spotatl

And I think that if you want to be higher than the 4th seed then tell that to Sund and the ASG and have them make a move. The Celtics, Magic, and Cavs simply have better talent than the Hawks and coaching isn't going to matter no matter what offense the Hawks run. Over and over in the NBA we have seen that the players matter more than the coaches but people here act like Woodson is somehow holding the team back despite good results. If you want to say that we should fire woodson because he isn't a HOF coach thats great but I think its more likely the Hawks will end up with a coach that gets decidedly worse results. I simply think that having Horford run the PnR makes the Cavs job easier and if I am coaching against the Hawks thats 100% what I would like you to do.

Better teams have better plans C & D because better teams have better players. As I said as Orlando's coach if Howard is having a bad day I still have Vince Carter, Jameer Nelson, and Rashard Lewis who all give me good options on offense. In the half court of Joe and Crawford are not working then I think you have an entire roster of guys who need someone else to create chances for them. Its not Woodon's fault that the roster is built that way If you want a better plan C then lets get an actual post threat on the roster. Lets get a PG that can take on more than a Jim Paxson role. Lets spend the luxury tax to actually compete with teams that are willing to spend the luxury tax. You are blaming Woodson when he is doing more with less on offense because of your preconceptions on what a good offense is supposed to look at. I simply care more about the results.

When it comes to pace adjusted stats- do you think the Hawks should be a top 10 offense? top 5? top 2? I think its critically important. To me there are at least 10 or 11 teams that simply have better personnel than the Hawks and if they have better offenses than the Hawks then I don't blame the coaching- I blame Sund and the ASG. But it seems that people here have a different baseline. So how good do you think the Hawks offense should be? The stat I like is offensive efficiency which is the number of points scored per 100 possessions. I don't see how thats biased at all. I don't care of the hawks score fast or slow so long as they score. last year I believe the Hawks were 10th and I think that was a good job by Woodson. Do you think that the Hawks are so good on offense that if they don't have a top 5 offense that its the coach's fault? Here's the link to this year's offensive efficiency for comparison. http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/teamstats I see Sacramento at #9 and I think the coach is doing a great job. I see Miami at 18 and think that the Coach is doing a poor job and needs to reassess the offense. But seriously- if you really are complaining this much about woodson and you think the difference is half a point a game over the course of the season then I really think you are just missing the point.

buzzard- I think that while you would like the aethetics of the offense more if the Hawks were running more PnR and motion offenses- I think the hawks would rank lower ahon offense because of how much more time the ball would be in the hands of guys who are not good halfcourt offensive players. I don't want Horford to be part of a PnR where the team Jumps the screen and forces the ball to Horford outside- he just can't do much with the ball other than toss up a long jumper. I'd rather see Crawford and Joe take a guy 1 on 1 and pass to Horford streaking to the basket if his guy goes to help. I hope that Teague can develop into someone who can exploit a weak defender at PG. I wish that Marvin could develop into that kind of guy as well but I've given up hope. I honestly think that marvin woudl be better off playing as a stretch the floor PF where he could take bigger guys off the dribble and drag guys outside because of his outside shooting. Clearly you just think that Horford is more ready to carry a heavy offensive load than I do. I think Horford is basically Kendrick Perkins on offense and trying to make him have more of a role is just likely to hurt the offense overall even as it makes people here feel warm and fuzzy about how the hawks are mixing it up.

Buzzard- with the offense you think the Hawks should have where do you think they would rank in the league in terms of offense?

