# Who wants Brandon Jennings?



## 23isback (Mar 15, 2006)

Imo, this guy is a good player who has convinced himself that he is franchise player material. He's terribly inefficient and has a cocky way about him that I really dislike. You can't predict that your team will beat the Heat in 6 and then shoot under 22% (!) from the field over the series. He expects to be pampered and treated like a superstar and has no problem with throwing his team under the bus if he is unhappy. 

Honestly, I don't think this guy can be a starter on a team that wants to be taken seriously.


----------



## roux (Jun 20, 2006)

Which is why the bucks will overpay to bring him back, because we are a joke of a franchise


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

He is going to get so overpaid. He's such an inefficient player and his game does not lend well to winning basketball. He's worth about the mid-level and would make a good role-player (like a Jamaal Crawford) with the right attitude and coaching. Instead he's going to get paid like a star, and continue to chuck up shot after shot.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Disagree with the above. The markets changed and he deserves what Conley and affallo got. 


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

He's not very good, but he is still young. The problem for him is that there just aren't a lot of teams that are in desperate need of a point guard. Utah is basically the big player in any point guard drama this off season, but since they won't have any competition they can pick and choose. They also have pieces that they can move, in lieu of overpaying Jennings they can just trade Big Al or Milsap for a better option.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Yeah, I'm not sure if people have been paying attention but the market is flooded with point guards at the moment. The Clippers could be in the market if Howard and Paul decide to team up _after_ the Clippers deal Bledsoe and Butler for Afflalo. But it's still going to be a buyer's market.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

No one sane.


----------



## 23isback (Mar 15, 2006)

“I just want to win,” Jennings said. “The way I am playing now, I just want to go to a winning team and play like that. *I don’t care about being a superstar* or being the main guy. *I did that [the] first four years.* I just want to win and be somewhere where it’s all about winning." - Source: Yahoo Sports

looool so delusional.


----------



## roux (Jun 20, 2006)

The one thing nobody is mentioning is the shit attitude this guy has... he sulks when he gets benched on his horrible shooting nights... on more than one occasion he spent entire games refusing to shoot, and many believe he quit on the team in the second half of the season.

Brandon Jennings has some real talent and about one out of ever every four games he will look like a star, those other three games he is going to get his 20 points no matter how bad he is shooting or how it effects the team. The guy is just not worth the headache and I hope the Bucks realize it


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

So this guy will go from severely overrated to severely underrated real quick. I'm tempted to bump that thread where everyone was busting loads in their pants over his 56 point game.


----------



## roux (Jun 20, 2006)

Jamel Irief said:


> So this guy will go from severely overrated to severely underrated real quick. I'm tempted to bump that thread where everyone was busting loads in their pants over his 56 point game.


55.. I was at that game and it was the single best live basketball performance I have ever witnessed and I have been to alot of NBA games. Our franchise is so bad it's only natural to get overly excited too quickly so you can probably count me in on those nutting all over Jennings abilities... but my tune has changed drastically over the last few years and I am very ready to see him go.


----------



## 23isback (Mar 15, 2006)

Jamel Irief said:


> So this guy will go from severely overrated to severely underrated real quick. I'm tempted to bump that thread where everyone was busting loads in their pants over his 56 point game.


I don't think this dude's personality can be underrated.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

Jamel Irief said:


> So this guy will go from severely overrated to severely underrated real quick. I'm tempted to bump that thread where everyone was busting loads in their pants over his 56 point game.


allow me


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Jamel Irief said:


> So this guy will go from severely overrated to severely underrated real quick. I'm tempted to bump that thread where everyone was busting loads in their pants over his 56 point game.


Could you link it? I'm too lazy to look for it.


----------



## Dissonance (Jul 21, 2004)

23isback said:


> “I just want to win,” Jennings said. “The way I am playing now, I just want to go to a winning team and play like that. *I don’t care about being a superstar* or being the main guy. *I did that [the] first four years.* I just want to win and be somewhere where it’s all about winning." - Source: Yahoo Sports
> 
> looool so delusional.


Pretty sure he meant, "I did that," as in *care *about being a superstar the way it was worded and way said in previous part. He's not saying that he thinks he is or was a superstar - and now all a sudden just wants to win. Realized he's not and doesn't care to try to be one anymore.


----------



## 23isback (Mar 15, 2006)

Dissonance said:


> Pretty sure he meant, "I did that," as in *care *about being a superstar the way it was worded and way said in previous part. He's not saying that he thinks he is or was a superstar - and now all a sudden just wants to win. Realized he's not and doesn't care to try to be one anymore.


The fact that he sees/saw himself in that light is what rubs me the wrong way.


----------



## roux (Jun 20, 2006)

23isback said:


> The fact that he sees/saw himself in that light is what rubs me the wrong way.


Brandon Jennings has been told he is a superstar since he was 14 years old... how is that at all surprising?


----------



## 23isback (Mar 15, 2006)

roux2dope said:


> Brandon Jennings has been told he is a superstar since he was 14 years old... how is that at all surprising?


Thinking it is one thing, but vocalizing it at the expense of your teammates and franchise is another matter. Superstars let their games speak first.


----------



## spencert15 (Jun 11, 2013)

any team with a coach that can handle him. I know they couldn't sign him (and probably wouldn't anyways) but I would trust the spurs and popovich to handle jennings properly.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Well, the Spurs might be the ones to handle him, but he isn't signing an MLE deal, so it's a moot point. The one positive is that the Bucks will be breaking up the Jennings/Ellis backcourt, and that's not a bad thing for Jennings. His game has really regressed playing with Ellis, so he needs a new start somewhere else.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

E.H. Munro said:


> Well, the Spurs might be the ones to handle him, but he isn't signing an MLE deal, so it's a moot point. The one positive is that the Bucks will be breaking up the Jennings/Ellis backcourt, and that's not a bad thing for Jennings.* His game has really regressed playing with Ellis*, so he needs a new start somewhere else.


It did?


----------



## roux (Jun 20, 2006)

Jennings was benched down the stretch alot under Boylan. Ellis ran the point for us late in games


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Dornado said:


> It did?


His scoring efficiency has improved with someone else for defenders to concentrate on, but his decision making has been sort of spotty the last year and a half. It may be that he just plateaued for his talent, but I think he'd be better for a change of scenery. And I suspect the Bucks would be better going with Redick at the 2 than with the three guard lineup they were rolling out there at times last year.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Meh, he's okay I guess.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Perhaps Dallas, depending on what happens in free agency. If they strike out on Dwight and Paul, I could see them looking to turn the cap space they had for one max and change into two medium-large contracts like Jennings and Iguodala. Dirk/Carlisle/Cuban might be able to handle him better than Milwaukee could. They may even be able to build a sign-and-trade around Marion that frees up additional room.


----------



## 23isback (Mar 15, 2006)

XxIrvingxX said:


> Meh, he's okay I guess.


Why are people on this board so infatuated with highlights? The game is 48 minutes long. Shooting 35% and then hitting a gamewinner isn't a sustainable form of success at all.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

23isback said:


> Why are people on this board so infatuated with highlights? The game is 48 minutes long. Shooting 35% and then hitting a gamewinner isn't a sustainable form of success at all.


You take your logic and get the hell out of this thread guy.


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

I do agree that anyone who bases anything other than a players' entertainment value off of a highlight reel is a moron.


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

23isback said:


> Why are people on this board so infatuated with highlights? The game is 48 minutes long. Shooting 35% and then hitting a gamewinner isn't a sustainable form of success at all.


I wasn't being serious, I don't know what made you think I was with a post like "meh, he's okay I guess". 

He has his moments but he's far from being a superstar, or an all star for that matter.


----------



## hroz (Mar 4, 2006)

I think the Lakers will try get him.

