question

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Quote:

---

[

---

I agree. I mean, who else start a player for a bunch of games but only have about 10mins/game? Yeah what does this do to the confidence of your players Woody?

---

Again, how easy it is to say a want without seeing reality.

The only time Ivey EVER started was when our only other healthy PG was Lue. Lue has repeatedly said he is more comfortable and more effective coming off the bench. He is spark plug and a scorer, not a floor general with a defensive mindset which is the prefereable role for a teams starting PG.

Woody saw the pieces he had to work with and put those pieces where they fit the best.

It is widely known that average at best oppposing PGs have career days vs our peremiter defense. So he started our best defender at the PG poisition to try and keep the opposing PG from starting the games hot and in attack mode.

Makes sense enough to me.

Then we blame Woody for not running more. Ivey, Lue, AJ, and a broken down Speedy are not exactly tempo pushers. It is not like he was slowing down a Kidd, Nash, Parker, Ford, or some lightning rod of a PG who is capable of running an uptempo system that could out run and out think the opposing team.

Like the WSP song...."Make Sense To Me "

---

Coach . . . these cats want Smoove to push the tempo, and pass to JJ for the slam.

I mean, everybody talks about us running. How do you run without a PG? This team ran when we buckled down and played tremdous defense. That's what sparked most of our running opportunities.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it was actually WOODY who encouraged guys like Smoove and Chill to grab rebounds and push the ball into the frontcourt. And he did it mainly because we didn't have a PG who could push the tempo.

And like you said about Lue . . Lue would not only rather come off the bench and be a scorer, he's a horrible defender. And Ivey was used for that purpose alone . . to defend at the beginning of halfves. I remember complaining a lot during the 05 - 06 season, about how Lue was getting lit up at the beginning of the 3rd quarter. And a lot of other posters were too. Ivey, while he didn't provide any offense, kind of stopped the defensive turnstyle at the PG spot for a while.

Woody saw the pieces he had to work with and put those pieces where they fit the best.

That's exactly how I see Woody. Of course he didn't make all the right moves, but he did what he could, seeing how flawed the roster was. No reliable PG, nor a reliable low post option. Good teams at least have one of those things. WE didn't have any.

But somehow, Woody was expected to have this team "walking on water", even with the injuries? LOL.

[AtLaS]

Quote:

---

Atlas, it's obvious that we're going to be on two very different sides of this. So I'll ask you 4 questions.

- How many WINS should Woody have had last year, with all of the injuries?

- How many WINS should Woody have had last year, if everyone would've been realtively?

Now . . replace Woody with, say . . I don't know . . Mike D'Antoni.

- How many WINS does D'Antoni get as Hawks coach, with all the injuries?

- How many WINS does D'Antoni get as Hawks coach, if everybody was healthy last year?

4 simple questions Atlas. Answer them if you dare.

---

What does this have to do with ALL the things I pointed out in my reply to you? This has NOTHING to do with all of Woodson's horrible inadequacies, none of which you want to address. Again, you aren't addressing Woodson as a COACH, you are letting his performance go based on what he did not have.

I'm not predicting win totals, but I feel like D'Antoni would've won at LEAST 5 more games in either situation.

IMO we'd have been a playoff team EASILY with a healthy team and D'Antoni as our coach. We are easily better (talent wise) than Orlando, the only advantage they have is Dwight, who isn't a dominant player yet.

[AtLaS]

Quote:

---

I mean, everybody talks about us running. How do you run without a PG?

---

So how did we run so well against PHX and Golden State?? We went 3-1 against 2 Western playoff teams that are also the 2 fastest paced teams in the league.

Quote:

---

And correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it was actually WOODY who encouraged guys like Smoove and Chill to grab rebounds and push the ball into the frontcourt..

---

What does that have to do with being a good coach? "Ok guys, as soon as you get the rebound, RUN as fast as you can to the other end! Who cares if you turn it over or if you can't dribble?"

You actually have to setup a fast break offense so the players have a place to go and a setup to follow, not just tell a player to run/dribble to the other end.

