ForThoseWhoSuggestLonWasT-H-EProblem.SuggestAgain.

[Guest Walter]

Something in general we have to determine before we delve into specifics. What was the team's greater problem: coaching or player personel?

There are many different statistics that might suggest Lon wasn't the issue here. However, wins vs loses and PPG differential appear two of the easiest to examine. Under Lon Kruger we were 11-16 (.407 winning %). Under Stotts? 3-10 for a .231 winning %. That's a decrease of .166 winning percentage under Stotts as coach.

Now some here might wish to point out that Stott's didn't have Big Dawg for 4 of these games. Interestingly, during those 4 games the team went 2-2. In otherwords, WITH Robinson, Stotts is 1-8 for a .111 winning %. UGH!

Now onto PPG differential. This season Lon's offense scored 94.88 PPG and his defense allowed 98.55 PPG for a PPG differential of -3.67 PPG. Stott's offense (scoring a whopping 10 PPG LESS THAN Lons) is scoring 84.85 PPG and his defense is allowing 93.08 PPG for a PPG differential of -8.15. THAT'S MORE THAN TWICE AS LARGE AS THE ALREADY SIGNIFICANT PPG DIFFERENTIAL UNDER LON!

OK, even though Robinson's absence seemed to help Stotts out in terms of wins and loses, maybe the same individuals would cite Robinson's absence as cause for the HUGE PPG differential under Stotts. To answer that let's look at the games WITH Big Dawg. The Hawks UNDER Stotts WITH Robinson scored 86.44 PPG and allowed 96 PPG for an ever WORSE PPG differential of -9.56! Without Robinson under Stotts the team's PPG differential is -3.25. -3.25!!!!!!!!!!!! That's THREE TIMES BETTER THAN the team under Stotts with Robinson. That's even better than the team under Lon WITH Big Dawg!

Imagine then what Lon might have done without Robinson (and with DJ, without Ham, and with a seemingly lesser replacement for Robinson in Kukoc)!?! Actually, we only have to consider what Lon did the second half of last season when we had a 19-17 record and positive PPG winning differential.

...

While most had questions about Robinson's intangible immpact on the team, few could have ever have seen what a statistically negative influence Big Dawg would represent. The team was and is (with two different coaches) just simply statistically better without him and considering that undoubtedly they are better without him in terms of intangibles there seems no credible reason to keep him. Also, it's a shame that Lon had to suffer the undeserved fate of many coaches. Lon may not have need be rehired but he didn't deserve to be fired either, judging from the team's play since his firing. The only good that comes of it (and this is a significant good) is there can be no question the players bear a great if not greater amount of the responsibility for not doing their part than Lon does for not doing his and we can critically judge each player outside of the coaching excuse many apologist made and continue to make for them.

W

[Playmaker0017]

Walter,

With your permission I would like to post this on the ESPN.com board.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Big Dog is not going to ever help us win. Terry Stotts is a bum.

Sign Van Gundy, and put Dog on waivers or trade him. Maybe get a decent draft pick.

Play.

[Playmaker0017]

Walter,

I have also decided that Stotts is the WORST NBA coach in a long time.

His rotations have become atrocious. He makes worse decisions than Lon in that respect.

He is a bum.

I think I could get more effort and more wins as an NBA coach than this guy. And I mean that.

Play.

[Guest Walter]

The fact that Big Dawg makes us worse as a team statistically (and not just in terms of the intangibles, which most knew he would), regardless of coach, means he is worthless to us. I'd take just about anything for him and to be rid of his contract.

W

[Jamil]

Simply put, Stotts has been a colossal failure as coach of the Hawks. Lon might not have been much more successful, but one thing he did do is win at home. Stotts can't even beat the pathetic Knicks at home.

However, there is one good way to look at this.

It's quite clear that Lon wasn't taking this team anywhere of any importance, but definitely not bad enough to still be able to keep that pick.

The longer Stotts continues to coach, the better the Hawks chances are of not only keeping that pick, but of drafting LeBron James.

But to your point, yes I think it's totally clear now that Lon was NOT the problem and was simply used as a scapegoat. The evidence is too overwhelming to deny the truth.

