Coincidence or trend? When Josh Smith sits, the Hawks are a much more dangerous, competitive team

[hawks21]

OKC

Memphis

Los Angeles

It just seems the Hawks are able to overcome adversity when Josh is not on the court. The Hawks could have folded up the tent when Kobe got 20+ in the third quarter, but Al Horford, Devin, Petro and others stayed focused and found a way to win.

[PSSSHHHRRR87]

Forgot Indy. The only problem I have with this thinking is that any team can win a game without one of their better players, but could the Hawks win consistently without him over a long period of time is the question. That I don't know and I feel the only way we would find out is if he jumps ship in the offseason...

Edited March 14, 2013 by PSSSHHHRRR87

[thecampster]

This is a common phenomena in sports. When one of the better players (or in this case, multiple) sits, the bench players get extended minutes. At this point in the season, their legs are fresher, there is less game film/preparation for them and the bench players usually are much more willing to work the coach's system. I think that shows in Jenkins/Harris having the largest +/- tonight. Both were + 11 (Jenkins in 19 minutes) and played a great deal together on the floor. Harris to this point this season has shown more of an ability to play Drew's system. Teague is the more exciting player but Harris has been consistently good when given minutes and more importantly the starters are good when on the floor with Harris. The difference is as a vet he knows what the coach wants and how to give it to him.

System's beat talent most nights. The best teams work their system regardless of who is on the floor. San Antonio is the best example of this I can think of. No Parker...no problem...work the system. No Duncan...same thing. There may come a day when Smith/Teague and the other talented players in the league come to realize that team comes before ego and when they do, their teams usually succeed.

[Colin]

It was Brooklyn, not Memphis--for the record.

[cam1218]

When Josh doesn't play, we basically have no possessions that are obviously wasted. We have shots that you don’t want, but each player plays to their strength. It is just obvious that we are a better “team” when he is out, because we actually play like one.

The Hawks are at the best when we are moving the ball around, and usually Josh isn’t a part of it. He passes some, but he also makes iso Joe look great and stops possessions because he wants to shoot. He is probably our second best passer but that doesn’t mean it happens every time it should.

There isn’t a part of me that thinks losing his ill-advised threes and fade away jump shots hurts us. There also isn’t a part of me that thinks we could possibly win a playoff series without him. These games should show him that we don’t need his jumpers; we just need him to get his stats within the flow of the game.

[Gray Mule]

Josh is a multi talented player and we can change him and have

him quit many of the things that he does wrong for the Hawks.

Can't you just imagine other NBA teams telling themselves this.

They will line up with the big bucks in hand after the season to

try to lure him to their team and prove their thinking is correct.

Josh does so many great, wonderful things to help the Hawks. He is

the one player other team's fans recognise more than any other. He

pulls many stupid, bone headed plays that cost the Hawks. All this great

and terrible stuff, usually in the same game.

Isn't it strange that so many Hawk fans really question the idea that,

when Josh is missing the Hawks win, so there must be a reason.

[BrazilianHawk]

YES

Ball movement is the wind is Hawks' sail. Josh just takes it away with some horrible plays, especially in crunch time.