Sign in to follow this  
HawkItus

Two year extension offered to Woodson

Recommended Posts

Quote:


Quote:


Please tell me you do not really believe this. If this were the case then every Fortune 500 CEO would be hired without an interview. OH COMMMMME ONNNNN.Give me a break. Are you so in passionate love with your position that you cannot even acknowledge this SIMPLE truth?When's the last time you spent two hours watching a CEO manage his team even once? What's more... think Fortune 30, not 500.There are 30 teams that have coaching staffs from which a given team typically will choose to make hires, plus a handful that are former employees.

Quote:


Besides, Woody's previous supervisor wanted him fired.Yes. And, come to think of it, wasn't that the very popular and well-regarded GM who everyone here admired and thought was just a wonderful decision-maker?So, now, it's convenient to hide behind BK as if you LIKED his decision-making?????....sheesh...Please. Do you honestly believe that any of the current NBA head coaches were hired without first interviewing with the GM?Don't you think every GM that makes a decision to hire a coach does so after personnally interviewing the candidates? Don't you think part of the evaluation is how well the two can work together? Whether they share a similar approach to building a team? And yes, the CEO's of the the 30 largest companies did universally interview for their jobs. What's more, CEO's are evaluated all the time. Daily. They face far more scrutiny then any NBA head coach. Board's of Directors have independent advisors retained to assist them in evaluating the effectiveness of their executive officers. Moreover, they have stockholders to answer to - just like teams have fans. There are also more news publications devoted to their moves and non-moves then any coach has to deal with. No one is hiding behind BK. BK was a bad GM. BK is the guy that made the mistake of hiring Woody in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:


Your idol BK tried to fire Woody so obviously he didn't think too much of Woody's job performance. Either BK was wrong, Sund is wrong or the ASG is the one who made the decision and Sunds hands are tied.

So, you too would like now to hide behind BK as-if his decision-making was okay after all?

Figures.

What you miscalculate here is that I acknowledge that BK may have been right to seek Woodson's dismissal, and that he may have been wrong. What seems to bother you is that I can say "I don't know" and it just flows so easily off of my keyboard, while you are so hung up on taking a position regardless of the presumptions and lack of real knowledge at your disposal.

===========================

EDIT: Hmmmm... seems, given your dichotomous question above, I've hit the proverbial nail on the head.

Deal with it. I don't know, and neither do you... but it only bothers one of us to think that we don't.

===========================

Quote:


You can't dance around the facts no matter how hard you try.

Thanks for the insight, Mr. Travolta. Given that we just saw Rambo and Indy reappear, wonder when's that next Fever movie coming out?

Perhaps instead of pontificating your black and white truths (that give no indication that you have a clue that there are players who play the game who figure in ever-so-slightly in the W/L record and GMs who obtain those players), you would care to explain the Fitchs and Rivers of the coaching world??? Were they bad coaches with good teams or good coaches with bad teams?

Your turn... let's see what you dream up for your next rhetorical shell game/diversionary tactic.

For my part, I've exhausted the topic, and done here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Omg Bruce you are a idiot sir. ASG can all suckk my fuking dickk. I bet Woody gives them good blowjobs. Flip is too old and Avery would bite their dickss of so i see a reason for keeping Woody now. He is young and has nice lips.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I warned all of you guys not to be surprised when Woody was offered the job again... I don't know why you guys really tohught he would actually leave when Sund didn't even interview anybody yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:


you would care to explain the Fitchs and Rivers of the coaching world??? Were they bad coaches with good teams or good coaches with bad teams?

Again you try to dodge the issue but you have nowhere to hide.

Like i said the Hawks record shows a failure of either BK's ability to build a roster or Woody's ability to coach it. Both of them can't be blameless but somehow you can't pin any blame on either.

In the cases of Rivers and Fitch they obviously had very poor rosters to work with.

Quote:


So, you too would like now to hide behind BK as-if his decision-making was okay after all?

