Is the team underachieving?

[Plainview1981]

Under achieving and Under coached... = two different things.

I think we could benefit from better offensive coaching. I think that Jamal would still be good without the choas. Mainly, I think we lack fundamental plays on offense... that create ball movement. I hate to see our offense just put the ball in Joe's hand. He's good but we're better than that. When Smoove got his triple double, one of the things that stuck out to me was that Joe went out for a while and we started running plays.. WHen Joe came back in, we kept running plays... and that's why Smoove was able to find Bibby all alone for the three. We're better when we run plays.

We still have pieces that we don't know how they fit offensively. For instance, Marvin. He doesn't really have a place in any offense because he's too unagressive to matter. Also, Teague. Teague knows what kind of PG he is... Drive and dish.. it's just that our players have never played with a drive and dish PG so it's a hard conversion.

Here's what we will need for this postseason:

1. Bibby and Horf perfect pick and roll. Get about 2 options off the pick and roll.

2. Teague: Get more time with the team playing drive and dish. Also work on your outside shooting.

3. Joe: Learn how to pass to Craw and vice versa. Joe never passes to Craw.

4. Smoove: Develop one consistent low post move to go with your basket attacking moves.

5. Horf: Learn to turn baseline side when you are back to the basket. Everybody knows you're always going inside.

Under coached no doubt.

[Plainview1981]

Blah, blah, blah Hot. Go ahead and change your tune, after you had no confidence whatsoever in this team to start the season. At least the majority of fans on this board thought the Hawks would win somewhere between 50 and 55 games before the season started. But go ahead and do you. Flip-flop, and change your tune . . and act you fully expected us to be 32 - 17 right now . . lol.

The fact is, every team in the league has good wins and bad losses. You can go through just about every team in the league, and do what you're doing with the Hawks. Cleveland has the best record in the league, but they've lost to Toronto, Chicago, Washington ( in a blowout ), Charlotte ( twice ), and Memphis. But I guess they they're underachieving as well, because they have some bad losses.

It's all blah, blah, blah.

The Hawks are 32 - 17, their best record in 13 years.

The Hawks have won 11 of their last 16 games.

The Hawks are tied for 3rd in the East, and are only 1.5 games behind Orlando for the division lead.

And still, you'd rather complain about the Hawks, than be happy that we're in the position we're in right now. LOL . . we've come to expect that from you though.

This team rarely beats really good healthy teams. Even when they win, they rarely look like a smooth team doing it. The offense looks embarrassing. Who has games over and over where they go 6 or 7 minutes without scoring? If they had a real coach, Horford would be more productive of the offense. The team is in the same position it was in 1997 and what did those teams do when it mattered? Not a damn thing because that team had big weakness and so does this one. BUT BUT.... That team couldn't have been better than it was. This team can if they had better offensive coaching. But they will not because Woody is a moron. As it is, this team might be tied for 3rd, but i don't think many would be surprised if they lost in the first round. This team could very well lose to Charlotte or Miami in the first round. Why would people not be surprised? It's because this team plays junk ball. You take away the dunks and the team struggles to perform at a high level.

I'm not a conformist. I don't just say this is the best we'll get so I'll just accept it and say nothing. I'm sorry if that bugs you, but that's the way it is.

Edited February 9, 2010 by Hotlanta1981

[spotatl]

I think what you think of The Hawks underachieving revolves around how much you think Josh Smith and Horford would be on offense under a different coach. It seems like Diesel thinks Horofrd would be a 20 point scorer on another team that would just feed him the ball in the post. To me I think that Woodson is doing a great job getting so much efficient production out of him. We waste a lot of words on here when this is pretty much the crux of the matter. And there isn't any real way of resolving which one it is until Horford plays under another coach whether it be by woodson getting fired or Horford leaving via trade or FA.

[Diesel]

I think what you think of The Hawks underachieving revolves around how much you think Josh Smith and Horford would be on offense under a different coach. It seems like Diesel thinks Horofrd would be a 20 point scorer on another team that would just feed him the ball in the post. To me I think that Woodson is doing a great job getting so much efficient production out of him. We waste a lot of words on here when this is pretty much the crux of the matter. And there isn't any real way of resolving which one it is until Horford plays under another coach whether it be by woodson getting fired or Horford leaving via trade or FA.

