Ty Corbin's quote on playing Jefferson over Burks in the 4th.

[green]

I hate to correct you again, but at this stage of the game, Burke IS EMPHATICALLY NOT better than Burks. But of course he needs to play to develop his potential, same as for Burks.

Uhhhh.....lol.

Burke is better than Burks, and there isn't a GM in the league that wouldn't take Burke over Burks right now.

 

[Getting Traded]

Uhhhh.....lol.

Burke is better than Burks, and there isn't a GM in the league that wouldn't take Burke over Burks right now.

Are we talking potential or current ability? GMs would take Burke because he has a definite position in which he can develop his skills, but Burks doesn't really have a definite position -- thanks to poor management by Jazz coaches. He could be a PG or SG or even a SF -- he is 6-6 with good hops (MJ who was the same height played SF at times). Burks potential has not been realized, I believe, because of poor handling by the Jazz, i.e., Corbin. Same goes for Favors, Kanter, and Hayward. Doofus Corbin is ruining our young players.

 

[green]

Are we talking potential or current ability? GMs would take Burke because he has a definite position in which he can develop his skills, but Burks doesn't really have a definite position -- thanks to poor management by Jazz coaches. He could be a PG or SG or even a SF -- he is 6-6 with good hops (MJ who was the same height played SF at times). Burks potential has not been realized, I believe, because of poor handling by the Jazz, i.e., Corbin. Same goes for Favors, Kanter, and Hayward. Doofus Corbin is ruining our young players.

I disagree about Burks. I think he is at his ceiling...a nice bench player. Look at how the Jazz were playing before Burke and after Burke. A world of a difference. Take Burks away? Not much difference.

With Burks, the Jazz were an amazing 1-14. Burke's first six games, he took a 1-14 team and went 3-3.

Burke is miles ahead of Burks. For one thing Burke is an NBA starter today. Burks will probably never be a starter level player.

 

[Doublea]

I disagree about Burks. I think he is at his ceiling...a nice bench player. Look at how the Jazz were playing before Burke and after Burke. A world of a difference. Take Burks away? Not much difference.

With Burks, the Jazz were an amazing 1-14. Burke's first six games, he took a 1-14 team and went 3-3.

Burke is miles ahead of Burks. For one thing Burke is an NBA starter today. Burks will probably never be a starter level player.

That doesn't mean Burke is some incredible all-star player, by your logical Favors, Kanter, Hayward, everybody else sucks and Burke is better then them all.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

So, I looked at the lineup of Burke, Jefferson, Hayward, Favors and Kanter vs the Pacers.

This was the starting lineup. It was changed with 4:24 in the first Q. The score was 9-17 Utah.

With 3:51 left in the second Q, it put back on the floor and the Jazz were out scored 10-2.

Then it was on the floor to start the second half. The Jazz and Pacer were tied during this stretch, 14-14.

So, the overall scoring of that lineup was 33-33 and that lineup was always against the starting five.

So, Jefferson against the Pacer's starters: 33-33.

Burks against the Pacer's starters: 17-12 Pacers.

Jefferson, as limited/old/sucky as he is, is better than Burks with our real "core 4".

Green, maybe I'm reading you wrong in this thread because admittedly I'm multitasking, but if I didn't know who was saying these things I'd think it was Franklin simply because he loves playing the contrarian. To me it makes no sense whatsoever not to play the young lineup for extended minutes in every game that it can possibly be done no matter what the extremely limited sample size we currently have says. If nothing else, it would give us a larger sample size. There is no reason not to do it. After all, since when are we trying to win games?

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I have always said that I feel that Burks is a good bench player. In fact, I've said before that I think he could be sixth man of the year. I just don't talk about all-star games, starting, playing pg or any of the other silliness when it comes to Burks, so that must mean I hate him.

I don't. He is a good bench player. His game is fantastic against other scrubs. He isn't good enough to carry a team, and since he plays Alfense, he isn't good enough to start. BUT, he is good enough to carry a second unit, as shown by the stats against the Pacers.

Can you give an example of a previous sixth man of the year who did not routinely finish games? I haven't looked it up but my gut tells me that 6th man award winners are game finishers.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I disagree about Burks. I think he is at his ceiling...a nice bench player. Look at how the Jazz were playing before Burke and after Burke. A world of a difference. Take Burks away? Not much difference.

With Burks, the Jazz were an amazing 1-14. Burke's first six games, he took a 1-14 team and went 3-3.

Burke is miles ahead of Burks. For one thing Burke is an NBA starter today. Burks will probably never be a starter level player.

