One thing a lot of people are forgetting.

[Lurker]

Let me settle this, once and for all:

Dennis Schröder is starter caliber if we see the guy that was tenacious on defense, looked to push pace as much as he could on the break, and was aggressive and looked to pass up on most three point jumpers.

Dennis Schröder is not starter caliber if we see the guy that would slack off on defense sometimes, if he always pounds the ball, and if he starts firing up threes off the dribble too much.

Which is it? We saw both last season, and I honestly don't think either side has a majority here.

Nor do I think the Hawks W/L record, or offense changes much if Jeff Teague sees more playing time and Shelvin Mack is the backup (like a few people like to say). The reason for regression was Kyle Korver and the team shooting worse from three and the offense being scouted out better since this was the third season.

It's not that I hate Teague, it's that I see that he is who he is. He's a good PG, but not a great one and it's because he tends to take games off (and I'm not talking about just this year where he "only saw 28 mins and should have seen more", he's done it since he's become the starter).

[Lurker]

And I'm not saying the offense needs to be changed completely, but I am saying that while I wouldn't eliminate the three totally, they need to stop being so three happy. They were shooting 31 threes in the second half per game (where they played their best ball, but still) with the PF and C shooting nearly 7 threes (6.7) per game. Why do that? They basically became a Morey-ball team, even when Jeff Teague was in and playing.

Edited June 25, 2016 by Lurker

[IheartVolt]

I will add that while Jeffrey was sneaky when it came to steals at times , Dennis is much more of a dog on the defensive end. Dennis is a better defender period

[MrYellow]

11 hours ago, Buzzard said:

We are a better team when Schröder is on the floor.

I am not nor have I ever been a Teague hater. But since they both don't work out being on the floor at the same time; one had to go. We took a chance, grabbed a 12th pick, and cleared Teagues cap hit. Lets see how things go. Hell, everything statically points to us being better just because Schröder will be our starter and getting more minutes.

Its way to early to say the sky is falling just because Schröder is our new starting PG and we drafted two rookie wing players.

True, BUT we have to adjust those numbers to the fact that he'll be a starter, he'll bear all the pressure and that's something new.

It's not a direct relationship.

[Diesel]

8 hours ago, Buzzard said:

You don't know any more about being able to get Prince at 21 than you could have guessed Skal and Davis would still be available at 21. Pure speculation.

The draft is fluid, at the end of the day, we ended up with two players we like.  Maybe we tried to trade back a little and still take Prince; but no where near the 20s as you would like to suggest.

IMO Boston takes the 3 and D player at 16. That is my speculation, just as its yours they do not and seven other teams pass on him as well between 13 and 20. Pure speculation from both of us.

What we do know is we thought more of Prince at 12 than anyone else in the draft. That's pretty good stuff in my opinion.

You're right, we don't know whether Prince would have been there at 21.. but we do know that he was suspected to last by 30.  Moreover, Boston picked a 3 and D guy at #3.  

So it's pure speculation as you said... however,  we don't know that 1 day out.  However, my thought is still you don't weaken yourself for a rookie unless you KNOW.

 

[Diesel]

8 hours ago, LikejRod29 said:

Their per 36 numbers wasn't that close DS17 was much better and don't forget about the  defense of side of the ball were DS17 was much much much better than Teague an with him getting more minutes the defense should be even better. 

I think they were better as a combination.    Period.  Dennis was a good changeup to Teague. 

However, a lot will depend on who we get now as a BU because I still don't think Dennis has you can call it either the Basketball IQ or the Discipline to run Budball. 

[Diesel]

6 hours ago, JayBirdHawk said:

Yes we do. There is a reason he was on the trade block this past trade deadline. It was time to move on and get younger and more athletic on the wing (per Wes).  Having a capable backup made it easier to move on.

We don't know for a certainty why we moved him.  It could have been for the cap.  It could have been for his impending FAcy. It could have been that he wanted to go. It could have been that the plan was always to  move Dennis up to the starter and use Teague for trade capital.   It could have been because we were tired of his injuries.  It could have been that we really wanted to move up in the draft to guarantee getting Prince. We don't know.. we're just speculating.  AND unless you're in the front office, you don't know either.   What we do know is that Bud is an Analytics guy.    Analytically, Teague is a really good fit for Budball (check out the Indy Star breakdown of Teague's stats).  What we do know is that Teague had a value contract.  IN this day and time, 8 Million dollars for a 16/7 guy is great.   So let's not act like we have all the answers all the sudden as to why we traded Teague.   The truth is that we just have speculation.   

