ImageImage

Incident Involving Mo & Tony Brown

Moderators: paulpressey25, MickeyDavis

User avatar
SupremeHustle
RealGM
Posts: 27,093
And1: 28,321
Joined: Feb 11, 2005
Location: Cloud 9
 

 

Post#81 » by SupremeHustle » Sat Jan 26, 2008 6:21 pm

Redd's still the bigger problem for this team. As long as he's on it they won't get a player better than him (without luck) and without a player better than him, mediocrity shall reign supreme.
jschligs wrote:Am I the only one who doesn't know who the **** SupremeHustle is?
dogswithbeesintheirmouths
Head Coach
Posts: 6,491
And1: 1,985
Joined: Dec 18, 2005

 

Post#82 » by dogswithbeesintheirmouths » Sat Jan 26, 2008 6:22 pm

paulpressey25 wrote:b) Is the coaching staff correct or is Mo correct?


I'd say neither, but I wouldn't blame Mo for getting pissed off.

The idea that Mo hasn't gotten any criticism from the coaches is absurd. Players probably aren't used to getting called out in front of their teammates like that, and I don't see why, in this case, it would really be necessary.

Maybe he needed to be called out, I don't know. Mo's defense is terrible. He never gets through a pick, he concedes it every time and switches whenever possible. But I doubt it will make any difference since he hasn't shown much ability on defense since he's been here.

Players and coaches argue sometimes, they can get over it. I don't think this is anything special, it's just the result of the frustrations of losing. We should know by now that a lot of people with this team know what to say, but they don't know how to do it.
User avatar
paul
RealGM
Posts: 32,398
And1: 1,038
Joined: Dec 11, 2007
 

 

Post#83 » by paul » Sat Jan 26, 2008 6:23 pm

cam2win wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Maybe their is bias, I think most of us have our clear "biases" on why this team sucks and who to blame.

Maybe it is true Mo was called out, and maybe that is why he didn't play vs Phoenix. And if true then Tony Brown is a coward for not saying Mo's name directly and immature for not confronting Mo privately about it. It's not just Mo or the PG play that is wrong with this team, to single Mo out is rediculous.
I wish they wouldn't switch on pick and rolls too, most teams don't. However it's not just Mo, it's almost everyone on the perimeter. Whether that's the players fault or the coaching staffs fault is debatable.

We do agree, I hope the backcourt is broken up....and I hope it's during the season and not the offseason.


Sorry but what's ridiculous is any form of defense of Mo whatsoever if this incident actually went down as reported. So you think every time the coaching staff see a problem with positional play they should pull the players in question aside and privately address it? Bye bye team meetings and post game analysis.
Whether the PG play is the problem or not holds absolutely no relevance, if the coach's see a problem with the play, whether we agree with it or not, it's their fricking job to fix it, that involves addressing it. I don't care how it was done, there is absolutely no defence for a player attempting to attack a coach. I am sick to death of our coach at the moment, but do I think someone should attack him if he calls them out? Please.

I would actually imagine this would be grounds for termination of contract if they wanted to get technical on it, although I could be wrong.

EDIT - If this remained verbal and the 'attack' portion has been overstated I don't have any great problem with it. Anyone who has played a high level of sport has had a verbal with a coach, however there is a line that once crossed is very difficult to go back over.
User avatar
europa
RealGM
Posts: 44,919
And1: 471
Joined: Jun 25, 2005
Location: Right Behind You

 

Post#84 » by europa » Sat Jan 26, 2008 6:31 pm

paulpressey25 wrote:BTW...I don't think I would interpret anything with Mo to mean the team is thrilled with Redd right now either.


I posted something along these lines in xTitan's thread. There are issues in the locker room right now that involve Redd. That's a fact. But it's also a fact that there are issues involving other players on the team as well, including Mo. If this incident is true - and like you I have no reason at this time to disbelieve it - it speaks to the issues that clearly are affecting this team and ones that go far beyond just Michael Redd.

