How to decide Woody's fate: Khao$'s take

[khaos7]

I don't think the question should be "Did Woody do enough to deserve to stay?"

The question should be "Is Woody the coach that can take this team to the next level?" The second question should also be "Can another coach get more out of this team than Woodson?"

My feelings aside, I think the coaching decision shouldn't be based off a merit system; it should be based off of whether the coach got everything out of his players that he could squeeze out. Did Woody do that?

This reminds me of the Rick Carlise/Larry Brown situation. Honestly, there was no reason why Carlise should have been fired. Off merit, he should have kept his job. He took the Pistons to the EC Championship. However, Joe Dumars felt Larry Brown could do better. Brown won a championship.

I didn't like the way the Van Gundy/Riley thing went down in Miami. However. Riley won a championship.

Doug Collins for Phil Jackson in Chicago? We see how that turned out.

Am I saying the same thing should be done with Woody, with say Avery Johnson? Mike Fratello? That's up for debate. However, if another coach can't get more out of the team, isn't it the owner's/GM's responsibility to consider making a move? Or is continuity more important?

I say make a coaching move, only if you know another guy can get more out your team and has a clearer vision for it. As much some bemoan Bobby Cox's job with the Braves, I'd frightened at someone taking his place. Can that person do a better job than him.

This is where Rick Sund will earn his money.

IMHO, I believe that Woody was never given the pieces to succeed. He just got a point guard. He never had an inside presence. Billy Knight did give him square blocks to fit in a circle's hole.

However, I do believe, with the talent assembled, another coach could have gotten more out of this roster. To me, the Hawks are more talented than the Sixers. Yet, I believe Mo Cheeks coached that team up to the max. He was in a similar situation as Woody; he wasn't given all the right pieces. But his team overachieved.

This is where Rick Sund will earn his money. Let's hope he's allowed to make the right decision.

[NJHAWK]

That is the best post about the coaching situation I have seen.

[Admin]

Good post! I agree that the coach should be able to get all he can out of his players.

Did Woody do that? Probably not.

Did he get as little from them as many here claim? Probably not.

Is there a coach out there that can take us to the next level? Maybe.

I like Avery Johnson, but he isn't beyond criticism. He was run out of Dallas as they believed he couldn't get them to the next level and he had a team loaded with talent.

I'm not a huge Fratello fan and I believe there is a reason why he doesn't have a job coaching.

The bottom line is that there isn't a Phil Jackson or Greg Popovich out there and it should be noted that both of them have had bad seasons at some point in their career when they didn't have great rosters.

Let's see what Sund can do with this roster before we make the decision on Woody. I still contend that a lot of the problems we have had are because of poor decisions that BK has made and I hope that will be something that Sund can correct. Back when we made the Bibby trade I said that we needed to be a .500 team and we needed to have a good showing in the playoffs in order for me to support bringing back Woody and we did just that. He should be given an additional year with a full, healthy roster before he is ultimately judged as a coach that we can win with or not.

[khaos7]

Quote:

---

Good post! I agree that the coach should be able to get all he can out of his players.

Did Woody do that? Probably not.

Did he get as little from them as many here claim? Probably not.

Is there a coach out there that can take us to the next level? Maybe.

I like Avery Johnson, but he isn't beyond criticism. He was run out of Dallas as they believed he couldn't get them to the next level and he had a team loaded with talent.

I'm not a huge Fratello fan and I believe there is a reason why he doesn't have a job coaching.

The bottom line is that there isn't a Phil Jackson or Greg Popovich out there and it should be noted that both of them have had bad seasons at some point in their career when they didn't have great rosters.

Let's see what Sund can do with this roster before we make the decision on Woody. I still contend that a lot of the problems we have had are because of poor decisions that BK has made and I hope that will be something that Sund can correct. Back when we made the Bibby trade I said that we needed to be a .500 team and we needed to have a good showing in the playoffs in order for me to support bringing back Woody and we did just that. He should be given an additional year with a full, healthy roster before he is ultimately judged as a coach that we can win with or not.

Thanks. I don't think we should make a coaching change for change sake. However, if another coach can make you better, you shouldn't keep Woody. Woody's argument that they've improved each year doesn't cut it with me. With that many lottery picks you should. My thing is, is he the best man for the job.

