Dennis Lindsey feels he owes Richard Jefferson a lot

[JimLes]

Your argument is splitting hairs. I don't care that only 31 players average 35+ minutes. If they only get 32 minutes because of foul problems I really don't care. My point and my meaning is that I want our young guys to play as much as possible. They are young and can handle more than 30 minutes a game. I would like them to get them as much time together as possible. If that is 30 minutes great. If that is 35 minutes even better. And as for the subs I would like to see Gobert and Clark or even Harris get the remaining minutes. I don't care if Jefferson or Williams even play at all. Jefferson has proved not loyal and Williams is also likely gone if he doesn't take a substantial pay cut.

Why do so many people ignore facts? You can't play Kanter and Favors together at the moment, as they do not know how. And I mean really don't know how. Not the kind of "don't-know-how" where you can just let them figure it out in-game. The kind of "don't-know-how" where you need lots of work in practice first, and maybe even then it won't work because maybe it's not that they don't know how, maybe it's just they can't. So, who is going to play next to Favors? Gobert? The problem is already that Kanter plays too close to the basket and is taking away space from Favors. You think Gobert would fix that? Who but Marvin can play the stretch 4?

Then there's the issue that apparently people would love to just get rid of Marvin and Jefferson permanently. Who will hit the three? We have only two players shooting over 40% from beyond the arc. Oh yeah, we don't need threes because we're not trying to win. Fine, but are we not at least trying to develop young players? Aren't we eventually going to need to shoot the three? When we're on the championship cruise everyone believes is inevitable with Parker or Bilbo Wiggins? Shouldn't our bigs practice how to hit three point shooters now? Instead of making it up as we go along next season?

Furthermore, not one player we are hoping to draft is an above-average three point shooter. Even if everything goes according to the plan, and the Jazz keep the current core of young players and draft a future franchise player in June, we won't have any three point shooters. Are we just going to try to win without them? Or will we have to sign some three point shooters to fill the rest of the rosters. Players like, oh...I don't know, Marvin Williams or Richard Jefferson? Do people actually thing the Jazz team next year will just consist of Burke, Burks, Gobert, Kanter, Favors, Hayward, and Wiggins? Isn't it idiotic to get rid of Marvin or Jefferson, only to have to sign the exact same kind of players next year?

People are acting like this is the Franchise mode on NBA 2K where you get 6-7 really good players, play them all 35 minutes a game, ignore match-ups or balance, and just steamroll your way through games.

 

[oldtimer]

Why do so many people ignore facts?

Same can be said for you.

You can't play Kanter and Favors together at the moment, as they do not know how.

True they struggled together when the team didn't have Trey Burke as the point. I don't think they got enough of a chance to show what they could do with a point guard.

And I mean really don't know how. Not the kind of "don't-know-how" where you can just let them figure it out in-game. The kind of "don't-know-how" where you need lots of work in practice first, and maybe even then it won't work because maybe it's not that they don't know how, maybe it's just they can't.

Maybe, but this is the year to find out. You have to give Kanter and Favors more time. And, when match ups dictate they have to play together. When the other team plays to bigs like Gasol and Sacre why not play both Kanter and Favors?

The problem is already that Kanter plays too close to the basket and is taking away space from Favors. You think Gobert would fix that? Who but Marvin can play the stretch 4?

What? Kanter has demonstrated he can play both inside and outside. Have Corbin give Kanter the green light to shoot a couple threes and see what he can do. I think he has the range he just has to be given the green light.

Then there's the issue that apparently people would love to just get rid of Marvin and Jefferson permanently.

Count me among those who want to get rid of Jefferson. He wants to be gone and I see no reason to help him resurrect his once dead career at the expense of playing time for Burks.

Who will hit the three? We have only two players shooting over 40% from beyond the arc.

Gordon, Burks and Burke is who. They may not shoot over 40% right now, but with time and experience they might. In fact, Gordon has shot well from 3 point land 2 out of the 4 years hes been in the league.

Oh yeah, we don't need threes because we're not trying to win. Fine, but are we not at least trying to develop young players?

