Jeff Shultz: Hawks coach is right under they're nose

[NJHAWK]

http://blogs.ajc.com/jeff-schultz-blog/2010/05/19/hawks-should-look-at-larry-drew-for-coaching-job/

Id have to say hell no. :sobbing:

[lethalweapon3]

Hawks should take a look at Drew... and then look away.

None of the assistants should remain, as players (in his case, the guards) were not developed adequately to advance this team in the playoffs; and as the assistants failed to help Woody make adjustments -- first until it was almost too late (Bucks), and then in a series that was epic for all the wrong reasons (Magic).

~lw3

[sturt]

You can automatically reject the idea, but there is some legitimacy to the idea of building from within when you've been experiencing a level of success. Sometimes the person best able to diagnose what the current roster is capable of doing and what changes coulda/shoulda been made on the court and off is an assistant who has been there and knows. Happens ALL THE TIME in other leagues at other levels... again, exclusively after there's been a record of success preceding the move.

I don't dismiss Drew any more rapidly than I would dismiss anyone else. He's a viable candidate, and shouldn't be ignored just because he was taking his instructions from Woodson for awhile.

Think of it this way... he was fairly highly regarded a couple of off-seasons back when he almost made a lateral move... if he'd actually left, no doubt he'd be more attractive to many who would diss his candidacy now... but why would that be?... he's even more valuable now than he would have been in that scenario because he knows everyone including Crawford as well as he does.

Having said all of that, I'll be surprised if he gets serious consideration here. It's just not very commonly done when the sentiment behind the change is that a "different voice" is needed... though his would be a "new" voice in one sense as the new man at the top calling the shots, the shelf life of that newness would be decidedly shortened unless there's immediate success attributed to his work.

EDIT: Having now read the article, I see that Schultz concurs.

Edited May 19, 2010 by sturt

[DJlaysitup]

http://blogs.ajc.com...r-coaching-job/

Id have to say hell no.

Yep...Shultz is a simple man. He goes for stuff that gets him attention. As far as actual NBA knowledge..he is moron (no offense to actual morons..you folks are smarter than him)

[AHF]

I think we are in too much need of a new voice in the organization to go with Larry Drew. Wasn't Drew's primary responsibility the offense and wasn't our reaction to this offense for the past several years that Woodson needed an assistant who could bring some structure and versatility to the offense? Even if it was Woodson holding Drew back, I would move in a different direction.

[TheTruth]

I think we are in too much need of a new voice in the organization to go with Larry Drew. Wasn't Drew's primary responsibility the offense and wasn't our reaction to this offense for the past several years that Woodson needed an assistant who could bring some structure and versatility to the offense? Even if it was Woodson holding Drew back, I would move in a different direction.

Can't disagree here. We need to just clean house with those assistants. Yes, Woodson was calling most of the shots, but it appears as though the assistants didn't contribute much at all. With all the help our offense needed in terms of diversity, no one could offer it (especially Drew, whose job was moreso offense). This team lacks discipline and continuous effort. We need someone outside of the organization to get these guys to stand at attention with a new voice.

[Diesel]

The Hawks need more than just a new coach.

The Hawks are in need of Sund to continue cultivating a winning atmosphere. He can't do that with the same old wineskins. My hope is that ASG pull out the wallet and get the best that money can buy.

[Dsinner]

I think we should keep him. I liked his suites.

[Sothron]

We need a clean sweep, out with the old in with the new.

[KB21]

Jeff makes some very good points in this article. He is correct when he says that just because Larry Drew was on Mike Woodson's staff does not mean he is the same voice as Mike Woodson. Remember, Mike didn't get resigned not because of a lack of success but because they felt the team needed a new voice. Larry Drew brings the perspective of being on the bench with this team already. He has seen what works and what doesn't work with these players, and I highly doubt that just because he was on Mike Woodson's staff that he would be a Mike Woodson clone.

Some of you think the Hawks need a clean sweep. Imagine what would have happened with the Chicago Bulls had they felt the same way and not promoted Phil Jackson off of Doug Collins's staff. I'm not comparing Larry Drew to Phil Jackson, but with assistant coaches, you never know exactly what they can be until they get a chance.

That's the thing about this coaching search. There isn't one candidate out there that everyone can say is a slam dunk must have guy. You can come up with pluses and minuses on every guy. I could make a case for and against every coach that has been mentioned, but I honestly cannot think of a reason to be completely against any of them.

[DjGrizz]

Jeff Shultz is an idiot.

[NineOhTheRino]

Jeff Shultz is an idiot.

+1