Bogut's thoughts on Skiles, Yi, and Sessions

[gobbler]

I'm not saying Bogut shouldn't have phrased it more subtly as to rock the boat less, but it wouldn't make any difference... at least not unless Mo snipes back.

[bogutsdad]

-= original quote snipped =-



I agree with this 100%.

If anyone has actually let my criticisms of Skiles sink in, it's that I believe he's too reliant on the jumpshot offensively. I actually want Bogut to get his touches. However, I will not delude myself into thinking that we'll be a good team if Bogut gets a ton of touches, just because he's getting a ton of touches. As of last year, the opposite was true. I think many people here have fooled themselves into that belief. I think Bogut might also be there too. Of course I have no proof for that, nor have I every claimed to. There is an air (a very public air nonetheless) of entitlement around Bogut that rubs me the wrong way.

Really, I hadn't noticed!!! You always come across as so neutral!!!!!

[bogutsdad]

The same thing happened in that radio interview when Bogut said he wanted Sessions to get some minutes, suddenly everyone on here jumped on him saying he was bagging the hell out of mo, when really it was just praise for Sessions. I don't see anything in this article that is a slap in the face for Mo, we know he's not a true PG, he knows he's not a true PG, everyone knows he's not a true PG.

I'm not sure why it is that everyone looks for these insults between players, the fact that Bogut praised Sessions and Yi does not mean he was therefore abusing Mo and CV.
Also that last line about the bucks having 'enough great shooters' could be seen as being a compliment to Redd and Mo, the most obvious candidates.

How true, this thread is way out of hand. Must of been a stay at home and drink day! Apparently if you praise 2 players on your team you are not only putting down the rest of the team but also players from previous teams as well! Please!!!

[bogutsdad]

Bogut wasn't joking about sessions not working on his jumper. I actually watched them practise together today and andrew had an electric pulse machine wired up to sessions and everytime sessions pulled up for a jumper, andrew pressed the button, bzzzz, and sessions would get a nasty shock. After the tenth time sessions stopped pulling up for jumpers, so I think it is working. After practise, sessions then washed andrews feet in holy water, dried them and kissed them!!!!!!

[Chapter29]

The same thing happened in that radio interview when Bogut said he wanted Sessions to get some minutes, suddenly everyone on here jumped on him saying he was bagging the hell out of mo, when really it was just praise for Sessions. I don't see anything in this article that is a slap in the face for Mo, we know he's not a true PG, he knows he's not a true PG, everyone knows he's not a true PG.

I'm not sure why it is that everyone looks for these insults between players, the fact that Bogut praised Sessions and Yi does not mean he was therefore abusing Mo and CV.

Also that last line about the bucks having 'enough great shooters' could be seen as being a compliment to Redd and Mo, the most obvious candidates.

This is all very true, but I think since we know some of the issues on the team and rifts between players it can be construed as a slap in the face.

I don't think Bogut likes Mo as his PG, though he may have no issue with him as a SG or perhaps a 6th man. Mo is a very good shooter and deserves praise for that, but I am not sure thats what this team or Bogut for that matter desires at PG.

So our 2 most team oriented players in Bogut and Bell have strong praise for Sessions? Excellent. The guy appears to be a keeper. Now the question is as our starting PG or back up? I wouldn't lose too much sleep if he was the starter. I am more optimistic on that then I was a couple years ago when Mo was inserted as the starter. His game as a PG essentially never evolved. He just got better and better at being a scorer.

[Jez2983]

As much as we'd all love to hear about this, in this interview he was asked to comment on 3 things.

Skiles, Yi and Sessions. And he did.

But he wasn't even asked that specifically - we don't know what he asked. Possibly they just asked "What do you think of the rookies' years, and of coach Skiles appointment?" which he's answered in this article. Obviously there's a lot left out, but if there was anything Bogut wrote that insinuated he thought Sessions was better than Mo and wanted Mo gone, that would have been the headline.

I suppose this represents how starved this board is for news that we are trying to draw meaning from things that haven't been said.

[europa]

Since Skiles likes a jump shooting offense wouldn't Mo and Redd be good fits for that?

I'm not sure Skiles likes a jump shooting offense per se. That's simply the hand he was dealt in Chicago because Paxson couldn't or wouldn't make moves to bring in a strong post player.

The main thing we know about Skiles is he likes smart players who can defend. And neither Mo nor Redd fall into that category in my opinion.

[Sigra]

In game 3 of Spurs-Suns series JVG and Mark Jackson talked about Tony Parker: "Really great player. He is not pass first PG but he is great at pick and roll and he goes to the basket better than any PG"

If you ask Parker he will also tell you that he is not pass first PG. If you ask Eva Longoria she will also tell you that Tony is not pass first PG. THAT IS NOT INSULT. That is how it is and Bogut always tells it like it is.

There is always market for shoot first PG. There are team that can use it very well (Spurs being great example). There are places for that kind of players. But Milwaukee is not that kind of place.

