Could The Hawks' Playoff Success Change the NBA?

[Dr.J4ever]

Let me discuss a little bit about some of the debates going in some prominent websites in the Philadelphia area.

For those who aren't aware, GM Sam Hinkie's plan for the 76ers is to gather as many assets and create as much flexibility for one reason: to gather as many possible top tier candidates/players capable of becoming superstars. The theory is that the NBA isn't the NFL or even the MLB, where just entering the playoffs is okay because everyone will have a chance.

No, in fact, we believe there are at most 3-4 teams in these playoffs who have a chance of winning it all. The rest of the teams have 0% of winning barring major injury. It is this pragmatic realization that has many 76er fans fully supporting "The Plan".

Some of the posters in forums have reacted to an article pointing to the Milwaukee Bucks as a possible blueprint for Philly, and many other pro plan posters vehemently disagreed. Many of these fans believe the Bucks maxed out too early from tanking and have limited their future flexibility and ceiling by making the playoffs too early. The reasoning is that Hinkie could have easily signed a couple of veteran free agent players and with a little luck, we could even have competed for the 8th seed in the very weak East. But what's the point if we are following The Plan?

It can be pointed out that while the Bucks will most likely be booted out in the 1st round, the 76ers will add another top 5 talent in this upcoming draft, which is expected to produce some noteworthy prospects. With Embiid's addition, combined with a more experienced Noel, the 76ers might challenge next year, while keeping the dream alive of acquiring multiple superstar players. We will soon find out.

So what could impact not just the 76ers thinking, but most schools of thought in the NBA as a whole? The Atlanta Hawks. A team with no superstars or maybe even stars before the season began. If they win the NBA title, it will disprove again the prevailing theory today of superstar powered teams. This will come off a year after a Spurs team that won the title last year playing like it had no superstar. Obviously, they still have 3 players in their that had superstar genes with them, meaning they were superstars at one point in their careers(Manu was a superstar if you add his Fiba accomplishments).

There of course have been exceptions in NBA history of superstar-less teams winning titles, like maybe the Pistons very recently. They were outliers though, and the harsh reality is you have almost no chance to win 4 seven game series without at least one probably 2 superstar/star players.

The NBA is a players' league, and in Philly we are counting on it remaining this way. The Atlanta Hawks could challenge that theory.

[ISHGoat]

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/159/414/Cool-Starry-Bra.jpg

[Prometheus]

It could. But it won't, because they will not win a title.

[MJistheGOAT]

It could. But it won't, because they will not win a title.

/thread

NBA is a superstars league, go to NCAA tournament to see some teams without superstars win the chip.

[UK2K]

Basically you typed all that to say that if you aren't in the title discussion, what's the point of trying to win games.

We know, Philly has taken tanking to an extreme.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

[Mawly-G]

Philly is gonna be LOADED in a couple of years.

Noel
Embiid
Mudiay/Russell
Saric
Wroten
Covington
and the myriad of future picks

They are gonna be some young gunners, running other teams out of the gym.

[Nikola_]

Yea even the spurs have (past) superstars in coach pop, manu, parker etc. you just cant win without really great players.

[Jacks3]

the hawks have three all-star caliber players in their lineup. you don't need a superstar if you have multiple all-star guys and a top 3 coach in the league. they ain't changing shit. you still need stars to win and that will never change.

[Hittin_Shots]

What you mean Hawks? Boston gonna be proving it

[3peated]

Philly is gonna be LOADED in a couple of years.

Noel
Embiid
Mudiay/Russell
Saric
Wroten
Covington
and the myriad of future picks

They are gonna be some young gunners, running other teams out of the gym.


all they had to do was suck for a decade

[game3524]

Did the Pistons championship from 2004 change anything?

[Mawly-G]

all they had to do was suck for a decade
Sad, but true...

[Dro]

Basically you typed all that to say that if you aren't in the title discussion, what's the point of trying to win games.

We know, Philly has taken tanking to an extreme.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.
I agree, I hate tanking in any capacity...

[Dr.J4ever]

all they had to do was suck for a decade

Nope, this is year 2 of Hinkie's Plan. 4 years ago we were in the EC SF in a seven game series vs. Boston. The year after or 3 seasons ago, we had the Bynum fiasco.

Next season, no more tanking. We will be gunning for wins. Of course, with the lack of experience and youth, the 8th seed could be a goal.

[MJistheGOAT]

the hawks have three all-star caliber players in their lineup. you don't need a superstar if you have multiple all-star guys and a top 3 coach in the league. they ain't changing shit. you still need stars to win and that will never change.

