# The hype of K Brown, A Bogut and S Swift



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

Who is best of the three now? Wo will be best in the future?

At the rate of Brown improving, he will be Mark Blount in 2015; 

At the rate of Bogut improving, he will be Chris Mihn in 2015; (Bogut Stats: 8.7 pts, 7.3rebs)

At the rate of Swift improving, he will be Joe Smith in 2015.


----------



## Seuss (Aug 19, 2005)

Only Ballscientist could ask this as a serious question..........


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Bogut really doesn't deserve to be in this thread, as he is an important part of one of the top teams in the east.

You'd have to actually watch the Bucks games to know that though. Guessing, you haven't though.

His numbers are actually almost identical to Jamal Magloire's who is an all-star, playing in the same exact system.

Sometimes you have to take stats with a little bit of context.


----------



## BootyKing (Apr 7, 2005)

Ballscientist doesnt take anything with anything


----------



## Lynx (Mar 6, 2004)

SunsFan57 said:


> Only Ballscientist could ask this as a serious question..........


:rofl:

But we all like Ballscientist, don't we? :biggrin:


----------



## Mavericks_Fan (Apr 19, 2005)

You have to be kidding. Bogut is already better than Krummy Brown and Stromile "Not So" Swift put together.


----------



## HK-47 (Dec 14, 2005)

don't even compare stromile swift to joe smith. smith may be a bust for a #1 pick, and that whole contract fiasco was awful, but on the right team, he may be the ultimate role player. he can do everything well (which is why he was picked #1 overall in the first place). and he's capable of making big plays down the stretch.

swift can run and jump, and tease you with the occasional big game. but in terms of what he brings to the team, he's nowhere near, and will never be near, to the contributions of smith.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

The irony of course in comparing Swift to Smith is that Bogut already starts over Smith.


----------



## compsciguy78 (Dec 16, 2002)

Wassup with Chris Mihm bashing? Did you see him play last night? The guy can block shots...he sent Gooden's reverse home packing. He just gets in foul trouble too much. He is an average center who could be above average if he stayed in the game. I don't expect anymore out of him. Kwame Brown was also pulling down rebounds last night as well. People expect too much out of those guys.


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

> People expect too much out of those guys.


Excuse me for expecting a #1 overall pick to average more than 8/6 for his career. It's obvious now he's a bust, and now nobody expects anything because he's garbage, but I don't think you can knock anybody for expecting big things from him.

Wasn't Chris Mihm a lotto pick, too? Like #8 overall?


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Milwaukee picked Bogut first overall because he was tall and Washington picked Kwame because he was tall.Those guys are still tall.It isn't their fault that they were picked number one.Kwame is a good defender and the Lakers would be in terrible shape without him so at least he's making a contribution.Bogut is doing pretty much what a reasonable person would have expected of him and Swift is just as mercurial as any reasonable person could expect him to be.


----------



## SeaNet (Nov 18, 2004)

Bogut has looked good to me when I've seen him. And he's looked like his game will continue to grow. Big men w/ great hands and a nasty streak have good careers.


----------



## HeinzGuderian (Jun 29, 2004)

The Bucks are not a "top team". Bogut is a nice player though.


----------



## Jesus El Monkzoid (Jan 7, 2006)

*MIN REB BLK PTS
27.6 7.3 .88 8.7
26.9 6.6 1.28 10.2

Andrew Bogut
Chris Mihm*

Bogut's looking like a bust folks.

Pervis Ellison, Joe Smith, Michael Olowokandi, Kwame Brown.....say hi to your new buddy, Andrew Bogut.




futuristxen said:


> The irony of course in comparing Swift to Smith is that Bogut already starts over Smith.


An old, washed up Joe Smith ofcourse.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

SeaNet said:


> Bogut has looked good to me when I've seen him. And he's looked like his game will continue to grow. Big men w/ great hands and a nasty streak have good careers.


If only he would stop having those 4pt games... :angel:


----------



## SeaNet (Nov 18, 2004)

PauloCatarino said:


> If only he would stop having those 4pt games... :angel:


In time, my friend. In time. I think it takes big men a little longer to adjust to the NBA than perimeter types.


----------



## HeinzGuderian (Jun 29, 2004)

How old is Bogut? 21?


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

SeaNet said:


> In time, my friend. In time. I think it takes big men a little longer to adjust to the NBA than perimeter types.


I agree... Bustgut has plenty of time to develop into the next Frank Brickowski...


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

PauloCatarino said:


> I agree... Bustgut has plenty of time to develop into the next Frank Brickowski...


As an impact player, Frank Brickowski took the 96 Sonics to the NBA Finals, and he Almost defeat M Jordan.

Without him, Sonics are unable to pass the 1st round in the P.


----------



## HeinzGuderian (Jun 29, 2004)

Ballscientist said:


> As an impact player, Frank Brickowski took the 96 Sonics to the NBA Finals, and he Almost defeat M Jordan.
> 
> Without him, Sonics are unable to pass the 1st round in the P.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Starter on a playoff team with a chance for homecourt advantage. Not a bad start for the young aussie. I like how he's adjusting. He'll make some important plays in the playoffs. Bucks are a threat for the second round.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

Bogut may have a good shot to become B Miller.


----------



## SeaNet (Nov 18, 2004)

Ballscientist said:


> Bogut may have a good shot to become B Miller.


He'll be a much different player (more interior focused) than Brad Miller.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Here's a question for everyone.How many centers in the East are better than Bogut?Since one of them is on his team it's pretty easy to say that he's fairly close to Magloire already.I don't know why everyone is acting like he's disappointed them.I could almost guarantee that nearly everyone who says this stuff was claiming he would be a bust beforehand.It's not his fault that some people can't abandon their opinions no matter how wrong they are.

Bogut is almost exactly what I expected him to be.He's a center.He's tall and reasonably big.He can rebound and he can pass.Milwaukee drafted him because they needed a center.If they had known that they would get Magloire then they may not have drafted him,but it's hard to find even a mediocre center so he got drafted number one.I am also willing to bet that most of the people bashing him just because of his numbers have never even watched him play.


----------



## adarsh1 (May 28, 2003)

Bogut is a nasty *** motha ****a


----------



## Shabadoo (Feb 12, 2005)

While one can attribute the Bucks resurgence to their other off-season additions, I think that Bogut has made a marked difference on play of this team. It's trite, and clichéd, but he's a "difference maker" on the court. He's a rare breed of centre that facilitates ball movement and can spread the defence with his perimeter skills (more setting picks and passing, not shooting the 3 so far).

I see some people rationalising Dwight Howard's lack of scoring punch not as him not being assertive, but rather his "lack of touches". Like Dwight, Bogut is scoring primarily off tip-ins and garbage baskets. While I wouldn't compare Dwight and Bogut in terms of raw talent, and even calibre of player at this very stage (Dwight will most likely always be better) their roles on their teams are quite similar. Their teams call on them to fortify the interior, and not be a primary scorer. Bogut does have a legit post game (albeit slightly mechanical) that has certainly worked in spurts.

It is certainly worth noting that Bogut plays with Magloire, who is a top level centre in his own right- as Future pointed out. Jamaal (in his sixth year) is putting up 10 points, 9.6 boards and almost a block in 31 minutes. A deserving all star or not in the past, he's proven himself as one of the better centres of the past few years. Bogut isn't putting up awfully dissimilar numbers, and is besting Magloire in FG% (52.5%) and assists (2). Neither is putting up particularly staggering numbers, but it is entirely logical to suggest that the presence of a burly centre counterpart is putting an anchor on each of their stats, so to speak.

Yao as a rookie at the age of 23, put up 13.5 points, 8.2 boards, and 1.7 assists in 29 minutes as a 3rd option behind Francis and Cuttino. I think that the rebounding numbers are certainly in favour of Bogut- 0.9 less, in 1.4 less minutes less while sharing the post with a legitimate double-double player in Magloire. While Yao wasn't the primary scorer, he was a 3rd option on his team. Bogut is closer to a 6th option, behind Redd, Ford, Williams, Magloire and maybe Bobby Simmons. While I don’t thinks Bogues will become the irresistible offensive talent that sporadically emerges from Yao, his 5 points less at a higher percentage in his rookie year (given his role on the team) is not a phenomenal disparity.

Although he's been less impressive statistically than I'd imagined when watching him in college last year, he still exhibits the same team oriented attitude and hard-nosed (pun intended) play that made him the College Player of the Year. He's had a positive effect on the team, and made some critical plays throughout the year (3 game winning or game preserving plays, if I recall). Given his role, I think that he’s shown more than enough to waive any notion of him being a bust, and has planted the seeds for his continued success in the future.


