Too Many Question Marks

[NUMBERICA]

Don't be silly... its Mike EFFING Conley... lolz roflmao smdh

The extent of the case for Conley at this point.

And I’m not even hating. I think he can help teams, and I think he can help this team, just by no means as a starter/closer, and not at $34 ****ing million.

 

[LogGrad98]

How are DL and Quin supposed to know if Morgan/Brantley/Oni are worth keeping if they didn't get any playing time? G-League is fine but limited. Understanding if they are good enough to be relied on is important because... once we sign JC we are going to be at the tax level (based on the basic projections). So we have to do some gymnastics to unload TB and Ed (doable but it will costs seconds and cash). So then you bring in two defensive specialists with the limited cap exceptions... those will then almost surely play over the unproven guys that you keep around. The cycle continues.

Having one of our project guys show enough promise to fill a small roster hole really helps us figure out the budget for the current year. We won't go into the tax, which means we are letting JC walk or not using our exceptions. Even if we find a way to dump TB and Ed, which will require some cash, is DL going to find something so good with his exceptions that he can ask the millers to invest more in the team?

I wouldn't hold it against Quin for not playing the G League guys if hadn't allocated 4 roster spots and both of our two-way deals to them. If Niang and TB were setting the world on fire I get why you don't experiment a little, but they were clearly lacking and weren't going to be playable together in the playoffs. We had some interesting options but instead of just for instance, rolling with Oni as a backup wing in the bubble... we insisted on giving Mudiay time to do something he can't. If the guys fail you can move on from them. Quin is painfully slow to change his rotations with some guys and others can produce and it doesn't seem to matter.

Just seems like there is a disconnect there if we are dedicating 4 roster spots to guys we won't consider playing, 2 two-way deals to guys we won't play, and 2 roster spots to Mudiay and TB who we know are still not super trustworthy... I didn't mention Niang because I think he's an established commodity and just a backend of the roster type. Playable in spots but should not be in your 8-9 man rotation.

Quin be like...

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

This might be crazy, but hear me out: what if instead of having a primary ball handler who’s small and relegated to the role of a spot-up guy, you instead had a guy who shoots as many threes but is a career 40%+ shooter from deep (OPJ), and on the other side of the ball, instead of hiding a 6’, you instead have a versatile 6’8” guy who can guard multiple positions and is a better defender than anyone on our team not named Gobert (also OPJ)?

What if... we started the guy who is 6'7" and seems to be really good with the starters and gets our best defensive player going. Also, this starting lineup had one of the best net ratings in the NBA. A lineup the coach really wanted to start but the GM wouldn't let him.

Then... what if we moved Mike for something else we needed and maybe got ourselves a little breathing room between us and the tax to let us address other issues.

Just a thought. We should probably just stick with what we are doing.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

The extent of the case for Conley at this point.

And I’m not even hating. I think he can help teams, and I think he can help this team, just by no means as a starter/closer, and not at $34 ****ing million.

His best role would be the JC role... except we can get and keep JC in that role for a billion dollars less.

 

[LogGrad98]

I didn't want to say it but this. He also could have used a couple coaches challenges at some point. He could have tried to throw a change up or two in games 1-6 when covering the Jokic Murray actions?

Did he use a single challenge in the last 3 games? I don't know why he doesn't use any of them, even if it is on some BS just to slow the other team's roll for a few minutes. They go on a run, turn things around, take a 6 point lead or whatever and then call a challenge on the next foul. It can be used as a tool beyond being absolutely certain you will win. Use it when he would take a time out anyway so he doesn't have to worry about losing the TO for a miss. But leaving that on the table is stupid IMO.

 

[infection]

Did he use a single challenge in the last 3 games? I don't know why he doesn't use any of them, even if it is on some BS just to slow the other team's roll for a few minutes. They go on a run, turn things around, take a 6 point lead or whatever and then call a challenge on the next foul. It can be used as a tool beyond being absolutely certain you will win. Use it when he would take a time out anyway so he doesn't have to worry about losing the TO for a miss. But leaving that on the table is stupid IMO.

This kind of ignorant fan thinking is always so short sided and stupid. People fail to realize and appreciate that at the end of the season, all those unused challenges that DL takes them and re-invests them into the program. It’s not like they’re just wasted. You don’t need to use a challenge every game, and when DL parlays them into a few mini-camps, y’all will be sitting on your *** worshipping him.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Did he use a single challenge in the last 3 games? I don't know why he doesn't use any of them, even if it is on some BS just to slow the other team's roll for a few minutes. They go on a run, turn things around, take a 6 point lead or whatever and then call a challenge on the next foul. It can be used as a tool beyond being absolutely certain you will win. Use it when he would take a time out anyway so he doesn't have to worry about losing the TO for a miss. But leaving that on the table is stupid IMO.