Not without work.

I think Horf needs to refine his lowpost game. His back to the basket game is very predictable and when you give up size the way he does, you can't afford to be predictable. I think he and Bibby need to find a corner after practice and perfect pick and roll basketball. I think undercoaching is Woody's reliance on Iso Joe. I think with the addition of Craw, that has gotten better even though some just cite IsoCraw... But Craw is a better distributor than Joe. What we really need to go with any Iso is some good old fashion Lenny Wilkens Movement. Part of the reason why Lenny Wilken's teams overacheived is because they worked in an offense and had a coach who forced them to move without the ball. The same way we pay attention and switch on defense is the same way that we ought to be moving without the ball on offense. We also need to perfect the little things like back to the basket moves and drive and dish, but movement is going to get us passed the second round.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

The problem with this thread, is that the focus is sitll on the offensive side of the basketball, when the reason we don't win games most of the time, is because of the defense. But no one has addressed the defense one time in this thread, as a reason why we're either overachieving or underachieving.

The 111.4 offensive rating that we now possess, is currently the 4th best in Atlanta Hawk history Only the 1988 - 1990 Hawks with Nique, Moses, and Doc, and the 1986 - 87 Hawks in which Nique almost averaged 30 ppg and won 57 games ( a franchise record ), are the only teams more offensively efficient than this year's version of the Atlanta Hawks.

Defensively, the 106.2 rating they currently have right now, ranks 20th all time. Lenny's 1998 - 99 team ranks first. Dominique's/Manning's 1993 - 94 team ranks 7th. The Mookie - Dikembe ball hawking team of 1996 - 97 ranks 8th. But this current group ranks 20th.

With the lesser teams we have coming up on the schedule, we do have a chance to improve that defensive rating. And by that same token, we have a chance to improve the offensive rating for the same reason. Before it is all said and done, this could very well be the most offensively efficient Atlanta Hawk team in history. The 113 offensive rating that the 1988 - 89 team posted, is well within reach of this team, if we take care of business against these lesser teams.

The entire fan base knows that Horford ( and especially Smith ) are more efficient players when they're able to beat their opponent down the floor during transition. The strength of their games is NOT halfcourt offense, because they're not good at creating and making shots. Against the big frontlines, their offensive inefficiencies are exposed even more.

I think it just kills some of you that Woody is actually playing the "safe" route offensively, instead of "experimenting" on trying to develop Josh Smith and Al Horford as go-to like offensive weapons. We would no doubt sacrifice a few games off of that win total, if he did that. And people would be having a fit if we were 28 - 21, and only a few games ahead of Toronto. Iso-JJ and Iso-Crawford is the safe way out.

* It limits turnovers.

* It puts the offensive decision making in JJ's hands, whether it be from a scoring or passing standpoint.

* It enables Crawford to do what he does best, without worrying about also being a playmaking guard.

* And it enables your most explosive offensive weapons to potentially take over a game.

That's been the case in just about every big win we've had this season. When the running game gets going, that's when Horford and Smith look like very good offensive players. If anything, you could see a transition in this offense in which Josh Smith handles the ball more, and creates for others. This may increase turnovers, because Smoove still likes to force passes a little. But it would give you an different look to the offense, as we saw in the Bulls game. Developing Smith as a point forward type, may be the way to go, before we try to force Smith and Horford to be more efficient halfcourt players.

LOL . . this argument is almost like criticizing a wishbone offense for not being able to pass the ball, when the real problem with them is that their defense is highly schizophrenic.

[dlpin]

This team has played a much harder schedule so far this year, than we had last year at this time.

* We've played Boston, Cleveland, and Orlando 9 times this year . . . compared to 7 last year

* We've already played 4 games against the Lakers, Portland and Utah this year . . . last year, we hadn't played any of those teams yet

* For the rest of the season, we have 10 games vs teams over .500 ( although Charlotte, Chicago, Miami and Milwaukee are close to .500 - 8 games vs those teams ) . . . . last year, we were looking at 16 games vs teams over .500 ( 10 against the Western Conference eventual playoff teams )

The fact is that if this team can start taking care of business against the sub .500 teams that we're going to play on the road, the Hawks are going to position themselves to make a big time run in the standings,especially in March.

