Attention: Terry Stotts Haters

[Gray Mule]

You have a friend in high places.

Terence Moore, guru critic of all Atlanta sports and

anything and everyone who is not black, writing in

Sunday's A.J.C. comes down hard on the Hawks for not

hiring Doc Rivers.

In his way of thinking, Doc could have brought free

agents to Atlanta, including K.B., and have filled

Phillips Arena every night, bringing instant credibility

here and making us rich and famous.

Terry Stotts, on the other hand, is incapable of doing

anything but keeping the seats all empty and loosing

almost every game. If he remaind, we will have no

players, fans or victories.

Wow. Guess that we who think that Terry Stotts is a

pretty good coach and will do well, given the players

who are willing to work hard and follow his game plan,

are totally lost --- Oh, well ---

[Wretch]

I'm just not ready to give him the keys to the city. He hasn't earned a long term deal. He hasn't proven anything; and I certainly wouldn't build a team around him. There are only a handful of coaches that I would build a team for - and Phil Jackson and Jerry Sloan constitute half of that handful.

Doc Rivers is not among those coaches. I like Doc though. He's a good coach, but what I really like about him is his personality. That's one of the Hawks' biggest needs right now. We haven't had a decent identity since Dominique left. Mookie, Smitty, and Mutombo came in with Lenny Wilkens and we became a solid team capable of winning in the regular season...occasionally sqeaking out of the 1st round of the playoffs. However, the team still didn't have a real identity. Does anyone talk about those days? Does anyone even remember? They won, but they couldn't win the big games. They played VERY well, but they were boring. Bringing in Doc would have jump started the process of rebuilding not only our team, but our identity as well.

I think there are better coaches though. Mike Fratello is one. The Czar has always been one of my closet favorites. He can just flat out coach. I'm all for an old-school coach and I know Mike would come in and get results. If you give him the right team, he'll get results...but Mike is a guy who'll find out the best way to play what he's got and get every ounce out of that squad. The only thing is, I'd rather not have him slow our young guys down to a plodding, barely watchable, style of basketball just to eeek out a winning season.

I also like EMuss's hard nose, no wimps allowed, style of coaching...but that's better suited to a veteran squad. Plus, his lack of attention to the young guys is apparently what's got people talking about him right now. He's a guy you bring in like Chicago did with Skiles. I think the Bulls' days of underachievement and slow-development are coming to a close.

In the end, that's we need to be looking at - a guy that can come in and develop the players we're drafting. If Fratello can accept the rebuilding process and do that, then I think he's a good candidate. Oh, and he's got ties to the organization too...

There's a bunch of guys out there that will probably make good coaches one day. Guys that are itching for a start somewhere. Maybe our search for a recognizeable commodity would unfairly alienate those eagar young coaches; but honestly, if we're seriously looking at hiring a young gun just itchin' to run the show then we should just stick with Stotts. That's what it comes down to. If we're not going after a big name that can develop our guys (uh, when we get 'em), then we just keep Stotts.

[Gray Mule]

I'm with you on Terry Stotts.

He may not qualify as "The Greatest" but we sure could

end up a lot worse with some of the coaches available.

Unless we can really improve a lot, we keep what we've

got.

[KB21]

......Terry Stotts was in a no win situation when he took over for Lon Kruger back in December of 2002. He had a team that was unwilling to listen to the coaching staff, unwilling to work hard, and unwilling to play as a team.

He showed something to me when he was handed a team that for all intents and purposes should have lost every game they played at the end of the season. These were guys who were playing for contracts that could have very well gone out on their own and attempted to pad their stats for themselves. They didn't though. Terry Stotts got this group of castoffs together and had them playing very well AS A TEAM. They listened to what he and the rest of the coaching staff were saying. They pushed the tempo of the game, which is what Terry has tried to achieve in his short time in Atlanta. They made those extra passes around the perimeter. They cut down on their turnovers. They played an exciting brand of basketball, even if they were a bunch of castoffs. He did not lose his team. It's really amazing what happens to a coach when he has players that are willing to work and listen.