----------



## 1 Penny (Jul 11, 2003)

Bogut's numbers are nice, sure he should be scoring 10+, but Bucks have 4 legit bigs who work together well dipping into each other's shots/mins and roles. Not to mention, they (Bucks) dont really rely on interior scoring at this point. But I expect Bogut to round up to an Okur-like numbers (19/10), But a better overall in a couple of seasons. I thought he was a Brad Miller clone also, which is a compliment, but he seems to be more of a banger than a smooth passing/multi skilled big man.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

18/17/5/4 tonight in the win for Bogut. Get off dude's back. He's on the path. I really really like this Bucks team. I just wish the seedings were better where they weren't going to play the Cavs in the first round. Because that series can go either way and I'd feel bad for either team, as they both belong in the second round.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Shabadoo said:


> While one can attribute the Bucks resurgence to their other off-season additions, I think that Bogut has made a marked difference on play of this team. It's trite, and clichéd, but he's a "difference maker" on the court. He's a rare breed of centre that facilitates ball movement and can spread the defence with his perimeter skills (more setting picks and passing, not shooting the 3 so far).
> 
> I see some people rationalising Dwight Howard's lack of scoring punch not as him not being assertive, but rather his "lack of touches". Like Dwight, Bogut is scoring primarily off tip-ins and garbage baskets. While I wouldn't compare Dwight and Bogut in terms of raw talent, and even calibre of player at this very stage (Dwight will most likely always be better) their roles on their teams are quite similar. Their teams call on them to fortify the interior, and not be a primary scorer. Bogut does have a legit post game (albeit slightly mechanical) that has certainly worked in spurts.
> 
> ...



This is a really good post. As usual from Shabadoo.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

futuristxen said:


> 18/17/5/4 tonight in the win for Bogut. Get off dude's back. He's on the path. I really really like this Bucks team. I just wish the seedings were better where they weren't going to play the Cavs in the first round. Because that series can go either way and I'd feel bad for either team, as they both belong in the second round.


Andrew Bustgut:
7'0, 245 - 18-7, 5 assists, 3 PF, 2 steals, 1 To and 2 blocks.

Gerald Wallace:
6'7, 215 - 19-15, 3 assists, 2 PF, 8 steals, 1 To and 4 blocks.

Bustgut sux!


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

PauloCatarino said:


> Andrew Bustgut:
> 7'0, 245 - 18-7, 5 assists, 3 PF, 2 steals, 1 To and 2 blocks.
> 
> Gerald Wallace:
> ...


18/17/5/2 7-8 shooting Bogut
14/10/3 TJ Ford(that's ten boards)
14/11/4 Magloire

That's damned amazing. No one besides Wallace was in double figures rebounding for the Bobcats. And only one of his rebounds was offensive.


----------



## sjfinest5 (Mar 27, 2003)

Bogut is improving as the year goes on and he will be very good in the future see him being capable of averaging 18 pts and 11 rbs and 2 blks which are very good numbers n he will have a great career in the NBA i like his game alot and i think he fits the bucks style perfectly and he will be a centerpiece of their team along with of course Redd and that could potentially be a dangerous inside-outside combo but people are jumping down the guys back when in reality they have to look at what he contributes to the team instead of looking only at the numbers (which is what happens to most rookie lottery picks, justa reality)


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

futuristxen said:


> 18/17/5/2 7-8 shooting Bogut


This will be Bustgut's greatest game stats ever. 

Remember them well, Fruity. SUMMER LEAGUE DOESN'T COUNT!


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Those are good stats,but nothing compared to what Brand and Kaman did to Charlotte a couple of weeks ago.Right now the Bobcats are without Okafor,Ely and May.The interior players they do have are being used too much and whenever they go up against quality bigs it's a slaughter.

I could also note that Brevin Knight didn't play that game and he's probably the best player on the Bobcats right now.Still Milwaukee barely won that game and probably loses if Felton doesn't miss two late free throws.The amazing thing is that Charlotte continues to play competitive ball no matter how lacking they are in talent and how many injuries they have.


----------



## moss_is_1 (Jun 14, 2004)

how the hell can u guys label him a bust? we're what 35 games not even halfway through the year and hes been having to play with guys like magloire-smith-and gadzuric who are all good players then u have redd who will shoot 20 times and simmons who will get 12 or so and ford getting 10 or so...seriously bogut WILL be a 15-12-5 guy maybe more...


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Diable said:


> Those are good stats,but nothing compared to what Brand and Kaman did to Charlotte a couple of weeks ago.Right now the Bobcats are without Okafor,Ely and May.The interior players they do have are being used too much and whenever they go up against quality bigs it's a slaughter.
> 
> I could also note that Brevin Knight didn't play that game and he's probably the best player on the Bobcats right now.Still Milwaukee barely won that game and probably loses if Felton doesn't miss two late free throws.The amazing thing is that Charlotte continues to play competitive ball no matter how lacking they are in talent and how many injuries they have.


Milwaukee barely beats anyone. That's their style. Check their record in games decided by five points or less. They like to play from behind no matter who they are playing against.

It was a great ending though. I thought the Bobcats were going to win, but the Bucks make the big plays down the stretch again.

Michael Redd is very quietly justifying the money the Bucks paid him. He's definitely the man for that team, and with the rest of their talent, you can't focus in on him. Just a really smartly put together team for the present and the future.


----------



## thekid (Apr 3, 2003)

For what it's worth, Kwame has shown noticeable improvement from the beginning of the year. May just be him being more comfortable with his role in the triangle and the specifics.


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

Jesus El Monkzoid said:


> *MIN REB BLK PTS
> 27.6 7.3 .88 8.7
> 26.9 6.6 1.28 10.2
> 
> ...


 What are you talking about man. You're comparing a vet on a very shallow Lakers team to a ROOKIE on a pretty stacked team. The Bucks arent the deepest team in the league, but there's not a ton of shots going Bogut's way, and when he does get the opportunity he makes very good use of it. I was iffy about the kid when he was drafted, but dude can really get in the post and get physical, not to mention he's pretty muscular... I thought he was soft. 

Oh wait, I get it, this post is sarcasm.


----------



## CrackerJack (Jul 2, 2005)

Tragedy said:


> What are you talking about man. You're comparing a vet on a very shallow Lakers team to a ROOKIE on a pretty stacked team. The Bucks arent the deepest team in the league, but there's not a ton of shots going Bogut's way, and when he does get the opportunity he makes very good use of it. I was iffy about the kid when he was drafted, but dude can really get in the post and get physical, not to mention he's pretty muscular... I thought he was soft.
> 
> Oh wait, I get it, this post is sarcasm.


i agree with you bogut has all his boards stolen from him by Magloire who is a rebounding beast while Mihm has to content with Kwame Brown and still gets less boards, now im not a bogut fan but he isnt and will not be a bust


----------



## Jesus El Monkzoid (Jan 7, 2006)

Tragedy said:


> What are you talking about man. You're comparing a vet on a very shallow Lakers team to a ROOKIE on a pretty stacked team. The Bucks arent the deepest team in the league, but there's not a ton of shots going Bogut's way, and when he does get the opportunity he makes very good use of it. I was iffy about the kid when he was drafted, but dude can really get in the post and get physical, not to mention he's pretty muscular... I thought he was soft.
> 
> Oh wait, I get it, this post is sarcasm.


Your logic doesn't make sense.

Mihm play with the biggest ball hog in the league. Mihm averages +1.2 ppg on only +0.3 fgapg. Mihms clearly a better offensive player.

Bogut is +1.0 rpg, but he also plays +1.1 mpg, so they're close to even there.

Mihm is a much, much better shot blocker.

And yes Mihm is a veteran, but he's a run of the mill NBA player. Bogut's a #1 pick. You expect to get superstars with #1 picks, not role players, which is what Bogut appears to be for now and possibly for the rest of his career. And youcan't make a case because he was picked #1 overall that he can't be average, when there's been dozens of big men busts picked in the lottery over the years. Joe Smith, Kwame Brown, Michael Olowokandi, Pervis Ellison, Stromile Swift, Tyson Chandler, Darko Milicic, Chris Mihm, Rafael Araujo etc.

Bogut is an alright player, he could one day challenge for a spot on the EC All-Star team if the East centers dont improve, but he'll never be a worthy #1 pick, he'll never be good enough to be a top-2 player on a contending team, and that IMO makes him a bust.

He looks to me like a player who got overhyped because he dominated much smaller, less skilled opposition in a weak conference. Should've took Chris Paul and traded away the NBA's worst defender TJ Ford.


