What's new
By:

I couldn't agree more with this article

prodigy said:
this article is pretty Yucca, man. I couldn't get past the AK homerism.

If Ak was truly that good(according to him he was a LOT better than boozer) we would have teams calling us, begging us to trade him so he could be in more than just a secondary role. Alas that didn't happen and he spent the entire contract in Utah. I like what AK brought to the team but come on, let's be realistic.

edit - did he really call CJ a blessing? truly Yucca, man

apparently he's a utes fan too, ugh, i'm ashamed
Click to expand...

Someone who watches basketball and understands it.
 
I think there are a few insights there, but to sum up, the Jazz were screwed because they invested in two soft bigs who couldn't stop anybody and maxed out an incomplete player. This negated the positive aspects of the team they were building. Then the Jazz bailed out on good players who weren't perfect, but still contributed to wins because the FO was penny pinching.
 
I personally liked the article. He fully admits at the end that it was written in perfect hindsight, and he acknowledges that really the only mistake was keeping riding Boozer when it was obvious Sap could replace him (I agree with that). But he is right about the morals to his lessons and for the most part reasons it well in his argument for future changes.

I also disagree with his assessment of CJ, but that is not enough to discount the entire article. I guarantee you there are still CJ homers here just waiting for another great game to come out and say "see, he really is awesome". That is a difference of opinion really.

But the part that really stuck with me, and describes the mess that Sloan and KOC made, is this:

The moral: once you decide on a direction for the team, do it. Don't stall. Don't wish-wash. Don't cling to the past and postpone the inevitable future. Just follow through with the decision.
Click to expand...

I think KOC spent too much time "waiting and seeing" and not making moves. He truly did what was outlined in the article, by waffling he drove out a possible HOF player. Boozer should have been moved last year, for whatever, freeing up space for Matthews, et al. moving Sap into the starting spot. KOC's plan of always waiting let this all fall apart.

Sloan's part was trying to force pieces into the only mold he knows how to coach: all-star PG and all-star PF and everyone else. I think they hampered AK by not tailoring a team to fit their new max contract player, and instead, when he couldn't fill the role that Jerry envisioned, they went to find a player that could, hamstringing someone who could have been a real force. He was better than Boozer in nearly every category other than rebounding, and his breakout year he was at least equal as a scorer, but he was raw and got there differently. So Boozer, the more polished offensive player, and the big burly PF Sloan was looking for, stepped into that primary role. AK was forced to be Hornacek or Russell and nothing more. That was a mistake, but it fit what Jerry wanted.

The part about AK is actually right, mostly. Of course we are jaded by 4 years of totally mediocre and frustrating play. But the year he broke out we should have built around him, or at least kept him in a primary role. Instead we took a top 5 player (for that year) and told him to play 3rd fiddle. Then we wondered why he had attitude issues. Now I still think AK is mentally weak (part of his attitude issues) and ended up being not worth the contract, but to not keep him in a primary role after a breakout season and a max contract was a mistake. If you are going to pay a max contract build around the max player. To move him out of his natural position, ask him to be the 3rd or 4th option, and then get pissed when he didn't perform the same is ludicrous. Who knows how it might have turned out differently if AK had been the #1 or #2 option at that point in his career. I think it would have been equal odds better or worse, but at least we would have used the money we spent instead of wasting it.

If nothing else it is an interesting take on what happened to us over the past 3 years. And in the end the result is the same, the team fell apart.

I sure hope KOC has learned something too and makes better decisions about his new team. I can tell you that if we start next season with Bell starting at the 2, a newly signed AK (or even CJ) starting at the 3 - instead of Hayward starting at one of these spots , and AJ and Sap splitting the minutes with Favors a distant 3rd, we will know that KOC learned nothing.
 
