Two Marquette guys as head coaches in the NBA. Skiles gone.
Can we also take credit for Larry Frank, the Pistons head coach? He was an assistant under O'Neil when MU when to the S16 in 1994?
Good for the Bucks. Skiles should be a college coach. His tough-guy schtick seems to wear out after 3-4 seasons. In college, that wouldn't matter because you'd have a whole new group by then.
Skiles seems to be a prick personified. Maybe Dalambert will be able to remove the bench splinters. That said, JB is not the answer. He's a clone of Scott. Wouldn't be shocked to see K. Sampson as the next pigeon to coach this team. Not expecting any significant upward movement 'til the Senator quits trying to run the franchise like a food store chain and sells the whole shabang.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on January 08, 2013, 06:09:27 AM
Skiles seems to be a prick personified. Maybe Dalambert will be able to remove the bench splinters. That said, JB is not the answer. He's a clone of Scott. Wouldn't be shocked to see K. Sampson as the next pigeon to coach this team. Not expecting any significant upward movement 'til the Senator quits trying the run the franchise like a food chain and sells the whole shabang.
Yeah, but if he sells it, do the Bucks remain in Milwaukee?
Quote from: brewcity77 on January 08, 2013, 05:16:30 AM
Good for the Bucks. Skiles should be a college coach. His tough-guy schtick seems to wear out after 3-4 seasons. In college, that wouldn't matter because you'd have a whole new group by then.
+1
Also, I'm pretty sure Kohl doesn't involve himself in day to day operations as much as he used to. I think that was part of the deal when Hammonds took over the GM job.
Kohl won't sell the Bucks and they aren't going anywhere. Other teams will move first.
Happy for Boylan. That said, not an exciting move for the Bucks. The Bucks need to shake things up big time or even tougher road ahead. My sons were mildly excited for Bucks season and have already completely turned out from watching. Would love to see some positive movement with the Bucks in my lifetime. Been a long time since exciting ball from them.
Quote from: Goose on January 08, 2013, 07:14:02 AM
Happy for Boylan. That said, not an exciting move for the Bucks. The Bucks need to shake things up big time or even tougher road ahead. My sons were mildly excited for Bucks season and have already completely turned out from watching. Would love to see some positive movement with the Bucks in my lifetime. Been a long time since exciting ball from them.
I agree. Boylan is just the interim head coach though. It is really hard to get excited about a team that has no prospects. If they give Brandon Jennings a contract expect more woe from this team for the next 5 years. I know that with the Bucks they are ALWAYS talking about rebuilding... but the fact is that they do it in the wrong way. Giving contracts to has beens or never weres and hoping they can make the playoffs is the worst way to build a franchise. About the only thing the Bucks can hope for is to tank a year or two and get a couple of young guys... Sadly, I don't see many elite prospects for next year's draft either. There are about 5 players (Larry Sanders, John Henson, Ersan Ilyasova, Ekpe Udoh, Luc Richard Mbah a Moute) that I would consider keeping... and none of them are potential stars except Sanders.
In this day and age its very difficult for a team like Milwaukee to attract legitimate stars. People talk about max contracts, but who would take one in Milwaukee over somewhere "cool" (Chicago, Miami, NY, anywhere warm)? The only way to become good is to draft a young, likeable STAR that other NBA players want to play with... Otherwise it will always be more of the same in Milwaukee.
As a Bucks fan, this is hard to say, but it has been reality since they traded Ray Allen (the day the franchise died).
Quote from: Goose on January 08, 2013, 07:14:02 AM
Happy for Boylan. That said, not an exciting move for the Bucks. The Bucks need to shake things up big time or even tougher road ahead. My sons were mildly excited for Bucks season and have already completely turned out from watching. Would love to see some positive movement with the Bucks in my lifetime. Been a long time since exciting ball from them.
In 2001 the Bucks were the best team in the East but the Angel of Stern needed Allen Iverson in the Finals so they never got their shot to lose to the Lakers. They've basically been stuck in NBA hell ever since - not good enough to compete, not bad enough to get 2-3 significant pieces to build around.
