Bobcats 96, Bucks 95: Milwaukee Rally Can't Redeem Third Quarter Collapse
Box Score / HoopData Advanced Box
The Charlotte Bobcats may not be in the playoffs come next spring, but don't expect them to roll over on opening night. After a promising first half that saw the Milwaukee Bucks build a 59-45 lead early in the third quarter, Charlotte's youngsters outgunned and outworked the Bucks after halftime and withstood a late rally to claim a narrow 96-95 opening night win in Charlotte.
The young backcourt trio of D.J. Augustin, Kemba Walker and Gerald Henderson combined for 50 points and Boris Diaw just missed a triple double (9 points, 11 rebs, 9 ast), offsetting an excellent Milwaukee debut from former Bobcat Shaun Livingston (14 pts on 10 shots, 4 rebs, 6 ast).
The more things change, the more they stay the same?
That would be one way to summarize the sinking feeling most Bucks fans probably felt in watching Milwaukee's first official collapse of the 11/12 season, this time coming in the form of a 26-7 third quarter Bobcat run that turned an 11-point halftime lead into a five-point deficit to start the fourth. Buoyed by their comeback and an awakening of the crowd, the young Bobcats held the Bucks at arm's length for most of the final period before a pair of Brandon Jennings threes (22 points, 8/21 fg, 3/6 threes, 3/3 ft, 4 ast, 0 to) and a spot-up three from Mike Dunleavy (13 pts, 3/12 fg, 3/8 threes, 3 reb, 3 ast) turned an eight-point deficit into a 90-89 lead with 1:20 remaining.
All of a sudden the Bucks again had hope of salvaging victory from a decidedly, ahem, uneven opening night performance, but it wasn't meant to be. They twice failed to stop Augustin in the final minute, Jennings badly missed a rushed jumper in trying to go two-for-one with 25 seconds left, and Dunleavy's open three from the left wing came off just short with 11 seconds remaining.
With Charlotte insisting on a center-less starting lineup, the Bucks predictably went to Andrew Bogut (17 points on 14 shots, 9 rebs) early, and he delivered with eight quick points against the increasingly doughy-looking Diaw. But the Bucks' defense was looking a bit ragged itself, with Ilyasova making a pair of early mistakes and the Bucks' perimeter rotations looking a step slower as Charlotte took an early 12-6 lead.
Milwaukee then took control of the first half behind the second unit of Beno Udrih, Shaun Livingston, Larry Sanders and Drew Gooden (joined by Mike Dunleavy) and a 10-0 run over the final 3:50 of the first. Sanders' quarter-ending long jumper gave the Bucks a 27-19 lead, and from there Livingston and Udrih took over with nine straight Bucks points to start the second. Udrih was smooth from mid-range and crafty around the hoop, while Livingston was lethal in the post en route to 11 first half points. Charlotte did the Bucks plenty of favors as well, missing most of their open looks from the perimeter including 1/9 from deep in the first half. Funny how bad shooting can make a defense look good, eh?
Livingston's strong debut came in sharp contrast to that of the more highly-regarded Stephen Jackson, who struggled to make an impact thanks to a potent brew of foul trouble and rusty, ineffectual play. Not surprisingly it was the Bucks' depth that nearly proved their savior: 29 of their 52 first half points came courtesy of the reserves, with Livingston and Udrih contributing 21 of them. Brandon Jennings was less of a factor in the half, converting a pair of early drives but otherwise doing fairly little before he coaxed a 15-foot push-shot off the rim and in at the halftime horn.
Maggette ripped a pair of jumpers to start the third, but Bogut and Ilyasova scored inside and Jackson got his first points in a Bucks uniform after Maggette got a small piece of him on a three point attempt. At 59-45 everything was going according to the script; Charlotte's youngsters were supposed to take the hint at that point while the Bucks' deeper, more veteran squad would surely keep plugging away.
Unfortunately the Bobcats apparently didn't get the script.
The Bucks stopped rebounding and moving the ball, while Charlotte's second chances helped their confidence begin to snowball. Livingston, Dunleavy, and Ilyasova were called for travels. Jackson picked up his fourth and fifth fouls and tacked on a technical because he's Stephen Jackson. The short summary from Skiles' post-game comments:
"We started overdribbling, holding the ball too much."
The Bucks led 66-60 when Skiles opted to give Bogut a breather with 3:30 left, a not uncommon time for Skiles to rest Bogut ahead of a full fourth quarter. But the Bobcats pounced on the Bucks' disarray with an 11-0 run that included Drew Gooden's ejection for a fast-break hack to Gerald Henderson's dome. I usually don't call out Skiles' rotation choices, but pulling Bogut at that point felt like a dangerous move; it just seemed as though the Bucks needed to refocus their gameplan around their captain at that point, not sit him down. And so it goes.
All told, the Bobcats outscored the Bucks 26-7 in the final nine minutes of the third quarter, fueled by nine offensive rebounds and a staggering 13 second-chance points. A number of those were longer rebounds that nobody in the paint was going to have a chance at, but it's a still a five-on-five game. When the ball was loose, Charlotte invariably came away with it. Energy, effort, intensity--whatever you want to call it, the Bobcats had more of it in the third and the Bucks paid for it with a regrettable loss. Hopes of a 3-0 start ahead of the Bucks' January road trip have now been clipped, replaced by the more modest goal of 2-1. No time to panic, but also no better time for a dose of urgency than ahead of the home opener on Tuesday night.
Three Bucks
Shaun Livingston. Livingston's isolation skills were the catalyst behind the Bucks' strong first half, and he also played the majority of the fourth in place of Jackson, putting Bucks fans (and Scott Skiles) on notice that he plans to earn minutes regardless of how many point guards the Bucks might have or whether or not Carlos Delfino and Luc Mbah a Moute are healthy. Livingston looked at ease playing either guard spot and shifted to the three in the fourth, though his lack of perimeter range doesn't make him an ideal choice to park in the corner. But despite playing from the right corner for much of the fourth, he still managed to cut in for a dunk off a nice feed from Jennings and found Bogut for a flush as well.
Andrew Bogut. An uneven performance for Bogut, who could have had a bigger night playing against an undersized and fairly out-of-shape Bobcat front line. He started brightly and was quiet in the middle periods, but also gave the Bucks a 92-91 lead with a confident move to his left against DeSagana Diop with just under a minute remaining. The fact that he corralled just a single rebound after the intermission was indicative of the Bucks' rebounding no-show in the second half.
Brandon Jennings. Overall, Jennings' 37 minutes seemed to summarize everything Bucks fans have come to love and hate about their third year point guard. He took 50% more shots than the next most shot-happy Buck (21 fga vs. Bogut's 14) and made just 1/9 shots from between 3 and 23 feet, but he also brought the Bucks back from the dead in the late going with 12 points and two assists in the fourth period. Sadly, that also included badly missing a rushed shot with 27 seconds remaining.
Three Numbers
30-14. The Bucks outscored the Bobcats by eight, three and four points in the first, second and fourth quarters, respectively. But one terrible third quarter rendered 36 otherwise solid minutes irrelevant.
+19. Charlotte dominated the final rebounding numbers (15 off/52 total vs. 8 off/39 total), which is all the more remarkable considering the Bucks led both categories at halftime (6 off/25 total vs. 3 off/19 total). All told, Charlotte collected 33 rebounds in the second half compared to just 14 for the Bucks. This is how you lose basketball games.
99.0 / 97.9. Despite those early signs of life, the Bucks managed to finish the game with a poor offensive rating (97.9) even by their own impossibly low standards (99.0 last year). Their defensive efforts once again gave them a chance however, as Charlotte managed just 99 points/100 possessions. Also of note: the teams projected to 97 possessions, well above the 92.1 the Bucks averaged last year.
Three Good
Bench. The Bucks got nothing from Jackson and mixed bags from Bogut and Jennings, but Udrih and Livingston provided a much-needed shot in the arm off the bench and were rewarded with extended action in the fourth quarter.
Bogut is...back? It wasn't an exclamation point game from the Australian, but it was still encouraging to see him making some free throws and generally looking ambidextrous again. We'll need a much bigger sample size before we can conclude that the Bogut of 09/10 is back, but this was a solid start.
Sanders rebounds! This game won't go down as the turning point in Larry Sanders' career, but he did do a few good things that were nice to see after his poor showing in the preseason finale last week. He threw down on rookie Bismack Biyombo and confidently stroked a jumper for a modest-but-perfect 2/2 shooting night and also snagged a couple of tough rebounds in traffic--something I'd normally ignore if not for the fact that I'm always harping on Sanders' terrible rebounding numbers. Baby steps?
