*We are not automatically a top-5 defensive team because Gobert and Exum (No Favors in your post??). Exum has loads to prove, and our defensive woes in the 4th quarter point to a thorough-going problem with our defensive aptitude.
*Becoming more versatile on the offensive side doesn't mean that we have to start sacrificing defensive capabilities. In order to play on a string, everybody should be apt. You acquire talent that fits into your system and alongside your already-acquired talent without compromising that system or those aptitudes (which Korkmaz would certainly do... and for a while... but maybe he can be taught?). And you also expect these players to be impact-full offensive players. Getting better in one facet needn't result in getting worse in the other.
*Korver's team-defense has always been very under-rated around here. In your post, you seem to imply that he's a compromise-to-the-system. He's often not. Does his style of offense take more energy from his defender and leave him less cashed on the other side? Yes. Therefore, is offensive impact important to defensive impact? Yes. But this isn't a simple dialectical problem. It's more complicated than that.
*Your point about the Hawks is, at certain points, unproven, and, at others, just plain wrong. First, the Hawks are just a couple of years into a massive overhaul and culture change. During that process, they've signed an incredible collection of players on great deals, drafted well, won 60 games, been to the EFC, and may very well be back to the EFC in consecutive years as a better team than the year before. It's embarrassing to call what they're doing "middling". Now, to the wrong part: the jazz should not be compared to the Hawks in this facile way.
