Hawks

By honest_abe

October 18, 2006 04:49 PM | Link to this

i understand this org/team needs to begin the tradition of winning whether in pre season games..whatever……BUT, CMON jj hasn’t had a break all year…and he played crazy minutes last year…only to be overplayed in preseason.. are you kidding me? i know he’s in great shape and he takes care of his body…but even a supernatural human being is going to wear down sooner or later with those kind of minutes…….. PLEASE give him somewhat of a break during preseason!

josh will be fine as long as he is focused and brings a high level of intensity to every single minute he is on the floor!

By dale`

October 18, 2006 04:59 PM | Link to this

SS, I agree with you. It makes no sence to play Joe Johnson more than 20 minutes a game in the pre-season. The man just spent half his off-season playing International Basketball. Let’s not wear him out now, it’s going to be a long season. What’s going to happen with Royal Ivey when Speedy Claxton returns?

By HB Ando

October 18, 2006 05:04 PM | Link to this

I hear ya, Abe. I see Riley has been giving Wade bunches of rest in the pre-season.

Josh can absolutely break out this year. How his individual ascension fits into the teams’ chances of winning games, this season, is the real question mark.

SS, I see hyperbole in crowning Howard at the expense of Amare. I doubt we’ll see Howard putting up 26 a night like Amare did two years ago. And Amare will be bringing a face up game this year. Howard will be dominant on the low block, but I don’t see him quite catching up to Amare’s burgeoning versatility and all-court game. Of course Howard isn’t playing with Nash, but that’s really irrelevant to a comparison of their individual capabilities, at this stage in each young guys career.

Lo Wright’s leadership, as opposed to his role player production, will be an interesting intangible in the W column.

Won’t go very far if Johnson gets hurt in a meaningless pre-season tilt, though………….

By HB Ando

October 18, 2006 05:11 PM | Link to this

G-Money, (from earlier today) I see what you’re saying, but I think it’s you who has the twisted logic. You made a point of highlighting that Orlando might have been very high on Shelden, as a way of supporting that the Hawks made the right decision. I’m not backing off the reality that one man’s gold, at the 11th pick, is another man’s mistake, at 5. It’s inconsequential to try and support Billy’s choice of Shelden at five, by highlighting that another team liked him at 11. It’s a pretty staight-forward point…….

By By Cory H

October 18, 2006 05:19 PM | Link to this

I applaud the efforts of Mr. Johnson, when was the last time we saw any star of the Hawks teams playing with this much passion? He could have taken the easy road and say hey I played in the Olympic Qualifiers but no he accepted the challenge of leading and said I’m going to lead by example. He is a noted Gym rat and is still very young so I will never think of hardwork as a negative. This team needs this type of passion, and if we recall one of our biggest problems last year was running out of gas at the end of games. But not with this attitude we won’t, it’s nice to see this from a player showing hey I’m not just satisfied making a big check and capitialinzing on a bad franchise he wants to make a differnce for the team and the fans. That’s a great mentor for a young team.

By Fan01

October 18, 2006 05:21 PM | Link to this

Josh is going to have a great year he is always going to have doubters and those type of people really dont matter anyone he does’nt have to prove them anything all he needs to do is go out there and play hard the entire game.

By The Flash

October 18, 2006 05:31 PM | Link to this

Me, I think offensive flow, and I do hope that they’ve adopted a new concept around that. But, whatever their concept, JJ is integral. What’s the point of practice games without him out there? How can the collective wisdom of the team progress if JJ is sitting? It can’t therefore he isn’t. Now, if he is doing stupid crazy things on D, or on the boards, or even taking it to the rack, that’s another thing. But, if he’s playing those aspects of the game within limits, hey, he could get hurt riding a motorcycle. He needs to be out there and this offense has to rock. If it does, they’ll stop people when they have to, especially with Shellie defending the key pick guy in the old pick and roll down the stretch. That’s my story and I’m stickin to it.

By honest_abe

October 18, 2006 05:42 PM | Link to this

that’s a moronic story. and i stick by my opinion…i’ve blogged too much…but i’ll tell you how stupid that argument is tomorrow :) hiya flash!

By honest_abe

October 18, 2006 05:46 PM | Link to this

i blogged too much today

By Steve T

October 18, 2006 06:19 PM | Link to this

Hey, lay off Shelden. He was a need pick and from what I am seeing he may not have been a bad pick. If he comes out and play some real basketball, he would be well worth the pick.

Most people only look at one part of the game. They think that high drafft picks are suppose to score points. However, a good number five pick could score, rebound, assist, block shots, and play great defense. If this guy turns out to be almost as good as Dwight Howard, he would be a steal. Shelden is going to be very good for a long time.

By The Flash

October 18, 2006 06:43 PM | Link to this

Honestman, long time no see. Be careful now, I’m on Woody’s side on this one. So tearing me down (yeah like you might be able to) is tearing your boy down. So, it seems I can’t lose, although I’m famous for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Look forward to tomorrow, honest man, nothing like a hard left hook to the chops to let a man know he’s alive, I always say. Now, it’s really starting to feel like the season is starting to begin. Later, HA, sleep tight.

By Chris

October 18, 2006 07:13 PM | Link to this

Cory, One of the reasons the Hawks ran of gas in the end of games last year was JJ ran out of gas. He would come out creating and scoring and play the whole first half. By the end of the game he was tired. His jumpers wouldn’t go down and he would lose is dribble. Playing every minute of every game is noble but it is not the best strategy to a succesful team. Hopefully Childress can give JJ some rest this year with the Forward positions relatively stocked. JJ’s leadership can also be shown by having trust in the rest of your team that they can get the job done.

By HB Ando

October 18, 2006 07:32 PM | Link to this

I’m not hating the player, I’m hatin’ the game. I don’t blame Shelden for Billy’s mistake in taking him at five. But, by definition, a need pick fits the “need”. What we needed was starter-level minutes from a player who could rebound, block shots and defend the paint. If Shelden doesn’t provide that, then he didn’t address the need. And since he can only play the power forward position, then if he plays, it comes at the expense of minutes for Josh or Marvin. If he sits, he didn’t address the need.

And the very idea, much less saying it outloud, that Shelden Williams will ever be mentioned in the same breath as Dwight Howard is just plain ludicrous (unless the breath is, “that Shelden Williams will never be a Dwight Howard”). I don’t know where these ideas come from. There isn’t a legitimate basketball opinion that has ever even suggested that Shelden has the potential of a Howard. Yet here’s someone saying it like it’s common wisdom.

I’m trying very hard to play these posts straight, but comments like that are plain hard to take.

Flash, how you been, partner? Long time, no see.

By Chris

October 18, 2006 07:41 PM | Link to this

Josh Smith is the one guy on the Hawks that can dominate on both ends of the floor. During a game vs the Cavs last year Ilgauskas paused and didn’t take it to the basket when he saw Josh Smith in his way. Guys in the NBA are afraid to be dunked on by Josh or even attempt to dunk on him because their shot will get rejected. How many guys in the NBA can create “poster” moments on both ends of the floor? To all the haters he is a young fella. If he stays healthy he could be a superstar. Josh Smith is the one thing on the Hawks that is keeping me from being a all out BK hater.

By michael m.

October 18, 2006 07:54 PM | Link to this

steve, you are right in that shelden was a need pick. the players who seemingly offered the most value where we were sitting (#5) wouldn’t have really strengthened us in a tangible way - i.e. roy and foye may have better careers, but they wouldn’t get the minutes with us that they will certainly get in portland and minny. but let’s not get carried away. shelden will never approach dwight howard territory. howard is a beast who will dominate for the next decade. shelden will hopefully be a really nice piece who does all the little things and eventually even averages a double double. howard’s already there and he’s only scratched the surface.

By michael m.

October 18, 2006 08:06 PM | Link to this

a few posts came up after i posted that were written before, ando’s saying basically the same thing regarding shelden vs. howard.

i will counter though that the pick of shelden did fit the criteria of what the hawks needed better than what else was available. it wasn’t a great draft in terms of projected future all stars. the centers were projects and not worthy of being selected there. i also think depending on matchups that you will see shelden playing center next to smooth and marvin. it isn’t gonna happen when we face orlando, but there are a lot of teams who will go a number of with players in the pivot who are also glorified fours.

but shelden does fit the need. look, both marvin and smooth will average around 32 minutes. that leaves another 32 minutes at the forward spots. shelden will take most of those, with childress most likely handling the rest. zaza and zen might even play together some when we face big-sized teams that like to slow it down and grind it out.

By Bertie

October 18, 2006 08:07 PM | Link to this

JJ’s preseason minutes are a concern but it seems to me that Woodson wants to play the core group as much as possible to improve team play and have them get use to each other in order to avoid a horrible start like last year. Sure it might come at the risk of injury, but face it eventhough we insiders see the improvement and the potential this team is a joke to the rest of the NBA. Again this year no Hawks’ game are on national TV.

I agree with Sekou that the big Greek guy should take a spot in the roster, Woodson did not play him because he might have seen enough of him already. If that happens that leaves three guys for two roster spots, Batista, Ivey and Salim. I think Batista is in because of the big man premium. That leaves 1 spot for either Ivey or Salim. It is a close call but I prefer Ivey because of his defense, he can be used to slow down an opponent’s superstar. As for Solomon, he should start in the NBDL and if he does well and somebody gets injured he can be called upon.

