Jamal Crawford may get Woody fired

[TheNorthCydeRises]

I was on my way to work yesterday afternoon, listening to local sports talk radio yesterday, when I heard the news. ATL and GS has a deal pending . . . Speedy and Acie . . for Jamal Crawford.

To say that I was in shock, was an understatement. More like disbelief. And I tried like hell to post something yesterday about this topic via my phone, but it didn't go through each of the times I tried to post.

So before I really get into this, let me say this right off the bat.

I ABSOULTELY AGREE WITH HOTLANTA with his opinion of Jamal Crawford and what he could do negatively to this team. I really do . . with everything in my heart.

To me . . this trade is like finding out that an asteroid is about to hit Earth, and we have 10 months to avert disaster. Woody knows this. He's seen Jamal play for the past 8 years. He knows that this guy, while not a bad locker room guy, is a straight up CHEMISTRY KILLER on the court . . on both ends of the floor.

I've ragged on JC for years . . . YEARS. To me, he's a poor man Gilbert Arenas. And that my friends, is NOT a good thing at all. JC's shot selection is horrible. He's not a good defensive player at all, because he can't guard 1's or 2's. And he's one of the most inconsistent players in the league. So that means that if his shot isn't falling, his presence on the court will negatively affect the entire team. Just like how when Arenas is having a bad shooting game, the Wizards will almost always lose.

Why?

Because the fool KEEPS SHOOTING.

It's funny. If Sund would've somehow got his hands on Allen Iverson, this board would be a sesspool of negativity right now, saying everything that Iverson shoots too much, to he can't play defense, to he kills chemistry on the court, because he needs the ball in his hands all the time to be effective.

But doesn't that same description fit Crawford?

And the catch with Crawford, is the same with Iverson. The catch is that when he's on, he's REALLY on, and you have to keep playing him and letting him shoot. But when he's off, can you afford to sit him, seeing that he has the potential to get hot? So a coach is always walking a tightrope with a player like that.

And look at some of the coaches that Crawford has played for.

- Tim Floyd and Scott Skiles in Chicago

- Larry Brown, Isaiah Thomas, and Mike D'Antoni in New York

- Don Nelson in Golden St.

And he's still basically the same player that he was when he came into the league?

Wow.

I have 2 big fears with Crawford:

- Because of his streakiness, he may not be effective at all taking 10 - 12 shots a game, functioning as a role player. He's always been a player that has been able to have the opportunity to shoot himself out of a slump within a game, because he's playing 35+ minutes. Plus he's always been the guy with the ball in his hands. If people don't want him to start here, and we have Bibby back, you're talking about Jamal playing 25 - 30 minutes a game. If we have no Bibby, then he'll have to play 35+ minutes. That's not good.

In a lot of ways . . JC reminds me of Salim Stoudamire. If Salim were 6-5, he'd play EXACTLY like Jamal Crawford. He'd settle for long jumpers too much. He'd take very difficult shots. He'd go through stretches in which he misses 5 - 8 jumpers in a row, then hit his next 4 - 6 in a row. And like JC, Salim could be very explosive . . if and when he got major minutes. But his deficiencies everywhere else would FLAT OUT KILL YOU, if he weren't making shots.

Don't believe me? Look at the per 36 minute numbers for Jamal last year, compared to Salim in his best year as a Hawk . . which was his rookie year in 2005 - 06:

Crawford: 18.6 ppg . . 2.8 rebs . . 4.2 asst . . 0.8 stls . . 2.1 TOs . . FG: 41% . . 3FG: 35.7% . . FT: 87.2% . . TS: 54.5%

Salim: 17.2 ppg . . 3.4 rebs . . 2.2 asst . . 0.8 stls . . 2.4 TOs . . FG: 41.5% . . 3FG: 38% . . FT: 90% . . TS: 54.5%

- And 2nd, because he HAS TO SHOOT in order to help this team ( like Salim was when he was here ), he's actually going to take away shots from the very guys we're tryiing to develop . . namely Smith, Horford, and Marvin ( possibly ).

