The Hawks Blog: Thoughts After 25 Games

Following the disappointing end to the Hawks’ 2009-2010 season, I wrote extensively and in depth on the team, and was preparing to post a series of articles over the course of a week or so. Unfortunately, I had only posted a few of those pieces before my new computer crashed without warning, taking all of the un-posted material with it. I still haven’t gotten around to getting the documents copied off the hard drive, and this is annoying because I would love to be able to go back and see exactly what I was thinking at that time, when Mike Woodson had not yet been relieved of his duties and Joe Johnson had not yet been given a max contract.

My basic feeling back then was a paradoxical mixture of positive thinking and utter hopelessness. By the end of the offseason, both feelings had become even stronger. On the one hand, I could not conceive of any situation in which the Hawks somehow won an NBA title or even an Eastern Conference championship in the next 5 years. But at the same time, having gone through the years of total irrelevance during most of the 2000’s, I found that it was important to me for the Hawks just to maintain respectability. No sport offers less hope of a surprise championship than pro basketball, but I realized that I was still excited about the prospect of the Hawks just continuing to be a winning team.

Streaky As Ever

Though it was rarely pretty, and I really couldn’t point to any noticeable differences in the team under Larry Drew, I was pretty fired up when the Hawks began the year 6-0. Just about everything I had read about the team going into the season predicted at least a slight drop off for the Hawks this year. So when we began the year looking inspired and won our first 6 contests, I felt relieved and downright giddy about the prospects of proving the naysayers wrong. These initial feelings led me to send off a few overconfident tweets (ColTroutman is my Twitter name) concerning our boys. The general theme of these tweets was that haters and non-fans were going to have to learn to live with the fact that the Hawks were a good team and they weren’t going back to being a bad team anytime soon.

Needless to say, I found the subsequent 2-7 slide to be most distressing. Cleary I had spoken too soon. By the time the Hawks lost an overtime game in New Jersey on November 23rd for their 7th loss in 9 games, I was just about convinced that the decision to replace Woodson with one of his assistants had been yet another awful choice by management. Furthermore, I was beginning to suspect that I had been wrong in my analysis of the Joe Johnson deal (basically my opinion was that in a few years the contract would be an enormous hindrance but that in the immediate future it would be a positive), and was now thinking that the gloomy outlooks expressed by the so-called experts concerning Johnson had actually not been gloomy enough. It now looked as if the Hawks were indeed going to fall back to mediocrity this season as so many prognosticators had predicted.

Thankfully, the Hawks regained control of the vehicle, and they have won 8 of 10 since that night in New Jersey, with the only losses coming at Miami and at San Antonio. At this point I am somewhere in between the feelings of elation I felt after the 6-0 start and the feelings of despair I felt after the 2-7 slide. I’m still not sure the Hawks are in a better position with Larry Drew as head coach. In fact, at the moment I’d probably lean towards the opinion that the Hawks are actually in a worse position with Drew than they were with Mike Woodson as head coach. And if I had the power to go back and make the Hawks refuse to offer Johnson a max deal, I think I would at least give the idea some serious consideration. However, I’m very much relieved that the Hawks did not go into the tank. I fully expect the Hawks to have a good year and I’m confident that it will be fun to root for them along the way. Now for some general observations and thoughts about the season so far.

Expert Analysis from a non-Expert

I’ve always loved college and pro basketball, but of the three major sports, (basketball, baseball, football) basketball is by far and away the game that I know the least. I’m not talking about knowing the history of the game (though I do know much more about the history of the NFL and MLB than I do of the NBA) or knowing the current state of the game (strangely, while I totally suck at fantasy baseball and fantasy football, I’ve had great success at fantasy basketball), I’m talking about knowing the game. I just don’t know as much about strategy and game plan in basketball. I loved playing basketball as a kid, but I wasn’t good at it, and the point at which you have to be good to continue playing comes much earlier in basketball than it does in the other two sports. Therefore, basically everything I know about strategy and game plan has come from following college and pro basketball. It’s just harder to learn if you don’t have a foundation of learning the basic concepts as a player.

I give this rather lengthy introduction just to explain why for me things like good or bad strategy/game plan are harder to recognize and identify in basketball. There may be things going on that other fans can see which I don’t pick up on. Having said all of this, let me finally get around to saying that so far, I have not been too impressed by any changes in offensive and defensive strategy under new coach Larry Drew.

