What do you think the Bucks could get for him, if anything? His trade value is way low right now, so I think the Bucks would be lucky to get a first round pick in next year's stacked draft.
Not much. Late, late first... maybe.
He's not worth anywhere near what he thinks he's worth, which means he'll likely play on the QO making him a UFA after this upcoming season. What would a team risk for a possible 1 yr rental of Brandon Jennings? Not much.
Jennings himself needs to watch that video.
Ramon Sessions probably shouldn't watch that video haha
I think Jennings is bad, but that video makes him seem even worse. Isn't he asking for around 12million a year or something? This video makes it seem like he is lucky to get the QO of 4.5 million.
I think it paints a clear, accurate picture. Jennings is not good. There is not one area of the game where he excels. He's an average playmaker, he's an inefficient scorer and he's bad defensively. He points to the numbers that back those assertions, then give examples (although I'd like to see more examples over the course of a single game...that'd be my only beef with the video.)
He wouldn't be as bad if he had a bigger build. Then he'd be able to take it into the paint more for drive-and-kicks or drawing fouls, but he's skinny with a bad frame so I don't see that happening anytime soon. His game is what it has to be, almost strictly perimeter based and reliant on tough shots off the bounce. A smarter player could still make it work by picking his spots better, but Jennings is not smart.
The upside with him is what? Youth and swag?
The rate Jennings has decided to create for others has been average but I'd rate his playmaking capabilities as better than average. If he turned about 30 percent of his scoring impulse into creating for his teammates, he and his team would be much better off for it and he might average 9 assists a game. I'm not too optimistic this will happen but who knows, maybe this offseason of rejection will change. I just want to know, where did the kid who wanted to break the McDonald's All-American game record for assists go?
No wonder the Bucks were trying to get Teague.
$4.5 mill for 1 season - didn't jennings want a max contract ?
He's working hard this summer.. I hope the best for him
He was the starting point guard and best player on a average play of team. Highly undervalued
I hope this summer humbles him and makes him work that much harder. I still think he can be an All-Star if he gets his head straight.
Over D Rose, Rondo, Kyrie Irving, D Will, J Holiday, J Wall, and K. Lowry? Not to mention the starting point guards who join the league in the next few season?
And forget about the West Coast where the PG competition is actually tough! There he has to beat out C Paul, Westbrook, Tony Parker, Steph Curry, and Rubio, who are darn close to All Star locks except that there are too many of them and so they can't all be All Stars. And none of these PGs except for Tony Parker are even old! Throw in the one or two really good PGs that come into the league and suggesting that Jennings could make an All Star team is nearly laughable.
He is just a really quick guy. That is it. He is a small quick guy who doesn't have the ability to score and who doesn't really seem content to set up his teammates. It isn't clear that he is a legit NBA player at this point and you are talking All Star?!?!?
I feel like I'm one of the few Bucks fans that wants him back. I don't want to pay him top PG money or anything like that, but I still think he can be effective if he's a #3 option or something on offense, and there is value to that. Plus I think he still has potential, and he definitely has a swagger/charisma about him when things are going well.
Anyways, it's easy to look at his stats and poke holes in his game, but the fact is that he's just barely missed out on the All-Star game the past two years and he's been Milwaukee's #1 or #2 player basically every year since he was a rookie (though arguments can definitely be made that a few other players have been better).
Team was trash b4 he got there. He brought fire and fight. Underrated player. Maybe most underrated in the L but b he asking for 2 much bread b I agree. Give him more weapons, he is a solid playmaker IMO who should shoot less
There is no point to the Bucks parting company with him right now, and, likewise, no reason for Jennings to sign for anything less than his ideal number. It is okay to play for the qualifying offer. If he wants to move on next summer, so be it.
The problem with the statistical arguments against Jennings is that situations and roles matter in the NBA, and when people don't watch the Bucks play they end up thinking Larry Sanders is a star in the making and Brandon Jennings is utterly mediocre and pay no attention to what is actually going on the court and how that leads to the numbers being accumulated.
