Ric Bucher's NBA Offseason Moves Most Likely to Backfire

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

key part of the thread... "Rick Bucher". That dude has talked trash about this franchise since he's been talking NBA
 
Wow, I had a higher opinion of Ric Bucher than that. How can signing a vet min type of guy backfire? Why would we want to get from Blake what Mo gave us? If we did, we'd just keep Mo. Really, just senseless.
 
um, Mo chose to be somewhere else. :dunno:
 
Wow, I had a higher opinion of Ric Bucher than that. How can signing a vet min type of guy backfire? Why would we want to get from Blake what Mo gave us? If we did, we'd just keep Mo. Really, just senseless.

In this particular case? I don't know. I was never much of a fan of Mo Williams, but he did have a particular skillset off the bench (scoring off the dribble) that I'm not sure we have a capable replacement for. McCollum hopefully will fill some of the void, but that remains to be seen.

As for Steve Blake, when he left us he was a moderately competent, backup, point guard; the few times I've seen him play in the intervening years I'd say he's quite a bit less than that now. But how this rises to the level of a likely backfire all comes down to a matter of perspective. From a scoring standpoint, I have no doubt that Blake is utterly incapable of replicating Mo's production. From a "I'm not sure I can help, but I'll do my best not to harm" perspective I see it being pretty close to a wash, with Blake being a better fit than Mo, but still having about the same net impact on the team's bottom line in terms of production.

Who knows, maybe he'll have a renaissance of sorts?
 
How awesome is it that the only place Ric Bucher can write now is on Bleacher Report?
 
Steve blake isn't even the one that's replacing No Williams, it's CJ McCollum. No Williams was a scorer more than anything.
 
How awesome is it that the only place Ric Bucher can write now is on Bleacher Report?

Note to self: if you're a K*be jockrider, and you piss off K*be, you start writing for Bleacher Report. Got it.
 
Wow.....extremely narrow view. It will be a pleasure to see this tool proven wrong.
 
Let's see. It's not really Blake for Mo, it's Kaman and Blake for Mo and Earl Watson...in my book, that was an upgrade. It's defensively an upgrade and offensively an upgrade. Blake can get 5 assists in 6 minutes on a court and if he shoots, takes smart shots. Kaman with Mo minutes would score more than Mo, defend better and hit the boards. Earl Watson never broke a sweat on the court. Two rotation players for a scoring, undersized guard that was defensively challenged? You decide
 
Let's see. It's not really Blake for Mo, it's Kaman and Blake for Mo and Earl Watson...in my book, that was an upgrade. It's defensively an upgrade and offensively an upgrade. Blake can get 5 assists in 6 minutes on a court and if he shoots, takes smart shots. Kaman with Mo minutes would score more than Mo, defend better and hit the boards. Earl Watson never broke a sweat on the court. Two rotation players for a scoring, undersized guard that was defensively challenged? You decide

And in all reality, considering that Mo signed for more than we could offer him with the non-bird exception, it would have required our MLE to keep him. So as far as contract slots are concerned, we replaced Mo with Kaman.

I'd much rather spend MLE on a backup for RoLo than Lillard.
 
The Blazers didnt even want Mo back. Mo himself pretty much confirmed it
 
And in all reality, considering that Mo signed for more than we could offer him with the non-bird exception, it would have required our MLE to keep him. So as far as contract slots are concerned, we replaced Mo with Kaman.

I'd much rather spend MLE on a backup for RoLo than Lillard.

Even better we got a backup for LA and Rolo..not an easy thing to find
 
Blake can get 5 assists in 6 minutes on a court and if he shoots, takes smart shots.

Agree, unless it's Game 3 of the 2009 playoffs against HOU, when Blake decided that, down 3 with about 15 seconds to go, he was going to shoot a 30'-er 4 seconds into the shot clock. Let's just say it didn't go well for us.
 
Just watch, Mo will score like crazy and Bucher will point to it and say, "See? He's averaging twice as many points-per-game as Blake, I was right!"

Conveniently ignoring, of course, that the fact Blake will make the players around him better, and actually involve the youngsters in the offense rather than making them idle spectators...
 
Agree, unless it's Game 3 of the 2009 playoffs against HOU, when Blake decided that, down 3 with about 15 seconds to go, he was going to shoot a 30'-er 4 seconds into the shot clock. Let's just say it didn't go well for us.

