PG: Who knew the warriors were so good. Bucks lose 93-102
Moderators: MickeyDavis, paulpressey25
Re: PG: Who knew the warriors were so good. Bucks lose 93-102
- breakchains
- General Manager
- Posts: 8,722
- And1: 2,708
- Joined: Jun 23, 2013
Re: PG: Who knew the warriors were so good. Bucks lose 93-102
Ersan as the 5 is a horrific idea, as witnessed last night when guys had an autobahn in the paint.
Re: PG: Who knew the warriors were so good. Bucks lose 93-102
- JimmyTheKid
- General Manager
- Posts: 8,879
- And1: 5,112
- Joined: Feb 10, 2009
Re: PG: Who knew the warriors were so good. Bucks lose 93-102
Newz wrote:JimmyTheKid wrote:I'm fine with "going small" and playing Ersan or Giannis at Center. I'd actually prefer it to Zaza who is bad most of the time. But somebody needs to get down on the block to at least offer the threat of a paint touch. The offense in the 4th quarter last night was a joke. Everyone just standing around the perimeter, watching and hoping the man with the ball would make a long contested two or take his man off the dribble. They played so well for three quarters I don't know why they went away from it.
I'm not sure if we went away from anything. I think the Warriors just decided to flip the switch and they are just significantly more talented than us.
We obviously went away from traditional basketball and tried small ball in the fourth. That was pretty significant considering the results.
Re: PG: Who knew the warriors were so good. Bucks lose 93-102
- breakchains
- General Manager
- Posts: 8,722
- And1: 2,708
- Joined: Jun 23, 2013
Re: PG: Who knew the warriors were so good. Bucks lose 93-102
Beyond that, Ersan apparently has zero idea of help D/protecting the rim as the last line of defense as half the time his back was turned to a guy dunking on us. It's another one of those ideas that sounds plausible in theory but is a disaster in practice. Plumlee should get minutes.
Re: PG: Who knew the warriors were so good. Bucks lose 93-102
- LUKE23
- RealGM
- Posts: 72,289
- And1: 6,239
- Joined: May 26, 2005
- Location: Stunville
Re: PG: Who knew the warriors were so good. Bucks lose 93-102
Trade Impact:
Before: 30-23, 104.4 O, 102.2 D, 93.9 Pace, 1.42 SRS, .547 TS, .154 TOV
Now: 32-29, 102.9 O, 101.7 D, 94.1 Pace, .57 SRS, .540 TS, .157 TOV
MCW Per 36 w/MIL: 15.1 PTS, 3.7 REB, 7.0 AST, 2.3 STL, 3.9 TO, .538 TS, .226 USG, .218 TOV
Turnovers are terrible and killing our offense on a team-wide scale. It's clear MCW needs to be sub .200 usage. Parker and Giannis are going to need to be .250+ USG guys.
The one positive is that our defense is best in the NBA since the trade and I feel like that will remain a constant as long as Kidd has the team's respect. The offense can only get better given the ages of our guys (you would think).
But Christ, the stupid turnovers need to stop.
Before: 30-23, 104.4 O, 102.2 D, 93.9 Pace, 1.42 SRS, .547 TS, .154 TOV
Now: 32-29, 102.9 O, 101.7 D, 94.1 Pace, .57 SRS, .540 TS, .157 TOV
MCW Per 36 w/MIL: 15.1 PTS, 3.7 REB, 7.0 AST, 2.3 STL, 3.9 TO, .538 TS, .226 USG, .218 TOV
Turnovers are terrible and killing our offense on a team-wide scale. It's clear MCW needs to be sub .200 usage. Parker and Giannis are going to need to be .250+ USG guys.
The one positive is that our defense is best in the NBA since the trade and I feel like that will remain a constant as long as Kidd has the team's respect. The offense can only get better given the ages of our guys (you would think).
But Christ, the stupid turnovers need to stop.
Re: PG: Who knew the warriors were so good. Bucks lose 93-102
- paulpressey25
- Senior Mod - Bucks
- Posts: 60,924
- And1: 26,000
- Joined: Oct 27, 2002
Re: PG: Who knew the warriors were so good. Bucks lose 93-102
Dudley's knee is bad again. Between he and ZaZa, the cumulative effect of the first 50 games has worn them down. Add in no Mayo and we've got problems. The good news is the problems are temporary and can be solved over the next year.
I'm most excited about having two young PG prospects to watch grow up over the next year or two.
I'm most excited about having two young PG prospects to watch grow up over the next year or two.