Doubt he will then do anything without Kobe's approval.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Ahhh, the annual "THIS GUY SUCKS!" thread.

Awesome.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

R-Star said:


> Ahhh, the annual "THIS GUY SUCKS!" thread.
> 
> Awesome.


Actually, now that I think about it........you guys could use another floor spacer that plays both guard spots, and Milwaukee needs a big small forward who can defend AND score........just saying.........


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Bogg said:


> Actually, now that I think about it........you guys could use another floor spacer that plays both guard spots, and Milwaukee needs a big small forward who can defend AND score........just saying.........


I'm not sure what I think there. I want something good in return for Danny, but at the same time I'd be afraid that Jennings would decide hes "the guy" in Indy and take shots away from Paul and Hibbert and West.


If it was on the table I would like Indy to strongly consider it. But only if Jennings understood he's just a cog in a team system.


----------



## roux (Jun 20, 2006)

R-Star said:


> I'm not sure what I think there. I want something good in return for Danny, but at the same time I'd be afraid that Jennings would decide hes "the guy" in Indy and take shots away from Paul and Hibbert and West.
> 
> 
> If it was on the table I would like Indy to strongly consider it. But only if Jennings understood he's just a cog in a team system.


Jenngs would be a perfect 6th man in Indy. He would be a young Crawford and really bring a spark of the bench should he embrace the role, but i dont think he would. As for Granger i dont want him in Milwaukeei


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

roux2dope said:


> Jenngs would be a perfect 6th man in Indy. He would be a young Crawford and really bring a spark of the bench should he embrace the role, but i dont think he would. As for Granger i dont want him in Milwaukeei


Jennings would never play 6th man, like you said. And I'm almost sold enough on Stephenson to be ok with him starting.

Ideally for Granger I'd want a super 6th man, 2 solid bench guys, or a high draft pick. (one of those 3 options obviously. Not saying a good 6th man AND 2 bench guys or a high pick)


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

There's no doubt that Jennings is good enough to be a really good roleplayer, but he'd have to decide to play a role. The problem is that he seems set on being the guy and so far he hasn't shown that sort of ability. He seems to think he's earned a 10 or 12 million per year contract and the opposite is true. Someone probably gives him 8 and he will have to decide how he wants to proceed after that.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Yea, I think Jennings' attitude, coupled with the difficulties involved in eventually paying Hibbert AND George AND West AND Hill AND Jennings, is what eventually submarines it. I'm honestly not convinced that it isn't in the Pacers' best interests to just hold on to Granger as a sixth man who can carry the offense for stretches and another big, strong body to throw at Lebron. Sub Granger in for Sam Young in the ECF and we might have an Indy/San An Finals.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Bogg said:


> Yea, I think Jennings' attitude, coupled with the difficulties involved in eventually paying Hibbert AND George AND West AND Hill AND Jennings, is what eventually submarines it. I'm honestly not convinced that it isn't in the Pacers' best interests to just hold on to Granger as a sixth man who can carry the offense for stretches and another big, strong body to throw at Lebron. Sub Granger in for Sam Young in the ECF and we might have an Indy/San An Finals.


The only issue there is, is Granger ok going from 1st option to 6th man?

I don't think many would be.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

R-Star said:


> The only issue there is, is Granger ok going from 1st option to 6th man?
> 
> I don't think many would be.


Well, the organization certainly has some work to do on that front, especially because Granger's in a contract year, but if they can pull it off it'd be a serious win. Failing that, Cleveland has a big hole at small forward and plenty of assets.


----------



## 23isback (Mar 15, 2006)

R-Star said:


> Ahhh, the annual "THIS GUY SUCKS!" thread.
> 
> Awesome.


I missed the part where I said he sucks.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

23isback said:


> I missed the part where I said he sucks.


You did. It was all bold in comic sans. Font size 32. Actually you posted it repeatedly. It was pretty obnoxious.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Meh

He could potentially harness his skills and have an all-star year next year

Or he could just as easily regress even further

Who knows with this guy

If you're still having tooth and nail discussions about what he is 4 years in it means he isn't consistent enough...you can't have all these ifs and qualifiers for a point guard and expect to win. Let him go somewhere and humble/prove himself.

His best case scenario is to go somewhere for a longterm deal, humble himself, relearn the position, then come out on the other side a veteran asset ala a poor man's Chauncey Billups

I don't think that'll happen though he'll just be overpaid and content to put up 18 points on 43% and be a twitter celebrity...he's an example of the prep-god culture working against guys once they get to the league...he probably legit feels like he has nothing to prove because since day 1 he's had people kissing his ass. Players only improve and become consistent when they want it.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Dre said:


> Meh
> 
> He could potentially harness his skills and have an all-star year next year
> 
> ...


Point guards are a hard breed to judge. Guys like Nash and others took a long time to really break out. Not saying Jennings is the same, but 4 years in a point guards career is different than 4 years judging other positions for the most part.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

The ****ing guy has shot over 40% _once_ in his career. _Once_. That's _horrible_. On top of that, he's a lousy defender. He's a volume shooter who's only getting by on draft position and "skills." And he thinks of himself as some kind of star.

If Jennings wants to "humble himself", he should sign for pennies and accept a role somewhere as the 9th man he really is. That won't happen though, some dickweed will convince himself that Jennings is the missing piece and overpay for him. If it makes that fired-executive-to-be feel any better, I'll pay for the rope and stool he'll be shopping for once it finally dawns on him what a mistake he's made.

I don't want to hear about "skills." Everybody who comes into this league has "skills." Yet a fraction of them end up being successes for their draft position. The people who don't know when to forget about "skills" when other serious flaws are overwhelmingly present... well, some of them are the bumbling executives who are steering their franchises into the lottery every spring.

Jamel's right, fans are fickle. Jennings scores 50 points against a garbage defensive team four years ago and he's _still_ surfing on it. My lord.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Even when Nash was a lesser player though he wasn't an inefficient prima donna who thought he was perfect how he was. Nash was always at least an asset oncourt, whether as a solid Ridnourish guy or what he turned into later on. Jennings isn't always that.

That example is exactly what I was referring to though, few people work as hard as Nash and take care of themselves like him...Nash's improvement was hard earned, Billups too. Every late bloomer worked hard on their game and found the perfect coach to manifest that too. 

Will Jennings have that same dedication...plus humble himself to listen to that coach that will be hard on him to help him achieve his potential? My money is on no from everything I've seen.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Floods said:


> The ****ing guy has shot over 40% _once_ in his career. _Once_. That's _horrible_. On top of that, he's a lousy defender. He's a volume shooter who's only getting by on draft position and "skills." And he thinks of himself as some kind of star.
> 
> If Jennings wants to "humble himself", he should sign for pennies and accept a role somewhere as the 9th man he really is. That won't happen though, some dickweed will convince himself that Jennings is the missing piece and overpay for him. If it makes that fired-executive-to-be feel any better, I'll pay for the rope and stool he'll be shopping for once it finally dawns on him what a mistake he's made.
> 
> ...


Did you just call Jennings a 9th man who should sign for pennies?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Dre said:


> Even when Nash was a lesser player though he wasn't an inefficient prima donna who thought he was perfect how he was. Nash was always at least an asset oncourt, whether as a solid Ridnourish guy or what he turned into later on. Jennings isn't always that.
> 
> That example is exactly what I was referring to though, few people work as hard as Nash and take care of themselves like him...Nash's improvement was hard earned, Billups too. Every late bloomer worked hard on their game and found the perfect coach to manifest that too.
> 
> Will Jennings have that same dedication...plus humble himself to listen to that coach that will be hard on him to help him achieve his potential? My money is on no from everything I've seen.


I don't disagree that Jennings has way too big of an attitude and persona for his level of talent. It will always weigh down his career.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

I did.