AHF- I am not saying that Woodson is a better offensive coach than Sloan. I am saying that the players matter more than the coach does. And if the Jazz had a much better offense than the Hawks then maybe you can point to coaching being the reason why. But when you are saying that the Hawks should be emulating a team with a worse offense because its prettier I just think its ridiculous. I think at the core all offense is built on creating a mismatch that the defense has to adjust to. A pick and roll is trying to get the ball in hte hands of someone where the defense has to rotate or adjust to stop it. I don't think that Josh Smith shoots well enough where I want him as part of a pick and roll- to me thats just dragging Josh Smith's Defender out to the ball where Josh Smith doesn't have to be covered at all. Horford I do not think has anywhere close to the offensive skill for me to want to involve him in a Pick and Roll. I don't want my 5th option on offense dragging his defender closer to my guy who is more of a threat to score. If Marvin becomes a PF then I'll be all about Marvin being part of a Pick and Roll but when he plays SF I don't think that creates a mismatch. In the end I think with the current NBA rules the best way to create a mismatch is to just spread the floor and take someone 1 on 1 because the handchecking rules make 1 on 1 defense pretty much impossible. You guys are bitching about Isos even when the Hawks have a more effective offense than teams you want to emulate and I think its just disconnected from reality. I'll take results over what looks pretty.

I think we must be using different definitions of "post threat". You believe that against the Pistons Josh Smith was fed the ball in the post and he took a defender 1 on 1 to get his points?

I think that you would have a MUCH easier time finding games where the star player had an off shooting night and the team still won compared to games where the team gave up more offensive rebounds than they had defensive rebounds and still won.

You put someone like Shaq on the roster who has an actual postup game and then I'll complain that Woodson doesn't use them. The Hawks have zero post up threats on the team. The Hawks plan A is Joe. The Hawks plan B is Crawford. I don't really know what you want the Hawks plan C to be because they just don't have the talent on offense. Put the Ball in Josh's hands and let him try and draw a slow defender outside and take him off the dribble? Ha. Horford blowing past a slow center 1 on 1? Bibby taking guys off the dribble? Marvin? The Roster was built to have forwards that excel in transition but who are not very strong halfcourt players. Thats just who the Hawks are and I don't see how thats Woodson's fault. Orlando's plan A is Howard. Plan B is Howard Kicking out to a bunch of 3 point shooters. Plan C is Vince Carter. Plan D is Jameer Nelson. Plan E is Rashard Lewis exploiting a mismatch. The Magic simply have more weapons and more options on offense. And I think Utah fans would have much more reason to complain about the Jazz having the 12th best offense in the league this season than the Hawk fans about having the 4th best offense yet you still think that Sloan is doing a better job. Absolutely ridiculous. I mean its clear that some people here think that Horford could start abusing people in the post if the Hawks just let him do it. But thats just wishcasting a skill on someone where we have absolutely no reason to think the skill is there.

Miami won the championship with an iso offense. Of course Cleveland now runs an iso offense. I think that most teams without a post presence run what amounts to an iso offense. (this does show how much easier it is to build a championship contender with a post threat) And just FYI- the Hawks are middle of the pack in the NBA as far as what percentage of baskets are assisted. If you have ever coached you know at the core of any offense is someone drawing a double team and then finding the open man against an unsettled offense. I would prefer the Hawks offense if they had more guys who could exploit a weak defender- but to me thats a personnel problem and not a coaching problem. If I am running the Hawks offense I look at it and I see 2 guys who can consistently draw a double team and find the open man- Crawford and Joe. past that everyone else is FAR better off faciing an unsettled defense where someone else is creating their chances for them. IF you tell me you want to see Josh Smith getting fed the ball in the post I'll think you are crazy but at least its a plan. If you think that Bibby shoudl be initiating the offense "like a PG should" then I'll think its crazy but sure thats another way to go. But when I look at the Hawks I see a team with no post game and just 2 guys who can initiate the offense and I feel sympathy for the coach when he gets crucified at the same time the team is a top 4 offense. Like I have said- if the Hawks were languishing with the 15th or 18th best offense in the league when they clearly had the talent to be higher then absolutely I'll be on board criticizing Woodson for his choices. But I'm a results based guy and don't care much about aesthetics. When the Hawks have a much better offense than a team like the Blazers who I think have more tools to work with on offense then hell yeah I'll give woodson some credit for that. Put it this way- You would probably be much happier with Sloan's offensive system than what the Hawks run. But the Hawks have had the far better offense this year and I would have a hard time saying the Hawks have better personnel on offense.

