Jazz history, Status Quo and Social Media

[One Brow]

How do we best make them ready for 2016? It is debatable, but more minutes sooner has got to help.

No, it doesn't "have to help". Like any other decisions, there are positives and negatives.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Thank you for your well thought out post. Even better, it has triggered a discussion that I find informative and enjoyable. I tend toward the side that believes that the Jazz have pissed away two years of developing its core for the future in favor of (in many cases) lesser talented vets whose utter most upside is leading us to the #7-8 seed. I was happy to accept a losing season last year to develop the core, and I was happy to accept one this year--if it was clear we had a strategy to build for the future. What I'm not happy to accept is failing to develop the core, while continuing to be the NBA poster child for mediocrity. I see no evidence of a plan at this point. Just the same ol same ol. It's last year all over again, albeit with a slightly different cast of journeymen, has been, or less skilled veterans taking playing time from our lottery picks. We could have been two years closer to our future, but instead, we're pretty much the same distance from our future as we were at the beginning of last season. I understand your arguments, and you make several very good points, but I'm not buying the final conclusion.

 

[green]

I don't want the Jazz to tank.

I want them to quit starting players that absolutely will NOT win a title as starters (Al) and play players that might win us a title (Favors, Kanter).

I've decided I can't make a decision on Corbin until Al is gone.

Al hurts everyone on this team except Al and maybe Kanter (showing him moves in practice).

 

[zman1527]

No, it doesn't "have to help". Like any other decisions, there are positives and negatives.

Okay, it is more likely to help. Would you agree with that? Generally speaking, playing more minutes gives you a better chance to improve? I think it does.

Also, the youngs are handled differently than the vets. Vets can play ugly and get their minutes. The youngs screw up and they head to the bench. THAT is not good.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Okay, it is more likely to help. Would you agree with that? Generally speaking, playing more minutes gives you a better chance to improve? I think it does.

Also, the youngs are handled differently than the vets. Vets can play ugly and get their minutes. The youngs screw up and they head to the bench. THAT is not good.

Case in point, vets routinely fall behind yet continue to play their allotted minutes. Youngs fall behind or lose lead and Corbin pulls the plug sending the vets back in. (Admittedly sometimes it does help stabilize things.)

 

[Lion's Roar]

I grew up in a soccer country which relates to this in two different ways.

First of all soccer leagues around the world are open leagues that means that you can't tank. If you lose you go to the minors you don't get rewarded for it. Because of this I don't stomach tanking all that well. You play to win and at the end of the day you figure out where you're at.

Second soccer leagues around the world don't use high schools or colleges as recruitment fields. Players are developed from 9 or 10 years old playing for the major clubs. They have youth leagues, initiate leagues, juvenile leagues, junior leagues and so forth but all this leagues are disputed by the same clubs that are in the majors with exceptions of course. That means that players can be 15 years old and be brought up to play for the pro teams (very unusual). I can tell you that only the absolute best talent gets called up and stays the course. Since soccer is a limited substitution sport a coach has to choose wisely who to play cause if he messes up he can only sub 3 out of 11 players. This means that most youth players get put in and out of the lineup quite frequently. That probably makes me accept a little bit more the idea of slowly developing talent. But there's a base to this. I want you guys to realize that there are actually sports where this is embraced and it seems to work quite well. And the idea is not a reach to apply to the NBA. Ask me to be honest and I will say I would want the C4 to play more. But I try to keep an open mind directed at the fact that the FO knows them better than I do. And they might be doing the right thing. We have to wait and see.

 

[Stoked]

Just because something was done in the past is not adequate defense for always doing the same thing.

The problem is Big Al and his no effort defense and Ty and his inability to make changes that are necessary to build for the future.

Now also you mention is the 7th seed and being 4 games over .500 not being good? Well no it is not when your team is capable of much more. If that is the limit of your capability then yea it is great. The Jazz have the talent and ability to be fighting for the 4th seed but they are not.

 

[Lion's Roar]

Thanks to all of those that welcomed me back. You're too kind.

And BTW I never really left. I just stopped posting.

