Summer of Sund begins

I’d be amazed if you haven’t heard the news yet. Whichever direction the Atlanta Hawks go in now, Mike Woodson will not be a part of it. According to NBA.com’s Sekou Smith (first to report it, that I know of), Woodson was told by management that he will not be offered a new contract.

You can join the conversation with Jeff Schultz, ajc.com sports blogger  and AJC columnist, who’s  weighed in with more detailed reporting and opinion on the move.

So Long, So Short

No one can deny that the Hawks improved from year to year under Mike Woodson, and that is often the first thing out of the mouth of anybody who is not looking to cast him in a negative light. It can be and has been argued that his part in such improvement (going from 13 wins in his first year to 53 in this, his last) was not all, or even mostly why the team improved. One would also have to account for the moves made by former GM Billy Knight, and those of current GM Rick Sund. But that argument may be somewhat stale in the minds of many, and he does deserve credit for improvement in a number of ways. A team simply cannot improve from year to year without something going right for the guy in the suit on the sidelines.

The problem for Woodson is in the details, and in the postseason. Improvement as an end result (regular season victory total) is always good, but the result does not end with the regular season if your team is good enough. The Hawks struggled in the playoffs each time they went. Arguably, this team’s best showing under him was it’s first showing (2008), wherein they took eventual champion Boston to 7 games. As many NBA coaches have found out, you can win big in the regular season, but the postseason is where you are judged more closely. Weaknesses are exposed, strengths are exploited, and counter measures have to be taken. Under Woodson, the Hawks struggled with all three. Finally, his full body of work resulted in personal overall losing regular and postseason records.

Was it a matter of talent, experience, and effort on the court? I’d say that it was to an extent, but the other side of the coin asks whether or not use of talent was a problem as well. Either way, the Hawks go forward with a philosophy that will be different than it has been in the last six years. Mike Woodson did a lot for this team, but in the end, his full body of work was not enough for management to think he should be retained.

AJC beat writer Michael Cunningham describes the situation on his Hawks beat blog.

May Woodson L.I.P (Leave in Peace)

Whatever you may think of him, Mike Woodson was honest and had class. He never was one to publicly upbraid his players as some coaches have done. While some have done that (even to a degree of success), that was never his way. Furthermore, he was never that hard on us fans, leaving most (if not all) of his barbs for the media, when he chose to throw any.

Woodson’s resume may or may not be glowing, but it won’t keep him from getting another job. Nor do I believe that players or management will have much negative to say about him as he ships off. My guess is we’ll see him coaching somewhere else before long, maybe sooner than we expect. One place I can’t see him is on tv as some sports network’s analyst or commentator. But hey, you never know.

So long, Mike. Thanks for helping to bring winning seasons to Atlanta Hawks basketball.

The Continued Saga

Now you know this is far from over. Rick Sund is not known for his lightning quick strikes, the matching of Josh Smith’s contract offer from Memphis a couple of years ago notwithstanding. How long will he take to name a new coach? Will the Hawks be more discreet than in times past, and will they hit their mark, rather than strike out the way they used to? The rumors around the league after Billy Knight walked away (or was pushed, depending on what you believe), and that preceeded Sund’s hiring had to have been an embarrassment to the organization. Chances are, discretion will be the word of the day. Yet more questions abound. How long has Sund been planning to let Woodson go? I’ll go out on a limb and guess that few of us are willing to believe that he only came to a decision in the last 48-72 hours. What sort of coach might he be after, and will it be somebody he has worked with before?

Nobody knows, and there aren’t even any juicy false rumors to work with, yet. Sund seems like one who likes to take him time on a lot of things, but a quick strike here might be a good thing. Or will it? You’d almost have to think that the man has been doing his homework just in case Woody and the Hawks didn’t come through and show real improvement in the playoffs (which they didn’t). What do you think? Is moving relatively fast the way to go? Will the Hawks make a “splash” here, or will it be another subtle move that goes largely under the radar?

