Does hiring Drew put all the blame on Woodson?

[parson]

I've waited a few days because I am, admittedly, prejudiced against Mike Woodson and blaming him would come easy to me.

Buuuut... by hiring Larry Drew and keeping (or trying to keep) things as much the same as possible, aren't the owners saying that this team only needed to get rid of Woodson? Aren't they saying we're a playoff team and a title contender without Woodson? That is, if we can either keep Joe or get fair value for him, then a better coach could be expected to lead us to stand against the best in the East?

The fan in me is hoping they are right but, if not, the only options remaining are ineptitude or frugality.

[td00]

I wish it were that simple, but if we are being truthful, we saw how Josh acted after he missed a shot...we saw how JJ simply had nothing go right for him in the playoffs.....we saw Bibby wad up and sit on the bench during crucial stretches...and where was Marvin after getting that long-term deal?

Too many things to put on Woody alone; the coaching staff and the players should have all been held accountable. Resigning JJ to the max (which he will probably get elsewhere) will not bode well going forward.

But I expect nothing but a JJ signing to happen this offseason.

[parson]

Yeah, but the owners, are the owners believers, stupid or cheap?

[MaceCase]

All the blame goes on Woodson if Marvin averages 18 and 8, Smoove gets 12 rebounds a game and shoots 60% from the field, Joe averages 23 points in 35 minutes and Teague averages 14 and 6. Short of that happening I can't see a way where all the blame is put on Woody, he did accomplish quite a bit despite his shortcomings.

[parson]

But, by only changing Woodson out, ...
...do you believe the owners are saying Woodson was the problem or ...
...do you believe the owners are foolish or ...
...do you believe the owners are simply cheap?

[theatlfan]

Yeah, it's a little bit of a stab @ Woodson, but no, I think the owners would really think it was strictly that Drew was the best interview. If you've seen the "Outside the Lines: Bobby Cox" (aired @ every Braves rain delay all year), there's an interesting quote by Ted Turner. After just having fired Bobby Cox in his 1st go around with the Braves, Turner was aked what he was looking for in a manager. His answer: "Someone like Bobby Cox". Why bring this up? Sometimes - whether for good or ill - there's at least the illusion that one needs to be a shakeup to get out of a rut. Firing the coach is the easiest way for ownership to shake things up, even if the guy that is currently the coach has all the qualities that you'll be looking for in the new coach. This is 2x so when the guy has been there for 6 years and people are looking @ your team as "topped out". The FO decided to fire Woodson without knowing exactly who the new coach would be.

Once the decision was made to break from the old coach, then the FO started interviewing candidates. Once it was determined who the candidates were and how the FO felt about those candidates, then the decision was made as to who to be the new coach. In no way were the 2 situations (firing the last coach and hiring the new one) related; both decisions were made in the best judgments of the FO at that time. Does it look odd when taken in retrospect? Yes, but I do think it's best to make the decision "in the moment" and without any regard as to how a set of decisions would look to those no longer associated to the organization. Only that the organization is always better off after every decision.

EDIT: Sorry, after reading over this, it sounds like that I'm saying that Drew was the absolute best candidate in the entire world and the $$ had absolutely nothing to do with the decision. I'm not saying that. The collection of candidates for the job was financially motivated and Drew was picked out of this set.

[evildallas]

Woodson has always been part of the problem, but never the whole problem. Hiring Drew doesn't put more blame on Woodson because there is more to it than just promoting an assistant. There is money, the looming lockout, and the obvious signs that the team quit on Woodson in the playoffs. Quitting on a coach in the playoffs is never solely about the coach himself. If the players have the maturity and personal drive themselves then they never fully quit like that. Their own pride keeps them playing hard no matter how little respect they still have for the coach.

I also agree with some of the points already made. If Drew gets more out of the same players with a different approach then Woodson will look more and more culpable in retrospect.

[killbuckner]

To me this is just the owners admitting that they don't see the Hawks current roster as being able to compete for a championship so they might as well save money on the coach.

[azuresou1]

To me this is just the owners admitting that they don't see the Hawks current roster as being able to compete for a championship so they might as well save money on the coach.

Phil Jackson was the assistant under Doug Collins who got promoted after Collins failed to take them to the Finals in 3 straight years. Phil won the year after he got promoted with close to the exact same lineup.

I don't see anything wrong with promoting an assistant over hiring an outsider, particularly when those outsiders either A) also lack experience (Mark Jackson, Dwane Casey), or B) failed to get it done with a superior roster (Avery Johnson).

[FCNATL85]

Firing Woodson is putting the blame on wWoodson not who you are replacing him with.
That being said from a source close from Woody he was starting not only to be stubborn but also arrogant apparently...

[HoopsGuru25]

Firing Woodson is putting the blame on wWoodson not who you are replacing him with.

I disagree. They would have fired him years ago if that was the case.

I'm not really anti-Larry Drew(as opposed to Casey or Jackson) but let's be realistic. The ASG is running the team on the cheap. The only problem is that the city(not directed @ the diehards who post here)are just as bad & uncommitted as the ownership so it's easier for them to get away with.

[evildallas]

I'm in a wait and see mood, but I would love if a year from now Larry Drew makes Woodson in retrospect seem like the root of all evil and was holding the Hawks back for years. That's a long shot, but if that happens I think we'd all be a lot happier.

[FCNATL85]

Firing Woodson is putting the blame on wWoodson not who you are replacing him with.

I disagree. They would have fired him years ago if that was the case.

all together Woodson kept the team together and brought them back to the PO and 50+ wins season. That being said, he has reached his ceiling and I think that since the group did not change much, in that case, it is always the coach who the wrong guy, no matter who you replace him with. drew just happened to be the assistant (and cheap, and knowing the players, etc...) but it does not put any more blame on Woody. Same thing will happen to Drew if he does not do better, period.

[Harry10]

any coaching change without any major player change will issue an assumption that it is all Woody's fault.

i think the hiring does three things. it gets a coach for cheap, it gets a Xs and Os PG coach that can help the team on offense, because Josh and Al can already captain the team on the defensive end, and it gets a coach that the players like, which i think is very important in the NBA, because we see players quit on a-hole coaches all the time like Byron Scott or Avery Johnson or Isiah Thomas.