That cake has a lot of corn syrup in it. You'd rather give 30 minutes to Burke/Ingles than have Carroll and just let our wing ballhandlers pick up the slack in the second unit? Why?
Pleiss
- Thread starter Elizah Huge
- Start date
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
Was talking about Burks-- get some reading comp, boi.
Exum/
---------/Burks
Hayward/
---------/Hood
Carroll/
(Favors/Booker/Carroll?)
Who plays "2" and who plays "3" is the wrong question. Who is "PG" and who is strictly an off-ball player/wing is the wrong question. It comes down to skillset and matchups, and whoever is doing best for whatever reason in a game gets rewarded with more minutes. If the other team has a lightning quick wing (and quicker than their own point guard), then maybe you defend him with Exum. If the opposing team has a bruiser for a wing, put Carroll on him, and if they don't, then great. And if the Jazz just can't find a matchup on the perimeter defensively that they don't have a precise answer for, they have Favors and Gobert. There will be opportunities for Carroll to get his minutes as a small-ball 4 if/when the situation calls for it. With that 5-man rotation on the perimeter, the Jazz would ALWAYS have a MINIMUM of two ballhandlers on the floor at all times and USUALLY have at least one top tier defensive player, often two.
Why anyone would want to give significant minutes to Jingles and Burke when they could possibly plug in a Carroll or Green is mystifying to me.
---------/Burks
Hayward/
---------/Hood
Carroll/
(Favors/Booker/Carroll?)
Who plays "2" and who plays "3" is the wrong question. Who is "PG" and who is strictly an off-ball player/wing is the wrong question. It comes down to skillset and matchups, and whoever is doing best for whatever reason in a game gets rewarded with more minutes. If the other team has a lightning quick wing (and quicker than their own point guard), then maybe you defend him with Exum. If the opposing team has a bruiser for a wing, put Carroll on him, and if they don't, then great. And if the Jazz just can't find a matchup on the perimeter defensively that they don't have a precise answer for, they have Favors and Gobert. There will be opportunities for Carroll to get his minutes as a small-ball 4 if/when the situation calls for it. With that 5-man rotation on the perimeter, the Jazz would ALWAYS have a MINIMUM of two ballhandlers on the floor at all times and USUALLY have at least one top tier defensive player, often two.
Why anyone would want to give significant minutes to Jingles and Burke when they could possibly plug in a Carroll or Green is mystifying to me.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
Because addressing our offensive woes (we were 25th in the league) is as of now much, much more important than our defensive woes.
Burks and Hood, if given roles where they best succeed in this offense, will give much more offensive diversity in a wider range of roles and positions than Carroll ever could. Carroll can gun threes, great-- Burks and Hood can both do more. The only way Demarre is coming to Utah is if he's promised a ****-ton of minutes (at the expense of players on this squad who have higher ceilings) and his contract costs a ****-ton, stretched over an extensive period of time. Why on earth are we doing this when we have an extensive amount of evidence that our perimeter D post-ASB was good, and yet our offense still wasn't?
Stunting the development, and giving strange roles to players we're investing a ton in purely for the sake of "having a bulldog" is simply stupidity, in my opinion. Burke's and Joe's minutes can both be taken away by multiple players on this roster who've shown potential to have NBA-level games themselves, along with playing good minutes in winning games last season.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
1) A team 25th in offense without any superstar offensive players giving a contract to the incredibly-inversatile Danny Green would be a bad decision, plain and simple. With our PG play being as anemic as it is, the last thing we want is giving up Burks, Hood, and PG minutes to play a dude who simply parks his *** in the corner, and can't put the ball on the floor to save his life.
2) If a team has a bruiser for a wing, we can put Hayward on him cuz guess what-- it ****ing worked last season. End of story.
3) We have three power-forwards currently on the roster that are fully deserving of minutes-- and Hayward makes for a much more scary small-ball 4 than Carroll. Shift Hood to the 3, Burks at the 2, whoever at the 1.
With Carroll on the roster we are reducing the amount of players by 1 on the court who can create their own offense, and facilitate the offense of others-- which is of HUGE ****ing importance when we're TWENTY FIFTH IN THE NBA IN OFFENSE
Who said this was strictly about defense? Carroll is a better offensive option than Burke and Ingles by a mile. Asking ballhandlers to handle the ball is bizarre?
Backup for a second. Your answer to improving the offense is playing Burke and Ingles? More specifically, your cure to our bad offense is putting a guy on the floor who wants the ball in his hands, is often an unwilling passer, doesn't get to the line, and usually shoots like complete dog-**** without remorse? How does having an off-ball option that converts on good efficiency and taking no more minutes than Burke/Ingles 'stunt' the growth of anybody? It seems to me that the inverse is true.
The only reason Burke should have a spot reserved in the rotation right now is his potential potential.
Last edited:
NAOS
Well-Known Member
u funny
Coach Ellis
Well-Known Member
Would still rather have Tomic, but if that's not an option, then Pleiss it is. As long as the team has one true backup 5 to give Rudy a break without forcing Favors to always cover at center.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
how many times are you going to resort to the word "stupid" instead of making an actually compelling argument?
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
You seem to fundamentally ignore the point that not playing any PGs as backups to Exum means Burks having to play a majority of his minutes there. Is playing 70% of Burks' minutes at the 1 offensively (and defensively) better than having him play mostly at the 2? Is playing Hood less minutes better for our offense than playing Carroll?
This is more about signing Carroll and its negative ramifications on the roles of two of the most promising young wings in the NBA this coming season-- as opposed to robbing the playing time of Burke and Ingles. Both players are competent back-ups, and both can have their contributions easily overtaken by other promising players on the roster later in the season if they blow it. NBA teams don't roll 12 deep.
See above. Our offense has much more potential by giving lots of playing time to multiple playmakers with versatile scoring repertoires than giving it to a true SF when we already have a damn good one to begin with.
Or because of the fact that playing 70% of Alec's minutes at the 1 would be stupid, and it would neuter the huge contributions he could have with the team next season.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
u stupid, and need to attain some reading comp.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
NAOSpergers with a stellar 'contribution' in this thread, instead of 'making a compelling argument'.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
Guise we neid a buLLdog Okey
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
I will eat my ****ing shoe if the Jazz offer Carroll a contract, and he signs with the team. It's simply an idea rooted in several echelons of wishful-thinking, and delusion. I know I know, #nobuLLdogNoperimtearD but we might just have to deal with it.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
The statement preceding bold makes it moot. If Alec plays 20 min at the 1 then there would still be 28-30 min for Hood at the 2/3. You should just argue what you really want to. That Trey is Black Jesus.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
Lolo, boi. That's right, I said we had no perimeter D. Like, zero. That's what I said.