Also, what effect might this have on whether or not Joe Johnson decides to remain in Atlanta? Would he welcome a different coach, perhaps one who would modify his role? Or is he wanting to bolt no matter who comes in?

The Summer of Sund has begun. Stay tuned….

239 comments Add your comment

Big Ray

May 17th, 2010
9:43 pm

Heh, heh, heh…

I think I attempted to differentiate complaining about mental issues from physical ones. What do you think, should a coach complain about a player’s physical limitations? I don’t.

And I think that once you made your point clear, it was also made clear to you that others saw this as Hollins NOT COMPLAINING, but acknowledging and addressing a situation. I don’t see this as him offering insult or injury to his players. I think he defended them more than anything else.

I also see him saying that to win matchups and get better, you go out and get guys who can help you in areas that you are weak. That’s all I saw.

Now, you’ll likely continue to disagree. I’m cool with that. We’re disagreeing. Nothing new there…

Astro Joe

May 17th, 2010
9:44 pm

that Hollins was suggesting that weak areas (when they occured, which was not all the time) were best addressed by adding people who helped in those areas.

And this is why I like execs like Sund, who would NEVER give such an interview. There is NO good reason to discuss a roster’s short-comings with a writer. NONE. It can’t do a single thing to help the team, only hurt the team. If he can’t convince his boss, the GM to add the right assets in private, chances are slim to none that he will be successful in the press.

IMO, a coach should NEVER complain about holes in his roster to the media. Ultimately, he is admitting that he has failed to win with something less than perfection. Or, he is admitting that his ability to influence his GM or owner is flawed.

Sautee

May 17th, 2010
9:44 pm

AJ,

C’mon, man. Admonishing his players?

Isn’t that something you would do face to face?

You saw the honesty in Hollins answers. He didn’t attempt to be PC, he just told it like it is. Why would someone that direct need to “admonish” a player in the media?

From what I read, he doesn’t have a problem with them being who they are, but acknowledges that where there are areas that are lacking, the team needs to shore those up. Couldn’t that be said of ANY team?

And what happened to wanting tough old Bill Laimbeer to come bust some heads and make us tougher? Were you worried about the players being admonished then?

Melvin

May 17th, 2010
9:51 pm

Astro,

You mention 1 or 2 of Hollins statements and trying to change the undertone of the interview. Funny how you ignore the fact that he defended his players as well. What do you want him to say about a team that won 40 games and failed to make the playoffs? Everyone knows that his team is flawed. The lack of bench depth is the scouting consensus around the league about the Grizzy. That’s why he mentions that they need to balance the roster ala what the Pistons did in the 80s. That Pistons team already had a good nucleus (Isiah, Laimbeer, etc) then added Rodman and Salley to become a Championship team. The Grizzly has a nice starting 5 but need to upgrade their bench. That’s why Z-Bo have to play 36+ mins but if they had quality reserves then you wouldn’t have to play him heavy mins on the nights that he’s being overmatched by the opposing player. I found the guy to be very honest and accurate about his team.
Heck, I recalled Woody saying that his team has no answer to slow down Howard. Was that a shot at his All-star center Horford? Was he calling out ZaZa abilities as well? Maybe he thinks RandMo and Collins are worthless too.

Sautee

May 17th, 2010
9:56 pm

Melvin,

Maybe that was Woody’s way of “admonishing” them. ;-)

Astro Joe

May 17th, 2010
9:56 pm

Sautee, AGAIN, I’d love for Laimbeer to put a foot up someone’s butt for not hustling, setting a bad screen, not blocking out, making a careless pass, stalling ball movement, holding the ball for 8 seconds while the double comes over to trap the ball and numerous other MENTAL mistakes. Have at it. Pull out his belt and give them an old fashioned daddy whopping. All of that. And after he is done, do it again in case they forget.

But if he says “he need more athletcism at the 4/5″, I’m going to be ticked off. In my mind, there is a difference.

Astro Joe

May 17th, 2010
10:00 pm

Melvin, I already said that I didn’t read the entire interview… my point of reference was your 11:21 excerpt.