Let the shitstorm rain down.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Floods said:


> I did.
> 
> Let the shitstorm rain down.


No shit storm. I already said, Jennings is the next "You think this guy is good? Well he's the worst player in the world!" player this website spends a summer on.


I expect this to happen every year. At least 1 guy gets super over rated, and 1 under rated.

Like Harden, and Manu before him on the overrated side. Now with Jennings, or shitty David West who will never help the Pacers a few years back.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Floods said:


> The ****ing guy has shot over 40% _once_ in his career. _Once_. That's _horrible_. On top of that, he's a lousy defender. He's a volume shooter who's only getting by on draft position and "skills." And he thinks of himself as some kind of star.
> 
> If Jennings wants to "humble himself", he should sign for pennies and accept a role somewhere as the 9th man he really is. That won't happen though, some dickweed will convince himself that Jennings is the missing piece and overpay for him. If it makes that fired-executive-to-be feel any better, I'll pay for the rope and stool he'll be shopping for once it finally dawns on him what a mistake he's made.
> 
> ...


Hmm....I take it you don't like him 


But if he's a 9th man then he compares to someone like Patty Mills. Is he really that inconsequential? No.

I agree, everyone has ability, but he has the ability to be one of the better PGs in the league. Top 15 in a deep era is nothing to sneeze at, no 9th man is doing that. What separates those who succeed and those who don't though is the mental makeup and specifically their decision making.

His main thing is shot selection. If he either improves his jump shot or focuses on attacking the basket that percentage will drastically go up. IF.

And then he needs to be more careful with the ball. Those are two things he is entirely *capable* of improving. He's not slow, he's not stupid (being stupid and making bad decisions aren't always one in the same), he has his moments, they're just too few and far between because he was allowed free reign as a rookie and got corrupted...same thing going on with Tyreke Evans. People still believe in these guys because their flaws are *not* insurmountable, they're up to them to harness. They rarely happen, we're fundamentally in agreement here, but I don't blame people for still believing him and he's definitely not as bad as you think.

That said I never thought he was great or going to be great...I don't remember what I said in those threads if anything but I've never thought much of him.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

Except I've never been on his jock the way some other people have.

Seriously, what is Jennings good for?

-One season shooting over 40% from the field. Not particularly good from 3. Horribly inefficient.

-Doesn't move the ball.

-Not a rebounder, average steals guy (doesn't do a great job of creating possessions for his team).

-Lousy defender.

-Attitude issues.

So what is Brandon Jennings good for? What does he do that warrants 35 minutes of playing time, aside from his status as a former 10th overall pick on a team desperate for hope?


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

And didn't I already surrender on the David West thing?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Floods said:


> Except I've never been on his jock the way some other people have.
> 
> Seriously, what is Jennings good for?
> 
> ...


I don't think anyones selling him as a top player. Hes a volume scorer. Like James Harden. Obviously not as good, and slightly less efficient when viewing them both as number 1 options. 

Hes a fairly decent set up man. All you need to do is get it through his head that he's option 2, or more ideally option 3 on a team, and I think his career starts to look a lot better. Set him up on a team with quality bigs, and I think he'd have a career year. A hell of a lot better than a 9th man to be sure.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

Harden's a hell of a lot more efficient than Jennings, like him or not. You still haven't done anything to refute his inefficient shooting, bad defense, and attitude issues ('get it through his head' is much, much easier said than done on a 23 yr old ball player who has a massively inflated opinion of himself), or do anything else that justifies giving him a meaningful role somewhere on the basis of something other than hope against hope or his status as decent set up man, whatever that is.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Floods said:


> Harden's a hell of a lot more efficient than Jennings, like him or not. You still haven't done anything to refute his inefficient shooting, bad defense, and attitude issues ('get it through his head' is much, much easier said than done on a 23 yr old ball player who has a massively inflated opinion of himself), or do anything else that justifies giving him a meaningful role somewhere on the basis of something other than hope against hope or his status as decent set up man, whatever that is.


He plays on a bad defensive team. You put him in the right situation and who knows. Lets not make him out to be Steve Nash.

And like I said, you put him where he's not the #1 option, ideally a team with quality big men playing the ball inside, and he'll thrive. 

Why do I have to convince you of anything? If I posted some stupid Wasniak stats or whatever the new dumb voodoo science going on these days is that proves Jennings is more efficient when a guy like Ilyasova had great nights in the paint, would that somehow change your mind?

No.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

R-Star said:


> He plays on a bad defensive team. You put him in the right situation and who knows. Lets not make him out to be Steve Nash.


Riiight... there's no way he's contributing to that, he's just an innocent victim.

If he played better defense, the team's defense might not be as bad.



> And like I said, you put him where he's not the #1 option, ideally a team with quality big men playing the ball inside, and he'll thrive.


So would a lot of inefficient young guards who have no business being starters in this league.



> Why do I have to convince you of anything?


I don't know, but here you are.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Floods said:


> Riiight... there's no way he's contributing to that, he's just an innocent victim.
> 
> If he played better defense, the team's defense might not be as bad.
> 
> ...


To quote Floods, "QUOTE IT! QUOTE WHERE I SAID THAT OR YOU'RE A LIAR!"

Where exactly did I say the team was bad defensively in spite of Jennings? All I said was, move him to a good defensive coach and team, and maybe things change. It happens all the time.

And I'm sorry, if you're going to state again that he has no business as a starter, we're done here. I'm not wasting pages trying to explain to you something you can't understand. You wasted enough of mine and others time in the David West thread.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

> Where exactly did I say the team was bad defensively in spite of Jennings? All I said was, move him to a good defensive coach and team, and maybe things change.


Maybe? So now he's starter material because he's a 'decent set up man' and things _might_ change if you put him on a better defensive team (that would only hide his deficiencies)? What if that 'maybe' doesn't come through, then what are you left with? A backup.



> It happens all the time.


Does it?

Clearly you don't have a lot to bring to the table if a non-sequitur David West reference is your best argument, so yeah. Enjoy your day.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Floods said:


> Maybe? So now he's starter material because he's a 'decent set up man' and things _might_ change if you put him on a better defensive team (that would only hide his deficiencies)? What if that 'maybe' doesn't come through, then what are you left with? A backup.
> 
> 
> Does it?
> ...


Jennings is 8th in scoring for point guards. He's actually 3rd in 3 point percentage out of the top 10 scoring point guards. So.... you know... if you put him in a system with 2 good bigs like I said, maybe, and I might be crazy here but just maybe.... he'd accel. Inside out game and all, you know. 

He's 15th in assists, with a decent assist to turnover ratio. So yea, he's a "decent" set up man. 

Hes also 12th in steals.


And his defense? I'm glad hes all the sudden turned into a Steve Nash level defender in your eyes. That's cute.



But you know what's really cute though Floods? Every year, every single one, you're the guy to run in and jump right on the "This player people think is good really sucks!" Every single time. I think it makes you feel special.

And then when you're wrong months later? Nowhere to be seen.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

He's a volume shooter because he's been asked to be, I mean who's he passing to besides Monta (especially before Monta)? Mike Dunleavy, Mbah Moute, Larry Sanders, Drew Gooden, etc. are all defensive specialists or worse. I get that he's been inefficient, and I think that's the type of player he is to an extent, but the kid has talent. Hard to imagine he wouldn't play better on a better team supposing he kept his focus and wasn't forcing up shots, and I'm not talking about being a 10 mpg heat-check guy either. 

