My thoughts on Sund

[TheDude]

Positives : He actually answers questions.

Negatives : He's waaaaay too dam defensive. Ask him a tough question and instead of just responding sensibly he gets defensive. Look just say that the relationship between woody and smith doesn't make a difference (if that's what you believe), no reason to go crazy pulling up Karl and Anthony. Feel free to say that Joe Johnson didn't play well in the playoffs. Don't pretend it didn't happen, don't try to sugarcoat it.

I don't think i like what I heard. Besides just the Woody staying bit. Not only did he not criticize our one-on-one style, HE ACTUALLY SEEMED TO ENDORSE IT when talking about pierce scoring 7 points straight once. I would hope that he realizes that in playoff basketball, one on one EVERY TIME (as opposed to a stretch of the game) is doom.

I don't know, i didn't like it at all. No direction, all defending everything, no criticism at all.

[mrhonline]

Not only did he not criticize our one-on-one style, HE ACTUALLY SEEMED TO ENDORSE IT when talking about pierce scoring 7 points straight once. I would hope that he realizes that in playoff basketball, one on one EVERY TIME (as opposed to a stretch of the game) is doom.

He said nothing of the sort. He did say, and correctly so if you ask me, that you have to be able to play both up-tempo AND half-court to win in the NBA playoffs.

He also readily admits this team has a long way to go. A lot of ground already covered, but a lot to go.

[atlien]

I mean, my thing is, Sund and the Owners watch the same games we watch. They know our "offense" looks like a pile of dung and is laughably bad.

The question is, do they trust that Woody can fix it? Or, do they feel they need to bring in a consultant ("offensive coordinator") to handle that side of things?

They can't think everything is A-OK on offense. You don't get to their positions by being retarded.

[TheDude]

He said nothing of the sort. He did say, and correctly so if you ask me, that you have to be able to play both up-tempo AND half-court to win in the NBA playoffs.

He also readily admits this team has a long way to go. A lot of ground already covered, but a lot to go.

He did say something of that sort..Almost word for word. Did I make up the part about him saying Paul Pierce scored 7 points straight essentially endorsing one on one basketball.

Him saying that you have to have both half court and up tempo has nothing to do with the STYLE of halfcourt we play...Of course you have to have that balance which he alluded to. But in disecting ONE OF THOSE TWO (the half court version), he essentially defended one on one basketball.

[mrhonline]

Did I make up the part about him saying Paul Pierce scored 7 points straight essentially endorsing one on one basketball.

You made up the part about him endorsing it.

He was using it as an example of how national commentators are not consistent in their criticism. He said they were criticizing the other team for too much "one-on-one," and did not say anthing negative about Pierce's three straight possessions doing the same thing.

[AHF]

http://multimedia.790thezone.com/m/2232061...m-rick-sund.htm

At 3:30 mark.

Sund criticizes the announcers for complaining about the Orl/Bos series being too one-on-one when Paul Pierce then went one-on-one and scored on three straight possessions. What he hits the point on is that players need to be put in a position to succeed on the floor. I can't believe he thinks that is happening now. Josh Smith is being put in position to succeed when he gets the ball outside the 3pt arc? Really? Sund then compliments Flip Murray for helping to contribute when the offense gets stagnent. When 790 notes that Flip keeps on shooting when he is missing, Sund then compares Murray to PP saying something to the effect that, "Boston fans are saying the same thing about PP [that Hawks fans say about Flip after a 4-14 night]." I am not encouraged by the Paul Pierce/iso comparisons.

Paul Pierce is not coming through that door.

In the next portion of the interview, he says that no team will be elite - must both be able to run and play out of halfcourt. Says we have that capability and top 6 guys can score 20 points. Not much more than platitudes on that part.

[AtlHomer]

Sund made himself available to the media and for that I'm glad. We must all realize that he cannot and should not get into specifics on talk radio. Talking about other teams players could be considered tampering. Saying something about one of our players/coaches that he has not spoken to him about might not go over well also. At the end of the day, it is a business and some things must be kept close to the vest.

