Watson May Not Be Back When Camp Starts

[NAOS]

So does he take minutes from Marvin Williams, Millsap, or even worse Favors, since that means more Millsap at the 4 if he's not at the 3? I've hear a lot of people throwing around that this or that person can play positions, but nobody has said where the minutes come from. I assume that Millsap, Favors, Hayward, and Jefferson will all have around 30-34 minutes/game. I assume that Mo and Marvin will have 26-30 minutes/game and that Kanter and Burks will have 15-20 minutes/game. When you look at the minutes and the distribution, you cannot have this above and play Foye at all unless he is at the PG position. I'm not making an argument--simply doing math. I'd like to see another way if there is one.

I see your point. This is precisely why I've contended that we are not in a "offseason holding pattern." In other words, I've stubbornly stuck to the idea that somebody in the front court was going to get traded. I'm still sticking to that.... and I'm prepared to look stupid/wrong.

As for the situation at the 3: Hayward can play there at a fairly high level. Basically, I expect him to split his time pretty evenly at the 2 and 3. I come to this conclusion based on performance alone. Millsap only needs to get about 7 minutes a game at SF in order for Favors to get his 30 min/game.

We need to play Jefferson less than 34 min/game in order to get Kanter some burn (or just ****ing trade Al). I'd like to see Al capped at 28 + see Burks get a handful of minutes at the PG.

 

[gregbroncs]

i agree with billy, foye-at-point is destined to fail... just like it has every other time in his career that teams have tried to play him like one.

PG is by far our weakest spot on the depth chart with or without watson. if mo ever gets hurt (something that's not, ya know, out of the question - 108 career games lost to injury, or 12 per season) we are totally screwed at PG.

we have a clear-cut starter (but even he does not have a distributor's mentality), two subpar veteran backups, and a bunch of guys we think can play the point in a pinch, like burks or foye. obviously hayward is a very good creator (probably the best on our roster right now, which is actually kind of scary) but even he is only going to have so many opportunities to be the initator.

i would LOOOOOOVE to get a more traditional PG as the backup.

You seem to be stuck on the idea that just because a guy is playing PG that he must be used like a PG. This is simply not the case. We don't really have a good idea if Hayward or Burks can be a good creator, because they have rarely been used that way. They both have the skill set to be that guy. I just don't know if they can excel at it.

 

[theNBAnerd]

You seem to be stuck on the idea that just because a guy is playing PG that he must be used like a PG. This is simply not the case. We don't really have a good idea if Hayward or Burks can be a good creator, because they have rarely been used that way. They both have the skill set to be that guy. I just don't know if they can excel at it.

no, but i AM stuck on the idea that we need at least one consistent, reliable playmaker on this team. teams that don't have that are generally not very efficient offensively. since i don't think we're going to set the league record for defensive efficiency, we kind of need to be able to hang our hat on the offensive end for now, and i'm not sure how we're going to do that with a roster full of guys who have not established themselves as reliable offensive facilitators.

 

[theNBAnerd]

I see your point. This is precisely why I've contended that we are not in a "offseason holding pattern." In other words, I've stubbornly stuck to the idea that somebody in the front court was going to get traded. I'm still sticking to that.... and I'm prepared to look stupid/wrong.

As for the situation at the 3: Hayward can play there at a fairly high level. Basically, I expect him to split his time pretty evenly at the 2 and 3. I come to this conclusion based on performance alone. Millsap only needs to get about 7 minutes a game at SF in order for Favors to get his 30 min/game.

We need to play Jefferson less than 34 min/game in order to get Kanter some burn (or just ****ing trade Al). I'd like to see Al capped at 28 + see Burks get a handful of minutes at the PG.

i agree with both of you (which sounds weird since in some respects you're on different sides of this conversation), but my solution is to look at it less in terms of position. since the 2/3 and 4/5 positions are basically interchangeable, i don't really worry too much about who's playing where as long as our best players are getting minutes. in most cases, that means you're going to have a 4-man big rotation, a 4-man wing rotation and 2 points. the bigs are going to be al, paul, derrick and enes, with enes probably staying stuck in that 15-mpg role. the wings are going to be gordon, marvin, burks and foye. sometimes that will involve gordon at the 3 (whenever marvin sits) and sometimes gordon will be at the 2... but it kind of doesn't matter.

i'm also with NAOS... in an ideal world, we have one more move looming. but time is running out, and so is my hope that the FO sees it like i do.

 

[billyshelby]

So does he take minutes from Marvin Williams, Millsap, or even worse Favors, since that means more Millsap at the 4 if he's not at the 3? I've hear a lot of people throwing around that this or that person can play positions, but nobody has said where the minutes come from. I assume that Millsap, Favors, Hayward, and Jefferson will all have around 30-34 minutes/game. I assume that Mo and Marvin will have 26-30 minutes/game and that Kanter and Burks will have 15-20 minutes/game. When you look at the minutes and the distribution, you cannot have this above and play Foye at all unless he is at the PG position. I'm not making an argument--simply doing math. I'd like to see another way if there is one.