Quote:

---

I remember complaining a lot during the 05 - 06 season, about how Lue was getting lit up at the beginning of the 3rd quarter.

---

Ivey started over 60 games in 05-06, he played about the first 5 minutes of the first quarter, and about 5 minutes to begin the 3rd quarter. So how was "Lue" getting lit up at the beginning of the 3rd?

Quote:

---

That's exactly how I see Woody, seeing how flawed the roster was. But somehow, Woody was expected to have this team "walking on water", even with the injuries? LOL.

---

See, you are still failing to address Woody as a coach. You are simply making excuses as to why he COULDN'T have succeeded. Noone is arguing that we didn't have a flawed roster (trust me I have bigger problems with BK), but that doesn't mean that you can't evaluate Woodson on HIS PERFORMANCE alone.

[atlien]

I agree that it is very hard to judge Woody at this point. He really hasn't had a fair shot at things yet. He finally does. This is his make or break season for sure.

I honestly think he has a chance to have a Sam Mitchell-like season with a more complete roster.

But at the same time, I wouldnt be surprised if he botches bad and is fired by mid-season.

I'm 50/50 either way.

But us not running more is absolutely inexplicable. Don't wrong us Woody.

Atlas, you're right that from what we HAVE season from Woody, there is not all that much to be impressed about.

Again, it's do or die for him this season. He best hope Horford, Law, Speedy and Marvin (my X-factors) came to play.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Well . . what would you do? Especially if you didn't have a reliable floor general on the floor? It's not a coincidence that the best looking offenses, have very good PGs running the show. A good PG with good leadership and decision making skills, is a vital part of a good offense. Hopefully, Law will change that around for us this year.

---

There is no excuse in my mind for not having a better offensive game plan. College teams routinely have a much better defined offensive system than Woodson's Hawks teams. The "walk-it-up-the-court," halfcourt system the Hawks usually employ is a terrible fit for this team. The personnel were not well suited for a halfcourt offense the last few years, IMO. Personally, I think he just wanted a slower pace so that it would look closer when the team lost rather than gamble on losing by larger deficits some games but winning more on the whole. A lot of our wins came when teams that specialize in fast-paced offense forced us to move to an uptempo game. Surprise, surprise that guys like Smoove, Chillz, Marvin, JJ, etc. flourish in that higher tempo offense.

---

The car will not start without "Spark plugs". You seem to disregard the fact we Had No "fast-paced" point. So we Had Not the personnel to run all willie-nilly.

And you blame Woodson for that? Seems to me, he knows the personnel, you guys just have wants.

---

Umm..kay.

(1) There was NO effective offensive system out there. If you call repeating the same two man game an offense then I guess Woodson really gave us what we needed. Unlike college teams that can effectively run motion offenses, Princeton offenses, uptempo offenses, etc. We had no system at all. I would love to hear you identify the offensive system that Woodson has put into place during his coaching tenure. I've never heard it described.

(2) Re the uptempo note. The lack of a PG? The PG is very helpful but you don't need a superspeed PG to play transition basketball. You don't need a "fast-paced" PG. The best transition pg ever wasn't a speedster (Magic). Many teams have run very successful uptempo systems without good PGs. What I am telling you is not that we have the ideal personnel for uptempo. However, I am telling you that uptempo was better suited to last year's personnel than half-court basketball.

And the proof is in the pudding that our PGs didn't really killed us in our uptempo wins against uptempo teams who forced us to play their pace.

Here were the top four teams in terms of scoring and our results against them. We did very well against uptempo teams because it took advantage of our athleticism (which is MUCH less meaningful in the halfcourt). Note that even the games we lost were competitive:

Total: 5-4

Phoenix 1-0

120-111

Golden State 2-0

115-94

106-105

Denver 1-1

98-96

87-100

Washington 1-3

95-96

92-93

100-97

85-98

---

Good Lord AHF.

The 4 top offensive teams you listed, also have Nash, Baron Davis, Allen Iverson, and Gilbert Arenas running the show there. 4 of the quickest and most potent scoring PGs in this league. And those 4 teams almost encourage guys to jack it up from anywhere.

