Page 3 of 4
Re: Hollinger: Bucks 9th in East, 38-44
Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 7:55 pm
by ampd
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?
We aren't starting Gooden at C.
Also any one of Jennings / Ellis meshing well, Tobes breaking out, Jennings continuing his preseason efficiency into the regular season, or Monta returning to his pre moped accident form would put us over the top.
I don't know that we will be a lot better against good teams but we will definitely be different without Gooden logging major minutes at the 5.
Re: Hollinger: Bucks 9th in East, 38-44
Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 7:58 pm
by europa
ampd wrote: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?
We aren't starting Gooden at C.
That's the one definitive upgrade I see. Of course, that could be underminded by Skiles still playing Gooden more than he should play.
I'd say Tobes at SF if I had any confidence that Skiles will use him properly but I don't.
Re: Hollinger: Bucks 9th in East, 38-44
Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 8:03 pm
by averageposter
I still feel like there will be a trade to shore up the perimeter and clear some of the log jam at the front. It would be great if it were Gooden.
Every time I feel like he has no value I just remind myself he's played for nine teams some of them twice and been traded like a half dozen times. Gooden has been the same player throughout. I think someone takes him at some point. We probably need a team with playoff aspirations to get thin up front. Kevin Love going down is well covered by the wolves but an injury like that to a different playoff bound team might open the door.
Re: Hollinger: Bucks 9th in East, 38-44
Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 8:11 pm
by ampd
europa wrote:I'd say Tobes at SF if I had any confidence that Skiles will use him properly but I don't.
Yeah I have this fear also. The last couple games he got the Bogut treatment where we ran a post up to him the first couple times down the floor and then never got another play the rest of the night
Re: Hollinger: Bucks 9th in East, 38-44
Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 8:13 pm
by europa
ampd wrote:europa wrote:I'd say Tobes at SF if I had any confidence that Skiles will use him properly but I don't.
Yeah I have this fear also. The last couple games he got the Bogut treatment where we ran a post up to him the first couple times down the floor and then never got another play the rest of the night
Skiles is possibly my biggest concern going into this season. I simply don't trust him at this point to play the players who deserve to play or utilize them properly.
Re: Hollinger: Bucks 9th in East, 38-44
Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 8:16 pm
by ampd
I am at least a little encouraged by his starting Larry Sanders in the pre season, but whether thats because he has any intention of playing the young guys or he is just sending a message to fat Dalembert to get in shape is a question I don't have the answer to
Re: Hollinger: Bucks 9th in East, 38-44
Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 8:19 pm
by AussieBuck
You can't ignore the Gooden parts, it's like the year his preview had us improving because we added another second tier star in Maggette to add to Bogut. Just about everything Hollinger writes is clouded by his belief that PER isn't fundamentally flawed.
Re: Hollinger: Bucks 9th in East, 38-44
Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 2:39 am
by jeremyd236
I completely agree with what he said about our bench. It's going to be very solid this year, the best in years. The only problem is our starters are marginally better, if at all, than our bench players.
Re: Hollinger: Bucks 9th in East, 38-44
Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 2:46 am
by Rockmaninoff
Bucks can be better than 38-44 if Skiles eschews the typical salary and tenure politics, and plays the guys that are for real.
Re: Hollinger: Bucks 9th in East, 38-44
Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 2:50 am
by ReasonablySober
Rockmaninoff wrote:Bucks can be better than 38-44 if Skiles eschews the typical salary and tenure politics, and plays the guys that are for real.
Absolutely.
Not going to happen.
Re: Hollinger: Bucks 9th in East, 38-44
Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 3:25 am
by paul
DrugBust wrote:Rockmaninoff wrote:Bucks can be better than 38-44 if Skiles eschews the typical salary and tenure politics, and plays the guys that are for real.
Absolutely.
Not going to happen.
Yup.
Re: Hollinger: Bucks 9th in East, 38-44
Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 12:05 pm
by CanadaBucks
Treebeard wrote: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-divisionOn 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.
Think this is the art of saying something without saying anything.
Re: Hollinger: Bucks 9th in East, 38-44
Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 12:10 pm
by CanadaBucks
InsideOut wrote: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.
Not sure why people who disagree are optimists and people who agree are realists, couldn't it be the other way around and your optimists are realists and realists are pessimists? Just because it's your opinion doesn't make you a realist, an opinion is just that....
Re: Hollinger: Bucks 9th in East, 38-44
Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 2:02 pm
by InsideOut
CanadaBucks wrote:InsideOut wrote: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.
Not sure why people who disagree are optimists and people who agree are realists, couldn't it be the other way around and your optimists are realists and realists are pessimists? Just because it's your opinion doesn't make you a realist, an opinion is just that....
This optimist/realist/pessimist topic goes back well over half a decade so I'm guessing you are too new to get the meaning of the post. Another example of this is when you see people write optimists win when the Bucks do something good. But either way thanks for the lecture mom.
Re: Hollinger: Bucks 9th in East, 38-44
Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 2:07 pm
by paul
Hush up IO, optimists win
Re: Hollinger: Bucks 9th in East, 38-44
Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 2:11 pm
by emunney
I'm neither an optimist nor a pessimist nor a realist, or I'm all of them. Whichever, none are any reason to listen to Hollinger, even if you more or less agree with the conclusion as I do.
Re: Hollinger: Bucks 9th in East, 38-44
Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 7:00 pm
by CanadaBucks
InsideOut wrote:CanadaBucks wrote:InsideOut wrote: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.
Not sure why people who disagree are optimists and people who agree are realists, couldn't it be the other way around and your optimists are realists and realists are pessimists? Just because it's your opinion doesn't make you a realist, an opinion is just that....
This optimist/realist/pessimist topic goes back well over half a decade so I'm guessing you are too new to get the meaning of the post. Another example of this is when you see people write optimists win when the Bucks do something good. .
Just post without cryptic meanings and everyone can join in, old, new.........
But either way thanks for the lecture mom
No problem, always glad to help where it's needed.
Re: Hollinger: Bucks 9th in East, 38-44
Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 7:02 pm
by CanadaBucks
emunney wrote:I'm neither an optimist nor a pessimist nor a realist, or I'm all of them. Whichever, none are any reason to listen to Hollinger, even if you more or less agree with the conclusion as I do.
Well said, thank you. Not knocking anyone's opinion, just saying that's all it is.
Re: Hollinger: Bucks 9th in East, 38-44
Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 7:05 pm
by crkone
paul wrote:Hush up IO, optimists win
Oh god... that was a stain on this boards history.
Re: Hollinger: Bucks 9th in East, 38-44
Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 7:50 pm
by SupremeHustle
CanadaBucks wrote:
Just post without cryptic meanings and everyone can join in, old, new.........
Exactly. Also, Hieroglyphics should be written in English.