90 replies to this topic

[northcyde]

hawksfanatic, on 02 November 2009 - 01:01 PM, said:

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?

Because it's pretty useless to do if if you're down by that many points, and aren't making shots to justify keeping on doing it. When you're down 10 with a minute to go, the way to get back into a game is to create a few turnovers . . . not trade baskets or free throws.

So now the criticizm is . . . because Woody should've been practicing ( what we talkin about . . PRACTICE? ) a virtually impossible game situation, that the Hawks should've kept fouling or playing hard? And because he didn't instruct his players to do that . . Woody deserves to be questioned on it?

Sorry man. Practicing that when you're down by that many points, is useless to me.

If you're going to do that when you're down 10, you should do it when were down 20. That should only be practiced in a game in which we have a slim chance of winning . . not in a game that is over by all accounts.

If that ain't nit-picking, I don't know what is.

Even in the post that AHF cited, the 8 points in 11 seconds that Reggie Miller scored to beat the Pacers, it was done off of the strength of big time clutch shooting by Miller,and a push in the back ( ahem ) I mean, great defense by Miller. That comeback is widely regarded as one of the greatest comebacks in NBA history. And they didn't commit a single foul ( that was called ) to score those 8 points.

And when you look at the Thunder, those fouls were committed by young guys who probably see the excessive fouling strategy done extensively in college. I bet that after the Blazers were up 9 with 30 seconds to go, that their coach wasn't telling them to foul. That game was over.

All the Thunder did was probably make some people in Vegas happy or unhappy, when they kept fouling. I wonder what the point spread on that game way? It had to be close to 9 in favor of the Blazers.

[Dolfan23]

High5, on 02 November 2009 - 02:42 PM, said:

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.

I don't mean to imply that you personally would or wouldn't complain, but I'm talking about the board in general.

I'm all about riding a hot streak and like I said I didn't see the game last night but if he was taken out after 8 minutes like I think I read then I can understand it as you'd want to keep him as rested as possible to help win it in the 4th quarter, especially if Kobe had been taken out as well (which may or may not have been the case).

[TheTruth]

northcyde, on 02 November 2009 - 10:09 AM, said:

Nope.

It's funny though. People bash Woody every chance they get for the littliest of things, and it basically gets a pass on this board and on other blogs/message boards. But when I defend him, I'm the crazy one? If Woody makes a bad coaching decision, I have no problem calling that dude out. But when the players OBVIOUSLY melted down on their own, that has nothing to do with coaching.

I posted this topic right after that run in the 3rd quarter, because I KNEW people would go back to blaming Woody. You call yourself "the truth". Well, be truthful about last night. Don't take the easy way out and bame coaching. For once, put the blame where it belongs.

Haha. I know you northcyde...you are the resident Woodson apologist. But ok, whatever. I will look forward to seeing you call for Woodson's head when he starts piling up the mistakes.

And as for last night, I have already stated a few pages back that the TEAM let us down; not much good to go around. Yeah, Woodson sat JJ too long, but outside of that, I didn't see anything major.

[northcyde]

macdaddy, on 02 November 2009 - 09:55 AM, said:

If your theme is that we lost a) because we got outworked and b) because what we were doing in the 1st quarter wasn't still working in the 3rd quarter then I have a hard time with your conclusion that Woody doesn't deserve some blame.

My theme is . . everytime we lose a game, the fan base loves to point the finger at Woody as the reason why we lost the game. So this thread was an attempt to dispell that Woody had nothing to do with what led to us losing last night.

The Hawks were right where we wanted to be, despite Smoove and Marvin being thoroughly outplayed most of the game. Then the 5 minute meltdown happened, and the game was over.

a) we did get outworked . . that's obvious. JJ was leading us in rebounding for most of the game.

b) we had shaved 2 points off of the Laker lead in the first 5 minutes of the game. Keep in mind that the Hawks were down 74 - 70 with 6:43 to play in the quarter. So it's not like we were clueless to start the 3rd quarter.


But when the frontline started to get banged around a little, and we started to miss shots, the team melted down and the Lakers pushed the lead to 10 or 12. Woody counters this by inserting Crawford and then Zaza into the game ( taking out Marvin and then Smoove ), and the situation got even worse. Crawford especially played like garbage during that stretch.

I just want the fan base to just one time . . ONE TIME . . solely blame the players for a loss that they had everything to do with. People are searching through garbage cans to find some sort of fault with Woody, when they know dang well why that game got out of hand.

