Just A Couple of Questions for Woodson

[JackB1]

I am so happy we won, but I can't help but wonder a few things:

-Why didn't we just foul at the end when Boston needed a 3 to tie? We foul before they shoot and they go to the line for 2 shots and it's game over. We even give them a chance to hoist up a 3 pointer?

- Why stick a gimpy Marvin back out there for the last 2 minutes? Is he that good of a defender? Why not leave a healthy Horford in there? I also couldn't understand why Horford was on the bench for the last minute? Isn't he one of our 5 best players?

-Why did he take our Smoove with 5 fouls and just a few minutes to go? Woody continues this conservative approach when everything is on the line!

Again....I thought these were 3 instances where Woody made things harder on us than it needed to be. It worked out in the end, but had Boston tied it and won in overtime, these would have been HUGE questionable decisions.

[TheTruth]

*Cue Woodson blind sympathizers in 4..3..2..*

And again, why we didnt attack the rim with nearly 8 minutes left in the 4th is beyond me. That should have been Woodson's only words after that timeout with 7 and change to go in the game.

Yet, some people I know will come in and defend those blatant miscues as "he's a young coach," and other moronic regurgitation like that.

[Gray Mule]

Sure, you're right. Woody is stupid. He knows nothing about basketball at all. Yet,

wonder of wonders, our owners continue to let him coach.

In spite of him and his stupid ideas, ineptitude and everything else, our Hawk team

has enough talent to overcome all this and have taken the mighty Celtics to game

seven of the first round.

Just think, with a real coach, we could have won this thing in four and rested up

for the next round.

Woody will be here for at least one more game. Relax.

[Admin]

Well here is my reply to your moronic words.

"The coaches called a great game plan and it's up to us to execute on the road like we do at home". Nuff said, thank you Joe Johnson!

I'm sure that great game plan that JJ is referring to was to not attack and sit around praying that the lead would hold. It can't be the players that might not have executed for portions of the game. I find it strange that Woody is able to make good coaching decisions and we are able to make runs only in parts of games. Why isn't Woody able to call great plays all game long when clearly the players do nothing but execute properly all the time?

[TheTruth]

Your sarcasm is, for lack of better words, out of touch. Mixed in with all of the hyperbole, it makes it undesirable to even read all of it.

At any rate, my points have been made about Woodson time and time again. He seems like a great guy but an average coach at best. He makes some of the same mistakes over and over that is is darn near criminal. There are [and will be] better coaches out there. We must go after them. Those that want Woodson back are the very same people who are inherently content with mediocrity

As for BK, there is nothing that should save his job. Period.

But hey, I actually want a consistently well-coached team and a GM who wont make major blunders time and time again...

[TheTruth]

Quote:

---

Well here is my reply to your moronic words.

"The coaches called a great game plan and it's up to us to execute on the road like we do at home". Nuff said, thank you Joe Johnson!

I'm sure that great game plan that JJ is referring to was to not attack and sit around praying that the lead would hold. It can't be the players that might not have executed for portions of the game. I find it strange that Woody is able to make good coaching decisions and we are able to make runs only in parts of games. Why isn't Woody able to call great plays all game long when clearly the players do nothing but execute properly all the time?

Oh here we go. Again, people are letting THREE decently coached games cloud their judgment. The fact of the matter is that we have seen Woodson coach horribly for a majority of the regular season. Sure, let's cherry-pick THREE games in which he has looked like a decent coach, yet discount the major arse whoopings laid on us in Boston. If he did such a great job coaching, one would think there wouldnt be such a HUGE disparity between our home wins against Boston and Boston's total blowouts in their place. But eh, logic doesnt seem to apply around here sometimes.

[bronnt]

Quote:

---

I am so happy we won, but I can't help but wonder a few things:

-Why didn't we just foul at the end when Boston needed a 3 to tie? We foul before they shoot and they go to the line for 2 shots and it's game over. We even give them a chance to hoist up a 3 pointer?

- Why stick a gimpy Marvin back out there for the last 2 minutes? Is he that good of a defender? Why not leave a healthy Horford in there? I also couldn't understand why Horford was on the bench for the last minute? Isn't he one of our 5 best players?

-Why did he take our Smoove with 5 fouls and just a few minutes to go? Woody continues this conservative approach when everything is on the line!

Again....I thought these were 3 instances where Woody made things harder on us than it needed to be. It worked out in the end, but had Boston tied it and won in overtime, these would have been HUGE questionable decisions.

Well as for your first point, this is one distinct situation in where there's a definite gray area. Nearly all coaches are paranoid about giving away points in these situations, playing mental "what if games." Nearly all fans think the better choice is to foul the ball handler immediately. In this at least, Woodson isn't any different from NBA and college basketball head coaches. And, honestly, this wasn't a situation in which you want to foul. If you foul immediately, you give them two foul shots with more than six seconds left. They'll immediately foul you on the next possession, and if you miss your foul shots and they make theirs, you can really screw yourself over. On the other hand, if you tried to wait until there were about two seconds left and then fouled, the guy you're fouling could have just made an awkward hop and heave so it looks like you fouled him in the act of shooting and then he gets three free throws to tie the game. If you try to foul a player who is away from the ball, you run the risk that he jukes away on an all-or-nothing move and gets open for the three.

