BK exposed...Woodson behind the numbers

[TroyMcClure]

Did you know that Mike Woodson's teams compiled a record of 345-466 in his 10 full seasons as a player?

He was so good that he was the leading scorer for the 5th worst team in history.

He also led two franchises... to different cities. (K.C. became Sacramento and San Diego became L.A.)

Only two teams he played signifigant minutes on, and three in total, posted winning seasons.

He never escaped the first round of the playoffs.

He has a record of 48-144 as a head coach.

Coached the 6th worst team in history.

In his breif period of winning as a college player, he managed to be a relative loser there. Indiana won the NCAA title the year before he got there, and the year after he left!

He was a King and a Clipper. We were sold a fake bill of goods with Detroit on his resume'.

[DrReality]

Why am I not surprised?????????????

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

Did you know that Mike Woodson's teams compiled a record of 345-466 in his 10 full seasons as a player?

He was so good that he was the leading scorer for the 5th worst team in history.

He also led two franchises... to different cities. (K.C. became Sacramento and San Diego became L.A.)

Only two teams he played signifigant minutes on, and three in total, posted winning seasons.

He never escaped the first round of the playoffs.

He has a record of 48-144 as a head coach.

Coached the 6th worst team in history.

In his breif period of winning as a college player, he managed to be a relative loser there. Indiana won the NCAA title the year

before

he got there, and the year

after

he left!

He was a King and a Clipper. We were sold a fake bill of goods with Detroit on his resume'.

---

That was so sad. I need my rest starting in 3 hours.

W

[bootsybug]

I really don't see that who Mike Woodsen played for 20 and 30 years ago is really relevant. A lot of great coaches never even played NBA basketball. Look at Bobby Cox, he barely scratched the majors, but has stuck around as a really quality manager for the Braves forever.

Woody should be judged on what he has done with the Hawks alone. And what he has done has sucked. So I agree with you, but not for the reasons you state.

[Lascar78]

Agreed. I could not care less how he did as a player. The only relevant fact on there is his record as a head coach, but of course his only job so far has been during our rebuilding. Either way it seems pretty clear that he's just not good enough. No point firing him until we have a real replacement though.

[Diesel]

I guess this rules out us going after Adelman, Fratello, or Van Gundy.

I mean, now it's no longer about just coaching, but what kind of player he was...

How did Phil Jackson ever get a coaching job?

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

I guess this rules out us going after Adelman, Fratello, or Van Gundy.

I mean, now it's no longer about just coaching, but what kind of player he was...

How did Phil Jackson ever get a coaching job?

---

As his resume "stunk" (in addition to being fudged) but he could coach.

Unfortunately, Woodson can't.

[TroyMcClure]

Some people are so stupid. I guess you should be the next coach, with that line of logic. Phil Jackson was a smart player who played for a title team. How can a resume' not be important? All of this supposed knowledge was aquired while playing. Coaches who did not play at an NBA level had to work to get where they are. They weren't 6'5".

How anyone could think that a person's work in the field he is managing is not important is, quite frankly, beyond me.

Please tell me why, as the go to guy, his record was not important?

[TroyMcClure]

Quote:

---

I really don't see that who Mike Woodsen played for 20 and 30 years ago is really relevant. A lot of great coaches never even played NBA basketball. Look at Bobby Cox, he barely scratched the majors, but has stuck around as a really quality manager for the Braves forever.

Woody should be judged on what he has done with the Hawks alone. And what he has done has sucked. So I agree with you, but not for the reasons you state.

---

Bobby played for the Yankees and Dodgers. That's not the Kings and Clippers.

[TroyMcClure]

Quote:

---

Agreed. I could not care less how he did as a player. The only relevant fact on there is his record as a head coach, but of course his only job so far has been during our rebuilding. Either way it seems pretty clear that he's just not good enough. No point firing him until we have a real replacement though.

---

My main point is: Everything he has heard since leaving Indiana was probably the wrong idea of how to win. How could he know how to win, when all he has experienced is losing?

Is it any wonder we are the new Clippers, when he was the go-to guy for said old Clippers. If a good manager/coach rubs off on the players, what makes you think Woodsons' stink won't infect our players minds?