The result however is that it puts a lot of pressure on Dennis and Prince. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Diesel said:

We don't know for a certainty why we moved him.  It could have been for the cap.  It could have been for his impending FAcy. It could have been that he wanted to go. It could have been that the plan was always to  move Dennis up to the starter and use Teague for trade capital.   It could have been because we were tired of his injuries.  It could have been that we really wanted to move up in the draft to guarantee getting Prince. We don't know.. we're just speculating.  AND unless you're in the front office, you don't know either.   What we do know is that Bud is an Analytics guy.    Analytically, Teague is a really good fit for Budball (check out the Indy Star breakdown of Teague's stats).  What we do know is that Teague had a value contract.  IN this day and time, 8 Million dollars for a 16/7 guy is great.   So let's not act like we have all the answers all the sudden as to why we traded Teague.   The truth is that we just have speculation.   

The result however is that it puts a lot of pressure on Dennis and Prince. 

Yes  we do.....he sucked too many times when we didn't need him to. 

Yes @Spud2Nique my patience has worn thin.

But seriously though - we moved Teague for the same reason SAS moved GHill, RC Buford realized they had to get bigger, younger and more athletic on the wing. The Hawks needed to do the same.

[MrYellow]

Buford had precisely Kawhi as a target, not getting bigger and stronger.

[Guest]

39 minutes ago, MrYellow said:

Buford had precisely Kawhi as a target, not getting bigger and stronger.

Uuuummmm, precisely Kawhi because they need more size and youth on the wing, they had an aging Richard Jefferson who like Hill couldn't be on the floor in crunch time.

Quote

Though the Spurs are intrigued by Leonard, who at 6-foot-7 gives the Spurs added size at a position where they were small, Buford made clear the night was bittersweet.

“This might have been one of the most difficult nights in Spurs history, as long as we’ve been here,” Buford said. “To lose a player like George Hill, who has meant so much to our team, to our culture, to our locker room, it’s one of the most difficult decisions we’ve had to make.”

But if the Spurs hoped to be immediately better it had to solve leaks, diversify its strengths, and as our own Tim Varner so eloquently put it, solve for pattern. And when a team is forced to build through trades, often times it means parting with important pieces of the rotation (despite recent history).

In this instance Hill was in some ways a redundant strength. Granted, he was the Spurs best perimeter defender for the past two seasons, but he did so from a position that featured the Spurs best two scorers and playmakers.

Crunch time lineups were always going to feature Parker and Ginobili. Hill, as the Spurs fourth best player, deserved to be on the floor as well. But in running three-guard lineups, Hill’s strengths on the defensive end were muted some, with Hill cross matched against bigger shooting guards and small forwards. The further away from his natural defensive position, the less an impact he had.

Of all the Spurs trade assets, Hill was the most desirable combination of youth, athleticism, skills, and contract the Spurs had to offer while still returning positive value.

What the Spurs lose is their best combination of shooting, defense, and competent (though not spectacular or dynamic) ball handling. But so far as skill sets go, Hill on offense was a dime a dozen shooting guard with some plus ball handling ability that fulfilled the role far better than most role players.

Defensively he was not Bruce Bowen, and likely never will be. This is not a criticism of his game, nor does it suggest that his presence will not be sorely missed. But to get better something had to give. And in Gary Neal, James Anderson, and some hopeful combination of Green or Butler, the Spurs can spell George Hill. What they cannot spell is a productive small forward who can hold his own in small lineups.

In Leonard the Spurs hope to have the true small forward they thought they were getting in Richard Jefferson. As Varner pointed out, the loss of Hill has as much to do with Jefferson’s inability to produce in his role relative to the cap figure of his contract. Should the new CBA allow teams one contract reprieve, Leonard may even step in as Jefferson’s immediate replacement.

If Leonard merely reaches the same levels of George Hill (albeit in a different way) the Spurs will have gained greater value simply by getting that production in a different position — one that has been a weakness of sorts. But should Leonard reach his potential the way Hill has maxed out his, the Spurs will have found something far more impactful.

For one, at some point Leonard develops into a starter — whereas Hill was a solid third guard on a championship team.

This is a gamble to be sure. But the Spurs needed an infusion of something. And while Hill may have been better than those who will replace him, the depth of his skill set is hardly irreplaceable. His presence in the locker room and among Spurs fans? That’s a different story for another day.

 

[Thomas]

40 minutes ago, MrYellow said:

Buford had precisely Kawhi as a target, not getting bigger and stronger.

He had Kawhi as a target because Bud was in his ear 24/7. So anyway Bud can judge talent. We'll see with his pick of Prince filling that same 3 and D role that DMC had here.

[MrYellow]

27 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

Uuuummmm, precisely Kawhi because they need more size and youth on the wing, they had an aging Richard Jefferson who like Hill couldn't be on the floor in crunch time.

