This season will vindicate Ty Corbin

[Stifle Tower]

Such ****ing nonsense. Negged.

Really? I remember a TON of criticism directed at Kanter. And there was very little directed at the PG's. I would think a good coach would have used the scientific method to find the real problem. You know, like having Kanter still starting when Burke and Garrett replaced Tinsley/JLIII. Instead, Kanter became the whipping boy.

Thanks for the neg, though. As mentioned in an earlier thread I return rep in kind. So I've received your neg power of -58 and returned -100 to you. Be happy to continue if you'd like. BTW, are you and franklin related to Ty?

 

[stitches]

Did John Stockton "develop" his first three seasons in the NBA?

John Stockton was backing up all-star Rickey Green in seasons when the Jazz were a playoff team. The question is not whether or not one can develop as a back up - of course they can. The question is when you are not concerned with winning right now, what's the best way to develop your 3d year players? I'd argue playing them and starting them against the best possible competition(against starters) is the clear answer.

 

[Stifle Tower]

Thanks for the posrep, Stifle.

Oops! You got me on that one. Would have noticed later today as I always check who I given rep to lately. I'll neg rep when I can. May have to do it 2x to make up for the mistake.

 

[GVC]

I remember a TON of criticism directed at Kanter.

One link would be a start.

I would think a good coach would have used the scientific method to find the real problem.

Favors-Kanter didn't work early or late in the season. The team played much better with RJ and Marvin in the starting lineup. Bringing Burks and Kanter off the bench gave ample opportunity for all young players to initiate the offense/get touches. Making frequent changes to lineups will almost certainly cause players to second guess themselves and not know how to fit into their roles and lineups. For all his warts, Ty did a pretty good job with lineups last season. As I've posted several times in the past, the way he got so many shots for so many young players is virtually unprecedented in NBA history.

 

[GVC]

The question is when you are not concerned with winning right now, what's the best way to develop your 3d year players? I'd argue playing them and starting them against the best possible competition(against starters) is the clear answer.

Not to most successful coaches in the league. I think most teachers recognize that you have to bring pupils along at an appropriate pace so they learn to do things the right way (not develop bad habits/shortcuts) and gain confidence through succeeding in manageable, well defined tasks. Throwing a calculus textbook at an infant is a terrible way to teach them math.

 

[magic]

Not to most successful coaches in the league. I think most teachers recognize that you have to bring pupils along at an appropriate pace so they learn to do things the right way (not develop bad habits/shortcuts) and gain confidence through succeeding in manageable, well defined tasks. Throwing a calculus textbook at an infant is a terrible way to teach them math.

Except for that they weren't infants with the exception of Trey Burke. And Trey ended up playing 32.3 minutes a game last season, so your analogy is just wrong.

 

[GVC]

Except for that they weren't infants with the exception of Trey Burke. And Trey ended up playing 32.3 minutes a game last season, so your analogy is just wrong.

I think you've missed the point.

 

[Stifle Tower]

One link would be a start.

Favors-Kanter didn't work early or late in the season. The team played much better with RJ and Marvin in the starting lineup. Bringing Burks and Kanter off the bench gave ample opportunity for all young players to initiate the offense/get touches. Making frequent changes to lineups will almost certainly cause players to second guess themselves and not know how to fit into their roles and lineups. For all his warts, Ty did a pretty good job with lineups last season. As I've posted several times in the past, the way he got so many shots for so many young players is virtually unprecedented in NBA history.

Yet here we are a season later, and one of the key objectives seems to be determining if Kanter and Burks can be starters. The objective last season was NOT to go for wins and losses. Lindsey made that abundantly clear. I wasn't arguing for frequent changes. In fact, Ty was the one that made the multiple changes based on panicking after the slow start. It was a simple task to just substitute the PG's and leave Kanter at PF. It was Ty's decision to start Richard Jefferson, a player who was clearly just an expiring contract and had ZERO future with the team. That is NOT how you build for the future. Marvin I can excuse a bit...I think there was debate on bringing him back. Jazz would likely be better right now by playing Novak over Hood or Ingles. Heck, even start him over Enes so he can knock down some 3's. But what does that accomplish long-term?

