lcbj68c

No. Not defending the 3 will. Another 20% from the line isn't enough points with all they give up on open looks from the perimeter. Could see this coming all season long. Can they overcome it? I suppose. But it will be why they lose, if they lose. It isn't though. They've done that all year, with the difference being they've made their own threes. They are bricking a ton of wide open looks. This game is like most of their games if they're hitting half of those. But when they lost 22 games during the regular season, why? Because they didn't defend the 3 and the other team hit while they didn't. Defend the 3, even if it gives up a few more in the paint and this is still a game. Mirotic backing off Powell to just let him take it, isn't good defense or tactics and you'll never convince me otherwise despite going 60-22. Eventually a team is going to hit and hit and hit and you'll lose 4 of 7 playing this way.

No. Not defending the 3 will. Another 20% from the line isn't enough points with all they give up on open looks from the perimeter. Could see this coming all season long. Can they overcome it? I suppose. But it will be why they lose, if they lose.

Who's the woman who keeps bouncing to her feet on the end of the Bucks bench with more energy than our own bench? Looks like a "staffer" of some kind.

Tired of watching these games feeling, "If we can just cut it to X with X:XX to go, we'll be in it.

I keep hearing this, but I just don't believe it. These guys are professionals. If that were true, there's no way we get beat with an extra 10 mins in the game in double OT. To win, the Bucks need to protect the basketball, execute on offense, and defend the 3 on defense. Trying to will it to happen because they are less deep and more tired doesn't seem prudent.

This. The two things don't need to be synonymous. If Giannis never develops another ounce of jump shot than he has today, he can still be who he is, still be an MVP, and the Bucks can still win a Championship. If I were Giannis, I'd worry more about being who I am and team success than trying to mirror some other great player in the game's history.

I'm shocked for all the talk about depth and "tired" on here over the past week, that the Bucks wouldn't be the prevailing team in a contest that went to double OT. I still don't think the Raptors should beat the Bucks 4 of 5, but my butt pucker meter has risen this morning.

I'm going to be in MKE May 29-June 3. Does anybody know what the Finals ticket process entails? Secondary market only? TIA.

:Waiting patiently for BucksFan to come tell me Lopez +/- on the floor tonight:

I feel like you mention this every time a team shoots over 40% for a game against the Bucks, and yeah, it's frustrating to watch. But the BUcks went 60-22, have the best defensive rating in the league, went 9-4 against the top 4 teams in the East, swept Houston in two games, went 1-1 vs Golden State, swept Denver.... What they're doing wins games. They win the majority of the time against the best teams. Yes, there are nights when a team gets hot from 3 and they get burned. Over 82 games (or even 7 games) is that sustainable? I'm gonna say "probably not". I mention it every time because it's frustrating as hell. I just want them to defend it. Even if it means a few more points given up in the paint, just defend it half-assed, half the time, is all I'm asking.

I don't see how not defending the 3 at all is a winnable scheme at this level.

I kinda felt that giving the Pelicans the lottery win is almost a :wink wink: :nudge nudge: for letting Anthony Davis go without a fuss.

That's been my take all year, but this team just doesn't have any desire to defend the 3's unless by defense you mean, "running out there after them with a hand up 2 seconds after the shot has left the shooter's hand. I don't know if they hate defending it or if it's strictly a game plan thing. When the Bucks lose however, this is typically why they lose. Some team gets hot from beyond the arc. Can a team do that 4 times over 7 games? I suppose.

Tie game with about 4 to go in the 3rd Q. Just feels like it's fixin' to get out of control.

I'm sure he's a wonderful human and has been an asset at times, but I'd be fine if Sterling Brown never sees another minute this post-season

Meh, game 3 was a terrible foul on a guy who was gonna throw up a prayer. Game 4, he was just trying to deny possession with 6 ticks left. Not a boneheaded foul, just terrible technique.

Jacking up 3's by 7 footers with 19 on the shot clock...is this what we doing tonight?

Should the Bucks find a way to win 2 of the next 4...are we rooting for PHIL or TOR? Who's the better match-up?

Is Sterling Brown really the best option we have with this deep of a team and Brogdon out?

The inability to defend the 3 and other subsequent jump shots will cause this team's playoff exit.

Celtics going to camp out in the paint and force somebody else to beat them. Bucks can do it. Don't know what Boston's FG% is, but it seems awfully high by my perception. Bucks have got to defend the jump shot it appears as they seem to want nothing to do with driving the basketball very often.

Pretty sure Demvoksey had Dillard at #12 and Simmons at #30.

Sorry, meant 0-Tech. Don't want one at #12 or higher.

This is ALMOST like saying you wouldn't mind having an an INF of Yuni Betencourt's because...hey, we had one before and the team overall was good and despite the fact that he was a bad player most of his career, he made that good play in the SB!!!! NO! You cannot just pass on the foundation of your defense. And I might be selling Yuni B short in this comp. I mean...at least Yuni had a couple of good years early in his career. That's more than we can say for Green. Glad he hit got his hand in the air when Big Ben was backed up to force that Collins pick,but that's about all he did of substance. But...I guess you've said you know you're in the minority, so....I'd just suggest you look at the best defenses in the NFL. They almost ALWAYS had a deep front. in fact, we've seen teams win SB's BECAUSE of their deep DL. WE'd just be passing on the position group as a whole here. The Pats dynasty was built on a defensive mind set that centered around Vince Wolfork and guys like Richard Seymour(they still like those types of bodies, the long limbed, athletic DL). The Giants beat that historic Pats team with a dominant pass rush with,Osi, Tuck, Strahan. The Bears last year had Mack and Akeem Hicks as their DE's when they made a big jump. The Seahawks were able to rotate defensive linemen to just keep pressuring the passer. The Texans defense that is year in and year out elite has JJ Watt at defensive END in their scheme(along with DJ Reader playing the other DE spot). I could go on, but...man, you just don't see many teams throw out 3 guys who are on the street half way through the season and be successful with them. The Rams were in the Super Bowl this year because they had Donald playing DE...and they probably should have had Such playing DE as well, but he sacrificed a little in the way of stats to play the nose and eat some blocks for the other guys. By the way, just one more thing to point out...and I just totally missed it because of your "3 Howard Green" statements. But you realize that almost all the players we're talking about here are Defensive ENDS, right? Oliver is a DE in the NFL, Gary is a OLB'er/DE hybrid? Very possible that given how talented they are, both Williams AND Wilkens end up playing at DE for the Packers as well(if there was a shot that Williams fell to us). I think you're confusing defensive ends with NT's. And there I disagree with you. The Packers defense was extremely reliane on Ryan Pickett for years at the nose....but I would understand more your opinion to just throw out a big body who can eat up blocks there....though I'd still disagree as I think having a guy like Clark who can collapse the pocket is an extrodinarly luxury and makes life easier for everyone else. But...what you're basically saying is that if the Packers took Nick Bosa, because he's a DE(and one that's not as athletic as Oliver or Gary) you'd be livid? You have NT and then 2 ENDS. A guy who lines up on the guards outside shoulder and one who lines up on the tackles. Those are your defensive ends and the exact guys we're talking about. Kenny Clark is well established as our NT and he's probably 1st up when they start dolling out extensions and he's likely to get a big one. Just gonna guess, but I'd say 4 years 55 million with 30+ guaranteed. And he's worth every penny. He's the player you build your 3-4 around(which is why we drafted Raji desite the fact that TT had Crabtree rated as the best player in that particular draft, you NEED that 0 technique to clog things up. Although Pettine is a bit different. He likes his linemen to get penetration more...and that's nobody in his draft better at that as a 5 than Ed Oliver IMO. So long story short, you say DE is a position of need and that's what you want drafted, but then say you'd be livid if we drafted some freakishly talented ones. I don't really understand that. No. I don't want a pure 0-technique NT as a high first round pick in any given year. DE, absolutely. If the plan is to transition a smaller, athletic interior DL to DE or ILB, then great! Come on over! Kenny Clark (27th?), Ryan Pickett (drafted 30th by St. Louis?), are all great players and I was not livid to have them or pick them near the end of the first round. I'm just of the opinion that in a 3-4, I'd rather have two dynamic, fly to the ball ILB on my team than picking a 0-tech DT at #12 (or worse! = move up to take one) when we have a mighty fine DT in Kenny Clark already.

