Woodson believes he deserves to return

[AnnArborHawk]

This is my concern with Woody staying on a year. Larry Drew and one other assistant (can't remember which one) tried to leave after last year. Now they're no longer under contract and are free to leave if they choose.

So let's say ASG gives Woody the one year extension. He'll likely have to bring in 2 new assistants. If it doesn't work out, then we can Woody and bring in a whole new coaching staff after another year.

That constant change over the next 2 years just doesn't sit well with me having a bunch of young guys on the team. I'd rather just cut ties and start fresh with a new coaching staff that can stick around a few years.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

The next big step will require a coaching change I do believe. What is the Hawks style? Woody has been here for years and sometimes the team plays uptempo and sometimes they try to play halfcourt.

I think this is 100% true. What is even more damning is when we change styles. 9 times out of 10, when we play uptempo it is against a team that wants to play uptempo against us and when we play halfcourt it is against a team that wants to play us in the halfcourt. We have never tried to exploit mismatches under Woodson or developed a style we can try to impose on other teams.

Hell, Rick Pitino instilled a style of play and coaxed 36 wins in a tougher Eastern Conference his first year in Boston with a team that had only one rebounder who averaged more than 5 per game (Antoine Walker) and only two guys who averaged more than 12 points per game (Antoine Walker and rookie Ron Mercer). Pitino is a great college coach but when his first season with a low, low talent Boston teams puts your peak accomplishments to shame over a 4 year period in the NBA with a roster full of lottery picks (our top 7 players in Bibby, Law, JJ, Marvin, Chills, Josh S. and Horford are comprised of 6 lottery picks and Josh Smith) that doesn't instill any kind of confidence in me that you are going to get it right next time.

The ability to impose a style on a team and develop that style so it can be imposed on others is an essential part of the NBA game, IMO. Even versatile teams like the Spurs use their versatility as an offensive weapon to take teams out of their games rather than as exclusively a counterstrike where you take the other team's best punch and try to outdo them.

[Diesel]

Quote:

---

We have never tried to exploit mismatches under Woodson or developed a style we can try to impose on other teams.

As much as I want to agree with this... there are some points of disagreement.

I think we exploit weaker teams with our style for a point.

For instance, we damn near ran Miami out of the gym for 3 qtrs.. and there are a lot of teams that we can say that about.

I think it's a case that we don't exert our strength on teams that are strong at making teams play their way.

It was one game that spoke volumes this season. Early in the year we played Detroit. Detroit known as a defensive, plodding team. Well, we came in looking to be a plodding team and they ran us out the building. Those old men just continued the fast break parade on us. At that point, I knew that teams who are strong willed with force us into their game.

Is that coaching?

Is it coaching when Smoove shys away from contact and puts his toes on the three point line never to play in the paint no more? Maybe. Coaching has to find a way to overcome personality.

[Packfill]

Quote:

---

The team has earned more wins each year he has been coach, and made the playoffs for the first time in nearly a decade under him...........

Maybe he does deserve one more year.

Lets step back a bit and look at the past two seasons and afterwards please tell me why Woody deserves to stay:

In 2006-07 the Hawks won 30 games. During that season the Hawks suffered some major injuries and each key player missed significant time, including Joe Johnson. Also, let us keep in mind that Smith, Childress, Williams and Marvin were all less experienced and younger then in 2007-08.

In 2007-08 the Hawks won 37 games. Yes they did improve by a whole 7 games, which is significant. However, the Hawks did not have the same injury problems they had the previous season and they added a significant amount of talent (i.e., Horford, Law and Bibby) and were more experienced then the previous season. So, given all that, is the 7 game improvement that impressive?

