Hawks Add Joe Smith - Want To Join Contenders

by Jeff Clark on Aug 17, 2009 6:44 AM EDT in NBA Comment 30 comments

Nice D Rondo

Remember the Atlanta Hawks? That team that took us to 7 games before all those other teams took us to 7 games in the playoffs? They are still out there, hoping to take that next step to being contenders. They worked their way into the 4 seed and won a first round series, but they were swept by the Cavs and they entered this offseason with a lot of uncertainty. They answered the call by locking up their own free agents and added more pieces to the puzzle. Via Fanhouse:

After re-signing free agents Mike Bibby, Marvin Williams and Zaza Pachulia – their own free agents -- earlier this summer, the Hawks improved their depth considerably by adding Jamal Crawford to the backcourt and now Smith to the frontcourt.

But will that be enough to catch up with the big boys?

Steve Aschburner of SI has been looking at teams one by one and shares his thoughts on the Hawks (pre-Joe Smith signing):

It seems only right. The Hawks dutifully gathered a bunch of talented players in the early years of this decade, the way teams are supposed to when they reel off eight consecutive lottery finishes and go 220 games under .500 for four different coaches. That crew has developed nicely, taking baby steps first from 13 to 26 to 30 victories as the principals came aboard, to toddling full throttle through the league more recently. The Hawks won 37 games and reached the playoffs in 2008, pushing eventual-champion Boston to a surprising seven games in the first round. Last spring, Atlanta jumped up to 47-35, good for the No. 4 seed in the East, and beat Miami in seven before getting swept from the second round by Cleveland.

Sund talked after that elimination about injuries, notably to Williams (wrist) and Al Horford (ankle), that stymied the Hawks against the Cavs. He was encouraged by their modest success against the four conference finalists (4-8 vs. Cleveland, Orlando, Denver and the Lakers). And he felt the team was poised to take another big step. "Yeah, I like our club," Sund told the AJC. "The only reason I say that is there's still growth from within. ... I think you still need to tweak if you can."

That's where the apprehension comes in. Taking a team from 13 to 47 victories, from lottery oblivion to the league's final eight, is one sort of task. Getting it from there to serious championship contention, to the point where excellence is expected, is a wholly different one. And doing it without a significant acquisition, the plucking of a proven difference-maker off someone else's roster, is one of sports' loftiest ambitions. At that point, you're relying on natural selection, genetic synthesis and the hope that you're already fit enough to survive.

I'm still skeptical that they can take that next leap. They've got great talent, but I'm not sure they have that undefinable trait of championship contenders. What do you think?

0 recs | Comment 30 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

LOL

Smith is no great shakes, and Jamal Crawford is a knucklehead who is worth at least ten extra losses a year. Bibby can’t defend anymore, if he ever could, and he’s not getting any younger.

The Hawks will struggle to make the playoffs.

by Brickowski on Aug 17, 2009 7:06 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

On paper, they're better...

But I still see them two tiers below a true contender.

All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino

by Roy_Hobbs on Aug 17, 2009 7:14 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Why Will They Be Better?

Jamal Crawford is the last player you would ever want to add to improve your team, and Josh Smith is a knucklehead too.

They’ve got Joe Johnson and a developing Marvin Williams. The rest of their roster is absolutely ordinary. I expect the Knicsk to have a better record than the Hawks next year.

by Brickowski on Aug 17, 2009 7:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why wouldn't they be better "on paper"?

On paper, they’ve added Crawford, Smith, and Jeff Teague, and lost Flip Murray (as of right now). Their young guys, presumably, will continue to develop. Thus, I think it’s easy to see why they could improve.

Crawford is a career loser, there’s no doubt about it. However, he also brings the ability to score at all times.

All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino

by Roy_Hobbs on Aug 17, 2009 8:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The rest of their roster isn't absolutely ordinary. That's too much of an overstatement.

The addition of either Al Horford or Zaza Pachulia would improve any team in the league.

by no kidding on Aug 17, 2009 11:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think

the Hawks will be a little bit better than last year. Still not true Championship contenders, but don’t discount them to make a lot of troubles for teams along the way. They added depth and they’ve got a lot of dynamic young players who continue to get better each year. They, along with the Wizards, will make the Eastern conference even more interesting this year I think.

[img width=500 height=84]http://i367.photobucket.com/albums/oo115/greentownsfinest/GreentownsFinestHeaderCBlogLQual.jpg[/img]

by Prof. Clutch on Aug 17, 2009 7:15 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

A knucklehead who can play

Josh Smith doesn’t seem like a lost cause head-wise and he’s really talented skills-wise. Odds are no one goes wire-to-wire with their starting five healthy the whole way. Their bench doesn’t sound that imposing.I never wanted Joe Smith – nice guy, too old -and I always get Jamal Crawford and Jamal Tinsley confused but wouldn’t want either of them.
I think Brickowski is a little too hard on them. I think they’ll make playoffs. Roy Hobbs said what I’d say.

by Wildblu1 on Aug 17, 2009 7:57 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Atlanta are stuck where they are … and they’ll be passed out by others in due course.

by Who on Aug 17, 2009 8:47 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Am I the only one. . .

