Colonel Schlenk a Wiz

[Final_quest]

24 minutes ago, Plainview1981 said:

We just have different ways of looking at it. I don't really call what the Hawks have done the last two years "winning". This team was (IMO) Winning for a few months. Leading to and in that playoff run a few years ago. That's the time frame in which this was a winning team. Fighting for a bottom seed with the newr rules and mediocre records isn't winning to me.

Yeah, Pete Babcock didn't draft that well, but I don't remember him having as many higher picks... And overall, the teams during the late 90's were better than the Hawks under Schlenk. 

 

I just can't look at the whole picture under Schlenk and see this as a era of winning.

It's basically a 41-44 kind of team the last 3 years in a league with a lot of parity.

I understand that Schlenk took over a rebuilding situation, but I'm not confident that Travis was going to be able to get the Hawks to being a top seed kind of team. Based on what I saw from him. Even if you come up with reasons for his draft picks, he wasn't able to build that kind of roster that could get to the top in the conference.

All of these picks he has made in his time here and Hunter is the 2nd best player. Hunter in an era in the past would be a 12 PPG 3D role player

Trae isn’t yet 25.  I think we could be in position for much better years ahead.  Still, they already took us further than any other Atlanta team in history.  
We have to perform and improve in order to feel the impact.  I prefer where we are now to the Babcock years, though.  The foundation could get better.  

[Plainview1981]

7 hours ago, AHF said:

First, Schlenk's team went deeper in the playoffs and had a higher playoff winning % than Babcock's.

Second, do you think that just maybe Babcock's success owed more than inheriting Doc Rivers, Kevin Willis, Dominique Wilkins and others than it did to his own moves?

Babcock inherited a team that won:

50 games in 86

57 games in 87

50 games in 88

52 games in 89

And then took them from there to win:

41 games in 90

43 games in 91

38 games in 92

41 games in 93

 

I just don't see how this is a favorable comparison between TS and Babcock in any way.

I referred to the second half of the 90's, but the biggest point will always be that peak Schlenk is a low to mid 40's team in terms of wins. If that is the best Schlenk could do here it just isn't worth being upset that he is gone.

The teams best run was not because he was some mastermind that put this awesome team together, but it was the results of a team that was glad to see a bad coach gone.

These things happen. 

But we all have our opinion. 

[AHF]

10 hours ago, Plainview1981 said:

I referred to the second half of the 90's, but the biggest point will always be that peak Schlenk is a low to mid 40's team in terms of wins. If that is the best Schlenk could do here it just isn't worth being upset that he is gone.

The teams best run was not because he was some mastermind that put this awesome team together, but it was the results of a team that was glad to see a bad coach gone.

These things happen. 

But we all have our opinion. 

Fair enough.  I just don't know why you would think the best teams he ever would have done here would have been low to mid 40's when the core of the team is age 19-26.  As I said, Babcock inherited a team that was as good as anything he ever put together and it took him years of worsened performance to get back to that level.  And when he did finally get there he traded Nique away mid-season.  I guess we'll see what Schlenk does with other jobs in the future but I would definitely take him over Babcock every day of the week.  I don't think Babcock would have built a playoff team at all if he had inherited the mess Budcox left let alone one that could make the ECF.

[Plainview1981]

8 hours ago, AHF said:

Fair enough.  I just don't know why you would think the best teams he ever would have done here would have been low to mid 40's when the core of the team is age 19-26.  As I said, Babcock inherited a team that was as good as anything he ever put together and it took him years of worsened performance to get back to that level.  And when he did finally get there he traded Nique away mid-season.  I guess we'll see what Schlenk does with other jobs in the future but I would definitely take him over Babcock every day of the week.  I don't think Babcock would have built a playoff team at all if he had inherited the mess Budcox left let alone one that could make the ECF.

Well, the team is a mess. 

It doesn't feel like combining Trae and Murray was well thought out.... It feels like the Collins situation should have already been dealt with. You got Hunter under a sizable contract even though he is somewhat limited. OO has potential, but does he have the drive to be a great player?

When he selected Trae he choose a less versatile player that will be harder to build around in the longer term. 

