[video=youtube;fH0h5yhe3Qk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fH0h5yhe3Qk[/video] Horford's a boss. 17ppg on 55% shooting is a wash compared 20 on 47% shooting. When you factor in Horford's defense its why I take Horford. Too many easy points in the paint.
Anyone who is an inadequate #1 but would make a fine #2 is not as good as someone who is a fine #1 and would make a fine #2.
A defensive anchor in middle changes a lot. The whole don't trade your #1 thing is silly to me unless your #1 can prove that he can win being #1. Shit, Aldridge doesn't even want to be #1. He wants to be the guy who lays back and shoots jumpers.
its still basically going to be a non-factor in improving...i mean does replacing Horford with LA suddenly make us a playoff team? I don't think so. There is decent chemistry and camraderie there with LA and the rest of the guys. This trade doesn't do anything at all.
Who's the defensive anchor? Horford? Not a huge upgrade there like you claim, you've gotta remember right next to him is J-smooth...who IS a defensive stud. Different systems.
I think so. I think you're completely underestimating the importance of having a great defender in the paint is. The scoring numbers are basically the same when you look at the percentages.
and this whole "defensive liability" bullshit was used to drive ZBO out of town too. he seemed to have adapted to a system quite nicely.
Why do you think Smith gets all his help side blocks? http://hawkshoop.com/smith-horford-keys-to-atlantas-no-1-defensive-rating/
We got nothing for Zach. This new scenario assumes we would get someone good for Aldridge. So, no comparison.
Z-Bo drove himself out of town. He makes it out of the 1st round one time in 13 years and everybody uses him as an example. Well look at Z-Bo.
Its not an upgrade or a piece of the puzzle....at that position, the piece of the puzzle fits fine. Its basically a lateral move in the best case scenario. Worst case scenario, you lose your go-to guy and disrupt team chemistry.
Loyalty to our "go-to" guy that hasn't gotten us anywhere. Sometimes you got to flip the script and try something else. Horford's a baller that would change the complexion of our defense and we would get the same kind of production in less touches. Add one more piece to a Lillard Matthews Batum Horford Leonard Maynor Claver more depth. That's a damn good team and much better defensively.
Its essentially the same fucking team. You're throwing darts at a wall and hoping they stick. And it won't because there isn't an upgrade of talent or anything else, like I said, a wash. You lose a more legit goto option...yeah, let's "spin the dice" of this failed experiment after what....1.5 seasons of LA as "the man"? Yeah, we've given it enough time here. Especially when you have an extreme lack of talent on the team to begin with.
sure, defense is great but you can't just have a team of great defenders who won't score. But you're making it seem like Horford is a Dwight Howard level defender when his presence isn't going to make that huge of a difference on the team. I mean unless you can find a blog written by an Atlanta Hawks fan which is going off about how he is.
I mean what is the huge diff. LA blocks more shots than Horford...what does horford do, is he better at "pushing players" out of position or something abstract and obscure that will lead us to be a defensive juggernaut? If LA was next to Josh Smith, would Smith automatically become a piss poor defender because of it?
Horford isn't a go to guy. He doesn't need to be the go to guy, and neither does Aldridge. I'd feel infinitely more comfortable with LaMarcus having an isolation called for him at the end of a game than I would if it were Horford.
