Author Topic: What's up with the Hawks?  (Read 5940 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: What's up with the Hawks?
« Reply #30 on: December 05, 2016, 01:51:54 PM »

Offline celticsclay

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15739
  • Tommy Points: 1386
Didn't they also lose DeMarre Carrol?

Mike

They lost him before last season.  They obviously took a bit of a tumble then, but he wouldn't explain their very poor performance the last few weeks.


I think the Hawks surprised teams at the beginning of the year but then fell off the cliff. It's a long year, The Lakers seemed to have come back earth as well. The Knicks seem to have steadied their ship and could be dangerous in the playoffs.

The Lakers coming back to earth seems to have largely coincided with them missing their best player.

Re: What's up with the Hawks?
« Reply #31 on: December 05, 2016, 02:22:30 PM »

Offline alldaboston

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4170
  • Tommy Points: 324
Didn't they also lose DeMarre Carrol?

Mike

They lost him before last season.  They obviously took a bit of a tumble then, but he wouldn't explain their very poor performance the last few weeks.


I think the Hawks surprised teams at the beginning of the year but then fell off the cliff. It's a long year, The Lakers seemed to have come back earth as well. The Knicks seem to have steadied their ship and could be dangerous in the playoffs.

The Lakers coming back to earth seems to have largely coincided with them missing their best player.

yep. Russell had a 2 week timeframe. Randle also missed 1 or 2 games, and Nick Young got hurt last week too I think. They're still one of my favorite young cores in the NBA, and I think they'll get back to winning once they're healthy again.
I could very well see the Hawks... starting Taurean Prince at the 3, who is already better than Crowder, imo.

you vs. the guy she tells you not to worry about

Re: What's up with the Hawks?
« Reply #32 on: December 05, 2016, 03:31:57 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
Didn't they also lose DeMarre Carrol?

Mike

They lost him before last season.  They obviously took a bit of a tumble then, but he wouldn't explain their very poor performance the last few weeks.


I think the Hawks surprised teams at the beginning of the year but then fell off the cliff. It's a long year, The Lakers seemed to have come back earth as well. The Knicks seem to have steadied their ship and could be dangerous in the playoffs.

The Lakers coming back to earth seems to have largely coincided with them missing their best player.

yep. Russell had a 2 week timeframe. Randle also missed 1 or 2 games, and Nick Young got hurt last week too I think. They're still one of my favorite young cores in the NBA, and I think they'll get back to winning once they're healthy again.
Lakers were 7-6 with Russell and played a pretty easy schedule in those games (just 5 teams above .500 and 1 right at .500, the other 7 are all well below .500 including all 5 of the worst teams in the west and the nets from the east).
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: What's up with the Hawks?
« Reply #33 on: December 05, 2016, 03:38:40 PM »

Offline celticsclay

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15739
  • Tommy Points: 1386
Didn't they also lose DeMarre Carrol?

Mike



They lost him before last season.  They obviously took a bit of a tumble then, but he wouldn't explain their very poor performance the last few weeks.


I think the Hawks surprised teams at the beginning of the year but then fell off the cliff. It's a long year, The Lakers seemed to have come back earth as well. The Knicks seem to have steadied their ship and could be dangerous in the playoffs.

The Lakers coming back to earth seems to have largely coincided with them missing their best player.

yep. Russell had a 2 week timeframe. Randle also missed 1 or 2 games, and Nick Young got hurt last week too I think. They're still one of my favorite young cores in the NBA, and I think they'll get back to winning once they're healthy again.
Lakers were 7-6 with Russell and played a pretty easy schedule in those games (just 5 teams above .500 and 1 right at .500, the other 7 are all well below .500 including all 5 of the worst teams in the west and the nets from the east).

I'm not really sure what you are trying to argue here. Russell is a good player for them and a starter. They lost him. They are a worse team without him (not to mention losing randle for a few games and being without Nick Young for 5 games who is having a really nice year 46% from field 41% from 3). Which part are you disagreeing with? Are you saying they are better without him somehow?

You honestly make more "generally arguing with nothing" posts than anyone on this forum. Someone could post water is wet and you would make a reply saying "well not in all forms"

Re: What's up with the Hawks?
« Reply #34 on: December 05, 2016, 03:47:29 PM »

Offline Ilikesports17

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8595
  • Tommy Points: 842
Didn't they also lose DeMarre Carrol?

Mike



They lost him before last season.  They obviously took a bit of a tumble then, but he wouldn't explain their very poor performance the last few weeks.


