Most impressive team Atlanta has ever had....

[sturt]

All well and good except that I specified the 2013-14 Spurs. The multiple MVP guy is well beyond his prime years, though obviously productive. Same for Parker. Same for Ginobili. It's not the same thing as comparing the two in some aggregate way. And if it's a little early to be taking the position that this team will win a championship or that any of these guys will develop into HoFers, it seems just as early to be saying they won't be able to be anything more than a one-year wonder and void of any HoFers, no? We'll see how it all turns out, but in the meantime, I think those who've made the comparison (I'm certainly not the first, and I have plenty of company) have some specifically obvious reason to do so given our on-leave GM and our current coach's connection.

Edited January 18, 2015 by sturt

[Plainview1981]

Eh...true and not true, but you're mostly right.  Going back to the point about how the NBA markets players - Derick Rose and the Bull's story is a draw.  They also made the ECF's and that gives them "contender" consideration.  They were expected to be very good this year, especially after adding Gasol, and they are.  Hell, as a fan of the game, even I want to see what they do.  So of course they're going to get attention.

 

The Wiz are a young team that's maturing - and that's always interesting (and yes, Wall is also a guy the media can key on).  With Toronto, they made a 180 after moving Rudy Gay and were expected to be one of the top teams in the East this season.  That's an interesting story and I'm sure the NBA also appreciates the fact that they're in Canada.  And while both teams haven't done anything special...they did make it further than we did last year - and we barely made the playoffs.  Couple it with our history, is any of this really surprising?

 

Surely, it's not fair...and surely we'll get more exposure next year and more respect (which we are getting plenty of right now), but I'm not going to sit here and act like I don't understand.

 

Are the Wizards really a young team? I wouldn't call Paul Pierce, Nene, MG, Butler and those guys young. They have a young back court.

[Plainview1981]

As for the discussion of the topic of the thread if we are talking about most impressive team in Atlanta Hawk history I think there is no question this is the most impressive team ever. They are more impressive IMO than the Heat 27 game win streak in 2012-13 the Heat didnt dominate teams like the Hawks have in there past 27 games.

If we are talking about most impressive Atlanta Sports team. There were some impressive Braves teams. This reminds me so much of the 1991 Braves team. I remember no one believed but the Braves continued to win and the city fell in love with their team.

 

I've considered bringing up the 1991 Braves team for a while. That's just who this team resembles. 

Edited January 18, 2015 by Hotlanta1981

[KenDixon]

I've considered bringing up the 1991 Braves team for a while. That's just who this team resembles. 

 

 

I don't get the Braves comparison. That Braves team was coming off of a very bad season and was not picked to do much more than have a bad season again. Thus "worst to first". They had a lot of young talent that had potential but really hadn't shown a lot.

The Hawks are a much more veteran team all around by comparison. The really young guys (1 to 3 years in the league) are all bench guys. They weren't picked to win the East, but they weren't picked to be among the NBA's worst either. They had shown what might could be last year when Horford wasn't injured. They are at the halfway point right now atop the conference and on pace to win 66 games. The Braves were 39-40 at the break in 1991 and 9.5 games out of the division. 

[AHF]

All well and good except that I specified the 2013-14 Spurs. The multiple MVP guy is well beyond his prime years, though obviously productive. Same for Parker. Same for Ginobili. It's not the same thing as comparing the two in some aggregate way. And if it's a little early to be taking the position that this team will win a championship or that any of these guys will develop into HoFers, it seems just as early to be saying they won't be able to be anything more than a one-year wonder and void of any HoFers, no? We'll see how it all turns out, but in the meantime, I think those who've made the comparison (I'm certainly not the first, and I have plenty of company) have some specifically obvious reason to do so given our on-leave GM and our current coach's connection.

 

I don't buy that the 2013-14 Spurs were just like last year's Grizzlies or some group of relatively anonymous players that jumped up to championship level ala the Pistons and Sonics just because their 4-time champion core guys (coming off a finals games 7 loss) were getting another year older.  It is not coincidence the team was built around a bunch of HOFers.  Watch the video of Duncan disposing of Kevin Durant's Thunder  in the playoffs last year and get back to me about how he isn't capable of dominating offensively anymore.  I would say that core is on the the ending fringes of its prime.  Parker was still in All-Star mode, Duncan was a top 5 defender over the regular season by every metric and put up a 21+ PER, Ginobili bounced back to his career norm 20 PER (.176 WS/48), etc.  Those guys are not MJ in Washington.  They were still all studs last regular season and flanked by an emerging Finals MVP Leonard, Pops and a solid assortment of supporting cast.  But Duncan was still the team's heart and Duncan, Tony and Manu the core over the season.

[anxietyreigns]

I know this sounds like I'm a non-believer, but honestly my focus is still on just getting home court in the 1st round and winning that series. 