With regard to Mo missing the following game, I have wondered if that was a result of a team suspension due to this incident. That belief is PURE speculation on my part and I want to emphasize that clearly. But given the nature of the injury (a pinky injury?) and the fact Mo has played through much worse injuries this season already, I do think the timing of him missing this game is at the very least a bit curious.

The main question I had was whether a suspension could be handled internally without the team having to announce it. I'm not sure if there's anything in the Collective Bargaining Agreement with the Player's Association that would prevent that. Or if Mo would just go along with a suspension without bringing it to light.

And I agree with Paul - I don't have a problem with the coaches doing what they're paid to do and that's coach the team. Criticism is part of coaching. Anyone who has played basketball at any level has probably gotten an earful from a coach at one time or another. I'm not sure why Mo or any other player on this team should be exempt from that. Like xTitan said, there isn't a player on this team who's done enough to avoid being criticized on some level.
Nothing will not break me.
User avatar
mcfromage
Veteran
Posts: 2,815
And1: 840
Joined: May 03, 2007
Location: California

 

Post#85 » by mcfromage » Sat Jan 26, 2008 6:34 pm

paulpressey25 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



It is the dysfunction of the Bucks. Kohl and Harris both have their own agendas....primarily Kohl. He's the guy who fell in love with Redd and later Mo and gave them the big contracts. Both because we didn't have other assets and couldn't let them go to FA, but also because both are good character guys.

Another example would be Bogut. Epi can chime in, but I'm not sure Stotts thought Bogut was not the teams best bet at starting center his rookie year and probably not at starting PF either (think Joe Smith). But I'm not sure Stotts could handle the pressure from Harris and Kohl if the team didn't feature Bogut in some major capacity.

Epi can comment since he's got the inside info there, but I'd doubt Larry K. has the ability to just pull Mo for long stretches after he just received a huge contract from Kohl. And as Epi has noted over the years in other threads, given the alternatives, Mo is our best bet at PG if he can play the way Larry K. wants.

All of this is just a symptom of Kohl not putting one guy clearly in charge as GM who has a consistent philosophy. That leadership void in the front office is killing this team right now.


Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't it seem that Ernie Grunfield had more independence/freedom to make decisions then LH? Wouldn't that seem to indicate that LH is the problem more then Kohl? That with a more forceful, no b.s. (ala Ted Thompson) GM that Kohl would then be more inclined to back off? Obviously for Sen. Kohl having a kind of patsy GM is beneficial because it allows him to muddle more with personnel decisions...
User avatar
REDDzone
RealGM
Posts: 30,207
And1: 5,126
Joined: Oct 06, 2006
Location: The Hooker Control Service is Back in Business.
 

 

Post#86 » by REDDzone » Sat Jan 26, 2008 6:40 pm

With regard to Mo missing the following game, I have wondered if that was a result of a team suspension due to this incident. That belief is PURE speculation on my part and I want to emphasize that clearly. But given the nature of the injury (a pinky injury?) and the fact Mo has played through much worse injuries this season already, I do think the timing of him missing this game is at the very least a bit curious.


You know what, now that I think about it. When Mo's absence from the game was first reported, it was some Bucks reporter saying it was his left pinky finger, and they cut to Pashke for "more on the subject" and Pashke said he had been hearing it was hit entire left hand.

So obviously that could be communication failure, but it could also be that the injury wasn't really legit.

Plus I remember thinking to myself, if Mo really is the one "competitor" and the single guy who plays with fire and really wants to win, as he is labeled a lot on this board, then could his off hand pinky finger soreness really keep him out of the game? Really?
Stephen Jackson wrote:Make sure u want these problems. Goggle me slime. Im in da streets.
User avatar
paul
RealGM
Posts: 32,398
And1: 1,038
Joined: Dec 11, 2007
 

 

Post#87 » by paul » Sat Jan 26, 2008 6:48 pm

REDDzone wrote:
With regard to Mo missing the following game, I have wondered if that was a result of a team suspension due to this incident. That belief is PURE speculation on my part and I want to emphasize that clearly. But given the nature of the injury (a pinky injury?) and the fact Mo has played through much worse injuries this season already, I do think the timing of him missing this game is at the very least a bit curious.