Figures.

I am not hiding behind anything. You are the one constantly hiding to dodge reality. You are Captain Hypothetical. You can't hold anyone accountable for anything.

I think BK was absolutely right wanting to fire Woody but he had made so many blunders over the years that the ASG probably skeptical of his view.

Quote:


What you miscalculate here is that I acknowledge that BK may have been right to seek Woodson's dismissal, and that he may have been wrong. What seems to bother you is that I can say "I don't know"

Funny but you didn't say "i don't know" when Sund just hired Woody. You are defending the hire and say it is clear that he saw enough value in rehiring Woody that he didn't need to interview anyone else.

This stands in sharp contrast to BK who saw Woody for 3 years and wanted him gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:


Once again...Did the Atlanta Hawks underachieve last year?7We only improved by 7 games from last year. We didn't have any injuries, we got Horford and Bibby + 1 more year of experience from other players. We only made the playoffs because the east is weak as hell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:


Quote:


Quote:


The only questions are DID THE ATLANTA HAWKS UNDERACHIEVE LAST YEAR? and COULD A DIFFERENT COACH HAVE COACHED THIS TEAM TO A BETTER SEED IN THE NBA PLAYOFFS?

So, given your assertion, and obviously your vast resources from which to glean the knowledge, how do YOU measure underachievement?

(It's quite fascinating because, I don't know about you particularly, but I'm pretty sure I recall most Hawksquawkers predicting something in the range of a 35 win season last October.)

I thought it was fairly easy to see that we underachieved (in the EASTERN CONFERENCE) this year... My proof is how we performed in the playoffs... Had we performed like we did in the home games more this season we wouldn't have been the #8 seed... Had we not been the #8 seed, would we have made it further in the playoffs?

Plus, I honestly don't see why I always argue the point that we need a new coach... I think his record speaks for itself... You can make up all the excuses you want, but that only justifies his first through third season as coach... You can't honestly tell me that we didn't underachieve this year in the weak East...

7

You're right.

I can't tell you that.

I also can't tell you that the Hawks didn't perform within the standard deviation of where they should have peformed.

And neither can you.

While you raise an interesting point about the achievement in the playoffs, why do you so conveniently ignore the obvious counterpoint, which would be that the team hadn't reached a level of maturity yet to be able to do that? The team essentially turned on the afterburners in mid-March and used a 11-4 run just before the season's end.

That's not to be EXPECTED of the league's youngest team?

Sure it is. Look at practically any team that went from similar depths to great heights, and you'll find a season when that franchise had some extreme highs and extreme lows before they matured into something significant.

Finally... the record never speaks for itself, and if you dispute that, work something out with Exodus... the two of you have some explaining to do (e.g., Rivers, Fitch... and several others if I really wanted to dig it up).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:


Funny but you didn't say "i don't know" when Sund just hired Woody. You are defending the hire and say it is clear that he saw enough value in rehiring Woody that he didn't need to interview anyone else.

Okay, putting aside your astute ability to determine that Fitch and Rivers were good coaches who COULDN'T BE EVALUATED SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF THEIR RECORDS IN CLEVELAND AND ORLANDO... that's even though, "the standings don't lie."

(...btw... you will confirm, will you not, that I ***didn't*** make up that quote, right?...)

Instead of paraphrasing and slanting and posturing my position to, what I am sure is, your best good-hearted attempt to put my reasoning in the best possible light... WHY NOT... just quote me instead???

Here's what I said, and do please note what is.... CLEARLY... the I DON'T KNOW part of it.

Quote:


Did he do that? And even if he did, is his judgment sound?

The best you or I can say is "I don't know. But given his longevity and the respect he has around the league, one should be able to hope that they can give him a benefit of a doubt."

It's always energizing to see a coaching change.