Ouch I forgot about that one but he's been to the Steve Nash school of pointguardism since then
 
This is what happens when someone who doesn't actually follow the team looks at a couple basic stats and thinks they now what they're talking about. Yes, Mo and Blake are both back up PGs. That's where the similarity ends. Blake will not score as much as Mo did, but that's not his role and not why we signed him.

Last year, Mo was our scoring off the bench. He averaged 9.7ppg. No one else off our bench average more than 5.3ppg (C.J. in 38 games). Last year, bench scoring was a HUGE problem, We NEEDED Mo to score. In that respect, Mo was a better fit for us last year than Blake would have been. The problem was, Mo is a streaky shooter. We all saw Good Mo vs. Bad Mo last season. Good Mo, kept us in games when our starters were resting, and when Good Mo was Really Good Mo, he also finished games with the starting unit, giving us additional 3-point shooting, a good FT shooter and an additional ballhandler. Unfortunately, we also got a healthy doese of Bad Mo who would come in and shoot us right out of a game, turning a double digit lead into a double digit deficit before the starters on the bench could even catch their breath. In Mo's defense, he really didn't have a lot of help on offense from the rest of our bench guys.

That has changed. Blake is not expected to replicate Good Mo's scoring, but he also won't shoot us out of a game, like Bad Mo would. As others have pointed out, Kaman will provide scoring off the bench. Kaman average more points (10.4 ppg) than Mo in far fewer minutes (18.9 MPG vs. 24.9 MPG) than Mo last season. Kaman has never averaged less than 10 ppg in his entire career. He will give us as much, or more, scoring than Mo did and will be much more efficient and consistent.

Blake was signed AFTER Kaman. Once we'd replaced Mo's scoring, management clearly wanted a back up PG that would involve his teammates and not kill the ball movement the way Mo did. In addition to Kaman, I think management is counting on other bench players to step up and increase their scoring this year. In terms of ppg, C.J. as our second best scorer off the bench last year, but he was a rookie that missed all of training camp preseason and the first half of the regular season. He was inconsistent and looked lost at times. Plus, it didn't help that Mo basically froze him out when they were on the court together.

Ultimately, I think management's goal was to not have to change the way the team plays when going to the bench. I think they want the same kind of ball movement, inside/outside, unselfish style of play that we get with the starters. That kind of consistent offensive flow will let Stotts mix and match line ups with ease and also provides consistency if we have injuries or foul trouble. Getting Kaman was the first key. He actually has a better low post game than anyone else on the roster, but he also has a great mid-range game similar to Aldridge. As he's shown in preseason, he's also a capable passer who can find the open 3-point shooters. He's versatile enough he can play with Aldridge or in place of him. That's huge when trying to develop a consistent style of play between the starters and bench.

Once they had Kaman, they needed a back up PG that would not kill the ball movement. Blake is MUCH better at that than Mo, and that's why the Blake signing is not going to backfire, in fact, for this season's bench, it's an upgrade. With half a season under his belt, an additional summer league, a full training camp and preseason, I think management expects a lot more from C.J. this season than last. Blake will do a much better job of setting C.J. up than Mo did. With Kaman and C.J. coming off the bench, the second unit can play a similar style to the starters with Aldridge and Lillard. Granted, C.J. is no Lillard, but his style is similar. He combines 3-point shooting with drives to the rim. C.J. is not a PG, though and that's why Blake is there. Blake will bring the ball up the court, initiate the offense and keep the ball moving. These are all things C.J. doesn't do well (at least, not yet). So, Blake is a perfect fit in this role, much better than Mo would have been.

Ultimately, I don't care what Rick Bucher thinks. He obviously doesn't follow the team close enough to understand the moves we made and how all the pieces fit together. Of course, he's right, Blake will not score as much as Mo did, but he's also wrong that this move will backfire. Blake's individual scoring will be less, but our bench scoring will be vastly improved and much more balanced than last season. That;s what matters, not individual stats. We no longer need to rely on Mo going 1-on-5, we now have multiple scoring options and a PG who will get them the ball.

BNM
 
Mo led all bench players in assists last year. It wasn't just scoring.
 
Mo led all bench players in assists last year. It wasn't just scoring.

Yeah, but Mo's AST% of 26.7% was much lower than the 33% Blake had with the Lakers. Blake also had significantly more AST/36, more APG and more AST/100 possessions. But, Blake was a starter, so yes Mo had more assists off the bench than Blake.

However, I bet most of Mo's assists came when he was playing with the starters, in particular Aldridge and Lillard, not when he was playing with the second unit. With the second unit, the offense was all Mo all the time, for better, or worse.

BNM
 
You had me at
This is what happens when someone who doesn't actually follow the team looks at a couple basic stats and thinks they now what they're talking about.

This is what happens when someone who doesn't actually follow the team looks at a couple basic stats and thinks they now what they're talking about. Yes, Mo and Blake are both back up PGs. That's where the similarity ends. Blake will not score as much as Mo did, but that's not his role and not why we signed him.

Last year, Mo was our scoring off the bench. He averaged 9.7ppg. No one else off our bench average more than 5.3ppg (C.J. in 38 games). Last year, bench scoring was a HUGE problem, We NEEDED Mo to score. In that respect, Mo was a better fit for us last year than Blake would have been. The problem was, Mo is a streaky shooter. We all saw Good Mo vs. Bad Mo last season. Good Mo, kept us in games when our starters were resting, and when Good Mo was Really Good Mo, he also finished games with the starting unit, giving us additional 3-point shooting, a good FT shooter and an additional ballhandler. Unfortunately, we also got a healthy doese of Bad Mo who would come in and shoot us right out of a game, turning a double digit lead into a double digit deficit before the starters on the bench could even catch their breath. In Mo's defense, he really didn't have a lot of help on offense from the rest of our bench guys.

That has changed. Blake is not expected to replicate Good Mo's scoring, but he also won't shoot us out of a game, like Bad Mo would. As others have pointed out, Kaman will provide scoring off the bench. Kaman average more points (10.4 ppg) than Mo in far fewer minutes (18.9 MPG vs. 24.9 MPG) than Mo last season. Kaman has never averaged less than 10 ppg in his entire career. He will give us as much, or more, scoring than Mo did and will be much more efficient and consistent.

Blake was signed AFTER Kaman. Once we'd replaced Mo's scoring, management clearly wanted a back up PG that would involve his teammates and not kill the ball movement the way Mo did. In addition to Kaman, I think management is counting on other bench players to step up and increase their scoring this year. In terms of ppg, C.J. as our second best scorer off the bench last year, but he was a rookie that missed all of training camp preseason and the first half of the regular season. He was inconsistent and looked lost at times. Plus, it didn't help that Mo basically froze him out when they were on the court together.

Ultimately, I think management's goal was to not have to change the way the team plays when going to the bench. I think they want the same kind of ball movement, inside/outside, unselfish style of play that we get with the starters. That kind of consistent offensive flow will let Stotts mix and match line ups with ease and also provides consistency if we have injuries or foul trouble. Getting Kaman was the first key. He actually has a better low post game than anyone else on the roster, but he also has a great mid-range game similar to Aldridge. As he's shown in preseason, he's also a capable passer who can find the open 3-point shooters. He's versatile enough he can play with Aldridge or in place of him. That's huge when trying to develop a consistent style of play between the starters and bench.

Once they had Kaman, they needed a back up PG that would not kill the ball movement. Blake is MUCH better at that than Mo, and that's why the Blake signing is not going to backfire, in fact, for this season's bench, it's an upgrade. With half a season under his belt, an additional summer league, a full training camp and preseason, I think management expects a lot more from C.J. this season than last. Blake will do a much better job of setting C.J. up than Mo did. With Kaman and C.J. coming off the bench, the second unit can play a similar style to the starters with Aldridge and Lillard. Granted, C.J. is no Lillard, but his style is similar. He combines 3-point shooting with drives to the rim. C.J. is not a PG, though and that's why Blake is there. Blake will bring the ball up the court, initiate the offense and keep the ball moving. These are all things C.J. doesn't do well (at least, not yet). So, Blake is a perfect fit in this role, much better than Mo would have been.

Ultimately, I don't care what Rick Bucher thinks. He obviously doesn't follow the team close enough to understand the moves we made and how all the pieces fit together. Of course, he's right, Blake will not score as much as Mo did, but he's also wrong that this move will backfire. Blake's individual scoring will be less, but our bench scoring will be vastly improved and much more balanced than last season. That;s what matters, not individual stats. We no longer need to rely on Mo going 1-on-5, we now have multiple scoring options and a PG who will get them the ball.

BNM
 
Ive said it before but I feel like its lazy reporting. And I dont feel like there is any excuse for it with someone that's getting paid to do that job.
 
This is what happens when someone who doesn't actually follow the team looks at a couple basic stats and thinks they now what they're talking about. Yes, Mo and Blake are both back up PGs. That's where the similarity ends. Blake will not score as much as Mo did, but that's not his role and not why we signed him.

