I want lineup changes!

[Grandpa Jazz]

I also think Enes could have decent trade value at the deadline: 14/7 in 25 minutes - and a low salary which won't be hard to match in terms of salaries coming back in a trade. I'm hoping the Jazz could get a late 1st from a contender.

If you think they will give up Kanter for a late first round pick you are going to be sadly disappointed.

 

[Powshredder]

Why don't we just sell the team and move it to Seattle? Right? We can get rid of all our problems, and push them aside to a different team. It's brilliant actually. Lineup changes? pshhh

 

[Stifle Tower]

If you think they will give up Kanter for a late first round pick you are going to be sadly disappointed.

Just depends if they have given up on him by the deadline. Since his QO is $7.4M they would have little room to go after FA's once they extend it. However, I COULD see them keep Kanter as a fallback option. Might be the right call. Then they can go after BPA in the draft. If someone like Johnson or Winslow blows them away, they wouldn't feel obligated to draft a big. However, he's young, can score and has played on lousy teams. I could see another team overspending to give him a fresh start, especially since the cap will be increasing every year. IMO, better to get something out of him than decide in July not to match an offer.

If I were Snyder, I'd start going with Gobert and Favors as the starters and bring Kanter off the bench. Right now, our problem isn't with offense. Play Rudy 6 mins or so to open up the 1st quarter (when we've been getting killed), then bring in Enes. Tell Kanter we need leadership and scoring off the bench.

 

[Otis Day]

If I were Snyder, I'd start going with Gobert and Favors as the starters and bring Kanter off the bench. Right now, our problem isn't with offense. Play Rudy 6 mins or so to open up the 1st quarter (when we've been getting killed), then bring in Enes. Tell Kanter we need leadership and scoring off the bench.

Our problems are that Kanter and Trey can't play well together because of defense and our second unit can't score. If you play Rudy with Trey they will just pick and roll those 2 all night long or pull Rudy away from the basket. Any lineup change would have to be Booker for Kanter. I think the best thing is not to change the lineup but try and minimize Kanter and Trey together. Make Kanter your first sub instead of Gordon and bring him back early in the second with Exum. Kanter provides the offense and doesn't have to cover for Trey.

 

[GVC]

Oh so many things I could respond to, GVC.

OK...It would have been nice if you responded to the two non-rhetorical questions I asked.

But in your love for Corbin (are you and franklin the same person?)

1. It seems you've caught what write4u has. I wasn't aware that paranoid schizophrenia is communicable, let alone over the internet.

2. I was never a big Corbin fan, and had absolutely no problem with him being let go.

3. This black-and-white, lover/hater ******** is a scourge. You are part of the problem.

you ignored the most relevant and took some of my statements completely out of context. Until injuries to Favors and then late in the season, Corbin did NOT start Burke and Kanter together. My statement directly related to the the early games and I showed you exactly when Kanter was benched and Trey took over as the starter.

Uh...I quoted your whole damn post. I literally left in all the context. It's good practice to both be precise in one's arguments/statements and to take things at face value; it leads to fewer misunderstandings/misinterpretations.

Scapegoating is precisely making a lineup change and benching certain players.

1. So...you're answering my direct question about every lineup change representing a scapegoating of a player in the affirmative?

2. In my understanding, scapegoating requires intent. Do you actually think Corbin moved Kanter to the bench to focus blame on him for the poor start? Is that more reasonable than concluding that Corbin decided to make a single lineup change that he thought might work, and then stick with it when it seemed to be working? Before making the lineup change, Ty talked about spacing, and the need to give both bigs an opportunity to attack, while also providing players and the team an opportunity to win/succeed: LINK.

Keep in mind, Kanter and Favors were playing with the same teammates before the lineup change was made, and the team was far better when the two played apart than when they played together.