[mrhonline]

Well, let's put things in a little more perspective. Lon knew his job was on the line (or was absolutely naive), while Stotts will coach the Hawks for the remainder of the season regardless. He has more room to try new lineups, different schemes, etc. If he can find the right one and get them to win, he really improves his chances of returning next year...

I am not suggesting Stotts is a great coach, but am suggesting that the Hawks' management will not judge his "performance" until after the end of the season.

[Guest Walter]

[Playmaker0017]

Walter,

Didn't you know that Mike Wilks was the second coming of John Stockton? Actually he is better than Mike Jordan.

You got to love a coach that honestly believes that starting TWO NBDL scrubs is a viable lineup.

Or that Nazr, Ira, Wilks, Henderson and Ham is a lineup that should EVER be on the floor.

Stotts = Moron.

Play.

[Diesel]

Actually, when you watched them play, there were several things that suggested that Lon's coaching style caused problems with the personell. That's all that really needs to be said.

There is no repreive for Lon. He sucked.

[KB21]

I just don't think Stan will let this thing go till the end of the season.

I think Pete and Stan are going to come to a mutual agreement, and Stan is going to resume the GM role he had before he hired Pete. Whatever vision he has for the team will be what's implemented, and it really needs to start now.

If Stan lets Terry coach the season out, then it will not surprise me to see Stan go after Doc Rivers in the offseason to be either the GM, Head Coach, or both. Doc has expressed a desire to be a GM, and Atlanta could be the perfect opportunity for him.

[Diesel]

If your first, second, and third grade teachers failed you....

Do you think Some 4th grade Substitute will be able to get you to understand multiplying and dividing fractions in a matter of days.

The miseducation of the Hawks have gone on for 3 yrs under Lon. Stotts has a lot to do in order to change it.

I would have liked better that we went with a guy who has won before. I mentioned Daily and Van Gundy and Frattello. Reason being, is that our guys need to see an image of a winner. It's going to be hard for Stotts to earn their trust and even harder for him to motivate them without trust.

The X's and O's are easy.

Unfortunately, LON couldn't even get that part right.

[Guest Walter]

In reply to:

---

"Actually, when you watched them play, there were several things that suggested that Lon's coaching style caused problems with the personell. That's all that really needs to be said."

---

What "several things"? Rotations? They are far better than Stotts starting with the "mini-me backcourt version II: the [censored] JT at Pg, start 10-day contract CBAer Mike Wilks" experiment. Must we see Hendu, Ham, Ira, and Wilks on the court at the same time?!? Makes you wonder if it's not personel and their effort that dictates the lineups and rotations. Makes you wish you had even Lon Kruger back at least for the remainder of the year.

If not rotations, how about offense? Holy cow!!! We score TEN PPG LESS UNDER STOTTS! NINE PPG LESS WITH STOTTS AND BIG DAWG!

Diesel you successfully managed to not address any of the FACTS of the post in your condemnation of Lon. Again USE FACTS! FOR ONCE! Maybe then you'll sound intelligent enough to refer to yourself in the third person.

W

[Guest Walter]

Facts:

In reply to:

---

"Under Lon Kruger we were 11-16 (.407 winning %). Under Stotts? 3-10 for a .231 winning %. That's a decrease of .166 winning percentage under Stotts as coach.

Now some here might wish to point out that Stott's didn't have Big Dawg for 4 of these games. Interestingly, during those 4 games the team went 2-2. In otherwords, WITH Robinson, Stotts is 1-8 for a .111 winning %."

---

In reply to:

---

"...This season Lon's offense scored 94.88 PPG and his defense allowed 98.55 PPG for a PPG differential of -3.67 PPG. Stott's offense (scoring a whopping 10 PPG LESS THAN Lons) is scoring 84.85 PPG and his defense is allowing 93.08 PPG for a PPG differential of -8.15. THAT'S MORE THAN TWICE AS LARGE AS THE ALREADY SIGNIFICANT PPG DIFFERENTIAL UNDER LON!