Milwaukee had a massive shift take place when Andrew Bogut had his horrifying injury and never get back to that level of play. They gambled in trading him for Monta Ellis. They bet on the supposed "new small NBA" idea working by overloading their offensive burden on the perimeter players and thinking "rim protectors" would handle the defense. It doesn't work without LeBron. Brandon Jennings should not have the offensive burden that the Bucks have put on him, but the team has overloaded their frontcourt the past few years with non-threats. It is the presence of these supposedly "efficient" players that diminish the statistics of guys like Jennings because they have to compensate for the fact that Sanders, Udoh, Henson, Dalembert, Mbah a Moute, and Przybilla are non-threats. If you don't believe me, please take a look at how much better Brandon Jennings was in the second half of 2012 when the team was playing Ilyasova and Gooden up front for 30 minutes a night and not the non-threat self-guarded brigade. I'm not arguing for Drew Gooden, and the Bucks didn't guard anyone at that point (though they didn't last year either), but a really good argument can be made that Brandon Jennings would be a held in much higher regard if he had a more skilled frontcourt that would allow for better spacing and diversity to the offense.
Sounds like you're excusing his shot selection... that he's a victim of circumstance instead of volition. Brandon takes bad shots. There's no getting around that. He is not a good decision maker in general. Shot selection IS decision making, so its no surprise he struggles with that. More times than not, a player with his quickness and breakdown ability can get a better shot for another player if they look more to do that. He has the quickness to collapse the defense, but as I'll point out in later, Jennings poor finishing ability doesn't always result in defenses collapsing. But still, a better, higher % shot from a lesser offensive player is still better than a difficult, low % shot from a player like Jennings. A player can ALWAYS settle for bad shots. Better PGs get better shots for their teams.
Good guards who struggle with shooting, whether its because of technique, confidence, shot selection, etc, can make up for that in other areas on offense with their playmaking or ability to score in other ways like attacking the hoop. Brandon is an average to below average playmaker and he's one of the worst finishers among all starting players in the NBA. He was THE worst finisher among all PGs who got more than 30 minutes a game, both at the rim and the 3-9 ft range. It's understated just how poor he is as a finisher which contributes to both his low shooting %s, low foul drawing rate and it explains why he tends to stay on the perimeter settling for difficult shots.
I am pointing out that when a team is constructed with either Marquis Daniels or Luc Mbah a Moute at the 3, and a collection of big men who with the exception of Ersan Ilysaova offered nothing offensively that a shot still has to be put up every 24 seconds.
You simply aren't making a sound case. "A better, higher % shot from a lesser offensive player is still better than a difficult, low % shot from a player like Jennings" does not address the situation at hand. The Bucks are not constructed like the Spurs. Larry Sanders made 26.67 percent of his shots that weren't at the rim, and he did not take every shot given to him by the defense not guarding him. John Henson was at 32 percent away from the rim, but 15-75 from 10 feet and beyond. Ekpe Udoh 32.7 percent, reluctant, bad hands, and even not that good when at the rim. Marquis Daniels who started 33 games made 26 percent of his shots not at the rim. Mbah a Moute is a reluctant shooter who passes up a lot of shots the defense gives him. Sam Dalembert is mediocre at best, and then got exiled. Where are these higher percentage shots coming from when the other team isn't allowing free runs to the rim? They didn't exist. Ersan Ilyasova is an incredibly valuable player, but unless he gets an offensive rebound and put back needs someone to set him up. He cannot create for himself. J.J. Redick can run off a ton of screens, and the Bucks tried to run him off a ton of screens once they acquired him, but when a team gets after him and guards him tightly because he is a secondary option he can be shut down. Milwaukee designed its team to be overwhelmingly reliant upon Jennings, Ellis, and Dunleavy (off the bench against 2nd units) to generate its offense. They are going to be less efficient when everybody knows that the other players aren't threats and don't need to be guarded outside the paint.
Like I mentioned earlier, in the second half of 2012 when the Bucks rolled out their offensive players, Jennings was a much more efficient offensive player. He averaged 19.8 points, 5.9 assists, 2.7:1 assist:turnover, was 47.4 percent on shots inside the arc and 43.1 overall. The team was more efficient, and getting a higher percentage of its field goals off assists. They also went 18-15, and though the goofiness of the compressed schedule played a role it still was still the best half season in the past three years. Brandon Jennings was not stylistically or mentally any different, but the situation made a world of difference in his efficiency.
