Why the Hell Isn't Rudy in the Starting Lineup?

[Jazz Insider]

This is a pretty cool thread TBH.

+1 imhotbh

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Bro, I absolutely promise you that you HAVE to be good at defense to win a championship.

Show me a team that didn't have good defenders on it that one the championship


That's right, you cant. But yet you continue hammer a way at your lame *** point.


Btw, Pistons didn't have an offensive juggernaut and they won it. Proof that defense is ultimately the most important aspect of the game.

Pistons were decent at offense. You can't name a championship team that didn't have good offensive players. Lakers were bad at defense in 00-01.

Have to be GOOD to win a championship. Many ways to get there.

Not even sure what point you're trying to refute. You're going way off the rails. Boozer during those four years was better at defense than Kanter is now, and significantly better at offense, for that matter. You don't have to be top four on team defense to win a title. You have to be good at BOTH phases of the game, to win.

 

[The Midnight]

pretty sure u prefer roosters, deep inside.

Reported.

 

[spycam1]

Reported.

Please tell me you didn't actually report him.

 

[NAOS]

Oh. My bad. I thought you were joining in talking trash because you agreed with the people I'm arguing with. Instead you are just trolling me?

Nope. I'm making comments about your comments. It's something that happens regularly on message boards.

U crazy.

 

[Hotdog]

Pistons were decent at offense. You can't name a championship team that didn't have good offensive players. Lakers were bad at defense in 00-01.

Have to be GOOD to win a championship. Many ways to get there.

Not even sure what point you're trying to refute. You're going way off the rails. Boozer during those four years was better at defense than Kanter is now, and significantly better at offense, for that matter. You don't have to be top four on team defense to win a title. You have to be good at BOTH phases of the game, to win.

Again, I've never said offense isn't important. Show me where I said offense isn't important.

It's like you just want argue and only hear what you want. You just jumped into the argument for no reason. I guarantee you havent read everything I've posted.

So what's the point of doing this? Just because??

 

[Hotdog]

Nope. I'm making comments about your comments. It's something that happens regularly on message boards.

U crazy.

What's in those comments?

 

[Hedda Gambler]

The Jazz are this weirdly unique team that is a combination of being ran really good and really bad at the same time. They can't seem to get out of their own way. They refuse to refine their philosophy. It's about sticking to the plan that never quite gets you where you want to be, but gets you close. So frustrating!!

So how does the benching of Burke fit into this theory of yours?

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Again, I've never said offense isn't important. Show me where I said offense isn't important.

It's like you just want argue and only hear what you want. You just jumped into the argument for no reason. I guarantee you havent read everything I've posted.

So what's the point of doing this? Just because??

Who said defense wasn't important?

And wasn't it you, when questioned about differing opinions and what not, that said that this is a message board and people are here to discuss Jazz? I asked you a question on why you ignore veritable fact that disproves your opinion. You really have never backed up any of your opinion with anything other than Boozer and Okur were the worst defending front court ever and refused to acknowledge fact that says otherwise. Any declaration you've made on why the Jazz didn't win with an offense heavy team can be said for countless amount of defense heavy teams. Indiana from last year is one example.

I then showed ample evidence that great offense/average defense teams to average offense/great defense teams have won titles in the past 14 years. You then strangely posted that somehow made one able to predict championships based solely on that. Unfortunately, that had no bearing on the actual idea, which is who CAN win titles, not who WILL win titles. And history shows that being great, or even good, at defense as a team is not a complete requirement. You have to be great at one, and at least average, for the most part, at the other. That's the minimum requirement. Pretty much no championship team has been top 5 in both categories.

What this means is that the Jazz of those years were constructed in a way where they could win the title. They just weren't good enough. They were either too average over both offense and defense, or too average defensively that their elite offense couldn't overcome. If their offense was better during their average defense years, they could have won. Trading someone, say, with Kanter's strength offensively with his defensive liabilities for someone with the reverse abilities isn't going make a team more likely to compete. You don't trade Kanter because he's bad at defense. You trade him based on the sum of his abilities.

 

[Coach Ellis]

So how does the benching of Burke fit into this theory of yours?

It gives us something to bitch about years from now after he's no longer a member of the team. Cause his defense really does suck ***.

 

[b_line]

T

Pull your head put your ***. That team was atrocious at defense.

You apparently do not watch games and just look at stats. It's sad. You have no ability to evaluate a team or a player.

You are being an idiot hacl. That team was one of the top 5 teams in the league when they were healthy. Despite a mismatch on the defensive end, they still played above average defense and had one of the top offenses. Basketball is about being better overall, not just defense or offense, but making sure you score more while the other team scores less.

You saying boozer sucked is beyond ridiculous. Boozer and kanter are not even in the same realm. I would take that iteration of boozer along with gobert and favors on this Jazz team any day. Probably over 2008 millsap too. Millsap was a fan favorite, but boozer was legitimately good at basketball. He was easily one of the top forwards in the game at that time, and contributed as the second best player on an actual contender. The Jazz were very good then, and had a legit shot at a title. If they would have matched up better with the lakers, they would have gone to the finals.

 

[b_line]

That doesn't mean anything.

We are talking about the key pieces on a team. Did you really just drag all that out to prove that some scrub can coexist on a championship team? No you didnt. You tried to argue that offensive only players can be the key to being a really good team, which by my definition means you can contend for a championship.

The Suns and Jazz were never true contenders. As proven by what happened when they played real contenders. They got smacked around and looked pathetic. And not only did their defense fail, but so did the offense. When the chips were down they couldn't even be the same offensive team. And that has everything to do with how you compete on the defensive end. Defense charges your team up, negates points, gives confidence, leads to fast point breaks etc..


Some scrub on a team has nothing to do with what we are talking about. No team has been a fully loaded all star team. It's Ludacris to suggest that's what I was trying to say.

False the Suns were contenders in 2006 and it screwed out of a finals trip by the refs. The Suns werea truly elite team that other teams could not answer. They didn't win 60 games by not being a contender.