Two year extension offered to Woodson

[Cwell]

the positition was not filled.His contract was over.

[HawkItus]

Quote:

---

the positition was not filled.His contract was over.No his contract is not over yet......and regardless....name me one instance where a company interviews for a contracted position before releasing the current employee?.....it doesn't happen....you can't interview people and then come back to Woody while he is under contract....and if you wait until after he is under contract do you think he's going to take a 2 year deal when you possibly get turned down by everyone else? wow. You guys are living in la la land.

[sturt]

Quote:

---

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.

BK had a plan, and mainly worked his plan. The plan, as is to be expected in anyplace not named Utopia, had highs and lows.

You label that as "having an idol." I call it... "observation."

Have it your way, I don't really care.

And you... you are always "holding accountable" without acknowledging the vast presumptions you use to weild your judgment. You don't know what you don't know, but worse, you don't even acknowledge that such a thing exists. You seem to be much like one would imagein Joe McCarthy to have been in his younger days... proud of his astute judgment based built on presumption.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

OK

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

Quote:

---

This is known as an assumption, the same thing you accuse us of doing...

English lesson for ex...

"Seems to be" = "It would appear, but there is room for some dispute."

"Is" = "Certainty"

Therefore... it is not presumption to say "seems to be."

....sorry... do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

...Next?

[exodus]

Here is my very first post in this thread.

Quote:

---

Obviously this raises issues.

Did Sund really make the decision or is the ASG pulling the strings?

If Sund did make this decision on his own then that raises questions about his judgement considering how many coaches were available. I certainly didn't hear of any other coaches being interviewed.

Why don't you point out the presumptions i made here?

Quote:

---

BK had a plan, and mainly worked his plan.

So what? Having a plan doesn't mean squat if it isn't a good plan or isn't well executed.

Now lets put your dodgeball skills to the test. You say you don't know whether BK or Sund (assuming he made the decision on his own) is right about Woody. However since they both hold opposit views doesn't that mean one of them HAS TO BE WRONG?

[Packfill]

Quote:

---

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.Sturt,Watching the games is not enough for a GM to make an informed decision, particularly if that involves watching game tapes - which I presume is what Sund did since I don't think he attended many Hawks games. If you are just watching the tape, How does Sund know what BK was doing in the huddles, in the locker room and on the bench? How does he know what involvement Woody has with what is happening on the court. Occasional glances of the coach yelling probably don't help, nor to the frequent shots of Woody looking dumbfounded.There is no way you can honestly believe that there is any GM in the NBA that would hire a coach without interviewing him, his assistants and talking with anyone he knows that has insight on the candidate. And CEO's do have a daily display of their abilities, whether it be how they handle board meetings, analyst calls, press appearences, public events, etc. Plus the news media follows the moves of these CEOs much closer then a coach of a team like the Hawks.Very Truly,EDS

[sturt]

Quote:

---

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.

So, getting back to where we started, you would endorse the idea then that there's a real possibility that the W/L record is all or mostly BK's fault, and that Woody may, after all, be an excellent coach, just saddled with a bad roster... ???

After all, this all began with the suggestion by a poster that Woody doesn't deserve to continue, and it's as simple as looking at the W/L record.

But, if what you're suggesting is true, maybe Woody is the next Doc Rivers???

(Something tells me we're about to see ex perform his electric slide... or maybe the foxtrot.)

[sturt]

Quote:

---

...There is no way you can honestly believe that there is any GM in the NBA that would hire a coach without interviewing himSee, this is what I'm saying... you're arguing a point that I'm not arguing, EDS.I do not believe there is any GM in the NBA that would hire a coach without interviewing him.THAT is NOT the same thing as saying I believe that GMs in the NBA screen out potential coaching candidates on the basis of their (1) observation and (2) discussions with other NBA decision-makers.

[gsuteke]

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

the positition was not filled.His contract was over.No his contract is not over yet......and regardless....name me one instance where a company interviews for a contracted position before releasing the current employee?.....it doesn't happen....you can't interview people and then come back to Woody while he is under contract....and if you wait until after he is under contract do you think he's going to take a 2 year deal when you possibly get turned down by everyone else? wow. You guys are living in la la land.sultan is right that I can't think of an instance where a team interviewed candidates and then decided to bring back the incumbent. That said, the Hawks could certainly be doing this behind the scenes and maybe that is even what was going on the past two weeks. We can't do much other than speculate and wring our hands at (or applaud) the decision to retain Woodson.

[gsuteke]

Can someone change my sig to Part Five?

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

So, getting back to where we started, you would endorse the idea then that there's a real possibility that the W/L record is all or mostly BK's fault, and that Woody may, after all, be an excellent coach, just saddled with a bad roster... ???

After all, this all began with the suggestion by a poster that Woody doesn't deserve to continue, and it's as simple as looking at the W/L record.

But, if what you're suggesting is true, maybe Woody is the next Doc Rivers???

(Something tells me we're about to see ex perform his electric slide... or maybe the foxtrot.)

Before this season i refused to pin any blame on Woody at all because the roster was so flawed. I felt that his coaching ability was basically irrelevant.

But this year he had more talent than past years and his coaching flaws became much more obvious. He continues to let Smith jack up 3s. He mismanagement of rotations and yanking guys before they even get into foul trouble were ridiculous. Those are just the obvious points. There are many others that came up nightly watching the games.

This year it became painfully obvious that he just isn't a quality coach. Granted this roster wouldn't have been a 45 win team with anyone else coaching but it is clear that Woody isn't the right coach going forward.

[JoeyPeters]

SEE YA JOSH SMITH!

