“I don’t roll with that"

[TheNorthCydeRises]

If we shipped out Josh Smith for a SF, Drew would be forced to start either Zaza at C or Ivan at PF ( unless he starts Tolliver at PF ).C - ZazaPF - HorfordF - RudyThat does not make us smallerC - HorfordPF - IvanF - RudyThat makes us a little tougher.Either way, you now have a lineup that may be weaker defensively, but better balanced offensively. The 1st lineup is a far better rebounding group. The 2nd lineup is a far better shooting group.This team is not going to collapse if Josh Smith is not on the team, especially if we get a high quality SF like Rudy to insert into the lineup. We have enough depth on the frontline to at least keep us where we are right now.

[Jody23]

To be clear, the ONLY reason Horford doesn't predominantly play PF is because of the insistence on playing Josh at that position, not because Horford is best suited to play center because he's not. If Josh were ever traded, Horford would move to the PF. Trading Josh would not make the Hawks smaller, but most likely bigger.That being said, I'm not advocating trading Josh. What needs to be addressed is Larry Drew and his "let's try to win by shooting jumpers" philosophy. What I want to know is, who was he calling "SOFT"? Was it Horford? You match him up with a guy who is not only taller, but outweighs him by over 20 pounds and you call him soft because he can't out muscle him!? One word...STUPID! Was he referring to Korver because he couldn't contain the bigger, longer and more athletic AK? STUPID!I could speculate on others who he may have been referring to, but it would all come back to...that's right...STUPID! I don't care if Josh is not a prototypical SF, we cannot continue to play undersized just because Drew is obsessed with offense and jump shooting. And when the Hawks get beat up inside and on the boards, he's quick to spew this drivel about "no energy". This new tactic of calling people soft to cover his own unwillingness to see the obvious until it's too late is plain disgusting.

[thecampster]

To be clear, the ONLY reason Horford doesn't predominantly play PF is because of the insistence on playing Josh at that position, not because Horford is best suited to play center because he's not. If Josh were ever traded, Horford would move to the PF. Trading Josh would not make the Hawks smaller, but most likely bigger.That being said, I'm not advocating trading Josh. What needs to be addressed is Larry Drew and his "let's try to win by shooting jumpers" philosophy. What I want to know is, who was he calling "SOFT"? Was it Horford? You match him up with a guy who is not only taller, but outweighs him by over 20 pounds and you call him soft because he can't out muscle him!? One word...STUPID! Was he referring to Korver because he couldn't contain the bigger, longer and more athletic AK? STUPID!I could speculate on others who he may have been referring to, but it would all come back to...that's right...STUPID! I don't care if Josh is not a prototypical SF, we cannot continue to play undersized just because Drew is obsessed with offense and jump shooting. And when the Hawks get beat up inside and on the boards, he's quick to spew this drivel about "no energy". This new tactic of calling people soft to cover his own unwillingness to see the obvious until it's too late is plain disgusting.

I can't agree more. The issue with the team is rebounding and defense inside. You don't trade Al/Josh/? for Zaza/Al/Gay to get better at defense. Zaza should start but in a lineup with Al and Josh until a better solution is reached but many nights the only thing stopping our games from becoming a layup drill is Josh Smith's defense.

[hawkrule152]

But guess who got a DNP tonight.IVANThe one guy on the team who we KNOW is not SOFT, but he gets a DNP?Why Larry? Why?

Couldnt agree more with you! I dont understand why Ivans minutes have been decreasing. Him and Zaza should see ALOT more playing time. If you want aggression and players actually in the paint thats who EVERYBODY BESIDES LD knows who we should turn to. These guys arent scared of anyone and want the physical play in the paint unlike everybody else on the team.

[Jody23]

I can't agree more. The issue with the team is rebounding and defense inside. You don't trade Al/Josh/? for Zaza/Al/Gay to get better at defense. Zaza should start but in a lineup with Al and Josh until a better solution is reached but many nights the only thing stopping our games from becoming a layup drill is Josh Smith's defense.

Agreed that defense and rebounding are this teams biggest issues.For the record, I'm not in favor of trading for Gay. I do like him as a player, but that contract ain't worth it. And I know it was only one game, but when Josh lined up at SF against Gay, he outplayed him on both ends. Again, Josh may not be a true SF, but he's the best this team has defensively at that position and in a lineup with Al and ZaZa, things have worked well against good teams. Time for LD to realize that.

[thecampster]

Now I shouldn't have to do this. I really shouldn't but what follows are 2 sets of numbers. Side by side production of our players from top to bottom and +/- top to bottom per game for the year.

Positional production

Smith - 18.2/11.0 +7.2

Horford - 19.5/16.3 +3.2

Williams - 18.5/16.5 +2.0

Korver - 14.4/13/2 +1.3

Pachulia - 14.6/14.0 +.7

Morrow - -.8

Johnson - -1.0

Harris - -1.4

Teague - -1.8

Jenkins - -2.0

Stevenson - -4.2

Scott - -9.3

Tolliver - -10.2

Petro - -29.3 (proving once again the French know surrender).

