So now the Bucks have improved more than the Pacers?

HicksvsKnicks08 · Post #1 » by **HicksvsKnicks08** » Wed Sep 3, 2008 5:25 pm

http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?story_id=9892

Wow,

The year of the underdog!!!

Your 2008-2009 Pacers!!

Shhhh, be berry bery quiet, lol

xxSnEaKyPxx · Post #2 » by **xxSnEaKyPxx** » Wed Sep 3, 2008 6:06 pm

I actually agree with the article. It said that the Bucks will have a higher jump in number of wins for the next season, but no team in the NBA improved their future better than the Pacers.

Now, I still think the Pacers are better than the Bucks, but the Bucks probably got better from where they were last year than the Pacers did. But as the article said, the Pacers paved the way for the future, which I believe is more important anyway since we aren't contenders.

Post #3 » by **Grang33r** » Wed Sep 3, 2008 7:26 pm

^^ Agreed. I love what the Pacers did, are it looks good for the future, but the Bucks, look much better. They build in a real good way. Although them having several high picks the last few seasons (Bogut and Yi) helped them rebuild quicker and a sharpshooter like Redd doesn't hurt, so they had the pieces already there. But they did make nice moves, i'll give them credit.

Post #4 » by **APerna** » Wed Sep 3, 2008 11:06 pm

The Knicks have improved more than we have as well.

I'd prefer to be underrated. That's how we have always been, aside from the height of the O'Neal/Artest Era.

Post #5 » by **Gremz** » Thu Sep 4, 2008 7:00 am

This is fine, everyone will be stating this before next season, but it's fine. I'm quite confident we will be more than ok.

Fordamania · Post #6 » by **Fordamania** » Thu Sep 4, 2008 7:06 am

PacerPerspective wrote:The Knicks have improved more than we have as well.

I'd prefer to be underrated. That's how we have always been, aside from the height of the O'Neal/Artest Era.

The Knicks? How have they improved? They overpaid for a career backup point guard, and while Gallinari looks promising, he just turned 20.

FreeRon · Post #7 » by **FreeRon** » Thu Sep 4, 2008 11:11 am

I have problems saying the Knicks improved anyways. It seems the minute they sign someone they become overpaid.

Post #8 » by **APerna** » Thu Sep 4, 2008 11:18 am

Fordamania wrote:The Knicks? How have they improved? They overpaid for a career backup point guard, and while Gallinari looks promising, he just turned 20.

I was kidding

Post #9 » by **Gremz** » Thu Sep 4, 2008 12:14 pm

^^^
Oh come on, they have improved. They're all a year older and that count's for veteran leadership right???

HicksvsKnicks08 · Post #10 » by **HicksvsKnicks08** » Thu Sep 4, 2008 1:54 pm

I think the fact they got an all-star ( Jefferson, was an all-star before right?) gives them a "sexier" outlook

Post #11 » by **APerna** » Thu Sep 4, 2008 1:56 pm

Jefferson was never an All-Star.

Post #12 » by **Scoot McGroot** » Thu Sep 4, 2008 2:02 pm

Trading Yi for Jefferson while also dumping Bobby Simmons salary as the filler in that deal was a stroke of genius for John Hammond and the Bucks. Seriously, Yi may turn out to be something, but I just don't think he'll ever turn out to be as valuable as a Richard Jefferson, nor valuable enough to put up with all the "Chinese officials" butting into their official business and demanding minutes out of the box for Yi.

Post #13 » by **Miller4ever** » Thu Sep 4, 2008 3:02 pm

PacerPerspective wrote:Jefferson was never an All-Star.

He's played at all-star levels before, though. One of the best players to not make the all-star team.