[old skool]

I don't know that the Bucks had much an opportunity for anyone to be a pass first point guard.

Mo could shoot himself, or give it to Redd.

What were his other options? Toss it to Mason on the wing for a driving jumper? Toss it to CV on the arc so that he could take a jumper? Or to Yi for a similar (albeit closer) shot?

He could try to get the ball to Bogut, but Bogut was unable to establish inside position on the low block. Without being in position, Bogut would find himself too far from the hoop and he would struggle to get off a decent shot.

Bogut got some of his easiest baskets from Mo, running to the front of the rim after Mo had dribbled under the basket and through the lane. Bogut would catch the ball on the run for an easy slam. Or he would clean up the offensive glass. Or he would get a quick pass from CV when the front court defense was up in the air.

Bogut got better at receiving the ball off the low block, and swooping or ducking or running to get off a shot. He was fairly effective at this, despite the awkward appearance.

The Mo/Bogut combo was incapable of establishing low post position, and most of the responsibility for that falls on Bogut, in my book. Mo is not a good enough point guard to dribble around and rearrange the defense to establish position for Bogut. There are few PGs that can do that.

oLd sKool

[Sigra]

I don't know that the Bucks had much an opportunity for anyone to be a pass first point guard.

Except Sessions I guess

[paulpressey25]

Old Skool, I agree to you up to a point.

The big blow up with Mo occurred after that Golden State game where Mo had a terrible time trying to make the entry pass to Bogut. This was during that stretch when Bogut was hitting everything within 5-7 feet.

The coaches specifically went after Mo about his inability to place the ball where it needed to be.

Yes, there certainly was one type of play where Mo would drive and then dish to Bogut cutting. That was a successful play. But that play would get taken away by a number of teams. At that point Mo had to do a better job of feeding the ball.

[jerrod]

-= original quote snipped =-



Except Sessions I guess

nope, what he meant (i'm pretty sure) is that we couldn't have just a pass first pg and have any chance of winning

sessions came in to be that pass first pg and our record reflected that

[Sigra]

He said that Bucks' PG has no choise but to be shoot first because other players are not good at offense. He clearly explained why he thinks that. Yet Sessions colected a lot of assists and that would not be posible if his teamates didn't know how to score. So in short, old skool was wrong as always.

We did lose games with Sessions but that was also without our 2nd most paid player and without our 2nd best defender (Bell) and without our rookie who was solid in first part of season and also when nobody cared about defense because season was already over.

But when it comes to "can Bucks' PG be pass first" we clearly find out that it is posible.

[Fort Minor]

-= original quote snipped =-





nope, what he meant (i'm pretty sure) is that we couldn't have just a pass first pg and have any chance of winning

Seems to me that OS focused specifically on offense/scoring, which, as Sigra pointed ot, was just flat-out wrong as Sessions proved. Scoring was definately not an issue.

[jerrod]

-= original quote snipped =-



Seems to me that OS focused specifically on offense/scoring, which, as Sigra pointed ot, was just flat-out wrong as Sessions proved. Scoring was definately not an issue.

that could be how he meant it


technically though, we didn't outscore them so the offense was a problem

[Nowak008]

I don't know that the Bucks had much an opportunity for anyone to be a pass first point guard.

Mo could shoot himself, or give it to Redd.

What were his other options? Toss it to Mason on the wing for a driving jumper? Toss it to CV on the arc so that he could take a jumper? Or to Yi for a similar (albeit closer) shot?

He could try to get the ball to Bogut, but Bogut was unable to establish inside position on the low block. Without being in position, Bogut would find himself too far from the hoop and he would struggle to get off a decent shot.

Bogut got some of his easiest baskets from Mo, running to the front of the rim after Mo had dribbled under the basket and through the lane. Bogut would catch the ball on the run for an easy slam. Or he would clean up the offensive glass. Or he would get a quick pass from CV when the front court defense was up in the air.

Bogut got better at receiving the ball off the low block, and swooping or ducking or running to get off a shot. He was fairly effective at this, despite the awkward appearance.

The Mo/Bogut combo was incapable of establishing low post position, and most of the responsibility for that falls on Bogut, in my book. Mo is not a good enough point guard to dribble around and rearrange the defense to establish position for Bogut. There are few PGs that can do that.

oLd sKool

Great post. Agreed. 100%.

[midranger]

Old skool, I had made that same exact post before.

My premise was that I'm sure an elite passer like Nash (in his prime) would have no trouble feeding Bogut in the post. However, it is equally likely that Mo would have no trouble feeding an elite post up player liek Shaq (in his prime).

It's a two way street, and we had two guys who were very mediocre at their end of the bargain.

[Chuck Diesel]

Bogut was certainly mediocre offensively this season in 2007, but we must have been watching a different Andrew Bogut in 2008.

[midranger]

He was pretty good offensively, but I wouldn't call him dynamite at establishing position.