Three Bad
No Jack. Stephen Jackson couldn't have had a more irrelevant debut, managing just 18 ineffective minutes before fouling out midway through the fourth. Even Jackson's six points were of the dubious variety, the first three coming on a questionable foul call and his only field goal a banked three that he followed up with an airball. The Bucks likely would have lost by more if his foul trouble hadn't translated into extended burn for Livingston.
Third Quarter Collapse. The Bucks have their share of youngsters and new blood, but against a supposedly lesser club they simply can't afford to lay eggs like they did in the third. Milwaukee had the Bobcats on the ropes early in the period but couldn't deliver a knockout blow, instead seeing their offense stagnate and their defense suddenly incapable of finding a loose ball.
Must wins. There's no such thing as an opening night "must win," but the shortened season has made it all the more crucial that the Bucks not let winnable games slip through their fingers. Considering the challenging month of January ahead of them, the Bucks can ill afford to squander similar opportunities at home against the Wolves and Wizards.
Follow @brewhoop on Twitter | Like Brew Hoop on Facebook | Join and Start Posting Content
68 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
1st game revises my thinking...
Many of us were pleased when the team gathered in training camp and generally talked about intending to have better chemistry, to play stronger. Guess I thought it revealed a fresh resolve. Now I’d say that, more than anything, it revealed that they realized they had weaknesses and really WANTED to improve. Didn’t mean they knew HOW to improve. I think I may have been wrong in my sense that they were solidly confident they COULD make the changes.
I think they are a better team this year. But I am now quite unsure whether they know how to do what must be done. To win.
Being a WINNING basketball player is a status only some can achieve. Many more realize what needs doing, but can’t do it. If Jennings, Bogut and the aging/infirm Jackson are Our Key Three, they may not be able to give this team a winner’s mindset. Partially because of personal failures, but probably also because it just doesn’t add up. From the competitive standpoint, the personalities are incomplete, and don’t so far help each other much. Tonight did they help each other at all? Jennings brought the team back in the 4th quarter — not with leadership, but with solo-ship. Jackson was about as disconnected as the Gooden of local fables. Bogut played fairly well, but was given or assumed a minor role. A trusty recipe for a loss to a bad team.
A more positive scenario is that they ended last season as a losing team and we shouldn’t be overly alarmed that (with new pieces to fit in) they start this season showing losing traits. If they can learn and grow together, it may be playoffs in Milwaukee.
I don’t know the odds they face. My guess is that “losers” in athletics may face roughly the kind of odds that recovering addicts face. Not a piece of cake. Unlearning destructive behaviors and also learning winning behaviors ain’t easy. They are close to built in. Only partly conscious. But it is worth the effort..
Only got a chance to watch a few minutes in the 1st half.
Any word on how long Carlos and Luc will be out? Seems as though the Bucks really missed their glue guys tonight.
by Brick's house on Dec 27, 2011 12:58 AM CST via mobile reply actions
Skiles Sucks
I’ll harp on it all day. Skiles took Bogut out and essentially rolled out the red carpet down the lane at the 3:30 mark in the 3rd QTR. Bobcats 11-0 run was all layups, tip-ins, and a 5ft J.
I understand ppl in WI like Skiles, he’s a change of the guard for the Bucks of the previous decade who were all offense and soft. Now, we’re all defense and hard work, exactly what a blue collar state likes in their teams. It represents the state population, but this guy doesn’t coach winning basketball and it’s showed last year and again tonight.
That might be a little harsh
but I agree that removing Bogues was a TERRIBLE idea.
http://twitter.com/WhalesLarry ...but only if you want to see someone still trying to figure Twitter out.
by Mitchell Maurer on Dec 27, 2011 8:18 AM CST up reply actions
Yeah so terrible that it cost us the game completely
I’ll start entering silly substitions from the play by play when they happen. That way it won’t look like hindsight. Any old jackass could see that was a terrible substituion as soon as it happened except Skiles.
I disagree...
Lets face it… our team is nothing more than one good starter(Bogut), a few good role players(Moute, Delfino, Dunleavy, Udrih) and highly inefficient players. A lack of talent is the problem on this team.
by Superelkman on Dec 27, 2011 10:44 AM CST up reply actions
I disagree with you
How many times are you going to give this guy a pass?