96 minutes at the 2/3 will come from Hayward/Mo/Foye/Burks. I'm not too concerned about the minute distribution so long as A) Ty favors matchups/hot hands; and B) Carroll racks up DNP's.

96 minutes at the 4/5 will come from Al/Sap/Favors/Kanter. Cutting into Favors minutes is mildly concerning, but so long as Ty is more liberal closing with him depending on the night, I won't care much either.

As I've said many times, I don't believe quantity of minutes matters so much as quality relative to development, and I could care less who gets the most minutes so long as it's the guys contributing most to winning.

 

[billyshelby]

As far as the backup 1 goes, I feel like it's not appreciated how much of a skill position the point is. 6'4" shooters are a dime a dozen, yet very few can adequately play PG. And Foye's history there is not good. So assuming he's a better option than Tinsley just because he's taller, younger, or shoots better is wishful thinking. For that matter, assuming the 'system' can be the point guard is also not good reasoning.

Like nerd said, the PG has to be a facilitator, but I'd go further than that. The PG is instrumental to running breaks. The PG also has an invaluable role in little aspects of the offense that go unnoticed: getting into it quickly, reading it to exploit mismatches, dialing up PnR's, the ability to pass off a drive. I'm open to trying Foye there, same with Burks, and to a lesser extent Hayward. I'm just not hopeful they can do those things.

 

[NAOS]

As far as the backup 1 goes, I feel like it's not appreciated how much of a skill position the point is. 6'4" shooters are a dime a dozen, yet very few can adequately play PG. And Foye's history there is not good. So assuming he's a better option than Tinsley just because he's taller, younger, or shoots better is wishful thinking. For that matter, assuming the 'system' can be the point guard is also not good reasoning.

Like nerd said, the PG has to be a facilitator, but I'd go further than that. The PG is instrumental to running breaks. The PG also has an invaluable role in little aspects of the offense that go unnoticed: getting into it quickly, reading it to exploit mismatches, dialing up PnR's, the ability to pass off a drive. I'm open to trying Foye there, same with Burks, and to a lesser extent Hayward. I'm just not hopeful they can do those things.

I'm not sure how many people are undervaluing the PG or how many are simply recognizing that we don't have a good batch of them, and then proceeding to think through the alternatives available to us via the players under contract. This is the land of John Stockton (and DWill), I don't think many need a lesson about how integral the PG is to an efficient offense.

You've contributed to many discussions by reminding us of how important the PG is... and there have been times that threads have spiraled way off into discussions where offenses are being imagined without one. But there is a reason the conversations went there. I, for one, would genuinely love to hear your solution to the PG problem that we have -- whether you conjure a trade or structure some kind of provisional distribution of minutes to the players on the squad.

 

[theNBAnerd]

As far as the backup 1 goes, I feel like it's not appreciated how much of a skill position the point is. 6'4" shooters are a dime a dozen, yet very few can adequately play PG. And Foye's history there is not good. So assuming he's a better option than Tinsley just because he's taller, younger, or shoots better is wishful thinking. For that matter, assuming the 'system' can be the point guard is also not good reasoning.

Like nerd said, the PG has to be a facilitator, but I'd go further than that. The PG is instrumental to running breaks. The PG also has an invaluable role in little aspects of the offense that go unnoticed: getting into it quickly, reading it to exploit mismatches, dialing up PnR's, the ability to pass off a drive. I'm open to trying Foye there, same with Burks, and to a lesser extent Hayward. I'm just not hopeful they can do those things.

solid couple of posts all around. i agree that i use the term "facilitator" very broadly and that the enumeration of very specific skills that goes into the definition there is pretty broad. even mo lacks some of that stuff, which is why i'm not so sure that we automatically got better offensively just because we added shooters. having more capable outside shooters helps, but you have to be able to get them the ball -- which also means recognizing when they're ready for it, patiently reading the defense, anticipating the next rotation, etc. if you don't have that, you can have a bunch of capable shooters and still be a crappy team. (see: washington wizards.)

i don't think that's necessarily our fate... just pointing out that adding good shooters is just like adding another section to the orchestra -- nice in theory, but overall pretty useless unless someone knows how to compose something for them to play.

 

[Nate505]

I was irritated when Watson came back and took time from Tinsley, mostly because Tinsley was playing better, but the one thing I'll say for Watson is that he's about the only guy with toughness out there who's also willing to stick up for his teammates. The Jazz need more guys like that, but at least one.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

I was irritated when Watson came back and took time from Tinsley, mostly because Tinsley was playing better, but the one thing I'll say for Watson is that he's about the only guy with toughness out there who's also willing to stick up for his teammates. The Jazz need more guys like that, but at least one.

Meh, Tinsley was slightly better offensively but vastly inferior defensively.

 

[JAG]

I would love to see Burks play the point. But if that is not the plan, I really don't mind Tinsley being the back up for a while. Watson is not my favorite player and I honestly think that Tinsley is the better veteran (if he can stay healthy). He is old but I liked his attitude last year. He just came across as a guy with a high IQ for the game and he was a coach on and off the court (its also nice to have a decent flopper on our team for once). Even if he doesn't get much playing time, I think the young guys could learn a lot from him. Watson can't shoot and he would always pick up his dribble way too early and it drove me crazy. Perhaps we could package him and Jefferson together in a trade...