Re: PG: Who knew the warriors were so good. Bucks lose 93-102
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 16,294
- And1: 4,668
- Joined: Jul 04, 2007
- Location: Heelville
Re: PG: Who knew the warriors were so good. Bucks lose 93-102
The "Small ball" lineup will be great next year with Giannis at Center and Parker out there at PF instead of Arsen.
Vice President of Parker-Nation.
#Jabariunleashed
#OwnTheFuture
Maxtradamus
#Jabariunleashed
#OwnTheFuture
Maxtradamus
Re: PG: Who knew the warriors were so good. Bucks lose 93-102
- LUKE23
- RealGM
- Posts: 72,289
- And1: 6,239
- Joined: May 26, 2005
- Location: Stunville
Re: PG: Who knew the warriors were so good. Bucks lose 93-102
Think we get murdered on the glass next year if we play Giannis at C with Parker at PF, but it would help our offense.
Re: PG: Who knew the warriors were so good. Bucks lose 93-102
-
- General Manager
- Posts: 8,536
- And1: 11,648
- Joined: Mar 13, 2010
- Location: Get your ass to Mars
Re: PG: Who knew the warriors were so good. Bucks lose 93-102
paulpressey25 wrote:Dudley's knee is bad again. Between he and ZaZa, the cumulative effect of the first 50 games has worn them down. Add in no Mayo and we've got problems. The good news is the problems are temporary and can be solved over the next year.
I'm most excited about having two young PG prospects to watch grow up over the next year or two.
Yeah, Duds looked like he had problems walking off the court last night. I hope it doesn't obscure the great year he had up to that point, but my expectations for him are low for the rest of this campaign.
“I went to Toronto, I went to Atlanta/I used to drink Pepsi, but now I like Fanta.”
-Hannibal Burress's impression of Canadian music figure Drake
"Poor as a mouse every morning/Rich as a cat every night."
-DCB
-Hannibal Burress's impression of Canadian music figure Drake
"Poor as a mouse every morning/Rich as a cat every night."
-DCB
PG: Who knew the warriors were so good. Bucks lose 93-102
-
- Sophomore
- Posts: 130
- And1: 49
- Joined: Jun 11, 2013
PG: Who knew the warriors were so good. Bucks lose 93-102
Enjoyed the game overall. I didn't understand the small ball lineup in the 4th. Our defense was holding its own up to that point. Henson would have offered at least some resistance at the rim when the game was getting out of hand.
I'm certain Kidd wasn't thinking the bucks could out shoot them to close out the game, so I'm curious what he was trying to accomplish there.
I'm certain Kidd wasn't thinking the bucks could out shoot them to close out the game, so I'm curious what he was trying to accomplish there.
Re: PG: Who knew the warriors were so good. Bucks lose 93-102
- CannondaleF400
- Rookie
- Posts: 1,013
- And1: 422
- Joined: May 31, 2013
Re: PG: Who knew the warriors were so good. Bucks lose 93-102
Very impressed by the overall play of the Bucks. GSW has great passing, shooting, and defense. Liked the aggressiveness from MCW and Giannis. Ennis should have been pulled after giving up the 4 point play. He played really bad on offense and defense in the 4th Q when GSW blew the game open.
PG: Who knew the warriors were so good. Bucks lose 93-102
- mke_design
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,519
- And1: 2,061
- Joined: Mar 09, 2014
PG: Who knew the warriors were so good. Bucks lose 93-102
Bucks2585 wrote:TJseven wrote:I tend to be pretty damn wordy... and I have no chance of competing with him for that title.
Im a big fan of my team. I have a lot of opinions on them. I will explain them point to point. Even if it goes against the grain.