I'll take Woodson over John Kuester, Tom Barisse, Eddie Jordan, jay Triano, Don Nelson, Vinny Del Negro, Erik Spoelestra, Jim O'brien, Flip Saudners, Kurt Rambis, Scott Brooks, Mike Dunleavy, Lionel Hollins, jeff Bower, and Scott Skiles. Go look at every team's message board and how much they complain about their coach. Go look at a Denver messageboard and see how much they complain about George Karl. If the Hawks could get Adelman or someone like that in here I'll pack Woodson's bags myself. But I just don't think the Hawks are going to get an upgrade if they do make a move.

AHF- first of all I'm sure that you see more potential for Horford on offense than I do. The guy hasn't shown any ability to exploit weak defenders either in College or the Pro's- I'm inclined to think he just doesn't have the skill. I think Marvin is what he is- a 4th option on offense who cannot consistently exploit weak defenders. And in the playoffs I don't think its that the hawks style of offense breaks down so much as the Hawks simply face better teams. I don't think that Coaching is the reason that the Hawks lost to the Celtics- the Celtics were just better and the Hawks did well to take them to a game 7. I think that the Cavs are just better than the Hawks so the Hawks are not going to look as good as they did during the regular season and changing the coach wouldn't lead to a different result. I don't think there is any coach that could overcome the matchup problems the Magic present to the hawks on a consistent basis- The Magic are willing to pay the luxury tax to put together a superior team. If you put Jameer Nelson, Vince Carter or Rashard Lewis on the Hawks I think that you would see the offense magically look a whole lot more varied because there would be more options. The NBA has made defending someone 1 on 1 virtually impossible yet you are mad at a coach for trying to take advantage of that fact. When the Hawks ahve a top 4 offense in the league people here are still complaining about the Hawks offense. Running the pick and roll often just puts another defender close to the ball and serves no purpose. Many teams have all sorts of moving parts that don't do any good whatsoever. I think that the proper NBA offense at this point is to have 4 shooters with one guy ont he backside of the defense flashing to the rim and working the offensive glass. Spread the floor and let someone exploit a weak defender 1 on 1 and then kill the team when they start rotating after the doubleteam. Just because the offense is not pretty enough for you does not mean that a different coach would have a more effective offense.

The problem is that player option. At one point it looked likely that he would turn down the player option to become a free agent but the more he struggles the more incentive he has to return for another year. Far from him clearing up caproom for another team he would cause a problem. Though maybe if the Hawks were sending him to his preferred destination he would agree to decline his player option to get the trade to go through.

Since all of the irrational Woodson attackers are not responding to the question I'll go ahead and start a list myself. If any of these teams finish with better offenses than the hawks then I do not think its because of poor Hawks coaching. I'd take the talent on offense of all these teams over what the Hawks have. Phoenix Toronto Denver Boston Orlando Cleveland Lakers Dallas San Antonio Portland So by my measure if the Hawks are a top 10 offense then Woodson is not at all holding the offense back. The further he gets into the top 10 I'll give Woodson actual credit for doing a good job. If the Pacers or Pistons had better offenses then the Hawks then I'll start to say its because of coaching. . But honestly there are a lot of teams who have a lot of good players on offense. Teams that are willing to pay the luxury tax to have a deep bench. (I don't think its a coincidence that 8 of those teams are projected to pay the luxury tax this season) Honestly I don't at all know that the Hawks have clearly better personnel on offense than teams like Golden State (because they don't care about defense at all) and Utah.

If Sund wanted the Hawks to have someone who could help on the boards he should have drafted Dejuan Blair. The Hawks don't have anyone who is a top 20 rebounder at their position (according to ESPN). I'd say that Horford is the only guy who is an above average rebounder for their position. When the Hawks are getting killed on the defensive glass who is Woodson supposed to put in? Zaza is a good offensive rebounder in his career but has never been great on the defensive boards. Joe Smith has not been a strong rebounder the past 2 seasons. I just don't see what Woodson is supposed to do. When that ball goes up in the air its up to the players to get it.