You know what, now that I think about it. When Mo's absence from the game was first reported, it was some Bucks reporter saying it was his left pinky finger, and they cut to Pashke for "more on the subject" and Pashke said he had been hearing it was hit entire left hand.

So obviously that could be communication failure, but it could also be that the injury wasn't really legit.

Plus I remember thinking to myself, if Mo really is the one "competitor" and the single guy who plays with fire and really wants to win, as he is labeled a lot on this board, then could his off hand pinky finger soreness really keep him out of the game? Really?


The answer to that is no, unless it was horrible break in which case he wouldn't be back now. Guys play with badly swollen and bruised fingers all the time, guys play with broken fingers at times if they are on the off hand. There'd barely be a guy in the league who hasn't badly sprained a finger this season. Go and play 40 games and see how many fingers you sprain.

I thought it was weird at the time and a buddy and I wondered whether maybe a trade scenario was playing out, but obviously we weren't aware of this story then.
User avatar
REDDzone
RealGM
Posts: 30,207
And1: 5,126
Joined: Oct 06, 2006
Location: The Hooker Control Service is Back in Business.
 

 

Post#88 » by REDDzone » Sat Jan 26, 2008 6:54 pm

I personally believe this story, I trust the guys who broke it, and if it was after the Golden State game that would make sense.

That's when C.J. Watson went off for like 13 points against us in limited minutes (?)
Stephen Jackson wrote:Make sure u want these problems. Goggle me slime. Im in da streets.
User avatar
paulpressey25
Senior Mod - Bucks
Senior Mod - Bucks
Posts: 60,878
And1: 25,845
Joined: Oct 27, 2002
     

 

Post#89 » by paulpressey25 » Sat Jan 26, 2008 7:03 pm

mcfromage wrote:-= Obviously for Sen. Kohl having a kind of patsy GM is beneficial because it allows him to muddle more with personnel decisions...


I think that goes on all the time in different businesses. Certain CEO's hire guys under them who are opinionated and powerful.....some hire synchophants who agree with their philosopy and simply carry out orders.

I think the second model can actually work really well if the CEO knows what he is doing.

For historical perspective, when Mike Dunleavy got bounced as GM and left Milwaukee for good, he let fly privately about tons of moves that he wanted made but had stifled by Kohl. When Karl took the job it was with the understanding that Karl was de-facto GM.

We all saw that power as Karl brought in his guys as FA's like Dell Curry, etc....and then after about 20 games as coach in the strike season he pretty much blew up the team, by trading Brandon and Hill.

But Karl needed a day to day guy for the scouting and drafting so he got Grunfeld on board. Grunfeld had not yet been vindicated for his work in New York so he was available. Since Ernie's wife is from Milwaukee and he has major ties back here, it seemed like a good opportunity for him.

Together those guys had free reign until Jan/Feb 2003 when Kohl got tired of the losing with very high paid Karl/Grunfeld guys like Caffey, Anthony Mason and Tim Thomas. Facing the luxury tax hitting him hard the next year he allowed them one more "home run" move by trading Ray for the expiring contract of GP.

But after that failed, Kohl took over again as GM. I think his belief was that he could GM this team to 41-wins as well as any high paid coach or GM and at the same time not put the team in long-term jeopardy with long-term mega contracts. If Kohl wanted a GM more forceful than Harris, we'd have one IMO.
xTitan
RealGM
Posts: 17,132
And1: 2,279
Joined: Mar 03, 2006
     

 

Post#90 » by xTitan » Sat Jan 26, 2008 7:03 pm

mcfromage wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't it seem that Ernie Grunfield had more independence/freedom to make decisions then LH? Wouldn't that seem to indicate that LH is the problem more then Kohl? That with a more forceful, no b.s. (ala Ted Thompson) GM that Kohl would then be more inclined to back off? Obviously for Sen. Kohl having a kind of patsy GM is beneficial because it allows him to muddle more with personnel decisions...