Admittedly, I'm a Bulls fan but ever since coming to MU, I've hoped the Bucks do well. IMO, they needed to blow it up after last season. Trade Jennings, Ellis and Ilyasova for draft picks and/or young players. See if you can get anything for Dunleavy, Gooden or MaM. Give Sanders, Harris, Henson and Udoh big minutes and see what happens. It would be ugly for 2-3 years and that may not be something the Bucks can afford to do but if the team is going to be bad, the best you can give your fanbase is hope (and high draft picks). Right now, the Bucks are a late lottery machine and that's not giving anyone anything to be excited about and, more importantly, that's not going to lead to a contending team.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on January 08, 2013, 07:42:37 AM
In 2001 the Bucks were the best team in the East but the Angel of Stern needed Allen Iverson in the Finals so they never got their shot to lose to the Lakers. They've basically been stuck in NBA hell ever since - not good enough to compete, not bad enough to get 2-3 significant pieces to build around.
Admittedly, I'm a Bulls fan but ever since coming to MU, I've hoped the Bucks do well. IMO, they needed to blow it up after last season. Trade Jennings, Ellis and Ilyasova for draft picks and/or young players. See if you can get anything for Dunleavy, Gooden or MaM. Give Sanders, Harris, Henson and Udoh big minutes and see what happens. It would be ugly for 2-3 years and that may not be something the Bucks can afford to do but if the team is going to be bad, the best you can give your fanbase is hope (and high draft picks). Right now, the Bucks are a late lottery machine and that's not giving anyone anything to be excited about and, more importantly, that's not going to lead to a contending team.
The first part still hurts to this day. The second part I can't nod my head enough at.
What bothers me is that they don't JUST EFFING DO IT. No one comes to the damn games anyway. Sadly, even if they tank this year, there aren't any stars coming out in next year's draft... a lot of "good" players, but they have enough of those.
Buzz to the Bucks! ::)
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on January 08, 2013, 07:42:37 AM
In 2001 the Bucks were the best team in the East but the Angel of Stern needed Allen Iverson in the Finals so they never got their shot to lose to the Lakers. They've basically been stuck in NBA hell ever since - not good enough to compete, not bad enough to get 2-3 significant pieces to build around.
Glenn Robinson puts in a lay-up in Game 5 and the Bucks are in the Finals. Don't blame Stern for that one.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on January 08, 2013, 07:33:07 AM
In this day and age its very difficult for a team like Milwaukee to attract legitimate stars. People talk about max contracts, but who would take one in Milwaukee over somewhere "cool" (Chicago, Miami, NY, anywhere warm)? The only way to become good is to draft a young, likeable STAR that other NBA players want to play with... Otherwise it will always be more of the same in Milwaukee.
It can be done. Look at Oklahoma City. If they either get really, really bad, or they luck out on a draft choice later in the first round, they can bring in talent. NBA players want to play for winners and will come to Milwaukee for a ring. True, Milwaukee will never be a destination like Miami, but I don't like when people make excuses like that. They said the same thing about the Packers in the 80s.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 08, 2013, 08:01:38 AMIt can be done. Look at Oklahoma City. If they either get really, really bad, or they luck out on a draft choice later in the first round, they can bring in talent.
That's the problem with Kohl. If he keeps trying to keep them good enough to make the playoffs, they won't get the kind of pick they need to reach that level. That last team was built on a #1 pick, a #5 pick, and some solid free agents that came once the foundation was laid. If they continue to be a borderline playoff team, it's very hard to get over the hump.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 08, 2013, 08:01:38 AM
It can be done. Look at Oklahoma City. If they either get really, really bad, or they luck out on a draft choice later in the first round, they can bring in talent. NBA players want to play for winners and will come to Milwaukee for a ring. True, Milwaukee will never be a destination like Miami, but I don't like when people make excuses like that. They said the same thing about the Packers in the 80s.
That is exactly what I'm saying. They need to suck in a year when there is actual talent at the top of the lottery. Not when there is Andrew Bogut. OKC got lucky in so many ways.
1. SEATTLE sucked at the right time.
2. SEATTLE got the second pick in the NBA Lotto.
3. Portland picked Greg Oden over Kevin Durant.
4. SEATTLE picked Kevin Durant.
5. SEATTLE sucked enough to get the 4th pick in the lotto the next year!
6. SEATTLE picked Russell Westbrook
7. SEATTLE moves to OKC
8. OKC sucked enough AGAIN to get a top 3 pick... James Harden
This gives them 3 top 4 draft picks in 3 years... quite the core to build around. Sure, they could have missed on all 3 and drafted Oden (assuming Portland picked Durant first that year), Beasley/Mayo, and Thabeet/Rubio... But they didn't. Additionally, the people of OKC have a brand new NBA franchise (the only show in town) and pack the arena. The only fan base more miserable than the Bucks fan base has to be the Seattle Supersonics former fan base.