18 of our last 33 are on the road, but only 4 of those games are currently vs teams with a winning record. 10 - 8 is a realistic road record for this team ( if they still haven't solved winning consistently on the road ), but we could be as good as 12 - 6 or 13 - 5.

At home, you're looking at 6 of the 15 games being against teams with a winning record. Considering that one of those games is the last game of the season vs Cleveland, you're really talking about 5 games vs winning records. A 10 - 5 or 11 - 4 at home record isn't out of the realm of possibility.

If this team can go 13 - 5 on the road . . . and 10 - 5 at home . . . that's 23 - 10 over the next 33 games.

That'll put us at 55 - 27.

At no time last year, were the Hawks 15 games over .500

This team is significantly ahead of the pace that they were at last year, due to the teams that we've already played, and have yet to play.

My point wasn't whether the hawks are over achieving or underachieving. My point is that the hawks is not this vastly superior team this year that some here are talking about. Sure, they are on pace for a better record. But they are on pace to having the starters for most if not all games, instead of missing 3 starters for at least 15 games.

This is a slightly better team that is significantly healthier while every other contender is missing key players for extended periods of time.

[Plainview1981]

The problem with this thread, is that the focus is sitll on the offensive side of the basketball, when the reason we don't win games most of the time, is because of the defense. But no one has addressed the defense one time in this thread, as a reason why we're either overachieving or underachieving.

The 111.4 offensive rating that we now possess, is currently the 4th best in Atlanta Hawk history Only the 1988 - 1990 Hawks with Nique, Moses, and Doc, and the 1986 - 87 Hawks in which Nique almost averaged 30 ppg and won 57 games ( a franchise record ), are the only teams more offensively efficient than this year's version of the Atlanta Hawks.

Defensively, the 106.2 rating they currently have right now, ranks 20th all time. Lenny's 1998 - 99 team ranks first. Dominique's/Manning's 1993 - 94 team ranks 7th. The Mookie - Dikembe ball hawking team of 1996 - 97 ranks 8th. But this current group ranks 20th.

With the lesser teams we have coming up on the schedule, we do have a chance to improve that defensive rating. And by that same token, we have a chance to improve the offensive rating for the same reason. Before it is all said and done, this could very well be the most offensively efficient Atlanta Hawk team in history. The 113 offensive rating that the 1988 - 89 team posted, is well within reach of this team, if we take care of business against these lesser teams.

The entire fan base knows that Horford ( and especially Smith ) are more efficient players when they're able to beat their opponent down the floor during transition. The strength of their games is NOT halfcourt offense, because they're not good at creating and making shots. Against the big frontlines, their offensive inefficiencies are exposed even more.

I think it just kills some of you that Woody is actually playing the "safe" route offensively, instead of "experimenting" on trying to develop Josh Smith and Al Horford as go-to like offensive weapons. We would no doubt sacrifice a few games off of that win total, if he did that. And people would be having a fit if we were 28 - 21, and only a few games ahead of Toronto. Iso-JJ and Iso-Crawford is the safe way out.

* It limits turnovers.

* It puts the offensive decision making in JJ's hands, whether it be from a scoring or passing standpoint.

* It enables Crawford to do what he does best, without worrying about also being a playmaking guard.

* And it enables your most explosive offensive weapons to potentially take over a game.

That's been the case in just about every big win we've had this season. When the running game gets going, that's when Horford and Smith look like very good offensive players. If anything, you could see a transition in this offense in which Josh Smith handles the ball more, and creates for others. This may increase turnovers, because Smoove still likes to force passes a little. But it would give you an different look to the offense, as we saw in the Bulls game. Developing Smith as a point forward type, may be the way to go, before we try to force Smith and Horford to be more efficient halfcourt players.

LOL . . this argument is almost like criticizing a wishbone offense for not being able to pass the ball, when the real problem with them is that their defense is highly schizophrenic.

You can bring up stats, but when you watch the games you can see the Hawks offense is garbage. It's a video game offense all the way.

As for the defense... The team doesn't defend the low post or the 3pt line. When the hawks run into hot shooting they get killed. The Orlando shooters make the shots that a lot of these other teams miss. On most nights, the Hawks objective seems to be to out last the other team. That was the case tonight. Memphis sort of ran out of gas tonight.

