Poll: Woody in 10-11

[HoopsGuru25]

I just don't understand your point. Your initial point was that he didn't play them-but now you are saying that he doesn't do anything to develop the ones that he did play(aka the ones who don't suck). How does a HC develop a player's skillset?

[HoopsGuru25]

BTW-Diaw is probably a better example than Law and Shelden. He actually has the talent to be more than a role player but it appears that he's just lazy. Both Larry Brown and Mike D'antoni got 1 good year out of him before he became an uninterested fat ass again.

[parson]

I just don't understand your point. Your initial point was that he didn't play them-but now you are saying that he doesn't do anything to develop the ones that he did play(aka the ones who don't suck). How does a HC develop a player's skillset?

I re-read all my posts on this thread but I can't find what you're talking about concerning the "didn't play/did play" thing, sorry.

But, to "develop a player's skillset" a coach has to teach, something Woodson doesn't do. He manages a game, he choreographs the defense in practice but that's all. When Sund 1st came to us, he told Marvelous to work on his 3pt shot. Where had Woodson been all that time?

To "coach up" a player means to teach him skills to better his game. Some players do it without help, like Josh Smith. Smoove has had a vision of who he wants to be as a player, seemingly, from the start. Look at his jump shots (that EVERYONE hates): in the face of complaints, he says he won't stop shooting them. That's because he sees the kind of player he wants to become and the jumpers are a part of that vision.

Sometimes coaching a player up means patience, especially for a PG. Unless they're the superstar type, points usually take 3-5 years to become real NBA PGs. In the interim, they need reps and time with the starters. They also need for the coach to have their back or else the other players will lose confidence in them. I'll always think that Acie Law coulda been a good PG for us, given proper development. I see some good things in Teague, as well. BUT HE HAS NO CHANCE THE WAY WOODSON TREATS HIM. There is very little chance that Teague will develop the way Woodson plays, then won't play him. Woodson has no confidence in him and treats him that way.

This team is very dependent on (at least) decent PG play ... and Woodson has been given 2 1st round picks at PG. Turns out we should have traded the picks for an established PG, 'cause Woodson cannot develop an NBA-quality PG.

[JoshB914]

This is the NBA, it is up to the player to develop his game and earn playing time. We have been a playoff team for some time now and people still seem to want Woody to arbitrarily play young guys simply for the sake of their development, even though it could easily cost us wins.

I agree that Teague should have been given more consistent minutes early in the season. But if that really does stunt his development to the point that he can't cut it in the NBA then he clearly isn't good enough in the first place.

Blaming Woody for the failure of players like Law, Shelden, and Salim is laughable to me. Shelden couldn't beat out Brian Cardinal for minutes last year, Law has been on three teams this season alone, and Salim hasn't played an NBA game since we let him go. You can't blame the HC for everything, sometimes the players just aren't good enough.

All I care about is wins and losses, and our improvement in that area has been clear. If you are going to argue that Woody had nothing to do with the on court improvement, then you can't turn around and act as if he has had a hand in the lack of development from certain players.

[parson]

This is the NBA, it is up to the player to develop his game and earn playing time.

Yes, a player is responsible for his own body of work and its development, but any coach who believes what you just said is both lazy and short-sighted. What coach wouldn't do better with better players? A coach should want to work on improving each player just to protect and enhance his own job.

Either you draft better players or you coach them up. This is Billy Knight's team; he drafted and traded for the talent you see now. What's Woodson added?

[azuresou1]

Players, like the rest of people, have different personalities. Some are assertive and very aggressively work to get better (e.g. Kobe). Others are lazy and won't work regardless of the circumstances (e.g. Tim Thomas). Most everyone else falls between these two spectrums - which doesn't mean they're lazy, just that they need someone riding them.

A football example is JaMarcus Russell. The book on him was that he wasn't lazy, but that he needed constant supervision and someone pushing him. Then he got drafted by the Raiders who had no supervision and tossed him out there. He's now probably the worst starting QB in the league.

If Rick Sund didn't come in and tell Marvin to pick up a three ball, I'm firmly confident that Marvin still wouldn't be able to shoot. Why is our GM the one who's telling our players what to work on?

[djjob23]

This is the NBA, it is up to the player to develop his game and earn playing time. We have been a playoff team for some time now and people still seem to want Woody to arbitrarily play young guys simply for the sake of their development, even though it could easily cost us wins.

I agree that Teague should have been given more consistent minutes early in the season. But if that really does stunt his development to the point that he can't cut it in the NBA then he clearly isn't good enough in the first place.

Blaming Woody for the failure of players like Law, Shelden, and Salim is laughable to me. Shelden couldn't beat out Brian Cardinal for minutes last year, Law has been on three teams this season alone, and Salim hasn't played an NBA game since we let him go. You can't blame the HC for everything, sometimes the players just aren't good enough.

All I care about is wins and losses, and our improvement in that area has been clear. If you are going to argue that Woody had nothing to do with the on court improvement, then you can't turn around and act as if he has had a hand in the lack of development from certain players.

Your arguement is based solely on a short-term satisfaction. You are right the player has to develop his game, but that doesn't mean Woody cannot make suggestions and help a player improve. He simply does not have the ability to help out players. He wants his players experienced, so he can sit on the bench and let them do the work. I bet any other coach would be intrigued by the talent that surrounded them and try to help develop a player into an All-Star.

If Woody really is such a great coach, then he needs to learn how to use the D-League and let his rookies stop rotting on the bench and get some playing time to improve. D-League is not a demotion, it is for teams such as the Hawks that are playoff contenders that can't afford to put in inexperienced players. So yes, I can blame Woody for the failure of players like Law, Shelden, etc.

