Late Hawks Squawks: Hawks 106, Bucks 102 (OT)
– The bottom line is the Hawks turned back a tough, scrappy opponent that came in a hot streak and avoided losing two straight at home for just the second time this season. “We all gutted it out,” Jamal said. “It was definitely intense and very physical out there.”
– So the bottom line looks good. Some of the other lines were ugly, though: 5 of 18 shooting in the fourth quarter, including 2 of 9 for J.J., 0 for 3 for Jamal and no shots at all in 11 minutes for Smoove.
– Basically, here’s how it went: bad Iso-Joe and the Hawks faltered, good Iso-Joe and they won.
– Fourth quarter Iso-Joe: fadeaway airball, missed 3-pointer, missed fadeaway, missed runner and the missed pull-up at the regulation buzzer. Overtime: 3-pointer, fadeaway jumper, baseline fadeaway, and a missed 21-footer.
– “When you get another chance you always want to come through,” J.J. said. “I wanted to make plays in that overtime to get us over the hump.”
– He shot 7 of 22 in regulation, 3 of 4 in overtime. “He’s going to have games like that,” Josh said. “We had to keep riding him to see if he could get going. He was making tough shots and tough moves on his guy. When he’s like that, we’ve got to keep giving it to him.”
– It worked out in the end because J.J. really is a very good one-on-one player even when a strong guy like John Salmons is up in his face. But the Iso approach contributed to the familiar no-ball-movement, poor-shot-selection formula that has hurt the Hawks late in games. They are a combined 16 for 54 (29.6) from the field in the fourth quarter of their last three games.
– At least the Hawks played some fourth-quarter D this time. After the Bucks shot 50 percent through three quarters, the Hawks held them to 6 of 17 in the fourth. As usual, the tighter D led to offense: six points off turnovers and seven fastbreak points in the fourth for the Hawks.
–The Bucks scored the first five points of overtime and it felt like the Mavericks all over again. “We knew what we had to do,” Jamal said. “We look at the Dallas game as a fluke. Our record in the last few minutes of the game is actually outstanding.”
– “Milwaukee has been hot lately but we were able to get the win,” Josh said. “It’s nice to have a win to get our confidence back. We just need to tighten it up on the defensive end and share the ball offensively.”
– I’m guessing at least four of Jamal’s 11 misses were forced. He’s now shooting 26 of 84 (31 percent) in the seven games since the All-Star break. He says the shoulder only bothers him when he drives to the hole. So it’s got to be that he’s just in some kind of funk right now.
– But he did have four assists and a steal against just one turnover. And, as he was sure to point out, he made his free throws.
– Nice D by Horford on Bogut on Milwaukee’s last possession of regulation. He held his ground against a bigger opponent who was determined to get to the basket. It’s how the Hawks had to play the Bucks in a game where officials allowed roughhousing.
– “We couldn’t back down,” Smoove said. “We didn’t take any mess. That’s how you’ve got to play when a team hits you in the mouth.”
– “It was a fun game to be on the court,” Zaza said.
– Stackhouse looked spry while scoring 10 points in the first quarter and eight in the fourth. He was interested in joining the Hawks last summer. Think their bench and locker room would benefit from a pro like him?
– Salmons has really made a difference for the Bucks. Because he went for 32 points they still had a chance to win with Brandon Jennings scoring just three points. But Salmons couldn’t stop Iso-Joe in the end.
– Question: How do you make Iso-Joe develop even slower? Answer: Stop the clock and have shook game officials who don’t notice for at least five seconds.
– “I’m watching the clock tick down so I can see when to go and it just stopped,” J.J. said. “I was thinking it would start back, but it didn’t. It was frustrating, but it happens.”
– Yet another complete game from Smoove: 22 points, 15 rebounds, six assists. Take away those times he thought he was a point guard (five of the team’s 12 turnovers) and he was nearly perfect. “I’m letting the game come to me,” he said. “I’m playing well for the team. I’m not rushing anything. When the opportunity presents itself, I’m seizing it.”