Last year, Mo was our scoring off the bench. He averaged 9.7ppg. No one else off our bench average more than 5.3ppg (C.J. in 38 games). Last year, bench scoring was a HUGE problem, We NEEDED Mo to score. In that respect, Mo was a better fit for us last year than Blake would have been. The problem was, Mo is a streaky shooter. We all saw Good Mo vs. Bad Mo last season. Good Mo, kept us in games when our starters were resting, and when Good Mo was Really Good Mo, he also finished games with the starting unit, giving us additional 3-point shooting, a good FT shooter and an additional ballhandler. Unfortunately, we also got a healthy doese of Bad Mo who would come in and shoot us right out of a game, turning a double digit lead into a double digit deficit before the starters on the bench could even catch their breath. In Mo's defense, he really didn't have a lot of help on offense from the rest of our bench guys.

That has changed. Blake is not expected to replicate Good Mo's scoring, but he also won't shoot us out of a game, like Bad Mo would. As others have pointed out, Kaman will provide scoring off the bench. Kaman average more points (10.4 ppg) than Mo in far fewer minutes (18.9 MPG vs. 24.9 MPG) than Mo last season. Kaman has never averaged less than 10 ppg in his entire career. He will give us as much, or more, scoring than Mo did and will be much more efficient and consistent.

Blake was signed AFTER Kaman. Once we'd replaced Mo's scoring, management clearly wanted a back up PG that would involve his teammates and not kill the ball movement the way Mo did. In addition to Kaman, I think management is counting on other bench players to step up and increase their scoring this year. In terms of ppg, C.J. as our second best scorer off the bench last year, but he was a rookie that missed all of training camp preseason and the first half of the regular season. He was inconsistent and looked lost at times. Plus, it didn't help that Mo basically froze him out when they were on the court together.

Ultimately, I think management's goal was to not have to change the way the team plays when going to the bench. I think they want the same kind of ball movement, inside/outside, unselfish style of play that we get with the starters. That kind of consistent offensive flow will let Stotts mix and match line ups with ease and also provides consistency if we have injuries or foul trouble. Getting Kaman was the first key. He actually has a better low post game than anyone else on the roster, but he also has a great mid-range game similar to Aldridge. As he's shown in preseason, he's also a capable passer who can find the open 3-point shooters. He's versatile enough he can play with Aldridge or in place of him. That's huge when trying to develop a consistent style of play between the starters and bench.

Once they had Kaman, they needed a back up PG that would not kill the ball movement. Blake is MUCH better at that than Mo, and that's why the Blake signing is not going to backfire, in fact, for this season's bench, it's an upgrade. With half a season under his belt, an additional summer league, a full training camp and preseason, I think management expects a lot more from C.J. this season than last. Blake will do a much better job of setting C.J. up than Mo did. With Kaman and C.J. coming off the bench, the second unit can play a similar style to the starters with Aldridge and Lillard. Granted, C.J. is no Lillard, but his style is similar. He combines 3-point shooting with drives to the rim. C.J. is not a PG, though and that's why Blake is there. Blake will bring the ball up the court, initiate the offense and keep the ball moving. These are all things C.J. doesn't do well (at least, not yet). So, Blake is a perfect fit in this role, much better than Mo would have been.

Ultimately, I don't care what Rick Bucher thinks. He obviously doesn't follow the team close enough to understand the moves we made and how all the pieces fit together. Of course, he's right, Blake will not score as much as Mo did, but he's also wrong that this move will backfire. Blake's individual scoring will be less, but our bench scoring will be vastly improved and much more balanced than last season. That;s what matters, not individual stats. We no longer need to rely on Mo going 1-on-5, we now have multiple scoring options and a PG who will get them the ball.

BNM

Once again you made another gem of a response! You should be one of the writers for S2! Repped.
 
Ultimately, I think management's goal was to not have to change the way the team plays when going to the bench. I think they want the same kind of ball movement, inside/outside, unselfish style of play that we get with the starters. That kind of consistent offensive flow will let Stotts mix and match line ups with ease and also provides consistency if we have injuries or foul trouble.

Quoting myself, but I think this is the key for this team to take the next step. I think we're learning from the Spurs example. They have a system. They stick to that system no matter who is in the game. Their bench is made up of castoffs from other teams and guys they plucked out of nowhere. They put a strong emphasis on guys who are versatile (like Diaw), and guys who fit in their system and style of play. Most importantly, guys who are WILLING to play within that system 100% of the time. Guys who aren't are gone - see ya, Cap'n Jack.

