Bucks 2020-2021 season thread

[nodakfan17]

I don't see a game 7 loss as crushing in this situation. The Nets are supposed to be the better team here. IF the Bucks end up knocking them off and moving on, awesome. If they lose, well it isn't like they're playing some terrible team.

It all depends on how the game unfolds … if it’s close, but the Nets lead wire to wire, then no, that’s what you’d expect from a 2-seed at home against a 3-seed. But if the Bucks lead for most of the second half and then crumble? That would be crushing.

[homer]

Yeah I don't think the Nets are the better team. With a full roster, yes, but they have no Irving and half of James Harden. This is basically the Bucks without DDV trying to outscore Kevin Durant. He played out of his mind in Game 5 but it probably wouldn't have been enough without the classic Bucks Pumpkin player Green hitting every shot he took. Championship opportunities are probably not going to get better than this season for the foreseeable future with the Lakers hurt and bounced out early and getting a ton of lucky breaks this series. I don't think we're going to win because Wisconsin, but there is really not a great reason we should lose this game.

 

Yeah it took an all time playoff performance to win in game 5. I like Bucks chances but I've been hurt before....notably by Fred Van Vleet and his 11/14 performance from three.

 

Earlier I mentioned the Sixers....losing at home to the 5 seed when you have a 14 point lead with 6:25 remaining is a serious punch in the gut and also lower than the gut.

[nate82]

 

Earlier I mentioned the Sixers....losing at home to the 5 seed when you have a 14 point lead with 6:25 remaining is a serious punch in the gut and also lower than the gut.

 

The Sixers looked completely defeated after that game and they maybe done.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I'd rather the Bucks get the Sixers than Hawks if they were to advance. I think they'd handle either one, but the Sixers just look dead to me.

[areacodes]

I'd rather the Bucks get the Sixers than Hawks if they were to advance. I think they'd handle either one, but the Sixers just look dead to me.

 

Not to mention, wouldn’t it be the most Wisconsin thing to actually beat the Nets only lose to the Hawks with Bogdanovic going off on us after we tried to acquire him in the offseason?

[MrTPlush]

The Nets are suppose to be the better team and win the series IF they were healthy. That isn’t even remotely close to being the case. The Bucks should be winning this series and honestly it should have taken them 6 games to do so.

[LouisEly]

The Nets are suppose to be the better team and win the series IF they were healthy. That isn’t even remotely close to being the case. The Bucks should be winning this series and honestly it should have taken them 6 games to do so.

Who were they without besides Irving yesterday? They still had Durant, Harden, Griffin, Jeff Green, and the leading 3-point shooter in the NBA. My understanding is that Jordan has just fallen out of the rotation and isn't hurt (like Bobby Portis yesterday). You're still expecting to beat that team on the road?

 

As for health, the Bucks are without one of their starters, one of their most athletic/active players and best offensive rebounders. He isn't Kyrie Irving, but he's good enough to start for a team that went 46-26.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Irving is a massive loss, he is another player can create his own shots, but to say they "have Harden" is more than slightly disingenuous. The Bucks should have wrapped this up already, I don't think that's controversial. They have been outright dominant for the last 3 games and are 3-1 in the last 4.

[DuWayne Steurer]

Exactly. The Nets are missing Irving, who is one of the top 10 - 15 players in the NBA, and half of James Harden, who is still probably one of the top 20 - 30 players when healthy.

[LouisEly]

They weren't missing Irving the first three games of the series, and I think you're selling Blake Griffin, Jeff Green, and the leading 3-point shooter in the NBA short.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Right, they weren't missing Irving for the first 3 games and they handled the Bucks once, then slaughtered them, then lost by a point. And they were down Harden.

 

Jeff Green and Blake Griffin are decent role players. If the Bucks lose because of either of those guys they have probably been Wisconsin'd yet again.

 

If you had told the NBA world before the series that Harden and Irving would get hurt and both would miss multiple games, nobody would have picked the Nets to win, and probably not to survive 7 games.

[OldHeidelberg]

1. Bucks force game 7, can't remember the last time they played one(if it was Philly I do remember) so excited for an actual NBA elimination game that I care about

2. It is on a Saturday night! AND

3. I actually feel OK about about going to crowded bars to watch a game again!

 

I don't expect them to win but not nearly as invested in the Bucks as I am the Brewers/Packers/Badgers so a little less stressful to watch. That said I was pretty pissed on Tuesday night. Man it would be nice to end KD's season after that.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I think their last Game 7 was losing to the Hawks with Jennings and Bogut. The last one I remember them winning was against the Hornets in 01, another series they trailed 2-3 but had Game 7 at home.

[owbc]

It feels like the legacy of the entire Giannis era comes down to this game.

[CheezWizHed]

That seems premature for a 26-year-old...

[OldSchoolSnapper]

To this point, sure. It'll lead to a lot of hot takes if they lose.

[MrTPlush]

If Giannis can’t manage to lead them to a win in their next game it speaks a lot about him and the current team construction. If the current team isn’t enough to win in the 2nd round…how does it ever get better. I think it COULD become a big part of his legacy because they very well could blow their last golden opportunity. After this year it could be a real uphill battle to get to a ‘ship.

 

I think they win though and I think they do it by 10+.

[DuWayne Steurer]

I mean, Lebron's first title was his age 27 season.

[LouisEly]

Right, they weren't missing Irving for the first 3 games and they handled the Bucks once, then slaughtered them, then lost by a point. And they were down Harden.

 

Jeff Green and Blake Griffin are decent role players. If the Bucks lose because of either of those guys they have probably been Wisconsin'd yet again.

 

If you had told the NBA world before the series that Harden and Irving would get hurt and both would miss multiple games, nobody would have picked the Nets to win, and probably not to survive 7 games.