By G-Money

October 18, 2006 08:12 PM | Link to this

Ando, last comment on Sheldon. I’ll put it to you differently with an analogy you might understand. Let’s say that your shoes have a big hole in them and every time it rains, your feet get wet — very uncomfortable. It’s winter and the temp is around 40 degrees. You wear a size 14.5. You try to find shoes that fit but only find up to size 13 on sale. You then see some size 16’s that look great but just don’t fit. You then finally find the 14.5’s and they’re twice as much as the the 13’s. The 16’s cost the same as the 14.5’s. What do you do? Do you buy the 13’s that are too small, buy the 16’s that are too big but you like them, or you expend the extra cash and buy the right shoe that fits you? The point is that given what we are all witnessing, Shelden might just be the right shoe for the Hawks. You may not want to believe it because it doesn’t jive with your opinion of him, but if he puts up double doubles nearly every night he’s better than most 5 picks that have come into this league! Certainly that remains to be seen. But I would say he’s already better than Tskitishvili, Shaun Livingston, Raymond Felton. He looks like he could be as good as Mike Miller is now and may be talked about in the same manner folks talk about Jason Richardson one day. Given that you know your basketball so well I don’t have to let you know that these are all #5 picks of the new millennium. The only one not included is DWade. We all know why!!

By G-Money

October 18, 2006 08:22 PM | Link to this

Correction: in ‘04 Livingston went 4 and Devin Harris went #5

By roan st

October 18, 2006 08:42 PM | Link to this

I am truly sorry doc know your a solid guy. I just lost my cool at such an arrogant and condensending post. If you back it up then I believe you. I should have chosen my words more carefully and not involved you in the fracus. Just want the hawks to do well and sometimes the criticisms seem a little harsh.

By bootsybug

October 18, 2006 08:49 PM | Link to this

you just can’t win with some people. if joe was playing 18 minutes a night, everyone would be saying that’s not enough time to build chemistry. if he’s playing 32 minutes a night, people complain that that’s too many.

go look back through the scores of last year’s hawks losses. they lost so many close games because they just didn’t know how to win. while you’re looking through last year’s scores, note they only won by big margins 1 or 2 times. that means that hawks let teams stay too close when they did win, and lost way too many games that they should have won.

woodsen and co. aren’t having any of that nonsense this year. his first priority is to learn to win. he knows another slow start and the pink slip looks a lot bigger in the rear view mirror. it’s essential that the hawk progress this year - and that ties into taking shelden at the 5 instead of a project (sene or somebody) or somebody who won’t help us this year (foye etc.).

but to say shelden is better than felton now, like a previous poster said, is wrong for two reasons:

1. felton had a nice season last year, and played better than chris paul down the stretch, and

2. they just simply play totally opposite positions/roles, so why compare them anyway.

i think it’s safe to say that shelden will contribute a winning attitude and all the intangibles and toughness that will be asked of him.

i’m looking for a 40+ win season, go hawks!

By HB Ando

October 18, 2006 09:05 PM | Link to this

G, I truly appreciate that you’re approaching this discussion with analysis, rather than emotion. And I’ll say right now that if Shelden is a double-double guy, this year, that I was just flat wrong. But I’ll also say that the idea of Shelden averaging a double-double has to come at the expense of someone else’s, someone far more talented, minutes. They have to come at the individual, or combined, expense of Marvin and Josh. And I just don’t see that happening. And I think that the fact that this is a year in which the Hawks must determine what the potential of a tandem of Marvin and Josh means for them, precludes Shelden from even having the opportunity to justify his draft slot.

To answer your question, I’d take the size 16’s, even if I couldn’t wear them this year, because a 16 like O’Bryant or Sene or Armstrong or Simmons, projects to play the five; gives the potential of supporting the notion that Josh and Marvin are our tandem forwards of the future. And if you believe they are, then you don’t waste a fifth overall pick on a guy who can only, then, project to be the back-up four. Woodson said it on draft night, while I was standing 15 feet away, that Shelden is a four and not a five. This year isn’t going to be the year, no matter how bad it hurts. So the pick needed to look to the future. And if the future is Josh and Marvin, side-by-side, then you don’t use the fifth overall pick on a likely back up. You draft a potential solution at the five, for the long-term. Or you draft the best available player (Roy or Foye) and figure out who you’re going to keep as you balance the squad out. A fifth pick should project to start for your team, or be sufficient currency to start for another team, and have value in a trade. Shelden will never approach the value, for us or other teams in the league, that Roy or Foye would have. We devalued the pick by taking a player at five that no one else would have taken there. And if he can’t get in front of Josh or Marvin, and provide starters’, or sixth man minutes, then he was a wasted pick.

That’s just the way I see it. And it’s not a knock on Shelden. I just believe, contextually, that it was the least possible value we could have gotten with that pick.

By jhan

October 18, 2006 09:07 PM | Link to this

Too many are caught up in where a player is drafted. It truly only matters if they produce at the NBA level. We will be able to tell in a couple of years if Sheldon at #5 was a good choice or not.

I don’t see the problem with having 4 forwards looking for playing time with this team. How many forwards do other teams carry? Just 2? We will be able to play match up with our opponents. We will probably be able to put 5 on the floor that most teams will have a hard time matching. When was the last time that happened? We should be covered in case of injuries also.

I may be totally wrong, but I guess we’ll find out soon enough.

On a side note, if people don’t like what Ando is saying, why do they keep egging him on. I personally love the banter & spin everyone puts on their arguments. I can’t see taking any of this personally, or actually getting upset about something written on a blog. Just my opinion.

By Weaver

October 18, 2006 09:45 PM | Link to this

Sheldon was an absolute solid pick, who was picked to fill a need in a draft filled with question marks. I think some of you might have misjudged him before you saw him play. Whether you are drafting at #5 or anywhere else, your job as a GM is to get the pick the best fits your team needs and the player that shows the most capacity to grow at the position of need. Sheldon Williams represented both of those things this summer to the Atlanta Hawks. Whether we picked him at #5 or #25 we got the right player for our organization. Don’t forget that in last summers Draft the prospects were all well below the prospects from former drafts. That being said, Sheldon at 5 may have seemed a reach at the time, but I think after futher analysis of this Draft class in the future will prove that he was indeed the biggest Inside Presence of this years class. And that my friends is why BK picked him, and why I happen to think we did very well in the draft last season.

By Weaver

October 18, 2006 09:59 PM | Link to this

Hey Ando, If we picked Foye or Roy all you’d be talking about would be who we have to get RID of now. Is it Childress? Whould we have still signed Speedy? My point being we would be in the exact same place we were in last season…..our Hawks would again have an unbalanced roster! That’s why we didn’t win more games last season and it’s the reason we will win more this year. We have BALANCED out our roster with different kinds of Bigs & Point guards (Well, actually just one PG. But we still got Lue)

By Ken Strickland

October 18, 2006 10:02 PM | Link to this

You can tell the season is about to start by all of the banter about minutes and draft positions. Who cares what position a player is drafted as long as the team gets what it wants and/or needs. Draft position should only matter to the team accountant, since players salaries are slotted by draft position. It is the coaching staff’s responsibility to worry about a players mins. Common sense should tell those who are concerned, that performance will dictate a players mins, period. You perform you get the mins, you don’t you won’t. I can’t speak for anyone else, but it makes damn good sense to me. Several months ago I mentioned that SWilliams was drafted to be our future PF. I also mentioned that either JSmith or MWilliams would likely be traded. I believe it will be Marvin because Josh is a presence at both ends of the court and he is a local product. With Josh and Shelden protecting the middle and blocking shots, Zaza’s DEF shortcomings will be less of a factor. A front court of Marvin, Zaza and Smooth averaging between 40-45ppg, 25-30rpg and 4-6blks would be hard for most teams to handle. Hell, let’s get this season started. GOOOOOOOO HAWKS!!!!!!

By Hawk Doc

October 18, 2006 10:26 PM | Link to this

If Shelden can avg 12 pts & 10 boards he’ll be well worth the 5th pick. The guy has a big time work ethic and he will never shift into cruise control in the 4th qtr.

By ray

October 18, 2006 11:30 PM | Link to this

Average a double-double? I think that would surpise most of us. It’s not like that’s a pedestrian stat to record on one’s rookie year. Or any year. Look to the future, huh? If Shelden averages a double-double this year, then he’s worth the pick, eh? And for this to happen, someone else’s minutes have to be cut…soooo, does this mean more wins or not? I don’t care if Shelden’s stats satisfy (or don’t satisfy) somebody’s opinion on what makes him worth the fifth pick. I want to know if he will significantly help the team win. And if not, what is going to be done to fix the problem? But we won’t know that until the season gets going, now will we? I don’t wanna see JJ go down, but I kinda get what Woody was trying to do in the first Orlando matchup at least. DHoward is definitely the truth, and for those saying he’s not above Amare, well that’s true, for now. But is Amare ever going to be the same athlete he was before his injury? As a basketball fan, I hope that he does, because one of the greatest things about this game is a rivalry and a matchup of dominant players. Imagine what Amare vs. Dwight could be in a few years…

I’m glad to hear that Smith is really improving daily. But I can’t wait to actually see it. One thing he is going to have to do to play anywhere near the post is bring the defensive intensity all night, every night. We don’t have enough rock solid post defenders right now to rely on a weak-side block specialist to be a post defender. He has to learn how to face up guys and do other things. Right now, I don’t see Smith and Shelden as being the primary post-defense tandem if Smith is primarily going to be weak-side. We’ll see.