----------



## 013184 (Dec 17, 2005)

Among the three, i can say kwame has the most potential to be a great player. swift i think has reached is prime. this is the best that he can be. brown is fortunate that he has phil jackson as a coach. it is also an advantage that kareem is there to guide hime. bogut will do just fine although i think he will not be a physical player. i can see him having 12pts, 8 rebs 1 blk averages throughout his career.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

013184 said:


> Among the three, i can say kwame has the most potential to be a great player. swift i think has reached is prime. this is the best that he can be. brown is fortunate that he has phil jackson as a coach. it is also an advantage that kareem is there to guide hime. bogut will do just fine although i think he will not be a physical player. i can see him having 12pts, 8 rebs 1 blk averages throughout his career.


You think he will not be a physical player? Have you read the posts in this thread? He's a physical player already.

Bogut has gotten better every month this season. This month is no exception. He's nearly averaging a double double and making 56 percent of his shots. It's hard to ask for more than that from a rookie big man on a contending team.

I just think it's funny how on the one hand you have people complaining about his stats, and on the other people who have watched him pretty satisfied with those stats.

He's already more of a force than Mihm at winning basketball. Mihm is still soft in most games he plays. Whereas Bogut is not afraid to mix it up.

He's also way more athletic than Mihm. I remember people trying to tell me that the guy couldn't jump, and would be eaten alive by all these supposedly more athletic big men in the NBA. Hasn't happened. In fact, Bogut looks more athletic than a healthy percentage of big man in the Association.


----------



## DHarris34Phan (Oct 28, 2004)

Bogut has averaged 8 points a game being the 3rd and even 4th option on the Bucks...and he NEVER looks for his own shot, he is that unselfish. Give him a few more shots (he is shooting 53 percent from the field), which Stotts isn't doing, and we would see Bogut's line being around 12, 8, and 3 assists.

And Bogut's impact on the game isn't soley determined by the boxscore. The Bucks usually go on positive stretches when he is on the court, and usually the opposite when he is off, regardless if he is scoring.

So yeah, this season putting up 8 and 7 is very solid considering what is going on with the Bucks.

If I had to grade Bogut's rookie campaign thus far, I would give it a solid B.


----------



## DHarris34Phan (Oct 28, 2004)

futuristxen said:


> Michael Redd is very quietly justifying the money the Bucks paid him. He's definitely the man for that team, and with the rest of their talent, you can't focus in on him. Just a really smartly put together team for the present and the future.


I agree about the structure of the team, but Redd has been awful lately! His shooting has just been horrible.

But I am not mad at all about the contract that was given to him...it had to be done, and hey, its working out ALOT better than Larry Hughes :biggrin:


----------



## naibsel (Dec 21, 2005)

PauloCatarino said:


> This will be Bustgut's greatest game stats ever.
> 
> Remember them well, Fruity. SUMMER LEAGUE DOESN'T COUNT!


his second game in the league he had 10-17 against new jersey

in the game he blocked jason terry's shot to seal the victory he had 19-14 and 2 blocks

in the game lebron had 52 against milwaukee, bogut got 21 and his team won.

so while 18-17-5-2 may have been the best game of his career. he has had other solid performances and all of them have resulted in team wins.


----------



## naibsel (Dec 21, 2005)

Diable said:


> Those are good stats,but nothing compared to what Brand and Kaman did to Charlotte a couple of weeks ago.Right now the Bobcats are without Okafor,Ely and May.The interior players they do have are being used too much and whenever they go up against quality bigs it's a slaugher.


lol, the last time two guys on the one team registered 30-20 and 20-20 was like 30 years ago. thats over 35000 nba games.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

In 2 years Bogut will be the second best center in the league behind Yao Ming. So, Bogut haters should have their fun..... now.


----------



## Gilgamesh (Dec 23, 2005)

ralaw said:


> In 2 years Bogut will be the second best center in the league behind Yao Ming. So, Bogut haters should have their fun..... now.


That isn't really impressive considering his contemporaries. By then Shaq will probably be a 15 and 10 guy or worse considering how much he has declined already. Brad Miller will be 32. Who knows if Camby could ever play a full season? Big Ben will be 34. Big Z will be 33. 

Not counting any potential centers coming into the league in future drafts and Yao since you said Bogut will be 2nd, Bogut's competition will be an even slower and probably more oft injury prone Shaq, ***** Eddy Curry, Channing Frye and Chris Kaman (who would probably be close to a 15 and 10 guy now if he wasn't playing beside Brand). 

Anyways, Bogut has already had more impact in his rookie season than Swift and particularly Brown had in their entire career.


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

Hey!!! Screw you!!! Kwame had 18 and 12 last night!!! :biggrin:


----------



## Gilgamesh (Dec 23, 2005)

Damian Necronamous said:


> Hey!!! Screw you!!! Kwame had 18 and 12 last night!!! :biggrin:


Bogut had 18 and 17 several days ago!!!!!

Bogut > Brown :biggrin:


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Bogut supporters shape their arguement any way that works.

In response to his Chris Mihm like statistics "they don't matter... watch the games" then when he puts up good stats they come in here and throw it in peoples faces.

Then Bogut supporter asks why its that "Bogut fans have no problems with his numbers but everyone else does" it's because apparently you guys are highly subjective on the subject of Bogut and dismiss any negatives.

I remember in the off-season, they were hyping Bogut as better than Yao Ming and a guy that will eventually become the top center in the league.



futuristxen said:


> It will take Bogut a month tops to get used to the NBA





AJ Prus said:


> Well, I will take my chances building a team around a 20 year old skilled Center than a selfish primadonna, no matter how many points he scores a game, any day of the week.


Guess who the primmadonna he speaks of is?



futuristxen said:


> Basically Bogut is set up to succeed, and all of you hoping for his failure are going to be sorely disapointed.
> 
> And I will love it. Just LOVE it.


And now he wants us to "get off his back."



ChrisWoj said:


> for his rookie season I think he has a shot at 15pt/7.5reb





furistxen said:


> How about the best center drafted in the top 3 since...Shaq?
> Basically saying that Bogut is the best center drafted in the top 3 since Shaq is saying that he is better than Yao. Which I agree with.
> 
> But I would hate to be a stickler.
> ...


Forgetting Alonzo Mourning, Yao Ming, Marcus Camby and Raef LaFrentz? Hell even Kandi and Shawn Bradley were about as good as Bogut as rookies.



Max Payne said:


> So now we turn to Bogut. The first thing you see is his size. This guy is massive. over 7' and close to 250 lbs, but more than that this guy has the long arms and the massive shoulders to clean up the boards and get the blocks. He also has a very low center of gravity and excellent lower body strength, something low post scorers really need. His post moves are more polished than any top center/pf prospect that's been drafted in the past 5 years and he shot an incredible 64% in college. He has size, he has skill and he has the conditioning. Yet there's more. In terms of basketball IQ, he has that young Derrick Coleman, Chris Webber vibe in him in knowing how to pick and choose his spots and being an excellent passer.
> Yet of all of these, the most important thing is his tenacity and his mean streak. This guy is almost like the second coming of Charles Oakley in some ways in that he's just a banger. This guy loves to bump in the post and take and give beatings down low.


Does this really sound like the description of a guy who is about as good as Mihm?



futuristxen said:


> Enjoy Chris Mihm. Danny Ainge sends his mother****ing regards, suckers.


Chris Mihm cost the Lakers Gary Payton. Bogut cost the Bucks a number one overall selection.



futuristxen said:


> Perhaps a more relevant comparison for this would have been Lebron James--because he was the last number 1 pick I hyped up as much as Bogut. And you see how he turned out. It turned out that all of my "hype" was still behind what he actually was able to achieve.



And this following one is 100% correct and summarizes why I won't "get off his back."


HKF said:


> ll I know is, Bogut better become a star, because if he doesn't... people will have some splaining to do.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

I like Bogut, and I think he is better than Mihm just because he clearly has a better feel for the game of basketball, but even I'm having my doubts now. I'm starting to think he'll eventually just be a good big man, not great, not a superstar, just a good big man. Along the lines of a Jamal Magloire, but a very different type of player. Maybe more of a poor man's Vlade Divac type player?


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Wow Jamel. That must have taken an inordinate amount of work. Glad you're so dedicated to your cause. I stay by all of those statements though. I'm definitely not disapointed with Bogut. His numbers are slightly depressed by sharing the frontcourt with Magloire, as Magloire's numbers are depressed by playing with Bogut. But he's playing quite well, and his play is what puts the Bucks over the top and will make them deadly in the playoffs when the games slow down and the games are decided in the halfcourt..


----------



## ToddMacCulloch11 (May 31, 2003)

Bogut is the best now and if I had to put my money on it, will be the best of the three.


----------



## Greg Ostertag! (May 1, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> I like Bogut, and I think he is better than Mihm just because he clearly has a better feel for the game of basketball, but even I'm having my doubts now. I'm starting to think he'll eventually just be a good big man, not great, not a superstar, just a good big man. Along the lines of a Jamal Magloire, but a very different type of player. Maybe more of a poor man's Vlade Divac type player?


