RealGM

AussieBuck wrote:The helping off the corners our wings do that doesn't actually help is **** stupid against a team like Dallas.

Any team that has a good+tall passer is going to eat us up if we don't play straight up. Stay home and let Luka shoot. It's not that he can't beat you by himself, it's just that it's better to make him do it for 4 quarters.

BigO wrote:

Iheartfootball wrote:

CJTURT wrote:Matthews was -27 tonight. But y’all are talking about hill?

Both were/have been bad.

The defense has sucked for weeks and you all are talking about Matthews and Hill?

It’s not all I’m taking about, it was one comment. However, you seem to be passionate about one thing and are extremely effective at being condescending. That is not an effective way to influence anyone.

BigO wrote:

Iheartfootball wrote:

CJTURT wrote:Matthews was -27 tonight. But y’all are talking about hill?

Both were/have been bad.

The defense has sucked for weeks and you all are talking about Matthews and Hill?

Why should anyone else talk about the defense when you do it consistently? There are actually other issues to be discussed. Are all valid. The defense. Hill. Mathews. It's not one thing or another.

emunney wrote:

AussieBuck wrote:The helping off the corners our wings do that doesn't actually help is **** stupid against a team like Dallas.

Any team that has a good+tall passer is going to eat us up if we don't play straight up. Stay home and let Luka shoot. It's not that he can't beat you by himself, it's just that it's better to make him do it for 4 quarters.

This. Hopefully it's just a regular season vs. a Western Conference opponent thing, but the way they've defended Jokic and Luka by collapsing off the corner wing or dunker's spot guy is absolute suicide. It works against a guy like Durant who isn't a great play-maker/passer, but against straight up elite floor generals who can make quick reads? Why?

Ron Swanson wrote:

emunney wrote:

AussieBuck wrote:The helping off the corners our wings do that doesn't actually help is **** stupid against a team like Dallas.

Any team that has a good+tall passer is going to eat us up if we don't play straight up. Stay home and let Luka shoot. It's not that he can't beat you by himself, it's just that it's better to make him do it for 4 quarters.

This. Hopefully it's just a regular season vs. a Western Conference opponent thing, but the way they've defended Jokic and Luka by collapsing off the corner wing or dunker's spot guy is absolute suicide. It works against a guy like Durant who isn't a great play-maker/passer, but against straight up elite floor generals who can make quick reads? Why?

I mentioned it in the game thread but also not having a weakside off ball defender like DDV to read those passes hurts. He wasn't great but he was pretty good at reading outlet passes.

Iheartfootball wrote:

BigO wrote:

Iheartfootball wrote:
Both were/have been bad.

The defense has sucked for weeks and you all are talking about Matthews and Hill?

It’s not all I’m taking about, it was one comment. However, you seem to be passionate about one thing and are extremely effective at being condescending. That is not an effective way to influence anyone.

Relax. I was quoting the comment before you with the same emoji.

MickeyDavis wrote:

BigO wrote:

Iheartfootball wrote:
Both were/have been bad.

The defense has sucked for weeks and you all are talking about Matthews and Hill?

Why should anyone else talk about the defense when you do it consistently? There are actually other issues to be discussed. Are all valid. The defense. Hill. Mathews. It's not one thing or another.

That's my point. I am disagreeing with you. Not all things are equal. All these individual players have good and bad games (everyone that is but Giannis). The one constant is the defense, yet I am seeing that 90% of the comments (not 50%) are about individual players.

But don't despair. I took 2 weeks off commenting on the defense, hoping others would fill the void, but it didn't work. I will now take at least another two weeks of silence.

I'm not saying they're equal, I'm saying there is more than one thing to discuss. And there is.

slos wrote:Bud starting 35 y/o Wes, which didn’t work two years ago, should not be a good idea. I just hope playing Matthews and Hill that much is just a regular season thing.

I get why people might lump them together, but there are several huge differences between the two, and any one of those differences by itself (let alone all of them together) should be enough to keep Hill's name out of a Wes hater's mouth, so to speak.

