What's new
By:

Trade idea, Hayward to the Suns

Haywards first year as the first option focus of the defense he shot 41% from the field and 30% from three. His 4th year in the league.
Then last year his 6th year in the league he shot 43% from the field and 35% from three.

Im not positive that Hood could achieve those efficiency numbers if he was the #1 option and focus of the defense. No one knows for sure.
But i definately dont think its out of the realm of possibility. I mean its not like those numbers are just fantastic super hard to attain numbers. I dont know where they rank vs other #1 options in the nba but i doubt its like some crazy top 5 ranking for efficiency or something.

I think hood, in his 3rd year, could shoot 41% from the field and 30% from three as a first option. And then improve those numbers after a couple years as a first option and possibly reach the lofty shooting numbers of 43% and 35%. Again, im not certain he could but i definately think its possible.
 
You're just missing so much.

It's not just shooting numbers. Hayward gets those, while being the focal point of our offense, while initiating our offense, while creating for our offense, while playing great defense. The chances that Hood could do all of that as well as Hayward are pretty damn slim, considering at no point has he done it before. Not for us, and not in college.
 
Hayward makes others better and is an elite scorer on difficult shots.

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk
 
If Hood can do it great, but then we'd need someone to fill Hood's production.

Hood also doesn't create as much for others as hayward does. Looking at free agency and projecting the numbers some guys will get... I think Hayward is worth the 5 year megamax and that we should retain him.

Guys like Beal, Barnes, Fournier are going to get 20M per year this offseason. Guys like Crabbe Bazemore will get 15ish. Hayward is worth 30-35 in that type of environment... even though thats a **** ton of money and you'd rather use it towards a superstar... superstars flat out aren't available.
 
Hekate said:
It's not sustaniable. Hood is wildly inconsistent and Burks hardly plays.
Click to expand...
Well, Hayward doesn't miss many games, I'll give him that. But the only thing consistent about Hayward is his inconsistency. Every great game he has is followed by 5 or 6 mediocre ones. Will Hood be any different? I hope so. He won't be worse.

Hekate said:
Teams will shift their focus on Hood and Burks.
Click to expand...
After the Jazz traded Millsap and Jefferson away, handing the reins to G-time, teams focused on Hayward -- AND HE STRUGGLED. But the Hayward apologists gave him a blanket excuse, it's not his fault, he'll come around eventually. Excuse after excuse for Hayward's struggles, but this forgiving attitude is reserved exclusively for Hayward and isn't extended to Hood or anyone else.

Let's look at the numbers:
In Hayward's 2nd year he averaged 11.8 ppg, 3.5 rpg, 3.1 apg.
In Hood's 2nd year he averaged 14.5 ppg, 3.4 rpg, 2.7 apg.

Now the apologists will excuse Hayward because in his second year he wasn't the focus of the offense. Well, neither was Hood.

Hayward's 5th year averages are 19 ppg, 5 rpg, 3.7 apg.

I think by his 5th year Hood can achieve those same numbers if not better (if he is given the same responsibilities and coddling given to Hayward).

Hekate said:
Hayward is damn good player, he will contribute to any team and damn good players with longer contracts are easier to trade.
Click to expand...
Hayward's "damn good"ness is debatable, which is why we're debating it. Just more pro-Hayward propaganda without the stats to support it. What, am I arguing with Spence Checketts and David Locke? Get some new material guys - Hayward isn't giving you the evidence to support your Gordon-love.
Stop swallowing the Hayward propaganda broadcast by 1280thezone.




Let me end on this: I agree that Hayward is a very good player, as is Hood. But I don't think either of them should be #1 on any winning team. At best they're both a couple #2s. But the Jazz need a #1.
So I say let Hood be our #2 and trade Hayward for the chance at a #1. It's our only hope.
 
BENTLEY said:
Well, Hayward doesn't miss many games, I'll give him that. But the only thing consistent about Hayward is his inconsistency. Every great game he has is followed by 5 or 6 mediocre ones. Will Hood be any different? I hope so. He won't be worse.


After the Jazz traded Millsap and Jefferson away, handing the reins to G-time, teams focused on Hayward -- AND HE STRUGGLED. But the Hayward apologists gave him a blanket excuse, it's not his fault, he'll come around eventually. Excuse after excuse for Hayward's struggles, but this forgiving attitude is reserved exclusively for Hayward and isn't extended to Hood or anyone else.