The End of the Mike Woodson Era

I think we’re all familiar with the most common complaints levied against the Hawks under Mike Woodson, but I’ll point out a few of them just to be sure. Offensively, there didn’t seem to be any sort of “system” at all. Many compared Atlanta’s half-court offense to an AAU team. Basically, everyone spread out and one guy dribbled until the shot-clock reached 7 seconds and then that guy either drove to the basket or shot the ball. Particularly late in the game, the Hawks always seemed to revert to the “Iso-Joe,” with Johnson holding onto the ball and trying to create. Sometimes this worked well because this played to Johnson’s strength. But against great defensive teams (particularly in the playoffs), this strategy often failed. The Hawks could go through long stretches of not being able to score, particularly when they weren’t shooting well.

On defense, the Hawks liked to be aggressive and use the shot blocking abilities of Josh Smith to create opportunities to run on the other end. However, there were many times where, again, it didn’t seem like the Hawks had any kind of “game plan” to speak of on the defensive end. They had a habit of allowing wide open looks to the other team. In addition, relying on an attacking defense to set up the transition offense often backfired. For one thing, much of that aggressive style was created by energy, and that was often cited as one of the main reasons why the Hawks were not nearly as successful on the road as they were at home. Also, it becomes much more of a half-court game in the playoffs because teams tighten up and play tough defense on every possession, and the Hawks were never able to adapt to that change.

There were a few other common criticisms of Woodson. Young players rarely seemed to develop quickly under Woodson. Part of this was obviously due to the fact that the organization missed badly on a number of draft picks. However, there were several examples of guys going elsewhere and showing things they never did in Atlanta. Another issue was Woodson’s reliance on a rather small rotation of players. This also seemed to come back to hurt the Hawks in the playoffs. The amount of minutes played by a few key guys (namely Joe Johnson) seemed to tire them out come playoff time. In addition, when the playoffs came and Woodson was forced to go to a deeper rotation, guys were coming in having played sparingly all year and having to play key minutes against the best teams in the league.

Some people felt that the Hawks players just needed to hear a different voice after being coached by Woodson for so many years. Others said that the Hawks were not going to go any farther under Woodson and if a change wasn’t made they might regress. I was basically in agreement with all of these complaints, and thus I was glad that they finally decided to let Woodson go and move in a different direction.

Meet the New Boss

Despite approving of the decision to remove Woodson as head coach, I was not entirely thrilled when the Hawks chose Larry Drew as his replacement. First and foremost, if there were major strategic problems both offensively and defensively under Woodson, what did that say about the guy who had been Woodson’s “lead assistant coach” over the last 6 seasons? If he had played a key role in the strategy and game planning as an assistant coach, then wouldn’t the same criticisms levied against Woodson apply to him as well? And if, as some argued, he had played no role in the strategy and game planning under Woodson, then what the hell had he actually done as an assistant coach for the last 6 years?

Regardless of which side you took, it was hard to argue that Drew had done much to prove himself worthy to take over as head coach. There were plenty of people who backed the decision, and one of the main reasons given in support of the move was that the players all liked him and were in favor of him taking over. This was not too encouraging for me. First of all, it’s not usually a good idea to base coaching and personnel decisions on the advice of players. In this particular case, it seemed perhaps even more inadvisable than usual. One of the things most often said about Drew in the days leading up to him being named head coach was that he had become a “trusted confidant” of the players over the years. In other words, he had been the “good cop” in the “good cop/bad cop” scenario. So now, the guy who had been “a player’s coach” as an assistant was going to be asked to not only inspire the team, but also bring discipline, something that the team often seemed to be lacking under Woodson.

Many people said that Hawks players had stopped listening to Woodson. At times over the years the Hawks seemed to be an undisciplined team. It was said that this was because Hawks players neither feared nor respected Mike Woodson. The Hawks also seemed to be lacking in effort and enthusiasm at times. Again, many said that this was because Woodson did not inspire them. I tended to agree with these beliefs, which is why I found the choice of Drew to be curious. If Drew had been seen as the “good cop” as an assistant under Woodson, then why would the players respect or fear him enough to become more disciplined with him as head coach? Furthermore, if he all of the sudden had to transition from the “good cop” to a disciplinarian, wouldn’t those same players who had trusted him feel betrayed and unhappy?