Also, lets keep in mind that improving from terrible to middle of the pack (if the Hawks are even there yet) is relatively easy. Improving from middle of the pack to serious contender, however, if very difficult.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Quote:

---

Even with Bibby we failed on several chances to really lock up the playoff spot against . We continued to play as inconsistently as ever and please don't overlook that despite going to 7 games we were basically embarrassed in 4 losses in Boston including a game seven we couldn't even make competitive. You can blame the players and youth etc. but at some point the coach has to be able to put them in a position to win.

Does anyone remember our march to the playoffs? Here is a refresher:

Apr 2 vs Toronto W 127-120 Johnson 28/Horford 12/Bibby 12

Apr 4 vs Philadelphia L 104-109 Johnson 32/Smith 8/Bibby 11

Apr 5 at Philadelphia W 92-85 Johnson 22/Horford 12/Johnson 6

Apr 8 at Indiana L 98-112 Johnson 30/Smith 13/Johnson 4

Apr 11 at New York W 116-104 Johnson 34/Horford 11/Johnson 6

Apr 12 vs Boston L 89-99 Johnson 21/Horford 11/Johnson 8

Apr 15 vs Orlando L 105-121 Williams 16/Horford 11/Horford 6

Apr 16 at Miami L 99-113

We locked up the playoff spot after the Boston loss, when Indy lost. Before that Boston loss, we'd won 11 out of 15 games. THAT was our "march" to the playoffs.

Here's what I find hilarious. After we did lock up the playoff spot, many people on this board were wanting Woody to basically play the scrubs as much as possible to either get them somewhat ready for the playoffs, or see what they could do with extended playing time. The final 2 games, in most people's eyes, didn't matter one bit.

And while we didn't completely shut it down as a team, Bibby and especially JJ did during those last 2 games.

Yet, people act like we played all out to win those final 2 games. So when we win 37 games, instead of 39 games, it looks worse. And because it looks worse, people truly want to believe that this team didn't improve much or that they faultered down the stretch.

Please.

The next step for the Hawks, is to become as close to a .500 team on the road as possible. We're not improved, but we won 25 home games, and 3 home playoff games against the possible EC represenative?

And the reason why the East is weak, is because the mediocre teams in the East can't beat the West teams on the road outside of Memphis and Seattle. And even those teams had some success against the mediocre East teams.

There is very little difference between the lower seeded East playoff teams: Atlanta, Philly, Washington, and Toronto.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Yet, people act like we played all out to win those final 2 games. So when we win 37 games, instead of 39 games, it looks worse. And because it looks worse, people truly want to believe that this team didn't improve much or that they faultered down the stretch.

Orlando had nothing to play for either. Miami is Miami.

Any team can go back and say well we should have won this game or that game. Bottom line is that your record is what it is.

The Hawks won 37 games in a lame conference.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

We have never tried to exploit mismatches under Woodson or developed a style we can try to impose on other teams.

As much as I want to agree with this... there are some points of disagreement.

I think we exploit weaker teams with our style for a point.

For instance, we damn near ran Miami out of the gym for 3 qtrs.. and there are a lot of teams that we can say that about.

I think that is definitely the exception to the rule, though. I agree with you that we have been more likely to actually dictate pace against unorganized, outmatched teams than against playoff quality rosters. I don't think, however, that we ever developed an actual identity and that we tried to force a halfcourt offense by choice WAY too often.

[Diesel]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

We have never tried to exploit mismatches under Woodson or developed a style we can try to impose on other teams.

As much as I want to agree with this... there are some points of disagreement.

I think we exploit weaker teams with our style for a point.

For instance, we damn near ran Miami out of the gym for 3 qtrs.. and there are a lot of teams that we can say that about.

I think that is definitely the exception to the rule, though. I agree with you that we have been more likely to actually dictate pace against unorganized, outmatched teams than against playoff quality rosters. I don't think, however, that we ever developed an actual identity and that we tried to force a halfcourt offense by choice WAY too often.

That... I agree with. Which is why I suggest bringing in a strong offensive X and O guy. Especially a guy who has the talent to be head coach. Alvin Gentry or Terry Porter comes to mind. So does Del Harris.