I think the Hawks surprised teams at the beginning of the year but then fell off the cliff. It's a long year, The Lakers seemed to have come back earth as well. The Knicks seem to have steadied their ship and could be dangerous in the playoffs.

The Lakers coming back to earth seems to have largely coincided with them missing their best player.

yep. Russell had a 2 week timeframe. Randle also missed 1 or 2 games, and Nick Young got hurt last week too I think. They're still one of my favorite young cores in the NBA, and I think they'll get back to winning once they're healthy again.
Lakers were 7-6 with Russell and played a pretty easy schedule in those games (just 5 teams above .500 and 1 right at .500, the other 7 are all well below .500 including all 5 of the worst teams in the west and the nets from the east).

I'm not really sure what you are trying to argue here. Russell is a good player for them and a starter. They lost him. They are a worse team without him (not to mention losing randle for a few games and being without Nick Young for 5 games who is having a really nice year 46% from field 41% from 3). Which part are you disagreeing with? Are you saying they are better without him somehow?

You honestly make more "generally arguing with nothing" posts than anyone on this forum. Someone could post water is wet and you would make a reply saying "well not in all forms"
I dont see the problem with adding context and increasing accuracy.
Quote from: George W. Bush
Too often, we judge other groups by their worst examples while judging ourselves by our best intentions.

Re: What's up with the Hawks?
« Reply #35 on: December 05, 2016, 03:57:20 PM »

Offline celticsclay

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15739
  • Tommy Points: 1386
Didn't they also lose DeMarre Carrol?

Mike



They lost him before last season.  They obviously took a bit of a tumble then, but he wouldn't explain their very poor performance the last few weeks.


I think the Hawks surprised teams at the beginning of the year but then fell off the cliff. It's a long year, The Lakers seemed to have come back earth as well. The Knicks seem to have steadied their ship and could be dangerous in the playoffs.

The Lakers coming back to earth seems to have largely coincided with them missing their best player.

yep. Russell had a 2 week timeframe. Randle also missed 1 or 2 games, and Nick Young got hurt last week too I think. They're still one of my favorite young cores in the NBA, and I think they'll get back to winning once they're healthy again.
Lakers were 7-6 with Russell and played a pretty easy schedule in those games (just 5 teams above .500 and 1 right at .500, the other 7 are all well below .500 including all 5 of the worst teams in the west and the nets from the east).

I'm not really sure what you are trying to argue here. Russell is a good player for them and a starter. They lost him. They are a worse team without him (not to mention losing randle for a few games and being without Nick Young for 5 games who is having a really nice year 46% from field 41% from 3). Which part are you disagreeing with? Are you saying they are better without him somehow?

You honestly make more "generally arguing with nothing" posts than anyone on this forum. Someone could post water is wet and you would make a reply saying "well not in all forms"
I dont see the problem with adding context and increasing accuracy.

What is inaccurate about pointing out they have been missing their best player during this down stretch (and one of his primary backups)?

Also during this stretch Moranis is calling easy they beat the Rockets, Hawks (when they were playing well) and Warriors and played 7 of the games on the road. Since they have gotten hit by injuries to Young and Russell they still managed to beat OKC, Chicago and Atlanta again.


Re: What's up with the Hawks?
« Reply #36 on: December 05, 2016, 04:25:26 PM »

Offline spikelovetheCelts

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1616
  • Tommy Points: 113
  • Peace it's a board. We all will never agree.
Its pretty obvious Dennis Schroder is just not anywhere near as good as Jeff Teague in the half court.  That has been the Hawks biggest problem.  Nobody respects his jump shot so defenders just stick with Dwight in the PnR and sag off Schroder.

Also, they have no secondary play maker with Millsap out, and the wings (Korver, Bazemore, Sefalosha) have been mediocre at best, and much worse than in seasons past.  Not much bench help either outside of Hardaway Jr and Muscala, who have both been "just ok".

Lazy people will blame Dwight because he's the easy target, and people don't like him, but he hasn't really been the problem at all.  I mean, they obviously miss Horford's passing and shooting, but I think it's been a pretty even trade off in what they've gained in rebounding and paint presence.

This is true. I haven't got to watch much of the Hawks this year, but Dwight seems to be doing pretty well.

However, my problem was this with them this summer - they were already a strong defensive team that had offensive issues, so what do they do? They let Al go and signed Dwight to increase their interior defense and rebounding but lose out on Al's perimeter defense, shooting, and playmaking, which was needed the most with losing Teague. What's funniest is that Horford is now averaging over a block and three assists more than Howard, and he's shooting a blistering 42% from the three!