 

[GVC]

We'll just have to agree to disagree that playing an extra 5-10 minutes per game would give the coaches, front office, and other people who see these players every day a much higher understanding of who they will be getting.

I'm not sure what difference 5-10 minutes per game would make, but there is some tradeoff. And, if 5-10 isn't enough, and you're sure that the current players aren't longterm pieces, that's more motivation to move those pieces sooner to not only give the youngs more time but also greater responsibility (leadership, crunch time, etc.). Granted, the potential money saved by not letting other teams get a look at your players might be more to your advantage before their first extension, regardless (since your coaching staff/FO has much more interaction with these players than opposing teams).

Anytime you sign a low-20s guy to 6 years, you are taking a chance, no matter how many minutes they play. Would you say the Jazz got what they expected/hoped from Deron Williams, for example?

After year 3, they had a pretty good idea that extending him for the max wouldn't backfire, so yeah. What Derrick will turn into in the next handful of years, with more time and a more prominent role, can't possibly be as clear as it was with Deron.

 

[franklin]

Welcome to Club Apologist, LR. Want a fly swatter? You'll need one.

[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.

This is why the current Jazz offense is so stagnant. That and young players needing time to learn and mesh. It sure as hell isn't some shortcoming of Ty Corbin. Hell, Ty would implement the triange & ball handling by committee with this pg-less group ifthe young guys were capable learners and competent players. Not only does Ty know Jerry ball, he knows every type of NBA offense inside and out, just like most head coaches in the league and veteran players alike.

Those of us who've read a playbook have seen CoTy try to implement just about every NBA play imaginable without much success worth writing home about. Prop to you on calling out the JeffySap high-low working, although I'd personally love to see more of it countering JeffyBall.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

I grew up in a soccer country which relates to this in two different ways.

First of all soccer leagues around the world are open leagues that means that you can't tank. If you lose you go to the minors you don't get rewarded for it. Because of this I don't stomach tanking all that well. You play to win and at the end of the day you figure out where you're at.

Second soccer leagues around the world don't use high schools or colleges as recruitment fields. Players are developed from 9 or 10 years old playing for the major clubs. They have youth leagues, initiate leagues, juvenile leagues, junior leagues and so forth but all this leagues are disputed by the same clubs that are in the majors with exceptions of course. That means that players can be 15 years old and be brought up to play for the pro teams (very unusual). I can tell you that only the absolute best talent gets called up and stays the course. Since soccer is a limited substitution sport a coach has to choose wisely who to play cause if he messes up he can only sub 3 out of 11 players. This means that most youth players get put in and out of the lineup quite frequently. That probably makes me accept a little bit more the idea of slowly developing talent. But there's a base to this. I want you guys to realize that there are actually sports where this is embraced and it seems to work quite well. And the idea is not a reach to apply to the NBA. Ask me to be honest and I will say I would want the C4 to play more. But I try to keep an open mind directed at the fact that the FO knows them better than I do. And they might be doing the right thing. We have to wait and see.

The one thing from soccer I would LOVE to see implemented in basketball is the 'advantage' rule; that is, in soccer, if a player gets fouled, the ref will often wait to blow the whistle to see how the play develops. If the offense doesn't lose advantage, or even gains advantage (or alternately the defense doesn't gain advantage), then the ref may choose not to blow the whistle. Adopting this rule would hopefully reduce the large number of ticky tack fouls in basketball that don't affect the outcome of the play. How it would be implemented practically in basketball, I'm not sure, but I like the concept.

 

[Lion's Roar]

The one thing from soccer I would LOVE to see implemented in basketball is the 'advantage' rule; that is, in soccer, if a player gets fouled, the ref will often wait to blow the whistle to see how the play develops. If the offense doesn't lose advantage, or even gains advantage (or alternately the defense doesn't gain advantage), then the ref may choose not to blow the whistle. Adopting this rule would hopefully reduce the large number of ticky tack fouls in basketball that don't affect the outcome of the play. How it would be implemented practically in basketball, I'm not sure, but I like the concept.

You should tweet this to #hoopidea . An ever better "advantage" rule is the rugby one.