Ye of little faith, Patchwork. I would stake my reputation on Bogut finishing the season 10/8 and going 15/10 next year and upward thereafter. If he follows his college learning curve, which we are basically seeing a historical re-enactment of now... he will be the #1 center in the East for a long time, depending on where Greg Oden ends up.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Greg Ostertag! said:


> Ye of little faith, Patchwork. I would stake my reputation on Bogut finishing the season 10/8 and going 15/10 next year and upward thereafter. If he follows his college learning curve, which we are basically seeing a historical re-enactment of now... he will be the #1 center in the East for a long time, depending on where Greg Oden ends up.


I hope so, I like Bogut a lot. It's really just his scoring where he has been a bust. He'll have to improve his scoring to escape being called a bust, because right now he truly isn't better than Chris Mihm in that aspect. Bogut's all-around big man game is great though. Low post or high post, he is comfortable. Very good passer for a big man (hence the Divac reference), and he is grabbing 8 rebounds in 28 minutes next to a couple of really good rebounders (Magloire and Gadzuric). It's just hard to imagine a nimble and legit seven footer who is physically built to be an NBA center, who has his kind of basketball skills, being a bust. 

I'm not sure he'll ever be a top 3 center, but good centers are valuable, and especially well rounded ones who can play both ends well and play both low post, high post and midrange, so once again, Bogut would have to screw up pretty bad to be a bust. He might not be a star, but he'll always be valuable for all the rare things he can do at his position. If he ever got up around 20 points per game, he'd be a special player.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Jamel Irief said:


> Bogut supporters shape their arguement any way that works.
> 
> In response to his Chris Mihm like statistics "they don't matter... watch the games" then when he puts up good stats they come in here and throw it in peoples faces.
> 
> ...


*You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Jamel Irief again.*

I believe Sir Patchwork has just defined Bustgut ceiling: a poor man's Vlade Divac.

The hate is adequate: we're not talking about a lottery pick. We are talking about the freaking #1 pick. Yeah, the guy who was riding pine till the coach decided to try him with Magloire together.

People who claim Kwame and Darko are busts because they were taken so high in the draft must apply the same judgement to Bogut. I KNOW I DO.


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

Andrew Bynum will own Bogut in 2-3 years!! You heard it here 1st.:biggrin:


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

PauloCatarino said:


> *People who claim Kwame and Darko are busts because they were taken so high in the draft must apply the same judgement to Bogut. I KNOW I DO.*


*

Darko is a bust. My criteria for a bust is being selected high when clearly better players are available. Darko was taken over Anthony, Bosh, Wade, Kaman, Hinrich, Ford. Those were the next 5 picks, in order. Kwame is a little different because he is the same calibur as Chandler and Curry still, as 25 minute a night roleplayers, and only Pau Gasol has seperated himself. 

Bogut can't be a bust if only one player in the top 10 has been better than him. Chris Paul was slept on for the same reason every 6footnothing guy gets slept on, people are afraid that they won't be able to translate their game into a league where guys are 3-4 inches taller at every position than in college basketball and are more athletic at every position. So for a guy who is already undersized, it's understandable to be afraid that the difference will be too great to overcome. Paul has overcome it pretty quickly, and that's that.*


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Darko is a bust. My criteria for a bust is being selected high when clearly better players are available. Darko was taken over Anthony, Bosh, Wade, Kaman, Hinrich, Ford. Those were the next 5 picks, in order. Kwame is a little different because he is the same calibur as Chandler and Curry still, as 25 minute a night roleplayers, and only Pau Gasol has seperated himself.
> 
> Bogut can't be a bust if only one player in the top 10 has been better than him. Chris Paul was slept on for the same reason every 6footnothing guy gets slept on, people are afraid that they won't be able to translate their game into a league where guys are 3-4 inches taller at every position than in college basketball and are more athletic at every position. So for a guy who is already undersized, it's understandable to be afraid that the difference will be too great to overcome. Paul has overcome it pretty quickly, and that's that.


How old is Darko?
How old is Kwame?
How old is Bustgut?
How old are the guys picked in the lottery this year?

Bogut was said to be pro-ready: seasoned, the College experience, the lot.

Is he any better than Villanueva? Frye? Dyogu?


----------



## bruno34115 (Apr 14, 2003)

I can't wait to bump this thread in a year or two when Bogut starts putting up better numbers.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

PauloCatarino said:


> Is he any better than Villanueva? Frye? Dyogu?


I can't imagine Bogut being a 25 minute a night player on terrible teams like the Raptors and Knicks. Those guys play less minutes on terrible teams with terrible frontcourts, than Bogut does on a good Bucks team with a very good frontcourt. I think that says enough. And Diogu doesn't deserve to be mentioned really, he isn't good right now. 

Relative to expectations, Frye and Villanueva have been better than Bogut, but just looking at them without looking at where they were drafted, Bogut is better. 

It is ironic though, Frye and Villanueva were the two guys that everyone was like "what the hell are they thinking?" but they have both been good this year.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

It's obvious that a lot of people are trying to assign expectations to Bogut that were never held by reasonable observers.If anyone tells me that they ever expected more of Bogut I have to see where they said it before the draft.I would bet good money that these same people are the ones who thought Marvin Williams should be drafted number.In fact I would bet that every word they say now is little more than an attempt to prove themselves right in what they said about Bogut before they ever saw him play.

Since I repeatedly said that Chris Paul was easily the best player available so I think all of you look foolish no matter how much you front.Bogut was drafted number one because he was tall and he looked like exactly what he has become.Marvin Williams went number based on some fantasy about how he might be great some day.Tim Duncan wasn't in this draft and noone who looked anything like a great player was available...Unless you were smart enough to have believed what your eyes told you about Chris Paul.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Diable said:


> *It's obvious that a lot of people are trying to assign expectations to Bogut that were never held by reasonable observers.*If anyone tells me that they ever expected more of Bogut I have to see where they said it before the draft.I would bet good money that these same people are the ones who thought Marvin Williams should be drafted number.In fact I would bet that every word they say now is little more than an attempt to prove themselves right in what they said about Bogut before they ever saw him play.
> 
> Since I repeatedly said that Chris Paul was easily the best player available so I think all of you look foolish no matter how much you front.Bogut was drafted number one because he was tall and he looked like exactly what he has become.Marvin Williams went number based on some fantasy about how he might be great some day.Tim Duncan wasn't in this draft and noone who looked anything like a great player was available...Unless you were smart enough to have believed what your eyes told you about Chris Paul.


Well, that's where we will have to disagree.

To have the chance to draft the #1 pick is nothing to sneeze about. The Bucks had that chance. And the #1 pick, wether one likes it or not, it's supposed to be a star (or a franchise player). While contemplating the draft pool, the Bucks' brass decided to go with Bogut. I say: big mistake. They didn't need a PG (a la Chris Paul)? So what? the Bucks could easily (IMHO) trade that pick for an impact player and a pick, or an impact player alone. They decided to keep the pick. So they drafted Bustgut.

Will he be better than Luc Longley? Probably.
Will he be better than Brad Miller? Maybe.
Will he ever be a righteous #1 pick? Nope.

Bogut can go and have himself a nice 15-year career. YEs, he can. But he will forever hold the stigma of being a #1 pick. and, IMHO, he will NEVER be regarded as a rightfull #1 pick.

But hey! that's the direction the NBA draft is going...


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

PauloCatarino said:


> Will he be better than Luc Longley? Probably.
> Will he be better than Brad Miller? Maybe.
> Will he ever be a righteous #1 pick? Nope.
> 
> Bogut can go and have himself a nice 15-year career. YEs, he can. But he will forever hold the stigma of being a #1 pick. and, IMHO, he will NEVER be regarded as a rightfull #1 pick.


why can't he be a legit #1 pick?

i see him right now as definitely being the best big man in the draft. the only guy from the draft that has been better than bogut is chris paul and as you said, the bucks had no need for him at all. they already have tj ford and mo williams. if he's the 2nd best player from his draft(and the best big man), how is that not worth a #1 pick? if he's better than the guys from his draft, he isn't a bust. his draft just happened to be one that i think had lots of good players, but no great players(the exception looks like paul and bogut may still be able to get there, but i've never expected him to be great).

is deron williams a bust? is he a rightful #3 pick, when a better player at his position was picked after him?

is kenyon martin a bust?


