Rick Sund poll

[NJHAWK]

[mattlanta]

Yeah, we all should of known. We shouldn't of given into the "oh he needs more time, it's an important decision to make" or "he's just been appointed new GM last week, give him some time!" bullshit.

[exodus]

Wow this poll is pretty lopsided, currently 21-3.

[sturt]

Quote:

---

Wow this poll is pretty lopsided, currently 21-3.

You're surprised?

I'm pretty sure you aren't really.

That's because this board has no shortage of people who start their reasoning from emotion and suspicion.

Always been that way.

People who aren't incensed and hyper-critical, practically by definition, are not nearly as motivated to come to comment... there's nothing especially wrong to comment about, so why bother?

Indeed, without the hysterical mob, there might not even be a board. Hawks or beyond.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Wow this poll is pretty lopsided, currently 21-3.

You're surprised?

I'm pretty sure you aren't really.

That's because this board has no shortage of people who start their reasoning from emotion and suspicion.

Always been that way.

People who aren't incensed and hyper-critical, practically by definition, are not nearly as motivated to come to comment... there's nothing especially wrong to comment about, so why bother?

Indeed, without the hysterical mob, there might not even be a board. Hawks or beyond.

The hysterical mob on this board has been right pretty consistently, but don't let that get in the way of your pompous belief that somehow you (and BK) know better than the "mob". Your self delusions are pretty amusing.

BK and Sund (assumiing he actually made the call on Woodson) disagree completely on Woody. However you can't admit that one of them HAS TO BE WRONG BY DEFINITION. It doesn't matter which one is wrong, but there is no way both of them can be right.

[TheTrueSiete]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Wow this poll is pretty lopsided, currently 21-3.

You're surprised?

I'm pretty sure you aren't really.

That's because this board has no shortage of people who start their reasoning from emotion and suspicion.

Always been that way.

People who aren't incensed and hyper-critical, practically by definition, are not nearly as motivated to come to comment... there's nothing especially wrong to comment about, so why bother?

Indeed, without the hysterical mob, there might not even be a board. Hawks or beyond.

The hysterical mob on this board has been right pretty consistently, but don't let that get in the way of your pompous belief that somehow you (and BK) know better than the "mob". Your self delusions are pretty amusing.

BK and Sund (assumiing he actually made the call on Woodson) disagree completely on Woody. However you can't admit that one of them HAS TO BE WRONG BY DEFINITION. It doesn't matter which one is wrong, but there is no way both of them can be right.

Hey Ex,

I learned that it's kind of hard to argue with a guy who frequently uses the words "I don't know" in his arguments, but disagrees with everyone's posts concerning Woody and/or the front office... It's really comical... Everyone here has an opinion except him... It's like watching a see-saw...

7

[Admin]

Sund doesn't have to be right or wrong at this point. He has been on the job for 2 weeks and if the players and other execs around the league said good things about Woody then he would be a fool to fire him at this point. I know he said he didn't pay close attention to the Hawks (other than the playoffs) so he doesn't have much first hand knowledge of Woody to make an intelligent decision on.

Sund could very well end up being wrong about keeping Woody, then again the Hawks could finally make the jump that I expect them to make this season and get into the upper 40's or maybe early 50's in wins and it will look like a good decision to keep Woody.

Also, BK will end up being right and wrong about Woody. Whether he is right that Woody should be fired or right that Woody should have been hired in the first place, he will no matter what be right and wrong about his decisions regarding Woody from the beginning.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Sund doesn't have to be right or wrong at this point

Personally i don't think he is right or wrong. I think the decision to keep Woody was made before he got the job. Judging from the poll results that is a pretty common view.

Quote:

---

He has been on the job for 2 weeks and if the players and other execs around the league said good things about Woody then he would be a fool to fire him at this point. I

BK didn't seem to think so highly of Woody and he knew the job Woody did here better than execs around the league.

Quote:

---

then again the Hawks could finally make the jump that I expect them to make this season and get into the upper 40's or maybe early 50's in wins and it will look like a good decision to keep Woody.

LOL good one. You think they will jump to the high 40s or 50s without making any significant roster additions? They only improved 7 games this past season after adding Horford and Acie and they had far fewer injuries.

[Admin]

Who said they won't make significant roster adjustments? There could be a trade, multiple trades, we might find a way to get a draft pick or two, there should be some vet minimum signings, etc. In order for us to make a real improvement we will have to fill out the bench with quality vets though, guys that Woody will trust.

Even without any significant changes I think having Acie to effectively back up Bibby and everyone else being a year more seasoned should make a big difference. Just having Horford being near his end of the season form from this year ready to go at the beginning of next season should help. We flat out blew at least 5 games that we had locked up. Look at Golden State the last 2 years. They went on a tear to finish the season, upset the Mavs in the playoffs, lost Jason Richardson to FA and still improved by 6 games (42 to 48). Even though we didn't beat the Celtics I have to think that by being so competitive with them our young players will be a lot more focused early on and consistently next year. I think they will be hungry to get back and improve on this season.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Who said they won't make significant roster adjustments?

You didn't mention any yet you said you expected a jump to the high 40s or 50s.

If you had any particular moves in mind please feel free to share them.

[sturt]

Quote:

---

The hysterical mob on this board has been right pretty consistently,

Right that...

... Woody would be fired?

... the GM would be Chris Grant?

... the GM would be Sund?

Please educate me... what are you talking about?

Quote:

---

but don't let that get in the way of your pompous belief that somehow you (and BK) know better than the "mob". Your self delusions are pretty amusing.

Correction: Siete's post should have set you straight... I'm the one who merely puts the facts on the table and suggests that it seems to me to be this way or that... that I'm the one Siete finds fitting to criticize for admitting that I don't know, when all around me, he, you and many others say... (about yourselves)... hey, ***I*** DO know.

And yet... WHO, again, is the pompous one(s)???

I don't think I would have brought up that word if I were exodus... not a good topic in your favor, my friend.

Reminds me of my recent discovery of a column on BBC News written by Dr. John Christy, himself a member of the IPCC, about the IPCC and their sweeping proclamation that there is no more debate about human-generated global warming...

Quote:

---

The best advice regarding scientific knowledge, which certainly applies to climate, came to me from Mr Mallory, my high school physics teacher.

He proposed that we should always begin our scientific pronouncements with this statement:

"At our present level of ignorance, we think we know..."

Good advice for the IPCC, and all of us.

Indeed.

Quote:

---

BK and Sund (assumiing he actually made the call on Woodson) disagree completely on Woody. However you can't admit that one of them HAS TO BE WRONG BY DEFINITION. It doesn't matter which one is wrong, but there is no way both of them can be right.

You keep coming back to this as if there's so much substance to it and as if it causes me such a rhetorical challenge.

Silly.

Silly because, yes, you're correct... there is no way both of them can be right.

You seem to PRESUME that I'm in Sund's court. Not the case... remember... "I don't know" (damn, there's those words again)... but I did lay out some idea of how I think he may have come to the conclusion, and some rationale for why it could be worth trusting that Sund has a clue. On that basis, I guess in your book that makes me tied to Sund.

You ALSO seem to PRESUME that I'm in BK's court on the Woody issue. Not the case. You won't find anything written by me to indicate otherwise, because, yes... I could see reasons for making a coaching change at that juncture, and reasons for not, and again, the evidence wasn't overwhelming for either conclusion in view of all of the facts I could see... and don't miss that... that "I could see" part. Yes, perhaps BK saw some things that my untrained eye didn't. Perhaps BK would have been right to make a change.

To me, it's more important to acknowledge the legitimacy of both points of view, when it's there, than to take a position and struggle with all of my capacity for reasoning and wordsmithing in order to be... "right."

Don't misunderstand me to be post-modern here... I do believe in absolute truths in this world... but in sports? Not so much. For the most part, the only truths we know are, as you yourself have argued as recently as yesterday... that the numbers of past history are conclusive: this team attained this W/L record, or this player attained this FG pct. The reasons that explain those numbers, and the reasons that explain the possibilities of how the future numbers will work out... THAT, my friend, is mostly beyond you or me or anyone else, card-carrying member of the hysterical mob or not a card-carrying member, to know with precision. Thus, your quest to be "right," is pretty futile, and even if not futile, in the big picture... meaningless to anything that actually matters.

Even if one understands all that, the reasons that explain the numbers still makes for interesting discussion... better, though, if people can keep it all in context, and think and express themselves from the paradigm above...

"At MY present level of ignorance, I think I know..."

[Admin]

My post wasn't a summary of what we should do. Do all posts with predictions for the future have to include every possible thing that happens in the interim as some sort of stipulation?

I don't even know who the FA's are. I don't know which players Sund wants to keep. I'm not the GM. Let him make those decisions.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Please educate me... what are you talking about?

About the 2004-2006 drafts. There are plenty of others but those are the main ones.

Quote:

---

Right that...

... Woody would be fired?

The majority here thought the opposit. They thought Woody would be the coach based on Gearon's endorsement.

Quote:

---

I'm the one who merely puts the facts on the table

HAHA WHAT A KNEE SLAPPER THAT IS.

You avoid facts like the plague.

Quote:

---

And yet... WHO, again, is the pompous one(s)???

You are.

