Hawks guard Law feels he has 'much to prove'

[killbuckner]

Rip- if you don't know how I can say that then you still aren't objectively looking at how bad Acie was this season.

I will say this again just to help people get some perspective... Sebastian Telfair coming straight out of highschool was better as a rookie than Acie Law. Sebastian Telfair is actually younger than Acie and is an unrestricted free agent. If Telfair got signed by the hawks would anyone be all that upset if he only got 15 minutes a game?

[killbuckner]

HG- absolutely there was a debate over how much Acie should be playing down the stretch. Many people thought that Bibby was playing too many minutes.

[Skyhawk1]

I was completely disappointed in Law's game last season. I do think it has a lot to do with our coaching staff, but he's also got himself to blame. I do not get how you draft a guy who's a shooter in college (not a great shooter though), who played as much PG as SG and wants him to be a good player at the PG position in the NBA. He can barely finish at the rim and needs to improve his shooting selection and defense. For most part of last season I thought we should have just traded him for L. Ridnour when the Sonics wanted the 11th pick. That shows you how much I got impressed with his game. Yes young man, you got a lot to prove.

[JoshB914]

Rip- if you don't know how I can say that then you still aren't objectively looking at how bad Acie was this season.

I will say this again just to help people get some perspective... Sebastian Telfair coming straight out of highschool was better as a rookie than Acie Law. Sebastian Telfair is actually younger than Acie and is an unrestricted free agent. If Telfair got signed by the hawks would anyone be all that upset if he only got 15 minutes a game?

Not to mention Telfair was far more effective than Acie last season.

Rip you talk about our guard defense getting better (anything is better than Bibby), but you ignore how our offense completely dissapeared when Acie was on the floor. Whether you think Acie can improve or not, he was TERRIBLE last season in every facet of the game imaginable. I will agree some of that has to do with injuries, but was it really worth sacrificing the season just to develop Acie?

How can we blame Woody for Acie's problems? Woody straight up said in that article that he just couldn't afford to play Acie at the risk of missing the playoffs. The guy is not about to risk sacrificing his job in order to get a rookie PG some minutes. It makes perfect sense and I don't see why everyone is jumping on him for it. Woody seems to feel bad about leaving a good kid like Acie out of the fold, but I don't think he was willing to get fired over that.

[NDaATL]

I have a feeling that Woody is going to start playing Law 20 minutes a game no matter what this season. Then everyone will jump on him for giving him minutes every night like they did with Zaza.

So you're predicting that Acie will play terrible again next season?

[HoopsGuru25]

I have a feeling that Woody is going to start playing Law 20 minutes a game no matter what this season. Then everyone will jump on him for giving him minutes every night like they did with Zaza.

So you're predicting that Acie will play terrible again next season?

The funny thing is that that quote makes no sense. Who blamed Woody for playing Zaza unless there was someone calling for Horford to play 48 minutes a game?

What I have yet to see is someone explain how Speedy and Lorezan Wright were able to play as much as they did in 2007 if Woody was so focused on making the playoffs. It seems like people forgot how Lo(the worst player on the team) was starting while Shelden was playing spot minutes in Janurary until the point where Joe got hurt in March(the only stretch when just about everyone was healthy). The Woody supporters always ignore this in any discussion when it comes to Acie Law for some reason.

[killbuckner]

HG- BK used up a combined 10 million dollars in caproom in the prior offseason to get Claxton and Wright. You really need an explanation for why they saw the court!? Wright averaged the name number of minutes per game as Acie. Speedy was the starting PG on the team. I just don't know how you see this as an indictment on woody....

[HoopsGuru25]

That's not my point. Wright averaged 15 minutes per game...which is 15 minutes too much considering Shelden minutes were cut WAY down when Wright started. Sheldens two stretches of big playing time were at the beginning of the season when Marvin was hurt and when Joe got hurt and the season was basically over. When the team was healthy in Janurary and Feburary...Lo Wright was the starting center and Shelden was playing spot minutes behind Josh Smith when we actually had Joe/Marvin/Josh/Josh/Zaza healthy at the same time. I'm not buying your argument that BK instructed Woody to play Lo Wright big minutes either considering he used the FIFTH pick on Shelden.

You just said that if Law played 5 more minutes per game(even though they probably would have missed it with AJ anyway BTW)...the Hawks would have missed the playoffs. I actually agree with that. I just have to wonder how you can use this argument in defense of Woody given that Lo Wright playing any minutes in 2007 was a joke...let alone starting during the most pivotal stretch of the season while the 3 big men who were behind him all brought more to the table.

[killbuckner]

HG- Woodson sure appears to believe that veterans can help just by virtue of having been there before and knowing the tricks of the trade. When it comes down to making the playoffs he doesn't believe in playing young guys big minutes for the sake of playing them. But absolutely I think it was a mistake to play Wright that many minutes. If I were the coach and he were producing so little then he would have been buried on the bench. When it comes to making the playoffs I don't believe in playing anyone significant minutes just for the sake of playing them. But I do think that Woodson was playing Wright because he thought it gave the team the best chance to make the playoffs. I don't put as much faith in "veteran presence" as Woodson does but I don't get why you think this makes him inconsistent. I don't intend to defend every woodson decision, just the ones that I think are reasonable.

