It took 6 years for Mike Woodson to get 49 wins...6 years.

[MVP23]

I know you guys laugh at the graphic showing the HAwks 'progression' under Mike Woody Woodson. 13, 26. 30, 37, 45, 49. It took Stan Van Gundy what? 2 years? I know we were in Jacksonbille Jag status for a while, but thats no excuse for having this. Right now, with good coaching this team SHOULD be a 55+ win team. With Woody, we can't close out the freaking Pistons. Thankfully, I'm taking drivers ed over my break, so I'm god tired when I get home, and I've msised the last two Hawk games so I can't really say whats going on, but from what I've seen over the last 5 years, its Woodys Jim Caldwell offense. Play not to lose offense. 6 years, you think a guy would learn, but nope. Anyway the point of this thread was to enlighten you Woody lovers about how the teams progression has nothing to do with Woody, but that fact that we have 4 boneifed all stars on the team, and still struggle to win 50 in the East after the 6th year.

Fire Woody..he can't coach.

Edited April 8, 2010 by MVP23

[HawkItus]

Then use the same logic. How many years did it take Dwight Howard to get 50? Lebron? Dwade? Damn it took Josh Smith 6 years to get 50 wins.

[MVP23]

Then use the same logic. How many years did it take Dwight Howard to get 50? Lebron? Dwade? Damn it took Josh Smith 6 years to get 50 wins.

Coaches.

[PureGreatness]

Coaches.

plus they are good coaches(oe alot better than woody at least) and those players re SUPERSTARS! Smith will never be a supersar...allstar? yes but c'mon he aint in the class as those players

anyways woody has to go

Edited April 8, 2010 by hoodstar

[HawkItus]

Coaches.

But, you said the players are why we are winning 50 games. Then they are the reason we only won 45 or so last year. Or 37. Mike Woodson would have won 50 games with this team his first 2 years. I'm pretty sure of it, because he's going to do it this year. Would Stan Van Gundy win 50 with that 13, 26. 30, or 37 win team?

[MVP23]

Yes, I said the players are the only reason we win the games we do, but with a better coach, we could win 60. Lebron can win 50 with or without a good coach, because....hes Lebron. Sure, I hate everything about him, but he can do it (Albeit by shooting FTS) There are only 4,5 guys in this league that can do that. We dont have anyone...yet, but we have enough good players that there is no excuse to blow 4th Q leads to the Pistons man.

[Joker]

He's a very good coach but he really has weaknesses coaching the offense. Talent isn't the issue, lack of a superstar is.

[buckeye242424]

When you say we started from scratch 6 years ago, that's an understatement. Woody was brought in to be the scapegoat through the 13, 26 win seasons. I doubt the organization planned on keeping him past year 3 or 4. But since we were progressing and getting the "babies" experience - it wouldn't have been simply - right - to fire him. I do believe we could be better with different coaching, I'm not defending Woody, but I do understand why he's still our coach.

The one thing the organization did do correctly was put themselves in a position so they don't have to fire Woody. They can just not give him a new contract. Seems like the same thing, but it's not. People are already chirping about how Woodson couldn't have received and extension - fair or unfair - can't imagine firing the dude...

[MVP23]

To bad switching defense can't win championships.

[HawkItus]

Yes, I said the players are the only reason we win the games we do, but with a better coach, we could win 60. Lebron can win 50 with or without a good coach, because....hes Lebron. Sure, I hate everything about him, but he can do it (Albeit by shooting FTS) There are only 4,5 guys in this league that can do that. We dont have anyone...yet, but we have enough good players that there is no excuse to blow 4th Q leads to the Pistons man.

I call bull crap. Who has 60 wins this year? Lebron. The Lakers may make it. The magic may make it. They have superstars and what you deem better coaches. But, they are winning at a 60+ clip with all that going for them. So I think your saying with a good coach we could win 60 is really pushing it.

[HawkFoLife]

You can't have your cake and eat it too, you're talking out of both sides of your mouth, it's a double edged sword.