They're also 4 of the WORST defensive teams in the league. Because of that, EVERYBODY looks better offensively, when they play those teams.

So it kind of blows the theory out of the water that you don't need a good PG to run efficient offense. You show me a good offensive team with a bad PG, and I'll point out to you that they probably have a dominant low post option on the blocks. But I doubt that you're going to find a good offensive team with a bad PG AND no consistent low post option.

The Hawks had neither of those last year.

And 3 of those wins last year against those teams, came when one of those guards weren't playing or on the team

Denver - no Iverson in the 98 - 96 win

Phoenix - no Nash in the 120 - 111 win

Golden St - no Davis in the 106 - 015 win

TEams like Phoenix, Denver, Golden St, and Washington, take a ton of outside shots. The missed shots will give a team a chance to get back into a game, or keep a lead. And that's exactly what the Hawks did in those wins.

When we miss outside shots, we lose . . cause we dang well can't throw the ball inside to somebody, and hope they can score.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Atlas, it's obvious that we're going to be on two very different sides of this. So I'll ask you 4 questions.

- How many WINS should Woody have had last year, with all of the injuries?

- How many WINS should Woody have had last year, if everyone would've been realtively?

Now . . replace Woody with, say . . I don't know . . Mike D'Antoni.

- How many WINS does D'Antoni get as Hawks coach, with all the injuries?

- How many WINS does D'Antoni get as Hawks coach, if everybody was healthy last year?

4 simple questions Atlas. Answer them if you dare.

---

What does this have to do with ALL the things I pointed out in my reply to you? This has NOTHING to do with all of Woodson's horrible inadequacies, none of which you want to address. Again, you aren't addressing Woodson as a COACH, you are letting his performance go based on what he did not have.

I'm not predicting win totals, but I feel like D'Antoni would've won at LEAST 5 more games in either situation.

IMO we'd have been a playoff team EASILY with a healthy team and D'Antoni as our coach. We are easily better (talent wise) than Orlando, the only advantage they have is Dwight, who isn't a dominant player yet.

---

At least you 1/2 way answered the question. Wow . . so even a playoff coach like D'Antoni, is only at least 5 games better? I guess that means that Woodson, if in Phoenix, still gets that team to the playoffs, even if they aren't as dominant or flashy. I sure Woody still runs the pick and roll to death with Nash and Amare.

Woody's deficiencies as a coach to me?

- I don't like the way he uses Marvin. I think that Chill is better suited to be a starter, because he's a better complimentary player. I would've loved to see Marvin being used like Popovich used Ginoboli or how Skiles used Ben Gordon. Even young guys like T-Mac, learned how to be good scorers, by being the main option with the 2nd unit. I wish Woody would've done that with Marvin, to make him a more potent offensive weapon, instead of a complimentary player.

- I don't like how he treats the young guys, as opposed to the vets. Shelden and Salim can hardly make mistakes out on the floor, without being yanked. Lue and Wright dang near get away with murder, before being yanked. His tolerance is much lower with the younger guys. He probably got that from being with Larry Brown.

- Offensively, I would've had JJ in the post A LOT more. Seeing that we didn't have a post game to begin with, JJ was the best post player we had. I would've liked to see him post up at least 25% of the time.

- Defensively, of course, see more of Shelden and Solomon, instead of Wright. After about the first 2 months of the season, it was pretty obvious that while Wright might have been the best position defender on the team, he wasn't a guy who could get you rebounds or even block shots. Because of that, Shelden definitely should've played more, and maybe put in Solo for 5 - 10 minutes a game.

Everything else people complain about, Woody couldn't do much more about, because of the personnel issues. That's why I say that he's an average coach. I mean, even you admit that a playoff coach like D'Antoni might have missed the playoffs last year, with all the issues we had.

If Woody doesn't win this year, with the talent he has now, then I'll downgrade Woody to horrible coach status.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Quote:

---

So how did we run so well against PHX and Golden State?? We went 3-1 against 2 Western playoff teams that are also the 2 fastest paced teams in the league.