[Dsinner]

The problem with this thread, is that the focus is sitll on the offensive side of the basketball, when the reason we don't win games most of the time, is because of the defense. But no one has addressed the defense one time in this thread, as a reason why we're either overachieving or underachieving.

The 111.4 offensive rating that we now possess, is currently the 4th best in Atlanta Hawk history Only the 1988 - 1990 Hawks with Nique, Moses, and Doc, and the 1986 - 87 Hawks in which Nique almost averaged 30 ppg and won 57 games ( a franchise record ), are the only teams more offensively efficient than this year's version of the Atlanta Hawks.

Defensively, the 106.2 rating they currently have right now, ranks 20th all time. Lenny's 1998 - 99 team ranks first. Dominique's/Manning's 1993 - 94 team ranks 7th. The Mookie - Dikembe ball hawking team of 1996 - 97 ranks 8th. But this current group ranks 20th.

With the lesser teams we have coming up on the schedule, we do have a chance to improve that defensive rating. And by that same token, we have a chance to improve the offensive rating for the same reason. Before it is all said and done, this could very well be the most offensively efficient Atlanta Hawk team in history. The 113 offensive rating that the 1988 - 89 team posted, is well within reach of this team, if we take care of business against these lesser teams.

The entire fan base knows that Horford ( and especially Smith ) are more efficient players when they're able to beat their opponent down the floor during transition. The strength of their games is NOT halfcourt offense, because they're not good at creating and making shots. Against the big frontlines, their offensive inefficiencies are exposed even more.

I think it just kills some of you that Woody is actually playing the "safe" route offensively, instead of "experimenting" on trying to develop Josh Smith and Al Horford as go-to like offensive weapons. We would no doubt sacrifice a few games off of that win total, if he did that. And people would be having a fit if we were 28 - 21, and only a few games ahead of Toronto. Iso-JJ and Iso-Crawford is the safe way out.

* It limits turnovers.

* It puts the offensive decision making in JJ's hands, whether it be from a scoring or passing standpoint.

* It enables Crawford to do what he does best, without worrying about also being a playmaking guard.

* And it enables your most explosive offensive weapons to potentially take over a game.

That's been the case in just about every big win we've had this season. When the running game gets going, that's when Horford and Smith look like very good offensive players. If anything, you could see a transition in this offense in which Josh Smith handles the ball more, and creates for others. This may increase turnovers, because Smoove still likes to force passes a little. But it would give you an different look to the offense, as we saw in the Bulls game. Developing Smith as a point forward type, may be the way to go, before we try to force Smith and Horford to be more efficient halfcourt players.

LOL . . this argument is almost like criticizing a wishbone offense for not being able to pass the ball, when the real problem with them is that their defense is highly schizophrenic.

So basically you're saying our Defensive coach sucks at coaching defense. So we have a team that plays all Iso's and no D and you want to KEEP the coach? It irritates the hell out of my why anyone would want to keep a Defensive minded coach who can't coach defense and only has a decent offense due to fast breaks and offensive rebounds both of which have NOTHING to do with the coach. You keep throwing out offensive stats and ppgs like it has something to do with our coach's X's and O's. Are you really that deep into Woody's pockets or just that clueless about coaching?

[coachx]

Disagree.

Smoove is a high post PF and Horf plays low post but is not consistent with that yet. Childress working the baseline would fit perfectly with what we do..

Defensively. I never had a problem with Chillz defense of Sfs.

LOL

How can you diagree with this fact:

Just put in Josh Smith's name and tell me where he is effective and where his is ice cold.

[spotatl]

I want to Keep woodson because I think if the Hawks fire woodson the team will get worse next season. I think its likely the Next coach would likely try and push the pace more even when the Hawks don't have the rebounding or a PG to facilitate it so they would run in situations where they shouldn't. They would try and force the ball to Josh and Horford more, which would make them spend far more time doing things they suck at and less time doing the things they do well. I think the Hawks will have far more turnovers with a new coach.

Woodson is an above average NBA coach. He isn't a creative coach and he isn't a HOF coach- he is an above average coach and I simply don't believe the ASG would pay what it takes to get someone who is clearly an upgrade on him. This isn't a team that is going to spend the money it takes to get an Adelman, D'Antoni, or Larry Brown.