Corp. America does it all the time. If they see an opportunity to upgrade, they'll make a change in a heartbeat to improve productivity. Shouldn't the same concept apply for our NBA team? If Woody is able to produce, keep him. If not, and someone else is better, he has to be let go. It's that simple.

[KB21]

I agree with this.

To me, it makes very little sense to dump Mike Woodson only to hire a first time head coach to replace him. I think the pool of candidates for this job needs to be very small and needs to be focused around experienced head coaches instead of assistant coaches who will be first time head coaches. To me, going from Mike Woodson to lets say Scott Brooks is making a change for the sake of making a change. Scott Brooks may be a great head coach some day, but at this point we don't know that.

The pool of experienced head coaches is pretty solid though. You have Avery Johnson, Mike Fratello, Jeff Van Gundy, Eric Musselman, and Terry Porter all available right now, and IMO, any of them would be an upgrade over Mike Woodson at this point.

[Lascar78]

I have never seen a worse coach than Mike Woodson at this level, period. Forget the record, I don't see how anyone who has followed this team for the past four years can not think he is horrible.

He consistently makes flat out mistakes that no other NBA head coach would make, and that alone makes it totally unjustifiable to keep him. At worst your coach should not help as much as you'd like, he should never cost you games. Woodson does.

Beyond that, he is supposed to be a defensive coach and it is frequently clear that the players have no idea where they're supposed to be, and our defensive strategies are frequently mind-boggling, and consistently so (like doubling a star even if it means leaving a hot 3 pt shooter wide open). Not to mention our complete lack of an offensive system. I'm at the point where I would honestly rather win less games and watch actual NBA quality offense than watch Woody ball.

Some other rather obvious flaws that I won't waste time going into detail on:

-Repeated pattern of players coming from disciplined, fundamental college programs seemingly losing their fundamentals

-Repeated pattern of college studs with big balls having their confidence crushed and hidden on the bench (Salim, Shelden, Acie...)

-No accountability for mistakes

-No PT rewards for good play especially for young guys

-HORRIBLE foul management that takes us completely out of games - but don't worry our starters are not in foul trouble when they come back in to finish getting blown out

-HORRIBLE season-long minute management

-MIND BOGGLING substitutions, forgetting guys on the bench, sitting a guy as he catches fire to sub in ice cold players

-team always looks worse coming out of timeouts, never looks better

-team strategy is not adapted in any way to suit the personnel's strengths

-no plays designed to take advantage of anyone's skills other than JJ

I mean it's a total joke at this point. I honestly lose "basketball respect" for anyone who thinks he should come back. The only way in which he is NBA caliber is apparently keeping his team motivated. Other than that, I dare anyone to name anything he does from a coaching stand point that is better than any other coach in the league.

I know nothing about Scott Brooks, but generally speaking, firing Woody for a first time coach is not a change for the sake of change. It is replacing a guy you know is flat out HORRIBLE with a guy who can't possibly be any worse. I would strongly prefer an established coach who can command respect and implement a system from day one, but I'll take anyone. I've never seen coaching this bad at this level in my life. And again, that's ignoring the horrendous record which I won't even get into. I would like to see Van Gundy, Silas, Avery, or Mussleman, probably in that order.

Woodson needs to go back to what he's meant to be, an awesome assistant coach.

[DJlaysitup]

Here is the KEY with the BK/Woody run. They improved every year - BECAUSE - they managed to start at 13 wins. Hell, if they could have started with 5 wins we should be even happier right? NO NO NO. Just because you made the team suck in near biblical proportions doesn't mean you should get 5 years to get to 37-45.

As I have posted many times - there are (IMO) 5 stages of an NBA basketball team:

Laughingstock

Bad

Inconsistent

Good

Championship contender

We are now in-between Bad and Inconsistent.

Note: Inconsistent means 41-41 or thereabouts.

[Wretch]

Is Woodson the coach that can take this team to the next level? That has been my question for the past 2 seasons. In my opinion, he is not. I don't see how anyone who has watched this team can think differently. At best, we will finish the way Philly did this year. The reality though is that we'll be swimming somewhere around .500. At the very least, it is time for a new philosphy.

