RealGM

Greetings Hawks faithful,

I was just wanting to get some opinions, good or bad, on Mike Woodson.

Since Detroit is most likely looking for a new head coach next year, Woodson has come up as one of the options.

Thanks in advance.. and good luck in the playoffs (You've definitely got detroit fans rooting for you to beat the bulls )

It took 6 seasons before the players started tuning him out which is a positive quality in today's league. It isn't a huge compliment considering where they started(13 wins)but their record did improve every year and continuity definitely played apart.

He's a below average X and O's coach in my opinion. I know he was heralded as the "defensive assistant" of that 2004 Pistons teams....but the Hawks strategy on defense appeared to be "switch EVERY screen" even if it meant Solomon Jones ended up on an island with Dwyane Wade again and again in a crucial playoff game. Extremely predictable isolation based offense although it's worth nothing that Joe Johnson,Flip Murray,Tyron Lue,and Jamal Crawford(ball dominant 1 on 1 players) all played much better under Woodson than their previous coaches. Rodney Stuckey would probably have a great year if you hired him.

I don't think he's as terrible as some people say but he's not really an "internet fan friendly" coach. Any team that hires him should expect a very slow pace and a very short rotation(like Larry Brown).

HoopsGuru25 wrote:It took 6 seasons before the players started tuning him out which is a positive quality in today's league. It isn't a huge compliment considering where they started(13 wins)but their record did improve every year and continuity definitely played apart.

He's a below average X and O's coach in my opinion. I know he was heralded as the "defensive assistant" of that 2004 Pistons teams....but the Hawks strategy on defense appeared to be "switch EVERY screen" even if it meant Solomon Jones ended up on an island with Dwyane Wade again and again in a crucial playoff game. Extremely predictable isolation based offense although it's worth nothing that Joe Johnson,Flip Murray,Tyron Lue,and Jamal Crawford(ball dominant 1 on 1 players) all played much better under Woodson than their previous coaches. Rodney Stuckey would probably have a great year if you hired him.

I don't think he's as terrible as some people say but he's not really an "internet fan friendly" coach. Any team that hires him should expect a very slow pace and a very short rotation(like Larry Brown).

^^^Pretty much said it all. I think he was so Iso oriented was because he never had a PG neither traditional nor talented to run an offense.

Honestly, if you look at how he coached, you could say he worked with what he had. Never had a decent Center, so he switched a lot with Josh Smith(who was pretty much the only shot blocker).

Didn't have no other offensive weapons besides Joe until Josh started coming along and Horford began shooting well which pretty much was another reason to force ISO. Billy Knight really didn't bring in any quality players.

Knight wasted a lot good draft picks. Instead of taking Iguodola, he picks Childress. Instead of CP3/Deron, he takes Marvin. Could have had Rudy Gay, but vouched for Shelden Williams.

In a nut shell, Woodson was a pretty good player developer, and developed what he had into a 53 game winner at best that challenged an eventual NBA champ in a 7 game series one year. His strong suit was most likely defense and player development. If Detroit is patient and can hold out until Woodson gets a good 3 years with his own draft picks, plus expire some bad contracts, then he will develop the talented players and have them ready to contend eventually.

Not sure I'd say he was a good player developer seeing as he really limited most of his players to specific roles. Shelden mentioned in Boston or Denver that he was never asked to be more than a rebounder, Chills was noted for not liking his designation as a bench player, Zaza has complained about being benched over not fulfilling Woody's exact role for him, Marvin and Horford were turned into pure jumpshooters. Really only Josh had rebelled continously over his role and he didn't do much to curb him in that regard so he serves as the lone example against his strategy. Really only guards of above average iso abilities benefited from his "development". Sure plenty can argue that these players are all terrible regardless and he recognized a niche for them from the beginning but even throughout terrible losing seasons he never adjusted the gameplan to see if they could develope more than the roles he gave them outside of limited situations. Beyond that he was a very stubborn coach that was either slow to recognize or just ignored entirely how a game developed and made zero in game adjustments to his original gameplan. Is above all a players' coach though so he would fit better with that Detroit bunch especially after what happened with Kuester but I feel as though it would be a year too late as only Rip would conceivably still remain from that trouble maker group and the Detroit team he helped coached.

thanks for your thoughts on Woodson.
I'm still on the fence with him....
I knew about the overuse of Iso in offense and that's a huge concern since we don't necessarily have a "go to guy", and his inability to adapt his game plan is a little concerning too....

thanks

Honestly, if you look at how he coached, you could say he worked with what he had. Never had a decent Center, so he switched a lot with Josh Smith(who was pretty much the only shot blocker).