 

[stitches]

Not to most successful coaches in the league. I think most teachers recognize that you have to bring pupils along at an appropriate pace so they learn to do things the right way (not develop bad habits/shortcuts) and gain confidence through succeeding in manageable, well defined tasks. Throwing a calculus textbook at an infant is a terrible way to teach them math.

They were third year players FFS! Stop with those ridiculous analogies. They were hardly infants in the basketball sense. They were grown men with developed basketball bodies ready to play. I am not advocating for putting Exum in right now and giving him 30MPG. But I sure as hell would have preferred that Kanter and Burks got much more time last year and against starters.

Give me examples of successful coaches benching 3d year players who are considered the future of the franchise for washed up vets with negative WARP stats in a year when their team wins 25 games.

 

[GVC]

They were third year players FFS! Stop with those ridiculous analogies. They were hardly infants in the basketball sense. They were grown men with developed basketball bodies ready to play. I am not advocating for putting Exum in right now and giving him 30MPG. But I sure as hell would have preferred that Kanter and Burks got much more time last year and against starters.

Give me examples of successful coaches benching 3d year players who are considered the future of the franchise for washed up vets with negative WARP stats in a year when their team wins 25 games.

How developed their bodies are or who played in the starting lineup is completely irrelevant if you're trying to develop young talent for the future. Kanter still has trouble executing simple team offense and defense. Giving him an opportunity to work on these basics in lower leverage situations against weaker competition is probably more effective than throwing him into the deep end. The same goes for Burks, although to a lesser extent. Regardless, Ty did a pretty good job bringing Alec along, and helping him develop into a better team offensive player. If the goal is giving young players situations in which to succeed AND spread their wings (i.e. get touches), and bringing them off the bench provides the best opportunity to do so, it should make absolutely no difference who starts in their stead.

FWIW, Burks and Kanter each played over 2000 minutes last season. They ranked 94th and 106th in the NBA, respectively. The Jazz had 5 23-and-under players average 10+ field goal attempts per game, which is virtually unprecedented. All of these facts attest to Corbin's commitment to development, despite what the ignorant masses on Jazzfanz think.

 

[GVC]

Yet here we are a season later, and one of the key objectives seems to be determining if Kanter and Burks can be starters. The objective last season was NOT to go for wins and losses. Lindsey made that abundantly clear. I wasn't arguing for frequent changes. In fact, Ty was the one that made the multiple changes based on panicking after the slow start. It was a simple task to just substitute the PG's and leave Kanter at PF. It was Ty's decision to start Richard Jefferson, a player who was clearly just an expiring contract and had ZERO future with the team. That is NOT how you build for the future. Marvin I can excuse a bit...I think there was debate on bringing him back. Jazz would likely be better right now by playing Novak over Hood or Ingles. Heck, even start him over Enes so he can knock down some 3's. But what does that accomplish long-term?

1. This obsession with starting is misplaced.

2. Multiple changes? Trey and Marvin were injured to start the year. Even if Kanter were going to start to begin last season, moving him out of the lineup represented the ONLY change to the starting lineup/player roles before the end of the season.

3. Bringing Burks off the bench allowed him to initiate the offense more, and perhaps develop as an offensive hub. In the starting lineup, he would have been used almost exclusively as a safety valve and off-ball player. Starting a place holder who had no future with the team allowed this to happen.

 

[Stifle Tower]

All of these facts attest to Corbin's commitment to development, despite what the ignorant masses on Jazzfanz think.

Just a shame Dennis Lindsey didn't see it that way. He must be the biggest idiot and worst GM in the business to let a guy with such amazing BBIQ and player development skills go. Jazz are going to rue the day Corbin was not renewed and Quin was given the coaching reins.