If his shot is on, it won't be a major problem . . unless Smith, Horford, and Marvin start jacking up shots because other players are shooting too much and they can't get touches. I can definitely see Smith doing just that ( like he did in the playoffs at times ), if JJ, Bibby, and Crawford are trying to carry the team offensively, and Smith has to depend on himself in creating his own shot, to get shot attempts.

But if Crawford is off, he's not going to stop shooting. And because of that, he won't make that extra pass to an open teammate who may have a better chance of making a shot. That'll hurt the team, and start to pizz people off. That's when the Salim effect will be seen in its true light.

A lot of you are elated because the Hawks did "something", and got a player who can be great a times, into this mix. But for the first time in a long time, I'm scared that we just made a move that will kill our progress as a team. I know that a player like this is NOT a good guy to add to a team that preaches balance on offense. You saw what a player like that did to the Pistons. Crawford may not prevent us from winning 45 games next year, or making the playoffs, but he's not going to improve us either, because he adds an element that isn't going to get us to that next level.

We need a BIG MAN.

I also think that Sund may have made this move, as a possible worst-case scenario move to compensate for possibly losing JJ after next summer. If we lose JJ, we'll at least have a player who has shown the ability to create his own shot and be explosive. LOL . . it won't make us a better team though.

I'll end this post with this.

Crawford on his problems with defense ( this is a quote from this past January ):

http://48minutes.net/2009/01/16/warriors-t...om-ground-zero/

“On the ball, it’s not so bad, unless it’s a pick and roll and we’re doing coverages or whatever,” Crawford said. “I think I have to get better off the ball, honestly. I think off the ball sometimes I can get caught up watching and then a back cut happens, or something like that.”

So he has a problem with pick and rolls, and he gets caught up watching the ball, and gets beat on a back cut. LOL . . isn't this the exact issue we have with Bibby?

Woody . . you better fight this trade TO THE DEATH, if it hasn't been finalized yet. This guy is going to get you fired.

When the Hawks start the 2009 season with an 8 - 10 record, the fan base will blame YOU for not using JC right, instead of looking at the fact that JC is shooting 38% FG, taking 14 shtos a game in 25 minutes of PT, and taking way too many long jumpers. Fight it till the bitter end Woody. Don't let Sund do this, if you can help it.

Sund . . please trade JC tonight, with the #19 pick, and get us a quality big man to add to the rotation. With Shaq going to Cleveland, addressing the frontline is now a bigger priority than ever.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

And for all of you that believe that Crawford gives us a guy that takes the ball to the hole, look at this stat from 82games.com

This is the percentage of his shots that are jumpers, and the percentage he drew a foul on shot attempts, in the last 7 years

2003: 81% . . . drew foul 6%

2004: 85% . . . drew foul 5%

2005: 85% . . . drew foul 5%

2006: 79% . . . drew foul 12%

2007: 78% . . . drew foul 9%

2008: 86% . . . drew foul 9%

2009: 86% . . . drew foul 10%

As a Hawks fan, I have no choice but to root for this guy once the season starts. And it won't deter me from going to games. But I think Sund just bought a nice looking, but bootleg Rolex . . thinking he was buying an actual Rolex.

This article says it all about Jamal.

http://www.cosellout.com/?p=229

Edited June 25, 2009 by northcyde

[mrhonline]

You are not alone in your concern. I share many of your sentiments.

The good news is that he's no worse in any aspect of the game than Flip. So, for 2009-10, he shouldn't hurt.

[Johnnybravo4]

Aww what's wrong Kirk Hinrich not available? Or maybe we should go find Dan Dickau?

[GameTime]

So really it is a win-win situation.

[drzachary]

This article says it all about Jamal.

http://www.cosellout.com/?p=229

You're right, it does... especially at the end, where it talks about how he has the DNA for 6th man of the year, and you don't want him as your first option. We all know this, hopefully Sund and Woody do as well! Has Crawford ever played behind/beside a Joe/Smith quality tandem?

Is there anything to indicate that his coaches attempted to stop him from taking too many shots? Or could it be that he was actually given the green light and TOLD to be aggressive?

Maybe he can be a changed player under Woody. I'm being *really* optimistic.