I believe Terry has earned the right to keep his job in Atlanta, and I feel that if brought back, he should get a new contract. This talk of coaching changes going into every offseason has to stop at some point. Before the Hawks take the next step forward, they are going to have to show some form of stability. Bringing Terry back without extending his deal will not bring the type of stability this team needs.

If you bring him back, commit to him. If not, then there is too much doubt in your mind, and you should make the change.

[Wretch]

I agree that...

Stotts was in a no win situation. Not because of the team that he inherited, but because of the organization that inherited him. We changed players, GMs, and owners while he has been bouncing around right in the middle of it. We don't know what our identity is going to be, we barely have an inkling of where we're going. By default, Stotts' job has a cloud of uncertainty over it.

To stabilize the club, it is quite neccessary to have a system and a vision of where the organization wants to go. Nobody wants to come to a team in turmoil; especially not the difference makers that we want to sign as free agents. It really hurts the young guys who need solid tutilage and direction - JT would be the poster boy for this kind of misdirection. I believe that if Stotts is brought back, he should be given a new contract - mainly for stability.

I do not believe...

That Stotts has done an amazing coaching job. I think the guys who came in the 2nd half of the season simply played their game. We all knew JT could score. If anything, we can credit Lon Kruger for discovering this. For JT to continue to be an effective scorer, he needed a ball handling compliment.

Sura is that. Sura's game is hustling, falling, scrapping, getting into the lane, and passing. This isn't something that Stotts discovered or asked of him. His game simply compliments JT...and Jackson for that matter.

We knew what kind of player Jackson was coming in to the season. Stotts didn't bring out the toughness in him, and he certainly didn't find a way help him compliment the 1st half team better. With Sura and JT both being able to handle and distribute, Jackson simply did what he did best - with more opportunity to do it.

And sure, the team cut down on the turnovers. However, would this be due to JT handling the ball less? Could it be due to Sura handling the ball more? If we already knew JT needed another ball handler, then what was there for Stotts to figure out? What's more, this isn't even the same group of players that cut down on it's turnovers. We're talking about TWO completely different sets of players who play TWO completely different styles of basketball.

The only reason why this group was expected to fail, which, as our record indicates, they still did (and vs. bottom feeders), was because nobody knew that they could do anything. The guys were loose, played with nothing to lose and everything to gain (in the form of a new contract), and Stotts spread them out in a system that they could play in. That is most of what I give him credit for.

Not for a stellar 2nd half record... Not for developing anyone into a better player... Not for stabilizing a club vs. different levels of competition... Not for getting this club to play better defensively... And not for doing any of this in 1 1/2 seasons.

I'm not saying he's a bad coach, or that he is primarily responsible for our horrible record. But, people are giving Stotts too much credit for what happened after the Allstar break this year; and WAY too much respect if we're talking about building a team for him.

[Weez]

here's the thing. Read what most are saying about Bezdelik in Denver, esp. the DA article. You expect coaches, much like players, to "grow" with experience, to become better....and I think that Stotts has earned that chance, barring the opportunity to sign a true "star" coach such as Fratello (who is one of the few that has proven he can win using multiple styles of play, ala Brown).

Wretch is dead-on regarding the most likely reasons this team "succeeded" in the second half. The style fit their play, and the players, fortunately, complimented each other on the floor.

A positive for Stotts....he didn't f this up (see Floyd in NO). He "paid his dues" prior to getting a head coaching spot....and I just don't see a reason to can him for someone else's "shot." He hasn't done a bad job...and therefore should only be replaced by someone that almost everyone agrees can definitely do a better one.

is he the sexy choice? no. But he does provide some stability and continuity for this franchise, something this team, indeed the entire NBA, has been lacking in many recent years. You find me a coach that's better, and proven so...then I'll take it. But I simply don't see a need to can him at this point. He hasn't "earned" that either.

[Diesel]

Quote:

---

I believe Terry has earned the right to keep his job in Atlanta, and I feel that if brought back, he should get a new contract. This talk of coaching changes going into every offseason has to stop at some point. Before the Hawks take the next step forward, they are going to have to show some form of stability. Bringing Terry back without extending his deal will not bring the type of stability this team needs.