On-court per48 team stats through 23 November 2013 last season:
With Kanter and Favors: 306 minutes, 85.2-104.3 (-19.1)
With Favors on and Kanter off: 174 minutes, 91.0-95.4 (-4.4)
With Kanter on and Favors off: 150 minutes, 92.8-106.2 (-13.4)

And instead of isolating one problem (the terrible PG's), Corbin changed both the PG's AND Kanter. There is NO WAY to isolate a problem when you change two variables. Although I use the term "decent" PG lossely when it comes to Burke, we never had the chance to see Kanter start with Trey until either Favors was hurt or late in the season when the "core5" finally had some time to play together. Many of those 23 starts are irrelevant because they came with Favors out of the lineup. That changes the dynamics of the starting group.

Are you advocating for a lame-duck coach trying multiple lineup permutations to better isolate the "problem" with his team? Seriously? Ty wasn't trying to isolate a problem, he was trying to put his players in a position to succeed and win games. Ty had observed Marvin and Trey off the bench with different lineups for 8 and 2 games respectively, and thought it was time for a change after a 1-12 start. He made a change that made sense given the team's struggles, it seemed to work, so he stuck with it. I see no reason to inject a conspiratorial Ty-as-villain element into an incredibly simple story. You've yet to provide any reasonable justification for doing so. A single link to anything at all would be a good start.

I only brought up the media statements because Corbin did nothing to stick up for his player. Ty could have easily said something about missing Favors, or that most of those games were early in the season when the whole team was playing poorly.

Once again, what did Ty say when asked about Kanter by reporters last season? This reeks of you creating "facts" to support your preferred narrative. One link, that's all.

You and franklin have often stated your belief in Ty as a great player development coach. What I saw from Kanter was a guy whose confidence was completely destroyed. And at this level, the game is as much mental as physical.

1. I don't think I've ever stated that. You have quite the talent for creating self-serving narratives.

2. In this very thread you've suggested that Kanter should be moved to the bench. Several posters on this site have suggested the same thing throughout the season. Would this change represent a scapegoating of Kanter by Quin? Maybe Ty was just ahead of the curve.

3. Related to the above, several posters have advocated moving Alec to the bench to balance the lineup as well.

4. Pace, defense and Enes's role/minutes were 3 of the biggest complaints Jazz fans had about Ty last season (along with what some perceived as a non-existent offensive system):

In 2013/14, the Jazz finished 29th in points allowed per possession and 26th in pace. Enes averaged 26.7 minutes per game. So far in 2014/15, the Jazz are 29th in points allowed per possession and 28th in pace. Enes has averaged 25.2 minutes per game.

Trey, Gordo, Alec, Favs and Kanter have an additional year of experience under their belts. The Jazz also have better depth, especially defensively, swapping Garrett/JLIII/Tinsley, RJ, Marvin and Evans for Exum, Hood, Ingles, Booker and Gobert.

5. Given 2-4, maybe people will start recognizing that Ty wasn't all that bad or that Quin (so far) hasn't been much better.

Ty simply ran out of excuses and was wisely dismissed by Lindsey.

You really are a hateful half-wit.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

As far as I'm concerned, Hayward alone, and maybe Favors, are surefire starters and high minute players. I'd like to see Snyder try different combinations to see what works best. One thing's for sure, unless and until we solve our defensive woes, we aren't going to win too many games, nobody will allowing nearly 60% shooting every game. Our defense sucks, THAT is indisputable. We seem to do much better defensively when Rudy's in the game. Thus, we need to give him more playing time, and perhaps start him, so we stop giving up such big leads during the first half. I'm tired of losing, more I'm tired of being embarrassed. Snyder needs to find what works, and if that means certain players play more and in different spots than others, then I'm fine with that.

 

[GVC]

Stifle?

 

[JAZZGASM]

1. Our biggest problem is players are blowing by our guards. Time and time again, forcing others to rotate and get wide open threes. Our bigs outside Rudy cant make up the discrepancy.

2. Has anyone else noticed how much better Kanter has played on D the last few games? His defense is solid, making rotations, staying with his man, staying straight up to avoid fouls...