Did Hollins mention who they were “over-matched against”? I didn’t read the whole interview, did he mention the game’s top center or did he leave it up for interpretation?

Big Ray

May 17th, 2010
10:01 pm

As far as how the Memphis GM feels about this interview…

Hollins made it clear that he gets a chance to voice his opinion on everything. So anything he said in this interview? Probably been said in far more detail to the GM well before this.

I have a hard time seeing a coach calling out his players for their athleticism, then turning around and nearly rabidly defending a lottery pick that had to be sent to the D-League, and another whom even the fans haven’t been all that pleased with.

I’m just not seeing it.

Astro Joe

May 17th, 2010
10:02 pm

Ray… I did not read the whole interview… I only read the 11:21 excerpt. Maybe I should write that another 50 times.

Astro Joe

May 17th, 2010
10:03 pm

11:21 excerpt.

Astro Joe

May 17th, 2010
10:03 pm

Melvin’s 11:21 excerpt.

Astro Joe

May 17th, 2010
10:04 pm

The short version enetered by Melvin at 11:21.

Astro Joe

May 17th, 2010
10:04 pm

One that I could read quickly while in the office… at 11:21… from Melvin… excerpt.

Astro Joe

May 17th, 2010
10:05 pm

46 more to go.

Melvin

May 17th, 2010
10:05 pm

Astro,

“Melvin, I already said that I didn’t read the entire interview… my point of reference was your 11:21 excerpt.”

I overlooked the above statement previously. So now, I rest my case. You may want to read the entire article before passing judgement or at least see why Ray, Sautee and I defending Hollins.

Sautee

May 17th, 2010
10:06 pm

AJ,

OK, I get it.

So when the sports analysts say that the Hawks are more athletic than other teams, they are actually throwing all those less athletic teams under the bus, right?

WTF????

Is it a sin to be less athletic than other players in the league? (Nash wants to know)

You act like Hollins has called these guys out for their less athletic ways. I think he was just calling it like it is. Just like when Woody said we didn’t have an answer for Howard. Did THAT tick you off?

doc

May 17th, 2010
10:06 pm

aj,no woody might say we need more bulk at the five and maybe a 4 than can shoot from the outside on occasion to stretch the defense ala the magic power forward. woody spoke with his hands, they remained on his chest and he never waved some of his guys into the game. i guess a rotation of seven p;ayers is a bit of an admonition, too. sometimes woody would admonish by saying a guy was a rookie. look rook dont take it personal but if you are playing the first year you need to watch what is going on or if you make a veteran mistake then we will call it a rookie mistake and end your night, too.

man who flipped you over? now you are singing feelings and worried bout who might have them hurt first, when last week complaing that somone needs to do a number on josh.

Big Ray

May 17th, 2010
10:06 pm

AJ ,

Good Lord. You didn’t even read the whole interview. No wonder everything is out of context. Here I was thinking we were arguing over the bulk of things, and you don’t even know the whole story. Geezzz…

Astro Joe

May 17th, 2010
10:07 pm

Melvin, Isee it based on what you all have said. And could you see why I responding like I did to the 11:21 post… by you… at 11:21? Short version… In office… exceprt?

Astro Joe

May 17th, 2010
10:09 pm

So when the sports analysts say that the Hawks are more athletic than other teams, they are actually throwing all those less athletic teams under the bus, right?

Sautee, so would that be the very definition of putting words in my mouth? Come on Mr. I Don’t Engage in Hyperbole…. fess up… it is cleansing to the soul. Leaping from a view of what a coach said about his players has NOTHING to do with what analysts say, now does it? Fess up…. HYPERBOLE!!!!!

Astro Joe

May 17th, 2010
10:12 pm

Man, who mentioned the old hadicapped match a few weeks ago? I’m taking on 4 blog legnds… it don;t get much better than this.

doc, welcome to the fray. If Teague took “Rook” the same way a player could take “over-matched” then Woody deserves to be fired. Oops, too late.

Big Ray

May 17th, 2010
10:12 pm

Sorry, AJ . I didn’t realize that I was supposed to read every post you made to Melvin about his excerpt.

I guess I shouldn’t have assumed that posting the link might have actually led to somebody reading the article it contained.

Melvin

May 17th, 2010
10:13 pm

Astro,

The statement below was the first sentence of my post @11:21.. heh,heh

“I particular like the this part of the interview below with Hollins”

Astro Joe

May 17th, 2010
10:14 pm

And Ray, I didn’t realize that I couldn’t respond to an excerpt but had to read the entirety of an interview. Lessons learned, huh?

Sautee

May 17th, 2010
10:14 pm

AJ,

OF COURSE it was hyperbole. But it FINALLY got your attention.

Now answer my question please. When Woody said we had no answer for Howard, did it tick you off?

And if not, please explain why THAT was ok, but what Hollins said was wrong.

Big Ray

May 17th, 2010
10:15 pm

Man, who mentioned the old hadicapped match a few weeks ago? I’m taking on 4 blog legnds… it don;t get much better than this.

:lol: Ah, but you LIKE it that way, or you wouldn’t keep coming back for more. Don’t be coy, it’s girlish…

Big Ray

May 17th, 2010
10:17 pm

“And Ray, I didn’t realize that I couldn’t respond to an excerpt but had to read the entirety of an interview.”

Hah. You’ll do it again next week, you didn’t learn a damn thing. :lol:

Astro Joe

May 17th, 2010
10:17 pm

Melvin, I knew it was an excerpt… thus the often used word… excerpt. I just focused on that specific excerpt.

Isn’t a quote an excerpt? Haven;t we waxed poetic on quotes around here before?

Big Ray

May 17th, 2010
10:18 pm

Melvin ,

The statement below was the first sentence of my post @11:21.. heh,heh

“I particular like the this part of the interview below with Hollins”

Yes, that would be the key phrase, would it not?

Astro Joe

May 17th, 2010
10:19 pm

Ray, girlish would be to go to bed, which is what I want to do because I am dead tired… but I’d be fearful of appearing to be girlish. And girlish would be to make a personal attack (which fortunately has not happened here tonight).

Sautee

May 17th, 2010
10:21 pm

AJ,

I’ll beat you to it (sleep).

But remember to come back tomorrow to answer me.

Astro Joe

May 17th, 2010
10:22 pm

Sautee, Woody was wrong for substituting Horford after 1 foul in Game 1 and I said so immeidately.

Saying that the Hawks have no answer for the game’s best center is different than saying that your 4/5 are over-matched against nameless opponents.

If someone told you that you suck relative to the best, isn’t that different than saying that you suck in general? I think so.

Melvin

May 17th, 2010
10:23 pm

Astro,

I would be interested in your perspective after you read the entire article. Maybe the 4 horsemen can allow you time to read it before we jump you again backstage while the cameras are rolling. Hopefully this time, Mean Gean can tell the fans to tuned in tomorrow while we are beating you down as the show goes off….

Astro Joe

May 17th, 2010
10:23 pm

And someone, please tell me when I said that I didn’t understand that it was an excerpt.

Big Ray

May 17th, 2010
10:26 pm

“Whichever player said that Woody plays favorites needs to be immediately traded, because that player does not know or like to compete. And we don’t need that type of player on our team. I’m not saying that the player was lying, just that he needs to be kicked off the team for being a , well, what’s the name of a famous female dog…. a Lassie… there you go, a Lassie.”

Still not clear on why you trade a player that says something like that, even if it’s true. Has said player failed to put forth the effort and work into their game? I can see trading them for that. Has said player contributed to a locker room problem? Again, I can see the need to mull trading such a person.

I recall Amare Stoudamire seemingly at the root of every Phoenix Suns issue for the last few years, complaining (publicly, even) about everything from playing with Shaq to who knows what. Suns never traded him. Now they are in the West Finals.

We have a few players who “reportedly” made some complaints about something (and may not have been lying) and we should trade them? Can you imagine if all teams did that…

Hey…didn’t Lassie rescue or help rescue somebody in nearly every episode? Wasn’t it that little idiot kid Timmy who was always getting into trouble?

Man, AJ….you gotta get your suspects right, bro’.

Sautee

May 17th, 2010
10:27 pm

AJ,

“If someone told you that you suck relative to the best, isn’t that different than saying that you suck in general? I think so.”

And this means WHAT relative to what Hollins actually said?

OK, that’s all for me tonight. See y’all manana.

Big Ray

May 17th, 2010
10:32 pm

Yes, I am trying to keep Astro Joe up, because I wouldn’t want him to go to bed and be girlish (by his own definition). :)

I wonder how many times we’re going to hear EXCERPT before he finally reads the dang article… :lol:

Big Ray

May 17th, 2010
10:33 pm

Melvin ,

I already jumped him for something else he said. Trying to keep his juices flowing. He’s running out of steam. ;)

Astro Joe

May 17th, 2010
10:35 pm

Ray, changing subjects, huh? OK, I’ll play.

Why not compete to become one of Woody’s favorite. Heck, let’s take Woody out of it. Next head coach comes in. Shouldn’t each and every player compete to be on his “preferred list”?

Sautee, I thought you were bringing the Howard discussion in as a comparison to the Hollins debate. Maybe not. If it’s a stand-alone comment with no relevence to the previous discussion, then the answer is “saying that your center is fallling short against someone with Howard’s credentials is mostly stating the obvious. It is a specific statement using a specific player as the baseline.

Astro Joe

May 17th, 2010
10:40 pm

I’ve got Nate the Gnat buzzing in my ear tonight. Shoo, bug, shoo!

Astro Joe

May 17th, 2010
10:41 pm

Melvin, heck, too late to read it now. I’ll try to read it tomorrow.

Astro Joe

May 17th, 2010
10:47 pm

Ok, 5 minute count-out.

I declare myself the… yawn… the… yawn… oh,… good night all.

O'Brien

May 17th, 2010
10:52 pm

AJ,

did it bother you when woody said to the media that he uses the switching defense to hide some deficiencies of some players?

Because he might have well have said bibby and Crawford play horrible defense.

Did it bother you when woody said last week that bibby is old now, and not the player that he was, and has probably taken us as far as he can?

Either way, I look forward to your posts after reading the entire article.

Big Ray

May 17th, 2010
11:08 pm

Astro Joe

Why not? Until you read the entire article, I see no point in hashing over a narrow viewpoint that is only an EXCERPT of the entire body of work, which was what was originally being discussed. You made your point, I made mine. You know the result.

And we only changed to another subject brought up by YOU.

Speaking of changing subjects, you didn’t answer any of my questions. You did offer another viewpoint.

Here’s my answer: I don’t care about playing to be a coach’s favorite. Let me expound.

1)I’d rather have guys that act grown are more interested in playing to be the best they can be. Playing to help the team in the best way they can.

2)What’s worse than complaining about the teacher’s pet? Trying to become the teacher’s pet. Who is on the court with you, the teacher, or the other pets? Are you going to engender any trust in the others by trying to be top pet, or on the “preferred pet” list?

3)What if you play to be his favorite, and it doesn’t work? Are you going to pout now? Are you going to be a malcontent because life is not fair?

That’s what I liked so much about what Hollins said. He made it clear that he got onto all of his players. Then there was this:

GC: What’s your pecking order?

LH: We don’t have one.

GC: Can you win without a pecking order?

LH: Yeah, if everybody is willing to make sacrifices. I think Zach is probably our pecking order. And then Rudy and O.J. are 2 and 2a, depending on the night. But all those guys made sacrifices. Rudy made great sacrifices, O.J. made great sacrifices, to allow the guy who helped us make the biggest improvement get established. Once he was established, they just felt in line. They knew he was the man who was going to butter the bread. So we do have a slight pecking order. But when you have a group of nothing but young players, that’s a fight every day.

And I think here is where we might be able to draw some comparisons to the Hawks, and what I believe some of their problems entail. Guys made sacrifices on that Memphis squad. Are guys doing that on the Hawks squad?

