Why the Hell Isn't Rudy in the Starting Lineup?

[Nate505]

A little thing called offense. It's that part of the game that is concerned with making the ball go through the hoop. You see, in basketball, you get points for making the ball go in the hoop, and while stopping the other team is extremely useful, it is utterly pointless if you yourself can't put the ball in the hole afterwards. Hence our whopping score vs the Spurs when Rudy played 30 mins and Kanter had an off night and only played 22.

If Kanter were some elite scorer I'd get this theory. He's not. And he's a sieve on defense. And he doesn't pass the ball. And he doesn't make anyone around him better.

So golly gee, he can put the ball in the little bitty round hole every now and then, but so can the guys he guards. And they seem to do it a lot more than him. You see, in basketball if a team puts the ball in the little round hole more than you do, they win the game. Which teams have been doing more and more with Kanter starting in the lineup.

 

[freakazoid]

That's just incorrect.

Millsap was a far better defender than Boozer, along with being a better overall player, but he never got to start over Boozer. I shouldn't have to rehash this argument. It's been proven over time that Millsap has always been the better player. Boozer on other teams can't even get into the starting line up. Sloan refused to see this. Maybe it wasn't Sloan though. I have no idea at this point. It's still going on after the Sloan era.

I was saying all of this back then and I knew I was right. I know I'm right with Kanter and Gobert too. The Jazz are making a mistake with this situation. Time will prove it. It's really dumb that we even have to argue about this.

Boozer was one of the best offensive big men in the league playing for us. Whenever he was out with an injury, our offense would kinda disappear more often than not. Millsap was better defensively but was also limited against bigger players. Boozer doesn't get near the credit he deserves for his importance to the team. You could make a case for starting Sap, but it's far from being a given that we'd have been better. Nothing close to the difference between Rudy and Enes.

 

[b_line]

That's just incorrect.

Millsap was a far better defender than Boozer, along with being a better overall player, but he never got to start over Boozer. I shouldn't have to rehash this argument. It's been proven over time that Millsap has always been the better player. Boozer on other teams can't even get into the starting line up. Sloan refused to see this. Maybe it wasn't Sloan though. I have no idea at this point. It's still going on after the Sloan era.

I was saying all of this back then and I knew I was right. I know I'm right with Kanter and Gobert too. The Jazz are making a mistake with this situation. Time will prove it. It's really dumb that we even have to argue about this.

Boozer was really really good. He started for the Bulls for like three years after leaving the Jazz. He was definitely better than millsap for most of, if not all the time he was here. Jazz fans don't like boozer, and it has blinded them to the fact that he was a legitimate all star here.

 

[Hotdog]

Boozer was one of the best offensive big men in the league playing for us. Whenever he was out with an injury, our offense would kinda disappear more often than not. Millsap was better defensively but was also limited against bigger players. Boozer doesn't get near the credit he deserves for his importance to the team. You could make a case for starting Sap, but it's far from being a given that we'd have been better. Nothing close to the difference between Rudy and Enes.

Boozer was really really good. He started for the Bulls for like three years after leaving the Jazz. He was definitely better than millsap for most of, if not all the time he was here. Jazz fans don't like boozer, and it has blinded them to the fact that he was a legitimate all star here.

You guys...

Seriously? Even after you've seen how this has all played out?

We are gonna have to agree to disagree. I don't think Boozer was as good as you are making him out to be. His offense was good not great. His defense was pathetic. Boozer was more of a product of the system, and also had Deron who made him look good.

This is all about what you personally believe wins games. I think defense is a must. Some think it's an option I guess. I don't think you can be a really good team with one way offensive players. You can parade around pretending to be a good team and winning a few games, but you will never truly be a great team.

I'd way rather sacrafice some offense and win with my best defenders. And I'd rather invest the time in players who D up and teach them how to be adequate offensive players. Not the other way around. You can't teach effort. You can teach offense.

 

[8]

You guys...

Seriously? Even after you've seen how this has all played out?

We are gonna have to agree to disagree. I don't think Boozer was as good as you are making him out to be. His offense was good not great. His defense was pathetic. Boozer was more of a product of the system, and also had Deron who made him look good.

This is all about what you personally believe wins games. I think defense is a must. Some think it's an option I guess. I don't think you can be a really good team with one way offensive players. You can parade around pretending to be a good team and winning a few games, but you will never truly be a great team.

I'd way rather sacrafice some offense and win with my best defenders. And I'd rather invest the time in players who D up and teach them how to be adequate offensive players. Not the other way around. You can't teach effort. You can teach offense.

The Jazz had some pretty good seasons. They weren't good enough to get to the finals, but playing Millsap over Boozer wouldn't have been the move to get them there. In fact, it would have moved them in the opposite direction. They are saying that playing Boozer made the Jazz better, and I'd have to agree. Not like Millsap was a terrific defender. He was a 6'6'' dude that would get some cool blocks and rebounds every once in a while. The Spurs and the Lakers still would have wiped the floor with the Jazz, and if one swapped Boozer's minutes with Millsaps' the Jazz would not have even gotten to that position in the first place.

 

[b_line]

You guys...

Seriously? Even after you've seen how this has all played out?

We are gonna have to agree to disagree. I don't think Boozer was as good as you are making him out to be. His offense was good not great. His defense was pathetic. Boozer was more of a product of the system, and also had Deron who made him look good.

This is all about what you personally believe wins games. I think defense is a must. Some think it's an option I guess. I don't think you can be a really good team with one way offensive players. You can parade around pretending to be a good team and winning a few games, but you will never truly be a great team.

I'd way rather sacrafice some offense and win with my best defenders. And I'd rather invest the time in players who D up and teach them how to be adequate offensive players. Not the other way around. You can't teach effort. You can teach offense.

Sap and boozer were a lot more similar players than rudy and enes. With rudy, there is absolutely no question the team is better with him starting. With sap and boozer, it was about even. Sap was not as big of a liability on defense, but he had no discernable offensive presence. I see where you are coming from, but your boozer hate is blinding your sight of how good he actually was.

 

[8]

But at least we all agree that Rudy > Enes. Really all that matters since it's the present and ish

 

[8]

Da Millsap man and Booze were probably bout equal by the time Boozer ended his time here. They let him play his ish out and then Millsap was ready to step in right after he left. Me thinks playing Millsap over Boozer at the time likely did not make the Jazz discernibly better, otherwise the coach would have done that. At best, it probably would have made them the same level of team overall.

 

[Hotdog]

Sap and boozer were a lot more similar players than rudy and enes. With rudy, there is absolutely no question the team is better with him starting. With sap and boozer, it was about even. Sap was not as big of a liability on defense, but he had no discernable offensive presence. I see where you are coming from, but your boozer hate is blinding your sight of how good he actually was.

No. It's not about hate.

I know Boozer could score. I just don't give a **** about that. When the chips were down he couldn't score. And his defense was atrocious year around. I don't consider that to be a "really really good player". It's just my view.

A lot of players can give you stats. Boozer was one of them. The truth is, he was soft and not a true competitor. He was on a team that was good as a team. Just like in Chicago, the Jazz won in spite of him, not because of him.

 

[Hotdog]

Sap and boozer were a lot more similar players than rudy and enes. With rudy, there is absolutely no question the team is better with him starting. With sap and boozer, it was about even. Sap was not as big of a liability on defense, but he had no discernable offensive presence. I see where you are coming from, but your boozer hate is blinding your sight of how good he actually was.

No. It's not about hate.

I know Boozer could score. I just don't give a **** about that. When the chips were down he couldn't score. And his defense was atrocious year around. I don't consider that to be a "really really good player". It's just my view.

A lot of players can give you stats. Boozer was one of them. The truth is, he was soft and not a true competitor. He was on a team that was good as a team. Just like in Chicago, the Jazz won in spite of him, not because of him.

 

[Hotdog]

Da Millsap man and Booze were probably bout equal by the time Boozer ended his time here. They let him play his ish out and then Millsap was ready to step in right after he left. Me thinks playing Millsap over Boozer at the time likely did not make the Jazz discernibly better, otherwise the coach would have done that. At best, it probably would have made them the same level of team overall.

Kinda like how the current coach plays the better player?

 

[Hotdog]

Just look at the Warriors right now. They are a perfect example of what I'm saying.

Draymond Green who supposedly is an inferior offensive player to David Lee has remained a starter even after Lee returned. The Warriors are far better with Green playing rather than David Lee. Why is that? Could it be that defense is important, and volume scores who don't play defense are not? Steve Kerr is smart not to give the nod to Lee. If the Warriors roster was ran by the Jazz, David Lee would be back starting over Green, and you all know it. It's how the Jazz operate.



I really hate saying this, but I would give anything for Warriors coaching and front office to be running the Jazz right now. We would be so much better.


The Jazz are this weirdly unique team that is a combination of being ran really good and really bad at the same time. They can't seem to get out of their own way. They refuse to refine their philosophy. It's about sticking to the plan that never quite gets you where you want to be, but gets you close. So frustrating!!

 

[fgcamel]

Just look at the Warriors right now. They are a perfect example of what I'm saying.

Draymond Green who supposedly is an inferior offensive player to David Lee has remained a starter even after Lee returned. The Warriors are far better with Green playing rather than David Lee. Why is that? Could it be that defense is important, and volume scores who don't play defense are not? Steve Kerr is smart not to give the nod to Lee. If the Warriors roster was ran by the Jazz, David Lee would be back starting over Green, and you all know it. It's how the Jazz operate.