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

rocketeer said:


> why can't he be a legit #1 pick?
> 
> i see him right now as definitely being the best big man in the draft. the only guy from the draft that has been better than bogut is chris paul and as you said, the bucks had no need for him at all. they already have tj ford and mo williams. if he's the 2nd best player from his draft(and the best big man), how is that not worth a #1 pick? if he's better than the guys from his draft, he isn't a bust. his draft just happened to be one that i think had lots of good players, but no great players(the exception looks like paul and bogut may still be able to get there, but i've never expected him to be great).
> 
> ...


Let me put it this way: 

In 3 years from now, i don't see Bustgut making the ASG.
In 3 years from now, i see, at least, the following fellow draftees being better than him:
Deron Williams, Chris Paul, Raymond Felton, Charlie Villanueva, Channing Frye, Ike Diogu, Andrew Bynum, and another ones who could surprise: Williams, McCants, Granger, Nate, J Jack and Head.

And, till now, and with all the injuries, Kenion Martin is still the best draftee out of the 2000 draft.


----------



## Greg Ostertag! (May 1, 2003)

PauloCatarino said:


> Let me put it this way:
> 
> In 3 years from now, i don't see Bustgut making the ASG.
> In 3 years from now, i see, at least, the following fellow draftees being better than him:
> Deron Williams, Chris Paul, Raymond Felton, Charlie Villanueva, Channing Frye, Ike Diogu, Andrew Bynum, and another ones who could surprise: Williams, McCants, Granger, Nate, J Jack and Head.


Let me put it this way:

Your posts contain wishful thinking and flawed justification thereof.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

PauloCatarino said:


> Let me put it this way:
> 
> In 3 years from now, i don't see Bustgut making the ASG.


Who is going to make it in his place?


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

PauloCatarino said:


> And, till now, and with all the injuries, Kenion Martin is still the best draftee out of the 2000 draft.


michael redd.

i'd say mike miller, jamal crawford, and jamaal magloire all have something to say about that too.



> In 3 years from now, i don't see Bustgut making the ASG.


the allstar game really is irrelevant in this arguement. he doesn't have to play in the allstar game to be the best player from his draft and a legit top pick. and yes i do expect bogut to make at least one allstar game. i doubt he's a superstar or even plays in 4 or 5 allstar games, but he doesn't need to be that to be a good pick.



> In 3 years from now, i see, at least, the following fellow draftees being better than him:
> Deron Williams, Chris Paul, Raymond Felton, Charlie Villanueva, Channing Frye, Ike Diogu, Andrew Bynum, and another ones who could surprise: Williams, McCants, Granger, Nate, J Jack and Head.


well, you should expect to be wrong on most cases. villanueva is the only big man i could see being better than bogut, and i doubt that even happens. deron, paul, and felton are meaningless to talk about because the bucks are set at pg. they needed a big man and they got a damn good one.


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

rocketeer said:


> villanueva is the only big man i could see being better than bogut, and i doubt that even happens. .


 You cant see Bynum being better than Bogut?


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

CubanLaker said:


> You cant see Bynum being better than Bogut?


 Bynum has no relevance.He's a project and if he's ever any good it will be in how many years.The Bucks were interested in improving their chances of winning immediately,not in four or five years.You don't take the number one pick...Wait a second...Maybe Michael Jordan might do that.Or maybe Jerry Krause.At least MJ was a decent player.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

CubanLaker said:


> You cant see Bynum being better than Bogut?


right. i will be shocked if bynum ends up better than bogut.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Greg Ostertag! said:


> Let me put it this way:
> 
> Your posts contain wishful thinking and flawed justification thereof.


Thanx for the imput.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

futuristxen said:


> Who is going to make it in his place?


Bosh?
O'Nea?;
Howard?
Okafor?
Dalembert?
Wallace?
Frye?

(disregarding future draftees)


----------



## naibsel (Dec 21, 2005)

in regards to boguts ASG, it will likely take 5-10 years before he makes one. i think dalemberts style of play will lead him to be more of a fan favorite so he will have to rely on coach selection, and bogut cant be the 2nd best center on his own team.

i would just like to add, that us Australians should receive some credit for not pulling a China, u may laugh at our dimunitive 20million people but 85% of us live in big cities with access to broadband cable. we could of all thrown our hats in and voted for him, but we didn't coz he's not good enough. unlike all the azns who will make sure that by the end of yaos career he holds the top 10 positions for highest vote getter even tho he still does have the odd night where earl boykins gets more rebounds.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

PauloCatarino said:


> Bosh?
> O'Nea?;
> Howard?
> Okafor?
> ...


Dalembert? Don't make me laugh. In 2 or 3 years Shaq won't be better than Bogut. Okafor isn't exactly making noise now. Bogut is better than Frye now, so in 2-3 years why not? Wallace may not be in the easter conference after this year. Or either way he's aging, and in 2-3 years probably won't be that much of a factor. The only real threat is Howard, and they take more than one center anyways. And Bosh isn't a center and wants out of Toronto. So it's hardly a compelling case for Bogut not getting into the ASG. Hell, he's nearly there by default.


----------



## The Mad Viking (Jun 12, 2003)

First of all, everybody has unrealistic expectations for stats by a center. Centers in basketball are like shortstops and catchers in baseball. You need to have them, but most of them don't produce much offensively. Shooting guards and small forwards are like left fielders and first basemen. There are a ton of them who can put up flashy numbers if you give them the opportunity. 

Chris Mihm is 26 years old and this is his 6th season. He has played 373 NBA games and was a 7th overall pick.

Andrew Bogut is 21 years old and has played 35 NBA games.

Some noob posted stats to suggest they were close, and then gave Mihm the edge based on 16 more blocks. Conveniently, he neglected to show stats like Boguts 26-7 lead in steals, or his 74-33 lead in assists, while commiting fewer turnovers 48 vs. 65. (Mihm has played 18 MORE minutes) 

Bogut is 5th in the entire league in FG%, 54.2. Mihm didn't have a season over 50% until last year, 50.7, and is at 51.8%. Bogut is 15th in the entire league in O-boards. In less than 1/10th the games, Bogut has matched or bettered Mihm's single game career bests in O-boards, steals and assists.

And contrary to his detractors, Mihm isn't a bad center.

Bogut, among NBA centers, is 3rd in assists, 4th in steals, 11th in rebounding, 17th in scoring, but 4th in FG%, (among players with at least 200 FGA). And Milwaukee is winning, so its hard to fault him for not shooting more. This is a very high level of achievement for a rookie center. He's not Shaq, he's not Zo, and he's not 7-6. But everybody knew this. 

Might Andrew Bynum eventually be better? Maybe - he's very young but certainly huge and athletic. But he's also hitting like 35% from the floor, 33% from the stripe, with 7 fouls per 48 minutes and 8 turnovers per assist. If one wants to assume Bynum can get that much better, it is illogical to guess that Bogut will not improve significantly beyond his current performance.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

futuristxen said:


> Dalembert? Don't make me laugh. In 2 or 3 years Shaq won't be better than Bogut. Okafor isn't exactly making noise now. Bogut is better than Frye now, so in 2-3 years why not? Wallace may not be in the easter conference after this year. Or either way he's aging, and in 2-3 years probably won't be that much of a factor. The only real threat is Howard, and they take more than one center anyways. And Bosh isn't a center and wants out of Toronto. So it's hardly a compelling case for Bogut not getting into the ASG. Hell, he's nearly there by default.


O'Neal is Jermaine, not Snaq. The reason i didn't include Z, also, because in 3 years they may very well be out of context.

Magloire?

Hmmm... Eddy Curry? Tyson Chandler? :biggrin:


----------



## Personfan (Dec 27, 2003)

Your very determined Paulo I'll give you that. Unfortunately I think your guns might be a little underpowered compared to the arguements (and stats to back it up) that others are throwing at you.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> Wow Jamel. That must have taken an inordinate amount of work. Glad you're so dedicated to your cause. I stay by all of those statements though. I'm definitely not disapointed with Bogut. His numbers are slightly depressed by sharing the frontcourt with Magloire, as Magloire's numbers are depressed by playing with Bogut. But he's playing quite well, and his play is what puts the Bucks over the top and will make them deadly in the playoffs when the games slow down and the games are decided in the halfcourt..


It took more work than I want to admit, but all the posts were in one thread.

The bottom line is that Bogut supporters hailed him as a franchise center.

Now he is a role player and they don't mind because the team is winning. Yet Yao was a dissapointing center on a 50 win team.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Jamel Irief said:


> It took more work than I want to admit, but all the posts were in one thread.
> 
> The bottom line is that Bogut supporters hailed him as a franchise center.
> 
> Now he is a role player and they don't mind because the team is winning. Yet Yao was a dissapointing center on a 50 win team.


He still is a franchise center. He's the Bucks franchise going forward.