You realize that Gary is 5'4, 280 and ran a 4.58 40, right? And that he's listed as an edge. And Oliver is a Donald-esque talent who ran a 4.7 40. I do realize the peripherals on Gary. I've seen him listed at interior DL. I'm not that enamored with Aaron Donald either. Again, I'm in the minority. They are placeholders to me in the same way as a gunner on special teams. Somebody talented can do it, but I'm not going out of my way to ignore positions of need to take the best interior defensive lineman. I do respect your opinion. And nowhere in this discussion has anyone suggested that we move up to 3-5 to pick up Oliver. I also haven't seen him mocked that high since last off-season. And Gary certainly hasn't. I think you're confusing Oliver for Williams. He's universally regarded as a top 2-5 pick. Not this discussion, no. The reason I suggested moving up is I DID see Oliver mocked at 3, 6, 9 and other places. I don't want to pick a DL in the first round, let alone move up for one. I realize there are hundreds of mocks that might better indicate Oliver will go 12 to 15 or 20 or 30, I just don't have the time to read them all. http://walterfootball.com/draft2019.php (#3 to the Jets) But the most ridiculous part of this is that you just assume that these linemen will "get you 26 tackles and 1.5 sacks." Kenny Clark got you 6 sacks and 55 tackles last year playing the nose(though I can't think of a worse way to judge a player than by tackles. Even sacks are overrated as pressures and QB hits are far more telling). If you get a guy like Oliver or Gary, you're looking at a double digit sack guy who gets you 50-60 QB pressures a year and can play the run. The only question with Gary is how consistent he can be, otherwise he'd be right up there with Allen and Bosa(the later of which would play the same position as Gary or Oliver most likely in GB). It's not so much that I'm assuming per the individual per say, it's just an average for the position and the type of scheme I would prefer for the defense for my favorite team. Suh from Nebraska for example. Dominant player at the position for a number of years, but I'd rather have "just a guy" there. If you think Gary is an edge rusher or can move to OLB, then fine, but everything I see listed is at DT There's a reason Howard Green was on the street when the Packers signed him. As I said, the single most effective way to disrupt an offense is to get a pass rush up the middle. It's just REALLY rare you find players who can do that. If a guy like Oliver falls to us at 12, I doubt we pass on him. But if you go with a fat, slow, immobile 5 or 9 technique, we'd be in trouble. We also had guys like Clay Matthews, BJ Raji at his best(not a 26 tackle, 1.5 sack season from him), Collins and Woodson. You can cover up a guy like Howard. You can't win with 3 of them along your line. Street DT. I love the concept. I think you understand my thinking and desire with your paragraph. I want to be talented and play a scheme with DB, S, LB, that I can over "deficiencies at DT" with Kenny Clark and a Howard Green lookalike. I get it's cliche, but it's cliche for a reason. Games are won and lost on on the OL and DL. Throw out Kenny Clark, a hopefully rejuvenated Mike Daniels and a guy like Ed Oliver and that's gonna make a far biggest impact on your defense than an off-ball LB'er. I didn't ask for an off the ball LB in the first round. The kid from Georgia last year that I believe the Bears took is what I would be looking for. Kenny Clark, Mike Daniels, street FA + Devin White or Joash Allen is going to be a better result than Clark, Daniels, Oren Burks, and Jeffrey Simmons/Ed Oliver. Again, I respect your opinion and realize I'm in the minority with my thoughts.