RealGM

trwi7 wrote:

sdn40 wrote:I'm much smarter now.

Debatable

Everyone should tank !
Is that better ?

sdn40 wrote:

Turk Nowitzki wrote:

sdn40 wrote:
Because the big picture is this team will get throttled by an unranked team any given week

If that is how you genuinely feel after watching that game instead of happiness than college sports might not be for you.

I grew up in the 80's. I've had my fill of empty victories. It was good to see a win - but I'm much smarter now. It was ugly with little to no upside. If you can relish that - good for you

Make sure you realize this is college basketball and not the NBA. These are 18-22 year olds playing a game and going to college.
This is and has been Wisconsin basketball for the last 20 years.
I think some peoples memory is clouded by the Final Four teams. That was an extremely talented team. This team is nowhere near the same talent level.
2 NBA players were on that team. We dont have that anymore.
If you dont like this basketball I'm not sure why you followed them for the last 20 years.
It's amazing they were able to beat Michigan by 10 and didnt play well....

Sent from my SM-G935V using RealGM mobile app

MikeIsGood wrote:I appreciate consistent opinions vs. elation after a win and despair after a loss, and my overall opinion on the current situation has not swayed either. But I guess I don't see how this particular game was that ugly, unless the argument is that you just don't like the brand of basketball period. And that's fine, but it's also not how some of the comments have been framed.

I mean, what we saw today was the slow methodical pace working - we overall shot well (extremely well outside of Trice), limited turnovers, and played great D. Like...that was not a tough game to watch, IMO, save for Davison's lack-of a brain 50% of the time.

Im looking at it from an entertainment standpoint.

As RS pointed out, it's really hard to watch the Bucks and the current brand of NBA and then committ to 2 hours of this brand of basketball from a middle of the road team. Even more frustrating is having any single digit lead be vulnerable to the foul-and-chase with how bad this team is sometimes at the line.

Mags FTW wrote:

MikeIsGood wrote:I appreciate consistent opinions vs. elation after a win and despair after a loss, and my overall opinion on the current situation has not swayed either. But I guess I don't see how this particular game was that ugly, unless the argument is that you just don't like the brand of basketball period. And that's fine, but it's also not how some of the comments have been framed.

I mean, what we saw today was the slow methodical pace working - we overall shot well (extremely well outside of Trice), limited turnovers, and played great D. Like...that was not a tough game to watch, IMO, save for Davison's lack-of a brain 50% of the time.

Im looking at it from an entertainment standpoint.

As RS pointed out, it's really hard to watch the Bucks and the current brand of NBA and then committ to 2 hours of this brand of basketball from a middle of the road team. Even more frustrating is having any single digit lead be vulnerable to the foul-and-chase with how bad this team is sometimes at the line.

They are not in the business of making sure you are entertained. They are trying to win games. And this style is exactly what they need to do to win. Limit the other teams possessions, play defense, limit TOs, etc. They dont have the talent to play the way you want them to.

Sent from my SM-G935V using RealGM mobile app

Mags FTW wrote:

MikeIsGood wrote:I appreciate consistent opinions vs. elation after a win and despair after a loss, and my overall opinion on the current situation has not swayed either. But I guess I don't see how this particular game was that ugly, unless the argument is that you just don't like the brand of basketball period. And that's fine, but it's also not how some of the comments have been framed.

I mean, what we saw today was the slow methodical pace working - we overall shot well (extremely well outside of Trice), limited turnovers, and played great D. Like...that was not a tough game to watch, IMO, save for Davison's lack-of a brain 50% of the time.

Im looking at it from an entertainment standpoint.

As RS pointed out, it's really hard to watch the Bucks and the current brand of NBA and then committ to 2 hours of this brand of basketball from a middle of the road team. Even more frustrating is having any single digit lead be vulnerable to the foul-and-chase with how bad this team is sometimes at the line.

I’m in the minority but:

1. This is what the Badgers have to do to win and it’s preferable to most other teams that don’t pay players but have “exciting” basketball and suck. Michigan is another team that barely plays any faster and is good.

2. The NBA before June is unwatchable to me. I’m not a 70 year old white guy that says “they don’t play defense” but the players in the NBA are too good and the rules are now as such that you cannot play defense. You have literally 5-6 months of meaningless basketball in the NBA. The tournament in the NCAA could argue the same thing about the regular season but games like this actually mean something as opposed to the Bucks beating the Warriors and...well, it didn’t change anything for either team.

