RealGM

Baddy Chuck wrote:

Max Green wrote:Funny yet sad that Fat Daly played himself right out of the rotation. If we are going to make a trade at the deadline he's most likely going to be the one traded.

I'd still love to make a push for Gasol. Having that post scorer would do wonders for our team. I'd just sell them on depth. Monta, Dunleavy, Beno, Dalembert, Ersan, Udoh, whatever of that they want really.

Yeah, same here. It would actually be a more then fair trade if the Lakers chose the right combination of the players you mentioned.

Max Green wrote:We've already beat one. How is it a barometer game, we're undermanned coming off of a back to back against one of the best teams in the league?

We haven't beaten a homecourt team yet with Monta (I'm talking teams currently in the top 4 seeds or that finished top 4 seeds last year). I feel it is a barometer game because we've won four in a row but the team is still kind of just struggling to pull out the wins and we haven't played a great team over that stretch.

To their credit, the Bucks seem to be beating up on the bad teams this year as they should. With the East as weak as it is they could end up with a .500+ record, but its games like LAC tomorrow that will separate pretenders vs. contenders. Let's see if they show up.

Ok, so if they lose tomorrow they suck.

CanadaBucks wrote:Ok, so if they lose tomorrow they suck.

Now your getting it.

blazza18 wrote:

CanadaBucks wrote:Ok, so if they lose tomorrow they suck.

Now your getting it.

But I don't want it

If you guys recall the 2005-06 season around here, during the Epi battles he brought up some statistic that most teams usually always get a 4 game winning streak at some point. The team that year never did and finished 40-42.

Tonight we got our four game streak.

This game was ugly. We blew an 18 point 2nd quarter lead (I think), because Irving/Gibson exploded at the 3 point line and nobody (Jennings/Ellis) decided to contest their shots.

With that said, Ellis was our only offensive option down the stretch, and it was sad. He hit the long 2's tonight, but that doesn't mean they were good shots.

LUKE23 wrote:

Max Green wrote:We've already beat one. How is it a barometer game, we're undermanned coming off of a back to back against one of the best teams in the league?

We haven't beaten a homecourt team yet with Monta (I'm talking teams currently in the top 4 seeds or that finished top 4 seeds last year). I feel it is a barometer game because we've won four in a row but the team is still kind of just struggling to pull out the wins and we haven't played a great team over that stretch.

The team is back to looking more like the win ugly Skiles ball that we got used to before we started playing Gooden at C last season. The alarming thing though is that our defensive rebounding and transition game / pace have tailed off. We are down to 9th in fast break points from 1st.

Max Green wrote:Funny yet sad that Fat Daly played himself right out of the rotation. If we are going to make a trade at the deadline he's most likely going to be the one traded.

Eh, it was always going to happen if Skiles didn't have his head up his ass about it. He's really not very good.

jeremyd236 wrote:This game was ugly. We blew an 18 point 2nd quarter lead (I think), because Irving/Gibson exploded at the 3 point line and nobody (Jennings/Ellis) decided to contest their shots.

With that said, Ellis was our only offensive option down the stretch, and it was sad. He hit the long 2's tonight, but that doesn't mean they were good shots.

Yup. Brandon lowered his TS% to a disgusting 49.7% and Monta raised his to an atrocious 48%. It really sucks having our offense rely on these two.

They have been atrocious this season.

EastSideBucksFan wrote:I'm not a fan of Drew Gooden in the rotation over Henson or even Dalembert.

Monta Ellis shot well tonight, but the Cavs are terrible on defense. But good to see a good game out of Monta.


Jennings takes some awful shots. And he never gets fouls called by the refs. They seriously hate him.

Moute & Ilyasova are winning us games. Plain and simple. I love when they are on the court together.

Sanders had hands of stone tonight, but I'm not worried about him.

Jeff Grayson has a huge herpdog on his lip. I think he makes out with hookers.