[coachx]

Aww what's wrong Kirk Hinrich not available?

Not for Speedy and Law

[Packfill]

Some people were happy about the Big Hog trade too . . .

[Packfill]

You're right, it does... especially at the end, where it talks about how he has the DNA for 6th man of the year, and you don't want him as your first option. We all know this, hopefully Sund and Woody do as well! Has Crawford ever played behind/beside a Joe/Smith quality tandem?

Is there anything to indicate that his coaches attempted to stop him from taking too many shots? Or could it be that he was actually given the green light and TOLD to be aggressive?

Maybe he can be a changed player under Woody. I'm being *really* optimistic.

Well if Woody had no problem giving Flip Murray the green light then it is hard to believe he will now put his foot down with Crawford, since they are essentially the same player.

[Brotha2ThaNite]

yesterday on the ESPN MB people were killing us for getting him saying he throw up too many bad shots and he will set us back.

that was funny because when we made the Bibby trade people were saying we got a great deal.

Both of the trades came for bench players. Why are people not liking this trade? Now that is scary. I too think he may get Woody in trouble.

I hope that I'm wrong and this guy comes to play his butt off. :angel19:

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Aww what's wrong Kirk Hinrich not available? Or maybe we should go find Dan Dickau?

What's wrong, is that this is NOT the player that we need. Hotlanta explained this perfectly yesterday, when he said that all he is . . is a chucker that provides inconsistent outside shooting. We're already an inconsistent outside shooting team, so you go out and get ANOTHER ONE, just because we don't want to pay Bibby more than what he's worth?

As for Hinrich, at least with him, you'll get good defense out of the guy when his shot isn't going. LOL . . and even though Hinrich is an inconsistent shooter himself, he's STILL a better shooter than Crawford. Plus he can guard 2 positions, unlike Crawford, who can barely guard the towel boy.

Like I said, I hope I'm dead wrong about Crawford. But this guy is like those fake Prada bags that a man might buy his girl out on the street for $30. Yeah, it may look like Prada . . but it ain't Prada. More like Nada.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

yesterday on the ESPN MB people were killing us for getting him saying he throw up too many bad shots and he will set us back.

that was funny because when we made the Bibby trade people were saying we got a great deal.

Both of the trades came for bench players. Why are people not liking this trade? Now that is scary. I too think he may get Woody in trouble.

I hope that I'm wrong and this guy comes to play his butt off. :angel19:

We did get a great deal with the Bibby trade. Bibby was a guy who could make shots, and knew how to run a team. Bibby throughout his career has proven to be a clutch player.

Jamal Crawford? He has clutch "moments". And he does jack up a ton of bad shots.

It's not the people we traded Crawford for, that is the problem. It's the fact that we traded for him in the first place, that was the problem.

But if we don't make any more moves, just watch how Crawford plays. You'll start having Salim Stoudamire flashbacks. He'll be great on some nights, flat out horrible on others.

And I tell you guys this. If Woody can get Crawford to be an efficient player, NO ONE should EVER talk about him being a bad coach ever again.

[BusBoyIsBack]

I think it's a terrible move.

But Im not too worried about it right now, more focused on the draft. That is where we could really help/hurt this team's future depending on who we pick.

I swear if we don't get a PG, then Rick Sund is a complete joke much more than Billy Knight.

In fact not getting a PG in this draft would be much worse in FOREsight than taking Marvin over Chris Paul.

When we took Marvin we were a talentless team desperate for a star player.

Well now we actually have pieces in place and just need a couple more. And this class is loaded absolutely loaded with PGs to the point where one should be there when we pick. And if we pass on one for a guy without even close to the upside that we were desperate for when we took Marvin, quite frankly that is one of the dumbest decisions in the history of GMing in the city in all the major sports

[Plainview1981]

What's wrong, is that this is NOT the player that we need. Hotlanta explained this perfectly yesterday, when he said that all he is . . is a chucker that provides inconsistent outside shooting. We're already an inconsistent outside shooting team, so you go out and get ANOTHER ONE, just because we don't want to pay Bibby more than what he's worth?