 

But they would have never traded Hill for another player with the same size and youth

 

 

(same as Kawhi)

Edited June 25, 2016 by MrYellow

[Buzzard]

4 hours ago, Diesel said:

You're right, we don't know whether Prince would have been there at 21.. but we do know that he was suspected to last by 30.  Moreover, Boston picked a 3 and D guy at #3.  

So it's pure speculation as you said... however,  we don't know that 1 day out.  However, my thought is still you don't weaken yourself for a rookie unless you KNOW.

 

Quote

 

My point is they did know. They had a draft board up and took BPA at 12. Its that simple for most of us to understand. For some reason you don't think we had a big board. I do not understand that thought process at all. We had ESPN announcers screaming take Davis or Skal, well 20 other GMs agreed with us also and passed on them as well.

You are speculating again that we have weakened our team by trading Teague and adding Prince and Bembry. Almost every draft grade out there gives us a B and says adding those wing players was a solid move. They think we could have taken Prince and Bembry later, good for them. Speculate on; the fact is we had a solid draft.

I am not going to let you rain on my parade Diesel. This is easily what I think is one of our best drafts in the past decade. I rank it right up there with the Schröder and Teague drafts. Is it better than the Horford draft? Maybe not but I am not going to rule that out.

Edited June 25, 2016 by Buzzard

[Buzzard]

5 hours ago, Diesel said:

You're right, we don't know whether Prince would have been there at 21.. but we do know that he was suspected to last by 30.  Moreover, Boston picked a 3 and D guy at #3.  

So it's pure speculation as you said... however,  we don't know that 1 day out.  However, my thought is still you don't weaken yourself for a rookie unless you KNOW.

 

My last point about us being better after the trade and having Dennis as our starter. Its not just about getting one player. The Teague trade gave us the ability to draft two players which is why we made the move!

We could not have taken both Prince and Bembry without dealing Teague. I really do not care where they were drafted; what I care about is we drafted them. 2 or 3 years from now when the sports media folks do their traditional draft do-overs, both of these players could be in the top ten!

From Sports Illustrated.

Grade: A. This is pretty much an ideal fit for Bembry, whose terrific passing ability and well-rounded game are philosophically in line with what the Hawks like to do. His feel for the floor is beyond his years, and he can do a bit of everything for you, with his three-point shot the only real bit of doubt. With Bembry and Taurean Prince, they’ve injected youth and talent on the wing and added two players who won’t be overwhelmed next season. Whether Al Horford stays or goes, the Hawks make two solid moves for the future. — Jeremy Woo

Link: http://www.si.com/nba/2016/06/23/deandre-bembry-2016-nba-draft

Edited June 25, 2016 by Buzzard

[Alex]

Dennis will never become a player who runs an offense.  His basketball intelligence is severely lacking.  He is not a willing passer and is a turnover machine waiting to happen.  He doesn't make the players around him better and he he's a punk.  

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Alex said:

Dennis will never become a player who runs an offense.  His basketball intelligence is severely lacking.  He is not a willing passer and is a turnover machine waiting to happen.  He doesn't make the players around him better and he he's a punk.  

Lol...he's a punk huh? You look up the definition of punk and it's a smiling Draymond Green picture lol

[Lurker]

Way to show that you have zero confidence in the young adults of this world.

[LikejRod29]

13 hours ago, Buzzard said:

Schröder is better defensively. I already agreed with that several times and rebounds is a defensive category. When people mention scoring is when I disagree. Scoring wise its a wash. My opinion of Schröder is he is not afraid of the moment. I don't think Dennis has any fear in that regard; whereas sometimes I think Teague preferred to defer during the fourth quarter of a game.

Okay lm glad we agree on that 

[Buzzard]

36 minutes ago, Alex said:

Dennis will never become a player who runs an offense.  His basketball intelligence is severely lacking.  He is not a willing passer and is a turnover machine waiting to happen.  He doesn't make the players around him better and he he's a punk.  

I don't care for Dennis below the belt hits. I have seen two or three and he needs to get that in line. I do think his team mates love his fire. He is probably going to always be one of those players that can only be loved if he is on your team.

He has no back down in him and he is not afraid of the big moment. I like him enough just for those two reasons. Now add in his natural ability and I do think he can be a leader at point guard.

[LikejRod29]

42 minutes ago, Alex said:

Dennis will never become a player who runs an offense.  His basketball intelligence is severely lacking.  He is not a willing passer and is a turnover machine waiting to happen.  He doesn't make the players around him better and he he's a punk.  

Man stop lying to yourselfMan stop lying to yourself