---

Because Davis and Nash didn't play in two of those games. And in the other game we won vs G-State, the Warriors went 1 - 15 from 3 point range. All teams look better against the Warriors and Suns, because both of them are also horrible defensive teams. And please don't cite the steals that G-State had. If you do that, that means that Iverson is a great defensive player, because he gets a lot of steals as well.

Quote:

---

What does that have to do with being a good coach? "Ok guys, as soon as you get the rebound, RUN as fast as you can to the other end! Who cares if you turn it over or if you can't dribble?"

You actually have to setup a fast break offense so the players have a place to go and a setup to follow, not just tell a player to run/dribble to the other end.

---

LOL . . I didn't say that made Woody a "good coach". See, that's where some of you get me wrong at. I've NEVER said in any of my posts, that Woody was a good coach. I've always said that he was an average coach.

What I did say, is that Woody encouraged guys like Chill and Smoove to push the ball into the frontcourt, because of the lack of a speedy PG who could push tempo. He'd rather them push it into the frontcourt, then get it back to the PG to set up offense.

And some of the people praise guys like Smoove and Chill for "starting fast breaks" because they do that. So if they praise Smoove and Chill, they have to praise Woody, because Woody told them to do that. That's what he had to do, since we didn't have a floor general here.

Quote:

---

Ivey started over 60 games in 05-06, he played about the first 5 minutes of the first quarter, and about 5 minutes to begin the 3rd quarter. So how was "Lue" getting lit up at the beginning of the 3rd?

---

Lue would be out on the floor on occasion, at the beginning of the 2nd half for offensive reasons, because we'd be losing. We needed his offense, but he'd still give it back on defense.

Quote:

---

See, you are still failing to address Woody as a coach. You are simply making excuses as to why he COULDN'T have succeeded. Noone is arguing that we didn't have a flawed roster (trust me I have bigger problems with BK), but that doesn't mean that you can't evaluate Woodson on HIS PERFORMANCE alone.

---

I addressed it, in the other post. Like I said, the problem that most of you guys have with my assessment of Woody, is that I don't agree that he is a horrible coach. Most of you think he's the anti-christ. I think he's an average coach. To me, he's just like Lawrence Frank or Eddie Jordan. The only thing that makes them better in most people's eyes, is that they win more. Well, they win more because they have 2 superstar PGs running the show. Put Woody on the Wizards, and Jordan on the Hawks, and I don't see much difference in the destiny's of those teams.

A horrible coach will find a way to completely mess up a good thing. Ron Zook, is a horrible coach. Lon Krueger, was a horrible coach. I think Woody and Stotts were better than Krueger.

If the Falcons go 3 - 13 this year, and the main reason for that record is the lackluster play of Joey Harrington, does Bobby Petrino get the blame because he can't turn him into a decent QB? Harrington has been a "deer in the headlights" QB his entire career.

Norv Turner is one of the worst coaches in the NFL . . record wise. But watch people call him a "good coach", because he now coaches the Chargers, and they keep on winning. Now if Norv is really a bad coach, he'll find a way to mess up things in San Diego.

[AtLaS]

Quote:

---

Because Davis and Nash didn't play in two of those games.

---

And what does that have to do with US being successful in a fast paced offense?

Quote:

---

because both of them are also horrible defensive teams.

---

No, PHX in adjusted for pace was the 14th best defensive team in the league. They give up more points because they shoot so much quicker in the shot clock, thus giving themselves and the other team more possessions. In "points per 100 possessions", PHX is the 14th ranked defensive team, hardly "horrible". link They have 2 great defenders in Marion and Bell, Kurt Thomas wasn't bad either.

You're right that GS isn't a great defensive team, but they are 19th when adjusted for pace. link

Quote:

---

And some of the people praise guys like Smoove and Chill for "starting fast breaks" because they do that. So if they praise Smoove and Chill, they have to praise Woody, because Woody told them to do that. That's what he had to do, since we didn't have a floor general here.