Skiles can’t coach offensive talent and this team is not low on talent, the talent is being misguided, misjudged, and misused. We’re not the Miami Heat, but we’re not Charlotte Bobcats either.
by FearTheDeer on Dec 27, 2011 11:39 AM CST up reply actions
I've never seen Skiles with any offensive talent to work with so I don't know how good he would be coaching it...
Skiles is a guy that uglies up the game defensively which is really the only way to keep a poor shooting team like ourselves in it… He vastly exceeded expectation 2 years ago, the team played to about its talent level last season and we will see how far he takes this 30-35 win team(in an 82-game season) this season.
The guy is far from perfect as a coach but he is pretty solid. Right now I would take the following guys over Skiles: Adelman, Carlisle, Avery Johnson, Byron Scott, Stan Van Gundy, Thibs, and Pop. After that group, who else in the league would you rather have than Skiles? Skiles atleast holds his dudes accountable on the defensive end.
I’m not sure any of those coaches could get a team that features Stephen Jackson and Drew Gooden as two of your most prominent players and one borderline all-star to be any better than we are. Garbage in, garbage out.
Skiles Talent & Coaching Alternatives
Skiles has had talented players to coach…like rookie Tyson Chandler (I wonder why it took so long for him to really develop), like Jason Kidd, like Shawn Marion. Skiles has coached for something like 12 years now and every year his team has been in the bottom half and typically the bottom quarter of teams based on Offensive Rating.
No one knows the alternatives until they present themselves. I can’t just go around naming better current head coaches as if they are alternatives. This time year last time no one would have thought of Tom Thibideau as a better coach than Skiles, now 1 year later he’s supposedly upper echelon. I think GS got a very good 1st year HC in Mark Jackson, but if he’ll be better than Skiles is TBD. The only thing I know is Skiles isn’t a great coach for this Milwaukee Bucks team anymore.
Jimmer and Salmons> Jackson and Harris
At least tonight. Hope that trade ends up working out for us in the end I really do. Didnt like it in the beginning and after one night I havent changed my opinion.
I knew this would happen
You cannot complain about a trade that never happened. We never had Jimmer Fredette(a la Dirk)so we couldn’t trade him. Maggette/Udrih/Livingston are also part of the equation.
"He always plays like he's a pit bull that hasn't been fed in about a year and that you've got pork chops in your pockets and that's the basketball." Of course, he's Canadian
It was more the Salmons part
Then the chance a Jimmer. I still like Salmons no matter how much he sucked last year. Hes a scorer which is what this team needed more of not less. Although so is Jimmer.
Three weren’t falling… lots of O rebounds for the Bobcats in the third quarter and second chances that they capitalized on.
Charlotte announcers kept pimping Maggette but I think a combination of Diaw doing a lot of little things right (almost had a triple double), Henderson’s overall hustle, and Augustin hitting a few clutch shots did us in.
New guys:
Cap’n Jack… I don’t know, maybe he’s just rusty. We’ll see.
Livingston did awesome in first half.
I thought Udrih did pretty good other than being off from three.
Old guys:
Jennings needs more assists… needs to dish instead of throwing random shots up with nowhere to go. Spent half the game on the floor.
Feed Bogut inside.
Sanders gets overly excited and as we’ve talk about…. has no hands. I thought at least one of his fouls was a nocall…
Actually, lots of ticky tacky fouls… maybe thats just NBA basketball and I forgot.
Above their competency?
I thought our Big Three (Jen, Bog, Jac) looked like they were of no help to each other, and of little help to their team. For this team to win, they will have to change in major ways.
Fox showed Jennings in a post-game interview. I admired Brandon for knowing how wrong things were in that game, and not giving BS responses. He tried to be constructive, and it looked to me he hurt realizing how “not constructive” that game had been.
I like Jennings. I like Bogut. I expect to see something in Jackson to like. The team will try hard to be better. But it still looks likely that they are individuals who play the game individually. (Bogut is a willing teammate, but is too submissive to push it on the team.) Nowhere on this team is there a Leader.
I’m sure Hammond can talk very intelligently about team chemistry – but I doubt he has a feel for it in his gut, and now for the first time I’d say it’s probable he’s not of GM stature. IMO he should be the Ass’t GM in charge of putting together little deals that add something of value to our team and don’t cost much. Also in charge of making 2nd round selections.