[macdaddy]

To me the bottom line on Woody has been and will continue to be that if the team isn't listening to him then he needs to be replaced. We aren't firing the players. It's not fair at all but that's the job.
Its one game though. I think they will come together.

[Buzzard]

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.

I am not sold on Woody; especially from a defensive standpoint. JJ was 1 of 8 in the 2nd half; Kobe shot almost 50% while scoring 41, and our whole front line was man handled by Odom 14 boards and Bynum 21 pts. JJ was right in saying we as a team did not play well enough. Thats not completely Woodsons fault. Just a good 1st half and a bad 2nd half against a great team; that is a recipe for a loss every time.

Its one game, one loss, and hopefully we rebound against Portland; which is what good teams do after a loss and exactly what the Lakers did aganst us.

Edited by Buzzard, 02 November 2009 - 03:36 PM.

[hawksfanatic]

northcyde, on 02 November 2009 - 02:52 PM, said:

Because it's pretty useless to do if if you're down by that many points, and aren't making shots to justify keeping on doing it. When you're down 10 with a minute to go, the way to get back into a game is to create a few turnovers . . . not trade baskets or free throws.

So now the criticizm is . . . because Woody should've been practicing ( what we talkin about . . PRACTICE? ) a virtually impossible game situation, that the Hawks should've kept fouling or playing hard? And because he didn't instruct his players to do that . . Woody deserves to be questioned on it?

Sorry man. Practicing that when you're down by that many points, is useless to me.

If you're going to do that when you're down 10, you should do it when were down 20. That should only be practiced in a game in which we have a slim chance of winning . . not in a game that is over by all accounts.

So you say we shouldn't do it because...its useless? Forget about practice, if you can't dunk a basketball just don't try. Working out? Nope, if you can't do it now then no use working out to do it later. Northcyde says its pointless so everyone just give up, no use practicing.

If you get down by 20, yeah probably not worth practicing because the Lakers won't even attempt to simulate the kind of defense you will see when trying to come back. But being down 10 with 50 seconds left isn't impossible and the Lakers would continue to play defense. There was T-Mac scoring 13 points in 35 seconds a few years back against the Spurs. I guess Northcyde would have said its pointless, don't try it. Fouling would just make the Spurs beat the Rockets by more, and who wants more humiliation?

And its pretty funny that you are saying that the Hawks shouldn't have been playing hard. Northcyde with the loser mentality of just give up, don't play hard. Roll over and die when you think you might not have a chance. Great way to have a team concept, don't practice and don't play hard. I have a hard time swallowing a loser mentality for this game. Why would you NOT try to simulate end of the game situations? You get more practice, you show you are a team of Men and not little sissies who give up. I don't have a problem with losing, but I do have a problem with not trying. Your shots might not be falling, but there is no reason you shouldn't give maximal effort because you can always control the amount of effort you give.

[High5]

Dolfan23, on 02 November 2009 - 03:07 PM, said:

I don't mean to imply that you personally would or wouldn't complain, but I'm talking about the board in general.

I'm all about riding a hot streak and like I said I didn't see the game last night but if he was taken out after 8 minutes like I think I read then I can understand it as you'd want to keep him as rested as possible to help win it in the 4th quarter, especially if Kobe had been taken out as well (which may or may not have been the case).

Nope, Kobe finished the quarter. Joe has played an entire quarter many times before and he's never been that hot from the field. I'm all for reducing Joe's minutes (I've said it many, many times in the past), but you have to take it game-by-game. Some nights he's going to have to play 40+ minutes, some nights he might not even need to play 30. It's taking advantage of those opportunities when he doesn't need to play.

[bonethugz]

funny somebody took a shot once again at billy knight.

i don't remember anyone here talks about player development.

a gm drafted a player. the player has the most responsibility for his own development but so it's the coaching staff. you guys always assume drafting chris paul and chris paul would become the all star chris paul we're seeing. no i truly believe he wouldn't. maybe just a good player. of course nobody can prove that. if the jazz drafted acie law, would he be as good as deron williams? no, but i'm sure he would be better than the player he is today. the jazz developed a lot of good point guards. from john stockton to deron williams(great player/starter) to john crotty to howard eisley to mo williams(solid player)



back to the topic, i won't blame wood head for last night's blown out. we were down by 20 at the start of the fourth. i only blame him for the years, minus first year, from player development to the way we play and the win/loss record.

