Game Thread Jan 05, 2021 5:30PM MT: Jazz at Nets
- Thread starter Game Threads
- Start date
Added to Calendar: 01-05-21
Ding ding we have a winner.
He's not a good defender period. He hustles yes, and gives the illusion to some that he is a defensive guy. To those that know and have watched basketball
for years it's clear this guy isn't good on defence. He's not big enough, and can't get through screens.
He got destroyed on screens tonight, and eaten alive by a good scorer (as he will continue to do)
The longer we stick with Royce the more we will continue to be let down.
Last edited:
He’d have been our best wing - all aspects of the game considered - by next year.
But at least Doke might get some minutes in a few years and never have ball skills.
and many other players in this league
and the Royce homers SILENT tonight. interesting not one of them called out his play.
This team will probably not reach it's goal until we upgrade/adjust the roles of Ingles, Royce, and Niang.
He's the weak spot. was in the playoffs, and they exploited it.
Teams will continue to do it
interesting. Probably won't work but we'd be tougher
Mitchells defense has been disappointing. I know he can do better.
Ahh yes, Royce getting beat by *checks notes* a HOF guard shows he is actually terrible at defense.
Also **** Steve Nash for finally getting his head on straight and starting Jarret Allen and decreasing DJ's minutes.
I only half-watched the game in the background, but Allen really gave Gobert the business in a way that most traditional non-shooting centers rarely do.
I only half-watched the game in the background, but Allen really gave Gobert the business in a way that most traditional non-shooting centers rarely do.
Handlogten's Heros
Well-Known Member
2019 Award Winner
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
Not all of it early was in Royce. And those of us that understand who Royce is know this is the exact type of guard that gives him issues. He’s much better against the big wings than fast, shooting guards.
I watched the first quarter after seeing the Royce slander and it was a bit unfair. Kyrie gets two amazing bounces on his first two threes and several of his baskets were against other guys.
Royce isn’t a solution for every perimeter threat.
LIke I said I didnt watch the game closely, it was background for me, but on a couple of possessions I saw him play near perfect D on Kyrie and Kyrie just hit shots.
And I think this highlights a problem that I was going to post last night -- that it's easy to rationalize this by saying someone is a good player so "of course." Royce is getting minutes on the floor because of defense. He's a guy who is currently average 7 points per game in 31 minutes. He's on the floor for defensive impact. If we're consistently having to say "well duh, this is a good player, of course he doesn't slow them down," then I'm curious what the ultimate outcome difference is between a "good" defender like Royce and a "bad" defender like any of our other options. We kept Royce on Murray all throughout the series because he was our default. It makes it hard to change anything if we just assume him as our default and chalk up anyone exploding to them just being good players. Sure, there's truth to that to a certain degree, but how long can we consistently explain away the eyeball test when the data continues to validate it?
The problem isn't Royce. The problem isn't that Royce is a terrible defender or hurting us. The problem is that we have a trio of guys who will soak up most the wing minutes who aren't defenders, which means we've made Royce our default guy. He's literally the only guy in the entire rotation tasked with being a wing defender. So he becomes our default. Tough guard matchup? Royce. Why? Well, because the other guys aren't good defenders and Royce is the only guy in the rotation with that reputation. We have one guy in the rotation. One option for this. One. So it leads to situations like a 7 game series where you don't use any other option, and the option you're using isn't working, and so it's easy to come back with "lol u aint gonna stop him, he good, lolol."
If your FO and coaching staff are content with one option for perimeter defense, and it's not working, and we keep having to rationalize it not working by saying that the offense is just too good, then this is really a low-yield activity, and we should instead be putting someone else on the floor who can do more than average 8 points per 36 on open shots because the defense ignores him. Now, I don't necessarily agree with that strategy, but using that logic is essentially saying "lol it doesn't even matter" and undermines the arguments for using Royce.
Look, I dont disagree with what you're saying, but the strategy the Jazz have chosen is clear: Put the best offense possible on the court and hope Royce/Gobert can buoy the defense enough. Even though I personally don't like that and would like to see a guy like Bogey be traded, I think it is a solid one. The issue right now though is that the two guys who should be the leading scorers just arent playing well, especially Bogey. Hopefully it's just rust from the injury and he returns to being a dangerous player.
Maybe, but it seems a really simple experiment to ask if, perhaps, there's another type of defender available to evaluate who's sitting on the roster.
There's a false quote attributed to Abraham Lincoln that goes something like, "give me 6 hours to chop down a tree and I will spend the first 4 hours sharpening the axe." The principle holds true, though. We often prioritize tasks based on what we believe is directly contributing the measurable success. Quin doesn't want to experiment because he's trying to hard just to win games. This is manifested with his Thibbs-ing. When we have a big task in front of us, it induces too much anxiety to feel like we're sitting by idly while the time for the task is passing us by, much like sharpening the axe would have us sitting there looking at that tree and not seeing any tangible progress at all while the axe is being sharpened. But engaging in that activity makes it more efficient later on. The person who picks up that axe and immediately starts swinging feels significantly better because, psychologically, they're (what they perceive as) being actively engaged in the task. It's too much of a mental barrier to overcome the feeling of anxiety that accompanies "not doing something," and it feels better to engage in inefficient activity.
A while ago @Handlogten's Heros gave a good summary of this problem when he mentioned that Locke was rationalizing our approach to the Denver series with, "we've never tried anything different the whole year, why would we try anything different now?" Maybe he can be more specific on this, but the argument is more an indictment of why we put ourselves in these situations. Us continuing to ride the main guys while seeing the glaring weaknesses that are there, without trying to find any kind of solution, while hoping that we can just Thibbs our way out of the situation, is going to lead to the same unsatisfactory results when later down the road we're facing the same problem, but feel we have to continue to double, triple, or quadruple-down because we don't know anything else. Or we just think, "hey, we just need to hit our shots and be better on offense." It's a little silly when perhaps there may actually be some interesting solutions riding pine.