Bucks/Miami - 1/9

Simulack · Post #461 » by **Simulack** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 4:14 am

trwi7 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Yes.

Unfortunately they are spending way too much time talking about hypothetical and completely irrelevant Wade discussions.

FoDrizzle · Post #462 » by **FoDrizzle** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 4:15 am

woohoo the Bucks have beaten 3 weak teams in a row, and did it all without Redd. Maybe some chemistry is developing finally.

icat2000 · Post #463 » by **icat2000** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 4:17 am

Charlie Bell on the show now.

Simulack · Post #464 » by **Simulack** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 4:20 am

icat2000 wrote:Charlie Bell on the show now.

Maybe he'll mention us like Juan Dixon did a few years back:

http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=368144

"A close friend said to me to read this message on the Washington Wizards' message board talking dirty on me," Dixon said. He had been the team's fourth-leading scorer this season but shot 23 percent in the first three playoff games.

"The title was the Amazingly Stinky (edited) Juan Dixon. I'm already a self-motivated person, but that took it to another level. I got up a lot of shots and wanted to come out and play well for myself, my teammates, my coaches and the fans. But I definitely wanted to throw that back in their face."

Post #465 » by **MickeyDavis** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 4:21 am

Those that are dismissing the 3 game winning streak because it was against weak teams would be the same ones screaming had we lost any of them.

icat2000 · Post #466 » by **icat2000** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 4:22 am

Definately. A win is a win whether its by 2 or 22.

Post #467 » by **ReasonablySober** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 4:27 am

MickeyDavis wrote:Those that are dismissing the 3 game winning streak because it was against weak teams would be the same ones screaming had we lost any of them.

Um, and?

The teams we've beaten have had worse records all season. As bad as the Bucks have been, we're supposed to beat these clowns. Had we lost, people would rightfully be pissed off.

WEFFPIM · Post #468 » by **WEFFPIM** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 4:30 am

MickeyDavis wrote:Those that are dismissing the 3 game winning streak because it was against weak teams would be the same ones screaming had we lost any of them.

Your point? The Bucks barely beat three bad teams, one of them at home. And we as fans should be all rainbows and bunnies about this?

emunney · Post #469 » by **emunney** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 4:31 am

MickeyDavis wrote:Those that are dismissing the 3 game winning streak because it was against weak teams would be the same ones screaming had we lost any of them.

Yeah, that's logically consistent, though. In both cases the reaction is due to weak opponents. Still, while we got lucky drawing these teams while Redd was out, it's pretty good that we came away with three wins.

Stopshere2 · Post #470 » by **Stopshere2** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 4:31 am

MickeyDavis wrote:Those that are dismissing the 3 game winning streak because it was against weak teams would be the same ones screaming had we lost any of them.

As Bogut said to Ted Davis after the game, it would be nice to blow out those few wins but grinding them out has been really character-building. He also said that you can make these little runs in such a long season and anything can happen. Said the guys need to stick together and our guys like each other off the court which is really important.

He was asked about seeing more of the ball on offence. Replied that everyone likes seeing the ball but it has been giving him more confidence. When questioned about how things will go when Redd comes back in, he said that the inside-outside attack should continue and he (Redd) understands that now.

jerrod · Post #471 » by **jerrod** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 4:35 am

um

you guys saying that these are all bad teams realize that we are also a bad team right?

paul · Post #472 » by **paul** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 4:37 am

Stopshere2 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

As Bogut said to Ted Davis after the game, it would be nice to blow out those few wins but grinding them out has been really character-building. He also said that you can make these little runs in such a long season and anything can happen. Said the guys need to stick together and our guys like each other off the court which is really important.

He was asked about seeing more of the ball on offence. Replied that everyone likes seeing the ball but it has been giving him more confidence. When questioned about how things will go when Redd comes back in, he said that the inside-outside attack should continue and he (Redd) understands that now.

Did he say it exactly like that? It's kinda like saying ' you got it now d***head?' Bobby said something similar after the game when asked about how redd fits back in, something like 'well he's been on the road with us so he's seen it first hand. We've all got to be accountable for playing team ball'

paul · Post #473 » by **paul** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 4:38 am

jerrod wrote:um

you guys saying that these are all bad teams realize that we are also a bad team right?

And that two of these bad teams beat us already this year, right?

drew881 · Post #474 » by **drew881** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 4:41 am

WEFFPIM wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Your point? The Bucks barely beat three bad teams, one of them at home. And we as fans should be all rainbows and bunnies about this?

Guess those wins didn't sparkle with you.

mbucks22 · Post #475 » by **mbucks22** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 4:46 am

Your point? The Bucks barely beat three bad teams, one of them at home. And we as fans should be all rainbows and bunnies about this?

Yet you would be calling for some heads had we lost any of these.

Hypocrisy at its finest.

emunney · Post #476 » by **emunney** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 4:59 am

mbucks22 wrote:
Your point? The Bucks barely beat three bad teams, one of them at home. And we as fans should be all rainbows and bunnies about this?

Yet you would be calling for some heads had we lost any of these.

Hypocrisy at its finest.

That's not even close to being hypocrisy.

Simulack · Post #477 » by **Simulack** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 5:09 am

emunney wrote:That's not even close to being hypocrisy.

Exactly. I mean its precisely BECAUSE they are crappy teams that some would be "calling for some heads" if we lost.

Post #478 » by **ReasonablySober** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 5:13 am

mbucks22 wrote:
Your point? The Bucks barely beat three bad teams, one of them at home. And we as fans should be all rainbows and bunnies about this?

Yet you would be calling for some heads had we lost any of these.

Hypocrisy at its finest.

You should probably locate a dictionary at some point if you want to continue to use that word.

trwi7 · Post #479 » by **trwi7** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 5:13 am

Well I found my new sig. They really need to allow text sigs to be longer, I couldn't fit WEFFPIM's whole post in.

Post #480 » by **paulpressey25** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 5:14 am

Don't these wins count on the "We can't win without Michael Redd O-Meter"?

I mean if we counted losses with Redd out last year, and in some instances when Bogut, CV, Mo and Bobby also didn't play we can certainly count these as wins without Mike even if they are against crappy teams.