Are we doing a better job than last year at giving the young guys some time and trying to development them? Yes, GVC has made this point and he is correct. Could we do more? I believe the answer is yes. Given Kanter and Burks more time. Given Jefferson and Williams less.

Aren't we eventually going to need to shoot the three?

Uhm, yes. Do they have to come from Jefferson and Williams?

When we're on the championship cruise everyone believes is inevitable with Parker or Bilbo Wiggins? Shouldn't our bigs practice how to hit three point shooters now? Instead of making it up as we go along next season?

What on earth are you talking about? This year is already lost it was lost in the first 16 games of the season. The Jazz should be looking at next season not trying to worsen draft position this season.


Furthermore, not one player we are hoping to draft is an above-average three point shooter.

Because college players never get better at shooting threes in pros? I guarantee there are going to be some really good three point shooters in this draft.

if everything goes according to the plan, and the Jazz keep the current core of young players and draft a future franchise player in June, we won't have any three point shooters.

Franchise player? Maybe if you draft in the top 3-6 players not if you draft 8-14. I believe both Parker and Wiggins can be franchise players and they will shot fine from three point land. Right now we wont get to draft a franchise player because they Jazz can't spell tank.

Are we just going to try to win without them? Or will we have to sign some three point shooters to fill the rest of the rosters.

In free agency we can find reasonably priced three point shooters to supplement our young guys.

Players like, oh...I don't know, Marvin Williams or Richard Jefferson?

Maybe Marvin if he signs for cheap, not Jefferson because he already told they jazz to buzz off.

Do people actually thing the Jazz team next year will just consist of Burke, Burks, Gobert, Kanter, Favors, Hayward, and Wiggins?

My dream scenario. We then pick up some free agents and compete for championships in a couple of years. This is the goal right?

Isn't it idiotic to get rid of Marvin or Jefferson, only to have to sign the exact same kind of players next year?

Not at all. Get a young core who develop and play well and then fill in pieces with veterans that want to be here.

People are acting like this is the Franchise mode on NBA 2K where you get 6-7 really good players, play them all 35 minutes a game, ignore match-ups or balance, and just steamroll your way through games.

Who said that? I don't think playing the young guys 35 minutes means they are going to steam roll through anything. I think they are going to lose games and some games will be ugly. Its still the way to go.

 

[JimLes]

I love people on the internet who believe their opinion is so important, they need to separately respond to every single sentence in something you posted.

 

[oldtimer]

I love people on the internet who believe their opinion is so important, they need to separately respond to every single sentence in something you posted.

That funny because I hate people that respond to a post with thousands of question marks and then get snarky when that poster responds back trying to answer the questions that were asked. If you didn't want a response why ask questions to my post? I don't think my opinion is important I was trying to respond to the questions you were asking. Sorry for taking you seriously.

 

[infection]

Shouldn't our bigs practice how to hit three point shooters now? Instead of making it up as we go along next season?

I'll admit I'm somewhat perplexed by your argument. I would venture to guess that most people would e supportive of this in the "year of discovery," wouldn't you assume? We have no idea if Kanter can hit the three (not that I'm saying he can, would or should), but it makes it a challenge if we just straight up say he can't when he's attempted a grand total of 2 for his career (one of which he connected on), neither of which were this year. So, I agree with you, but I'm uncertain as this seems comment seems different from your overall sentiments.

Furthermore, not one player we are hoping to draft is an above-average three point shooter.

I would imagine Jabari would be considered above average.

Even if everything goes according to the plan, and the Jazz keep the current core of young players and draft a future franchise player in June, we won't have any three point shooters. Are we just going to try to win without them? Or will we have to sign some three point shooters to fill the rest of the rosters. Players like, oh...I don't know, Marvin Williams or Richard Jefferson?

