great offensive teams --- but they had the system and personnel to get the key basket in crucial situations. The 80's Lakers were also able to lock-down when needed. It wasn't the trademark of these teams, but the capability was there.

Some of the teams we've mentioned were so good on one side of the ball, it's likely they rarely needed to exert their full capability on the other side to win most games. Thus, possibly resulting in statistics that did not reflect the full-extent of their capabilities.

CS