RealGM

this presupposes that we had a competent GM too. I hate what ifs but, what if we didnt get Joe and then instead of Marvin we got CP3, since we never got Joe we would still suck and have gotten a high pick in the next draft, then we could have gotten Roy. Of course, with Roy and Paul, we could have never gotten Horford. So who knows who we would have down in the 5 spot. Yall think that would have been a better team? I know this post is stupid. I was just thinking and I dont feel like doing my homework right now.

starting 5
Paul
Roy
Chills
Smoove
someone besides Al

It's impossible to say all of this would have happened. Our results and DP's would have all been different without JJ around. That's a nic elineup though.

hold up what sucks is that lineup was possible even with JJ around. dang

If they had drafted Paul they they wouldn't have signed speedy. Combine that with no JJ and the Hawks would have had an ungodly amount of caproom. If they wanted him they could have had someone like Chandler.

You are forgetting that Free Agents don't come to Atlanta.

This franchise HAD to sign JJ. Not only did he sign, he made 2 allstar games so far and that did more for this team than anything.

We were a season or two away from players threatening to retire before they reported here.

we would of most likely beat Milwaukee out for worst record.....probably gotten the Aussie Center instead of them....still been bad enough to get in the top 3 the year afterwards and possibly gotten Aldridge if we got Marvin the year before.

Sultanofatl wrote:we would of most likely beat Milwaukee out for worst record.....probably gotten the Aussie Center instead of them....still been bad enough to get in the top 3 the year afterwards and possibly gotten Aldridge if we got Marvin the year before.

Joe's first year in Atlanta was after the Marvin draft. I love Joe (and Horford), but I think we'd be in a lot better shape if we never traded for him. Assuming we drafted the right players. Paul-Roy would have a chance to be the best backcourt and Paul-Roy-Smith the best "big three" for many, many years.

killbuckner wrote:If they had drafted Paul they they wouldn't have signed speedy. Combine that with no JJ and the Hawks would have had an ungodly amount of caproom. If they wanted him they could have had someone like Chandler.

The Hawks could have had Chandler and Joe. We spent our caproom on Speedy and Lo that off-season while Chicago shopped him around for expirings. A core of Paul/JJ/Chil/Smith/Chandler would be the best young core in the conference.

HoopsGuru25 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-


The Hawks could have had Chandler and Joe. We spent our caproom on Speedy and Lo that off-season while Chicago shopped him around for expirings. A core of Paul/JJ/Chil/Smith/Chandler would be the best young core in the conference.

I forgot that Chandler wasn't a free agent, just expendable. Yeah. This is alot more realistic and pretty disturbing that it didn't happen.

High 5 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Joe's first year in Atlanta was after the Marvin draft. I love Joe (and Horford), but I think we'd be in a lot better shape if we never traded for him. Assuming we drafted the right players. Paul-Roy would have a chance to be the best backcourt and Paul-Roy-Smith the best "big three" for many, many years.

right right.....don't know why I thought Marvin came after Joe......but the Paul /Roy line-up with Josh and Josh....Pachulia in the middle? can't clown that line up......young and hungry.

JJ isn't the reason why we blew draft picks.

Tyson Chanlder was an option for Atlanta until he blew them off. Tyson knew he was in a good situation with New Orleans and it's worked out for him. I also doubt we would have paid him the same amount of money.

conleyorbust wrote:JJ isn't the reason why we blew draft picks.

Still would have made us more cap friendly and Roy is pretty much a younger, cheaper Joe at this point. Slightly different games, but same basic impact. Of course, Joe has found his range since Bibby got here.

Roy is already better than JJ. But who knows if we're in position to draft him without JJ.

JoshB914 wrote:Roy is already better than JJ. But who knows if we're in position to draft him without JJ.

I wouldn't say that, but it looks like it'll be that way soon unless Joe's shot starts falling like last year.

Still would have made us more cap friendly and Roy is pretty much a younger, cheaper Joe at this point. Slightly different games, but same basic impact. Of course, Joe has found his range since Bibby got here.

So you are saying not signing Joe would have been good because it would increase the chances of our GM drafting Roy? If you are going to play what ifs... then a better scenario is what if the Hawks had a competent GM who would have drafted Roy(or Paul)and signed Joe Johnson? There was nothing stopping BK from drafting Chris Paul or Brandon Roy.

HoopsGuru25 wrote:So you are saying not signing Joe would have been good because it would increase the chances of our GM drafting Roy? If you are going to play what ifs... then a better scenario is what if the Hawks had a competent GM who would have drafted Roy(or Paul)and signed Joe Johnson? There was nothing stopping BK from drafting Chris Paul or Brandon Roy.

No. I said if we didn't get Joe and we made the right draft picks we'd be in a better position now and for the future. I doubt we'd be able to keep Joe, Paul, Roy and Smith. This whole thread is based on a "what if," I don't see what's wrong with me using them.

High..you do realize that Roy's rookie contract and Joe's deal end the same exact year.

High 5 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Still would have made us more cap friendly and Roy is pretty much a younger, cheaper Joe at this point. Slightly different games, but same basic impact. Of course, Joe has found his range since Bibby got here.

A little too much foresight involved, to say the least.

Joe gives you a versatile offensive threat that can score one on one, score off the ball, consistently find the net from deep, and run the offense to a degree. Roy isn't the scorer that Joe is because he doesn't have the same deep shot or post game and even with superior athleticism he doesn't get to the line at a significantly higher rate, but he is definitely a better facilitator and leader.

I think, hypothetically, that Joe is the better player if you have a good point guard who can take advantage of his passing or get the ball to him in the post against smaller guards. Ironically, that guard would be CP3.

Enough about Paul though, I already have to think about how he will inevitably be one of the greatest point guards of all time whenever I see him play. I will just get mad if I keep going on this thread.

HoopsGuru25 wrote:High..you do realize that Roy's rookie contract and Joe's deal end the same exact year.

How does that affect what I said?

conleyorbust wrote:

To most Hawks fans, Paul and Roy were the obvious choices. Don't see why it's so ridiculous. I don't there's any question Roy will end up the better player than Joe, Joe's game isn't much more advanced at this point and Roy is already superior mentally. We also wouldn't have given up the draft picks or Diaw. Obviously no one knows how any "what if" scenarios turn out because they never happened, but I'd say my thoughts aren't too farfetched.