[bronnt]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Even with Bibby we failed on several chances to really lock up the playoff spot against . We continued to play as inconsistently as ever and please don't overlook that despite going to 7 games we were basically embarrassed in 4 losses in Boston including a game seven we couldn't even make competitive. You can blame the players and youth etc. but at some point the coach has to be able to put them in a position to win.

Does anyone remember our march to the playoffs? Here is a refresher:

Apr 2 vs Toronto W 127-120 Johnson 28/Horford 12/Bibby 12

Apr 4 vs Philadelphia L 104-109 Johnson 32/Smith 8/Bibby 11

Apr 5 at Philadelphia W 92-85 Johnson 22/Horford 12/Johnson 6

Apr 8 at Indiana L 98-112 Johnson 30/Smith 13/Johnson 4

Apr 11 at New York W 116-104 Johnson 34/Horford 11/Johnson 6

Apr 12 vs Boston L 89-99 Johnson 21/Horford 11/Johnson 8

Apr 15 vs Orlando L 105-121 Williams 16/Horford 11/Horford 6

Apr 16 at Miami L 99-113

We locked up the playoff spot after the Boston loss, when Indy lost. Before that Boston loss, we'd won 11 out of 15 games. THAT was our "march" to the playoffs.

Here's what I find hilarious. After we did lock up the playoff spot, many people on this board were wanting Woody to basically play the scrubs as much as possible to either get them somewhat ready for the playoffs, or see what they could do with extended playing time. The final 2 games, in most people's eyes, didn't matter one bit.

And while we didn't completely shut it down as a team, Bibby and especially JJ did during those last 2 games.

Yet, people act like we played all out to win those final 2 games. So when we win 37 games, instead of 39 games, it looks worse. And because it looks worse, people truly want to believe that this team didn't improve much or that they faultered down the stretch.

Please.

The next step for the Hawks, is to become as close to a .500 team on the road as possible. We're not improved, but we won 25 home games, and 3 home playoff games against the possible EC represenative?

And the reason why the East is weak, is because the mediocre teams in the East can't beat the West teams on the road outside of Memphis and Seattle. And even those teams had some success against the mediocre East teams.

There is very little difference between the lower seeded East playoff teams: Atlanta, Philly, Washington, and Toronto.

The difference between Washington and Atlanta is 6 games, and Washington did that with Gilbert Arenas playing in only 13 games. Imagine how big that gap is if Arenas plays in 80 games.

A lot of you want to reference that stretch of the season where Woodson had Bibby. Take my word for it, Bibby got here in time for our absolute weakest stretch on the schedule. From March 16 to the end of the season, we played ONE western conference team, and it was Memphis. We played the Knicks THREE times. Also we had two games against the Bulls, and games against Milwaukee, Indiana, and New Jersey.

12 of our last 17 games were played against teams with a losing record. That's a pretty large percentage, guys. We were absolutely due for a winning streak. By the way, at that point in the season, there's not a lot of teams that have anything to play for. Playoff position had been determined for several teams, like Boston and Orlando, well before the end, and Miami and NY knew they were jockeying for lottery position.

Two teams who had something to play for were New Jersey and Indiana. They were the two teams who were fighting with us for the last position in the Eastern conference playoffs. They weren't exactly good teams either. But we lost to both of those teams-they should have been big games for us, but we were almost NEVER in that game against the Pacers.

Please don't use the stretch run to defend Mike Woodson. Stick to the playoff wins-at least those were against a good team, even if Woodson was less responsible for those than the home crowd.

Northcyde, your 11 wins during our MARCH to the playoffs: NY Knicks (3 times), Washington, Orlando (a nice win), Milwaukee, Chicago, Memphis, Toronto, and Philly. That's TWO teams with winning records. A nice march over poor competition.

