Was at the bar talking to a friend of mine...

htr · Post #1 » by **htr** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:53 pm

we always talk sports and finally the Bucks were brought up. He said,

"well, at least we'll get another good pick next year". He was saying this in disbelief. He then added "I don't really know what they need. They have a big scorer (Redd) a good center, a pretty good PG, a good PF......I think all they need is a good coach. We need to get Larry Brown and I guarantee he'd win with the same team.

Thoughts?

LUKE23 · Post #2 » by **LUKE23** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:58 pm

The team doesn't have enough athletcism on defense to be a good defensive team. Bogut is getting there and is close to being a very good defender (both positional and shot blocking), Yi is good at staying in front of his man, but is lost on rotations and can get posted up easily. Mo, Redd, Mason, Simmons, CV are all horrible on defense for a variety of reasons.

This team hasn't defended in years, under several different coaches. They need to get more athletic, and if I'm the new GM that is one of the priorities in the offseason.

Mags FTW · Post #3 » by **Mags FTW** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:59 pm

Larry Brown worked wonders in New York.

Thunder Muscle · Post #4 » by **Thunder Muscle** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 6:05 pm

Larry Brown would leave or quit within a couple years. I wouldn't even get involved with him.

coolhandluke121 · Post #5 » by **coolhandluke121** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 6:12 pm

LUKE23 wrote:The team doesn't have enough athletcism on defense to be a good defensive team. Bogut is getting there and is close to being a very good defender (both positional and shot blocking), Yi is good at staying in front of his man, but is lost on rotations and can get posted up easily. Mo, Redd, Mason, Simmons, CV are all horrible on defense for a variety of reasons.

This team hasn't defended in years, under several different coaches. They need to get more athletic, and if I'm the new GM that is one of the priorities in the offseason.

Exactly. You forget teamwide b-ball I.Q., too. Will keep this team down even if they address the defensive deficiencies.

Problem is the gm, not the coach. A good gm could turn the Bucks' assets into a coherent team.

LISTEN2JAZZ · Post #6 » by **LISTEN2JAZZ** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 6:17 pm

Pretty ridiculous to believe that in spite of three coaches trying and failing here, and Larry Brown having no success in his most recent job, that he could come here and turn these misfits into a great team.

Rockmaninoff · Post #7 » by **Rockmaninoff** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 6:18 pm

I would love to have Larry Brown.

He is a master rebuilder of teams.

He stresses defense, teamwork, and execution.

He has credibility and is looking for a gig.

New York didn't work because the media and ownership took the side of the players.

I'd only want him for a couple of years - long enough to get the team back on track, and to train a protege.

Of course, he would have to take out and bring in the right players, with the help of a good general manager.

Someone, like...Donnie Walsh...

Rockmaninoff · Post #8 » by **Rockmaninoff** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 6:20 pm

coolhandluke121 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Exactly. You forget teamwide b-ball I.Q., too. Will keep this team down even if they address the defensive deficiencies.

Problem is the gm, not the coach. A good gm could turn the Bucks' assets into a coherent team.

I hope you are not saying that Krystkowiak is a good coach. Any coach that lets his team get blown out 14 times and counting, is terrible.

Post #9 » by **paulpressey25** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 6:36 pm

Great post....I had a friend in Boston who emailed me after he saw the bag night stuff....

His comment was this:

"I don't understand how the Bucks can be so bad. Mo Williams is pretty damn good, Michael Redd is awsome, Bogut doesn't suck, and my impression is that Villenueva (spelling) is pretty good ... soft, but good. Yi going down with the injury doesn't help, but I hear part of that is China pulling him so he's ready for the Olympics. That's hardly the Bucks' fault".

So outsiders don't think we are devoid of talent.

But we need to start with a new powerful GM.....then as CHL said, use the assets referenced above to build a real team.

LUKE23 · Post #10 » by **LUKE23** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 6:40 pm

I've actually had several fans from other teams tell me the same thing. I actually had a Bulls fan tell me at a wedding I was at last weekend, "there is no reason the Bucks should be as bad as they are, in fact I think they should definitely be a playoff team".

The problem is that from a numbers standpoint, a lot of our players look pretty good. Bogut is nearing 15/10 level, Mo is one of the best scoring PG's in the league, Redd is over 20+ ppg every year, Yi is scoring solidly compared to the rest of the rookie class, etc.

Sadly, the stats ignore the fact that no one on the team has any interest in playing D, the chemistry of the team is horrible, the late game coaching and playcalling leaves a lot to be desired, we have bad ownership, etc, etc, etc.

I think we are definitely more talented than our record, even with all the issues. But given the makeup of the roster, I don't know how much better this roster could be even with changes. The Bucks just don't have any balance.

jerrod · Post #11 » by **jerrod** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 6:48 pm

i just don't like larry brown

smauss · Post #12 » by **smauss** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:08 pm

LUKE23 wrote:I've actually had several fans from other teams tell me the same thing. I actually had a Bulls fan tell me at a wedding I was at last weekend, "there is no reason the Bucks should be as bad as they are, in fact I think they should definitely be a playoff team".

The problem is that from a numbers standpoint, a lot of our players look pretty good. Bogut is nearing 15/10 level, Mo is one of the best scoring PG's in the league, Redd is over 20+ ppg every year, Yi is scoring solidly compared to the rest of the rookie class, etc.

