3/25 Vs. Chicago

[JoshB914]

Not saying Horford gets no blame, but if you want to bring up two guys that killed us it's Smoove and Marvin. Smoove completely dissapeared defensively and it killed us.

[Rip2137]

That is just lame.

Two of horfords turnovers were him chasing down offensive rebounds and tossing it back in for it to be stolen. Those aren't bad turnovers...they only occured because he was hustling.

And Horford was 1-5. I notice you keep trying to lump him in with Marvins 3-14 to pretend they are comparable.

Thats like if I wanted to say that Acie Law and Josh Childress combined for 24 points last night. While technically, it is true, don't you think that is skewing what actually happened last night?

Horford, in no way, was even slightly a focal point of the offense, as evidenced by his five shots(Acie Law got 3 shots off in his little bit of time on the court in comparison). Horford did everything last night that you would need for the hawks to win.

There were numerous things wrong last night. The two things not wrong were Horfords play and Childress's play. Actually, Bibby had a pretty good game, playing tough defensively and such...those three are the ones that shouldn't be hanging their heads. Yet you want to blame the guy with all the hustle plays and the only one really working on the boards for the loass. thats just plain silly.

Zaza didn't crowd anything. He guarded Drew gooden for 3 minutes in the game. 3 WHOLE minutes plus a couple of plays in the second half(and drew scored on one of them), but mostly, when Horford left, it was Josh on Drew in the second half (once again, the 3 points play...that was with Horford on the bench, and smith was guarding him everytime up the court).

[killbuckner]

Its games like this where I wonder if Horford is going to ever give anything signficant on offense. The Bulls don't have a guy who should have been a bad matchup problem for him but he still didn't do anything on offense. I just wonder if he is going to end up being more of a PJ brown type player. useful and a long career but never a star.

[tontoz]

Its games like this where I wonder if Horford is going to ever give anything signficant on offense. The Bulls don't have a guy who should have been a bad matchup problem for him but he still didn't do anything on offense.

Exactly.

Rip says "he only took 5 shots" as if it isn't his fault. How many times do we have to watch Horford standing around with the ball with his man 5 feet off him while he waits for someone to pass to?

meawhile the clock is ticking.

[JoshB914]

I don't think anyone is saying Horford wasn't at fault. Just saying it is unfair to lump him in the same category as Marvin.

[Rip2137]

-= original quote snipped =-



Exactly.

Rip says "he only took 5 shots" as if it isn't his fault. How many times do we have to watch Horford standing around with the ball with his man 5 feet off him while he waits for someone to pass to?

meawhile the clock is ticking.

Yeah, you are right. It is his fault he only got 5 shots.

Its not like the starting PF took 12 shots or the starting Small forward took 14 shots...or 17 came from the starting two guard or 18 came from the starting point or 11 came from the back up SF.

I wonder how it was possible for him not to get more than 5 shots...when no one else was shooting....


My point is that I don't blame Horford for last nights lost becuase I don't care he he doesn't score at all. With the way the team is made up with the point guard going to be taking 15 plus shots, another near 20 for the two guard, 10 plus for the small forward and 10-15 for the PF, its not his role on the team to score right now, and he doesn't have to score for us to win.

If other guys play non crappy last night, and its a win, I am sure not to many people would be upset about 13 boards and 2 blocks out of him. He is on the court with FOUR guys that are expected to give you over 15 points a game. FOUR. And one guy off the bench that is expected to give you 12-13.

Yet you want to put the blame on him for the loss? Joe missed as many threes as he shot the ball. Marvin missed as many layups as he shot the ball. Joe did nothing else but shoot. Marvin did nothing else but miss. Horford gave hustle plays, blocked and challenged shots, and rebounded. You are placing the blame of a loss on a guy that actually DID something well last night.

[tontoz]

-= original quote snipped =-



Yeah, you are right. It is his fault he only got 5 shots.

Its not like the starting PF took 12 shots or the starting Small forward took 14 shots...or 17 came from the starting two guard or 18 came from the starting point or 11 came from the back up SF.

I wonder how it was possible for him not to get more than 5 shots...when no one else was shooting....

The reason they took so many shots is because he wouldn't. simple as that.

i didn't see Gooden passing up open shots. If Gooden had Horford's mentality he probably would have scored 14 pts last night instead of 31.