Too long have I seen a ton groupthink. For example, Gery Woeful. I mean, in terms of certain news, he sucks. And I agree the way he presents the news isnt always right. But one of the big things thats hes broke news on, the Larry Sanders story, no one else even tried to cover it. And that was one of the THE BIGGEST THINGS hes been criticized for being "wrong" on for a couple years. I know that its an unpopular opinion. I know its an opinion that is unpopular. But the fact is, he was right one one big thing. And for A **** TON OF REPORTERS, which honestly was trying to become one, its not reasonable to expect them to always be right. He has literally been breaking a story about Larry Sanders for years. Multiple years. Ever since the Sanders problems, yet he has been bashed on the forum for years because of it. And when it come to fruition, no one acknowledges they were wrong, No one gave him any credit. Sure, he was wrong about certain things. But that happens with a newspaper/online journalist/etc. a lot. Hell, just today, I saw Adam Schefter's reports on Sam Shields and how he was sure to be a free agent. You trust your source if its connected. Based on whats been going on the entire time Woeful is reporting, Im sures hes had a source. Hell, Ive seen mentioned that Sanders past agent is the source. When that was presented, everyone suggested that Woeful sucked, as usual. In the end though, based on that ESPN story, Sanders firing an agent sounds extremely likely if the agent was reporting. The point I WANT to make, is keep an open mind towards everything. It applies to sports extremely. I mean, reports report stuff when they have reliable sources. They are literally taught to do that in school. They apply it to real life. Woeful clearly had a connection. We can recognize now that Sanders is off the team, he probably doesn't, but dont ignore a guy thats reporting stuff, no matter if its as obscure as "character issues." A person would report it unless they were absolutely sure in the source. For example, a great reporter with flaws likes Bob McGinn(Too negative) and hes even wrong a lot, especially if you look at his Sam Shields reports(Randall Cobb+)
P.S. Even if a reporter is wrong, odds are he heard it from a source that actually is in the front office or someone that knows someone. I mean, clearly the source could be wrong, its something they were "discussing" and got hung up on." Otherwise they would be "reporting" to the "reporter" when the "reporting agent" doesnt actually know.
Sorry. I respond with a wordy post. But it does matter. My post goes against the grain.(by the way, I get the same response as I got from you guys) I say a lot in my posts on a website called footballsfuture.com. But each post should make a point. And the fact is, I love Giannis and Parker. But theyre are clearly flawed players. And instead of taking the approach that "Oh Eddy Curry will rebound because he can get better(haha reference HAHAHAH) or a Jan Vesley(Who our forum loved a few years ago) will expand his game to become a starter because he was "young." Its a big concern. Because NBA player, honestly in general, show their overall career skills right away. then expand on it. Sure, a ton of people can show me obscure references, but i will point to Middleton vs Nate Wolters/Draft Position and All. And I see our team is based on 3 players that cant shoot. And its hard to develop around them in our division
TL;DR
Re: PG: Who knew the warriors were so good. Bucks lose 93-102
- MadBlueEdwards
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,024
- And1: 1,317
- Joined: Sep 24, 2010
Re: PG: Who knew the warriors were so good. Bucks lose 93-102
LUKE23 wrote:Think we get murdered on the glass next year if we play Giannis at C with Parker at PF, but it would help our offense.
I have no numbers to back this up, but I feel like Giannis has held his own pretty well rebounding wise when he's been in at PF or C.
Re: PG: Who knew the warriors were so good. Bucks lose 93-102
-
- Starter
- Posts: 2,159
- And1: 292
- Joined: Jul 25, 2011
Re: PG: Who knew the warriors were so good. Bucks lose 93-102
MadBlueEdwards wrote:LUKE23 wrote:Think we get murdered on the glass next year if we play Giannis at C with Parker at PF, but it would help our offense.
I have no numbers to back this up, but I feel like Giannis has held his own pretty well rebounding wise when he's been in at PF or C.
Rebounding yes, but he's still not going to stop anyone from backing him down for easy looks for themselves or the kick out when guys have to double down
Re: PG: Who knew the warriors were so good. Bucks lose 93-102
-
- Sixth Man
- Posts: 1,714
- And1: 2,407
- Joined: Feb 23, 2015
Re: PG: Who knew the warriors were so good. Bucks lose 93-102
It was a great day for #teamennis, until it turned into a not so great day for #teamennis on defense.
MCW did some stupid crap, but I'm very happy to have him around to defend dudes like Curry. If not for the 5 minute window that Curry destroyed the Ennis/Bayless backcourt, he might not have even cracked double figures. MCW has to cut down on the turnovers and quick shots, but the defensive improvement over Knight is really noticeable.
The Bucks one advantage in the game was rebounding, which seems totally backwards with how rebounding has gone this year. Going small in the 4th destroyed that one advantage. Would've liked to see them try to stay on the offensive glass to stay in the game.
MCW did some stupid crap, but I'm very happy to have him around to defend dudes like Curry. If not for the 5 minute window that Curry destroyed the Ennis/Bayless backcourt, he might not have even cracked double figures. MCW has to cut down on the turnovers and quick shots, but the defensive improvement over Knight is really noticeable.
The Bucks one advantage in the game was rebounding, which seems totally backwards with how rebounding has gone this year. Going small in the 4th destroyed that one advantage. Would've liked to see them try to stay on the offensive glass to stay in the game.