---

I thin the problem with this line of thought is that you have forgotten that we got new ownership. New owners generally like to put a new face on the Hawks. They won't put New wine into old wine skins... So for that reason, you might see us take a coach with a stronger reputation than Stotts. It was almost as though Stotts got his shot to impress with Jax, Theo, and SAR. When they were thrown out, really Stotts was given his pink Slip. I look for us to draft young, bring in a face and pick up some free agents (cheap) who can help maintain us until we can get maybe one more strong draft!

[Lascar78]

I'm not so sure he did earn a chance. I think the team's performance under his tenure would not have changed with no head coach at all. before we had lazy talented players. They won some games against great teams when they motivated themselves, but overall were apathetic, had no team unity, and lost the bulk of their games. After the trades, you have everyone on the team playing for a contract. Expectedly, they hustle their butts out, and look much better on the floor. They win a couple of games, but still lose the majority of them. I think these same things would happen under Stotts

I honestly think the most important thing for our franchise is for them to announce in any way they can that a new team is in town. Not the old hawks that were a joke in the NBA, but a new hawks team. You can't keep the coach in that process. You need a known name. Is it fair to Stotts? I think so, but it doesn't even matter if it isn't. The hawks aren't in the charity business or the feel good business. You shouldn't be asking yourself what's fair for Stotts the millionaire, but what is best for our franchise. And it's new faces across the board.

[Wretch]

Stotts doesn't deserve to get fired. Not by a long shot. The changes and organizational turmoil have NOTHING to do with him. At the same time, he hasn't been given the chance to show what he can do. He's basically coached 3 different teams and it's hard to establish any kind of identity or system with that; and not just for a new head coach either.

We set ourselves up for rebuilding this past season; now we actually start doing it. Time to build the team and time to pick a coach. It comes down to Stotts vs. someone with instant credibility...and if this team had made the playoffs, or even come close, then I don't think we'd even have to make that choice.

One of the things that I worry about is that Stotts takes this team into next season and doesn't find a way to win consistently against the bottom feeders. I want to see stability and I want to see defense. Scoring hasn't been an issue, we just haven't been able to slow down the opposition. Given a season without wholesale changes, players that compliment each other and follow directions, will Stotts get results?

It doesn't matter right now, but it will in a few years when we are playing to win. I don't want to be in that situation saying, "well, if we can just get Stotts another star player..." Another mid-season coaching change is not cool either. For the sake of stability and the young talent that will be our future, whomever we select now needs to be IT - our coach for better or worse.

[Lascar78]

Well I agree about stability. We need to pick our coach for the next 3-5 years NOW and stick to him. I think we can do better than Stotts. And my point is that should be the only question. Can we get a better coach than stotts? It doesn't matter whether or not he was given a fair chance. Our goal isn't to be nice, it's to develop into a winning team. If we can get a better coach for our franchise, we need to. I think we certainly can.

You can argue that stotts was never really given stability, and that's true. But my issues with him aren't even his win-loss record. He didn't motivate players (until our players became caontract year players), he didn't implement the right kind of plays when we had reef and theo, we basically only ran 3 plays, and he had HORRIBLE substitution patterns. Not bad, but horrible. So the only way I think you can argue for him is to say he was unexperienced and now starting to get the hang of it.

I would disagree with that. I think that the 2nd half of the season was a great chance to get Diaw comfortable with heavy minutes and start going to him for offense, as Diaw has to become a great player for us. Instead, he drastically cut his minutes which I think was a mistake. But that's just a personal opinion I guess

Either way, the bottom line is this: stotts was given a chance and failed. The 2nd half of the year we didn't even seem to run many plays, it was just flat out hustle getting it done, so it's not like a new coach would bring in a new system. there was no system. but it really doesnt matter at this point. I don't hate stotts at all but the only relevant question is IS TERRY STOTTS THE BEST AVAILABLE COACH FOR OUR FRANCHISE ON THE MARKET? If he wasn't already our coach, is he who you would chose? If you think he is, then we just disagree on his potential which is fine, but I don't want to hear this "he didnt get a chance" stuff.