It seems that they just went purely for the "name" of Howard without even thinking of where they needed actual help. They'd be much better off right now with Horford than Howard.

I must say, though, I'm kind of wishing we got both Howard and Horford right now. That would be a deadly, deadly combination. And Howard is almost exactly what we need right now - a rebounding, post scoring, and rim protecting presence.

Atlanta always had the inside track on Howard since he played his high school ball there. Howard was trying to reset his career and I really doubt he was trying to get involved with the Boston sports media crucible when he could just go home and be surrounded by his friends and family,

Horford/Howard would be nice but then Horford would be nice with a lot of centers, we still have a mountain of assets to throw at guys like Derrick Favors, Marc Gasol, and and of course Boogie. Maybe Blake Griffin becomes available if the Clippers regress. Lamarcus Aldridge just seems like an awkward fit out there, maybe there's a deal to be made.

Point is that Howard would be a good here but I think there are plenty of options out there to suggest that our next starting frontcourt player is currently on a different roster.
Horford does not like Howard that helped him come to Boston.
"People look at players, watch them dribble between their legs and they say, 'There's a superstar.'  Well John Havlicek is a superstar, and most of the others are figments of writers' imagination."
--Jerry West, on John Havlicek

Re: What's up with the Hawks?
« Reply #37 on: December 05, 2016, 04:48:19 PM »

Offline MJohnnyboy

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2438
  • Tommy Points: 269
Its pretty obvious Dennis Schroder is just not anywhere near as good as Jeff Teague in the half court.  That has been the Hawks biggest problem.  Nobody respects his jump shot so defenders just stick with Dwight in the PnR and sag off Schroder.

Also, they have no secondary play maker with Millsap out, and the wings (Korver, Bazemore, Sefalosha) have been mediocre at best, and much worse than in seasons past.  Not much bench help either outside of Hardaway Jr and Muscala, who have both been "just ok".

Lazy people will blame Dwight because he's the easy target, and people don't like him, but he hasn't really been the problem at all.  I mean, they obviously miss Horford's passing and shooting, but I think it's been a pretty even trade off in what they've gained in rebounding and paint presence.

This is true. I haven't got to watch much of the Hawks this year, but Dwight seems to be doing pretty well.

However, my problem was this with them this summer - they were already a strong defensive team that had offensive issues, so what do they do? They let Al go and signed Dwight to increase their interior defense and rebounding but lose out on Al's perimeter defense, shooting, and playmaking, which was needed the most with losing Teague. What's funniest is that Horford is now averaging over a block and three assists more than Howard, and he's shooting a blistering 42% from the three!

It seems that they just went purely for the "name" of Howard without even thinking of where they needed actual help. They'd be much better off right now with Horford than Howard.

I must say, though, I'm kind of wishing we got both Howard and Horford right now. That would be a deadly, deadly combination. And Howard is almost exactly what we need right now - a rebounding, post scoring, and rim protecting presence.

Atlanta always had the inside track on Howard since he played his high school ball there. Howard was trying to reset his career and I really doubt he was trying to get involved with the Boston sports media crucible when he could just go home and be surrounded by his friends and family,

Horford/Howard would be nice but then Horford would be nice with a lot of centers, we still have a mountain of assets to throw at guys like Derrick Favors, Marc Gasol, and and of course Boogie. Maybe Blake Griffin becomes available if the Clippers regress. Lamarcus Aldridge just seems like an awkward fit out there, maybe there's a deal to be made.

Point is that Howard would be a good here but I think there are plenty of options out there to suggest that our next starting frontcourt player is currently on a different roster.
Horford does not like Howard that helped him come to Boston.

Horford refuted that notion.

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/al-horford-says-he-didnt-leave-hawks-because-of-dwight-howard-signing/

Re: What's up with the Hawks?
« Reply #38 on: December 05, 2016, 05:04:37 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
Didn't they also lose DeMarre Carrol?

Mike



They lost him before last season.  They obviously took a bit of a tumble then, but he wouldn't explain their very poor performance the last few weeks.


I think the Hawks surprised teams at the beginning of the year but then fell off the cliff. It's a long year, The Lakers seemed to have come back earth as well. The Knicks seem to have steadied their ship and could be dangerous in the playoffs.

The Lakers coming back to earth seems to have largely coincided with them missing their best player.

yep. Russell had a 2 week timeframe. Randle also missed 1 or 2 games, and Nick Young got hurt last week too I think. They're still one of my favorite young cores in the NBA, and I think they'll get back to winning once they're healthy again.
Lakers were 7-6 with Russell and played a pretty easy schedule in those games (just 5 teams above .500 and 1 right at .500, the other 7 are all well below .500 including all 5 of the worst teams in the west and the nets from the east).

