Winning Without Joe Not A Fluke

[benhillboy]

Not pretty, but a good team win nonetheless. It is concerning when the same issues repeatedly arise: being out rebounded, Josh handling, free-throw shooting (mainly Josh), and unforced turnovers (Josh the ring-leader, yet again.) Randy Foye helped give the game away: he was awful (How 'bout Acie, Acie fans?) The game shouldn't have been nearly as close. The zone with the double on Jefferson was outstanding, though.

But a win is a win, against a semi-quality opponent on the road in February. You have much less to talk about in a singular-player sense and are prompted to look at the Hawks' performance as a whole without Joe. I like that better than latter.

It almost seems as if Marvin can't progress at optimum level with Joe Johnson. By no means do I claim to have the prowess in the area of scouting and analyzing a player's and a team's game that a GM possess (unless you're Billy Knight.) But if you're Sund, it should be glaringly apparent that Joe retards Marvin's aggressiveness. An aggressiveness that leads to 14 free-throw attempts by banging down-low on both sides, catching the ball considerably deep on the block, and dribble-driving with reckless abandon against a good front line in Love and Jefferson, things that you wouldn't associate with Joe Johnson. When was the last time Joe attempted 14 freebies? For whatever reason, the offense wasn't clogged and had a sense of working for the best shot rather than iso for Joe.

Winning this game has to raise an eyebrow for Sund. The ball swung as good, but still below average. Bad shots were kept to a minimum by playing inside, team foot speed on defense seemed improved (the Bibby exception), and there was a quiet but more evident leadership shown down the stretch, which I expect was Bibby, but could've been a combination of things. Maybe addition by subtraction without Joe being quiet as a mouse and gassed during crunch time. We killed them inside offensively, mostly Josh and Marvin with more good catches, while the D (anchored by Al, glad to see you back) forced the Wolves to shoot awfully in the paint. Joe wouldn't have helped us with Kevin Love owning the glass (what was happening?)

Could the Hawks have blown the Wolves out with Joe? Probably. Could we have loss with him? Certainly.

Obviously, I'm not a Joe fan, but this win isn't a knee-jerk reaction, as I think we should beat any marginal team, like we have with Joe, without Joe. My favorite players on the squad aren't on the radar in the league. I've been watching Joe for a long time, as I'm sure all of you have. The guy simply doesn't have "It," and being a number 1 option on a relatively young team without "It" will detract from the team on too many occasions. While greatly skilled and technical, there's nothing about him that justifies anything close to $70mil.

(Has anybody seen Billy Knight?)

It would be interesting to sit down and look at film of Joe Johnson with Sund and get his true, unadulterated opinion as to what they should do going forward with the 2010 sweepstakes approaching. Most players who are traded and/ or let go in free agency twice in their career have issues that a majority of franchises will gladly do without, most cases being attributed to "inflated" of "skewed" statistics that raise value for contract years or whatever the case. The franchise knows that said player is substantially questionable in a certain facet, maybe emotionally. They let him go, event though he put up 18-8-4. The problem will bite the next franchise in the butt, all while being clandestine to the general fan; people around the league know the glaring flaw that will ultimately detract from the team too consistently, considering the responsibilities and salary of that player. Every team has a definitive plus or minus line as to the total impact of a player, which infinitely extends beyond the realm of field-goal percentage from the circle, win-shares, or a 5-steal game.

I think the Celtics analyzed Joe and said "He simply doesn't have 'it'." (Even though Doc brown-nosed and said it was a huge mistake to let him go during the playoff series last year.) I think D' Antoni thought he could be replaced for a much cheaper price. I refuse to believe that coaches allow players to leave that they would lose sleep over. Look at the league. T-Mac was shown the door twice. Basically Glass Joe. Shaq? Kobe nor Phil could stomach his conditioning some 7 years ago, which eventually drove the Heat crazy when juxtaposed with an Alonzo Mourning who stayed in world-class shape, despite a major organ malfunction. Chauncey clearly has issues with coaches. A.I. will be remembered as infamously as a Hall of Famer can be. Ron Artest and Stephen Jackson for obvious reasons. The Hornets could have seen with a crystal ball 9 years ago that Baron Davis would routinely miss quarters and halves, of seasons. There are surely coaches who can't stand the sight of Jason Kidd shooting from 20. Ray Allen is easily the most manageable, efficient, non-detractive player that has been let go by two franchises, whether it is trade and/or free agency walks, by presumably accelerating his conditioning after major injury problems. I think it is highly unlikely Dwayne Wade or LeBron go anywhere unless Cleveland and Miami are unbelievably cheap and/ or stupid. Their shaky jumpers and Dwayne’s past injury history, which he seems to have remedied, are dismissible when their total impact is considered, so basically everyone else is game for 2009-2010. I hope there's a team who plans to outbid the Hawks for Joe, which shouldn't be too hard considering ownership.

It know it seems silly to knock a routine 23-5-5 guy as "detractful". Clearly All-Star numbers in any era, and more durable than given credit for. I still think the future progression of the team (most notably Al and Marvin) without Joe is best, with at least 70 mil cleared off the books. He simply is far from a #1 option, and arguably a #2 for a true contender. He could cement titles with he Spurs as a 3rd-ish option for the next 4 years. That's the type of player he is. At 6'7, 240, he fades-away and shoots floaters on clear dribble-drive and and-1 opportunities. Rarely is he seen at or over the rim, nor does he cut consistently enough to finish off the ball. That penchant alone makes it increasingly hard for me to enjoy him, let alone convince me that he can carry a team for a game of stretch of games. I am confident that the Hawks would have more efficient, crisp team passing and considerably more quality touches in the paint if Joe is substituted for more paint-oriented players, preferably an All-Star caliber 2 or efficient, tough 1 and 5. The entire team is affected negatively when your "best" player shows passiveness 3-5 feet away from the rack, whether he be guard, forward, or center. He has only shown emotion in the playoffs for the most part. With a good season in progress, we are still woefully under .500 with him at the helm for over 5 years. I like Woody, but he is linked to Joe and is also highly culpable for the record. If you want to blame him for the losing streaks and get rid of him also, I wouldn't mind all too much, just so long as his replacement is also a defensive-minded coach with considerably more experience i.e. age who can diversify an offense.

[AHF]

Joe doesn't detract from the team. Our offensive structure hurts his efficiency and keeps several other players in roles that are smaller than they should be. Iso Joe isn't about Joe being a ballhog. It is about how our coaching staff has developed our offense. I can't buy into the premise that Joe is the problem here. Change his role in the offense and a lot of these issues go away, IMO.

[crimedog]

I think you are falling into the trap that a lot of fans of teams without superstars fall into. That is, you blame your best players for not being superstars and sort of blame them for holding other players down. In this case you view the future of the team as Marv and Al and look mainly at the flaws in Joe and Josh.

Joe is the most talented offensive player on this team and there are certainly ways to make the team work better with him in the lineup. I think the team got too comfortable over the past few years in just letting Joe do his thing, that applies to Woody, the rest of the guys, and Joe himself.

Teams don't get better by letting their top talent walk. Now I know you said we need to replace Joe with "an all-star caliber 2" or a tought "1 and 5" but that is a LOT easier said than done. I can't agree with you unless you make a realistic suggestion for what to do and explain why that would make the team better.

[TroyMcClure]

Joe doesn't detract from the team. Our offensive structure hurts his efficiency and keeps several other players in roles that are smaller than they should be. Iso Joe isn't about Joe being a ballhog. It is about how our coaching staff has developed our offense. I can't buy into the premise that Joe is the problem here. Change his role in the offense and a lot of these issues go away, IMO.

I can buy into the premise. He is the one who lobbied for Woody and the only one who could have forced a change, even quietly. He chose not to. Joe seems to like Woody's "offense". Also, every time Joe decides to pound it, and I mean every single pound, he is choosing to do so. He could pass and cut quickly once in a blue moon, you know. He dribbles way to much. You can chicken or egg it with Woody's offense and Joe's pounding, but I don't think Woody is holding Joe from doing anything he wants to do. He makes his own role. Seriously, would Woody say "Man, we had too much movement out there, Joe needs to understand that we need him to pound it for us to be successful long term"? Not going to happen. Joe likes the way he plays though, and doesn't seem to inclined to change his game beyond what we see on a nightly basis.

[AHF]

I can buy into the premise. He is the one who lobbied for Woody and the only one who could have forced a change, even quietly. He chose not to. Joe seems to like Woody's "offense". Also, every time Joe decides to pound it, and I mean every single pound, he is choosing to do so. He could pass and cut quickly once in a blue moon, you know. He dribbles way to much. You can chicken or egg it with Woody's offense and Joe's pounding, but I don't think Woody is holding Joe from doing anything he wants to do. He makes his own role. Seriously, would Woody say "Man, we had too much movement out there, Joe needs to understand that we need him to pound it for us to be successful long term"? Not going to happen. Joe likes the way he plays though, and doesn't seem to inclined to change his game beyond what we see on a nightly basis.

