*****2013 Training Camp Updates and Discussion Thread*****

[Deleted member 848]

Or we say play the young guys and they play gobert over favors, so that we can have a good defender as the leader of the 2nd unit. I mean, we can't overlook how important the bench play is.

Hoping that this isn't a representation of my posts in this thread-- because it isn't remotely close to what I've been saying.


At all.

 

[Sexual Favors]

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Hoping that this isn't a representation of my posts in this thread-- because it isn't remotely close to what I've been saying.


At all.

I may be mocking the idea of having Burks come off the bench. It's not a terrible idea as to x's and o's, but I think it would be huge for him to start and be consistently included in the "young core" of Jazz players and on equal footing as the other 4. I don't care how it's worded to him, if he comes off the bench it's non verbal communication for "you're not good enough to start even for this super young team". I don't think we want to send that message to Burks. Despite how I think he would rock it with the 2nd unit, he may also be handicapped by not having as many play makers on the floor with him. I just think Burks will produce more if he starts. I want him playing most of his minutes against the 1's on other teams to see if he can really be as good as us homers think he can be. We won't find out if he spends most of his time playing opposing 2nds even if he kills it.

 

[seattlejazzfan]

To me the whole "touches" arguement is lame.

Kanter favors hayward and burks will all get more touches than they ever have before this year so its nothing to worry about.

Remember bigal is gone and we are suppossedly going with the youth this season so I don't think anybody will be complaining about touches if burks starts all damn year

Amen. Too many people are over thinking this. If Burks plays 35 minutes per, starting and finishing games, nobody is going to be complaining about touches. The touches will take care of themselves.

 

[Zulu]

Along with Fish I'm this biggest Burks fanboy here... I'm down with him coming off the bench replacing Burke as back up pg and stay in till all the core 5ive are back in the game....

But let's be honest here...

With Rush and Marvin still nursing injuries Burks will get to start at the beginning of the season for sure!!!

So we will see how he does in that role!!!

 

[Deleted member 848]

I may be mocking the idea of having Burks come off the bench. It's not a terrible idea as to x's and o's, but I think it would be huge for him to start

I mentioned that it would make most sense for him to start from
the get-go

and be consistently included in the "young core" of Jazz players and on equal footing as the other 4.

When you're finishing games with them (which most 6th men do) you ARE on equal footing with them.

I don't care how it's worded to him, if he comes off the bench it's non verbal communication for "you're not good enough to start even for this super young team". I don't think we want to send that message to Burks. Despite how I think he would rock it with the 2nd unit, he may also be handicapped by not having as many play makers on the floor with him. I just think Burks will produce more if he starts. I want him playing most of his minutes against the 1's on other teams to see if he can really be as good as us homers think he can be. We won't find out if he spends most of his time playing opposing 2nds even if he kills it.

Disagree with this last paragraph on many fronts-- but I'm on my iPhone, and I've already made my points ad-nauseum.

 

[BYE]

Haven't said much in a bit, but I will just say that the idea of having five young players as the starting unit does not sound good at all, and I have grown to hate this core4 or core5 idea. Burks is a mediocre player at best right now, and I question his basketball IQ big time. Unless he blows people away in camp, he should come off of the bench when Rush comes back at the three (I don't like Gordon at the 3 because of his crappy rebounding and ability to get pushed around by big 3s like Josh Smith etc.). I would, however, like to see Gobert over Biedrins! A second unit of Jeremy Evans and Rudy Gobert as your 4 and 5 would be fun to watch on D and O.

 

[seattlejazzfan]

When you're finishing games with them (which most 6th men do) you ARE on equal footing with them.

Uh, if they are starting and finishing and you are just finishing, help me understand how that is equal? Seems to me that one of these kids is not like the others, but maybe I'm missing something.

 

[NUMBERICA]

Per your second question, which I think is asinine by the way, Kanter can score from almost anywhere on the floor; so why would a team double down on Favors at the rim? If Kanter played PF, he could drain frim mid range, or step out to the 3 more readily and punish the defense for playing off of him. He has a lot more stretch-4 potential than Fav has. Favors thrives at the rim, everywhere else he shoots below league averages.

So, basically...

Yeah, the Jazz should definitely park their best interior player on the three-point line so that the guy that has no clue what he's doing inside can have space to abuse his matchup.

? And I'm the asinine one? Am I also the asinine one for failing to explain why a team would assign their smaller and/or lesser defensive player to guard the stronger and more skilled offensive player? You understand that the team playing offense doesn't exactly get to choose what players guard them, right?

 

[Sexual Favors]

? And I'm the asinine one? Am I also the asinine one for failing to explain why a team would assign their smaller and/or lesser defensive player to guard the stronger and more skilled offensive player? You understand that the team playing offense doesn't exactly get to choose what players guard them, right?