He didn't build a team that was structurally sound. Cap worked in the short term, but the team kinda has to hope that OO can be somewhat of a Draymond Green upfront. 

It will take more toughness than what OO has demonstrated so far.

Yes, the Hawks are technically young, but Young, Murray, Cap, Hunter. Collins and Bogi have plenty of experience. They did play better against Boston than they did against Miami, but otherwise it felt like team took another half step back this year.

If this team can't hit 50 wins next year, it might be time for even more drastic changes.

We can say that the team is young, but they largely haven't even been going in the right direction the last couple of years 

[AHF]

2 hours ago, Plainview1981 said:

Well, the team is a mess. 

It doesn't feel like combining Trae and Murray was well thought out.... It feels like the Collins situation should have already been dealt with. You got Hunter under a sizable contract even though he is somewhat limited. OO has potential, but does he have the drive to be a great player?

When he selected Trae he choose a less versatile player that will be harder to build around in the longer term. 

He didn't build a team that was structurally sound. Cap worked in the short term, but the team kinda has to hope that OO can be somewhat of a Draymond Green upfront. 

It will take more toughness than what OO has demonstrated so far.

Yes, the Hawks are technically young, but Young, Murray, Cap, Hunter. Collins and Bogi have plenty of experience. They did play better against Boston than they did against Miami, but otherwise it felt like team took another half step back this year.

If this team can't hit 50 wins next year, it might be time for even more drastic changes.

We can say that the team is young, but they largely haven't even been going in the right direction the last couple of years 

You would say all those things and more about Babcock’s first 4 years especially given that the team consistently won 50+ prior to then.  They got back there eventually.  (Thank you Nets for Mookie and Miami for Smittie).  Don’t see the door closed for this group.

[Plainview1981]

9 hours ago, AHF said:

You would say all those things and more about Babcock’s first 4 years especially given that the team consistently won 50+ prior to then.  They got back there eventually.  (Thank you Nets for Mookie and Miami for Smittie).  Don’t see the door closed for this group.

Again, I'm not saying Pete was that good. I simply said that the Hawks were better in the late 90's than Schlenk's best 3 years.

You can take Pete vs. Travis completely out of it and it doesn't really change that the Hawks have been mediocre the last 3 seasons. This team is so poorly built and most of it is Schlenk's doing.

[AHF]

2 hours ago, Plainview1981 said:

Again, I'm not saying Pete was that good. I simply said that the Hawks were better in the late 90's than Schlenk's best 3 years.

You can take Pete vs. Travis completely out of it and it doesn't really change that the Hawks have been mediocre the last 3 seasons. This team is so poorly built and most of it is Schlenk's doing.

I just think you are comparing apples to oranges.  The late 90's are like 7-9 years into Babcock's regime. Schlenk's best 3 seasons are much earlier in his time so TS didn't get the same opportunity to see those things develop.

[Final_quest]

Even though I assume Nate acted in good faith I believe he hampered our roster's growth and potential.  Also, when we hit ECF in 2021 they took the wrong approach.  This happens all the time and it's more of a life principle, you become drunk on your success.  They should have been looking to improve that roster in summer of 2021 instead of locking all the pieces down.  

[Plainview1981]

12 hours ago, AHF said:

I just think you are comparing apples to oranges.  The late 90's are like 7-9 years into Babcock's regime. Schlenk's best 3 seasons are much earlier in his time so TS didn't get the same opportunity to see those things develop.

We will obviously never know 100% how things would have turned out had Schlenk been kept for 3 more years. Outside of some solid picks in the mid first round I just don't think he done a great job.

Hopefully something gets figured out. If this team comes out with this same starting line up next year I would say this offseason will go down as a failure.

[AHF]

10 hours ago, Plainview1981 said:

We will obviously never know 100% how things would have turned out had Schlenk been kept for 3 more years. Outside of some solid picks in the mid first round I just don't think he done a great job.

Hopefully something gets figured out. If this team comes out with this same starting line up next year I would say this offseason will go down as a failure.

Totally fair.

On next year's team, I think most of us are expecting some change to the starters so I will have a major eyebrow raised if we have the same set of starters to begin the season next year.