What's new
By:

foye's history at PG

NAOS said:
well, then, all hyperbole aside...... we have two guys on our roster that need to be groomed into playmakers at their position. That takes game time and a system dedicated to seeing it through. By extension, that system will likely play a non-traditional PG so that said player can gain experience/grooming.

Disagree?
Click to expand...

Well, yeah I disagree. I mean I don't think Hayward will ever be a primary playmaker because he hasn't shown he can drive -- can't be a playmaker without that skill. Burks is a guy who has great potential as a driver, but has barely shown an ability to drive AND make plays.

That said, this is a big year for Hayward. I'm holding out hope for him, but my fear is we've already seen close to his ceiling. With Burks, there's more volatility. Higher upside, lower downside. But of the two, I think Burks has a much better shot of making the jump to primary ballhandler. Passing and vision are key, but he can beat his man off the dribble and finish. Hayward can't do that. Until either of them improve, a true PG is greatly needed.
 
billyshelby said:
Well, yeah I disagree. I mean I don't think Hayward will ever be a primary playmaker because he hasn't shown he can drive -- can't be a playmaker without that skill. Burks is a guy who has great potential as a driver, but has barely shown an ability to drive AND make plays.

That said, this is a big year for Hayward. I'm holding out hope for him, but my fear is we've already seen close to his ceiling. With Burks, there's more volatility. Higher upside, lower downside. But of the two, I think Burks has a much better shot of making the jump to primary ballhandler. Passing and vision are key, but he can beat his man off the dribble and finish. Hayward can't do that. Until either of them improve, a true PG is greatly needed.
Click to expand...

I acknowledge that you have these opinions after watching hours of games. Closely watching. And, I can see how you've come to these conclusions/hesitations. But, a lot of other similarly dedicated people have watched Hayward and proceeded to hype the **** out him. What are they seeing that you aren't? How much of Hayward's shortcomings are the result of our system and his adaptation to it? How much have been due to an exploded team (rookie year) followed by a condensed sophomore season with an unimaginative offense that wasn't helping him?

I think Hayward needs more screens than most creators........... but I also see Chris Paul get a **** load of them............... I also see Manu get a **** load of them.

But, yes, he needs to get a lot better at finishing. I don't think anybody is actively doubting that with a sane mind.
 
Exactly how good do you think Hayward can become? The dream is Brandon Roy, right? I've seen almost nothing that makes me think he's on that track. As I've said before, my dream for Hayward is Dunleavy season 7, hopefully sooner and more spread out. I'll be thrilled if he gets that far, but based on what I've seen I don't ever expect him to be better than that. And I'd be shocked if he ever touches Roy's numbers for a season.
 
Darkwing Duck said:
No you couldn't, and you're too lazy to try, so screaming "nuh uh" isn't convincing.


Watson by three points. Statistically negligible. But to actually put something on it, the Jazz were outscored by ONE point every 340 minutes Watson played. That's one point every 17 games.




And Foye is better at being the point guard since he can shoot? Without a point guard on the floor, the Jazz best distributor of the basketball would be a guy who's been worse at distributing the ball than Derek Fisher's career, and who might not even be on the floor in this scenario. Next best would be? You want a lineup of Foye, Burks, Ma. Williams, Favors, and Kanter? Not an assist rate of over 10 percent in the bunch aside from the pedestrian 14% Foye has. It's essentially asking C.J. Miles to run the point. Is THAT a good idea?
Click to expand...
I named 3 questions to counter act the relevence of your argument. Until you can account for those ones there is no reason to look at the others. The point of that argument was to show the irrelevance of your hand picked stat. I accomplished that.
 
gregbroncs said:
I named 3 questions to counter act the relevence of your argument. Until you can account for those ones there is no reason to look at the others. The point of that argument was to show the irrelevance of your hand picked stat. I accomplished that.
Click to expand...

Who'd they play with? Their teammates. Who'd they play against? The other team. Who's available? The active roster. You want to know how Tinsley fared in the third quarter while behind against teams who played an 8 man rotation during road games during January on Saturday, THEN you're getting hand picked stats, and not the overall picture.
 