Sadly, the stats ignore the fact that no one on the team has any interest in playing D, the chemistry of the team is horrible, the late game coaching and playcalling leaves a lot to be desired, we have bad ownership, etc, etc, etc.

I think we are definitely more talented than our record, even with all the issues. But given the makeup of the roster, I don't know how much better this roster could be even with changes. The Bucks just don't have any balance.

Luke, both of your posts on this thread are excellent and I couldn't have said it any better. Well except (you knew that was coming

) I don't think we need to get more athletic per se, but we definitely need to be much more defensively minded and have players willing to exert the necessary energy on the defensive end of the floor. Now being a better athlete does help one be a better defender but it is the will or heart that I believe is missing more than athletic ability.

As far as what folks from other cities, or even the more casual fan from here, most folks tend to be offensive stats driven, which I can understand because they are the most available, and don't give a care about defensive play.

Neapolitan Buck · Post #13 » by **Neapolitan Buck** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:29 pm

Walsh as GM, Larry Brown or Carlisle as Coach, and Josh Smith as starting PF. This is what I dream.

smalls · Post #14 » by **smalls** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 8:17 pm

if we hired Larry brown he would want total power and a year from now our our starting roster would be
pg Eric snow
sg Mckie
sf redd
pf Tyrone Hill
c Theo Ratliff

SonicYouth34 · Post #15 » by **SonicYouth34** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 8:35 pm

The Bucks are a good team talent wise, but they lack a good floor leader. I think Redd is a terrific player but doesn't have the right stuff to be a team leader like T-Mac or Kobe.

That's where I think the problems lie for the Bucks. If they could get a SF or PG that can be the man and allow Redd to be what he is, then the Bucks will come around

Nowak008 · Post #16 » by **Nowak008** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:11 pm

I don't want to say LK is getting a pass - he isn't - but LK should be getting a lot of blame for this team.

He took a top offensive team last year ran it straight into the ground, his famous meeting with the players, holding a grudge against CV, and his rotations were dreadful.

A good coach goes a long way. As much baggage Brown has he is a hall of fame coach. Does anyone think we would have 18 losses when we were leading going into 4th with Brown as the coach?

milweskee · Post #17 » by **milweskee** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:03 am

Nowak008 wrote:I don't want to say LK is getting a pass - he isn't - but LK should be getting a lot of blame for this team.

He took a top offensive team last year ran it straight into the ground, his famous meeting with the players, holding a grudge against CV, and his rotations were dreadful.

A good coach goes a long way. As much baggage Brown has he is a hall of fame coach. Does anyone think we would have 18 losses when we were leading going into 4th with Brown as the coach?

Nope. Good way of looking at it. Makes you realize how bad LK really is.

bucks59 · Post #18 » by **bucks59** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:56 am

I think Larry Brown is a great coach for a team that is on the verge of being a contender, like the Pistons team. But I also think that at this point in his career, he is not interested nor has the patience to just take a complete rebuilding process. That was the problem with the Knicks, or one of the many problems.

I think the Bucks need someone like Skiles or Carlile to make them into a team that is on the verge of contending, but not there yet. Those two are good at rebuilding a team and making them competitive but probably cant take them to a level where they can be considered title contenders. Hire one of those guys for 2 - 4 years, and then hire Brown once the team is close.

ErvinJohnsonFan · Post #19 » by **ErvinJohnsonFan** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 5:34 am

I don't think Larry Brown would work with this group of players. I think Bogut would love to have him but everyone else would dread having a coach who stressed defense and slowing the game down. That's basically what Larry K tries to do but the players don't listen. If this core of players stays with the team they need a coach who promotes more of a run and gun style of offense. I know everyone here loves Bogut and I do too but the way the team is built doesn't make sense to try and be a slow down team. I think it would be easier to trade him and build an offensive minded team than to try and trade Michael, Mo, and Simmons to build a defensive team around Andrew.

Rockmaninoff · Post #20 » by **Rockmaninoff** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 12:06 pm

ErvinJohnsonFan wrote:I don't think Larry Brown would work with this group of players. I think Bogut would love to have him but everyone else would dread having a coach who stressed defense and slowing the game down. That's basically what Larry K tries to do but the players don't listen. If this core of players stays with the team they need a coach who promotes more of a run and gun style of offense. I know everyone here loves Bogut and I do too but the way the team is built doesn't make sense to try and be a slow down team. I think it would be easier to trade him and build an offensive minded team than to try and trade Michael, Mo, and Simmons to build a defensive team around Andrew.

I disagree with that. The reason Brown has been a winner everywhere he has been, is because he is flexible enough to use what he has. He lets players play their game, but also 'coaches d'em up' enough so that they can exist efficiently in the structure of a team offense. When he was with Indiana, they were a top 10 offense and defense.

I believe we are on the way toward that type of roster. We need our Jackson and McKey and the right role players, but we are close to having an above average group of starters. We need to maximize our picks this year.

Anyway, if Walsh goes to New York, I'd like to see Brown given President of Basketball Operations and Head Coach. Then, I'd like to see Brown choose a general manager that he and Kohl can agree upon. Brown would also pick a protege, Tony Brown, or a personal choice. That, would be ideal.