Williams and Jefferson are both currently having great years from beyond the arc. To say that they are our only three point shooters wouldn't give a full context. Though Hayward is currently having a bad year from 3 (31%), his career average is still 38%. It's also tough to not consider Burke a three point shooter. I realize you're probably talking about the immediate here-and-now, but Jefferson and Williams being three point shooters is more of a relatively new thing (less so in Jefferson's case). Jefferson's career 3P% is 37.4, but his first five years in the league he shot above 34% once and shot 25% or less twice. Williams' career average is 33.6%. He's currently averaging 38.9% and that would be a career high if he maintains/exceeds that. With regard to his first five years in the league, his averages are 25%, 24%, 10%, 36% and 30%, respectively. The point I'm making is that we're concluding that we don't have three point shooters already (which is contrary to evidence), yet referencing Williams and Jefferson as shooters, when none of the other guys have even been in the league five years. This is also before we know who we will draft and who we will pick up with a significant amount of cap space. Worrying about next year's role players (especially when Jeffersom and Williams are free agents) is bordering on irrelevant.

Do people actually thing the Jazz team next year will just consist of Burke, Burks, Gobert, Kanter, Favors, Hayward, and Wiggins? Isn't it idiotic to get rid of Marvin or Jefferson, only to have to sign the exact same kind of players next year?

See above. Also, let next offseason handle next year. No sense in worrying about it now as there are far more relevant problems that are actually happening now. It makes me feel like Walmart is offering buy-one-get-two-free on turkeys and we're too busy to make it because we're driving to Magna to save $0.06/gallon on gasoline.

 

[JimLes]

That funny because I hate people that respond to a post with thousands of question marks and then get snarky when that poster responds back trying to answer the questions that were asked. If you didn't want a response why ask questions to my post? I don't think my opinion is important I was trying to respond to the questions you were asking. Sorry for taking you seriously.

Have you ever had to write an essay? High school maybe? 3 arguments in support of your claim. That's what I did. I had three arguments. That's how you argue a point. Not dozens of points, most of which overlap. Pick your three strongest arguments. And learn how to use the quote function on the forum.

 

[JimLes]

I'll admit I'm somewhat perplexed by your argument. I would venture to guess that most people would e supportive of this in the "year of discovery," wouldn't you assume? We have no idea if Kanter can hit the three (not that I'm saying he can, would or should), but it makes it a challenge if we just straight up say he can't when he's attempted a grand total of 2 for his career (one of which he connected on), neither of which were this year. So, I agree with you, but I'm uncertain as this seems comment seems different from your overall sentiments.

I think you took this as me saying our bigs should be shooting threes. I was trying to say that our bigs ought to practice passing out of double teams and hitting open teammates. I don't want either of them to turn into one of those bigs like Big Al where once the ball goes in, it never comes back out. Having spot up or off the ball shooters like Marvin and Jefferson helps, because they can actually hit them. It's positive reinforcement. Sure, for the sole purpose of teaching Kanter to pass out, you could have Gobert spot up in the corner, but the reward factor goes down significantly unless the guy you hit can make the shot.

It's just the overall issue I have with some of the suggestions in this thread. Sure, let's experiment, but within reason. We want to build on this season, not treat it as an interlude. I know it's unclear what the Jazz will look like next year, as the player coming in through the draft will undoubtedly be a high profile one who will necessitate things be adjusted around him, but I think the front office has a decent idea of where they want to go. Why not start going there now? If we know what the Jazz playbook will look like next year, why not run those plays now to get everyone used to it? If we know we're going to surround the core with specialist role players, why do people have such a problem with them playing with specialized role players now? If the FO has decided that certain players will be coming off the bench next season(and remember, this HAS to happen as our young core will likely be 6 players), why not have them used to that role now? If we suspect that Kanter and Favors can't play together, let's get the used to those roles, instead of stubbornly playing them together "to see what happens" as some posters are suggesting?

I mean, player development should have a goal, right? And a structure? It's not just throw your best players on the floor at once and play them 35 minutes.

 

[oldtimer]

Have you ever had to write an essay?

Yes I have.

High school maybe?

Believe it or not I have a masters and PhD.

3 arguments in support of your claim. That's what I did.

Bull crap. Go back and count your points again. Ever take math?

That's how you argue a point. Not dozens of points, most of which overlap. Pick your three strongest arguments.