NAOS said:
you are definitely right: we don't have a fully developed Manu who will take us to the promise land. Manus have to be groomed. The closest thing to a groom-able Manu in the league right now is Gordon Hayward.
Click to expand...

Have you not heard of James Harden?
 
NAOS said:
you are definitely right: we don't have a fully developed Manu who will take us to the promise land. Manus have to be groomed. The closest thing to a groom-able Manu in the league right now is Gordon Hayward.
Click to expand...

Have you not heard of James Harden?
 
Darkwing Duck said:
Who'd they play with? Their teammates. Who'd they play against? The other team. Who's available? The active roster. You want to know how Tinsley fared in the third quarter while behind against teams who played an 8 man rotation during road games during January on Saturday, THEN you're getting hand picked stats, and not the overall picture.
Click to expand...

So +/- is now the overall picture?

You still missed the point. Basketball is a team game and you play against opponents of varying skills. Therefore even you so called overall picture is just another hand picked stat to support your POV.
 
Darkwing Duck said:
Amusing.

If you've actually paid attention, I've been quite the advocate against plus minus. It's a relative stat, and acutely relative at that. The actual number is fairly irrelevant. But used as comparison with few to no variables, as has been happening in this thread, then it's useful.

But keep trustin' that eyeball of yours.
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is that the variables involved when Tinsley was playing versus when Watson was playing were somehow negligible, but that a 31 point difference over the course of an entire season is enough to call one guy better than another? I'm not sure which argument is dumber. Statisticians everywhere are cringing.

Otherwise stated, you advocate against plus/minus when comparing players from different teams, but think it's useful so long as you're comparing teammates? Please don't make me dig up the dozens of examples from last season alone that would make that argument look absolutely childish.

Keep trustin' that "brain" of yours.
 
billyshelby said:
Are we trying to prove that actual pg skills aren't really that necessary so long as the 'system' is the pg and the most important attribute of the guy manning the 'position' is that he can score? Because my read on Foye is that every effort made at making him a pg resulted in everyone realizing he was a 2 guard. I don't think we're going to magically change that.
Click to expand...

thank you!! that's what this thread was intended to say. it was not intended to be an 8-page pissing contest about the benefits and drawbacks of +/-, although i think PG is one position where you can expect a good player to have a positive impact on his team's execution.

and anybody who thinks that our system today is that different from our system under sloan just hasn't paid very close attention or doesn't know their Xs-and-Os. who knows what ty will come back with this fall for his first full training camp as head coach, but so far any adjustments made to the old sloan offense have been subtle little wrinkles. PG is still an incredibly important position in the jazz's sets.
 
i'm a firm believer in hayward and his all-around skills (including playmaking) and even i think he's miles away from being anything close to a manu-type creator. manu's rookie assist percentage was as good as hayward's 2nd year was, and in every season since, it has been at least 22%. on average, 1 in every 4 of his teammates' buckets while he's on the floor is the product of a ginobili assist. last year it was almost a third of his teammates' buckets that he assisted. that's a ridiculous number, and hayward hasn't even sniffed that level of playmaking ability yet.

i'm hopeful for the kid, but let's not throw unfair and unfavorable comparisons at him and define him as a player that way.
 
1. While the offense was still Sloan-like, it was more like Sloan101 with massive work stoppages when the ball went to the low left block. I'll guard Sloan's honor and ask you to keep his name out of this.

2. I'm not saying Hayward will ever rise to Manu's level. What I'm SUGGESTING is that we have a lot more to see from him than we have.... since his rookie season saw the explosion of the franchise and his second season was condensed + had no training camp. I'm SUGGESTING that the coaches do a lot more to help him; I hope they tailor the offense to his skills a ****load more than they have, because I've seen flashes of stuff beyond Dunleavy. Give him a goddamn pick. Also, Gordon, you need to develop your finishing skills.

I think Gordon can be a 17/4rebounds/5assist guy on 47%/39%. All the while being a two-way player. Even if he doesn't look like Manu when he does it, I'll take those numbers in whatever form they arrive. But, he needs more help.
 
NAOS said:
1. While the offense was still Sloan-like, it was more like Sloan101 with massive work stoppages when the ball went to the low left block. I'll guard Sloan's honor and ask you to keep his name out of this.

