RealGM

Posted: **Thu May 31, 2012 4:33 pm**

I'm still reading and will comment later.

http://blogs.ajc.com/hawks/2012/05/31/a ... logs_hawks

Posted: **Thu May 31, 2012 9:21 pm**

Seems like more of the same and possibly even more regressing. One of the most telling things was he mentioned they may want to move back in the draft. Why not move up? Always thinking too small for my liking.

Posted: **Fri Jun 1, 2012 2:46 am**

Having said that, our offensive efficiency—which I know you are a big stat guy—was really good in the fourth quarter, particularly the last five minutes of the game. Joe [Johnson] in particular [was good] in crunch time. We were good in the fourth quarter, we were good in overtime games, close games.

I take that to mean he thinks iso-Joe has been proven to be successful. (Oh rapture. Isn't that precious?)

Cunningham had a great return question:

Why do you think things like good offensive efficiency in fourth quarter didn’t translate to the playoffs?

Because we weren't playing average defenses in the playoffs, donchya think? Maybe our offensive efficiency is not playoff-caliber. I can't believe Sund tried to justify iso-Joe.

Posted: **Fri Jun 1, 2012 2:52 am**

Superiorblogman wrote:One of the most telling things was he mentioned they may want to move back in the draft.

That bothered me too. I wonder, however, if he was careless with his phrasing and actually meant moving to a lower number when he said "There are a few people they like that they might want to move down to get."

RealGM

Atlanta Hawks Atlanta Hawks: Rick Sund Q-and-A

Atlanta Hawks Atlanta Hawks: Rick Sund Q-and-A

Re: Atlanta Hawks Atlanta Hawks: Rick Sund Q-and-A

Re: Atlanta Hawks Atlanta Hawks: Rick Sund Q-and-A

Re: Atlanta Hawks Atlanta Hawks: Rick Sund Q-and-A