3. I hate our offense. It doesnt fit with our roster, and our bigs shouldnt be chucking threes The first three passes through a big at the top do next to nothing kther than run clocm. At the start of the game, post the bigs and work inside out. I miss hardnosed jazz basketball.

4. They need to experiment with the starting lineup. Exum and rudy should get a chance, and favors, kanter, burke and burks should take a turn off the bench to see what works.

5. I still think it is funny how much hate Kanter gets. He is showing improvement all the time.

 

[cowhide]

Just like most i'm frustrated with how we have been playing. I think small changes to our lineups would make a world of difference.

Its obvious that we need help defensively at the start of games. Its also obvious we need more scoring off the bench. I think simply switching Kanter and Rudy would fix both issues. I'm a big fan of having players big for their position, not undersized. A starting lineup with Favors and Rudy is huge and an absolute force on defense.

Favors plays better offensively when guarded by a smaller pf instead of a center. He also isn't as good defensively when guarding power forwards because the pull him more out of the paint which leaves the paint open for business whenever center is in the game. That is fixed if we have Favors and Rudy playing at the same time because Rudy is their for protection.

Kanter offensively just abuses second string bigs, and can half way hold his own on defense against them. He also does better against centers then power forwards. He's defensive rotations are awful but luckily Booker is very quick to help and recover on defense.

I get that we want to try and make a starting lineup with Kanter and Favors work but I don't think it does. I'm happy with Quin for the most part but I hate his lack of lineup adjustments. We are struggling, why haven't we seen more experimentations with lineups? Why haven't we seen Murry? Why not give Novak a few more minutes when we can't guard anyone anyway and are struggling to score?

Probably because this team is young and haven't played together, if he keeps changing the roster when guys are still learning to play with each other than it makes it just that much harder to find some chemistry between the players. Kanter has waited a while to start so demoting him after 20 games seems like more of a punishment at this point. There are plenty of issues besides Kanter.

However, I like your suggestion and think it is worth a try. I just will have a little more patience. Heck I think the best lineup is Exum, Hood, Hayward, Favors, and Gobert. Unfortunately, I don't think the three young guys are ready to be in the starting lineup but defensively that is probably our best lineup. Then you have Burke, Burks, Inglis, Booker and Kanter on the second team. There is plenty of offense on both teams and the first team is better defensively.

 

[cowhide]

I agree that Kanter has done better on defense. He still needs to work on his passing but I don't get all the hate either.

 

[Coach Ellis]

I agree that Kanter has done better on defense. He still needs to work on his passing but I don't get all the hate either.

He's showing improvement, which is all we should be looking forward to for this season.

 

[reignman40]

Call me crazy but Novak needs to play more to open the court for the bigs and Hayward. Kanter/Favors are not getting the shots inside like they were early in the season before this crap fest started. I would also like to see Evans play more and bring energy and length. I mean come on did Evans get caught banging Quinns wife or something? What is his beef with him?

 

[GVC]

Call me crazy but Novak needs to play more to open the court for the bigs and Hayward. Kanter/Favors are not getting the shots inside like they were early in the season before this crap fest started. I would also like to see Evans play more and bring energy and length. I mean come on did Evans get caught banging Quinns wife or something? What is his beef with him?

It's rare for coaches to use >10-man rotations. Evans and Novak are the odd men out when everyone's healthy.

 

[Stifle Tower]

It's rare for coaches to use >10-man rotations. Evans and Novak are the odd men out when everyone's healthy.

Yep, there are just not enough minutes for everyone. Novak and Evans getting time would mean Booker and Ingles don't play. Burks being out opens up a few more minutes for Clark and Exum. I guess one alternative would be to slide Hayward back to SG and give Novak some time at SF. AS for Evans, he doesn't fit Quin's offense. He's developed a bit of a midrange game, but can't shoot 3's. I like Jeremy, though. I hope he's traded so he can get some playing time in a different system.