2. I'm not saying Hayward will ever rise to Manu's level. What I'm SUGGESTING is that we have a lot more to see from him than we have.... since his rookie season saw the explosion of the franchise and his second season was condensed + had no training camp. I'm SUGGESTING that the coaches do a lot more to help him; I hope they tailor the offense to his skills a ****load more than they have, because I've seen flashes of stuff beyond Dunleavy. Give him a goddamn pick. Also, Gordon, you need to develop your finishing skills.

I think Gordon can be a 17/4rebounds/5assist guy on 47%/39%. All the while being a two-way player. Even if he doesn't look like Manu when he does it, I'll take those numbers in whatever form they arrive. But, he needs more help.
Click to expand...

I think that is the biggest thing. Yes, he can dunk alright, but his layup touch/feel is Harpring-esque at some points.
 
NAOS said:
1. While the offense was still Sloan-like, it was more like Sloan101 with massive work stoppages when the ball went to the low left block. I'll guard Sloan's honor and ask you to keep his name out of this.
Click to expand...

fair enough. we definitely agree there. but the same basic offensive framework was there, which is why i laugh when people announce that we simply don't need a true PG based on our "new" offense.

2. I'm not saying Hayward will ever rise to Manu's level. What I'm SUGGESTING is that we have a lot more to see from him than we have.... since his rookie season saw the explosion of the franchise and his second season was condensed + had no training camp. I'm SUGGESTING that the coaches do a lot more to help him; I hope they tailor the offense to his skills a ****load more than they have, because I've seen flashes of stuff beyond Dunleavy. Give him a goddamn pick. Also, Gordon, you need to develop your finishing skills.
Click to expand...

oh i agree. i have always felt like manu is the player who gordon's style points to... i'm just saying he's a long way off from being a manu-level playmaker, and until he's there we can't just expect we'll be fine with g-time as our de facto point guard.

i've said it before -- if mo gets hurt, we're in big trouble. not like mo is a natural playmaker either, but just try to imagine our team's offense if we had to deal without mo for 4-6 weeks. *cringe*

I think Gordon can be a 17/4rebounds/5assist guy on 47%/39%. Even if he doesn't look like Manu when he does it, I'll take those numbers in whatever form they arrive. But, he needs more help.
Click to expand...

i'm a hayward believer, too... but do realize that what you just described is essentially scottie pippen plus a three-point shot? or a slightly better-shooting manu? this is what i'm talking about with gordon... i think at some point he's going to become the victim of the ridiculously high bar people have set for him. not many players reach 17-4-5-47-39. if even pippen and manu fell short, then we're basically asking gordon to play better than two HOFers.
 
Pippen's peak years were played alongside the greatest ballhog in the history of the game. And, still, Scottie had several years better than the stats I quoted.

Ginobili has had better seasons than the stats I quoted. A few. I'm suggesting that those stats are Hay's peak.
 
NAOS said:
Pippen's peak years were played alongside the greatest ballhog in the history of the game. (who could blame him?)

Ginobili has had better seasons than the stats I quoted. A few. I'm suggesting that those stats are Hay's peak.
Click to expand...

not really. ginobili is a career 45% shooter. he has shot above 47% twice -- once was last year in just 792 total minutes. the other was 2004-05 when he missed the assist number and the 3pt% you mentioned.

but point taken.
 
I'm not going to split hair over 2%. Downgrade my projections if you'd like... I don't think Hay will ever = Manu or Pippen.
 
There are 3 reasons for all the opposition to the OP.

1. Watson and Tinsley are not very good.

2. Everybody wants to see lots of Burks.

3. Our starting PG isn't that great a distributor in the first place.

You'd think if Utah needed a pure point they'd have made some kind of play for Calderon. This is what I was advocating as plan B before Mo arrived. Now that he's here it seems clear that the ball is going through the post a lot of the time. Watson and Tinsley both have serious warts which IMO offset the benefit of their passing ability, and if they are your backup 1 then Foye is your backup 2. Now Burks is buried again for the sake of playing a "real" PG while Mo rests.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top