ImageImage

Preseason Game 4: Bucks/Pistons - 10/11

Moderators: paulpressey25, MickeyDavis

msiris
RealGM
Posts: 10,135
And1: 1,678
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Central Wisconsin

Re: Preseason Game 4: Bucks/Pistons - 10/11 

Post#181 » by msiris » Mon Oct 13, 2008 1:40 pm

JA could always take over as Bango. Then we could watch him dunk from the FT line without the trampoline.
Ride the tank
User avatar
trwi7
RealGM
Posts: 110,824
And1: 26,315
Joined: Jul 12, 2006
Location: Aussie bias
         

Re: Preseason Game 4: Bucks/Pistons - 10/11 

Post#182 » by trwi7 » Mon Oct 13, 2008 1:44 pm

msiris wrote:JA could always take over as Bango. Then we could watch him dunk from the FT line without the trampoline.


Do you think he'd still be able to do it in the suit?
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.
jeramey
Ballboy
Posts: 32
And1: 11
Joined: Sep 25, 2008
Location: Downtown Milwaukee
Contact:

Re: Preseason Game 4: Bucks/Pistons - 10/11 

Post#183 » by jeramey » Mon Oct 13, 2008 2:16 pm

I was at the game sitting behind the Pistons bench, which aside from allowing me to listen to 'Sheed jawing all night long, allowed me to have a great view of the third quarter action.

The problem I see in a lot of evaluations of the Bucks preseason so far is that the team hasn't been playing like it will. Michael Redd is clearly on some order not to shoot, he's passing up shot after shot. Charlie V is on the other end of the spectrum and appears to be trying to shoot his way into a job.

The further apart the score gets, the more this becomes obvious.

When the score got close in the third quarter, you saw both teams turn on the engines though. All the sudden Redd was demanding the ball, and scoring. Bogut appeared to be trying quite a bit harder in the post during that stretch. Out of nowhere came regular season intensity from both sides.

I think RJ getting tossed was a symptom of all the guys getting fired up for the first time.

And you know what, I liked what I saw through that stretch. They moved the ball around pretty well, the starting five seemed to operate as a unit pretty well. There wasn't a Jianlian/Magloire-blackhole where the ball would go in and the game would slow down for ten seconds. I think if that kind of intensity and concentration shows up every night, the team will be in pretty good shape this season.

Do I have my concerns about the PF spot? You bet. But I think with the right coach it'll work itself out, and I think the Bucks have that coach.

As far as Joe Alexander goes I don't think anyone has reason to be concerned. He likely won't play major minutes in the regular season, and will have time to develop. All of his playing time will be earned, which should be enough of an incentive for him to play smart basketball. For people to be labeling him a bust based on what they've seen in half-speed basketball games is rather pathetic. Give the man a chance in the regular season first. I have faith that Skiles will pull him if he doesn't like what he sees.

We shouldn't judge this team based on games that are of no consequence for the core rotation.
msiris
RealGM
Posts: 10,135
And1: 1,678
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Central Wisconsin

Re: Preseason Game 4: Bucks/Pistons - 10/11 

Post#184 » by msiris » Mon Oct 13, 2008 2:26 pm

trwi7 wrote:
msiris wrote:JA could always take over as Bango. Then we could watch him dunk from the FT line without the trampoline.


Do you think he'd still be able to do it in the suit?
Might have to make some changes. Use lighter materials and make the horns more sleeker. We know he can do without it. This is the next step up. :lol:
Ride the tank
msiris
RealGM
Posts: 10,135
And1: 1,678
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Central Wisconsin

Re: Preseason Game 4: Bucks/Pistons - 10/11 

Post#185 » by msiris » Mon Oct 13, 2008 2:31 pm

jeramey wrote:As far as Joe Alexander goes I don't think anyone has reason to be concerned. He likely won't play major minutes in the regular season, and will have time to develop. All of his playing time will be earned, which should be enough of an incentive for him to play smart basketball. For people to be labeling him a bust based on what they've seen in half-speed basketball games is rather pathetic. Give the man a chance in the regular season first. I have faith that Skiles will pull him if he doesn't like what he sees.
As others have pointed out JA has shown nothing in Summer league or now. I know I was one who really did not want him. After we picked up RJ I did not think we would pick him.
Ride the tank
User avatar
BuckFan25226
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,642
And1: 1,006
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: Wauwatosa, WI

Re: Preseason Game 4: Bucks/Pistons - 10/11 

Post#186 » by BuckFan25226 » Mon Oct 13, 2008 3:28 pm

jeramey wrote:I was at the game sitting behind the Pistons bench, which aside from allowing me to listen to 'Sheed jawing all night long, allowed me to have a great view of the third quarter action.