But your other points are definately valid. Marvin is an average defender at the best of times, and the way he was hobbling around on the court makes these less than ideal circumstances. Horford is arguably the best defender we have on the team. No reason he shouldn't have been in the game at that point. Moreoever, no reason that Zaza should have played the entire second quarter just because Al got two fouls. You've got to have a little faith in your guys at some point. And it's not like he had three fouls, either. It was a serious overreaction to foul trouble. It's as bad as when he sat JJ in game 5 for over 9 minutes because HE got two fouls. And Joe actually finished the game with 2 fouls. He has one of the lowest foul rates in the NBA. He just overreacts to foul trouble.

People point to how Woody got this team motivated to play, but our guys haven't exactly shown up away from the frenzied home crowd, which John Hollinger says is the loudest he's seen in the playoffs. With young guys, I'm certain it's the crowd more than the coach.

[bronnt]

Quote:

---

Well here is my reply to your moronic words.

"The coaches called a great game plan and it's up to us to execute on the road like we do at home". Nuff said, thank you Joe Johnson!

I'm sure that great game plan that JJ is referring to was to not attack and sit around praying that the lead would hold. It can't be the players that might not have executed for portions of the game. I find it strange that Woody is able to make good coaching decisions and we are able to make runs only in parts of games. Why isn't Woody able to call great plays all game long when clearly the players do nothing but execute properly all the time?

In game three, we looked like a well coached team. We ran offensive sets, had floor spacing, worked the ball into the post, and either took advantage of good position on the baseline or forced double teams down to low to get shooters open. We've really not done that in any other game.

Most of our offensive sets involve giving the ball to JJ 35-40 feet away from the basket and letting him try to beat someone off the dribble. That's not really a sound offensive game plan unless you're the Phoenix Suns and it's Steve Nash running the point. Boston has been double teaming JJ immediately when he catches the ball, so he's had to pass out of these situations. It's not adjustments, it's the simple fact that if Boston is trapping Joe at the sideline 35 feet from the basket SOMEONE has to be open. The reason Marvin got open so much last night was that he was barely moving at all when he didn't have the ball. Hitting open 18 footers is his specialty and when his man leaves him to attack JJ, he's got loads of open room on the floor.

People defending what Marvin is doing might point to that one offensive rebound and stick back. But that shouldn't even count as a hustle play. He was sitting on the right wing being guarded by absolutely no one when Bibby took a three. There was no even on that side of the basket to block him out, and the ball came off directly to him. Nice Job by Marvin to take advantage of that, but it had to be one of the easiest offensive rebound tip-in situations I've ever seen. Now, I'm not criticizing Marvin's effort, I believe he works hard. He just never has looked like a well-coached player. He doesn't recognize mismatches and will force the ball into the paint against a smaller defender as often as a bigger one. He doesn't recognize mismatches at other positions on the floor when he has the ball. If he has KG guarding him, that means either Josh Smith or Al Horford must be guarded by a smaller defender, but he doesn't look for those guys when he gets KG on a switch.

That game 4 in which JJ almost singlehandedly defeate the Celtics in the fourth quarter? Mike Woodson was just calling iso plays for JJ. That's all he did. He encouraged JJ to do everything. It wasn't exactly stellar coaching-the degree of difficulty of most of those shots were 7-9 on a scale 1-10. He didn't have any 10s, but the only easy shot he got was when Posey fell on his butt for him. Woodson was bailed out by JJ playing GREAT-if Joe could do that every game, we wouldn't have lost more than 15 games this season. But he did, and Woodson should get no credit for it.

[Admin]

well make sure you tell JJ and the rest of the team that Woody (and the coaching staff) deserve no credit because they certainly disagree with you.

[TheTruth]

See, this is the fallacy of those that defend Woodson so much. We arent saying that he deserves NO credit, I have given him credit for things he has done. I for one am merely saying that, with his body of work, he is not worthy of another stint here. Will he get it? Most likely, because everyone will mostly focus on our three wins against Boston and ignore all the other things that happened throughout this series and the regular season. There are just better options.

[bronnt]

Quote:

---

Your sarcasm is, for lack of better words, out of touch. Mixed in with all of the hyperbole, it makes it undesirable to even read all of it.

At any rate, my points have been made about Woodson time and time again. He seems like a great guy but an average coach at best. He makes some of the same mistakes over and over that is is darn near criminal. There are [and will be] better coaches out there. We must go after them. Those that want Woodson back are the very same people who are inherently content with mediocrity

As for BK, there is nothing that should save his job. Period.

But hey, I actually want a consistently well-coached team and a GM who wont make major blunders time and time again...