Dang. Often it looks like the whole team — the owner, the GM, not-sure-about the coach, and most especially the players have been promoted a notch or two above their competency.
That's exactly what's happened, chemistry-wise
Bogut would be fantastic in a role where he’s the second-best player on the team. The lieutenant to a non-existant captain. He can push himself and push others to hold the line, but he’s not the one to set the line himself.
Jennings could be that captain, someday. He has the right mindset, work ethic, and attitude towards leadership. He even plays the ideal position for it. But he’s simply not good enough at it yet.
Jackson would be perfect, but there’s too many things working against him. Too much baggage, too many former teams, too many lingering injuries.
Skiles and Hammond are in the same boat. Hammond’s best work came as a second-in-command in Detroit. Skiles is a knowledgeable guy who can’t consistently motivate or develop, the framework for an ideal assistant coach.
I know it’s only one game, but Unklchuck hit the nail on the head: this team is a wonderful collection of role players that are waiting for a star to build around.
http://twitter.com/WhalesLarry ...but only if you want to see someone still trying to figure Twitter out.
by Mitchell Maurer on Dec 27, 2011 9:30 AM CST up reply actions
Yes
Won’t surprise anyone (given your kind words ;) but yours is a heck of a post. Wonder if management acknowledges and will address that need for a player to build around?
I just put this in an older thread. Relates a bit.
[The owner] …has been the “commoning” denominator for decades.
They tell me that fish rot from the head. The off-smell you detect in these Bucks comes from that direction too. But he’s the man responsible for Milwaukee having a team. And I’m convinced that he tries his best, bouncing back from failures to try again.
The Milwaukee franchise faces long odds. It’s not indifference or sheer incompetence that dooms them season after season. To put it one way, it’s the failure to be comprehensively excellent. The failure to run the organization remarkably well. Management doesn’t talk about that. It would make the team seem virtually hopeless. But close fans are “allowed” to realize that and cut the team some slack in the tries they make and the failures they experience.
Note I only said “some slack.” Good fans don’t endorse or calmly tolerate patterns of mediocrity. But then the Bucks are not content to be mediocre. They keep taking gambles to be better than that. Lately they’re all losing gambles. (Gooden, Maggette, Jackson?) Might be bad luck. Might more likely be that the front office just isn’t smarter and more savvy than the competition. Selling Milwaukee to a superb GM is probably as difficult as selling to a gifted FA player.
In Vegas, when you gamble and lose all the time ....
Logic says you stop gamblling …time to change he plan ….
I want young, athletic and exciting to watch.....
With the chance to grow and improve together. Stop the band-aid approach.
In hindsight
When we were getting killed on the boards was it time for Brockman?
As well I don’t believe Jackson is anywhere close to 100%
"He always plays like he's a pit bull that hasn't been fed in about a year and that you've got pork chops in your pockets and that's the basketball." Of course, he's Canadian
Serously, are we gonna have to watch Jennings jack up shot after shot all year?
When your best player [bogut] takes 14 shots, and your poor shooting PG takes 21 shots, something is fundamentally wrong – not to mention 4 ast in 37min.
What a joke. The kid is NOT a PG…. I think this much is becoming obvious. He was completely outplayed by D.J. Augustin, for cristsake!
And the whole “he doesn’t have anyone to pass it to” argument won’t work this yr….. the team added scoring and Bogut is healthy [i never bought the argument last yr, anyways]
I don’t mind the loss [tough to win on the road w/o Luc, Delfino, and Gooden] nearly as much as the fact that BJ season 3 is gonna more of the same…. and the Bucks will be lucky to go .500
The argument might work on one night when
The two scorers we acquired went 4-17. Think you’re over-reacting just a tad? Who had a good night last night except Livinston’s first half? Jennings got us back in the game at the end and while he did take some ill-advised shots, so did everyone else…jackson, Dunleavy, udrih etc. Our 3 PFs got 10 points last night ……Look at the board differential in the second half…You can’t hang this one on BJ
"He always plays like he's a pit bull that hasn't been fed in about a year and that you've got pork chops in your pockets and that's the basketball." Of course, he's Canadian
by CanadaBucks on Dec 27, 2011 10:27 AM CST up reply actions
I'm not hanging this one all on BJ - but it really is more of the same from him.