I also agree with what you said about why other teams change head coaches. I've been saying the same thing. The best teams look for advantages everywhere. They fill their benches with quality players, they make trades for stars, and they try to find the right management.

Part of becoming a respectable team again is moving away from baby steps. Stop babying this franchise. That is exactly what we've been doing with our coaches. Hiring assistant coaches, college coaches, promoting lame ducks. We need to move forward. We don't need more of that. We need to hire a proven head coach and we need to fill our bench with stable veterans.

[khaos7]

Quote:

---

I have never seen a worse coach than Mike Woodson at this level, period.

Forget the record, I don't see how anyone who has followed this team for the past four years can not think he is horrible.

He consistently makes flat out mistakes that no other NBA head coach would make, and that alone makes it totally unjustifiable to keep him.

At worst your coach should not help as much as you'd like, he should never cost you games. Woodson does.

Beyond that, he is supposed to be a defensive coach and it is frequently clear that the players have no idea where they're supposed to be, and our defensive strategies are frequently mind-boggling, and consistently so (like doubling a star even if it means leaving a hot 3 pt shooter wide open). Not to mention our complete lack of an offensive system. I'm at the point where I would honestly rather win less games and watch actual NBA quality offense than watch Woody ball.

Some other rather obvious flaws that I won't waste time going into detail on:

-Repeated pattern of players coming from disciplined, fundamental college programs seemingly losing their fundamentals

-Repeated pattern of college studs with big balls having their confidence crushed and hidden on the bench (Salim, Shelden, Acie...)

-No accountability for mistakes

-No PT rewards for good play especially for young guys

-HORRIBLE foul management that takes us completely out of games - but don't worry our starters are not in foul trouble when they come back in to finish getting blown out

-HORRIBLE season-long minute management

-MIND BOGGLING substitutions, forgetting guys on the bench, sitting a guy as he catches fire to sub in ice cold players

-team always looks worse coming out of timeouts, never looks better

-team strategy is not adapted in any way to suit the personnel's strengths

-no plays designed to take advantage of anyone's skills other than JJ

I mean it's a total joke at this point. I honestly lose "basketball respect" for anyone who thinks he should come back. The only way in which he is NBA caliber is apparently keeping his team motivated. Other than that, I dare anyone to name anything he does from a coaching stand point that is better than any other coach in the league.

I know nothing about Scott Brooks, but generally speaking, firing Woody for a first time coach is not a change for the sake of change. It is replacing a guy you know is flat out HORRIBLE with a guy who can't possibly be any worse. I would strongly prefer an established coach who can command respect and implement a system from day one, but I'll take anyone. I've never seen coaching this bad at this level in my life. And again, that's ignoring the horrendous record which I won't even get into. I would like to see Van Gundy, Silas, Avery, or Mussleman, probably in that order.

Woodson needs to go back to what he's meant to be, an awesome assistant coach.

If Sund agrees with HALF of this Woody must go.

[Dsinner]

Quote:

---

"Is Woody the coach that can take this team to the next level?"

Easy there tiger. Can Woody take us to 40 wins should be the next step.

Quote:

---

"Can another coach get more out of this team than Woodson?"

I could get more wins out of this team than Woody. If you honestly believe we are a 37 win team than by all means, continue to support him. But you are the only people in the NBA world who believe we are.

Quote:

---

whether the coach got everything out of his players that he could squeeze out. Did Woody do that?

See above

Quote:

---

Or is continuity more important?

And this is the ONLY argument for the Woody fans. Continuity?!?! What a fawkin joke. You WANT to keep the 30 something win continuity going? Go cheer for another team if you're happy with that. Avery and all these other coaches you are mentioning had a continuity rate of around 50 wins.

Quote:

---

. As much some bemoan Bobby Cox's job with the Braves, I'd frightened at someone taking his place. Can that person do a better job than him.

Please stop comparing Woodys predicament with all of the other above average coaches. They constantly put out winning teams but couldn't get them over the hump. Woody can't get over the speedbump to put out a winning team. Not even comparable.

Quote:

---

IMHO, I believe that Woody was never given the pieces to succeed. He just got a point guard. He never had an inside presence. Billy Knight did give him square blocks to fit in a circle's hole.

While BK didn't build a championship team for Woody he did give him a better than 37 win team. Back to your previous point of him not getting everything out of his players. It's clear as day people.

Quote:

---

However, I do believe, with the talent assembled, another coach could have gotten more out of this roster. To me, the Hawks are more talented than the Sixers. Yet, I believe Mo Cheeks coached that team up to the max. He was in a similar situation as Woody; he wasn't given all the right pieces. But his team overachieved.

This is the best point of your post. Other coaches overachieved with worst rosters. How is there even a debate about Woody at this point?

I asked this question in another thread...

Can one of you Woody supporters please explain to me how that number 37 looks bigger to you than me? I mean 37 is an absolute right?

[DJlaysitup]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

"Is Woody the coach that can take this team to the next level?"

Easy there tiger. Can Woody take us to 40 wins should be the next step.

Quote:

---

"Can another coach get more out of this team than Woodson?"

I could get more wins out of this team than Woody. If you honestly believe we are a 37 win team than by all means, continue to support him. But you are the only people in the NBA world who believe we are.

Quote:

---

whether the coach got everything out of his players that he could squeeze out. Did Woody do that?

See above

Quote:

---

Or is continuity more important?

And this is the ONLY argument for the Woody fans. Continuity?!?! What a fawkin joke. You WANT to keep the 30 something win continuity going? Go cheer for another team if you're happy with that. Avery and all these other coaches you are mentioning had a continuity rate of around 50 wins.

Quote:

---

. As much some bemoan Bobby Cox's job with the Braves, I'd frightened at someone taking his place. Can that person do a better job than him.

Please stop comparing Woodys predicament with all of the other above average coaches. They constantly put out winning teams but couldn't get them over the hump. Woody can't get over the speedbump to put out a winning team. Not even comparable.

Quote:

---

IMHO, I believe that Woody was never given the pieces to succeed. He just got a point guard. He never had an inside presence. Billy Knight did give him square blocks to fit in a circle's hole.

While BK didn't build a championship team for Woody he did give him a better than 37 win team. Back to your previous point of him not getting everything out of his players. It's clear as day people.

Quote:

---

However, I do believe, with the talent assembled, another coach could have gotten more out of this roster. To me, the Hawks are more talented than the Sixers. Yet, I believe Mo Cheeks coached that team up to the max. He was in a similar situation as Woody; he wasn't given all the right pieces. But his team overachieved.

This is the best point of your post. Other coaches overachieved with worst rosters. How is there even a debate about Woody at this point?

I asked this question in another thread...

Can one of you Woody supporters please explain to me how that number 37 looks bigger to you than me? I mean 37 is an absolute right?

The difference between 37 and 47 is HUGE.

[jhay610]

Plenty of coaches make moves that are controversial or are subject to 2nd guessing, but u can almost always see the rationale behind the decision and make a decent argument for it.

A lot of Woody's decisions are just completely dumbfounding to people with even the most rudimentary grasp of basketball knowledge.

His offensive sets (do we have any?) and "game management" skills are just off the wrong side of the charts. Most of the guys look lost on defense, struggling to defend the most basic of plays, the pick and roll, for the better part of just about every game in the season. Our defensive rotations were terrible most of the year. We struggle to move the ball on offense and we don't move without it at all. I would guess that coming out of a timeout, with the ball out of bounds under the basket, we probably scored off movement from a designed play less than 5% of the time (this does not count Joe getting the inbounds behind 3 and getting his own shot).

How bout the fact that it took a ready-made ROY (sorry Durant) STAR to get out of his young player doghouse and get minutes? I can remember yelling at my tv over and over again early in the season as Zaza took all the big man minutes coming down the stretch early in the season. It seemed obvious to me that Zaza and T. Lue were the guys we had in place for our 20 win (+or -) seasons and that we would never be any better than that with them getting the big minutes, but still the new blood sat for most of the early part of the season (and AC for all of it).

I honestly believe Woodson is outclassed as a head coach in the NBA. I know Joe has publicly backed him but I just don't understand how any fan who's watched this team over the past few years can be behind him. That roster in this year's East was so much better than 37 wins. Think bigger guys. You have been conditioned by a decade of beatdowns to believe that 37 wins is just swell.

I also dont use his career record as a base of my argument because I understand that the roster was absolute crap for so long.

I have just seen enough games to make the decision that Woodson will not be the guy to ever lead ur team to a championship. There are too many more qualified candidates to waste any more time with this character.

