RealGM

JimmyTheKid wrote:

CanadaBucks wrote:Does it matter?.... ..............................

Nope. Not even a little bit. Going into the season, every single sane Bucks fan knew this team wasn't going to contend for a title. Nobody needs a reminder that this organization is swimming in mediocrity. Trying to figure out where the Bucks would finish in the West is just another way to crap on the team after a win. Just another way to push an agenda. Beat the Lakers? They're under .500. Beat the Bulls? No Rose. Beat the Hornets? The best player has a unibrow. Beat the Cavs? Irving was sick. Lose to the Bobcats? Trade Ersan and kill Monta Ellis. Beat the Kings? The Bucks would be the 17 seed in the West. And on... and on... and on...

There's agendas both ways. Remember people wanting to sign Jennings up for the rest of his life on a 500 million dollar deal after the second game of the season?

Do any of the guys who jumped ship post here at all? Kos and his new user name ( was he related to Bogut?) Brandonballer, Tasball, Totalpackage, LauryBeard?

blkout wrote:

JimmyTheKid wrote:

CanadaBucks wrote:Does it matter?.... ..............................

Nope. Not even a little bit. Going into the season, every single sane Bucks fan knew this team wasn't going to contend for a title. Nobody needs a reminder that this organization is swimming in mediocrity. Trying to figure out where the Bucks would finish in the West is just another way to crap on the team after a win. Just another way to push an agenda. Beat the Lakers? They're under .500. Beat the Bulls? No Rose. Beat the Hornets? The best player has a unibrow. Beat the Cavs? Irving was sick. Lose to the Bobcats? Trade Ersan and kill Monta Ellis. Beat the Kings? The Bucks would be the 17 seed in the West. And on... and on... and on...

There's agendas both ways. Remember people wanting to sign Jennings up for the rest of his life on a 500 million dollar deal after the second game of the season?

Nope. Anyway, how would that be considered an "agenda?" There are a lot of people who like Brandon Jennings' game. Myself included. I'm not trying to break the bank for him but he deserves a contract much like the one Jrue Holiday just received.

Here's an example of an "agenda" related to Brandon Jennings. Say Jennings started to turn the ball over at a high rate, shot 60% from the FT line, dogged it on defense, and carried himself like those games after he didn't make the All-Star team. I wouldn't simply put it out of my mind like it never happened. It would be disappointing, because I'm a fan. But if I had a "Brandon Jennings can do no wrong" agenda, I'd attempt to twist the truth and blame his deficiencies on someone or something else.

Same goes for Ersan. I was one of the folks who wanted to pay him. Thought he got a fair deal. Was happy to see him back on the Bucks. Well, he was pretty much terrible for the first 15 games of the season. I admitted he was terrible instead of attempting to twist the truth due to some "see, I told you we should have paid Ersan" agenda. However, I also wasn't about to make any sort of final verdicts about the signing based on a 15 game sample size.

Now, regarding Monta Ellis, some folks are so angry about the Bogut trade they can't look at anything objectively. If one were to stumble upon this forum without ever watching basketball, they might conclude that Monta Ellis is one of the worst players in the NBA. The "agenda" comes into play when people only want to see and discuss the bad in Monta Ellis. They can't allow themselves to see the good. Because of the agenda. Similar to the anti-Jennings contingent. Only see the bad. I see Jennings as arguably a top-10 NBA point guard. And, without a shred of doubt, no lower than a top-15. Some here don't even see Jennings as a starter. Because of some ridiculous agenda. Its ok to be wrong about something. Admitting it and moving on seem to be the tough part.

You don't need to have an "agenda" to think Monta sucks at basketball. I'm appalled he's on my team playing major minutes. I can't stand his game.

I don't always get along with paul and AB but there's really no question that this place is a lot better with them here than without.

I was right when I started saying they should trade Bogut 5 years ago though. I think we can all agree on that at this point.

Ayt wrote:You don't need to have an "agenda" to think Monta sucks at basketball. I'm appalled he's on my team playing major minutes. I can't stand his game.

But to say he sucks at basketball is factually incorrect. He would get minutes with any team in the NBA. But you certainly don't have to like him, his game or like him being on your team.

CanadaBucks wrote:

Ayt wrote:You don't need to have an "agenda" to think Monta sucks at basketball. I'm appalled he's on my team playing major minutes. I can't stand his game.

But to say he sucks at basketball is factually incorrect. He would get minutes with any team in the NBA. But you certainly don't have to like him, his game or like him being on your team.

Right.

I'd much rather have more of a traditional SG, too, but I haven't been intrigued with any of the names thrown out there by this board. Sure, give me DWade, Klay Thompson, or Kobe, but I'll pass on guys like Redick, Burks, or Affalo.

CanadaBucks wrote:

Ayt wrote:You don't need to have an "agenda" to think Monta sucks at basketball. I'm appalled he's on my team playing major minutes. I can't stand his game.

But to say he sucks at basketball is factually incorrect. He would get minutes with any team in the NBA. But you certainly don't have to like him, his game or like him being on your team.

I think he's a negative on both ends of the court, so, yes, I'd say it is factually correct. He's the Drew Gooden of SGs. Our SG depth is absolutely atrocious, so we pretty much have to play him, but if we had even average players I wouldn't really want him to play at all.

