spotatl

The roster is build to be better in transition than in the half court so Woodson gets criticized for having the #2 offense in the league despite this? Ridiculous. I repeat- the Hawks are the #2 offense in the league even though there are many teams personnel I'd rather have on offense. The Hawks have had a better offense this season than the Lakers yet Woodson still gets criticized. Seriously... People here are acting like the Hawks would have the best offense in the history of the league if they simply had a coach that was paying more attention.

I wish people would stop bitching and moaning about how ugly the offense is and start looking at the results. Seriously- you have been bitching about the offense for so long that you can't even stop to recognize when its time to stop.

I'd EASILY rather have Woodson than any of those guys. Seriously... the Hawks have the top offense in the league and people are still complaining about the offense wanting woodson to be fired. Ridiculous.

(Just checked- and Phoenix passed the Hawks last night so the Hawks are now the second best offense. FIRE HIM!!!)

I'll continue to trust Woodson's judgement on young players. People were crucifying Woodson for not playing Acie enough- turns out that Acie was just a terrible pick and he didn't even have his 4th year team option- Woodson just recognized it before the fans did. People crucified Woodson for not using Salim right- it turns out that Salim is now out of the league because he simply wasn't good enough and Woodson recognized it before anyone else here did. People crucified Woodson for his handling of Sheldon- he is now a journeman.

I want to see Teague do great against backups- then I'll start giving him consistent minutes. I think early in the season the lack of a summer league hurt Teague's development and he simply wasn't ready. Now that he is showing more signs of being useful I'm fine with him getting more minutes. But I don't believe in giving minutes to people who aren't ready where they are set up to fail. Make people earn playing time in practice. Make people earn playing time playing against backups. THEN give them a bigger role- don't just play people because you think you are supposed to play them no matter what. And really thats what many people want- Teague to get 10 minutes no matter what.

If the Knicks miss out on lee then I think they would rather sign JJ then have all this caproom just go unused. they could easily bring back Lee and Joe with the room they have. Same with Chicago- if they miss out on Bosh and Wade I can easily see them thinking Joe is the key for them to take the next step. Same With Dallas. We'll see. I just think that once teams miss out on plan A (Lebron and Wade) then the plan B players will get overpaid. I think that Bosh, Amare, and Joe will all get max offers- there are simply too many teams that are going to have max room to offer for them not to.

The ASG has been willing to spend for talent on the court. I never thought in a million years that they would have made the bibby trade when they did. I personally would never have made the Crawford trade because of how much he is paid but the ASG wrote the check to get the deal done.

I'm more interested by the people here who are adamant that the Hawks should not give JJ a max contract this offseason. I'm rather sure that someone will give him that offer and for the Hawks to keep him thats what it will take. But saying JJ isn't worth the max isn't really all that useful. Saying you would rather let Joe walk rather than paying him the max is a real statement because thats the decision the ASG will likely be faced with.

The Question isn't whether Joe is worth a max contact. (eveyone would prefer that he not get the max- thats an irrelevant question) The question is whether you think the Hawks would be better off letting him walk away for no compensation rather than paying him the max. SOMEONE is going to give Joe max money this offseason. There are so many teams desprately trying to clear caproom for players they aren't going to get (Wade, Lebron, etc) And once those 2 pieces fall then there are going to be a lot of teams fighting over Amare, Bosh, and Joe. If you think the team would be better off with 10 million in caproom instead of Joe then probably you should be looking to trade him now.

I don't get why anyone would bother taking the time to go out of their way to vote for Joe and Josh. Neither one of them has any chance at all of starting the ASG

58 wins would be great IMO not just OK...

Thats a .700 winning percentage. The Hawks are willing over 70% of their games right now and you still want to see Woodson fired. Like I said- its just a knee jerk reaction from you and it has nothing at all to do with the results on the court. You will just focus on the losses and never give woodson any credit at all for the wins.

IF you hear an announcer talk about how the Hawks have a kindergarten offense and its a TOP THREE OFFENSE in the league then you should think that the announcer is dumb as a post. Announcers say ridiculous things constantly. And if you happen to agree with the announcer then the same thing applies.

The hawks are the best in league at not turning the ball over (pace adjusted) by a big margin. The difference between the hawks and second place is the same as the difference between 2nd place and 18th place teams. The Hawks are up to being a top 3 pace adjusted offfense this season and the lack of turnovers has a lot to do with it. For how much people get all warm and fuzzy when they see lots of ball movement that does have the downside of often putting the ball in the hands of lousy offensive players and making them do something with the ball.

Right... this all comes down to who gets selected as the backup center in the East behind Howard. Really the choices are Shaq, Lopez, Horford, and Bogut. (Noah was on the list but the Bulls are just too putrid) Shaq doesn't deserve it on any level whatsoever but it wouldn't shock me for him to get it. Since I don't think that Jennings will get selected I think that Bogut will get it.

Of course Woodson will get no credit for the fact that the team turns the ball over little. For how much people complain about iso joe, it keeps the ball in the hands of the best offensive players until the defense is unsettled. The Hawks are also middle of the pack as far as assist percentage goes so its not like the team just refuses to pass.

Buzzard- a .700 team wins 58 games. You are setting that as the BASELINE for what an OK coach would do with this team. Seriously- the team would have to go 62-20 for you to think that Woodson is doing a good job. Just as a comparison if you were willing to bet in vegas before the season that the Hawks would win more than 46 games you would have made money. You are just setting up unrealistic expectations then bitching and moaning when the team doesn't meet them. And you do it because you simply dislike woodson and want him gone no matter what results he gets on the court. And thats fine- you are a fan so you don't have to have realistic expectations and thats part of what being a fan is all about. But you should at least be aware of what you are doing and where your knee jerk reactions are coming from.

