The Mike Woodson non-extension: the good, the bad, and the ugly.

Will this picture ever get old? The correct answer is no.
After improving his team by ten wins, securing home court, and making it to the second round of the playoffs, Rick Sund did not extend Mike Woodson's contract. He chose instead to let the final year ride out. I found the move a bit perplexing. I feel very secure in saying you know what you are going to get with Woodson. In the most positive analogy I have ever given him, he is like beer in that sense.
The lack of a contract extension is basically like working at Chickfila (which I did for three years in high school, no big deal) and asking for the weekly schedule a week in a advance and being told management is not willing to commit to you. They want to see how you run drive thru this week. Some may say, "but I have run drive thru the last five years" but apparently Rick Sund would call you a damn fool and go back to the evaluation room.
All that said, lets take a look at what Mike Woodson, again, entering into the last year of his contract could mean for the team and the coach.
The Good
- Hawks improve again Woody gets a new contract.
Lets be honest, the Hawks win 50+, I swallow crow and send Mike Woodson flowers.
- Hawks stumble out of the gate, Woodson is fired.
I struggle to see how this is "good" per se. Since I don't see the Hawks bringing in an established coach mid season, plus the Hawks would, by necessity, be stumbling, but if the Hawks can get lucky either by hiring an unproven coach or by stumbling on a proven coach, it could be the best in the long run. Hey, Laurence Franks rattled off like 30 wins in a row for the Nets when he was promoted mid-season. Then again, I don't want Laurence Franks now. In the end, it is good because it is a change, and I believe the Hawks need a change.
The Bad
- Hawks make playoffs and go no further than the second round, Woodson extended.
Why not extend him this summer then? Why not give Woodson a platform and ability to demand respect for the vision he is casting for the teams? It is hard to get players to buy into roles when that role might change with a new coach in a year. Especially if you don't like the role you are given.
The Ugly
- Hawks lose in first round or don't make the playoffs, Woodson extended.
This is the disaster scenario of course. It is a white flag. A concrete embedding into the status quo. A formal signing to the idea that just making the playoffs is good enough, and a formal entrance into therapy by yours truly.
- Hawks make it to the second round of the playoff and lose, Woodson fired.
I have already titled the post for when this happens, "Why!?!?" There is no need to evaluate Woodson anymore. The man does the same thing every game. If coaches somehow became rated and given tendencies by NBA live, the designers would fall in love with Mike Woodson. His character would be done in four hours. You would only need to watch two game films. Knowing the organization's thought process was that somehow Woodson was going to improve his coaching would probably drive me to some unhealthy addiction. Like blogging.
0 recs |
10 comments
|
Comments
no woodson please
I absolutely hate it when potential is not realized. Like when smart kids get bad grades because they don’t study, it drives me crazy. Don’t waste your talent! This is the feelings I get with the Hawks when Woodson is in charge.
The Hawks just need simple plays that utilize each player’s talent appropriately and a coach who will not allow the players to quit when they’re down 15 or 20. I don’t think that’s asking for too much.
by bystandar on Jun 1, 2009 2:22 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
"Hawks make it to the second round of the playoff and lose, Woodson fired."
This is the only one I take issue with. As the most likely scenario I wouldn’t call it ugly, really. We already know about the ownership group and their financial woes. They might even recognize Woodson is an ineffective coach, but they aren’t going to pay two head coaches. So they wait until Woodson’s contract expires, let him go, and hire a new, young coach, probably pretty cheap.
by The Beard on Jun 1, 2009 5:04 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
If we do that it's back to the basement
We need a experience like Woody. Van Gundy was run out of Miami after getting the team ready for the playoffs. Geroge Karl was fired after taking a Bucks team to the conf finals. They have never recovered. Indiana went from a playoff team to the cellar after firing Carlisle. We can go on and on about coaches who were trying to build something and the rug was pulled out from under them. Woody is not perfect but he has gotten progress from this team. With out a real PG, until Bibby showed up, and no bench until this year. If we let him go we will be starting all over again. Just ask the Bucks. Give him the tools and then judge. Our roster is not better than the 3 of the 4 teams that were left. And the only reason cleveland beat us is because of no size/talent on the bench and injuries, and of course LBJ.
by Cmart34 on Jun 1, 2009 6:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's getting a bit frustrating
2009-2010 will be the third straight season in which Woodson will have zero job security. He already seems to coach scared in regards to giving his young players a chance to fail. I really can’t agree more to your diagnosis of the fall-out scenarios.
The worst possible is definitely offering him an extension if the Hawks don’t repeat this season’s success. And the sad part is that I don’t know if we SHOULD expect the Hawks to repeat at this point, with the uncertainty surrounding Mike Bibby, Flip Murray, and Zaza Pachulia (not to mention Marvin). And each of those players has me very conflicted, in their own rights.
Even though Woodson has, by all means, earned an extension, I really just wish we could move forward with a new coach just to get on with moving toward the future.
by Bronn on Jun 1, 2009 11:24 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Woodson the Anti-Lebron
Woodson can’t do any right to most people and Lebron can’t do any wrong to most people. If Marvin doesn’t miss 25% of the season the Hawks would have won 50+ games this season. The only problem I had with the Hawks and Woodson is how they finished. They should not have been swept by the Cavs, simply because the Cavs aren’t that much better than the Hawks. They should have beat the Heat in 5 games top also, but we can say injuries played a key part in the Hawks late season failures. I think the inability to make changes on the fly did the Hawks in, but at the end of the day we made it as far as we should have. Get another legit star so we have a legit Big 3 like Orlando and Boston then we can truthfully gauge rather Woody can get a team to the Eastern Conference Finals or not. Other than that I dont see how anyone can prove that he has not damn-near maximized productivity with what he has.
by Hawks-Semi Fan on Jun 2, 2009 3:05 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I with you Semi
Let’s not judge just yet. Eventhough we should have beaten the Heat in 5 (no doubt). And We should have held home court against the Cavs. Even if we don’t get a star but just a player tha teams will have to guard because he is a legit threat to score. Then if we still can’t be a contender then maybe it will time to part ways with Woody. But right now I would give him a passing grade.
by Cmart34 on Jun 2, 2009 10:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You expected 67 wins?
"We're not maxed out, ... The best is still ahead of us."
Bobby Bowden
by NaGaNole on Jun 2, 2009 2:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
not 67 but..55
The Hawks did give some games away the losses to the Clippers, NY, Charlotte that I can remember. And The loss to Boston on the last sec Pierce shot. There were probably 5-8 games that they could have won and blew it. (New Jersey). So 55 wins was a reachable. That should be the target for next year. We could be the 3 seed --Orlando, Cleve, ATL Boston, Miami/Phi
by Cmart34 on Jun 2, 2009 5:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think that
you may have confused some with this:
“And We should have held home court against the Cavs.”
It reads like you thought we should have had more wins than Cleveland. I assumed you simply meant that we should have taken care of business in our home games against Cleveland.
"If Woody were Captain of the Titanic, he'd argue the boat sinking speaks to how effectively they put rich people in life boats and lock the poor folks below."
-jrauch commenting at Hoopinion on Woody's (non)logic in his post-game comments
by Jesse28 on Jun 3, 2009 9:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 












