Those who want Casey to be our next head coach, explain to me why?

[AHF]

If that's all true, I'm a bit less concerned. But I still haven't seen anything to indicate that he has an idea of how to formulate a good offensive system that doesn't lean so heavily on ISOs.

I don't even see the word isolation mentioned in Disel's article:

http://www.reclinergm.com/who-is-dwane-casey-and-why-has-he-been-interviewed-a-second-time-for-the-sixers-head-coaching-position/

[niremetal]

I don't even see the word isolation mentioned in Disel's article:

http://www.reclinergm.com/who-is-dwane-casey-and-why-has-he-been-interviewed-a-second-time-for-the-sixers-head-coaching-position/

I didn't say he did. But I don't see any evidence that he implements any sort of offensive system emphasizing off-ball movement and spacing. In the NBA, that usually means that the team's offense devolves into ISOs and post-ups with the occasional pick-and-roll. That's what we saw with the Hawks (and in Cleveland and Portland), and that's what I remember from his time in MInny. It's great that he's a good defensive coach. But the lack of an offensive scheme was a major issue for us, especially come playoff time. And I don't see any evidence that Casey would address that.

Edited May 26, 2010 by niremetal

[KB21]

I didn't say he did. But I don't see any evidence that he implements any sort of offensive system emphasizing off-ball movement and spacing. In the NBA, that usually means that the team's offense devolves into ISOs and post-ups with the occasional pick-and-roll. That's what we saw with the Hawks (and in Cleveland and Portland), and that's what I remember from his time in MInny. It's great that he's a good defensive coach. But the lack of an offensive scheme was a major issue for us, especially come playoff time. And I don't see any evidence that Casey would address that.

I agree that Atlanta should get away from an isolation based offense, but I don't agree that a lack of an offensive scheme was a major issue for Atlanta. A bigger issue to me was our defensive scheme. To often, we played that switching defense without any adjustments. Teams were able to easily establish mis matches against our defense. Our defense, not our offense, was the reason we got blasted by the Orlando Magic in the playoffs. The fact is, with an isolation based offense that did not take advantage of the ability of some of the younger players on the team, Atlanta still had the 2nd most efficient offense in the NBA this past season, scoring around 111 points per 100 possessions on the season. This was at a pace of around 90 possessions per 48 minutes.

Basically, what I'm saying is that the changes we need offensively are more cosmetic than anything else. However, we need a drastic change in philosophy on defense.

[niremetal]

The fact is, with an isolation based offense that did not take advantage of the ability of some of the younger players on the team, Atlanta still had the 2nd most efficient offense in the NBA this past season, scoring around 111 points per 100 possessions on the season. This was at a pace of around 90 possessions per 48 minutes.

Alright, sorry but I am [expletive]ing sick of hearing about how good our offense was during the regular season. NEWS FLASH: THE PLAYOFFS ARE A DIFFERENT BALLGAME. Hubie Brown, Jeff Van Gundy, Doug Collins, and a partridge in a pear tree all blasted the Hawks during the playoffs for having an offense that consisted of nothing but various one-on-one plays. As Hubie said in that long interview that got pinned, you CANNOT win in the playoffs with simplistic offensive schemes. The nature of 7-game series with a day off between each game combined with the higher intensity on defense generally makes it way too easy for opposing teams to adjust. That is why our offensive efficiency plummeted like an anvil during the playoffs.

Yes, our switching defense was a major issue all year. But in the playoffs, the problems with Woody's lack of an offensive scheme were plain for all the world to see. It was a major issue. It needs to be addressed, because you need both good offense AND good defense to win in the playoffs.

Edited May 26, 2010 by niremetal

[AHF]

I didn't say he did. But I don't see any evidence that he implements any sort of offensive system emphasizing off-ball movement and spacing. In the NBA, that usually means that the team's offense devolves into ISOs and post-ups with the occasional pick-and-roll. That's what we saw with the Hawks (and in Cleveland and Portland), and that's what I remember from his time in MInny. It's great that he's a good defensive coach. But the lack of an offensive scheme was a major issue for us, especially come playoff time. And I don't see any evidence that Casey would address that.

I agree our offense needs diversity for the playoffs.

I haven't heard a lot of comments like this one from Casey from Woodson over the years:

"We have to get better with our offensive execution; passing the basketball and doing a better job of executing our offensive sets."

[niremetal]

I agree our offense needs diversity for the playoffs.

I haven't heard a lot of comments like this one from Casey from Woodson over the years:

I've heard things to the tune of "we need to do a better job of sharing the ball" before. But I don't think that "offensive sets" is a term in Woody's vocabulary, so you've got me there.

[Diesel]

I am not opposed to someone with more experience at all but Woodson was never even a successful defensive coach. Despite having plus athletic players, he never put together an above average defense in 6 years with the team. Casey did that already so to me if you are looking at one inexperienced defensive specialist versus the other, that is a major, major difference.

Other differences:

* is student of the game always looking to learn and improve his coaching ability

* Has a diverse coaching background from high level college basketball, NBA and overseas

* Said to be a disciplinarian one who won’t let players run over him

* fantastic with his game preparation

* does use advanced statistical analysis as part of his coaching toolbox

That is a lot of difference before arriving at Woodson = Casey.

The problem there is that Woody had too many defensive problem children on this team.

Honestly.

