Doesn't Seem Like Much Has Been Done

[Plainview1981]

Outside of his injury issues, I don't have anything against Splitter.... But the Hawks need a better wing. Even GS has someone like Iggy that is athletic at that spot. This idea of having wings that can only shoot 3's and defend (outside of Thabo the Hawks don't even have much defense at that spot now) is going to hurt in the playoffs again. It makes the team more limited.

 

Guys like Iggy and Mano can be important to have in a system like this.

Edited July 10, 2015 by Hotlanta1981

[sturt]

The Hawks are in the early stages of the Bud regime and it does feel alot better being optimistic towards the future winning 60 games last year. The biggest worry is will the Hawks become another Utah or Atlanta Braves team where you have excellent regualr seasons but can't get over the hump in the playoffs due to not enough quality players.For arguments sake lets say the Hawks win 55-60 games a year for the next 5 years yet get bounced out in every round not makeing it to the NBA finals will the regime be a sucess?

 

Compared to...?

[thescout5]

compared to other hawk teams starting with woodson as coach.The Hawks were very good during the Dominque years but could never get past the 2nd round.

[sturt]

Think you answered your own question. All a matter of where any given person sets their standard. Hawks have, indeed, have had some long streaks of good-but-not-exceptional success since I began following since obtaining the basketball card at the left. It is about time we enjoyed something exceptional for me. For younger people who maybe started following the Hawks about the time that the Rider trade was made, and suffered through all those years of rebuilding, there obviously should be a greater degree of satisfaction.

[RandomFan]

It's an excuse. We can't claim we are a team and we can't deal with injuries. Cleveland had more severe injuries and swept us. 

 

I don't give a rat's ass about Cleveland. The question is,  were we injured, or weren't we? It's a simple question.

 

The answer is: we were injured.

 

The conclusion that follows is that we don't know what kind of team we might have had if healthy, because we were injured!

 

The other team has absolutely zero effect on that. Nothing else has any effect on that one simple question. It's a simple binary scenario that only has 2 options. All the other injection of other variables is merely hand-waving in order to distract from that simple fact.

 

The conclusion that follows from the above conclusion is, you can't definitively say that we couldn't have won the championship if we were healthy, because that is obviously something unknowable, because we weren't healthy! Pretending to "know" otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

Edited July 10, 2015 by RandomFan

[atlhawks1]

45-50 wins, second round exit...........

[thescout5]

I don't give a rat's ass about Cleveland. The question is,  were we injured, or weren't we? It's a simple question.

 

The answer is: we were injured.

 

The conclusion that follows is that we don't know what kind of team we might have had if healthy, because we were injured!

 

The other team has absolutely zero effect on that. Nothing else has any effect on that one simple question. It's a simple binary scenario that only has 2 options. All the other injection of other variables is merely hand-waving in order to distract from that simple fact.

 

The conclusion that follows from the above conclusion is, you can't definitively say that we couldn't have won the championship if we were healthy, because that is obviously something unknowable, because we weren't healthy! Pretending to "know" otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

The Hawks had injuries so...NEXT MAN UP..unfortunately the Hawks didn't have the depth like some other teams. 

[RandomFan]

The Hawks had injuries so...NEXT MAN UP..unfortunately the Hawks didn't have the depth like some other teams. 

And that's still a completely irrelevant point to the discussion at hand.

[Alex]

Two of the players we may count on to fill the void at the 3 are complete health question marks.  The other two are question marks all together.  The bottom line is the Hawks did not adequately address the small forward position on this team.  Real contenders don't have a patch work position going into the season.  Furthermore no contending team has a patchwork starting position either.

45-50 wins, second round exit...........

That's being generous.

[Guard]

I don't give a rat's ass about Cleveland. The question is,  were we injured, or weren't we? It's a simple question.

 

The answer is: we were injured.

 

The conclusion that follows is that we don't know what kind of team we might have had if healthy, because we were injured!

 

The other team has absolutely zero effect on that. Nothing else has any effect on that one simple question. It's a simple binary scenario that only has 2 options. All the other injection of other variables is merely hand-waving in order to distract from that simple fact.

 

The conclusion that follows from the above conclusion is, you can't definitively say that we couldn't have won the championship if we were healthy, because that is obviously something unknowable, because we weren't healthy! Pretending to "know" otherwise is intellectual dishonest.

This reads like mental gymnastics. The only reason you "don't give a rat's ass about Cleveland" is because it hurts your argument of  'if only we were healthy". You wouldn't be able to use this retort because you'd have to acknowledge the clear difference in talent between the Hawks and the Cavs when both are healthy.

