Larry Drew for Woodson second worst coach change

[tremor]

Bret LaGree, Hoopinion:

It's easy to understand skepticism over the Hawks' hiring of Larry Drew as their new head coach. As with any first-time head coach, Drew carries a certain burden of proof. But a larger share of the doubt appears to be cast upon (and reasonably so) those who made the decision and the degree to which they've presented Drew an opportunity to succeed.

The length of the coaching search did nothing to minimize the impression that Drew was not the first choice for the job. But the nature of the search said more about the organization than it did about Drew. The three fractious groups that collectively own the Hawks simply don't make decisions quickly. Two summers ago, 38 days elapsed between the season's end and the offer of a second contract to former head coach Mike Woodson. This summer, management moved relatively quickly, by its standards, squeezing interviews with Drew, Avery Johnson, Dwane Casey and Mark Jackson into a 28-day period between announcing that Woodson would not be offered a third contract and introducing Drew as his replacement.

That Drew served as an assistant to Woodson for each of Woodson's six seasons in Atlanta hasn't kept the organization from focusing on how different Drew will be. Granted, it's difficult to imagine any head coach being as tactically stubborn and reactive as Woodson was. But it's also difficult to imagine how different Drew can be given that he'll be working with essentially the same roster that has never finished better than 12th in the league in defensive efficiency and failed to put up much of a fight in successive second-round playoff series.

The biggest change Drew promises is a shift from Woodson's isolation-heavy offense to a motion system. Theoretically and aesthetically, it's a welcome change, though there are practical concerns. As stagnant and predictable as Woodson's half-court offense could be, especially late in games and/or against top defenses, over the course of the 2009-10 regular season, the Hawks were the league's third-most-efficient offense. The lack of ball and player movement made turnovers rare, and the Hawks compensated for their rather ordinary field goal shooting with excellent offensive rebounding. Essentially, the Hawks chose shot volume over shot quality and, more often than not, that choice paid dividends during the regular season.

There's the rub. Drew (commendably) is taking a season-long approach to implementing what he envisions as a positive change. But will the players, who appeared quite willing to tune out Woodson in the postseason, stick with something different and difficult if both the rookie head coach and his offensive system fail to hit the ground running? If the players do resist, how strongly will the organization support a head coach signed to the shortest and cheapest contract (just two years and $2.5 million of Drew's three-year, $5 million deal is guaranteed) in the league against those who take up the bulk of the team's cap space through the 2013 season? And, if the team doesn't do a better job of stopping its opponents from scoring, how much will any offensive changes even matter?

The whole article:

Use the force - read the source.

These guys discredit themselves time after time and still are paid to this again and again. If you don't believe me check any of their past predictions.

I wonder if this change is seen in such bad light by fans of other teams.

[DrReality]

Granted, it's difficult to imagine any head coach being as tactically stubborn and reactive as Woodson was.

Truer words were never spoken?

[Sothron]

Getting rid of Woodson for anyone whose not going to rely on only an isolation offense is a huge improvement to this team. I have doubts about Drew, we all do, but let's see what the guy can do with these guys.

[Gray Mule]

:thumbsdownsmileyanim:

Hold everything. If Woody is such a great coach and Drew is such a bad hire, let's not ask the

sportswriters, let's ask the real experts. The people who pay the salaries of these head coaches.

:question:

When Woodson was not rehired by the Hawks, were there any other NBA teams that were looking

to hire a new head coach? If I recall correctly the answer is yes, more than one team.

Next question: How many of these teams, looking to hire a new head coach, interviewed Woody?

I mean, seriously interview him, not just gave him a courtesy call. Furthermore, did anyone really

call him about an opening?

Something just don't compute here. A great (?) head coach, out of a job, with positions available

and no one wants him?

I rest my case. I could go on, but why bother. :bedtime2:

[DrReality]

His relationship with most of the players has to be a huge red flag with other teams looking for a coach. He didn't have their attention in the huddle, had disputes in the locker room, seldom made adjustments, yadda yadda. I will be most intrigued by how the players respond and if they reach their potential under Drew et al.

