I was here during the Stockton and Malone days. I was here during the Deron/Boozer years and I'm still around altough mostly in the shadows and I'm not all that active anymore.
And who are the ones that talk the most? The ones that are against the Status Quo. I know that's the case. I WAS ONCE the one bickering at the FO and arguing about some decisions.
Hi there, Lion's Roar. I appreciate and respect the knowledge and opinions of all fans who go back to Stockton&Malone. Ironically - I was once a staunch defender of the organization and front office but since last February my frustration (primarily with coaching and player development) has reach an alltime high and I can't defend things I truly believe are mistakes.
Hi First of all a refresh on Jazz history:
* Malone didn't start his first year. [1]
* Stockton didn't start till his 4th year. [1]
* S&M were ousted in the first round of the playoffs something like 5 times. [2]
* It took S&M 13 years to reach the Finals. [2]
* Even after playing 17 years together S&M only went to the WCF 5 times. [2]
* The left block post up that fans like to really go after Al for was once a staple of the Jazz offense with Malone working from there. [3]
* For many, MANY years the Jazz offense had little movement. There were no zone defenses allowed and the Jazz played the PnR on one side with the three other players (Eaton included) standing behind the 3 pt line on the other corner. (no one seemed to complain back then) [3]
* I've seen time and again fans going after Sloan and now they act like he was some sort of wizard and should be back and that Ty is so, so bad although his team keeps winning. [4]
.
A couple disagreements w/your refresher in Jazz history.
[1]-Stockton didn't start as a rookie - but the only rookie on the Jazz is Kevin Murphy (whom I doubt anyone thinks should be starting). Favors & Hayward are 3rd-year players, Kanter & Burks 2nd-year players. I'm oldschool and do think rookies should learn the ropes to an extent and pay their dues. After that though - if you can play you should be playing.
[2]-Stockton & Malone set the bar in '88 when they took Magic&Kareem to 7 games in the Conf Semis. Right there, you knew they had the potential to compete at a championship level. Stock was 25, Malone 24 - and they were 2 of the best player's in the league. There's nobody in the Jazz starting lineup who leaves that type of impression - and certainly nobody you'd be willing to wait 13 years to deliver a finals appearance. The starting lineup is Mo Williams/RandyFoye/MarvinWilliams/Paul Millsap/AlJefferson. You can't possibly compare that to the early stages of Stockton & Malone.
[3] The Jazz offense had less movement in the early 90's (before Hornacek arrived) not only because the talent level around Stockton&Malone was poorer, but because the rules favored iso-ball. Illegal defenses encouraged 1-on-1 play and allowed Malone to be singled up on the block. If you fronted him it was a layup. Now teams can play in front of and behind Al and unless you can execute the high-low (Sap&Al can't) you have 4th-quarters like we saw against Chicago Friday night. And once the Jazz replaced JeffMalone w/Hornacek - the ball movement was on another level. Malone became one of the best low-post passers in the game as well. We didn't stand and watch, we cut down the lane, the guards would split, we kept moving which made double-teams alot harder and less effective.
[4]-I never understood why fans criticized Sloan (a much smaller minority than now) because he had a proven track record and system that we all knew worked. From Dick Motta to Jerry Sloan - it worked. Repetition of good habits = good. Repitition of something that's proven not to work = bad.
It's obvious someone can make anything good sound bad and anything bad sound good. I think some of the criticism is over-the-top but it is what it is. It's not like everyone has it wrong and they simply don't understand what good basketball is.
Bottom line for me is Utah began building for the future when they traded a top-12 NBA player - which I think was a potentially brilliant gamble. Two years later - they're marginalizing that entire trade under a bizarre "
we want to win now" approach - and they're simply not good enough to
win right now. Multiple seasons as a 7/8-seed w/out underlying growth is crippling in the NBA. (On a side note, I would argue many of our coaching decisions do not give Utah their best-chance to win but that's for another post). I agree there can and should be some balance in rebuilding between "tanking" and "trying to win" - but I think alot of fans would agree with me they're not seeing it right now.