While I think Woodson is a pretty bad coach, I'm not convinced that BK should leave. I mean, he inherited a mess but did manage to put this squad together, which is a young athletic team that we're able to see has promise. One of the first messes he managed to deal with was to unload Alan Henderson's bad contract from the books, which his predecessor was unable to. Then he authored the unpopular deal which brought JJ here, but in the end, it's been worth it. Boris Diaw made it look like a horrible deal by playing over his head the first year after the deal, but he's not really that good. He's a decent bench player for the Suns and little more. Perhaps we could have waited to see if JJ was released and then tried to sign him as a free agent, but I think we were better off trading for him than competing for him in the open market. We weren't the only team who would have offered him a max deal, and I think he'd have been smart enough to realize that we're Atlanta, and it's not a great situation.

Everyone points most significantly at the decision to take Marvin Williams over Chris Paul and Deron Williams in 2005. I have to defend that in part because EVERY pundit in the country had Marvin Williams as either the first or second best player in the draft. Nearly every NBA analyst who criticizes the move now had Marvin Williams rated ahead of Paul. Hindsight is definately 20/20, and perhaps he should have drafted based on need instead of talent. But there were some question marks with Paul concerning whether his offense would translate to the NBA, and if he could guard quicker NBA points. He's definately shown that yes, it did, and yes, he can. That said-and I think Chris Paul should have won the MVP this year over Kobe-I'm not sure that Chris Paul would have nearly developed as well if he were a Hawk. I mean, New Orleans actually some pieces around him. That pick and roll with Tyson Chandler is becoming a signature play-I'm not sure if it would have worked as well with Zaza Pachulia. I think David West is an underrated player-he has a versatile offensive game and plays sticky defense, and he is aggressive after the boards. And Byron Scott is a good coach who has allowed him to develop. We haven't exactly seen Acie given all the opportunity in the world to show off his talents.

BK was the guy who drafted Josh Smith in the first round-a pick that was roundly criticized at the time. There were a lot of critiques-he couldn't really dribble, he had few offensive moves, he was more of an athlete than a basketball player. He's definately has been worth the 17th overall draft pick. He took a gamble and it has paid off. This year, to my surprise, he managed to turn spare parts and expiring contracts into Mike Bibby. I was certain the junk rotting at the end of our bench wasn't worth anything, but we wrangled a player out of it-and one who has been really good in the past. Bibby hasn't exactly played at the top of his game for us since the beginning of April, but he had a history of success in the playoffs.

And of course, the 2007 draft worked out as well for us as it could have. We got Al Horford, who should have been the RotY, and Acie Law, who I am really seeing a lot of promsie in. If Acie had actually had a chance to develop this season, this draft would look really well. Acie Law was the result of our being forced to deal Al Harrington because the ownership is cheap and didn't want to pay him. We got a first round pick, and it came in a rather deep draft class that allowed us to finally get a good interior socrer and defender as ewell as young point.

My spirited defense of BK is over. I'm willing to live with him in charge of personnel decisions because I think most of his issues have been with ASG rather than just not knowing anything. He's made mistakes, but not the sort of mistakes that no one else would have made, and he's done some good as well.

[JackB1]

guys...this wasn't a "Is Woody a Good or Bad Coach" thread. Please look at my original post.

there were 3 questionable things that I was interested in your thoughts on. Only one poster referenced my original post. Here they are again:

-Why didn't we just foul at the end when Boston needed a 3 to tie? We foul before they shoot and they go to the line for 2 shots and it's game over. We even give them a chance to hoist up a 3 pointer?

- Why stick a gimpy Marvin back out there for the last 2 minutes? Is he that good of a defender? Why not leave a healthy Horford in there? I also couldn't understand why Horford was on the bench for the last minute? Isn't he one of our 5 best players?

-Why did he take our Smoove with 5 fouls and just a few minutes to go? Woody continues this conservative approach when everything is on the line!

[bronnt]

Quote:

---

guys...this wasn't a "Is Woody a Good or Bad Coach" thread. Please look at my original post.

there were 3 questionable things that I was interested in your thoughts on. Only one poster referenced my original post. Here they are again:

-Why didn't we just foul at the end when Boston needed a 3 to tie? We foul before they shoot and they go to the line for 2 shots and it's game over. We even give them a chance to hoist up a 3 pointer?

- Why stick a gimpy Marvin back out there for the last 2 minutes? Is he that good of a defender? Why not leave a healthy Horford in there? I also couldn't understand why Horford was on the bench for the last minute? Isn't he one of our 5 best players?

-Why did he take our Smoove with 5 fouls and just a few minutes to go? Woody continues this conservative approach when everything is on the line!

Lol. Sorry to hijack your thread. I did address the questions in my first post though.

And Woody is a bad coach.

[TheTruth]

Fair enough.

1. Don't know. I just dont know. Maybe he was scared we would miss some FTs, but we were still up 3.

2. I would have rested him, especially with the tweaked knee. Now if it had been the 2nd or 3rd quarter...

3. I would have to agree. It appears he was just being conservative.

[yardbird]

1. I like Bronnt's answer.

2. I agree, Horford should have played

3. It was a close game and one shot could have meant OT. JS was very emotional and hyped up, picking up fouls soon after returning to the game from being held out to protect him earlier. Maybe the thinking was that you'd like to have your best weak side defender available in OT.