Woody had to find a way to hide: Bibby, Smoove, Craw, a lack of a bench, and the fact that we are undersized from other offenses. When you see a coach reaching for a matchup zone, it's not because he has a great size parity like some would have you believe. It because he knows that his team will not be able to fight through picks and fences... and will leave shooters wide open off the dribble. For 4 years, Woody didn't have any semblence of a person who could protect the inside.

We're trying to protect the inside with Harrington, Walker, and Peja. That's what we had to offer.

I said it before, I will repeat it now. For Woody to take the youngest, most undersized team in the game and Win 53 games is a damn miracle. Especially when you consider that neither of our frontcourt players can play good positional defense, we have no real defensive stopper, and we don't have a PG who can control the tempo defensively.

Had Casey been here, it would have been no different.

[thescout]

It comes down to both offense and defense need much improvement. Not only that but the personel on the team doesn't matchup in the playoffs. Sure you get beat alot of teams in the regular season but the playoffs are a different animal. Defenses collapse and don't give you an inside game for the most part. Stil you need to score in the low post to win which comes down to better talented players the other team has in the playoffs.

For 2 yrs Smoove didn't get it done vs Cleveland and Orlando. He has no go to move and constantly gets overmatched in the playoffs when you get past the 1st round. Even Milwaukee almost beat the Hawks without their two best players, Horford needs help.Add another big that is better than the washed up bigs coming off the bench.You see how Boston is playing Orlando well why can't the Hawks find some bigs?

Don't want to derail the thread so to answer the question I don't want Casey.We've lived Bob Weiss,Woodson and how many other unproven coaches. Casey not sure if he got a fiar shake with Minny but I would like a proven coach.Someone that knows both offense and defense instead of what we had in Woody.

Smoove isn't the only problem but my point is we need better players that can perform in the playoffs and a better coach.

[Plainview1981]

doing it as an assistant and doing as a head coach is different. He didn't control personel and subs. Here he loved to play inadequate defenders all game long and sit the decent defenders on the bench all game

Going 50/50 in 40 games has little to do with taking a 2nd round team and pushing it to the next level. The expectations are larger here. It's easier for a team to overachieve when other teams take you lightly. But this team has young and hungry teams on it's trail. It's a different beast.

[Plainview1981]

What I am saying is that a defensive guru would have been able to get a defensive squad to the point of above average over 6 years.

Casey did it with Mark Blount, Marko Jaric, Wally Sczerbiak, Ricky Davis and Marcus Banks starting a majority of their games with the team. Those are not the Pistons Part II.

Brown, on the other hand from Woodson, has taken over some miserable teams and molded them in his image into defensive studs. He has done this consistently. Whatever his faults, he is a defensive guru.

When you got to take into account is the Hawks have a target on the their backs now. They're the hunted as well as the hunter. We saw from the Hawks this year that they often didn't take sub .500 teams as seriously. That just doesn't happen with this team. You think that mediocre Minny team had a target on their backs like this current Hawks team does? For a while it seemed like a new inexperienced coach would come in and get his team to overachieve for a short time and he would be COY only to get fired the next season when I expectations got larger.

What I'm saying is... Beware of inexperienced coaches that got a team to overachieve for a short period of time.

Edited May 27, 2010 by Hotlanta1981

[Plainview1981]

Avery also had much better players at his disposal in Dallas. I will agree that Avery Johnson is a solid coach, but Dallas was a team that was great because of the players, not the coach. They have had essentially the same starting five over the past 3 years, and they have won between 50-55 games in each of those years. One of those years was coached by Avery Johnson with the other two being Rick Carlisle with Dwane Casey on his staff.

You say that Casey had his team overachieving for one season. Well, Dwane didn't get much of an opportunity to prove he could do it over multiple seasons. He was wrongly fired during that season, and the Timberwolves, unlike Dallas, has gotten much worse without him. Let's not forget that Randy Wittman went 12-30 with the very same players Dwane was 20-20 with.

If you are basing your opinion off Dwane's record alone, then all I can say is that you wouldn't have given some great head coaches that opportunity to become great. Jerry Sloan was 30-52 in his first season as a head coach and was 20-20 after 40 games in his second season as a head coach. George Karl was 36-46 in his first season as a head coach and was 17-23 after 40 games in his second season. So, basically, Dwane has a better coaching record than one guaranteed Hall of Fame coach and another potential Hall of Fame coach in his first year and 40 games of coaching.

Show me tangible reasons why Dwane Casey shouldn't be named the head coach? If you are going to call him Mike Woodson II, then show me some evidence that Dwane Casey will run a swtiching style of defense that has his center guarding point guards on the perimeter. Show me evidence that he's a coach who will run mostly isolation plays and will allow two players to completely dictate the offense while others on the team have offensive skills that are being wasted. The man is a very hot coaching candidate league wide right now, but for some reason, he isn't good enough for the Atlanta Hawks?

He so hot that he still ends up without a head coaching gig every year. But he'll probably get hired by the team has has hired 3 bad head coaches in a row.

At this point, it's about what the Hawks can and can't do in the playoffs.

I'm honestly just sick of seeing inexperienced coaches and hoping that they learn from their mistakes. Considering Lon, Stotts and Woody never learned from thier mistakes I'm not eager to see if the next one will.

Edited May 27, 2010 by Hotlanta1981