What's new
By:

Rumor: Jazz and DeMarcus Cousins

tyklug2013 said:
Exactly. Guys like LeBron, CP3, even Curry and KD whine and complain all the time. Yet they don't get this bad rep that Boogie does.

I've seen Hayward whine and complain more and more the past couple years and he's not labeled as dysfunctional, or as a whiner or complainer. Obviously he's not as much of a whiner or complainer that Boogie is, but he's also not as talented.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Add the amount all of those players whine together during the course of a game and they still don't whine as often as Boogie. And all of them play hard most if not all of the time as well. Boogie doesn't.
 
gregbroncs said:
Add the amount all of those players whine together during the course of a game and they still don't whine as often as Boogie. And all of them play hard most if not all of the time as well. Boogie doesn't.
Click to expand...

don't forget he whines at teammates on court and berates them for all to see, it's an awful thing to do, team destroying.
 
DownUnder said:
I'm ok with our all-star-less team winning 50 games this season while the stratospheric talent that is Boogie wins another 28-32 games. All good
Click to expand...

I think many Jazz fans would be fine with that happening. It hasn't btw. Would you be okay having that team fail in the playoffs because they can't make the crucial plays at the end of the game? Jazz won't win anything without a star. The Kings are already ahead of the Jazz in that department. Ya, the Jazz seem like they should be a 'nice' team this year, but they are a team that lacks the guy necessary to truly contend.
 
tyklug2013 said:
Why should he play hard when he's playing for the, IMO, worst organization in the league?
Click to expand...

Is he still getting paid while playing for that organization?
 
King Cy said:
Cousins is just a pissy little bitch. Some dude of China fouled him, not even hard, and Cousins has to get in his face like the guy just tried to take his head off.
Click to expand...
Yep, I saw that. Ridiculous. I thought that when he is winning he will stop being such a douche.

Maybe if his team wins by 70 points instead of 60 points he will be able to be happy.
 
LazyD said:
I think many Jazz fans would be fine with that happening. It hasn't btw. Would you be okay having that team fail in the playoffs because they can't make the crucial plays at the end of the game? Jazz won't win anything without a star. The Kings are already ahead of the Jazz in that department. Ya, the Jazz seem like they should be a 'nice' team this year, but they are a team that lacks the guy necessary to truly contend.
Click to expand...
I would rather be a better team than a worse team.

If you are comparing two healthy teams and one is clearly better than the other then I would rather be the better one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8
fishonjazz said:
I would rather be a better team than a worse team.

If you are comparing two healthy teams and one is clearly better than the other then I would rather be the better one.
Click to expand...

But the team with a star is going to have a better chance at winning the title than the Allstar-less Jazz. A better record would be cute, but they don't have a guy to win them the ring. Don't think that makes them better in the grand scheme of things. It's all about the title shots.
 
LazyD said:
But the team with a star is going to have a better chance at winning the title than the Allstar-less Jazz. A better record would be cute, but they don't have a guy to win them the ring. Don't think that makes them better in the grand scheme of things. It's all about the title shots.
Click to expand...
The talk was of which team is better off out of Sacramento or the jazz (at least thats what I thought was being discussed)

I would rather be the jazz.
 
fishonjazz said:
The talk was of which team is better off out of Sacramento or the jazz (at least thats what I thought was being discussed)

I would rather be the jazz.
Click to expand...

No doubts Sacramento is better off. They have a star, Jazz don't. Therefore, the Kings have a shot at winning a title, the Jazz don't. No matter how neat and tidy their regular season record and point differential ends up being, the Jazz are predestined to fail in their pursuit of a title.
 
LazyD said:
No doubts Sacramento is better off. They have a star, Jazz don't. Therefore, the Kings have a shot at winning a title, the Jazz don't. No matter how neat and tidy their regular season record and point differential ends up being, the Jazz are predestined to fail in their pursuit of a title.
Click to expand...
Lots of teams have had stars and not won titles. Kings ain't going to with cousins either.
And it has been done that a team of a collection of really good players has won a championship.
And the jazz have much better assets to use to get a star.... One that's preferable to cousins.


But the real clincher is that it isn't just about championships. Neither team has much of a chance of winning a championship so it all comes down to which team is more likely to win more games and get further into the playoffs. I would love to make a bet with you on that one. I will take the jazz and you can take the kings.
 
LazyD said:
But the team with a star is going to have a better chance at winning the title than the Allstar-less Jazz.
Click to expand...

Not in this particular case.... Normally, sure. But not the kings with cousins. They won't even come close.
 
LazyD said:
No doubts Sacramento is better off. They have a star, Jazz don't. Therefore, the Kings have a shot at winning a title, the Jazz don't. No matter how neat and tidy their regular season record and point differential ends up being, the Jazz are predestined to fail in their pursuit of a title.
Click to expand...

For a star to win a title they have to have a certain attitude on the court. Being a star in and of itself is not enough. Cousins does not have the correct attitude.
 
LazyD said:
I think many Jazz fans would be fine with that happening. It hasn't btw. Would you be okay having that team fail in the playoffs because they can't make the crucial plays at the end of the game? Jazz won't win anything without a star. The Kings are already ahead of the Jazz in that department. Ya, the Jazz seem like they should be a 'nice' team this year, but they are a team that lacks the guy necessary to truly contend.
Click to expand...

lol Boogie ain't contending for anything and certainly isn't the disciplined type to lead a team anywhere near a title. The Jazz as currently constructed don't have a star needed to win a title, sure. But they're on an upward swing with a lot of good young pieces that will play together and always play hard, with a tonne of assets and the hope that one of the current players blows up into the superstar needed (unlikely) or that some of the assets carefully collected can be traded for such star (also unlikely). The Kings have one highly talented piece who doesn't have the aptitude to be a winner and who won't be with the franchise past the next couple years and a bunch of misfits, a hot mess of an organisation and constantly churn through coaches. You tell me which franchise is in a better position to contend anytime soon.

yeah thought so.
 
gregbroncs said:
For a star to win a title they have to have a certain attitude on the court. Being a star in and of itself is not enough. Cousins does not have the correct attitude.
Click to expand...

Sounds like pure conjecture. And even Hayward and Favors have two of the most admirable attitudes to the people on this board and neither one has even made the Allstar team. Maybe put three of the Jazz 'core' together and finally they will equal Boogie's production on the court.
 
DownUnder said:
lol Boogie ain't contending for anything and certainly isn't the disciplined type to lead a team anywhere near a title. The Jazz as currently constructed don't have a star needed to win a title, sure. But they're on an upward swing with a lot of good young pieces that will play together and always play hard, with a tonne of assets and the hope that one of the current players blows up into the superstar needed (unlikely) or that some of the assets carefully collected can be traded for such star (also unlikely). The Kings have one highly talented piece who doesn't have the aptitude to be a winner and who won't be with the franchise past the next couple years and a bunch of misfits, a hot mess of an organisation and constantly churn through coaches. You tell me which franchise is in a better position to contend anytime soon.

yeah thought so.
Click to expand...

But all that means nothing without that guy. They have to give up those assets in order to get the star necessary to realistically compete for and win a title. Seems they did things backwards. Now they gotta slice into that nice group of young players to hopefully find a piece to build around anyway. So what is the point in doing that in the first place if they just have to rebuild around that guy anyway? Should secure the star first and then build.
 
Last edited:
LazyD said:
No doubts Sacramento is better off. They have a star, Jazz don't.
Click to expand...

Simplistic single factor analysis.

Not picking on LazyD, but there is so much sloppy thinking that goes into this argument.


Define "star" How many are in the league today? If a best player wins a title, he often then is called a "star" If he does not, then he is dubbed to be not a star. So there is some ex post facto stuff going on here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top