---

I would praise Woody for that if he actually gave them a plan. Smith will get the rebound and just sprint up the court and pretty much just make a decision with the ball, either pass, try to finish, or turn it over. There's no fluency with it, he just sprints up the court blindly with the ball. That's not coaching.

Quote:

---

Woody, is that I don't agree that he is a horrible coach. Most of you think he's the anti-christ. I think he's an average coach. To me, he's just like Lawrence Frank or

Eddie Jordan.

---

Eddie Jordan is a HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE coach. His players have completely carried him to the playoffs. Wizards fans bash Eddie Jordan more than anyone, there is even a thread on their RealGM board called "The amazingly sucky Eddie Jordan thread", and it's over 100 pages long. They had to close it and open another one because it got too big. Lawrence Frank is basically in the same position.

You are right, Woody is in the same category as Eddie Jordan, Brian Hill, Lon Kreuger, etc.

[coachx]

Quote:

---

Atlas, it's obvious that we're going to be on two very different sides of this. So I'll ask you 4 questions.

- How many WINS should Woody have had last year, with all of the injuries?

- How many WINS should Woody have had last year, if everyone would've been realtively?

Now . . replace Woody with, say . . I don't know . . Mike D'Antoni.

- How many WINS does D'Antoni get as Hawks coach, with all the injuries?

- How many WINS does D'Antoni get as Hawks coach, if everybody was healthy last year?

4 simple questions Atlas. Answer them if you dare.

---

I don't know how to answer that question. Our best player would be Phoneix's 4th best player...so I doubt the win differences would be much at all if Mike coached the Hawks with the same players Woody had to work with.

I wonder if the Suns success has more to do with the 2 time MVP, Nash, then it does their coach.

[coachx]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

[

---

I agree. I mean, who else start a player for a bunch of games but only have about 10mins/game? Yeah what does this do to the confidence of your players Woody?

---

Again, how easy it is to say a want without seeing reality.

The only time Ivey EVER started was when our only other healthy PG was Lue. Lue has repeatedly said he is more comfortable and more effective coming off the bench. He is spark plug and a scorer, not a floor general with a defensive mindset which is the prefereable role for a teams starting PG.

Woody saw the pieces he had to work with and put those pieces where they fit the best.

It is widely known that average at best oppposing PGs have career days vs our peremiter defense. So he started our best defender at the PG poisition to try and keep the opposing PG from starting the games hot and in attack mode.

Makes sense enough to me.

Then we blame Woody for not running more. Ivey, Lue, AJ, and a broken down Speedy are not exactly tempo pushers. It is not like he was slowing down a Kidd, Nash, Parker, Ford, or some lightning rod of a PG who is capable of running an uptempo system that could out run and out think the opposing team.

Like the WSP song...."Make Sense To Me "

---

Coach . . . these cats want Smoove to push the tempo, and pass to JJ for the slam.

I mean, everybody talks about us running. How do you run without a PG? This team ran when we buckled down and played tremdous defense. That's what sparked most of our running opportunities.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it was actually WOODY who encouraged guys like Smoove and Chill to grab rebounds and push the ball into the frontcourt. And he did it mainly because we didn't have a PG who could push the tempo.

And like you said about Lue . . Lue would not only rather come off the bench and be a scorer, he's a horrible defender. And Ivey was used for that purpose alone . . to defend at the beginning of halfves. I remember complaining a lot during the 05 - 06 season, about how Lue was getting lit up at the beginning of the 3rd quarter. And a lot of other posters were too. Ivey, while he didn't provide any offense, kind of stopped the defensive turnstyle at the PG spot for a while.

Woody saw the pieces he had to work with and put those pieces where they fit the best.

That's exactly how I see Woody. Of course he didn't make all the right moves, but he did what he could, seeing how flawed the roster was. No reliable PG, nor a reliable low post option. Good teams at least have one of those things. WE didn't have any.

But somehow, Woody was expected to have this team "walking on water", even with the injuries? LOL.