We can't afford to have a young team learning to play NBA ball, and a young coach learning NBA coaching at the same time. When you have an inexperienced team, you need an experienced coach. Period. Look at Memphis. I really think we need a new coach

[Wretch]

If we were coachless, he would not be on my short list. He might not even be on my list. I wouldn't even try going forward with a guy looking for a chance, because we need stability; but true to Hawks "ill-luck-bad-decision", form every big named coach has been snapped up.

IMO, going with a guy like Stotts is no different than going with the next great coach in the waiting; so, firing him just to bring in someone else like him only perpetuates the instability.

I don't think he's been given a chance; but that has more to do with so many changes within our organization and so many distractions. If he were a veteran head coach, I might be inclined to levy a bit more of the blame on him. Being a newbie at it, having come into this situation, I don't put it all on him.

DON'T GET ME WRONG THOUGH I am not a Stotts fan. No sir. I think he deserves a shot to show what he can do given stability, just like anyone else itching for a chance, but I do not believe that he has "earned" an extended stay. I don't believe he should be fired based on the team's performance, but I don't believe that his performance has been amazing either.

That's really what it comes down to for me. For a better head coach, I'd scoot him right on out the door - he hasn't impressed me. But is there anyone left? Fratello? Chuck Daly? Rudy T? I'd go with either of those guys over Stotts. But as far as potential goes, I think he has just as much as the next young gun; I see no need to fire him just to bring in another one...and fire him in 2 years too.

[Lascar78]

Quote:

---

If we were coachless, he would not be on my short list. He might not even be on my list.

---

Quote:

---

For a better head coach, I'd scoot him right on out the door

---

To me those statements are contradictory. There are better coaches out there. Just about every one out there. And while I thought we should have made Musselman our head coach when he went to GS. But I understand your idea that he has as much upside as anyone, and that you'd rather stick with what we know rather than another young buck with as much potential for being good or bad. But that's not what I'm suggesting. I'm saying bring a veteran coach who knows how to teach and motivate to help our young players gel and develop. Just about any of them will do (except Wilkens). I'm sure coaches will be getting fired too. Why is it that we have the coach with the longest tenure in the conference when it's stotts??

Also, you're really not adressing what I mentionned about a needed change of perception of the franchise. If we keep the same coach, re-sign a few players, get a few FA's, people will see us as the same old lowly hawks. WE NEED A NEW IMAGE AS BAD AS WE NEED ANY PLAYER OR COACH. That's what new management needs to adress by firing stotts. Don't feel bad, he'll get a job elsewhere like Kruger did.

I'll take Fratello, Rudy T, Chuck Daly, Jeff Bzdelik, hell even Byron Scott whom I am no fan of. We need visible change for FA's to even consider playing here.

[Wretch]

Quote:

---

Also, you're really not adressing what I mentionned about a needed change of perception of the franchise. If we keep the same coach, re-sign a few players, get a few FA's, people will see us as the same old lowly hawks. WE NEED A NEW IMAGE AS BAD AS WE NEED ANY PLAYER OR COACH. That's what new management needs to adress by firing stotts. Don't feel bad, he'll get a job elsewhere like Kruger did.

---

Well...because I agree with you here. WE NEED A NEW IMAGE. I think bringing in a new coach would do that; I've already said as much. I also believe that we've missed the boat on the guys who could really do that. I would like to see Fratello come back, but that may even be percieved as (like Jay Walker says) "been there done that."

At the same time, people don't even know who Stotts is. Like much of anything that has to do with the Hawks, they don't care. So, if he really has something to bring to the table...then he could very well be a part of this new image makeover.

...

Quote:

---

To me those statements are contradictory. There are better coaches out there. Just about every one out there.

---

If we didn't have a coach, I'd be looking exclusively at bringing in someone with instant credibility. We've got a guy, who's been here for a while...that has more experience than some of the guys looking for a chance. He's been through as rough a storm as it gets...he's still standing, but barely. That, to me, gives him a leg up on anyone other than someone with instant credibility.