[JTB]

damn let the man coach first and then judge him!............LD I got yo back!, make everybody a believer!

[AHF]

:thumbsdownsmileyanim:

Hold everything. If Woody is such a great coach and Drew is such a bad hire, let's not ask the

sportswriters, let's ask the real experts. The people who pay the salaries of these head coaches.

:question:

When Woodson was not rehired by the Hawks, were there any other NBA teams that were looking

to hire a new head coach? If I recall correctly the answer is yes, more than one team.

Next question: How many of these teams, looking to hire a new head coach, interviewed Woody?

I mean, seriously interview him, not just gave him a courtesy call. Furthermore, did anyone really

call him about an opening?

Something just don't compute here. A great (?) head coach, out of a job, with positions available

and no one wants him?

I rest my case. I could go on, but why bother. :bedtime2:

Hammer meeting head of nail... ^

[frankthetank966]

I agree it was a bad move. The point of getting rid of Woddy was to get rid of his coaching system, but when you hire from within you generally will maintain that coaching system the HC had. Well see hopefully I will be wrong.

[JTB]

I agree it was a bad move. The point of getting rid of Woddy was to get rid of his coaching system, but when you hire from within you generally will maintain that coaching system the HC had. Well see hopefully I will be wrong.

ok what!...........how in the world is the coaching system the same! LD dont run a heavy iso offense and he dont run a switching defense! so in reality LD is FAR different than Woody. the only thing thats the same is that the hawks are hearing a familiar voice in the locker room, that is if woody even let LD say anything! LD has one thing to do and thats make his players trust his system and play with heart as well as togeather as a team, that will be his main focus. everything else LD has under control if changes need to be done to the line up LD said he will do it if he thinks he needs to unlike woody who never changed a thing, or if he needs to beef up his team in some special way he will get it done, so he says, of course we have to wait to see what really happens but i tell you this if you're a true hawks fan you are far more intrigued by LD than you ever was with woody!

[AHF]

ok what!...........how in the world is the coaching system the same! LD dont run a heavy iso offense and he dont run a switching defense! so in reality LD is FAR different than Woody. the only thing thats the same is that the hawks are hearing a familiar voice in the locker room, that is if woody even let LD say anything! LD has one thing to do and thats make his players trust his system and play with heart as well as togeather as a team, that will be his main focus. everything else LD has under control if changes need to be done to the line up LD said he will do it if he thinks he needs to unlike woody who never changed a thing, or if he needs to beef up his team in some special way he will get it done, so he says, of course we have to wait to see what really happens but i tell you this if you're a true hawks fan you are far more intrigued by LD than you ever was with woody!

I hope LD delivers. My worry was that we were promoting someone who couldn't fix this team's problems from the bench over the last several years which meant that either he didn't have potential answers or that he was shot down by the head coach and lacked the authority to do things like stop having Josh roam the 3pt line on offense. That doesn't sound like a winning gameplan to me, but things aren't always normal with the ASG so I am hoping LD can put this team in significantly better position to compete in the post-season than his predecessor (I am not expecting regular season improvement).

[Vol4ever]

Well Im not on the Larry Drew butt kissing train like some. Face it, this was the cheapest hire the Hawks could make. Drew is the lowest paid coach in the league. I know those of you that wanted to get rid of Woodson at any cost got your wish, and yes I believe it was time for him to go, but not at the cost of hiring an assistant on his staff that has NO head coaching experience and taking the reigns of a team that was 3rd in the Eastern Conference last year.

What does Drew bring to the table? Nobody liked JJ's iso but the Hawks were the league's third-most-efficient offense. How does Drew improve on that? The problem was stopping teams in the paint and we did nothing to address that this summer.

I'll go on record that is was a terrible hire and will take this team backwards. Those of you supporting Drew are holding your breath and hoping this works out. You understand this could be a disaster that could set this franchise back 5 years.

[tremor]

I hope LD delivers. My worry was that we were promoting someone who couldn't fix this team's problems from the bench over the last several years which meant that either he didn't have potential answers or that he was shot down by the head coach and lacked the authority to do things like stop having Josh roam the 3pt line on offense. That doesn't sound like a winning gameplan to me, but things aren't always normal with the ASG so I am hoping LD can put this team in significantly better position to compete in the post-season than his predecessor (I am not expecting regular season improvement).

Neither do I. Learning comes with mistakes and those have to be allowed for the team (esp. young players) to progress.

Actually I expect below 50 wins in RS. I'll judge Drew not earlier than after offseason.

Players trust him, I hope he'll be able maintain authority in long run.

[Sothron]

I don't know if we'll win 53 games again because of the lack of injuries last season and the easier schedule we had due to the Eastern conference being weaker than it will be this upcoming year. The real test will be if this motion offense can execute it in the playoffs. If we make it past the second round then it works and Drew is validated. If not, well, then we'll probably talk about the team needing more than one year in a new system before making judgement.

[MaceCase]

I don't know if we'll win 53 games again because of the lack of injuries last season and the easier schedule we had due to the Eastern conference being weaker than it will be this upcoming year. The real test will be if this motion offense can execute it in the playoffs. If we make it past the second round then it works and Drew is validated. If not, well, then we'll probably talk about the team needing more than one year in a new system before making judgement.

I could see us matching our same record from last season. We really didn't handle the bottom feeders in the East like the Knicks while beating almost every team in the West. We can replace some West wins with us actually handling a below .500 team and break even. I doubt the strengthening of the already playoff bound teams in our conference will affect our record as we can also remove the Cavs and possibly the Bobcats from the picture. We were already weak against Miami and Orlando so there's no difference there leaving not much change in the landscape. After all, with the massive amount of injuries we had to Al, Smoove, and Marvin the year before we did win 47 games so unless an even worse injury bug hits us I don't see why we can't hit 50 wins at the minimum.

[Brokentree]

Larry Drew was perhaps one of the worst coaching changes this year. Compare him to the others on the list and tell me you wouldn't rather have a Byron Scott, Tom Thibodeau, Avery Johnson, or Doug Collins. The only real debate would be over Drew and Monty Williams. I don't think anyone would have been too thrilled with Vinny Del Negro.

This is also a forcast. Which coach will benefit his team the most? How can Drew benefit the Hawks? Well a 2nd round win would be great. Yeah, not the easiest thing to do. How can the other coaches benefit their teams? Well some of them just want more wins. Avery Johnson needs to pull at least 13 wins out of his magic hat. Doug Collins needs to aim at 28 or more. Tom Thibodeau needs to beat .500 ball and try to win a 1st round series. Poor Byron Scott needs to try and prove that Lebron isn't all that.

[DJlaysitup]

... How many of these teams, looking to hire a new head coach, interviewed Woody?

I mean, seriously interview him, not just gave him a courtesy call. Furthermore, did anyone really

call him about an opening?

Something just don't compute here. A great (?) head coach, out of a job, with positions available

and no one wants him?

I rest my case. I could go on, but why bother. :bedtime2:

That pretty much sums it up for me too G.M.

Of course that is only half of the equasion. The 2nd half (will LD be a good head coach) is impossible to predict...we will have to wait and see...(fingers crossed)

[Dsinner]

...or he's just as good at BS'ng the media as Woody was. Knows all the problems ("we need balh blah blah", "so and so needs more blah blah blah"). None of which happened. Of course LD is going to talk about our stale offense and how he's going to change it. What else was he supposed to say to get the job. Let's just hope he can fix it.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

What concerns me is all of the talk about offense, but hardly any talk about defense. The fans are obsessed with the offense improving, but this team flat out lost games because of defense. All of those offensive collaspes were also coupled with horrific defense.

If you have a bad offensive quarter, the defense needs to tighten. But the flip side happened to the Hawks. We would have one of those bad 17 point quarters offensively . . but give up 28 to 35 points in the process.

That's the difference right now between a championship contender like Boston and Orlando, and us. When those teams hit droughts like that, their defense gets tougher. So if they only scoring 17 in a quarter, they try their best to hold their opponents to 22 or less points.