His assist to turnover ratio is solid (and has room to improve in a higher quality offense), and last season he was a top 10 three point shooter. 7th in the NBA in 3g attempts, and 9th in 3g percentage (173-461 = 37.5%). Passing and three point shooting mixed with that type of quickness can be a weapon if channeled properly. Given the fact he's still very young and he never played college ball, I think he gets solid money...something in the double digits (10 mil+) at the very least.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

BlakeJesus said:


> He's a volume shooter because he's been asked to be, I mean who's he passing to besides Monta (especially before Monta)? Mike Dunleavy, Mbah Moute, Larry Sanders, Drew Gooden, etc. are all defensive specialists or worse. I get that he's been inefficient, and I think that's the type of player he is to an extent, but the kid has talent. Hard to imagine he wouldn't play better on a better team supposing he kept his focus and wasn't forcing up shots, and I'm not talking about being a 10 mpg heat-check guy either.
> 
> His assist to turnover ratio is solid (and has room to improve in a higher quality offense), and last season he was a top 10 three point shooter. 7th in the NBA in 3g attempts, and 9th in 3g percentage (173-461 = 37.5%). Passing and three point shooting mixed with that type of quickness can be a weapon if channeled properly. Given the fact he's still very young and he never played college ball, I think he gets solid money...something in the double digits (10 mil+) at the very least.


Yep. Which is fine. That's a hell of a lot more plausible to me than a guy coming in and saying hes a 9th man who should take a scrub contract.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

R-Star said:


> Jennings is 8th in scoring for point guards. He's actually 3rd in 3 point percentage out of the top 10 scoring point guards.


8th in scoring means dick when he's not even at 40% shooting. Anyone in this league can put up a scoring average if you give them enough shots.

37.5% on threes is solid, but not great. Definitely not enough to offset his putrid overall FG%.



> So.... you know... if you put him in a system with 2 good bigs like I said, maybe, and I might be crazy here but just maybe.... he'd accel. Inside out game and all, you know.


There's that 'maybe' again.

The situation you're suggesting would make him successful would probably make a lot of other guys look successful too, guys that would probably come a bit cheaper.



> He's 15th in assists, with a decent assist to turnover ratio. So yea, he's a "decent" set up man.


That's nice.

All you've managed to convince me of so far is that he's Eddie House with less shooting ability but better passing.



> Hes also 12th in steals.


12th when? Wasn't 12th this season, according to basketball reference. T15th total, 19th in average.

1.6 is a modest steals total (great ball thieves are relatively rare), so that doesn't make him particularly adept at creating possessions for his team. Steals also have little relevance to defensive abilities.



> And his defense? I'm glad hes all the sudden turned into a Steve Nash level defender in your eyes. That's cute.


Thanks.



> But you know what's really cute though Floods? Every year, every single one, you're the guy to run in and jump right on the "This player people think is good really sucks!" Every single time. I think it makes you feel special.
> 
> And then when you're wrong months later? Nowhere to be seen.


If you keep yelling at me, you can't come over to play xbox later.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

R-Star said:


> Yep. Which is fine. That's a hell of a lot more plausible to me than a guy coming in and saying hes a 9th man who should take a scrub contract.


The scrub contract's for if he really wants to "humble himself", as Dre said. He should take whatever he can get.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Floods said:


> 8th in scoring means dick when he's not even at 40% shooting. Anyone in this league can put up a scoring average if you give them enough shots.
> 
> 37.5% on threes is solid, but not great. Definitely not enough to offset his putrid overall FG%.
> 
> ...


The stats were shown against other point guards. That's why I said "for point guards"


And now hes Eddie House?

I'm not wasting my time with that.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Floods said:


> The scrub contract's for if he really wants to "humble himself", as Dre said. He should take whatever he can get.


...but he's still a 9th man at best right?


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

BlakeJesus said:


> He's a volume shooter because he's been asked to be, I mean who's he passing to besides Monta (especially before Monta)? Mike Dunleavy, Mbah Moute, Larry Sanders, Drew Gooden, etc. are all defensive specialists or worse. I get that he's been inefficient, and I think that's the type of player he is to an extent, but the kid has talent. Hard to imagine he wouldn't play better on a better team supposing he kept his focus and wasn't forcing up shots, and I'm not talking about being a 10 mpg heat-check guy either.
> 
> His assist to turnover ratio is solid (and has room to improve in a higher quality offense), and last season he was a top 10 three point shooter. 7th in the NBA in 3g attempts, and 9th in 3g percentage (173-461 = 37.5%). Passing and three point shooting mixed with that type of quickness can be a weapon if channeled properly. Given the fact he's still very young and he never played college ball, I think he gets solid money...something in the double digits (10 mil+) at the very least.


Name all the teams who need to give a point guard bad enough to give him 10 million dollars and have the ability to pay one that. I am not saying it can't happen, but there just aren't a lot of teams out there who have both the desire and the ability to give him that sort of deal. 

Utah is the one team that has the means and the need to do it, but they could probably get Rondo if they cuddled Ainge a bit. They could possibly get Trey Burke or Shane Larkin in the draft as well. Since they can move Big Al and/or Milsap they have a ton of options. 

For Jennings to get that sort of contract he's going to need more than one team that wants him pretty badly and I just can't see who they would be.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

R-Star said:


> ...but he's still a 9th man at best right?


No, he's a bench player or highly replaceable fifth starter at best. 9th man is more realistic.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

If the Bucks don't offer him an extension, and no team in FA will, he's going to just take the QO and try again next season. He's going to be what, 24 next offseason? Who knows how the league can shuffle in a years time.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Diable said:


> Name all the teams who need to give a point guard bad enough to give him 10 million dollars and have the ability to pay one that. I am not saying it can't happen, but there just aren't a lot of teams out there who have both the desire and the ability to give him that sort of deal.
> 
> Utah is the one team that has the means and the need to do it, but they could probably get Rondo if they cuddled Ainge a bit. They could possibly get Trey Burke or Shane Larkin in the draft as well. Since they can move Big Al and/or Milsap they have a ton of options.
> 
> For Jennings to get that sort of contract he's going to need more than one team that wants him pretty badly and I just can't see who they would be.


He'll get 10 or slightly more a year. 

I'd be fine to make some sort of avatar bet on that if you'd like.


And I mean, I don't even like the guy. But I just find it tiresome on here to find guys constantly pull a "Well I don't think hes worth that much, so GM's must agree."


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Floods said:


> No, he's a bench player or highly replaceable fifth starter at best. 9th man is more realistic.


And you've gauged that from the countless Bucks games you've watched during 23 year old Brandons 4 year career correct?


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

R-Star said:


> The stats were shown against other point guards. That's why I said "for point guards"


You only specified 'for point guards' with the 8th in scoring.

Point still stands. Great ball thieves are rare, and Jennings isn't one.



> And now hes Eddie House?
> 
> I'm not wasting my time with that.


Okay.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

R-Star said:


> And you've gauged that from the countless Bucks games you've watched during 23 year old Brandons 4 year career correct?


Yep.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

I'm glad you don't feel the need to convince me of anything.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Floods said:


> Yep.


That's an extremely stupid thing to say. 

And that's without even taking your horrid history when it comes to matters such as this.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Floods said:


> I'm glad you don't feel the need to convince me of anything.


There's no point of trying to convince something to a guy who clearly doesn't watch basketball.


"I LIKE THE HEAT! What? They lost this year? Oh! Well I'm a CELTICS fan AGAIN! YAY!"


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

R-Star said:


> There's no point of trying to convince something to a guy who clearly doesn't watch basketball.


That's why you've spent the past two hours trying to do just that.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Floods said:


> That's why you've spent the past two hours trying to do just that.


See, you spending time on here is you sitting behind your computer, wasting your day away posting over and over again "Brandon Jennings sucks! YOU SUX!"

For me, I'm at work, watching a movie. 

You are entertaining me with your stupidity.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

Are we at the 'I have a great job and I'm a lot more successful than you will ever be' part of the argument? Because I wasn't ready for the 'Floods is a bandwagoner and has no credibility' part to end.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Floods said:


> Are we at the 'I have a great job and I'm a lot more successful than you will ever be' part of the argument? Because I wasn't ready for the 'Floods is a bandwagoner and has no credibility' part to end.


Nah. Just talking in reality.

I'm at work. You're at home. Who's wasting their time?


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

Look, R-Star, here's the thing. I like you, I missed you while you were gone, and was genuinely happy to see you come back, because you create discussion on a board that's starting to dip in that regard. But we disagree on this. Pretty strongly it appears. I think Jennings is garbage, you think he's a solid starter. Whatever. Why you're getting this worked up over the opinions of a guy who hasn't played basketball since 5th grade and has nothing important going on tonight or in the forseeable future, I'm not sure.

If you want my two cents, save the vitriol for Mamba, AJ, and drizzay, because the three of them combined are a stupidity force from hell that will ruin the site if they're not run out sooner rather than later. You got rid of AJ once, you can do it again. That would be a much more productive use your time then trying to strangle me over some point guard who plays for the Milwaukee Bucks.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Floods said:


> Look, R-Star, here's the thing. I like you, I missed you while you were gone, and was genuinely happy to see you come back, because you create discussion on a board that's starting to dip in that regard. But we disagree on this. Pretty strongly it appears. I think Jennings is garbage, you think he's a solid starter. Whatever. Why you're getting this worked up over the opinions of a guy who hasn't played basketball since 5th grade and has nothing important going on tonight or in the forseeable future, I'm not sure.
> 
> If you want my two cents, save the vitriol for Mamba, AJ, and drizzay, because the three of them combined are a stupidity force from hell that will ruin the site if they're not run out sooner rather than later. You got rid of AJ once, you can do it again.


You have become fragile over the years if you find my previous posts as me being "worked up".


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

Floods said:


> Except I've never been on his jock the way some other people have.
> 
> Seriously, what is Jennings good for?
> 
> ...


39.9% is 40%, squabbling over two or three shots over 80 games is semantics. And I don't understand how you can say he's not a good three point shooter, the issue has never been shot making ability it's always been shot taking decisions. 

He can pass, he does have court vision, but he definitely doesn't enjoy passing to the incapable offensive players he's been around through his career. He's been basically the best offensive option on every team he's been on, and he came in highly inexperienced. 

And I don't know how you define average, but he was 19th overall in steals per game last season and 12th the prior season. If that's average to you than you're not being realistic.

His attitude could make or break him, but he definitely loves basketball.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

When someone makes things personal and has their message board opinions history on retainer I'm inclined to think they're a little worked up, but whatever. I'm really not in the mood for WW3 right now.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

R-Star said:


> He'll get 10 or slightly more a year.
> 
> *I'd be fine to make some sort of avatar bet on that if you'd like.*
> 
> ...


I forbid that, Bender needs to stay.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

BlakeJesus said:


> 39.9% is 40%, squabbling over two or three shots over 80 games is semantics. And I don't understand how you can say he's not a good three point shooter, the issue has never been shot making ability it's always been shot taking decisions.
> 
> He can pass, he does have court vision, but he definitely doesn't enjoy passing to the incapable offensive players he's been around through his career. He's been basically the best offensive option on every team he's been on, and he came in highly inexperienced.
> 
> ...


39.9% is 39.9%. He's solid from three but not great.

If he can't adapt to the team game when he's the best player on his squad, how is that supposed to bode well for life as a second or third option or less?

1.6 is a modest steals average.

His attitude is a negative right now and attitudes do not change overnight, and it's far from a guarantee if will change at all. If they did, there would be a lot less busts in this league.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Floods said:


> When someone makes things personal and has their message board opinions history on retainer I'm inclined to think they're a little worked up, but whatever. I'm really not in the mood for WW3 right now.


I told you I disagreed with your opinion of Jennings being a 9th string bench player. I used your David West sucks thread as reference that you love to pile on quasi star players every offseason.

You've decided to try to derail things after that. Which is fine. But be clear, me disagreeing with such an idiotic statement isn't me getting worked up.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

You're right, I'm overly sensitive. I'm sorry.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

hobojoe said:


> I forbid that, Bender needs to stay.


I wouldn't worry. Jennings will win me that bet.


Plus, I think we both know Diable isn't going to risk unchaining Django.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Floods said:


> You're right, I'm overly sensitive. I'm sorry.


Its ok, Tetris champ.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

I need to punish myself for being so sensitive. Should I cut my wrists in the bathtub?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Seems rather drastic to me.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

On the living room floor, then?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

You're a dark person, aren't you?


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

I'm whiter than the paint on my walls. Well before the wrist cutting anyway.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Floods said:


> I'm whiter than the paint on my walls. Well before the wrist cutting anyway.


Ha. I knew I could trust you to turn that the way I wanted. But you could have tried to call me racist instead. But you're just too stupid you worthless white hillbilly.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

I think he gets around 8 myself. So I'm not going to act like he couldn't get 10. I just don't see where he gets it from. I am fairly sure you could name 20 point guards who are better than him, and possibly more. 

Most of the teams that don't have better PG's are going to be content to suck next year and amass ping pong balls. Like I said, where are the teams lining up to pay Brandon Jennings?


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

It's not great, I get the point, but you can just say that instead of saying 39.9% is not 40%. Math isn't that hard.

It's easier to be a 3rd option than a 1st option, I don't think that's a hard basketball concept to grasp. 

In the context of what? Because it's in the upper tier compared to his peers and I don't know who else you'd be comparing him to. I get there are a pool of players behind him who are more skilled but don't get the minutes to fluff up their average, but you can't act like that pool of players is half the league.

It's not like the Bucks are bending over backwards for him and he's still wanting to test the market, they publically said they're considering not signing him. Would you be super positive about that situation?


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

You just spent a full page talking positively about a black man, I don't know if racist really describes you.

Back to more important things though. What kind of knife should I use?


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

Diable said:


> I think he gets around 8 myself. So I'm not going to act like he couldn't get 10. I just don't see where he gets it from. I am fairly sure you could name 20 point guards who are better than him, and possibly more.
> 
> Most of the teams that don't have better PG's are going to be content to suck next year and amass ping pong balls. Like I said, where are the teams lining up to pay Brandon Jennings?


His next contract doesn't have to come during this offseason.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Diable said:


> I think he gets around 8 myself. So I'm not going to act like he couldn't get 10. I just don't see where he gets it from. I am fairly sure you could name 20 point guards who are better than him, and possibly more.
> 
> Most of the teams that don't have better PG's are going to be content to suck next year and amass ping pong balls. Like I said, where are the teams lining up to pay Brandon Jennings?


20?

No.

Hell, again I don't even like him, and I'm a huge George Hill supporter, but I wouldn't say Hill is the better player.

I'd rather Hill on the Pacers over Jennings, sure. But he isn't a better player.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

BlakeJesus said:


> It's not great, I get the point, but you can just say that instead of saying 39.9% is not 40%. Math isn't that hard.


I learned in my math class that 39.9% is 39.9%. But I was never a great math student so don't listen to me.



> It's easier to be a 3rd option than a 1st option, I don't think that's a hard basketball concept to grasp.


How will he adjust to the team game when he's _not_ the man if he couldn't do it when he _was_ the man?



> In the context of what? Because it's in the upper tier compared to his peers and I don't know who else you'd be comparing him to. I get there are a pool of players behind him who are more skilled but don't get the minutes to fluff up their average, but you can't act like that pool of players is half the league.


A guy gets 1.6 steals a game isn't a great steals guy. In my opinion of course. 2 a game is my personal cutoff, but I guess we could round 1.6 up to that, ay?

You win. I lose.



> It's not like the Bucks are bending over backwards for him and he's still wanting to test the market, they publically said they're considering not signing him. Would you be super positive about that situation?