Joe hasn't taken it on himself to change the offense and likes being the star. That doesn't change my view that the problem is the system.

I don't think that Woodson is preaching ball movement and Joe is blowing him off. Joe is executing the system as Woodson plans it.

Assuming your view on Joe is right, he needs someone to come in and change the system for his own good in addition to the team's good but that doesn't make him the problem, IMO, because he isn't the one in charge of our offensive structure.

[AtLaS]

We barely beat a sorry team. We only scored 94 points and we average 98.6 ppg game. Minny is the 24th ranked defense in the NBA. I wouldn't exactly say we played great on offense without Joe.

[tonegully]

We barely beat a sorry team. We only scored 94 points and we average 98.6 ppg game. Minny is the 24th ranked defense in the NBA. I wouldn't exactly say we played great on offense without Joe.

I thought we played pretty well. We had a defensive let down but answered everything they threw at us. Id rather win the way we just won than to lose with Joe playing.

[Traceman]

Not pretty, but a good team win nonetheless. It is concerning when the same issues repeatedly arise: being out rebounded, Josh handling, free-throw shooting (mainly Josh), and unforced turnovers (Josh the ring-leader, yet again.) Randy Foye helped give the game away: he was awful (How 'bout Acie, Acie fans?) The game shouldn't have been nearly as close. The zone with the double on Jefferson was outstanding, though.

But a win is a win, against a semi-quality opponent on the road in February. You have much less to talk about in a singular-player sense and are prompted to look at the Hawks' performance as a whole without Joe. I like that better than latter.

It almost seems as if Marvin can't progress at optimum level with Joe Johnson. By no means do I claim to have the prowess in the area of scouting and analyzing a player's and a team's game that a GM possess (unless you're Billy Knight.) But if you're Sund, it should be glaringly apparent that Joe retards Marvin's aggressiveness. An aggressiveness that leads to 14 free-throw attempts by banging down-low on both sides, catching the ball considerably deep on the block, and dribble-driving with reckless abandon against a good front line in Love and Jefferson, things that you wouldn't associate with Joe Johnson. When was the last time Joe attempted 14 freebies? For whatever reason, the offense wasn't clogged and had a sense of working for the best shot rather than iso for Joe.

Winning this game has to raise an eyebrow for Sund. The ball swung as good, but still below average. Bad shots were kept to a minimum by playing inside, team foot speed on defense seemed improved (the Bibby exception), and there was a quiet but more evident leadership shown down the stretch, which I expect was Bibby, but could've been a combination of things. Maybe addition by subtraction without Joe being quiet as a mouse and gassed during crunch time. We killed them inside offensively, mostly Josh and Marvin with more good catches, while the D (anchored by Al, glad to see you back) forced the Wolves to shoot awfully in the paint. Joe wouldn't have helped us with Kevin Love owning the glass (what was happening?)

Could the Hawks have blown the Wolves out with Joe? Probably. Could we have loss with him? Certainly.

Obviously, I'm not a Joe fan, but this win isn't a knee-jerk reaction, as I think we should beat any marginal team, like we have with Joe, without Joe. My favorite players on the squad aren't on the radar in the league. I've been watching Joe for a long time, as I'm sure all of you have. The guy simply doesn't have "It," and being a number 1 option on a relatively young team without "It" will detract from the team on too many occasions. While greatly skilled and technical, there's nothing about him that justifies anything close to $70mil.

(Has anybody seen Billy Knight?)

It would be interesting to sit down and look at film of Joe Johnson with Sund and get his true, unadulterated opinion as to what they should do going forward with the 2010 sweepstakes approaching. Most players who are traded and/ or let go in free agency twice in their career have issues that a majority of franchises will gladly do without, most cases being attributed to "inflated" of "skewed" statistics that raise value for contract years or whatever the case. The franchise knows that said player is substantially questionable in a certain facet, maybe emotionally. They let him go, event though he put up 18-8-4. The problem will bite the next franchise in the butt, all while being clandestine to the general fan; people around the league know the glaring flaw that will ultimately detract from the team too consistently, considering the responsibilities and salary of that player. Every team has a definitive plus or minus line as to the total impact of a player, which infinitely extends beyond the realm of field-goal percentage from the circle, win-shares, or a 5-steal game.