I was of the opinion that the Hawks needed a head coach who could give the Hawks a “strategic advantage” against good teams in the playoffs, or at the very least could hold his own against other head coaches. Drew hadn’t done anything to put himself in that category so far. I was also of the opinion that the Hawks needed a head coach who the players would automatically both respect and fear due to his reputation. Drew didn’t fit the bill here either. Also, if the Hawks brought in a “big name” coach and paid him a high salary the players would see that he had a lot of clout within the organization, and that was certainly not the case under Woodson. Clearly, Larry Drew was neither a big name coach or a well paid one.

While I was disappointed, I couldn’t blame everything on management. If there are no “big name coaches” available or willing to take the job, there’s not really anything you can do about it. Some criticized the Hawks for once again hiring a coach who they wouldn’t have to pay much (Woodson’s small salary compared to other head coaches was often seen as the main reason he had kept his job as long as he did), and I was inclined to join in. However, if the Hawks were looking at things realistically, realizing that no matter who they hired they were unlikely to win a championship anytime soon, and knowing that a work stoppage was eminent, you can see why they might have decided against brining in a high-paid, big name coach.

Early Impressions of Coach Drew? Underwhelming so Far

With all of this said, I was more or less willing to have an open mind about coach Drew going into his first season as head coach. While the results in the standings haven’t been bad, I have to admit that I haven’t been blown away by any changes to strategy and game plan so far. Again, I don’t claim to be an expert, but I haven’t seen any positive changes in the most obvious ways.

It has to be remembered that for all of the weaknesses inherent in the way the Hawks played under Mike Woodson, there were many ways in which that style of play suited the team. Not to mention the fact that it often worked. The one-on-one style of offense that the Hawks played under Woodson limited the number of passes being made, and this in turn limited turnovers and the number of possessions for the opposing team. Defensively, while the “blown coverages” were always infuriating, at least on the nights when the team was energetic they hustled and flew around on the defensive end. There have been times this season when it has seemed like the Hawks have lost all of the good parts of their style under Woodson, while still showing all of the worst tendencies they had under him.

This might seem overly harsh, and maybe it is, but early on I don’t think it was too far off the mark. Remember, it was Larry Drew himself who said that the Hawks looked “tired” and lacking energy early in games. It was Drew who wondered aloud about the night lives of the players. Consider that last year’s team lost only 7 games at home all season, while the Hawks dropped 5 of their first 8 at home this season. Last season the Hawks averaged 101.7 points a game (tied 12th in the NBA); this season the Hawks have averaged 98.8 points a game (17th). Last season the Hawks allowed 97.0 points a game (tied 9th); this season the Hawks have allowed 96.1 points a game (8th). Last year the Hawks had a +4.7 average scoring differential (tied 6th); this season the Hawks have a +2.7 average scoring differential (tied 8th).

There have been some positive signs. I like the fact that Drew has been utilizing the roster much more than Woodson ever did. I like the fact that Drew has allowed the younger players to get more minutes and experience than Woodson ever did. The season is still young and the Hawks are playing better again after their early swoon. Maybe the Hawks will become a great passing team and a stronger half-court team on both sides of the floor. Maybe they will grow as a team in ways they never were able to under Woodson. It may end up being a process that was well worth it in the long run. All I’m saying is that I’m not totally sold yet.

Face of the Franchise?

Despite whatever doubts and concerns I had in the past and continue to have now concerning the firing of Mike Woodson and the hiring of Larry Drew, I was definitely glad the Hawks decided to end the Woodson era and I feel the same way now. I have been, and continue to be, much less certain about Joe Johnson. From the end of our season last year through the moment that Johnson’s resigning became official, I went back and forth in my feelings about what I wanted to happen. To this day I’m still not sure if I’m glad we resigned him or not.