Like I said – I don’t mind the actual loss nearly as much as the fact that BJ appears to be the same BJ – which was my major concern coming into this yr.
And for the record, I actually kinda like BJ as a person after seeing some recent interviews w/ him….
I think he's better at finishing at the rim
The stats will hopefully bear that out.
But yeah, his shot selection (specifically his tendency to dribble-and-shoot from mid-range) will hinder his development.
http://twitter.com/WhalesLarry ...but only if you want to see someone still trying to figure Twitter out.
by Mitchell Maurer on Dec 27, 2011 10:52 AM CST up reply actions
I'm somewhat encouraged by Jennings
It’s just that this team desperately needs him to be what he ain’t. A Leader. A PG who can raise his team (not just himself). I’d suggest it’s not really his fault if he can’t give what he ain’t got. My finger’s pointed at management.
Sadly, I agree
He’d be outstanding with a SG/SF that can create (and make) quality shots. Jennings has to be the man because nobody else can on this current team.
http://twitter.com/WhalesLarry ...but only if you want to see someone still trying to figure Twitter out.
by Mitchell Maurer on Dec 27, 2011 10:56 AM CST up reply actions
Jennings was 4/6 at the rim
Kinda surprised me, seemed like he missed a number of shots in the paint but apparently they were not put in the “at rim” bucket (0/4 in the 3-9 range).
by Frank Madden on Dec 27, 2011 11:15 AM CST up reply actions
Exactly, Mitchell
Surround him with athletic young talent, not injury-prone older hacks.
I agree...
Flip the script on the amount of shots Bogut and Jennings are taking… I guarantee that makes others better as well if we initiate more offense inside-out, collapse the D or get a one on one matchup with Bogut, and swing the ball to the open man
I feel BJs biggest flaw is that he thinks he's a scorer....
And that’s a recipe for disaster on a team that lacks actual scorers – and I’m not sure how much he actually cares about setting guys up and/or getting assists,k anyways.
I don’t think anyone expects him to become CP3 – but his lack of PG skils/mentality is troubling…
Yeah... he is more geared towards being a score-first PG but he does say all the right things with regards to moving the ball...
Jennings has a couple things going against him right now…
1) He can’t shoot jumpers effectively… this allows the defender to sag and take their first step backwards on defense which makes it harder to penetrate
2) He doesn’t know how to use his quickness… He doesn’t really have a hesitation move, crossover, etc. to actually utilize his athleticism
Guys like Steve Nash don’t have more raw athleticism than Jennings but they force defenders up on them by being able to shoot and are able to stop and go, stutter step, and in general use the dribble and change of paceto consistently beat their guys…
One thing I will say to Jennings defense is that he doesn’t really have a great finisher at the rim to run PnR with but even so I feel like defenses would sag off and make him shoot long 2’s on that play since he can’t really beat you there consistenly
What's most disturbing to me is his overall lack of "feel" for the game...
Maybe a year or two in college would’ve helped – maybe not…
But his court vision/feel/BB I.Q. all seem average/below average to me.
I think as Skiles’ seat becomes hotter, we’ll see a lot more Beno/Livingston in crunch time…
Worst cast scenario
Jennings is a solid 6th man in the NBA
Agreed! I think he's a great 6th man for most teams.
Just don’t feel he has “it” to be anything more than an avg staring PG [and that’s being generous]
Ummm ...errrr
How old is Jennings? Why don’t we enumerate the bevy of flaws of the other guys? I agree that Jennings has some learning to do, but maybe he needs a different teacher. I am much more willing to invest in him than these other hacks, who, by he way, have had a much longer ime to develop their …ummm …games ….surround this dude with some ballplayers and maybe we can determine whether Jennings is viable PG in this league. And please, to the person or persons who wrote that this team does have the talent ….i challenge you to re-examine that a bit.
I predict that this will be Skiles’ last season ….
Yes, Jennings is still young....
But “feel” and “I.Q.” are things you generally have or you don’t. Coaching will only develop a player so much – and contrary to some opinions on here, I believe Skiles is a good coach [for the most part] ; )
And I personally don’t buy the “surround him w/ talent” argument…. this is the NBA – most PGs would look a lot better surrounded by talent. It’s his job to utilize and maximize the talent that he’s given…. that’s what real PGs do, IMO.