By mykhalc

October 18, 2006 11:55 PM | Link to this

KEN, totally think the opposite regarding your post. IF MARVIN and JS show they can produce while on the court at the same time (both ends of the court) THEN the HAWKS have positioned themselves cap-wise to re-sign BOTH players longterm. MARVIN just has tooooooo much upside to his game to think trade with him now or near future!! JS too, but i think we have NOT even begun to see where MARVIN’s talent level and work ethic will take him. i think BK’s plan is and has been to build around JJ, MARVIN, and JS. and all of what i’m sayin’ depends on the ownership fiasco, of course!! and who knows how the hell that’s gonna play out???!!!

By mykhalc

October 19, 2006 12:02 AM | Link to this

this might be a stretch to some, but i really see MARVIN as having all the tools to be KG like, minus a coupla inches!!LOL we’re about to see where he’s at in a minute tho!! GO HAWKS!!!!

By cowa

October 19, 2006 12:13 AM | Link to this

It’s been a while since I posted, as there hasn’t been much to talk about since the draft and the whole Harrington mess. but since we’re rehashing the draft AGAIN…

I don’t understand why no one seems to understand Ando’s point, which he’s only posted 20 or 25 times! Sheldon was a bad pick at #5. He may have been a great pick at #8 or higher, but BK didn’t get full value for the 5th pick. Minnesota picked Roy, even though they wanted Foye, just to turn around and trade them for each other plus cash. They got the player they wanted, and got cash. Why couldn’t we have done the same thing? The only reason is because Billy showed his hand and everyone knew who he wanted. It didn’t have to be Roy, it could have been O’Bryant and traded him to GS and got something more in return. Or Gay. Anyone that was viewed by fellow GM’s as having more intrinsic value at the #5 spot. Sheldon could be the perfect fit for the Hawks, but BK should have gotten more for the 5th pick than Sheldon alone. That’s all Ando is saying, which I totally agree with (Ando, don’t mean to be speaking for you, but I’m so tired of no one getting your point).

Let’s end this pointless - counter pointless arguement and just talk about the present or the future.

I haven’t been able to catch a preseason game yet. Who is starting at the 4, Marvin or Josh? And are they playing it on both ends, or are they switching it up on offense and defense?

Regarding JJ’s minutes, the only way to get a cohesive starting 5 together is to get them playing time together in the preseason. Unfortunately, with Speedy out, this isn’t going to happen in the preseason until he’s back, so why so many minutes for JJ now? The only new player in the preseason starting 5 (Lue, JJ, JS, MW & Zaza) is Marvin, and he’s had plenty of time with this unit in the last couple of months of last season (I know, Ivey started last year, but Lue was the “real” starter). Does JJ need all these minutes to sync up with Marvin? Doubtful. Andy of all players, JJ isn’t the one I concerned with in fitting in and gelling.

SS - any word on when the cuts will start taking place?

By Ken Strickland

October 19, 2006 01:06 AM | Link to this

COWA, it’s not that everyone misunderstands ANDO’s position, it’s just no one cares at this point. Everyone else is beyond rehashing the draft and wasting time with all of that coulda, shoulda crap. Everyone else realizes the season starts very shortly, and the Hawks have to start the season with the players it has, not players it shoulda, coulda drafted or traded for. That is fantasy basketball, especially this close to the season opener.

By G-Money

October 19, 2006 05:39 AM | Link to this

Hey fellas, my bad for opening up the draft hash. I saw the article on Yahoo Sports discussing Shelden and Orlando and couldn’t resist sharing. Oops, I should have known that it was going to bring out the boo birds.

You’re right. The draft has been so over-discussed that it is painful for many to read. The team is what it is and we have the players that we have. I’m excited about all of the possibilities including Glyniadikis and Bozeman, if those are the FA’s Woody wants to add.

Back to the blog topic of minutes…as I looked at the minutes that our starters have played, I also looked at the opponents starters’ minutes. All of the mid-tier and lower teams are playing their starters more minutes working toward developing winning attitudes and getting “it” right. That makes sense to me. If we don’t execute with the starting 5, it really doesn’t matter about the 2nd team. If we don’t develop a close out mentality as well as close out game plans, we’ll also be right back where we were last season. Frankly, I think Woody is right on point. The next two weeks will be interesting and critical to this year’s success. Can’t wait to see Speedy back and in action.

By honest_abe

October 19, 2006 10:28 AM | Link to this

the lack of respect this current hawks team gets from the national media is warranted, considering they’ve only won 39 games in the past two seasons….BUT, that moron from espn hollister…just ranked jj the 71st best player in the nba.. he also projected him to score 16 points per game.. that would put him under brevin knight and right above raymond felton! on his profile he doesn’t mention how he almost single handedly improved the hawks from 13 to 26 wins.. how he made the usa national team.. he doesn’t mention his versatility, his tireless work ethic, his great attitude, his willingness to do whatever it takes to win games…INSTEAD.. that moron just mentions how the hawks overpaid to get him! BAH!

By Astro Joe

October 19, 2006 10:39 AM | Link to this

Abe, I think Hollister’s PER is player efficiency rating. So JJs 16 is a Hollister-created stat, not his forecast for points per game.

But his ranking is very interesting and a good conversation piece. Bloggers may be interested to know that according to his PER ranking, Childress is the second best Hawk (and rated ahead of Al Harrington). And if memory serves me, he has Dan Gadzuric, David Lee and Jackie Butler ranked AHEAD of Joe Johnson.

By honest_abe

October 19, 2006 10:44 AM | Link to this

oops..thanks for the clarification aj…but like you mentioned some of those players he has listed above jj… is LUDICROUS!..

By Ken Strickland

October 19, 2006 11:21 AM | Link to this

G-MONEY, you should be severly punished for conjuring up the draft. What were you thinking my friend. Anyway, I haven’t been this excited about an upcoming Hawks season since the yr we signed MosesM and ReggieT. MYKHALC, my opinion on who will likely be traded wasn’t based on anything concrete, so your opinion has as much chance of being right as mine. HONEST_ABE, this current teams lack of respect is not only prevelent among the national media, it’s just as much an issue among a lot of Hawks fans. When all is said and done, it will be up to the players to change those perceptions with their on court performances. I believe the lack of respect is based as much on our disjointed ownership, and their jockular legal antics, than the potential of the players/team.

By HB Ando

October 19, 2006 11:27 AM | Link to this

Thanks, Cowa. They say they get it, but don’t care, yet their responses argue a different point all together. And the responses suggest they don’t get it. So Shelden addresses a need for THIS year’s team. What about the next nine? You plug short-term gaps with free agents signings. You’re talking about using the fifth overall pick in a draft to address a back-up power forward’s slot. You draft a guy at five that projects to start for you, or for someone else, in this league, for the next ten years. Then, you hope he starts for you, or you can trade him for someone who can start for you, for the next ten years. You don’t draft a guy who projects to back up your four. Jeesh.

Shelden starts=Marvin or Josh will leave the franchise; neither will settle for being a back-up on a bad team.

Shelden backs up=wasted use of the fifth pick in the draft; we got Wright for 3 million a year, and he can play the back up four, as well.

Either way, you’ve gotten away from the plan of building around Josh, Marvin and Joe. Address one or five, or draft a 2-4 that projects to be a quality starter in the league, and use them as currency. There is a REASON that no one else had Shelden rated as high as five!

You folks say, “Get over it”, but in doing that, you don’t hold your franchise’s management accountable for dumb moves. A lot of you guys are more interested in this years’ team, than in the realistic plan needed to build a truly winning franchise. And truly solid franchises don’t make moves like that.

OK, that’s my last take on it. Unless someone else starts barking about what a great pick he was, when he’s playing 10 minutes a night. You know, it’s just like the Paul/Marvin thing, in that I could never post on that issue again, but every time someone comes on and says something about how Marvin is going to prove Billy right, you’re going to bring out my response. You may have heard it a million times, but when someone else renews the conversation, and opines to the contrary, you’re going to hear it again……..

Let’s just tip the damn thing off and see what we’ve got to work with here….

By Kappy

October 19, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this

OK, I may or may not be a gambling man. And all of us have debated on the potential win total for the team this year. But the fact that Vegas has the Hawks over/under at 28.5 wins has me licking my chops. We had 26 last year and gave several games away. And we improved, i believe, with the offseason acquisitions and the maturity of the team. Why dont we all pool our money together and hit Vegas for all they’re worth. Im serious. As they say in the gambling world, Its a total lock!

By HB Ando

October 19, 2006 01:12 PM | Link to this

Kappy, I mentioned the same thing yesterday (although it was in reference to defending my opinion that we’ll end up between 31 and 34). When my buddy the sports gambler told me that line, I told him it was the no-brainer of the century. And while we’ll beat that number, without much question, it does point to the idea that folks who are thinking 40 wins here might need to get a little perspective. The truth is that sports books are usually pretty well informed, and they are usually pretty close to their number, especially on a seasons’ aggragate win total.

But hey, I’m guessing the over-under for New Orleans, last year, was around 20, and look what they did. Oh, wait, they drafted Chris Paul……………..

