What's new
By:

Number of Wins

Games that we score more points than our opponent

  • Total voters
    73
I'm kinda surprised by the level of optimism. Jazzfanz is not a traditionally homerific base.

I said 48 and was quite confident that would be the average.

Looks to be closer to 52/53. (Glance)

Hope we're right.
 
LogGrad98 said:
I feel like I am the only one taking things into consideration objectively. Everyone else is like "we added Diaw....70 wins here we come!".

And generally my sentiment is in tired of being in the middle of the pack or lower every year and hope the front office starts taking some risks to TRULY put us in contention. We've already seen where organic growth gets us. I guess for Greg putting butts in the seats is what counts, at the lowest possible cost (standard business model). But for the fans I am ready to see some real change.

I'm just not as high on the new additions nor the supposed improvement from other players everyone else is.

Lyles will hit the sophomore slump as did Hood and most other players. Before his big injury Exum had real confidence issues. I doubt a year sitting out helps that or help improve his game much. Favors health will be an issue again I'm afraid. The stuff that took him out last year was the normal big man problems, not flukes, so we can reasonably expect him to drop another 10+ games. Same with Gobert. Burks reminds me a little bit of Kirilenko in the injury department. A plus and a minus, he has one speed: overdrive, which tends to lead to injury as he throws himself recklessly into every play.

I just think integrating 3 new guys, none of whom realistically are true game changers, coupled with the above mentioned likely outcomes does not equal 50 wins this season. Maybe next season when it all gels, but I think 45 with a high of 47 is far more realistic and objective. And it wouldn't surprise me to see us fall down more than most rose colored glasses Homer's think we could and end up missing the playoffs. [edit] and don't forget the Hayward paradox that is rapidly approaching.

I'd be more than happy to eat crow, no problem with that. But the vitriol aimed at me so far, by actual posters and trolls alike, is completely unwarranted.

That also, by the way, is why the loyalty to the board is generally limited to a fairly small subset of posters and one not so small reason why so many good posters leave and only sometimes come back.
Click to expand...

The only thing I really disagree with here is that Burks seems even more fragile than kirilenko at this point.

I don't think your projections are pessimistic, just not as optimistic as some. They should end up close to 50 wins to show their progression, and you are not that far off from that.

Diaw probably won't contribute much more than teach guys veteran tricks on the court, and how to eat and drink off it.
 
LogGrad98 said:
I feel like I am the only one taking things into consideration objectively. Everyone else is like "we added Diaw....70 wins here we come!".

And generally my sentiment is in tired of being in the middle of the pack or lower every year and hope the front office starts taking some risks to TRULY put us in contention. We've already seen where organic growth gets us. I guess for Greg putting butts in the seats is what counts, at the lowest possible cost (standard business model). But for the fans I am ready to see some real change.

I'm just not as high on the new additions nor the supposed improvement from other players everyone else is.

Lyles will hit the sophomore slump as did Hood and most other players. Before his big injury Exum had real confidence issues. I doubt a year sitting out helps that or help improve his game much. Favors health will be an issue again I'm afraid. The stuff that took him out last year was the normal big man problems, not flukes, so we can reasonably expect him to drop another 10+ games. Same with Gobert. Burks reminds me a little bit of Kirilenko in the injury department. A plus and a minus, he has one speed: overdrive, which tends to lead to injury as he throws himself recklessly into every play.

I just think integrating 3 new guys, none of whom realistically are true game changers, coupled with the above mentioned likely outcomes does not equal 50 wins this season. Maybe next season when it all gels, but I think 45 with a high of 47 is far more realistic and objective. And it wouldn't surprise me to see us fall down more than most rose colored glasses Homer's think we could and end up missing the playoffs. [edit] and don't forget the Hayward paradox that is rapidly approaching.

I'd be more than happy to eat crow, no problem with that. But the vitriol aimed at me so far, by actual posters and trolls alike, is completely unwarranted.

That also, by the way, is why the loyalty to the board is generally limited to a fairly small subset of posters and one not so small reason why so many good posters leave and only sometimes come back.
Click to expand...

47 wins is a 7 game improvement over last season, and thats a huge leap. I put them at 48, but 50 is not out of the question. Everything you're worried about happened last season, they lost a lot of close games (what was the number? 15 decided by 5 or less points, and we lost 9?), and they still could have finished with 45ish wins and a playoff berth.

I have a hard time believing that 47 is the floor if the obvious upgrade at PG, no more Chris Johnson's and Elijah Millsap's playing meaningful minutes, and another year of growth isn't enough to move the needle for you. You breakdown sounds like low 40's to me, like last season numbers.
 
LogGrad98 said:
I feel like I am the only one taking things into consideration objectively. Everyone else is like "we added Diaw....70 wins here we come!".

And generally my sentiment is in tired of being in the middle of the pack or lower every year and hope the front office starts taking some risks to TRULY put us in contention. We've already seen where organic growth gets us. I guess for Greg putting butts in the seats is what counts, at the lowest possible cost (standard business model). But for the fans I am ready to see some real change.

I'm just not as high on the new additions nor the supposed improvement from other players everyone else is.

Lyles will hit the sophomore slump as did Hood and most other players. Before his big injury Exum had real confidence issues. I doubt a year sitting out helps that or help improve his game much. Favors health will be an issue again I'm afraid. The stuff that took him out last year was the normal big man problems, not flukes, so we can reasonably expect him to drop another 10+ games. Same with Gobert. Burks reminds me a little bit of Kirilenko in the injury department. A plus and a minus, he has one speed: overdrive, which tends to lead to injury as he throws himself recklessly into every play.

I just think integrating 3 new guys, none of whom realistically are true game changers, coupled with the above mentioned likely outcomes does not equal 50 wins this season. Maybe next season when it all gels, but I think 45 with a high of 47 is far more realistic and objective. And it wouldn't surprise me to see us fall down more than most rose colored glasses Homer's think we could and end up missing the playoffs. [edit] and don't forget the Hayward paradox that is rapidly approaching.

I'd be more than happy to eat crow, no problem with that. But the vitriol aimed at me so far, by actual posters and trolls alike, is completely unwarranted.

That also, by the way, is why the loyalty to the board is generally limited to a fairly small subset of posters and one not so small reason why so many good posters leave and only sometimes come back.
Click to expand...

I've still yet to hear you directly address the addition of George Hill. In your posts, he's either lumped in with the 'old folks' we added, or (like the quoted post) he's completely absent. That's one big *** reason that your "objectivity" is very easy to question.
 
Last edited:
♪alt13 said:
I really enjoy log as a poster. I disagree with him about the Jazz's outlook this year but I am glad that he is back.Yeah, he's being pessimistic but he doesn't suck.
Click to expand...

Same here. And I get annoyed when he doesn't address my points
 
♪alt13 said:
I really enjoy log as a poster. I disagree with him about the Jazz's outlook this year but I am glad that he is back.Yeah, he's being pessimistic but he doesn't suck.
Click to expand...
Lol. I was just making a joke because of the optimistic way you used pessimism. And I like Log too, but not his sucky pessimistic takes.
 
Being realistic, 49. With a little luck (and by that I mean no serious injuries) and if the players don't get mad at each other due to the reduced playing time, I think the Jazz could win even, let's say, 55.
 
I'm going with 56 wins. Jazz finally return to their stable healthy ways of years past and finish with a top 3 record in the West.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top