---

We are on the same page Northcyde, I can't agree with you any more !

I just hope a healthy Speedy teamed with Law gives stability at the PG and helps get out and run...like Speedy was brought here to do.

I hope Horford gives a low post scoring threat....and I hope Smoove learned some post scoring tricks from the "Dream."

With those two things we will finally start to resemble a complete team who can be competitive.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Because Davis and Nash didn't play in two of those games.

---

And what does that have to do with US being successful in a fast paced offense?

Quote:

---

because both of them are also horrible defensive teams.

---

No, PHX in adjusted for pace was the 14th best defensive team in the league. They give up more points because they shoot so much quicker in the shot clock, thus giving themselves and the other team more possessions. In "points per 100 possessions", PHX is the 14th ranked defensive team, hardly "horrible". link They have 2 great defenders in Marion and Bell, Kurt Thomas wasn't bad either.

You're right that GS isn't a great defensive team, but they are 19th when adjusted for pace. link

---

Denver is also 11th in the league when adjusted for pace.

* * * *

I still don't understand the issue here, though.

Against playoff teams that specialize in fast paced offense, we had a winning record despite our failings at PG. In other words, our forwards and JJ are so well-suited to a fast paced games that we were very competitive against teams that specialize their offense and defense around the transition game. (As an aside, I don't rate Allen Iverson or Gilbert Arenas as anything other than 2s in the bodies of 1s so I don't buy them as standout PGs).

We were 25-48 in all other games. In other words, our players were so ill-suited to playing halfcourt basketball that teams with inferior PGs on the whole abused us to the rate of 1:2 the rest of the season when we supposedly protected ourselves from our bad PGs by implementing the amorphous, non-organized offense we had last year.

Yet clearly trying to promote a fast paced game is a bad thing for this team.

Hmmm...

Well. Let's ignore the fast paced/slow paced argument because it really misses the fundamental issue, which is that we had no structure to our offense last year at all. Pick something and do it well. If Bob Knight can get college players running a structured motion offense, if Newell got college players running a structure Princeton offense, if Coach K gets his players running their structured offense, shouldn't we expect some offensive identity from this coaching staff?

[coachx]

AHF, I think your lost in the woods. Just save face and stop.

You tried pointing to games we won vs. up tempo teams as "proof" the Hawks are better when they are running.

You failed to realize elite super stars like: Nash, Davis, Iverson, and Arenas sat out the games you referenced. These guys who happened to be sitting out are the engines that make their respective teams succesful in an up tempo system wheter you want to call them a PG or SG, that is irrelevant. They all play PG for their respective teams & are the engines that make their teams' running games effective.

What you researched to prove your opinion simply back fired on you. No need to dig the hole in deeper.

It is barely worth argeuing against this opinion as it is.

Then you try to change the topic to: we don't have an efficient offensive system. Well, now we are back to the half court game.

Ah, I give up...I feel like a broken record. Read the posts in the upper part of the thread as this has already been covered in multiple post.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Then you try to change the topic to: we don't have an efficient offensive system. Well, now we are back to the half court game.

---

Who needs to buy a clue?

Check out the first two sentences I wrote on this topic:

Quote:

---

There is no excuse in my mind for not having a better offensive game plan. College teams routinely have a much better defined offensive system than Woodson's Hawks teams.

---

Isn't that exactly my original point? Isn't that the exact fundamental point I have brought up on previous threads?

The lack of an offensive game plan is a major shortcoming of this coaching staff.

Still notice you haven't described what offensive system we run.

[exodus]

There is one other reason why Woody may have been disiclined to run this past season. he was shorthanded most of the time so he didn't really have the horses needed to run consistently. If you wear out your guys playing uptempo and have nobody to put in the game to give them a rest then you have a problem.

Of course this is assuming that Woody is thinking logically which may be a reach.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

You failed to realize elite super stars like: Nash, Davis, Iverson, and Arenas sat out the games you referenced. These guys who happened to be sitting out are the engines that make their respective teams succesful in an up tempo system wheter you want to call them a PG or SG, that is irrelevant. They all play PG for their respective teams & are the engines that make their teams' running games effective.

