What's new
By:

Where does Utah fit in the West?

Kevin Love is like Carmelo. Really good offense and no defense of which to speak. For different reasons but it's still true. And neither win.
 
Broncster said:
Is a healthy Chris Bosh a star?

I dont think so and I think his career is what Loves is following. The best player of a team that couldnt do much (although Bosh took his team further) kind of like Hayward. Once paired with a real super star they could win. Now if you had a team full at every position of this level of players maybe you could win if things worked out the right way, like the 2004 Pistons.
Click to expand...
I agree with this. Imo bosh is close to star level but not quite. About the same level as hayward imo.

Love is below them both imo. Maybe I'm too hard on love but he doesn't seem very good anymore
 
fishonjazz said:
So much rides on exum being a superstar talent.
Click to expand...

You Sir are correct i think. If Exum is the slashing drive to the basket at will player who can play like that SL game in real NBA games as well as a defensive gun we are in the hunt to compete. If he's just ok offensively we are a good playoff team. If he's a bit of a wuss who doesn't take off then we are royally screwed.
 
NAOS said:
I think Rodney Hood can be a 23+ ppg scorer. Efficiently. And I think he can do that within read-option style sets that get others involved. And, I think Exum will be able to contribute to good offense.

^When you pair this with elite defense, then the future could still be bright.
Click to expand...

do you think Hood will naturally become more consistent with experience or will expand his game to get to that level ?
 
green said:
David Locke brought up a valid point tonight that I will get to in a minute. Right now, in the West, teams and their stars shake out like this:

GS: Curry, Thompson, Green (as good as Curry is, and he is great, having three stars vs every one else's two puts GS on another level)
SA: Leonard, Aldrich
OKC: Westbrook, Durant
LAC: Paul, Griffin
Portland: Lillard
Houston: Howard, Harden
Kings: Cousins
Pelicans: Davis
Timberwolves: Towns

There are NINE teams that have legit stars on their teams. We don't have one.

And no. Hayward isn't on the level of any of the players above. And Gobert is not on Hayward's level.

The Jazz are in a big hole talent wise, which is what Locke's point was. He said that we just expect Utah to make the playoffs next year, but the reality is, Sacramento, NO and Minnesota have the three best bigs in the NBA.

With Minnesota hiring Thibbs, I'd be on them making the playoffs over Utah next year. They have star talent. We don't.

If Exum doesn't become a Lillard level player, we might not make the playoffs for a long, long time.

You guys stupidly mock me for suggesting trades for players like Love, but if we don't get a star, we are not going anywhere soon. We don't have a star and the closest thing we have to a star is Hayward...and he has taken us nowhere. He is a very, very good player. Just not a good enough player.

We need a star. I'd trade Favors, Hood, Burks, and our pick for Cousins.

I'd trade Favors, Burks, Burke and our pick for Love.

I'd trade anyone for Harden. I'd trade our whole team for Towns.

If we don't get a star, we ain't going nowhere. It is what it is. This is the NBA and unless you have a star, you don't have a future.
Click to expand...

It's been years since we had a star, and it's been my impression that Jazz management believes we don't need one, just players who know the plays and see the calls, and do what they're told.

I'd like to see some big dude, say found in some car wash joint in LA, and a couple of really synched guys where one can muscle into position and the other can pass the ball to him. That's the sort of thing we need if we're gonna get a lot of people from all over the world watching Utah.
 
NAOS said:
you did that deep of a study?? Please provide a link. That'll be the first "study" in your career on JFC. I can't wait.
Click to expand...

In all fairness it is at least as in depth as anything you have provided so far in this discussion. It rings hollow when you take this route when you yourself have provided nothing to the contrary other than your opinion.
 
Stoked said:
In all fairness it is at least as in depth as anything you have provided so far in this discussion. It rings hollow when you take this route when you yourself have provided nothing to the contrary other than your opinion.
Click to expand...

*Do you think Booker should be classified as a 4th or 5th wing on the team this year?
*Did you notice anything in that study which correlated wing depth with NBA experience? What about any mention of how they generate their offense?

I let him burn his own house down. If that bothers you, then I understand; but sometimes it's a useful technique.
 
NAOS said:
*Do you think Booker should be classified as a 4th or 5th wing on the team this year?
*Did you notice anything in that study which correlated wing depth with NBA experience? What about any mention of how they generate their offense?

