Why the Hawks Play Better Without Their All-Star
The Atlanta Hawks’ recent success has sparked a difficult but necessary conversation about the team’s future with Trae Young. Although Young is undeniably one of the most gifted offensive talents in the NBA, the Hawks’ performance this season has raised questions about how much his style of play actually benefits the team as a whole. Early in the year, with Young in the lineup, Atlanta struggled to win games and never found a consistent rhythm on either end of the floor. However, once Young was sidelined, the Hawks suddenly went on a five-game road winning streak against solid, competitive teams playing with a level of cohesion and balance that had been missing. This pattern is not new; similar trends have emerged over the last few seasons, prompting analysts and fans alike to consider whether the Hawks simply play better without their All-Star point guard.
One of the main reasons the Hawks appear to play better without Young is his defensive liability. At 6’1” and relatively slight in build, Young struggles to guard most players at his position, often becoming the weakest link in the team’s defensive scheme. Opposing offenses frequently target him, forcing help rotations that break down the Hawks’ defensive structure. Without Young on the floor, Atlanta can switch more freely, defend more physically, and maintain a stronger overall presence on the perimeter. The result is a noticeably improved defensive identity, something that has shown up repeatedly in the team’s performance whenever Young is unavailable.
Offensively, Young’s absence also creates more opportunities for others to shine, even though he is one of the league’s best playmakers. His ball-dominant style, combined with his deep pull-up threes and frequent foul-drawing, tends to centralize the offense around him. When he is out, however, the ball moves more freely, and players like Dyson Daniels, Nickeil Alexander-Walker, and Jalen Johnson have more room to create and expand their roles. These players thrive in a more balanced, egalitarian offense, where multiple players can initiate plays rather than relying on a single star. As a result, the team looks more unpredictable and much more challenging to guard, with scoring coming from a broader range of contributors.
The Hawks’ improved play without Young inevitably reflects on how the front office views his long-term role. The team’s hesitation regarding his extension now seems understandable, as paying a supermax-level contract to a player whose absence often leads to better overall team performance is a serious concern. While Young’s offensive brilliance is undeniable, the fact that the team finds more stability and success on both ends of the court without him is not a good look for an All-Star centerpiece. It raises the possibility of tough conversations in the near future about roster construction, about whether Young is the right franchise leader, and about whether the Hawks should explore alternative directions.
In conclusion, the Hawks’ strong play without Trae Young highlights a complex dynamic between individual talent and overall team effectiveness. Young remains one of the most gifted offensive players in the league, but his defensive issues and ball-dominant style appear to limit the team’s full potential. The Hawks’ recent winning streak without him, combined with similar trends in past seasons, suggests that a more balanced and versatile approach may better suit the roster. Offensively, the team will always miss Young’s elite playmaking. Still, the emergence of players like Daniels, Alexander-Walker, and Johnson shows that the team can thrive with a more distributed style of basketball. Ultimately, the Hawks may soon need to decide whether their long-term trajectory aligns with Young’s strengths or whether a new chapter is necessary for sustainable success.