Let's look at the numbers:
In Hayward's 2nd year he averaged 11.8 ppg, 3.5 rpg, 3.1 apg.
In Hood's 2nd year he averaged 14.5 ppg, 3.4 rpg, 2.7 apg.

Now the apologists will excuse Hayward because in his second year he wasn't the focus of the offense. Well, neither was Hood.

Hayward's 5th year averages are 19 ppg, 5 rpg, 3.7 apg.

I think by his 5th year Hood can achieve those same numbers if not better (if he is given the same responsibilities and coddling given to Hayward).


Hayward's "damn good"ness is debatable, which is why we're debating it. Just more pro-Hayward propaganda without the stats to support it. What, am I arguing with Spence Checketts and David Locke? Get some new material guys - Hayward isn't giving you the evidence to support your Gordon-love.
Stop swallowing the Hayward propaganda broadcast by 1280thezone.




Let me end on this: I agree that Hayward is a very good player, as is Hood. But I don't think either of them should be #1 on any winning team. At best they're both a couple #2s. But the Jazz need a #1.
So I say let Hood be our #2 and trade Hayward for the chance at a #1. It's our only hope.
Click to expand...

you better duck, dude. Some of the idiots on this board tried to barbecue me a few months ago for suggesting that Hayward was inconsistent.
 
#bern said:
You're just missing so much.

It's not just shooting numbers. Hayward gets those, while being the focal point of our offense, while initiating our offense, while creating for our offense, while playing great defense. The chances that Hood could do all of that as well as Hayward are pretty damn slim, considering at no point has he done it before. Not for us, and not in college.
Click to expand...

Apologist. (it's the new racist)
 
Unless a straight-up trade for the #1 or #2 pick or a deal for a superstar comes along, then we should keep Hayward. Hopefully Hood and Exum take more pressure off of him and Hayward is able to increase his catch-and-shoot percentage. If he was a 40% 3-pt shooter, we'd all be pretty stoked.
 
NAOS said:
Unless a straight-up trade for the #1 or #2 pick or a deal for a superstar comes along, then we should keep Hayward. Hopefully Hood and Exum take more pressure off of him and Hayward is able to increase his catch-and-shoot percentage. If he was a 40% 3-pt shooter, we'd all be pretty stoked.
Click to expand...

I agree. I want Ingram but that's a #2 pick. I'm not sure trading Hayward for the #3 is worth it.
 
BENTLEY said:
Well, Hayward doesn't miss many games, I'll give him that. But the only thing consistent about Hayward is his inconsistency. Every great game he has is followed by 5 or 6 mediocre ones. Will Hood be any different? I hope so. He won't be worse.


After the Jazz traded Millsap and Jefferson away, handing the reins to G-time, teams focused on Hayward -- AND HE STRUGGLED. But the Hayward apologists gave him a blanket excuse, it's not his fault, he'll come around eventually. Excuse after excuse for Hayward's struggles, but this forgiving attitude is reserved exclusively for Hayward and isn't extended to Hood or anyone else.

Let's look at the numbers:
In Hayward's 2nd year he averaged 11.8 ppg, 3.5 rpg, 3.1 apg.
In Hood's 2nd year he averaged 14.5 ppg, 3.4 rpg, 2.7 apg.

Now the apologists will excuse Hayward because in his second year he wasn't the focus of the offense. Well, neither was Hood.

Hayward's 5th year averages are 19 ppg, 5 rpg, 3.7 apg.

I think by his 5th year Hood can achieve those same numbers if not better (if he is given the same responsibilities and coddling given to Hayward).


Hayward's "damn good"ness is debatable, which is why we're debating it. Just more pro-Hayward propaganda without the stats to support it. What, am I arguing with Spence Checketts and David Locke? Get some new material guys - Hayward isn't giving you the evidence to support your Gordon-love.
Stop swallowing the Hayward propaganda broadcast by 1280thezone.




Let me end on this: I agree that Hayward is a very good player, as is Hood. But I don't think either of them should be #1 on any winning team. At best they're both a couple #2s. But the Jazz need a #1.
So I say let Hood be our #2 and trade Hayward for the chance at a #1. It's our only hope.
Click to expand...
I this particular discussion stats, history, evidence, etc mean nothing at all to some people.

In a different discussion with those same people stats, history, evidence, etc means everything.
 