He should have run to the ref on the Ingles charge to challenge in game 7. Only cost us a point but was in the 4th quarter and was questionable. He tried to challenge but was too late. I think his algorithms tell him that you should only challenge on a certain plays in certain situations when you are for sure correct. The expected value of the time out vs a challenge provides a .0172% better winning percentage when you compare it across all the data... so clearly it was correct to stuff that **** in his pocket.

 

[infection]

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

What if... we started the guy who is 6'7" and seems to be really good with the starters and gets our best defensive player going. Also, this starting lineup had one of the best net ratings in the NBA. A lineup the coach really wanted to start but the GM wouldn't let him.

Then... what if we moved Mike for something else we needed and maybe got ourselves a little breathing room between us and the tax to let us address other issues.

Just a thought. We should probably just stick with what we are doing.

The Jazz need Mike Conley. He's not the guy you move. If you move anyone, you move Bojan.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

The site has really gone off the deep end with how yall evaluate Conley.

I guess every team needs a scapegoat.

 

[Jose Mayonnaise]

The Jazz were a better team withOUT Conley, and that’s with our horrendous depth.

I just can’t conceive of how anyone can spin this yarn about the greatness of Mountain Mike. It seems quite obvious the problems are very significant if they are to offset his strengths which ARE legit.

Its hard to say that definitively having not had the team at full strength. Had we had Bogey (or even Conley for games 1 and 2) we may very well be looking at a WCF trip. Not sure everyone's going so hard at Conley for our problems then...

 

[infection]

Its hard to say that definitively having not had the team at full strength. Had we had Bogey (or even Conley for games 1 and 2) we may very well be looking at a WCF trip. Not sure everyone's going so hard at Conley for our problems then...

There's a fair amount of truth to what you're saying. For instance, we were well within the margin of error for what the outcome of the series was. 2 inches on a Conley shot and we go to the second round. Not unreasonable to think we wouldn't have a shot at winning. That's the challenge with how we evaluate these issues is that we typically look at outcomes as being some kind of fate or destiny, when there's typically a general range of possibilities of any given outcome and us winning was a good chance there with it, but because the outcome was bad we make different assumptions about what we did to have that outcome.

I guess a better way to put this is to say that you want to take good shots, and if you miss a good shot, that's fine because it was a good shot. Or if you make a bad shot, it's still a bad shot. But the outcomes are a lot of times just like the outcomes on taking shots -- not always representative on whether or not what you did was reasonable. Sometimes you're just having to play the numbers. So, in this instance, what's our assessment of our team had Conley's shot fallen? Or if we kept up some momentum for 2-3 more minutes at the end of the third in game 5? Neither of those are outside the realm of possibility. But because it didn't unfold that way (and not because it was some kind of fate), everyone is now talking about how great Jokic is. What would that discussion be had they not had a good couple minute stretch that allowed them to pull back in game 5? Another way of saying this is if you have someone who texts while they drive, they don't pay attention and nearly miss someone on the sidewalk. The good news is that they didn't kill someone and ruin their own life. But the fact that they barely missed and didn't kill someone isn't really reassuring. Whether they did or didn't hit someone doesn't change ultimately how irresponsible they are and the only difference was a few inches and the fact that there wasn't a big outcome -- otherwise it was the same scenario. So while Jokic is being praised, them also getting bumped in game 5 was a very close call, much like the person who missed the pedestrian by a few inches. The fact that Jokic didn't get bounced in the first round isn't because of some kind of magic fate that willed it so (he certainly played very well to keep them alive, but there's also a high degree of chance that made that happen, too). And, likewise, we'd be looking at our team and Conley a lot differently now if we were headed to the WCF, even though fundamentally there would be nothing different between our team in the WCF and our team getting bounced in the first round, aside from a small amount of chance.

That said, I've seen enough that our potential above is in spite of Conley, not because of Conley. I think we'd get a lot more traction and a lot more bang for our buck if we had someone like OPJ. That doesn't mean that Conley is a bad player, it just means that what we need and what he provides don't necessarily align for the best value.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

The site has really gone off the deep end with how yall evaluate Conley.

I guess every team needs a scapegoat.

Wait Conley gets zero percent of the blame yet you point at the guy who came in and had a career year and scored an efficient 20 pts per game... the guy who makes half as much as Mike... the guy who hit two buzzer beaters and got us two of our best wins against good teams.

You are right... we are the ones that went off the deep end.

 

[jom2003]

Yes if DM would try harder then Mike would grow, Bojan would get more athletic, and Joe would find the fountain of youth.

DM can be better but dude expends a ton of energy on offense. He should get the easiest defensive matchup but that often goes to Mike. We are last in the league in deflection and loose balls recovered... steals and blocks we are near last. We need to get bigger and more athletic regardless of how hard DM tries.

DM needs to give more effort and attention to defense but Rudy is going to have to go back to the stifle tower as well. He got super pouty for a couple weeks... right or wrong your guy Jimmy wouldn’t do that. Rudy can lead too.

it's truly perplexing to see people actually believing that the concept of "your best offensive superstar should also try the hardest on defense" is still a thing in today's nba.