I let him burn his own house down. If that bothers you, then I understand; but sometimes it's a useful technique.
Click to expand...

You completely side stepped the point. Maybe he did "burn down his own house". But if he did its kind of silly to stand there mocking him from the ashes of your own house.

Either way, whatever. Not something worth debating.
 
Well OK lets count bigs and plans.

1. Rudy
2. Favors
3. and 4. Booker/Lyles He acknowledged you point that Booker could be the third and said his point remained the same.
5. Withey

The problem is Big 1 and Big 2 got injured AT THE SAME TIME forcing us to go deep into playing our 4th and 5th bigs (and 6th if you count ingles) far more minutes that practically any other team yet we were still in contention for the 5th seed till the last week. If the ONLY difference in our season was that Favors' and Gobert's injuries were staggered so as to eliminate the need for Withey to start any games the Jazz would have been the 5th seed. The same could probably be said at the wing. We had Burks, and Hood down at the same time forcing what would be expected to be our 5th and 6th wing CJ and Trey Burke to play significant minutes at the 2.
In my opinion Baking the Cake was the right call. Bad timing and bad luck had a MAJOR factor in the outcome of this season and the Jazz got almost no luck in their favor. From injuries, to the bounce of the ball, to clutch plays and to officiating luck almost never favored the Jazz. If Exum got injured two weeks earlier the Jazz could have gone after a starting PG. That would have cut Burke's and CJ's total minutes to pure garbage time. Can you imagine this season with Withey, Burke, and CJ playing only garbage time minutes? That is not a significant change from what the plan going into the season. In my opinion the jazz over performed this season and I am very exited to add a year of experience and maybe 1 solid addition. I would love to trade picks and anyone from the lower half lower half of team for a rotation wing better than what we have in the bottom 7 players.
 
Well OK lets count bigs and plans.

1. Rudy
2. Favors
3. and 4. Booker/Lyles He acknowledged you point that Booker could be the third and said his point remained the same.
5. Withey

The problem is Big 1 and Big 2 got injured AT THE SAME TIME forcing us to go deep into playing our 4th and 5th bigs (and 6th if you count ingles) far more minutes that practically any other team. Despite this we were still in contention for the 5th seed till the last week. If the ONLY difference in our season was that Favors' and Gobert's injuries were staggered so as to eliminate the need for Withey to start any games the Jazz would have been the 5th seed. The same could probably be said at the wing. We had Burks, and Hood down at the same time forcing what would be expected to be our 5th and 6th wing CJ and Trey Burke to play significant minutes at the 2.
In my opinion Baking the Cake was the right call. Bad timing and bad luck had a MAJOR factor in the outcome of this season and the Jazz got almost no luck in their favor. From injuries, to the bounce of the ball, to clutch plays and to officiating luck almost never favored the Jazz. If Exum got injured two weeks earlier the Jazz could have gone after a starting PG. That would have cut Burke's and CJ's total minutes to pure garbage time. Can you imagine this season with Withey, Burke, and CJ playing only garbage time minutes? That is not a significant change from what the plan going into the season. In my opinion the jazz over performed this season and I am very exited to add a year of experience and maybe 1 solid addition. I would love to trade picks and anyone from the lower half lower half of team for a rotation wing better than what we have in the bottom 7 players.
 
NAOS said:
*Do you think Booker should be classified as a 4th or 5th wing on the team this year?
*Did you notice anything in that study which correlated wing depth with NBA experience? What about any mention of how they generate their offense?
Click to expand...
Wait so you think that I think Booker is a 4th or 5th wing? Wow. No I think booker was either our 3rd or 4th big (if booker was the 4th big then lyles was the 3rd and if booker was the 3rd then lyles was the 4th imo). I think ingles was our 4th wing.
What a strange way for you to interpret my post.
And I did have a bit of discussion in my study about expierence. Talked about james young experience level vs ingles, stanley johnsons experience level, mkg experience level and admitted that many of the other teams 4th wings do in fact have a lot more experience. I guess you didn't read my post. That's on you.
As far as talking about how each of those players generate their offense in comparison with ingles.... I don't follow every other teams scrubs all that closely and I had already spent like an hour gathering the information for the post that I actually made and you apparently didn't even read anyway so there is no way I was going to take to the time to go through how each teams 4th wing generates their offense.

You are extremely hard to interact with. I am finally learning that I should just stop trying.