Things I liked:

-Made a definitive statement about Woody coming back. Regardless of what we as fans think, that clearly shows there is some stability. This could impact our ability to attract free agents though his current contract status could be a negative.

-Ranking of players both on the team and in the league. This happens on most of our jobs, to assess how we compare to others in those positions.

-Did not fall for publicly criticizing his coach and players. You lose a lot of respect when you do that. He clearly defined what he could and would talk about.

[DrReality]

He's got some politician in him, like most of them do.

[Diesel]

Positives : He actually answers questions.

Negatives : He's waaaaay too dam defensive. Ask him a tough question and instead of just responding sensibly he gets defensive. Look just say that the relationship between woody and smith doesn't make a difference (if that's what you believe), no reason to go crazy pulling up Karl and Anthony. Feel free to say that Joe Johnson didn't play well in the playoffs. Don't pretend it didn't happen, don't try to sugarcoat it.

I don't think i like what I heard. Besides just the Woody staying bit. Not only did he not criticize our one-on-one style, HE ACTUALLY SEEMED TO ENDORSE IT when talking about pierce scoring 7 points straight once. I would hope that he realizes that in playoff basketball, one on one EVERY TIME (as opposed to a stretch of the game) is doom.

I don't know, i didn't like it at all. No direction, all defending everything, no criticism at all.

Yeah...I agree. I was actually floored that he endorsed Iso play and had the gall to say you have to throw out the traditional 1-5. This guy is going to end up messing this squad up. I can feel it. I appreciate Steak and the other guy for pushing the pure PG question on him. I actually believe that Bibby is on his planner. I think if we're going to win, we do need to get a pass first PG who can break down a defense. Maybe Kirk Hinrich is the answer. Or maybe it's Felton or Sessions. Who knows, but I do know that Bibby won't help us. I think Steak made a great correlation when he said that for years they questioned Carmello, you give him Billups (a pure PG) and all the sudden Mello is playing like a champion.

I think we can see the same with Josh and JJ. It's one thing to bolster having 6 guys who could give you 20. BUt it's much better to have 6 guys who know their role on offense and can win games.

[DJlaysitup]

http://multimedia.790thezone.com/m/2232061...m-rick-sund.htm

At 3:30 mark.

Sund criticizes the announcers for complaining about the Orl/Bos series being too one-on-one when Paul Pierce then went one-on-one and scored on three straight possessions. What he hits the point on is that players need to be put in a position to succeed on the floor. I can't believe he thinks that is happening now. Josh Smith is being put in position to succeed when he gets the ball outside the 3pt arc? Really? Sund then compliments Flip Murray for helping to contribute when the offense gets stagnent. When 790 notes that Flip keeps on shooting when he is missing, Sund then compares Murray to PP saying something to the effect that, "Boston fans are saying the same thing about PP [that Hawks fans say about Flip after a 4-14 night]." I am not encouraged by the Paul Pierce/iso comparisons.

Paul Pierce is not coming through that door.

In the next portion of the interview, he says that no team will be elite - must both be able to run and play out of halfcourt. Says we have that capability and top 6 guys can score 20 points. Not much more than platitudes on that part.

I heard that part on my way to work too AHF...I thought Sund was playing both sides against the middle. Kinda like "whatever Woody did" was OK. I suppose he knows the owners aren't moving off their (relatively) cheap coach until the ownership deal is settled.

I think Sund is a fairly smart guy - but he's under some fairly stringent monetary restrictions.

[DrReality]

I thought that bosses were supposed to sit down with their employees and set goals, map out plans, etc. Why doesn't Sund do this with Woody and TELL HIM this is what we're going to do, make changes to the offense, etc.

[Admin]

I thought that bosses were supposed to sit down with their employees and set goals, map out plans, etc. Why doesn't Sund do this with Woody and TELL HIM this is what we're going to do, make changes to the offense, etc.