I don't follow. So his attitude problems are the organization's fault?


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Paul, Parker, Westbrook, Irving, Deron, Rose, Curry, Conley, Rondo, Lawson, Wall, Rubio, Jrue, Lillard, Vasquez, Teague, Jack, Felton

That's 18...If I go any lower it gets a bit sketchy, but you can go ahead and argue any of those guys are worse than Jennings if you want. I could throw in Isaiah Thomas, Lowry, Dragic and Nate RObinson, Monta Ellis...all of those guys are on the same level as Jennings. Left Nash out, because I don't know what to think about him right now. Really perplexed by his play last year.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

Diable said:


> Paul, Parker, Westbrook, Irving, Deron, Rose, Curry, Conley, Rondo, Lawson, Wall, Rubio, Jrue, Lillard, Vasquez, Teague, Jack,
> 
> That's 17...If I go any lower it gets a bit sketchy, but you can go ahead and argue any of those guys are worse than Jennings if you want.


Paul as in Chris Paul?

nvm, I was looking for 'Williams' and missed 'Deron'. Another reason to kill myself


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Diable said:


> Paul, Parker, Westbrook, Irving, Deron, Rose, Curry, Conley, Rondo, Lawson, Wall, Rubio, Jrue, Lillard, Vasquez, Teague, Jack,
> 
> That's 17...If I go any lower it gets a bit sketchy, but you can go ahead and argue any of those guys are worse than Jennings if you want.


Yea, I could argue Vasquez, Teague and Jack are worse. I'll give you the first 14 though obviously.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

Floods said:


> I learned in my math class that 39.9% is 39.9%. But I was never a great math student so don't listen to me.
> 
> 
> How will he adjust to the team game when he's _not_ the man if he couldn't do it when he _was_ the man?
> ...


Not being able to take 17 shots means you're having to pick your shots instead of forcing them, not to mention that when you're the third option you get higher quality looks than when you are the main focus of the defense.

There is at least one tier in between average and great, and I would argue he's on that tier. Calling him average is underrating him, and saying he's not great is obvious. 

It's not a positive situation, so a less than positive reaction is predictable. I don't think he's a locker room cancer or anything like that though, which is what I would assume you're getting at when you say he has attitude problems.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

Considering how bad his FG percentages are, the rest of his game would have to be pretty damn good to make him above average, and that's not the case.

Being a third option means having to play more within a team concept than if you're the number one guy. That's a big adjustment for a guy like him.

His attitude issues are mostly connected to his game. Doesn't like team play, awful shot selection, lazy defender, poor work ethic. Shit like this does not just magically get solved. But you're the guy who thinks everyone has talent and everyone's career is salvageable and there's a reason to think everyone will succeed so there you go. I lose, you win. Why are we still here?

And I don't appreciate my suicide posts being deleted, whoever that was. Very insensitive to my plight.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

Do you think he's completely hit his ceiling as a player?


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

I have no reason to think otherwise.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

Floods said:


> I have no reason to think otherwise.


Even though he just had a career year as a 23 year old from a three point shooting percentage despite also taking more than he ever has? Even though as a 23 year old he just put up a career year in terms of assists per game? Even though he took and made more free throws than any previous season? 

I'm not saying he's going to be Steph Curry in three years, but he's showing improvements. Part of that can be attributed to his progression as a player, and I think part of that should be attributed to the quality of that roster improving.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

Three point shooting was never a weakness of his, assists are a garbage stat (but I was wrong about David West so take that with a grain of salt), free throws taken increased this year because he played more 14 games than last year, and the percentage isn't a significant increase.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

most of jennings problems are with his mindset(stat padding non-defensive playing diva) , not talent ....and generally a lot of those problems subside once a player settles into his 1st big contract and grows up a little and decides to play winning basketball.

the question is will it happen in his 1st couple of years or towards the end when its time for a new deal. if it happens towards the end if it doesn't happen then, he starts getting treated with the jr smith contracts that pay him a fraction of his worth as he has proven he is a knucklehead.

on talent he is in the steph curry range less shooting prowess but a better facilitator for others, if he takes the long 20ft contested jumpshots "because i just feel like hoisting" out of his game and genuinely works to keep his teammates involved. dynamic shotmakers who can continually get into the lane are relatively rare despite this golden age for a point guard

i just dont see it happening for a few years, i wouldn't give him more than the mle just because there is no reason to pay him to screw around til he figures it out.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Wow, the last 70 or so posts are pretty depressing. Can someone who cares and/or is E-friends with floods talk to him so that I don't feel guilty making fun of him going forward?


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

Jamel Irief said:


> Wow, the last 70 or so posts are pretty depressing. Can someone who cares and/or is E-friends with floods talk to him so that I don't feel guilty making fun of him going forward?


You should have seen the 20-30 posts I deleted, it went downhill so fast and never looked back.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

BlakeJesus said:


> You should have seen the 20-30 posts I deleted, it went downhill so fast and never looked back.


Thanks for the help jerks.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Why Rubio so highly thought of? He isn't helping his team pick up wins. Who cares if he's "unselfish?"


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

HKF said:


> Why Rubio so highly thought of? He isn't helping his team pick up wins. Who cares if he's "unselfish?"


Because no one made a thread saying how secretly he's a terrible player because new Walburg stats show that he only scores a 24 Winston number. 

This place does this every year man. Its pathetic.

Go ahead, make a Rubio thread. I've got $100 bucks saying the same usual posters jump in with "Yea, you're right, I always thought he sucked. I look smart now too right?"


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

HKF said:


> Why Rubio so highly thought of? He isn't helping his team pick up wins. Who cares if he's "unselfish?"


Minnesota had Rubio and Love in the starting lineup together for exactly 0 of their 82 games this year. He impacts the game and makes others better, the winning will come. He's 22 years old and wasn't playing with a whole lot of talent.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

hobojoe said:


> Minnesota had Rubio and Love in the starting lineup together for exactly 0 of their 82 games this year. He impacts the game and makes others better, the winning will come. He's 22 years old and wasn't playing with a whole lot of talent.


Jennings is 23, and has arguably played with less talent. So that argument obviously pertains to both players.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

HKF said:


> Why Rubio so highly thought of? He isn't helping his team pick up wins. Who cares if he's "unselfish?"



I said he was better than jennings...I don't think he's a top ten point guard however. He is right in that area, but there are a lot of guys who can help you more than Rubio can up to now. He is a really gifted passer who needs to improve as a scorer and especially shooting the ball.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

R-Star said:


> Jennings is 23, and has arguably played with less talent. So that argument obviously pertains to both players.


I'm with you on Jennings. He needs a change of scenery, but I'm sure as hell not giving up on a 23 year old with the talent he has.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

R-Star said:


> Jennings is 23, and has arguably played with less talent. So that argument obviously pertains to both players.


I agree. As I said, I think the big problem is that he and his backcourt mate in Milwaukee are a terrible fit. Hopefully he get the hell out of Milwaukee.


----------



## 23isback (Mar 15, 2006)

E.H. Munro said:


> I agree. As I said, I think the big problem is that he and his backcourt mate in Milwaukee are a terrible fit. Hopefully he get the hell out of Milwaukee.


It's Monta's fault that Jennings is a chucker and average-at-best defensive player? Good players on bad teams should put up good numbers like T-Mac in Orlando and Iverson on the Sixers. 

If he's playing bad on a bad team why is there any reason to believe he'll become good on a good team? He's not stellar at hero ball and doesn't seem to have respect for his teammates...still don't see why anyone would want him as their point guard of the future.


