Postgame: Bucks @ Nets

[europa]

You said and I quote: "I would be fine with those guys shooting less if Yi would go back to his early season form."

Yi is no longer starting. Villanueva is. And I keep reading that Villanueva is better than Yi. So if that's true, then the Bucks should have an even better option than Yi was providing early in the season. That would be Villanueva. Toss in Bogut, who's a better player now than he was at the start of the season, and you have two improved players offensively to lessen the need for Mo and Redd to shoot more.

So if Mo and Redd were shooting less and the Bucks were winning despite Bogut not doing much offensively and given how Yi isn't as good as Villanueva apparently, shouldn't the Bucks be able to do well with Mo and Redd shooting less if Villanueva is better than Yi and Bogut is better than he was early in the season?

[carmelbrownqueen]

-= original quote snipped =-



What does CV have to do with Yi BLOWING? Not sure why you must exaggerate. They both are terrible right now. CV produces every 4th game, and Yi hasn't had a good game in months. Not sure where you are getting starters are playing better.

Yi is a rookie, and the expectation should have been (from the very beginning) that he would hit a wall at some point where he wouldn't/couldn't contribute on the level that he is capable of..

From what I have been reading.. many fans on this board have talked about how much "better" this Bucks team would have been if CV started from the beginning of the season, and I think that's a load of crap. Yi is an inexperienced player but his all around game and potential is much higher than CV's, even if he is playing really badly right now. I think the point in bringing up CV was that with all this Yi is this and Yi is that talk it should be remembered that we haven't looked drastically greater with CV starting over Yi.

CV as a starter hasn't made this Bucks team a drastically better team like some have proclaimed.

[InsideOut]

I think the talk of everyone except Mo, Redd and Bogut letting the team down is misleading. It's a combination of two facts. Yes, the rest of the team isn't very good. However, our big 3 also isn't very good...especially when you factor in what they are paid. Boston has junk after their big three yet they have the best record in the league. The Lakers have been making the playoffs these past few seasons with only a big two of Kobe and Odom (Bynum only recently has been huge). Look at Orlando with a big two of Howard and Lewis. There are quite a few teams that only have 2 or 3 good players and a bunch of nothing special yet they seem to at least play .500 ball. So I feel that not only do we have some of the worst bench guys in the league, we also have one of the worst big 2 or 3 in the league. Just like Simmons said in his Homer talk. If Redd is your best player you are only going to win 37 games. Now add a bad bench and you are looking at 30 wins. I guess you could say it's the worst of both worlds. Below average "stars" and below average reserves.

[carmelbrownqueen]

I think the talk of everyone except Mo, Redd and Bogut letting the team down is misleading. It's a combination of two facts. Yes, the rest of the team isn't very good. However, our big 3 also isn't very good...especially when you factor in what they are paid. Boston has junk after their big three yet they have the best record in the league. The Lakers have been making the playoffs these past few seasons with only a big two of Kobe and Odom (Bynum only recently has been huge). Look at Orlando with a big two of Howard and Lewis. There are quite a few teams that only have 2 or 3 good players and a bunch of nothing special yet they seem to at least play .500 ball. So I feel that not only do we have some of the worst bench guys in the league, we also have one of the worst big 2 or 3 in the league. Just like Simmons said in his Homer talk. If Redd is your best player you are only going to win 37 games. Now add a bad bench and you are looking at 30 wins. I guess you could say it's the worst of both worlds. Below average "stars" and below average reserves.

Factor in the fact that those big two or three players you are talking about are also very experienced players that know how to win.. and factor in that our big three has two guys who have been in the league for some years but we only have MAYBE one player on the whole team that has any real experience with winning on an NBA level (Jake Voskuhl). There's a big difference there.

[schweig]

Not to mention Rondo already has a better A/TO than Mo. Not to say he's better than Mo at this point.

Sucks how CV will probably not get 18 boards in another game this year no matter what. I like some parts of his game pretty well when he's around the hoop, some passing, rebounding and nice scoring... and it took LK's sweet time but even back then CV was getting 19.9 mpg.

