What's new
By:

Big Picture Stuff

SoberasHotRod

SoberasHotRod

Well-Known Member
2025 Award Winner
I'm apathetic about the draft right now, I probably started caring too early, and so I'm clearing my head by thinking big picture.

I want the Jazz to build a team based on two way players. I would prefer to watch a team filled with guys that can both get stops and make open shots, than a team with some amazing offensive engine that has a bunch of huge defensive holes. Obviously it must be nice to be OKC and have the best of both worlds, but if I had to pick one, that's what I choose. I'm not a championship or bust guy either, and I would rather build a team that is sustainably good.

After the Gobert/Mitchell trades I think we ended up with better pieces than the FO expected, and there was an idea that we might be able to build fast. If some of our draft picks really hit and some trades opened up, they might have been right. Since those things didn't happen, it's time to build this thing up the right way.

The Jazz have had two distinct eras of basketball since Stockton and Malone, the Boozer/Dwill era and the Gobert/Mitchell era. The Boozer/Dwill era was doomed by a front court that could not defend the rim and a star guard that didn't want to stay in Utah. The Gobert/Mitchell era started by having an amazing defense, but not enough offense then overcorrected to an amazing offense and a suspect defense held together by one player, that just didn't work against the better teams. Ultimately the Gobert/Mitchell era was doomed by a big who could be neutralized by small ball lineups and a guard who didn't defend and didn't want to be in Utah long term.

You might disagree with my conclusions on past eras, but that's not really the point of this thread. The main point is team building moving forward and what your personal team building philosophies are. Thoughts?
 
I think we really need a center that can dribble. I'm pretty sure the next innovation in NBA defenses is going to be just sending two guys at the ball handler when the center is setting the pick and can't dribble. You need your center to be able to dribble to the paint in that situation. Kessler is not that guy so I feel weird about him long-term, but we don't have easy replacements either. But this is a player type we need to look out for in the draft.
 
SoberasHotRod said:
I'm apathetic about the draft right now, I probably started caring too early, and so I'm clearing my head by thinking big picture.

I want the Jazz to build a team based on two way players. I would prefer to watch a team filled with guys that can both get stops and make open shots, than a team with some amazing offensive engine that has a bunch of huge defensive holes. Obviously it must be nice to be OKC and have the best of both worlds, but if I had to pick one, that's what I choose. I'm not a championship or bust guy either, and I would rather build a team that is sustainably good.

After the Gobert/Mitchell trades I think we ended up with better pieces than the FO expected, and there was an idea that we might be able to build fast. If some of our draft picks really hit and some trades opened up, they might have been right. Since those things didn't happen, it's time to build this thing up the right way.

The Jazz have had two distinct eras of basketball since Stockton and Malone, the Boozer/Dwill era and the Gobert/Mitchell era. The Boozer/Dwill era was doomed by a front court that could not defend the rim and a star guard that didn't want to stay in Utah. The Gobert/Mitchell era started by having an amazing defense, but not enough offense then overcorrected to an amazing offense and a suspect defense held together by one player, that just didn't work against the better teams. Ultimately the Gobert/Mitchell era was doomed by a big who could be neutralized by small ball lineups and a guard who didn't defend and didn't want to be in Utah long term.

You might disagree with my conclusions on past eras, but that's not really the point of this thread. The main point is team building moving forward and what your personal team building philosophies are. Thoughts?
Click to expand...
I think the star talent dictates what the build looks like ultimately... but building out the roster with two way players who can shoot or do other things without the ball is a good strategy/philosophy. I do not think the FO shares that thought though lol.

In the draft I would want guys that I thought could be stars but I wouldn't just swing for that. I think you can default back to shooting and defense since it really is necessary for every winning team if you don't think there are good star bets.

Ideally it would be good to get the star and then build from there... but if the star isn't available I don't want to settle for a flawed heliocentric star... at least not yet. At some point I don't know if front offices can just wait in perpetuity to draft that star. Then you may have to do a Trae Young type deal and just hope the other stuff hits. Landing outside the top 3 next year would be VERY difficult.
 
SoberasHotRod said:
I'm apathetic about the draft right now, I probably started caring too early, and so I'm clearing my head by thinking big picture.

