Billy Knight tried to fire Mike Woodson 3 times!!!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>By SEKOU SMITH
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 02/28/08

Hawks General Manager Billy Knight recommended to ownership on three occasions, most recently two weeks ago, that head coach Mike Woodson be fired, two people familiar with the situation told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. That recommendation was rebuffed by team ownership.

Knight last recommended that Woodson be fired and replaced by assistant coach Larry Drew after the team traded for point guard Mike Bibby on Feb. 16 during the NBA's All-Star Weekend.
Your Turn
Who should go first -- Mike Woodson or the Hawks' ownership?
Woodson. He's had enough time to win.
The owners. They've made a lot of bad moves.
Doesn't matter at this point. They all should go.
Let everyone stay. The playoffs are within reach.

night declined comment.

Woodson insisted Thursday that he's never been approached being fired. He was relaxing in his office after practice and said he would be glad to talk about his team and their preparations for tonight's game against New York at Philips Arena.

Anything related to his job, however, he refused to discuss.

"I'm the coach of this team until someone tells me otherwise," said Woodson, who has compiled a 91-209 (.303) record since taking over the Hawks before the start of the 2004-05 season. "I'm going to get these guys ready to play and we're going to keep plugging away at this playoff chase. Because we're right there."

The Hawks, 23-32, are currently in ninth place in the standings and a game behind New Jersey for the eighth and final Eastern Conference playoff slot.

Woodson's job security has become a greater issue since the team's 9-19 slide to start 2008.

The Hawks own the NBA's longest playoff drought, eight seasons, and are in a position to control their own destiny for a postseason berth this late in the season for the first time in nine years.

After starting this season with a promising 15-13 record, the Hawks have been unable to maintain any consistency, winning consecutive games just three times since the Christmas.

With every ugly stretch of losses, the calls for Woodson's head have grown increasingly louder, to the point that the players could no longer ignore them.

"It's been kind of hard to ignore all the talk because you know in a situation when you're not winning a lot somebody always has to go, and unfortunately it's usually the coach," Hawks captain and All-Star Joe Johnson said. "With that being said, I think everyone agrees that getting Mike [Bibby] in that trade certainly helps us.

"The only bad thing is that we got him right before our West[stern Conference] road trip and that's a tough spot for anybody to be in. But now that we've got a chance to get back home and refocus with everybody on the same page, we have an opportunity to get back on track. And I don't think there's any doubt that we're a team capable of making that push to get to the playoffs."</div>

 

Yes Woodson is a below average coach, but Knight is one the two worst GM's in the business.

 

Not really.

ownership is always screwing billy.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (o.iatlhawksfan @ Feb 28 2008, 04:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Not really.

ownership is always screwing billy.</div>

I really don't want to go through the pain of discussing his draft mistakes and FA mistakes. He is a horrible GM

 

The only really bad pick was Shelden, and that was really Woodson's pick.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (o.iatlhawksfan @ Feb 28 2008, 04:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The only really bad pick was Shelden, and that was really Woodson's pick.</div>

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Put the crack pipe down, take off your Marvin Williams jersey and step away from the keyboard.

 

If Marvin was out the league than, or no use to us, than yea, he'd be a huge mistake, but he's averging 15pts 6reb a game.

 

They took the article out the site.

 

Everyone and their mother said the Hawks should take Chris Paul, they needed a PG, and had a surplus of wings.

Marvin's not bad, but when everyone and their mother knew they needed a PG, and coulda taken Chris Paul, who is now an MVP candidate...YES IT WAS A MISTAKE.

 

Dude, who cares what he's averaging. You could've had CHRIS PAUL. Yup, CHRIS PAUL.

CHRIS PAUL, dude. Any argument here is null.

 

Hawks W/Chris Paul= No Horford, or Marvin,

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (kobimel @ Feb 28 2008, 04:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Dude, who cares what he's averaging. You could've had CHRIS PAUL. Yup, CHRIS PAUL.

CHRIS PAUL, dude. Any argument here is null.</div>

Hell, there were two stud PG's to choose from and he picked the tweener Forward

 

o.iatl, stop being a retard.

 

Horford and Marin will both be all-stars in a couple of years, I'm not that upset about it.

 

No one cares if you're upset about it. It's about whether or not it was a mistake to draft Marvin over CP3. And it obviously was.

Of course you wouldn't have Marvin, you'd have draft Paul over him. You also can't just take Marvin + Horford vs CP3.

It would be CP3 + whoever they drafted the next year vs. Marvin + Horford.

Be logical for once.

 

The year after the 2005 draft, was the worst draft of the decade, and the year after, After the first 3 pick, they're wasn't any "big time' talent, atleast not one that could compare to Horford. So it's Marvin+Horford vs. Chris Paul and some scrub

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (o.iatlhawksfan @ Feb 28 2008, 05:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The year after the 2005 draft, was the worst draft of the decade, and they year after, After the first 3 pick, they're wasn't any "big time' talent, atleast not one that could compare to Horford. So it's Marvin+Horford vs. Chris Paul and some scrub</div>

First off, Horford was picked in 07, which was not "the year after the 2005 draft"...that was the 2006 draft (it's sad that I even have to lay this out for you).

Second off, we are talking about rookies, of course a top 3 pick is going to be head and shoulders above everyone after a half year, so to say that you would have drafted a scrub is ludicrous, but then again BILLY KING is your GM, so maybe not.

Refusing to admit you should have taken CP3 just shows your stupidity and lack of basketball knowledge.

 

If you tried to trade me Marvin and Horford for Chris Paul or Deron Williams I would laugh in your face.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid Chocolate @ Feb 28 2008, 05:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (o.iatlhawksfan @ Feb 28 2008, 05:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The year after the 2005 draft, was the worst draft of the decade, and the year after, After the first 3 pick, they're wasn't any "big time' talent, atleast not one that could compare to Horford. So it's Marvin+Horford vs. Chris Paul and some scrub</div>

First off, Horford was picked in 07, which was not "the year after the 2005 draft"...that was the 2006 draft (it's sad that I even have to lay this out for you).

Second off, we are talking about rookies, of course a top 3 pick is going to be head and shoulders above everyone after a half year, so to say that you would have drafted a scrub is ludicrous, but then again BILLY KING is your GM, so maybe not.

Refusing to admit you should have taken CP3 just shows your stupidity and lack of basketball knowledge.
</div>
read my post I said the 'and the year after"!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Second off, we are talking about rookies, of course a top 3 pick is going to be head and shoulders above everyone after a half year, so to say that you would have drafted a No body scrub is ludicrous, but then again BILLY KING is your GM, so maybe not.</div>

Doesn't matter, no one in the 14-18 range will be better than Horford. If we had Paul, we would be in the 5th or 6th spot, and probably have had a pick in the mid to late first round.

 

Hey o.iatl, by your logic a team is better off passing on a superb prospect, drafting a less talented one, then because of that the team has another losing season, gets another high pick and drafts another good prospect. But hey, two good prospects are better than arguably the best point guard in the league for the next 10 years and a mid teens pick, right? Does that make any kind of sense to you?