I think the Celtics analyzed Joe and said "He simply doesn't have 'it'." (Even though Doc brown-nosed and said it was a huge mistake to let him go during the playoff series last year.) I think D' Antoni thought he could be replaced for a much cheaper price. I refuse to believe that coaches allow players to leave that they would lose sleep over. Look at the league. T-Mac was shown the door twice. Basically Glass Joe. Shaq? Kobe nor Phil could stomach his conditioning some 7 years ago, which eventually drove the Heat crazy when juxtaposed with an Alonzo Mourning who stayed in world-class shape, despite a major organ malfunction. Chauncey clearly has issues with coaches. A.I. will be remembered as infamously as a Hall of Famer can be. Ron Artest and Stephen Jackson for obvious reasons. The Hornets could have seen with a crystal ball 9 years ago that Baron Davis would routinely miss quarters and halves, of seasons. There are surely coaches who can't stand the sight of Jason Kidd shooting from 20. Ray Allen is easily the most manageable, efficient, non-detractive player that has been let go by two franchises, whether it is trade and/or free agency walks, by presumably accelerating his conditioning after major injury problems. I think it is highly unlikely Dwayne Wade or LeBron go anywhere unless Cleveland and Miami are unbelievably cheap and/ or stupid. Their shaky jumpers and Dwayne’s past injury history, which he seems to have remedied, are dismissible when their total impact is considered, so basically everyone else is game for 2009-2010. I hope there's a team who plans to outbid the Hawks for Joe, which shouldn't be too hard considering ownership.

It know it seems silly to knock a routine 23-5-5 guy as "detractful". Clearly All-Star numbers in any era, and more durable than given credit for. I still think the future progression of the team (most notably Al and Marvin) without Joe is best, with at least 70 mil cleared off the books. He simply is far from a #1 option, and arguably a #2 for a true contender. He could cement titles with he Spurs as a 3rd-ish option for the next 4 years. That's the type of player he is. At 6'7, 240, he fades-away and shoots floaters on clear dribble-drive and and-1 opportunities. Rarely is he seen at or over the rim, nor does he cut consistently enough to finish off the ball. That penchant alone makes it increasingly hard for me to enjoy him, let alone convince me that he can carry a team for a game of stretch of games. I am confident that the Hawks would have more efficient, crisp team passing and considerably more quality touches in the paint if Joe is substituted for more paint-oriented players, preferably an All-Star caliber 2 or efficient, tough 1 and 5. The entire team is affected negatively when your "best" player shows passiveness 3-5 feet away from the rack, whether he be guard, forward, or center. He has only shown emotion in the playoffs for the most part. With a good season in progress, we are still woefully under .500 with him at the helm for over 5 years. I like Woody, but he is linked to Joe and is also highly culpable for the record. If you want to blame him for the losing streaks and get rid of him also, I wouldn't mind all too much, just so long as his replacement is also a defensive-minded coach with considerably more experience i.e. age who can diversify an offense.

You either really hate JJ or you are a HORRIBLE judge of talent. Maybe both. JJ is a top 5 SG in the NBA. What "All-Star caliber 2" are you proposing that we acquire in his place who would be better? Obviously we are not getting Kobe or D Wade in exchange for JJ. Brandon Roy is the only other SG out there who I would even CONSIDER trading JJ for straight up and why would POR do that as Roy is younger?

With a good season in progress, we are still woefully under .500 with him at the helm for over 5 years.

This is JJ's 4th season as a Hawk and we have improved every year despite the fact up until this year, JJ has consistently had one of the youngest supporting casts in the NBA. As soon as we added a legitimate vet in Bibby to help him shoulder some of the load, the team started winning.

As I said in another post, this team is capable of winning a few games without ANY of the starters but we aren't going to win anything of importance if any of the starters miss a significant amount of time and that is ESPECIALLY true with regard to JJ.

JJ is not perfect but he is a terrific player and we are lucky to have him. The other players around the league see

[Dsinner]

You either really hate JJ or you are a HORRIBLE judge of talent. Maybe both. JJ is a top 5 SG in the NBA. What "All-Star caliber 2" are you proposing that we acquire in his place who would be better? Obviously we are not getting Kobe or D Wade in exchange for JJ. Brandon Roy is the only other SG out there who I would even CONSIDER trading JJ for straight up and why would POR do that as Roy is younger?

This is JJ's 4th season as a Hawk and we have improved every year despite the fact up until this year, JJ has consistently had one of the youngest supporting casts in the NBA. As soon as we added a legitimate vet in Bibby to help him shoulder some of the load, the team started winning.

