outplayed Derrick Rose tonight... Jesus.

He has absolutely nothing on that Bucks team too. I like my boy Warrick, but he shot 5-15 tonight.

sebstar wrote:WE NEEDED A POINT GUARD!!!! Why did we draft this unskilled, clumsy project when there was this ballin' ass, well-rounded talent that fell right into our laps???? He came from Europe too!!!!!! WTF. Hill got all kind of splinters comin out his ass from being glued to bench, while Jennings is shutting shyt down right out the gate.

Walsh and co. were that obsessed with Rubio that they couldnt even give Jennings a chance, or what? I need an explanation, RIGHT NOW!

Even if Walsh couldnt get Rubio's balls out his mouth to be able to see how much of a baller Jennings is, you still draft the better player because at the very least Jennings would have been superior trade bait to Hill. By this point, however, we would have all seen that Jennings was a keeper.

I think that is what it boiled down to. Walsh was so focused on Rubio and Curry that he did not adequately evaluate Jennings' game. In fairness to Walsh, there were some questions about Jennings maturity and whether he was on the path to becoming the next Marbury. Plus, he was skinny and overmatched during workouts by the other PGs. But obviously, he has gained confidence since then and adjusted to the NBA game and is now simply ballin'. I was not sold on Jennings at the beginning of the draft process but after his workouts in Minny, I would have taken him. The scouts there said he was the quickest pg of the group (which included Flynn, Evans and the UCLA pg) and could do what he wanted on offense. That is what we really needed; a pg who can create off the dribble for others. I think we would be further along as a team if we drafted Jennings and got that later pick for Blair. Oh well, maybe Hill does turn into Amare in a year.

Ira wrote:Jennings didn't look that good in his year in Europe.

you must've never read the interview with the euroleague scouts. It wasnt about his statistical production but moreso his practice habits and what he absorbed about the game and to that end he was excellent.

TheGame wrote:

I think that is what it boiled down to. Walsh was so focused on Rubio and Curry that he did not adequately evaluate Jennings' game. In fairness to Walsh, there were some questions about Jennings maturity and whether he was on the path to becoming the next Marbury. Plus, he was skinny and overmatched during workouts by the other PGs. But obviously, he has gained confidence since then and adjusted to the NBA game and is now simply ballin'.

the idiotic and stereotypical nature of the ny media and fanbase was on full display during the debate about drafting Jennings. "He is Marbury 2.0" wtf does that mean, like he or Steph are some kind of disease...

He looks very good so far, and his outside shot has improved.

The only thing I would say "against" drafting him is that we have no idea whether how he deals with life in Milwaukee would be the same as how he would have dealt with life in NYC. You can't say that there is no difference between a small city and the Big Apple- and I wonder how he would have dealt with NYC life.

With that being said, it would be pretty hard to make a case for taking Hill over Jennings based on what we are now seeing, and if we could draft again, I expect that Walsh might take Jennings. I wonder how Jennings did when he worked out with us? Anyone remember?

The jury is still out on what Hill will eventually become, but Jennings sure looks like he would have been a good choice for us.

I was one of the guys who thought Jennings' game might not fit in here, but from what I have seen of him I was wrong.

JohnWallace44 wrote:The thing about Hill going into the draft was that a few months before the draft he was projected #2 or #3 by the "experts." That's the only thing that I liked about the pick at the time. Seemed like we were getting value, but Derozan and Holiday were my preference because of their size/skill relative to their positions. Derozan is extremely long for a SG and we didn't have a SG (still don't). Holiday is 6'3", a PG, and gets to the line, all things that we need.

Jennings was always the wild-card that was going to either get a GM tenure, or get him fired. So far it looks like the Bucks GM and coach might be able to ride this kid for many years.

I think your last paragraph really hits the issue on the head.

Jennings was a make or break type of pick right or wrong Walsh took the guy that he felt was a safer pick in terms of the players ability to be a long term productive NBA player.

I'm not that would have be my style as an NBA exec but it sure does seem to be the way Walsh does business.

Personally as a fan -- for what was left at our pick -- I was hoping for Holiday, Derozan or Jennings -- the Hill pick was like a punch in the gut. That said -- I'm not as down on Hill as many.

JohnWallace44 wrote:The thing about Hill going into the draft was that a few months before the draft he was projected #2 or #3 by the "experts." That's the only thing that I liked about the pick at the time. Seemed like we were getting value, but Derozan and Holiday were my preference because of their size/skill relative to their positions. Derozan is extremely long for a SG and we didn't have a SG (still don't). Holiday is 6'3", a PG, and gets to the line, all things that we need.

Jennings was always the wild-card that was going to either get a GM tenure, or get him fired. So far it looks like the Bucks GM and coach might be able to ride this kid for many years.