RealGM

First sentence of the article has effectively replaced the "Can Bogut stay healthy?" question that hung over the team the last couple of seasons.

LUKE23 wrote:He said no wing defenders sans Moute. Which is true. Daniels' D is getting massively overrated.

Harris would have been the backup SF if Moute was healthy. Hollinger should know Moute is hurt though, admittedly.

The overall gist of what he's saying is accurate though. Ellis/Jennings is a bad fit, and we're deep but don't have star power.

Not counting Daniels as a wing defender at all is massively underrating him.

Saying we have no wing defenders then glossing over Moute who is one of the BEST wing defenders in the NBA is absurd.

Calling Gooden one of the best backup bigs in the NBA is criminal.

The article is filled with inaccuracies and I disagree with his prediction of our win total.

InsideOut wrote:Not sure why one comment disqualifies all his comments. By that logic nobody on the face of the earth has a qualified comment.

As far as the Gooden comment goes...didn't he say he was a good #3 big backup? Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't he saying Gooden isn't a good starter, isn't even a good back-up but as a #3 option he is good. I don't see how saying a guy is a good third string guy is a complement.

You are wrong, he said Gooden is one of the best No. 3 big in Basketball. Not #3 Power forward or Center. That means after he's the best big on a team following the starting Center & Power Forward.

Every team in the league has wing defenders as good as Daniels. He didn't gloss over Moute either.

The perimeter defense without Moute could range anywhere from putrid to pathetic. Jennings, Ellis and Udrih aren't stopping anyone in the backcourt. Dunleavy's a weak defender and Harris hasn't shown he can be very good defensively yet either. People like to bag on Moute for his offensive limitations but take one look at this team's perimeter defense without him and it's quite clear his importance to the team remains immense.

LUKE23 wrote:Every team in the league has wing defenders as good as Daniels. He didn't gloss over Moute either.

We're not talking about every team in the league, we are talking about a team that has "no wing defenders". You can try to downplay him all you want, but Daniels is known as a good defender around the league.

Saying a team has no wing defenders except Moute who can't shoot, without acknowledging him as a premier defender is glossing over him.

Max Green wrote:
We're not talking about every team in the league, we are talking about a team that has "no wing defenders". You can try to downplay him all you want, but Daniels is known as a good defender around the league.

Saying a team has no wing defenders except Moute who can't shoot, without acknowledging him as a premier defender is glossing over him.

My point was that there is no reason to mention Daniels because he's not a standout defender. He isn't poor, but he doesn't stand out from any other bench fodder anywhere else in the league. That's why he was available for the league minimum.

They don't have any wing defenders either, with the glaring exception of Luc Richard Mbah a Moute

That's glossing over him?

InsideOut wrote:
As far as the Gooden comment goes...didn't he say he was a good #3 big backup? Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't he saying Gooden isn't a good starter, isn't even a good back-up but as a #3 option he is good. I don't see how saying a guy is a good third string guy is a complement.

No, he said he was one of the best No. 3 bigs in the league. Starters are #s 1 and 2. He then goes on to list Udoh and fifth big Sanders as next in line.

LUKE23 wrote:

GHOSTofSIKMA wrote:his comments on gooden pretty much nullify his opinion here.

Not really. Pretty much everything he said is true.

be my guest if youd like to align your overall opinion with somebody who thinks gooden is the best bench big in the league.

personally i think the article is loaded with nonsense, and underrates virtually every other key player on the roster. how he thinks this team could regress its outlook from last years result stupifies me.

On a related note....

CBS Sportsline evaluation of the Central

1. Indiana
2. Chicago


http://www.cbssports.com/nba/blog/eye-on-basketball/20580583/2012-13-eob-nba-division-previews-central-division

On The Cliff: What do you make of the Milwaukee Bucks? They've changed who they are with the Andrew Bogut trade that brought in Ekpe Udoh and Monta Ellis. They've stockpiled a closet full of long, lanky forwards. They've got some scorers, some good defenders and some potential breakout players.

But are they any good?