LogGrad98 said:
Sloan's part was trying to force pieces into the only mold he knows how to coach: all-star PG and all-star PF and everyone else. I think they hampered AK by not tailoring a team to fit their new max contract player, and instead, when he couldn't fill the role that Jerry envisioned, they went to find a player that could, hamstringing someone who could have been a real force. He was better than Boozer in nearly every category other than rebounding, and his breakout year he was at least equal as a scorer, but he was raw and got there differently. So Boozer, the more polished offensive player, and the big burly PF Sloan was looking for, stepped into that primary role. AK was forced to be Hornacek or Russell and nothing more. That was a mistake, but it fit what Jerry wanted.
Click to expand...

Sloan adjusted his offense to his best players, not his highest paid players.
 
Darkwing Duck said:
Sloan adjusted his offense to his best players, not his highest paid players.
Click to expand...

First, Sloan did not adjust his offense.

And to your point, yes he didn't tailor his offense to his max player, so why pay the guy the max? Both were mistakes. If the franchise is going to hitch their wagon to AK, then the coach should figure out how to make him the primary option. Instead he went out and found the proto-typical power forward Sloan had to have to fit his mold of a basketball team: all-star PG, all-star PF, everyone else. That was the mistake, IMO. If you are going to spend the money, then make the max player key to your team, if the player is not worth being key to your team, then don't pay him the max. If you pay him the max, and try to make him the key to your team and it doesn't work for whatever reason, then trade him and try again. Don't just hold on for the sake of holding on, again wasting money that could be spent on players that fit better.
 
The part about KOC waffling is dead on as he literally did nothing for 3-4 save for the Korver trade which was only made out of necessity (imagine if we had him longer and didn't wait for Sloan getting into it with Giricek to start looking at possibilities). But as far as building around AK... when we "built around" other guys we went to the WCF, for hell's sake. I think the problem we have is that the couple years it was just AK he shined and we viewed him as something he isn't/wasn't designed for -- an offensive centerpiece -- and we confused that with him being the real deal.

In addition, we keep talking of "building" around AK or giving him a bigger role, when the entire essence of his game is and was 95% compatable with our 2007 team and onward. He was not an offensive centerpiece when playing with Stockton and Malone, yet he fit in and was able to get putbacks and slash when necessary. It's too bad he got accostomed to being the focal point of an offense because he's not a scorer, nor is he a distributor, though he can score in good and creative waysand get good assists if he takes what the game and defense gives him. I cringe every time I hear "AK's working on his shot this summer" or "Hornacek will help AK" because it demonstrates a serious flaw in Andrei -- and Jazz management's -- understanding of his game and realizing he is not a shooter and since he was not even utilizing his strengths that turning his focus to jumpshots was a collossal mistake.

If Andrei bought into the changing team dynamic and continued to do what he does best, then I think we stand a good chance against SA and then face the lowly Cavs. There's also no way we lose to the Lakers three years straight. I'm not putting all theblame on him because we all know we had other serious issues, but I think the Kirilenko issue was the biggest and had he bought into the team concept we would have really kicked some *** rather than waste energy evaluating every decision on "what will make AK happy so he'll play motivated." I don't want that attitude moving forward. It was time to part ways after he told the Russian media that we can't/wouldn't beat San Antonio. I don't know, in the world of sports that's an unforgivable offense, in my opinion, and you can't be rehabilitated from having that mentality.
 
Darkwing Duck said:
Sloan adjusted his offense a lot.

You're telling me the Jazz had the same offense the 42-40 year with Kirilenko and Harpring?
Click to expand...

In essence actually they did. But really he adjusted his offense only when forced to. As soon as he could, regardless of the max player they just signed, he went right back to his old formula. PG and PF and everyone else on the fringe. I think that is Sloan's doing and I think it was detrimental to the team long-term as they didn't get anything really out of their max contract. He should have tailored his offense and defense to make AK's all-around skills a center-point and filled it in with players to close the gaps. A Millsap-type player would have flourished with AK in an offense built like that. But Sloan didn't do that. He and KOC wasted that max money.