 

The NBA is a constant thing. More talent = a higher probability of winning. Especially when they're at least two players with multiple elite traits involved. It happens damn near every year. The NBA isn't like the NFL where a team can get hot with lesser talent and ride the momentum into a Superbowl win. Like I said, the NBA is a constant thing.

Edited July 11, 2015 by Guard

[RandomFan]

This reads like mental gymnastics. The only reason you "don't give a rat's ass about Cleveland" is because it hurts your argument of  'if only we were healthy". You wouldn't be able to use this retort because you'd have to acknowledge the clear difference in talent between the Hawks and the Cavs when both are healthy.

 

The NBA is a constant thing. More talent = a higher probability of winning. Especially when they're at least two players with multiple elite traits involved. It happens damn near every year. The NBA isn't like the NFL where a team can get hot with lesser talent and ride the momentum into a Superbowl win. Like I said, the NBA is a constant thing.

 

Once again, more hand waving to avoid the crux of the matter.

 

What's the problem, you can't even answer a simple question?

 

Were we, or were we not healthy for the playoffs? All this extra b.s. you people keep trying to attach is irrelevant to that one question.

 

I'm not trying to say we would have won if healthy; I'm saying you have no logical basis to proclaim it a certaintly we couldn't have won in light of the fact we didn't get to see what we could have done if healthy. Not a single one of us knows how close we are or aren't to being a championship contender because we haven't seen what our best looks like yet - due to lack of health in the playoffs. 

 

Take all your other arguments about what you "believe" about our what our chances would have been, and stick 'em. Those are opinions, not facts. The fact is we didn't get to see us at our full potential for the playoffs, and nobody can dispute that.

 

So people resort to....

 

hand waving.

 

The only mental gymnastics going on around here is trying to avoid answering a simple question.

Edited July 11, 2015 by RandomFan

[Alex]

No the Hawks weren't healthy during the playoffs.  Neither were the 15 other teams who made the post season.  

[RandomFan]

No the Hawks weren't healthy during the playoffs.  Neither were the 15 other teams who made the post season.  

 

The first sentence is pertinent to this conversation.

 

The second one is an unnecessary addendum.

[Guard]

Once again, more hand waving to avoid the crux of the matter.

 

What's the problem, you can't even answer a simple question?

 

Were we, or were we not healthy for the playoffs? All this extra b.s. you people keep trying to attach is irrelevant to that one question.

 

I'm not trying to say we would have won if healthy; I'm saying you have no logical basis to proclaim it a certaintly we couldn't have won in light of the fact we didn't get to see what we could have done if healthy. Not a single one of us knows how close we are or aren't to being a championship contender because we haven't seen what our best looks like yet - due to lack of health in the playoffs. 

 

Take all your other arguments about what you "believe" about our what our chances would have been, and stick 'em. Those are opinions, not facts. The fact is we didn't get to see us at our full potential for the playoffs, and nobody can dispute that.

 

So people resort to....

 

hand waving.

 

The only mental gymnastics going on around here is trying to avoid answering a simple question.

More mental gymnastics and playing with words.

 

And Jesus Christ at the bolded. You want to know where my logical basis is coming from? History. History doesn't favor Atlanta against Cleveland healthy or not. Are you denying history? Are you dismissing the transparent patterns and trends that are found all throughout the make up of championship winning teams? Hell, why the do you think teams tank? Even the incompetent owners and front offices now what the deal is.

 

And I have a hard time believing if Atlanta didn't beat Cleveland in the last regular season game against the Cavs, you'd be acting this obtuse. Actually, I know I wouldn't be seeing this "we weren't healthy" stuff if Atlanta lost that game

[RandomFan]

More mental gymnastics and playing with words.

 

And Jesus Christ at the bolded. You want to know where my logical basis is coming from? History. History doesn't favor Atlanta against Cleveland healthy or not. Are you denying history? Are you dismissing the transparent patterns and trends that are found all throughout the make up of championship winning teams? Hell, why the do you think teams tank? Even the incompetent owners and front offices now what the deal is.

 

And I have a hard time believing if Atlanta didn't beat Cleveland in the last regular season game against the Cavs, you'd be acting this obtuse. Actually, I know I wouldn't be seeing this "we weren't healthy" stuff if Atlanta lost that game

 

Explain to me how any of that drivel you just unleashed answers the question if we were healthy during the playoffs or not? Stop dancing around the point.

 

BTW - I wasn't asking where your logical basis was coming from. I was informing you that you have none. But to understand that premise, you would have to have a basic understanding how logic works. You clearly don't. I can understand why this must seem like mental gymnastics for you. This must be why you keep confusing your opinion of what we would have done if we were healthy, with the fact that we don't know what we would have done if healthy. Therefore, moving on...

Edited July 12, 2015 by RandomFan