I kind of think (and may be wrong if someone wants to show me otherwise) that if you are the focus of the offense and primary ball handler/shooter on any team in the nba then you almost automatically will average around 20 points per game almost by default. (Someone has to score right? All teams get a lot of possessions and score over 90 points per game so those points have to come from somewhere)

What separates a good offensive load carrying player from one that's not as good is efficiency and getting to the line imo (along with low turnovers and high assists) I don't know where Hayward ranks efficiency wise among other offensive load bearing players. I do think he gets to the line at pretty good rate (don't how it compares to other first options) and is a really good defender (Though I don't have numbers to back it up)
 
fishonjazz said:
I kind of think (and may be wrong if someone wants to show me otherwise) that if you are the focus of the offense and primary ball handler/shooter on any team in the nba then you almost automatically will average around 20 points per game almost by default. (Someone has to score right? All teams get a lot of possessions and score over 90 points per game so those points have to come from somewhere)

What separates a good offensive load carrying player from one that's not as good is efficiency and getting to the line imo (along with low turnovers and high assists) I don't know where Hayward ranks efficiency wise among other offensive load bearing players. I do think he gets to the line at pretty good rate (don't how it compares to other first options) and is a really good defender (Though I don't have numbers to back it up)
Click to expand...

there is some truth to this for sure. Even bad teams score 90 points a night. It would be interesting to see either Hood or Hayward alongside a true, efficient, number one scoring option.

Another note... Hayward has basically already exceeded my expectations of his ceiling. I didn't know he had this in him. Not sure if he gets much better, but when I doubt Hood can get to Hayward's level I do have that after thought in my mind.

I think Hood is a better shot creator for himself and out of the PnR, but i think hayward makes everyone better in a way that Hood hasn't yet.
 
BENTLEY said:
Well, Hayward doesn't miss many games, I'll give him that. But the only thing consistent about Hayward is his inconsistency. Every great game he has is followed by 5 or 6 mediocre ones. Will Hood be any different? I hope so. He won't be worse.


After the Jazz traded Millsap and Jefferson away, handing the reins to G-time, teams focused on Hayward -- AND HE STRUGGLED. But the Hayward apologists gave him a blanket excuse, it's not his fault, he'll come around eventually. Excuse after excuse for Hayward's struggles, but this forgiving attitude is reserved exclusively for Hayward and isn't extended to Hood or anyone else.

Let's look at the numbers:
In Hayward's 2nd year he averaged 11.8 ppg, 3.5 rpg, 3.1 apg.
In Hood's 2nd year he averaged 14.5 ppg, 3.4 rpg, 2.7 apg.

Now the apologists will excuse Hayward because in his second year he wasn't the focus of the offense. Well, neither was Hood.

Hayward's 5th year averages are 19 ppg, 5 rpg, 3.7 apg.

I think by his 5th year Hood can achieve those same numbers if not better (if he is given the same responsibilities and coddling given to Hayward).


Hayward's "damn good"ness is debatable, which is why we're debating it. Just more pro-Hayward propaganda without the stats to support it. What, am I arguing with Spence Checketts and David Locke? Get some new material guys - Hayward isn't giving you the evidence to support your Gordon-love.
Stop swallowing the Hayward propaganda broadcast by 1280thezone.




Let me end on this: I agree that Hayward is a very good player, as is Hood. But I don't think either of them should be #1 on any winning team. At best they're both a couple #2s. But the Jazz need a #1.
So I say let Hood be our #2 and trade Hayward for the chance at a #1. It's our only hope.
Click to expand...

I agree with a lot of what you said, but tbh, I think his inconsistency just lies with his scoring/shooting.

His defense, passing, etc, that never seems to be that inconsistent to me. I agree he's not really a #1, I'm more just saying I don't think Hood will be as good as Hayward is. What we really need is a PG who can take the pressure off all our guys. It's why Teague would've been a great pickup. Exum might be that guy, but I'm not overly optimistic.
 
#bern said:
I agree with a lot of what you said, but tbh, I think his inconsistency just lies with his scoring/shooting.