The problem I see in a lot of evaluations of the Bucks preseason so far is that the team hasn't been playing like it will. Michael Redd is clearly on some order not to shoot, he's passing up shot after shot. Charlie V is on the other end of the spectrum and appears to be trying to shoot his way into a job.

The further apart the score gets, the more this becomes obvious.

When the score got close in the third quarter, you saw both teams turn on the engines though. All the sudden Redd was demanding the ball, and scoring. Bogut appeared to be trying quite a bit harder in the post during that stretch. Out of nowhere came regular season intensity from both sides.

I think RJ getting tossed was a symptom of all the guys getting fired up for the first time.

And you know what, I liked what I saw through that stretch. They moved the ball around pretty well, the starting five seemed to operate as a unit pretty well. There wasn't a Jianlian/Magloire-blackhole where the ball would go in and the game would slow down for ten seconds. I think if that kind of intensity and concentration shows up every night, the team will be in pretty good shape this season.

Do I have my concerns about the PF spot? You bet. But I think with the right coach it'll work itself out, and I think the Bucks have that coach.

As far as Joe Alexander goes I don't think anyone has reason to be concerned. He likely won't play major minutes in the regular season, and will have time to develop. All of his playing time will be earned, which should be enough of an incentive for him to play smart basketball. For people to be labeling him a bust based on what they've seen in half-speed basketball games is rather pathetic. Give the man a chance in the regular season first. I have faith that Skiles will pull him if he doesn't like what he sees.

We shouldn't judge this team based on games that are of no consequence for the core rotation.



Good post. That third quarter was fun to watch. I don't think Redd is really on a direct order not to shoot. But more on a direct order to get more of his shots out of the context of the offense. We all know Redd has a tendency to go through stretches of the game and phase out his teammates during offensive droughts. There will be times Redd is going to have to do that when our offense is struggling. But any good coach will tell you that making sure everyone is involved in the offense only helps later on in the game.
"didnt you watch the game with the raptors?bucks is also a playoff team ,they have enough ability to find wins from dalas and utach,
blow jazzs bitches and mavericks bitches out !"

- yiyiyi
User avatar
WEFFPIM
RealGM
Posts: 38,521
And1: 473
Joined: Nov 14, 2005
Location: WEFFPIM. I'm the real WEFFPIM.
   

Re: Preseason Game 4: Bucks/Pistons - 10/11 

Post#187 » by WEFFPIM » Mon Oct 13, 2008 3:47 pm

trwi7 wrote:
msiris wrote:JA could always take over as Bango. Then we could watch him dunk from the FT line without the trampoline.


Do you think he'd still be able to do it in the suit?


For wasting the 8th pick on him, he better
ReddWing wrote:Being a fan of this team is tantamount to being in hell...There is no Christ that is coming to save us. Even if there was, we'd trade him for a 28 year old wing.
User avatar
jerrod
RealGM
Posts: 34,178
And1: 133
Joined: Aug 31, 2003
Location: The Berkeley of the midwest/ born with the intent/ to distress any government/ right of the left
     

Re: Preseason Game 4: Bucks/Pistons - 10/11 

Post#188 » by jerrod » Mon Oct 13, 2008 5:42 pm

trwi7 wrote:
cam2win wrote:I'm not sure why everyone is so down on Joe. Sure he didn't score any points or hasn't really done anything relevant since becoming a pro.


Yeah, I mean why would we be down on the guy? I mean he hasn't done anything, we should all be happy and optimistic. :lol:



i'm just happy that he hasn't injured himself in a moped crash yet



once it became clear that our pick wouldn't be traded i was ok with the potsie pick, i really liked brook lopez too but people on here that know far more about college basketball than i do didn't like him so that made me cautious
User avatar
Wise1
RealGM
Posts: 18,261
And1: 256
Joined: Jun 27, 2005
Location: Devouring worlds.
     

