Hawks/Pistons

parson · Post #1 » by **parson** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 2:11 am

No one's made one - and I wasn't sure I wanted to but when I saw Millsap go out, banging his knee against Brand, I was worried. But he's come back in, and immediately made 2 threes, so I thought I'd mention it.

parson · Post #2 » by **parson** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 2:20 am

Shelvin Mack, 8-12 from the field, 2-3 for 3, 2-2 for FTs, 1 rebound, 6 assists, only 1 turnover, for 20 points.

Rip2137 · Post #3 » by **Rip2137** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 2:25 am

Shelvin is going to be a starting point guard somewhere next year.

parson · Post #4 » by **parson** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 2:57 am

Rip2137 wrote:Shelvin is going to be a starting point guard somewhere next year.

You and Jamaaliver can keep saying that, but I believe we have a $1,148,163 qualifying offer we can make to him for next year. If we want him, we'll keep him.

parson · Post #5 » by **parson** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 3:04 am

DET shot 23 FTs in the 2nd half, we shot 10 - and of the 6 we shot in the 4th, all of them came in the last 2:38 (and 4 of them in the last :52) when the Pistons were too far ahead.

We must really be tired for the refs to believe we fell down so many times, instead of being knocked down.

ThatDudeDangelo · Post #6 » by **ThatDudeDangelo** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 3:08 am

8th straight loss, your Hawks squad better find some answers or say goodbye to your impressive run of playoff appearances. Pistons are hungrier.

DirtybirdGA · Post #7 » by **DirtybirdGA** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 3:20 am

Well you all are welcome to it. A postseason probably wont help if they are unlikely to advance.

parson · Post #8 » by **parson** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 3:33 am

Ya know, there didn't used to be so many bandwagon Raptor fans who'd talk trash on their opponents' message boards...

I blame it on too many school snow days - kids are bored with their games and start joining sports boards.

Post #9 » by **Jamaaliver** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 3:57 am

Rip2137 wrote:Shelvin is going to be a starting point guard somewhere next year.

Indeed. I'm so glad we put his development ahead of Schroeder's. He's gonna make some other team real happy next season.

parson · Post #10 » by **parson** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 4:10 am

Jamaaliver wrote:
Rip2137 wrote:Shelvin is going to be a starting point guard somewhere next year.

Indeed. I'm so glad we put his development ahead of Schroeder's. He's gonna make some other team real happy next season.

parson wrote:You and Jamaaliver can keep saying that, but I believe we have a $1,148,163 qualifying offer we can make to him for next year. If we want him, we'll keep him.

Post #11 » by **Jamaaliver** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 4:17 am

^Oh dear god, we really committing to three, young, underwhelming PGs in lieu of an experienced veteran?

<Sigh> We're gonna be terrible forever.

parson · Post #12 » by **parson** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 4:24 am

Make up your mind. Is Mack so good that "He's gonna make some other team real happy next season" or is he an "underwhelming" PG?

parson · Post #13 » by **parson** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 4:32 am

By the way, I wished we had played Schröder a bit tonight. Lou Williams' numbers were good but he stank up the place as a PG. He really isn't one. Duane Ferrell (who was singing the blues to the refs for fouls all night long - he and I were harmonizing) mentioned that several times. Late in the game, he especially noted that we wanted to rest Mack but couldn't because of Lou's poor play as a point.

Ferrell really is a pretty good color guy. I like Wilkins better (he's more pleasant - kind of like watching with a friend) but Ferrell is a great homer. I listen to other teams' broadcasting duos (we really have 2 of the best, by the way), and "homer" is the perfect word to describe most of them.

Post #14 » by **Jamaaliver** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 4:49 am

parson wrote:Make up your mind. Is Mack so good that "He's gonna make some other team real happy next season" or is he an "underwhelming" PG?

Sorry, I forgot to put my sarcasm font on.

Mack has impressed, outplayed his contract. But I hate that we have continuously allowed Mack to get valuable playing experience at the expense of Schroder. Tonight included. Especially since their is a strong chance he won't be here next year.

Only the Hawks would bypass developing the next Rajon Rondo to instead focus on prepping the next Eric Snow. (Chris Childs? George Hill? Eldridge Recasner?)

This team is a friggin' mess.

Can we just skip drafting in the first round and just focus our energies on pulling gems in the 2nd round?

parson · Post #15 » by **parson** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 5:31 am

Jamaaliver wrote:Mack has impressed, outplayed his contract. But I hate that we have continuously allowed Mack to get valuable playing experience at the expense of Schroder. Tonight included. Especially since their is a strong chance he won't be here next year.

You keep saying that. What makes you think he won't be here next year? Do you think there's a "strong chance" we'll renounce him or a "strong chance" we'll trade him?