Edited February 10, 2010 by spotatl

[Diesel]

The problem with this thread, is that the focus is sitll on the offensive side of the basketball, when the reason we don't win games most of the time, is because of the defense. But no one has addressed the defense one time in this thread, as a reason why we're either overachieving or underachieving.

No one has criticized defense because defense is consistent. It's our inconsistence in rebounding and offense that causes this team to lose. We are not and never will be as good as any Deke team or Any Mookie team. Right now, if we are honest with ourselves we are at full capacity defensively...

I mean look at it:

Undersized C.

PF who doesn't play positional defense well.

A Starting SF whoose claim to fame is that he will stay in front of his man.

A SG who is a good defender positionally but doesn't get steals or blocks.

A PG who is terrible.

A bench that is very mediocre.

The fact that we are 11th in the league in defensive PPG and 18 in defensive FG% is a huge accomplishment when you look at the HOLES we have on defense....

Offensively though... we have some strong possibilities but we're stuck running ISO ball about 70% of the time.

IF there is something that causes us to be underacheiving, it's the fact that we are undercoached offensively.

Playoff Ball is about halfcourt ball.

If we go into the playoffs thinking that Iso Joe will win it for us, we will be shamed of the outcome. It's going to take good ball movement to get us to the finals.

[Diesel]

I want to Keep woodson because I think if the Hawks fire woodson the team will get worse next season. I think its likely the Next coach would likely try and push the pace more even when the Hawks don't have the rebounding or a PG to facilitate it so they would run in situations where they shouldn't. They would try and force the ball to Josh and Horford more, which would make them spend far more time doing things they suck at and less time doing the things they do well. I think the Hawks will have far more turnovers with a new coach.

Woodson is an above average NBA coach. He isn't a creative coach and he isn't a HOF coach- he is an above average coach and I simply don't believe the ASG would pay what it takes to get someone who is clearly an upgrade on him. This isn't a team that is going to spend the money it takes to get an Adelman, D'Antoni, or Larry Brown.

I agree with you under one condition.

IF we get some change in players... for instance we bring in a C like Heywood. Or a PG who can defend the perimeter...

IF these thing happen and we keep everybody else, then it really depends on who the coach is.

For instance:

Avery Johnson, Byron Scott, or Mike Dunleavy and we might have to waive Bye Bye to Woody.

[spotatl]

Avery Johnson, Byron Scott, or Mike Dunleavy and we might have to waive Bye Bye to Woody

Wow... you and I couldn't be any more different. Those 3 to me are nightmare scenarios. I wouldn't let those guys coach my team if they paid me to do so.

Edited February 10, 2010 by spotatl

[Diesel]

Wow... you and I couldn't be any more different. Those 3 to me are nightmare scenarios. I wouldn't let those guys coach my team if they paid me to do so.

They are more balanced than my guys Del Harris and Paul Westhead.. so let's hear why not?

Mind you that 2 of the three have been to the finals.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

So basically you're saying our Defensive coach sucks at coaching defense. So we have a team that plays all Iso's and no D and you want to KEEP the coach? It irritates the hell out of my why anyone would want to keep a Defensive minded coach who can't coach defense and only has a decent offense due to fast breaks and offensive rebounds both of which have NOTHING to do with the coach. You keep throwing out offensive stats and ppgs like it has something to do with our coach's X's and O's. Are you really that deep into Woody's pockets or just that clueless about coaching?

I didn't say he sucks at coaching defense. I believe we're 11th or 12th in defense. What I did say, is that being 4th in offense is less of a concern, than being 11th in defense. Therefore, the focus should be on defense, not offense. We need to be a top 7 defense, if we're seriously going to make a run at an East title.

It kills you to not to admit that Woody is SMARTER than you, doesn't it? He's smarter than, me, and everybody else on here. He's SMARTER, because he kniows his personnel, and what they can and cannot do. This fan base has been flat out wrong in a number of things, that Woody has been proven right in.

One of the smartest things Woody has ever done, was coaching our Forwards to grab a defensive rebound and push it up the floor . . and even try to score if it's open. Their ability to do that, creates mini-fast breaks in which quick scores can come about.