Not knowing what you'll get any night from him... reminds me of Mo a few years ago, and now Mo is a lot more consistent.

[Nowak008]

You said and I quote: "I would be fine with those guys shooting less if Yi would go back to his early season form."

Yi is no longer starting. Villanueva is. And I keep reading that Villanueva is better than Yi.

CV is better NOW then Yi. CV in no way was better then Yi was at the beginning in the year. I think everyone would agree to that statement, and I don't remember anyone saying that CV has been better then Yi the entire year.

So if Mo and Redd were shooting less and the Bucks were winning despite Bogut not doing much offensively and given how Yi isn't as good as Villanueva apparently, shouldn't the Bucks be able to do well with Mo and Redd shooting less if Villanueva is better than Yi and Bogut is better than he was early in the season?

I know you don't like the current offense, but I'm not sure who you are trying to kid with this.

From what I have been reading.. many fans on this board have talked about how much "better" this Bucks team would have been if CV started from the beginning of the season, and I think that's a load of crap.

I would agree...because no one has said that. ppl have been saying CV should have started early Jan.

CV as a starter hasn't made this Bucks team a drastically better team like some have proclaimed.

I don't think anyone has said this either. The chairmen of hairless ppl America wouldn't have said that.

[europa]

I'm not trying to kid anyone. It's real simple - we know the Bucks have had success this season when Mo and Redd have taken fewer shots per game. We know the Bucks tend to lose when Mo and Redd take a high volume of shots. Now chances are high the Bucks are going to lose no matter what approach they take - they simply aren't very good - but if it were me, I'd actually be more inclined to try the approach that has actually resulted in success as opposed to the one which is pretty much guaranteed to fail.

But that's me.

[InsideOut]

-= original quote snipped =-

Factor in the fact that those big two or three players you are talking about are also very experienced players that know how to win.. and factor in that our big three has two guys who have been in the league for some years but we only have MAYBE one player on the whole team that has any real experience with winning on an NBA level (Jake Voskuhl). There's a big difference there.

Agreed. Compare our big 2 or 3 to the other teams big 2 or 3 and our guys come up short in almost every category. So why they get paid so much is beyond me. I guess that's why almost everyone feels they are significantly overpaid just like our bench guys.

[carmelbrownqueen]

We need an experienced proven winner in there with them. We don't have any veteran players on this team that can direct these guys how to consistently win. We miss that and we need it.. veteran leadership is invaluable.

[rilamann]

We need an experienced proven winner in there with them. We don't have any veteran players on this team that can direct these guys how to consistently win. We miss that and we need it.. veteran leadership is invaluable.

Its bad enough when you dont have a vetran leader on the court but then you compound that problem by having a rookie head coach who is in way over his head.

[trwi7]

-= original quote snipped =-



Its bad enough when you dont have a vetran leader on the court but then you compound that problem by having a rookie head coach who is in way over his head.

Has Krystkowiak said "The math is still on our side." like Yost did last year? That would make my day.

[rilamann]

-= original quote snipped =-



Has Krystkowiak said "The math is still on our side." like Yost did last year? That would make my day.

Still to early with the ''math on our side'' thing,we probably wont see that one untill late March.Come March we should get that with a heavy dose of the famous ''you shoulda seen us in practice yesterday'' slogan after we lose by 35pts to a sub .500 team for the 2nd time in a week.

I declare the Bucks official battle cry for the 2007'08 season will be ''you shoulda seen us in practice''.

2007'08 will be known years from now as ''the great year of the great practice(if you woulda seen it)''.

[carmelbrownqueen]

-= original quote snipped =-



Its bad enough when you dont have a vetran leader on the court but then you compound that problem by having a rookie head coach who is in way over his head.

Absolutely.. that has been a huge issue for us.

[paulpressey25]

-= Compare our big 2 or 3 to the other teams big 2 or 3 and our guys come up short in almost every category. .

