With the preseason well underway, we wanted to check the pulse of Bucks fans on how coach Taylor Jenkins should approach the preseason and what he hopes to achieve. Specifically, asked whether Jenkins should prioritise continuity or experimentation, each with its own pros and cons. Well, the verdict was decisive, with 84% of fans voting for experimentation.
Having said that, the comment section centred mainly on the “should Jenkins let the young guys loose?” question—rather than big vs. small playbook,
lineup combinations, etc.—with most folks taking a much more nuanced view. I would include Mitchell Maurer’s entire response—which I thought was incredibly well considered—but for formatting reasons, I’ll post just some of it. Mitchell’s argument primarily focused on which Bucks players “deserve” to play, and on the value of the younger guys earning their stripes rather than being gifted opportunities:
“If you set it up for the young players to be given their spots (rather than earn them), you’re chasing short-term gains at the expense of long-term roster longevity. In three years’ time, once Burries has earned his spot and Ament has earned his spot and Ware has earned his spot, the team will be in better shape both on and off the court. So it’s fine that Coach Jenkins is playing vets right now; he’s setting up the young guys to go and earn their spots. It’s the right way to handle the rebuild-that’s-not-a-rebuild-but-c’mon-Jon-yes-it’s-a-rebuild.”
Naveed2000s was largely on the same page:
I’m kinda changing my tune a bit. Horst said we weren’t rebuilding, and I get the sense from what Jenkins said post game and how he approached game one that he doesn’t view it that way either. I don’t think he’s interested in trying a million permutations or giving a ton of leash. I’m sure we’ll naturally see more variations in lineups especially in preseason, but I think Jenkins has a very clear vision and identity for this team, and guys gotta work for it. It may start with leaning on the vets and trickle down, at least until players really separate themselves and the keepers really become known. I’m positive we’re going to see some turnover with this roster because of that.
That said, Harms made a totally valid point that it matters who the veterans are that may or may not be “standing in the young guys’ way,” and whether it is actually worth investing in those veterans as opposed to just getting the youngins experience right away—even if they haven’t “earned it”:
I’m sure there is some deference to players that have been in the league, but this cast of veterans is dreadful on and off the court. If you had a Khris Middleton or Jrue, okay, valid argument, but these are guys who are bad players that you’re giving entitlement based on tenure vs. merit… I think it works for some, that approach, in a situation where you have a vet you could model after. Herro and Turner, I think you could sell me that Ware and Burries can be an understudy for. The rest, I think you’re doing more harm by stunting them behind these veterans. I do think there is a case for managing wear and tear, but that’s what a deep bench and two-ways are for.
