What's new
By:

Is this why Hayward is starting ?

Grandpa Jazz

Grandpa Jazz

Active Member
It's not news to anyone here that Gordon Hayward is struggling with critical aspects of the game. Yet he is still starting when it makes no real sense that he should. Why ?
Could it be that a youth movement needs to move forward. You can't put just veterans in the starting line up and call it a youth movement and you can't put just the youth on a
second unit, it needs some veteran leadership also. It seems to me it was logical to start Hayward when they did and let the rookies develop with limited time as back up players. Which rookie would we move up to
take Hayward's spot since the other starting spots are not really available. Alec Burks, of course. Anyone care to take a shot at what a more productive starting and back up unit should look like ? And why your idea is better
than what Tyrone is doing.

This time i will stay out of the discussion and learn from you guys.
 
Grandpa Jazz said:
It's not news to anyone here that Gordon Hayward is struggling with critical aspects of the game. Yet he is still starting when it makes no real sense that he should. Why ?
Could it be that a youth movement needs to move forward. You can't put just veterans in the starting line up and call it a youth movement and you can't put just the youth on a
second unit, it needs some veteran leadership also. It seems to me it was logical to start Hayward when they did and let the rookies develop with limited time as back up players. Which rookie would we move up to
take Hayward's spot since the other starting spots are not really available. Alec Burks, of course. Anyone care to take a shot at what a more productive starting and back up unit should look like ? And why your idea is better
than what Tyrone is doing.

This time i will stay out of the discussion and learn from you guys.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%. Lots of people struggle in the NBA but allowing him to get those minutes at starter will make him better in the long run.
 
Grandpa Jazz said:
It's not news to anyone here that Gordon Hayward is struggling with critical aspects of the game. Yet he is still starting when it makes no real sense that he should. Why ?
Could it be that a youth movement needs to move forward. You can't put just veterans in the starting line up and call it a youth movement and you can't put just the youth on a
second unit, it needs some veteran leadership also. It seems to me it was logical to start Hayward when they did and let the rookies develop with limited time as back up players. Which rookie would we move up to
take Hayward's spot since the other starting spots are not really available. Alec Burks, of course. Anyone care to take a shot at what a more productive starting and back up unit should look like ? And why your idea is better
than what Tyrone is doing.

This time i will stay out of the discussion and learn from you guys.
Click to expand...

My guess is that it is because he is the only player besides watson actually trying to pass to his teammates. And the only person of the starting give that can facilitate a 5 man offense.

Thats the only reason I can think of in the midst of his recent offensive no shows
 
Starting versus 2nd unit could be alot of reasons. Playing time versus bench time? I thought that Coach Corbin has his work hard matrix and an assistants tracking every player. When a player meets expectations he gets to play, when he falls behind the assistant tells Ty and the guy is pulled out of the game. So i had assumed that Gordon Hayward was doing things that scored well in the matrix and that things like rebounds, steals, blocks and fgm are clearly not the only part of the matrix.
 
ncoloradojazz said:
He is starting cuz utah needs a great white hope. Cj gets railed on but hayward gets a pass and why ya think that is?
Click to expand...

This.

I mean, it couldn't be because Chucker has had SEVEN YEARS to prove himself and failed -- it's probably because Utah is full of racist mormonz!!1
 
ncoloradojazz said:
He is starting cuz utah needs a great white hope. Cj gets railed on but hayward gets a pass and why ya think that is?
Click to expand...

First of all, the entire board has been ablaze with anti-Hayward sentiment the past few games, last night more than ever.

Secondly, CJ has had more than just one slump since joining the Jazz, and unlike Hayward, he has a history of chucking the ball and playing outside of the offense, something Hayward rarely if ever does. CJ caught the bulk of his ire last year when he was starting, and has proved time and time again that he is at his best when A) coming off the bench and B) attacking the rim instead of settling for jumpers.

Thirdly, please go away forever. You're a troll and I wish you the worst.
 
Great ! The first response i get is the Colorado troll and his crap. And nobody seems willing to put out their ideas of what the first and second units should look like. If that's the case then we should no longer hear any posts ranting about who should start and who should not start. This is your chance to say what you would do if you were the head coach. This may seem like a pointless exercise to some of you. But if we can't do this type of discussion what is left for us but to put on a skirt, shake our pom-poms and yell "Go Team".
 
Grandpa Jazz said:
Great ! The first response i get is the Colorado troll and his crap. And nobody seems willing to put out their ideas of what the first and second units should look like. If that's the case then we should no longer hear any posts ranting about who should start and who should not start. This is your chance to say what you would do if you were the head coach. This may seem like a pointless exercise to some of you. But if we can't do this type of discussion what is left for us but to put on a skirt, shake our pom-poms and yell "Go Team".
Click to expand...


