[northcyde]

AHF, on 02 November 2009 - 07:22 PM, said:

(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.

Good post. But you forgot one major element when talking about the players.

1) Josh Smith - Or . . because he is too "soft". He usually reverts back to the jumper when he knows he can't beat his man off the dribble. But more important, he purposely shys away from contact . . on both offense and defense. Instead of just getting the ball and going directly to the hole, he's trying to finesse his way to the basket with crossover and behind the back dribbles in the lane. That's why he gets the "soft" label. And this is what is preventing him from being a true star player in the league.

2) Horford - Or . .maybe he hasn't quite figured out how to best score against big centers, other than his jumper. The jumper is the strength of his offensive game. But like Josh, sometimes he just needs to go straight up and look for contact, so that he can get to the FT line.

3) Marvin - Or . . because he hasn't developed the pull up jumper off the dribble. His drives to the hole are better, but still clumsy. And we all know he's a decent spot-up shooter. But the pull-up jumper is needed for him to really initiate the offense . . unless we play him at PF. The big games he had last year while JJ was out, all came when he played Pf, and could draw fouls against them

4) I don't think the screen game isn't a major part of the offense, altough they did set more screens last night than I've seen in a while. The pull up 3 that JJ shot while Horford screened his man, was beautiful. And they did run some screen and roll in the Wizards game while Crawford was running the point. So maybe Woody will incorporate the screen game more into the offense.

5) I think some do it. Bibby and Marvin don't do it. JJ does it often. Smoove does it sometimes, but not often enough.

6) Well, we didn't have the guards to effectively run pick and roll until this year. Crawford and Teague are the type of quick guards you want running pick and rolls.


Those are al fair points to make about the players and the coach. Like with everything, it's probably a combination of all of that. Scheme and execution are usually looked at as coaching or personnel issues. Basketball smarts and toughness are individual player issues that a coach can't usually correct.

[gsuteke]

I think our "Bigs" were scared to go in the paint due to their height advantage. That's how it looked to me atleast.



That would explain alot of this back and forth we're seeing here about whether it's a coaching or a player issue last night.

[northcyde]

gsuteke, on 02 November 2009 - 10:56 PM, said:

I think our "Bigs" were scared to go in the paint due to their height advantage. That's how it looked to me atleast.



That would explain alot of this back and forth we're seeing here about whether it's a coaching or a player issue last night.

Teke, that's exactly what it is. It's so obvious what it is.

When this happens again, I wonder if some of the AJC sportswriters will have the guts to actually write about this subject.

This entire team should be forced to listen to that ATL rap classic . . . Never Scared - by Bonecrusher.

[High5]

gsuteke, on 02 November 2009 - 10:56 PM, said:

I think our "Bigs" were scared to go in the paint due to their height advantage. That's how it looked to me atleast.



That would explain alot of this back and forth we're seeing here about whether it's a coaching or a player issue last night.

It's not whether it's a coaching or a player issue, IT'S BOTH.

[AHF]

gsuteke, on 02 November 2009 - 10:56 PM, said:

That would explain alot of this back and forth we're seeing here about whether it's a coaching or a player issue last night.

Just for clarification, my comments were big picture - not necessarily related to the game against the Lakers. They are systemic problems I see with our play that have not been remedied in the 2 - 5 years they have been issues.

[thescout]

That's exactly right Teke about the Hawks front court being to scared to go inside and challenge the bigger players of the lakers. Remember in the playoffs the Hawks got killied in the paint and most of it was because Cleveland had Varajo and the center/Smoove didn't challenge to go inside and people kept making the excuse only if we had Marvin. Marvin/Smoove are not going to get us over the hump no matter if their here 4 years or 10 years. They fear going inside and in the playoffs who controls the paint usually wins.

[bay2theAlady]

EazyRoc, on 02 November 2009 - 12:33 AM, said:

Do you want to know the real reason we didn't get our big men the looks like we did in the last 2 games ? Because Washington and Indiana don't have a frontline anywhere near as good as the Lakers..even without Pau Gasol.

Exactly! http://www.hawksquawk.net/community/public/style_emoticons/default/beer.gif

[Buzzard]

thescout, on 03 November 2009 - 04:25 AM, said:

That's exactly right Teke about the Hawks front court being to scared to go inside and challenge the bigger players of the lakers. Remember in the playoffs the Hawks got killied in the paint and most of it was because Cleveland had Varajo and the center/Smoove didn't challenge to go inside and people kept making the excuse only if we had Marvin. Marvin/Smoove are not going to get us over the hump no matter if their here 4 years or 10 years. They fear going inside and in the playoffs who controls the paint usually wins.

Marvin is the only front line starter we have who does not avoid contact. Which is why he is 2nd only to JJ in FTA per 48 at 8.8 attempts. JJ and Marvin are both ranked in the top 50 for this category and given they are both starters it would be hard to argue that the numbers are skewed..

[northcyde]

Buzzard, on 03 November 2009 - 05:01 PM, said:

Marvin is the only front line starter we have who does not avoid contact. Which is why he is 2nd only to JJ in FTA per 48 at 8.8 attempts. JJ and Marvin are both ranked in the top 50 for this category and given they are both starters it would be hard to argue that the numbers are skewed..

Right. Marvin is the one guy on the team that doesn't shy away from contact. His problem is getting him going in the first place. If Smoove can't be the "energy guy" on a particular night, Marvin needs to look to see if he can be the "energy guy".

Too bad we can't channel some of Josh Childress' rebound energy and hustle into Marvin. He'll probably bounce back and have a good night, like Smoove probably will.

[Dolfan23]

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.

Just sayin ... http://www.hawksquaw...utes-this-game/

Quote

JJ played 46 minutes this game
Are you serious? I thought Woody said he was gonna limit his minutes this year. Are we just gonna run him into the ground? Let Crawford get some of those minutes.

[northcyde]

Dolfan23, on 04 November 2009 - 09:36 AM, said:

Just sayin ... http://www.hawksquaw...utes-this-game/

LOL . . it's obvious isn't it?

Like you said . . . damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.