Last year, our style of play changed dramatically, from one of unselfish play and great ball movement to Mo playing hero ball when our bench came in - see ya, Mo.

We have GREAT starters, the best in the league, but, as we all know, our bench was our Achilles heel last year. In order to take the next step, we need the continuity between our starters and our bench so that we don't have a huge drop off when the starters come out. It's not just about talent. It's about fit and a consistent style of play. I think our off season acquisitions were targeted specifically to achieve this continuity.

I also think it's why the team was not interested in bringing Mo back and also why Thomas Robinson is not in the current rotation. I do believe the decision to not pick up his 4th year option was to preserve cap space, but I also think if Robinson was a great fit in Stotts' system, they would have been more inclined to pick up his option. Leonard, as a jump shooting stretch 4 is a better fit and I think that's why he got consistent minutes during the preseason, and Robinson didn't.

BNM
 
Quoting myself, but I think this is the key for this team to take the next step. I think we're learning from the Spurs example. They have a system. They stick to that system no matter who is in the game. Their bench is made up of castoffs from other teams and guys they plucked out of nowhere. They put a strong emphasis on guys who are versatile (like Diaw), and guys who fit in their system and style of play. Most importantly, guys who are WILLING to play within that system 100% of the time. Guys who aren't are gone - see ya, Cap'n Jack.

Last year, our style of play changed dramatically, from one of unselfish play and great ball movement to Mo playing hero ball when our bench came in - see ya, Mo.

We have GREAT starters, the best in the league, but, as we all know, our bench was our Achilles heel last year. In order to take the next step, we need the continuity between our starters and our bench so that we don't have a huge drop off when the starters come out. It's not just about talent. It's about fit and a consistent style of play. I think our off season acquisitions were targeted specifically to achieve this continuity.

I also think it's why the team was not interested in bringing Mo back and also why Thomas Robinson is not in the current rotation. I do believe the decision to not pick up his 4th year option was to preserve cap space, but I also think if Robinson was a great fit in Stotts' system, they would have been more inclined to pick up his option. Leonard, as a jump shooting stretch 4 is a better fit and I think that's why he got consistent minutes during the preseason, and Robinson didn't.

BNM

It's because team ball isn't popular in the national media. They want and love the "hero-ball" players. How they jumped on AI's joke was a recent example. How about Kobe? They don't give a shit about Spurs, even now really. Each and every year they've written the Spurs off. It is the way of the dragon!
 
It's because team ball isn't popular in the national media. They want and love the "hero-ball" players. How they jumped on AI's joke was a recent example. How about Kobe? They don't give a shit about Spurs, even now really. Each and every year they've written the Spurs off. It is the way of the dragon!

Yep, but I'd rather have the Spurs success than the media accolades, and I'm glad our management and coaching staff have chosen this route.

So, if our new bench can play the same offensive style as the starters, the next, next step is a consistent team defensive style. Again, the Spurs are the team to emulate. Because they have a system, on both ends of the court, that everyone from the GM to the coach to the superstars to the last guy on the bench has bought into, they are able to take guys like Patty Mills and Boris Diaw, who are NOT good individual defenders and make them fit within the structure of their team defense.

You're right, the casual fan doesn't want to watch defense, they want Lob City 24/7, but as a hardcore fan of basketball, the Spurs team defense during the playoffs last season was a thing of beauty. Their defensive rotations were as close to perfect as I've ever seen. They must work on that over and over in practice until it's second nature for everyone to know exactly where they are supposed to be on the court at all times.

BNM
 
Yep, but I'd rather have the Spurs success than the media accolades, and I'm glad our management and coaching staff have chosen this route.

So, if our new bench can play the same offensive style as the starters, the next, next step is a consistent team defensive style. Again, the Spurs are the team to emulate. Because they have a system, on both ends of the court, that everyone from the GM to the coach to the superstars to the last guy on the bench has bought into, they are able to take guys like Patty Mills and Boris Diaw, who are NOT good individual defenders and make them fit within the structure of their team defense.

You're right, the casual fan doesn't want to watch defense, they want Lob City 24/7, but as a hardcore fan of basketball, the Spurs team defense during the playoffs last season was a thing of beauty. Their defensive rotations were as close to perfect as I've ever seen. They must work on that over and over in practice until it's second nature for everyone to know exactly where they are supposed to be on the court at all times.

BNM

I would too! Who cares if the media likes you? I think the better reward is becoming a team everyone fears; which was the case of the Spurs. That is the true model man. Who gives a shit about your personal attention when your team can and will win titles over the next 10 years?!?!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top