Who said defense wasn't important?
And wasn't it you, when questioned about differing opinions and what not, that said that this is a message board and people are here to discuss Jazz? I asked you a question on why you ignore veritable fact that disproves your opinion. You really have never backed up any of your opinion with anything other than Boozer and Okur were the worst defending front court ever and refused to acknowledge fact that says otherwise. Any declaration you've made on why the Jazz didn't win with an offense heavy team can be said for countless amount of defense heavy teams. Indiana from last year is one example.
I then showed ample evidence that great offense/average defense teams to average offense/great defense teams have won titles in the past 14 years. You then strangely posted that somehow made one able to predict championships based solely on that. Unfortunately, that had no bearing on the actual idea, which is who CAN win titles, not who WILL win titles. And history shows that being great, or even good, at defense as a team is not a complete requirement. You have to be great at one, and at least average, for the most part, at the other. That's the minimum requirement. Pretty much no championship team has been top 5 in both categories.
What this means is that the Jazz of those years were constructed in a way where they could win the title. They just weren't good enough. They were either too average over both offense and defense, or too average defensively that their elite offense couldn't overcome. If their offense was better during their average defense years, they could have won. Trading someone, say, with Kanter's strength offensively with his defensive liabilities for someone with the reverse abilities isn't going make a team more likely to compete. You don't trade Kanter because he's bad at defense. You trade him based on the sum of his abilities.