----------



## 23isback (Mar 15, 2006)

BlakeJesus said:


> Even though he just had a career year as a 23 year old from a three point shooting percentage despite also taking more than he ever has? Even though as a 23 year old he just put up a career year in terms of assists per game? Even though he took and made more free throws than any previous season?
> 
> I'm not saying he's going to be Steph Curry in three years, but he's showing improvements. Part of that can be attributed to his progression as a player, and I think part of that should be attributed to the quality of that roster improving.


Career year from 3 by .01% from his ROOKIE season. Not much of an improvement. 6.5 assists is pretty average and him getting to the line is negated by his horrible percentage at the rim (42.57%!) which is well below the league average. Also you can't just gloss over the fact that he's terribly inefficient overall at 39%. 

His improvements have been minimal...if you can call it improvement. If anything he regressed from last year because he spent the entire season pouting to the press.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

23isback said:


> It's Monta's fault that Jennings is a chucker and average-at-best defensive player?


Could you show me where I said that? It's no more Ellis' fault than Jennings' that their skillsets don't mesh. They simply don't work well together, and if Jennings is going to finally put it together, it's not going to be as the other guy in a three guard lineup.


----------



## 23isback (Mar 15, 2006)

E.H. Munro said:


> Could you show me where I said that? It's no more Ellis' fault than Jennings' that their skillsets don't mesh. They simply don't work well together, and if Jennings is going to finally put it together, it's not going to be as the other guy in a three guard lineup.


I guess I assumed that's what you meant lol. :cheers:

What is Jennings' skillset exactly?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

23isback said:


> I guess I assumed that's what you meant lol. :cheers:
> 
> What is Jennings' skillset exactly?


A scoring guard who isn't suited as first option.

Many here have said that already.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

R-Star said:


> A scoring guard who isn't suited as first option.
> 
> Many here have said that already.


Right. I didn't realize that for a scoring guard to be useful he has to be capable of putting up T-Mac/Iverson numbers. 


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

hobojoe said:


> Right. I didn't realize that for a scoring guard to be useful he has to be capable of putting up T-Mac/Iverson numbers.
> 
> 
> Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


You're a loser if you don't.


----------



## 23isback (Mar 15, 2006)

Lol I admit I was reaching a bit with the Iverson/T-Mac reference.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Jennings is a talented player. I'm not going to pretend like I watch a lot of bucks' ball, because honestly why would I haha (sorry roux!) but from what I've seen he does not lack the ability to be a good point guard. The mental aspect is certainly a problem, and he desperately needs a change of scenery where he's not a team's best player, but I think he's salvageable.

Put him on the right team in the east and he could sniff an all star spot down the road


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Luke said:


> Jennings is a talented player. I'm not going to pretend like I watch a lot of bucks' ball, because honestly why would I haha (sorry roux!) but from what I've seen he does not lack the ability to be a good point guard. The mental aspect is certainly a problem, and he desperately needs a change of scenery where he's not a team's best player, but I think he's salvageable.
> 
> *Put him on the right team in the east and he could sniff an all star spot down the road*
> 
> ...


Is the point guard position out West honestly all that much better?


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

I'd say there's a better crop of guards out west. All star selections aren't strictly positional right? Like the all NBA teams.

Rose coming back healthy would make it closer though.


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Luke said:


> I'd say there's a better crop of guards out west. All star selections aren't strictly positional right? Like the all NBA teams.
> 
> Rose coming back healthy would make it closer though.
> 
> ...


As would Rondo. 

Point is, I don't see the need to pull this "If he stays out East" like its a weaker crop nonsense.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

R-Star said:


> As would Rondo.
> 
> Point is, I don't see the need to pull this "If he stays out East" like its a weaker crop nonsense.


Sensitive.

Kobe, Paul, Parker, Curry, Westbrook, and Harden >>> Rose, Wade, Williams, and Rondo.


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Luke said:


> Sensitive.
> 
> Kobe, Paul, Parker, Curry, Westbrook, and Harden >>> Rose, Wade, Williams, and Rondo.
> 
> ...


Kyrie Irving. 

You always seem to want to talk down to the East like it somehow props up the West.

There is 0 guard discrepancy between either conference.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Yeah you could throw all 110 career games of kyrie in there. That's fair.

The West still has better guards though.


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Luke said:


> Yeah you could throw all 110 career games of kyrie in there. That's fair.
> 
> The West still has better guards though.
> 
> ...


Nah. But it sure makes you feel better when you say that though, doesn't it?


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

R-Star said:


> Nah. But it sure makes you feel better when you say that though, doesn't it?


According to you rose is a pussy and wade is a shell. Unless you have a much higher opinion of deron Williams, Rajon Rondo and Kyrie Irving than I do I just don't know how you'd come to that conclusion


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Luke said:


> According to you rose is a pussy and wade is a shell. Unless you have a much higher opinion of deron Williams, Rajon Rondo and Kyrie Irving than I do I just don't know how you'd come to that conclusion
> 
> 
> Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


How does Rose looking bad in my eyes for not coming back in the playoff change his overall skill level when compared to other players?

And yes, I do have a fairly high view on Rondo, Williams and Kyrie, as they are top 10 pg's.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

All I'm saying is that I'd take every single west guard I listed over every single east guard listed except for Rose.


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Luke said:


> All I'm saying is that I'd take every single west guard I listed over every single east guard listed except for Rose.
> 
> 
> Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


Of course you would. Because the West is the greatest ever, and even though hes been in the league 18 years and currently out with the biggest injury of his career, Kobe is still the greatest as well, and even though you talked about Irvings injury history we shouldn't talk about Russ having a major injury just a month or so ago......

You're very bias when it comes to some things. We've been over that many times. That's fine, to each his own. But I think most people would disagree there's some huge discrepancy in talent amoung guards in the East and West. So the fact you always state your opinion like its some sort of fact, and not just one persons opinion, is a little ridiculous.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

I LITERALLY said all I'm saying is I'd take any of the west guards over any of the east guards excluding rose. How is that attempting to state a fact rather than an opinion?

Speaking of injuries, Wade is constantly hobbled and Rose hasn't played through midway through 2012. So injuries are pretty much a wash. 

IN MY OPINION the west has better guard play. If you want to debate that opinion, that's fine. I don't personally see how an objective basketball fan could come to that conclusion, but by all means give it you best shot.


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Luke said:


> I LITERALLY said all I'm saying is I'd take any of the west guards over any of the east guards excluding rose. How is that attempting to state a fact rather than an opinion?
> 
> Speaking of injuries, Wade is constantly hobbled and Rose hasn't played through midway through 2012. So injuries are pretty much a wash.
> 
> ...


That is the important part that you always refuse to insert into your posts.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

If you take five of the best guards from the West and compare it with five of the best guards from the East, I honestly don't see how anyone could take the guards from the East. Even with Irving, who's proven himself to already be a top 5 scoring point guard in the league, I just can't see it.

Rose has getting hammered with injuries, and only has an undeserved MVP to his name, Rondo's excellent at getting others involved and killed us in the playoffs but he's an idiot and has his limitations offensively, and Wade's no longer the player he once was which is painfully obvious. Williams and Irving are both great but I can't find a PG from Luke's list of west guards who can't have the kind of production Williams and Irving have besides maybe Harden. 

I know it's just your opinion R-Star, but why do you think there's no talent difference in regards to the guards?


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

R-Star just doesn't like agreeing with me. I could have said Reggie miller is the greatest athlete in the history of modernized sports and he would have called me a homer and defended guys like Wade over Miller.


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Luke said:


> R-Star just doesn't like agreeing with me. I could have said Reggie miller is the greatest athlete in the history of modernized sports and he would have called me a homer and defended guys like Wade over Miller.
> 
> 
> Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


If you're using Irving as your example, I'm really going to lose a little respect on this one.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

R-Star said:


> If you're using Irving as your example, I'm really going to lose a little respect on this one.


Always knew you respected me bro.