By Chris

October 19, 2006 01:16 PM | Link to this

Ludicrous was on Steven A Smith last night. They showed two Hawks highlights last night after Steven A teased Ludicrous about being a Hawks fan. Both highlights were of Josh Smith throwing it down. 21 in more than a month and he is already the highlight face of the franchise.

By Ken Strickland

October 19, 2006 01:17 PM | Link to this

ANDO, let’s pretend that BK caves in to your personal preferences and drafts Roy or Foye with the 5th pick instead of Shelden. The starting 5 for the upcoming season would still be MWilliams, JSmith, SClaxton, JJ and Zaza. Using your logic, since neither Roy or Foye would make the starting lineup, wouldn’t they also be wasted picks? Stop conjuring up this suedo analytical logic about Shelden being a wasted pick because he isn’t starting. The truth is, there wasn’t a rookie available, at the 5th pick, that would have cracked our starting lineup. Shelden was the best option, considering what the team needed most. The argument you are attempting to make against Shelden being an illogical pick is, in a word, ILLOGICAL.

By honest_abe

October 19, 2006 01:46 PM | Link to this

wow!!!! people ACTUALLY WATCH STEVEN A SMITH’S show???? holy. !#$#%! can’t believe that show is still running! lol

By mykhalc

October 19, 2006 01:50 PM | Link to this

KEN, you’re right. it could swing ANY way. just throwin’ in my take.

ANDO, i guess i’m just NOT strong enough to ignore the CP comment.LOL so like you havin’ to chime in when someone brings up the SHELDON draft pick, i’ll continue (until i’m tired, worn out, beat all to hell) continue to cut and paste my take on PAUL when you bring him up…

lastly, don’t care how you color it, YOU DON’T KNOW HOW PAUL WOULD HAVE PLAYED IN A HAWKS UNIFORM!!! pls use your crystal ball to review the WORLD GAMES for a replay. surrounded by better talent than at NO and he failed to show…PEROID!!!! it just goes to show that when the parts start changing, you can almost count on the end result to change too!!!!

as MM (and many have)said, let’s go with what we got!!!!

GO HAWKS!!

By mykhalc

October 19, 2006 01:55 PM | Link to this

ABE, the funny thing is when one can get past STEPHEN A’s attitude, he actually has great guests and very good dialogue. not a bad show at all, IMHO!!

By cp

October 19, 2006 01:59 PM | Link to this

I like this team. I hope they contend for a playoff spot but they will need everyone to stay healthy and produce. I just wish the season would hurry up and get here.

By The Flash

October 19, 2006 02:17 PM | Link to this

I really have to get me that NBA channel. The talk here is serious as are the players. If I really want in on the action, I’m going to have to watch. But, me, I’m a 24 man, a Wire man, a Soprano’s man, etc, so fitting in alot of NBA, Hawks in particular, is going to be a challenge, but I do believe being “a player” here might well be worth it. Props to everyone.

me, I’ve always liked a good high-low game. Darko could well be an excellent, as in really excellent, high man. First, he can see over everyone. Second, he can hurt you bad from that spot. Third, he is a feel player, with hands and smarts. So, I don’t want to be takin no air out of anyone’s bubble, but Dwight’s ability to really be a dominent guy might well depend as much on Darko as Dwight.

Nobody’s going to put Dwight in the books if he turns out to be another Moses; see, how many of you knew I was talking about Malone. So, if he is just a monster on the boards and can score with his back to the basket with power moves, he ain’t gonna make anyone forget Shaq, of Hakeem, or Duncan, etc. However, if Darko works out, and can lob it if the defender tries to take away the catch in the middle (D seals the guy and catches at or near the rim), or can bounce it if the defender gives D the middle catch, and if Darko can knock down the two ball to keep his guy honest, and dive if his guy moves to double on the middle catch, well then, we got us a pair that could be really memorable.

Only we don’t got squadoush because we don’t got Darko, Orlando does, and because that is on BK in my and Ando’s book and that is a crying shame. Look, there is no mystery to a good low post game, not if you got a man on high who can get you the ball and a guy with the smarts and skills to make himself a good receiver. I think that we got more than enough of the latter to have a collective, at least, very credible low post game, if we had the high post guy.

So, talk about Dwight all you want, the one that got away, was Darko. Longer feeds to the post, aka of the sort Shaq gets takes a whole other kind of presence down low, maybe like Dwight. Only we don’t got Dwight because of how the ping pong balls popped. This Darko thing ain’t so easily explainable, is all.

By honest_abe

October 19, 2006 02:18 PM | Link to this

mykhalc ……take away stephen a…. and i would definitely watch the show….he’s just entirely too much over the top…if his voice isn’t the most annoying on television i don’t know whose is…

By mykhalc

October 19, 2006 02:33 PM | Link to this

ABE, you are soooooo right!!LOL you definitely have to be in a certain mindset to watch. just remember…it’s my house but you’re welcome anytime!!!geeeeeessshhhhh LOL

By Mike

October 19, 2006 02:39 PM | Link to this

Seems like alot more posting going on this year and less negative crap. Glad to see so many fans with so many great opinions this early. GO HAWKS!!

By The Flash

October 19, 2006 03:06 PM | Link to this

I’d have Z taking about 500 mini jumpers from 15 to 17 from the foul line out. If he gets dangerous with a rock step shoot from that spot, who needs no Darko anyway. Shellie has proved to me that he can play that move to the middle catch and score in at least three ways, or seal and go get it if the middle is taken away, to play the down low role. As for Smooth and MW, you can shove and push what you can’t catch. They got to be cats, not bears, down there. Z brings the big out and away, tears by him if he overplays, and the others work inside. Z can play the low too, even against the bigs, but has to develop flash (no pun intended), catch, spin while bringing it up, and shoot moves to take off the wear and tear he’ll get down there. Rock on, my boyz, rock on.

By Kappy

October 19, 2006 03:06 PM | Link to this

Ando Im going to play fantasy land for a minute. Lets say we did draft chris Paul last year. Would you have still knocked the Shelden Williams pick this year at 5? Having freed up Marvin’s minutes, would that have allowed you to accept the shelden pick. i guess my question is, what would have been the ideal situtation for you? Lets say we did draft Paul, would BK have had the coconuts to let AL go? Or would we be stuck with his meaningless contributions because they werent ready to just give Shelden the 4 spot.

What would have been your ideal situation? Im not trying to start a holy war, just would like some healthy dialogue on the situtation.

For me, I was screaming not to take Paul 2 years ago. I thought he was severly overrated in college, and i watched a lot of his college games. I was surprised by what he did last year, but I continue to think that that was a product of his situation, and not his talent. You could give a lot of players 35 minutes a game and the ball religiously with nobody to share it with and find similar results. Im serious. He had nobody else threatening his position as the ballhandler and leader. Lots of guys would flourish under those circumstances. Not to take anything from what Paul did last year, just bringing a different perspective.

And this year, I was praying that we didnt take LaMarcus Aldridge. I thought he was a bust in epic proportions, i watched a lot of his college games too. Although he would have fit a need at the 5, which everyone around here would have praised because it looks good on paper, I knew that he’s not going to be that good.

The fact is that I do trust BK’s assesment of talent. It may not fit into any traditional position requirements. It may work or it may not. We dont know yet. But you cant deny that the talent thats been brought in since bobcock far exceeds anything we’ve ever done. It remains to be seen if this translates to W’s. Like I’ve said before, I think the responsibility is squarely on the shoulders of Woody at his point to prove he can gel talent.

By michael m.

October 19, 2006 03:21 PM | Link to this

flash,

i was wanting darko since last offseason. when the rumors of harrington for darko surfaced, i started praying. … by the time the trade deadline approached, i was blogging here and repeatedly asking for us to get darko as our 5. the idea being to use harrington and delk as the pieces we would move. and if the word that woodsen wasn’t interested was true, that’s on him as wel as bk. it was obvious to me that detroit was just a bad fit for milicic. anyway, it didn’t happen. … i think dumars wanted a lottery pick more than anything, which we would not have been able to give up. sometimes you just have to let it go. it does no good to hold on to this stuff and let it fester inside. … roster construction is a bit like dominos in that when you take one piece out, it affects all the other pieces. for instance, i knew last offseason that speedy’s agent was going to push for him to go to atlanta, but had we selected a foye or roy, i’m not sure if that would have still held true. … i was against selecting shelden at the #5 spot at the time because i didn’t think we were getting good value. but when examined closer, there wasn’t anything else there that really fit our needs. i was against taking a project like obryant because those mid to late lottery bigs have a way of usually being busts. and shelden is not going to be a bust. but let’s not get carried away with this talk about averaging a double double. he will accomplish that task on a good many nights, but to average those numbers is another thing altogether. be realistic. … anyway, we are where we are. let’s see what that is exactly, and where it can take us before starting to deconstruct this squad all over again. this is a time of hope for the hawks. and hope is something that’s been in short supply around these parts of late.

