Sekou Smith throwing darts at Joe and Woody

[LouFan]

That interview was an eye opener. I cannot fathom the fact that JC gets sixth man of the year and only two players show up... I am glad he speaks the truth on Woodson because that man is a horrible coach. Joe Johnson is a wonderful player, but I really feel he is a number two guy and Woody sets up the offense like he is a number one guy.... Wait Woody sets up offense? Hahaha. Sorry could not finish the sentence without laughing.

[Atlantaholic]

Haven't we all been saying these things the last three years? Woody has been one of the luckiest people in the league, but it looks like his unprecedentedly long head coaching stint is finally at an end.

[HawksFan87]

Sekou has been a hater ever since he got to nba.com. Can't say I have ever really cared for his journalism. But he is right here in this interview.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Oh but the Spurs had pleny of time to give George Hill time???

I think Woody is too much of a friend than a coach to the older guys like JJ.

Woody coaches to not lose games. That is how his team plays them too.

I think this is the most accurate description for Woody .. "he coaches not to lose games".

Gray Mule calls it the "prevent offense".

Sekou saying that the Hawks do what Woody wants them to do 100% of the time, has a double edge to it.

Because if the average fan believes that Woody is to blame for 100% of the losses, what percentage of the wins are because of him?

Seriously . . . objectively answer that question.

The notion that the Hawks lose because of Woody, but win because of what they do themselves, is a severely flawed mindset. If the players are the cause of wins, why aren't they the cause of losses?

Or how about this question . . . what if the Hawks DO WIN these next 2 games, and advance to the next round. Will it be because of Woody, or the players?

Sekou's interview was a good one. The Jennings question needed to be properly challenged, seeing that the same coach that people say hates rookie PGs, was starting Acie Law by the 6th game into his rookie year.

When you're still a ballclub trying to get good, and your other PGs are Anthony Johnson and Tyronn Lue, giving Acie Law a chance to get significant PT was the way to go. And if Brandon Jennings was our PG 3 yrs ago, Woody would've done the same with Brandon.

We all know what the deal here is about Teague. Mike Bibby signed a 3 year deal to be our PG. Crawford, while not a true PG, can play a scoring 1. The decision to stick with the Bibby/Crawford rotation at PG, led us to 53 wins, and saw Crawford have his most successful season ever as a player.

So Teague was on the outside looking in for the most part.

No matter how this turns out, Woody will have to live with the decision on if he did the right thing with Teague and the team in general.

To play Teague more, you either had to reduce Bibby's minutes . . or Crawford's minutes . . or both. Taking minutes from anyone else on the squad just to play Teague, may have been detrimental to the Hawks.

But if Woody is to blame for all that is wrong with the Hawks, give him some credit with what went right with this team for the past 3 years.

LOL . . it won't happen though.

[AHF]

The way I look at it is that our staring lineup plus 6 man is one of the most talented in the league. Our coach adds about zero value to the equation in terms of his ability to outscheme other teams and to make adjustments. Of course, when our players fail they should be held accountable for that. Woody has held the attention of the team through rebuilding and this season he came with a plan, delivered solid results in the regular season, and failed to develop our team so we had a "Plan B" on offense or defenser and should be credited for that as well. In the playoffs I saw him come in with a huge talent advantage, put together a solid initial plan, execute that plan for the first two games, and then utterly fail to adjust for the rest of the series. His failure to develop altenative looks and a deeper bench - especially at the PG position where everyone knew from day 1 that we were likely to really struggle defensively in the playoffs - came home to roost and he deserves credit for that. He does not deserve credit (or blame) for Crawford's play falling off a cliff. He does deserve blame for not having the team ready to play on the road - as do the players. Obviously, Woody hasn't done anything in 3 seasons to get them mentally prepared to play on the road but the players deserve blame as well for failing to bring intensity and focus on the road against an inferior opponent.

Plenty of blame to go around - in short - but all my fears about Woody's tactics this season have come to fruition this series. Bibby is too old to defend and Crawford can't do it. Our offense or gameplanning isn't versatile or dsiciplined enough to exploit obvious mismatches. Our defense or gameplanning isn't versatile enough to address obvious exploits of our defensive scheme. The whole "move - countermove" flow of an NBA playoff series is missing because Woody's coaching staff is not delivering anything but the vanilla gameplan.