Thats because the Hawks don't have any legitimate post threat. The forwards need to get their points in transition and when there is a defense unsettled by the guards. Horford has never shown any ability to exploit weak defenders. Josh Smith is trying to develop a post game but against the Pistons even when he was able to post up Stuckey he couldn't do anything with it. Its a shame that Josh Smith can't shoot from the outside- if he were able to draw slow defenders to the perimeter he would be able to initiate the offense more.

I don't think that Woodson is a HOF caliber coach- I think he is better than half the coaches in the league and thats enough for me to not fire him when I think that the ASG would not pay what it takes to get someone in better. And I think that fans put FAR too much stock in how much coaching matters in the NBA. Look at how Doc Rivers "outcoached" Phil Jackson. It comes down to how the players actually do on the court. And when the Hawks lose a game because the other team just WANTS the ball more and you are still blaming Woodson then I think you need to wake up to reality. If you think that loss is because of Woodson then I don't think you'll EVER say that a loss was because of the players. Which means that you think the Hawks would go undefeated if they simply had a better coach. But I'll wait anxiously for the unicorn to come prancing by when you actually do say that a loss is on the players and not Woodson.

The Hawks lost because the pistons had more offensive rebounds than the Hawks had defensive rebounds.

If you think the Hawks have a great bench thats great- Personally I don't agree. Crawford is a good player.. Zaza is a decent backup center. Evans can be useful if he is hitting from the outside. But I don't think that Teague is ready. I think that Joe Smith is over the hill and shouldn't be counted on at all unless the Hawks have injuries or foul trouble. I think its ridiculous the Hawks gave Collins a guaranteed contract. If the ASG were willing to pay the luxury tax to make the team a contender then the bench would be stronger. If my job depended on winning then I would be playing with a short bench as well.

If my job were on the line I'd absolutely have Joe Johnson in over teague.

When Woodson isn't playing Rookies and they eventually move on then we have consistently seen that his judgment on young players was better that people's here. Salim didn't do anything after he left. Acie didn't even get his 4th year team option picked up after he left. Shelden is on his third team since he left. I'll trust Woodson if he thinks that Teague is not ready yet to help a playoff team out. I just dont see what options Woodson has if both Joe and Crawford are not playing well. Josh Smith couldn't even post up Stuckey today- I don't want hte offense run through him. Bibby is no longer capable of doing it- he might as well change his name to JIm Paxson to better make his role clear. Marvin has never shown the ability to consistently exploit a favorable matchup. Horford is not even close to being able to do it. Who do you think is capable of initiating the offense at a high level? Zaza?

Buzzard- if you want Woodson fired what do you think the odds are the the ASG pays what it would take to get a HOF caliber coach in here? If the Hawks had a chance to get Adelman in here thats great but I don't see anything to make me think the ASG would pay what it takes to get the kind of coach in here you want. And I'll continue to laugh at anyone who wants to blame the hawks giving up offensive rebounds on woodson. Thats just pretty much proves to me you will pin every single loss on Woodson no matter what happens on the court.

With the Hawks personnel where do you think they should rank in the league in offense? Top 3? Put it this way- lets say the Hawks get good coaching. How many teams do you think simply have better talent on offense and should still finish ahead of the Hawks?

I think its ridiculous that anyone is blaming Woodson for the loss to the Pistons. Seriously... you know that he isn't allowed to get defensive rebounds right? Unless you think the Hawks woudl go undefeated with a different coach I think this is a REALLY easy one to put on the players. Seriously- every loss isn't woodson's fault.

I think its funny that people here think that if Woodson was fired that the Hawks would hire a great coach. More likely the ASG would do as they have always done and get a cheap coach. Be careful what you wish for if you badly want to see Woodson fired. I don't think he is a great coach but the Hawks could do FAR worse.