By honest_abe

October 19, 2006 03:22 PM | Link to this

kappy!!! damn man, those were my thoughts exactly going into the draft… i wrote about it lightly last year…because cp was doing so well. but i was telling anyone who would listen that cp was OVERRATED….when i watched him in the ACC i didn’t think he was that special… in fact i always felt raymond felton was going to be the better pro…

but the bottom line is…he produced bit time in the pros…and i’m not a great evaluator of talent.. i just thought it was funny another person had the same thoughts as myself regarding CP

By HB Ando

October 19, 2006 03:36 PM | Link to this

Ken, you’re missing the point. I’m looking past this year, at the long-term health of the franchise. If Shelden presented as a potential star in development, then his not starting this year would have been inconsequential. But his sole prescribed value, by every analysis I have heard, outside of the few myopic Hawks’ fans, on this blog, is that what you see with Shelden, at 23, is what you’re going to get. He is not considered an upside player. He was purportedly drafted for his ability to come in and solve the low-post, shot-blocking, rebounding deficiencies that this team had last season. How can he do that, as a power forward, if, simultaneously, we are trying to develop Marvin/Josh as the starter at the four?

It’s head-scratching how you can call me illogical. You can call me lots of things, and you’d have due cause. But illogical is just not one of them. If Shelden presents as a stop-gap, back-up four, for this season, and beyond (with the hope that Marvin and Josh will be our bookend forwards), then he’s a wasted pick. Roy and Foye, from all pre-season reports I’ve read, look to become impact players. Either one may have well become, again, from what I’ve read, immediate solutions as the first guard off the bench, far more dangerous than anyone else we are considering. In fact, from reports out of Portland, Roy’s combo guard skills, similar to Johnson’s, might have seen the development of the most versatile, interchangeable back court that the ever-evolving NBA has seen. But, more importantly, if you draft a potential star, who doesn’t have a good fit on your roster, he represents trade currency to go out and get equivalent talent at a position you need help at.

My point is that right now, if you put Shelden, Roy and Foye on the trade market, Shelden would get you a fraction of the return talent, or value, that Foye or Roy would get. If you read about the NBA anywhere but on this blog, then you know that this is an outright FACT. Some of you folks just don’t seem able to grasp that NBA players, and draft slots, are assets, with varying market values. So if neither Shelden, Roy or Foye would have projected to start for this team, this year, that doesn’t change the context that Roy or Foye would have strengthened the franchise, and thus been better choices, far more than Shelden Williams. Once you have control of a market valued asset, how you leverage that asset, either integrated into your lineup, or as trade currency to improve your overall product, defines the good franchises from the bad.

In the end, we’ll never reap the value, on the court, or via trade, with Shelden and the fifth pick, that Minnesota and Portland will derive from selecting Roy and Foy with the subsequent picks.

If you can’t follow that logic, then I’m probably wasting my breath. You don’t have to agree, but you minimize the perception of your own intellect by suggesting that my position lacks logic. It couldn’t be more logical.

Myc, a 20-year old point guard is handed the reins to the National team and asked to lead them in the international game, where, clearly, they now struggle against European countries. His performance there did nothing to dissuade the remainder of the NBA-related press, or league insiders, from collectively viewing him as the best young point guard since Isiah Thomas. It was a few games, in a foriegn environment. We’re talking about the NBA here, where he led a team of no-names to more than double their win total last season. He’s currently rated as the 15th best player by the ESPN fantasy rankings. There’s just no one outside of this town who doesn’t readily acknowledge his immediate greatness. If a handful of guys on this blog want to coccoon themselves in blissful ignorance to the contrary, there’s not much that can be said to uproot that stubborn position.

But you can ask Sekou, if you want an impartial, and qualified opinion, on how universal the acceptance is, throughout the NBA community, that Paul is absolutely, and immediately, one of the five best point guards in the NBA. Go ahead and ask him. Take the issue off of me and ask an expert, with no agenda or axe to grind.

By mykhalc

October 19, 2006 04:05 PM | Link to this

ANDO, how does my stance equal blissful ignorance??? come on my friend!! if he is ALL that you BELIEVE he is, then GREATNESS is gonna/should shine thru no matter the setting you put him in!!! i’m not knockin’ that the kid can play. i’m JUST sayin, who knows how he would have done in a HAWKS uni last season!!! and i’m using the WORLD GAMES as my example!! and by your post, the WORLD GAMES are/should be an exception, a pass for him??!! right?? can’t have it both ways bro. you can’t say you KNOW how he would have faired as a HAWK and then give his performance a pass on the WGames. because both scenarios have removed him from NO and put him in a setting outside of the one he excelled in last year. the difference being my example is on the record now!! whereas his performance as a HAWK will NEVER be known!! (at least not as the team makeup exists today)

By Ken Strickland

October 19, 2006 05:14 PM | Link to this

ANDO, I wasn’t calling you an illogical individual, just illogical on the Shelden issue. It would be a negative reflection on me to attempt to catagorize you in that manner. So relax, my friend, I’m stressing issues here, not intellect. Without knowing BK’s overall blueprint for the teams ultimate future, I believe their are 2 options concerning Shelden. (1)He becomes the Hawks future PF, which means either JSmith or MWilliams will be traded. (2)He becomes the Hawks Future Center, with Marvin and Josh manning the wings, and the team plays an uptempo game simular to the Suns. The difference being this team would be bigger, stronger, more athletic and much better, overall, DEF. The only thing I know for certain is Shelden is definitely in the teams future plans, unless he is a total flop. Anything else on your part, or mine, is nothing more than pure speculation. If any of you have noticed, I am so excited about this team, and the upcoming season, I feel like I am going to p—s in my pants(smile). GOOOOOO HAWKS!!!!!!!

By jhan

October 19, 2006 05:22 PM | Link to this

It doesn’t matter to me which position each player is listed at in the guide. Can they play while they are on the floor? Is there a combination of players that the Hawks can put on the court that win? That’s what really counts! If we can take a team of 6’7” to 6’11” players and make it work that’s fine with me. If not, then BK will feel the repurcussions. He’s made his bed and now he has to sleep in it. We’ll find out soon if it will work or not.

By Ken Strickland

October 19, 2006 08:31 PM | Link to this

JHAN, the Pistons had been on a nice run the last few yrs with just that sort of team. It can, and has, been done.

By HB Ando

October 19, 2006 08:50 PM | Link to this

Like I said, Myc, ask someone with absolute insight into the wide view of the NBA, across the board, whether Paul is the real deal. The World Games was a five game stretch. If you can name me a superstar that’s never had a bad five game run, I’ll acknowledge your point. But, once again, I think the only context that’s relevant is the NBA, and his success here. Last time I checked, that’s the league we compete in. I defer to binding arbitration, and ask Sekou what the word on Paul is, around the league. Of course, I know the answer, following updates from around the country. Answer is, he’s a superstar. Right now. And for the foreseeable future. Heck, even our very own Joe Johnson couldn’t help but drool over him this summer. I’m going to paraphrase, but I believe I remember Johnson saying something to the effect of, “Marvin is my guy, but you can’t help but dream of what it might have been like to play with someone as talented as Chris Paul.” I believe it was a Sekou article in which he openly pined for what might have been.

But hey, your Myc. If you, above every other NBA writer or insider, disagree with the overwhelming consensus that Paul is an unquestionable star, then who am I to argue? I just haven’t heard anyone who does the NBA thing for a living, suggest that the World Games nullified his stature around the league. Last time I checked, Lebron and D. Wade lost there too. Guess the Heat’s championship is meaningless. And Lebron is a pretender. Hmmmm…………

By ray

October 19, 2006 08:51 PM | Link to this

Ken, you just don’t get it, do you? No, you’re not stupid by a green mile, but you have to understand. If you don’t agree with Ando, you “just don’t get it.” And it’s really that simple. Heh,heh…as usual, I couldn’t resist..LOL

If I had to guess, I’d say that “getting over it” as far as the #5 pick, which so many of us agree was not the absolute best we could have done, simply means that we realize what happened and are interested in seeing how the current team performs. And then we’d like to know what will be done to improve things when the so-called inevitable issues arise concerning our three young forwards (I’m not including Josh, he CANNOT play the 4). I think most people here are or will be in tune to the idea of making a blockbuster trade involving one of our best young talents, likely with another player or two. Why? Because the possibility is so strong and should never be considered as an impossibility. Hey, if somehow we could play a starting line-up with Marvin, Smith, and Shelden night after night with a high degree of effectiveness (in other words, producing wins) then that’s great. I’m not saying it can’t happen. I’m saying it’s not so highly likely. And as much as I hate to agree, Ando’s been saying it for quite some time. Yeah, yeah many of us are sick of hearing it, particularly in the way it’s delivered. But hey, we’re not paying for the blog or what’s posted here, so we can get over that too.

