I'll admit, i'm getting really close to admitting i was terribly, terribly wrong about one Andrew Bogut and how much he would help this team. Whether it be he just has lost it and/or just doesn't fit in, i'm going to wait a bit longer here since he's just now up to cough cough, "full speed" again. But i'm really tempted to admit wrongness on the whole matter.
Not that i think trading Monta was wrong, and the idea was wrong. It made/makes a lot of sense, and the addition by subtraction angle was something many of us had said for years regarding how Monta is/plays.
But how do others feel?
Is it that Bogut just ruins the flow the team had? For whatever reasons they played better without trying to integrate him in? Should we consider him 6th man, centering the bench unit and on nights he's on and when facing big interiors, in there in crunch time?
Is it he just needs more time to get to full speed and gel, that we have to push through these growing with the team pains for the payoff on the other side?
How does a team play good D for a long time, then when they get what should be their most important D piece, lose their edge on D?
I will say that the teams we've faced since he's been back have been either really good, or really hot (Hou and Utah being really hot.) And in Hou's case, who we played twice, they score vs everybody just about.
Is it Mark Jackson's lack of coaching experience running out of positive vibes, winning on fumes? Is MJ at a loss now that the real nitty gritty of coaching has presented itself? Does his perhaps lack of X and Os come into play here/now?
I really don't know. I thought Bogut would both help more and be better individually. I could end up being very wrong about him being able to get past his injury issues, that they may indeed be so bad he'll never be the same, or close to it.
What says all of you? What the hell is going on here? How worried should us Dubs fans really be at this point?