What's new
By:

I want lineup changes!

LjJazzman

LjJazzman

Well-Known Member
Just like most i'm frustrated with how we have been playing. I think small changes to our lineups would make a world of difference.

Its obvious that we need help defensively at the start of games. Its also obvious we need more scoring off the bench. I think simply switching Kanter and Rudy would fix both issues. I'm a big fan of having players big for their position, not undersized. A starting lineup with Favors and Rudy is huge and an absolute force on defense.

Favors plays better offensively when guarded by a smaller pf instead of a center. He also isn't as good defensively when guarding power forwards because the pull him more out of the paint which leaves the paint open for business whenever center is in the game. That is fixed if we have Favors and Rudy playing at the same time because Rudy is their for protection.

Kanter offensively just abuses second string bigs, and can half way hold his own on defense against them. He also does better against centers then power forwards. He's defensive rotations are awful but luckily Booker is very quick to help and recover on defense.

I get that we want to try and make a starting lineup with Kanter and Favors work but I don't think it does. I'm happy with Quin for the most part but I hate his lack of lineup adjustments. We are struggling, why haven't we seen more experimentations with lineups? Why haven't we seen Murry? Why not give Novak a few more minutes when we can't guard anyone anyway and are struggling to score?
 
Rudy and Favors, at this point, would be a train wreck offensively.

I see our issues as our 1 and 2 gaurds not defending, and not being shooters.

Dante is great, but he isn't ready to start yet. When he grows up, the defense at the position will be solved. Hood has a nice stroke, but nerves or coming off of injury has him doing this inconsistently.

I love Alec, but he is far better when he isn't playing in a system. Not playing in a system is fine for the second unit. His insane talents could lead him to being a perenial 6th man canidate if he accepted the role.

If you just look at the stats, the two starters that are struggling the most are Alec and Trey, but their replacements aren't ready to replace them.


Kanter and Favors are actually playing pretty well together, both are about 20 and 10 per 36.
 
^ that is also not to say that Hood will be better than Alec.

I am stoked with the Hood pick, but I am more stoked about Alec. I just think, combination wise, he fits better off the bench.

And to those who will say that the FO sees him as a key piece of the team, that's why they inked him, and so he should start: Manu Ginobili.
 
I think the team probably knows that Alec is a great 6th man candidate, and will thrive in that role. I think the problem is who else do we start? Hood is an unknown at this point, and Ingles seems like a great guy who works hard, but kind of sucks at actual basketball. We need to go find an awesome Defensive player who can start at the two, and can hit a few outside shots.
 
b_line said:
I think the team probably knows that Alec is a great 6th man candidate, and will thrive in that role. I think the problem is who else do we start? Hood is an unknown at this point, and Ingles seems like a great guy who works hard, but kind of sucks at actual basketball. We need to go find an awesome Defensive player who can start at the two, and can hit a few outside shots.
Click to expand...


Exactly. This is why we keep doing what we're doing until Dante and Hood are ready--next year.

Starting Alec helps him ubderstand more of what the team is trying to do, and it also allows Hood to develop. Alec will bbe better than Hood, but unless we draft someone else, I see Hood as starting in a year or twobecaus of combination.

Kanter abd Favors are a far better two-way combo than Gobert and Favors. Kanter and Gobert have potential (not there yet) as a really good combo, but you don't not start Favors.

Trey sucks, but Dante isn't ready to start.

Hayward is a hands down starter.



You just leave the lineup as is and wait for players like Gobert, Exum, and Hood to develop before you change it out.
 
Sexual Favors said:
Exactly. This is why we keep doing what we're doing until Dante and Hood are ready--next year.

Starting Alec helps him ubderstand more of what the team is trying to do, and it also allows Hood to develop. Alec will bbe better than Hood, but unless we draft someone else, I see Hood as starting in a year or twobecaus of combination.

Kanter abd Favors are a far better two-way combo than Gobert and Favors. Kanter and Gobert have potential (not there yet) as a really good combo, but you don't not start Favors.

Trey sucks, but Dante isn't ready to start.

Hayward is a hands down starter.



You just leave the lineup as is and wait for players like Gobert, Exum, and Hood to develop before you change it out.
Click to expand...