The faith or lack thereof, depending on the person you ask, is what really drives the arguments we keep having…isn’t it? Some people think he’s gonna make the right decision no matter what, and support the decisions he’s made in the past. Others would probably lynch him…if it was still the early to mid 1900s. The opinion that I have is that he’s made no truly shrewd moves. To me, a shrewd move is a somewhat bold-to-very-bold move that requires some skill, wit, patience, and aggression. Yes, you can have all of those at once. Nothing he’s done in Atlanta has been like that…in my opinion. I’m sure someone will nail me for my “lack of vision” , but I’ve been called worse…with saliva attached to the word or words. Not that it’s ever turned out too well for people like that…heh, heh, heh. But either you make bold moves, steady productive ones, or simply bad ones. Probably the best thing is a combination of the first two while limiting the third one as much as you can. I’m not going to say Knight is a complete idiot, nor is he a genius. But I don’t feel like he’s as close to genius as we need him to be. What makes me kinda chuckle is the concept of holding management accountable for what’s happened with this team. What Utopia or place of higher learning is that supposed to take us, exactly? Yeah, I feel like Knight has made some mistakes (and I won’t go into them right now). Sooo, isn’t that holding him accountable? But what does that do? Is he going to read this and change how he does things? Can I get him fired (not even Clyde has enough t-shirts)? Or maybe I should join up with anyone else interested in getting together, showing up at a town-hall meeting and chatting up whatever Hawks owners we can find. Then we can tell our own dark-and-stormy-night stories about how we told the owners what should have been done, needs to be done, and how to do it, or something like that. Yeah, that will work…I’m ridin’ with Clyde, he’s got the t-shirts. But don’t put ‘em on until you get into the building…heh, heh, heh! If I actually did something like that, I definitely wouldn’t post it HERE. LOL!

By ray

October 19, 2006 08:59 PM | Link to this

Tinkle in your pants Ken? Now, you shouldn’t say such things. Then certain posters really will believe that you are getting your panties (or Depends) into a bundle around here. Don’t throw the door open for such attacks, LOL!

Flash, good stuff about Darko. I hadn’t thought of that, probably didn’t help that I’d been ignoring him as bad as the Pistons were. However, I do think Dwight will strive to open up his game. Nobody likes obscurity, especially if they’ve started off in the lime-light (can you say #1 draft pick?). It almost makes me sick to talk about such things, ‘cause any trade or free agency situation that sounds good to me seems like just the type of thing we’ll miss out on. Hopefully I’m being skeptical for no reason at all. I don’t want to become one of the Harbingers of Doom. Hee, hee…

By mykhalc

October 19, 2006 10:03 PM | Link to this

ANDO, i’m just a cat with an opinion!! just like you, that’s all. contrary to what you may believe about my opinon, i know CP is legit!! would i take MARVIN over him?? YES!! that’s just my choice. but i do stand by my statement, that when the parts start changing, you can almost count on the end result to change too!!!! look at our boy DIAW!!! i don’t think many/any of us on this blog ever thought he be considered for MOST IMPROVED!! gimme a break!!?? DIAW??? but look what the hell happened in PHO!! so again, whose to say how CP would faired in a HAWKS uni last season????

meet ya on the new blog!!

By michael m.

October 19, 2006 10:06 PM | Link to this

the problem isn’t so much the points ando makes, which for the most part is how i feel as well. and i’m sure there are many others in agreement on some level. but the issue is twofold: first, most of us are genuine hawks fans who want to be able to get behind the product. i am not endorsing a lovefest that negates to challenge what the organization is doing, from owners all the way down to the players on the floor. but after some time goes by it does little to no good to continually harp on past issues regarding bk’s decisions. he isn’t the best, he isn’t the worst, and we are where we are. it just gets old and boring to discuss the past over and over, ad nauseum. it’s neither practical or accurate to believe one can truly piece together a fantasy team by changing one of the prior moves we have made and replacing it with what we would like. for instance, had we selected roy or foye, most likely speedy wouldn’t be hear. every move made affects what comes after.

secondly, ando has a tendency to act as if he is the only one to get it. a god complex to compensate for a lack of control elsewhere in his life. i am not trying to flame him although i can see how it will be taken as such. i genuinely enjoy hearing his take when it isn’t sprinkled with arrogance, condescencion and an unhealthy dose of taking things out of context to suit his cause. besides, there isn’t any point in attacking him because he is not going to look in the mirror and realize how he comes off anyway. of course it’s very transparent to most of us. and perhaps he thrives on writing in that tone because he, perhaps secretly, wants to make himself the center of attention. attacking ray when he hit the nail on the head is ludicrous. made me laugh.

the point of all this is i hope this blog continues to have different points of view, the yin and the yang, but done so in a way that isn’t so juvenile. maybe this is our preseason too. but with the real deal just around the corner, let’s stay on point gentlemen.

By HB Ando

October 19, 2006 10:38 PM | Link to this

Michael, I won’t ask Doc, who I know in “real” life, to help you out on this, but you should know that what I do, and say, here, is a character. Doc could tell you that with a pretty damn straight face. I’ve gone over this before, so I’m not going to go onto one of my obscenely lengthy diatribes. So let me be succint: my voice here has virtually nothing to do with my day-to-day personality, save for that which is purely basketball opinion. The “over the top” persona is simply a form of trash talking. For you, or Ray, or anyone else, to suggest that I’m some how compensating for some lack of control in my personal life is wrong, and it’s quite honestly a bit out of bounds. This isn’t an academic, or professional, forum. It’s just a freakin’ blog, primarily, it seems, for people with too much time on their hands, and a desire to see their beloved opinions in print. I find it a rather sad commentary that several of you have taken our blather of differing opinions, and the style in which they are delivered, and somehow decided you know something about me, or anyone else here. You don’t. If you’ll notice, these words are not angry, or defensive, or inflammitory. I’m just a guy, with a business, as I assume most of the others here, are, or with job.

So I’ll ask you how you’d feel if I took your comments about basketball, and suggested that you clearly had issues with your wife, or children, or masculinity; if I stated that you clearly needed help. If I judged you, in any way, based on what and how you think about the Atlanta Hawks. I suspect you’d be fairly outraged to think that someone has insight into your life based on your trash talk on a blog.

Get over it. Get over yourself. If it makes you feel better, or superior, to sell yourself on the idea that I must need help, that my words are cry for help, or a lashing out at a world I find unfair, then you, yourself, need to take a long look in the mirror. I won’t go where you’ve just gone and foolishly imply that I could ever know what you’d see when you take that look. I’m about tired of everyone assigning themselves a higher moral ground, like some kind of half-assed Dr. Phil, over the inane conversations that take place about a really bad NBA team.

But, as I’ve said on many ocassions here, there are no rules on the blog, that I can tell, or have ever been proscribed to me. I said yesterday that I’ll play the conversation straight, from here on out. Apparently, not everyone is happy to let it go, which is exactly what I thought would happen, if I stopped playing the villian. So when I stop slap fighting with everyone, who will the moral authority have to discuss, to make themselves feel just a little bit better when they go to bed?

The difference between you and I is that I created a caracature, at the request of some other folks around here, specifically designed to inflame the masses and stir it up. You on the other hand, seriously just judged another human being whom you know absolutely nothing about. Man are you cool.

By ray

October 20, 2006 01:08 AM | Link to this

Anybody else can claim what you just claimed, Ando. And surely we are all “characters” here, since one cannot be judged by what is seen on this screen, would you not agree? So. Perhaps we can all do as you do and basically attribute any and all offensive comments to some “character” of ours that doesn’t exist. And the comments about not asking Doc to confirm (yet still using him as a referrence)…wow. At least when I’m being an a**, I can admit to it and apologize. Not hide behind a contrived “persona.” That might be why you’re the only one accusing me of assigning myself to some moral high ground. Oh, wait, you said “everyone” was doing that. Hmmmm. And I never suggested you were compensating for something. I suggested you took joy in doing what you do on this blog. So get your facts straight. If this person going by the HB Ando name is merely a persona, and not you, then surely the real you isn’t offended. Maybe it’s this fictitious character that’s so defensive. Whatever the deal is, if you talk trash, you will get backlash. Funny how when people are offended by your jabs, they’re whiners with their panties in a bundle. When you get some heat to your hide, “everyone” ( oh yes, you said EVERYONE Mr. WordSmith)is assigning themselves to a higher moral ground, throwing daggers at you, “out of bounds”, and we just need to “get over it” and get over ourselves. Just keep making up the rules as we go along, huh?

At any rate, if you want a subject to be dropped, it’s a good idea not to keep responding to it. It kind of gives the indication that you either care about it in some way, or you wish to continue the conversation. But I tell you what. I’ll offer you a trap much like you do me or anyone else who hits back: If you wish to continue to dissect my replies and continually tell me to look in the mirror (that’s getting old, but it’s your go-to phrase) and attempt to make yourself look better than me while accusing me of doing the same, I’ll oblige you. Or, you can take the so-called high road and say you’re above all this, which means that you’re then assigning yourself to some moral high ground and your hypocrisy truly knows no bounds. Enjoy.

By ray

October 20, 2006 01:13 AM | Link to this

Who was it exactly that requested this…caracature specifically designed to inflame the masses? Either it’s the stone cold truth or one of the most creative but weakest excuse I’ve ever heard. Ha!

By HB Ando

October 20, 2006 10:18 AM | Link to this

Ray, there’s a difference between talking trash and making moral judgements about other people. There’s a difference between calling someone a whiner, and suggesting that they must have real problems in their life. We can call each other names, but when we switch to acting like we have some kind of access, or right, to proclaim that another individual must really have character flaws, for me, it’s shift that striking and just wrong.

So I don’t like what Ray says, and now I’m going to suggest that, based on what he types about the Hawks, or the way he talks trash, he must beat his wife and kids.

Say something like “a god complex to compensate for a lack of control elsewhere in his life.” or “there isn’t any point in attacking him because he is not going to look in the mirror and realize how he comes off anyway. of course it’s very transparent to most of us.”

