What's new
By:
Filters

BasketballInsiders: Rudy Gobert is Ahead of Schedule

Siro said:
We have 3 players who will almost certainly reach all-star levels (Hayward, Favors, and Gobert). If Exum pans out, we'll have 4. How many all stars do we need to become contenders? 15?
Click to expand...

At the very least 17.
 
Jamezz said:
attachment.php
Click to expand...

If the shoe fits man...
 
Siro said:
We have 3 players who will almost certainly reach all-star levels (Hayward, Favors, and Gobert). If Exum pans out, we'll have 4. How many all stars do we need to become contenders? 15?
Click to expand...

Eh, I wouldn't say it's a near certainty that they'll each all-star levels. We still don't have a dynamic scorer (although Hayward is close). I just don't see the star talent on this roster. Sure we have some pretty good players, but outside of Detroit, pretty much every team that has won has had a star that they could go to in crunch time…unless Exum develops a lot (and I think he'll be good, but not that good), then we don't have that player.
 
Hantlers said:
Eh, I wouldn't say it's a near certainty that they'll each all-star levels. We still don't have a dynamic scorer (although Hayward is close). I just don't see the star talent on this roster. Sure we have some pretty good players, but outside of Detroit, pretty much every team that has won has had a star that they could go to in crunch time…unless Exum develops a lot (and I think he'll be good, but not that good), then we don't have that player.
Click to expand...

Yeah, a lot is riding on Exum.
 
Stoked said:
Especially when he spells the name of the website wrong...
Click to expand...

Whatever, I won't bother fixing it. In any case I don't find it appropriate for a mod to suggest that a poster is trolling when he's not certain about it or has no proof whatsoever.
 
Grandpa Jazz said:
That "tanking" isn't a real thing, it is just a myth.
Click to expand...

You've got to be ****ing kidding me, gramps. All you have to do is take a look at teams who have traded a pick with low protection. It wasn't too hard to predict the GS tank job before it happened. They traded Monta Ellis for an injured Bogut, but right, tanking isn't real. The Lakers have a top 5 protected pick this year, and I suppose you think it's dumb luck that they are one of the worst 5 teams in the NBA, despite being the biggest FA draw in the league. Philly came right out and admitted that part of their strategy in drafting an injured player was because they weren't trying to win immediately. Although tanking from the start of the season probably doesn't happen that often, tanking comes in many forms that happen all the time. Whether it's a team trying to keep a protected pick, or when teams realize they aren't making the playoffs and try to increase their odds in the lottery, it happens all the time. The modern NBA is a bit different than you remember from the 1960s, and I'm afraid you are a bit naïve if you believe half of what you've posted in this thread.
 
Last edited:
Jamezz said:
Whatever, I won't bother fixing it. In any case I don't find it appropriate for a mod to suggest that a poster is trolling when he's not certain about it or has no proof whatsoever.
Click to expand...

You'll survive.
 
Getting lottery picks gives more chance at building a contender without doubt, if you are a franchise that doesn't attract too many FA's. But think of the situation of the Jazz. Since there is always the gamble value to any lottery pick including the 1st in a loaded draft that comes once in a decade or 15 years, if you have a roster full of young promising talent, isn't it more important for them to learn to win as much as possible in less time? These players are inexperienced in winning attitude and are starving for winning. You give them a coach that has character, that fathers them mentally while has some solid sets for his team on his mind, and you will go a long way with some patience. I mean, really how important is it too keep tanking for a franchise instead of pushing their young team to win? Wouldn't it be better to try to become a team where there is no superstar but star material players that know what to do in every situation, know each other very well, and can see without looking where the others are, what they can do on the court? As a basketball purist, I would like to believe that the superstar game is fading, not by the show biz means of it, but by the value it brings to contending, compared to the team basketball. Spurs experience is teaching the league a lesson. I'm pretty sure the friendly matchups of NBA teams and European teams do too. It would be killer to get our hands onto a superstar talent, especially a wing, who can boost up his team and lead them to win with character. Perfect scenario. But after a point, doesn't it become a worthless effort of digging a hole with a needle to find some gold ore? And how long will it last? How long will the tanking FO sacrifice their current young base for the sake of finding that savior? Players develop through time. And that happens best when they do it together and play together for a long time. The Jazz are in a perfect spot for playing for this game instead of becoming a worthless tanking team that seeks superstars by trying for lotteries. Both the "tankers" and "anti-tankers" want the best for their team. I just had to say my share because of my view of the game of basketball. I only support winning in every single game. Not just the players, I know there are no players that lose on intention, if they did not play bet or something. But the entire pieces of the FO. Especially the ones that are likely to tank - meaning alter a few things here and there to keep the record low enough to enter the lottery. Call me a narrow minded one dimensional man but it just feels wrong.
 
addictionary said:
Getting lottery picks gives more chance at building a contender without doubt, if you are a franchise that doesn't attract too many FA's. But think of the situation of the Jazz. Since there is always the gamble value to any lottery pick including the 1st in a loaded draft that comes once in a decade or 15 years, if you have a roster full of young promising talent, isn't it more important for them to learn to win as much as possible in less time? These players are inexperienced in winning attitude and are starving for winning. You give them a coach that has character, that fathers them mentally while has some solid sets for his team on his mind, and you will go a long way with some patience. I mean, really how important is it too keep tanking for a franchise instead of pushing their young team to win? Wouldn't it be better to try to become a team where there is no superstar but star material players that know what to do in every situation, know each other very well, and can see without looking where the others are, what they can do on the court? As a basketball purist, I would like to believe that the superstar game is fading, not by the show biz means of it, but by the value it brings to contending, compared to the team basketball. Spurs experience is teaching the league a lesson. I'm pretty sure the friendly matchups of NBA teams and European teams do too. It would be killer to get our hands onto a superstar talent, especially a wing, who can boost up his team and lead them to win with character. Perfect scenario. But after a point, doesn't it become a worthless effort of digging a hole with a needle to find some gold ore? And how long will it last? How long will the tanking FO sacrifice their current young base for the sake of finding that savior? Players develop through time. And that happens best when they do it together and play together for a long time. The Jazz are in a perfect spot for playing for this game instead of becoming a worthless tanking team that seeks superstars by trying for lotteries. Both the "tankers" and "anti-tankers" want the best for their team. I just had to say my share because of my view of the game of basketball. I only support winning in every single game. Not just the players, I know there are no players that lose on intention, if they did not play bet or something. But the entire pieces of the FO. Especially the ones that are likely to tank - meaning alter a few things here and there to keep the record low enough to enter the lottery. Call me a narrow minded one dimensional man but it just feels wrong.
Click to expand...
Needed paragraphs bro.
Hurt my eyes
 
Jamezz said:
Would rep 10 times if I could though. Wished I could explain myself as well.
Just stick to the last 4 words if your attention span is that short, that should work.
Click to expand...

LMAO. How old are you? For realz?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top