Its as simple as this

[jjjohns3]

We need a PG. We have been trying to become a perimeter,transition game type team. We are scoring more points now that we have gotten into more transition.

The problem is that we aren't getting back on defense. This is in NO WAY Woodson's fault,actually,I like his stand on it. He simply said that he is not here to teach effort,and effort is something that his guys aren't giving. We can't stop the transition game because we can't stop the dribble. This is the number one rule in defending the transition game. Kenny Anderson is simply too old,Delk is simply not laterally quick enough yet.Ivey is the only one who can defend a PG one on one worth a flip.

Walker's actions are the ones of someone who is getting desperate. He's lost faith in his teammates and is trying to do it all himself.Sad to say,Harrington is never going to play up to his level with him around,because Al has lost confidence is his offensive ability. Regardless of what anyone says,Walker cost us that Knicks game. He forced 2 BAD shots in the last couple minutes in both Regulation and Overtime.Instead of passing to the open man,he tried to run the clock himself and ended up forcing up an airball with 3 seconds left. After which Marbury scored in regulation and Crawford his his 3 in OT. He single handedly lost it by missing a clutch free throw and making the one he should've missed. He is hurting the team right now,because he isn't playing team ball,when he starts playing team ball,we will become more competitive.

Harrington has began making a habit of deferring his shots to Walker. Childress did the same while he was starting. We need both these guys to get more aggressive. Its good to see Boris getting more aggressive and being productive. Kenny Anderson needs to be benched and I suspect he will tonight. He may possibly go on the IL when Ivey gets healthy again. Smoove has impressed me,its safe to say that he could but up Amare Stoudemire type # if he were starting. Jon Barry hasn't been playing,thats a concern and he's another guy who could go on the IL when Ivey gets back.

I still wonder what happened to Troy Bell,all interest in him has cooled. Maybe he really stunk up his workout. I wanted us to try to bring back Mike Wilks when he was cut too,but we let him get away.

~Peace

[macdaddy]

I just don't know why people would accept a head coach in the nba saying 'it's not my job to teach effort'. He must of thought this head coaching thing would be easy. Does he think Stotts and all the other losing coaches out there just couldn't draw up good plays? Are Phil Jackson, Larry Brown, Hubie, Sloan successful just because they have good players and can really diagram a play? Head coaches are successful because they light fires under these guys butts.

[cyman3]

"He simply said that he is not here to teach effort,and effort is something that his guys aren't giving."

- in that case, u get guys in... thats willing to put in the EFFORT! play the guys who are busting their butts off in practice even if they are LESS TALENTED. make everyone earn their minutes, that includes our big names (Walker/Harrington). If Harrington isint giving the effort (for example), then put him on the bench. he aint SHAQ!

if theres 1 BAD lazy seed thats disruptive and the other players are slowly gettin influenced by him, get that player off the team! trade immediately!

trade for guys who have heart, even if they are less talented.

[jrlocke]

I disagree....you need an interior presence.....with the new handchecking call it is almost impossible to stop quick PG's. What is needed is a shotblocking presence so when the wing players do get inside they don't have layups.

Our biggest problem has not been transistion defense because only a few teams have really run on us. I think the problem is all these Center and Power Forwards having career nights against us. WHen you let all these cats score so easy on the post it doesn't matter that our PG's can't gaurd a lightpost.

Anyone noticed how the F/C give no help on the pick n roll, no hedging they don't even make the least bit of effort to step over.

Defense in the NBA is a team concept and everyone must buy into it.

jr

[Diesel]

Quote:

---

Are Phil Jackson, Larry Brown, Hubie, Sloan successful just because they have good players and can really diagram a play?

---

Larry Brown - diagram a play.

Jerry Sloan - Both

Hubie - Diagram a Play

Phil Jackson - Hmm...

Brown and Hubie are not motivators. That was clearly seen in Philly. In Philly Brown couldn't motivate Iverson to come to practice. He couldn't motivate Theo to play through pain. He has never been the guy to get in a players face. This may be where Woodson adopted a lot of his believe.

Jerry Sloan is a motivator but he has never had to. He doesn't fuss at his players in the game. He diagrams a very good play. It's called Pick and Roll.

Hubie - He motivates by Benching. He doesn't fuss at players, he's the exact opposite. He calmly reasons with them.

Phil Jackson is the "master of Zen". In spite of the title, Phil has jumped on players in Practice... However, those players were well picked out. He would jump on either Horace Grant or Robert Horry. He would jump on these guys as an example to everybody else, because he couldn't jump on MJ, Kobe, or Shaq...

Lighting the fire is not the PJ Carlismo way. Only Poppovich is successful with that. 90% of his success is Tim Duncan.

[macdaddy]

Quote:

---

Hubie - He motivates by Benching. He doesn't fuss at players, he's the exact opposite. He calmly reasons with them.

---

I'm not suggesting that these coaches all scream at their players but they all get effort out of them (in different ways). Benching is probably the best way.

The point is that every coach in the league knows X's and O's. Its the ones that can get effort from their teams that win. Their players don't just decide to give effort. The coach demands it. Either by benching, reasoning, yelling, ego feeding, bribery, whatever. But to say your job as head coach is just X's and O's is ridiculous. I know what he meant, but its comments like that that make him seem unprepared for making a bad team respectable.

[Diesel]

I think Woody does his share of Benching... I mean listen to J-Smoove last night. He said he saw Diaw going to the scorers table and it motivated him to make something happen.

