RealGM

One thing I can tell is when players quit! I can sense softness and when a player does not want to compete!

That is when I left...I cannot handle that. I can name names of all the ones who I think are quitters and pussy...cats.

But since their is absolutely no team leader whatsoever to stop it that is a waste of time.

But I have a plea...as a long time Bucks fan get the hell out of here any player who does not want to be a Milwaukee Bucks and knows what that has entailed with our team history and what that means to us the paying consumer!

Players sit on injuries and collect their paychecks and bring their personal hangups and agenda's to practice and on the court and are not playing to win!

Bell, Mo, Villanueva, Simmons,....most will say this is a business but get players in here who get down to business of winning and playing with some professional pride at all times.

I have plenty of names of the type of players around the league to bring in here and who we should have taken a flyer on...

But get winners here who play 48 minutes, take losses personal and who do not let themselves nor their teamates go down like this. Play like this is a reflection of our town and becomes ingrained in our culture!

That must change. Not just for entertainment sake...But please alter the course of this franchise and move em' out!

As a fan who speaks for myself I am no longer emotionally attaached to any player...they have shown me that they are all losers even if by de-fault by allowing their teamates to quit they are guilt too!

Yes even Bogut and Redd! We need a Rasheed Wallace and Chauncey Billups type winnners and smart team players like Prince and Hambone who know what they can do and do it and who coach themselves on the floor!

Move the losers out!!!!!

I love MBBOT.

When I read the title of this thread I thought it was an actual quote from Hammond after the game.

rilamann wrote:When I read the title of this thread I thought it was an actual quote from Hammond after the game.

I edited the post title.....I thought the same thing....

It's pretty clear to me that neither Hammond nor Krystowiak like Redd. I'm listening to Krystowiak's post gamer right now and he continues to tout guys like Ivey, Storey, and the absent Michael Ruffin. I can't remember the last time that coach K went out of his way to praise Redd.

Not unusual for a coach to favor players who resembled the coach as player, is it? Also is not unusual to mess up your team by having that preference for hustling journeymen.

Epicurus wrote:Not unusual for a coach to favor players who resembled the coach as player, is it? Also is not unusual to mess up your team by having that preference for hustling journeymen.

Certainly. However, I think Krystowiak's preferences are more of an indictment against this team's frontline players than an overall preference for third string scrappers. Unfortunately, he couldn't get the majority of the team to emulate his own blue collar, hustling style. I personally don't think his frontline players have the physical/mental/athletic tools at their respective postitions to replicate what Krystowiak brought to the Bucks frontcourt many years ago. Krystowiak will pay the ultimate price for the team's lack of overall effectiveness thought.

Epicurus wrote:Not unusual for a coach to favor players who resembled the coach as player, is it? Also is not unusual to mess up your team by having that preference for hustling journeymen.

Well said. And I haven't seen any quotes from Hammond yet which suggest he doesn't like Redd. The ones I have seen have praised Redd quite a bit. That's not to say he won't trade Redd; but simply to say I haven't seen any indications at this time he doesn't like Redd.

I remember Krystowiak recently benching Redd after a 20 point (or something of the such) 1st quarter. After the game, Krsytkowiak was asked about why the team went away from Redd and he said something similar to, "well, when people get 20 points, they want to get 40".

I'm going senile again. Can somebody refresh my memory about larry k as a player? i don't really recall him being very good at anything? what was his specialty? defense? offensse? sitting on the fence? Did he own Hakeem? Did he own anybody? did he own a Gremlin or Hornet? Did he hustle? or was he just a hustler?

larry K seems to be upset with our current big men. What was Larry K's job before he became head coach? I forgot. I'm old and senile. Wasn't he the guy who taught our big men everything they know? I thought Larry K was going to be more big man oriented, but he's never shown it.

Can somebody tell me again why it was so important to sign larry to a 2 year contract last year just because some college showed interest in him? Did he actually have an offer, or just an interview with Utah? Wouldn't an interim contract have been smarter?

I'm sorry, the oldtimers disease is sitting in. What was it about larry that Kohl liked again? that larry knew how to tank? or that Kohl knew that the Bucks would tank under larry's direction even when Larry was trying to win?

