Hawks Meeting With Dwight

[MrYellow]

6 hours ago, Flight said:

So does no one think we can develop Dwight at all? We seem to have done a solid job with Kyle, Baze and Demarre. I'm not closing the door on the possibility of him becoming a better player as a whole in Atlanta.

Splitter learnt how to shoot FTs in two months with our coaching stuff (and previously he was in SA, not neverland), there's hope.

[MrYellow]

6 hours ago, Diesel said:

No... Losing Bogut is what lose the series.   They were playing Thompson for 48 minutes once Bogut went out because nobody could keep him off the boards.  Once Bogut went out, they went into Hawks gameplan.  Get Physical and dominate the boards. 

 

you know that's false, right?

[MrYellow]

4 hours ago, Hawkmoor said:

Jack would be a excellent backup for Dennis. I kept forgetting about Hump.  Too late to let Moose walk.

Muscala can be easily traded for free I guess (even if I would never do that).

[Thomas]

9 hours ago, Hawkmoor said:

Jack would be a excellent backup for Dennis. I kept forgetting about Hump.  Too late to let Moose walk.

Believe that Moose is a very big reason I don't forget about Humph with both his rebounds and PER rating against the Cavs.  

[Sothron]

5 hours ago, MrYellow said:

you know that's false, right?

He's right, actually. Bogut being out killed GSW because it let Cleveland kill them on the glass.

[Diesel]

5 hours ago, MrYellow said:

you know that's false, right?

Game 4...  Thompson = 28 Minutes.  7 rebounds. 

Game 5..   Thompson = 41 Minutes.   15 rebounds. 

Game 6..   Thompson = 42 Minutes.  16 rebounds. 

Game 7..  Thompson = 31 Minutes.   3 rebounds. 

In all the Cleveland wins except Game 7, Thompson's rebounding was a factor.   In the games before Bogut was injured Thompson played no more than 30 Minutes.  When Cleveland needed a win... Thompson was on the floor for just about the whole game because Ezeli nor Barnes could keep him off the boards.   IN game 7, Thompson found himself in foul trouble for most of the game.   Otherwise, he would have probably played 40+ minutes again. 

 

[txsting]

I don't get why we ALL aren't thinking like this!

We are only trying to add! Aint nobody getting rid of Millsap and Horford. We want Howard added to this team. I think Bud will work it out on the rotation! Its A lot smarter for Howard to come to Atlanta! Man you are talking about a dominating front court!

I'm of the opinion that IF you do this, you must keep all three. They are each on the wrong side of 30, and this arrangement allows us to keep minutes down, and have wild flexibility. I think it is worth the gamble, but no more than 20 for D12. This helps us compete with CLE, no doubt.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

[DS5]

 

3 minutes ago, txsting said:

I'm of the opinion that IF you do this, you must keep all three. They are each on the wrong side of 30, and this arrangement allows us to keep minutes down, and have wild flexibility. I think it is worth the gamble, but no more than 20 for D12. This helps us compete with CLE, no doubt.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

And we can afford to have $60 mil tied to our front court since our starting PG is still on his rookie deal and our starting SG is on a great deal.

On a somewhat related note, you really have to appreciate what Ferry did while he was here. Every contract he gave out ended up being excellent values.

[MrYellow]

26 minutes ago, Diesel said:

Game 4...  Thompson = 28 Minutes.  7 rebounds. 

Game 5..   Thompson = 41 Minutes.   15 rebounds. 

Game 6..   Thompson = 42 Minutes.  16 rebounds. 

Game 7..  Thompson = 31 Minutes.   3 rebounds. 

In all the Cleveland wins except Game 7, Thompson's rebounding was a factor.   In the games before Bogut was injured Thompson played no more than 30 Minutes.  When Cleveland needed a win... Thompson was on the floor for just about the whole game because Ezeli nor Barnes could keep him off the boards.   IN game 7, Thompson found himself in foul trouble for most of the game.   Otherwise, he would have probably played 40+ minutes again. 

