RealGM

... the need to DEVELOP PLAYERS? Especially p_o_i_n_t_g_u_a_r_d_s?

I know he thinks this is his big chance and he needs to prove he can "coach" but his career will be determined by how much his players improve. He is not an accomplished coach, he has a thin resume. All he has is the talent sitting on his bench. This is what got Mike Woodson fired; you'd think Drew would have the sense to see that.

Until we can trade for a PG, he has to, he simply must develop Jeff Teague.

Player development is always somewhat difficult for good teams, as the focus is more on results, playoff seedings, wins. With that said, Iam disappointed in the uneven playing time Teague has gotten this year. Especially since he is our bestdefensive PG, also.

Does anyone get the feeling that Jordan Crawford might be our PG of the future? He has a scorer's mentality, but he is a capable ball distributor and is a bettr jump shooter than Teague can ever hope to be.

Jordan Crawford has ugly handles and chucks way too much for my liking. I'd like to trade him before other teams catch on.

I think the Hawks are desperate to get HCA in the first round. Otherwise, they essentially took a step back the same year they gave Joe a HUGE contract.

Jamaaliver wrote:Player development is always somewhat difficult for good teams, as the focus is more on results, playoff seedings, wins. With that said, Iam disappointed in the uneven playing time Teague has gotten this year. Especially since he is our bestdefensive PG, also.

Does anyone get the feeling that Jordan Crawford might be our PG of the future? He has a scorer's mentality, but he is a capable ball distributor and is a bettr jump shooter than Teague can ever hope to be.

There are a few good examples of great teams developing young players. The Spurs are constantly developing young players: George Hill, Roger Mason, and DeJaun Blair. As a matter of fact, of the 4 rookies currently on their team, only 1 is averaging less than 10 minutes a game. The Celtics are also a good example with Rajon Rondo and Glenn Davis.

And no, I don't think Jordan Crawford is our PG of the future. First off, he's going to fall into the same trap the Jeff Teague did with not getting any playing time as a Hawk. Second, point guards don't need a jumpshot to be successful. Look at Rondo, Andre Miller, or John Wall. All of them are great point guards (Wall needs to cut down his TO's, but is great and will only get better) that have very little range. A great point guard needs to be able to defend well, pass well, be able to get into the paint whenever he wants to, and be able to dictate the tempo of the game, all of which Teague can do better than, not only Jordan Crawford, but anyone else on our team.

Coaching is just one of our problems and we should expect that since L. Drew is just a rookie. Now, Horford brings to this team something our other players lack. He's tough. That's both physically and mentally. This team has been built with a lot of flaws, as we know, but by no means a professional team plays the way the Hawks played last night. They were not prepared, from coaches to players. Maybe that's a good thing it happened, it might speed some of the changes we need.

Today's AJC (http://blogs.ajc.com/hawks/2011/01/28/a ... logs_hawks) in one reason I worry about my perspective. See, in an interview, Drew -talking about Teague - says, "I want to see more production. I want to see more consistency, and that has not been the case. He has shown flashes of being a consistent player but for whatever reason I haven’t gotten the consistency from him."

My problem is, if you multiply Teague's production by Bibby's minutes, Teague is out-performing Bibby in almost every category, some by a mile. Bibby only leads in game shooting % and 3pt % but Teague's production is better: points, assists, steals, blocks, rebounds ... and that's with inconsistent minutes.

THEN, Drew says he doesn't want Teague going so slowly LIKE BIBBY does: "I don’t expect him to get out there and play at a Mike Bibby pace. Not taking anything from Mike, [but] he is where he is in his career." So it's okay for Bibby to go slow because he's old but if Teague goes slow then he's out?

Am I wrong in my assumption that we cannot win (in the 4th and in the playoffs) without a PG and that Teague is the only option we have besides an aging Mike Bibby? I'm beating my head against the wall and it seems as if we're fine with watching Bibby's leadened legs try to chase down a perimeter shooter in the final quarter.