But having said that, personally, I don't think there was one right or one wrong decision here... for all of the advocacy of Avery Johnson and Flip Saunders, the measure of coaching is much more than simply W/L records. Those guys had a playoff-proven roster to work with, but in the end didn't satisfy their employers that they were making the end-product better by their work... not saying that hiring one of them wouldn't have had its merits, but just that there's no slam-dunk-obvious decision to make here given the pool of candidates.

ASIDE: Btw, just out of curiosity... do you have a job? What do you do for a living that allows you to post, on average, a little more than 13 posts EVERY single day of your existence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:


Quote:


Your idol BK tried to fire Woody so obviously he didn't think too much of Woody's job performance. Either BK was wrong, Sund is wrong or the ASG is the one who made the decision and Sunds hands are tied.

So, you too would like now to hide behind BK as-if his decision-making was okay after all?

Figures.

What you miscalculate here is that I acknowledge that BK may have been right to seek Woodson's dismissal, and that he may have been wrong. What seems to bother you is that I can say "I don't know" and it just flows so easily off of my keyboard, while you are so hung up on taking a position regardless of the presumptions and lack of real knowledge at your disposal.

===========================

EDIT: Hmmmm... seems, given your dichotomous question above, I've hit the proverbial nail on the head.

Deal with it. I don't know, and neither do you... but it only bothers one of us to think that we don't.

===========================

That is really the bottomline. Sturt doesn't know whether Woodson should have been retained and now resigned. I don't think people are going to get any further trying to debate him on this point. He doesn't think that any coach on the market is appreciably better than Woodson and pressing him on it isn't going to get any further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:


Okay, putting aside your astute ability to determine that Fitch and Rivers were good coaches who COULDN'T BE EVALUATED SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF THEIR RECORDS IN CLEVELAND AND ORLANDO... that's even though, "the standings don't lie."

it is absolutely true that the standings dont lie. What you apparently forgot (or more likely are choosing to ignore) is that i mentioned Woody AND your idol BK. The blame has to go on one of them but so far you refuse to blame either.

You are always refusing to hold anyone accountable.

Quote:


WHY NOT... just quote me instead???

OK

Quote:


Seems to be pretty clear, then... Sund saw some promise in keeping Woody compared with experimenting with the alternatives

This is known as an assumption, the same thing you accuse us of doing. Apparently it is ok for you to assume Sund saw promise in keeping Woody (despite BK's obvious desire to get rid of him) but it ISN'T ok for us to assume the decision was made by the ASG.

Given that BK tried to fire Woody but the ASG refused that gives our position a much stronger foundation than yours.

Quote:


I don't think there was one right or one wrong decision here

Again the avoidance of any accountability. So if Woody continues to suck then it isn't really Sunds fault because there wasn't a clear choice. Sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:


Which of these two statements is true;1) BK was wrong for trying to fire Woody. 2) Sund is wrong for hiring Woody. You can pick only one. *waits for inevitable dodge*Or the ASG forced Sund to keep Woody.It's very possible that they want to give the public the facade that Sund has all the power so that we as fans don't lash out at them for being overly controlling. Obviously these decisions should be up to people with applicable basketball knowledge (GM's), not owners.I bet they wouldn't want us to know if they made Sund retain him...And that is what I think happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:


Or the ASG forced Sund to keep Woody.sturt doesn't believe that. I just wanted to show how determined he is to avoid reality. There is no way both BK and Sund were right on Woody but sturt simply can't bring himself to say one of them is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:


Quote:


Or the ASG forced Sund to keep Woody.sturt doesn't believe that. I just wanted to show how determined he is to avoid reality. There is no way both BK and Sund were right on Woody but sturt simply can't bring himself to say one of them is wrong.My point is, maybe it wasn't Sund that decided to keep Woody...I'd actually say there is a really big chance it wasn't his choice.So we can't attribute this extension offer to him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:


Quote:


Quote:


Please tell me you do not really believe this. If this were the case then every Fortune 500 CEO would be hired without an interview. OH COMMMMME ONNNNN.Give me a break. Are you so in passionate love with your position that you cannot even acknowledge this SIMPLE truth?When's the last time you spent two hours watching a CEO manage his team even once? What's more... think Fortune 30, not 500.There are 30 teams that have coaching staffs from which a given team typically will choose to make hires, plus a handful that are former employees.