A better shot is always a better shot, not only for the purposes of getting a higher % shot but also for rhythm and floor balance purposes. NBA players can finish if the table is set for them. But the table has to be set. IMO, a spot up jumper from Dunleavy, Ilyasova, Redick, Harris etc, a kick out opportunity for Ellis to attack a shifted defense, a cutting Ilyasova, a 5 ft jump hook from Henson, a dump off to any big with length and athleticism with a balanced floor that provides more o-boards opps is a better shot than a contested, step back, long 2 J from Jennings...which BTW is a shot he can get at any time in the shot clock.
Brandon's in a catch 22 situation because the obvious answer for his individual efficiency problem (as well as a lot of his team's offensive problems) is to take the ball into the paint more and stop settling for so many contested jumpers, but he can't because he is a piss poor finisher. Opposing teams aren't readily willing to collapse on him, creating more opportunities for drop offs and kick outs, because they know he can't finish well. It's just like when an opposing defense can always go under the screen on a PnR. The defense doesn't have to switch up their coverage or treat the ball-handler as a dual threat. Combine his inability to consistently collapse the defense with his average to below average playmaking ability and the team offensive options become even more limited because every teammate can be played honestly.
Yes, their offensive personnel sucked, but they perform even worse when a guy like Jennings is "running" the offense. This is without even mentioning his porous defense. His impact as a whole is a net negative literally and figuratively.
This past yr, among their rotation players, Jennings had the worst simple rating (4 pts worse offensively and 9! points worse defensively with him on the floor as opposed to off) on the entire team. Both Ellis and Udrih had greater impacts running the point. NBA teams are run by some smart folks. They don't just look at stats. They understand team situation as well. GMs see the same situation that you see with Brandon and the Bucks, yet where was the interest?
"A better shot is always a better shot, not only for the purposes of getting a higher % shot but also for rhythm and floor balance purposes."
Guys who aren't guarded because of their limitations are the ones who screw up rhythm and floor balance, not the guys whose job is to compensate for their limitations.
"NBA players can finish if the table is set for them. But the table has to be set. IMO, a spot up jumper from Dunleavy, Ilyasova, Redick, Harris etc, a kick out opportunity for Ellis to attack a shifted defense, a cutting Ilyasova, a 5 ft jump hook from Henson, a dump off to any big with length and athleticism with a balanced floor that provides more o-boards opps is a better shot than a contested, step back, long 2 J from Jennings...which BTW is a shot he can get at any time in the shot clock."
Milwaukee ran plenty of single-doubles for Redick, he wasn't good at finishing when coming off the screens with a chasing defender. Ersan Ilyasova used to be an effective mover off the ball, it is interesting how that has been diminished when the opposing teams collapse severely due to the lack of threats elsewhere. Henson has trouble getting position in the paint against quality NBA team's because he has no weight on him, and even when he can slip in doesn't have the greatest hands or balance in the world. Ah yes, dumping off to the bigs, because other teams just allow them free access to that spot which is why of course Blake Griffin and DeAndre Jordan are such wonderful players in the playoffs. Yes, bad teams allow it to happen. The Bucks certainly allowed it to happen last year. It just so happens good teams do not. Brandon Jennings is not a great shooter, and I don't think he should have been put in this situation by Milwaukee, but I have watched enough of their games and understood the plan well enough to know why things were playing out the way they did. My point is that if he had a offensively competent lineup around him, he would be fine. When he had it in the second half of 2012, he was good. In 2010 when he was even worse as a shooter, he still played a big role in getting that team one of the most balanced offensive efforts in the league.
"Brandon's in a catch 22 situation because the obvious answer for his individual efficiency problem (as well as a lot of his team's offensive problems) is to take the ball into the paint more and stop settling for so many contested jumpers, but he can't because he is a piss poor finisher. Opposing teams aren't readily willing to collapse on him, creating more opportunities for drop offs and kick outs, because they know he can't finish well. It's just like when an opposing defense can always go under the screen on a PnR. The defense doesn't have to switch up their coverage or treat the ball-handler as a dual threat. Combine his inability to consistently collapse the defense with his average to below average playmaking ability and the team offensive options become even more limited because every teammate can be played honestly."
