Lol at Hayward haters. Not letting any of yall back on the bandwagon when he comes back next year.
I'd argue that Hayward wouldn't even be a #2 on most of the lottery teams in the league...At the absolute best, Hayward would be the #4 guy on a championship contending team, and a #3 on a .500 or better team.This is an article of faith that originated with Locke that has been accepted as dogma. What does an "ideal player next to a superstar" even mean? Pippen? Because he sure isn't Pippen.
Does it mean Hayward is more ideal than Leonard, DeRozan, Thompson, Ellis, Parsons, Green, Batum, a healthy Gallinari, or those types of players?
I'm not sure Hayward is better than any of those players, but that's beside the point. The point is Hayward is not the #2 wingman of a superstar, he's an interchangeable good player that a superstar can utilize to win, provided he's paid appropriately.
Lol at Hayward haters. Not letting any of yall back on the bandwagon when he comes back next year.
I definitely don't consider myself a Hayward hater. But Im also not blind to what I see. The kid is talented...this much is sure, but he's just not concsistent. He should be. Especially at this point in his career. There are other streaky, incredibly capable players in the league and this just might be Hayward.
I also don't like his body language on the court.
I'm not giving up on G, but what drives me crazy is when he turns passive on the court, and he stops driving. When he's aggressive going to the basket, he draws fouls at a pretty high rate (though he's pretty bad converting at the basket), but some games, he just floats around the perimeter and makes no effort to go to the basket, in contrast to Burks, who is always going to the basket and drawing fouls. I think with G it must be a confidence thing. I think two things need to change:
1. He needs to be more aggressive going to the basket.
2. They need to run plays for him to get him shots in motion, which he converts reasonably well, instead of always relying on him to create his own shot, which he does not do very well.
he's an interchangeable good player that a superstar can utilize to win, provided he's paid appropriately.
was the source credible or incredible. And, did they shop at Bestbuy?
I'm not really defending him because he's played terrible. But Hornacek stated that he is being schemed against as the #1 option. I think I'll take the word of a coach in the NBA over anybody here. Even a good poster like you.Locke is a master apologist for Hayward, and I just want to make sure I have them all recorded. The reasons I've picked up:
1. Hayward has struggled being the number one option (never mind that no team ever schemes against him)
2. Hayward is better when he gets assisted baskets (Locke really said this)
3. Hayward has run more miles than anyone (he's so tired)
4. Hayward is never bad, but sometimes he's apparently "disengaged".
5. Now Locke is posting that the Jazz pace may be hurting him. Never mind that, as a primary ball handler, Hayward has a lot to do with that slow pace, or that pace has nothing to do with the fact he's missing nearly all his shots.
I'm guessing number 5 will be he's mistakenly been wearing the wrong size shoes. Or maybe he just needs to play 42 minutes instead of 36. But there obviously has to be a reason for Hayward's play that has nothing at all to do with his natural ability. That's for sure.
I'm not really defending him because he's played terrible. But Hornacek stated that he is being schemed against as the #1 option. I think I'll take the word of a coach in the NBA over anybody here. Even a good poster like you.
My source is more than credible..... to the point of being incredible
Billy, you should stop caring about what Locke says, like every other Jazz fan.
Thanks to Locke's objective research today, we now know that, over the last 10 games, Hayward is shooting 45% from midrange. And that percentage, in a 10 game sample, of course, is elite.