Now for their per game +/- for the year.

Teague +11.1

Korver +10.1

Smith +8.6

Horford +5.8

Pachulia +1.6

Williams -.5

Harris -3.3

Johnson -4.7

Stevenson -5.9

Tolliver -8.9

Morrow - 9.1

Scott -18.1

Jenkins - 19.1

Petro - 36.0

Now Scott and Jenkins +/- are skewed based on getting time at the end of blowouts almost exclusively. But some easy conclusions can be drawn here.

Horford and Smith are in the top 3 of both categories, while Teague is only up in +/-.

Looking at your first set of numbers your rotation should be.

Williams

Korver

Smith

Horford

Pachulia

Subbing Morrow, Johnson, Harris, Teague, Jenkins (in that order of performance).

Looking at the second set of numbers you would set the lineup as such

Teague

Korver

Smith

Horford

Pachulia

Subbing Williams, Harris, Johnson, Stevenson, Toliver (in that order).

There are 4 constants in both groups with the only question being who starts at the point and who is first off the bench.

This very simple and very accurate 30+ games into the season metric tells us that the big front line should be starting and that who starts between Teague - Williams is a matter of preference. It also shows that Stevenson gets way too many minutes, Johnson gets too few and that we miss Devin Harris a little.

What it doesn't say is trading Josh Smith is the solution to any of our issues or that Rudy Gay is.

[macdaddy]

You know the deal with stats. +/- can be skewed for anyone if they happen to be in during some big runs or big crashes. Being inserted at the end of blow outs won't skew your +/- unless you continue to get blown out why you are on the court.

Still we all know from watching recently that Smith/Horford/pachulia should probably be starting. Deshawn was very effective earlier but has fallen off.

My biggest issue is that a Williams Korver backcourt would be one of the weakest backcourts in the league defensively. I don't see any choice but to do the second lineup.

[benhillboy]

At this point, change of scenery seems like the natural progression in Josh's career. I'd be very surprised if Ferry didn't exhaust every possible scenario with the deadline approaching. He knows there is no shortage of incompetent and poor scouting GMs to do a sweet deal with. What could we get of value from Dumb and Desperate Kupchak? Jordan Hill and their upcoming lottery pick?

Edited January 9, 2013 by benhillboy

[coachx]

I can't agree more. The issue with the team is rebounding and defense inside. You don't trade Al/Josh/? for Zaza/Al/Gay to get better at defense. Zaza should start but in a lineup with Al and Josh until a better solution is reached but many nights the only thing stopping our games from becoming a layup drill is Josh Smith's defense.

Have to add post offense to the list of problems........that is why we have these scoring droughts when the jumpers don't fall.

[coachx]

At this point, change of scenery seems like the natural progression in Josh's career. I'd be very surprised if Ferry didn't exhaust every possible scenario with the deadline approaching. He knows there is no shortage of incompetent and poor scouting GMs to do a sweet deal with. What could we get of value from Dumb and Desperate Kupchak? Jordan Hill and their upcoming lottery pick?

I would take complete trash for Josh Smith if it included a lottery pick........as long as that trash is not on long term contracts.

[Guest]

The experiment is over guys - these guys have developed an allergy to playing in the paint, LD prefers his small guards for offense as opposed to defense and rebounding. Time to just start Josh at the SF and go big with Zaza. Josh is gonna play undisciplined no matter where he plays, his shot selection will still leave a lot to be desired but at least we would have a better shot rebounding all those misses.

And please....more Ivan.

[ryandauwalker]

I started this thread, so I'd like to clarify my original post. I am not blaming Josh for last night. He is a really good player.

All I was referencing is somebody who makes a comment like that when they made a bonehead play at the end is not a positive influence in the locker room. Very little leadership. That has an effect on the team that is hard to quantify.

[Jody23]

I started this thread, so I'd like to clarify my original post. I am not blaming Josh for last night. He is a really good player. All I was referencing is somebody who makes a comment like that when they made a bonehead play at the end is not a positive influence in the locker room. Very little leadership. That has an effect on the team that is hard to quantify.

I understand where you're coming from and to an extent I agree, but I also can potentially see where Josh was coming from. It's one thing to say "we didn't execute the play well" or "we didn't play to our strengths". But, to purposely play small ball with a view to outscoring the opponent, and then turn and call your team "soft" because they couldn't physically contend is foolishness. So if Josh refused to acknowledge that he or the team didn't execute well in certain situations, I would totally agree with the assessment. But that wasn't the main thing that cost them the game. It was the coaches continual desire to handicap his own team by rendering them physically overmatched and then calling them soft when they couldn't overcome it. So I think Josh was right in disagreeing and the way the entire game unfolded supports that. Edited January 9, 2013 by Jody23

[Guest]

I understand where you're coming from and to an extent I agree, but I also can potentially see where Josh was coming from. It's one thing to say "we didn't execute the play well" or "we didn't play to our strengths". But, to purposely play small ball with a view to outscoring the opponent, and then turn and call your team "soft" because they couldn't physically contend is foolishness. So if Josh refused to acknowledge that he or the team didn't execute well in certain situations, I would totally agree with the assessment. But that wasn't the main thing that cost them the game. It was the coaches continual desire to handicap his own team by rendering them physically overmatched and then calling them soft when they couldn't overcome it. So I think Josh was right in disagreeing and the way the entire game unfolded supports that.