I like Burks as a developmental guy, Redick as a guy off the bench(neither would replace Monta effectively imo) but not sure if I'd want to pay Afflalo what's left on his contract . I just find it absurd that people think replacing Monta with Lamb would make us a better team.

Ayt wrote:

CanadaBucks wrote:

Ayt wrote:You don't need to have an "agenda" to think Monta sucks at basketball. I'm appalled he's on my team playing major minutes. I can't stand his game.

But to say he sucks at basketball is factually incorrect. He would get minutes with any team in the NBA. But you certainly don't have to like him, his game or like him being on your team.

I think he's a negative on both ends of the court, so, yes, I'd say it is factually correct. He's the Drew Gooden of SGs. Our SG depth is absolutely atrocious, so we pretty much have to play him, but if we had even average players I wouldn't really want him to play at all.

The point is that thinking something doesn't make it correct, it's just opinion.

Redick can significantly shoot better and dishes out the same number of assists per 36 compared to Ellis. He does gamble less than Ellis though and doesn't get as many steals.

crkone wrote:Redick can significantly shoot better and dishes out the same number of assists per 36 compared to Ellis. He does gamble less than Ellis though and doesn't get as many steals.

This is a really big if because it hasn't happened enough yet but.......IF Monta ditched the long 2s for more penetration, the team would definitely be better. His driving and dishing creates easy shots for teammates and this is something Redick could not provide. I would love to see Redick here as a back up 2(expiring right?) and have Lamb get a little more seasoning.....

CanadaBucks wrote:
The point is that thinking something doesn't make it correct, it's just opinion.

The problem though, is that there is a lot of evidence to back up the claim that Monta is a negative on both ends. The Bucks have been a ton better when he's been off the floor this year in terms of their overall efficiency. Objectively, the same can me said for Jennings this season as well.

It's just really, really hard to argue Ellis helps our offense when he's that inefficient with that many possessions and we're ranked 20th in offense.

He did show improvement over the last couple of games though.

LUKE23 wrote:

CanadaBucks wrote:
The point is that thinking something doesn't make it correct, it's just opinion.

The problem though, is that there is a lot of evidence to back up the claim that Monta is a negative on both ends. The Bucks have been a ton better when he's been off the floor this year in terms of their overall efficiency. Objectively, the same can me said for Jennings this season as well.

It's just really, really hard to argue Ellis helps our offense when he's that inefficient with that many possessions and we're ranked 20th in offense.

To be honest I am not a huge fan of Monta but I do think he is somewhat better than garbage and I doubt we would be any better that 11-9 with anyone else playing the majority of minutes at SG other that guys that are unavailable to us. Stats are great but the ony one that really matters is W-L. We are 6-7 vs. teams .500 or better and 5-2 vs. teams below .500. We are a 6-8 seed imo although with the lack of elite teams in the East, anywhere 3-9 is possible. He's getting to the line more per 36 than any year but one in his career. Cut out some of the 3s and long 2s and I think he can be a good player for the Bucks. Would I look to resign him? Probably not but I'm willing to ride out the season on him because I don't think there's someone out there that makes us instantly better.

We're being outscored on the season (by 4) and the biggest predictor of W-L is O/D efficiency. I think we could definitely add a lower volume SG who can shoot the 3 (thus scoring at higher efficiency) that defends his man better than Ellis while also giving more shots to guys like Dunleavy, Harris, Ilyasova. In short, I think we could improve on both ends to be honest. This team is playing .500 ball almost across the board with every metric you can find right now. I don't think that is their ceiling given the defensive talent they have in the frontcourt. An efficient 15 ppg scorer that can defend definitely improves the team.

LUKE23 wrote:We're being outscored on the season (by 4) and the biggest predictor of W-L is O/D efficiency. I think we could definitely add a lower volume SG who can shoot the 3 (thus scoring at higher efficiency) that defends his man better than Ellis while also giving more shots to guys like Dunleavy, Harris, Ilyasova. In short, I think we could improve on both ends to be honest. This team is playing .500 ball almost across the board with every metric you can find right now. I don't think that is their ceiling given the defensive talent they have in the frontcourt. An efficient 15 ppg scorer that can defend definitely improves the team.

Okay so you say if J.J. Redick was our SG instead of Monta we would be better than 11-9? I'm not so sure but my optimism is placed on Monta staying down around 17-18 shots and continuing getting to the line. If he goes back to the early season Monta I'll retract what I said.

I don't know that we're better or worse than 11-9 as of today but we end up with a better record for the season with Redick over Ellis yes.

vlietinho wrote:He did show improvement over the last couple of games though.

In the 2010-2011 season he was a 45% fg shooter and 36% from 3 and 53.6 TS.

This year he's shooting 39% fg and 22% from 3 with a 48% TS.

The question is can he get back to his 2010-11 numbers? If he did, he'd have a shot at being a lot more meaningful player to the Bucks and people who like aspects of his game would have an easier time defending him.

But Woelfel has been touting his agenda that this is part of a permanent decline. He could be right. Not sure.

But Woelfel has been touting his agenda that this is part of a permanent decline. He could be right. Not sure.

Wonder if Woelfel will ever change his twitter main page.