OK, even though Robinson's absence seemed to help Stotts out in terms of wins and loses, maybe the same individuals would cite Robinson's absence as cause for the HUGE PPG differential under Stotts. To answer that let's look at the games WITH Big Dawg. The Hawks UNDER Stotts WITH Robinson scored 86.44 PPG and allowed 96 PPG for an ever WORSE PPG differential of -9.56! Without Robinson under Stotts the team's PPG differential is -3.25. -3.25!!!!!!!!!!!! That's THREE TIMES BETTER THAN the team under Stotts with Robinson. That's even better than the team under Lon WITH Big Dawg!"

---

In reply to:

---

"...While most had questions about Robinson's intangible immpact on the team, few could have ever have seen what a statistically negative influence Big Dawg would represent. The team was and is (with two different coaches) just simply statistically better without him and considering that undoubtedly they are better without him in terms of intangibles there seems no credible reason to keep him. Also, it's a shame that Lon had to suffer the undeserved fate of many coaches. Lon may not have need be rehired but he didn't deserve to be fired either, judging from the team's play since his firing..."

---

You got your new coach. The facts and he make Lon look like a superhero. Now the players are rightly under the microscope with Big Dawg earning the "X" on his chest. Sorry D, until you face the facts you only look desperate.

W

[Guest Walter]

...for at the time DD was in the IR for a few more games.

What I do mind was McCloud was available and certainly other CBA talent at "big-Pg" or Sg (with remotely any sort of ball-handling skills) were available. Sedric Webber, Devin Brown, Grizzard, Seals, Trepengangier (sp?). Also, a trade could have been (and may be) made. Regardless, you don't refuse JT the chance to play Pg in favor of mini-me backcourt II: CBA version. Never!

W

[Diesel]

Nobody says it better than Diesel. Here's part of my case against Lon..... From before.

http://www.hawksquawk.net/forums/showthrea...&Main=15762

In reply to:

---

Point is that Lon is not a good coach. Look at the things I have told you from the beginning and let's see who's right?

1. I said that Theo won't be much of a difference.

Looks to me like I'm right. At the end of last season, we posted a better record than Now. Sad part is that Now we have Big Dog, Theo, Hendu, and CC all available for play. Theo is good, but he's not the savior many of you thought he would be.

2. This team was BUILT for Offense.

We have good defensive pieces but they shouldn't superseed our offense. We have failed to take advantage of our offensive powers and instead on offense, we look like we're just guessing.

3. Glover should start over Ira.

Ira is good, but he kills our chemistry. He's not offensive. He's not a good ball handler. In fact, I would trade to get a guy like Barry here in a heartbeat.

4. Lon needs to define roles....Better.

One of the primary jobs of a coach is to define the roles of his team. However, what we see is Big Dog playing Point foward. SAR outside of the post. JT deferring to big dog and setting up. I hate to believe that this is Lon's blueprint, but none of this is NEW. That's why Kukoc seemed like such a good fit. He was able to play Point Forward. BUT.... With new players, LON should have changed his offense to suit his players. Instead, LON kept the same scheme and is trying to mold Big dog into something he could never be.

Bottom Line.

As Long as Lon is coaching, there will always be a problem. We will always look bad against good competition. We will always struggle because the blueprint is wrong. Instead of going out and finding those impossible Players that Lon needs to make his Scheme work.... (A point forward, A Perimeter PF, and a Rebounding C) we need to go and get a coach who can coach what we have.... ( a standstill Small Forward with a great midrange game, an Undersized Power Forward with a great Low Post game, and A defensive C).

My Short List.

1. Danny Ainge.

2. Brian Hill

3. Chuck Daly

4. Paul Westphaul

5. Van Gundy

Don't forget... The allstar game is in Atlanta. This isn't a good yr for the franchise to look bad.

There can be NO Success without RISK!!

---

[Jamil]

Diesel, you predicted that Stotts would lead the Hawks to some great turnaround and into the playoffs. Now you are backing away from that?

Now he's a 4th grade substitute?

Stotts has been a miserable failure. At least Lon could win at home. The only Stotts is good for is helping the team get a shot at Lebron James.