You have dozen of points and dozens of question marks. Stop using questions marks if you don't want a response. Learn what a question mark is for.

And learn how to use the quote function on the forum.

Got me there. I was in high school when the first apple computers came out. You know the ones with 5 and 1/4 inch floppy disk. I really don't know how to use the quote function in a forum. What I do know is that you quoted my response, made numerous false straw man arguments and when I responded you got snarky. I responded in kind.

 

[JimLes]

Stop using questions marks if you don't want a response. Learn what a question mark is for.

https://grammar.about.com/od/rs/g/rhetquesterm.htm

And I made three points.

1. Kanter and Derrick don't play well together. Marvin and Derrick do. You can throw all your PhDs around all you want, but unless it's in basketball, you're wrong and I'm right. You know how I know? The Jazz coaching staff agrees with me.

2. Since any future contending Jazz team will have some role players whose job is to shoot the three, we might as well get our young guys get used to it now. Burke and Hayward don't count, as they can't simultaneously be distributors and stop up shooters.

3. Since we're going to need a player like Marvin next year, why not...oh, I don't know...keep Marvin?

So, instead of responding point by point to every sentence, as well as rhetorical question, why not just respond to those three points, in freaking paragraph form, with your own three points?

 

[oldtimer]

https://grammar.about.com/od/rs/g/rhetquesterm.htm

And I made three points.

If only that were true. But I do like these three points.

1. Kanter and Derrick don't play well together. Marvin and Derrick do. You can throw all your PhDs around all you want, but unless it's in basketball, you're wrong and I'm right. You know how I know? The Jazz coaching staff agrees with me.

Kanter and Favors never got enough time together with Trey Burke as their point guard. It was far too early to pull the plug on Kanter and Favors and assume they just don't work together. You are correct that the current starting group including Marvin and Derrick have been playing good together. My response is so what? I'd rather lose playing the young guys than win playing the veterans as many minutes as they are playing.

2. Since any future contending Jazz team will have some role players whose job is to shoot the three, we might as well get our young guys get used to it now. Burke and Hayward don't count, as they can't simultaneously be distributors and stop up shooters.

Do we need role players? Sure that can't be argued. However, Jefferson has stated he will not be back next year as he is going hunting for a championship. Then screw him. Put him on the bench. I see no need to resurrect a career of a player that will not even give the Jazz a chance to re-sign him next year to a favorable contract. I certainly would never play him more minutes than Burks.


3. Since we're going to need a player like Marvin next year, why not...oh, I don't know...keep Marvin?

I would try to keep Marvin for the veterans min. I just would never play him more than Kanter. In fact, I would bench Jefferson forever and play Marvin at 3 before I let Marvin steal 1 more minute from Kanter.

So, instead of responding point by point to every sentence, as well as rhetorical question, why not just respond to those three points, in freaking paragraph form, with your own three points?

I responded to what you now call rhetorical questions, because they were built on what I believed were false assertions. The format sucks because I truly do not know how to use the multiple quote system.

 

[franklin]

Oldtimer, your argument is essentially Trey Burke = fairy dust that will magically make Kanter-Favors work together because you say it will.

If you want to convince anyone then why not tell us what plays specifically will work and why, instead of relying on that fantasy n magic claim?

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

https://grammar.about.com/od/rs/g/rhetquesterm.htm

And I made three points.
Winner!

1. Kanter and Derrick don't play well together. Marvin and Derrick do. You can throw all your PhDs around all you want, but unless it's in basketball, you're wrong and I'm right. You know how I know? The Jazz coaching staff agrees with me.
Dumbest Post
2. Since any future contending Jazz team will have some role players whose job is to shoot the three, we might as well get our young guys get used to it now. Burke and Hayward don't count, as they can't simultaneously be distributors and stop up shooters.
On The
3. Since we're going to need a player like Marvin next year, why not...oh, I don't know...keep Marvin?
Interwebz!!!

So, instead of responding point by point to every sentence, as well as rhetorical question, why not just respond to those three points, in freaking paragraph form, with your own three points?

.