Give me a game where every possession matters with the Badgers in a huge game instead of a 100% meaningless Bucks vs. Jazz game where if the Bucks get upset, it means NOTHING before June and a 15 point lead can be erased in 3 minutes by the refs and one cold spell.

Again, I’m in the minority and acknowledge the boring style...but I also think it’s lame to crap on how they play. It’s good coaching and good defense. I also would rather watch a 24-21 NFL game over a 63-59 Mountain West football game. Points on the board isn’t everything even though there is absolutely a time and place for enjoying back-and-forth games.

ReasonablySober wrote:Nice win, but that was ugly as hell. After watching the Bucks all year I’m not here for dumping it into the post and watching ISO ball. Tear it all down.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Tune in next year when the million dollar question of “how will they do without Happ?” is answered.

I think they’ll surprise us on offense but the toll will be taken in defense.

Regardless, they won’t play any ISO other than a few into Reuvers and the entire roster will be able to shoot the 3 in some capacity.

Kerb Hohl wrote:

ReasonablySober wrote:Nice win, but that was ugly as hell. After watching the Bucks all year I’m not here for dumping it into the post and watching ISO ball. Tear it all down.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Tune in next year when the million dollar question of “how will they do without Happ?” is answered.

I think they’ll surprise us on offense but the toll will be taken in defense.

Regardless, they won’t play any ISO other than a few into Reuvers and the entire roster will be able to shoot the 3 in some capacity.

I'm not sure that Happ's inability to score outside of the restricted area is the only significant liability on that end of the floor. I agree that Reuvers provides more spacing, but Happ isn't Greg Monroe. He can dribble and pass and has solid floor vision for a man of his size. You can run a system that takes advantage of that if your perimeter players can get good shots and make them.

Giannis's range is similarly limited to dominating the restricted area, but the Bud does a better job of running action around the perimeter so that the double teams that Giannis often runs into can translate into open looks around the perimeter.

Our boys just have to make the space and make the shots.

Hail this.

**** Michigan.

Today is a good day.

17-1?

No.

17- **** Michigan

humanrefutation wrote:

Kerb Hohl wrote:

ReasonablySober wrote:Nice win, but that was ugly as hell. After watching the Bucks all year I’m not here for dumping it into the post and watching ISO ball. Tear it all down.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Tune in next year when the million dollar question of “how will they do without Happ?” is answered.

I think they’ll surprise us on offense but the toll will be taken in defense.

Regardless, they won’t play any ISO other than a few into Reuvers and the entire roster will be able to shoot the 3 in some capacity.

I'm not sure that Happ's inability to score outside of the restricted area is the only significant liability on that end of the floor. I agree that Reuvers provides more spacing, but Happ isn't Greg Monroe. He can dribble and pass and has solid floor vision for a man of his size. You can run a system that takes advantage of that if your perimeter players can get good shots and make them.

Giannis's range is similarly limited to dominating the restricted area, but the Bud does a better job of running action around the perimeter so that the double teams that Giannis often runs into can translate into open looks around the perimeter.

Our boys just have to make the space and make the shots.

I didn’t really say it was the only liability. I just suggested they’ll do better than some fear because of those “wow, Happ is the only guy that can score tonight” nights. And really all I was saying is that they won’t ISO, even though I’m not sure that they do much anyways.

Kerb Hohl wrote:

humanrefutation wrote:

Kerb Hohl wrote:
Tune in next year when the million dollar question of “how will they do without Happ?” is answered.

I think they’ll surprise us on offense but the toll will be taken in defense.

Regardless, they won’t play any ISO other than a few into Reuvers and the entire roster will be able to shoot the 3 in some capacity.

I'm not sure that Happ's inability to score outside of the restricted area is the only significant liability on that end of the floor. I agree that Reuvers provides more spacing, but Happ isn't Greg Monroe. He can dribble and pass and has solid floor vision for a man of his size. You can run a system that takes advantage of that if your perimeter players can get good shots and make them.

Giannis's range is similarly limited to dominating the restricted area, but the Bud does a better job of running action around the perimeter so that the double teams that Giannis often runs into can translate into open looks around the perimeter.

Our boys just have to make the space and make the shots.