---

Are you really trying to make out that the teams we went against were so injured they couldn't play anymore? Give me a break. In the significant majority of these games there were NO injuries to the team's starting PG.

Nash missed his fourth game of the season when the Suns played against against us. Coming into that game, the Suns were 2-1 without Nash and still had studs Amare Stoudemire, Shawn Marion and Leandro Barbosa on the team. We ran them out of the gym. The last time we played Phoenix before that was a 110-106 loss by Atlanta in which we were extremely competitive. Nash played.

Golden State - We beat them on 1/31/07. Guess who started?

Baron Davis. They had their full compliment of players. No use trying make excuses for that loss. Golden State was actually more competitive against us WITHOUT Baron Davis. Without Baron Davis the second game we played GS, they beat the Pacers and Chicago two of the three games before, lost to us, and then won two of their next three games. Should I feel like that win doesn't count since we beat them badly with Baron Davis and then beat them again without him when they were winning games?

Denver wasn't missing anyone unexpected when we played them. They started Andre Miller, Carmelo Anthony, Marcus Camby, etc. every time. When we beat them, they beat Indy and Minny before they played us and beat Miami after they played us. Not exactly the weak sisters of the poor. Same thing the next time they played us. They were a top scoring team when we played them and their record was not noticeably different with Allen Iverson as with Andre Miller. I am not sure where you are trying to go by implying we lucked out because Iverson (who had led the Sixers to a dismal record at that point in the season) was still in Philly.

When we played Washington:

Game 1 - No injuries - Arenas, Butler, Jamison

Game 2 - No injuries - Arenas, Butler, Jamison

Game 3 (WIN) - No injuries - Arenas, Butler, Jamison

Game 4 - Injuries

* * * *

These teams had the "engines that drove their teams" 6 out of the 9 games in question and 3 out of the 5 wins in question. Even for the games where they were missing guys, they were still beating teams at the time when they played us.

Again, I think this is a side issue. The fundamental question is not "is a fast paced offense best suited for players like JJ, Chillz, Marvin, Josh Smith, etc?" It is "why didn't the Hawks seem to have any structured offense last season?"

[AHF]

Quote:

---

There is one other reason why Woody may have been disiclined to run this past season. he was shorthanded most of the time so he didn't really have the horses needed to run consistently. If you wear out your guys playing uptempo and have nobody to put in the game to give them a rest then you have a problem.

Of course this is assuming that Woody is thinking logically which may be a reach.

---

Then don't run. But implement some kind of offensive structure.

I can understand a coach disagreeing with my idea that uptempo is good for the personnel on this team.

The response needs to be implementing another offensive system, though.

Can anyone tell me the system we ran last year and why it was a good choice?

[coachx]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Then you try to change the topic to: we don't have an efficient offensive system. Well, now we are back to the half court game.

---

Who needs to buy a clue?

Check out the first two sentences I wrote on this topic:

Quote:

---

There is no excuse in my mind for not having a better offensive game plan. College teams routinely have a much better defined offensive system than Woodson's Hawks teams.

---

Isn't that exactly my original point? Isn't that the exact fundamental point I have brought up on previous threads?

The lack of an offensive game plan is a major shortcoming of this coaching staff.

Still notice you haven't described what offensive system we run.

---

You left out that your offensive game plan involved running more which is what was being discussed.

You obviously lack the where with all to acknowledge this has been covered in earlier post in this same thread.

I will do a very brief summary of what you have already read and know from the above post but repeatedly fail to acknowledge.

We have no PG that is starter quaility. We have no low post presence. We have one guy who logs big minutes that is a better then average long range shooter. We started a 20 year old , a 21 year old , and 23 year old last year. That is 3 guys who are college aged playing vs. NBA vets on a nightly basis.

What kind of efficient system can be run with that kind of squad ? It does not matter who is coaching, without a PG who creates and a respectable low post option to run 1/2 court sets out of ther is not much you can draw up on the play book chalk board.