Probably because it's not the GM's job to say this is the type of offense/defense that we're going to employ. That's the coaches job. He knows what Woody is and he either believes in Woody's philosophy and that's why he isn't being replaced, or he doesn't have the option of replacing him. But no way is a GM going to dictate what style of play the team will have.

[khaos7]

Probably because it's not the GM's job to say this is the type of offense/defense that we're going to employ. That's the coaches job. He knows what Woody is and he either believes in Woody's philosophy and that's why he isn't being replaced, or he doesn't have the option of replacing him. But no way is a GM going to dictate what style of play the team will have.

I slightly disagree with this statement. The GM does have a lot of say in what the style of play will be, based off the fact they are doing the drafting, trading and signing. Take the Suns for example. Steve Kerrs moves made D'Antoni have to rethink some things. Ultimately, D'Antoni left and Kerr brought in Terry Cummings, with a mandate that they play more defense. Certainly, the GM doesn't draw up the X's and O's. However, they do have a say in the style of play based off the fact they pick the players and the coaches.

[AHF]

I slightly disagree with this statement. The GM does have a lot of say in what the style of play will be, based off the fact they are doing the drafting, trading and signing. Take the Suns for example. Steve Kerrs moves made D'Antoni have to rethink some things. Ultimately, D'Antoni left and Kerr brought in Terry Cummings, with a mandate that they play more defense. Certainly, the GM doesn't draw up the X's and O's. However, they do have a say in the style of play based off the fact they pick the players and the coaches.

I guess this assumes that Sund picks the coach.

[Diesel]

I slightly disagree with this statement. The GM does have a lot of say in what the style of play will be, based off the fact they are doing the drafting, trading and signing. Take the Suns for example. Steve Kerrs moves made D'Antoni have to rethink some things. Ultimately, D'Antoni left and Kerr brought in Terry Cummings, with a mandate that they play more defense. Certainly, the GM doesn't draw up the X's and O's. However, they do have a say in the style of play based off the fact they pick the players and the coaches.

This is true. You can't have a GM picking players that a coach can't use. More often than not, when that happens, the GM gets rid of the coach. I think this was BK's argument last year and it got him fired. I'm sorry, he resigned. I think BK wanted to see Acie on the floor and when Acie was injured, he would have rather signed some 10 day guy or some journeyman PG than to throw all of our chips at Bibby. The Bibby deal was a great deal, but it cemented Acie's fate. So did getting Flip. I think Woody is more of a fan of Iso play than BK was. I think BK's plan had more to do with having interchangable players playing uptempo. Woody has been very cautious (thus far) when it comes to running uptempo. I heard that BK might be a GM again (very soon). Maybe after the draft. I wonder will he come after some of our players?

[tbhawksfan]

Sund lost me when he came in and said "I'm going to take a year to get to know the team". He then took a team in need of one or two more role players to make some real noise and let Chil go only bringing in Flip and Mo. Mo was modiocre and Flip played ok, but is a cast-off and doesn't fit in when there is an offensive scheme. Chil was, at worst, our sixth best player.

I'm also not as happy with the final result as most. Last year we won three playoff games against the eventual champions. This year we won zero against the maybe champs. First round, second round doesn't mean that much. When we met a playoff team in the second, we were spanked and excused.

The ASG should sell. Woodson shouldn't be a NBA head coach. No way he should still be in ATL.

I would have preferred to let BK run this thing out. He wanted to remove Woodson, he built this team. Sund hasn't done squat and sounds like he's already lost. For the Hawks (and fans) sake, I hope I'm wrong.

[Antmillennium]

I was disappointed with Sund's comments as well. It sounds as if he was in full agreement with the way Woody handled the team. I don't want to put too much emphasis on what a GM says. Therefore, I'll just wait to see what he actually does. However, I was extremely disappointed with his interview and I was totally deflated when he said that Woody would definitely be coming back.

[tbhawksfan]

Oh, and I also respect BK for telling the ASG to take their coach and their two year contract and shove it.