EDIT: The more I look at the last line of the post I quoted, the more funny it gets. There is little difference between the Hawks and Indiana, New Jersey, and Chicago. I mean, it's only four games between the Hawks and the Bulls, and 6 between the Hawks and Washington (who played most of the year without Arenas). Congratulations, I can say we're solidly one of the 11 best teams in the weak East. Status quo is unacceptable-we have to be a team that can play over .500 for a season.

[Admin]

If you want to claim that the stretch run was against the "easy teams" then you damn well better include that first stretch out west with Bibby when we could have easily lost every game out there. That was the hardest part of our schedule and yet even with that stretch against the best teams when we lost those games out west we still were a .500 club with Bibby.

Sorry but you just can't discredit the wins because they were against "easy teams".

[bronnt]

Quote:

---

If you want to claim that the stretch run was against the "easy teams" then you damn well better include that first stretch out west with Bibby when we could have easily lost every game out there. That was the hardest part of our schedule and yet even with that stretch against the best teams when we lost those games out west we still were a .500 club with Bibby.

Sorry but you just can't discredit the wins because they were against "easy teams".

Wait, how does this disprove my point? We lost against good teams and won against weak teams and that's a good thing?

[Admin]

The point is that we were a better team with Bibby than without, which proves to me that we can win with Woody and all he needed was a PG. If we can be a .500 team with a gimpy Bibby at PG and basically only 7 useful players on the team imagine what we could be with 10 guys and a healthy Bibby.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Quote:

---

Orlando had nothing to play for either. Miami is Miami.

Any team can go back and say well we should have won this game or that game. Bottom line is that your record is what it is.

The Hawks won 37 games in a lame conference.

So if none of those teams had anything to play for, includng us, why do people keep citing those final 2 games as if they mattered? Whether we lost those 2 games, won them, or split, it didn't matter one bit at the end of the year.

Would people really feel any better about the Hawks, if we'd won 39 games? Would they feel better if we'd locked up the playoff spot by beating Indy @ Indy, but still lost 3 of their final 4 games, to win only 38 games?

The fact is that the next step for this team is to win on the road at least at a 50% clip, while still winning 25+ home games.

We won 37 games this year, but was the 8th best team in the East, and won 3 playoff games. Yet, the 37 win total overrides everything?

[Diesel]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

If you want to claim that the stretch run was against the "easy teams" then you damn well better include that first stretch out west with Bibby when we could have easily lost every game out there. That was the hardest part of our schedule and yet even with that stretch against the best teams when we lost those games out west we still were a .500 club with Bibby.

Sorry but you just can't discredit the wins because they were against "easy teams".

Wait, how does this disprove my point? We lost against good teams and won against weak teams and that's a good thing?

Bront, I happen to think Dol assumes too much in his argument.

However, I say this: It's hard to determine if we won those games because they were easy teams or if we won those games because Bibby started to gel with the teams. I want to say that when we needed to win in the last three games, we couldn't speaks to the ease of schedule. But on the otherhand if Bibby made no difference, we would have been swept by Boston.

So it's a chicken egg kind of question.

[Admin]

What am I assuming too much about?

[bronnt]

Quote:

---

The point is that we were a better team with Bibby than without, which proves to me that we can win with Woody and all he needed was a PG. If we can be a .500 team with a gimpy Bibby at PG and basically only 7 useful players on the team imagine what we could be with 10 guys and a healthy Bibby.

I can't decisvely say that we were a better team with Bibby. Say what you will about AJ, he played really well for us when he was the starter. Bibby is a better player an does a lot of things that AJ can't, but our BEST stretch of the season was in December. We beat Utah at home during that stretch, and won games at Orlando and at Washington. We even played made a run at Dallas at the start of the fourth quarter to make it a close game before the Mavs ultimately pulled away. We also beat some easy teams in there as well, but we beat three teams that were actually pretty good, and two of those on the road.

