What's new
By:

3 starters at forward?

I

idiot

Well-Known Member
Tell me what you think of this idiot idea. Suppose at camp, Corbin determines a) Hayward needs to be the starter at SG, b) Favors is definitely ready for more responsibility, though not yet a star, c) Millsap shows enough at SF to keep the experiment with him going in some situations, d) CJ shows some improvement and the team plays well with him. I know, this combination is not likely perhaps, but it is clearly possible. Assuming also that no roster changes are made that affect the situation, what would you think (for chemistry, egos, giving Jazz best chance of wining) of Corbin going with a three-player rotation to start at SF and PF?

I looked at the top starting forward combos for each team in the league last year (in terms of # of starts, not end-of-year lineup). Some teams had no consistent starter at either one or two positions, so this isn’t an exact science. But the best matchups (in terms of speed, strength, length, athleticism, experience) for the Jazz would seem to be the following:

Miles/Millsap 11 teams (Atl, Cha, GS, Hou, Ind, Mil, NJ, NO, Phi, Pho, SA)
Millsap/Favors 10 teams (Bos, Chi, Cle, Den, LAC, LAL, Mia, Min, Orl, Tor)
Miles/Favors 8 teams (Dal, Det, Mem, NY, OKC, Por, Sac, Was)

In other words, just looking at matchups, it seems like the Jazz could do well with dividing the 2 starting positions three ways. Could this work in practice, or would it just cause too many problems?
 
Seems perfectly reasonable to me, assuming the premise is true, that Hayward would be best suited at SG and not SF, and should be getting starter type minutes. Burks might be a factor too. So the coach needs to think about which position should be the primary position of all those players.
 
I'm pretty sure we will see a lot of combinations on the court, so, yea. Corbin has got to find out what these guys can do.
 
I see no reason not to experiment with different line-ups like this. Find out who does best where, and what player combinations compliment each other best. But eventually I think we need to settle on a solid starting 5 and let them get very comfortable together. I see no reason to constantly change the starting line-up except for cases of extreme mismatches, and injury.
 
This isn't baseball, you don't start a guy and bench another because he hits righties better than lefties. In a highly compressed season though I do expect Corbin to give the night off on occasion to some of our players. The Jazz depth in their front court may win them more games than expected for reasons of attrition if nothing else.
 
idiot said:
Tell me what you think of this idiot idea. Suppose at camp, Corbin determines a) Hayward needs to be the starter at SG, b) Favors is definitely ready for more responsibility, though not yet a star, c) Millsap shows enough at SF to keep the experiment with him going in some situations, d) CJ shows some improvement and the team plays well with him. I know, this combination is not likely perhaps, but it is clearly possible. Assuming also that no roster changes are made that affect the situation, what would you think (for chemistry, egos, giving Jazz best chance of wining) of Corbin going with a three-player rotation to start at SF and PF?

I looked at the top starting forward combos for each team in the league last year (in terms of # of starts, not end-of-year lineup). Some teams had no consistent starter at either one or two positions, so this isn’t an exact science. But the best matchups (in terms of speed, strength, length, athleticism, experience) for the Jazz would seem to be the following:

Miles/Millsap 11 teams (Atl, Cha, GS, Hou, Ind, Mil, NJ, NO, Phi, Pho, SA)
Millsap/Favors 10 teams (Bos, Chi, Cle, Den, LAC, LAL, Mia, Min, Orl, Tor)
Miles/Favors 8 teams (Dal, Det, Mem, NY, OKC, Por, Sac, Was)

In other words, just looking at matchups, it seems like the Jazz could do well with dividing the 2 starting positions three ways. Could this work in practice, or would it just cause too many problems?
Click to expand...
Analyzing opposing lineups and applying rotations that would best counteract those lineups?

What a concept.

Too bad Ol' Jer only occasionally applied that concept in 20 years of HoF coaching.
(HoF = Hill of Fraud)
 
With the depth of our roster, we have the personnel to create enough matchup nightmares to give any opponent headaches. So yeah, hope coach Ty actually mixes it up vs different opponents to create the best matchups in OUR favor.
Obviously if Millsap can make the transition to SF, this will create an advantage for us due to Millsap's bulk vs opponents. However, the guy noone talks about who could really help us at SF length-wise is Jeremy Evans. If he indeed has improved his jump shot this offseason and can defend on the perimeter, his 6'9" length and hops could give opponents fits... This would allow us to use Hayward at SG almost exclusively where his 6'8" size is tough to defend, as well as Miles. Again, Hayward has the length and CJ has more bulk than the typical SG. According to reports, CJ, like Millsap, has taken off some mass to improve his agility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top