Quote:


Besides, Woody's previous supervisor wanted him fired.Yes. And, come to think of it, wasn't that the very popular and well-regarded GM who everyone here admired and thought was just a wonderful decision-maker?So, now, it's convenient to hide behind BK as if you LIKED his decision-making?????....sheesh...Please. Do you honestly believe that any of the current NBA head coaches were hired without first interviewing with the GM?Don't you think every GM that makes a decision to hire a coach does so after personnally interviewing the candidates? Don't you think part of the evaluation is how well the two can work together? Whether they share a similar approach to building a team? And yes, the CEO's of the the 30 largest companies did universally interview for their jobs. What's more, CEO's are evaluated all the time. Daily. They face far more scrutiny then any NBA head coach. Board's of Directors have independent advisors retained to assist them in evaluating the effectiveness of their executive officers. Moreover, they have stockholders to answer to - just like teams have fans. There are also more news publications devoted to their moves and non-moves then any coach has to deal with. No one is hiding behind BK. BK was a bad GM. BK is the guy that made the mistake of hiring Woody in the first place.EDS, I don't think there's clear communication going on here.You're arguing against something that I didn't say, or at least, didn't mean for you to take it that way.Let me try again.In the NBA, the limited number of "companies" and "lead managers," put together with the nightly display of the "lead managers' projects" (ie, games) makes it undeniably easier to evaluate the field of candidates for a given position. That's not to suggest that there aren't other areas worth looking into, but it is to suggest that there is a LOT of evidence that the top executive can look at for an NBA team that a Fortune 500 exec doesn't have, just by the nature of the different environments. Neither companies nor teams interview people without some compelling reason for believing that they need more information. So, I would offer the educated guess that Sund wasn't any more thrilled by what he saw "out there" than intrigued by the possibility of what he already had "in here," and made a decision accordingly.May be a terrible decision, may be the perfect decision, but more likely will be somewhere in-between, of course.And, yes, there's a possibility that it wasn't even his decision... that ASG was of one mind and that they all agreed to put it upon Sund to keep Woodson. That's a tougher sell, in my mind, b/c of the number of egos involved, all of whom probably have an inclination that they're always right. But... I don't know for a fact that it didn't happen just that way.All I know is that I believe Woody deserves some criticism for some bench moves from time to time, but as the lesson of Fitch teaches, one deludes himself if he thinks just the W/L record is an accurate measurement of Woody's value as a coach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you interview someone when you have the position filled? I keep seeing this and I'm floored as to where you guys work where they interview for occupied positions? I've worked for Manufacturers, Government Agencies, and Law Firms. I have never seen a position interviewed for when the incumbents contract is up for renewal. And if a company did this the person in that job would have surely walked. Are you guys crazy? That would be the ultimate slap in the face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:


How do you interview someone when you have the position filled? I keep seeing this and I'm floored as to where you guys work where they interview for occupied positions? I've worked for Manufacturers, Government Agencies, and Law Firms. I have never seen a position interviewed for when the incumbents contract is up for renewal. And if a company did this the person in that job would have surely walked. Are you guys crazy? That would be the ultimate slap in the face.I think Woody needs a slap in the face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:


Quote:


Quote:


Or the ASG forced Sund to keep Woody.

sturt doesn't believe that. I just wanted to show how determined he is to avoid reality. There is no way both BK and Sund were right on Woody but sturt simply can't bring himself to say one of them is wrong.

My point is, maybe it wasn't Sund that decided to keep Woody...I'd actually say there is a really big chance it wasn't his choice.

So we can't attribute this extension offer to him.

I agree and it seems most people here do to.

But i was asking sturt and he is a special case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.