Not only can they take it all the way to the hole ( like Marvin did last night ), they also create spot up 3 point opportunities for our shooters. Smoove routinely grabs a rebound, drives toward the lane . . . and if JJ's man has been forced to try to keep Smoove going all the way to the hole, Smoove just kicks it out to JJ for an open 3

But of course, Woody is smarter than you, so you don't even realize that this is one of the main reasons why we're near the top at creating fast break points.

And no one has said to play ISO basketball all game. It's just that myself, and a few others, realize that ISO-Joe is actually a strength to this team, and not a detriment. ISO-Joe puts the ball into one of the best ISO players in the NBA, and lets him make the decision with the basketball.

JJ can either take his man one on one, or pass and find the open man. As JJ said back in December, "it's easy basketball." Contrary to popular belief, ISO basketball creates assists too.

Woody is just SMARTER than you Dsinner. At 33 - 17, it's time for you to admit that.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

No one has criticized defense because defense is consistent. It's our inconsistence in rebounding and offense that causes this team to lose. We are not and never will be as good as any Deke team or Any Mookie team. Right now, if we are honest with ourselves we are at full capacity defensively...

I mean look at it:

Undersized C.

PF who doesn't play positional defense well.

A Starting SF whoose claim to fame is that he will stay in front of his man.

A SG who is a good defender positionally but doesn't get steals or blocks.

A PG who is terrible.

A bench that is very mediocre.

The fact that we are 11th in the league in defensive PPG and 18 in defensive FG% is a huge accomplishment when you look at the HOLES we have on defense....

Offensively though... we have some strong possibilities but we're stuck running ISO ball about 70% of the time.

IF there is something that causes us to be underacheiving, it's the fact that we are undercoached offensively.

Playoff Ball is about halfcourt ball.

If we go into the playoffs thinking that Iso Joe will win it for us, we will be shamed of the outcome. It's going to take good ball movement to get us to the finals.

We're 11th in the league, because the switching defense gives every team fits, except Orlando and probably the Lakers. When played right, it's a beautiful thing to watch.

But defensive rebounding is a vital part of playing defense. The defensive rebound ends the offensive possession, and prevents 2nd chance opportunities, which can kill teams. In our case, a defensive rebound not grabbed by us vs Orlando, either leads to a high percentage close range shot by Howard, a wide open 3, or a foul. But if we grab a defensive rebound, we can then take off toward the other end to try to get a quick score.

That's why you have to mention defense first, because the defense fuels our offense, especially in Smoove's case.

I think the problem that comes up with Woody and the offense, is that a lot of you place more emphasis on system and play calling, regardless of the talent you have on the team, or what they can do offensively. All of those things you listed about our starting 5 and defense, I can turn right back around on offense.

* undersized C who has a nice 14 - 18 foot face-up jumper, but isn't a polished back to the basket scorer

* undersized PF who can get to the rim and draw fouls, but becomes highly inefficient when looking to score outside of 5 feet away from the basket

* SF whose aggressiveness comes and goes frequently, along with his jumpshot

.

* SG who can score from anywhere, but over dribbles at times and struggles to draw fouls to make his game more efficient

* PG who is basically a spot up jumpshooter, and can't create his own shot if guarded

And yet, we're 4th in offense.

Why?

Because we don't turn the ball over much, our transition game, our offensive rebounding, and by letting our two most talented scorers touch the ball as much as possible . . which is why the team doesn't turn the ball over much and why our athletic guys are in position for offensive rebounds.

It's not creative or flashy ( unless we're out in transition ). But it actually plays to our strengths as a basketball team. Ball movement is good when people are converting. Calling plays for people is good, when they convert.

But if the complimentary players have trouble making shots, the people who can create AND make their own shots, need the ball in their hands. And if the complimentary players have to take a reduced role in the offense sometimes, in order for us to get back into a game or win it, then so be it.

[Plainview1981]

I didn't say he sucks at coaching defense. I believe we're 11th or 12th in defense. What I did say, is that being 4th in offense is less of a concern, than being 11th in defense. Therefore, the focus should be on defense, not offense. We need to be a top 7 defense, if we're seriously going to make a run at an East title.

