3rd Annual Fire Kidd Thread - Volume 2 (Horst Interview pg 14)

[thomchatt3rton]

The roster is definitely flawed but so is every single NBA teams' roster outside of Golden State and maybe a few others. It's the coaching staff's job to to play to a flawed team's strengths while minimizing its weaknesses. It's clear that Kidd and his staff have not found a way to do this. The forced trap scheme built to make the defense scramble only serves to confuse the players and tire them out (HENCE A LACK OF ENERGY AND EFFORT). We have the talent (especially in the starting lineup) to switch everything, simplifying the defense for our players who clearly cannot execute the trap scheme. On offense, it appears that when we do run actual sets, they are ineffective and usually just turn into Giannis bailing us out. The impact of roster weaknesses are minimized by good coaching. It doesn't seem that Kidd does much to minimize our weaknesses and instead, he actually magnifies them. That's bad coaching.

Well I don’t disagree with your larger points, I do think you are underrating how flawed this roster is. Our bench has to be bottom 3-5 in the league. And is there a worse center rotation in the league? I can’t think of one. We have a serious lack of 3pt shooters and no back-up wings.

I just dont think its accurate to describe our flaws as typical or average for “most teams except GSW”. I think things are much worse than that.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

I agree that our bench is pretty much atrocious but I think you might be underrating the starting lineup. How many teams in the league have a Giannis? 4, maybe 5? And then add secondary players like Middleton and Bledsoe who, on paper, are good fits with Giannis. It's up to coach to maximize that group's strengths, which I don't think Kidd is doing. Also with our awful bench, how does it take 40 games to get Sterling Brown some meaningful minutes, when it's immediately clear that he is a better basketball than DeAndre Liggins. Even Sean Kilpatrick and Rashad Vaughn, who should have roles on the bench, are getting frozen out most games.

I think I rate our starting lineup fairly. It's good enough to keep us above .500 despite the glaring hole at C and the atrocious bench. That requires talent.

But bench (and center rotation) matter a lot. Considering our aggregate talent top to bottom, I think our record is right about (roughly) where it should be. Because bench matters, and the center rotation is damaging to our starting lineup too.

Also, I think there are some fit issues with the starting lineup that aren't covered by "talented or not talented" distinction- namely Bledsoe. His passing and offense-running PG skills are a lot worse than I thought they'd be (and I'd kill for a PG who could shoot 3s -as Giannis should be surrounded by 3pt shooters). Part of that is on the coaching staff (as so many other things are) because Gianni-Bledsoe PNR should be both devastating and frequent, not non-existent. Bled's ball-handling and penetration bring something to the table, but I think we'd be better and more natural offensively with more of a passing PG (who could shoot a little 3pt too).

We have a lot of sh*t to figure out. And Giannis too, I think, is in a bit of a transition right now- he made the leap to super-star, but because of his unusual skill-set (not a 3pt shooter/jump shooter) he's a different kind of superstar to build an offense around. I think he's in the process of figuring some things out. I don't disagree that the coaching staff should be doing more to help that transition out (I think) but I also think it'll take time.

[trwi7]

I've yet to see a good argument or proof that a young team has to go through growing pains before they can win in the playoffs in any sport. If you're good enough, you can win.

The Thunder made it to the Finals in 2012 by beating the defending champions in the 1st round, the Lakers who were back to back champions 2 and 3 years prior to that and the Spurs who won 5 and 7 years prior to the Thunder's appearance. That's about as big of a "playoff experience" gauntlet as you're going to run into and the Thunder beat all 3 teams with their top 4 in minutes going to two 22 year olds and two 23 year olds.

The Royals had no playoff experience when they steamrolled through the AL playoffs in 2015.

The Packers have been the youngest or near the youngest team in the league for how many years? Won the Super Bowl with little to no playoff experience.

Citing the exceptions proves the rule IMO.

Would you like me to find more? Tell me why you think that teams need to go through "growing pains" before they can win? If you're talented enough, you can win. You see it in college basketball all the time with blue blood programs collecting all the inexperienced freshman 5 star recruits and going to Final 4s and winning championships. Do they lose sometimes? Yes. Do they beat more experienced teams a lot of the time? Yes. Why? Because they're really talented.

[DingleJerry]

Sid, you argue that Kidd knows the weaknesses of the team, one of which is having slow feet, yet you believe that a trapping/scrambling defense hides this weakness? It's the complete opposite. One would think that the best strategy for a team with slow feet is to play a more conservative defense aimed at keeping everything in front of the defenders, not consistently trapping above the 3 point line.