No, Kohl wouldn't back off from anyone, the one guy who actually held power was Karl, but Kohl looked upon that regime as a failure and when he went to Harris he went back to running things "his" way. Woelfel said the he had known every GM for over a decade has had trades veto'd by the fine Senator. The truth is simple, as long as Kohl runs the show this organization will be terrible. One more huge difference (of many) between the Packers and Bucks is that the Packers go above and beyond for things like facilities, travel, food, and other basic perks.....while the Bucks are widely considered the worst (or close to it) around the league in that area.
75totheMACCfund
Veteran
Posts: 2,600
And1: 47
Joined: Jul 16, 2006
Location: 53202
       

 

Post#91 » by 75totheMACCfund » Sat Jan 26, 2008 7:19 pm

So Mo basically did what joakim noah did? Didn't everyone on this board rip into Noah for that altercation with the assistant coach and agree a suspension was warranted? Koodos to the bucks organization for keeping this in house. Perhaps his "pinky sprain" was a cover up for a suspension...that's my crappy conspiracy theory.
User avatar
mcfromage
Veteran
Posts: 2,815
And1: 840
Joined: May 03, 2007
Location: California

 

Post#92 » by mcfromage » Sat Jan 26, 2008 7:20 pm

PP & xTitan thanks for those responses. I can't help but think that we're riding on a doomed ship when I read what you wrote and that the only real solution is a change of ownership. You agree? What a mess! Who will be our savior? Can we channel the energy of this board into finding some wealthy Wisconsinites? Are any of you obscenely rich?
xTitan
RealGM
Posts: 17,132
And1: 2,279
Joined: Mar 03, 2006
     

 

Post#93 » by xTitan » Sat Jan 26, 2008 7:21 pm

Just had a thought....good thing Ivey was the guy trying to stop Tony Brown, could you see if it was Mo trying to stop Tony Brown from getting around him? Someone would be dead right now! :o
User avatar
trwi7
RealGM
Posts: 110,823
And1: 26,315
Joined: Jul 12, 2006
Location: Aussie bias
         

 

Post#94 » by trwi7 » Sat Jan 26, 2008 7:25 pm

xTitan wrote:Just had a thought....good thing Ivey was the guy trying to stop Tony Brown, could you see if it was Mo trying to stop Tony Brown from getting around him? Someone would be dead right now! :o


Yeah we saw how good Ivey was at stopping Steve Nash.
stellation wrote:What's the difference between Gery Woelful and this glass of mineral water? The mineral water actually has a source."


I Hate Manure wrote:We look to be awful next season without Beasley.
User avatar
paulpressey25
Senior Mod - Bucks
Senior Mod - Bucks
Posts: 60,878
And1: 25,845
Joined: Oct 27, 2002
     

 

Post#95 » by paulpressey25 » Sat Jan 26, 2008 7:28 pm

I think we have two hopes here:

a) Kohl realizes that for whatever reason he doesn't have "it" as a GM and hires someone really good and gives them power.

I wouldn't discount this as an option right now. Kohl loves the Bucks and I'm glad he does.

b) The darkhorse guy I always would want to check out as a possible owner is Brian Stark, but I have zero idea if Brian really likes the Bucks.

His company, Stark investments, had been perhaps the biggest hidden business success story in Milwaukee until the subprime meltdown. I'm not sure where they stand right now.

Stark was very close to purchasing the Cousins Center from the Milwaukee Archdiocese to expand their corporate HQ. Right now Stark is located across the street. Of course Stark would have bought the Cousins Center subject to the Bucks current lease of a portion of the existing facilities there that they use for training.

Stark however went a different direction at the last minute and bought property to the South to expand their operations rather than buying the Cousins Center.

He is a very sharp and committed local guy who could make it happen. He also makes his money on gambles and arbitrage plays so buying a pro sports team would be a fun diversion for him to take a flyer on. He'd just sell the team for a profit to a different city if he couldn't make a go of it here.

