Hollinger/Broussard Team Rankings: Bucks 13th

[GHOSTofSIKMA]

i dont buy it. i think they'll be weaksauce, and i think dealing nash to a contender will be the talk of the league when their floundering around .500 in early february.....5-6 games out of the 8seed. 50-50 they finish around .500, and 50-50 thats overrating them.

Considering they just took on significant salary in the Turkoglu trade and the Childress, Frye, and Warrick signings, I doubt they are going to look to dump Nash. Regarding the Suns, they will be horrific defensively but still very good offensively, primarily because of the system they run. As much as I hate Turkoglu's game and contract, he's a nice fit there. Nash with Richardson, Turkoglu, and Childress is enough to be good enough offensively to be over .500. I'd have them probably low to mid 40's wins.

i agree with what your saying here but thats why i think its atrocious that espn picked them over us when they specifically state, IN THE SAME WRITEUP, that we won 46 games, improved, and could maybe challenge for the 3rd seed in the east.
how the hell does that make sense to have us project behind pheonix unless they are calling for pheonix to LIKELY win 47-48+ games, AND be locked for a playoff projection?

[LUKE23]

7-12 updated.

[OBF-MKE]

7-12 updated.

Heh. I loaded the first page of this thread RIGHT as you must've been doing it. It still only had 13. So I click the last page, see this message, go "wut?" and then see the timestamp.

[BucksRUS]

So the top 6 in some order are:

LA Lakers
OKC
Miami
Orlando
Boston
Chicago

I think that is a little high for both Boston and Chicago.

[LUKE23]

Yeah, the Chicago love is getting a tad out of control. It would be very interesting to see if the Bucks would be top 6 with the exact same roster by any publication. My guess is absolutely not.

[Sauce Boss]

Yeah, the Chicago love is getting a tad out of control.

I'd definitely put the Mavs over Chi and I could also see the Nuggets over them. The Jazz's roster turnover and the injuries in the frontcourt of the Blazers are agreeable enough to put Chi above them. Seriously though, I do like what Chi has done this offseason, but there is only so much you can do with Rose, Noah, and a 5th of the Jazz's roster last year to warrant them as such a high level club.

[emunney]

ESPN just doesn't have the stones to drop a Finals team out of the top 6, and it sort of makes sense. Personally, I think they're really old, but probably have another playoff run in them if things break right.

[LUKE23]

Personally, after the top 3 teams (Lakers, Heat, Magic in whatever order you want to argue), I think you see a drop to a lot of teams that will be in the low 50's range of wins. That second tier of teams is pretty big.

[LarryHarris]

Personally, after the top 3 teams (Lakers, Heat, Magic in whatever order you want to argue), I think you see a drop to a lot of teams that will be in the low 50's range of wins. That second tier of teams is pretty big.

Agreed. I think 13th isn't the right place for the Bucks. I think they are better. However, people want to wait and see how the team gels together. I think we are better than a number of the teams that are above us. There is a vast expanse of teams who would follow your top 3.

[AussieBuck]

The Chicago love is definitely going overboard. They have very mediocre playmaking and spacing. Phoenix will be fine as long as Nash is healthy. As **** as Warrick is overall he can still do most of what Amare did on that team if he's the primary PNR finisher.

[BucksRUS]

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insider/ ... id=5500805

1. Lakers
2. Heat
3. Celtics
4. Magic
5. Thunder
6. Bulls

[LUKE23]

Bulls go from 17th best record to predicted 6th. Man, apparently Boozer is prime Tim Duncan.

[rilamann]

Bulls go from 17th best record to predicted 6th. Man, apparently Boozer is prime Tim Duncan.

I know Boozer played for the Jazz and all but I must have missed when he became Karl Malone.

That was my thought.


This list/article loses all credibility with the Bucks at #13 and the Bulls at #6.

You also make an interesting comment or question how if the Bucks had the same roster as the Bulls would the Bucks be ranked as high.

And you left out the fact the Bulls have a rookie head coach.

If the Bucks had that roster and a rookie head coach there would be a bunch of question marks and we would have to ''go out and prove it''.

Which would be fine and legit.

But with the Bulls it's safe to assume Boozer is going to become Malone/Duncan and fit right in and Tom Thibodeau is going to an awesome head coach.


The thing that is baffling me even more than the overrating Boozer is the assumption Tom Thibodeau is going to be a good head coach,maybe he will be but he also might be the next Terry Stotts for all we know.

[LarryHarris]

There is no way the gulf between the Bucks and the Bulls is that wide...

[Newz]

I like the Bulls roster better than ours, but I agree that's too high for them. They would be between 9-12 if I was making the list.

[rilamann]

There is no way the gulf between the Bucks and the Bulls is that wide...