As if he needed any more grounds for his dismissal, how bout the fact that he was BK's guy? Bk has proven that he does not really have the eye for talent. We need to make a clean sweep of management and think bigger.

[khaos7]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

"Is Woody the coach that can take this team to the next level?"

Easy there tiger. Can Woody take us to 40 wins should be the next step.

Quote:

---

"Can another coach get more out of this team than Woodson?"

I could get more wins out of this team than Woody. If you honestly believe we are a 37 win team than by all means, continue to support him. But you are the only people in the NBA world who believe we are.

Quote:

---

whether the coach got everything out of his players that he could squeeze out. Did Woody do that?

See above

Quote:

---

Or is continuity more important?

And this is the ONLY argument for the Woody fans. Continuity?!?! What a fawkin joke. You WANT to keep the 30 something win continuity going? Go cheer for another team if you're happy with that. Avery and all these other coaches you are mentioning had a continuity rate of around 50 wins.

Quote:

---

. As much some bemoan Bobby Cox's job with the Braves, I'd frightened at someone taking his place. Can that person do a better job than him.

Please stop comparing Woodys predicament with all of the other above average coaches. They constantly put out winning teams but couldn't get them over the hump. Woody can't get over the speedbump to put out a winning team. Not even comparable.

Quote:

---

IMHO, I believe that Woody was never given the pieces to succeed. He just got a point guard. He never had an inside presence. Billy Knight did give him square blocks to fit in a circle's hole.

While BK didn't build a championship team for Woody he did give him a better than 37 win team. Back to your previous point of him not getting everything out of his players. It's clear as day people.

Quote:

---

However, I do believe, with the talent assembled, another coach could have gotten more out of this roster. To me, the Hawks are more talented than the Sixers. Yet, I believe Mo Cheeks coached that team up to the max. He was in a similar situation as Woody; he wasn't given all the right pieces. But his team overachieved.

This is the best point of your post. Other coaches overachieved with worst rosters. How is there even a debate about Woody at this point?

I asked this question in another thread...

Can one of you Woody supporters please explain to me how that number 37 looks bigger to you than me? I mean 37 is an absolute right?

I think you missed the entire point of my post. I gave (what I believe to be) ways to accurately assess Woody's job. If you keep him, why? Continuity? If you fire him, why? He didn't get the most out of his roster? Personally, I don't support Woodson. I believe the evidence against him outweighs that which supports him. My thing is, if Sund (or Gearon depending on who's really pulling the strings) makes the decision, I believe it shouldn't be based on loyalty or merit. It should be based on job performance. I just wanted to provide every argument (aside from money) that would support/argue against keeping Woody. In doing so, you can weigh whether evidence supports keeping or firing him. That's why you compare him to other coaches and other situations. That gives you a point of reference.

If we're in the business of winning, money shouldn't be an issue. If another coach can do a better job, is available, and is willing to come here, hire him.

If Sund is a good basketball mind, he'll do that type of simple analysis. Other than the financial side of things (contracts, negotiations), I really don't think some of the basketball decisions take rocket science.

[DrReality]

Another one to add: players looking completely disinterested during time outs and

how he looks completely bumfuzzled while standing on the sidelines.

[Lascar78]

Quote:

---

Stop babying this franchise.

Exactly. This team needs to get out of the losers' mentality. Quit looking for excuses to keep a subpar coach as if we could never get a good one. Look for the best candidate available. We're not an nbdl team dammit!

[DrReality]

Name an industry that invest so much money that accepts this kind of leadership. People who deal with so much money in the business world put up or are gone. Woody does not project nor personify a winner's attitude. Hit the eject button.

[Dsinner]

Quote:

---

I think you missed the entire point of my post. I gave (what I believe to be) ways to accurately assess Woody's job. If you keep him, why? Continuity? If you fire him, why? He didn't get the most out of his roster? Personally, I don't support Woodson. I believe the evidence against him outweighs that which supports him. My thing is, if Sund (or Gearon depending on who's really pulling the strings) makes the decision, I believe it shouldn't be based on loyalty or merit. It should be based on job performance. I just wanted to provide every argument (aside from money) that would support/argue against keeping Woody. In doing so, you can weigh whether evidence supports keeping or firing him. That's why you compare him to other coaches and other situations. That gives you a point of reference.

If we're in the business of winning, money shouldn't be an issue. If another coach can do a better job, is available, and is willing to come here, hire him.

If Sund is a good basketball mind, he'll do that type of simple analysis. Other than the financial side of things (contracts, negotiations), I really don't think some of the basketball decisions take rocket science.

I didn't miss your point. My responses were aimed at the Woody supporters who use some of the points you discussed. I should have made that a little more clear. My bad. I think some of the questions you used to weigh evidence are pretty clear cut.

[khaos7]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I think you missed the entire point of my post. I gave (what I believe to be) ways to accurately assess Woody's job. If you keep him, why? Continuity? If you fire him, why? He didn't get the most out of his roster? Personally, I don't support Woodson. I believe the evidence against him outweighs that which supports him. My thing is, if Sund (or Gearon depending on who's really pulling the strings) makes the decision, I believe it shouldn't be based on loyalty or merit. It should be based on job performance. I just wanted to provide every argument (aside from money) that would support/argue against keeping Woody. In doing so, you can weigh whether evidence supports keeping or firing him. That's why you compare him to other coaches and other situations. That gives you a point of reference.

If we're in the business of winning, money shouldn't be an issue. If another coach can do a better job, is available, and is willing to come here, hire him.

If Sund is a good basketball mind, he'll do that type of simple analysis. Other than the financial side of things (contracts, negotiations), I really don't think some of the basketball decisions take rocket science.

I didn't miss your point. My responses were aimed at the Woody supporters who use some of the points you discussed. I should have made that a little more clear. My bad. I think some of the questions you used to weigh evidence are pretty clear cut.

I here you. I think the biggest thing is, there are some good coaching prospects available that have track records that suggests they'd come in here and do a better job than Woody. They have to, at the very least, consider these guys. I can't think of 2 games Woody has won for us in the past 4 years where I stepped back and said, "that coaching adjustment won us the game." However, I can think of several instances where I said, "what is he thinking?" That's my biggest issue with this cat. He loses us more games than he wins. To his credit, I believe he makes the guys play hard on most nights. But playing hard and playing smart are two different things. You can play hard and get blown out.

[macdaddy]

I was totally with you up until I read Mussleman. I never really understood his appeal. I don't have the exact stats but don't think he's ever approached .500 as a head coach.

Everything else you said I'm in agreement on some level.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Good post Khaos. I think you addressed the correct points on whether to retain Woody or not.

My assessment of Woody all along, is that he is an average coach in this league. Because I don't call Woody a horrible coach, people assume that I think he's a good coach. LOL @ that.

My beef in this issue has always been the fact that Woody gets all of the blame for losses, but none of the credit for wins. The same people that constantly whine and cry about Woody, will quickly tell you that we win because of the players ONLY. If that's the case, the players have to take the blame for losses as well, right?

I'm all for Woody being replaced by a guy who is clearly an upgrade over him.

Let me repeat that.

I'm all for Woody being replaced by a guy who is clearly an upgrade over him.

If Woody is overall perceived as a D+ coach ( I see him as a C- coach ), you don't replace him with a C- or a C coach. If you do that, you're still going to have some of the problems that you saw with Woody, just in different areas. If a change is to be made, it has to be with a coach that is a B- or above.

( Maybe that should be a Hawksquawk poll question, to really see what grade Woody should get as a coach, without putting their name beside their vote. Then you average out the vote and give him a grade. It'll be Woody's GPA. )

If getting the Hawks to the "next" level is the objective, those coaches aren't going to be able to do it either, without the talent on the roster being changed or the talent improving dramatically.

But those coaches, if they won 43 games next year, would get much more love than if a Woody-led Hawks team won 43 games next year. Woody wouldn't get credit next year, unless he won 45+ games.

In my opinion, a guy like Fratello is at least a B- coach, so I'm for him replacng Woody. Avery Johnson is a B+ coach, so I'm for that move as well.

- Stan Van Gundy: C+

- Terry Porter: C

- Paul Silas: C

- Del Harris: C-

- Dwayne Casey: D+

You replace him with at least a B- coach, in my opinion, if you think coaching is the main element we need to get to the "next" level.