Big gut check game tomorrow. If we aren't solid defensively Clippers will rout us.

Agreed with nearly all of this. I'm not so passionate about Jennings not getting calls though, other than the one where he drove to middle and got knocked down on a made shot he was just doing his typical falling away left and throwing his hands up if got a slight hip bump as he went out of court.

Baddy Chuck wrote:

randy84 wrote:Kind of the same situation for Jennings. You know he is going to want at least $10 million a year.

Yup, I'm leaning more and more everyday towards shipping him out too. The "youth" aspect is the only thing keeping me on the fence but it's been 4 seasons with minimal improvement. I'd love to see him next to a legit SG before I make the move but that probably won't happen.

At this point, i want no part of giving Brandon any sort of four year deal in that 40 million range after the season, whether it's the Bucks making the offer or matching one in that range.

I agree with you that Jennings just hasn't shown enough significant improvement at pretty much any aspect of his game since his rookie year.

He's still only a 40% shooter that shoots to much given his inability to make shots at a better clip.

He still doesn't get to the free throw line.

His court vision is a little improved, but not to a point that makes him upper tier in that aspect to help compensate for his bad shooting.

On the defensive end he at least tries and all of the steals are good, but like so many other point guards, he struggles to limit penetration, especially against stronger guards given his slight frame.

I generally like Brandon on a personality level, at least from what i can see from afar as a fan. He seems to care about winning, almost always plays hard, and he talks about the city of Milwaukee in a positive way when interviewed both locally and nationally. He also stays healthy for the most part. As a player though, he just hasn't been able to improve enough at his shooting deficiencies and average court vision for me to want Jennings locked into the Bucks PG job over the next 4-5 years, much less at around 10 million per.

El Duderino wrote:

Baddy Chuck wrote:

randy84 wrote:Kind of the same situation for Jennings. You know he is going to want at least $10 million a year.

Yup, I'm leaning more and more everyday towards shipping him out too. The "youth" aspect is the only thing keeping me on the fence but it's been 4 seasons with minimal improvement. I'd love to see him next to a legit SG before I make the move but that probably won't happen.

At this point, i want no part of giving Brandon any sort of four year deal in that 40 million range after the season, whether it's the Bucks making the offer or matching one in that range.

I agree with you that Jennings just hasn't shown enough significant improvement at pretty much any aspect of his game since his rookie year.

He's still only a 40% shooter that shoots to much given his inability to make shots at a better clip.

He still doesn't get to the free throw line.

His court vision is a little improved, but not to a point that makes him upper tier in that aspect to help compensate for his bad shooting.

On the defensive end he at least tries and all of the steals are good, but like so many other point guards, he struggles to limit penetration, especially against stronger guards given his slight frame.

I generally like Brandon on a personality level, at least from what i can see from afar as a fan. He seems to care about winning, almost always plays hard, and he talks about the city of Milwaukee in a positive way when interviewed both locally and nationally. He also stays healthy for the most part. As a player though, he just hasn't been able to improve enough at his shooting deficiencies and average court vision for me to want Jennings locked into the Bucks PG job over the next 4-5 years, much less at around 10 million per.

Yup to this. When comparing Monta to Brandon, Monta seems to have great plays and bonehead plays. But even his bonehead plays are aggressive like pulling up a jumper he thinks he'll make or forcing a pass to a guy that's sort of open and he clearly understands the mental game of basketball.

Brandon, on the other hand, seems to make great physical, individual plays sometimes and plays with teammates conservatively limiting turnovers but he doesn't seem to mentally understand what a pick and roll or any other play should look like. It might all just be too hard for him like passing academic tests and passing a freshman year of college. Paying 10 million for someone that might never understand basketball is a huge force and mistake.

Controlling Monta is a coaches job similar to how coaches had to pull the reins on Brett Favre when he was great and thought he could do everything himself including force passes into triple coverage. This should be easy for Skiles (a tough coach) and Jennings would "get it" by now if he was going to.