Joe is a good player, but it had become clear after last season that he was no superstar, particularly in the playoffs. As a team leader, Joe is at best a non-factor. Ownership seemed determined to bring Joe back by any means necessary. It was reported that management feared what would happen if Johnson left and the team went back to losing 50 games a year. It seemed like management felt that Joe was the team’s star and they couldn’t afford to let him go. These concerns were both understandable and misguided, in my opinion. Whatever effect Joe once had on attendance, he was no longer a factor. If anything, Joe might end up having a negative impact after alienating so many fans with his comments during the Orlando series. It seemed like Hawks fans were divided over whether they wanted Joe back. There didn’t seem to be any such uncertainty coming the other way. It was fairly obvious that given the choice, Joe would be playing somewhere else this season. In the end, Johnson’s hand was essentially forced, when the Hawks offered him a deal that was so far above what anybody else did.

As stated before, I went back and forth on the idea of whether or not I wanted Joe to resign. Joe’s role on the team from the day he arrived in 2005 was as the undisputed leader and superstar. I wasn’t sure changing the team’s style and mindset would work with Joe still around. How would he play in a system that wasn’t tailored to him? Would the other players continue to defer to him and look to him merely out of habit? I was also curious to see what would happen if Joe wasn’t there. Would Josh Smith and Al Horford grow into superstars in a system without Joe? Would Marvin Williams finally emerge as a consistent force filling the void left by Joe? I also knew that Joe wasn’t worth the money and I knew that in a few years the deal would almost certainly be a problem. Plus, I didn’t like Joe’s attitude and I didn’t want to root for a spoiled malcontent who didn’t want to be here in the first place.

However, there were reasons why I wanted the team to resign Joe. For one thing, I did think there was probably something to the belief that if the Hawks failed to resign Joe it would be seen by many people—including players and agents—as more evidence that Hawks ownership is not willing to spend in order to win. Also, there seemed to be no chance of the Hawks being able to replace Johnson’s production this year if he didn’t come back. And unlike baseball, where letting go a high-priced player can mean freeing money up to improve the team in other areas, there doesn’t seem to be any such advantage under the ridiculous and mind-bogglingly confusing structure of the NBA salary cap.

It seemed almost like the Hawks were in a no-win situation. If they signed Joe to a max deal over many years they would almost certainly be hindered by it in years to come, as there is a long history of the production of players like Johnson falling off a cliff once they reach a certain age. But if the Hawks didn’t sign Joe, they were seemingly in no better position to go after other players in the near future, and they wouldn’t be able to replace his production in the immediate future.

In any event, going into the season with Joe back on the team, I still felt that at least for the first few years the Hawks would benefit from all of the positive things that he brings to the table. At this point, however, having seen the way Joe played during the early part of the year, and perhaps even more importantly, having seen the way the team has played in his absence, I’m starting to wish that someone else had offered Joe a better deal than we did.

Prior to getting injured, Joe’s numbers were down across the board. If you think about it, there’s no reason we should have been surprised. There’s never been any reason to believe that Johnson’s main motivation was something other than money. He made it obvious to the Suns that he would be looking for the biggest deal possible, that’s why Phoenix sold Joe to Atlanta in the first place. He has had a business first mentality from the moment he arrived. At this point, Joe isn’t going to have to worry about playing for a contract for years. He may never sign another contract. He’s totally set. So what great motivation would he have to get better or even maintain his previous level, particularly considering the fact that he totally busted in the playoffs last season and was rewarded with a max deal?

But there are also less cynical reasons why a drop off in production shouldn’t be surprising. Johnson is having to adjust to a new system, one in which he isn’t the unquestioned go-to guy, and it’s historically been difficult for guys like him to be as productive when things aren’t centered completely around them. Nor is it all that surprising that Johnson got hurt. He’s never been a particularly tough nosed player, and he’s had several injuries during his career. He’s now 29, in his 10th year in the league, and financially set forever, so we should only expect his durability to go down from this point.

The Hawks were 11-7 through 18 games with Joe, and have gone 5-2 in 7 games without him. By the time Joe is ready to return, his value may have become obvious, and we may all welcome him coming back. Perhaps having Joe gone will be a good thing because the team will learn to play in the new system without him. Maybe he will naturally adapt to the way the rest of the team is playing when he returns. All of this would be great. But again, I’m just not sold on it yet.

More to Come

I know I’ve said this before, but I intend to have more blogs concerning the Hawks in the future. With football season winding down and spring training still months ahead, I’ll have more time to concentrate on other areas.