I want the Jazz to build a team based on two way players. I would prefer to watch a team filled with guys that can both get stops and make open shots, than a team with some amazing offensive engine that has a bunch of huge defensive holes. Obviously it must be nice to be OKC and have the best of both worlds, but if I had to pick one, that's what I choose. I'm not a championship or bust guy either, and I would rather build a team that is sustainably good.

After the Gobert/Mitchell trades I think we ended up with better pieces than the FO expected, and there was an idea that we might be able to build fast. If some of our draft picks really hit and some trades opened up, they might have been right. Since those things didn't happen, it's time to build this thing up the right way.

The Jazz have had two distinct eras of basketball since Stockton and Malone, the Boozer/Dwill era and the Gobert/Mitchell era. The Boozer/Dwill era was doomed by a front court that could not defend the rim and a star guard that didn't want to stay in Utah. The Gobert/Mitchell era started by having an amazing defense, but not enough offense then overcorrected to an amazing offense and a suspect defense held together by one player, that just didn't work against the better teams. Ultimately the Gobert/Mitchell era was doomed by a big who could be neutralized by small ball lineups and a guard who didn't defend and didn't want to be in Utah long term.

You might disagree with my conclusions on past eras, but that's not really the point of this thread. The main point is team building moving forward and what your personal team building philosophies are. Thoughts?
Click to expand...

If you look at how teams like Boston and Indiana are constructed, their offense is based on having all players being able to shoot the ball and move the ball. They still have their offensive leader, be it Tatum or Haliburton (or Siakam), but everyone on the floor can make an open shot or can put the ball down and pass off the dribble if they don't have an open shot. Doing this on a floor that's spaced out ultimately gets someone an advantage--an open look or an open lane to the rim. (Eventually, someone over-switches or over-commits.)

This trend started with the Golden State Warriors' championship teams, and other teams have been building towards this ever since. If a team can really space the floor well and play like this, it becomes very difficult to stop. The trend of running pick-and-rolls with a rim-finishing big and a ball-dominant guard seems to have gone out of date. On the defensive side, everyone plays hard on defense and attacks the glass, and the team's depth keeps guys fresh enough to close at the end of games.

This is a good way to build a team that doesn't depend upon having an MVP-level player, plus another one or two All Stars (like OKC, Milwaukee and Denver). Otherwise, a small-market team like Utah (following Denver, Milwaukee and OKC) would need to draft and develop an MVP-level player, add a second All Star, and build out the rest of the team with quality role players.

All things considered, it's still best to have the MVP on your team, but that's a very elusive blueprint to try to achieve.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
I think the star talent dictates what the build looks like ultimately... but building out the roster with two way players who can shoot or do other things without the ball is a good strategy/philosophy. I do not think the FO shares that thought though lol.

In the draft I would want guys that I thought could be stars but I wouldn't just swing for that. I think you can default back to shooting and defense since it really is necessary for every winning team if you don't think there are good star bets.

Ideally it would be good to get the star and then build from there... but if the star isn't available I don't want to settle for a flawed heliocentric star... at least not yet. At some point I don't know if front offices can just wait in perpetuity to draft that star. Then you may have to do a Trae Young type deal and just hope the other stuff hits. Landing outside the top 3 next year would be VERY difficult.
Click to expand...
I'm not even worried about the star player to be honest. We have to tank next year because of the pick to OKC, but even if we don't get a star next year, I just want to start building a team. I would rather start building something and hope a guy becomes available or has surprising growth than to keep banging our heads and hoping that lottery luck happens in the year we want it to.

I guess my point is also that I want my star player to be a two way guy as well. We shouldn't be to build around his weaknesses, because he should be able to play defense and shoot as well.
 
I don't think there's a model or right way to do things except make the correct decisions in front of you. Finding the exact type of player is a moving target and you don't really get to choose to have a certain player anyways. Unfortunately, I don't think the Jazz are in any position to compete any time soon. If we were in the East I'd think hard about pivoting. In the West, we really can't even think about trying to win anything of consequence for a very long time. We are so far away that building a team means getting a player of any kind that we can see competing in the playoffs. Can't have any kind of roadmap when there's nothing there to begin with.

As a fan, my preference would be to just clean house of all the vets. I think tanking is infinitely worse when you're constantly benching players and especially players as good as Lauri. If there is something to be enjoyed about tanking, it's seeing the growth of young players. I don't want this constant cloud hanging over our heads where we are being artificially bad the entire season. It is one of the most appalling things in all of major sports.

I think this is probably the best team building strategy regardless, but it would also make the season more enjoyable.
 
I agree that the particular skills of the players should dictate how the team is ultimately constructed.

The thing that interests me most is how systems are built around/for players. It's offensive and defensive systems that win games. You need players who can execute those systems and gain advantages while they do.

I understand the emphasis on offense. It can be demoralizing to play 82 games when your team struggles to finish plays. Players want to have juice and get their squeeze on that side of the ball. The space-and-pace / advantage-basketball blueprints are out there. I don't think it's particularly hard to tailor one of those to fit your roster. The real art of coaching is getting the right defensive scheme and getting players to buy-in and ****ing execute for 48 minutes. OKC has been absolutely beautiful in this way, and they deserve the banner that's about to be hanging in their rafters. I thought they were destined for this moment about 30 games into this season when I saw how suffocating their defense could be. Superb. We're so far away from that in Utah.
 
SoberasHotRod said:
You might disagree with my conclusions on past eras, but that's not really the point of this thread.
Click to expand...
As I haven’t been particularly optimistic about our direction for some time now, and as I’m having a hard time envisioning a relevant future any time soon and become quite apathetic to it, pretty much all I have left is looking to the past and arguing about conclusions made from it, and here you are trying to take that last little thing away from me.
 
infection said:
As I haven’t been particularly optimistic about our direction for some time now, and as I’m having a hard time envisioning a relevant future any time soon and become quite apathetic to it, pretty much all I have left is looking to the past and arguing about conclusions made from it, and here you are trying to take that last little thing away from me.
Click to expand...
Lol, we can start another thread and discuss the failings of the past. Or you can disregard what I said and post them in here. It's a free country, lol.
 
NAOS_pt2 said:
I agree that the particular skills of the players should dictate how the team is ultimately constructed.

The thing that interests me most is how systems are built around/for players. It's offensive and defensive systems that win games. You need players who can execute those systems and gain advantages while they do.

I understand the emphasis on offense. It can be demoralizing to play 82 games when your team struggles to finish plays. Players want to have juice and get their squeeze on that side of the ball. The space-and-pace / advantage-basketball blueprints are out there. I don't think it's particularly hard to tailor one of those to fit your roster. The real art of coaching is getting the right defensive scheme and getting players to buy-in and ****ing execute for 48 minutes. OKC has been absolutely beautiful in this way, and they deserve the banner that's about to be hanging in their rafters. I thought they were destined for this moment about 30 games into this season when I saw how suffocating their defense could be. Superb. We're so far away from that in Utah.
Click to expand...
That's the dream, but I would even settle for a top 10 defensive team.
 
I don't see team building as all that complicated. Get a central offensive guy, then get a bunch of decent 2 way guys of various skillsets around him. The first part is the hard part but we can pull it off in this draft.
 
SoberasHotRod said:
I want the Jazz to build a team based on two way players. I would prefer to watch a team filled with guys that can both get stops and make open shots, than a team with some amazing offensive engine that has a bunch of huge defensive holes. Obviously it must be nice to be OKC and have the best of both worlds, but if I had to pick one, that's what I choose. I'm not a championship or bust guy either, and I would rather build a team that is sustainably good.
Click to expand...
Oh, so you want Jerry Sloan and his brand of scrappy players playing hard and being held responsible for the low effort and defensive lapses? No, you will not get it. You will get more Hardy, who always encouraged careless shooting away of Keyonte and Brice and did not care about winning - and, as a reward, just got a long-term extension. And you will get Ainge, who purposefully traded away every semi-decent defensive player sans Kessler, young and old. This is the long-term direction of the team: all offense, no defense and not trying to develop any cohesiveness and competitive fire. And you better get used to it.
 
It's like, who the young Jazz guards and wings will learn from about playing tough defense? Juzang? Sexton? We have absolutely no one on the team at the 1-3 positions who knows how to play the NBA-level defense.
 
jazznik said:
It's like, who the young Jazz guards and wings will learn from about playing tough defense? Juzang? Sexton? We have absolutely no one on the team at the 1-3 positions who knows how to play the NBA-level defense.
Click to expand...
This might actually be a good point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top