That's my main thing too,whether you think the Bulls or Bucks have the better team on paper they shouldn't be anywhere near that far part on the list.

I think a lot of people are in for a big surprise this season when the Bulls are nowhere near as good as they think.

I personally think the signing of Boozer & hiring of Tom Thibodeau are going to blow up in the Bulls faces to a certain degree.

And there are legit reasons to think that.

It just boggles my mind how the 41-41 Bulls can add Boozer and a rookie head coach and be significantly better (according to the media and some fans) than an improved Bucks team that was 46-36 last season and took the 53 wins Hawks to 7 games without their best player.

The Bulls had to get hot down the stretch and have Bosh shut it down just to reach .500 and get the 8th seed.

[Newz]

than an improved Bucks team that was 46-36 last season and took the 53 wins Hawks to 7 games without their best player.

I guess the issue with that statement is that I don't think everyone believes the Bucks improved their roster.

I think we should remain the same or become slightly better because of Jennings improving. Other than that I don't see our roster as a whole being better than last year.

Then you have the questions of Bogut's health, if the Skiles 'wearing his team out' curse will come back and Maggette/Gooden fitting in.

I'm picking us to win 45-48 games. I wouldn't be shocked if we won 50+, but I don't expect it.

[rilamann]

than an improved Bucks team that was 46-36 last season and took the 53 wins Hawks to 7 games without their best player.

I guess the issue with that statement is that I don't think everyone believes the Bucks improved their roster.

I think we should remain the same or become slightly better because of Jennings improving. Other than that I don't see our roster as a whole being better than last year.

Then you have the questions of Bogut's health, if the Skiles 'wearing his team out' curse will come back and Maggette/Gooden fitting in.

I'm picking us to win 45-48 games. I wouldn't be shocked if we won 50+, but I don't expect it.

This is what I have a problem with though,

The Bucks have question marks,I don't disagree with that.

BUT SO DO THE BULLS.

I'm not saying you are necessarily doing this although you seem to have this mentality....the notion that everything that can go wrong will go wrong for the Bucks while Boozer and rookie head coach Tom Thibodeau make the Bulls a lock to go from 41 wins to 50+ is ridiculous.

And I say you have that mentality because you are assuming the Bucks will stay the same or regress while assuming the Bulls will be an improved team,improved enough to be better than the Bucks.

That's a huge contradiction on your part.

I guess I don't get why the Bucks who won 46 games last season,have stability from a coaching standpoint and return all of their key players from last season (Minus Ridnour but he wouldn't have played much anyway this season) have 101 question marks.

Yet everything is going to just fall in place for a .500 Bulls team with a rookie head coach and singing of a guy (Boozer) who has been known in the past for being oft injured and playing with a soft mentality when he's got his money.

I do think the Bulls will be improved from last season but so will the Bucks.

The improvement of Jennings from year one to year two,having Salmons for the entire season and the improved overall depth will be big.

[Newz]

I think Boozer is a lot more of a proven player in terms of impact on winning basketball games than anyone we added this offseason... And it is by far. If you disagree with that then I question your ability to evaluate basketball players.

I don't think the Bucks added anyone in the offseason that significantly improves the team. I think we just added guys who are about as talented as our other players, but they just have different strengths and weaknesses.

Like I said, I wouldn't be shocked if the Bucks win 50-53 games. I also wouldn't be shocked if the Bulls only won 41-45 games... Then again I wouldn't be shocked if the Bucks finished between 41-45 wins either.

Both of those teams are far from being locks for 50 wins. Could they both do it? Sure, but it is far from a sure thing.

I like their roster a little more than ours. I don't expect them to totally dominate us in win total or if we play in a playoff series, I could see it going either way with a slight edge to the Bulls.

[Wise1]

I think Boozer is a lot more of a proven player in terms of impact on winning basketball games than anyone we added this offseason... And it is by far. If you disagree with that then I question your ability to evaluate basketball players.

Boozer is a solid weapon no question. However, playing with the best point gaurd in basketball served him well. I question whether Rose can utilize Boozer as effectively as Deron Williams did. I also question whether or not a rookie coach can motivate Boozer as well as Jerry Sloan.

You can say that Boozer is a lot more proven in terms of impact on winning basketball games than anyone that the Bucks added this summer. However, what does that truly mean when debating which team will be better. The Bucks "proved" to be better than the Bulls last season and it wasn't even close. 3 out of 4 head to head and finishing ahead of them in the division.

The Bulls have a LOT of ground to make up when you consider the Bucks winning percentage after acquiring Salmons last season. Are Boozer and the other Bulls additions enough to surpass that factual gap when also factoring in the improvements the Bucks made? I doubt it. I doubt it VERY seriously.