Woody only coaches 1/2 of basketball. His defensive coaching is fantastic, but he baby's his players and preaches (a direct quote), "...I don’t give a s*** about the offense; you guys can score more than enough points to win games." If he was a smarter coach, he would utilize his weapons by creating better opportunities for them. We might have the talent to score more than enough points to win games, but if you see that you are having problems on offense, YOU FIX IT!!! Even if (God forbid) it's during a game! THAT'S YOUR JOB!!!

[JoshB914]

^^^ So if our record has improved every season how is Woody not helping out the players? I just don't understand how some can say that all of our improvement is due to the players and the players alone, while the man who has been at the helm gets no credit and is somehow criticized for the shortcomings of the players that couldn't cut it. You guys can't have it both ways. If the improvement of the team over the past five seasons has been solely because of the players, then Woody obviously doesn't have the power or importance to warrant such sweeping criticism regarding player development.

Also, is your point that Salim, Law, Shelden would have had different careers because they went to the D-League? Are you serious? The fact that some could still defend guys who continue to prove to be bona fide SCRUBS everywhere they go is ludicrous.

As for the last paragraph, I think it's worth noting that Woody is absolutely correct about our defense. When we have played at a high intensity level and executed our defense we have won consistently and played our best basketball. Our bread is buttered on that end of the floor.

I've never felt Woody is much more than an average HC. But I really could care less. This league is about personnel and we have the players to do some nice things regardless of whom the HC is (Doc Rivers has an NBA championship ring for crying out loud). There are a few guys that could come in and make a difference and we aren't going to pay for them.

Are we really willing to screw up our team chemistry in order to take a shot in the dark on a wild card as a head coach? Has no one noticed what happened when teams like Milwaukee (Krystowiak), Detroit (Curry and Kuester), and Sacramento (Theus) have tried to score a diamond in the rough on the cheap? Do we really trust ASG to hire the right coach using that method?

[parson]

Are we really willing to screw up our team chemistry in order to take a shot in the dark on a wild card as a head coach?

I'd LOVE to "screw up" our present 4th qtr. "chemistry" ...

[JoshB914]

Would you like to "screw up" a 48-26 record as well by taking a chance on an unproven HC? Be careful what you wish for.

[parson]

Would you like to "screw up" a 48-26 record as well by taking a chance on an unproven HC? Be careful what you wish for.

I'm looking at this last post and asking myself, "Is this the same guy who wrote:

I've never felt Woody is much more than an average HC. But I really could care less. This league is about personnel and we have the players to do some nice things regardless of whom the HC is (Doc Rivers has an NBA championship ring for crying out loud). There are a few guys that could come in and make a difference and we aren't going to pay for them.

Even if we replace Woodson, we will have the same personnel, won't we?

[D21]

BTW-Diaw is probably a better example than Law and Shelden. He actually has the talent to be more than a role player but it appears that he's just lazy. Both Larry Brown and Mike D'antoni got 1 good year out of him before he became an uninterested fat ass again.

I would agree that he's too lazy, and that you can know you will get from him each game, but:
first, he was coming from injury in the beginning of the season, and was out of shape
second, if you think he's just lazy again, you seem to not look at what CHA is doing these last weeks, and Diaw looks to play different since the All-star break.
third, what Woody got from him ? a lazy 13pts/6rbd/5ast (what he's doing since All-star break) ?
No, Woody got nearly nothing because he was unable know how to play him;
D'Antoni and Brown look to have some ideas.

You use Diaw as an example to defend Woody, where it seems to me that it's just one of the worst example for that.
Woody would have trade him and Bell for Richardson in a heartbeat, while Brown has had the guts to do the opposite thing, and lazy or not, CHA is playing at least at .500 since he's there.

[Master8492]

Would you like to "screw up" a 48-26 record as well by taking a chance on an unproven HC? Be careful what you wish for.

I'm looking at this last post and asking myself, "Is this the same guy who wrote:

I've never felt Woody is much more than an average HC. But I really could care less. This league is about personnel and we have the players to do some nice things regardless of whom the HC is (Doc Rivers has an NBA championship ring for crying out loud). There are a few guys that could come in and make a difference and we aren't going to pay for them.

Even if we replace Woodson, we will have the same personnel, won't we?

Also, If they replace Woodson, it'll be someone that is proven. Because Woodson is cheap now so why replace him for some assistant?

In my view, Woody is still an average coach just because he's been coaching for a while. Yes, the record improve every year but only in baby steps. The only record that should be look at is the last 3 years. He's got basically the same team improving the last 3 years...from 37,47 then now 52+(?). So the question is, why isn't the 37 win team won more than they did? Does it mean that he isn't utilizing the team to the fullest potential? and the improvement is therefore base on the talent of the team and the maturity of the players? That's what I thinks.

[JoshB914]

Would you like to "screw up" a 48-26 record as well by taking a chance on an unproven HC? Be careful what you wish for.

I'm looking at this last post and asking myself, "Is this the same guy who wrote:

I've never felt Woody is much more than an average HC. But I really could care less. This league is about personnel and we have the players to do some nice things regardless of whom the HC is (Doc Rivers has an NBA championship ring for crying out loud). There are a few guys that could come in and make a difference and we aren't going to pay for them.

Even if we replace Woodson, we will have the same personnel, won't we?

It's a question, Parson. You are putting words in my mouth rather than answering it. If you think a new HC can make such a big difference in the win column, then don't you think the wrong choice could surely cause a major increase in the loss column as well? Based on the incompetence and lack of resources from ASG, is that really worth the risk?

I've made it clear that coaching in this league doesn't mean nearly as much as it does in sports in the NFL where schemes and strategy are so important. But if I was of the opinion that it did (as you are), I would be very wary about bringing a random HC in here just to see what happens. Especially when we have done nothing but get better under Woody.