-Jragon- wrote:Controlling Monta is a coaches job similar to how coaches had to pull the reins on Brett Favre when he was great and thought he could do everything himself including force passes into triple coverage. This should be easy for Skiles (a tough coach) and Jennings would "get it" by now if he was going to.

Oh come on, if Monta could be coached he wouldn't have been the same player for 8 years now. He is what he is, he is not going to change. We're 40 games into his time here and his game hasn't changed one bit, it's arguably getting worse. This sounds like the exact same arguments you (and other) made for Gooden last season. Saying that if Skiles could coach him into playing better defense and cutting down on the bonehead plays he would be useful. Players set in their ways very rarely change. I really hope Monta leaves whether through trade or free agency and people can finally look past him like you did Gooden.

Baddy Chuck wrote:

-Jragon- wrote:Controlling Monta is a coaches job similar to how coaches had to pull the reins on Brett Favre when he was great and thought he could do everything himself including force passes into triple coverage. This should be easy for Skiles (a tough coach) and Jennings would "get it" by now if he was going to.

Oh come on, if Monta could be coached he wouldn't have been the same player for 8 years now. He is what he is, he is not going to change. We're 40 games into his time here and his game hasn't changed one bit, it's arguably getting worse. This sounds like the exact same arguments you (and other) made for Gooden last season. Saying that if Skiles could coach him into playing better defense and cutting down on the bonehead plays he would be useful. Players set in their ways very rarely change. I really hope Monta leaves whether through trade or free agency and people can finally look past him like you did Gooden.

Yep

At least when Monta was in his first 3-4 years, he scored much more efficiently to go with his overall low basketball IQ and bad defense. His shooting percentage though has been getting worse and worse as each year has gone by, to the point he's now shooting under 40% on way to many shots taken, especially his affinity for taking dumb long two point jumpers.

That low basketball IQ has also forced multiple coaches to play him at SG instead of PG, helping make him an even bigger defensive liability than as a PG. At this point in his career, there is no changing who Ellis is, regardless of the fact he could have been such a better NBA player if he had basketball smarts anywhere close to physical gifts he was blessed with.

The only role left for Monta in the NBA where he might be able to become an asset to some teams is IMO as a 6th man combo guard on a team with a strong coach and a strong veteran roster who might be able to reign in his dumb jump shot taking desires at least somewhat. As a starter though playing 35 plus minutes each night, he's a net negative more often than a positive and he looks to be regressing as each year goes by.

I don't understand the idea some people have that Monta is some supremely talented player. He's a great athlete but he doesn't really bring much else to the table.

JayMKE wrote:I don't understand the idea some people have that Monta is some supremely talented player. He's a great athlete but he doesn't really bring much else to the table.

Monta would be a much better player if his overall basketball IQ wasn't on the lower end of the spectrum.

Then again, for whatever reason basketball IQ is often not considered in the "talent equation" when evaluating players. Instead, that generally is pushed into a different category from physical gifts even though basketball smarts are in most cases something a player simply has or doesn't have to varying degrees, just as physical gifts are.

There are some players who get smarter simply through experience, but for the most part, there is a limit to how much of that can be learned and in many cases low basketball IQ players don't really get noticeably better at all in that regard. On the flip side, guys like Nash, Paul, and Kidd probably have benefited from coaching over the years, but their high level basketball smarts and instincts was more a talent they were blessed with, just as a guy like Larry Sanders mainly has a blossoming NBA career because of the body he was born with.

Watching Monta and Jennings sometimes can be so painful. The amount of dumb shots they'll consistently take is amazing to me, yet come the next game, odds are high that they'll jack up many of the near exact same low percentage shots, as if they were both efficient scorers instead of very erratic 40% chuckers.

If either one of them (Jennings or Monta) could actually run the pick and roll even mildly effectively, imagine how much better they'd be.

Big game tonight.