Bucks are Team Hairdo

I’ve haven’t gotten a chance to see the Bucks last couple games before last night. 

How long has Jennings had they sweet “high rise” fade, and how long has Bogut had that “Andrew Bogut, All-American Boy” haircut? 

Actually, they both look decent.  Jennings is kind of cool looking, and Bogut looks much better with, as one of my college roommates would say, “a stable haircut”.   Jennings do reminds me slightly of Kid N’ Play, and Bogut looks like he should be on one of those old Sports Illustrated covers where they suddenly introduce the “Schoolboy All-American” to the nation (remember how Sports Illustrated would refer to high school players as ‘Schoolboys”?).

Neither shot it too well last night.  But, I have to do the analytics for the last two games later tonight before I make judgments.

Oh, also.  I know I’m in the extreme minority about this.  But I think the Bucks look AWESOME in their “Traveling Greens”.  I wish they wouldn’t wear red.

Administrative Note:  If you notice, unlike my other blogs, on this blog I am trying to answer EVERY comment.  In order to do so, I have to sneak looks during business hours.  But doing so, I can only see the first sentence or two.  Therefore, to help me out, please try to give me an executive summary in the first one or two sentences, and I’ll check out the guts of the comment later.  Thanks!

10 Responses to “Bucks are Team Hairdo”

  1. Glenn Says:

    Jennings had people vote on the hairstyle we would wear to All-Star Weekend and they chose the “Gumby.” Whenever an announcer said a word about him it was either that he was fast or that his hair was goofy, And I agree; green > red.

  2. tywill33 Says:

    I just looked at your whole comment. I didn’t mean to endorse the announcers “goofy” comment. That was totally independent.

    And you’re right. Green is a Milwaukee Bucks color. Green reminds me of the times when I was a shorty trying to get my Dad to adjust the antenna so I could watch the Bucks game on TV18, “the Milwaukee Bucks television network”. (Remember back in the day when they would only play road games, so the traveling unis were all you ever saw until you actually attended a game? I always thought that was cool.)

    Red is a passing fade… hopefully.

  3. Ryan Says:

    I like the whites the best, because I don’t really like how the greens are shiny and it’s not as noticeable on the whites. I love the old triple greens from the beginning of the downfall.

    • tywill33 Says:

      Yeah, why are the greens shiny? I don’t get that.

      If you go back a couple of seasons, you will notice the whites were at one time shiny too. (I think it was the first season they switched from purple). Then all of a sudden, they weren’t anymore. Strange.

    • TC from Racine Says:

      I like the reds but prefer the green…and now that you guys mention it, I’m wondering why too…the Celtics don’t use that shiny material (though the last Sonics set did. about the only good thing I initially thought about the OKC move was that I hated that last Sonics logo with a passion). The greens are almost as unnecessarily shiny as what the Hornets changed to after they moved to NO.

  4. Ryan Says:

    Forgot to add, those reds definitely look cheesy.

  5. Blake Says:

    Looks like you were miles off on your Stephen Curry prediction during draft time.

    And now I look like an idiot for telling everyone he was just a shooter.


    • tywill33 Says:


      Yeah, he looks pretty good. They’re using him at shooting guard rather than point guard, which minimizes some of his weaknesses. I can’t imagine his defense is much above poor, though, but that kind of means he just fits in at Golden State

  6. Palamida Says:

    Curry is playing surprisingly well, especially the last two months. What I find odd is the the fact that he’s converting on about 60% of his close shots.
    He’s hitting his 3’s at a very promising 40% clip but that’s to be expected. He isn’t shooting the ball very well from mid range: The damage he does comes from hitting 3’s and close shots. I find that surprising. He converts at close range (60%) better than some Veterans whom you’d assume excel at converting close shots such as: Billups, Andre Miller etc.
    He’s nowhere near the usual elite of that “field” (Rondo,T. Parker, Deron) but he’s just a rookie…. Evans Btw is converting at a similar rate close up.
    I think going into the draft that was the biggest question or rather concern regarding Curry offensively: can he finish at the rim, can he absorb contact and finish?, etc.. I think we got our answer.
    On the defensive end we have ourselves a real mystery.
    Curry got killed at PG. All his positive production went to the bin when you consider his counterparts. Think Curry puts up a lot of shots? his counterparts at PG put up more and had a better Efg%! “they” also got to the line twice fold, and he was outassisted almost 2 to 1. Terrible.
    At SG you’d expect his tiny frame to be pulverized but Lo and behold:
    His counterparts shoot worse, he shoots considerably better and even though the FTA disparity is still large, he outassists his competitors at SG 1.5 to 1. Can any1 speculate as to how the hell this is happening?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: