My personal Mike Woodson apology

[spotatl]

I think that its pretty illustrative to look at how the number of shot attempts changed from last year to this year at different spots. Since the team pace is pretty much unchanged from last season this is an apples to apples comparison.

I'll list last year's stats first

At Rim 25.5 vs 20.3

<10 feet 11.8 vs 10.9

10-15 feet 6.1 vs 6.7

16-23 feet 21.8 vs 22.7

3 pointers 17.7 vs 18.5

------------------------------------

Totals 82.9 vs 79.1

[AHF]

Whether the coaching decision made an impact will be seen in the playoffs because Woodson's biggest liability as a coach was using a predictable and easily exploitable system on both ends of the floor that did not hold up well under playoff adjustments. As bad as the Orlando series was, I would argue that the Bucks series was equally bad from a coaching perspective. Once Milwaukee adjusted in game 3, that terribly injured and undertalented Milwaukee team took us from 2-0 to the verge of elimination at 2-3 because our coaching staff refused to make adjustments. It was just brutal to watch.

If we are able to scheme for our opponents in the playoffs we will be an improved team. If not, then you can definitely say we aren't improved.

You aren't going to get much better results in the regular season than Woodson got last year between the combination of health, mpg for JJ and others, and regular season games (i.e., no deep dive adjustments from other teams), Woodson hit right about the maximum regular season performance for last year's team. This team is no more talented, is less healthy, and is dealing with a new system instead of one that many of the players had been in for more than 3 consecutive years. You aren't going to see real improvement in regular season record. It is the playoffs that will tell the tale here.

[spotatl]

If the Hawks lose in the first round I still don't think people would give Woodson any credit for the success he had.

[AHF]

If the Hawks lose in the first round I still don't think people would give Woodson any credit for the success he had.

Woodson should be evaluated on how he did with the tools he had. I don't think it adds or detracts from the job Woodson did if the Hawks win the championship or get swept in the first round. Woodson will still have basically maximized the regular season W/L record and then put up one of the worst post-season coaching performances ever.

[Atlantaholic]

Woodson should be evaluated on how he did with the tools he had. I don't think it adds or detracts from the job Woodson did if the Hawks win the championship or get swept in the first round. Woodson will still have basically maximized the regular season W/L record and then put up one of the worst post-season coaching performances ever.

Last years playoffs will probably guarantee the guy doesn't get another shot in the league unless it's with a totally desperate last place team. Any GM watching tape on those games will see evidence of a team getting out-coached by an insane margin.

[niremetal]

If the Hawks lose in the first round I still don't think people would give Woodson any credit for the success he had.

Wake me up when another team decides to give Woody "credit" for the "success" he had with this team. Sorry, but the only people who think Woody did a good job with the Hawks are fans who somehow think that he squeezed the maximum out of guys like Josh, Marvin, and Al during his time here, and idiot talking heads who rarely watched actual Hawks games.

I have never heard a former NBA head coach or GM talk about what a great coach Woody was in Atlanta. They said the team improved under him, sure, but they never said that the improvement was the result of Woody rather than the natural progression of a young team. I've heard guys like Hubie, Fratello, and Dr. Jack take shots at him, not praise him. Woody was a do-nothing coach. He let his team develop so many bad habits that it was disgusting to watch, didn't give a $h!t about the offense (his words, not mine), and never heard of the term "in-game adjustment" (unless you count him grappling with the choice of whether Marvin or Bibby should go to the bench first in favor of Flip/Jamal).

AHF hit the nail on the head with the series in Milwaukee - we were playing a team that was so vastly inferior to ours in terms of talent that we could and should have swept them with 4 routs. But Skiles made two simple adjustments (increase pressure on JJ and run screens so that our switching defense would create mismatches in their favor) that led to us getting our asses handed to us in 3 straight games by a team that, with the lineup they had available, would not have cracked 30 wins in the regular season. Really, Skiles made the adjustment in Game 2, but Jennings was making bad decisions with the ball that game so it wasn't enough until they got back home. Only when our backs were against the wall did Woody finally make a counter-adjustment (show instead of switch off screens) that any halfway decent coach would have made at halftime of Game 3 rather than before Game 6.