I really hate saying this, but I would give anything for Warriors coaching and front office to be running the Jazz right now. We would be so much better.


The Jazz are this weirdly unique team that is a combination of being ran really good and really bad at the same time. They can't seem to get out of their own way. They refuse to refine their philosophy. It's about sticking to the plan that never quite gets you where you want to be, but gets you close. So frustrating!!

I think you also have to look at the situation of the teams. The warriors are are playing to win every night and compete for a championship, whereas Quin has said on a number of occasions that wins do not matter to him, but the players learning an developing.

I'm not saying it is the case or not, but I think it may be taken into consideration.

 

[8]

Kinda like how the current coach plays the better player?

Nope, not at all. Different coach even.

Rudy is playing a lot. It seems like Kanter is getting pulled earlier and earlier. Clearly, Quin notices the impact Rudy has on the game. Rudy has looked really good, and the Jazz won some games against some **** teams. Kanter hasn't been balls awful since he came back. He always sucks *** at defense doe. Say what you want about not caring about people's feelings, but in the NBA you don't just take players who have been playing 30+ minutes all season and starting and just have them come off the bench and play 15 minutes a game. Especially after that player gets 24 points and 17 rebounds. Not saying whether it's right or wrong to do things that way, but human emotions are fragile and running a team of them is some hard ish. How would you react if you came home one day and found that your wife left you for another dude because she found someone that is better looking, brings home more bacon, and is better in the sack? Would it create some negative emotions? Would it affect the way you interact with the people around you? You would probably be all mean and irritable tbh. It might create some imbalances within your human relationships.

 

[Hedda Gambler]

Just look at the Warriors right now. They are a perfect example of what I'm saying.

Draymond Green who supposedly is an inferior offensive player to David Lee has remained a starter even after Lee returned. The Warriors are far better with Green playing rather than David Lee. Why is that? Could it be that defense is important, and volume scores who don't play defense are not? Steve Kerr is smart not to give the nod to Lee. If the Warriors roster was ran by the Jazz, David Lee would be back starting over Green, and you all know it. It's how the Jazz operate.

David Lee was never a starter for Steve Kerr. If Quin Snyder came to Utah with Enes Kanter being out for the first thirty games, odds are that Rudy would still be starting for us.

 

[8]

Just look at the Warriors right now. They are a perfect example of what I'm saying.

Draymond Green who supposedly is an inferior offensive player to David Lee has remained a starter even after Lee returned. The Warriors are far better with Green playing rather than David Lee. Why is that? Could it be that defense is important, and volume scores who don't play defense are not? Steve Kerr is smart not to give the nod to Lee. If the Warriors roster was ran by the Jazz, David Lee would be back starting over Green, and you all know it. It's how the Jazz operate.



I really hate saying this, but I would give anything for Warriors coaching and front office to be running the Jazz right now. We would be so much better.


The Jazz are this weirdly unique team that is a combination of being ran really good and really bad at the same time. They can't seem to get out of their own way. They refuse to refine their philosophy. It's about sticking to the plan that never quite gets you where you want to be, but gets you close. So frustrating!!

I would just like to point out that Green plays over Lee because he makes them a better team overall. Just like Gobert does. It's not just because they are better at defense, it's because what they add defensively is greater than any detriment there may be on offense. Scoring is as important as stopping the other team from scoring. Being smart and making the right plays wins games.

 

[Hotdog]

Like I said before, the Jazz need to show me that they mean business with defense before I'll believe it. The past decade has been nothing but lip service about how they are gonna hold players accountable for their defense, but never do. Boozer, Jefferson, and Kanter. It's a reoccurring theme going on here. It's an obvious pattern. Offensive players play regardless of effort and defensive abilities. Defensive players sit their asses on the bench. Truth. I'll believe otherwise when I see otherwise.

 

[Hotdog]

If the Jazz ran a help wanted ad, heres what it would say...

Must be able to make baskets. Be a good guy. Defensive skills and effort not required.

 

[Hedda Gambler]

If Hack ran a helpt wanted ad, this is what it would say:

Must be able to complain - a lot. The more negative light you can put upon all and every situation, the higher your starting salary will be. PS: Hippies and happy folks need not apply.

 

[freakazoid]

No. It's not about hate.

I know Boozer could score. I just don't give a **** about that. When the chips were down he couldn't score. And his defense was atrocious year around. I don't consider that to be a "really really good player". It's just my view.

A lot of players can give you stats. Boozer was one of them. The truth is, he was soft and not a true competitor. He was on a team that was good as a team. Just like in Chicago, the Jazz won in spite of him, not because of him.

I seem to remember winning a game 7 on the opponents floor to get to the second round, and Booze being a huge part of that. Yeah, he totally sucked.