As I said in another post, this team is capable of winning a few games without ANY of the starters but we aren't going to win anything of importance if any of the starters miss a significant amount of time and that is ESPECIALLY true with regard to JJ.

JJ is not perfect but he is a terrific player and we are lucky to have him. The other players around the league see

Yeah, what would have happened in the playoffs without Joe last year? Wait a min, we wouldn't have even been in the playoffs without Joe. I almost didn't want to win that game last night as I knew there would be some "let's get rid of JJ talk" to follow.

[DrReality]

I guess we'll see tonight . . . . . and Charlotte usually gives us fits.

[LOL_Hawks]

Well, thanks to the Bobcats melting down in the last few minutes of the game, we were able to pull it off. We definitely miss JJ at times on offense, but Marvin's really done a hell of a job stepping up in JJ's stead.

I wouldn't say that this means that we should get rid of Joe. Yeah, getting rid of our only All-Star. That is a GREAT idea. It just means that our guys are really stepping up without him. I mean, the thought winning WITHOUT Joe would've been crazy in years past.

[benhillboy]

Another road win without old Joe, huh? The team looks more comfortable and confident, especially when trailing.

I like Roy considerably more than Joe, basically due to intangibles, but it seems a wash considering Roy is oft injured and Joe is quite durable. We should've seen what Roy could do up close next to Chris Paul as draftees but I digress. I'm not a GM nor do I follow every player in the NBA'S contract or every team's balance sheet, but I think it should be relatively easy for Sund to find a better replacement(s) for Joe, as most GM's in the league know he is a complimentary player who could be instrumental in winning a title, but NEVER lead you deep in the playoffs. The guy simply isn't that good nor cares to be. I don't hate him or find him as overrated as a Yao or Nash, but true, I don't like the guy as a primary option at all. I'm aware many of you don't recognize do-or-die basketball and are impresed by a guy scared to use his amazing body. One who puts up a lot of misleading stats due to his high minutes and cuts down on post oppurtunities for his big men. Of course, it is foolish to compare Joe or any other 2 to Kobe or Dwayne on a grand scale. But to be considered an All-Star yet never coming close to that brand of passion and competitiveness doesn't sit well with me, nor should it with you. Jamaal Crawford, Kevin Martin, Devin Harris, Michael Redd, Kevin Durant, while not as rounded as Joe, go at your throat consistently, and I just don't see it with J.J.

Edited February 7, 2009 by benhillboy

[gsuteke]

Another road win without old Joe, huh? The team looks more comfortable and confident, especially when trailing.

I like Roy considerably more than Joe, basically due to intangibles, but it seems a wash considering Roy is oft injured and Joe is quite durable. We should've seen what Roy could do up close next to Chris Paul as draftees but I digress. I'm not a GM nor do I follow every player in the NBA'S contract or every team's balance sheet, but I think it should be relatively easy for Sund to find a better replacement(s) for Joe, as most GM's in the league know he is a complimentary player who could be instrumental in winning a title, but NEVER lead you deep in the playoffs. The guy simply isn't that good nor cares to be. I don't hate him or find him as overrated as a Yao or Nash, but true, I don't like the guy as a primary option at all.

I like your posts. Don't know if I agree with your assessment on JJ even though I've been called a JJ hater - Ex is mysteriously missing from this thread.

I'd like you to address Traceman's retort head on though. He's a season ticket holder and I respect his opinion on all things Atlanta Hawks.

How do you agree/disagree with Trace's response to your initial post in this thread?

[h2t]

Another road win without old Joe, huh? The team looks more comfortable and confident, especially when trailing.

I'm not a GM nor do I follow every player in the NBA'S contract or every team's balance sheet, but I think it should be relatively easy for Sund to find a better replacement(s) for Joe, as most GM's in the league know he is a complimentary player who could be instrumental in winning a title, but NEVER lead you to one. The guy simply isn't that good nor cares to be. I don't hate him or find him as overrated as a Yao or Nash, but true, I don't like the guy as a primary option at all.

lol. I can't wait til Joe 'the complimentary player' gets a max contract or close to it from the Knicks or somebody else in 2010 and starts lighting it up in a real offense.

Also we beat Minny and Charlotte...not exactly world beaters. Let's not get ahead of ourselves.

[coachx]

Another road win without old Joe, huh? The team looks more comfortable and confident, especially when trailing.

