question

[coachx]

I am not Walter, Walter hates every one and never takes up for any one affiliated with the ASG.

You sound like Diesel, the way you ask a basic question only to put some spin on it that justifies your self in your mind. Step out of your mind and taste some reality. Read this with an open mind and absorb it. After this I will not repeat myself any more.

I don't care if the majority of the posters think Woody is a bum. That is their right. Most typical fans call their coach a bum weekly b/c it easier then understanding what that coach has to deal with, even from a Lazy Boy recliner.

Woody ran the only offensive system the players he was given were capable of utilzing. A young team can only try to out hustle the oppostion. We tried to apply high energy defensive pressure and run as much as we could. Sure the defensive pressure was not great and our run game was not great but the players we had played up to their ability and that is all a coach can ask for. A team of our age could not out think vets with what we had to work with. There are only a hanful of 1/2 court plays that make sense for the players on our squad. ZaZa, Sheldon and Smoove are basically garbage players in the 1/2 court. Chills is not a guy you run plays for. These guys get points on put backs and other players creating shots for them. (No PG to create for them.) You can't set them up for jumpers or isolate them in the post b/c they can't shoot and have no post moves. Marvin is a catch and shoot mid range player only at 20/21 years old.

No PG on our team has ever been capable of running and offensive system in the NBA. The previous coaches who have tried are: Scott, Frank, Carlyle, Phil Jackson, and many more. So I can't not hold Woody accountable for failing to get one of these PGs to run an effective 1/2 court game with no bullets in the chamber so to speak to run plays through. Heck several well respected coached tried with our journey men PGs and had major ammo in the chamber to no avail.

We have one guy, JJ, who is effective in the 1/2 court and we played off him every way possible. Smoove is growing into a scorer but not a 1/2 court scorer you run plays for YET. Smoove does not shoot well enough to run him off screens... you can do a pick and roll with him.... but the defense will give him the jumper all day and he will make 35% of them. Smoove had no post game last year either. So Smoove was not a 1/2 court option to run offense through either last year, (though I hope that changes this year.) We did run several lob plays for Smoove which he is good at.

The only thing I have heard you say that Woody should have done with the players given to him is run a motion offense. Any one who knows anything about basketball knows the players he was given were not ready for the motion offense last year.

The motion offense is great if you have big men who make wise decisions passing the ball like the Kings had with Brad Miller and Chris Webber in their prime years as perenial all stars. (Not to mention that King's team who was succesful running the motion offense had 4 allstars and their 5th starter was 1st team all defense). The truth is we don't have that kind of talent or those types of players to run a motion offense. The truth is our big men: Smoove, ZaZa, Sheldon, and Solo were not fit to run a motion offense where they are expected to give great passes to the cutters. (Neither were Webber or Miller at 21 and 22). Any one who thinks our guys are capable of doing so does not understand the basics of a motion offense.

I cannot help that myself and a few others on this board walk in reality while other love to spue off a bunch of ideas without any concept of reality or the talent level and youth we were forced to put on the floor.

This is not Princeton - you can't just throw out 4 guards and a 6'7'' foward and run the motion offense and win. This is the NBA.

I don't like having to go into all this to prove a simple point. I find it common sense.

Oh, how easy it is to blame the coach and play Monday morning quaterback. That is all we ever hear on the radio and TV. So you are just repeating what you are conditioned to do. Whine about the coach , and say all the could of, should of, would of, stuff that you would have done...without realizing what you would have done makes no logical sense.

At least I got the balls to think for myself and stand up for a guy every body else piles on with mostly non-factual complaints.

I never said Woody was a great coach in any post. I am simply saying I see the realty and logic of some of his decisions based on the tools he had in the shed. I don't see how you grade guy objectively on coaching ability when he has not been given a real NBA team capable of implementing a real system.

I do think the time has come. That time is now. The chamber is now loaded with some more bullets. With a little luck the Hawks could make some noise.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

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."

---

It sounds like the only big thing we disagree on is whether more should have been expected from our coaching staff. We can agree to disagree on that.

The issue of what type of offense would best suit our personnel is probably best left to another thread rather than this one focusing on the success or lack thereof of our coaching staff last season.

[AtLaS]

Quote:

---

Now you sound like Diesel.

You ask a question and then put some spin on it that in your mind proves some point that make sense to only your mind.

I hope you feel better now and can sleep well tonight.

---

I'm not trying to bash you, but that's what I got from your posts. It seems as if you thought we were about a 35 win team, and with all the injuries you don't think Woody could have won more than about 30 games. It's basically saying Woody can't be evaluated because of the teams injuries, and I disagree with that. A coach can still be evaluated regardless. The Magic made the playoffs, does that mean Brian Hill wasn't a horrible coach? The Wizards made the playoffs, does that mean Eddie Jordan isn't a horrible coach? My only point is that you can still evaluate a coach who has success, or lack thereof. You seem to dismiss Woody's falacies just because of the personnel problems.