[Dejay]

I know this sounds like I'm a non-believer, but honestly my focus is still on just getting home court in the 1st round and winning that series.

I honestly think their first round opponent will be a difficult one, IMHO. The teams in the range of the 8th seed (except the Nets; hope they don't make it, obviously) give me a little concern because they play just recklessly enough to hang around in a ballgame and series.

[anxietyreigns]

I honestly think their first round opponent will be a difficult one, IMHO. The teams in the range of the 8th seed (except the Nets; hope they don't make it, obviously) give me a little concern because they play just recklessly enough to hang around in a ballgame and series.

Yeah same here. Detroit would be tough. Hell even Boston would scare me.

[buckeye242424]

The East is up for grabs. Don't get me wrong, we're one of the better teams... We've shown it thus far. If we're a 1 seed playing an 8 Cleveland??

[Wretch]

Are the Wizards really a young team? I wouldn't call Paul Pierce, Nene, MG, Butler and those guys young. They have a young back court.

 

I start typing and I sort of gloss over commonly used terms.  When I said "young," I didn't mean Washington's average age (which is skewed considerably by the vets added to round out the team).  I was referring more to where the team is in it's development cycle.  It's always interesting to watch a team grow up and come into it's own.  That's the story in Washington.  Specifically, it's about the team's core of Wall and Beal - the guys that fans, media, and NBA keys on.  The Wizards' backcourt is their future and they have a combined 6 years of experience.

[sturt]

I don't buy that the 2013-14 Spurs were just like last year's Grizzlies or some group of relatively anonymous players that jumped up to championship level ala the Pistons and Sonics just because their 4-time champion core guys (coming off a finals games 7 loss) were getting another year older.  It is not coincidence the team was built around a bunch of HOFers.  Watch the video of Duncan disposing of Kevin Durant's Thunder  in the playoffs last year and get back to me about how he isn't capable of dominating offensively anymore.  I would say that core is on the the ending fringes of its prime.  Parker was still in All-Star mode, Duncan was a top 5 defender over the regular season by every metric and put up a 21+ PER, Ginobili bounced back to his career norm 20 PER (.176 WS/48), etc.  Those guys are not MJ in Washington.  They were still all studs last regular season and flanked by an emerging Finals MVP Leonard, Pops and a solid assortment of supporting cast.  But Duncan was still the team's heart and Duncan, Tony and Manu the core over the season.

 

And all I'm saying is that they were all well past their peak... which I believe you concur when you say "on the ending fringes of their prime"... and that just like their guys "were still all studs," ours might be proving to be studs in their own right. The main difference is not in the Spurs 2013-14 capacity to perform versus the Hawks 2014-15 capacity to perform, but rather merely in the name recognition... Parker over Teague, Duncan over Horford, etc. And going back to the original post, again, it seems to me to be entirely natural to compare the two, again, particularly because of the GM and coaches common to the two franchises. Don't know why it's being challenged as it is, but fwiw, I didn't mean to come off as abrasive in asking the question as I did... it was genuinely just a curiosity to me.

[AHF]

And all I'm saying is that they were all well past their peak... which I believe you concur when you say "on the ending fringes of their prime"... and that just like their guys "were still all studs," ours might be proving to be studs in their own right. The main difference is not in the Spurs 2013-14 capacity to perform versus the Hawks 2014-15 capacity to perform, but rather merely in the name recognition... Parker over Teague, Duncan over Horford, etc. And going back to the original post, again, it seems to me to be entirely natural to compare the two, again, particularly because of the GM and coaches common to the two franchises. Don't know why it's being challenged as it is, but fwiw, I didn't mean to come off as abrasive in asking the question as I did... it was genuinely just a curiosity to me.

 

That is where I totally disagree.  It isn't "merely" name recognition.  Those "mere names" won an average of 58 games the last four seasons which would be the best season in Hawks history (they would have set the Hawks record 3 of those 4 years).  Those guys are justifiably legends and were still in the "kick @#$" stage of their career last season.  We are currently on pace to equal their regular season last year after our historically great run.

 

That doesn't mean the Hawks can't do something great but for us it would be rising out of mediocrity to greatness.  For the Spurs, last season was the extension of a long run of greatness.  Thus, us winning a title this year would look more like Detroit and Seattle....unless we sustain that greatness over a significant run and then you can start using us and the Spurs in the same sentence.

[sturt]

That is where I totally disagree.  It isn't "merely" name recognition.  Those "mere names" won an average of 58 games the last four seasons which would be the best season in Hawks history (they would have set the Hawks record 3 of those 4 years).  Those guys are justifiably legends and were still in the "kick @#$" stage of their career last season.  We are currently on pace to equal their regular season last year after our historically great run.

