The Bucks have decided to sign Jeff Teague and pass up on Brandon Jennings. While Jennings has an outrageous fg percentage of only 39%, he is two years younger than Teague and is a better 3 point shooter. Jennings averaged 3 more ppg, but Teague averaged .7 more apg. With this being said, which pg would you prefer?
Stats are over-rated. Basketball is a team game. I would prefer the player that wanted to play for my team if I was the Bucks and it's a bonus if that same player knows the system the new coach is implementing.
it depends on what your team needs. If your team needs a guy who is more about facilitating then you go with teague. If your team needs a pg who needs more of a scorers mentality you go with jennings. Also the thing about the two pgs is like comparing the passing of lebron vs kobe. im not sure i want to say lebron is a better passer but im positive he is a more willing passer. Its not that teague is a better passer. Its just he is a more willing passer than jennings, who when he puts his mind to it is a awesome distributor of the ball.
If you are in the bucks position, who would you prefer? Also if someone is a more willing passer they are a better passer in my book.
I would take Teague mainly because he's a much better defender. Plus he's more efficient and a more willing passer.
Jennings can catch fire with the potential of netting a 40 point game. Otherwise, Teague is better on all other accounts.
Actually Teague is a very poor defender especially for a guy with his speed and athletism. Teague has some of the worst defensive numbers in the league. Jennings isn't a good defender by any stretch but he's better than Teague in that area
I wholeheartedly disagree. They both steal the ball at roughly the same clip: Last year Jennings got 1.6 steals while Teague got 1.5. But the real difference in their defensive abilities cannot be quantified with traditional stats.
When Teague was on the court opponents had an Offensive Rating of 104.7.
When Jennings was on the court, opposing teams had an Offensive Rating of 107.9.
In addition, when Jennings was off the court opposing teams had an Offensive Rating of 98.7. That has a lot to do with the fact that Bucks have a number of ball hawks that usually play more while Jennings is benched. Still, that stark difference is a testament to his lack of defensive acumen.
Furthermore, Teague is a better defender simply from the eye test. He is a bigger more physical guard. Hate to be cheap about it, but that really helps. Especially since the league is full of large point guards. Rondo, Rose, Williams, Westbrook- these threats need someone who can match their size. Jennings has no shot against these type of builds.
Teague hands down. He's much more efficient, bigger, stronger, and more athletic. Jennings FG% and 3pt% are almost identical. Jennings game provides very little substance imo
well 1st of all to bounce, if im the bucks i stick with jennings. Obviously the bucks hiring drew as the coach was significant in signing teague, but the bucks need someone to look to score with their current team. Also i think if jennings were on a team with better scorers surrounding him instead of on the bucks his 1st 4 seasons in the league he wouldnt be taking so many shots, but still to me more willing doesnt mean better. Assists to turnover ration means more to me. Lets compare teague in his last 2 years as a full time starter for atl has had an asts-turnover ratio of around 2.46. Jennings in 4 years as a starter has a ratio of 2.39 about the same right? but in atl teague has always had the luxury of playing with obvious more accomplished scoring options around him to bail him out. In milwaukee jennings was that guy every night. Also from the 2009 class jennings is the only draftee to put a team on his back and make the playoffs twice. I think that shows jennings had to take more shots and did well in doing so.
Any player whose career FG% is under.400 and has only shot the ball above .400 once in his career albeit a short one(career best is .418) does not deserve $12mil. At least if you want to shoot those percentages at least be a top disturber in the game, which is not. Jennings only is netting 5 and a half assist for his career. He is a scorer, and if you are a scorer you need to do it well, which is not.
Give me Teague who is cheaper, more efficient, more willing passer and a player who you can rely on to do his role in the team, even if he is 2 years older.
bruh you serious, i respect everybodys' argument but how you gone put net assists per game for career in your argument and not tell the whole story? Yes jennings av 5 assists per game for his career, but teague averages 4. Yes teague only started his last two years and put up better stats on distribution but last year jennings really improved taking his assists up to 6.5 per game. Compare them at their best and tell the whole story including details about who played with what talent or dont tell the story at all.
I thought i did include but looking back at it i must have forgot it but i do apologise for the omission.
6.5 assists a game is still not enough distribution to justify below 0.400 FG%. If you want to compare them at their best, Jennings career best FG% is only 0.418 and that was a couple of years back. That alone should be enough to scare a GM from giving him 10 + mil a year.
He shot that lower percentage because he had to put the offence of that team on his back for a majority of his time with the bucks, monta ellis was there for a season but he isnt exactly the most efficient guy either so you arent going to bump your assists up with him on your team, combine that with Jennings less then stellar decision making, of course he is going to shoot a poor percentage. But if you take him out of Milwaukee and on a GOOD playoff team, such as the Pacers, or Denver, or Memphis, he would shoot a reasonably average number because he wouldnt have to do everything himself. You put him on a team where he is the 3rd option and he easily shoots upwards of 40. He still wouldnt be supremely efficient due to his mentioned decision making issues, but Milwaukee inflated the poorness of his efficiency because he was the main guy who had to 1) initiate the offence, 2) be the number one option and 3) get all his teammates involved because no one apart from Monta Ellis can get their own shot, and only top tier point guards like Derrick Rose, Chris Paul and the like can do that, and Jennings just isnt that type of pointguard.
In conclusion, Jennings would be shoot plus 40 if he was playing a lesser role on a better team, stats lie in his case because everything is inflated due to him having to do everything.
Jennings is still living off that 55 point game as a rookie. Which was most likely the worst thing that could have happened to him at that time. If Jennings wanted to work on his game and not think he was a superstar I would pick him, But Teague is one of those hard nosed guys. That does everything the coach tells him to do. And will be playing in the NBA 10 years from now.
Brandon Jennings is selfish, inefficient and has a low basketball I.Q. on both sides of the floor. He needs 20 shots to get 20 points and is no where near as good as he thinks he is. Everybody laughed at him when he said the Bucks would beat the Heat and when he demanded a max contract. He has the vision and passing ability to average many more assists than he currently does, but his selfish, me-first attitude makes him think he is always the better option. He will likely never fulfill his potential because of all of these reasons.
Jeff Teague is the better player right now simply because he doesn't play selfishly, out of control or take that many poor shots. He does not have the passing ability or floor vision that Jennings possesses, or the scoring ability for that matter, but he plays to the limit of his abilities and doesn't try to do too much. He will also come cheaper than Jennings and provide the same (if not better) value that Jennings would be able to give.
Give me Teague. Jennings is just way too erratic and inefficient.
jennings for the future if you trying to win a chip.
There is a 4 million dollar difference in what each player wants, that has to come into consideration. I would take Teague if I was the Bucks or Hawks. Jennings is better but he would get an extra year and 25% more money. Technically you could have had a Jeff Teague/Jarret Jack combo for 14 million or Jennings andd Shaun Livingston for 14 million. I would prefer JT/JJ.
ATL could construct a big 4 around Horford and Jennings. They would both make 12 million and 2 other 12 a year guys would put a core at 48 million. The avg big 3 in the League is at 48 with three 16 million dollar guys.
I think both are middle of the pack type guys...The difference is Teague has led his squad to the playoffs and played a huge role in doing so...If you remember, Jennings sat in favor of JJ Redick during the series vs. Miami on numerous occasions.
I'm going Teague however...Even though I don't love his body language and court demeanor
I'll take Teague because he's not Brandon Jennings.
I wouldn't sign either but if i had to choose i'd take Teague. Anything to keep Jennings away from my team.