Woody was out of his league in the playoffs. It was painfully obvious, and I frankly don't see how anyone can give that miserable failure "credit" for anything. Because if you do, you also have to give Sund and ASG "credit" for giving him the players he had to work with, because Woody sure as hell didn't do anything to make the team play above its potential.

Personally, I take the view that I stated at the beginning: Necessary, but no sufficient. We're not going to win a title with the "core" that we have in place now. The bad habits that developed under him are too deeply etched. Getting rid of Woody was too little and far too late. This core is not going to win a title, and it's on the front office to make the personnel moves necessary to get us to the next level. But it absolutely was necessary to ditch Woody, because NO team could win a title with him as head coach.

Edited February 15, 2011 by niremetal

[Atlantaholic]

I agree with all the Woody haters and will just add that IMHO Larry Drew has not been a vast improvement. We still do not resemble a well coached team out there.

[NineOhTheRino]

I think some are being more subjective than objective. I haven't checked the numbers but I doubt anyone can find one stat that backs the argument that LD is a better coach.

[Atlantaholic]

I think some are being more subjective than objective. I haven't checked the numbers but I doubt anyone can find one stat that backs the argument that LD is a better coach.

Subjective? Have you seen the Hawks playoff stats the last three seasons under Woodson? There isn't a team in the entire NBA in that span with an uglier record.

I'm not going to do the math but I did once in a thread a long time ago and the stats were something like: 11-18 with a margin of close to -9 points per game, with the Hawks averaging around 88 points per game on offense. Woodson's lifetime career record is also one of the ghastlier ones in all of NBA history. If you think comparing this incomplete season (in which we are on pace to win almost as many games as last year: in which our starters have missed considerable time and playing in a tougher conference to last year's with a first year coach and a new system), with last season and picking out some stats is an objective way to measure Woodson's coaching acumen... well, than I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Objectivity would be giving Drew at least a few seasons to see what he can do with this team. Woodson had 6, the vast majority of which where either totally dreadful or at least ended totally dreadfully in the playoffs. In fact in six seasons the best thing Woodson can say is he took Boston to seven games (getting blown out by 30+ points in each and every lose.)

Edited February 15, 2011 by Atlantaholic

[spotatl]

The Hawks have a flawed roster and I don't htink that coaching is the reason the Magic beat up on the Hawks. Fans here bitched about Woodson but he got good production out of a deeply flawed roster. Now a new coach put in the offensive system that many people here wanted and the offense has gone into the toilet. Maybe you think thats going to magically turn around in the playoffs but I do not. I'll be shocked if the team makes it back to the second round.

And I say this as someone who did think that Woodson had to be fired. I just have said since it happened that I expected the team's offense to take a big step back and for turnovers to shoot way up.

Edited February 15, 2011 by spotatl

[NineOhTheRino]

We Fans are suckers for buzz words and phrases.

Here's a few that Drew threw around when he landed the job

Motion offense

Isolation

Switching defense

I think the positive reaction to Drew is the result of him tossing around these buzz words rather than anything substantive.

Right now the idea of Drew being the anti-Woody makes him better by default.

Edited February 15, 2011 by NineOhTheRino

[terrell]

I'm not apollogizing to Woody, because I've changed my mind about his coaching skills. I'm apologizing because I dont think this group could win with Phil Jackson or any other great Coach, as is constructed. I just think I was a little too hard on Woody, blaming him for lack of effort, coming out flat, blowing big leads, getting blowed out, living and dying by jumpshots, poor shot selection, ISO's, etc...., when I see a lot of the same things going on under LD.

Edited February 15, 2011 by terrell

[terrell]

I always thought Woody did a damn good job with the built in limitations at the 1,4, and 5 positions. I don't see where Drew has a schematic advantage over Woody. The team was always on the verge of becoming a jump-shooting team under Woody but there's not question they're a jump-shooting team under Drew. Just goes to prove that sometimes the best moves are the ones left undone.

This team is just so flawed, I dont know if Woody and LD is at fault or not. Cause if you think about it, it's gotta be tough to win in this league when your're a team with 2 good sg's, 2 good pf's, and a bunch of scrubs.