Where does Utah fit in the West?

[NAOS]

lmao. You said 4th or 5th. The OR is your usage, not mine. And LMFAO at you flashing the online depth chart. Depending on the injury status of Favors or Gobert, Booker was as high as our SECOND big for long stretches. They tried starting him, but his offense fell off a cliff so dramatically that they had to just use him as bench energy (3rd big). Lyles definitely didn't start the year ahead of him on the chart, and even when it was starting to click for him offensively, he had to be pulled for defensive reasons. When Lyles first got the start over Booker, that was for fit reasons, not because he'd earned it. I'd agree that Lyles jumped Booker on the depth chart by the last 15 or so games, but he definitely didn't before then.

But even if you "win" the argument about Lyles over Booker, what have you proven? That the jazz had an untested rookie who struggled for half the season as the 2nd or 3rd big? Is that what you want to win?

Booker was way more to us than a 4th or 5th big. Your efforts here smack of making an apology for the front office.

 

[NAOS]

current depth chart proves fishy's point, guis. Current is fine.

 

[fishonjazz]

lmao. You said 4th or 5th.

Quote where I said that.

I knew you couldn't give me any credit.

I said that that either booker or lyles was our 4th big. (The other would be the third big)

**** you. I'm done

 

[NAOS]

I'm not going to spend any more times on this. Here's one instance that basically functions like an "or"

Compare booker and withey with other teams 4th and 5th bigs.

To this you can add the fact that you're just plowing ahead as though Lyles was ahead of Booker on the depth chart from the tip. And acting like that's a good point to win.

I also liked how you summarized the Thunder's injury problems last year as because of "one dude".

I'm simply having a hard time sorting through your words in this thread. It's up to you to be clearer.

 

[NAOS]

**** you.

problems at Dannon lately, obvi

 

[fishonjazz]

So when I say to compare booker and withey vs other teams 4th or 5th bigs that means that I think booker is a 4th or 5th big?

Most people can figure out that I'm saying that booker is the 4th big and withey the 5th. And to compare booker with other teams 4th bigs and withey against other teams 5th bigs. It seems pretty obvious.


I think most jazz fans understand that the jazz bigs depth chart is favors and Gobert (1 or 2), booker and lyles (3 or 4), and withey and pleiss (5 or 6).

 

[Ron Mexico]

I'm not going to spend any more times on this. Here's one instance that basically functions like an "or"

I would read Booker and Withey as the 4th and 5th big as Booker is the 4th and Withey is the 5th since that is what is implied in the sentence. But it is true that grammatically it could be read as him saying "or". Clearly he has defined that he did not mean "or" and he has Booker higher on the depth chart in comparison to Withey.

 

[NAOS]

So when I say to compare booker and withey vs other teams 4th or 5th bigs that means that I think booker is a 4th or 5th big?

Most people can figure out that I'm saying that booker is the 4th big and withey the 5th. And to compare booker with other teams 4th bigs and withey against other teams 5th bigs. It seems pretty obvious.


I think most jazz fans understand that the jazz bigs depth chart is favors and Gobert (1 or 2), booker and lyles (3 or 4), and withey and pleiss (5 or 6).

but Booker wasn't the 4th big. Why don't you get that?

 

[NAOS]

I love how [MENTION=840]fishonjazz[/MENTION] isn't going anywhere his comments on last year's Thunder or any of the other mess he's laid down in this thread. Why can't I disregard the crap and see the sliver of sort-of truth that sort-of here??

 

[NAOS]

I would read Booker and Withey as the 4th and 5th big as Booker is the 4th and Withey is the 5th since that is what is implied in the sentence. But it is true that grammatically it could be read as him saying "or". Clearly he has defined that he did not mean "or" and he has Booker higher on the depth chart in comparison to Withey.

Was Withey above or below Booker on the depth chart when he was starting and Booker was coming off the bench?

Depth charts CHANGE, fools. The "or" was legitimately confusing.

 

[NAOS]

Classifying Booker as the 4th big means that you're flat-out ignoring 80+% of the season. Which is funny. It becomes borderline pathetic, though, when you do that in order to make a point. And when that point is a facile apology for the FO, then you've probably pushed it beyond the borderline.

 

[Ron Mexico]

Was Withey above or below Booker on the depth chart when he was starting and Booker was coming off the bench?

Depth charts CHANGE, fools.

Lol, I didnt say anything about depth charts just clarifying comments you were misinterpreting. I just pointed out what he was clearly saying and you said he was not or interpreted different from what he intended.

Furthermore I havent really read any of what your arguing since it sounds boring, just read that last post.

With that said ill bite on your comment to me: Depth charts do change but across the season but Booker was the third big until the end when he was surpassed by Lyles. Yes injury cause things to move around but that is the exception at the time to the depth chart and not where a player is slated or expected. Tinkering with lineups when injured players are down is expected but that doesnt mean that is what they are. Withey started due to injury I would never refer to him as our starter at C, that is Gobert but he may get some starts here and there due to injury. Our backups become starters temporarily due to injury, they are still backups unless their play surpasses the starter and replace them when they are healthy. Also minutes are a huge part of what role a player is. Withey might start but he played no where near the minutes Booker did this season while both were healthy most the season.