I guess I'm in this camp as well. We've got a badly constructed team, I get that. But I think that if you put Yi, CV, Dez, Bell on the Celtics, they'd be playing lights out.

It cuts both ways. Last year I watched those Celtics-Bucks tankfests at year end and saw guys like Rondo, Leon Powe, Perkins, look like NBDL players.....this year, they'll all sucker someone into to giving them decent contracts.

Once Bogut gets his $10-$12mm a year, we'll be paying about $37mm a year to three dudes, none of whom can carry the load.

[InsideOut]

-= original quote snipped =-



I guess I'm in this camp as well. We've got a badly constructed team, I get that. But I think that if you put Yi, CV, Dez, Bell on the Celtics, they'd be playing lights out.

Once Bogut gets his $10-$12mm a year, we'll be paying about $37mm a year to three dudes, none of whom can carry the load.

I could'nt agree more. Our big 3 do not make those around them better and they have just as many holes in their game as things they excel at. What can you say...bad owner, bad coach, bad "stars" and a bad bench. I guess that explains our record.

[rilamann]

-= original quote snipped =-

Absolutely.. that has been a huge issue for us.

Its a complete recipe for disaster,you would think the people in charge of this great franchise would think things better through and realize that since we are going with an unproven head coach maybe,just a hunch but maybe it would be a good idea to have a vertran leader or two that could lead not only on the court but in the locker room.

Or vise versa,you wanna go with a young team then maybe it would be wise to go for a proven vetran coach.

Its no wonder the Bucks have had such a glorious history over the last 20 years.

I blame it all on that guy who is Herb Kohl's lawyer,I forgot his name but hes the one with the bi-goggles straight out of 1975.

And dont lie CBQ you know you have a crush on him.





JK.

[Epicurus]

In his 4 full years in Milwaukee, proven head coach (who was very successful in Seattle after two stints elsewhere unsuccessful) only got over 42 wins once. Methinks it is more to do with the franchise than with the proven-ness of the head coach--i.e,, not getting enough good players.

[TheMachine]

Arguing/discussing who should/shouldn't be getting how many shots, etc. is kind of like discussing where to put the deck chairs on the Titanic...it doesn't really matter at this point.

This Bucks team as constructed is doomed to fail for the very simple reason that it lacks...a true leader.

In the NBA, a true leader must possess ALL 3 of the following qualities: 1) Leadership ability
2) Contract cred (must be one of the highest
paid players on the team).
3) Must be an effective defensive player (someone
who willingly plays hard on the defensive end,
who is succesful at it , and takes pride in it).

If you look at the succesful teams in the NBA and throughout the history, it is usually very easy to see who the leader/leaders of these teams were, and they almost always fit these 3 criteria.

The Bucks have no one on the roster who fits the description, plain and simple. In fact Bogut probably comes the closest but as Mo pointed out, AB does not have the $$ to back it up at this time (and also the fact that he is still a little immature and new to "American-style basketball" doesn't help his cause at this time either).

So until the Bucks aquire a leader who fits the criteria, or until Bogut signs his extension and can be that guy (which will both be hard to do contract-wise with the big contracts of Redd and Mo on the books), they will not succeed...it is a plain and simple given.

[El Duderino]

-= original quote snipped =-



Once Bogut gets his $10-$12mm a year, we'll be paying about $37mm a year to three dudes, none of whom can carry the load.

Yep

That's been the problem with this franchise, they are trying to half ass win now while trying to half ass rebuild at the same time. All the while they are doing this, we have not a single special player on the roster. So Herb/Harris go handing out big long term contracts to multiple players, none of which are close to being good enough to be the guy you want to build a contender around.

None of Redd/Mo/Bogut are good enough to build a contender around. As a second or third best player on a good team, maybe you can make a case that Bogut or Redd could be a building block. Until we find that special player though, trying to build around any of these three players is a recipe for failure or mediocrity at best.

Keeping and building around all three of them is a hopeless cause and a waste of many millions of dollars.