You can pencil the Bucks in for at least 30 wins for sure. That's a guarantee (good health assumed). Are they a playoff team though? Can they make a surprise push and reinstate Fearing the Deer? Can Brandon Jennings break through? Can Ersan Ilyasova be a star? What does a full season of Ellis and Jennings look like? Are John Henson, Udoh and Larry Sanders the same person?

There's a whole lot to like about this Bucks team, and a whole lot to dislike. They're close to being something it seems, but it's hard to know what.

I think 44-38 is more likely.

GHOSTofSIKMA wrote:be my guest if youd like to align your overall opinion with somebody who thinks gooden is the best bench big in the league.

personally i think the article is loaded with nonsense, and underrates virtually every other key player on the roster. how he thinks this team could regress its outlook from last years result stupifies me.

I think they win around 42 games personally. 42, 38, is there a difference? I want a 2nd round team. We do that, then we can come back and laugh at Hollinger.

LUKE23 wrote:

My point was that there is no reason to mention Daniels because he's not a standout defender. He isn't poor, but he doesn't stand out from any other bench fodder anywhere else in the league. That's why he was available for the league minimum.

On a team with "no wing defenders" Daniels is a standout defender. He's a much better defender then you are willing to give him credit for. As far as him being available for the league minimum, I guess you don't consider Ronnie Brewer a standout defensively from other bench fodder since he also signed for a 1 year contract for the league minimum.

Besides adding some length in the frontcourt where is this team noticeably better than the one that couldn't beat a good team to save its life after the trade? You still have a gigantic question mark in the backcourt; there are massive defensive questions at PG, SG and SF (without Moute); we still need to see which Ilyasova will show up consistently long term and who the hell knows what Skiles is going to do. I don't think it's difficult at all to believe this team could regress, especially if Skiles zones out.

LUKE23 wrote:

GHOSTofSIKMA wrote:his comments on gooden pretty much nullify his opinion here.

Not really. Pretty much everything he said is true.

In particular, dealing Gooden for a starting 2 that can shoot and defend would solve several of these problems at once.

Name a team that would trade a "starting 2 that can shoot and defend" for Drew Gooden.

JimmyTheKid wrote:Name a team that would trade a "starting 2 that can shoot and defend" for Drew Gooden.

You're ruling out the Bucks, right?

Just checking.

Which is why I said "pretty much".

His primary points in the article are that we have a mismatched backcourt, no really crappy players or contracts, good depth, but we need star power to move beyond the bottom tier of the playoff bracket. All are true outside of Gooden. Maybe some think there is a huge difference between the 7th and 9th seed in terms of the quality of team you are, but I'm not one of them.

If a star breaks out or we win a series, then he'll be wrong, otherwise he's pretty accurate.

europa wrote:Besides adding some length in the frontcourt where is this team noticeably better than the one that couldn't beat a good team to save its life after the trade? You still have a gigantic question mark in the backcourt; there are massive defensive questions at PG, SG and SF (without Moute); we still need to see which Ilyasova will show up consistently long term and who the hell knows what Skiles is going to do. I don't think it's difficult at all to believe this team could regress, especially if Skiles zones out.

The Bucks had great length in the backcourt last season.

Stephen Jackson & Shaun Livingston....where did that get us?


Our offense got significantly better and we feel we have shored up our defensive shortcomings in the frontcourt with Dalembert, Pryzbilla, Henson, & Udoh.....I have to think there's a definite chance we could be much better than the team that was out there for Game 1 of last year....none of this takes into account that Bogut can't even stay on the floor and hasn't even been cleared for 5 on 5 as of today with the season 2 weeks away.

Time will tell once the real bullets start flying.

I'm giving this team a chance to show me what they can do or not do before I go all Debbie Downer.

We pretty much need Jennings-Ellis-Harris-Ersan to all be able to score at will with average efficiency while playing average defense to be considered in that Indiana level. Our center position must be able to catch and dunk, and defend the pick and roll. If you don't have that A+ player, you need 4 A to B+ players as your starters (both ends of the floor).

Optimists hate the article while realists think it is mostly accurate (except Gooden). Shocked

We go through this every season when the articles pick the Bucks to finish below .500 and miss the playoffs.