Re: PG: Who knew the warriors were so good. Bucks lose 93-102
-
- Banned User
- Posts: 42,328
- And1: 2,551
- Joined: Dec 05, 2005
Re: PG: Who knew the warriors were so good. Bucks lose 93-102
paulpressey25 wrote:Dudley's knee is bad again. Between he and ZaZa, the cumulative effect of the first 50 games has worn them down. Add in no Mayo and we've got problems. The good news is the problems are temporary and can be solved over the next year.
Can be solved? How do you replace guys like Dudley, Zaza and Mayo?!?!?!?!?!?1/1/1/!?!/1!?/1?!!?1/11?!/!!?!?1/1/1?
Re: PG: Who knew the warriors were so good. Bucks lose 93-102
-
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,665
- And1: 1,148
- Joined: Jan 12, 2008
Re: PG: Who knew the warriors were so good. Bucks lose 93-102
We aren't playing Giannis at C unless he gains 30-40 pounds of muscle, and honestly that would ruin his game. He relies on quickness. He isn't a post player.
Khris Middleton - Beating up on Trash Can Teams since 1943. Invisible Man status otherwise.
Re: PG: Who knew the warriors were so good. Bucks lose 93-102
- raferfenix
- RealGM
- Posts: 22,833
- And1: 3,526
- Joined: Apr 05, 2003
Re: PG: Who knew the warriors were so good. Bucks lose 93-102
Came away from the game very encouraged.
We put a scare into a team we had no business competing with talent-wise. Our defense really rattled them and MCW was a big part of that.
That said, I think Jason Kidd might as well have written this for him:
http://www.theplayerstribune.com/jason- ... ll-advice/
If MCW takes the advice to slow down, I think he can become a monster.
We put a scare into a team we had no business competing with talent-wise. Our defense really rattled them and MCW was a big part of that.
That said, I think Jason Kidd might as well have written this for him:
http://www.theplayerstribune.com/jason- ... ll-advice/
If MCW takes the advice to slow down, I think he can become a monster.
Re: PG: Who knew the warriors were so good. Bucks lose 93-102
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 16,294
- And1: 4,668
- Joined: Jul 04, 2007
- Location: Heelville
Re: PG: Who knew the warriors were so good. Bucks lose 93-102
LUKE23 wrote:Think we get murdered on the glass next year if we play Giannis at C with Parker at PF, but it would help our offense.
I'm not talking about full games. Just small stretches during games.
Vice President of Parker-Nation.
#Jabariunleashed
#OwnTheFuture
Maxtradamus
#Jabariunleashed
#OwnTheFuture
Maxtradamus
Re: PG: Who knew the warriors were so good. Bucks lose 93-102
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 17,132
- And1: 2,279
- Joined: Mar 03, 2006
Re: PG: Who knew the warriors were so good. Bucks lose 93-102
LUKE23 wrote:Trade Impact:
Before: 30-23, 104.4 O, 102.2 D, 93.9 Pace, 1.42 SRS, .547 TS, .154 TOV
Now: 32-29, 102.9 O, 101.7 D, 94.1 Pace, .57 SRS, .540 TS, .157 TOV
MCW Per 36 w/MIL: 15.1 PTS, 3.7 REB, 7.0 AST, 2.3 STL, 3.9 TO, .538 TS, .226 USG, .218 TOV
Turnovers are terrible and killing our offense on a team-wide scale. It's clear MCW needs to be sub .200 usage. Parker and Giannis are going to need to be .250+ USG guys.
The one positive is that our defense is best in the NBA since the trade and I feel like that will remain a constant as long as Kidd has the team's respect. The offense can only get better given the ages of our guys (you would think).
But Christ, the stupid turnovers need to stop.
The turnovers are ridiculous, it is almost like they are trying to play to fast, damn the TO's. I just don't get it, over penetration, over passing and it is everybody making bad TO's not just 1 or 2 guys, they just are playing very reckless, this has to be killing Kidd.
Re: PG: Who knew the warriors were so good. Bucks lose 93-102
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 17,132
- And1: 2,279
- Joined: Mar 03, 2006
Re: PG: Who knew the warriors were so good. Bucks lose 93-102
Max Green wrote:LUKE23 wrote:Think we get murdered on the glass next year if we play Giannis at C with Parker at PF, but it would help our offense.
I'm talking about full games. Just small stretches during games.
The Bucks need to find a legit 5 in the offseason, needs to be priority #1.