I really don't feel like doing a long post about this, but it needs to be asked.  Do you all believe in the notion that LD wasn't consistently playing Teague because of his "effort"?  I don't believe that for one second. Does anyone here remember Teague noticeably dogging it in one of his three minute stints?  Also, it's really hard for me to believe "effort" was directly connected to playing time. If that were the case, there would have been some starters sitting for extended amounts of time in numerous games. Why can't Drew just come out and say he made a mistake not playing Teague? Is that really so hard to do? Does he really think so little of us that he can tell us it was all about Teague's "effort" and we're just supposed to swallow it? I just don't believe it. If you have evidence to support this claim, please share it with me.

I'm always amazed at Al's ability to guard smaller guys.  Do we undervalue his defensive prowess because he's not a big shot blocker?  All I know is Al works hard and I'm maybe a little too comfortable when I see him defending a guard. Sometimes I feel like he's the best option.  Am I totally insane?  Do you cringe when Al is switched onto a guard the same as you do when Bibby is switched onto a PF?

At some point I'm going to do a lengthy post about this on my blog (or not) I think Hawks fans definitely have some mixed feelings towards Joe.  Sometimes I'm like let him walk because he's not worth more than $15 million per.  Other times I'm like, I don't want to end up like the Bulls who let Gordon walk because they undervalued what he meant.  On nights when I watch Joe  kill the Hawks chances of winning the game by over-dribbling and taking contested fade aways, I can literally talk myself into thinking this team would be better without him. What do you all think?

So, the Hawks have won several games by 20+ points this season.  Looking at the rest of their schedule for December and early January there's a potential for a couple more.  If the Hawks keep blowing teams out to a point that their starters only play 25 or so minutes, will that hurt Josh?  We know the players are picked mostly on stats and team record plays a role sometimes. Josh's stats are good, but not great.  Better than KG's but he'll be voted in by the fans  so Josh has to compete with players who have better stats, but are on worse teams i.e. Danny Granger, Gerald Wallace, Antwan Jamison etc.. This kinda applies to Al too, except the people he's up against are on pretty good teams i.e. Perkins and O'neal.  I'd like to think the Hawks record will play into it, but you never know how the coaches will vote. So, what do y'all think,  Should Woody leave Josh and Al on the floor to pad their stats if the Hawks are up big?

Edit:  I mean Josh getting voted in by the coaches.

I've never done a fan post, hope it works.    Okay, so everyone assumes the Hawks would be light years ahead of where they are right now had they drafted Chris Paul over Marvin Williams.  I think people make this assumption while including Al Horford in the players that he'd have to work with.  If the Hawks had taken Chris Paul there's a chance Al Horford never comes to Atlanta because maybe the Hawks wouldn't have been a lottery team.  There are a lot of what if's.  My question to you:  Do you think this team is a championship contender with Chris minus Al?  I'm just thinking about how championships have been won in recent memory and it's primarily been on the backs of good PF\ C along with a really good shooting guard as the main components.  I think we have a better chance at becoming a championship team if Al can develop into what we all hope he is. I don't see Chris Paul leading a team to a championship without a legitimate big man.  If Chris Paul were here without Al would the Hawks be better?  Is it really that simple?