His defense, passing, etc, that never seems to be that inconsistent to me. I agree he's not really a #1, I'm more just saying I don't think Hood will be as good as Hayward is. What we really need is a PG who can take the pressure off all our guys. It's why Teague would've been a great pickup. Exum might be that guy, but I'm not overly optimistic.
Click to expand...
Damn I wanted teague
 
when you watch SAS or GSW (especially GSW), the most striking thing is how quickly their offenses identify mismatches. They quickly read HOW and WHERE their opponents' transition defense has put them at a disadvantage. When GSW is clicking, they have that figured out by the time they cross half court, and they start attacking that point IMMEDIATELY. If they don't get what they want, they start a half-court set IMMEDIATELY. Both of these teams are excellently coached, and know their strengths at each PLACE on the floor RELATIVE TO the personnel on the floor. --The Jazz are **** at this, and I think that's a big reason why our offense is bad (they don't consistently attack on the break; and they take too long to get into a space-clogged half-court offense).

I really hope that they get better at attacking on the break, identifying mismatches EARLY (in less than 5 seconds), and using Hayward and Hood equivalently within the offense. Our offense shouldn't be looking for either of them by default (we default to Hayward waaaaay too much to be a good offense). Reward the player who's picked the right lane and created a mismatch (Draymond is great at this). If Exum is anything like what we thought he was, then he should be an asset in this kind of offensive flow (pushing pace, passing over the defense [sometimes long skip passes are extremely effective at taking advantage of a mismatch]).

I think we're lucky to have the combo of Hayward, Hood, and Exum. Hopefully they figure it out soon, before we no longer have that combo.
 
NAOS said:
when you watch SAS or GSW (especially GSW), the most striking thing is how quickly their offenses identify mismatches. They quickly read HOW and WHERE their opponents' transition defense has put them at a disadvantage. When GSW is clicking, they have that figured out by the time they cross half court, and they start attacking that point IMMEDIATELY. If they don't get what they want, they start a half-court set IMMEDIATELY. Both of these teams are excellently coached, and know their strengths at each PLACE on the floor RELATIVE TO the personnel on the floor. --The Jazz are **** at this, and I think that's a big reason why our offense is bad (they don't consistently attack on the break; and they take too long to get into a space-clogged half-court offense).

I really hope that they get better at attacking on the break, identifying mismatches EARLY (in less than 5 seconds), and using Hayward and Hood equivalently within the offense. Our offense shouldn't be looking for either of them by default (we default to Hayward waaaaay too much to be a good offense). Reward the player who's picked the right lane and created a mismatch (Draymond is great at this). If Exum is anything like what we thought he was, then he should be an asset in this kind of offensive flow (pushing pace, passing over the defense [sometimes long skip passes are extremely effective at taking advantage of a mismatch]).

I think we're lucky to have the combo of Hayward, Hood, and Exum. Hopefully they figure it out soon, before we no longer have that combo.
Click to expand...

So my question is, is our offense poor at creating mismatches, transition play, etc, because of the players, because Quin is a bad offensive coach, or because Quin can't adapt what he wants bc of our players?

I'm leaning more towards Quin being a subpar offensive coach, which makes me question what to do next. He's not leaving, he's a good defensive coach and he's good at development...but does that excuse his offense? More and more I'm thinking he's a good coach for a rebuilding team, but maybe not for a contender. I think he's at his best as an assistant tbh.
 
#bern said:
So my question is, is our offense poor at creating mismatches, transition play, etc, because of the players, because Quin is a bad offensive coach, or because Quin can't adapt what he wants bc of our players?

I'm leaning more towards Quin being a subpar offensive coach, which makes me question what to do next. He's not leaving, he's a good defensive coach and he's good at development...but does that excuse his offense? More and more I'm thinking he's a good coach for a rebuilding team, but maybe not for a contender. I think he's at his best as an assistant tbh.
Click to expand...

Good/reasonable questions. I think it might still be too soon to say. I also think that Quin is a guy who is working to get better.

When I look at our current roster I see some players who are good at creating and attacking mismatches (I think Exum and Lyles could be big pieces as far as this is concerned). But it's a clear indication of coaching when you see a team consistently identify a mismatch -- quickly -- and then attack it -- quickly. That's drills, practice, drills, practice, knowing your job, practice, etc.

In Q's defense:

Going into this last season I really don't think we had the personnel to run this kind of offense (who is Lyles? what can Rudy do? how soon will Hood be a reliable threat? who teh **** is Howl Neto? and why is he our starting point guard? Will Alec Burks always play with tunnel vision and therefore be unreliable in a read-option system? etc.). That's why I was shocked when we stood pat. I'm still shocked.

So, while I like your questions, the brunt of my scrutinizing questions are aimed at Lyndsey, not Quin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top