 

[fishonjazz]

How developed their bodies are or who played in the starting lineup is completely irrelevant if you're trying to develop young talent for the future. Kanter still has trouble executing simple team offense and defense. Giving him an opportunity to work on these basics in lower leverage situations against weaker competition is probably more effective than throwing him into the deep end. The same goes for Burks, although to a lesser extent. Regardless, Ty did a pretty good job bringing Alec along, and helping him develop into a better team offensive player. If the goal is giving young players situations in which to succeed AND spread their wings (i.e. get touches), and bringing them off the bench provides the best opportunity to do so, it should make absolutely no difference who starts in their stead.

FWIW, Burks and Kanter each played over 2000 minutes last season. They ranked 94th and 106th in the NBA, respectively. The Jazz had 5 23-and-under players average 10+ field goal attempts per game, which is virtually unprecedented. All of these facts attest to Corbin's commitment to development, despite what the ignorant masses on Jazzfanz think.

You actually make alot of great points. You and I just disagree.
I can see your side though and you make a good argument.

Only part of your post I have a problem with is you talking of the ignorant masses on jazzfanz.
Most everyone outside of jazzfanz thought that Corbin did a poor job of coaching last year.

The jazz management showed us all what they thought about ty when they chose to let him go

 

[stitches]

How developed their bodies are or who played in the starting lineup is completely irrelevant if you're trying to develop young talent for the future. Kanter still has trouble executing simple team offense and defense. Giving him an opportunity to work on these basics in lower leverage situations against weaker competition is probably more effective than throwing him into the deep end. The same goes for Burks, although to a lesser extent. Regardless, Ty did a pretty good job bringing Alec along, and helping him develop into a better team offensive player. If the goal is giving young players situations in which to succeed AND spread their wings (i.e. get touches), and bringing them off the bench provides the best opportunity to do so, it should make absolutely no difference who starts in their stead.

You keep talking about them as if they were rookies and haven't already had the chance to play against backups and work on the basics... This is simply not the case. Both of them had 2 full seasons behind them.

FWIW, Burks and Kanter each played over 2000 minutes last season. They ranked 94th and 106th in the NBA, respectively. The Jazz had 5 23-and-under players average 10+ field goal attempts per game, which is virtually unprecedented. All of these facts attest to Corbin's commitment to development, despite what the ignorant masses on Jazzfanz think.

Not really, all it attests to is that we had a young team. When you have only 2 older players in the rotation, you simply cannot give them more than 96 minutes a game. Everything else will be young players playing and taking shots. When you have 85FGA/Game on average your regular rotation guys will take about 10 per game. It means nothing...

 

[GVC]

Just a shame Dennis Lindsey didn't see it that way. He must be the biggest idiot and worst GM in the business to let a guy with such amazing BBIQ and player development skills go. Jazz are going to rue the day Corbin was not renewed and Quin was given the coaching reins.

An impressive non sequitur. Jesus.

 

[Stifle Tower]

An impressive non sequitur. Jesus.

Really? Dennis Lindsey didn't judge Corbin at all on player development or how he handled the roster, starters and distribution of minutes?

I guess if that's the case, my comments are a non sequitur. Lindsey just didn't like Ty and wanted to hire "his guy."

 

[GVC]

Only part of your post I have a problem with is you talking of the ignorant masses on jazzfanz.
Most everyone outside of jazzfanz thought that Corbin did a poor job of coaching last year.

I'm only talking about his lineups/rotations, and how they contributed to development. I was fine with them letting Ty go.

 

[GVC]

Lindsey just didn't like Ty and wanted to hire "his guy."

And another.

Still waiting on a link to Ty directing criticism toward Kanter.

 

[fishonjazz]

I'm only talking about his lineups/rotations, and how they contributed to development. I was fine with them letting Ty go.

Ok.
Ya you make good points about Burks and kanter possibly being better off from the bench, as well as the team.

 

[magic]

I think you've missed the point.

How? You're saying that Corbin did the right thing by playing Burke and Kanter less minutes because they were inexperienced and hence needed to be put in limited situations to succeed. But at the same time you have Burke who has less experience than those two and yet Corbin put him in more situations and played him more minutes per game. Hence, the contradiction.