Sure a college coach can get collged aged kides to run a system with a 30 second shot clock vs. other college aged kids but not against NBA vets. So that pipe dream arguement holds no water with me.

There is no offensive system known to man that could be run effectivly in the 1/2 court with the players Woody had to work with. Does not matter if Larry Brown, Phil Jackson, Red Auerbach, or Mike D'Antoni were coaching this team. The offensive 1/2 court results would have been the same unless Phil brought Kobe with him, or Mike brought Nash, or Red brought Bird, Russell, Cousy, Havelcheck, etc.

Without Steve Nash, Mike D'Antoni can do nothing to help us run more effectively.

Woody did what he could with the tools he was given.

The coach in the NBA is like the quarterback in the NFL. They get more credit then they deserve when things go good and get all the blame when thing go bad.

Instead of playing this adolesent blame game.....I prefer to wake up to the reality of the situation.

[AHF]

From your last post it seems like we agree on the following points:

* No offensive system was used last year.

* There was no way this team was going to be effective running half-court sets.

So your response is that it was impossible to run an offensive system with this team last year because the players were too young and we lacked a better PG, right?

And thus we used a half-court non-system we knew was doomed to failure but there was no other choice, correct?

[coachx]

Quote:

---

From your last post it seems like we agree on the following points:

* No offensive system was used last year.

* There was no way this team was going to be effective running half-court sets.

So your response is that it was impossible to run an offensive system with this team last year because the players were too young and we lacked a better PG, right?

And thus we used a half-court non-system we knew was doomed to failure but there was no other choice, correct?

---

Yes I agree with that except I would not say "we knew was doomed to fail."

I think we anticipatd Speedy would be healthy and help us be more effective running and maximize what young legs on the wings can do on the fast break. Our young bodies simply don't have the savy to be effecient in the 1/2 court without a Steve Nash creating for them but they could be effective on the break with a healthy Speedy Claxton running the break. This would camouflage our glaring weakness as a ineffecient half court team. Unfortunately Speedy could not stay healthy. That is the basic the reality that I see, JJ missed 25 games and Speedy should have just taken the year off b/c he didn't give us squat.

In a perfect world we may have had 35 to 40 wins last year had Speedy been 100% and JJ missed 5 games instead of 25. However, when your starting PG goes down and your only star player gets hurt we wind up with a 30 win team. That is what a rational mind should expect given the reality of the way the injuries played out.

If JJ had played in 20 more games and Speedy happened to be 100% for the season we would have competed for a play off spot. So I think we had high hopes to start the season but knew going into the season that 1/2 court offense would be our weakness.

On a positive note the team is much deeper. Law should prove to be an all around PG who can be effective in the 1/2 court and in up tempo play whil being able to shoot 10X better then Speedy ever could. Smoove should come in with some post moves learned from Dream and Hoford has some post moves too.

So I expect to actually see a much better offensive game plan this season.

[AtLaS]

Quote:

---

In a perfect world we may have had 35 to 40 wins last year had Speedy been 100% and JJ missed 5 games instead of 25. However, when your starting PG goes down and your only star player gets hurt we wind up with a 30 win team. That is what a rational mind should expect given the reality of the way the injuries played out.

---

See, you are going by personal projections of this team without evaluating Woody himself. Saying "35-40 wins" means that's what you expected to begin the season. So you see that we got 30 wins with all the injuries and just think, "Well Woody couldn't have done any better considering our injuries." You are not evaluating Woodson as a coach at ALL. You have admitted that he had ZERO offensive system, how is that acceptable? I don't care who's playing offense, you HAVE to have something. If anything it's MORE important to have an offensive system if you have worse individual offensive players, but for some reason you don't understand that. You have failed to acknowledge his horrible sub patterns, his insistance on playing Wright, taking players out when they are hot, etc.

You are an official Woody apologist. It's funny seeing you attack other posters when the only one who SLIGHTLY agrees with you is northcyde, and even he says Woody is average at best. EVERYONE else disagrees with you, but somehow you are right. Are you Walter?