 

Game 1 : 12 R, they lost.

game 4: they lost.

The presence of Bogut was not the discriminant

[AHF]

14 hours ago, Peoriabird said:

I knew it!  Y'all think Bud is a miracle worker!

Are you 

baby?  

Do I make you

?

[RWF]

Jeff Hornacek does sound like an Austin Powers name. Jeff Horney-in-the-sack.

[RandomFan]

10 hours ago, MrYellow said:

You still don't get my point, maybe I didn't write it properly.

Having the three on the team would be GREAT, there's nothing bad with that (or better, it depends on Dwight).

BUT, is it really worth having a fantastic 4-5 rotation and a HUGE LIABILITY as a SF?

No, I get your point. You are just wrong that Sap would be a huge liability as  a SF.

[Watchman]

1 hour ago, RWF said:

Jeff Hornacek does sound like an Austin Powers name. Jeff Horney-in-the-sack.

Or an aphrodisiac cereal.  Just has to choose corn or rice.

[MrYellow]

36 minutes ago, RandomFan said:

No, I get your point. You are just wrong that Sap would be a huge liability as  a SF.

Nonono, the huge Liability would be when Sap plays 4 and Al/DH is on the bench. 

Liability in the sense that is our weaker role 

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, MrYellow said:

Nonono, the huge Liability would be when Sap plays 4 and Al/DH is on the bench. 

Liability in the sense that is our weaker role 

Why?

In our typical rotations this year , Al is usually our first sub, Al sits Splitter comes in.  Al come back in and plays with the bench - we saw a lot of that this past season.

[MrYellow]

3 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

Why?

In our typical rotations this year , Al is usually our first sub, Al sits Splitter comes in.  Al come back in and plays with the bench - we saw a lot of that this past season.

That's the point!

Our major weakness was the SF position, so you think that's what we are going to improve in this FA.

If we sign DH and keep Al we have a fantastic 4/5 rotation, but even if Sap plays the 3 for 10 minutes, we still have the same identical weakness at the three for 38 minutes. Is that clear?

we improve (because it's an improvement) in a "sector" which is already quite well covered, while we leave our uncovered sector pretty much untouched.

 

[Sothron]

You do realize we drafted two SF to fill that hole at SF?

[JTB]

5 minutes ago, MrYellow said:

That's the point!

Our major weakness was the SF position, so you think that's what we are going to improve in this FA.

If we sign DH and keep Al we have a fantastic 4/5 rotation, but even if Sap plays the 3 for 10 minutes, we still have the same identical weakness at the three for 38 minutes. Is that clear?

we improve (because it's an improvement) in a "sector" which is already quite well covered, while we leave our uncovered sector pretty much untouched.

 

Sap will play SF for atleast 10-12 minutes, Thabo will play there 15-20, Prince/Bembry will play 15-20....we didn't trade Teague for nothing.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, MrYellow said:

That's the point!

Our major weakness was the SF position, so you think that's what we are going to improve in this FA.

If we sign DH and keep Al we have a fantastic 4/5 rotation, but even if Sap plays the 3 for 10 minutes, we still have the same identical weakness at the three for 38 minutes. Is that clear?

we improve (because it's an improvement) in a "sector" which is already quite well covered, while we leave our uncovered sector pretty much untouched.

 

Millsap and Al manning the 4, Al and Dwight maniing the C > than whatever we had last year.

We drafted 2 SFs, if we can't improve the SF position in FA you do the next best thing - You improve AROUND the SF position.

[MrYellow]

1 hour ago, JayBirdHawk said:

Millsap and Al manning the 4, Al and Dwight maniing the C > than whatever we had last year.

We drafted 2 SFs, if we can't improve the SF position in FA you do the next best thing - You improve AROUND the SF position.

"If you can't improve..." you correctly wrote.

So "if you can't" means there is a Plan A. All those who wrote here see the Sap-Al-H as the plan A.

It's different.