If Brandon is such a bad pick-and-roll point guard, then why is it that Ersan Ilyasova, his most skilled partner in that set, still is so effective as a shooter out of it. If opposing teams really were thinking of Jennings as someone who wasn't a dual threat, then why would Ilyasova have had back-to-back years of lethal shooting from three and long 2? Also, if Jennings was such a poor finisher, then why was he able to finish at rather a high rate for a half season when he had big men who could score with him? Please, address that matter. I'm not saying Brandon Jennings is Chris Paul, but I am saying that when he has been in a position where he isn't asked to be Chris Paul that he has done well.
"Yes, their offensive personnel sucked, but they perform even worse when a guy like Jennings is "running" the offense. This is without even mentioning his porous defense. His impact as a whole is a net negative literally and figuratively.
This past yr, among their rotation players, Jennings had the worst simple rating (4 pts worse offensively and 9! points worse defensively with him on the floor as opposed to off) on the entire team. Both Ellis and Udrih had greater impacts running the point.
Udrih was running with the second unit, and for as long as he was with them, was often on the court with Dunleavy and then either Monta or Jennings. The rotation was typically designed so that the two would get half of one quarter down each half, and unless it was a heavy part of the schedule rarely were they down at the same time. This meant against lesser defenses (2nd units) the Bucks had three good offensive perimeter players on floor. It is easier to get away with that against benches, but there is a reason Udrih and Dunleavy were coming off the bench.
"NBA teams are run by some smart folks. They don't just look at stats. They understand team situation as well. GMs see the same situation that you see with Brandon and the Bucks, yet where was the interest?"
Whether teams are run by smart people or not (nothing is universal as the worst GMs found gems, the best have missed horribly, and the annual GM survey is a great way to remember that anonymity is the only way to get people in power to be that honest and often times that wrong), and whether teams are right in their assessment of a player or a player's fit (everyone has their hits and misses), to simply cite an unfinished story and claim it settles a debate does not work. Last summer, Martell Webster was given up on because he fell out of favor in Minnesota. Nate Robinson was not even on anyone's radar after going completely m.i.a. the year before. Everyone has a tendency to become a victim of the moment. Brandon Jennings did not have a good year, but I am not going to ignore the fact that he was really good in the second half of 2012. I am going to look for why there was such a stark difference, and hope to put him in a position more closely resembling the second half of 2012 than 2013.
I think in this situation that teams see it as I do. I wouldn't pay Brandon Jennings more than that range Stephen Curry, Mike Conley, Ty Lawson, Jeff Teague, George Hill, and Jrue Holiday have received. If I am another team, why would I offer Jennings a Jrue Holiday or Jeff Teague-like deal when it is basically assured that Milwaukee would match? If I am Brandon Jennings, why would I sign such a deal elsewhere when the likelihood is that the Bucks would match? If I am the Bucks, why would I bid against myself? It makes the most sense for Jennings to play this season for the qualifying offer.
Brandon Jennings is in the same boat as Nikola Pekovic, though I would have guessed prior to July Portland or New Orleans would have taken the plunge on putting out a bloated offer for Pekovic. There is not a great deal of purpose for a team to clear the needed cap space just to put out a contract offer on a restricted free agent whose original team says they'll match on.
If those guys aren't being guarded then Jennings should pass them the ball after he draws the defense. Either he doesn't pass the ball when he should or he doesn't collapse the defense consistently. A pass to an unguarded man with an open shot is a better play than throwing up a contested jumper.
Off screen Redick had a .98 PPP for Milwaukee which would put him greater than the 90th percentile in the NBA.
Ilyasova was used more as spot up and a pop man in their offense this past yr (over 70% of his shots coming off of jumpers as opposed to < 60 in previous yr).
If Jennings was good at collapsing the defense, it wouldn't matter if Henson could establish position in the post. He would be free if his man is helping on Jennings. The good thing about Henson is not only does he have good hands but he is also an over the top option as well as compared to Gooden and Ilyasova in the previous yr.
Ilyasova is a good Pick n Pop option because he is a good shooter out to the 3 pt line. Poppers always give defenses more trouble, despite it leading to a jumper, because there is less support than in roll situations. The support in roll situations is the other big where they can hold the roller while the hedge defender recovers. Whereas the support in pop situations, if there is any, is a wing defender who the popper can still shoot over.