I am not the one who constantly talks down to the "hysterical mob" or the uninformed fans or whatever condescending description you use to describe the average fan. My opinions are pretty much in line with what most fans think and i dont criticize typical fans at all or talk down to the board in general.

Quote:

---

You seem to PRESUME that I'm in Sund's court. Not the case... remember

You said it seemed pretty clear that he saw value in keeping Woody. When the majority here say that it seems like the decision to keep Woody was made before Sund got here you dismiss it as the rantings of a hysterical mob.

It is pretty clear where you stand. You have defended Sund since he was hired.

Quote:

---

You ALSO seem to PRESUME that I'm in BK's court on the Woody issue.

Actually i presume that you are in BK's court on EVERY issue. You have done nothing to convince me otherwise.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

My post wasn't a summary of what we should do. Do all posts with predictions for the future have to include every possible thing that happens in the interim as some sort of stipulation?

I don't even know who the FA's are. I don't know which players Sund wants to keep. I'm not the GM. Let him make those decisions.

So you expect the Hawks to get in the high 40s or 50s but you have no idea how they will get there. OK

[Admin]

Do you have any idea how the Hawks will get to whatever they get to next season?

I have said that I hope the Hawks sign some league minimum vets to fill out the roster and hire some experienced assistants to help the staff. I expect those things alone will get this team to the high 40's, combined with another year of experience from our core. I have no interest in listing names, dollar amounts, etc. as that would be pointless at this juncture since we have no idea who will be available via FA or among assistant coaches.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

I have said that I hope the Hawks sign some league minimum vets to fill out the roster and hire some experienced assistants to help the staff. I expect those things alone will get this team to the high 40's, combined with another year of experience from our core.

So we will improve at least 10 games by adding assistants and league min vets?

They improved only 7 games this past season with far fewer injuries as well as adding Acie and Horford. Plus the better your record gets the harder it is to improve.

Just out of curiosity how many games did you predict the Hawks would win this past season?

[sturt]

Put another way...

At your present level of ignorance, exodus thinks he knows that I am in Sund's court, and that I'm in BK's court.

At my present level of ignorance, I think exodus thinks far too much in terms of black and white, and fails to recognize that there are many shades of gray in between.

And... at my present level of knowledge, since I am fully capable of speaking for what my guiding philosophies are... exodus, you are more prohibitively more ignorant than you even begin to recognize.

[Admin]

I think you underestimate the growth that Acie and Al will have simply by not coming in as rookies. They will both be ready to make much more of an impact, respectively, than they were this year.

It seems that you believe our young players will play the same next season as they did this season, which is unlikely since by and large they have all improved to some degree year to year.

I also think that you underestimate the value of having a quality bench. If we improve our assistant coaches in the areas that Woody is weak in that should have a huge impact. Not to mention how effective having players that Woody is comfortable playing coming off the bench to give our starters some rest so that we don't blow 2nd half leads as often or are able to come back from deficits in the 2nd half more often.

I predicted that we would win 41 games. As I mentioned earlier, Golden State improved from 42 wins in a good west, to 48 wins in a much tougher west while losing a key contributor in Jason Richardson. I don't see why it's so difficult to imagine us getting closer to being .500 on the road while maintaining our excellent home play.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Put another way...

At your present level of ignorance, exodus thinks he knows that I am in Sund's court, and that I'm in BK's court.

At my present level of ignorance, I think exodus thinks far too much in terms of black and white, and fails to recognize that there are many shades of gray in between.

And... at my present level of

knowledge

, since I am fully capable of speaking for what my guiding philosophies are... exodus, you are more prohibitively more ignorant than you even begin to recognize.

I understand there are shades of gray. In my first post about the Woody hiring i made it clear that it raised questions about whether it was Sunds decision or not. I didn't pretend to know one way or the other.

My major concern about this isn't even about Woody. I am more concerned about Sund's autonomy to make future decisions about the roster. If he had gotten rid of Woody then i would know that he is the one calling the shots. Rehiring Woody raises doubts about his autonomy.

As far as your guiding philosophies they are very simple. Defend everything management does and criticize any fans who dare to question management. That pretty much sums up all of your non-Stern posts on this board.

I can't remember any post where you were critical of the Hawks management.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

It seems that you believe our young players will play the same next season as they did this season, which is unlikely since by and large they have all improved to some degree year to year.

I expect them to get better but not enough to make a 10+ game difference in the standings.

Quote:

---

Golden State improved from 42 wins in a good west, to 48 wins in a much tougher west while losing a key contributor in Jason Richardson.

Baron played 82 games this past season but only 63 the previous season. Also Monta had a breakout season in JRich's absense.

JRich only played 51 games in his last season with GS.