But honestly, we probably are a better team with Bibby-when he's healthy. I think sometime around early April he must have aggravated that thumb injury because we much less effective than he was immediatelya fter we got him. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt there. So why does Woodson deserve credit for the team playing a little better when we got a better player? That's not coaching, that's improving your talent level.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Orlando had nothing to play for either. Miami is Miami.

Any team can go back and say well we should have won this game or that game. Bottom line is that your record is what it is.

The Hawks won 37 games in a lame conference.

So if none of those teams had anything to play for, includng us, why do people keep citing those final 2 games as if they mattered? Whether we lost those 2 games, won them, or split, it didn't matter one bit at the end of the year.

Would people really feel any better about the Hawks, if we'd won 39 games? Would they feel better if we'd locked up the playoff spot by beating Indy @ Indy, but still lost 3 of their final 4 games, to win only 38 games?

The fact is that the next step for this team is to win on the road at least at a 50% clip, while still winning 25+ home games.

We won 37 games this year, but was the 8th best team in the East, and won 3 playoff games. Yet, the 37 win total overrides everything?

The 37 wins doesn't override the 3 playoff wins. but the 3 playoff wins don't override the 37 wins either.

The 37 wins is absolute. They didn't win 38 or 39 they won 37. Ifs don't count in the standings.

If the timekeeper had started the clock a little later TJ's layup could have counted and we would have won only 36, but it doesn't matter. We won 37.

[Admin]

Quote:

---

I can't decisvely say that we were a better team with Bibby.

Statistically we were much better offensively with Bibby, but we were also much worse with Bibby defensively. I think a lot of that had to do with him being injured (heel and thumb) and not having a lot of practice time in our system. Granted he isn't as good as AJ defensively and we struggled in that area, but I think we will be better defensively next year than we were this year with Bibby.

Quote:

---

So why does Woodson deserve credit for the team playing a little better when we got a better player? That's not coaching, that's improving your talent level.

With any position on the team other than PG I would agree with you on this point, but for the first time in the Woody era he finally had a PG to run the team. Talent wise we got better, but we also got a lot more shallow in terms of depth after that trade so that cancels each other out.

[JackB1]

Quote:

---

The point is that we were a better team with Bibby than without, which proves to me that we can win with Woody and all he needed was a PG. If we can be a .500 team with a gimpy Bibby at PG and basically only 7 useful players on the team imagine what we could be with 10 guys and a healthy Bibby.

Now just imagine how good be with 10 guys, a healthy Bibby and an above average coach!

A "Woodson Coached" team will NEVER get to the NBA finals. Bet the house on it.

[bronnt]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

If you want to claim that the stretch run was against the "easy teams" then you damn well better include that first stretch out west with Bibby when we could have easily lost every game out there. That was the hardest part of our schedule and yet even with that stretch against the best teams when we lost those games out west we still were a .500 club with Bibby.

Sorry but you just can't discredit the wins because they were against "easy teams".

Wait, how does this disprove my point? We lost against good teams and won against weak teams and that's a good thing?

Bront, I happen to think Dol assumes too much in his argument.

However, I say this: It's hard to determine if we won those games because they were easy teams or if we won those games because Bibby started to gel with the teams. I want to say that when we needed to win in the last three games, we couldn't speaks to the ease of schedule. But on the otherhand if Bibby made no difference, we would have been swept by Boston.

So it's a chicken egg kind of question.

Wait, what exactly did Bibby do that helped us in the series aginst Boston? He had one game where he shot over 35%. He shot 65% from the free throw line. He shot 29.2% from three. He was pretty much outplayed by Rondo at all aspects of the game-couldn't even really slow him down. The only game I'll really give him is game 6, when he scored 17 (on 17 shots!!) with 7 assists and no turnovers. But he did miss three free throws in that game, a close one, and he's a career 80% FT shooter. I'd like to give him credit for game 4, but he had 4 turnovers in that game and we were down in the fourth quarter until Joe Johnson played 1-on-5 and took the game over for us.