Quote:

---

I'm saying bring a veteran coach who knows how to teach and motivate to help our young players gel and develop. Just about any of them will do (except Wilkens). I'm sure coaches will be getting fired too. Why is it that we have the coach with the longest tenure in the conference when it's stotts??

---

Agreed. At the same time though, keeping Stotts on for a little while longer gives the rest of the league a chance to hand us a better coach. Letting Rivers slip into Boston's back door has really prolonged the situation.

Is there someone who could be brought in that would be better than Stotts? No doubt. Are they available now? That's questionable. I'm not interested in Byron Scott and his ego or stubborn substitution pattern. I don't think he'll mix well with the rebuilding effort. I think the Czar can and I think Rudy T could...if he were healthy and willing to coach.

I don't feel sorry for Stotts. I liken him to an unproven draft pick. Maybe he'll turn out good, maybe he won't. My gut tells me when it comes down to it, that we'll end up replacing him anyway - so go forward with him, draft as we please, and if he doesn't show us anything...adios.

I think we could commit to him as much as "hey, show us what you've got. Things have settled down, show us that you are a leader." I don't think we give him the same amount of leeway as we would a Larry Brown, Paul Silas, or Rivers. However, another mid season coaching change is not cool. If we go with Stotts, we take him through next season, with the same group of players whether he struggles or not.

I don't believe that he DESERVES to be fired; but the organization deserves stability and a good coach. If it's Stotts, then so be it. If we bring in a veteran coach that can get it done...I've got no problem showing Stotts the door.

[KB21]

You can't convince me that the only reason those guys played so well together as a team was because they were looking for a contract.

[CHORO44]

Just bring in Kenny Smith and be done with it. He's in Atlanta all the time doing TNT. I'm tired of retreads.

[Lascar78]

playing so well together? the team was changed and we traded selfish would-be stars for active players who like playing team ball and happen to be in contract year. It's not like we were better either. More fun to watch? yes. Better? No.

our record before the sheed trade was .333. After the trade, it was .357. The difference is one win. Factor into that that before the trade 59% of our games were vs. playoff teams and that after the trade 50% of our games were vs. playoff teams and that basically explains it.

If stotts was able to coach good basketball and team play, WHY WAS HE NOT ABLE TO COACH IT TO OUR MORE TALENTED TEAMS? Because he has little to do with it. He is a Jim O'Brien type coach who has a few plays and pretty much lets the players do whatever they want. If the players are motivated and get into a groove together, it can look good. If there are problems, he has no clue how to solve them

[Weez]

"If there are problems, he has no clue how to solve them "

with the overhaul that the team has gone through in terms of personnell, I'm not sure how you can make this statement. Prior to the trade, we were a team that needed to play a half court offense based upon our "best player," Reef, yet had many other "parts" that were much better suited to playing a more open style. The team had changes at approx 3 starting positions....it's simply hard to evaluate Stotts objectively at this point.

Do I think that mgt. should give Stotts a long-term deal/extension like someone else proposed ~ oh hell no. But I don't really see a "better" option at this point. That may change as the offseason progresses...but I'm not so sure.

[TROUBLEMAN69]

Not many coaches would have succeeded with the hand that Stotts has been dealt. Reef, Ratliff, JT, as a core was doomed for failure. The team was too small, had no point guard, and had zero depth. The team also lacked consistent outside shooting. They had 2 ballhandlers, Diaw and JT/Jax combined. There was one good defender, and he is undersized at his position(Ratliff). Nazr was the only size coming off the bench, especially with the injuries.

After the trade, and despite the poor record, the team performed above expectations. Remember, this team had 2 healthy big people, and they were both from the minor leagues. That team outperformed the earlier edition, not because they had more talent, but because they added better shooting and ballhandling. Crawford was a better ballhandler and shooter than Reef. Sura's ballhandling was ten times better than what they had before, and he is not even a true point guard. There were too many holes on both squads to fairly evaluate Stotts tenure. If I had a vote, it would be to keep Stotts unless a sure thing comes along. So far, I don't see one available.

TROUBLEMAN