I agree with this. Alot of people hated the isos...but it's not easy to put together a good offense when you have no one to draw a double team and the post and more importantly-neither of your two guards(Bibby and Joe)can consistently beat their man off the dribble and get to the foul line in todays post hand check era.

I think you said it right though, when he recognized a niche early, he stuck with it. All Shelden was good at coming out of college, was rebounding. Chilldress, was a Landry Fields type glue guy and was pretty good at doing just that. Zaza, I don't know what role Woody expected of him, but he is bruiser off the bench and never a starter. Marvin needed to be a 3rd or 4th option and only got FGA through late jump shots. I guess you can argue he still he is only a jump shooter though. Horford made a name for himself as a mid range guy. Do you really think Horford will ever be a beast in the paint against skilled 4's?? I mean those guys were pretty much limited themselves. How could they expect to be counted on to do more?

I agree he didn't change up his gameplan or make adjustments, but with what talent could he do so with. Josh was his most talented player, and he kept him under control, but he got out of hand at times and couldn't stay on the floor due to poor decisions. He had no other choice, but run ISO Joe.

Geaux_Hawks wrote:In a nut shell, Woodson was a pretty good player developer, and developed what he had into a 53 game winner at best that challenged an eventual NBA champ in a 7 game series one year. His strong suit was most likely defense and player development. If Detroit is patient and can hold out until Woodson gets a good 3 years with his own draft picks, plus expire some bad contracts, then he will develop the talented players and have them ready to contend eventually.

Not even close to being right.

Woodson was an atrocious player developer, even saying that it wasn't his job. He complained more than once that professionals were supposed to develop themselves.

I know he plans to point at the 6 seasons where our win total improved each year as "proof" of his developmental strength but I screamed for at least the final 5 years that he wasn't even trying to develop his players.

If he had ANY developmental abilities, he'd still be here.

This argument always confuses me. Parson...what head coach do you consider a good developer of talent?

I think that Woodson has been shown to be a pretty damn good judge of young talent. People here bitched that Salim wasn't being used right by him- of course NO other team wanted Salim and he is out of hte league. Shelden has been on at least 5 teams since leaving and has never been more than an OK backup bigman- He probably was more productive as a rookie than he has been in any stop since. Acie Law has been cast aside by at least 4 coaches since leaving and has done nothing to make me think Woodson was wrong about him.

The one player Woodson missed on was Boris Diaw- but to me that was more of D'Antoni getting remarkable production out of him one season using him at center and he has been a pretty unremarkable player since.

Of the players still on the Roster Horford turned into an All-star center under Woodson. JOsh SMith turned into a borderline allstar. (and Woodson got more production out of Josh Smith than Drew has) Woodson also got more production out of Marvin Williams than Drew has but "why" marvin hasn't developed is a pretty open question.

Overall looking back I think you do have to give Woodson a lot of credit for recognizing what young players can help a team and also recognizing what players simply don't have it at this level.

HoopsGuru25 wrote:This argument always confuses me. Parson...what head coach do you consider a good developer of talent?

Are you sure that question's not really "Give me something I can nitpick to _prove_ you wrong."? No analogy is perfect. The moment I give you one, you'll be quick to focus on the differences rather than getting the point.

Mike Woodson, himself, said it wasn't his job to develop players -- he was busy winning games. And Hoops, you were here when we had that argument. You were here when Woodson said it was a professional player's responsibility to develop himself. Remember when Sund came and got Mark Price to teach Marvelous to shoot 3s?

Can you tell where one of our players showed he'd learned a new skill from Woodson?

killbuckner wrote:I think that Woodson has been shown to be a pretty damn good judge of young talent. People here bitched that Salim wasn't being used right by him- of course NO other team wanted Salim and he is out of hte league. Shelden has been on at least 5 teams since leaving and has never been more than an OK backup bigman- He probably was more productive as a rookie than he has been in any stop since. Acie Law has been cast aside by at least 4 coaches since leaving and has done nothing to make me think Woodson was wrong about him.

The one player Woodson missed on was Boris Diaw- but to me that was more of D'Antoni getting remarkable production out of him one season using him at center and he has been a pretty unremarkable player since.

Of the players still on the Roster Horford turned into an All-star center under Woodson. JOsh SMith turned into a borderline allstar. (and Woodson got more production out of Josh Smith than Drew has) Woodson also got more production out of Marvin Williams than Drew has but "why" marvin hasn't developed is a pretty open question.

Overall looking back I think you do have to give Woodson a lot of credit for recognizing what young players can help a team and also recognizing what players simply don't have it at this level.

It's hard to say that Woodson is a good evaluator/developer of young talent based off the fact that lots of ex-Hawks are close to out of the league - that's self-confirming.

As for good talent developers in the league? Gregg Popovitch springs to mind. Pat Riley and Larry Brown are also up there.