----------



## The Mad Viking (Jun 12, 2003)

Jamel Irief said:


> It took more work than I want to admit, but all the posts were in one thread.
> 
> The bottom line is that Bogut supporters hailed him as a franchise center.
> 
> Now he is a role player and they don't mind because the team is winning. Yet Yao was a dissapointing center on a 50 win team.


You're basing this almost entirely on the shots he hasn't taken.

He's hitting 54.2% and playing within a system that's winning. He's playing better now than Kandi-Man ever has or will. So, Camby and Raef played on terrible teams and took a lot more shots? 

Does Bogut need to take more shots for the Bucks? Hard to say. Has the coach asked him to? I sincerely doubt it.

But I'm quite sure that if Bogut took twice as many shots and was scoring in the mid to high teens everyone would be very impressed. Whether or not the team was winning.

Camby and Lafrentz scored a little more than Bogut as rookies, but they played on terrible teams. Lafrentz shot about 45%, way worse the Bogut. That Camby was forcing things as a rookie is evident by the strange fact that it was his career-best in ppg.

Bogut has a very sophisticated understanding of the game, and is very unselfish. There are only so many possessions to go around, so many shots to take. If Michael Redd isn't shooting the ball, he isn't helping the team, is he? 

I really like Charlie Villanueva, but I would trade him for Bogut in a flash.


----------



## iverson101 (Mar 4, 2006)

futuristxen said:


> He still is a franchise center. He's the Bucks franchise going forward.


In that case, the Bucks franchise is in trouble.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

I will admit, that Bogut has done nothing this season to stand out. A few good games, but nothing to make me even remmeber he was here all season, I guess Paul's thorough domination as a rookie has had something to do with that.


----------



## dwade3 (Sep 12, 2005)

Kwame Brown, under the right coach can do some damage, he hasnt been the steal of the year, and at the start of the season he was showing he might of been a bust of the year, but second half of the season he has been very solid for the Lakers, he has really only been their solid force in the middle all season...season high avg in his career will be 15-10-2

Andrew Bogut, on a team where even 37 yo Toni Kukoc is getting considerable minutes, u have to understand, they *dont need* bogut to be their 20-10 player just yet, in 2 seasons time you would start to think so, but untill then the big man has been playing well attracting some double teams now and then and kickin the ball out for a few assists also...he's only 21 or 22, AND he's a big man...there has been no sign of Bogut being a bust as of yet...one day will b the man in Mil. 20-10-2 guy in 2 or 3 years

Stro Swift, i had hopes for this big man coming into this season, the scene was set for him to be the 15-10-3 player that many thought he would be, but i guess under JVG defensive system, there was no major role for an athletic freak...Juwan Howard must be still puttin in the work ethic and getting the defense right....trade him Sacramento, Seattle or Washington and he will be the 15-10-3 player, keep him in a half court set offence and scrappy defending team and he will be nothing more then wat he is now......


----------



## SkywalkerAC (Sep 20, 2002)

Stro should have gone to New Jersey.

Kwame is coming around slowly. I still think he was a good pickup for the Lakers.

Bogut has been fine. He's shown some athleticism and skill. Will be a force with more strength and experience. Look how long it took Kamam to break out.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

Whether Bogut's stats are there or not, he's already a better basketball player than either of the other two have ever been.

I was impressed with him on Friday against Memphis.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

The "team is winning" argument is out the door now that the Bucks have an inferior record to the Lakers, something the Bogut diehards claimed would never happen.

Looks like Bogut should of never mouthed off about Kobe, Kobe has a better record without Ford, Simmons, Magloire, Redd, Mo Williams, Joe Smith and Gadzuric.


----------



## Burn (Feb 2, 2003)

He's a rookie! Good lord.


----------



## Aurelino (Jul 25, 2003)

Krstic schooled Bogut this afternoon.


----------



## 7M3 (Aug 5, 2002)

Does Bogut have AIDs? Kid's skin is mad pasty.


----------



## 1 Penny (Jul 11, 2003)

Just watching Bogut play, you know he CAN play. He has the skill set and body work to be an impact player. He isnt on the floor because of his atheletism, thats for sure, he is smart, knows how to use his size, his position on the court and his team mates. He is a basketballer.

Give him more responsibilities, which will happen eventually, and watch him put 20/10 on a nightly basis. Maybe in 2-3 seasons. He is on the same tier as Okur and Brad Miler.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

bruno34115 said:


> I can't wait to bump this thread in a year or two when Bogut starts putting up better numbers.


Beat you to it


----------



## NewAgeBaller (Jan 8, 2007)

hm, they're all still terrible..

Bogut's not a bad player though, just not a #1 pick, and therefore labelled a bust.

Same can't be said about the others.


----------



## Arclite (Nov 2, 2002)

I expected more out of Bogut this year. Pretty disappointing.

Still, comparing him to Kwame and Stro is just insulting.


----------



## NewAgeBaller (Jan 8, 2007)

Great game for Bogut tonight.

*25 Points* (10-15 FG, 5-7 FT), *8 Rebounds*, *3 Assists*.

8 Points in the 4th quarter to lead a big Milwaukee comeback.

Made smart plays, even drew a few double teams, and hit the biggest basket of the game.


----------



## Wade County (Jun 22, 2003)

I watched the match and it was good to see that he was getting the ball in the paint and doing something with it. He was very aggressive tonight and made some very nice post moves for buckets on Okafor, whose no slouch defensively.

Whenever Bogut got the ball in a post up, he scored. He had some nice jukes and fakes and has a nice touch with both the left and right hand. Solid rebounder, excellent passer...if Milwaukee decides to give him 15 shots a game, he'll go Chris Kaman on us (wow never thought id say that was a good thing...times change).


----------



## NewAgeBaller (Jan 8, 2007)

BG44 said:


> I watched the match and it was good to see that he was getting the ball in the paint and doing something with it. He was very aggressive tonight and made some very nice post moves for buckets on Okafor, whose no slouch defensively.
> 
> Whenever Bogut got the ball in a post up, he scored. He had some nice jukes and fakes and has a nice touch with both the left and right hand. Solid rebounder, excellent passer...if Milwaukee decides to give him 15 shots a game, he'll go Chris Kaman on us (wow never thought id say that was a good thing...times change).


I know it seems like everytime he gets the ball he does something effective with it (atleast in the games I've seen).
Post-game they were talking about how the Bucks have been wanting to get the ball to Bogut and let him create more often.
Sadly that hasn't happened, but I really still think Bogut could average something like;

18 Points (7-14 FG, 4-6 FT)
8 Boards
2-3 Assists

If they decided to get the ball to him consistently..


----------



## Wade County (Jun 22, 2003)

Im not sure if he has it in him to average 20 consistently. He's more of a second option guy, but hed be a great 2nd option if he consistently got the ball and took 13-15 shots a game.

Something like:-

17.8 ppg
9.4 rpg
3.1 apg
1.4 bpg
34 mpg

53% FG
68% FT


----------



## NewAgeBaller (Jan 8, 2007)

BG44 said:


> Im not sure if he has it in him to average 20 consistently. He's more of a second option guy, but hed be a great 2nd option if he consistently got the ball and took 13-15 shots a game.
> 
> Something like:-
> 
> ...


hm I think I had his FG% too high, but probably something like 18 on 7-14 FG is very possible. Or more like 16ppg (cause of everyone else needing touches) and 20ppg when he's allowed to work his way inside.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

That would be what's expected from him. Good player, not superstar.


----------



## Wade County (Jun 22, 2003)

Agreed. Should be a top 5 center in the L though at some point.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Chan said:


> That would be what's expected from him. Good player, not superstar.


I think the Bucks were expecting more when they drafted him #1 overall over some superstars.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

Jamel Irief said:


> I think the Bucks were expecting more when they drafted him #1 overall over some superstars.


I already told you. It was widely considered a 2 man draft. Just because Paul was your favorite prospect doesn't mean most people thought he was. The Bucks were expecting a solid pro, maybe an All-Star a few times (not perennial), but not 25/10/2 Yao-type stats.


----------



## Wade County (Jun 22, 2003)

Well, in fairness the Bucks were in desperate need of a big at the time - this is a guy who just put up 20-10 in college, is a legit 7 footer. Paul was in the top 5, but Deron was considered a risk at 3. Hindsights a wonderful thing, but would either be as good as they are now if they played in Milwaukee? How much better would Bogut be if he was drafted somewhere else?


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Chan said:


> I already told you. It was widely considered a 2 man draft. Just because Paul was your favorite prospect doesn't mean most people thought he was. The Bucks were expecting a solid pro, maybe an All-Star a few times (not perennial), but not 25/10/2 Yao-type stats.