Jamaaliver wrote:Only the Hawks would bypass developing the next Rajon Rondo to instead focus on prepping the next Eric Snow. (Chris Childs? George Hill? Eldridge Recasner?)

Our coaches think Anthony Johnson. I'd settle for that. By the way, until Schröder shows he's ready, who cares if we develop Mack? We've got 3 more years for Herr Dennis. And what makes you think we're refusing to develop "the next Rajon Rondo" so that we can develop Mack? Are you believing we can only develop one at a time? That's what coaches are for.

Rip2137 · Post #16 » by **Rip2137** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 5:49 am

I think we are going to let him go simply because they would rather develop Schroder over Mack. I don't agree with it, but that's the way I think it will go.

I personally think some team is going to offer around 3-4 million for Shelvin if he keeps doing what he is doing and they have a need at point, and honestly, we shouldn't have that much invested in one position.

Believe me, this has nothing to do with being enamored with a more flash than substance point guard like some people. Jamal is just overly in love with this whole "what round were you picked" thing.

parson · Post #17 » by **parson** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 6:27 am

Rip2137 wrote:I think we are going to let him go simply because they would rather develop Schroder over Mack. I don't agree with it, but that's the way I think it will go.

I think we re-signed Teague in order to trade him later. Unless MIL drafts Smart (and they really want to be in a position that's too good for him), I think they'd gladly trade for Teague, who knows Drew's offenese. The fans over on the MIL board hate how Knight runs the offense.

I think Shelvin's the steadier player who helps Dennis grow into the position, but, seriously, what if he improves his shooting? Isn't he an interesting prospect then?

Post #18 » by **Jamaaliver** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 6:51 am

parson wrote:You keep saying that. What makes you think he won't be here next year? Do you think there's a "strong chance" we'll renounce him or a "strong chance" we'll trade him?

I can't see Teague, Dennis and Mack all back next season. Waste of assets. Someone has to go. There simply aren't enough minutes.

parson wrote:By the way, until Schröder shows he's ready, who cares if we develop Mack? We've got 3 more years for Herr Dennis. And what makes you think we're refusing to develop "the next Rajon Rondo" so that we can develop Mack? Are you believing we can only develop one at a time? That's what coaches are for.

Young players can only learn so much from the bench. I've never seen a young player improve from NOT playing. Dennis had a steeper learning curve than anyone else on our roster as he is being groomed to play QB in a different league, in a different country at a young age. We believe he can be a game-changer once he's ready. I don't think getting 20 minutes a day practicing with Quin Snyder at shootaround is as beneficial as playing through his mistakes.

Peyton Manning holds the record for most Interceptions thrown as a rookie. As a vet, he just threw for 5000+ yards, 50+ touchdowns and only 10 interceptions. There was no benefit in punishing/chastising him as a young player. But instead, putting him in a position to get as much on field experience as possible. That way, in year 2 and 3, he would have a well of experience/knowledge to delve in to.

I also think it is a waste to have three young players at a single position.

Rip2137 · Post #19 » by **Rip2137** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 2:38 pm

I DON'T understand how that same analogy doesn't apply to Mack. He wasn't great his first year with us and has proven to be a good basketball player since. But for some reason you seem to overlook that...constantly might I add, because ANOTHER young player MIGHT be good one day because he can throw some flashy passes sometimes.

parson · Post #20 » by **parson** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 7:39 pm

It's reasonable to favor one player over another because of his physical gifts - and Schröder surely has a lot of gifts. However, strength is also a gift and it's a HUGE gift in pro ball. Mack is strong enough to not be knocked off his path (legally, that is). He can get to where he needs to be on the floor. Remember when Teague kept being pushed around by the Heat defenders? It disrupted our offense. Sure, I think they were allowed to push illegally hard (that team gets away with more), but I'm saying that Mack supplies an alternative.

He has long arms, like Teague and Schröder, and has a better jumper than either of them. He takes really good care of the ball and makes much better decisions than Schröder - at the moment.

This is not to denigrate Dennis' ability but to point out that Mack is a prospect, too. I'm simply advocating that we develop Teague and Mack and Schröder to the fullest extent we can. Whichever PG we settle on, don't you want the other 2 to be attractive as trade bait or a backup? It's not a waste to have 3 young players at a single position if they're going to profit us down the road. This is not a championship year for us.

Remember, we're developing a lot of players, not just Dennis. PG is the most important position on the court, so far as our offense is concerned. If we have poor PG play, it becomes impossible to develop the other players. If we let Schröder mess around on the court, we'd lose our other developing players. As I've argued with those wanting to tank, consider the players on this team who have greatly expanded their game this year. How could they have done that with Schröder's play this year?

By the way, I love Schröder's vision and quickness and fantastic defensive potential. I'm pulling for him to make it to the top of the heap. However, if Teague (or Mack) beats him out, we can't just give the job to Dennis.