Hayward - Do not get it...

[Stoked]

What's the other half? I feel like I'm on a roll.

Being rich.

 

[Stoked]

That shot from the corner was ill advised, but Raja also took a 3 from the top of the key that was equally poor. I don't really care if every now and then a player tries to get himself going a little bit, but you don't get many chances to do that.

On the positive side, Hayward actually drove and did a little stop and pop in the lane in the 3rd. He missed it, but it was nice to see. He can turn the whole night he had into a positive if he learns from that.

I think Hayward will be fine long term. I see him as turning into more of a glue guy and possible 6th man instead of a go to scorer. That is ok though. All good teams need a guy like that on their bench. Piece by piece.

 

[MoTappin]

I think part of the problem is that Hayward wants to play the 2 and he's being put in at 3. I don't buy that those two positions are totally interchangeable. If the label is hurting his game, then don't pigeon-hole him into being a SF when he's more comfortable at SG. I know it comes down to who starts & gets minutes, but as I remember, Gordon has played better when he has played the 2. It's not a magic bullet for his game, but I think he's more suited for the 2.

 

[Stoked]

I agree that Hayward is more of a 2 than a 3. That leads him into direct competition with Burks who I think will be better long term scoring wise. Having Burks/Hayward at the 2 looks really nice.

 

[Hearsky]

I agree, that could be it ..

You agree and you didn't even know what happened two posts earlier?

 

[Dr. Jones]

You agree and you didn't even know what happened two posts earlier?

Well .. I asked what happened (because I didn't know) and when Cyrone explained what he felt happened, I agreed that that could be it.
Rocket science, I know.

 

[billyshelby]

Hayward played 1200 minutes last year. As per 82games, he played 1000 at the 3, and 200 at the 2.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Hayward played 1200 minutes last year. As per 82games, he played 1000 at the 3, and 200 at the 2.

And he had 200 effective minutes last year. Weird.

 

[default]

And he had 200 effective minutes last year. Weird.

That is inconceivable!!!

 

[billyshelby]

And he had 200 effective minutes last year. Weird.

If he did, they weren't at the 2 according to 82games.

 

[Hearsky]

Well .. I asked what happened (because I didn't know) and when Cyrone explained what he felt happened, I agreed that that could be it.
Rocket science, I know.

So, you have no fing clue and you ask somebody on the Interwebz and believe whatever they say as gospel? Yep, confirmed! You are from Kentucky.

 

[Stoked]

So, you have no fing clue and you ask somebody on the Interwebz and believe whatever they say as gospel? Yep, confirmed! You are from Kentucky.

That isn't all bad. They have great fried chicken.

 

[Hearsky]

That isn't all bad. They have great fried chicken.

That started in SLC.

 

[Stoked]

That started in SLC.

sigh, it sucks when a joke doesn't go over.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

If he did, they weren't at the 2 according to 82games.

Come on, play along.

On a side/serious note, I looked at the 82 games stats and they can't be counted on to give an accurate view of Hayward.
You cannot separate the last portion of the year where he began to be effective.

If you look at those stats from last you you get the impression that the Jazz were much better as a team with him off the floor offensively and defensively.
You get the impression that he was better defensively as a 3, and better offensively as a 2.
It only gives you some of the picture.
It doesn't show who he was guarding at what positions, among other things.
Numbers can be deceiving if not taken in the context of something real you are looking at.
Stats are good if you want to look at something specific, for a given reason.

You cannot get a true big picture view of things just by looking at stats.
I am in no way saying that stats do not have a place, or their use.

 

[billyshelby]

What "impression" has led anyone to believe Hayward is a natural 2? The Kobe game? The Denver scrimmage?

 

[Jazz Spazz]

What "impression" has led anyone to believe Hayward is a natural 2? The Kobe game? The Denver scrimmage?

The lady of the lake.
What "impression' has led you to believe Hayward is a natural 3? Because he's 6-8"? Because some website told you he was?

 

[Dr. Jones]

So, you have no fing clue and you ask somebody on the Interwebz and believe whatever they say as gospel? Yep, confirmed! You are from Kentucky.

You're funny and cute too, I bet.

 

[billyshelby]

The lady of the lake.
What "impression' has led you to believe Hayward is a natural 3? Because he's 6-8"? Because some website told you he was?

Because he's not especially quick. Because I can't see him being effective guarding 2's. Because his handle at the 3 (with other 3's guarding him) is a weapon, not so much with quicker 2's guarding him. Because he doesn't create space on his jumpshot that would allow him to take advantage of his height at the 2.

 

[Dr. Jones]

Because he's not especially quick. Because I can't see him being effective guarding 2's. Because his handle at the 3 (with other 3's guarding him) is a weapon, not so much with quicker 2's guarding him. Because he doesn't create space on his jumpshot that would allow him to take advantage of his height at the 2.

I'm with you billy. Been saying this all along. Truth is he has limitations in either spot, but I think he will become good enough to play either. His game just looks more like a SF, imo.