What team did not go to the finals and did not have a few bad years?
Debunking the "losing is bad for culture" people. To win a title, you have to suck.
- Thread starter green
- Start date
What team did not go to the finals and did not have a few bad years?
Hartsock
Banned
Like I said in another post somewhere else in this jazzfanz galaxy. We have 4 players that deserve playing time. It is damn near impossible to get enough minutes for 4 guys. Al deserves playing time, lets not be dumbasses. Paul also deserves to play, Kanter has shown he deserves minutes, Favors also. So unless you are splitting it right down the middle at 24 min a game its not going to be fair, and 24 min a game would not be good for the team.
Kanter didn't deserve a ton of minutes last year, he looked lost as hell most of the time. Favors is still pretty bad on offense, although he has shown when he stays out of foul trouble that he is a very good defender. Al is a good low post scorer, don't act like he isnt, sucks at D though. Paul is just good at everything, not great, but good. Its not a black and white thing.
gregbroncs
Well-Known Member
Al and Paul are not the future of this team. If they are this team is ****ed. So the guys that are the future of this team in a season where we were not going anywhere should have been the focal point of this team. Instead they are sitting behind guys that should not be back. I don't care if they look lost right now. If we lose playing them then so be it. We are not going anywhere anyway.
Hotdog
Well-Known Member
Al is not the future of this team. Paul can have a place in the future of this team under the right conditions.
Hotdog
Well-Known Member
But yet, you are all for this team playing Al and Paul because winning culture is the most important thing.
Nice full of **** post. Well done.
Time to change your sig. Sirstickyass can just get over it.
Screw it then. You were a good sport.
green
Well-Known Member
The bigs will never "be" ready until they play, they experience close 4th quarter losses, they push big leads, they fall behind big and have to come back on their own (oh, wait. They do this every night). You have to let them play. Would sitting Kevin Durant a year or two, having Sea/OKC get swept in the first round by SA, missing out on Westbrook and Harden made OKC a better team?
Yet, you are telling me that what Sea/OKC did was wrong, and what the Jazz are doing is the right thing to do.
Not everyone reacts the same. Not the same approach works the same way with all people. Having said that, the amount of time the youth have been getting lately needs to continue. The DNPs Burks got and the little time Kanter got early in the year was pathetic.
green
Well-Known Member
You said, "Superstardom doesn't happen until you have playoff success." I agreed with you. You then compared Oden to Durant, which is a crappy comparison, because one was healt
You don't know that at all. What we do know, is that Detroit turned their top 10 pick into an essential piece of their puzzle. They also did well in finding Wallace during the draft process.
Yup. And good organizations draft well and get better, ala the Jazz. Bad organizations don't get better, ala Minnesota. The worst place to be is stuck in the middle. Utah with Al is exactly that. That is the whole point. Keeping Al keeps Utah stuck in the middle.
Duh, Sherlock.
Everyone is saying Al will get close to the max. He isn't worth that. Like I said, depending on their price, Millsap and Mo might not be worth it as well. Serious? So, do you think that Burks, Carroll and Hayward can't beat out Marvin, Foye and Tinsley/Watson for a starting spot? Do you honestly think that Al is a better player OVERALL than Kanter?
Had we gotten the fifth/sixth pick, I DO know Lilliard would have been available to us.
I used this example with another poster. By your logic, OKC did the wrong thing by playing Durant so much early in his career. By your logic, OKC should have drafted Durant, tried their best to get a more "polished" player, let Durant learn on the bench for a couple of seasons of competing for the 8th spot in the West, missed out on Harden and Westbrook and then made Durant "earn" his spot over an underperforming vet.
I'm not saying it's bad policy to get and play the best players possible. I'm saying take a view longer than ONE game or ONE season. If we are only looking at ONE season, then the Jazz did the right thing. They made the playoffs in ONE season, made some money, and were slightly better than 1/2 the teams in the NBA. Good for them.
If we look at the long term view, what did the Jazz actually accomplish?
1 - They don't know what they have in Favors. Favors is now due an extension, and the Jazz don't know if he can be a starter in the NBA and is worth 10 million or more per season. They will have to take a gamble on Favors panning out. Had they not had Al last year, they would have now had at LEAST a full year of games to evaluate Favors and get him a more predictable contract.
2 - Kanter missed out on a year of developing on the court. With Kanter's work ethic, how much more productive would his offseason had been last summer if he had more experience? He would know more specific things to work on, been more efficient, and possibly an even better player this year.
3 - The Jazz essentially wasted a year on a rookie deal with Kanter and Favors. This is HUGE, seeing how Utah is a small market team and will never be able to pay three max deals.
4 - The potentially missed out on Lilliard and Harrison Barnes. The last draft was unique in that they Jazz had a chance to get TWO top ten picks. But getting swept by SA was much, much more valuable.
The message the organization sent last year was:
1 - They care about the money overall.
2 - Being elite isn't important, just getting yours is.
3 - Vets are much more important than developing talent.
4 - Take as many shots as you want, you don't have to play defense, and we don't run an offensive system anymore. If you get the ball, try to score. Pass if you want.
green
Well-Known Member
Look at Watson's numbers:
2 pts, 4 assists, 30% fg, 19% 3pt
Lilliard:
19 pts, 6 assists, 42% fg, 35% 3pt.
Compare Marvin to Harrison. Marvin:
Harrison:
9 pts, 4 rebs, 43% fg, 35% 3pt
Marvin:
7 pts, 3 rebs, 40% fg, 33% 3pt.
And remember, getting those two players would have been WORST case scenario last year. Well, second to worst case scenario. Worst case scenario is what happened.
2 pts, 4 assists, 30% fg, 19% 3pt
Lilliard:
19 pts, 6 assists, 42% fg, 35% 3pt.
Compare Marvin to Harrison. Marvin:
Harrison:
9 pts, 4 rebs, 43% fg, 35% 3pt
Marvin:
7 pts, 3 rebs, 40% fg, 33% 3pt.
And remember, getting those two players would have been WORST case scenario last year. Well, second to worst case scenario. Worst case scenario is what happened.
gregbroncs
Well-Known Member
I don't believe he'll accept those conditions so I see no future for him here.
I do not think he will either unfortunately.
Lillard went with the 6th pick. We had no shot at him.
green
Well-Known Member
Lilliard would have been worst case scenario for fans like you:
We get rid of Al last year, we absolutely suck, and end up with a lottery pick. Your worst case scenario as a fan, because it shows the world that we want to be the Timberwolves because we played our future over mediocre present, would have made us the most talented team in the NBA.
That is my point. Worst case scenario (in your eyes), we become the best team in the NBA.
We need to get rid of crappy vets and play the young 'uns. We have the talent, we need to see if it will develop. Al and Paul and Corbin (it isn't Foye/Marvin/Watson/Tinsley's fault Corbin plays them over better players) can't be here for us to do that.