– Woody played Zaza and Mo 14 minutes each, Teague seven minutes and Joe Smith six. It wasn’t always pretty but the bench crew pretty much kept the Hawks in the game during their stints.
– The Hawks play at the Bulls Monday night. “It’s going to be hard playing a back-to-back against a good team but we should feel good about ourselves,” Zaza said.
– I’m out, Hawks fans.
MC
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
117 comments Add your comment
Ree Roe
March 1st, 2010
2:55 pm
northcyde you bring up some great points about our bench & our starters and it is true that yes our bench rotation will probably only go 8-9 deep come playoff time, but of those top 10 teams in starters minutes you mentioned, only BOS & LA are considered title contenders. ORL, CLE, DEN & DAL aren’t on that list & that’s why a short bench is a real cause for concern for the Hawks. Against CLE & ORL their depth is why they’re the top 2 teams in the East. When we play them, they’re depth allows them to experiment with lineups in a way that we can’t match. Bottom line is that we need more depth. A developed bench would be useful as we enter a very manageable stretch over these next few weeks.
-REElay it to Roe!!!
Sleepy
March 1st, 2010
2:55 pm
No way Stack wouldve been happy playing 10 minutes per game. Anyone who thinks he would have has absolutely no idea who jerry stackhouse is .
I dont get why its so hard for people to understand why Bibby and Crawford get 4th quarter minutes.Its like some sort of mental block is in place .
Marvin is garbage offensively and our defense with Marvin is simply not good enough to be having this discussion . But our offense when Bibby and Crawford are in the floor together has a much better chance .
With Marvin we hold the opponent to 96 points but we can barely score 90 ourselves so we end up losing 96-93 .
With Bibby and Crawford in the 4th qive up a few easier baskets so the opponent gets 99 but our offense is so much better we score 104 and win by 4 pts .
As it stands right now and I think Woody would agree. Both Bibby and Crawford are clutch players and they have a better chance of making a clutch defensive play whether its a steal ,deflection whatever even when they are off offensively than Marvin has a chance of some offensive explosion in the 4th.
You guys who keep saying you would bet on Marvins defense would lose and lose often.
The most disturbing stat to me is Joe not having any ft attempts until OT. 26 fga and only 2 fta ?
O'Brien
March 1st, 2010
2:58 pm
doc,
I agree with Daniel. In my opinion, not signing Stack was NOT a money issue. The Hawks were probably concerned about his attitude and how he would handle being the 3rd guard off the bench, along with receiving little to no PT sometimes (regardless of who was struggling).
Stackhouse would have helped, but he would have received inconsistent minutes like what Joe Smith gets. So although he looks good playing for the Bucks, I doubt if he would look as good playing here. Plus Stackhouse is probably better suited for SG these days compared to SF.
During the offseason, the Hawks needed a backup SF. The trade deadline has passed, and we still need a backup SF. Mo tries, but he is too small (and he is a SG), and he performs better when he receives steady minutes. Why did Rick Sund not make a move for a backup SF? Thats a bigger question to me.
And why is Z so peeved that he got traded? he has an expiring contract, which means if he wants to, he could sign with somebody else this offseason, and even before the trade, the Cavs were counting on him getting a buyout and resigning with them. So the Cavs were able to add another weapon to help win a championship (isnt that what Z wants?), and then still get get Z back. So what’s his beef?
Melvin
March 1st, 2010
3:02 pm
Truth,
Good find on the link. You are right, I guess there’s truth to what Todd said but the way he said it was very misleading. I wonder if the Hawks offer him an non-guarantee contract at the time as a training camp invitee, which he thought he could have gotten a better offer somewhere else.
Traceman
March 1st, 2010
3:03 pm
I think the decision not to sign Stack was CLEARLY an off the court issue. I read somewhere that one of the reasons he was not asked back in DAL was because he felt he should have been playing more before he got hurt and that was messing with team chemistry.
Melvin
March 1st, 2010
3:10 pm
If Stack has so much baggage than why would the coaching staff wanted to bring him in?
