More talent, 95 Celtics with 35 wins or 08 Hawks with 37
Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:51 am
Maybe the Hawks are better than their record indicates. Compare them to the Celtics who just got into the playoffs a while ago with 35 wins for the season. Dino was a superstar, X-Man was good, Dominique shot the ball a lot, Montross was big but wasn't passed the ball, Wesley and Brown were a very short backcourt and Sherman Douglas was also there.
The Hawks do have a lot of lottery picks. A lot more talent than many 37 win teams. Bibby, Williams and Horford know how to win, at least at the college level. Pachulia is a strong player that is useful for playoff basketball. Is Claxton on their roster, he brings some knowledge like Cassell should for Boston.
Comparing the Hawks of now to the Celtics of then, the Hawks would sweep them like the Magic did in 1995. The Hawks of 2008 may have underachieved during the regular season, so while the standings say 37 wins they are really a lot better than that, and if a coach that is poor in their knowledge underestimates the Hawks it could be very bad.
The Hawks do have a lot of lottery picks. A lot more talent than many 37 win teams. Bibby, Williams and Horford know how to win, at least at the college level. Pachulia is a strong player that is useful for playoff basketball. Is Claxton on their roster, he brings some knowledge like Cassell should for Boston.
Comparing the Hawks of now to the Celtics of then, the Hawks would sweep them like the Magic did in 1995. The Hawks of 2008 may have underachieved during the regular season, so while the standings say 37 wins they are really a lot better than that, and if a coach that is poor in their knowledge underestimates the Hawks it could be very bad.