What's new
By:

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

Stoked said:
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.
Click to expand...

Basically this.

I just want burks to get his chance to start just like the rest of the core.

If he fails as a starter, bring him off the bench
 
fishonjazz said:
Basically this.

I just want burks to get his chance to start just like the rest of the core.

If he fails as a starter, bring him off the bench
Click to expand...

Not even so much if he fails. It is what is best for the team. I think that will be as a starter on this team but you never know.
 
seattlejazzfan said:
Now you're arguing players don't care if they start or not? Now that, my friend, is laughable.
Click to expand...

Superb straw-man construction. No, really. Keep steering this conversation away from its point. Maybe you'll finally stumble onto something correct.
 
Stoked said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think most of us agree with this. I am of the opinion that Burks will excel more @ 6th man down the road-- but barring a careless training camp, he's guaranteed gonna be starting at the 2.
 
Stoked said:
Not even so much if he fails. It is what is best for the team. I think that will be as a starter on this team but you never know.
Click to expand...

My point is that if he succeeds as a starter then why would it be better for the team to bring him off the bench.
If burks succeeds as a starter and is producing efficiently and the team is sucking, then I think maybe someone else should be the one to get demoted to the bench, not the guy playing well. Otherwise you risk upsetting a player and screwing up his mojo if you put them on the bench after playing well as a starter.
 
fishonjazz said:
My point is that if he succeeds as a starter then why would it be better for the team to bring him off the bench.
If burks succeeds as a starter and is producing efficiently and the team is sucking, then I think maybe someone else should be the one to get demoted to the bench, not the guy playing well. Otherwise you risk upsetting a player and screwing up his mojo if you put them on the bench after playing well as a starter.
Click to expand...

Btw benching Burks after he plays great with the starting unit seems like something that corbin would probably do.
 
fishonjazz said:
My point is that if he succeeds as a starter then why would it be better for the team to bring him off the bench.
If burks succeeds as a starter and is producing efficiently and the team is sucking, then I think maybe someone else should be the one to get demoted to the bench, not the guy playing well. Otherwise you risk upsetting a player and screwing up his mojo if you put them on the bench after playing well as a starter.
Click to expand...

Depends on the specific players skills and the over all specific needs of the team. If you have a couple of the C5 starting to get decent PPG and have none from the bench maybe you move one of the C5 to the bench to even that out so you don't give up such big leads...

Edit: It is all very situational. Maybe the team is best served by making and leaving the C5 as starters. Time will tell.
 
Stoked said:
Depends on the specific players skills and the over all spefici needs of the team. If you have a couple of the C5 startign to get decent PPG and have none fromt he bench maybe you move one of the C5 to the bench to even that out so you don't give up such big leads...
Click to expand...

Good answer
 
Confidence

dalamon said:
if you read my posts, you'd see that I completely agree with you in thinking that Burks should start at first, for confidence-building and respect.
Click to expand...

A lack of confidence is not a problem for Burks
 
From DJ JazzyJody Guy:
Corbin on Jeremy Evans: "The thing that I’m really excited about this year with him is getting him time on the floor—and he'll make plays."

Back to the Jazz, this was an interesting description of Gordon Hayward from Tyrone Corbin: "He’s a stringy, strong guy."
Click to expand...

Coach Ty, why did Jeremy play in only 37 games last season, and a career low of 215 minutes on your way to missing the playoffs?
 
DJ JAZZYJODY: Rookie Trey Burke said that Gordon Hayward, Alec Burks and himself have been among the vocal leaders early in Jazz camp.
 
mellow said:
DJ JAZZYJODY: Rookie Trey Burke said that Gordon Hayward, Alec Burks and himself have been among the vocal leaders early in Jazz camp.
Click to expand...

I figured that Hayward and Burke would be leaders. Burks is a pleasant surprise. Wish it included Favors.
 
fishonjazz said:
My point is that if he succeeds as a starter then why would it be better for the team to bring him off the bench.
Click to expand...
Basketball is played by 5 player teams. Complementarities among those 5 players matter (certain players play better in certain combinations of other players). Look at how the Spurs, a team with 3 players who can effectively initiate their offense (Timmy, Tony, Manu), spread those players out to get the most out of all their lineups.
 
Hekate said:
How many leaders can we really have?
Click to expand...

If you have several guys willing to get on someones case for shoddy work a higher standard will be maintained. Doesn't mean that there is no true leader.

Saye Burke emerges as the leader of this team and he is on the bench for something. I want to know that Favors, Hayward, Kanter and Burks will get on to someone and that all 5 of them are on the same page.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top