Again I have no idea if Brian would ever entertain buying the Bucks. But he's a local candidate that could actually do it. He'd probably have to take on debt though, which would crimp the teams ability to have a robust payroll like we've had under Kohl.
User avatar
Rockmaninoff
General Manager
Posts: 7,650
And1: 1,667
Joined: Jan 11, 2008
   

 

Post#96 » by Rockmaninoff » Sat Jan 26, 2008 7:29 pm

trwi7 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Yeah we saw how good Ivey was at stopping Steve Nash.


Is this suppossed to be a criticism of Ivey?

Who in the NBA can stop Steve Nash?
User avatar
trwi7
RealGM
Posts: 110,823
And1: 26,315
Joined: Jul 12, 2006
Location: Aussie bias
         

 

Post#97 » by trwi7 » Sat Jan 26, 2008 7:31 pm

Rockmaninoff wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Is this suppossed to be a criticism of Ivey?

Who in the NBA can stop Steve Nash?


No I'm just saying after all the criticism Mo got for letting Nash go off in Phoenix Ivey seemed to get off scott free for allowing the same thing when his main "asset" is supposed to be defense.
stellation wrote:What's the difference between Gery Woelful and this glass of mineral water? The mineral water actually has a source."


I Hate Manure wrote:We look to be awful next season without Beasley.
User avatar
unklchuk
Head Coach
Posts: 6,141
And1: 94
Joined: Jun 27, 2005

 

Post#98 » by unklchuk » Sat Jan 26, 2008 7:34 pm

^ Especially since the team's strategy for that game has been reported to be: let Nash shoot; don't let him penetrate; stop the other guys.


Edited to say: Ivey's defense has to be judged in the context of that strategy.

As I've said, I like and enjoy watching Ivey play defense. But I'd stop short of saying he's great at playing defense - unless he's comparted only to his teammates.
AFAIK, IDKM
User avatar
mcfromage
Veteran
Posts: 2,815
And1: 840
Joined: May 03, 2007
Location: California

 

Post#99 » by mcfromage » Sat Jan 26, 2008 7:42 pm

paulpressey25 wrote:I think we have two hopes here:

a) Kohl realizes that for whatever reason he doesn't have "it" as a GM and hires someone really good and gives them power.

I wouldn't discount this as an option right now. Kohl loves the Bucks and I'm glad he does.

b) The darkhorse guy I always would want to check out as a possible owner is Brian Stark, but I have zero idea if Brian really likes the Bucks.

His company, Stark investments, had been perhaps the biggest hidden business success story in Milwaukee until the subprime meltdown. I'm not sure where they stand right now.

Stark was very close to purchasing the Cousins Center from the Milwaukee Archdiocese to expand their corporate HQ. Right now Stark is located across the street. Of course Stark would have bought the Cousins Center subject to the Bucks current lease of a portion of the existing facilities there that they use for training.

Stark however went a different direction at the last minute and bought property to the South to expand their operations rather than buying the Cousins Center.

He is a very sharp and committed local guy who could make it happen. He also makes his money on gambles and arbitrage plays so buying a pro sports team would be a fun diversion for him to take a flyer on. He'd just sell the team for a profit to a different city if he couldn't make a go of it here.

Again I have no idea if Brian would ever entertain buying the Bucks. But he's a local candidate that could actually do it. He'd probably have to take on debt though, which would crimp the teams ability to have a robust payroll like we've had under Kohl.


Super interesting post. Would you imagine that Doug Collins could be that "it" GM since he's the biggest name thats been rumored to be connected?
Also, can we start a letter writing campaign/website to try and recruit this Stark character? Maybe something like www.starkbucks.com - a sort of natural play on Starbucks?
El Duderino
RealGM
Posts: 20,544
And1: 1,324
Joined: May 30, 2005
Location: Working on pad level

 

Post#100 » by El Duderino » Sat Jan 26, 2008 9:00 pm

Also keep in mind that many within the Bucks organization still believe that Mo Williams is CAPABLE of playing at a higher level. They believe he is capable of defending better


Why would they think Mo could/would defend better?

How often have terrible defenders in the NBA changed their stripes?

I was fairly confident before the season Mo had it in him to shoot less and pass more. Never once did i feel he'd leave bad defender land.

Return to Milwaukee Bucks