Many times, when people talk about motivating a player, they are talking about getting in their face or giving them the win this one for the gipper speech... Well, Basketball has changed and the personalities have changed. Now a more effective way for a coach to do his job is to elect team captains that can motivate. Think about it... Who would motivate you more... Shaq or Van Gundy? Of Course it's Shaq. When Shaq says come on, hustle, those young guys on Miami's team will hustle...

That's the importance of having a mature vet player... Most of the times, those are the players that are unseen miracles for a team...

Avery Johnson and Mario E for the Spurs.

Bill Cartwright/Robert Parrish for the Bulls.

John Salley/Horace Grant for the lakers.

Elden Campbell for the Pistons.

It's part of the makeup of a championship team. You have to have some guys who have been in the league a while.

[Nicholasp27]

u heard him entirely wrong

he's saying that he isn't gonna teach effort, so if u aren't going to give effort, then u won't play...he said he'd change up lineups to get guys who try more time...thus he is doing the benching that u speak of...

he's saying he's going to get effort from players, but that he can't TEACH effort...nobody can teach effort...u can motivate someone to give effort (benching, bonuses, contract year, etc) but u can't teach effort...

[ATLien_]

Im glad there is someone else who can read and comprehend. Nicholas you have made me proud.

Woodson is doing an excellent job of coaching. He understands the NBA game, and he understands how to rotate players.

The reason he plays Walker and Harrington so much is because we have little chance of winning without them. If we were ahead more you would see them on the bench more.

However, unlike the old regime he understands that he has to have one of the guys on the court at all times.

Woodson is getting the rookies plenty of playing time, and has gotten my homeboy Diaw to start playing with some fire.The team runs more plays in one game than I saw from Kreuger led team in a season. All while being competitive in most games. He has an A+ on coaching from me so far.

[Nicholasp27]

don't forget, u have to give SOME credit to woodson for the development of ivey and smoove and more agressive diaw, etc

[macdaddy]

I like Woodson as a coach too, and I think he will be a good one. But, how can he get an A+ when we've had soooo many blowouts. Including a loss to the Bobcats.

I understand that Al and toine will carry our team but when they are ineffective and we are losing by 20 I don't see the point of them plaing 48 minutes. I'd give Woodson a C+ so far. But, that's not bad for a rookie coach with a whole new team.

[emeans]

A+ ???? No way you can give a rookie coach and A+. He is a rookie too and he is going to make a lot of mistakes just like any rookie player.

Don't get me wrong I like Woodson and I am glad he is changing his decision making on the fly in terms of letting the rookies play now, however it took a brick to come out the stands and hit him in the head to finally see that we can be competitive more often when you let your most talented players play regardless of seniority. He is learning that the hard way. But I give him credit he is learning.

He played Josh Smith heavy minutes last night and we were very competitive in this game unlike all of the other losses.

I give Woodson a C+ because he is still learning also.

[cyman3]

i give WOODSON a C.

the guy would get an A if he surprised everyone and gave us some more W's.

remember ERIC MUSSLEMANS head coaching job (his rookie year) for GOLDEN STATE? that is "A" material.

the guy would get an B if we lost as many games as we did, but remained competitive in all the games we lost. but the truth is, we had TOO many EMBARRASSING LOSSES to give Woodson his B.

therefore, i give him a C.

PRO- Hes doing a fine job developing ALL OUR ROOKIES (childress has his days when he looks like a top ROY candidate, smith is showing alot of promise, and we all love ivey's energy/hussle/defense).

CON- how many wins do we have???

[ATLien_]

How can you give a guy a C who has two established NBA players on his team?

You cant make chicken soup out of chicken (you know what). Im not evaluating Woodson on wins and losses because that would be foolish. He inherited a very bad situation, and is in the first year of building a team for the future.

This is why I give woodson an A+

1. With a far less talented team(maybe not less talented in future but now) he has been competitive in nearly every game I have watched. I think I have missed maybe 3 games and we have been blown out in maybe two I have watched. Thats a hell of alot better than Stots or Kreuger ever did with much more talented veteran teams.

2. I see the team using ball movement thats a thing of beauty. Yes they don't do it consistently, but when they do it is very nice and structured. (good coaching) I never saw this out of Kreuger and I didn't see enough of it out of Stots. I have seen a team with a plan this year on the court; not street ball.

3. I like the way he rotates the players. People complain about him leaving Walker and Harrington in to long; but if we have a lead or the game is close, then he rest them. If your honest with yourself you would know we can't win without them on the court. He has a good rotation of about 9 people, and uses them at appropriate times(mostly but he is still learning the team). Not only has he gotten the rookies playing time and Diaw, but they are all getting better. Diaw even shoots the ball now.

4. He has the respect of the players, and has set a standard that noone can deviate from. He has brought accountability back to being a hawks player. Either your hustle and do the right things, or you sit your lazy Ars on the pine. Look how he lit a fire under Diaw and JSmove. Whe the veterans are talking to him on the sideline you can see they respect what he has to say. Do you think Kreuger or Stots could of done this?

5. He understands how to coach the game. He knows when to get technicals, he knows how to work the refs. He knows how to draw up plays. How many inbound plays have we completed successfully in just this year? I would have to say more than I saw in Kreuger and Stots whole tenure. He knows when to get on a players ars; he knows when to encourage, and he knows when to teach. He knows how to talk to a veteran differently than a young buck.

I could list stuff all day that he does well. Yes he has make some mistakes, and yes he will make more. However, If all your evaluating him with is wins and losses, thats a piss poor evaluation. He may or may not deserve an A+ for coaching this year, but I can say for sure that he is A+ better than the other coaches we have had hear since Wilkens left.