What's new
By:

The definition of insanity

One Brow said:
Do we have any starters that are 35? I think they are mostly late 20s. Generally, the prime years for athletes are in fact the late 20s.
Click to expand...

I was just sayin that i think kanter and burks can play for longer than 14 minutes (in 8 minute little stretches in kanters situation) without getting worn out..... So no i dont think that the reason kanter doesn't play more is because he is tired.... again, he is 20 years old, he can play more than 8 minutes at a time im pretty sure.
 
BabyPeterzz said:
This board is the definition of insanity. What the **** do you people want? Al traded right? Well, removing him from the starting lineup diminishes his trade value. Is that what you want, just to perhaps start games stronger? Ya'll will never be happy, which is Corbin's fault. Keeping the starting lineup as is will at least keep Al and Paul's value up. That is probably not Ty's main concern, but it's on the FO's mind and they'll let it ride.
Click to expand...

We just want guys like kanter to get more than 10 minutes every game (those games he got 5 minutes were BS). Is that such a bad thing to want?
And we just want burks to get more than zero minutes when everyone is healthy... again, i dont think that is too much to ask.

Most people on this site are not saying that kanter should get 30 minutes per game (some are) just that he should never get 5 minutes per game and should probably get to play in the 2nd half more often and should probably be around 20 minutes per game. (especially when he is playing great)
 
BabyPeterzz said:
This board is the definition of insanity. What the **** do you people want? Al traded right? Well, removing him from the starting lineup diminishes his trade value. Is that what you want, just to perhaps start games stronger? Ya'll will never be happy, which is Corbin's fault. Keeping the starting lineup as is will at least keep Al and Paul's value up. That is probably not Ty's main concern, but it's on the FO's mind and they'll let it ride.
Click to expand...

You do realize that there's more than one person on the board, don't you? Some might want Al traded. Others might want Al removed from the starting lineup. They are not necessarily the same subset of board members.

Personally I'd be happy with *any* change to the starting lineup. Doesn't have to be Al's removal. In fact, I myself sort of think putting Carroll into the starting lineup (replacing Williams, I guess) might be the spark plug the team needs to avoid coming up looking half asleep.
 
colton said:
"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results" --Einstein*

How long before Corbin changes the starting lineup? Does he think that all of a sudden starting Tinsley, Foye, Ma. Williams, Millsap, and Jefferson is going to produce different results?


*may or may not have really been said by Einstein. Probably not.
Click to expand...


the definition of insanity = constantly going to this board & reading ridiculous arguments posters create...

can we trade Al or Paul if they're coming off the bench?
 
PrinceJL said:
the definition of insanity = constantly going to this board & reading ridiculous arguments posters create...

can we trade Al or Paul if they're coming off the bench?
Click to expand...

Where in the post you quoted did it say to bring paul or al off the bench?.... read the post again and it just says change the starting lineup.
YOU FAIL!
 
BabyPeterzz said:
This board is the definition of insanity. What the **** do you people want? Al traded right? Well, removing him from the starting lineup diminishes his trade value. Is that what you want, just to perhaps start games stronger? Ya'll will never be happy, which is Corbin's fault. Keeping the starting lineup as is will at least keep Al and Paul's value up. That is probably not Ty's main concern, but it's on the FO's mind and they'll let it ride.
Click to expand...

i want the jazz to grow, to improve.
with fat al we aint improving we are staving towards a first round sweep AGAIN
 
colton said:
Personally I'd be happy with *any* change to the starting lineup. Doesn't have to be Al's removal. In fact, I myself sort of think putting Carroll into the starting lineup (replacing Williams, I guess) might be the spark plug the team needs to avoid coming up looking half asleep.
Click to expand...
i'm not sure that would help
replacing a fifth option in a chuckfense who plays great defense and makes no mistakes,
by a fifth option in a chuckfense who plays great defense has energy, which makes some mistakes won't make a difference. but thats my opinion

wasnt carrol in the starting lineup a while back?
 
BabyPeterzz said:
This board is the definition of insanity. What the **** do you people want? Al traded right? Well, removing him from the starting lineup diminishes his trade value. Is that what you want, just to perhaps start games stronger? Ya'll will never be happy, which is Corbin's fault. Keeping the starting lineup as is will at least keep Al and Paul's value up. That is probably not Ty's main concern, but it's on the FO's mind and they'll let it ride.
Click to expand...


COnsidering most of the lineup changes suggested leave Big Al in the starting line up I am not sure where you have been getting your info or who you are directing your comment to.

But hey sometimes we just need to go off. Facts and logic be damned. Have at it!
 
Stoked said:
COnsidering most of the lineup changes suggested leave Big Al in the starting line up I am not sure where you have been getting your info or who you are directing your comment to.

But hey sometimes we just need to go off. Facts and logic be damned. Have at it!
Click to expand...

Wow, apparently I hit a nerve.

Please, Big Al to the bench has been hashed over to death on JF. My comment is directed at you. Just. You.
 
BabyPeterzz said:
Wow, apparently I hit a nerve.

Please, Big Al to the bench has been hashed over to death on JF. My comment is directed at you. Just. You.
Click to expand...

Most people on jazzfanz want favors and Al as the starters and millsap off the bench
 
BabyPeterzz said:
Wow, apparently I hit a nerve.

Please, Big Al to the bench has been hashed over to death on JF. My comment is directed at you. Just. You.
Click to expand...


Not a nerve at all. I have not seen what you went off about at all.IF you are saying that I called for Al to get benched then let me correct you. I have not. If we change a lineup of bigs I suggest Millsap go to the bench for Favors.

Posting on an internet board is serious business. All replies just have to be emotional. True story.
 
colton said:
You do realize that there's more than one person on the board, don't you? Some might want Al traded. Others might want Al removed from the starting lineup. They are not necessarily the same subset of board members.
Click to expand...

No I don't realize.

Personally I'd be happy with *any* change to the starting lineup. Doesn't have to be Al's removal. In fact, I myself sort of think putting Carroll into the starting lineup (replacing Williams, I guess) might be the spark plug the team needs to avoid coming up looking half asleep.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. I think Marvin would succeed playing without Al in the line up. I think he would move better without the ball sans Al for obvious reasons. Carroll doesn't need the possibility of a pass to make himself play hard.
 
Stoked said:
Not a nerve at all. I have not seen what you went off about at all.IF you are saying that I called for Al to get benched then let me correct you. I have not. If we change a lineup of bigs I suggest Millsap go to the bench for Favors.

Posting on an internet board is serious business. All replies just have to be emotional. True story.
Click to expand...

Zing!

If you didn't want Al benched then why are you responding? I wasn't referring to you, ooooobviously. Stop taking my posts so seriously.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top