PG Cavs: Loss

[60611]

There’s zero chance this team wins 50 without Giannis. I’d peg them for 40ish wins without him.

No kidding, but then again they probably wouldn’t win 50 without Brogdon either, if the 4-4 record is indicative... wins against the early season Pistons (x2), Cavs and tanking Lakers.

[rilamann]

That post is sig-worthy.

Yeah, so sig worthy. Saying we’ll go 5-5 when we just are having a 5-5 stretch is soooo crazy.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Even when Giannis and Brogdon have been on the court, the Bucks have looked like a #5 or #6 seed since the all star break. They're 5-5 in their last 10 and haven't really been impressive for over a month now, some people are in denial about that.

When the Bucks beat the Lakers in LA to go to 48-14, if you had told me that the Raptors would go 5-4 in their next 9, I would have thought we'd have the #1 seed all but locked up right now.

[rilamann]

There’s zero chance this team wins 50 without Giannis. I’d peg them for 40ish wins without him.

No kidding, but then again they probably wouldn’t win 50 without Brogdon either, if the 4-4 record is indicative... wins against the early season Pistons (x2), Cavs and tanking Lakers.

If the Bucks were a playoff team without Giannis, coach Bud and Brogdon would be the 2 biggest reasons why and it wouldn't even be close.

[SirChurros]

Eh this is totally unfair to MG. He's a Bucks fan who is also a Giannis fanatic. Can be both and it's ok to be both.

And I respect Bud and his staff too much to think the team would be a total disaster without Giannis but he's a pretty damn big reason why the team is great.

he is a giannis fanatic which makes him a bucks bandwagoner. its ok to be both but make no mistake there is no loyalty whatsoever to the team with most fans like this. he is as much a bucks fan as rodzilla was

The amount of insensitive fans trying to call others as not Bucks fans because im giving an opinion which you and some of you here dont like, sometimes truth is harsh,like it or not.

Except it's not the truth.

If you think the team around Giannis sucks, you clearly have not spent a lot of time around the game. This is a well-assembled team. Does it have some flaws? Yes. Does every team? Pretty much yes.

You make yourself look silly on this board day after day.

[SirChurros]

All this talk about not being a playoff team without Giannis is dumb, too. In the west? Yeah, probably not. In the East? They absolutely would be.

[Magic Giannison]

he is a giannis fanatic which makes him a bucks bandwagoner. its ok to be both but make no mistake there is no loyalty whatsoever to the team with most fans like this. he is as much a bucks fan as rodzilla was

The amount of insensitive fans trying to call others as not Bucks fans because im giving an opinion which you and some of you here dont like, sometimes truth is harsh,like it or not.

Except it's not the truth.

If you think the team around Giannis sucks, you clearly have not spent a lot of time around the game. This is a well-assembled team. Does it have some flaws? Yes. Does every team? Pretty much yes.

You make yourself look silly on this board day after day.

Where the hell you people read the team sucks part, i never said that, all i said that this team is mediocre outside GIannis and we need much more in order to win a championship.

Thats what i have been criticizing Middleton for even tho i waited for him to see under Bud system. I have been literally saying those things about Middleton for years now ,w e need better players and a clear # 2 to guy to win a championship, every championship team had it.

I even started Middleton thread on this board 2 years ago discussing these things, if you guys are fine wasting time and be pretenders and watch us win nothing then be my guess but i want this team to win many championships and we frankly dont have much team either.

[SirChurros]

This team is literally, by almost every metric, has been the best team in the NBA for the majority of the season.

If you think we need much more to win a championship, think that. But this team doesn't lack talent and has proven it can compete with any team in the league. Does that mean they'll win the title? No. But it's stupid to think that a team that has consistently proven it's really, really good has no shot to do anything.

[JEIS]

Last night we got killed on the boards. Ironic that our best rebounder was out.

I think we are switching up our defense more than normal as well... I don't know if Bud is tinkering with it for the playoffs, but maybe this is also contributing to our not so good rebounding. Playing more zone than normal... This may be pulling us out of position a bit more. We were getting abused on the boards by Philly too. Giannis being out is obviously a contributing factor. Kidd's defense was horrible for rebounding. Maybe we are losing the rebounding game due to scheme some too?

[Magic Giannison]

This team is literally, by almost every metric, has been the best team in the NBA for the majority of the season.

If you think we need much more to win a championship, think that. But this team doesn't lack talent and has proven it can compete with any team in the league. Does that mean they'll win the title? No. But it's stupid to think that a team that has consistently proven it's really, really good has no shot to do anything.

Metrics out of context means nothing, we had a good year according metrics during Kidds first year iirc but when the playoffs came how many players showed up?

This is why many take others over us in the playoffs despite having an amazing regular season.

[Prez]

This team is literally, by almost every metric, has been the best team in the NBA for the majority of the season.

