Moderators: paulpressey25, MickeyDavis
emunney wrote:False choice. We should have kept them both. Bobby's been good for us. We pulled 2 years for PJ off the table. He played meaningful minutes for good teams in both of those years. We failed miserably in our attempts to backfill the things he contributed.
ShootingtheJ wrote:This team needs more Middleton's, not less.
Bernman wrote:Reportedly an assistant on the Bucks complains Doc doesn't put the time in & regularly cancels meetings. Another that he doesn't listen to his assistants.
emunney wrote:-Jragon- wrote:smauss wrote:
Haha, after reading your answer on Doc's "stubbornness" I chuckled as you appear to be a "positive maybe" , but I get it. Good coaches have to fight the temptation to make changes to quickly before giving it a chance or waiting too long out of pride refusing to change that which is obviously not working. It can be a fine line. I would consider Doc more on the stubborn side of things, especially after watching him playing old tired vets rather than giving the younger guys a go. BTW, I was not happy with the Doc hire from the getgo - and I'm a MU guy!
I think he's saying that that starting lineup change should have been done after the trade deadline instead of waiting for it to be a dumpster fire playoff hail mary. That would have given that group several weeks to gel. Indy's starting lineup didn't have to get changed partway through the playoffs, did it. More than half in here caught on that TP had to come off the bench long before the playoffs.
An actually smart coach would have looked at our roster and said, "We're playing 3 guards" from day 1. Not only is it the only place we had quality depth, but it's a strategy that provides an ideal complement to our all-world interior superstar. It should have been done much earlier, and also, separately, he totally stumbled into it by throwing it out there in what looked at the time like an unwinnable game. Total shot in the dark. My point is just that he had an idea of how things should be done, he saw something different work, and he made the change.
I'm pretty convinced that the median poster here is probably top quintile intelligence in the NBA (any of the geniuses you know devote their lives to coaching/playing sports?), so I'm not especially compelled by the idea that you or I or whoever would have done it earlier. The question is what NBA coaches do, and they are a very, very entrenched group. Especially the ones who've been in the league for as long as Doc has.
ShootingtheJ wrote:This team needs more Middleton's, not less.
-Jragon- wrote:ShootingtheJ wrote:-Jragon- wrote: we probably never win another series unless he becomes 75+% free throws. It's too hard to win down the stretch when the opponent is scoring 3 at a time and they can come back anytime they want and foul Giannis and we get 0 or 1 too often.
You're talking about 3 more made free throws over this last series. Absolutely inconsequential. Giannis has win 8 playoff series without ever hitting 75% from the line. This is because he's the best player in every series.
Far, far more important would be to not have a max contract teammate who shoots 22% from the floor.
There was more context in another post. Say we're up 8 with like 1.5 min left and Imagine a team (well Indy just did it) comes down bombing and making 3s, but Giannis gets the ball each time we have it and they foul him for some high pressure free throws in which he makes 1 each time. That lead vanishes like nothing. Giannis would have to improve his ft shooting a lot to continue being an end of game option. If not, he should be a decoy and only get the ball, in the last 2 min, if he has a dunk. Dame was supposed to be that dude but even healthy, Doc never helped him get that Dame Time feel. AG did.
-Jragon- wrote:E... we would have went too far in the luxury tax signing both... it came down to Bobby or PJ.. if we were serious about PJ we would have let Bobby walk and try to meet the contract he wanted. We had a cheap year of Bobby left so we extended him but then ended up giving him 10+ mil per year the next year. They were both crowd favorite types. I think PJ impacted winning more and impacts team culture "being dogs" has been sorely missed.
emunney wrote:BigO wrote:Bernman wrote:For 2 & a half yrs here Bobby was junk. He reverted back to what he was before for the last couple months. Then in the playoffs posted a mediocre ts% of 51 & defensively he's terrible in rotation. We'd also be paying him into his mid 30's. Have to stop doing that w/ players.
The upgrade would be substantial now, let alone later. We need to get better in the starting lineup at big more than wing. Though we need to do that in a lot of places, including wing. It's a pickle. Might be a moot point, if we're in win now, are compelled to back into retaining Bobby.
Another BS hit piece on BP that I once again will not let go unanswered.
