90 replies to this topic

[Dolfan23]

Disclaimer - I did not watch the game last night as I was watching the World Series.

Woody is in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation with JJ. If he keeps JJ in and rides the hot hand then JJ will no doubt end up playing a ton of minutes and even in a win we've shown in game 1 of this season as fans that we'll complain about it. Instead it appears that he took JJ out when it was time for him to get some rest and we complain about that too. This is what is the most frustrating part of this site is that it seems we'll never be satisfied with any decision that Woodson makes.

[gsuteke]

Dolfan23, on 02 November 2009 - 10:49 AM, said:

Disclaimer - I did not watch the game last night as I was watching the World Series.

Woody is in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation with JJ. If he keeps JJ in and rides the hot hand then JJ will no doubt end up playing a ton of minutes and even in a win we've shown in game 1 of this season as fans that we'll complain about it. Instead it appears that he took JJ out when it was time for him to get some rest and we complain about that too. This is what is the most frustrating part of this site is that it seems we'll never be satisfied with any decision that Woodson makes.

I disagreed with you to myself when you posted something to the effect of "It's the nature of HS. After a win it's quiet. After a loss this place blows up" a week or two ago.

Pesonally I know I hand out praise when the team performs.

However, I have to admit I'll agree with that train of thought now after not being "involved" in the posting last night and looking at it the morning after.

[AHF]

sillent, on 02 November 2009 - 04:00 AM, said:

You are definitely a CP lover but BK had forsight enough to know that depth beats a one man team. Look at New Orleans now (very stagnant and will take a lot of work to move forward).

Are you really making the argument that BK intentionally drafted Marvin Williams, knowing he would lead to more lottery picks, and then Shelden Williams, knowing he would lead to more lottery picks, over Chris Paul and Brandon Roy because each of them would have gotten us in the playoffs?

[macdaddy]

I agree some of what Woody takes heat for is unfounded, but 5 years in to keep saying our players are just stupid when its not even all the same players is just covering his *ss. So we've had an unprecedented run of 30 stupid players?

[northcyde]

hawksfanatic, on 02 November 2009 - 09:23 AM, said:

I really question whether or not you ever watch NBA basketball. Teams foul at the end of the game all the time, its not a college exclusive event.

When the Lakers are throwing out Lamar Odom (.701 career), Artest (.721 career), and Bynum (.676 career) at the end of the game and you have a chance to foul them you do it. You also want to instill an attitude that you can win games and are going to try. At least TRY, if you don't you are putting out a piss poor effort and creating a loser mentality. "Oh the lead is too big, lets just get it over with. No need to embarrass ourselves by trying"

And by the way, Lamar Odom was handling the ball with 40 seconds left, not Derek Fisher as you imply in this post. It helps to actually watch the games when you want to comment on the game.

I never implied that Fisher wasn't doing anything. I watched the game just like you did. What I said that USUALLY in those situations, you're usually going to have an 80%+ FT shooter ( typically a guard ) handling the ball.

And we were down 10 points ( 3 possessions ) at that point. You may see an NBA team foul if they are within 7 points, but not when they're down by 10 with under a minute to go. Come on fanatic. I've seen your posts in the past. You're much smarter than this. We can play this game all day long. So let's follow your scenario.



The Hawks had been down double digits since midway in the 3rd. We were down 12 with a minute to go in that game, until Crawford gets a layup to cut it to 10 with around 50 seconds to go.

So by your assertion, the Hawks should've fouled to extend the game, and especially fouled when Odom had the ball? OK.

The likelihood of Odom missing 2 FTs is unlikely. He may not makes 2 FTs either. So he probably misses one and makes one. We're now down 11 with around 40 seconds to go.

Eleven.

But you want us to keep playing hard, under the "anything can happen" scenario? OK

So the Hawks race down, hits a 3, and cuts the lead to 8 with about 30 seconds to go.

Who will the Lakers get the ball to at this point? Odom? Doubt it. It'll probably be Kobe or Fisher, 2 excellent FT shooters.

So we foul them, they make 2 FTs, and the lead is back up to 10 with 30 seconds to go.



