Redd and Bogut vie for control of the Bucks' offense

xTitan · Post #81 » by **xTitan** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 7:20 pm

If there becomes a power struggle on this team Between Redd and Bogut.....real estate prices on Redd Island are going to be extremely low :wink:

........................everyone is praising Redd for last nights game...he took 29 shots!...thats to damn much.

Epicurus · Post #82 » by **Epicurus** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 7:58 pm

xTitan wrote:If there becomes a power struggle on this team Between Redd and Bogut.....real estate prices on Redd Island are going to be extremely low ........................everyone is praising Redd for last nights game...he took 29 shots!...thats to damn much.

You are right, Xie, 29 shots are too many. What the hell was wrong with the Pacers and their coaches giving a good shooter like Redd so many good looks?

Andrew34r · Post #83 » by **Andrew34r** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 8:02 pm

xTitan wrote:If there becomes a power struggle on this team Between Redd and Bogut.....real estate prices on Redd Island are going to be extremely low ........................everyone is praising Redd for last nights game...he took 29 shots!...thats to damn much.

He took 5 or 6 of those shots in the final three minutes of the game trying to get to 40 points. But we gave him a free pass last night because he really did have a good game and did not force very many shots if any at all.

Siefer · Post #84 » by **Siefer** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 8:31 pm

If it comes down to a power struggle between Bogut and Redd, I would suspect Bogut would win out. He's cheaper, younger, and at a premium position. That said, I do think they can learn to play well together. Bogut drawing double teams down low can only benefit Redd and the rest of the offense. I just hope they figure it out.

europa · Post #85 » by **europa** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 8:58 pm

MikeIsGood wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

I went through this thread looking for a few different poster's thoughts, one of them being yours. I had to cycle the thread a second time because I knew you had posted in here (the thread count said so), but I didn't see your avatar. Moral of the pointless story if that ou really need a new avy, even if it isn't animated heaven.

I lost my avatar last night and for a brief time my account was even de-activated. It was really weird and I have no idea what happened there but I do have a new avatar. I just need to get it added onto my profile.

RIP Jessica.

Serge28 · Post #86 » by **Serge28** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 4:16 am

Epicurus wrote:To reinforce jeremy's excellent comments, the Bucks won last night and they will win other nights when they shoot over 54% (efg) and only turn the ball over on 6% or so of their possessions--meaning lots of shots and lots of makes. Yes, it was against a somewhat topflight depleted team on the backend of a previous night's tough game, but it displayed again the template this team needs to win--good shooting and low turnovers. Who gives a **** who makes the points as long as the team shots often and well. To believe, however, this team can win decently without good shooting and good care of the ball is to live in a fiction. A bear behaves as a bear, a cat behaves as a cat, etc. Nurture only has limited discipline over nature.

Only a short-sighted fool wouldn't.

Serge28 · Post #87 » by **Serge28** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 4:20 am

jeremyd236 wrote:Your post seriously reeks of bias. Seriously, look at your RealGM name. I don't understand why the offense HAS to run through Bogut every single night. The offense ran through Bogut every game in 2008 and we only won one other game other than last night. I want Bogut to get touches and to improve, but I also want to win. And there is a difference.

It's okay for Redd to go iso or whatever if he's "feeling it". Nobody's sitting here complaining about the sick number of 3's that Bobby jacked up last night. No matter win or loss, Redd always has to be blamed for something.

The two can coexist, believe it or not. Many of the "good" teams in the NBA have more than one reliable player. If Bogut reaches the point where he can consistently contribute as a top-tier center, trading Redd makes no sense.

The Bucks played significantly better basketball when the offense ran through Bogut. They played much tougher teams and only lost at the end. That's better than anything the Bucks have shown with Redd as their go-to guy.

Yes, the two can co-exist, but that's up to Redd. His comments clearly indicate that he's not willing to share the spotlight.

Serge28 · Post #88 » by **Serge28** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 4:26 am

jeremyd236 wrote:I should have said that better. I meant every game since Bogut's transformation.

Umm, Bogut's "transformation" did take place in 2008...

Serge28 · Post #89 » by **Serge28** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 4:28 am

jeremyd236 wrote:The original poster and creator of this thread is saying that there's fictional tension between our players as to who the offense has to "run through".

I mean, there is no "battle" taking place. Redd's not going to win or lose this "battle", because its not happening.

If people actually read the article and the context it was in, it's obvious that he's not making demands or saying how he wants to to play. And maybe it just came out wrong too. LK could've simply been telling him not to think as much and just go out there and play basketball. If that is true then it doesn't look so bad, does it?

The battle is not fictional. It certainly seems like you're making excuses here and trying to interpret the obvious in a manner that suits you.

Serge28 · Post #90 » by **Serge28** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 4:30 am

jeremyd236 wrote:No, I'm doing exactly what the original poster did. To sit here and speculate as to what "really" is going on behind the scenes is just ludacris. We are fans, we do not know. If the players do not have a problem with eachother, why should we?

I mean it's okay to not like a player's game, but lets not create fictional tension by bolding quotes in an article that selectively chose quotes to begin with....