What does that have to do with anything? Because people cosidered Bogut to be great and he's not he's not a bust? In that case no one is a bust.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

BG44 said:


> Well, in fairness the Bucks were in desperate need of a big at the time - this is a guy who just put up 20-10 in college, is a legit 7 footer. Paul was in the top 5, but Deron was considered a risk at 3. Hindsights a wonderful thing, but would either be as good as they are now if they played in Milwaukee? How much better would Bogut be if he was drafted somewhere else?


What chan doesn't realize is I don't blame the bucks for Bogut. Just like I don't blame the pistons for drafting Darko.

Doesn't mean they aren't underacheivers and busts.


----------



## Wade County (Jun 22, 2003)

Just because there are people in the draft that are better then him, doesnt mean hes a bust. A bust is if you suck and ur not worth the pick you were taken. Bogut isnt Kwame Brown or Michael Olowakandi. Hes a legit baller, knows his strengths and weaknesses and plays to them. If the Bucks took Paul at number 1 I think Bucks fans woulda rioted at the time.

He'll be a starting center until the day he retires, think Rik Smits...nothing wrong with him for 10-15 years.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

BG44 said:


> Just because there are people in the draft that are better then him, doesnt mean hes a bust. A bust is if you suck and ur not worth the pick you were taken. Bogut isnt Kwame Brown or Michael Olowakandi. Hes a legit baller, knows his strengths and weaknesses and plays to them. If the Bucks took Paul at number 1 I think Bucks fans woulda rioted at the time.
> 
> He'll be a starting center until the day he retires, think Rik Smits...nothing wrong with him for 10-15 years.


He's a bust because people were better and his production doesn't warrant a number one pick. Look up Joe Smith's career totals (who is widely considered a bust) plays just as well as bogut.

People don't draft solid players first overall. You're looking for perennial all-stars unless it's a weak draft. That wasn't a weak draft and Bustgut is not a perennial all-star.


----------



## Wade County (Jun 22, 2003)

Not yet. But if you wanna be picky, Deron and Paul arent Perreniel All-Stars yet either.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

Jamel Irief said:


> What does that have to do with anything? Because people cosidered Bogut to be great and he's not he's not a bust? In that case no one is a bust.


Not all #1 picks are the same. Bogut didn't have the same expectations as Lebron, Yao, Howard, or even Bargnani.

He's definitely underachieving, but there are extentuating circumstances - he's not getting the ball enough. If he did get the ball enough, like as much as a 15-17 point scorer does, and he's still putting up crap numbers then he'll be a full blown bust. 

By watching him you can tell he's not in Darko's echelon.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Chan said:


> Not all #1 picks are the same. Bogut didn't have the same expectations as Lebron, Yao, Howard, or even Bargnani.
> 
> He's definitely underachieving, but there are extentuating circumstances - he's not getting the ball enough. If he did get the ball enough, like as much as a 15-17 point scorer does, and he's still putting up crap numbers then he'll be a full blown bust.
> 
> By watching him you can tell he's not in Darko's echelon.


Again, the fact that all their other big men, Villaneuva and Yi, shoot more than Bogy proves that Bogy isn't aggressive, not that he's not getting the ball enough.


----------



## Wade County (Jun 22, 2003)

Did u ever think that its part of the system the Bucks run? They dont pound the ball inside. They are a jump shooting team, which is basically the whole of Villanueva's game and most of Yi's game. Bogut is a back-you-down, jump hook center. They dont utilise this skill. They rarely play inside out basketball.

Bogut racks up assists because hes an excellent passer out of the high and low post. However, when he kicks it out, he rarely gets it back.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

Jamel Irief said:


> He's a bust because people were better and his production doesn't warrant a number one pick. Look up Joe Smith's career totals (who is widely considered a bust) plays just as well as bogut.
> 
> People don't draft solid players first overall. You're looking for perennial all-stars unless it's a weak draft. That wasn't a weak draft and Bustgut is not a perennial all-star.


There was nobody looking like a perennial All-Star going in. There was no Oden or Lebron or Yao. Milwaukee knew they weren't getting a superstar.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

Jamel Irief said:


> Again, the fact that all their other big men, Villaneuva and Yi, shoot more than Bogy proves that Bogy isn't aggressive, not that he's not getting the ball enough.


CV and Yi are jumpshooters who like to play away from the paint. When Bogut gets the ball away form the paint, the only positive thing he can do is look for a cutter. If not, he'll end up bricking an 18 footer.

If he worked on his jump shot he could be a damn good offensive player. He's already one of the best passing bigs the league has seen in a bit, but he's limited to that at the elbow. He's got what it takes to be prime Brad Miller with post skills.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

BG44 said:


> Did u ever think that its part of the system the Bucks run? They dont pound the ball inside. They are a jump shooting team, which is basically the whole of Villanueva's game and most of Yi's game. Bogut is a back-you-down, jump hook center. They dont utilise this skill. They rarely play inside out basketball.
> 
> Bogut racks up assists because hes an excellent passer out of the high and low post. However, when he kicks it out, he rarely gets it back.


People used to blame the system on Stotts. Fact is the system utlizies their better scorers, can't put bogy up there.

Lakers system is the reason Kwame isn't scoring much too.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Chan said:


> There was nobody looking like a perennial All-Star going in. There was no Oden or Lebron or Yao. Milwaukee knew they weren't getting a superstar.


IMO, you're an idiot if you didn't think Paul could be a perennial All-star, and Marvin Williams was a 19 year old who came off the bench in college, they were hoping he could get there one day. 

PLENTY of people on this site felt Bogy could be a perennial All-star. I have the threads to prove it.


----------



## Wade County (Jun 22, 2003)

Please. Dont compare Bogut to Kwame...thats just absurd

The reason why Kwame doesnt score is because Kwame cant score. Or do anything besides defend the post. 

Both Stotts and Larry K are average coaches who dont do a good enough job of feeding the post. The systems they run both dont utilise Boguts strength inside. That - and the fact you have a predominantly jump shooting team turns Bogut into a talented garbage man.

Notice how today they fed the post and he came up with bucksts every time? That can happen on a consistent basis. Ive watched Bogut for years and hes a very capable low post scorer, and hes even got a nice 15ft jump shot, but he doesnt use it in the NBA.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

Jamel Irief said:


> IMO, you're an idiot if you didn't think Paul could be a perennial All-star, and Marvin Williams was a 19 year old who came off the bench in college, they were hoping he could get there one day.
> 
> PLENTY of people on this site felt Bogy could be a perennial All-star. I have the threads to prove it.


Paul was 5'10 in shoes. He wasn't a sure enough superstar for the Bucks to replace Mo Williams. Paul was never going to get picked first. Hell, the Hawks didn't even think he was the best talent in the class, so they picked Marvin over him.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Chan said:


> Paul was 5'10 in shoes. He wasn't a sure enough superstar for the Bucks to replace Mo Williams. Paul was never going to get picked first. Hell, the Hawks didn't even think he was the best talent in the class, so they picked Marvin over him.


People didn't want to pick Paul first because of questions about his size and attitude (cheap shots on Hodge). He was the best guard in the ACC since his first game as a freshman.

People KNEW he was going to be great. They just hoped Williams or Bogy would be good since they were much taller. And a good 6'10"/7 footer is always more valuable than a 5'10" guy.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Here is a solid NBA center-










Drafted with the <b>LAST</b> pick in the first round of the 1989 draft.

The last pick, not the first.


----------



## Wade County (Jun 22, 2003)

Speaking of Hodge, hes currently playing for the Adelaide 36ers (my team) in the NBL (Australian League) for those who care.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

That's a steal, and that's hindsight.


----------



## Wade County (Jun 22, 2003)

Jamel Irief said:


> Here is a solid NBA center-
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Guess who the first pick was? Pervis Ellison. 1989 draft is not relevant to todays NBA.


http://www.sportsstats.com/jazzyj/greats/89/index.html

this says 2nd to last pick, get ya facts right 

In fact, looking at who was drafted that year - Divac's woulda gone top 5 in hindsight.

1. Shawn Kemp
2. Glen Rice
3. Tim Hardaway (top 3 could got any order really)
4. Cliff Robinson
5. Vlade Divac
6. Sean Elliot
7. Nick Anderson
8. BJ Armstrong

Rest = meh


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Chan said:


> That's a steal, and that's hindsight.


< chan logic >
It's not a steal. Divac wasn't widely considered a first round prospect going into the draft.< /chan logic >


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

I'd comment, but I was born in 89, old man.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Chan said:


> I'd comment, but I was born in 89, old man.


Vlade was smoking AT the draft. Old story is Jerry West told him to keep doing it so teams would be more hesitant to draft him.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

lol that's nice. But being young and the new hotness and all, that was before my time.


----------



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

SeaNet said:


> In time, my friend. In time. I think it takes big men a little longer to adjust to the NBA than perimeter types.


