What's new
By:

Utah Jazz vs. Portland Trailblazers. April 4th.

Stoked said:
Just giving you more reasons to be a hater.
Click to expand...
I take it as a compliment.

I like it when a person can see multiple sides of an argument and realize that each side might have some validity.

Also like when people can change their minds and admit when they are wrong.

I think you do a great job at these things and I really like that you are usually unbiased and fair in a discussion.
 
Go Jazz!
 
fishonjazz said:
I take it as a compliment.

I like it when a person can see multiple sides of an argument and realize that each side might have some validity.

Also like when people can change their minds and admit when they are wrong.

I think you do a great job at these things and I really like that you are usually unbiased and fair in a discussion.
Click to expand...

NAOS just likes to tease me about generic answers. I just don't feel the need to get specific and in depth on Jazzfanz.
 
I thin if Neto is still out we can go ahead and assume Hill isn't just being a baby. While I don't know Netos injury history, being that he doesn't play 30 minutes a night, I would expect him to be back before Hill.

Sent from my VS990 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
Jazz won the last game vs. the Blazers without Hood and Favors, but Hill played and played well. Lillard also had an off night. Jazz are going to need Ingles, Johnson and Exum to play well, especially defensively. Gobert needs to dominate and hit his FTs.
 
jazzman12 said:
Deep breath. They decided weeks ago that the 4 seed wasn't worth sacrificing potential health. If tonight was game 1 of the first round, they'd all be playing.
Click to expand...
It sure would suck if we were tied up 3-3 in round one having won all of our home games and we were heading off to LA for game 7 though when we could and should be securing homecourt right now.

Oh well, maybe we will win tonight (gobert and Hayward might be enough. Maybe burks finally has a vintage burks from 2 years ago game? ) and then it's a have your cake and eat it to situation.
 
jazzman12 said:
What's the Jazz record when Good Luck Girls don't get posted in the game thread?
Click to expand...
Idk
Better not chance it though. Thanks for the reminder.

a48a5df6135364874aaf913547c23fb5.jpg

cabb5701630d39461948f4e56ee3a93c.jpg
 
fishonjazz said:
I'm definitely using the info that I have, which is very little info but it's all I have to go off, which gives me the impression that they are out for soreness. If you know of some breaks, tears, surgeries or something that I don't them I would use that info to formulate a new opinion. Or if the jazz released more info to us. But alas, they don't. So I use the info that I have. Which again is very little.

Similar to when I talk about free agency, or drafts or whatever. I'm not there talking to players agents, I don't have scouts working for me to determine who to draft.

It seems like you think we should always be happy with and agree with whatever the team does. If they stand pat at trade deadlines and in free agency then we should agree with those non moves cause we aren't there and don't have all the info rather than being all rah rah rah spend this money and that money on this guy and that guy.
Click to expand...

Gimme a break. Injuries and team spending / player acquisition are not the same black box. You can evaluate a GM with much more evidence than you can evaluate a medical staff.
 
fishonjazz said:
I take it as a compliment.

I like it when a person can see multiple sides of an argument and realize that each side might have some validity.

Also like when people can change their minds and admit when they are wrong.

I think you do a great job at these things and I really like that you are usually unbiased and fair in a discussion.
Click to expand...

There's a difference between seeing multiple sides of an argument and relativizing multiple arguments into the same general haze.
 
NAOS said:
Gimme a break. Injuries and team spending / player acquisition are not the same black box. You can evaluate a GM with much more evidence than you can evaluate a medical staff.
Click to expand...
Fair enough
 
NAOS said:
There's a difference between seeing multiple sides of an argument and relativizing multiple arguments into the same general haze.
Click to expand...
Eh, nobody's perfect. (Shrugs shoulders)
 
NAOS said:
There's a difference between seeing multiple sides of an argument and relativizing multiple arguments into the same general haze.
Click to expand...

Concise and true. I like. (Though I didn't follow the context of why you said that in this thread.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top