As for Hinrich, at least with him, you'll get good defense out of the guy when his shot isn't going. LOL . . and even though Hinrich is an inconsistent shooter himself, he's STILL a better shooter than Crawford. Plus he can guard 2 positions, unlike Crawford, who can barely guard the towel boy.

Like I said, I hope I'm dead wrong about Crawford. But this guy is like those fake Prada bags that a man might buy his girl out on the street for $30. Yeah, it may look like Prada . . but it ain't Prada. More like Nada.

It's not like JC is a high percentage shooter either. He will shoot 42% at best and shoot 35% in 3's at best. Hinrich is better than Crawford without a doubt. I wonder if we could have used what was traded yesterday to get Kaman instead. Scoring guards are a dime a dozen.

Edited June 25, 2009 by Hotlanta1981

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Well if Woody had no problem giving Flip Murray the green light then it is hard to believe he will now put his foot down with Crawford, since they are essentially the same player.

Exactly.

Because even if we re-sign Bibby, we're still going to be a team that only sees JJ and Crawford being able to consistently create a shot on the perimeter. That means that Woody will almost have no choice to give Crawford the green light to try to score points.

Because JJ is so unselfish at times, he'll swing the ball to Crawford if he's open. And Crawford WILL SHOOT THAT MO-FO, you can believe that. It won't matter if he's 1 - 8 . . he's jacking up that shot.

It wouldn't surprise me one bit, to see Crawford being 2nd on the team in shot attempts, at the end of November. And if he is, it'll be very interesting to see what his stats are, and what our overall record is.

I'll have to elevate Woody to a top 10 coach, if he can get Crawford to play efficient basketball.

[mrhonline]

Flip's career high TS was .497 before last season. It was .543 under Woodson.

Flip's career high eFG was .462 before last season. It was. .501 under Woodson.

Jamal's career high TS (1000+ minutes) is .545. His career high eFg is .483.

^^^This is why I'm not panning the trade yet. I want to see how well he fits under Woody ball.

[drzachary]

It's not like JC is a high percentage shooter either. He will shoot 42% at best and shoot 35% in 3's at best. Hinrich is better than Crawford without a doubt. I wonder if we could have used what was traded yesterday to get Kaman instead. Scoring guards are a dime a dozen.

Hinrich is only slightly better at shooting than JC (55.1 TS% vs 54.5 TS% last year).. but was Hinrich available for our scraps? In fact, maybe we could STILL get Hinrich!

[drzachary]

Flip's career high TS was .497 before last season. It was .543 under Woodson.

Flip's career high eFG was .462 before last season. It was. .501 under Woodson.

Jamal's career high TS (1000+ minutes) is .545. His career high eFg is .483.

^^^This is why I'm not panning the trade yet. I want to see how well he fits under Woody ball.

That's a huge benefit of playing with Joe, who draws double-teams AND can pass out of them with some great skill. I would bet that Jamal Crawford's TS/eFG go up this season too.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

It's not like JC is a high percentage shooter either. He will shoot 42% at best and shoot 35% in 3's at best. Hinrich is better than Crawford without a doubt. I wonder if we could have used what was traded yesterday to get Kaman instead. Scoring guards are a dime a dozen.

I agree . . Kaman or Camby. I'd take either one.

I mean ish . . one of the mocks had us taking Jodie Meeks in the 2nd round. He looked like a superstar at Kentucky at times. But he's nothing but a one-dimensional player. But if he can consistently knock down shots, I'd rather have a guy like that, than Crawford.

I guess it's a first for everything Hot. This is the first time that I've ever agreed with every word you've said on this board. Every single last word.

[Johnnybravo4]

I agree . . Kaman or Camby. I'd take either one.

I mean ish . . one of the mocks had us taking Jodie Meeks in the 2nd round. He looked like a superstar at Kentucky at times. But he's nothing but a one-dimensional player. But if he can consistently knock down shots, I'd rather have a guy like that, than Crawford.

I guess it's a first for everything Hot. This is the first time that I've ever agreed with every word you've said on this board. Every single last word.

See my lineup thread. Thats the squad we need to field.