If Horford gets the ball out front, holds it for 10 seconds and then throws it to JJ at the end of the clock, is it JJ's fault for taking the shot?

[tontoz]

Yet you want to put the blame on him for the loss? Joe missed as many threes as he shot the ball. Marvin missed as many layups as he shot the ball. Joe did nothing else but shoot.

JJ had been shooting 50% for 3 for weeks. Did you think he could keep that up forever?

How many games does JJ have to light it up before you stop blaming him for the Hawks problems?

[JoshB914]

Tontoz I just watched the 1st quarter again and you are totally off base on Horford. Smoove was matched up with Gooden, the Chicago announcers are just idiots like I said. Here is how Gooden scored.

1) Gooden beats Marvin to an offensive reb and gets an easy put back

2. Gooden open jumper, Smoove just let him pop out for an uncontested J

3. Exact same thing, Smoove strollls into the paint while Gooden pops out for a wide open shot

4. Again Smoove leaves Gooden wide open and contests the shot late

5. On Horford. This is the play I remember, Horford played perfect defense and Gooden basically jacked up a shot that he made. Even the homer Chicago announers said it was good D.

6. Gooden didn't score here, but he found Hughes with a cross court pass, Marvin was late rotating and he hit a 3 on us.

7. Blocked by Horford initially, but again Gooden beats Marv to the loose ball and Marvin fouls him on the shot

8. They run a PNR, Horford rotates late and falls for a pump fake, Gooden ends up with a dunk.

9. Another jumper in Horford

[tontoz]

So 6 of Goodens points in the first quarter were on Horford. That means the points Gooden scored in the first quarter on Horford doubled the points Horford scored in the entire game.

Gooden 31 pts 12-23
Noah 13 pts 5-8
Smith 16 pts 6-12
Horford 3 pts 1-5

So which interior player was the weak link?

[JoshB914]

Smoove was the weak link defensively. Horford made one mistake on Gooden defensively in the 1st qtr. Like I said, two of the shots he played perfect D on.

You can't bring out offensive stats to discuss who was the weak link defensively. That doesn't make sense. You have to watch the game and you will see that while Horford was not great, Smoove/Marvin were the reason they were able to get consistent buckets.

[tontoz]

Smoove was the weak link defensively. Horford made one mistake on Gooden defensively in the 1st qtr. Like I said, two of the shots he played perfect D on.

You can't bring out offensive stats to discuss who was the weak link defensively. That doesn't make sense. You have to watch the game and you will see that while Horford was not great, Smoove/Marvin were the reason they were able to get consistent buckets.

First of all you only rewatched the first quarter.

Who did Horford stop from scoring the rest of the game? Clearly not Gooden or Noah.

If you don't score and don't stop anyone from scoring and turn it over a lot you had a crap game. How many times do you see a player with more turnovers than points?

[JoshB914]

I was simply responding to your comment that Horford was responsible for Gooden getting hot in the first qtr. That is completely false.

[High 5]

That is completely false.

When has that stopped him before?

[Rip2137]

I openly said that Horford was covering Noah alot in the 3rd when he got all super energy player on us and was getting all the hustle points and tip ins.

But once again, you are completely ignoring every time I have said how Horford got his turnovers, because I guess you don't have a come back for that. Chasing a loose ball into the stands and throwing it back in is not a turnover due to a sloppy play. You keep trying to list it as it is.

Horford also had almost as many rebounds as Smith and Johnson had points. What does this mean? well...nothing at all. It just something pointless to say, alot like your "He had more turnovers than points".

He didn't get shots because everyone else was jacking them up. They featured him on the block maybe one time in the game even though he was clearly bigger and stronger than the othe guys out there. How is that his fault?

I swear, I am still waiting for you to come around and talk about how Childress not shooting threes was why we lost the game. When you have it in for a player, facts just go out the window as long as you can try to run them down into the ground.

At the end of the day, Horford scored 6 fewer points than his average. Every other player on the court took more shots than usual and didn't shoot a great percentage. Horford did other things you can actually point to, like play defense and rebound and challenge shots. The others did not. You are pointing at him as the cause for the loss. that is just your blatant bias and nothing else.

And I am not blaming JJ last night, its just that you are pretending that him missing 4 shots was why we lost the game when JJ missed 5 threes alone and he gets a pass in your eyes. JJ did what he was supposed to do. It was two blown fast breaks for Marvin, two for smith, one for Bibby down the stretch that killed us there. All were pretty easy layups and they all lead to turnovers. Also the lackadasical play in the third quarter. That is the reason.