Fanatic, the next time you watch an NBA game, and you see a team excessively fouling to extend the game . . . with them being 10 points down with under a minute to go . . you post the game link here.

That game was over the minute the Lakers stopped our mini run around the 3 minute mark.

But if you want to blame Woody for not telling the guys to excessively foul at the end of a game, in which they were down double digits, knock yourself out. It'll just continue the cycle of blaming Woody for everything, and excusing the players for messing up to begin with.

[northcyde]

Duff_Man, on 02 November 2009 - 10:22 AM, said:

Woodson pulled Joe after a dazzling 1st quarter display. The benching of the hottest player on Earth instead of riding the wave is easily questionable.

7 points after that. Woody's new nickname is "The Cooler."

And that move didn't have a damn thing to do with what happened in the 3rd quarter.

Our bench didn't play bad at all in the 2nd quarter. Crawford and Joe Smith did their jobs that quarter and kept the game close. I think we were STILL LOSING when JJ went out of the game anyway in that 1st quarter, despite the 18 point explosion by him.

It's hilarious . . the fan base chastizes Woody for playing him 39 minutes one night . . then blames him for pulling him out of the game in the first quarter, to get his usual 2nd quarter rest the next night.

Dammed if he does . . dammed if he doesn't.

[AHF]

northcyde, on 02 November 2009 - 11:46 AM, said:

cuts the lead to 8 with about 30 seconds to go.

I agree it was very unlikely the Hawks complete that comeback.

That said, Indiana scored 8 unanswered points in 11 seconds against the Knicks in the playoffs to win that game so there is no reason to give up, either.

[hawksfanatic]

northcyde, on 02 November 2009 - 11:46 AM, said:

Fanatic, the next time you watch an NBA game, and you see a team excessively fouling to extend the game . . . with them being 10 points down with under a minute to go . . you post the game link here.

So hard to do:

http://www.nba.com/g...playbyplay.html

I guess you might argue it was down by 9 with 30 seconds to go, but thats close enough for me. The point is you might as well practice that, what is the harm in doing the strategy? We lose by more points, boo-hoo what a sad situation. Whats the benefits of doing this strategy? You get adjusted to closing out games, maybe it benefits you later on when its the postseason and you are down 5 with 30 seconds left. You get the practice, its there you might as well do it.

You also might be confusing what I am saying with what you want me to say. I am not saying we would have come back, I'm saying we should have practiced end of game situations in a real live game. Why shouldn't you attempt to comeback? Because Northcyde says its an "unwritten rule" even though thats bull since plenty of teams practice this. Again I will reiterate that I am not saying we would have won, I am saying we should have practiced because practicing a situation makes you better at that situation. But I guess Northcyde logic tells us its impossible, don't do it its not worth it you should rather leave with loser mentality of not trying than working hard all 48 minutes. I am saying you practice the situation when you are in it, we may not win but why wouldn't you do it?

[Buzzard]

jsmoovefan, on 02 November 2009 - 10:06 AM, said:

You guys are too funny lol... Yeah our season is over after the 3rd game.. And yes Woody is too blame, we don't play any defense at all..

Well even though I like our start to the season offensively, 105 PPG leaves a whole lot of room for defensive improvement. Hopefully it is a 3 game anomaly and not a trend for the whole season.

[High5]

northcyde, on 02 November 2009 - 10:44 AM, said:

LMAo . . damn. So all season, people have been crying about reducing JJ's minutes. But when JJ has a monster quarter, and Woody looks for the bench to sustain the effort, Woody gets questioned for not keeping JJ in? And Woody "allowed" JJ to be invisible for 20 minutes?

Does Woody have an X-Box controller or something?

It's incredible what some of you guys say sometimes. I mean damn. So JJ has one of the best quarters of his life, but Woody pulls him aside and says "JJ, we need you to dial it down a bit"? It had nothing to do with both Kobe and Artest or Odom running out at JJ, forcing him to give up the ball? JJ did try to score the ball, but after he came back in the game after his 2nd quarter rest, every shot except the 3 pointer at the end of the half was contested. The only person that really stepped up to help JJ, was Bibby.

And let me ask you this about Josh Smith. And really think about your answer before you type it. When Josh Smith goes up against a good defensive PF, what usually happens?