 

That doesn't mean the Hawks can't do something great but for us it would be rising out of mediocrity to greatness.  For the Spurs, last season was the extension of a long run of greatness.  Thus, us winning a title this year would look more like Detroit and Seattle....unless we sustain that greatness over a significant run and then you can start using us and the Spurs in the same sentence.

 

Past tense.

 

Again, I get it... you're looking at it from a broader perspective than a single season.

 

But I'm not. I'm looking at the 2013-14 Spurs in a vacuum and the 2014-15 Hawks in a vacuum. You seem to allege that's not legitimate. That, to me, is where we disagree. It is completely legitimate, and that, even if you set aside our management's relationship with them.

[AHF]

Past tense.

 

Again, I get it... you're looking at it from a broader perspective than a single season.

 

But I'm not. I'm looking at the 2013-14 Spurs in a vacuum and the 2014-15 Hawks in a vacuum. You seem to allege that's not legitimate. That, to me, is where we disagree. It is completely legitimate, and that, even if you set aside our management's relationship with them.

 

I can't look at it in a vacuum and pretend like the Spurs didn't win 58 games and lose in game 7 of the finals the prior season and therefore try to pretend like Duncan, Parker, et al. were a bunch of past their prime guys just trying to hang on last season and their contending was such a surprise.  They weren't a bunch of past their prime guys hanging on and their success wasn't a surprise.  They were still studs last season in 2013-14.  

 

The Hawks this year look amazing.  Unlike the Spurs, their success has been a shocking surprise to everyone outside of the Atlanta lockerroom (and I am willing to bet some of the guys inside it).  While the Spurs were averaging 58 wins a season those prior 4 years with a high of 62 wins, the Hawks averaged 41.5 wins the past 4 seasons with a high of 44 wins.  I get the comparison of the teams with play style but we aren't similarly situated coming into the year or for expectations.  I just have a hard time looking past the context and then finding some deeper meaning.

 

Even if I buy your idea of "ignore the track record and look at 2013-14 in vacuum and see how Duncan et al were just a bunch of past their prime players" then I still don't see the comparison.  Nobody on our team is past their prime other than Elton Brand.  Our guys are all at the peak of their game or on the learning side of the curve.  While I guess they have no history to look back on, they are a team of guys at their peak or on the rise which doesn't compare very well to a team built around 3 guys past their prime and one guy emerging ala Teague.  In short, the comparison doesn't advance my understanding of the Hawks or their season.

 

I think we just look at this in a fundamentally different way.  Which is perfectly ok.  The way I looked at this team coming into the year seems 100% wrong.  (I sure hope to #$* my view that they couldn't get past the 2nd round is wrong).

[DrReality]

If LA or Boston won three games in s row they'd be headlines. Total BS

[sturt]

I can't look at it in a vacuum and pretend like the Spurs didn't win 58 games and lose in game 7 of the finals the prior season and therefore try to pretend like Duncan, Parker, et al. were a bunch of past their prime guys just trying to hang on last season and their contending was such a surprise.  They weren't a bunch of past their prime guys hanging on and their success wasn't a surprise.  They were still studs last season in 2013-14.  

 

The Hawks this year look amazing.  Unlike the Spurs, their success has been a shocking surprise to everyone outside of the Atlanta lockerroom (and I am willing to bet some of the guys inside it).  While the Spurs were averaging 58 wins a season those prior 4 years with a high of 62 wins, the Hawks averaged 41.5 wins the past 4 seasons with a high of 44 wins.  I get the comparison of the teams with play style but we aren't similarly situated coming into the year or for expectations.  I just have a hard time looking past the context and then finding some deeper meaning.

 

Even if I buy your idea of "ignore the track record and look at 2013-14 in vacuum and see how Duncan et al were just a bunch of past their prime players" then I still don't see the comparison.  Nobody on our team is past their prime other than Elton Brand.  Our guys are all at the peak of their game or on the learning side of the curve.  While I guess they have no history to look back on, they are a team of guys at their peak or on the rise which doesn't compare very well to a team built around 3 guys past their prime and one guy emerging ala Teague.  In short, the comparison doesn't advance my understanding of the Hawks or their season.

 

I think we just look at this in a fundamentally different way.  Which is perfectly ok.  The way I looked at this team coming into the year seems 100% wrong.  (I sure hope to #$* my view that they couldn't get past the 2nd round is wrong).

 

I don't disparage your perspective. I get it.

 

I'm merely defending the point that seemed to offend you--that not only can one look at things in the vacuum I spoke of, they probably should, given the context that both teams run the same system. The comparison you're resisting and that I'm contending is simply that you have players that essentially bring not-exact-but-similar skill sets to their two teams that employ the same system and philosophy. One may be ascending and the other descending in terms of zooming out and looking at the bigger picture of their careers and their teams' level of success over time, but then again, while that's valid, it's just as valid (and common) that we look at single seasons and the individual players that composed rosters in one of those and make comparisons and contrasts between them.