Like I said- you overestimate how much teams are supposed to win. If you bet on a team to win these games and they do 85% of the time then you will make a lot of money. All casual fans tend overestimate the percentage of time the favorite wins and so they correspondingly overreact when their team loses a game that they considered to be easy. If the Hawks win 85% of the games that they should in this situation they are exceeding expectations. The Hawks will never exceed expectations for you with Woodson in charge because you will only ahve the losses stick out for you and are basically imagining a world in which the Hawks would go almost undefeated with a different coach. But I still look forward to the game when you actually say that the players are to blame for the loss and not Woodson.

So where do you think the point is? I think that you have a ridiculous view of how often good teams win those kinds of games. If you think that the Hawks should win 90% of the games then there are still going to be 2 or 3 disasters in there where the Hawks lose to a team they are better than without it being the fault of the coach. I am just trying to figure out where you believe the line should be.

Really whats going on is called confirmation bias. You already believe the Hawks are poorly coached and so whenever you see them struggle its going to VERIFY and stand out in your mind when it happens. But of course no team should be expected to always win against lessor teams. When the hawks overperform you will simply chalk it up to reasons other than Woodson and they won't stand out in your mind at all.

The Hawks are 11 point favorites. I am just really curious how often you think that NBA teams who are 11 point favorites SHOULD win the game. (not cover- win)

Buzzard- do you think the hawks should win 100% of the games against teams like that at home? 90%? Where do you draw the line for where you think the hawks are playing below expectation level.

Just out of curiosity buzzard, for the Hawks playing at home against the Bulls what percentage of the time do you think the Hawks should win before you will start blaming the coach?

Since the biby trade I don't complain about the ASG spending money on the player (though I still maintain there is no chance they will go into the luxury tax and I can't blame them for that) but repeatedly in other areas they have skimped. They signed Woodson when he was cheap. They refused to let assistant coaches leave for better offers because they didn't want to spend the money to replace them. They didn't field a summer league team. They aren't filling out a full roster this season.

As I said- I'll be happily surprised if the ASG do spend for a quality HOF level coach. But if Woodson gets replaced I'll bet serious money that the new Hawks coach is in the bottom 10 in the league in salary.

I seriously doubt that the ASG would pay what it takes to outbid anyone. They didn't even field a summer league team and you think they would pay a coach a big salary? They wouldn't even let their assistant coaches leave when they had better offers elsewhere.

I absolutely get why people who want to see Woodson Fired are OK with letting him finish out the season without an extension- but given the team's success I do think you should consider how it looks to an outsider and I have to think he would generate significant interest this offseason.

Lets say that the Hawks do win in the second round and get to the conference finals. You doubt that he woudl get a big offer from another team?

Buzzard- you are looking only at PPG. I am looking at points per possession which I think is far more accurate. I don't care if a team scores with 16 seconds left on the shotclock or 4 seconds left on the shotclock. All that matters to me is how often the team scores when they have the ball. Thats all I can ask for on offense.

The Hawks are middle of the pack in assist percentage. The Hawks are middle of the pack in 3 pointers taken. Your complaints about the offense just are not connected to the actual results. They are based on the fact you don't think the offense is elegant enough. Avoiding turnovers isn't elegant. Running the same things repeatedly because you think you have an advantage isn't elegant. But as long as its effective I think its absolutely ridiculous to complain about it.

In the end you wouldn't care if the hawks had the top offense in the league- you would still want Woodson fired. You have already admitted you would be fine if the Hawks had a worse offense as long as it meant getting a new coach in here. I really think you are going to regret this when the team ends up with someone worse.

For how much people b*tch about the offense its just astounding to me. They are completely ignoring the results the Hawks are getting this season and want the team to emulate other teams that have better personnel on offense that aren't getting as much production. The hawks are a top 4 offense in the NBA this season. They are limiting the touches of the more limited offensive players and becuase of that they are by FAR the least turnover prone team in the league. To give you an idea the difference between the hawks and #2 is the same as #2 and #18 in the league. And the hawks are also #11 in assist percentage so its not like they aren't passing at all.

I just find it fascinating that people complain so much about the Hawks offense at the same time they are having so much success with it.

Maybe thats where we diverge on this. I think its RIDICULOUS to treat grown men like children and a micromanaging disciplinarian is the last thing in the world I want in the NBA. I think that Avery Johnson is just about the worst coach possible and far too often coaches screw up by trying to get too involved (don nelson) instead of just putting their players in position to succeed and letting them go.

Plus its my belief that the ASG would NEVER pay the money it would take to get a HOF quality coach in here. The team won't even field a full roster or a summer league team but you think they are going to drop major dollars on a coach?

Honestly I think Boston would be pretty thrilled to play the Hawks in the second round of the playoffs since that would mean missing the cavs and Magic.

Just talking about offense I'd easily take all of those pairs over SMith and Horford except for Hill and Barbosa. (And I think that Nash and Amare are a little more important to the Suns offense) Don't mistake the fact that Smith and Horford are good players who are severely flawed on offense.

I'd love for you to make a point worth responding to. I'd prefer to play Teague against backups- when he can do decently against backups then I'll give him more meaningful minutes.