What's new
By:

foye's history at PG

NAOS said:
based on your other post, it sounds like he could be turned into a "PG" if he were paired with a Manu-type guy. Am I wrong?
Click to expand...

Not wrong, but we don't have a Manu or a team that will post a 7.2 next year. So we're going to need a guy with actual pg skills manning the second unit.
 
billyshelby said:
Not wrong, but we don't have a Manu or a team that will post a 7.2 next year. So we're going to need a guy with actual pg skills manning the second unit.
Click to expand...

you are definitely right: we don't have a fully developed Manu who will take us to the promise land. Manus have to be groomed. The closest thing to a groom-able Manu in the league right now is Gordon Hayward.
 
NAOS said:
you are definitely right: we don't have a fully developed Manu who will take us to the promise land. Manus have to be groomed. The closest thing to a groom-able Manu in the league right now is Gordon Hayward.
Click to expand...

For my money, Burks is the only guy that has Manu potential (though Manu's so special that it's silly to compare anyone we have to him.) I'll need to see Hayward beat a man off the dribble more than 5 times next year before I start calling him a driver, much less a Manu. But Manu certainly kills in the PnR and Hayward can grow a lot in that department.
 
billyshelby said:
For my money, Burks is the only guy that has Manu potential (though Manu's so special that it's silly to compare anyone we have to him.) I'll need to see Hayward beat a man off the dribble more than 5 times next year before I start calling him a driver, much less a Manu. But Manu certainly kills in the PnR and Hayward can grow a lot in that department.
Click to expand...

well, then, all hyperbole aside...... we have two guys on our roster that need to be groomed into playmakers at their position. That takes game time and a system dedicated to seeing it through. By extension, that system will likely play a non-traditional PG so that said player can gain experience/grooming.

Disagree?
 
NAOS said:
well, then, all hyperbole aside...... we have two guys on our roster that need to be groomed into playmakers at their position. That takes game time and a system dedicated to seeing it through. By extension, that system will likely play a non-traditional PG so that said player can gain experience/grooming.

Disagree?
Click to expand...

Well, yeah I disagree. I mean I don't think Hayward will ever be a primary playmaker because he hasn't shown he can drive -- can't be a playmaker without that skill. Burks is a guy who has great potential as a driver, but has barely shown an ability to drive AND make plays.

That said, this is a big year for Hayward. I'm holding out hope for him, but my fear is we've already seen close to his ceiling. With Burks, there's more volatility. Higher upside, lower downside. But of the two, I think Burks has a much better shot of making the jump to primary ballhandler. Passing and vision are key, but he can beat his man off the dribble and finish. Hayward can't do that. Until either of them improve, a true PG is greatly needed.
 
billyshelby said:
Well, yeah I disagree. I mean I don't think Hayward will ever be a primary playmaker because he hasn't shown he can drive -- can't be a playmaker without that skill. Burks is a guy who has great potential as a driver, but has barely shown an ability to drive AND make plays.

That said, this is a big year for Hayward. I'm holding out hope for him, but my fear is we've already seen close to his ceiling. With Burks, there's more volatility. Higher upside, lower downside. But of the two, I think Burks has a much better shot of making the jump to primary ballhandler. Passing and vision are key, but he can beat his man off the dribble and finish. Hayward can't do that. Until either of them improve, a true PG is greatly needed.
Click to expand...

I acknowledge that you have these opinions after watching hours of games. Closely watching. And, I can see how you've come to these conclusions/hesitations. But, a lot of other similarly dedicated people have watched Hayward and proceeded to hype the **** out him. What are they seeing that you aren't? How much of Hayward's shortcomings are the result of our system and his adaptation to it? How much have been due to an exploded team (rookie year) followed by a condensed sophomore season with an unimaginative offense that wasn't helping him?

I think Hayward needs more screens than most creators........... but I also see Chris Paul get a **** load of them............... I also see Manu get a **** load of them.

But, yes, he needs to get a lot better at finishing. I don't think anybody is actively doubting that with a sane mind.
 
Exactly how good do you think Hayward can become? The dream is Brandon Roy, right? I've seen almost nothing that makes me think he's on that track. As I've said before, my dream for Hayward is Dunleavy season 7, hopefully sooner and more spread out. I'll be thrilled if he gets that far, but based on what I've seen I don't ever expect him to be better than that. And I'd be shocked if he ever touches Roy's numbers for a season.
 
Darkwing Duck said:
No you couldn't, and you're too lazy to try, so screaming "nuh uh" isn't convincing.


Watson by three points. Statistically negligible. But to actually put something on it, the Jazz were outscored by ONE point every 340 minutes Watson played. That's one point every 17 games.




And Foye is better at being the point guard since he can shoot? Without a point guard on the floor, the Jazz best distributor of the basketball would be a guy who's been worse at distributing the ball than Derek Fisher's career, and who might not even be on the floor in this scenario. Next best would be? You want a lineup of Foye, Burks, Ma. Williams, Favors, and Kanter? Not an assist rate of over 10 percent in the bunch aside from the pedestrian 14% Foye has. It's essentially asking C.J. Miles to run the point. Is THAT a good idea?
Click to expand...
I named 3 questions to counter act the relevence of your argument. Until you can account for those ones there is no reason to look at the others. The point of that argument was to show the irrelevance of your hand picked stat. I accomplished that.
 
gregbroncs said:
I named 3 questions to counter act the relevence of your argument. Until you can account for those ones there is no reason to look at the others. The point of that argument was to show the irrelevance of your hand picked stat. I accomplished that.
Click to expand...

Who'd they play with? Their teammates. Who'd they play against? The other team. Who's available? The active roster. You want to know how Tinsley fared in the third quarter while behind against teams who played an 8 man rotation during road games during January on Saturday, THEN you're getting hand picked stats, and not the overall picture.
 
NAOS said:
you are definitely right: we don't have a fully developed Manu who will take us to the promise land. Manus have to be groomed. The closest thing to a groom-able Manu in the league right now is Gordon Hayward.
Click to expand...

Have you not heard of James Harden?
 
NAOS said:
you are definitely right: we don't have a fully developed Manu who will take us to the promise land. Manus have to be groomed. The closest thing to a groom-able Manu in the league right now is Gordon Hayward.
Click to expand...

Have you not heard of James Harden?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top