Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
I'm too tired to figure out whether I'm exhausted or whether your post makes no sense.
If the Jazz lose Hayward I'm done with the NBA.
- Thread starter Noomskull
- Start date
Mission Accomplished
Well-Known Member
This whole thread is hilarious. Lets change our names to the Gordon Haywards to see if he will grace us with his presence. Come on drama queens basketball is a sport and his livelihood if an Indiana boy doesnt choose Utah we will be fine and hopefully or front office will not give as much power to such a player in the future.
Sent from my SM-N920P using JazzFanz mobile app
Sent from my SM-N920P using JazzFanz mobile app
//r00t 4 Jazz
Well-Known Member
You're here to push your own agenda, which is something to the effect that you've never thought Hayward was anything but average and a replaceable role player at best and have been more in favor of getting rid of Hayward if it meant Hood, Lyles and the other young kids get developed, which is a whole different topic and thread. Had you read this thread, most here have not been discussing how good Hayward may or may not be but have been talking more about the effect GSW has had (as well as political BS) the ratings of the regular season and finals and in the future.
But just to tie in what I was already saying to your post. I honestly think that at the time of the trade DWill was a better player (more accomplished) and more respected among the players and teams than Hayward currently is. Obviously things have changed and DWill never was the same level of player he was while playing for the Jazz even his best years with the Nets weren't but that's not my point. My point is the Jazz have lost better players in the past and it hasn't rubbed me the wrong way that this potentially could but as I already stated I'm already getting over it and by the time the season starts I'd be back to my normal Jazz ways.
Cappy_Smurf
Well-Known Member
Lmao.
Somebody brings up the polls saying Hillary would win.
Someone else points out that she did get the most votes, JUST LIKE THE POLLS PREDICTED.
Dumbass argument about the polls continues.
Gotta love that Jazzfanz.
As for the OP, true Jazz fans will be here rooting for our team no matter what. As for the casual fans who disappear if one player leaves, don't let the door hit ya in the ***.
Somebody brings up the polls saying Hillary would win.
Someone else points out that she did get the most votes, JUST LIKE THE POLLS PREDICTED.
Dumbass argument about the polls continues.
Gotta love that Jazzfanz.
As for the OP, true Jazz fans will be here rooting for our team no matter what. As for the casual fans who disappear if one player leaves, don't let the door hit ya in the ***.
Last edited:
No. That's not what the polls predicted.
Does it surprise you when a .300 batter gets a hit in a baseball game?
Mission Accomplished
Well-Known Member
I appreciate your post. It is refreshing that you can see my point without being overreactionary.
Sent from my SM-N920P using JazzFanz mobile app
gandalfe
Well-Known Member
Grow up.
Cappy_Smurf
Well-Known Member
Cool story bro.
We should have a poll as to how long this dumbass argument can continue to derail this thread. That'd be swell.
The Bush administration believed it and used it to justify the invasion of Iraq.
Sorry but in 98 the Jazz would have beaten the Bulls if Bavetta had't given/taken away 5 points in game six. The Jazz never had the best talent, they just played hard and as a team. They beat the Lakers and they had Shaq and Kobe. The gap between the top 2 teams has never been this great and should be a concern for the league.
LoPo
Well-Known Member
If the Cavs close Game 3, we are at 2-2. Now if the Warriors destroy Cleveland game 5 and go 16-2 next year, then I think you are correct.
Our Jazz had our best team of players, talent, energy, effort, system, coaching and hustle in 98. We got hosed on some calls, but the Bulls were the better team. Still the best accumulation of talent I've ever seen on a team and they got to play with 6 every game since MJ got every call.
Sent from my VS995 using JazzFanz mobile app
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
I thought the justification of invading Iraq was WMD's
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
Not the same thing at all. Are you saying that you agree that analysts were claiming that Trump had a decent chance of winning. The media was almost universally predicting a blowout for Clinton. Not only did they not think he had a chance, they didn't even think it was going to be close. Seems completely silly and revisionist to be arguing otherwise at this point.
Keep destroying these dumb arguments bro. Good work. I remember people saying "The question isn't if Hillary is going to win, it's how much is she going to win by". Funny how quickly people forget.
Sent from my iPhone using JazzFanz mobile app
Zombie
Well-Known Member
I think the post that started this entire line of conversation had to do with the polls themselves, which by and large were pretty accurate.
Most of the media just did a pretty poor job of interpreting the data. Thriller is correct however that Nate Silver did give Trump a roughly 30% chance to win and there were others as well.
Throughout most of the election the narrative was that Hillary would run away with it, and I admit I didn't think it would be close. That feeling didn't last all the way up to election day though.
Anyone that was paying attention to the last few weeks could tell it was going to be close. When the Access Hollywood tape came out and it didn't completely sink Trump is when I started to feel nervous. It was clear at that point that we were in truly uncharted territory.
I guess the overall point is that last year's election was complicated. That doesn't mean all polls are ******** and nothing means anything anymore.
Most of the media just did a pretty poor job of interpreting the data. Thriller is correct however that Nate Silver did give Trump a roughly 30% chance to win and there were others as well.
Throughout most of the election the narrative was that Hillary would run away with it, and I admit I didn't think it would be close. That feeling didn't last all the way up to election day though.
Anyone that was paying attention to the last few weeks could tell it was going to be close. When the Access Hollywood tape came out and it didn't completely sink Trump is when I started to feel nervous. It was clear at that point that we were in truly uncharted territory.
I guess the overall point is that last year's election was complicated. That doesn't mean all polls are ******** and nothing means anything anymore.
Nate Silver was the only major aggregate to give Trump a reasonable chance. The polls were about predicting the winner, not the national vote count, or average voter height, or any other nonsense.
But ya, that doesn't mean knowledge is now obsolete. Only that they need better methods for gathering reliable data in presidential election polls.
I don't give a **** about thread integrity. And you're the only one being a dumbass in here. Barging in like you're better than everyone... LMAO.
Yep, Mike Trout has a very realistic chance of getting a hit each at-bat.
Somehow the common sense understanding in sports does not translate to politics, where many believe 70% probability means metaphysical certitude.
Wrong. The polls predicted both the winner and the national vote count.