1. Hill is getting his game rhythm back after a long layoff.
2. Hill still looks adequately quick, whereas Wes looks anchored in place at times and has the career-altering injury history to match.
3. Hill had great advanced stats for several consecutive months before he got hurt, whereas I'm not sure Wes has had 3 decent games in a row all season.

The only evidence that Hill is washed up is the past few weeks after a 6-week layoff for a non-mobility injury, which is a pretty puny data set. All I care about is whether he can still move well after the injury, and he looks fine. Wes on the other hand has looked completely washed up, both physically and skill-wise, for 2 full years.

Felt like this was Wes' first bad game in a while. Hill I don't think has been himself since he came back from injury, but at his age, that could mean he needs more time, it could mean he's still hurt, and/or it could mean he's never going to really be back. It could also mean that both of these guys are totally over the regular season and are not-fully-intentionally protecting their bodies until the games mean something again. It could also mean they just had a bad game.

coolhandluke121 wrote:

slos wrote:Bud starting 35 y/o Wes, which didn’t work two years ago, should not be a good idea. I just hope playing Matthews and Hill that much is just a regular season thing.

I get why people might lump them together, but there are several huge differences between the two, and any one of those differences by itself (let alone all of them together) should be enough to keep Hill's name out of a Wes hater's mouth, so to speak.

1. Hill is getting his game rhythm back after a long layoff.
2. Hill still looks adequately quick, whereas Wes looks anchored in place at times and has the career-altering injury history to match.
3. Hill had great advanced stats for several consecutive months before he got hurt, whereas I'm not sure Wes has had 3 decent games in a row all season.

The only evidence that Hill is washed up is the past few weeks after a 6-week layoff for a non-mobility injury, which is a pretty puny data set. All I care about is whether he can still move well after the injury, and he looks fine. Wes on the other hand has looked completely washed up, both physically and skill-wise, for 2 full years.

What is Grayson Allen's excuse? Really good shooting and subpar at everything else is looking very Bryn Forbes right now.

MickeyDavis wrote:I'm not saying they're equal, I'm saying there is more than one thing to discuss. And there is.

I agree, but am I wrong when I say that 90% plus of comments are about offensive issues?

To be fair I've also seen an over reliance on the drop scheme. Especially against really good guards it lends yourself to get shredded. Bucks are too obsessed with protecting the paint.

Sent from my LM-K500 using RealGM mobile app

Brewhoopfan wrote:

coolhandluke121 wrote:

slos wrote:Bud starting 35 y/o Wes, which didn’t work two years ago, should not be a good idea. I just hope playing Matthews and Hill that much is just a regular season thing.

I get why people might lump them together, but there are several huge differences between the two, and any one of those differences by itself (let alone all of them together) should be enough to keep Hill's name out of a Wes hater's mouth, so to speak.

1. Hill is getting his game rhythm back after a long layoff.
2. Hill still looks adequately quick, whereas Wes looks anchored in place at times and has the career-altering injury history to match.
3. Hill had great advanced stats for several consecutive months before he got hurt, whereas I'm not sure Wes has had 3 decent games in a row all season.

The only evidence that Hill is washed up is the past few weeks after a 6-week layoff for a non-mobility injury, which is a pretty puny data set. All I care about is whether he can still move well after the injury, and he looks fine. Wes on the other hand has looked completely washed up, both physically and skill-wise, for 2 full years.

What is Grayson Allen's excuse? Really good shooting and subpar at everything else is looking very Bryn Forbes right now.

Grayson is (often marginally) better at everything compared to Bryn, other than 3%.
It might mostly be due to athleticism.

AussieBuck wrote:The helping off the corners our wings do that doesn't actually help is **** stupid against a team like Dallas.

Because we only play Dallas twice we always just use our basic defence and never really game plan for Luka. Makes for a frustrating game for the most part. Would assume Bud would have us defend completely different in a series.

Antinomy wrote:I really hate the thing we do when a ballhandler gets into the lane w/ Giannis & Brook waiting, yet EVERYBODY collapses into the lane leaving shooters wide open.

It works against most teams but not ones that run small ball.

You mean like this?