It's called context. There are many other things that back up this tension that you keep referring to as fictional. There is nothing to back up your wishful thinking.

Serge28 · Post #91 » by **Serge28** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 4:32 am

BuckUp wrote:Wow! Some people need to learn how to read without "reading into."

The article said,
"Let me play, let me go, let me loose," was the way Redd described the result of the meeting. "Just go play. No thinking. Play basketball."

First of all, the writer said that was "the way Redd described the result of the meeting."

Second, at no point does the writer say that Redd demanded, "Let me play," etc. That quote could have, and probably likely was, taken from an exchange like this...

Reporter: "So, what was the result of the meeting?"

Redd: "Coach said I was thinking too much... He communicated to me that he wanted to Let me play, let me go, let me loose. He said, Mike, 'go play. No thinking. Play basketball.'"

BTW, that's what the reporter seems to be reporting.

Third, coach K kept Redd in for 45 min! And said, "There's nobody on our team I'd rather have taking an open shot than Michael."

I think what is going on with the Bucks right now is that everyone is trying to find their role. IMO, Redd and Bogut are the Buck's stars. Everyone else is the supporting cast. I think Redd and Bogut can work well with eachother and feed off of eachother, but it will require everyone else being happy with being 3rd, 4th, and 5th fiddles.

More selective highlighting and misconstruing of facts.

Epicurus · Post #92 » by **Epicurus** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 4:45 am

Serge28 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Only a short-sighted fool wouldn't.

Only someone who has yet shown any understanding of the game itself, only their own emotional needs, would.

Serge28 · Post #93 » by **Serge28** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 4:52 am

Epicurus wrote:Only someone who has yet shown any understanding of the game itself, only their own emotional needs, would.

Oh, the irony. Is it so impossible to comprehend that a bad shot that goes in still results in a bad possession? That's what Redd does. He takes bad, selfish shots. In the long run, as the past shows, that kind of play simply doesn't translate into many wins. As the history also so clearly demonstrates, inside-outside basketball, particularly when the inside man is willing to the pass the basketball back (as Bogut is), is the way to build a successful franchise.

Wins that are achieved through chucking up shots that just happen to go in on that particular night are hollow and meaningless. And, yes, only a short-sighted fool would think otherwise.

Epicurus · Post #94 » by **Epicurus** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 5:16 am

I love the echochamber types who repeat the myth of one way and only one way to win basketball games. For this mythman, the cry now is "inisde/out." Look around and find many teams not so employing this sole one way to win. So what? The echo chamber repeats only truths. Learn the game and then come back. Hint: Cliches are mostly always wrong.

Epicurus · Post #95 » by **Epicurus** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 5:16 am

I love the echochamber types who repeat the myth of one way and only one way to win basketball games. For this mythman, the cry now is "inisde/out." Look around and find many teams not so employing this sole one way to win. So what? The echo chamber repeats only truths. Learn the game and then come back. Hint: Cliches are mostly always wrong.

Epicurus · Post #96 » by **Epicurus** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 5:17 am

I love the echochamber types who repeat the myth of one way and only one way to win basketball games. For this mythman, the cry now is "inisde/out." Look around and find many teams not so employing this sole one way to win. So what? The echo chamber repeats only truths. Learn the game and then come back. Hint: Cliches are mostly always wrong.

Serge28 · Post #97 » by **Serge28** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 5:23 am

Epicurus wrote:I love the echochamber types who repeat the myth of one way and only one way to win basketball games. For this mythman, the cry now is "inisde/out." Look around and find many teams not so employing this sole one way to win. So what? The echo chamber repeats only truths. Learn the game and then come back. Hint: Cliches are mostly always wrong.

If you don't consider inside-out basketball to be the most successful method of winning, you might consider becoming a fan of another sport.

unklchuk · Post #98 » by **unklchuk** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 5:34 am

"Cliches are mostly always wrong."

Only sure to be wrong when they come from the rabid mob.

Cliches are mostly always a maddening mix of the very simple right and the very simple wrong.

Nite all...

Sigra · Post #99 » by **Sigra** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 10:48 am

Serge28 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Oh, the irony. Is it so impossible to comprehend that a bad shot that goes in still results in a bad possession? That's what Redd does. He takes bad, selfish shots. In the long run, as the past shows, that kind of play simply doesn't translate into many wins. As the history also so clearly demonstrates, inside-outside basketball, particularly when the inside man is willing to the pass the basketball back (as Bogut is), is the way to build a successful franchise.

Wins that are achieved through chucking up shots that just happen to go in on that particular night are hollow and meaningless. And, yes, only a short-sighted fool would think otherwise.

All true

Franc · Post #100 » by **Franc** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:17 am

Sigra wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

All true

Agree with you Sigra, but we are near the end of third Year of Bogut's NBA career and he just got a chance to prove himself and again ( the same old Sotts treatment applies ) that chance was taken away. What does that do to someones confidence?
It's only good that the World can see Bucks Games and they can have their own opinion and not only what Bogut's Stats say about his value.