Jennings
Jennings is an athletic scorer who can create his own shot. That’s it. I fully believe he can become fairly efficient at doing so. He’s EXACTLY of the Jason Terry, Jamal Crawford mold. Guys who came into the league as starting PGs but later found their nitch as 6th man. They like to have the ball in their hands to create their own shots and score in bundles, but aren’t good at distributing the ball or playing defense.
The Bucks staff insist on trying to force this square peg into a round hole and don’t seem to want to come to grips with the fact that it doesnt’ fit. That usually ends up being quite frustrating, allah our frustruation with Jennings. They misuse him him like he’s a top 5 PG. The analysts, fans, coaches, and FO all say madness like “the Bucks will only go as far as Jennings takes them.” That’s a misjudgement of this team.
That may be true
I’m not saying get rid of him, as frustrated as I get with Jennings, I want him in Milwaukee. However, I am saying that he’s being misjudged, misguided, and misused under Scotty Skiles and co.
Now, something more brash and opinionated, Shaun Livingston should be our starting PG. He’s been given a chance to make teams, but never a chance to really show. I was happy to see him come as part of the S-Jax trade and wasn’t surprised by his output last night. I’m a part time Wizards fan, now that I live in DC, and watched Livingston play in Washington directly off the injury 2 years ago. While I was at the Bucks @ Wizards game I could tell, this kid is going to surprise a lot of ppl when he regains confidence and gets his chance. One year in Charlotte later, he’s got his confidence, now he needs his chance. Remember Shaun Livingston was 4th overall pick in 2004, nobody on this team had the upside Livingston was projected to have. Knee injuries might kill his explosion, but that wasn’t his strength anyways, his strength was his ball handling, court vision, and length all of which are still very intact.
If Livingston keeps playing well...
So be it ….
Hmm..."feel" or "IQ"
Victor, you nor I can quantiy those thngs, nor say right now whether he can turn into anythng better. I am sorry, but he has not logged enough NBA games yet. As for the maximizing other people, again, that is a concept fans throw out there but cannot explain. How about we get better players?
If you want Steve Blake or TJ Ford back, so be it. But I refuse to blame the Bucks woes on a 22-year old player who has nobody decent to pass to.
If we don't make the playoffs
This will be the last season for either Skiles or Hammond, possibly both, and it will be the last season for Jennings or Bogut, but not both.
AND I'm starting to hope it's Bogut
because once Bogut escapes Milwaukee, I think this guy is going to finally be an All-Star.
He is not good enough on any team
He has no shot or moves, thnks he is left handed, and is way too injury prone. The Milwaukee Bucks have to get with the program and get younger and more athletic. This is the last time I will say it.
Offensive Rebounding
We don’t offensive rebound. I noticed it last year and it was more of the same last night. When we get a close range shot, we hit the O glass, but when we take jumpshots (which is our most frequent shot) we have no one crash the offensive glass. We always get 1 shot attempt (usually a bad shot attempt) then hurry back to play defense. That’s not playing to our strengths, we should be one of the best rebounding teams in the league. Skiles needs to designate 1 guy to sprint back, but Bogut should always be on the glass.
by FearTheDeer on Dec 27, 2011 10:25 AM CST reply actions 1 recs
This
Considering we have players that are decent rebounders relative to their position (Gooden, Ilyasova, Delfino, Livingston), there’s no reason we can’t have more emphasis on following shots.
http://twitter.com/WhalesLarry ...but only if you want to see someone still trying to figure Twitter out.
by Mitchell Maurer on Dec 27, 2011 10:53 AM CST up reply actions
That's not uncommon though
There’s often very little correlation between offensive and defensive rebounding because so much of it is a matter of philosophy. Example: the two best offensive rebounding teams in the league last year were the Kings and Wolves, who finished 13th and 16th in defensive rebounding.
I’d much rather the Bucks focus on defensive rebounding because there’s really no downside; offensive rebounding requires some compromise on the defensive end, which is why the best offensive rebounding teams often aren’t very good (see above). To me the big worry last night was the complete collapse on the defensive boards.
by Frank Madden on Dec 27, 2011 11:24 AM CST up reply actions
It's uncommon to go after 0% of the offensive rebounds
I’m talking 0 effort here. We leave 100% of the offensive rebounds for the opponent with minimal effort, no need to find a man, no need to box out, and no need to be careful with the outlet pass. That’s going to result in us losing the rebounding battle most nights. Aggression on the offensive glass won the game for the Bobcats last night.