A couple points:

1. I called your surly question/argument asinine, not you.
2. I never said we had control of another team's defensive choices. I pointed out that Kanter would be a match up nightmare for smaller PF's if he were to post them up. You deduced incorrectly that I meant he would always match up w/ the PF. My argument is that putting Kanter at the 4 offensively creates a "pick your poison" scenario for the opposing defense because he can stretch the floor, thus making the opposing team choose between having their center leave the area around the rim to bother Kanter, consequently leaving a clearer path for the other 4 players on our team to attack the rim, or having their smaller PF guard Kanter who could more easily shoot over them, or post them up. It's called spacing dude--it breaks down defenses, regardless of who the defending team decides to stick on the threat.
3. I already explained the above point in this thread.
4. Kanter can shoot, Favors can't.
5. Favors can DUNK! Defensively, it makes more sense for the other coach to leave the bigger body protecting the rim against the threat he creates, thus sending a potentially smaller PF out to Kanter.
5. I never said for Kanter to park it at the 3 (an argument you attributed to me elsewhere). My only argument is that him playing the 4 allows him, and our team, more areas on the floor from which to score.

 

[NUMBERICA]

And all of that is a bunch of tire-spinning that equates to what you already said: Kanter should be on the floor to spread the floor for what I'm confident are inferior players, not to be an inside presence. I have no issue whatsoever to a player using his full-range of abilities.

I guess this is just an argument of semantics, but Kanter and Favors are both bigs that don't really have a position (their "position" will rely entirely on their matchups which might not be the same on both ends of the floor and are only partially dictated by them). A "stretch 4" exists to facilitate space for other players primarily and that should be a facet to Kanter's game, not the bread and butter.

It sounds like you're excited about Kanter's ability to be a complementary player to lesser (offensive) players and I think he's much more than that.

 

[Sexual Favors]

And all of that is a bunch of tire-spinning that equates to what you already said: Kanter should be on the floor to spread the floor for what I'm confident are inferior players, not to be an inside presence. I have no issue whatsoever to a player using his full-range of abilities.

Incorrect. My argument is Kanter should BE allowed to display his full talent, not just a portion of it. Yes, him spreading the floor benefits other offensively inferior players by creating space, but it benefits him too. I'll say it again, I don't want him camped OUT on the 3, because I also believe in his interior awesomeness, but I want him allowed to go there when it's the right play.

 

[addictionary]

Enes will score so much this season, some people will be amazed.

 

[Nate505]

I still think that Alec would do better and serve the Jazz team better coming off the bench. But what the heck do any of us know of KOL's plans or whats in Ty Corbins mind? The starting 5 could easily feature only 2 of the so called core 5. Yes, I could see a starting 5 of Favors, & Hayward with Jefferson, Lucas, & Biedrens....and knowing Coach you got to admit it can happen.

Here's a preemptive **** You to Corbin if that happens.

 

[The Midnight]

Haven't said much in a bit, but I will just say that the idea of having five young players as the starting unit does not sound good at all, and I have grown to hate this core4 or core5 idea. Burks is a mediocre player at best right now, and I question his basketball IQ big time. Unless he blows people away in camp, he should come off of the bench when Rush comes back at the three (I don't like Gordon at the 3 because of his crappy rebounding and ability to get pushed around by big 3s like Josh Smith etc.). I would, however, like to see Gobert over Biedrins! A second unit of Jeremy Evans and Rudy Gobert as your 4 and 5 would be fun to watch on D and O.

You would almost need Burke to be there throwing lobs to them tho......

 

[Stoked]

After reading all the replies and thinking about it I say this:

Williams and Rush won't be ready to start the season. So Burks will obviously start. Let him do so and try out a starting unit of the C5. If it does not work than you can consider moving on, most likely Burks, to the 6th man role.

 

[UGLI baby]

It's just a game guys.


£¥£

 

[Deleted member 848]

Uh, if they are starting and finishing and you are just finishing, help me understand how that is equal? Seems to me that one of these kids is not like the others, but maybe I'm missing something.

Because one of those starters won't be finishing-- making room for the 6th man.

I'm not gonna talk about/explain this anymore. The notion that players like Harden, Bill Walton, and Manu Ginobili were not on equal footing with the rest of their team just because they didn't 'start' is a laughable one.

 

[Deleted member 848]

Because one of those starters won't be finishing-- making room for the 6th man.

I'm not gonna talk about/explain this anymore. The notion that players like Harden, Bill Walton, and Manu Ginobili were not on equal footing with the rest of their team just because they didn't 'start' is a laughable one.

But no ur right, Bruce Bowen > Manu, and Sefalosha > Harden cuz they started so they're on more equal footing lololz

 

[seattlejazzfan]

Because one of those starters won't be finishing-- making room for the 6th man.

I'm not gonna talk about/explain this anymore. The notion that players like Harden, Bill Walton, and Manu Ginobili were not on equal footing with the rest of their team just because they didn't 'start' is a laughable one.

Now you're arguing players don't care if they start or not? Now that, my friend, is laughable.