[rascurrein]

Quote:

---

I guess this rules out us going after Adelman, Fratello, or Van Gundy.

I mean, now it's no longer about just coaching, but what kind of player he was...

How did Phil Jackson ever get a coaching job?

---

That's a question to apply to every sport.

There was great players who are awful coaches and awful players that are great coaches. Everything resides in the way that a coach transmit the knowledge to the players. You could say that according to what i'm saying everyone of us could be a coach no matter if we once play or not, but those who were players knows better (apparently) how to handle a "vestuario" (locker room), but it seems that it's not the case for Woody in both circunstances; there are doubts about him handling the team and imparting knowledge (if he has it).

[Lascar78]

Quote:

---

How could he know how to win, when all he has experienced is losing?

---

Are you not aware that he was a big part of the coaching staff that won the championship in detroit? What he has done prior to us as a coach (top assistant who won a title, worked on their D alot) is infinitely more relevant than what the teams he played for in the NBA did. He learned from Larry Brown for years and helped develop the league's toughest defense. He was regarded as one of the top assistants in the league, and somebody was going to give him a shot as a head coach.

I only care about one thing when hiring a coach, coaching pedigree. I don't care about playing days. If I did, I'd think Larry Bird or Magic could make a good coaches but they were horrible. Woodson had as fine an assistant coaching pedigree as any other assistant who gets a head job. He doesn't seemed to have panned out very well, but that doesn't suddenly make his history as a player relevant.

Joe Johnson was the leading scorer on a team with a bad record last year. That doesn't make me think any less of him, nor does it impact my opinion of how good a coach he could be down the line. Playing and coaching are entirely different, and you don't get to run the team the way you think it should be run when you're a player.

[TroyMcClure]

Larry went to the Eastern confernce Finals. He had a record of 147-67 as a coach! 32-20 in the playoffs! We have very different views of what "horrible" are.

I thought that same crap about Woodson before I saw him coach.

http://www.basketballreference.com/coaches...oachid=BIRDLA01

[Lascar78]

Larry Bird himself acknowledges that he is an absolutely horrible coach. He pretty much told them "go out there" and let them play. The assistants basically did all the x's and o's. Larry was a figurehead who happened to have a very good team. He was there to look good and try to inspire them because he's Larry Bird. Which is why he got out as soon as he got a chance.

There's a lot more than the record to judge a player, team, or coach.

[TroyMcClure]

I'll take a "horrible" figure head like that any time.

I have problems with Woodson as an x and o guy and as a motivator.

Are you actually trying to say that Mike Woodson knows more, or knows how to win a game as a coach more than Larry Bird?

I actually shorted him. They went to the Finals!

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

I'll take a "horrible" figure head like that any time.

I have problems with Woodson as an x and o guy and as a motivator.

Are you actually trying to say that Mike Woodson knows more, or knows how to win a game as a coach more than Larry Bird?

I actually shorted him. They went to the Finals!

---

...perhaps we should help him by firing him.

W

[Lascar78]

No I think they are both bad coaches. I think they both know how to keep the team motivated. I don't think either one knows x's and o's well enough, and neither one is good at focusing on details like substitutions. That being said I'd probably pick Larry simply because of his name and the fact that he'd bring more attention our way, but I don't respect Bird as a coach just because his team did great while he was there. Needless to say I'd take either one over Magic though...

Anyhow, back to the original point, you don't have to have played pro or played on great teams to be a great coach. They are separate careers. Some do great at both, others do not.

[TroyMcClure]

The information in this thread is merely an addition to what we've seen for over two years. Not a debate about coaches who played or didn't, etc. The evidence against Woodson is overwhelming!

[TroyMcClure]

I know you don't have to play pro to coach pro. If you did play though, and lost almost every year, what does that say about what you were? If you want to make a case that he was a great player and his team failed him, go ahead. My point is he has been associated with a lot of losing. It is more than coincidence. He was hired by a friend. I'm sorry, but if I want friends hiring friends, I want them to have been winners at some point. That's just me though.

[Diesel]

I don't doubt Woody's knowledge at all. I just think that because he is our coach, there is a lot of people who are looking at him under the microscope and the things that they so readily allow other coaches to slide by with, they penalize Woodson for.