Like I said they should have done one or the other. Either build the team around your max player (AK) or don't pay him the max if you are not going to build the team around him. But they did neither. That was the whole point of not being able to make the decision and move forward. You just signed a guy to a max contract, but you go get another guy who is already being talked about as a max player in the making who in essence plays the same position. Why? Make the decision and stick to it.
 
infection said:
The part about KOC waffling is dead on as he literally did nothing for 3-4 save for the Korver trade which was only made out of necessity (imagine if we had him longer and didn't wait for Sloan getting into it with Giricek to start looking at possibilities). But as far as building around AK... when we "built around" other guys we went to the WCF, for hell's sake. I think the problem we have is that the couple years it was just AK he shined and we viewed him as something he isn't/wasn't designed for -- an offensive centerpiece -- and we confused that with him being the real deal.

In addition, we keep talking of "building" around AK or giving him a bigger role, when the entire essence of his game is and was 95% compatable with our 2007 team and onward. He was not an offensive centerpiece when playing with Stockton and Malone, yet he fit in and was able to get putbacks and slash when necessary. It's too bad he got accostomed to being the focal point of an offense because he's not a scorer, nor is he a distributor, though he can score in good and creative waysand get good assists if he takes what the game and defense gives him. I cringe every time I hear "AK's working on his shot this summer" or "Hornacek will help AK" because it demonstrates a serious flaw in Andrei -- and Jazz management's -- understanding of his game and realizing he is not a shooter and since he was not even utilizing his strengths that turning his focus to jumpshots was a collossal mistake.

If Andrei bought into the changing team dynamic and continued to do what he does best, then I think we stand a good chance against SA and then face the lowly Cavs. There's also no way we lose to the Lakers three years straight. I'm not putting all theblame on him because we all know we had other serious issues, but I think the Kirilenko issue was the biggest and had he bought into the team concept we would have really kicked some *** rather than waste energy evaluating every decision on "what will make AK happy so he'll play motivated." I don't want that attitude moving forward. It was time to part ways after he told the Russian media that we can't/wouldn't beat San Antonio. I don't know, in the world of sports that's an unforgivable offense, in my opinion, and you can't be rehabilitated from having that mentality.
Click to expand...

To me this is the key point. AK has always been better when he can work around the basket. His best game is 20 feet and in. But by taking him out of the PF role he was forced to go to something that was not his game. SF will always need to shoot more outside shots than PF, it is the nature of the position. So we took a guy whose skills were best suited to being around the basket (note I did not say a low post threat, but rather being around the basket, we could have added a decent low-post player to complement him without going after another max-level player), and then we forced him into a jumpshooter role (in the Sloan system the SF is really meant to be little else other than defense as they support the PF/PG dynamic).

But as I said I agree with the assessment that AK was mentally weak. But again if you are forced into a position that is not your natural game and then you are slammed for not being everything in that new position, you would get frustrated too.

Again the power of hindsight shows his contract was a mistake. There was more to him that made his game suspect that we just hadn't seen yet.
 
LogGrad98 said:
In essence actually they did. But really he adjusted his offense only when forced to. As soon as he could, regardless of the max player they just signed, he went right back to his old formula. PG and PF and everyone else on the fringe. I think that is Sloan's doing and I think it was detrimental to the team long-term as they didn't get anything really out of their max contract. He should have tailored his offense and defense to make AK's all-around skills a center-point and filled it in with players to close the gaps. A Millsap-type player would have flourished with AK in an offense built like that. But Sloan didn't do that. He and KOC wasted that max money.

Like I said they should have done one or the other. Either build the team around your max player (AK) or don't pay him the max if you are not going to build the team around him. But they did neither. That was the whole point of not being able to make the decision and move forward. You just signed a guy to a max contract, but you go get another guy who is already being talked about as a max player in the making who in essence plays the same position. Why? Make the decision and stick to it.
Click to expand...

Sloan didn't build around AK on the offensive side because AK is not a strong offensive player, regardless of any stats people like to throw out. If he built around AK it would be forcing it. We already made sure to stroke his ego by letting him take wild jumpers every time he touched the ball. That didn't seem to be too effective. I couldn't imagine watching any more of that than we already did. Yes, I understand we should have never paid him max money, but to insist on building around a guy, when better options are available, simply because he's being paid more is ridiculous. If something better works, go with it. That's what we did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top