Fordamania · Post #14 » by **Fordamania** » Thu Sep 4, 2008 4:50 pm

The Bucks strike me as your typical team that looks good on paper, but never puts it all together on the court. They've got some 'name' players that can put the ball in the hoop, but their defense looks as bad as any team in the league's. The Jefferson acquisition was a good win-now move, but they seemed to have neutralized it with the horrible Mo Williams for Luke Ridnour swap. Any offense picked up in the Jefferson trade was lost, and their backcourt somehow managed to get even worse defensively.

Buck's Projected Starters

You could make the argument that they have the worst defensive starters in the league at three positions (PG, SG, PF) and while Jefferson and Bogut aren't bad defenders, neither is especially great either. They also lack depth, especially up front.

I think they'll win more games than last year, but I still see them as a sub-.500 team.

HicksvsKnicks08 · Post #15 » by **HicksvsKnicks08** » Thu Sep 4, 2008 6:05 pm

Fordmania,

Excellent point on their defense. RJ is their only "defender" in their starting line up

Lets compare line-ups

Pacers

PG Ford better defender than Ridnour
SG Dunleavy Not as good as Redd
SF Granger Tough to call, about even in my opion with RJ
PF Murphy both suck at defense , although Murphy is probably worse
C Foster Definitley better than Bogut

JarrettJackSG · Post #16 » by **JarrettJackSG** » Thu Sep 4, 2008 7:53 pm

HicksvsKnicks08 wrote:Fordmania,

Excellent point on their defense. RJ is their only "defender" in their starting line up

Lets compare line-ups

Pacers

PG Ford better defender than Ridnour
SG Dunleavy Not as good as Redd
SF Granger Tough to call, about even in my opion with RJ
PF Murphy both suck at defense , although Murphy is probably worse
C Foster Definitley better than Bogut

Wow... I can't believe this.

Did you just rank Foster, a career backup hustle center, better than Bogut, a 15/10/2 above average starting center?

It should be

Ford >>> Ridnour
Dunleavy <<<< Redd
Granger < RJ
Murphy < CV4 (CV4 could at least put up a 50 pt game)
Foster << Bogut

These comparisons are different defense

Ford >> Ridnour (Ford is too undersized)
Dunleavy <<< Redd (Redd actually has some speed and tries just as hard as Dun)
RJ was considered a very good defender, Granger doesn't have that rep yet.
CV4 > Murphy (Murphy isn't athletic enough, CV4 has more)
Bogut > Foster (Bogut blocks more, boxes out better, and has good length)

HicksvsKnicks08 · Post #17 » by **HicksvsKnicks08** » Thu Sep 4, 2008 8:56 pm

Did you just rank Foster, a career backup hustle center, better than Bogut, a 15/10/2 above average starting center?

In terms of strickly defense, Foster is a lot better than Bogut. Bogut gets blocked shot off weak side help (like JO). Watch Fosters defense on Duncan and the likes. Bogut can't defend like Foster.

JMHO

Post #18 » by **Scoot McGroot** » Fri Sep 5, 2008 1:08 am

I'd also say that Dunleavy isn't that far off from Redd anymore in terms of value, production, and talent. Redd is still a lights out shooter, but Dunleavy is a 40% shooter from downtown himself. In fact, just look at Dunleavy in Indiana, and he's just as good of a shooter with less volume, and he's a much better player in every other facet of the game than Redd. I wouldn't trade Dunleavy straight up for Redd when you factor in contracts. If each of them were on contract for the same amount of money and years, I might flip a coin, but it's not at all a landslide like once was believed.

HicksvsKnicks08 · Post #19 » by **HicksvsKnicks08** » Fri Sep 5, 2008 8:55 pm

Hey Scoot,

Looks like you might have to change your quote at the bottom, looks like Randolph will be a Memphis Grizzlie soon.

Post #20 » by **count55** » Sat Sep 6, 2008 12:25 am

HicksvsKnicks08 wrote:Hey Scoot,

Looks like you might have to change your quote at the bottom, looks like Randolph will be a Memphis Grizzlie soon.

Well, the Grizzlies would be better off making s'mores, too.