I totally disagree with this conservative approach. In a year like this, coach shouldn't be afraid of mixing it up and trying other combinations. It seems like the 2 latest coaches we've had decide what the starting lineup is going to be and then they're just dead set on it, only changing it due to injuries (Hood for Burks and Booker for Favors).
I wished he was more adventurous sometimes. Just my 4 cts.
 
If it wasn't for Kanter these last few games, the Jazz would only be scoring 8 or so points in the first quarter. Kanter is the only one lately that can score early on in the game!
 
I wish Neto was on the roster. I honestly think he is a better passer and better at penetration then Burke.
 
LjJazzman said:
I'm happy with Quin for the most part but I hate his lack of lineup adjustments. We are struggling, why haven't we seen more experimentations with lineups? Why haven't we seen Murry? Why not give Novak a few more minutes when we can't guard anyone anyway and are struggling to score?
Click to expand...

I'm ok with him having gone 20 games with the "core5." We needed to see if it would work. We needed to see if Burks and Kanter were worth extending. This should have been a focus last season, but Corbin decided Kanter should be the scapegoat for the slow start, despite Utah having two PG's running the show (Tinsley/Lucas) who might not even be starters on a church ball team.

Chemistry on defense takes even more time than on offense. Quin has said he's considering lineup changes. It will be interesting to see if/what he does. I think the two most obvious are a couple of changes he may not want to make right now: replacing Burke and Kanter. Exum is just not ready. He's not even winning his matchups against other backups. He doesn't do much besides pass the ball right now. As for Kanter, I agree with others who would like to see him dominate off the bench. But is Gobert ready to start? Quin has really gotten on him a couple of times. I also think Enes could have decent trade value at the deadline: 14/7 in 25 minutes - and a low salary which won't be hard to match in terms of salaries coming back in a trade. I'm hoping the Jazz could get a late 1st from a contender. So patience on that one, IMO. It may not be until the deadline we see changes.
 
I strongly disagree with people saying Favors and Rudy could not coexist because our offense would stink. Favors SHOULD be getting more touches then he is now. Our offense is best when we are out and running off of defensive stops. Rudy has been the catalyst for a lot of our big runs because of his defensive stops which turn into mini fast breaks. Most teams get wide open easy shots right from the begging of the game and are immediately in rhythm. We need to do everything to stop that. Get teams in a funk from our defensive first, then worry about our offense.
 
Rudy has to catch passes reliably before he starts. He isn't ready. If you watch the games, then you have all the confirmation you need.
 
NAOS said:
Rudy has to catch passes reliably before he starts. He isn't ready. If you watch the games, then you have all the confirmation you need.
Click to expand...

Yyyyep. 'Ride the pine boy! You need to learn how to catch the ball in professional situations!'
 
Jamezz said:
I totally disagree with this conservative approach. In a year like this, coach shouldn't be afraid of mixing it up and trying other combinations. It seems like the 2 latest coaches we've had decide what the starting lineup is going to be and then they're just dead set on it, only changing it due to injuries (Hood for Burks and Booker for Favors).
I wished he was more adventurous sometimes. Just my 4 cts.
Click to expand...

Conservative approach? We need player change up not line change up bro. None of you approaches matters.
 
Jamezz said:
I totally disagree with this conservative approach. In a year like this, coach shouldn't be afraid of mixing it up and trying other combinations. It seems like the 2 latest coaches we've had decide what the starting lineup is going to be and then they're just dead set on it, only changing it due to injuries (Hood for Burks and Booker for Favors).
I wished he was more adventurous sometimes. Just my 4 cts.
Click to expand...
It's been 19 games!
And I think we can agree the first 12 looked fairly promising. Jazz were 5-7 and looked pretty good at times.

But let's agree to make changes. Which ones do you make?

Favors and Hayward: I think we can agree they should start.

That leaves Burke, Burke and Kanter. OK, sub out any one of them:
1. Trey. As much as I do NOT believe he's a part of the future, Exum has NOT earned more PT, nor the right to be the starter. Dante is weak, he's not a good shooter. And he doesn't penetrate.
2. Kanter. Do you start Gobert or Booker? Not sure either is the answer. Rudy still has no offense other than lobs and putbacks. Booker has tailed off after a good start to the season.
3. Burks. Perhaps better suited to be a 6th man. But who starts? Hood has been injured. Ingles? Give me a break.

Like boobs said, we need personnel changes. That will come at the deadline or next summer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top