But somehow, it was Horfords fault because he only got 5 shots all night.

[tontoz]

But once again, you are completely ignoring every time I have said how Horford got his turnovers, because I guess you don't have a come back for that.

One pass hit Horford square in the chest and bounced out of bounds. Another time he took one dribble and Hinrich picked his pocket.

I swear, I am still waiting for you to come around and talk about how Childress not shooting threes was why we lost the game.

Childress hit 1 three and another jumper that was almost a 3. he did well offensively but of course got only 1 defensive rebound.

Horford did other things you can actually point to, like play defense and rebound and challenge shots.

Who was he playing good D on?

You are pointing at him as the cause for the loss.

Actually i pointed to him and Marvin, another case of your eyes not working.

But somehow, it was Horfords fault because he only took 5 shots all night.

corrected

[conleyorbust]

Its games like this where I wonder if Horford is going to ever give anything signficant on offense. The Bulls don't have a guy who should have been a bad matchup problem for him but he still didn't do anything on offense. I just wonder if he is going to end up being more of a PJ brown type player. useful and a long career but never a star.

I see offensive potential there, at least in terms of ability. PJ doesn't have the body that Horford does, guys like Kurt Thomas don't have the athleticism he does. He just isn't particularly aggressive. For this season it is probably a good thing that he doesn't have that killer instinct, he's not ready yet and we don't need an Al Thornton on our team who could go off for 30 one night and have a triple double with TOs the next.

Games like this one do make me question why people think that he'd be so dominant as a PF. He doesn't really take the time to physically abuse PFs down low, just like he doesn't really try and wear down bigger guys by driving by them... no killer instinct. The thing is that he's show he can do both occasionally, he's shown some decent moves in the post and occasionally he'll face up a bigger player and go by them. He just doesn't seem to really LIKE to do it.

He should watch Boozer some, Booz is in a perfect situation for a guy with his skill set but he also takes advantage of his matchups. Boozer is nominally a PF on offense so when he is playing against smaller guys he will muscle them up a litt, however (and this is what people don't realize when they talk about Horford being a PF on offense because he looks like Boozer) since Boozer plays with a perimeter oriented guy in the frontcourt he is often matched up against centers and he often pulls them out with the threat of the midrange J and then drives right by them. He turned Yao into an absolute liability in the playoffs last season by doing that. Horford doesn't show that tenacity... Brand is the same way, he will post some smaller PFs but he gets guarded by centers a lot and he drives on them.

[tontoz]

Games like this one do make me question why people think that he'd be so dominant as a PF. He doesn't really take the time to physically abuse PFs down low, just like he doesn't really try and wear down bigger guys by driving by them... no killer instinct.

*doing my High5 impression*

Wow you are such a hater. You said Horford was a terrible pick and since he has done well you just can't stand it. You just couldn't wait for him to have a bad game so you could spill your hate out on him.

Here i am laughing at your blind hate.

[JoshB914]

Fair enough, but will you at least retract your statement that Horford was the reason Gooden got hot and went off in the first place. You rip people for spewing out incorrect facts, yet you were 100% off with blaming Horford for Gooden. For someone who talks about "getting facts straight" all the time you really should work on being more accurate with your info, or at least accept responsibility when you are obviously wrong.

[tontoz]

Fair enough, but will you at least retract your statement that Horford was the reason Gooden got hot and went off in the first place. You rip people for spewing out incorrect facts, yet you were 100% off with blaming Horford for Gooden. For someone who talks about "getting facts straight" all the time you really should work on being more accurate with your info, or at least accept responsibility when you are obviously wrong.

First of all if you remember Gooden's early jumpers there was nobody near him. It might as well have been the mascot guarding him. So when i saw Horford on him later in the quarter i assumed he was the one who was supposed to be on him all the time, especially since Zaza later came in for Horford and immediately guarded Gooden. Not to mention Woody's tendency to play Horford against the best low post scorer on the other team.

But since you actually rewatched the game i will take your word for it.

And even if Horford was on him all game he obviously wouldn't be responsible for all of Gooden's points anyway because of switching.

But the funny part is that my initial statement was this

"horford and marvin cost them the game"

yet nobody accused me of hating on Marvin even though i have said many times he was a bad pick and i have never said Horford was a bad pick.