What's new
By:

Gordon at PG.

BluesRocker said:
I like it. I agree. Magic was 6'9"

Why not?

Hayward guarded point guards in college and in high school all the time.
Click to expand...

WoooooW. Just because Magic Johnson was 6 ft 9 and point guard, doesn't mean that every player that is around 6 ft 9 is a potential point guard. The sooner that you realize Gordon Hayward was not sent to the Utah Jazz by a higher power the easier this will be for you to understand. The sooner you stop comparing NBA greats to 2nd year below-average players, the less stupid you will sound. ;) Magic Johnson was an incredible point guard. But because he was 6 ft 9 doesn't mean everybody in the NBA thats 6 ft 9 should be a point guard. Paul Milsap is 6 ft 8, should we say, "well he's only an inch shorter than Magic Johnson, lets throw him in at PG.' I know your on the Gordon Hayward Choo Choo Train, but lets remember that he is just a person, not a savior sent down from heaven. Happy New Year, no more Egg Nog for you.
 
infection said:
Hayward isn't a point guard. He has great court vision and delivers great passing, but this is because he's more suited to being able to receive the ball on the perimeter and either 1. shoot 2. pass 3. drive 4. drive and dish. He excels at 4, which is why I think he's more of Ginobiliesque. He's a great passer, though. I think, because of Hayward's passing, we'd need a point guard who can simply bring the ball up, has some semblance of running the floor and can just stay outside and bomb threes. It's why, despite not initially being impressed with him, I would prefer someone like Jimmer.
Click to expand...

But it also takes Harris off the floor. He had the one good game, scoring wise, versus Philly. He didn't make plays for others, he just scored well.
 
Johnny is correct. Just because Harris is 6' 3" doesn't mean he's a distributer, and just because Hayward's 6'9" doesn't mean he isn't one. I like Harris but he doesn't make his teammates better and he needs to be traded this year.
And though Magic and Hayward are the same height - no one's saying that's the reason to move Hayward to PG. The reason to try him there is because Hayward's a good distributer and makes his teammates better - which can't be said of Harris.

Regarding Hayward's size, I originally assumed he'd be a small forward (I think we all did) but he doesn't excel there. He's much better at shooting guard where he can be more of a distributer. Why not just give him head distributer duties? He plays more like a pass first PG than anyone on the team. I'm convinced he's the Jazz' best option at PG. His height is icing. Just like it helps him at SG it's a "huge" advantage at PG. At SF Hayward's average to invisible. At SG he's so much better. Why? Distributing skills, perimeter scoring skills, AND he's bigger than the other team's SG. This helps him do whatever he wants to do, be it distribute the ball or score. But let me say this for the negative Nancys as well as the bleary eyed fans: HAYWARD'S NOT MAGIC! No one said he was. All someone pointed out was that both players are really big for the position - and for ANY player that's a "huge" advantage.

Every draft scout salivates over a PG that's 6'4" or 6'5". Wow, such an advantage - so we wanna see if they can really play. Given the option between a 6'1" PG and a 6'5" PG we so want the taller guy to be skilled enough to justify grabbing him. It's basketball - the guys with size have the advantage. Again, Hayward's 6'9" - so if he has enough skill to justify taking him at PG I wanna do it. He's currently the Jazz' most skilled distributer IMO - AND he's huge for the position so that's why I'm all for trying him there. Just because he's not Magic Johnson and will never be like Magic Johnson (other than in stature) doesn't mean he shouldn't play PG.


This is all an exercise in armchair coaching though anyway. Corbin won't even play Hayward at SG.
 
The reason to try him there is because Hayward's a good distributer and makes his teammates better - which can't be said of Harris.
Click to expand...

Plus it allows us to put a better basketball player than Harris on the floor. We don't need a player out there taking up space whose sole job is to bring the damn ball over the half court line! How freakin' useless is that?

Burks is an upgrade to Harris. He's a better basketball player, and the sum of the parts is greater. You put the best 5 out there you can. I'm leaning, however, more towards Burks than Hayward at the point. Hayward is a mismatch (in our favor) at the 2 because of his height.

The best 5 on the floor is also the reason you start Millsap at the 3. Kantor at the 5 and Favors at the 4. Jefferson off the bench.
 
PKM said:
This is a very good post. But, we should discuss the defensive side of the court .. gets much tougher than then the O ball.
Click to expand...

I'm not exactly sure what you are getting at, but if you're saying that positions begin to crystalize on the defensive side of the ball (and really the only single-way to break down a player's position is who they're guarding), then I totally agree.

Hayward can play the 1 (primary ball-handler/facilitator) offensively just fine. Determining who he should be guarding night to night is a night to night decision, however.
 
NUMBERICA said:
Hayward can play the 1 (primary ball-handler/facilitator) offensively just fine. Determining who he should be guarding night to night is a night to night decision, however.
Click to expand...

I agree.
I hope Burks turns into a decent defender so maybe he and Hayward can man the backcourt together.
 
So the guy has career high in assists in one game at 7 and we are thinking he can play PG? He is shooting guard who can make some passes, not point guard.
 
PKM said:
This is a very good post. But, we should discuss the defensive side of the court .. gets much tougher than then the O ball.
Click to expand...

Agreed with both of you. Offensively position name mean jack, especially in today's game.

Defensively they mean a little more. Hayward is going to have trouble guarding two main types of players: Strong, physical wings who want to create contact and smaller,quicker wings who have lightning speed. He is a smart defender, but he isn't physically all there to be a great defensive player.
 
NUMBERICA said:
I'm not exactly sure what you are getting at, but if you're saying that positions begin to crystalize on the defensive side of the ball (and really the only single-way to break down a player's position is who they're guarding), then I totally agree.

Hayward can play the 1 (primary ball-handler/facilitator) offensively just fine. Determining who he should be guarding night to night is a night to night decision, however.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but I still feel the need for a lightning quick PG who can push tempo. I don't really feel comfortable with Hayward or Burks bringing the ball up the court if he has someone like Chris Paul,Ty Lawson, Rondo, etc pressing him full court.
 
Originally Posted by infection
Jimmer
Hayward
Gilchrist
Kanter
Favors

ncoloradojazz said:
lmao, opposing backcourts will put up 80 by themselves. No defense
Click to expand...
This year maybe. And that's fine - that will help the Jazz land Gilchrist. Speaking of him - he's a NCAA freshman right now. Obviously I'm not talking about tomorrow, friend.

As far as the rest of that lineup, Hayward is pretty decent defensively.
Favors averages 1.6 blocks per 36 minutes and grabs 9.8 boards.
Kanter alters more shots than show up on the stat sheet. Per 36 min he averages 1.1 blocks, 1.1 steals, and 13.7 boards in 4 games.
You think these guys have hit their ceiling?

Regarding Jimmer I'm taking a page from KOC's manual and refusing to talk about another team's player.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top