Who were the offensive players that MIL had in 11-12 that caused such a drastic change for Jennings in 12-13? Drew Gooden with his 44% from the floor as a PF? Looking at 1 half of finishing for a shortened season compared to the rest of his career as a finisher, that period looks more like a statistical anomaly.
Brandon Jennings is not a no-namer. His name does have cache. He was SUPPOSED to be one of the best if not the best PGs in this FA class. He garnered barely any interest. A team like Dallas, who is starved for new blood would rather spend 30 mill over 4 yrs for a 31 y/o PG with no upside instead of offering Jennings a contract. Who cares if the original team threatened to "match any offer" that a FA would receive? That's never stopped other GMs from bidding on a FA that they wanted in the past. The FA has to be wanted first. That's called calling a bluff and if the original team matches, the bidding team moves onto their next target. This is without mentioning sign-n-trade possibilities which would have included even more teams.
Unlike Jennings, Pekovic HAS his offer and it has been in negotiations for a while. It is on the table, he just hasn't signed it yet for whatever reason.
Pekovic does not have an offer from another team. If he had the big offer, the matter would have been settled by now. If he was a UFA, he would have been signed in the first week of July. The same is true of Jennings. The only difference is that Pekovic, at 27 years old and coming off a 16-9 season he probably won't be able to repeat given the various additions and return, is more anxious to get the best deal possible this summer as opposed to Jennings who is not as old or coming off as strong a season.
Your comment on Henson is just flat wrong. A collapsing, helping defense knew Marquis Daniels and Luc Mbah a Moute could be left. They knew Larry Sanders, John Henson, Sam Dalembert, and Ekpe Udoh could be left. They knew Ish Smith could be left once he was acquired. Commanding a spot near the rim against a team that knows what it is doing defensively is not easy if you aren't the biggest man on the court. Henson was not strong enough, did not have the balance, or the coordination (catch, gather, and finish in one motion) to operate in a crowd. Likewise with Redick, making shots and taking shots are not the same thing. If a set is run for Redick and he cannot get free or does not have the spacing to get off his shot, the burden is not on him to create it. It got pushed onto mostly Ellis and Jennings. Milwaukee cast Redick in a bigger role offensively than he had been in the NBA, and it is not surprising he had his worst run. When the defensive focus was ratcheted up on him because of who else was on the floor, he came up small. With the Clippers, he gets to be the release valve where he will most likely do very well. Roles and situations matter.
As for who made the difference in 11-12, Gooden making 45 percent of his long 2s (and accounting for 36 percent of his shots) was very much beneficial in spreading the floor when partnered with Ilyasova. Spacing and causing defenses to scatter by having offensive threats who also have the ability to read the defense and pass the ball makes the game easier for everyone. Did you not see the Spurs this past year? Do you really think Matt Bonner, Danny Green, and Gary Neal have some of the moments they had in the playoffs if not for the fact everyone on the Spurs is a functional offensive player who opposing teams have to account for? When I saw the Bucks go a half season getting 65 percent of their baskets off assists with Monta Ellis, I have to say that I was impressed. It is good offensive basketball. Playing that way makes everyone better and everyone's job easier. It isn't exactly a radical basketball notion. In Jennings' rookie year, he couldn't hit a thing. I will not argue that point, but he put a lot of pressure on teams and got everyone involved. Once Bogut's elbow injury slowed him as an offensive player (and other injuries often kept him off the floor), Jennings had his offensive role grow beyond what it should have been. It isn't anyone's fault. Nobody could have predicted that Bogut would have a terrible injury that took him from being a primary option-level center to a lesser offensive player, but they have scrambled to figure out how to adapt. Since that time, when the Bucks have surrounded Jennings threats, he has done well. Allen Iverson was able to have non-threats and find a way to make things work well enough during his career. Those forced shots were not all on him. When Derrick Rose is being guarded by LeBron James and still has to force up shots in the playoffs because no one else on that team can do so, that missed shot is as much on Luol Deng, Taj Gibson, and Joakim Noah as it is on Rose. Brandon Jennings isn't on their level, but last year was asked to do Allen Iverson's job. My point is that the Bucks should be wanting him to have Mike Conley's job. If they give him threats to ease the burden, he will look good. If they ask him to be Allen Iverson, he will show you that he is not, but that is hardly a slight.