You don’t see the difference? You don’t see the leap between me saying, “I’m right about the Hawks, and I’m always right” and suggesting that I’ve got some type of character flaw with which I have no insight?

You and Michael did the exact same thing. You each made moral pronouncements, or judgements, about my essential character. You did so for the benefit of a loosely identifiable group of folks here, calling yourselves “we”, or “most of us”. You, Ray, cast stones right before saying you didn’t want to. And Michael made his, and followed them up with “let’s not be so juvenile (immediately after acting as such?)” and “let’s stay on point, gentlemen (after acting like nothing of the kind)”.

If you two, or anyone else here, wants to massage your sense of self, by shaking your head’s ruefully, and judging other human beings, who you don’t know at all, then you have that freedom here. But your not stupid enough, Ray, to suggest that it’s simply a matter of me getting a taste of my own medicine. Because I know that you would draw a line, if we were in person, between my saying to you, “You just don’t know hoops as well as me, Ray”, and my saying “Ray, based on your trash talk, I’d say your a failure as a person, who really needs to look in the mirror and examine what must be missing in your life to talk about basketball in such an over the top manner”.

Now, as you suggested, we can stop here, or we can carry on what I find to be more of a philosophical discussion than anything else. With a master’s in psychology, and the experience of walking away from a P.hD. program in clinical psych., I honestly find the dichotomy compelling here. I truthfully find that the tone both you and Michael took, in posting your assessements of my character, for the others, and not for me (if you are the least bit capable of being honest with yourself and your internal motivations), to be a bit of the pot calling the kettle black. You’ve both suggested that I must use this forum as a way of building myself up, perhaps in some compensation for something that is lacking in my real life. Yet, you both engaged in the type of self-serving, and classic behavoir, of building yourselves up, by attempting to tear another person down. You posted your opinions of me, as if it were fact (something you all find very annoying when I do the same about something as meaningless as basketball). You did so in the hopes, and expectations, that there was sufficient evidence that several other people who participate here would agree with you, and approve of your comments. With a tad more support, you can create your own lynch mob. You them move to kind of a private club enviroment: if we (don’t worry who we are, just know we are here) don’t like what you say, or how you are say it, we have only to agree with one another that you are in someway lacking, in personality or character, and that pronouncement shall be truth (at least here in our little world, where we establish the rules).

If you want to take anything from this response, and address it, to really stay on task, I want you to think about the singular point that is: me and you, face to face. And whether you agree there’s a world of difference between me telling you you’re a whiner, and me looking at you, judgementally, and, like I have the right or the valid position, saying, “Ray, I’m sorry, we’re all sorry, but you’re clearly an inadequate individual. You’re life is obviously a failure. We (with the we again) can tell by the way you talk trash about hoops”. All the while, with sad, knowing eyes, like I can look into your soul and know you like you can never know yourself. You tell me how you’d react to another man treating you like that. And once you answer that, honestly, then we can have this conversation again.

By ray

October 20, 2006 11:02 PM | Link to this

We can have this conversation now. I feel that most of your statements about me are presumptuous to fault. I’m not shaking my head ruefully, don’t know where you got that idea. A lot of things you have said in the past can be taken quite personally, I don’t care how YOU see it. If you know anything about communication, you know that there’s intention on the part of the sender and perception on the part of the receiver. I have told you in more ways than one (and so have others) that many of your statements are essentially being received as offensive and insulting in nature. You turn around and call anybody who so much as questions you anything from whiners to people who are “on the pipe.” You say that anybody getting offended doesn’t have skin thick enough, going so far as to say that they are below fifth grade level. Then you say that’s just some character talking, it’s not you. Ok. So since most of us don’t know each other here, what do we have to judge by other than the “characters” we see here? And what on earth did I say to make you so unfocused as to think that I said the same things Michael M. said? I said if you enjoy what you’re doing, then so be it. I choose a different path. Not a higher path. And when I say I enjoy more substantial things, I meant instead of playing fantasy basketball on the computer, I like things like NBA Live on Playstation 2. That’s my definition of “more substantial” because I feel like it’s more interactive. That’s the only thing I can think of that you must have taken offense to. If that wasn’t it, then you’re gonna have to quote me on something I said, ‘cause I just don’t see where I made a statement suggesting you are somehow inadequate or whatever. It must have been something you read into a statement I made, because I never made a statement intending to sell you short intelligence-wise or in an attempt to attack your actual person. If anything, I’ve always given you credit for your views. I just don’t like your tone, and sometimes your words seem to indicate that you think that not only are you a genius amonst dotards (everybody else being the dotards), but you are actually angry that people keep saying things you don’t agree with. Anybody who actually knows me knows that I’m anything but a “higher than thou” kind of person. I’ve been called gregarious, and you just can’t have but so many friends if you’re the kind of person who is constantly “assigning himself to a higher moral ground” position. I like to help people (if they let me), not look down my nose at them. For God’s sake, I’m a law enforcement officer: hated by many, responsible for much, whether I like it or not, whether it’s fair or not, and guaranteed to never make a lot of money in this profession. Who the hell am I going to look down on? I don’t regret my profession, but there is a harsh reality to it that will gring you under if you can’t face it. No time for a pity party. So in the midst of telling me I am judging you, you have succeeded in judging me.

I do admit that I’ve made a large number of assumptions and presumptions. This is what I figure my crime is. Here’s what I presumed: that you are being yourself when you make the statements that you do. However, I apparently stand corrected because you say this is only a character that someone else asked you to create and persist with throughout the blogs. I had trouble buying that one, as you can see. But my belief is not required for it to be true. I felt like it was an elaborate excuse for someone who, while insisting that I look in a mirror, was unwilling to do the same. And there you have made another “judgement” or “suggestion.” Can I not take your statements as a suggestion that I am not capable of being honest with myself? And what is with your obsession with so-called support? I don’t need anybody’s support here (seeing as how I don’t know ANYBODY here) to say anything about you. Did you notice that I never responded to Michael, nor did I thank him for agreeing with me? The conversation I kept up was between you and me, so quit this ridiculous theory of me trying to find support in something that many other bloggers have also said on their own. Yeah, obviously I shouldn’t have said “we” anywhere in my post, that was definitely a mistake. I kept using the plural because according to posts by many people on this blog, the perception of you is that you’re a self-righteous individual that thinks he knows more than anybody and is willing to insult people, but won’t tolerate it in return. Like I said, that was a dire transgression, seeing as how it opened the door for you to say that I was trying to gain support…on a blog of all things. How many people did I convince to think that, huh? There’s no way I could’ve done a better job than you did. Ahem…than your character did. So why would I try? Further more, I haven’t and don’t pretend to know anything personal about you, other than what you’ve told everybody by posting on this blog. Unless of course, you were making it all up.

So, drawing the line in person. First of all, would you say any of the things you normally say to people here if you were face-to-face with them? Your typical blog conversations start with you making a statement, someone disputing or disagreeing with it, and you telling them they’re dumb, don’t get it, or something else personally insulting. Yeah. Bad example, Andy. We’ve been over this before, if you recall. You dang straight I’d draw a line with you. If the conversation starts as “you don’t know hoops as well as me, Ray” then why should I talk to you any further? We’d never get to the name-calling part. We don’t know each other or our limits. If we can’t engage in normal conversation, then we can’t communicate. The best thing there is separation. When you don’t know somebody at all, you have to be careful with your approach. I know you say you have a direct fashion, which is fine. But if it’s directly insulting in nature, that’s not gonna fly in person. The reason it flies here is because there are no real consequences. The wonderful thing about face-to-face conversation is you can hear the actual tone of voice, see the facial expressions, watch the eyes and body language. Communication is so much more efficient, judgement so much more accurate. Having a degree in clinical psychology is nothing to sniff at. I know that it takes a good deal of dedication, dilligence, intelligence. I would never discount it. But I only have my seven-plus years experience in law enforcement to compare it with. In my experience, psychological ability is far-ranging. I may have less than 2 seconds to make a judgement call, or it may be several hours. I have to know when to flip the switch from simple conversation to sudden, irreversible, lethal violence. And it gets much more complicated than that sometimes. No degree or certification prepares you for that. So, I bring myself to a question for you. Am I to assume that you are suggesting your collegiate-based educational experience and level places you in a position so far above me that I am unable to successfully engage you philosophically or intellectually? Or do you mean that the opportunity for such conversation actually interests you? Do you see how easily it can be taken either way?