If you think we need much more to win a championship, think that. But this team doesn't lack talent and has proven it can compete with any team in the league. Does that mean they'll win the title? No. But it's stupid to think that a team that has consistently proven it's really, really good has no shot to do anything.

Metrics out of context means nothing, we had a good year according metrics during Kidds first year iirc but when the playoffs came how many players showed up?

This is why many take others over us in the playoffs despite having an amazing regular season.

No we didn't lol. They were a mediocre .500 team and all the team metrics beyond raw W/L (point differential, SRS, net rating, etc.) backed that up as well. The current Bucks when healthy would sweep that team with hilarious ease.

[rilamann]

Last night we got killed on the boards. Ironic that our best rebounder was out.

I think we are switching up our defense more than normal as well... I don't know if Bud is tinkering with it for the playoffs, but maybe this is also contributing to our not so good rebounding. Playing more zone than normal... This may be pulling us out of position a bit more. We were getting abused on the boards by Philly too. Giannis being out is obviously a contributing factor. Kidd's defense was horrible for rebounding. Maybe we are losing the rebounding game due to scheme some too?

The Bucks haven't been nearly as impressive post all star break and just going by eye test and watching the games, it's been because of the defense. Maybe if you break down the stats it will tell a different story, but they haven't looked as sharp defensively as they did prior to the break.

[SirChurros]

This team is literally, by almost every metric, has been the best team in the NBA for the majority of the season.

If you think we need much more to win a championship, think that. But this team doesn't lack talent and has proven it can compete with any team in the league. Does that mean they'll win the title? No. But it's stupid to think that a team that has consistently proven it's really, really good has no shot to do anything.

Metrics out of context means nothing, we had a good year according metrics during Kidds first year iirc but when the playoffs came how many players showed up?

This is why many take others over us in the playoffs despite having an amazing regular season.

The Bucks were a .500 team in Kidd's first season. Little different, don't you think?

[Magic Giannison]

This team is literally, by almost every metric, has been the best team in the NBA for the majority of the season.

If you think we need much more to win a championship, think that. But this team doesn't lack talent and has proven it can compete with any team in the league. Does that mean they'll win the title? No. But it's stupid to think that a team that has consistently proven it's really, really good has no shot to do anything.

Metrics out of context means nothing, we had a good year according metrics during Kidds first year iirc but when the playoffs came how many players showed up?

This is why many take others over us in the playoffs despite having an amazing regular season.

No we didn't lol. They were a mediocre .500 team and all the team metrics beyond raw W/L (point differential, SRS, net rating, etc.) backed that up as well. The current Bucks when healthy would sweep that team with hilarious ease.

You're right the only good thing we had was defense which was 4th which ironically was the best we had under Kidd.

Problem is even that didnt translate during playoffs and a good portion of it is on players as well and not just Kidd **** coaching.

[Magic Giannison]

This team is literally, by almost every metric, has been the best team in the NBA for the majority of the season.

If you think we need much more to win a championship, think that. But this team doesn't lack talent and has proven it can compete with any team in the league. Does that mean they'll win the title? No. But it's stupid to think that a team that has consistently proven it's really, really good has no shot to do anything.

Metrics out of context means nothing, we had a good year according metrics during Kidds first year iirc but when the playoffs came how many players showed up?

This is why many take others over us in the playoffs despite having an amazing regular season.

The Bucks were a .500 team in Kidd's first season. Little different, don't you think?

It is, a huge difference in fact but i wanted to point out that even during then we couldn't take advantage of our defense who was the strongest point and translated during playoffs.

Even if we take into accord inexperience and ignore the Bulls series, the Toronto one was more definitive about our state .

[Prez]

Metrics out of context means nothing, we had a good year according metrics during Kidds first year iirc but when the playoffs came how many players showed up?

This is why many take others over us in the playoffs despite having an amazing regular season.

No we didn't lol. They were a mediocre .500 team and all the team metrics beyond raw W/L (point differential, SRS, net rating, etc.) backed that up as well. The current Bucks when healthy would sweep that team with hilarious ease.

You're right the only good thing we had was defense which was 4th which ironically was the best we had under Kidd.

Problem is even that didnt translate during playoffs and a good portion of it is on players as well and not just Kidd **** coaching.

I don't understand what the point of bringing that up is at all. This roster (again when healthy) is substantially better, the coaching is vastly better, and Giannis himself is like 10x the player he was back then when he actually kinda sucked in that series.

[MiltownHawkeye]

Obviously, every team isn't as good without their best player, but no team in the league falls off a steeper cliff without their best player like the Bucks do without Giannis. That's pretty concerning if you're talking about the Bucks going beyond the 2nd round of the playoffs.

The Sixers aren't as good without Embiid, but they don't fall off a massive Bucks-like cliff when he's not on the floor either, same with the Raptors when Kahwi isn't on the floor, same with the Celtics when Kyrie isn't on the floor. The fact that those teams don't have to rely so heavily on 1 guy to make everything functional is going to be a major advantage all 3 of those teams will have over the Bucks in a 7 game series.