I didn’t really say it was the only liability. I just suggested they’ll do better than some fear because of those “wow, Happ is the only guy that can score tonight” nights. And really all I was saying is that they won’t ISO, even though I’m not sure that they do much anyways.

Sure. My point is that his ISO approach isn't a real problem if you have a movement based offensive scheme that can find open shots off of that action. Losing Happ's ISO action isn't gong to make the system more fluid on its own. The scheme will have to give them open shots and the rest of the key pieces will have to make those shots so that they can supplant the loss of his offensive production. And that also includes players who will be able to make a play in isolation from time to time.

The reason he runs ISO isn't because he demands the ball and shuts down everyone else - it's because he's the only player who can actually make something of it. Passing him the ball and standing around seems to be the default. I wish they would take advantage of his ISO ability in the same way Bud has done with Giannis.

Turk Nowitzki wrote:

Quake Griffin wrote:So much win.

At Large hopes still alive.

Obviously continued losing was going to get us in trouble but they weren't even close to being on the bubble coming into today.

Oh I agree.

But I thought there was enough schedule and potential good wins out there to possibly get by season's end.
This game helps a lot.

Quake Griffin wrote:

Turk Nowitzki wrote:

Quake Griffin wrote:So much win.

At Large hopes still alive.

Obviously continued losing was going to get us in trouble but they weren't even close to being on the bubble coming into today.

Oh I agree.

But I thought there was enough schedule and potential good wins out there to possibly get by season's end.
This game helps a lot.

I think we were pretty close to at-large/bubble area before yesterdays game. We do actually have some good early season wins. NC State, Oklahoma and Iowa are all currently ranked. Xavier is 3rd in the Big East. We weren't a lock by any stretch but we would've been in the conversation for sure IMO.

jschligs wrote:

Quake Griffin wrote:

Turk Nowitzki wrote:Obviously continued losing was going to get us in trouble but they weren't even close to being on the bubble coming into today.

Oh I agree.

But I thought there was enough schedule and potential good wins out there to possibly get by season's end.
This game helps a lot.

I think we were pretty close to at-large/bubble area before yesterdays game. We do actually have some good early season wins. NC State, Oklahoma and Iowa are all currently ranked. Xavier is 3rd in the Big East. We weren't a lock by any stretch but we would've been in the conversation for sure IMO.

I'm pretty sure Turk was saying we were an easy in, for the reasons jschligs stated.

Oh.

I read that wrong.
I thought we were easily out going into yesterday.

I guess we do have some good wins under our belt with Oklahoma and NC State.

Lunardi had us as a 7 seed the day before we beat Michigan.

As long as the Badgers can get to 18 wins, they shouldn’t have a problem. Their NET should be top 20 or 25 in the nation. 19 would be a lock.

They absolutely have had 2-3 terrible halves that have cost them and hence the record but there are a lot of teams that are 14-3 or something in that range that have basically played 5 extra gimme games than UW has.

Wisconsin not in the AP25.

ReasonablySober wrote:Wisconsin not in the AP25.

That's not too much of a surprise.

These next 2 will be key to mostly erasing the 2 bad losses - Minnesota and @WKU. I'd call beating Michigan and then winning the 2 winnable games being 14-6 a pretty good spot.

Illinois is going to be tougher than the records indicate. @Illinois and all of their losses are to good teams by mostly small margins. They are a team you should beat but it's not like a Rutgers of 2016 caliber pushover.

Northwestern you also have to beat.

Win those 2 and they are probably back in the AP/coaches rankings and are set up to basically just need to win the games they should for tournament entry and maybe a good seed.

Kerb Hohl wrote:

ReasonablySober wrote:Wisconsin not in the AP25.

That's not too much of a surprise.

These next 2 will be key to mostly erasing the 2 bad losses - Minnesota and @WKU. I'd call beating Michigan and then winning the 2 winnable games being 14-6 a pretty good spot.

Illinois is going to be tougher than the records indicate. @Illinois and all of their losses are to good teams by mostly small margins. They are a team you should beat but it's not like a Rutgers of 2016 caliber pushover.

Northwestern you also have to beat.

Win those 2 and they are probably back in the AP/coaches rankings and are set up to basically just need to win the games they should for tournament entry and maybe a good seed.

Illinois is going to be reallll good in the following years.

Also, I did not know Jalen Johnson was visiting during the Michigan game, hopefully that lights a spark and he leans Wisconsin