I keep hearing this but somehow the bench consistently gets us back in games only for Jefferson to return and **** it up.Originally Posted by cowhide
I keep hearing this but somehow the bench consistently gets us back in games only for Jefferson to return and **** it up.
He was talking about the offensive capabilities of Kanter and Favors. Are you really trying to make the argument that Kanter's and Favors's scoring kept us in today's game? Because that is in argument you will lose (very quickly, in fact)
No, he wasn't saying that kanter and favors offens is better, he was just saying that it seems like when kanter and favors play we out play the other team.
I understand, and agree, with everyone's fetish for the defense of that bench lineup. And I agree, Favors and Kanter could potentially be a fantastic defensive tandem in a few years. But SOMEONE needs to do some scoring on the bench. We won't be getting 30 fast breaks a game. Randy Foye was our only source of bench offense tonight, bar-none. Tonight was simply a doomsday-esque abomination. A shame that the only player who was playing well was the one who rotationally plays ahead of the only other player who might have contributed (Burks). Literally had average to **** contributions from every other player on this team.
Yes, one of them has to develop significantly on the offensive side before they can BOTH start together.
Wow. It looks like we'll be 81-1 this season. We should have won this....
They also didn't really go to them tonight. Kanter shot twice and Favors really three times (missed all three). Favors scored on an alley-oop and putback. They need someone besides Tinsley in there since there is no reason to guard him. I like Burks' energy and athleticism as well. I hope we can at least see some variance in the line-ups.
Dude. Scrap the box score. Think back to the game, and try to remember how many iso-posessions Kanter had on the block, that he passed out after moving at the pace of a snail, and finding his body smothered by a triple team. Then, see my post on page 17 directed towards Sepanol.
You simply cannot say that they didn't go to Kanter, because that isn't true. They tried several times, and failed.
That is all.
If this powder-keg of a team starts to struggle through some rough patches, watch out! The young guys won't be happy to sit and watch losers take their minutes. The vet's are all on expiring deals, so they'll be trying to improve their own stats. And Corbin doesn't seem to be the zen master type of coach, in fact he seems too scared to be the real leader of the team. This could get uuuuuuuugly if they can't hold it together.
BPA KOC ASAP
No, I'm arguing that the Jazz's defense improves more than their offense falls when Kanter and Favors are in the game.
So I guess due to some weird end of the game substitution rules Corbin couldn't sub Favors in
It was not a lot. They went to him two or three times in the fourth quarter, when he did indeed look like ass on the first (expiring clock) but passed it out to Tinsley on the second, who promptly missed a three or passed one up, I can't remember. My argument is not that they were stupendous, but that the Jazz had no problem feeding Al, going 1/6, launching jumper after jumper. You have to have confidence in yourself and that is very much encouraged when your team has confidence in you. Kanter and Favors can play adequately against starting bigs on offense, but there has to be some sort of offensive scheme. Half the time Kanter or Favors run up and set screens and the Tinsley or Carroll drive or shoot bricks. The other alternative tonight was have Foye dribble around and shoot. He is a very good shot, so he doesn't have the CJ effect, or at least hasn't in the regular season, but his preseason was horrendous.
why corbin can't let burks play?
anyone can answer my question!
I think this teaches us we still have a long ways to go in learning to fight the zone defense.
As soon as they clogged up the lane, no one wanted to go in there, so we settled.
why corbin not let burks play????
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote