What's new
By:
Filters

So..... Can way say that bench assignment is not the best way to develop talent..??

Keep in mind that the nature of the beast is that high draft picks are mind numbingly raw, as most are underclassmen getting by on their extreme physical gifts. They dominate because they are just straight up better against weaker competition. That doesn't work so well once you get into the NBA, you actually have to learn a whole new game to succeed. Even if you have success early, paid scouts will break down your game and get the word out and defenses will be able to key on your weaknesses (watch this happen to MCW, just like it happened to Brewer and Shandon Anderson.) There is a fine line to giving these guys enough time to find success and sending them out there to be destroyed. Some rooks are able to make the mental adjustment faster than others (which is why the Jazz look at success in the NCAA as a touchstone: Burke, Haywood) and some just never do, even guys who are given PT right away. As I am going over the loser Jazz centers for my Gobert project, it amazes me how many of them actually got starts. Those starts sure didn't help those guys.
In summery, more early play time does not always equal better faster development. Although gluing a young guy to the bench isn't always the answer either. I'd suppose that being a coach would actually give better insight, per player, about what is best at the time rather than just watching games.
 
green said:
I'm so torn on Hayward. So freaking torn. On the one hand, he blew up last night:

28, 9 and 5. Fantastic. On the other hand, we were down 20 to FREAKING Boston. Hayward came in the game in the 2nd and we were down 30-34. Then Hayward, while in the game, isn't in the game and we go down 34-50. We only scored 4 pts in the second Q with him in the game. The same as we did with him out of the game. He did score those 4 pts, but why did it take him 6 and a half minutes to take a shot? He has talent. I don't know if he has what it takes to shoulder and lead a team. It's nice that when the Jazz were down 20+, he came alive, but why didn't he do that when the Jazz were down 4 when he entered the game in the second quarter?

I hope he proves me wrong, but I still don't see anything but a really, really good role player out of Hayward. I think Hayward would be amazing if Wiggins/Parker was option #1, Kanter option #2, and then Hayward.
Click to expand...

We were down 20 correct. That is not all Haywards fault. We need to realise that asside form 1-2 guys the Core 4 have no help. None.

Our PG play is horrendous. The back up wings are injured or scrubs. Our back up bigs are injured or rookies. This team has no depth and poor coaching.

Laying this all on Hayward is unfair. I do not think Haywards style of play leads him to be the alpha but that is OK. we can get that guy in the draft. hayward is still extrememly valuable to that alpha guy fromt he draft though. Hayward and Kanter are guys that require their defenders to stick with them instead of slouching off like defenders do on our PGs right now. At best we have 6 players on this team right now.

Rush, Williams and Burke coming back will help. But even then keep in mind that the FO designed this team to highlight the youth (Favors, kanter, Evans, Gobert, Hayward, Burks and Burke) while losing.
 
framer said:
Keep in mind that the nature of the beast is that high draft picks are mind numbingly raw, as most are underclassmen getting by on their extreme physical gifts. They dominate because they are just straight up better against weaker competition. That doesn't work so well once you get into the NBA, you actually have to learn a whole new game to succeed. Even if you have success early, paid scouts will break down your game and get the word out and defenses will be able to key on your weaknesses (watch this happen to MCW, just like it happened to Brewer and Shandon Anderson.) There is a fine line to giving these guys enough time to find success and sending them out there to be destroyed. Some rooks are able to make the mental adjustment faster than others (which is why the Jazz look at success in the NCAA as a touchstone: Burke, Haywood) and some just never do, even guys who are given PT right away. As I am going over the loser Jazz centers for my Gobert project, it amazes me how many of them actually got starts. Those starts sure didn't help those guys.
In summery, more early play time does not always equal better faster development. Although gluing a young guy to the bench isn't always the answer either. I'd suppose that being a coach would actually give better insight, per player, about what is best at the time rather than just watching games.
Click to expand...

I would think that most rookies, you start them off the bench. The first 15-20 games, limit their matchups. Try to keep them going against the other team's backup players. 20-25 mins a game. 20 games in, increase their minutes, keep them on the bench. This allows you to have them start games against the other team's backups, gain some confidence, then play some minutes against the starter. Just enough to cut their teeth, but if they get dominated, they get the backup again quickly. Do this the next 10-15 games. Then, if the rookie shows they are better than the starter, start the kid.

For example: see Deron Williams.

This way you win, the player gets confidence and gets used to the speed of the game, and when he starts, he knows he is good enough and you know it as well. The problem with the Jazz, is they decided to keep Millsap and Jefferson. After the first year, one of those two should have been gone. Then, after Kanter's first or second year, Millsap is coming off the bench his last year as a Jazzman, and then the Jazz can make an intelligent decision whether or not Millsap can be the third big.

What Corbin did was throw Favors to the wolves, and when he struggled, benched him. Stupid. I do think Jerry took too long to start Deron, but when he did, Deron knew he was the **** and dominated. Favors, on the other hand, was thrown in deep, started to flail a little, was pulled out of the pool and sent to his room to watch the other kids swim. Big difference.
 
Stoked said:
We were down 20 correct. That is not all Haywards fault. We need to realise that asside form 1-2 guys the Core 4 have no help. None.

Our PG play is horrendous. The back up wings are injured or scrubs. Our back up bigs are injured or rookies. This team has no depth and poor coaching.

Laying this all on Hayward is unfair. I do not think Haywards style of play leads him to be the alpha but that is OK. we can get that guy in the draft. hayward is still extrememly valuable to that alpha guy fromt he draft though. Hayward and Kanter are guys that require their defenders to stick with them instead of slouching off like defenders do on our PGs right now. At best we have 6 players on this team right now.

Rush, Williams and Burke coming back will help. But even then keep in mind that the FO designed this team to highlight the youth (Favors, kanter, Evans, Gobert, Hayward, Burks and Burke) while losing.

There are two goals:

1. Give the youth time to develop and make them shoulder the burden
2. Get that draft pick difference maker that will be the #1 option for this extremely talented, youg core.
Click to expand...

I get all this. My question is this: Why did Hayward wait over six minutes to take a shot? When he saw Boston pull away? Hayward was on the floor when Boston made their run, and while he can't guard 5 guys on defense, he can demand the ball on offense and make something happen. That is my issue with Hayward. When Boston went up 6, why didn't he shoot? When Boston went up 10, why didn't he drive to the hoop and get fouled? He waited until we were down 16, before he tried to take over. Not good enough for a player who wants 12+ per.

If he can handle the ball, why didn't he force some shots up? That is what leaders do. Force shots, get fouled, score. Hayward didn't even try until we were down 16.
 
green said:
I get all this. My question is this: Why did Hayward wait over six minutes to take a shot? When he saw Boston pull away? Hayward was on the floor when Boston made their run, and while he can't guard 5 guys on defense, he can demand the ball on offense and make something happen. That is my issue with Hayward. When Boston went up 6, why didn't he shoot? When Boston went up 10, why didn't he drive to the hoop and get fouled? He waited until we were down 16, before he tried to take over. Not good enough for a player who wants 12+ per.

If he can handle the ball, why didn't he force some shots up? That is what leaders do. Force shots, get fouled, score. Hayward didn't even try until we were down 16.
Click to expand...

I see what you are saying. All I can say is he is young and is figuring these things out. I think the important players on this team will look much better around game 60 then they do right now.

It takes time. Fortunately they have a whole season of time.
 
Stoked said:
I see what you are saying. All I can say is he is young and is figuring these things out. I think the important players on this team will look much better around game 60 then they do right now.

It takes time. Fortunately they have a whole season of time.
Click to expand...

I agree with all of this.
 
green said:
I would think that most rookies, you start them off the bench. The first 15-20 games, limit their matchups. Try to keep them going against the other team's backup players. 20-25 mins a game. 20 games in, increase their minutes, keep them on the bench. This allows you to have them start games against the other team's backups, gain some confidence, then play some minutes against the starter. Just enough to cut their teeth, but if they get dominated, they get the backup again quickly. Do this the next 10-15 games. Then, if the rookie shows they are better than the starter, start the kid.

For example: see Deron Williams.

This way you win, the player gets confidence and gets used to the speed of the game, and when he starts, he knows he is good enough and you know it as well. The problem with the Jazz, is they decided to keep Millsap and Jefferson. After the first year, one of those two should have been gone. Then, after Kanter's first or second year, Millsap is coming off the bench his last year as a Jazzman, and then the Jazz can make an intelligent decision whether or not Millsap can be the third big.

What Corbin did was throw Favors to the wolves, and when he struggled, benched him. Stupid. I do think Jerry took too long to start Deron, but when he did, Deron knew he was the **** and dominated. Favors, on the other hand, was thrown in deep, started to flail a little, was pulled out of the pool and sent to his room to watch the other kids swim. Big difference.
Click to expand...

Deron is/was a better player than Favors, just off a deep tourney run. The only reason he got jacked around for playing time early is that the pg position in the Sloan offense is just so damn difficult. It takes time to learn. Sloan tried to accommodate for this by playing Deron off-ball which is immensely easier in his offense. The problem that Favors has right now is that he is getting victimized by the refs. Vets are getting calls on him because they know the tricks. His challenge will be to learn the counters to those tricks and learn the games of the NBA starters he has to defend. Making him play center would help him immensely right now as the quality of centers in the league is far behind the quality of the PFs. That may not be what's best for the team however because then you are assigning that workload to Kanter who is already carrying the team on his shoulders. Also having passable defenders at the sf and pg would help both Favors and Kanter simplify their assignments , expend less energy, and avoid fouls from having to help defensively almost every play. Burke is not a defensive sieve, so even if he struggles at first offensively, his return is bound to lift the game of Favors right away. Marvin Williams qualifies as passable defender too. Again, I just smile because what we are seeing from our big men right now is their floor and it ain't bad!
 
green said:
I'm so torn on Hayward. So freaking torn. On the one hand, he blew up last night:

28, 9 and 5. Fantastic. On the other hand, we were down 20 to FREAKING Boston. Hayward came in the game in the 2nd and we were down 30-34. Then Hayward, while in the game, isn't in the game and we go down 34-50. We only scored 4 pts in the second Q with him in the game. The same as we did with him out of the game. He did score those 4 pts, but why did it take him 6 and a half minutes to take a shot? He has talent. I don't know if he has what it takes to shoulder and lead a team. It's nice that when the Jazz were down 20+, he came alive, but why didn't he do that when the Jazz were down 4 when he entered the game in the second quarter?

I hope he proves me wrong, but I still don't see anything but a really, really good role player out of Hayward. I think Hayward would be amazing if Wiggins/Parker was option #1, Kanter option #2, and then Hayward.
Click to expand...

There is no way you can put that on Hayward. During that stretch he was the only player giving any decent effort... well, Burks had energy but no results. Our rebounding was atrocious, offensive execution was non-existent, and the defense was very focused on shutting down Hayward. When someone focuses on a teams major player then others have to step up.
 
phippsj said:
There is no way you can put that on Hayward. During that stretch he was the only player giving any decent effort... well, Burks had energy but no results. Our rebounding was atrocious, offensive execution was non-existent, and the defense was very focused on shutting down Hayward. When someone focuses on a teams major player then others have to step up.
Click to expand...

He didn't shoot for 6 minutes. That is on him. The same 6 minutes Boston went on their run.
 
Stoked said:
All of them have had good games.

Hayward is averaging 19ppg, 6.6 rpg, 4.8apg, 1spg this year.
last year he averaged 14ppg, 3.1rpg, 3 apg, .8spg

Kanter is averaging 18.6 ppg, 9.2rpg, 1.2apg this year.
last year he averaged 7.2ppg, 4.3rpg, .4apg

Looks to me like they have both taken big steps forward in their development. Is there work to do? Obviously. Such as TOs and defense. But to say they are not talented or have not progressed is foolish.
Click to expand...

One played 30 mpg last year and one played 15. Your post is #HackSmack
 
green said:
I get all this. My question is this: Why did Hayward wait over six minutes to take a shot? When he saw Boston pull away? Hayward was on the floor when Boston made their run, and while he can't guard 5 guys on defense, he can demand the ball on offense and make something happen. That is my issue with Hayward. When Boston went up 6, why didn't he shoot? When Boston went up 10, why didn't he drive to the hoop and get fouled? He waited until we were down 16, before he tried to take over. Not good enough for a player who wants 12+ per.

If he can handle the ball, why didn't he force some shots up? That is what leaders do. Force shots, get fouled, score. Hayward didn't even try until we were down 16.
Click to expand...

Hayward was the main reason along with Kanter that the Jazz were up 16-3 so perhaps when he came into the game he was trying to get his teammates involved. He had several nice passes that guys either missed the shot or turned over the ball. I actually thought Hayward was working his butt off last night so perhaps he was a little tired in the second quarter. Whatever reason he did or didn't step up, I still am not going to complain about Hayward. He proved to me that he is better than I thought. He definitely can be a second option on a team if he commits to it. The person people should be roasting is Favors the guy who got his money and except for one game has been average. Yea he gets a lot of defensive rebounds but his offense is basically the same. Favors shares most of the blame last night for me.
 
cowhide said:
Hayward was the main reason along with Kanter that the Jazz were up 16-3 so perhaps when he came into the game he was trying to get his teammates involved. He had several nice passes that guys either missed the shot or turned over the ball. I actually thought Hayward was working his butt off last night so perhaps he was a little tired in the second quarter. Whatever reason he did or didn't step up, I still am not going to complain about Hayward. He proved to me that he is better than I thought. He definitely can be a second option on a team if he commits to it. The person people should be roasting is Favors the guy who got his money and except for one game has been average. Yea he gets a lot of defensive rebounds but his offense is basically the same. Favors shares most of the blame last night for me.
Click to expand...

If you thought Favors' offense was going to be better, when he told the world he didn't work on a go to move...
 
Haywards per 36 numbers have increased dramatically this year. Granted, we are only five games in, but he is playing very well. His numbers this year are better than Paul George was last year in almost every category, and about equal in those he is not better in. If he had played a more prominent role a year ago, I think we would have seen a different player. Hayward is starting to look like the player he thinks he is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top