I've already said in one of the other dozen Hayward threads that our starting options at the 3 are actually quite limited. I don't CJ should start because he's quickly becoming a serviceable sixth man. Josh Howard is a possibility, but last night he was clearly not 100%.

I saw someone suggest starting Bell at the 3 and have Burks or CJ start at the 2, which might be the worst suggestion I've read this year. Bell will get eaten alive by longer small forwards.
 
Hayward was a started on December 27 because there were three options at SF: him, Miles and Howard. Howard has signed with the club 10 days prior, not even getting a full training camp. He also started the season terribly (unknown on December 27, but seemed to validate the decision when play started). Between Miles and Hayward, it's easy to see why Hayward gets the nod to start the season. Hayward shot 49%, MIles 41%. Hayward shot 48% from 3, Miles 32%. Hayward also has a better handle and court vision, and I think he's a better defender.

Now flash forward a month. Why is Hayward STILL starting?

Hayward is shooting miserably, which is to say about the same as both Miles and Howard. Miles is shooting the 3 better. After his initial struggles, there was probably an argument for Howard to start, but then he got hurt and was 0-for-5 coming back. Probably not the right time for him. To me there's just not a real, true better alternative. I think Hayward keeps starting until someone really wins the job. In the meantime Hayward needs to be a little more aggressive. The slump is definitely in his head, but I hate to see him pass up wide open looks.
 
I don't really care who starts, but with an Al/Sap frontcourt, Hayward and Bell are probably the better options. On the flip side, with a Kanter/Favors frontcourt, you need two wings on the floor who can generate their own offense so whatever combo of CJ/Howard/Burks is probably best.

What has to stop is automatically closing halves and games with Bell/Hayward. You can't have two passive wings who don't want to shoot playing in crunch time. Ty has to play more matchups/hot hands down the stretches, at least until there's a clear best lineup for those situations.
 
And for the love of god, Bell playing 30 minutes in any game is a disaster case scenario. 25 is too much. It's very rare that his defense makes up for the 3 jumpshots, 1 rebound, and no assists he brings to the table.
 
our starting options at the 3 are actually quite limited.
Click to expand...

No offense JJ Rage i agree with everything you, BillyShelby and Kenwood wrote here but the Jazz have 5 players who can play at the 3 spot. Burks, Evans, Hayward, Howard and Miles. Do other teams have more options than this?

So am i to conclude that Hayward is the choice to start at the three ? Personally i can live with this. For now. Here's hoping that Harris, Miles and Hayward can all get rolling better. If they do the Jazz are a very dangerous team, if they sputter so will the team. I think we know who we are at other positions, these three guys are key.
 
Grandpa Jazz said:
No offense JJ Rage i agree with everything you, BillyShelby and Kenwood wrote here but the Jazz have 5 players who can play at the 3 spot. Burks, Evans, Hayward, Howard and Miles.
Click to expand...
I didn't include Burks as a potential starting SF because I think he would get eaten alive. I'd consider starting him at SG, but not SF.

Evans...maybe, but I also think he'd be out of position. If we're worried about poor outside shooting with Hayward, Evans isn't the cure.
 
billyshelby said:
And for the love of god, Bell playing 30 minutes in any game is a disaster case scenario. 25 is too much. It's very rare that his defense makes up for the 3 jumpshots, 1 rebound, and no assists he brings to the table.
Click to expand...

I thought Bell played some great D that game....you can't base defense on steals/blocks
but you're right in the sense that his shot seems to fall flat the more minutes he logs.
 
Started this thread with this objective in mind. Pointing out that there really is no other obvious starter among the candidates. I like "Opie" (my own personal nickname for him ) just fine and think he can be a very good player and it is so painful to watch the way he struggles. Confidence has died in the lad and we have no reason why this should be. Feel much the same about Devin Harris. Here's hoping they can both get it rolling they are the key to making this years Jazz team into a successful team.
 
If I were the coach, I would be starting with:

Harris, Miles, Hayward, Sap, AJ

My seconds would look like:

Watson, Bell, Burks, Favors, Kanter.

Right now, the only way to get points with our starting lineup is with the bigs. Whenever you have Hayward and Bell on the court without both Jefferson and Big Al, our scoring is horrendous. CJ isn't the greatest shooter, but right now I think he's our best option. I would contemplate Burks since he seems to generate points on his own, but I think he's a little too raw to be starting.

You guys will probably all rage over this, but it's what I think would be best.
 
hidn- So Bell would be replaced as starter by Miles. I think your lineup might increase the guard scoring for the first unit. Good post. There is no wrong answer to this. Well i guess someone could mess it up enough to be wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top