Yeah, guys, by 2015 Andrew Bogut will be a top 10 center in the NBA and then you'll all be sorry for doubting him!


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

BG44 said:


> http://www.sportsstats.com/jazzyj/greats/89/index.html
> 
> this says 2nd to last pick, get ya facts right


My bad.

Here is a solid NBA center.










Drafted with the <b>LAST</b> in the first round of the 1990 draft.

The last pick, not the first.



> In fact, looking at who was drafted that year - Divac's woulda gone top 5 in hindsight.
> 
> 1. Shawn Kemp
> 2. Glen Rice
> ...


Wow. You never heard of Dana Barros? (ehmunro has). He was an all-star.

Mookie Blaylock?

Blue Edwards?


----------



## Wade County (Jun 22, 2003)

Boguts already a top 10 center in the L

1. Howard
2. Yao
3. Stoudemire
4. Camby
5. Shaq
6. Chandler
7. Ilgauskus
8. Okur
9. Bynum
10. Bogut

Best of the rest: Curry, Okafor, Ben Wallace, Horford, Haywood, Biedrins


----------



## Wade County (Jun 22, 2003)

Jamel Irief said:


> My bad.
> 
> Here is a solid NBA center.
> 
> ...


Yes ive heard of em, but lets remember, I was 2 at the time of that draft. 

I remember Dana Barros as a scrub backup who could shoot free throws. Mookie as a good defender but little else. Blue Edwards was a jump shooter in Vancouver and Miami when I knew him. Congratulations, ur older than me.

Forgive me if im not impressed with:-

Barros - 10.5ppg, 3.3 apg, 22.9 mpg 
Edwards - 10.8pg, 1stl, 3 reb, 2 apg, 26mpg 

Blaylock was actually better than i remember, didnt realise he was as good as he is over his career.

Still - my list was:-

1.Kemp - 14.6ppg, 8.4rpg, 1.2 bpg, 1.1spg, 27mpg
2.Rice - 18.3ppg, 4.4rpg, 2.1 apg, 1.0 spg, 35 mpg
3.Hardaway - 17.7ppg, 8apg,1.6spg, 35.3mpg
4.C-Rob - 14ppg, 4.6 rpg, 2.2 apg, 1 stl, 1 blk, 30 mpg
5.Divac - 11.8ppg, 8.2rpg, 3.1apg, 1.1stl,1.4blk, 29 mpg
6.Elliot - 14.2ppg, 4rpg, 2apg, 33mpg
7.Anderson - 14.4ppg,5.1rpg,2.6apg,1.4spg,31.2mpg
8.Armstrong - 9.8ppg,3.3apg, 23.8mpg

So I only kinda overrated Armstrong, and underrated Blaylock. Otherwise I think the rest is accurate.


----------



## TiMVP2 (Jun 19, 2003)

^^Kaman and Al Jefferson?


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

BG44 said:


> Yes ive heard of em, but lets remember, I was 2 at the time of that draft.
> 
> I remember Dana Barros as a scrub backup who could shoot free throws. Mookie as a good defender but little else. Blue Edwards was a jump shooter in Vancouver and Miami when I knew him.


You don't remember them that well then.

Barros was an all-star one year and a deadly shooter.

Mookie was a great all-around point guard that any team would use a top ten pick on.

Blue Edwards biggest strength was his athleticism.


> Congratulations, ur older than me.


You were the one ranking the players in the draft.



BG44 said:


> Boguts already a top 10 center in the L
> 
> 1. Howard
> 2. Yao
> ...


Put in Kaman and kick out Bogy.

Bogy isn't even top ten in a weak position.

Some #1 pick.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Oh and Sherman Douglas in the second round. If you want to say he is meh renounce your heat fandom.

George McCloud, Haywoode Workman, Pooh Richardson... solid players that played 10+ years.


----------



## TiMVP2 (Jun 19, 2003)

Don't get why yall are tryna argue with Jamel, even though he hates Bogut, he has a lot of good points, I mean there Bogut shouldnt've been a top 5 pick in the draft looking back... And all he is right now is an average Center....


----------



## Wade County (Jun 22, 2003)

I said meh as in i couldnt be stuffed ranking the rest. Im aware sherman douglas was a solid baller for my club. And yeh i skipped Kaman, he was there but when i redid my list I must have accidently erased him. So i guess hes not quite top 10, but he'll be in there soon.


----------



## TiMVP2 (Jun 19, 2003)

And the dude who put Bogut over Emeka...wtf are you thinking? Okafor is in another realm defensively, Okafor also is superior in offensive skills....Okafor is greater than Bogut by a long shot, also better than more on the list....its obvious you're trying to find excuses for your favorite player...just face it bro.


----------



## Wade County (Jun 22, 2003)

Haha - Bogut wouldnt even make my yop 10 in favourite players, but hes no where near as bad as he is perceived around here.

Did you watch the game tonight? Emeka got owned by Bogut - they were matched up on each other all night, and Bogut consistently took him to the hole and scored. Okafor is injury prone, hes a good shot blocker - but his offense is average at best. Bogut is a superior player and id much rather him on my team then Emeka.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

MDIZZ said:


> And the dude who put Bogut over Emeka...wtf are you thinking? Okafor is in another realm defensively, Okafor also is superior in offensive skills....Okafor is greater than Bogut by a long shot, also better than more on the list....its obvious you're trying to find excuses for your favorite player...just face it bro.


Okafor 10/9 tonite, Bogut 25/8. Okafor couldn't contain Bogut in the 4th. Okafor's superior offensive skills gets him 10 points?

Timmy whiffs again.


----------



## KillWill (Jul 1, 2003)

Chan; said:


> I'd comment, but I was born in 89, old man.


this about sums up these boards.


----------



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

BG44 said:


> Boguts already a top 10 center in the L
> 
> 1. Howard
> 2. Yao
> ...


Maybe in some bizarro alter-universe there's an Andrew Bogut that's better than Chris Kaman, Andris Biedrins, and Emeka Okafor, but it ain't this one.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

ehmunro said:


> Maybe in some bizarro alter-universe there's an Andrew Bogut that's better than Chris Kaman, Andris Biedrins, and Emeka Okafor, but it ain't this one.


bogut is better biedrins.


----------



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

The offensive upgrade doesn't compensate for the defense.


----------



## Greg Ostertag! (May 1, 2003)

Jamel Irief said:


> Again, the fact that all their other big men, Villaneuva and Yi, shoot more than Bogy proves that Bogy isn't aggressive, not that he's not getting the ball enough.


You are essentially admitting to not watching the Bucks play.

Making smart decisions does not equal a lack of (needless, and detrimental) aggression.


----------



## Wade County (Jun 22, 2003)

ehmunro said:


> Maybe in some bizarro alter-universe there's an Andrew Bogut that's better than Chris Kaman, Andris Biedrins, and Emeka Okafor, but it ain't this one.


My mistake. Kaman is top 10, but Bogut is absolutely better than Biedrins and Okafor.


----------



## NewAgeBaller (Jan 8, 2007)

If Bogut continues at this level for the rest of his career, he's a bust, I agree.

*But the fact is, the system IS limiting what Bogut can do, probably by like 50%. If you watch Bucks' games it's very clear. What else is clear is that Bogut is definately a smart and effective player. Whenever I see him play, he seems to make the right decision with the ball (on the rare occasions they feed him in the post). Sadly a backcourt of Mo & Redd barely allow Bogut to touch the ball, let alone create. And like BG44 said (i think), if Bogut gives the ball off and calls for it again, HE DOES NOT GET IT BACK. The Bucks' backcourt is horribly inefficient and if they would only feed the inside FIRST on some possessions, they might be winning more games.*

Okafor is better than Bogut but not by much at all. Okafor has been pretty horrible.. He's proven nothing.
Kaman, yes, he is better.
Al Jefferson I still don't consider a center, but yes he's better too.
Biedrins, NO. He is not a better player than Bogut..


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Greg Ostertag! said:


> You are essentially admitting to not watching the Bucks play.
> 
> Making smart decisions does not equal a lack of (needless, and detrimental) aggression.


I've only seen them three times this year.

They are a dismal team to watch mainly because they haven't advanced at all since drafting Bogust.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

BG44 said:


> My mistake. Kaman is top 10, but Bogut is absolutely better than Biedrins and Okafor.


Give me Biedrins anyday. And I'd even take Okafor tentatively.


----------



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

Rawse said:


> Give me Biedrins anyday. And I'd even take Okafor tentatively.


Yeah, the only worry with Okafor is the back. But he's a terrific defender, and it's not like Bogut is some 20/10 machine whose defense can be ignored (the way people do Al Jefferson).


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

I'll take Al Jefferson over Bogy too.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

How's Swift been? Still doing that jab-step brick?


----------