You can;t just say it's all the players when they win and just dump it on the coach when they lose, you have to give me more than that. That's not being real, sorry.

[MVP23]

I call bull crap. Who has 60 wins this year? Lebron. The Lakers may make it. The magic may make it. They have superstars and what you deem better coaches. But, they are winning at a 60+ clip with all that going for them. So I think your saying with a good coach we could win 60 is really pushing it.

You're completely missing my point. I'm saying it took the man 6 years to get 50(he doesnt even have 50 yet) wins with decent talent since his 2nd/3rd year, and with 3 all stars, and the sixth man of the year. I think this team would have 50+ wins with NO coach at all. The talent is there, the coaching isn't.

You can't have your cake and eat it too, you're talking out of both sides of your mouth, it's a double edged sword.

You can;t just say it's all the players when they win and just dump it on the coach when they lose, you have to give me more than that. That's not being real, sorry.

I blame the players all the time. The blame goes all around, trust me.

[HawkItus]

You're completely missing my point. I'm saying it took the man 6 years to get 50(he doesnt even have 50 yet) wins with decent talent since his 2nd/3rd year, and with 3 all stars, and the sixth man of the year. I think this team would have 50+ wins with NO coach at all. The talent is there, the coaching isn't.

I blame the players all the time. The blame goes all around, trust me.

So again I ask would Stan have gotten 50 wins 2 years ago with the teams Woodson had in his 2nd, 3rd, and 4th years?

[MVP23]

So again I ask would Stan have gotten 50 wins 2 years ago with the teams Woodson had in his 2nd, 3rd, and 4th years?

consider the state of the East 3,4 years ago? Maybe.

[HawkItus]

consider the state of the East 3,4 years ago? Maybe.

NO WAY.

[HawkFoLife]

consider the state of the East 3,4 years ago? Maybe.

C'mon man, we're all Hawks fans here. The Hawks 3-4 years ago wouldn't have won 50 games if Phil Jackson was the Head coach and Stan and Coach K was his assistants.

Edited April 8, 2010 by HawkFoLife

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Young cats like MVP get one thing stuck in their mind, but don't totally see the entire picture. His NBA knowledge for his age is pretty dang good, but he still doesn't understand the dynamics of the league yet.

It's easy for him to go off on JJ, because he isn't Kobe . . . or go off on Woody, because he and others think that Woody is the worst coach in the history of basketball. But he, or anybody else think that the lack of a superstar and a great coach were the only things keeping us from rapidly improving, he might want to keep reading this post. He might learn a thing or two.

********

First off . . we're not even having this discussion, had the Hawks drafted Chris Paul, and not tried to find the next Tracy McGrady ( in Marvin Williams )

I hate to bring that name back up again, but we all know what it is. You team him up with JJ, and an athletic freak like Smoove . . and combine the fact that Paul can also wreak havoc on the defensive end and with his rebounding ability as a guard, and there's no telling how good the Hawks could've been . . even without Horford.

And since we're on the PG issue, who were the PGs in ATL those first 3.5 years?

- Tyronn Lue

- Anthony Johnson

- Royal Ivey

- Acie Law

- Salim Stoudamire ( who we tried to convert into a PG )

- Speedy Claxton ( the crippled version )

I mean please . . . I'd trade all of those guys, for the 2006 version of Derek Fisher ( a guy that is really a 2 guard in a PGs body, but could shoot and defend well enough at the time to be a key piece on a team )

*********

How about center in those first 3 years?

- Jason Collier ( R.I.P )

- John Edwards

- Esteban Batista

- Lorenzen Wright

- Zaza Pachulia

- Shelden Williams

LOL . . . please again. Zaza is far and away the best center out of that group.

Zaza.