[buckeye242424]

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.

It's true! I'm reading Squawkers that are debating on paying to watch them after a 2-1 start! Losing to the Champs on the 1st of November?

[buckeye242424]

macdaddy, on 02 November 2009 - 03:19 PM, said:

To me the bottom line on Woody has been and will continue to be that if the team isn't listening to him then he needs to be replaced. We aren't firing the players. It's not fair at all but that's the job.
Its one game though. I think they will come together.

This is the bottom line. Why they are not listening to him is the question. Any coach in the NBA that has had this long of tenure, coupled with the improvement of the team would have received an extension. Woody didn't. There's a reason he didn't. I'm not sitting here posting that the lost to the Lakers was Woody's fault, but his track record from what I see is consistent. Something is wrong with his relationship with the players, his ability to lead a team, or his basketball knowledge. At the highest level, a coach needs all three. He doesn't have it.

[northcyde]

buckeye242424, on 02 November 2009 - 06:58 PM, said:

This is the bottom line. Why they are not listening to him is the question. Any coach in the NBA that has had this long of tenure, coupled with the improvement of the team would have received an extension. Woody didn't. There's a reason he didn't. I'm not sitting here posting that the lost to the Lakers was Woody's fault, but his track record from what I see is consistent. Something is wrong with his relationship with the players, his ability to lead a team, or his basketball knowledge. At the highest level, a coach needs all three. He doesn't have it.

OK . . so name the players that didn't listen to Woody last night. Or better yet, which players do you think don't listen to Woody. And please don't say all of them, because you know that's not the case.

And when you come up with the names of those player(s), decide if it MIGHT be the player(s) that is the REAL problem.

Matter of fact, this goes out to everyone. Name the player(s) that you feel don't listen to Woody, and see if the fault with that lies more on the player(s) or on the coach.

And be TRUTHFUL about your answers.

I won't say who I think. I want some of you guys to say it.

[AHF]

(1) Either Josh Smith is told to shoot from the perimeter or Josh doesn't listen to Woodson about that.

(2) Either Horford is told not to drive the ball or he doesn't listen to Woodson about that.

(3) Either Marvin is told not to initiate offense like he has done several times with JJ out or he doesn't listen to Woodson about that.

(4) Either our team is told not to set screens as a core part of our offense or they don't listen to Woodson about that.

(5) Either our team is told not to move off the ball and make aggressive cuts or they don't listen to Woodson about that.

(6) Either our team is told not to run the pick and roll as a core play in our offense or they don't listen to Woodson about that.

etc.

There are a lot of issues where the right things are not being taught or the direction from the coaching staff isn't getting through to the players (i.e., they aren't listening), IMO.

I don't think Woodson's biggest problem is dealing with the players, though. I think it is more about x's and o's.

[buckeye242424]

northcyde, on 02 November 2009 - 07:16 PM, said:

OK . . so name the players that didn't listen to Woody last night. Or better yet, which players do you think don't listen to Woody. And please don't say all of them, because you know that's not the case.

And when you come up with the names of those player(s), decide if it MIGHT be the player(s) that is the REAL problem.

Matter of fact, this goes out to everyone. Name the player(s) that you feel don't listen to Woody, and see if the fault with that lies more on the player(s) or on the coach.

And be TRUTHFUL about your answers.

I won't say who I think. I want some of you guys to say it.

I'm not basing my opinion solely on last night. I'm sure the whole team was frustrated and gave up on the original gameplan vs. LA. To answer your question, I don't believe Smoove listens to Woody (for sure), He's our starting PF. I don't think Mike Bibby, our starting PG, the leader, listens to him either. He may run his pathetic sets, but he doesn't agree with the offense. JJ isn't going to b*tch because the ball in his hands in 75% of the time. Everyone else is happy because because they're getting paid while playing on a playoff team. The Hawks are good. Strictly off talent.

[Diesel]

I got one blame for Woody.

You don't take out a hot hand until they are either tired and no longer hot. First Quarter, Joe was white hot. Woody sat him for most of the 2nd quarter. When Joe came back in, he was cold. That's bad coaching. Ask anybody... You ride a hot hand.

One problem I have always had with Woody is his "timed" rotations. He ignores everything that's going on on the floor because of his set rotation. That's stupid.