You say BP was junk for 2.5 years. Here's what he did his first three years:
1) 52.3% shooting, 47.7% on threes, 7.1 rebounds
2) 47.9%-39.3%-9.1 rebounds
3) 49.6%- 37%-9.6 rebounds and was critical in the championship game.
Here's the predictable response: But, but, but he was awful defensively and Bud wouldn't play him against the Nets because he was so bad.
More BS.
He wasn't awful defensively and the narrative is just junk.
As for the Nets series, he didn't play particularly well in the few minutes he was allowed on the court, but that was a series where Bud was totally outcoached by a first year coach and almost lost to a depleted Nets team. So his substitution patterns are not to be respected.
BP is not a great player, but have some objectivity. He wasn't junk his first 2.5 years here and saying it over and over doesn't make it true.
I like some of your takes, but the BP stuff is out of whack.
Bud's insistence on playing the drop with Brook on screens set for Durant 35+ feet from the rim very nearly cost us that series and made a great player in Durant look like a living god.
To tie it back to our other discussion on Doc's stubbornness, this is the kind of thing I was talking about -- his stubbornness is a trait shared by all professional coaches, and, relative to that baseline, Doc's willingness to totally change the rotation mid-series was unusually flexible. Which is not to say it wasn't far too late, and also not to say, by reasonable person standards, that he is not stubborn.
-Jragon- wrote:Playing BP in the playoffs was a tank move. He was never near an offensive player if the team ran any action he was lost and usually can't even figure out who to go by. It's not just coaching because he's always been like this. When Bud tried to use in as the drop guy as Brook sat was the only time he was regularly in position to make a play but he didn't have to athleticism to challenge anyone anyways. The faster we trade guys like this the better; these slow plodders are dinosaurs now.
ShootingtheJ wrote:emunney wrote:BigO wrote:
Another BS hit piece on BP that I once again will not let go unanswered.
You say BP was junk for 2.5 years. Here's what he did his first three years:
1) 52.3% shooting, 47.7% on threes, 7.1 rebounds
2) 47.9%-39.3%-9.1 rebounds
3) 49.6%- 37%-9.6 rebounds and was critical in the championship game.
Here's the predictable response: But, but, but he was awful defensively and Bud wouldn't play him against the Nets because he was so bad.
More BS.
He wasn't awful defensively and the narrative is just junk.
As for the Nets series, he didn't play particularly well in the few minutes he was allowed on the court, but that was a series where Bud was totally outcoached by a first year coach and almost lost to a depleted Nets team. So his substitution patterns are not to be respected.
BP is not a great player, but have some objectivity. He wasn't junk his first 2.5 years here and saying it over and over doesn't make it true.
I like some of your takes, but the BP stuff is out of whack.
Bud's insistence on playing the drop with Brook on screens set for Durant 35+ feet from the rim very nearly cost us that series and made a great player in Durant look like a living god.
To tie it back to our other discussion on Doc's stubbornness, this is the kind of thing I was talking about -- his stubbornness is a trait shared by all professional coaches, and, relative to that baseline, Doc's willingness to totally change the rotation mid-series was unusually flexible. Which is not to say it wasn't far too late, and also not to say, by reasonable person standards, that he is not stubborn.
Yes. It's easy to hate on Doc, and he's not good. However, we're not gonna like the next guy either. I'd take Doc over Darvin Hamm every day of the week.
-Jragon- wrote:jakecronus8 wrote:-Jragon- wrote:Keeping BP over PJ maybe cost us a 2nd ring.
This has to stop. Even 4 years ago Tucker sucked donkey balls on the court. But “we dogs” I guess. Catchphrases are memorable
Aggressive defense and corner 3s... seems pretty effective for the teams the send us home every year.
jakecronus8 wrote:-Jragon- wrote:jakecronus8 wrote:This has to stop. Even 4 years ago Tucker sucked donkey balls on the court. But “we dogs” I guess. Catchphrases are memorable
Aggressive defense and corner 3s... seems pretty effective for the teams the send us home every year.
He shot 32% from 3 in the postseason and his aggressive defense almost allowed Durant to single handedly eliminate us. He was not good
Coach Carter wrote:This year is a wash and most of us know it.
jakecronus8 wrote:He shot 32% from 3 in the postseason and his aggressive defense almost allowed Durant to single handedly eliminate us. He was not good
John Henson wrote:This lady just asked me who I play for and I said the Milwaukee Bucks, she quickly replied “oh the highschool across the street?”