By ray

October 21, 2006 12:06 AM | Link to this

The comments about the private club environment and the lynch mob are more than absurd in my opinion. The only lynch mob that even occurred to me was in regard to Billy Knight. And that was a joke coming from me. Although, coming from you, it might not be. That was a joke too. What’s not a joke is that I can see plainly the difference between me accusing you of claiming to be right all the time and having an ego vs. me saying you have some character flaw. Define for me which character flaw it is that I’ve accused you of having. And quit quoting Michael, because although we both have SOME of the same feelings about your wordplay, we did NOT use the same methods or the same words. I can, however, see how convenient it is to mix michael’s and my statements to make a point. I tried to tell you I wasn’t attacking you the first time. Evidently, you took it as such anyway and responded as you did. And your response I obviously took issue with. I also take issue with your apparent suggestion that you know my internal motives and that I need to look inside myself and see that you’re right about me. That’s pretty much the perception I have of what you said. You’re wrong about me, once again, and you’re doing the exact same dang thing you accuse me of doing. How can you make the statements you did without suggesting that you can look into my soul. How can you say that I need to be honest with myself without suggesting that I am not doing so at this point? Do you understand at all what I’m saying? You took it so far as to try and map out my thoughts with your comments about tearing you down, looking for support, creating my own little blog club (along with michael m.) and forming a freakin’ lynch mob. I have to admit, that last part sounds all too funny coming from a white guy talking to a black guy. Assuming I have your ethical origin correct. No, I’m not trying to provoke some racial tension, just saying the irony is just a tad thick. In my initial post, I really wasn’t throwing stones, whether you choose to believe it or not. That’s how you took it. I could just say you don’t have thick enough skin. But that would be wrong, wouldn’t it? To address your last paragraph: I know the difference between the simple insult and the complete character judgement. I’m not going to worry about convincing you that I do. Sad, knowing eyes: your descriptions are colorful, but inaccurate. I don’t know you enough to be sad for you in regard to anything. You want an honest answer before continuing conversation? In response to that, I will tell you that I’ve been honest with you the entire time. You’re forgetting something though: we don’t know each other. Because this is the case, I’ve got one initial reaction to you making a personal character judgement of me to my face: I’d tell you that everyone has an opinion, I don’t care for yours, and perhaps we should part ways. And the conversation would end there, because I’d ignore you. At this point, you’d have a choice to either cease conversation yourself, or you could persist. In which case, if it remained anything but neutral or positive, I’d physically walk away from the situation. Any further persistance would be met with swift and certain persuasive methods that I am quite confident would alleviate the problem. And they’d be legal. I am neither a door-mat nor a hot-head. As far as I’m concerned, a violent reation solves nothing, unless it becomes necessary. So why get all bent out of shape if a stranger makes a personally insulting statement that you know has no validity? It would be totally different if it were someone I knew or if the circumstances were different. Speaking of which, you didn’t specify circumstances, hence the elaboration on my answer. And I haven’t covered even the smallest amount of scenarios. It’s just conversation, and can end when we agree to do so. There’s your honest answer. You can either believe it or not. Based on your past comments, I half-don’t expect you to. Can’t do anything about that.

I truly believe that any conversation I could have with you or anyone else here would be far more productive and enjoyable in person than it could ever be via blog. Or, it would be a lot shorter. Depends on the people involved. A lot is missed here, a lot is misconstrued. And where characters roam without rules, or no two people draw the line in the sand in the same place, the lines are a lot clearer in person.

By ray

October 21, 2006 12:59 AM | Link to this

In fact, after reading over the two prior posts, I only see us continuously circling each other. You will not convince me to see your point the way you want me to see it, nor will you get me to think the way you want me to. You are more likely to discredit my argument if you disagree. Likewise, I will not get you to see my point the way I wish you to, nor will you think as I do. And I will discredit your argument if I disagree. So, at risk of once again being accused of projecting an “I’ll take the high road” attitude, I will instead tell you that I’m probably finished with what I feel is a non-productive conversation. That’s not to say that I want the last word or anything like that. I expect a response from you, most likely a detailed and intelligently elaborate one. And I will read it. Call it want you want: I’m calling it resignation, mostly because I don’t think I’ll reach my objective, and in spite of my tunnel vision, I’m seeing that my objective is neither realistic nor beneficial. There’s probably not one word, phrase, or complete thought I just typed that you will agree with. I apologize unreservedly for offending you. Not because I’m some holy man, not because I think I’m better than you. It’s because that it’t not my intentions that matter, but rather your perception of me attacking you. I believe in resolving that through concession if I can. We’ll probably never agree philosophically, or in a great many other ways for all I know. But that won’t change our lives. So, I will avoid any sort of comments, accusations, arguments, etc that have to deal with your character if I can. Even if I feel provoked. Not saying that you will provoke me purposely, but I’m in control of myself. And as such, it would be childish to say that I am unable to keep such a promise because someone else wouldn’t let me. It’s totally up to me and no one else. And if you don’t find this satisfactory, then I don’t know what else to say except to ignore each other completely.

By HB Ando

October 21, 2006 01:57 AM | Link to this

Ray, if that’s all you see, so be it. I’m comfortable with what your reaction would be if another man judged you, to your face. The fact is that, as I said, this is pretty much just a philosophical conversation. Everybody else has moved on to two more days of hoops’ posts. Just you and me here. Contrary to the usual desire to convince folks of my position, as it relates to basketball, the last post was just food for thought. No interest in winning. Nothing to win. I just think if you switch shoes with me, you’d find some value in my perspective. Can’t say I care too much about what Michael, or most anyone else calls me. I’ve never flinched at names. I’m just saying there’s a difference between slap-fighting, and judging another man. And it’s a slippery slope when you start placing yourself on any kind of a pedistal.

If my posts on the subject haven’t validated, completely, the ease with which one can shift voices, then I’m probably wasting my breath. My guess is, whether we choose to document some kind of common ground here, that we’ve re-established it, just the same. I wouldn’t think less of you, Ray, if you ever mis-judged me. But I’d be surprised, just the same.

All the rest of my posts are now focused on the game. I’ve retired Andro, for the time being, to give everyone, including myself, a break. If folks can’t accept that, and choose fire shots at me, then I’ll have validated yet another prediction, that the blog isn’t happy unless it has a resident villian.

You’re day-to-day existence has a level of risk that I just don’t know. I respect that, as well as I respect your comfort with written language, and your seemingly balanced approach to life. As far as I’m concerned, you and I are straight. I just wanted to have you consider my perspective. Maybe if you ever get another opportunity, you’ll choose not to cast stones, right before saying you’ve chosen not to.

Have a great weekend and we’ll trade a few soon.

P.S. I swear this wasn’t an attempt at getting the last word, and I’d gladly take any final words, from you, on the conversation, as such. Like I said, it seems that it’s just you and me here.

By ray

October 21, 2006 09:43 AM | Link to this

Yeah, everybody has moved on, which is why I kept posting here. Not to sound prophetic or anything like that, but I figured nobody else would continue to post here, allowing us to converse thusly. So, it worked out for my intentions. I have two admissions to make: One is that I tend to enjoy a contest of words and wits with you, be it labeled as a philosophical discussion or otherwise. It is challenging, which is good. Two, I get tunnel vision in a bad way sometimes. When I’m trying that hard to force or bring home a point, I’m not often considering someone else’s perspective. So it was with you. That’s why I said I saw us circling each other. You want me to see your perspective, I want you to see mine. And so I didn’t consider yours. Now I have, once I let go of the heat and embraced the coldness of objectivity. Perhaps when I get some more years on me, I’ll have learned to do that better. As for mis-judging you, I don’t think I’d do that in person, honestly. I’m not hostile or offensive by nature. I’m self-conscious about being so, which means I usually try to avoid projecting such an image via body language or verbal language. Unfortunately, such a demeanor will at times be taken as a door mat personality. That’s when the trouble starts, if you know what I mean. I know you’re not trying to get the last word, man. I did and do welcome a response from you, because from what little I know of you, I don’t dislike you. And communication is not complete if either of us just drops the whole conversation. I just needed to quit trying to push my point while ignoring yours. Which translated into throwing stones, I guess. Gotta go, meeting with my wife and the realtor. Enjoying this verbal engagement now that my focus has re-broadened.

Ray

By ray

October 21, 2006 07:58 PM | Link to this

In that first part of the paragraph, I’m not accusing you of tunnel vision. When I said, “so it was with you” I meant to type “so it was with my conversation with you.”

By HB Ando

October 22, 2006 02:48 PM | Link to this

We’re cool. Doc and I traded a few e-mails, over the last couple of days, about perception and the nature of group dynamics. When it’s all said and done, I made a conscious effort to antagonize folks here. I was maybe a little too successful in getting a reaction from people. That’s on me (in which there is a difference between apologizing and acknowledging responsibility). I just found, in some of the backlash, that there’s a fine line between “sticks and stones” and thinking you know enough about another man to make pronouncements about his existence. I remember making a remark about Ken’s intelligence, after I found flaw in his position, only to have him reveal he had recovered from a massive stroke in the past. As the former director of an outpatient neurologic rehabilitation facility, that focused on treating victims of stroke and traumatic brain injury, I knew just how big an impact a stroke can have on cognitive function. I realized that I knew nothing about Ken, and that assuming anything about his state of mind, based on opinion, was an extremely limited perspective.

I’m sure I’ll catch a few more “A-holes” before the upcoming season is through. I’m sure I’ll deserve at least half of them. But we can’t take the chatter, here, so seriously, that we believe any of us really know the others (unless, of course, they really do).

Hope you’re having a safe and enjoyable weekend. Be glad to talk philosophy, or psychology (or just about anything that ends with a y), any time. Hoops, as a microcosm of life, after all, has its limitations.

By Ray

October 22, 2006 09:25 PM | Link to this

Glad to know we’re cool. My weekend was pretty productive. Hope yours was relaxing and safe as well. As for catching flak, you know the deal. I may be a positive thinker, but the bliss ninnies are really something. I reckon we oughta retire this here thread. Although I’ve been learning plenty, and the next time I’m feeling Freudian (spelling?) I’ll definitely holla at ya. Look forward to seeing you on the new blog topics…whenever Sekous writes another one. Can’t we get this season to start any faster?