What's new
By:

Burks at PG?

hawkeye said:
If Hood and Burks both start that makes our bench pretty weak so one of them will need to come off the bench as our 6th man.
Click to expand...

Siro said:
Also, We need someone who can score coming off the bench
Click to expand...

Howard said:
If we have Burks at PG, we have nobody coming off the bench who can score.
Click to expand...

All this worry about who will score when the bench unit is in............ couldn't snyder just stagger the substitution pattern/line-up so that the jazz always have 2 (or even 3) of burks, hayward, hood, and favors on the court at all time?

Handlogten's Heros said:
I don't think of it as Burks at the point... I think of it as playing Burks, Hood, and Hayward at the same time. Sprinkle in some Ingles. Basically if the value of Burks being on the floor is greater than Burke et al... then run out the best players.

I don't worry about him guarding point guards he's pretty good on ball... may even help him be more effective. Off ball and help seems to be a bigger issue. Either way he won't be worse than Trey.
Click to expand...
I agree with all of this.
imo, burks is better at guarding point guards than shooting guards.
 
Hack said:
Why does Burks name constantly come up about running the point?

Hayward is a far better option for that. He creates so much better than Burks, and is a much better passer. He can even adequately guard point guards. Hayward already initiates the offense quite a bit.

But yet, for some reason, it's always let's have Burks do it. No! Burks wouldn't make for a good point guard.

If we didn't have Hayward, I'd still probably not like Burks running it. But we do have Hayward, and he's essentially a 6'8" point guard in the way that he plays.
Click to expand...

Don't get too hung up on the position thing.

Really we're just talking about a group of players using over simplified terms. With "Burks" at the 1 you are running a system without a traditional PG. We can do that because of who our wing players are. It is in my view preferable to the other options given who our wing players are. Teams have to guard Burks, that alone gives our wings more room to operate than they currently have. They are good enough at passing that we don't need 1 dude dedicated to that function.
 
♪alt13 said:
Don't get too hung up on the position thing.

Really we're just talking about a group of players using over simplified terms. With "Burks" at the 1 you are running a system without a traditional PG. We can do that because of who our wing players are. It is in my view preferable to the other options given who our wing players are. Teams have to guard Burks, that alone gives our wings more room to operate than they currently have. They are good enough at passing that we don't need 1 dude dedicated to that function.
Click to expand...
I agree with that, except have Hayward be the primary guy that brings the ball up. Burks can stay on the wing. I trust Hayward with the ball a lot more than Burks, and that's mainly the point.
 
There for sure will be stretches of games where we have Burks Hood and Hayward all on the court at the same time-- but I just don't trust this lineup in crunch time on the defensive end.

This Dante injury is a bummer in so many ways-- not because we're gonna drop a ton of wins, it just sucks losing a year's worth of development from him. Sigh.


With that said, I really think that Neto can basically absorb the role that Dante played for us last year. If he can adjust to the NBA game and play solid defensively, I really think it's Neto who closes games out towards the end of the season while Burke keeps bringing scoring off the bench with either Hood or Burks. Neto as a passer really suits the games of the rest of our team, but it would hurt to not have at least a mid-range game from him.
 
Hack said:
I agree with that, except have Hayward be the primary guy that brings the ball up. Burks can stay on the wing. I trust Hayward with the ball a lot more than Burks, and that's mainly the point.
Click to expand...

I don't think it matters much so long as Hayward has the ball in his hands in the halfcourt.
 
dalamon said:
Burks would simply never play an Exum role. A) that would hurt his productivity, B) I'm sure he wouldnt enjoy it at all
Click to expand...

What I meant was that he won't have any traditional PG duties just like Exum didn't have.

I also think that Burks would flourish in a finisher type role getting the ball in his hands when the defense is already broken.
 
♪alt13 said:
Don't get too hung up on the position thing.

Really we're just talking about a group of players using over simplified terms. With "Burks" at the 1 you are running a system without a traditional PG. We can do that because of who our wing players are. It is in my view preferable to the other options given who our wing players are. Teams have to guard Burks, that alone gives our wings more room to operate than they currently have. They are good enough at passing that we don't need 1 dude dedicated to that function.
Click to expand...
Exactly. If we see Burks playing point it is because we do not have enough minutes for the wings, and the PG's do not deserve more. We have so many that can start the offense. Position less basketball.
 
Cunning Linguist said:
Burks at pg...bwahahahahha. Really?
Click to expand...

Nice rebuttal.

Care to point out the weaknesses in a Hayward-Hood-Burks 3-2-1 lineup? Especially if it is situational as has been discussed? You know with Hayward taking the majority of the ball handling burden and Burks guarding the opposing PG? Especially slower ones.
 
Stoked said:
Nice rebuttal.

Care to point out the weaknesses in a Hayward-Hood-Burks 3-2-1 lineup? Especially if it is situational as has been discussed? You know with Hayward taking the majority of the ball handling burden and Burks guarding the opposing PG? Especially slower ones.
Click to expand...

We would have seen this situationally anyway this season. For this to be much of a thing it would be more than situational. Otherwise no rebuttal needed, since it is just situational and once in a while then that is fine and would have been fine anyway.
 
I honestly don't see why not. I see him as a super-sub anyway, and if his ideal role is to score in the second unit (which I think it is), might as well put the ball in his hands in the process.
 
dalamon said:
Burks would simply never play an Exum role. A) that would hurt his productivity, B) I'm sure he wouldnt enjoy it at all
Click to expand...
This is true
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top