Quote:

---

per AJC.com

[Traceman]

This crowd doesn't care that Woody is STILL under contract. Sund should have been out there conducting interviews as soon as he got the job. Who cares about decorum. Fire that bastard! If Woody comes back, Sund is either an idiot or a puppet. There is no middle ground. It doesn't matter what the players want. It doesn't matter what others around the league say. NOTHING matters other than Woody MUST go! I assume you caught all the sarcasm in the above. Obviously, if the Hawks are not going to bring Woody back, they need to either advise him of that or wait until after his contract expires before they talk to other coaches. That is simply the right thing to do.

[TheTrueSiete]

Quote:

---

This crowd doesn't care that Woody is STILL under contract. Sund should have been out there conducting interviews as soon as he got the job. Who cares about decorum. Fire that bastard! If Woody comes back, Sund is either an idiot or a puppet. There is no middle ground. It doesn't matter what the players want. It doesn't matter what others around the league say. NOTHING matters other than Woody MUST go! I assume you caught all the sarcasm in the above. Obviously, if the Hawks are not going to bring Woody back, they need to either advise him of that or wait until after his contract expires before they talk to other coaches. That is simply the right thing to do.I assume you haven't heard the guy was given 2 year offer? 7

[AHF]

Quote:

---

This crowd doesn't care that Woody is STILL under contract. Sund should have been out there conducting interviews as soon as he got the job. Who cares about decorum. Fire that bastard!Avery Johnson is still under contract. Should Dallas not have interviewed other coaches for the next 2 years? I think most people are advocating the ASG should have fired Woodson and opened a search for the next coach.I haven't heard the groundswell of support from players or league insiders but you can fill me in. All I remember is JJ supporting Woodson and Detroit seeking a nominal interview with him while he was still under contract with Atlanta and as Curry seemed to already have the Pistons' job lined up.

[DeacKillsaDevil]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

w...t...f...I'd rather have avery or flipit's a 2 way streetExactly... 1 way (Woody) leads to inconsistency and mediocrity, and the other way is uncharted because we will never know what it's like to have a winning coach with these bumbling morons upstairs!7you obviously did not understand what I meant.They have to want the job.

[Traceman]

Woody has not been fired. If Woody is fired, then interviewing coaches is a non-issue. I think that is the point that Sultan was making.As for any support that Woody may or may not have from the players, none of us know for sure. All I know is that our franchise player is on record supporting him and other players (Marv, Chillz and Al) have said things to support him as well. All I am saying is that it is POSSIBLE that the players want Woody back and if they do, that should be a signifcant factor in him getting an extension. Conversely, if they DON'T want him back, that should be a signifcant factor as well.As for support from league "insiders", I remeber reading a few articles where other coaches said Woody was doing a good job. Specifically, that his team "always played hard" and that he had done "a good job with that young team."

[HawkItus]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

This crowd doesn't care that Woody is STILL under contract. Sund should have been out there conducting interviews as soon as he got the job. Who cares about decorum. Fire that bastard!Avery Johnson is still under contract. Should Dallas not have interviewed other coaches for the next 2 years? I think most people are advocating the ASG should have fired Woodson and opened a search for the next coach.I haven't heard the groundswell of support from players or league insiders but you can fill me in. All I remember is JJ supporting Woodson and Detroit seeking a nominal interview with him while he was still under contract with Atlanta and as Curry seemed to already have the Pistons' job lined up.see that's fine. If you wanted Woody fired understandable. But, I've seen post saying Sund didn't even interview other candidates to see if Woody was the best. My point is of course he didn't. He had two choices 1)Retain Woody or 2)Fire Woody and then find the best candidate. These people want option 3) Let's hold interviews and if Woody is the best then he can come back. Ha ha.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

This crowd doesn't care that Woody is STILL under contract. Sund should have been out there conducting interviews as soon as he got the job. Who cares about decorum. Fire that bastard!Avery Johnson is still under contract. Should Dallas not have interviewed other coaches for the next 2 years? I think most people are advocating the ASG should have fired Woodson and opened a search for the next coach.I haven't heard the groundswell of support from players or league insiders but you can fill me in. All I remember is JJ supporting Woodson and Detroit seeking a nominal interview with him while he was still under contract with Atlanta and as Curry seemed to already have the Pistons' job lined up.see that's fine. If you wanted Woody fired understandable. But, I've seen post saying Sund didn't even interview other candidates to see if Woody was the best. My point is of course he didn't. He had two choices 1)Retain Woody or 2)Fire Woody and then find the best candidate. These people want option 3) Let's hold interviews and if Woody is the best then he can come back. Ha ha.I think the only third option is 3) discretely inquire to see whether other coaches are interested and if no one is interested then use Woodson as a fall back. I agree that you can't open up interviews and expect to keep Woodson because once you do that you are acknowledging that the fit isn't right.I think anyone criticizing Sund for not interviewing others is actually someone who thinks Woodson should have been canned already and believes that better options are available.

[Traceman]

I was not surprised that we played well at home during the playoffs because we had done so all season. We were 25-16 at home and we could have EASILY been 27-14 save a Kevin Durant miracle 3 and a heartbreaking loss to POR. What I WAS surprised about was that the good play at home actually translated to THREE WINS against the best team in the NBA. The hardest thing for a young team to learn in the NBA is how to win on the road. That this team didn't win more on the road last year was disappointing but how to win on the road is something that can be learned with experience. Now do I think that there are coaches out there who would have given us a better chance to win on the road than Woody? Absolutely. But I also think there are worse coaches out there than him too.