This is more on the players than it is on the coach, though the coach can suggest, persuade, and encourage things to some degree. But it’s on the players.

All the same, the point is that this “favorites” thing has to be nonexistant.

Now, if a player is confusing favoritism with delegation due to what the coach judges as far as talent and capability, then said player has an issue of his own. I mean, if a coach decides that player X is the best scorer and will get the most shots, then player Y should not be complaining about that. If player X never or rarely receives criticism for doing the same things that player Y does wrong, then yes there is an issue.

However, to me it’s on the coach to communicate to the player what is going to happen and why.

It’s on the player to accept what the coach is going to do, giving input where the coach allows it (and there are varying degrees of this, which I won’t get into, it’s up to the coach/player situation/relationship).

If a player can’t understand the difference between “playing favorites” and “doing what works best for the team”, then yeah, they’ve got a problem. But problems can be worked out, sometimes.

Big Ray

May 17th, 2010
11:10 pm

O’brien ,

I thought it was a great article. Tis why when I saw the link posted (and somebody brought up one of those sneaky little EXCERPTS), I went and read the whole thing.

Good stuff, I thought.

vava74

May 18th, 2010
6:38 am

Ray,

I admit that I only read the excerpt. Nonetheless, I still think that the reference to Grant and Pippen was out of line with regard to the interview’s thread.

On the subject: I think that Hollins’ intention was good but he may have not been clear enough.

He should have been clearer in saying that he is very happy with the group of players he has now but there is a glaring need to complement the current technical and physical talent with players which fill in the gaps where there are deficiencies.

The Hawks are a good example, as mentioned already above: given the fact that Al is frequently over matched at the 5 position, we need a backup center which complements his characteristics: namely we need a guy which brings size and physicality off the bench.

Unfortunately, Zaza is not that guy. He is also over matched since offensively he is a “finesse” finisher and defensively, although aggressive, he is neither athletic, nor strong enough to fill this gap effective, ending up playing a lot smaller than his listed 6′11” size and 275 lbs weight.

Finally, again on the coaching front:

If we really want to re-sign JJ, our best hope lies with signing a top tier HC (Scott or Avery).

I think that that move would pay off: a higher cost with a coach which would allow a higher degree of success in re-signing him.

wordsmithtom

May 18th, 2010
7:04 am

I read the “can we call Marvin a bust now” piece, and the comments. Not much has been added to that discussion, but I must add my two cents. I know those who say he’s NOT CP will continue to complain. Trading a guy who’s sub-25 that’s NEVER been a troublemaker, always deferring to his teammates, because he’s NOT CP would be a huge mistake. A new coach with the insight to use his athleticism, yes athleticism….he runs, he passes, he is a lights out foul shooter….by including him in a high post offence. Not all the time, but enough to give teams another look. A point forward who will hit those free throws. Can you see him dishing to Al or JS? Yes, this takes the ball out of our iso/guard offence. New coach, new ideas.

Don’t blame the players for Woody’s poor use. Marvin is an excellent example.

Oh, I like Lambeer; I like AJ; I like Patrick Ewing even. Mark Price I’m ok with. Anybody with a different way to use the talent we have. Forgetabout the talent we don’t have. Forgetabout CP3 and everybody else. Look for ways to use what we have. Example, when we went to Horford in the post, we tended to prosper. When we went ISO guard, we lived and died by the heat of the hand holding the ball. That’s not team ball. Bring in a coach who understands team ball. Ewing, AJ, Lambeer all fit that model.

Big Ray

May 18th, 2010
8:34 am

Wordsmithtom ,

I don’t think that you should trade a guy because of who/what he isn’t .

I think you trade him because you’ve found a way to somehow get better. It doesn’t always mean an upgrade in talent or a particular skill. It could mean finding a better fit.

In the case of Marvin, the fact that he isn’t CP3, or Deron Williams, or Rajon Rondo, or a host of other guys who were picked lower, but are having far more impactful careers….really has nothing to do with Marvin. I’ve yet to see a single player pick himself in a draft. But let’s get past all of that.