That's a reality a lot of people on this board don't want to accept.

The Sixers are 6-7 with Embiid sitting, including a loss against the Bulls.

Kyrie and Kawhi aren't as good as Giannis. It stands to reason that their teams don't suffer as much when they're gone.

We already know that we're not winning without Giannis. The Bulls wouldn't win without Jordan and the Cavs/Heat wouldn't win without LeBron.

...and again, we weren't just missing Giannis. I don't know how many times that needs to be said. I have a hunch that if the Celtics ran out an 8-man of Rozier/Brown/Ojeleye/Tatum/Horford with Wanamaker/Theis/Baynes bench on the back end of a back to back, they lose to some bad teams as well.

[tydett]

I'm just sitting here with some popcorn ready to watch the mushroom cloud when MD gets back from Art's.

[steger_3434]

I guess my thing with this team is yes we get giannis back which is immensely huge. But brogdon as we know it won’t be back. Sure, second round he’ll be back, but that would be over a month of no basketball related activity. You honestly think he’ll be the same brogdon in a playoff atmosphere after such a long layoff? Mirotic will be back for the first round, but the guy hasn’t shown to really fit in yet so we are just going to hope he gels in the playoffs? This team is not healthy and won’t be healthy. That is our problem.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Prez]

Obviously, every team isn't as good without their best player, but no team in the league falls off a steeper cliff without their best player like the Bucks do without Giannis. That's pretty concerning if you're talking about the Bucks going beyond the 2nd round of the playoffs.

The Sixers aren't as good without Embiid, but they don't fall off a massive Bucks-like cliff when he's not on the floor either, same with the Raptors when Kahwi isn't on the floor, same with the Celtics when Kyrie isn't on the floor. The fact that those teams don't have to rely so heavily on 1 guy to make everything functional is going to be a major advantage all 3 of those teams will have over the Bucks in a 7 game series.

That's a reality a lot of people on this board don't want to accept.

The Sixers are 6-7 with Embiid sitting, including a loss against the Bulls.

Kyrie and Kawhi aren't as good as Giannis. It stands to reason that their teams don't suffer as much when they're gone.

We already know that we're not winning without Giannis. The Bulls wouldn't win without Jordan and the Cavs/Heat wouldn't win without LeBron.

...and again, we weren't just missing Giannis. I don't know how many times that needs to be said. I have a hunch that if the Celtics ran out an 8-man of Rozier/Brown/Ojeleye/Tatum/Horford with Wanamaker/Theis/Baynes bench on the back end of a back to back, they lose to some bad teams as well.

Would add that this same Cavs team just like a week ago beat the Raptors *with* Kawhi by 25, and took the Sixers with Embiid down to the wire on the road in Philly. The Bucks drop a close one on the 2nd of a B2B down 7 guys and it's suddenly some huge example of the Bucks not being good enough lol.

[steger_3434]

Obviously, every team isn't as good without their best player, but no team in the league falls off a steeper cliff without their best player like the Bucks do without Giannis. That's pretty concerning if you're talking about the Bucks going beyond the 2nd round of the playoffs.

The Sixers aren't as good without Embiid, but they don't fall off a massive Bucks-like cliff when he's not on the floor either, same with the Raptors when Kahwi isn't on the floor, same with the Celtics when Kyrie isn't on the floor. The fact that those teams don't have to rely so heavily on 1 guy to make everything functional is going to be a major advantage all 3 of those teams will have over the Bucks in a 7 game series.

That's a reality a lot of people on this board don't want to accept.

The Sixers are 6-7 with Embiid sitting, including a loss against the Bulls.

Kyrie and Kawhi aren't as good as Giannis. It stands to reason that their teams don't suffer as much when they're gone.

We already know that we're not winning without Giannis. The Bulls wouldn't win without Jordan and the Cavs/Heat wouldn't win without LeBron.

...and again, we weren't just missing Giannis. I don't know how many times that needs to be said. I have a hunch that if the Celtics ran out an 8-man of Rozier/Brown/Ojeleye/Tatum/Horford with Wanamaker/Theis/Baynes bench on the back end of a back to back, they lose to some bad teams as well.

Would add that this same Cavs team just like a week ago beat the Raptors *with* Kawhi by 25, and took the Sixers with Embiid down to the wire on the road in Philly. The Bucks drop a close one on the 2nd of a B2B down 7 guys and it's suddenly some huge example of the Bucks not being good enough lol.

It’s not that we aren’t good enough. At least not in my eyes. It’s yeah we’re losing because we are hurt. These injuries, at least to mirotic and brogdon, aren’t a game or two. We will not be firing on all cylinders come playoff time and brogdon will be rusty as hell. That’s my problem. Who cares how good we are when healthy. We won’t be for the rest of the season and most of the playoffs


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app