You can say that you don't like when people make excuses like that, but they are legitimate. Attracting NBA players to play in a small market (no national fan base like the GBP) in the middle of winter when they can have the exact opposite and the same contract is nearly impossible.
Wasn't Boylan also interim head coach the last time Skiles was fired?
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on January 08, 2013, 07:12:44 AM
+1
Also, I'm pretty sure Kohl doesn't involve himself in day to day operations as much as he used to. I think that was part of the deal when Hammonds took over the GM job.
Kohl won't sell the Bucks and they aren't going anywhere. Other teams will move first.
Probably True....But he is no spring chicken and if he were to have health problems or pass away anything goes. I have no idea of his heirs or plans for the team in this scenario and don't know if he has ever discussed.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on January 08, 2013, 08:24:43 AM
That is exactly what I'm saying. They need to suck in a year when there is actual talent at the top of the lottery. Not when there is Andrew Bogut. OKC got lucky in so many ways.
But, the Bogut draft was a good year to suck. Chris Paul was picked 4th, the Bucks had their opportunity. Paul is the type of star player that can change a franchise, because others want to play with him.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 08, 2013, 09:08:50 AM
Wasn't Boylan also interim head coach the last time Skiles was fired?
Yes. He coached the Bulls to finish out the season in 2008.
Quote from: RJax55 on January 08, 2013, 09:14:03 AM
But, the Bogut draft was a good year to suck. Chris Paul was picked 4th, the Bucks had their opportunity. Paul is the type of star player that can change a franchise, because others want to play with him.
I agree. Sadly, it is nearly impossible for any franchise to pass up a 7 footer that was just a Naismith and Wooden winner... and top vote getter for All American. It is just too bad that Bogut was never the difference maker that Milwaukee needed.
As a Bucks fan and season ticket holder, I've been waiting for this move for a long time. It's been clear that the players didn't like Skiles at all (and by accounts that have come out today, the feeling was mutual), and his rigid rotations bordered on ridiculous. A player would start one night, not see the game the next three, then play 25 minutes the next game. Whenever a game started to get away from him, you would just see Skiles sitting on the bench looking dejected, rather than coaching and making adjustments. He had one playoff appearance, and that had very little to do with him, as the team simply caught lightning in a bottle the second half of the season to get in.
Looking ahead, it's hard to see which way the team goes. Kelvin Sampson was very well liked and respected by the players, and is widely regarded as a head coach somewhere next season. I think he has the acumen to be successful (and can't get pinched for violations in the NBA), but I can also see the Bucks wanting to start fresh with someone who has zero ties to Skiles' career here. It'll be an assistant from somewhere most likely, as the current roster's prospects aren't enough to attract a top-level coach. I think Boylan will coach out the year, and they'll go from there. Would still love to backdoor into the playoffs, as that would make it a more attractive landing spot for a coach.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on January 08, 2013, 08:24:43 AM
That is exactly what I'm saying. They need to suck in a year when there is actual talent at the top of the lottery. Not when there is Andrew Bogut. OKC got lucky in so many ways.
1. SEATTLE sucked at the right time.
2. SEATTLE got the second pick in the NBA Lotto.
3. Portland picked Greg Oden over Kevin Durant.
4. Portland picked Kevin Durant.
5. SEATTLE sucked enough to get the 4th pick in the lotto the next year!
6. SEATTLE picked Russell Westbrook
7. SEATTLE moves to OKC
8. OKC sucked enough AGAIN to get a top 3 pick... James Harden
This gives them 3 top 4 draft picks in 3 years... quite the core to build around. Sure, they could have missed on all 3 and drafted Oden (assuming Portland picked Durant first that year), Beasley/Mayo, and Thabeet/Rubio... But they didn't. Additionally, the people of OKC have a brand new NBA franchise (the only show in town) and pack the arena. The only fan base more miserable than the Bucks fan base has to be the Seattle Supersonics former fan base.
You can say that you don't like when people make excuses like that, but they are legitimate. Attracting NBA players to play in a small market (no national fan base like the GBP) in the middle of winter when they can have the exact opposite and the same contract is nearly impossible.