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Luke said:


> Always knew you respected me bro.
> 
> 
> Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


Don't waste the gift I have given you.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

Brandon Jennings is pretty much another version of Lou Williams, except Jennings sees himself as being more than that. Jennings is too poor of a shooter and too much of a gunner to be considered more than a mediocre starting point guard. He may be better suited to take the Williams route and be a sparkplug off the bench for a team like Denver, but it looks like Jennings is going to have to learn the hard way.


----------



## roux (Jun 20, 2006)

Najee said:


> Brandon Jennings is pretty much another version of Lou Williams, except Jennings sees himself as being more than that. Jennings is too poor of a shooter and too much of a gunner to be considered more than a mediocre starting point guard. He may be better suited to take the Williams route and be a sparkplug off the bench for a team like Denver, but it looks like Jennings is going to have to learn the hard way.


I have seen Brandon Jennings play probably more than anyone on this site and I agree with this. I have seen Jennings look like the best player on the court for either side many times throughout his career. Unfortunately he doesn't do it with the consistency to be the "great player" he thinks he is. Jennings is a maddening talent, because he shows flashes of brilliance... I have seen him drop 30 on Kyrie Irving one night and then go 3-13 from the floor the next against Jarret Jack. As you said the sparkplug off the bench role is exactly what his niche in this league will be. Guys like Jamal Crawford, JR Smith and Lou Williams were very similar to Jennings early in their careers and have become key role players on very good teams because they have accepted a bench role. Jennings should be the guy that should come in in the start of the 2nd quarter and if he hits his first one or two threes you may be able to ride him all game, if he struggles sit his ass down. Brandon Jennings is a good NBA player, that in the right role with the right coach could be a great 6th man... but not a cornerstone to a franchise and not a guy a respectable team should build around


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Luke said:


> R-Star just doesn't like agreeing with me.
> 
> 
> Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


What color is the sky?


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Luke said:


> R-Star just doesn't like agreeing with me.


When will you guys learn? If you tell him you're an idiot that has no idea what he's talking about he'll agree.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Najee said:


> Brandon Jennings is pretty much another version of Lou Williams, except Jennings sees himself as being more than that. Jennings is too poor of a shooter and too much of a gunner to be considered more than a mediocre starting point guard. He may be better suited to take the Williams route and be a sparkplug off the bench for a team like Denver, but it looks like Jennings is going to have to learn the hard way.



I think this is a fair assessment of Jennings. I'm having this debate on another board where people are convinced that he's going to get an offer _starting_ at Rondo's present salary and I keep asking them "Can you show me the team that's going to pay Brandon Jennings 4/50 to come off their bench?" But they're convinced that that's the going rate for young starting guards. I just don't think that Lou Williams types merit that kind of pay.


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

Dude put Fidi in the bank...yall.


----------



## 23isback (Mar 15, 2006)

Still a FA loool.


----------



## roux (Jun 20, 2006)

I dont think its funny... its killing my basketball team right now


----------



## 23isback (Mar 15, 2006)

roux said:


> I dont think its funny... its killing my basketball team right now


Offer on the table is 8 mil a year but he thinks he deserves more...because he's Brandon Jennings.


----------



## roux (Jun 20, 2006)

23isback said:


> Offer on the table is 8 mil a year but he thinks he deserves more...because he's Brandon Jennings.


He is clearly one of the more delusional players in the league right now.. amazing that a career 39% shooter would think he is worth 12 million a season


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

But what about that one time?

http://www.insidehoops.com/blog/?p=5030


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

He would be awesome in OKC


----------



## Pablo5 (Jun 18, 2013)

Tom said:


> He would be awesome in OKC


This is an asinine statement. His numbers are brutal. It's hard to imagine a PG with a 39% field goal percentage, and a 35% from 3pt land would even consider turning down a 5 million dollar contract. He's beyond terrible.

You now know why the Bucks don't want him. In the playoffs he shot even worse :gunner:


----------



## 23isback (Mar 15, 2006)

Pablo5 said:


> This is an asinine statement. His numbers are brutal. It's hard to imagine a PG with a 39% field goal percentage, and a 35% from 3pt land would even consider turning down a 5 million dollar contract. He's beyond terrible.
> 
> You now know why the Bucks don't want him. In the playoffs he shot even worse :gunner:


After he predicted them to take the series in 6 :lol:


----------



## Pablo5 (Jun 18, 2013)

23isback said:


> After he predicted them to take the series in 6 :lol:


even after losing the first two games, lmao


----------



## Jzilla (Dec 25, 2011)

All I can say about this, is if the Bucks don't want you, even with all the awful contracts we sign people to all the time.....who does?


----------



## Porn Player (Apr 24, 2003)

Toronto. 

He loves the city and the fans already like him. 

I can see us making a play for him next year when Lowry thinks he is worth $10m.


----------



## Jzilla (Dec 25, 2011)

I guess that's a possibility.


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

The Detroit Pistons officially announced the next step in their win-now plan Wednesday, acquiring point guard Brandon Jennings from the Milwaukee Bucks for guard Brandon Knight and two other players.

''We believe Brandon's talent and skill-set will complement the core group of players we have assembled on our roster in a positive way,'' Pistons president of basketball operations Joe Dumars said in a statement released by the team.

The Pistons also gave up two seldom-used players, forward Khris Middleton and center Viacheslav Kravtsov.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/pistons-deal-done-bucks-brandon-191654373--nba.html


----------



## Pablo5 (Jun 18, 2013)

Marcus13 said:


> The Detroit Pistons officially announced the next step in their win-now plan Wednesday, acquiring point guard Brandon Jennings from the Milwaukee Bucks for guard Brandon Knight and two other players.
> 
> ''We believe Brandon's talent and skill-set will complement the core group of players we have assembled on our roster in a positive way,'' Pistons president of basketball operations Joe Dumars said in a statement released by the team.
> 
> ...


Joe Dumars is only trying to save his job. This will still be a mediocre team, and they will just make the playoffs. This move is silly


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Pablo5 said:


> Joe Dumars is only trying to save his job. This will still be a mediocre team, and they will just make the playoffs. This move is silly


How can a team be mediocre but still be able to make the playoffs?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Pablo5 said:


> Joe Dumars is only trying to save his job. This will still be a mediocre team, and they will just make the playoffs. This move is silly


Isn't making the playoff a pretty good step forward for them?


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

R-Star said:


> Isn't making the playoff a pretty good step forward for them?


I think it would be enormous for them. This team needs to play some meaningful minutes at some point this season if they ever want to get a gauge for what they are moving forward.


----------



## Jzilla (Dec 25, 2011)

XxIrvingxX said:


> How can a team be mediocre but still be able to make the playoffs?


My Bucks were bad last year and they made the playoffs so its possible.

As for Detroit, making the playoffs would be big for them, but as long as Jennings and Smith are their 2 best players I suspect they'll never exit the 1st round. Just my opinion.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

R-Star said:


> Isn't making the playoff a pretty good step forward for them?


A big step. Guys like Andre Drummond and Greg Monroe need to start playing games that matter, no matter the result.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

XxIrvingxX said:


> How can a team be mediocre but still be able to make the playoffs?


Very easily. Over half the teams in the league make the playoffs. 

Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## Jace (Sep 26, 2005)

Making the Playoffs would be big for this roster/franchise, but let's not act like a being an 8th seed in the East means you're above mediocre. As has been stated, more teams make the postseason than miss it. Sort of defines "mediocre."


----------



## Pablo5 (Jun 18, 2013)

XxIrvingxX said:


> How can a team be mediocre but still be able to make the playoffs?


It's easy. Milwaukee made the playoffs 8 games under .500 on the east. Boston was one game over .500 as was a 7th seed. If youre a 6th seed in the east most likely you have no shot at winning a title, and that's why i say they will be mediocre


----------