I'm not really sure what you are trying to argue here. Russell is a good player for them and a starter. They lost him. They are a worse team without him (not to mention losing randle for a few games and being without Nick Young for 5 games who is having a really nice year 46% from field 41% from 3). Which part are you disagreeing with? Are you saying they are better without him somehow?

You honestly make more "generally arguing with nothing" posts than anyone on this forum. Someone could post water is wet and you would make a reply saying "well not in all forms"
Yes Russell is a good player, but the Lakers also played a very easy schedule.  The Lakers opponents in the games Russell has missed are San Antonio, Oklahoma City, Golden State, Golden State, Atlanta, New Orleans, Chicago, Toronto, and Memphis.  5 of those games were on the road including the 4 most recent.  Aside from New Orleans, Atlanta at 10-11 is the worst team in that group.  The Lakers went 3-6 in those games and there is a good chance that with Russell they still go 3-6.  They actually beat the Thunder without Russell and got demolished by the Thunder with Russell so who knows what happens if they have Russell for that second game (they actually beat the Bulls without Russell and lost to them with him as well - the reverse of GS who they somehow beat early in the year though got crushed in the two recent games).  The only close loss during the games without Russell was their most recent game against the Grizzlies so maybe they win that one with Russell.

Thus, my point is, the Lakers were "overachieving" because they played an easy schedule.  Once the schedule got harder they were always going to lose whether Russell was playing or not.  Sure he might make a difference in a game here or there, but when a bad team starts consistently playing playoff teams, the bad team will start consistently losing.  For the record, their schedule gets a lot easier and I wouldn't be surprised to see them hover around .500 for awhile.  They have Utah and Houston in the next two but after that get Phoenix, New York, Sacto, Brooklyn, and Philly so they could easily go 4-1 in that stretch and maybe they split Houston and Utah and end up above .500 before they get another tough stretch.
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: What's up with the Hawks?
« Reply #39 on: December 06, 2016, 03:58:04 PM »

Offline celticsclay

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15739
  • Tommy Points: 1386
Didn't they also lose DeMarre Carrol?

Mike



They lost him before last season.  They obviously took a bit of a tumble then, but he wouldn't explain their very poor performance the last few weeks.


I think the Hawks surprised teams at the beginning of the year but then fell off the cliff. It's a long year, The Lakers seemed to have come back earth as well. The Knicks seem to have steadied their ship and could be dangerous in the playoffs.

The Lakers coming back to earth seems to have largely coincided with them missing their best player.

yep. Russell had a 2 week timeframe. Randle also missed 1 or 2 games, and Nick Young got hurt last week too I think. They're still one of my favorite young cores in the NBA, and I think they'll get back to winning once they're healthy again.
Lakers were 7-6 with Russell and played a pretty easy schedule in those games (just 5 teams above .500 and 1 right at .500, the other 7 are all well below .500 including all 5 of the worst teams in the west and the nets from the east).

I'm not really sure what you are trying to argue here. Russell is a good player for them and a starter. They lost him. They are a worse team without him (not to mention losing randle for a few games and being without Nick Young for 5 games who is having a really nice year 46% from field 41% from 3). Which part are you disagreeing with? Are you saying they are better without him somehow?

You honestly make more "generally arguing with nothing" posts than anyone on this forum. Someone could post water is wet and you would make a reply saying "well not in all forms"
Yes Russell is a good player, but the Lakers also played a very easy schedule.  The Lakers opponents in the games Russell has missed are San Antonio, Oklahoma City, Golden State, Golden State, Atlanta, New Orleans, Chicago, Toronto, and Memphis.  5 of those games were on the road including the 4 most recent.  Aside from New Orleans, Atlanta at 10-11 is the worst team in that group.  The Lakers went 3-6 in those games and there is a good chance that with Russell they still go 3-6.  They actually beat the Thunder without Russell and got demolished by the Thunder with Russell so who knows what happens if they have Russell for that second game (they actually beat the Bulls without Russell and lost to them with him as well - the reverse of GS who they somehow beat early in the year though got crushed in the two recent games).  The only close loss during the games without Russell was their most recent game against the Grizzlies so maybe they win that one with Russell.