You are all over the board on this. A couple of posts ago you said he could be sixth man of the year.

 

[fishonjazz]

Green, maybe I'm reading you wrong in this thread because admittedly I'm multitasking, but if I didn't know who was saying these things I'd think it was Franklin simply because he loves playing the contrarian. To me it makes no sense whatsoever not to play the young lineup for extended minutes in every game that it can possibly be done no matter what the extremely limited sample size we currently have says. If nothing else, it would give us a larger sample size. There is no reason not to do it. After all, since when are we trying to win games?

This!
I think green believes that playing burks hurts the devolopment of hayward, burke, and favors.
I think he is wrong.
I believe that hayward benifits from having a guy who can drive and kick to him in the half court and is a beast in the transition game.
I think favors gets more looks in the pick n roll with burks on the court.
I believe burke can find alec cutting without the ball to the hoop and in the transition game for more assists

 

[GVC]

But you said that the burke, burks, Hayward, favors, kanter lineup would suck and he said that statistics show that it is our best lineup that has been used this season.

This is incorrect. They've played 10 minutes (19 offensive possessions) over 2 games together and outscored their opponents by a total of 1 point (24-23). The Jazz have better lineups (based on scoring margin per possession or per minute) that have played 10+ minutes together.

 

[green]

Green, maybe I'm reading you wrong in this thread because admittedly I'm multitasking, but if I didn't know who was saying these things I'd think it was Franklin simply because he loves playing the contrarian. To me it makes no sense whatsoever not to play the young lineup for extended minutes in every game that it can possibly be done no matter what the extremely limited sample size we currently have says. If nothing else, it would give us a larger sample size. There is no reason not to do it. After all, since when are we trying to win games?

My whole point is that I don't think Burks' strengths mesh with Burke, Hayward and Favors' strengths. I think we have three "groups" on this team right now:

Burke/Hayward/Favors
Kanter
Burks

I think you can develop Burke, Hayward and Favors together because their games go together. Put Jabari with them, and you have something pretty good. I don't think Burks or Kanter's game meshes with those three very well. I also don't think Burks is a stater level player.

So, if Burks doesn't play very well with those three, and his talent isn't good enough to start, wouldn't starting Burks with those three either hurt Burks' development or the other three's development? So, don't play them together.

Kanter is tough. He is very, very good. I think he will be a better Al Jefferson. You have to play him to see if you can make it work. Burks isn't good enough to be forced on the other three. You have to figure out if Kanter can work, and if not, build him up enough to move him for a valuable piece (like a vet PG).

I hope that makes sense. I'm not trying to go all Franklin here, I just think that playing Burks with the other three hinders Burks' and the other three's development. I think the results prove that. The other three and Burks don't play as well as they can together. When you separate them, you get much better results which = better development.

 

[green]

This!
I think green believes that playing burks hurts the devolopment of hayward, burke, and favors.
I think he is wrong.
I believe that hayward benifits from having a guy who can drive and kick to him in the half court and is a beast in the transition game.
I think favors gets more looks in the pick n roll with burks on the court.
I believe burke can find alec cutting without the ball to the hoop and in the transition game for more assists

Stats show I am right and you are wrong. I'll go with proof.

 

[rowcheestew]

I disagree about Burks. I think he is at his ceiling...a nice bench player. Look at how the Jazz were playing before Burke and after Burke. A world of a difference. Take Burks away? Not much difference.

With Burks, the Jazz were an amazing 1-14. Burke's first six games, he took a 1-14 team and went 3-3.

Burke is miles ahead of Burks. For one thing Burke is an NBA starter today. Burks will probably never be a starter level player.

I think you are wrong, we are all entitled to our opinion, but you are wrong. Yes Trey Burke is a much better point guard, point you, but Alec Burks is a versitle 2 or small ball 3. Can get his own shot, is extremely athletic, and hasnt gotten near his potential. This last stretch of games has started to show that AB is a player in this league. The only reason Trey Burke is an NBA starter right now is because he's on the Jazz, and well what are the other options? better PG yes, but i think AB has a higher ceiling.

 

[green]

I think you are wrong, we are all entitled to our opinion, but you are wrong. Yes Trey Burke is a much better point guard, point you, but Alec Burks is a versitle 2 or small ball 3. Can get his own shot, is extremely athletic, and hasnt gotten near his potential. This last stretch of games has started to show that AB is a player in this league. The only reason Trey Burke is an NBA starter right now is because he's on the Jazz, and well what are the other options? better PG yes, but i think AB has a higher ceiling.