I guess I should make you my only poster on ignore. I tried.
 
fishonjazz said:
Wait so you think that I think Booker is a 4th or 5th wing? Wow. No I think booker was either our 3rd or 4th big (if booker was the 4th big then lyles was the 3rd and if booker was the 3rd then lyles was the 4th imo). I think ingles was our 4th wing.
What a strange way for you to interpret my post.
And I did have a bit of discussion in my study about expierence. Talked about james young experience level vs ingles, stanley johnsons experience level, mkg experience level and admitted that many of the other teams 4th wings do in fact have a lot more experience. I guess you didn't read my post. That's on you.
As far as talking about how each of those players generate their offense in comparison with ingles.... I don't follow every other teams scrubs all that closely and I had already spent like an hour gathering the information for the post that I actually made and you apparently didn't even read anyway so there is no way I was going to take to the time to go through how each teams 4th wing generates their offense.

You are extremely hard to interact with. I am finally learning that I should just stop trying.

I guess I should make you my only poster on ignore. I tried.
Click to expand...

Or just lower your expectations of others agreeing with you. hmmmm. could it be OK to realize there are other equally valid opinions. I'll give that a turn myself.

I depend on discussions with real disagreements to form opinions, and if I'm gonna go thinking about the Jazz, I like to see a good fish/Naos disagreement.
 
babe said:
Or just lower your expectations of others agreeing with you. hmmmm. could it be OK to realize there are other equally valid opinions. I'll give that a turn myself.

I depend on discussions with real disagreements to form opinions, and if I'm gonna go thinking about the Jazz, I like to see a good fish/Naos disagreement.
Click to expand...
Omg. If you actually read my post that naos is talking about I said right in that naos has a very valid point and opinion. But then after I took a bunch of time to make a huge post, he comes back saying that I never even talked about experience levels of players (I clearly did) and that I consider trevor booker to be our 4th or 5th wing! Wtf.

It has nothing to do with him having a different opinion. I'm fine with that and even said that after doing my research that I found that he was mostly correct. I thought that ingles was as good and as experienced as other playoff teams 4th wings and naos didn't.
Then after my study I saw that a decent number of teams had clear upgrades over ingles. And I admitted in my post.

So I have no idea what you are talking about.
 
babe said:
Or just lower your expectations of others agreeing with you. hmmmm. could it be OK to realize there are other equally valid opinions.
Click to expand...

His opinion is that I, fishonjazz, think that trevor booker is the utah jazz 4th or 5th wing player on the jazz.

I think that trevor booker is our 3rd or 4th big.

But ya his opinion of what I think in my own mind is as valid as what my opinion of what I think is. That seems ridiculous to me.
 
fishonjazz said:
His opinion is that I, fishonjazz, think that trevor booker is the utah jazz 4th or 5th wing player on the jazz.

I think that trevor booker is our 3rd or 4th big.

But ya his opinion of what I think in my own mind is as valid as what my opinion of what I think is. That seems ridiculous to me.
Click to expand...

check your pos rep, bish. I meant to type big, but typed wing instead.

And, you said Booker was our 4th or 5th big, which is downright laughable.
 
Booker is a pretty decent third big if u ask me. Not a great offensive player or defender, but he makes winning plays and sets the attitude and drive for this team. Next year, if still on the team would be the 4th big, and it's thanks to cake baking.

That's right NAOS! I'm one of those idiot cake bakers!!
 
NAOS said:
check your pos rep, bish. I meant to type big, but typed wing instead.

And, you said Booker was our 4th or 5th big, which is downright laughable.
Click to expand...

fishonjazz said:
i will do a real quick list of 4th wings (like ingles) and 4th bigs (like booker) of those teams.



As for 4th bigs (booker or lyles)
Click to expand...

I dont see anywhere that i said 5th big at all. (cause i didn't) And imo for part of the year booker was the third big, then lyles became the third big and booker the 4th big.
I believe withey to be the 5th big btw. probably laughable as well huh?

Oh and btw
4e9a094aef586e247782ad5d7d101482.jpg


Looks like I'm not the only one who thinks booker is the jazz 4th big.
 
And babe says I'm the one who doesn't realize that others have valid opinions.

Yet I post evidence that I never had booker as a 5th big and then find evidence that booker is actually listed as the 4th big for the jazz. Yet I guarantee that naos will never recognize my opinion as valid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top