So my bottomline is that various players deserve blame for subpar play but Woody's coaching has been indefensible given the substantial talent difference between these two clubs and the favorable 2-0 position he had in this series.

[Packfill]

If you stand back and look at the season, is 53 wins this year that much of an upgrade from last season's 47? Some facts to consider:

1. This season the teams top 6 players (starters plus Craw) missed a total of 13 games combined. That is pretty good. Last season, the top 6 players (starters plus Flip) missed a combined total of 57 games.

2. Al, Josh and Marv are a year older and wiser. We should expect that each would improve in some manner from last season. The only player on the roster you would have expected to see some decline in production from is Bibby.

3. Bibby's decline in production presumably was intended to be mitigated by the acquisition of Crawford, and to a lessor extent the selection of Teague. Moreover, Crawford was expected to be an upgrade over Flip.

4. The Hawks signed two veteran big men with the idea of improving front court depth and experience.

Given all these factors - should we not have expected an even more significant improvement in the win column? Is it unreasonable to at least expect better playoff results?

[exodus]

I think this is the most accurate description for Woody .. "he coaches not to lose games".

Gray Mule calls it the "prevent offense".

Sekou saying that the Hawks do what Woody wants them to do 100% of the time, has a double edge to it.

Because if the average fan believes that Woody is to blame for 100% of the losses, what percentage of the wins are because of him?

Seriously . . . objectively answer that question.

The notion that the Hawks lose because of Woody, but win because of what they do themselves, is a severely flawed mindset. If the players are the cause of wins, why aren't they the cause of losses?

The Hawks won because they have more talent than most teams, had roster continuity and had exceptional health.

Woody's flawed iso offense and switching defense, which he refuses to change, caused the Hawks to lose games that they should have won. The Hawks would have a winning record with Harry the Hawk as a coach simply because of their talent and good health. Woody isn't adding anything to the Hawks.

[GameTime]

The Hawks won because they have more talent than most teams, had roster continuity and had exceptional health.

Woody's flawed iso offense and switching defense, which he refuses to change, caused the Hawks to lose games that they should have won. The Hawks would have a winning record with Harry the Hawk as a coach simply because of their talent and good health. Woody isn't adding anything to the Hawks.

Exactly. I don't know how many times this has to be said.

[Guest]

The Hawks won because they have more talent than most teams, had roster continuity and had exceptional health.

Woody's flawed iso offense and switching defense, which he refuses to change, caused the Hawks to lose games that they should have won. The Hawks would have a winning record with Harry the Hawk as a coach simply because of their talent and good health. Woody isn't adding anything to the Hawks.

I hate the iso offense and switching defense for the most part but you can't on one hand say it causes the Hawks to lose games that they should win , when it is the same offensive and defensive scheme that gives you wins...they play the same offense and defense win or lose.

[exodus]

I hate the iso offense and switching defense for the most part but you can't on one hand say it causes the Hawks to lose games that they should win , when it is the same offensive and defensive scheme that gives you wins...they play the same offense and defense win or lose.

So if the Hawks win against a team with inferior talent, then credit goes to the iso offense and switching defense?

[AHF]

To exodus' point, if you took a lineup that is obviously ideally suited to play fastbreak basketball and not slow-down, defensive struggles - something like Steve Nash - PG, Dan Majerle - SG, Magic Johnson - SF; Shawn Kemp - PF; and Joakim Noah - C and the coach decides to have them play slow it down, grind it out basketball they are still going to win 50 games. Does the coach get credit for this decision because he installed a winning system? Obviously, no. The coach's contribution was a detriment to the team's success because he didn't maximize his team's chance for success and actually put them in a position to fail. The question is what impact Woody's system has had on our success. If he put our players in a position to maximize their playoff success then there is some good in that. If he put us in a position to increase our risk of playoff failure then that is a bad thing. That is regardless of how many games we win.

It is the same reason you can't bash Woody for only winning 13 games his first season. He could have installed the best systems in the world and not won 30 games with that team. The talent just wasn't there.

Edited April 30, 2010 by AHF

[Guest]

So if the Hawks win against a team with inferior talent, then credit goes to the iso offense and switching defense?

The Hawks did not only play inferior talent througout the the season, they also won 53 games and used the same offense and defense....all I'm saying is you cannot only blame the system for the losses but ignore it when we use it to win, It goes both ways.

[exodus]

The Hawks did not only play inferior talent througout the the season, they also won 53 games and used the same offense and defense....all I'm saying is you cannot only blame the system for the losses but ignore it when we use it to win, It goes both ways.

No it doesn't go both ways. It would only go both ways if every team had the same talent level and the same number of injuries.

The Hawks won in spite of Woody's system, not because of it.

[Guest]

No it doesn't go both ways. It would only go both ways if every team had the same talent level and the same number of injuries.

The Hawks won in spite of Woody's system, not because of it.

Yes it does...you cannot only blame the system when we lose but fine something else entirely to be the cause when we win, Woody is not always to blame when we win or when we lose, sometimes we lose because like some of the players say "they weren't prepared to play", sometimes it's too many turnovers, sometimes it's not getting back in transition defense, sometimes players have good looks and are just not hitting shots, sometimes they play like they are tired...some of it is on the coach, some of it is on the players...things go hand in hand they are not playing in a vaccum.

[AHF]

I am going to slightly re-write the quote and then address the original quote:

* Re-write:

you cannot blame the system when we lose but find something else entirely to be the cause when we win

If a coach is employing a system that is a detriment to the team then fans would absolutely blame it during losses - that is exactly what an objective person would do.

* Original

you cannot onlyblame the system when we lose but fine something else entirely to be the cause when we win

On the word only, I would note that the players are deservedly getting grief too, including from exodus. So I think the use of the word only creates a false dilemma since no one is only blaming Woodson.

Edited April 30, 2010 by AHF

[exodus]

Yes it does...you cannot only blame the system when we lose but fine something else entirely to be the cause when we win, Woody is not always to blame when we win or when we lose, sometimes we lose because like some of the players say "they weren't prepared to play", sometimes it's too many turnovers, sometimes it's not getting back in transition defense, sometimes players have good looks and are just not hitting shots, sometimes they play like they are tired...some of it is on the coach, some of it is on the players...things go hand in hand they are not playing in a vaccum.

If Crawford goes 4-18 with 4 turnovers i can blame both Crawford and Woody. I can blame Crawford for playing like crap and i can blame Woody for leaving him in the game and continuing to let him go iso when Marvin had Luke Ridnour guarding him.

All players have bad games at times so i am not seeing what your point is.

[Guest]

If Crawford goes 4-18 with 4 turnovers i can blame both Crawford and Woody. I can blame Crawford for playing like crap and i can blame Woody for leaving him in the game and continuing to let him go iso when Marvin had Luke Ridnour guarding him.

All players have bad games at times so i am not seeing what your point is.

You are making my point for me...it's not only the system that causes us too lose.

[Guest]

I am going to slightly re-write the quote and then address the original quote:

* Re-write:

If a coach is employing a system that is a detriment to the team then fans would absolutely blame it during losses - that is exactly what an objective person would do.

* Original

On the word only, I would note that the players are deservedly getting grief too, including from exodus. So I think the use of the word only creates a false dilemma since no one is only blaming Woodson.

Exodus's statement was "Woody's flawed iso offense and switching defense, which he refuses to change, caused the Hawks to lose games that they should have won."....all I'm saying is sometimes we loose because of other factors...too many turnovers, good looks but missed shots, transition defense....and bear in mind that I hate the constant switching defense for the full 24 second clock

[macdaddy]

I'm happy to give Woody credit for the improvements we've made and the wins and all of that. His job his to make the team realize its potential and can anyone make the case that is happening. Maybe we will come back and win but can you really make the case that so far in the playoffs we are playing as well as we possibly can.

The thing that jumps out to me is you keep hearing Gearon say he doesn't mettle in basketball decisions of the coach or GM, but that's total BS. They forced BK out simply for wanting to do what now almost everyone is calling for a year and a half later.

[exodus]

You are making my point for me...it's not only the system that causes us too lose.

The problem is that the point you are making has no relevance to the conversation.