It was bound to happen.

The Atlanta Hawks, reliant on perimeter shooting against the bigger Indiana Pacers, finally caught fire from deep in Game 5 on Monday night.

Despite shooting 35.5% from three, below their 36.3% mark in the regular season, through the first four games, the Hawks were even with the bumbling Pacers in their best-of-seven series. At Bankers Life Fieldhouse, where the home team lost six times all season, Atlanta won for the second time in three games thanks to lights-out shooting from downtown to push the Eastern Conference's top seed to the brink of elimination.

The final score, 107-97, was not indicative of the game as a whole. The third quarter was the deciding factor in each of the first four contests, but in this one it was a dominant second period for the Hawks.

Atlanta scored 41 points, while going 9-for-11 from three, in the second and took a 61-40 lead into halftime. The Pacers, who actually led by five points at one point in the first, couldn't keep up with the hot-shooting Hawks. Indiana managed just 19 points and failed to make a free throw. The 41 points were the most the Pacers have allowed in a quarter this season.

Indiana made a late run to save some face, but in the end the Hawks shot 55.6% from three, 50% overall and had a 33-18 edge in free throw attempts. They also had a +3 rebounding margin.

The Pacers scored more than enough to win most games, but a combination of Atlanta's unconscious shooting and Indiana's lackadaisical defense meant this one was decided less than 20 minutes after the opening tip.

Some telling stats:

Mike Scott shot 31% from three during the regular season. He was 5-for-6 in Game 5.

Shelvin Mack averaged 7.2 points over 73 games. He scored 20.

Pero Antic, the supposed difference-maker in the series, attempted three shots and scored a single point. It didn't matter.

The Pacers have flirted with their trademark defense at times in the series, but once again the Hawks enjoyed a myriad of wide-open threes. Frank Vogel has taken a beating for not adapting and featuring a smaller lineup, which is deserved, but the blame isn't entirely on the coaching staff. If you've failed to rotate or are mismatched on the perimeter, an NBA-caliber player should still give enough effort to close out.

The 2013-14 season, which was supposed to be special for the Pacers, will come to an end on Thursday night at Philips Arena if the Pacers don't get their act together over the next few days.

Running Out Of Fingers…

It may seem odd to give a postmortem before a team has been eliminated, but the wounds from the first five games of this series won't be healed solely by two consecutive, season-saving, wins.

The Hawks, the only team in the playoffs that lost more games than they won in the regular season, have exposed an Indiana team that once seemed destined for 60 wins and another classic bout with the Miami Heat in the Eastern Conference Finals.

The collapse, which some in the mainstream media forget began well before the postseason, has been epic. So who is at fault?

In truth, the blame runs top to bottom.

Larry Bird gambled twice in the heart of the season, signing Andrew Bynum as a free agent and then acquiring Evan Turner at the trade deadline. Bird was widely praised following the additions, which seemed low-risk, high-reward at the time.

Can you really blame Bird for cashing in all his chips? The Pacers were 16-1 on Dec. 1 and 35-10 when they signed Bynum on Jan. 31. They were 41-13 when they sent Danny Granger to the Philadelphia 76ers in exchange for Turner and Lavoy Allen. 

Bird, forever looking to bring a championship to his home state, saw the Larry O'Brien trophy inches from his fingertips and made moves most would in hopes of increasing his team's chances. However, those gambles have backfired. The Pacers are 23-19 since signing Bynum, who played in just two games. They are 17-16 since acquiring Turner. 

Vogel coached the Eastern Conference in this February's All-Star Game and had the Pacers cruising until the wheels fell off. Whether or not the additions of Bynum and Turner are to blame for a disruption in scheme and chemistry, a head coach must possess the ability to right the ship when the water gets a little bumpy.

Bird publicly called for Vogel to be tougher on his team earlier this year and with the end of the season in sight, it has become clear that the locker room is all over the place. Roy Hibbert made his infamous "selfish dudes" comment in March and Lance Stephenson and Evan Turner had their reported pre-playoff scuffle, which wouldn't be significant -- news flash: these things happen -- if the Pacers weren't stuck in the mud.

It has flown under the radar, but David West made some comments after Game 5 that might be even more telling than anything that has happened in the recent past.

West told Mike Wells of ESPN following the Game 5 loss: "We have to be able to make better adjustments. We just didn't respond. I have no explanation on why we gave up 40-something [points] in the second quarter. "Coach [Frank Vogel] throws [the starters] back out there and says, 'Get us out of the hole.' Just tough, particularly when a team is rolling, feeling good. We're in an uphill battle the whole game.

The players are frustrated that Vogel hasn't made adjustments against the Hawks, who are not a good matchup for a Pacers team that is at it's best when Hibbert is dominating at the rim. The Hawks have taken 46% of their shots from three in the playoffs. There aren't many attempts for Hibbert to block and Atlanta's bigs would much rather take a jump shot than attack the paint. Advantage neutralized.

You can justify Vogel sticking with the defensive game plan that won 56 games for a little while. It has a history of success, but somewhere around Game 3 it should have occurred to Vogel that changes needed to be made. He deserves blame for blindly trying to impose his will on the Hawks and not adapting to a unique opponent.

Bird gambled and Vogel has been slow to adjust, but the players in blue and gold are talented enough to overcome both of those missteps against this Hawks team. The organization has long projected a "team-first" approach and a balanced attack amid their successes. That holds true through the struggles. Everyone has to take responsibility.

Paul George has put up great numbers -- 22.6 points, 11.2 rebounds, 5.2 assists, 2.8 steals and 1.0 blocks per game on 46.8% shooting -- but the performance has been overshadowed by the losses and a continued sense of entitlement when it comes to the officials. If he wants to be a superstar and perennial MVP candidate, he has to lead his teammates as well as he produces individually.

It always starts with your best player, but the Pacers' issues have been compounded by the fact that it doesn't end there.

Stephenson has gone into hero-mode whenever the Pacers fall into a hole. He grouses when Vogel takes him out of the game.

George Hill seems to drift in-and-out of consciousness. He'll put together a few aggressive plays and then, seemingly, forget how to dribble. It's no coincidence that his numbers are better in victories than losses.

Turner was good in the first quarter of Game 4, but hasn't done much for the remainder of the series.

Hibbert should report a case of identity theft to the police. He isn't at fault when it comes to poor defensive matchups, but he has a significant height advantage over Atlanta's frontline and still looks like he's never attempted a post move before.

The Pacers are capable of stringing together the two wins required to extend their season, but losing one of the two possible remaining games wouldn't surprise anyone either. A first-round exit after reaching the season-long goal of grabbing the No. 1 seed would set off a summer of discontent in Pacerland. Bird would have to find the root of the issues that have surfaced and flush them out, kicking off a remodeling project no one foresaw two months ago.

If the Pacers somehow find a way to ground the Hawks and advance to the semifinals, it won't suddenly be all rainbows and butterflies either. A clean slate against a new opponent would be nice, but it's not going to solve problems that appear to be numerous and wide-ranging.