Who thinks this blog post is confusing? I had to go to ESPN to determine which “Smith” was added to the Hawks. Because they’ve always had Josh Smith. But now it appears they’ve added the veteran Joe Smith. But I didn’t see that clarified anywhere in the post. And obviously that’s not him pictured either.

by MetroGlobe on Aug 17, 2009 9:04 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Oh wait, “Joe” is in there, but it’s pretty easy to miss in parentheses there. Maybe it should be in the headline?

by MetroGlobe on Aug 17, 2009 9:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nope

I had the same reaction: but they already had Josh Smith. No offense Jeff, but this article seems pretty pointless. Joe Smith is a decent backup and Jamal Crawford is a career loser. I don’t see either doing anything to get the Hawks above the mediocrity they are already at.

by Jon on Aug 17, 2009 9:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

one man's pointless post...

…is another man’s look around the league

it may not have something directly to do with the Celtics, but I’m a fan of using the offseason to become more familiar with the rest of the league

the Joe Smith signing was just an excuse to do so

that said, I probably could have done a better job setting up the post and explaining the purpose – but I was rushed this morning (as I have been for a few weeks now)

"We few, we happy few, we band of brothers" Henry V

by Jeff Clark on Aug 17, 2009 11:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well...

…I suppose if it’s just a look around the league. However, I hardly think that their moves have made them anymore than marginally better at best.

by Jon on Aug 17, 2009 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's August 17th...

…we need this, please don’t discourage.

by Little D on Aug 17, 2009 5:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Don't Confuse Athleticism With Basketball Talent

Josh Smith can run, jump and dunk. Hopefully for opponents of the Hawks, he is still under the misguided impression that he can shoot, and that he ought to shoot whenever he touches the ball.

by Brickowski on Aug 17, 2009 9:43 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

totally

they keep referring to josh smith as a "raw talent’. the guy is about to start his 7th year in the league. at what point is he no longer raw and just not putting it together out there?
same goes for the hawks as a team – they’ve been this team of “young, hungry talent” for a while now, meanwhile they’ve only gotten farther away from contention since they took the C’s to 7 games.
i’m not buying the hawks.

by hooray on Aug 17, 2009 4:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, right. The Hawks gave us problems the last two years just because we were too old. We’ll the Big 3 didn’t get any younger since then, but the other players did. And our talent level is quite a lot higher than theirs. Even if they are much more athletic, Rondo could possibly take them alone.

by P2 on Aug 17, 2009 9:54 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Pretty good shot blocker

I only see Josh Smith play against us. Yes, bad shooting tendencies. But he is an athletic shot blocker, rebounder. I remember their coach being hot with him over something and him yakking back so I would guess “knucklehead” is on mark. Discipline is not un-learnable. Jumping through the roof can’t be taught.

by Wildblu1 on Aug 17, 2009 10:01 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Yes, but the older you get, the higher the roof seems to be

by Brickowski on Aug 17, 2009 10:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The roof might be a little too high already, considering his age.

by P2 on Aug 17, 2009 10:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

How do you spell "irrelevant"?

H-A-W-K-S

"People don't understand, if you can't live the rest of your life off one year in the NBA, you can't live off 21." -- Keon Clark

by Eeyore III on Aug 17, 2009 10:31 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Don't care about this move, but...

But they have really beefed up their offense this year. Crawford is a guy I really like for them. He will be that kind of Ricky Davis explosive talent off the bench. I also love Teague. Great backcourt off the bench

by rickyfan3.0... on Aug 17, 2009 10:34 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

If we could have Ricky for Tony, that would be awesome.

by P2 on Aug 17, 2009 10:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

No Thanks

by Little D on Aug 17, 2009 2:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Which Joe is it ????

Is it Joe Smith as Jeff mentions in the heading or Josh Smith, Either way the Hawks are irrelevant

by Ancient Red on Aug 17, 2009 12:06 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Joe Smitch

by shoothoop on Aug 17, 2009 5:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

One of my favorite controversial teams

I think that is why I’m drawn to them.

They fly under the radar and aren’t taken seriously, though they improve every year.

There are questions about Coach Woodson and about Josh Smith. And their fates are tied together.

Aschburner’s last paragraph in the quote is a good one. Identifies the situation well.

by tenaciousT on Aug 17, 2009 12:55 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I don't see what adding Joe Smith has to do with wanting to join contenders?

How does a career loser suddenly get a reputation for being a game changers late in his career? He’s worse than he’s ever been, and he’s never been that good. So now he makes the Hawks a contender? Okay. Sure.

by Cousin It on Aug 17, 2009 12:59 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

ATL does not have superstars

This is just hype to sell season seats…

ATL will not win a championship in 2009-2010.

In order to be considered ‘CONTENDERS for the Championship’ in the NBA
you need to have at least (2) 5 Star players on your team.

The Hawks at best have (2) 4 star players & no 5 star players.
Joe Johnson
Al Horford

by OCsWestCeltic on Aug 17, 2009 1:38 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Down here in Atlanta...

… it boggled my mind how little credit they got this year for leaping from No. 8 to No. 4. That’s a helluvan accomplishment. But yes, they improved only marginally while everyone else above them improved more so.
It’s too much to ask youngs like Josh Smith and Al Horford to get THAT much better. Well, Josh should be an all-star, but Brick’s right; his head ain’t screwed on right. But watch Horford.
I just don’t see them cracking the Big Three unless one of them gets key injuries.
But they will continue to give teams trouble next season. Will be interesting to see how much they do mature.
I wouldn’t call them irrelevant, but they’re a key vet pick-up (at least) from being serious.

by Big_Easy on Aug 17, 2009 9:43 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs