Official Game Thread: Warriors at Hawks

[MarylandHawk]

16 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

Why do you and other understand that simple point but some don't?

I think people do, they just want to see you admit fault somewhere, any where.  Lol. People forget non of us really know hat the hell we are talking about but all have very good theories that we like to see play out. 

[TheNorthCydeRises]

7 hours ago, terrell said:

Nate isnt going to put up with too many 7 turnover games thats for sure..Good thing we have Sweet Lou now when Trae is erratic Trae..

Trae has had 7 or more turnovers in 5 games with Nate as coach.

Hawks are 4 - 1 in those games.

 

It'll all depend on how effective he is in other aspects of his game.  If he's scoring or assisting a lot, despite the turnovers, he'll get his minutes.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Ya'll lay off of P.  Treating him like he just fouled out of a basketball game, but he refuses to sit down

 

 

[NBASupes]

37 minutes ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

Ya'll lay off of P.  Treating him like he just fouled out of a basketball game, but he refuses to sit down

 

 

I remember when I went to the Albany State v. Fort Valley game and someone got their 5th foul and hoe sit down came on, my goodness, we were so lit! If the Hawks ever did that, it would literally shake the Farm.

[Gray Mule]

WOW!  Hard to believe that two posters on the Squawk can agree with each other while they argue about what they agree on.  Some minor points, I expect.

We all agree.  Hawks now play better under our new head coach.  Our defense is better, we know, because we now win games.  We all believe the Hawks would be even better if our inured Hawks were healthy.

Now, let the argument proceed.  If we were 100% healthy, would we make the top 10 in defense?

[Atlantaholic]

15 hours ago, AHF said:

WITHOUT HUNTER AND CAM.

This is the big issue I have with the statement.  Healthy I think we could get there but that means Cam and especially Hunter back.  I don't think we get there without them which is what you said on this thread that I responded to.

Over our last 10, we haven't been close and that includes the games with both JC and Capela.

It's going to be tough without any of the big wings back (including Dunn). We have Trae, Huerter, Bogi, Lue and Snell who run the gammut between awful and serviceable, but no real plus defender there to deploy on the wings. 

[sturt]

1 hour ago, Gray Mule said:

If we were 100% healthy, would we make the top 10 in defense?

This year? Probably not.

I just didn't see enough development by Cam and DAH in their limited games to be certain they're fulfilling the potential most of us thought they had. And Dunn is only going to get so much floor time. And King Okong? Both those apply to him.

Next year? I like the possibilities. Plus, I'll get lambasted by a couple of Squawkers for this, but there's a decent chance that we lose Tony Snell in FA, which though there's a lot to like about the player on the offensive end, can't help but help on the defensive end.

[Peoriabird]

5 hours ago, Gray Mule said:

WOW!  Hard to believe that two posters on the Squawk can agree with each other while they argue about what they agree on.  Some minor points, I expect.

We all agree.  Hawks now play better under our new head coach.  Our defense is better, we know, because we now win games.  We all believe the Hawks would be even better if our inured Hawks were healthy.

Now, let the argument proceed.  If we were 100% healthy, would we make the top 10 in defense?

Seriously!!!  Post of the day!!!!!!!!