The first three games they had a healthy Durant and Irving and two of the three were on the road. I don't see how you expect to win at least two of them.

 

And why do people not acknowledge that they also have the top three point shooter in the league (and it's not Durant).

[DuWayne Steurer]

Right, they weren't missing Irving for the first 3 games and they handled the Bucks once, then slaughtered them, then lost by a point. And they were down Harden.

 

Jeff Green and Blake Griffin are decent role players. If the Bucks lose because of either of those guys they have probably been Wisconsin'd yet again.

 

If you had told the NBA world before the series that Harden and Irving would get hurt and both would miss multiple games, nobody would have picked the Nets to win, and probably not to survive 7 games.

The first three games they had a healthy Durant and Irving and two of the three were on the road. I don't see how you expect to win at least two of them.

 

And why do people not acknowledge that they also have the top three point shooter in the league (and it's not Durant).

 

Well, Harris doesn't rebound, doesn't do much on offense aside from shoot 3's, he doesn't play great defense. He's a good shooter. So was Tony Snell, for all that.

 

Harris is a great 3P shooter, but he's not a volume scorer. In almost any circumstance, he's not a game changer. He's averaging 9.5 ppg for the series. He's a 3P threat, but not someone you need to gameplan around.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Right, they weren't missing Irving for the first 3 games and they handled the Bucks once, then slaughtered them, then lost by a point. And they were down Harden.

 

Jeff Green and Blake Griffin are decent role players. If the Bucks lose because of either of those guys they have probably been Wisconsin'd yet again.

 

If you had told the NBA world before the series that Harden and Irving would get hurt and both would miss multiple games, nobody would have picked the Nets to win, and probably not to survive 7 games.

The first three games they had a healthy Durant and Irving and two of the three were on the road. I don't see how you expect to win at least two of them.

 

And why do people not acknowledge that they also have the top three point shooter in the league (and it's not Durant).

 

Durant has been around a long time and has one non-Super team Finals appearance and it was a bad loss. The Nets without Harden and Irving are another run of the mill perennial playoff team that will always be good but never good enough - pretty much exactly what Durant has been doing his whole career. It's going to be incredibly disappointing if the Bucks blow this. The injuries dropped this into their lap to take.

 

I'm honestly just kind of taken aback by how you're downplaying the injuries to Harden and Kyrie. It's embarrassing that the Bucks couldn't capitalize on Harden playing 45 seconds in Game 1. It's embarrassing that they choked away Game 5 with a 17 point lead fairly late. We shouldn't even be playing a Game 7, yet they've managed to make us feel lucky that we are. Their Big 3 is a Big 1.25. If the Bucks lose, I'll personally rue this series as one that any decent X and O coach would have won.

[LouisEly]

Well, Harris doesn't rebound, doesn't do much on offense aside from shoot 3's, he doesn't play great defense. He's a good shooter. So was Tony Snell, for all that.

 

Harris is a great 3P shooter, but he's not a volume scorer. In almost any circumstance, he's not a game changer. He's averaging 9.5 ppg for the series. He's a 3P threat, but not someone you need to gameplan around.

Harris shot 47.3% from 3 this season and has shot over 47% from 3 two of the last three seasons. That's the equivalent of shooting 71% from 2. The highest 2-pt shooting % in the history of the NBA is DeAndre Jordan (also on the Nets) at 67.5%; Dwight Howard is 59%, Shaq is 58%, Wilt Chamberlain 54%. (For reference, Tony Snell shot 40.3% from 3 during his time with the Bucks; good, but not better than the best 2-point shooting % in the history of the NBA.)

 

The reason he isn't a volume scorer is because he's on the same team as Durant, Irving, and Harden. He isn't the focus of the game plan, but I guarantee he is a part of the gameplan and is a critical part of the offense and opening up the floor for those three. And Harden at 80%, IMO, is still better than anyone on the Bucks except Giannis and Money and on about the same level as Holiday.

 

And if you don't think that Durant is one of the top 15 players in the NBA, please see Game 5.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Who in the world said Durant wasn't a top 15 player?

 

You're really going hard on Joe Harris here. The guy is a role player. Shooting the highest 3 point percentage doesn't make one the best 3 pt shooter in the league. You really think Joe Harris is a better 3 pt shooter than Steph? No, he's not. He's a beneficiary of having James Harden, Kyrie Irving and Kevin Durant drawing looks. He's a spot shooting role player, a really good one, who gets a bunch of open looks because nobody playing the Nets can afford to be concerned with him.

 

He's a very good shooter, he's not a shot creator, he's not a dynamic player. I'm just confused by your end game. The Bucks should have lost a series where Irving and Harden both missed significant time? Because of Joe Harris?

[DuWayne Steurer]

I never said Durant isn't a top 15 player. I didn't mention Durant. Durant is easily top 5. Maybe of all time. Maybe.

 

Joe Harris is literally just a guy. He does one thing well and absolutely doesn't do anything else. Meh.

 

Oldschool already explained it. He's a good shooter who gets space because he plays with (three) absolute super stars. Again. Joe Harris.... meh. If he drops 25 tonight and the Bucks lose by 4, so be it. He's just not a needle mover that on any given night someone needs to game plan for.

[xisxisxis]

Joe Harris is a strange hill to die on.

 

It feels like the legacy of the entire Giannis era comes down to this game.

Really? Other's have pointed out his age and an apt comparison to LeBron's first title, but does all of this come down to Giannis?

 

I'm firmly in the "Get Budzinski the hell out of town" camp no matter what the outcome from Game 7. Unfortunately, if they win and move on to the conference finals, I think that almost guarantees Bud will still be around no matter what happens down the road this playoffs. Bud just isn't the solution to any problem and as we have seen for several years is clearly is THE problem.