 

[green]

Quote where I said that.

I knew you couldn't give me any credit.

I said that that either booker or lyles was our 4th big. (The other would be the third big)

**** you. I'm done

The most intelligent thing that guy has ever said:

This message is hidden because NAOS is on your ignore list.
View Post
Remove user from ignore list

 

[fishonjazz]

As far as depth charts changing, I was using the depth chart of all teams at their healthiest in my comparison since we are talking about the front office making or not making moves last summer before the injuries occurred. When the team was healthy.

As for Booker being the third or fourth big, it doesn't matter. I was comparing our 4th big, whether that is booker or Lyles, against the 4th big of those other teams. I think lyles is as good or better than Booker so take your pick... I think our 4th big when our team is healthy (whether that is lyles or booker) is about as good as most playoff teams 4th big when they are fully healthy.

Pretty simple. I just have to spell out every detail and account for every scenario in order to give an opinion to some people.

 

[green]

As far as depth charts changing, I was using the depth chart of all teams at their healthiest in my comparison since we are talking about the front office making or not making moves last summer before the injuries occurred. When the team was healthy.

As for Booker being the third or fourth big, it doesn't matter. I was comparing our 4th big, whether that is booker or Lyles, against the 4th big of those other teams. I think lyles is as good or better than Booker so take your pick... I think our 4th big when our team is healthy (whether that is lyles or booker) is about as good as most playoff teams 4th big when they are fully healthy.

Pretty simple. I just have to spell out every detail and account for every scenario in order to give an opinion to some people.

It's pretty simple.

Booker was Utah's third big to start the year. Lyles was the third big by the end of the season.

And your post was spot on.

 

[NAOS]

"some" people gift money to JFC babies. Jerks, obviously.

Neither Booker nor Lyles was an adequate back up big for the majority of the year. Booker's offense was pure trash this year. Lyles was a rookie who, at his best (which, of course, came well into the season) was simply "playable" on defense. Neither player was a balanced 2-way player.

 

[NAOS]

Exactly when did Lyles supposedly become better than other 3rd bigs in the Western Conference? Was it by Halloween? Or..?

 

[NAOS]

As far as depth charts changing, I was using the depth chart of all teams at their healthiest in my comparison since we are talking about the front office making or not making moves last summer before the injuries occurred. When the team was healthy.

As for Booker being the third or fourth big, it doesn't matter. I was comparing our 4th big, whether that is booker or Lyles, against the 4th big of those other teams. I think lyles is as good or better than Booker so take your pick... I think our 4th big when our team is healthy (whether that is lyles or booker) is about as good as most playoff teams 4th big when they are fully healthy.

Pretty simple. I just have to spell out every detail and account for every scenario in order to give an opinion to some people.

^green likes!

It's pretty simple.

Booker was Utah's third big to start the year. Lyles was the third big by the end of the season.

And your post was spot on.

^fishonjazz likes!

Elsewhere, green says:

I'd trade Gobert, Favors and Hayward to LA for their pick.

That would give LA:

Russell
FA
Hayward
Favors
Gobert

Toss in LeBron or Durrant and they are contending for a title.

It gives us a shot at getting a star, so we can have a hope of contending someday.

I wish there was a "love" button

 

[fishonjazz]

Exactly when did Lyles supposedly become better than other 3rd bigs in the Western Conference? Was it by Halloween? Or..?

I wasn't comparing 3rd bigs because I do think the jazz need to upgrade their rotation players and 3rd bigs and 3rd wings play big minutes in the rotation. Those are the ones that matter. My argument has always been that the jazz scrubs (booker or Lyles whoever you want to pick as the 4th big, ingles, withey) are fine in comparison with other teams scrubs. (4th wings and 4th bigs)

What separates the jazz from the contenders is not upgrading ingles to stanley johnson, Rodney stuckey, or james young.... Or upgrading booker/lyles to jonas jerebko, Kris Humphries or whatever. What we need to do is upgrade hood, burks, Hayward, favors, Gobert, mack, etc to a chris paul, or a westbrook, lillard, Anthony Davis, Paul George, kyrie, Leonard, durant, thompson, draymond, harden, etc etc etc. My point was upgrading our 4th wing or 4th big doesn't tip the scales or move the needle much since if your team only has an average amount of injuries those players mostly ride pine anyway.

 

[NAOS]

Trey Lyles' December:
2.3 ppg on 40% shooting. He didn't shoot a free throw. Should I go on?

His January:
4.1 ppg on 37% shooting. He missed the only free throw he attempted. Need more?

His February:
8 ppg on 47% shooting. Starting to figure out some offense here. Made 1 of his 3 average 3pt attempts per game. Still sucked the wang on D though, at this point.

During March and April he was grabbing fewer than 3 rebounds a game.

Lets look at Booker's December:
4.3 ppg on 34.7% shooting. Grabbing about 6 boards. Not taking free throws.

His January:
6.6 ppg on 48.6% shooting. 7 boards. This is near his peak for the year.



Are you guys astounded? Do either of these guys sound like a 3rd big on a team built for the playoffs?