 

[theNBAnerd]

i would be more fond of the tinsley plan if the guy could still run or jump. he can do neither, so that makes him a HUUUGE liability defensively, and makes him easier to guard.

not that watson is ideal either. a lot of energy, pushes the tempo (we'll need that from somebody this year) but has next to nothing on his own shot and the entire NBA knows it.

the second unit will likely be kanter, foye, burks and whichever of favors/al/paul doesn't start. on paper, that looks like a lineup that can score so i'd go with the better facilitator and the guy who can get things going in transition. that's probably earl, but like i say, it's kind of a devil-you-know kind of scenario.

 

[Getting Traded]

Earl's a better distributor? No way. Better defender, yes. Agreed Tinsley has lost a few steps but he knows how to run the offense better than Earl.

 

[Qman]

i would be more fond of the tinsley plan if the guy could still run or jump. he can do neither, so that makes him a HUUUGE liability defensively, and makes him easier to guard.

not that watson is ideal either. a lot of energy, pushes the tempo (we'll need that from somebody this year) but has next to nothing on his own shot and the entire NBA knows it.

the second unit will likely be kanter, foye, burks and whichever of favors/al/paul doesn't start. on paper, that looks like a lineup that can score so i'd go with the better facilitator and the guy who can get things going in transition. that's probably earl, but like i say, it's kind of a devil-you-know kind of scenario.

At the moment I want to see what Foye can do. If he can provide great D, shooting and be average at running the team I think we come out way ahead.

 

[theNBAnerd]

Earl's a better distributor? No way. Better defender, yes. Agreed Tinsley has lost a few steps but he knows how to run the offense better than Earl.

earl had the highest assist percentage in the league, a ridiculous 45% of his possessions ended with a watson assist. jamaal's isn't bad either at 38%, but the moral of this particular story is that when earl on the floor, his main goal is always to involve others.

 

[JGolds]

earl had the highest assist percentage in the league, a ridiculous 45% of his possessions ended with a watson assist. jamaal's isn't bad either at 38%, but the moral of this particular story is that when earl on the floor, his main goal is always to involve others.

thats because watson couldnt create his own shot, and even when he had an open look he rarely made the shots he took. watson is a great bench lleader. he is good at helping the young guys grow, but thats about it. i love the guys energy but he isnt the guy for the job.

 

[theNBAnerd]

thats because watson couldnt create his own shot, and even when he had an open look he rarely made the shots he took. watson is a great bench lleader. he is good at helping the young guys grow, but thats about it. i love the guys energy but he isnt the guy for the job.

well i agree that both guys have their strengths... i was responding to a post where somebody questioned me for saying that earl is a better facilitator than tinsley. from a making-it-easier-for-other-guys-to-score standpoint only, earl has to have the advantage.

 

[Deleted member 848]

thats because watson couldnt create his own shot, and even when he had an open look he rarely made the shots he took. watson is a great bench lleader. he is good at helping the young guys grow, but thats about it. i love the guys energy but he isnt the guy for the job.

This, holy **** this.

 

[Deleted member 848]

well i agree that both guys have their strengths... i was responding to a post where somebody questioned me for saying that earl is a better facilitator than tinsley. from a making-it-easier-for-other-guys-to-score standpoint only, earl has to have the advantage.

Earl shoots 34% from the field, and scored nearly a point less with 7 more minutes on average. Earl having a higher assist-percentage is very-much swayed by the fact that the dude has trouble scoring.




I know this has been said before, but if we could somehow mould Jamaal and Earl into one basketball player, we would have one of the best backups in the NBA.

 

[billyshelby]

I'm not sure how many people are undervaluing the PG or how many are simply recognizing that we don't have a good batch of them, and then proceeding to think through the alternatives available to us via the players under contract. This is the land of John Stockton (and DWill), I don't think many need a lesson about how integral the PG is to an efficient offense.

You've contributed to many discussions by reminding us of how important the PG is... and there have been times that threads have spiraled way off into discussions where offenses are being imagined without one. But there is a reason the conversations went there. I, for one, would genuinely love to hear your solution to the PG problem that we have -- whether you conjure a trade or structure some kind of provisional distribution of minutes to the players on the squad.

In general, I don't think we have a 'point guard problem.' By that I mean: we have a capable starter and capable backups, but we don't want to see those backups start. Which means we're like most teams in the league. It would be nice if we were one of the small handful of teams with backups that had starter potential, but there are very few of those, and in the grand scheme you don't make big moves to get a backup PG like that. Little moves to upgrade, sure.

Personally, I'm a little miffed we don't have a Scott Machado type developmental rookie for the 3rd guy (not that I really know much about him, only his reputation.) But since we're only trying to get through one season before we make bigger choices on the whole PG position, I'm basically OK with the Mo/Earl/Tinsley + committee. It's not ideal, but for this year I'll live with it.