And even he was so inconsistent at times, that Woody had to resort to starting Lorenzen at center, even playing Smoove at center on some occasions. Shelde was supposed to be the Ben Wallace clone for us, but he ended up playing more like George Wallace the comedian ( youtube George Wallace, if you don't know who that is )

*********

Our best low post scorer in those first 3 years? . . . Al Harrington ( and only for one year )

Our best passer? . . . Joe Johnson

Our #2 scoring option? . . . we didn't have one ( edit: the #2 option was Harrington . . but after he left . . no one )

Our best overall defender? . . . Joe Johnson ( would guard 4 positions back in those days )

Our best sharpshooter? . . . not Joe Johnson, but Tyronn Lue ( even if he did pound the ball for 20 seconds . . . I guess Lue was the Godfather of ISO basketball in the Woody era )

Our best rebounder? . . . not Josh Smith, but Josh Childress Numbers wise, it was Zaza. But on a Per 36 minute basis, Chill was better.

Our best low post defender? . . . Lorenzen Wright. But he was so horrible offensively, that he couldn't even grab rebounds. And he really wasn't that good defensively.

***********

MVP . . . don't EVER make the mistake that we had some sort of great squad 3 years ago. We barely had any talent back then, and were winning games mainly because of Joe Johnson, and the ability of our frontcourt guys to get out and run.

And just think . . . had we won the NBA Lottery in 2007, we wouldn't have picked Kevin Durant, even though he was the best player in the country. We would've chosen Greg Oden . . . because we desperately needed a center. Instead, we get "lucky", and get the #3 pick, and select Horford.

And even with that, things didn't totally turn around, until we got rid of Lue and AJ, and brought in Bibby.

***********

Here's a challenge to all of you gamers out ther who have either NBA Live 10 or NBA 2K10. See if you can win the NBA title with the Hawks. Set the playoffs up exactly as they would go right now, and play the game

Here's the catch: I want you to COACH the Hawks.

I don'mt want you controlling a single pass or shot or playing defense. Simply COACH THEM. Control the substitutions . . the style of play . . whatever. But don't physically play the game action AT ALL. This means that you'll have to manage and watch an entire game, rather than have the computer simulate it for you.

And you MUST START BIBBY AND MARVIN for at least 1/2 of the 1st and 3rd quarters . . which means you MUST start the regular Hawks lineup. After that point, if you want to give the bench some run, go right ahead.

See what you can do with the Hawks, and who performed. And DON'T LIE.

Edited April 8, 2010 by northcyde

[AHF]

***********

Here's a challenge to all of you gamers out ther who have either NBA Live 10 or NBA 2K10. See if you can win the NBA title with the Hawks. Set the playoffs up exactly as they would go right now, and play the game

Here's the catch: I want you to COACH the Hawks.

I don'mt want you controlling a single pass or shot or playing defense. Simply COACH THEM. Control the substitutions . . the style of play . . whatever. But don't physically play the game action AT ALL. This means that you'll have to manage and watch an entire game, rather than have the computer simulate it for you.

And you MUST START BIBBY AND MARVIN for at least 1/2 of the 1st and 3rd quarters . . which means you MUST start the regular Hawks lineup. After that point, if you want to give the bench some run, go right ahead.

See what you can do with the Hawks, and who performed. And DON'T LIE.

While I get this, why in the world wouldn't you let people put Bibby and Marvin on the bench? A lot of Woodson critics have attacked him for not replacing Bibby and/or not benching Marvin. It seems like if you are posting threads about why Bibby should be benched or why Evans should be starting over Marvin, then you should be able to run the lineup you like rather than be stuck with what you view as a fatally flawed player rotation of Mike Woodson's.

[thecampster]

But, you said the players are why we are winning 50 games. Then they are the reason we only won 45 or so last year. Or 37. Mike Woodson would have won 50 games with this team his first 2 years. I'm pretty sure of it, because he's going to do it this year. Would Stan Van Gundy win 50 with that 13, 26. 30, or 37 win team?

Doug Collins would have been a better fit for the developmental years. There are different coaches for different times in a teams development. Woodson would be a decent coach for a a much older team that doesn't need help on the offensive end or with positioning and timing.

Collins is known for developing teams. Taking young players and bringing them along. He would have been a really good fit a few years ago. I think we would be better off today (especially Marvin would have).

But a good coach for this team today would be Jerry Sloan.

[spotatl]

What was the last team to win 60 games without a superstar?