Marvin has skills and abilities, but we’ve yet to see them be consistent. I take that back. I thought he was fairly consistent (if unspectacular) in ‘07-’08, and in ‘08-’09. In ‘09-’10, that changed. I do fault Woody on some of this (cue the rant from Astro Joe right about now….), but I also have watched Marvin play brilliantly and with good body control in one game, only to completely disappear altogether after several flops and flails. I don’t get it.

Should we see what he can be under another coach? Well, that’s up to Sund. But if a good opportunity to upgrade in an area where it’s needed comes along, then I say go for it. One other thing, I don’t see Marvin as a point forward. He seriously lacks the aggressiveness needed. You can’t do anything like that if you’re deferring. It’s why Josh was able to do it. He has a problem NOT deferring at times, if anything.

I see a guy who is also tentative when he dribbles, whether it is in the open court (which he all but refuses to do), or trying to take an opponent in the half court. How much of THAT is Woody?

I’m not saying throw the baby out with the bathwater. But I’m just not seeing in Marvin what I thought I used to. I’d be content to settle for a good steady, role player. Beyond that, I expect nothing.

Vava ,

I find your points of view excerpt-tionally interesting. :lol:

wordsmithtom

May 18th, 2010
9:16 am

Ray, I have no problem with a trade of Marvin if we improve the team. Can we maximize his worth at a time when the market thinks he’s a “bust”? I don’t think so; many are like me…. No, I don’t see him bringing up the ball. That’s a guard’s job. I do, however, see him a benefit of placing him on the high post, instead of standing around on the rim. That improves overall ball movement: it centers movement around a guy who CAN hit foul shots, unlike Josh; it opens up the court for guard movement…..unlike what we see in ISO/Joe-Crawford.

Again, this as a supplement to what we’re doing. Sometimes, ISO/guard is a good thing. Don’t do away with it. All’s I’m saying we’re getting red beans and rice at every meal and I’m tired of it.

I’m tired of seeing a 6-9 guy sitting on the wings where he can’t be fouled. When he’s crashing the boards, he gets fouled, and he HITS foul shots. That didn’t happen in the playoffs.

Astro Joe

May 18th, 2010
10:17 am

Ray, I agree that playing favorites is not the way to lead a group. That much is obvious. But I also feel strongly that employees MUST be able to adopt to any style offered by their bosses. It’s pretty simple to me, you don’t typically get to choose your boss. A high performer must have the attitude that they will find a way to succeed in any climate. or at least compete. If you’re not willing to compete even in a bad environment, I don’t want you around. I hope that our next coach is equally demanding on all players. And if he isn’t, I hope each and every one of our players work extra hard to compete for the preferred list despite the obstacles. Life isn’t always alley-oop dunks, free throws and easy rebounds, sometimes you have to face adversity and 5 guys trying to stop you. And yes, I absolutely apply the same value to my personal work life. If you can’t figure out the rules, then don’t play the game. Complaining about the rules should not be an option… just leave the field of play.

OB, I know some will view it as a nuance but I don’t. If a coach says that he has a problem with the physical limitations at his X and Y position, that is different than saying I need to hide 1 of my 5 players on defense. To me, explicitly pin-pointing the problem to the media is different than leaving it up for others to figure it out. If my work group is under-performing, I’d rather have my boss say to the broader organization that we have some weak links that we need to support rather than say the guy sitting in office 4A34 is sucking wind. One leaves it up for others to interpret, the other pin-points the location of the problem… to me that id different. But it’s a moot point because I have been told repeeatedly that he wasn’t calling any player out… I’m just responding to your specific post from 10:52 last night.

Actually, there was no value in Woody disclosing his conversation with Bibby. None. And had I thought that he was going to return, I would have had a problem with it. While it is obviously true, it didn’t need to be shared with the public… it’s none of our business. Woody should have either reported all of the player evaluations or none of them. Isolating one or a few players is bad leadership. Clearly, my preference would have been that he tell Bibby and Teague his thoughts privately.