Re: Preseason Game 4: Bucks/Pistons - 10/11 

Post#189 » by Wise1 » Tue Oct 14, 2008 3:50 pm

emunney wrote:I'm just going to do a point by point rundown of the problems I have with that post:

1. A smart player maximizes his gifts, plays within himself, and can comfortably play within a team concept.

That is exactly true, in my opinion. So why do you want Randolph, Bayless or Brooke Lopez? Those guys are the antithesis of your own definition of a smart player. Hibbert and Rush, on the other hand, would fit the description.

2. I choose the talented player every time.

Alright, but you note that Alexander is both hard-working and has talent, but lacks skill. I would say that skill is the most develop-able aspect of any basketball player. All you need is dedication and good practice habits -- two things that are well-documented qualities of Alexander.

3. The Flight White comparison.

White was always considered lazy.

4. Intangibles, particularly work ethic and hustle, can be coached.

I don't think I could disagree more with that statement. Can you name a single player in league history who came into the league with a rep for being lazy and unmotivated and was coached into being a hard-working hustler? There may be one, but I don't know him. There are certainly guys who became good players in spite of their lack of drive relative to their peers, but I don't believe that a coach has ever been able to change the fundamentals of a grown man's personality.

I think when you look at the building blocks of what makes a good player, you look at general physical coordination, practice habits, work ethic, athleticism, tactical thinking ability. Everything else -- skill, court IQ and eventually production -- flows from different combinations of those things applied consistently over time.


I respect your right to disagree.

1. In the case of Randolph, Lopez and Bayless...I believe that they have the fundamentals to be successful. Namely, basketball skills / size. There are a lot of smart guys that can execute the playbook (knowing where you're supposed to be and shooting or passing based on the play design), but if you don't have to have some level of trancendent ability that will allow you to exert your will (putting the ball in the hoop, assisting a teammate, rebounding, or getting a defensive stop for example) over your opponent, then chances are you'll be a career reserve or out of the league. Being "smart" and hard working doesn't mean much from a basketball standpoint if you don't have special abilities to complement your IQ (see Chris Dudley). Now if you have a player that is both smart and has transcendent skills, you have yourself a player....Chauncey Billups.

2. I would agree with you if we were talking about high schoolers. Once you've reached the NBA level, I don't know if your skills...where they didn't exist before...will blossom to the point where you'll become a player that your history has shown that you are not. For example, I don't expect Joe Alexander to be coached into becoming a Grant Hill like front court passer or a Lebron type rebounder because he's purportedly smart and works hard. There are always exceptions, but has anyone been able to coach the UCLA educated, hard working Gadzuric to be anything except a fast, athletic, rebounding center that will block shots and give max effort? Has anyone been able to coach Duke alum Mike Dunleavy how to play defense?

On the NBA level, I just don't see "skill" in any aspect of the game as being something that's more easily developed than getting a guy to hustle on the court or work on his game after practice. When I define Alexander as a talented athlete, I'm stressing his jumping ability...not any fundamental skill. The jury is still out on how much he will develop, but he, imo, was not the player to take at 8 with better fits and more basketball talent on the board.

3. Let's sub out White and insert the hard working Darvin Hamm from Texas Tech.

4. I don't think that there's any doubt that coaches motivate players to hustle and work harder to get the best out of their ability. That's a big part of their jobs. A player doesn't necessarily have to be lazy to need help in the area of motivation. Our own Andrew Bogut is a good case study. I don't think Bogut is lazy, but we've seen a special coach come into town to help him focus and commit to working harder on the court. Bogut is a fundamentally good passer, rebounder, and scorer under the basket. NO coach has been able to make him a 75% free throw shooter or coach an 18 foot jumper into him because shooting from a distance is not a natural skill that he's developed.

We're upside down on our opinions on what the foundations of a good player are. You feel that thinking ability, practice habits, and work ethic are the building blocks of a good player. On the surface, I don't think anyone would have a problem with those foundations. However, given the choice I'd just as soon take the guy that was born to play basketball. The guy that has natural ability that can't be coached. The guy that makes things look easy. The guy that has sharpened his skills and dominated his peers since he was old enough to play on his local playground.

I think your intangibles can be coached or at the very least "managed" in the NBA. If a guy doesn't come to practice, he's suspended. Doesn't work hard in practice or in games, he sits until he commits. Can a coach not mandate extra practice time for his team? Give time off for good practices and execution?

What can a coach do with a guy that can't defend, pass, dribble in traffic, rebound, or shoot consistently well? These are much more difficult fundamentals to coach at the NBA level.

Return to Milwaukee Bucks