Fair enough. Time will tell. I definitely think Burks is better than CJ or Brewer. BUT, it seems like you could take the date back two years or four years ago and hear the same arguments made for those two.

Burks is definitely an NBA player. He will be around a while, and I think he is better than Brewer or CJ. I just think he is a bench player. The stats back me up. When he plays with a couple starters against the other team's bench, the Jazz excel. When he plays with our young players against the other team's starters, we struggle. When you switch Burks out for Jefferson, Burke, Hayward, Favors, Kanter play much better.

 

[gregbroncs]

OK. So, he was talking about the Pacers game. I went and looked at how our lineup did in this game.

The lineup first came together with 4:18 left in the first quarter. The score was 9-17, Utah leading. Our starting lineup of Favors, Kanter, JEFFERSON, Hayward and Burke built that lead. The Pacers had George, Hill, Scola, Hibbert and Stephenson on the court (4 starters). This lineup ended with 2:17 left in the first. The score was 13-19. So, our young 5 vs 4 of their starters lost that round 4-2.

The second time the lineup came together was 6:26 left in the second quarter. The score was 29-32. The Pacers had West, Stephenson and three bench players on the court. No Hill, George or Hibbert. This lasted until 4:48 in the second. At that time the score was 31-42, Utah. So, against three bench players, our young 5 our scored the Pacers 2-10. With 4:48 left in the second Q, Hibbert, Hill, and George came back in the game. From that point forward, the score was 2-2.

The last time the lineup was together was with 4:26 left in the game. The score was 84-76. The Pacers had their starting five in the game. When the game ended, the final score was 95-84. So, against their starters, the score was 11-8.

So, against the Pacers starters, the young 5 lost 17-12. Our young five against three bench players, no George or Hibbert won 10-2.

So, this lineup is FANTASTIC...if we only play their bench players. I would be curious to see what the score was with Burke, Hayward, Jefferson, Kanter, Favors vs Stephenson, George, Hill, West and Hibbert.

So against one of the absolute best lineups in basketball, in a critical stage of the game, we had 5 inexperienced players play them almost even. So I again ask, why is this lineup not playing more minutes together?

 

[GVC]

So against one of the absolute best lineups in basketball, in a critical stage of the game, we had 5 inexperienced players play them almost even. So I again ask, why is this lineup not playing more minutes together?

They've played a grand total of 7 games together. A little early to get upset, no?

 

[gregbroncs]

They've played a grand total of 7 games together. A little early to get upset, no?

It seems to me that if a lineup looks okay against one of the best and good against the bench from the best team in the league, then that lineup should play the next game. I'm not necessarily upset. I'm just annoyed that our coach continues to show he has no clue.

 

[seattlejazzfan]

It's funny, but Corbin's decision to not play Burks last night was not the wrong decision. There is not one thing anyone can show that says that he made the wrong decision.

Here's your one thing - they lost the damn game. Oh wait, that is more evidence that he made the right decision by keeping that POS in the game. Shoot, you win. I hate that.

 

[green]

It seems to me that if a lineup looks okay against one of the best and good against the bench from the best team in the league, then that lineup should play the next game. I'm not necessarily upset. I'm just annoyed that our coach continues to show he has no clue.

What if the Burke, Hayward, Jefferson, Williams, Favors lineup is better than the Burke, Burks, Hayward, Favors, Kanter (and in this lineup, you force two players to play out of position: Favors and Hayward).

 

[Getting Traded]

What if the Burke, Hayward, Jefferson, Williams, Favors lineup is better than the Burke, Burks, Hayward, Favors, Kanter (and in this lineup, you force two players to play out of position: Favors and Hayward).

As usual Green you neglect to consider the future, the goal, what the Jazz are trying to develop -- the former lineup does not contribute to the big picture, the overall goal. But you refuse to consider that, time and again, though I repeatedly argue that point. Are you just ignoring that and don't consider that important?

 

[gregbroncs]

What if the Burke, Hayward, Jefferson, Williams, Favors lineup is better than the Burke, Burks, Hayward, Favors, Kanter (and in this lineup, you force two players to play out of position: Favors and Hayward).

If? Well then the #'s should play that out over time. But in the one game he used the 2nd lineup, they were better than the 1st lineup. Also the 2nd lineup has 5 players in it that are possibly part of the future. The 1st one? Maybe 4 max and probably only 3. Also if a lineup shows well against one of the best lineups in basketball it should be a no-brainer that the lineup should be tried against lesser competition. And it should be done immediately to help with the chemistry of that lineup. Especially considering that they are the most likely future of this team.