Name teams that won in modern era (since 1980) with this description (No superstars allowed)

Bad Boys Pistons?? (arguably, Isiah was a superstar)
2004 Pistons
2014 Spurs (past superstars)

So, you need superstars to win.

[Im so nba'd out]

I call bs OP no one gave mavs a chance in 2011 during the regular season and yet they still won a ring.



Mods lock it up

[Dr.J4ever]

Did the Pistons championship from 2004 change anything?

Nah, it's different. We are coming off the Spurs winning a title playing like a team with no superstars. There has been a lot of talk lately about the viability of playing on teams with no superstars.

If the Hawks could win a title or get to the Finals, it would turn heads.

[Im so nba'd out]

Hinkie is a stupid bch who never played the game of basketball.All this losing will cause people to pick up bad habits + make them want to go a new team.This shit will never work and i cant wait for the day he gets fired.

[L.A.Showtime]

Even if they do win, everything has to click perfectly in a way most teams would not expect. Going for superstars is still the quickest and easiest way to win.

[Dr.J4ever]

Philly is gonna be LOADED in a couple of years.

Noel
Embiid
Mudiay/Russell
Saric
Wroten
Covington
and the myriad of future picks

They are gonna be some young gunners, running other teams out of the gym.

Yep, and if lightning strikes, we still have like a 15% chance from the Lakers pick this season of landing another 1st rounder in the top 6 or 7 besides our own very likely top 3 or top 4 pick.

[game3524]

Nah, it's different. We are coming off the Spurs winning a title playing like a team with no superstars. There has been a lot of talk lately about the viability of playing on teams with no superstars.

If the Hawks could win a title or get to the Finals, it would turn heads.

How is that different from the 2004 Pistons?

[Dr.J4ever]

How is that different from the 2004 Pistons?

Cause if the Hawks win this year, then it will be like a back to back, and the question will arise: is there a pattern or trend here?

[game3524]

Cause if the Hawks win this year, then it will be like a back to back, and the question will arise: is there a pattern or trend here?

Not really.

The Pistons were a few plays from winning back to back, the 2010 Celtics were couple of rebounds away from winning a title, and the Bad Boy Pistons won back to back.

A team with several all-star caliber players, but no clearcut Superstar have won titles before in the past, what the Hawks are doing isn't new at all.

[kshutts1]

A superstar is the quickest way to compete for an NBA championship.

But what's even more necessary are "superstar" role players. And the Hawks are loaded with those, and also have multiple "all-star" caliber players.

[Dr.J4ever]

Not really.

The Pistons were a few plays from winning back to back, the 2010 Celtics were couple of rebounds away from winning a title, and the Bad Boy Pistons won back to back.

A team with several all-star caliber players, but no clearcut Superstar have won titles before in the past, what the Hawks are doing isn't new at all.

While we can agree that the 2004 Piston didn't have superstar players, they didn't win back to back, even if they were close. As I said, they were outliers because the bad boy Pistons had superstars in Isaiah and Dumars was a star as well. We can add Marc Aguirre to this too.

The Celtics of 2010 had Pierce and KG and Ray Allen. They were surely superstars or at the very least star level.

[Dr.J4ever]

A superstar is the quickest way to compete for an NBA championship.

But what's even more necessary are "superstar" role players. And the Hawks are loaded with those, and also have multiple "all-star" caliber players.

Before the year began, did you think the Hawks had multiple "all star" caliber players? They suddenly became all stars because of their team success. Correct?

[kshutts1]

Before the year began, did you think the Hawks had multiple "all star" caliber players? They suddenly became all stars because of their team success. Correct?
I thought Millsap and Horford were "all star caliber" before the year. I thought Korver was a "superstar role player" before the year. Any/all other players, though, changed my opinion by how well they have played within their structure/system this year.

[Mawly-G]

Before the year began, did you think the Hawks had multiple "all star" caliber players? They suddenly became all stars because of their team success. Correct?
I think Millsap has been a legit all-star since last season, and Jeff Teague has always been more of a fringe all-star. Al Horford has made a couple of all star appearances in the past as well.

[atljonesbro]

The Hawks and Spurs and laying out the blue print for modern basketball. Team ball will trump iso ball over the next decade.

[Dr.J4ever]

I thought Millsap and Horford were "all star caliber" before the year. I thought Korver was a "superstar role player" before the year. Any/all other players, though, changed my opinion by how well they have played within their structure/system this year.

The main point here is that Atlanta doesn't have a legitimate superstar player. Yes, if you want to be liberal, Horford and Milsap are stars. I would say they WERE borderline stars before the season began. Checking their career stats and team success would make that plainly apparent.