There are 3 times Woodson plays rookies. When they are good enough to help the team. (Horford) When the team is out of contention for the playoffs. And when he doesn't have any choice because of trades and injuries. Otherwise Woodson seems pretty content to try and put rookies in during low pressure situations so they can get their experience that way. Honestly for a team right on the borderline of playoff contention this isn't an unreasonable choice. Teams assured of making the playoffs can play youngsters more minutes. Teams with no chance of making the playoffs don't ahve to worry about playing their draftpicks. But when the Hawks are facing the very real possibility of missing the playoffs if they play their young guys more then I understand a coach trying to play the guys who he believes give the team the best chance to win.

[smabie]

KB: What if it's the opposite? What if playing Law that extra 5 minutes across the season would have been the difference between 37-45 and 42-42? What if playing Law more might have meant a PG actually playing in Boston during the playoff series (as opposed to Bibby in the role of a mime standing out at mid-court), and thus actually close games instead of a 30-odd point average differential? What if playing Law that extra 5 minutes meant the Hawks finishing with a higher seed and making the 2nd round?

We don't know what would have happened. Maybe you're right, and the Hawks would have finished worse. But maybe you're wrong, and the Hawks would have been better. The Patriots and the Rams, in the past 10 years, both had to play the season with their back-up quarterbacks, at some point. Both won the Super Bowl that season with those same backups. So we can't make assumptions that something would have gone a certain way, and then base our entire position on how someone did on an assumption that never existed. You can base it on what actually happened, or admit that its an opinion and that you may be as wrong as you are correct.

Either way, doesn't change the fact that Law is just the latest of a string of players with potential that Woodson has failed to develop. Blame it on BK for drafting them, or blame it on Woodson for coaching them, or blame it on them for failing to produce. Its an opinion. And everyone's opinion is right, until proven otherwise.

[killbuckner]

smabie- Acie was probably the worst PG in the league that got significant minutes and wasn't waived. (I'd say that Smush and McInnis were worse) He hurt the team being out there by whatever objective measure you would like to use. (+/-, individual stats, efficiency on offense) In the minutes he played he was terrible- if I am betting then playing anyone that bad 33% more minutes would cost the team in the standings.

And I keep saying that time will tell on Whether Woodson or BK are to blame for the crappiness of the bench. Shelden went to Sacramento and did nothing which puts that one on BK to this point. We get another datapoint with Salim for next season- he is an UFA and can go to whatever team fits him the best. Time will tell with Acie as well.

[JoshB914]

KB: What if it's the opposite? What if playing Law that extra 5 minutes across the season would have been the difference between 37-45 and 42-42? What if playing Law more might have meant a PG actually playing in Boston during the playoff series (as opposed to Bibby in the role of a mime standing out at mid-court), and thus actually close games instead of a 30-odd point average differential? What if playing Law that extra 5 minutes meant the Hawks finishing with a higher seed and making the 2nd round?

We don't know what would have happened. Maybe you're right, and the Hawks would have finished worse. But maybe you're wrong, and the Hawks would have been better. The Patriots and the Rams, in the past 10 years, both had to play the season with their back-up quarterbacks, at some point. Both won the Super Bowl that season with those same backups. So we can't make assumptions that something would have gone a certain way, and then base our entire position on how someone did on an assumption that never existed. You can base it on what actually happened, or admit that its an opinion and that you may be as wrong as you are correct.

Either way, doesn't change the fact that Law is just the latest of a string of players with potential that Woodson has failed to develop. Blame it on BK for drafting them, or blame it on Woodson for coaching them, or blame it on them for failing to produce. Its an opinion. And everyone's opinion is right, until proven otherwise.

Completely correct. We don't know what would have happened if we had played Acie. And Woody, who is a conservative coach, was not willing to take that risk when he would have lost his job if it went wrong.

If you guys were fighting for your job as HC of the Hawks, would you play an untested rookie PG (who had shown very little and is banged up to begin with) extended minutes? You have to consider the coach's situation before you critique a move like this. I totally understand the opposing view on Law, I'm just trying to explain that the way Woody handled it wasn't as ridiculous as you'd say.

[NDaATL]

If you guys were fighting for your job as HC of the Hawks, would you play an untested rookie PG (who had shown very little and is banged up to begin with) extended minutes? You have to consider the coach's situation before you critique a move like this.

If Anthony Johnson and Tyronn Lue are the only other PGs on the roster, yes. I'm not saying I'd give Law 35 minutes a game, but I'd give him a consistent 20 and hope he develops. It is blatantly obvious that we wouldn't have made the playoffs with AJ and Lue getting the minutes, we were 7-19 in our last 26 before we traded them. We were NOT going to make the playoffs and AJ and Lue were also playing terrible. With Law, there was at least a chance he'd gain confidence and start playing better. Lue and AJ just aren't good and had no chance of getting better. I think without that trade, our only chance to make the playoffs was to hope that Acie played better with consistent minutes, as he did early in the season when given a starting opportunity.

Now, after the Bibby trade, of course I wouldn't try and develop the rookie.

[JoshB914]

The ship was definetely sinking when we traded for Bibby. Law probably would have started to see extended minutes at some point if we stuck with those guys. But if you look at the stats AJ and even Lue were better than Acie. But I guess that is another argument for another day.

[NDaATL]

The ship was definetely sinking when we traded for Bibby. Law probably would have started to see extended minutes at some point if we stuck with those guys. But if you look at the stats AJ and even Lue were better than Acie. But I guess that is another argument for another day.

Yes, they were statistically slightly better, but they were still terrible. I'd rather play the guy who could gain confidence and chemistry with the team rather than stick with the old vets who are leading the team nowhere fast.