There's something in what you say, but what would be the downside? A conservative, almost zone-y defense would not create the fast break opportunities that a high-risk, high-cost approach does. Besides, we don't have the rebounding that would make a conservative approach effective.

So because our coach is too inept to run a real half court offense therefore we have to run a terrible D in order to get some fast break opportunities while having a bottom 5 D. Yea, that seems like some good coaching to me...

And from what I can find we're 22nd in pace, so I don't think this is the reason for it. Well, I guess it's hurt that the D system usually ends up in a made basket.

[Je K]

Well I don’t disagree with your larger points, I do think you are underrating how flawed this roster is. Our bench has to be bottom 3-5 in the league. And is there a worse center rotation in the league? I can’t think of one. We have a serious lack of 3pt shooters and no back-up wings.

I just dont think its accurate to describe our flaws as typical or average for “most teams except GSW”. I think things are much worse than that.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

I agree that our bench is pretty much atrocious but I think you might be underrating the starting lineup. How many teams in the league have a Giannis? 4, maybe 5? And then add secondary players like Middleton and Bledsoe who, on paper, are good fits with Giannis. It's up to coach to maximize that group's strengths, which I don't think Kidd is doing. Also with our awful bench, how does it take 40 games to get Sterling Brown some meaningful minutes, when it's immediately clear that he is a better basketball than DeAndre Liggins. Even Sean Kilpatrick and Rashad Vaughn, who should have roles on the bench, are getting frozen out most games.

I think I rate our starting lineup fairly. It's good enough to keep us above .500 despite the glaring hole at C and the atrocious bench. That requires talent.

But bench (and center rotation) matter a lot. Considering our aggregate talent top to bottom, I think our record is right about (roughly) where it should be. Because bench matters, and the center rotation is damaging to our starting lineup too.

Also, I think there are some fit issues with the starting lineup that aren't covered by "talented or not talented" distinction- namely Bledsoe. His passing and offense-running PG skills are a lot worse than I thought they'd be (and I'd kill for a PG who could shoot 3s -as Giannis should be surrounded by 3pt shooters). Part of that is on the coaching staff (as so many other things are) because Gianni-Bledsoe PNR should be both devastating and frequent, not non-existent. Bled's ball-handling and penetration bring something to the table, but I think we'd be better and more natural offensively with more of a passing PG (who could shoot a little 3pt too).

We have a lot of sh*t to figure out. And Giannis too, I think, is in a bit of a transition right now- he made the leap to super-star, but because of his unusual skill-set (not a 3pt shooter/jump shooter) he's a different kind of superstar to build an offense around. I think he's in the process of figuring some things out. I don't disagree that the coaching staff should be doing more to help that transition out (I think) but I also think it'll take time.

I agree entirely with the everything in that second half. It's not necessarily easy to scheme offensively with a player like Giannis. But nothing that this coaching staff has done implies that they have the ability to do it.

However, I have a problem with looking at the roster, then looking at our record, and simply concluding that our record is right around where you expect it to be so the coaching must be fine. I recognize that we have plenty of weaknesses, but you only have to watch a few games to see the potential of this team with new coaches/schemes.

[thomchatt3rton]

It is his 4th year, and there is no improvement. Always around 50% with one of the worst defenses in the league (Kidd himself was aiming for top 5). How long is the longer view?

To be fair, judging by the GM saga I wouldn't be surprised if we end up with a worse coach than Kidd

Yeah, that's a good question. Not too much longer. At this point, I'm willing to give Kidd until the end of this season, I guess. I'd like it if we could swing a modest center upgrade, get back a healthy and effective Jabari, and see how we could do in the second half with a more full cupboard, that's for sure.

When I ask myself, "what would Kidd have to accomplish by seasons end to convince me to give him more time than that?" honestly, I can't come up with a very strong (realistic) answer. I guess I would just want to see the team play a lengthy stretch (like at least 20+ games) with a cohesiveness and identity that resulted in more consistency. I don't care too much about any specific benchmarks like "win a playoff series" or anything. Idk, I don't have too much faith.

[raferfenix]

Jeff Van Gundy would be perfect for this team. He's a world class basketball mind & plenty "splashy", or whatever.

This ownership group does seem more likely to drop Kidd if they have a "splashy" replacement lined up.