Melvin
March 1st, 2010
3:13 pm
MC, could you track Stack down before the next time we play the Bucks and ask him why he chose the Bucks over the Hawks (or any other team)?.
Thanks in advance.
niremetal
March 1st, 2010
3:13 pm
Melvin,
The timing makes quite a difference. The Hawks apparently showed at least mild interest in Stack last summer, but failed to make him or Mario an offer, choosing instead to go with JoeS, JColl, and Othello. None of those guys were wings, which makes it seem that the Hawks decided (not unreasonably) that they had higher priorities at other positions.
But in January, the Hawks cut Othello and signed Mario – who, like Stack, is an undersized swingman. Stack was a free agent at the time the Hawks waived Othello and signed Mario. That suggests 3 possibilities: 1) Stack was still interested in the Hawks, but the Hawks decided to go with Rio instead; 2) the Hawks were interested in Stack, but Stack turned them down for one reason or another; or 3) neither Stack nor the Hawks were interested in each other. Like you, I’m guessing that in January, possibility 1 was what actually happened. But unlike you, I don’t presume to KNOW what happened and call Jim Todd an outright liar despite my limited knowledge. Do you not see the difference there? But this is par for the course for you. When a player you like signs with another team, you blame it on the Hawks for not getting him, ignoring the possibility that the player might not have come here even if the Hawks had (or did) make an offer.
What I am interested in is WHY the Hawks decided to sign Rio assuming that Stack was available.
thomas22
March 1st, 2010
3:18 pm
I know everyone is on Coach W, but there also has to be an element of “blame” on the players-he’s not coaching a bunch of NCAA players.
How much more does Coach W need to tell them before they do what they’ve been paid to do? Shouldn’t they know how to execute by now-we’ve played over 50 games this season and have won 30+ right?
I have nothing personal against Marvin, but have you seen his play and looked over his stats since we were 19-6? However, he is still a starter. The rotations with Bibby and not benching Josh when he shoots that d**n jumper is on Coach W however……
Melvin
March 1st, 2010
3:22 pm
Nire,
And this is so like you, running to the ASG defense. You did similiar things with the JChill debate. When me, Doc and others clearly said the Hawks drop the ball. As they could have signed him before the Greek offer…. Very similiar situations, player want to be a Hawk but end up playing for another team for whatever reason…
GeeMack
March 1st, 2010
3:25 pm
JM
The Hawks may not be the Laker, and Woody may not be PJax.
However the Hawks play uninspired and unmotivated ball just like the Lakers.
The differene is the Lakers have invested in the talent neccessary to hide those shortcomings. The Hawks on the other hand…well you know.
Traceman
March 1st, 2010
3:33 pm
@ Sleepy,
If Crawford and Bibby are making shots that may be true but since the All Star break, Crawford is shooting 31% (26% on 3’s) and Bibby is shooting 33% (28% on 3’s). Surely Marvin can shoot that poorly if necessary and his defense is so much better that it is not worth discussing.
Actually, given the few shot attempts he gets these days, Marvin isn’t shooting that poorly (43% FG, 50% on 3’s since the All Star break). JJ, Crawford (or Bibby), Smoove and Al should be able to generate enough offense in the 4th and Marvin gives us better D.
In addition, go to 82games.com and look at clutch statistics. Marvin has only been on the floor in 44% of our “clutch situations” as defined by 82games.com but he has been successful in those situations 64% of the time. That 64% would make him our 2nd most successful player in the clutch next to Jamal at 67%.
Oddly enough, Smoove is our least successful clutch player of the 6 guys who play virtually all of the clutch minutes but my guess is that is because he probably comes out of the game in most situations when the other team needs to foul and he doesn’t get “credit” when our players make those FTs.
Melvin
March 1st, 2010
3:47 pm
Traceman,
Are you saying that you prefer Marvin to take clutch shots over Bibby or Crawford? Keep in mind that those stats are showing a guy who take fewer shot per game. So his percentages should look better (less the risk, higher the percentages).
Marvin played 40mins last night and only attempted 5 shots. Now some may say they need to run more plays for him but I think it’s on the player. Mo played less than half the mins Marvin played and attempt one less shot…
Astro Joe
March 1st, 2010
3:52 pm
Geez, has Stack averaged a triple double in the past 10 games or something?
Here’s my unsolicited theory. Othella was cut in early January… the Hawks had a very good December, something like 9-5. But they suffered losses to Nate Rob and Derrick Rose in December (along with back-to-back losses to the Cavs). So if you’re sitting there at that time and thinking “what do we need?”, you come to the same conclusion that many of us did at that time…. someone to harass (at best) and bruise (at worse) quick guards who are going the F off on us. And sorry, but that’s not Jerry Stackhouse.
We discussed this at length and guessed the moment that Othella was cut, who would be brought in (despite the quote from Sund about “checking the waiver wire”). Mario made sense for what we needed at that time. Our offense in December was tremendous, we scored over 95 in all but one game (Cavs of course) and over 100 in probably 80% of the games. So at the time, the greater need was for a designated stopper not a designated scorer.
Lastly, if Crawford weren’t shooting 33% over the past 5-5-6 games, we may not be feeling the need for another scorer right now.
The Truth
March 1st, 2010
4:22 pm
AJ
They called that style of management you described as “OH SH!T” or CRISIS MANAGEMENT. No planning, just reacting to events as we are currently doing with Big Z. If our interest in Big Z is of the same magnitude as Stackhouse then we shouldn’t waste too much bandwidth. A HALF INTEREST = NO INTEREST. Only a strong interest (backup with money) = A REAL INTEREST. In Z’s case, even a real interest is no guarantee (that he will sign) but at least it’s being sincere and not deceptive.
niremetal
March 1st, 2010
4:28 pm
Melvin,
Yup, this is like the Chills debate. You and Doc jumped to the conclusion that the Hawks dropped the ball, and I pointed out that none of us have any clue what happened because none of us were there. Therefore, none of us can say with certainty what, if any, talks were going on between the Hawks and Chills’ people. You and doc acted like it was inconceivable that Chill would have left unless Sund or the ASG “dropped the ball” in some way. I pointed out that Chill had perfectly legit reasons for going to Europe, and that you had no evidence that the Hawks had “dropped the ball.” You still don’t. Just like with Stackhouse, and with you calling Jim Todd a liar not once, but twice. You selectively decide what information you want to hear because it fits with your theory, and then ignore everything else. Confirmation bias ftw!
I readily admit that the Hawks might have dropped the ball with Chill. And I have said out loud – on this very blog – that they probably DID have a chance to sign Stackhouse if they were interested in doing so. And then I actually said that I think they made the wrong call by signing Rio instead. How the HELL is questioning ASG’s decision “running to the ASG defense?” The answer: It’s not. You just are so dead set in your opinion on Stackhouse and Hawks management that Jim Todd is a “liar” for saying something that doesn’t fit with your theory and that I’m “running to the ASG defense” for having the audacity to point out the possibility that you (and I) might be wrong about what happened.
I’d say “get real,” but what’s the use? Confirmation bias ftw!
Ken Strickland
March 1st, 2010
6:08 pm
Guess what everybody, we didn’t sign Stackhouse, we won last night in overtime and wore our top 6 players out in the process. Now we have to deal with the the backend of a back to back against the Bulls on the rd. The question is, will Woodson continue riding our top 6 players into the ground like last night, or will he finally show enough guts and intelligence to use his bench?
How many of you remember Woodson’s response a while back when asked about why RMorris wasn’t getting more mins after turning in several inspiring performances in limited opportunities? Remember when he said it was up to the player to take advantage of the opportunities he gets, and he would give any player additional mins and/or opportunities if that player produced. Otherwise, he’d go elsewhere to get what he wanted. Can anyone remember anything RMorris has done since those inspiring performances and that statement that would cause Woodson to stop even dressing him, let alone refusing to even play him?
Has anyone noticed the frequency in which players like JoSmith, JTeague and RMorris have been benched for long periods, or given extremely limited mins, immediately after turning in solid performances?