#4. Is this true? Portland picked Durant?
I dont follow the NBA--cept for MU players but not familiar with that one.
Quote from: Ahoya06 on January 08, 2013, 09:53:15 AM
As a Bucks fan and season ticket holder, I've been waiting for this move for a long time. It's been clear that the players didn't like Skiles at all (and by accounts that have come out today, the feeling was mutual), and his rigid rotations bordered on ridiculous. A player would start one night, not see the game the next three, then play 25 minutes the next game. Whenever a game started to get away from him, you would just see Skiles sitting on the bench looking dejected, rather than coaching and making adjustments. He had one playoff appearance, and that had very little to do with him, as the team simply caught lightning in a bottle the second half of the season to get in.
Looking ahead, it's hard to see which way the team goes. Kelvin Sampson was very well liked and respected by the players, and is widely regarded as a head coach somewhere next season. I think he has the acumen to be successful (and can't get pinched for violations in the NBA), but I can also see the Bucks wanting to start fresh with someone who has zero ties to Skiles' career here. It'll be an assistant from somewhere most likely, as the current roster's prospects aren't enough to attract a top-level coach. I think Boylan will coach out the year, and they'll go from there. Would still love to backdoor into the playoffs, as that would make it a more attractive landing spot for a coach.
Herb did not like the Sampson hire due to his issues in college, Herb did not want to get involved and let Skiles hire whomever he wanted, Skiles owed Sampson so he was hired, no way
Sampson is hired.
1. For those talking about the OKC model, some food for thought is that the Bucks had a 40% chance of getting the number 2 pick in the lottery before falling down to 6. Bogut/stiff/Durant/Stiff/Stiff is a a top 2 team in the East pre-Bogut fall/pre-dream team Heat.
2. Saying the Bucks could've had Paul is like saying x-team could've drafted Favre. Technically, they could have but it was a two-man draft according to convention at the time. 75% of teams would've picked Bogut, 20% would've pick Williams and maybe 5% would've picked Paul....Maybe. Bucks have screwed up a lot but you can't blame them for not drafting Paul.
Quote from: martyconlonontherun on January 08, 2013, 10:48:24 AM
1. For those talking about the OKC model, some food for thought is that the Bucks had a 40% chance of getting the number 2 pick in the lottery before falling down to 6. Bogut/stiff/Durant/Stiff/Stiff is a a top 2 team in the East pre-Bogut fall/pre-dream team Heat.
2. Saying the Bucks could've had Paul is like saying x-team could've drafted Favre. Technically, they could have but it was a two-man draft according to convention at the time. 75% of teams would've picked Bogut, 20% would've pick Williams and maybe 5% would've picked Paul....Maybe. Bucks have screwed up a lot but you can't blame them for not drafting Paul.
Actually, 4% probably would have drafted Deron Williams and 1% Paul. A 6'0" PG would never last in the NBA.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on January 08, 2013, 11:08:05 AM
Actually, 4% probably would have drafted Deron Williams and 1% Paul. A 6'0" PG would never last in the NBA.
Good catch. Meant to say 5% for either Paul or Williams.
Quote from: We R Final Four on January 08, 2013, 10:35:53 AM
#4. Is this true? Portland picked Durant?
I dont follow the NBA--cept for MU players but not familiar with that one.
Think that was a typo...pretty rare to have the top 2 picks in a draft
Quote from: BCHoopster on January 08, 2013, 10:39:09 AM
Herb did not like the Sampson hire due to his issues in college, Herb did not want to get involved and let Skiles hire whomever he wanted, Skiles owed Sampson so he was hired, no way
Sampson is hired.
Why did Skiles owe Sampson a favor?
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on January 08, 2013, 08:24:43 AM
You can say that you don't like when people make excuses like that, but they are legitimate. Attracting NBA players to play in a small market (no national fan base like the GBP) in the middle of winter when they can have the exact opposite and the same contract is nearly impossible.
Now if we apply that same logic to college basketball recruiting, maybe we should all be looking for a new team to cheer for.
Quote from: We R Final Four on January 08, 2013, 10:35:53 AM
#4. Is this true? Portland picked Durant?
I dont follow the NBA--cept for MU players but not familiar with that one.
oops... fixed.
I hope Skiles did a better job decorating La Casa de I4 than Joanie did. If not, who will be the next sucker to buy that crib?