Thus, my point is, the Lakers were "overachieving" because they played an easy schedule.  Once the schedule got harder they were always going to lose whether Russell was playing or not.  Sure he might make a difference in a game here or there, but when a bad team starts consistently playing playoff teams, the bad team will start consistently losing.  For the record, their schedule gets a lot easier and I wouldn't be surprised to see them hover around .500 for awhile.  They have Utah and Houston in the next two but after that get Phoenix, New York, Sacto, Brooklyn, and Philly so they could easily go 4-1 in that stretch and maybe they split Houston and Utah and end up above .500 before they get another tough stretch.

Do you not realize the impact of not only missing Russell but also missing another key guard?
You can spin around some games to make anything sound reasonable. They played 13 games to start 7-6, 7 of them were on the road. Some of them were easy games, some of them were good wins (atlanta, golden state, houston) some were easier. They have certainly played other tougher games since then (including warriors twice).

 That being said you watch enough basketball to know taking out two keys rotation players and probably their best player is going to make them significantly worse. Saying they would have had the same record without those two guys when they are now playing Marcelas 15-18 minutes a game in their place and they are now starting Metta World Peace! (The guy they pushed to be a coach before the season) is just flat out silly.

Do they still lose by 3 points to Memphis without playing the Marcelas serious minutes?
Do they still lose by 6 to Utah with Young and Russell instead of World Peace and Marcelas Huertas?
Maybe they don't get blown out by the pelicans with those guys playing?

I get that every team has injuries but it is pretty predictable that when a team loses to two starters or multiple rotation players it can really mess them up. To act like this isn't a major factor and blame it all on scheduling is silly.   

 

Re: What's up with the Hawks?
« Reply #40 on: December 06, 2016, 05:05:43 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
Who knows, maybe Russell has one of his bad shooting nights and they lose by 15. 

When you play better teams you lose more games. 
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: What's up with the Hawks?
« Reply #41 on: December 06, 2016, 06:03:19 PM »

Offline spikelovetheCelts

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1616
  • Tommy Points: 113
  • Peace it's a board. We all will never agree.
Its pretty obvious Dennis Schroder is just not anywhere near as good as Jeff Teague in the half court.  That has been the Hawks biggest problem.  Nobody respects his jump shot so defenders just stick with Dwight in the PnR and sag off Schroder.

Also, they have no secondary play maker with Millsap out, and the wings (Korver, Bazemore, Sefalosha) have been mediocre at best, and much worse than in seasons past.  Not much bench help either outside of Hardaway Jr and Muscala, who have both been "just ok".

Lazy people will blame Dwight because he's the easy target, and people don't like him, but he hasn't really been the problem at all.  I mean, they obviously miss Horford's passing and shooting, but I think it's been a pretty even trade off in what they've gained in rebounding and paint presence.

This is true. I haven't got to watch much of the Hawks this year, but Dwight seems to be doing pretty well.

However, my problem was this with them this summer - they were already a strong defensive team that had offensive issues, so what do they do? They let Al go and signed Dwight to increase their interior defense and rebounding but lose out on Al's perimeter defense, shooting, and playmaking, which was needed the most with losing Teague. What's funniest is that Horford is now averaging over a block and three assists more than Howard, and he's shooting a blistering 42% from the three!

It seems that they just went purely for the "name" of Howard without even thinking of where they needed actual help. They'd be much better off right now with Horford than Howard.

I must say, though, I'm kind of wishing we got both Howard and Horford right now. That would be a deadly, deadly combination. And Howard is almost exactly what we need right now - a rebounding, post scoring, and rim protecting presence.

Atlanta always had the inside track on Howard since he played his high school ball there. Howard was trying to reset his career and I really doubt he was trying to get involved with the Boston sports media crucible when he could just go home and be surrounded by his friends and family,

Horford/Howard would be nice but then Horford would be nice with a lot of centers, we still have a mountain of assets to throw at guys like Derrick Favors, Marc Gasol, and and of course Boogie. Maybe Blake Griffin becomes available if the Clippers regress. Lamarcus Aldridge just seems like an awkward fit out there, maybe there's a deal to be made.

Point is that Howard would be a good here but I think there are plenty of options out there to suggest that our next starting frontcourt player is currently on a different roster.
Horford does not like Howard that helped him come to Boston.

Horford refuted that notion.

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/al-horford-says-he-didnt-leave-hawks-because-of-dwight-howard-signing/
Holford was just being nice. I would take a flyer on bogut. Hopefully the nowhere suns cut Chandler lose after the trade deadline and we get him for nothing, too.
"People look at players, watch them dribble between their legs and they say, 'There's a superstar.'  Well John Havlicek is a superstar, and most of the others are figments of writers' imagination."
--Jerry West, on John Havlicek