Here's a hint . . . I'll GUARANTEE YOU that he doesn't play like this against LaMarcus Aldridge, a guy who isn't known for his defense.

So I guess in his case, Woody told Smoove . . "Hey Josh, I know you've had success driving the ball and being a playmaker for us the past 2 games . . but tonight . . I don't want you to mix it up at all on the inside. I want Horford to battle Odom and Artest by himself on the boards, and you stay out of his way. And oh yeah . . if you want to go back shooting long jumpers tonight, you have my blessing to do so."

Is that what Woody told him?

Woodson has plenty of opportunities to reduce Joe's minutes without taking him him out when he has scored 18 of our 23 points in the first 8 or 9 minutes. A smart coach would take it game-by-game. Kobe finished out the quarter. And a good coach can get a player shots, especially a player of Joe's caliber. Unfortunately the only thing Woodson knows is Iso Joe. And do you really not understand my point on Smith? Shouldn't a coach have some say on what his players do? So like I said earlier, Woodson is incompetent and/or he doesn't have the respect of his players.

OK, now I'm officially done with this game.

[High5]

Dolfan23, on 02 November 2009 - 10:49 AM, said:

Disclaimer - I did not watch the game last night as I was watching the World Series.

Woody is in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation with JJ. If he keeps JJ in and rides the hot hand then JJ will no doubt end up playing a ton of minutes and even in a win we've shown in game 1 of this season as fans that we'll complain about it. Instead it appears that he took JJ out when it was time for him to get some rest and we complain about that too. This is what is the most frustrating part of this site is that it seems we'll never be satisfied with any decision that Woodson makes.

You know damn well nobody would complain about Joe playing 40+ minutes if he willed us to a victory against a team like the Lakers. Woodson gets criticized more than he gets praised because his bad decisions over a season always outweigh his great decision, but he still gets plenty of credit on here when he does something smart. Unfortunately those moments are few and far between.

[Dolfan23]

High5, on 02 November 2009 - 02:14 PM, said:

You know damn well nobody would complain about Joe playing 40+ minutes if he willed us to a victory against a team like the Lakers. Woodson gets criticized more than he gets praised because his bad decisions over a season always outweigh his great decision, but he still gets plenty of credit on here when he does something smart. Unfortunately those moments are few and far between.

Actually no, I know damn well that people would complain here about playing 40 minutes whether we won or not. That's what I've come to accept about this place, it's more comforting to the masses to bash a player coach than it is to praise the team.

[High5]

Dolfan23, on 02 November 2009 - 02:17 PM, said:

Actually no, I know damn well that people would complain here about playing 40 minutes whether we won or not. That's what I've come to accept about this place, it's more comforting to the masses to bash a player coach than it is to praise the team.

Maybe a few people who never have a valid opinion, but I would hope you don't let that select few upset you.

You're crazy if you think 99% of people on here wouldn't be ecstatic if Joe out dueled Kobe to a victory no matter how many minutes he played.

[Dolfan23]

High5, on 02 November 2009 - 02:22 PM, said:

Maybe a few people who never have a valid opinion, but I would hope you don't let that select few upset you.

You're crazy if you think 99% of people on here wouldn't be ecstatic if Joe out dueled Kobe to a victory no matter how many minutes he played.

Upset me? Nah ... but I don't get on here too much within the 1st day after a loss.

Well let me ask you this then, why is a win over Kobe and the Lakers a good enough reason for Joe to play 40 minutes but a win over a division rival on opening night isn't one? They both count as 1 win and really the division/conference win is more important than a road win over a non-conference team.

[High5]

Dolfan23, on 02 November 2009 - 02:36 PM, said:

Upset me? Nah ... but I don't get on here too much within the 1st day after a loss.

Well let me ask you this then, why is a win over Kobe and the Lakers a good enough reason for Joe to play 40 minutes but a win over a division rival on opening night isn't one? They both count as 1 win and really the division/conference win is more important than a road win over a non-conference team.

1) I defended Woodson on opening night.

2) Joe wasn't playing as well against the Pacers, but the team was playing much better. His 40 minutes weren't needed.

But really, I'm just saying Woodson should ride out a player's hot streak.