Agreed.

[Eddielives]

I understand where you're coming from and to an extent I agree, but I also can potentially see where Josh was coming from. It's one thing to say "we didn't execute the play well" or "we didn't play to our strengths". But, to purposely play small ball with a view to outscoring the opponent, and then turn and call your team "soft" because they couldn't physically contend is foolishness. So if Josh refused to acknowledge that he or the team didn't execute well in certain situations, I would totally agree with the assessment. But that wasn't the main thing that cost them the game. It was the coaches continual desire to handicap his own team by rendering them physically overmatched and then calling them soft when they couldn't overcome it. So I think Josh was right in disagreeing and the way the entire game unfolded supports that.

Everything you say here is valid. But what is also valid is something that doesn't show up in the boxscore....Josh's attitude. Josh is still doing the whiny/I'm doin' it my way/I can shoot jumpers whenever I want/stop trying to coach me I'm Josh BS! He isn't a smart player when it comes to dealing with coaches, fellow players or the refs. He's a pouty and self-absorbed, yet very talented player who puts up great numbers. But he's not a winner. He's a whiner. Yet he works as hard as anyone on the team. He's jekyl hyde. And quite frankly, I'm tired of the same show with him. It doesn't excite me anymore.

[willthepureshooter]

I understand where you're coming from and to an extent I agree, but I also can potentially see where Josh was coming from. It's one thing to say "we didn't execute the play well" or "we didn't play to our strengths". But, to purposely play small ball with a view to outscoring the opponent, and then turn and call your team "soft" because they couldn't physically contend is foolishness. So if Josh refused to acknowledge that he or the team didn't execute well in certain situations, I would totally agree with the assessment. But that wasn't the main thing that cost them the game. It was the coaches continual desire to handicap his own team by rendering them physically overmatched and then calling them soft when they couldn't overcome it. So I think Josh was right in disagreeing and the way the entire game unfolded supports that.

[ryandauwalker]

I understand where you're coming from and to an extent I agree, but I also can potentially see where Josh was coming from. It's one thing to say "we didn't execute the play well" or "we didn't play to our strengths". But, to purposely play small ball with a view to outscoring the opponent, and then turn and call your team "soft" because they couldn't physically contend is foolishness. So if Josh refused to acknowledge that he or the team didn't execute well in certain situations, I would totally agree with the assessment. But that wasn't the main thing that cost them the game. It was the coaches continual desire to handicap his own team by rendering them physically overmatched and then calling them soft when they couldn't overcome it. So I think Josh was right in disagreeing and the way the entire game unfolded supports that.

Fair point. I'm not defending Drew's lineups and I wish he had more confidence in his big lineup.However, I took Drew's comments as describing the energy of the team as opposed to how they fared against a bigger opponent. Nobody can expect them to be more physical against a bigger team, but you can play with greater energy and reckless abandon.

[Ruckus]

I would take anything for Josh. I do not see someone giving us a lotto pick though. I just don't see how you can actually watch him play and still want his soft, lazy ass on our team. "Smh" as so many of you like to say.

[DJlaysitup]

In my opinion Smoove sees himself as a SF who is doing extra work by helping out inside much more than normal SFs do - blocking shots and dominating inside on occasion - but he sees himself as a SF (which maybe he should be - he is 6-8). He probably feels like he is being played out of position much of the time.

Al Horford probably sees himself as a PF who is being forced to do yoeman's work inside due to the Hawks' inability to get a solid center. He sees himself doing much more for the team than may be expected - without a decent center on the team (which is probably fair since he is 6-9 and 1/2 and almost everybody says he should be playing PF). He probably feels like he is being played out of position much of the time.

Now honestly - is it really these two guys who are the problem (one who has been an all-star and one who many think had earned that honor but missed out only because of fan voting/numbers) or is it ownership/management's fault for not getting us a decent quality center?

I think it is a conundrum.

Edited January 10, 2013 by DJlaysitup

[thecampster]

In my opinion Smoove sees himself as a SF who is doing extra work by helping out inside much more than normal SFs do - blocking shots and dominating inside on occasion - but he sees himself as a SF (which maybe he should be - he is 6-8). He probably feels like he is being played out of position much of the time.

Al Horford probably sees himself as a PF who is being forced to do yoeman's work inside due to the Hawks' inability to get a solid center. He sees himself doing much more for the team than may be expected - without a decent center on the team (which is probably fair since he is 6-9 and 1/2 and almost everybody says he should be playing PF). He probably feels like he is being played out of position much of the time.

Now honestly - is it really these two guys who are the problem or is it ownership/management's fault for not getting us a decent quality center?

Scary thought...he played a good bit of SG in high school