It kills you to not to admit that Woody is SMARTER than you, doesn't it? He's smarter than, me, and everybody else on here. He's SMARTER, because he kniows his personnel, and what they can and cannot do. This fan base has been flat out wrong in a number of things, that Woody has been proven right in.

One of the smartest things Woody has ever done, was coaching our Forwards to grab a defensive rebound and push it up the floor . . and even try to score if it's open. Their ability to do that, creates mini-fast breaks in which quick scores can come about.

Not only can they take it all the way to the hole ( like Marvin did last night ), they also create spot up 3 point opportunities for our shooters. Smoove routinely grabs a rebound, drives toward the lane . . . and if JJ's man has been forced to try to keep Smoove going all the way to the hole, Smoove just kicks it out to JJ for an open 3

But of course, Woody is smarter than you, so you don't even realize that this is one of the main reasons why we're near the top at creating fast break points.

And no one has said to play ISO basketball all game. It's just that myself, and a few others, realize that ISO-Joe is actually a strength to this team, and not a detriment. ISO-Joe puts the ball into one of the best ISO players in the NBA, and lets him make the decision with the basketball.

JJ can either take his man one on one, or pass and find the open man. As JJ said back in December, "it's easy basketball." Contrary to popular belief, ISO basketball creates assists too.

Woody is just SMARTER than you Dsinner. At 33 - 17, it's time for you to admit that.

If Woody is so smart how come he didn't tell Josh to quit shooting 3's?

Edited February 11, 2010 by Hotlanta1981

[Plainview1981]

Wow... you and I couldn't be any more different. Those 3 to me are nightmare scenarios. I wouldn't let those guys coach my team if they paid me to do so.

Mike Dunleavy sucks. I wouldn't fire Woody for him.

[Plainview1981]

We're 11th in the league, because the switching defense gives every team fits, except Orlando and probably the Lakers. When played right, it's a beautiful thing to watch.

But defensive rebounding is a vital part of playing defense. The defensive rebound ends the offensive possession, and prevents 2nd chance opportunities, which can kill teams. In our case, a defensive rebound not grabbed by us vs Orlando, either leads to a high percentage close range shot by Howard, a wide open 3, or a foul. But if we grab a defensive rebound, we can then take off toward the other end to try to get a quick score.

That's why you have to mention defense first, because the defense fuels our offense, especially in Smoove's case.

I think the problem that comes up with Woody and the offense, is that a lot of you place more emphasis on system and play calling, regardless of the talent you have on the team, or what they can do offensively. All of those things you listed about our starting 5 and defense, I can turn right back around on offense.

* undersized C who has a nice 14 - 18 foot face-up jumper, but isn't a polished back to the basket scorer

* undersized PF who can get to the rim and draw fouls, but becomes highly inefficient when looking to score outside of 5 feet away from the basket

* SF whose aggressiveness comes and goes frequently, along with his jumpshot

.

* SG who can score from anywhere, but over dribbles at times and struggles to draw fouls to make his game more efficient

* PG who is basically a spot up jumpshooter, and can't create his own shot if guarded

And yet, we're 4th in offense.

Why?

Because we don't turn the ball over much, our transition game, our offensive rebounding, and by letting our two most talented scorers touch the ball as much as possible . . which is why the team doesn't turn the ball over much and why our athletic guys are in position for offensive rebounds.

It's not creative or flashy ( unless we're out in transition ). But it actually plays to our strengths as a basketball team. Ball movement is good when people are converting. Calling plays for people is good, when they convert.

But if the complimentary players have trouble making shots, the people who can create AND make their own shots, need the ball in their hands. And if the complimentary players have to take a reduced role in the offense sometimes, in order for us to get back into a game or win it, then so be it.

We'll see how good this offense is in the playoffs when the games get tougher. The offense is also high ranking because the team has been healthy all year. Jamal misses a game and the team scores 76 points at home against a piece of s*** Heat team while Al can't even slow down O'Neal. 0-2 against that horrible Miami team is disgusting. The team should hang their heads in shame for it.

Edited February 11, 2010 by Hotlanta1981

[Plainview1981]

Amazing... Deaquin cook was shooting 29.3% on the year until he faced this oh so great Hawks defense and then he pops in 17 points in 21 minutes. Got to love that great Hawks defense.