I' m sorry i haven't been to any Bucks games for the last 2 years. Actually , I'm not sorry. Has larry shown any ability to coach at the NBA level? We didn't use our GM for over two months. Do we need a coach for the last week of the season? can't we let Yi be a player coach for the last week?

Is the Ringling brothers circus or Barry Manilo coming to town any time soon? or maybe American idol or hannah Montanna? or wierd Al? or something with a heart beat?

Has kohl spent any time in DC in his other day job ? I don't recall seeing him at those baseball steriods hearings. I'm getting old and forgetful , do we still have a senate and congress? have they done anything in the past 20 years?

Krystkowiak was a good hustle player. Decent offensive skills. Not a great defender but a solid one who gave supreme effort. Hustling was his game and he was a very good role player before Laimbeer essentially ended his career in the playoff game against the Pistons. It's not surprising Krystkowiak would be more in tune with guys like Ivey ande Storey since they are guys who have to maximize every ounce of their ability just to get on an NBA court. Krystkowiak was the same way.

Let me defeine whwat I mean by 'losers' lest you all misunderstand me...

No one should like losing but I am sure some players settle for it and all but tolerate it or are indifferent to it.

Some value the NBA status and their personal reputations, perhaps their outside careers more.

In a strange way I think even LeBron James does...he is more worried about New York his shoe deal and major market then he is in winning per se.

But this team has no true winners on it...who do not really oppose the losing mentality.

I think we understood what you were saying and I agree with you (yea I said it ). I think the Bucks need to remove the players who contribute little to helping the team win and start bringing in more players with a winning approach and who understand what it takes to win.

This is why I shake my head when I keep hearing and reading about how the Bucks are a talented team. I don't think they are. They have some guys who look talented in the box score but few who do what it takes to help you in the win-loss column. For example, one could argue that Villanueva is a more "talented" player than Shane Battier, but I'd much prefer Battier because he does the things on the court which help teams win. He's a winner. It's in his blood and guys like that are critical to helping teams have success.

So if that means taking the less "talented" player I'd do it because I know that ultimately the team will be better because of it.

Epicurus wrote:Not unusual for a coach to favor players who resembled the coach as player, is it? Also is not unusual to mess up your team by having that preference for hustling journeymen.

Or shameless chuckers.

From the words of Ari Gold to Redd and Mo: GET THE **** OUT OF HERE!.

europa wrote:I think we understood what you were saying and I agree with you (yea I said it ). I think the Bucks need to remove the players who contribute little to helping the team win and start bringing in more players with a winning approach and who understand what it takes to win.

This is why I shake my head when I keep hearing and reading about how the Bucks are a talented team. I don't think they are. They have some guys who look talented in the box score but few who do what it takes to help you in the win-loss column. For example, one could argue that Villanueva is a more "talented" player than Shane Battier, but I'd much prefer Battier because he does the things on the court which help teams win. He's a winner. It's in his blood and guys like that are critical to helping teams have success.

So if that means taking the less "talented" player I'd do it because I know that ultimately the team will be better because of it.

I disagree, I think they are talented, just ridiculously poorly assembled.

I am not sure that CV is more talented than Battier, but scoring wise and raw talent perhaps. I think that CV would be fine on this team behind a strong powerful PF, but we don't have that.

It all boils down to how the talent compliments each other and ours in almost every simply does not.

Bogut and Redd require a PG more similar to Sessions than to Mo. Bogut and Yi need a PF more similar to Battier than CV. And at SF....well thats just a mess and an area where we are clearly less talented than I had hoped.

man I'm really getting old.

for the life of me i can't remember any player that was a little used scrappy player/ big ma n off the bench that ever became a grea t coach.

let's see - nelson? Nope. Isaiah? nope. Riley? nope . Wilikens? Nope? Rudy T? nope. skiles? nope. porter? nope. west? nope.

gee i just can't think of any loser bench player who was scrappy that ever became a great coach.

larry K? he was never meant to be a great coach. Has any other scappy big man who wasn't a great player ever become a great coach?

wayne embry ? NOPE!