The only guy who crashes the offensive glass is Drew Gooden, as much as I can’t stand him shooting from outside and his interior defense, he’s the best offensive rebounder on this team.
by FearTheDeer on Dec 27, 2011 11:56 AM CST up reply actions
Oh, Bogut...
I know this is the teams darling, but I really can’t live with a 7 foot center shooting in the low 50 percentile. He had 17 points on 14 shots! But he made 3 of 4 FTs, so all is forgotten. I’m trying to be nice, but when you shoot from 10 feet and in, you have to convert a high percentage and he never has.
Who turned the light's out?? Because I don't see nobody!
Bogut didn't have a great game per se - but he did have 9 boards and played good D.
17/9 ain’t bad…. just sayin ; )
Bogut will never live up to the expectations of a #1 overall pick [fair or not] but I’ll take what he brings every night – and he’s still better than the vast majority of NBA C’s IMO.
9 Boards you say???
Well he had 8 in the first half (!), versus Boris Diaw, BJ Mullens, and Diop. Also, which one of these three kept Bogut from hitting those easy buckets? If you give Bogut a wink, give the entire game a wink then…
Who turned the light's out?? Because I don't see nobody!
The second half rebounding was SO AWFUL
http://twitter.com/WhalesLarry ...but only if you want to see someone still trying to figure Twitter out.
by Mitchell Maurer on Dec 27, 2011 10:55 AM CST up reply actions
Ooooo. I didn't see much of the game - and didn't know he had 8 boards in the first half.
I still say Bogut is the least of this teams problems – he’s pretty damn consistent – and 90% of the teams in the NBA would LOVE to have him.
This team sorely needs a true “go-to” scoring option [maybe Jax, but i doubt it] and a PG who doesn’t try to be the second coming of Iverson.
BJ, Jax, and our first round pick for Eric Gordon [assuming he’d sign a long term deal] should do it ; )
To be fair,
his draft had Chris Paul, Deron Williams, Danny Granger, and not much else. CP3 or D-Will would have been nice, but they’ve already proven that they’re not willing to stay in a small market that can’t demonstrate an ability to win big.
http://twitter.com/WhalesLarry ...but only if you want to see someone still trying to figure Twitter out.
by Mitchell Maurer on Dec 27, 2011 10:55 AM CST up reply actions
Anyone notice
That Charlotte’s backup center hurt us. They could trade for one but we couldn’t.
by toasterrebound on Dec 27, 2011 11:11 AM CST reply actions
I did not see that coming from Mullens
He was just raining jumpers…not bad for a guy who played 85 minutes combined the last two years.
by Frank Madden on Dec 27, 2011 11:26 AM CST up reply actions
Mullens has range, crazy. Bogut can’t guard guys like Mullens or Love that can shoot on the perimeter, it seems.
Noticed that Dalembert was signed by Houston and that Kwame Brown is on some team, I forget which… just remember people talking about both in the back up center discussion.
How about Earl Barron? :D
Kwame is riding the bench for Golden State
He’s their insurance policy for DeAndre Jordan re-signing with the Clippers.
http://twitter.com/WhalesLarry ...but only if you want to see someone still trying to figure Twitter out.
by Mitchell Maurer on Dec 27, 2011 12:06 PM CST up reply actions
Moute + Delfino
Did we miss them last night? I’m not sure what impact they would have had… but probably would have been nice to have Moute, especially once Gooden was tossed out.
No really IMO
I think Delfino more than Moute. S-Jax was just out of it and that forced us into 2 PG line-ups all night.
by FearTheDeer on Dec 27, 2011 12:05 PM CST up reply actions
I'd say we missed them a bit... atleast they bring D and some versatility.
Don’t know if it would have changed the outcome – but I’d like to think so…
3 keys to the loss for me
1) Lack of rebouding effort (offensive especially)
2) Forgetting about Bogut/Livingston in the post in the 2nd HALF
3) Sitting Bogut during the biggest momentum change of the game.

by 



