[DingleJerry]

I just hope the Clips keep doing well so Doc doesn't get fired right as we let Kidd go. Would just be more of the same there, better than Kidd I guess but would prefer not to go with him. It just seems so obvious though.

[crkone]

Jeff Van Gundy would be perfect for this team. He's a world class basketball mind & plenty "splashy", or whatever.

This ownership group does seem more likely to drop Kidd if they have a "splashy" replacement lined up.

Just like they did with the GM.

[thomchatt3rton]

I agree entirely with the everything in that second half. It's not necessarily easy to scheme offensively with a player like Giannis. But nothing that this coaching staff has done implies that they have the ability to do it.

However, I have a problem with looking at the roster, then looking at our record, and simply concluding that our record is right around where you expect it to be so the coaching must be fine. I recognize that we have plenty of weaknesses, but you only have to watch a few games to see the potential of this team with new coaches/schemes.

Oh I wouldn't (and didn't) make that last step. Not saying the coaching is fine at all. I meant that our record (more or less) reflects, on the one hand, our great starting talent, and on the other hand, our atrocious bench and center rotation.

[thomchatt3rton]

Before the Bucks, Kidd coached the Nets. Was he considered successful there? Does he have any other coaching experience?

He had no prior experience. Went straight from playing to head coach.

Early on, I remember asking BKN fans how they felt about him and all i recall one saying was that initially he drove them crazy with his baffling, inconsistent rotations, but that that settled down in the second half of the season. That BKN team was vet-laden; KG and Pierce etc. I imagine there wasn't much coaching to do, so Kidd's hands-off approach was more appropriate there maybe (idk).

They had some success in that they knocked out a much higher seeded, much better TOR team in the first round of the playoffs his only year there- idk if you can consider beating TOR in the playoffs as any kind of great "success" though (sweet raptors burn)

[milwaukee bunks]

so basically everyone on the team is gassed from not only a league-high in minutes but probably also a league-high in practice minutes...

Nah, they just don’t practice/play hard enough since they got paid

I was referring to the Giannis video where he said Kidd makes them practice 4-5 hours on top of playing league-leading minutes per game.

[ackypoo]

maybe our backups wouldnt be so butt if ran an offense for them instead of expecting them to produce like all stars.

[econniption]

Horst is gonna be on 105.7 at 3:05 CT and if anyone wants to ask him a question they can send it via Twitter with the #AskBucksGM hashtag. Predictably, most of the tweeted questions so far are about Kidd, but we'll see if any of those make it through the Sparky filter.

Read on Twitter

[DingleJerry]

Horst is gonna be on 105.7 at 3:05 CT and if anyone wants to ask him a question they can send it via Twitter with the #AskBucksGM hashtag. Predictably, most of the tweeted questions so far are about Kidd, but we'll see if any of those make it through the Sparky filter.

Read on Twitter

Yea they won't get into that as they know it'll just be cliched answers. Something that could legit be talked about is acquiring a 3rd big and what the plan is with Plumlee in that regard. Lots of bigs just became tradeable

[StickeeFingaz]

Just listened to Horst. He definitely went down the Bucks PR checklist and checked all the boxes. Young team, check. Kidd developed youth talent like Giannis and Thon (yes, he mentioned the development of Thon as a positive), check. He’s happy with where the Bucks are currently because at the same point two years ago we were 7 games under .500 and a year ago we were 3 games under .500.

When asked about Liggins over Green, he said Green had his shot here and didn’t perform at a high enough level. He said we had a good enough offense, based on our current ranking, and needed Liggins to bring defense...LMAO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ackypoo]

now theyre saying giannis isnt ready, and that if we havd durant or lebron, we'd be better.

lol.

this radio station sucks. do people listen to these ****?

you know they have stats that measure a players value? and giannis stacks up pretty good against these guys.

[mnstinks]

Horst also mentioned Kidd had Hall of Fame credentials. He failed to mention as a player not coach.

He was asked who had authority to hire or fire coach, and replied it would be a collaborative effort .

Also mentioned the Bucks had most games played by two way players ( seemed to imply it as positive). Failed to mention the bench sucks.

[Je K]

Read on Twitter

Seems consistent with the rumor that Hammond tried to fire Kidd midseason last year and was denied by the owners. Definitely concerning when our ownership decisions have to be unanimous and one of them is friends with Kidd.

[blazza18]

Sad

[Prez]

This team is so ****ed lmao