Does Luka try the hardest on defense?

Does Lebron give the most **** on defense for the Lakers?

Does Harden lead his team in defense?

What about Jokic?

Even we've seen a guy like Kawhi, past his spurs years, took his foot off the paddle at times and let his teammates take care of the business defensively so he can give more on offense.

It's what we call "superstar treatment" in today's nba. That's why i've said over and over that DL is treating DM like a frickin regular team member instead of a superstar surrounded by pieces designed specifically to maximize his offensive talent. If his performance this post-season still isn't enough to convince the FO that he is their guy, they've got a problem. And i won't be upset if DM pull a Haywood on them 2-3 yrs down the road.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

The Jazz need Mike Conley. He's not the guy you move. If you move anyone, you move Bojan.

We can use him but we don't need him... 26-21 with him 18-7 without him this year. The lineup data says we are better with the starters and Joe subbed in for Mike.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Wait Conley gets zero percent of the blame yet you point at the guy who came in and had a career year and scored an efficient 20 pts per game... the guy who makes half as much as Mike... the guy who hit two buzzer beaters and got us two of our best wins against good teams.

You are right... we are the ones that went off the deep end.

Bruh I didnt blame him at all. He just has the most trade value of any expendable piece. STop being such a clown.

 

[jom2003]

It's just funny that we can't acknowledge the short comings of a player.... We went from Ricky taking the most difficult assignment in the backcourt to having a guy you needed to hide a little. He isn't a sieve he's just tiny and his backcourt mate is tiny.

This is part of DL's problem is he does nothing to address obvious issues and then overreacts. His drum he's beating this offseason is find guys with defensive integrity that don't compromise spacing... you mean 3 and D? You mean putting guys that can space the floor and help on defense would be good to put around your all-star combo guard and defensive anchor center... HOLY ****! WHAT A CONCEPT! HAS ANY OTHER TEAM THOUGHT OF SUCH A CONCEPT!

We went with the clogged toilet bowl of non-shooters of Ricky, Rudy, Favs... maybe one of Ricky and Favs could survive with another shooter and provide some awesome value... instead of tweeking it at some point we wait until we are out of runway and over-correct and add both Conley and Bojan. We are probably better but not sure it isn't partly just organic growth for DM and it was super expensive to get there. We knew that even with a ****** shooter like Jae that those lineups were nails. We had plenty of data. Yet we stayed with it.

When you are building a team around two stars you should make all of your major acquisitions with fit in mind. Mike helps DM on offense but not a ton more than Joe does and causes issues on defense. DM needs to be the smallest guy on the court to really be maximized... been saying it since last year. If that means he trends more towards a pg because big pgs are hard to find then okay... but build with that ideal in mind. Instead we overpaid for Mike... I was okay at the time, but didn't like the overpay. If we didn't owe that extra pick it'd be fine right now. I had wondered out loud last year if we needed a true pg around DM or if we could make due with Joe/Satoransky or guys in that tier.

This thread wasn't meant for ranting about Conley... Just that we have a lot more questions than we should.

in a nutshell, we took 3 steps forward on offense then 3 steps backward on defense. So here we are, another first round exit. Kudos to our FO.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

We can use him but we don't need him... 26-21 with him 18-7 without him this year. The lineup data says we are better with the starters and Joe subbed in for Mike.

Wow, huge sample.

 

[jom2003]

Its hard to say that definitively having not had the team at full strength. Had we had Bogey (or even Conley for games 1 and 2) we may very well be looking at a WCF trip. Not sure everyone's going so hard at Conley for our problems then...

1, Denver had only 2 games of Gary Harris, who gave us a lot of problems with his defense in G6-7. And 0 game of Will Barton, who i believe to be a player on par with Bojan. So they aren't at their full strength more so than we are.
2, Denver just match up better against the Clippers cuz they've got Jokic who could basically destroy every clippers player they throw at him. And if they double team him, it will just leave room for guys like Murray, Millsap and OPJ to score easy buckets. We don't have a player like that.
3, Conley is the reason for us losing the roster depth required to compete in this post-season and statistically we played better with him off the floor during this playoffs. DM was basically gassed in G7 trying to stop Murray but Conley couldn't take over as people would've hoped and shot 2-13. Had him shot even 3-13 we may be at WCF trip as you suggested. Or more possibly, had we never traded 3 players in depth+2 picks(1 of which could've been a rookie who could contribute in this year's playoffs) to get him.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Bruh I didnt blame him at all. He just has the most trade value of any expendable piece. STop being such a clown.

Yeah man I'm the clown... some of the stuff is circumstantial but a lot of it points right at Mike. Without Mike's deal it makes it easier to maneuver and address issues. He might contribute but he's also a stumbling block in a few ways.

A guy has trade value because he is a good player on a deal that represents his value. Those are pieces we should keep. What do you propose we trade Bojan for that makes us better?