First let me say I loved Marvin's offensive aggression in 6 of the last 7 games (5 of which JJ was on the floor.) However, the JJ hate is a little off base though some points have some merit to a degree but I am far from agreeing on the extent of your opinions. It did take 2 lucky 3 point shots at the buzzers of the 1st and 2nd periods to ink this game out vs. a team who was also missing their leading scorer and best perimeter defender as we were. That does not mean he does not deserve credit for his ability to get to the line. However, when your playing vs. Morrison ( one of the worst defenders in the NBA) and another guy on a 10 contract you better dominate them. That is the matchup advantage to exploit on this given night. We have talked about exploiting matchups a ton this year and thats what they did.

Should getting Al Horford back in the lineup after 12 games go totally unoticed in these two wins. What kind of games would Okefor and Jefferson have had vs. Solo and ZaZa all night ? Sure Al did not stuff the box score but he does plenty of dirty work that does not show up in box scores.

Now to JJ. We all know JJ is not a top 15 player. We all know he is not the type of player to single handily take you to a championship title. I do not believe anyone on here has ever said that he was. However, he is definately a top 15 - 30 talent in this league. It is easy to pick on a guy when he is down in a funk. JJ is coming off the worst cold stetch of his career. We should all know from expirence it won't last much longer. As our young frontcourt matures JJ will be more then willing to share the load. He has had several double digit assist games to prove that. Does JJ not lead the team in assist ? He looks for the open man all the time and will share the load more and more as teamates step up. He is leading the league in mpg and that I blame on Woody for wearing him down not just this year but the last 3 seasons. Not to mention JJ's perimeter defense on PGs and SGs. That is some serious versitility JJ offers us with Bibby to cover for on the defensive end.

Sure Mavin would average 20 ppg for a bad team. This is not a bad team however. Marvin, at 23, is maturing at his own pace on a good team. He has had pretty easy assignments the last 2 games vs. some inferior defenders like Morrison tonight and some guy named Jones who is a journeyman signed on a 10 day contract to fill out the roster for the injured Wallace . Quite frankly neither of those guys even belong in the league who Marvin was going against tonight. He should be able to take it to the rim on guys like that. He will not be facing guys like that every night. Richard Jefferson shut Marvin down just a few nights ago, remember ?

JJ routinely faces the opposition's best wing defender and double teams nightly. Marvin has the luxury of playing off JJ and picking his spots for easy buckets to give him a excellent efficiency rating. That has to be remembered.

Marvin is really progressing at about the same rate as JJ did. JJ, at 23-24 was extremely efficient with the Suns while playing off other allstars. That was a 60 win Suns team I do believe. Thats the same age Marvin is now.

We have lucked out and played two teams with not so great SGs without JJ. Bell is not going to scare anyone as an offensive threat and Foye plays half the game at PG. We are lucky we didn't face playoff teams without JJ or teams with solid SGs. To say its no coincidence we won 2 games vs. teams well below .500 without JJ is not seeing the big picture in my opinion. Especially when the Bobcats were missing their leading scorer and best perimeter defender who may have locked Marvin down as Jefferson did. Plus we got the defensive anchor in Al Horford back after 12 games who does so much more then what the box score list.

Again this deserves repeating. The guys who played SF tonight vs. Marvin do not even belong in the NBA. Don't buy too much stock in these 2 last games without JJ.

This is not meant to tear down Marvin. I have stood up for him for a while. I did whine about his lack of range last year to space the floor. It is essential for teams to have 3 floor spacers on the floor and Marvin fixed that. This post is just meant to bring to light some things that have been discussed in many other threads but not yet in this particular one.

Its late and the wine is putting me down. To all a good night and go Hawks ! Hope JJ is back soon and this team gets on the tear they started the season with when all 5 starters were healthy !

Edited February 7, 2009 by coachx

[bonethugz]

Now to JJ. We all know JJ is not a top 15 player. We all know he is not the type of player to single handily take you to a championship title. I do not believe anyone on here has ever said that he was. However, he is definately a top 15 - 30 talent in this league. It is easy to pick on a guy when he is down in a funk. JJ is coming off the worst cold stetch of his career. We should all know from expirence it won't last much longer. As our young frontcourt matures JJ will be more then willing to share the load. He has had several double digit assist games to prove that. Does JJ not lead the team in assist ? He looks for the open man all the time and will share the load more and more as teamates step up. He is leading the league in mpg and that I blame on Woody for wearing him down not just this year but the last 3 seasons. Not to mention JJ's perimeter defense on PGs and SGs. That is some serious versitility JJ offers us with Bibby to cover for on the defensive end.

i like JJ and want him to even retire as a hawk but, is this the reason we shouldn't be paying him top money, or in other words, a max deal?