What's new
By:

Ty Corbin's quote on playing Jefferson over Burks in the 4th.

rowcheestew said:
I think you are wrong, we are all entitled to our opinion, but you are wrong. Yes Trey Burke is a much better point guard, point you, but Alec Burks is a versitle 2 or small ball 3. Can get his own shot, is extremely athletic, and hasnt gotten near his potential. This last stretch of games has started to show that AB is a player in this league. The only reason Trey Burke is an NBA starter right now is because he's on the Jazz, and well what are the other options? better PG yes, but i think AB has a higher ceiling.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Time will tell. I definitely think Burks is better than CJ or Brewer. BUT, it seems like you could take the date back two years or four years ago and hear the same arguments made for those two.

Burks is definitely an NBA player. He will be around a while, and I think he is better than Brewer or CJ. I just think he is a bench player. The stats back me up. When he plays with a couple starters against the other team's bench, the Jazz excel. When he plays with our young players against the other team's starters, we struggle. When you switch Burks out for Jefferson, Burke, Hayward, Favors, Kanter play much better.
 
green said:
OK. So, he was talking about the Pacers game. I went and looked at how our lineup did in this game.

The lineup first came together with 4:18 left in the first quarter. The score was 9-17, Utah leading. Our starting lineup of Favors, Kanter, JEFFERSON, Hayward and Burke built that lead. The Pacers had George, Hill, Scola, Hibbert and Stephenson on the court (4 starters). This lineup ended with 2:17 left in the first. The score was 13-19. So, our young 5 vs 4 of their starters lost that round 4-2.

The second time the lineup came together was 6:26 left in the second quarter. The score was 29-32. The Pacers had West, Stephenson and three bench players on the court. No Hill, George or Hibbert. This lasted until 4:48 in the second. At that time the score was 31-42, Utah. So, against three bench players, our young 5 our scored the Pacers 2-10. With 4:48 left in the second Q, Hibbert, Hill, and George came back in the game. From that point forward, the score was 2-2.

The last time the lineup was together was with 4:26 left in the game. The score was 84-76. The Pacers had their starting five in the game. When the game ended, the final score was 95-84. So, against their starters, the score was 11-8.

So, against the Pacers starters, the young 5 lost 17-12. Our young five against three bench players, no George or Hibbert won 10-2.

So, this lineup is FANTASTIC...if we only play their bench players. I would be curious to see what the score was with Burke, Hayward, Jefferson, Kanter, Favors vs Stephenson, George, Hill, West and Hibbert.
Click to expand...
So against one of the absolute best lineups in basketball, in a critical stage of the game, we had 5 inexperienced players play them almost even. So I again ask, why is this lineup not playing more minutes together?
 
gregbroncs said:
So against one of the absolute best lineups in basketball, in a critical stage of the game, we had 5 inexperienced players play them almost even. So I again ask, why is this lineup not playing more minutes together?
Click to expand...
They've played a grand total of 7 games together. A little early to get upset, no?
 
GVC said:
They've played a grand total of 7 games together. A little early to get upset, no?
Click to expand...
It seems to me that if a lineup looks okay against one of the best and good against the bench from the best team in the league, then that lineup should play the next game. I'm not necessarily upset. I'm just annoyed that our coach continues to show he has no clue.
 
green said:
It's funny, but Corbin's decision to not play Burks last night was not the wrong decision. There is not one thing anyone can show that says that he made the wrong decision.
Click to expand...

Here's your one thing - they lost the damn game. Oh wait, that is more evidence that he made the right decision by keeping that POS in the game. Shoot, you win. I hate that.
 
gregbroncs said:
It seems to me that if a lineup looks okay against one of the best and good against the bench from the best team in the league, then that lineup should play the next game. I'm not necessarily upset. I'm just annoyed that our coach continues to show he has no clue.
Click to expand...

What if the Burke, Hayward, Jefferson, Williams, Favors lineup is better than the Burke, Burks, Hayward, Favors, Kanter (and in this lineup, you force two players to play out of position: Favors and Hayward).
 
green said:
What if the Burke, Hayward, Jefferson, Williams, Favors lineup is better than the Burke, Burks, Hayward, Favors, Kanter (and in this lineup, you force two players to play out of position: Favors and Hayward).
Click to expand...

As usual Green you neglect to consider the future, the goal, what the Jazz are trying to develop -- the former lineup does not contribute to the big picture, the overall goal. But you refuse to consider that, time and again, though I repeatedly argue that point. Are you just ignoring that and don't consider that important?
 
green said:
What if the Burke, Hayward, Jefferson, Williams, Favors lineup is better than the Burke, Burks, Hayward, Favors, Kanter (and in this lineup, you force two players to play out of position: Favors and Hayward).
Click to expand...
If? Well then the #'s should play that out over time. But in the one game he used the 2nd lineup, they were better than the 1st lineup. Also the 2nd lineup has 5 players in it that are possibly part of the future. The 1st one? Maybe 4 max and probably only 3. Also if a lineup shows well against one of the best lineups in basketball it should be a no-brainer that the lineup should be tried against lesser competition. And it should be done immediately to help with the chemistry of that lineup. Especially considering that they are the most likely future of this team.
 
green said:
What if the Burke, Hayward, Jefferson, Williams, Favors lineup is better than the Burke, Burks, Hayward, Favors, Kanter (and in this lineup, you force two players to play out of position: Favors and Hayward).
Click to expand...

Favors would be the C in both lineups. And if Kanter is a center only then we royally screwed up that pick. Because he is completely inadequate defensively as a C. Also Hayward is a SG/SF not just a SG. So I don't see that either of those players are playing out of position. That's just another lame excuse not to play the lineup.
.
The lineup when played succeeded. And yet they have not been put on the floor together since. That is a failure by the coaching staff.
 
Eenie-Meenie said:
As usual Green you neglect to consider the future, the goal, what the Jazz are trying to develop -- the former lineup does not contribute to the big picture, the overall goal. But you refuse to consider that, time and again, though I repeatedly argue that point. Are you just ignoring that and don't consider that important?
Click to expand...

So developing Burke, Favors and Hayward, who are better players, over Burk is neglecting the future? Ha ha.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top