What's new
By:

Name a better wing rotation than Hayward Hood Burks

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 848
  • Start date Start date
Howard said:
Wes Matthews originally signed for 4/57. I think he's a better fit on this team than Burks. Would I like paying him that much? Not really. But there's one example.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that number was a clear downgrade only because DAJ was expected to show up. No way could the Jazz have had him for that number.
 
Howard said:
Wes Matthews originally signed for 4/57. I think he's a better fit on this team than Burks. Would I like paying him that much? Not really. But there's one example.
Click to expand...
Do I have to post the numbers again?
Burks is shooting better from everywhere, rebounding better, assisting better, scoring better, getting to the line better, is younger, is cheaper.

But defense and fit > than everything.
And we don't know for sure he works even be a better fit, would be happy playing cj/ingles minutes or if he is past his prime
 
fishonjazz said:
You are right we don't know that stuff.

But there is something we do know. Hood, hayward, and Burks might be the best wing tandem in the world. We don't have to speculate or wonder. It's happening. So the jazz did the right thing by not getting a big name free agent wing last year. Which is what this argument (cake baking vs not last summer) is about
Click to expand...

Too small of a sample size with Hood to say that for sure, and Burks is average, IMO.
 
Howard said:
Too small of a sample size with Hood to say that for sure, and Burks is average, IMO.
Click to expand...

what's a small sample size? the advanced stats aren't.


His scoring and stats coming out of P&Rs (for one) stretch back to last season, when he started coming onto the scene.


Trust me, the likes of Carlisle aren't gonna come out here and call the two the best young wing tandem in the league for some flash-in-the-pan player. Unless you know something Rick Carlisle doesn't.
 
fishonjazz said:
Do I have to post the numbers again?
Burks is shooting better from everywhere, rebounding better, assisting better, scoring better, getting to the line better, is younger, is cheaper.

But defense and fit > than everything.
And we don't know for sure he works even be a better fit, would be happy playing cj/ingles minutes or if he is past his prime
Click to expand...

Are you dense?

But naw, let's take this one year of Matthews and give it more weight than his past. Let's ignore that Burks is a low IQ player who sucks at defense. Let's ignore that we could use some perimeter defense and 3-pt shooting. Anyways, you're missing the point (again). Matthews is close enough to Burks, that it's ok, IMO. Then we trade Burks and hopefully upgrade another position, leading to an overall team upgrade. Do you get that, or not?
 
Howard said:
Considering we don't know what the outcome would have been if we had done otherwise, we can't really say for sure we did the right thing. I'd still like to see a larger sample size.
Click to expand...
I can say that the goal should be to have the best guys at a position in the league. We have the best wings in the league. I think we accomplished the goal.
Im confident we did the right thing.

(And I was confident not adding a wing was the right thing to do last summer to fwiw. No hindsight then)
 
dalamon said:
what's a small sample size? the advanced stats aren't.


His scoring and stats coming out of P&Rs (for one) stretch back to last season, when he started coming onto the scene.


Trust me, the likes of Carlisle aren't gonna come out here and call the two the best young wing tandem in the league for some flash-in-the-pan player. Unless you know something Rick Carlisle doesn't.
Click to expand...

I like Hood. I think he's a good starter right now. I'd like to see him do it for longer, that's all. Carlisle is a great coach, and I respect his opinion a lot, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with everything he's said.

Right now Hood has played well for as long as he's played bad. So which is the real Hood? Somewhere in the middle? The good? The bad? I'm an optimistic fan, so of course I'm going to think and hope it's the good, but I can't know for sure. That's what I mean when I say he has a small sample size.
 
Howard said:
Are you dense?

But naw, let's take this one year of Matthews and give it more weight than his past. Let's ignore that Burks is a low IQ player who sucks at defense. Let's ignore that we could use some perimeter defense and 3-pt shooting. Anyways, you're missing the point (again). Matthews is close enough to Burks, that it's ok, IMO. Then we trade Burks and hopefully upgrade another position, leading to an overall team upgrade. Do you get that, or not?
Click to expand...

Wait so we need perimeter D more than we need scoring and versatile offense?

News to me.
 
Howard said:
Are you dense?

But naw, let's take this one year of Matthews and give it more weight than his past. Let's ignore that Burks is a low IQ player who sucks at defense. Let's ignore that we could use some perimeter defense and 3-pt shooting. Anyways, you're missing the point (again). Matthews is close enough to Burks, that it's ok, IMO. Then we trade Burks and hopefully upgrade another position, leading to an overall team upgrade. Do you get that, or not?
Click to expand...
Give me some examples of teams that add expensive free agent talent to a position of strength. Do you not get that?

Seriously, give me some examples of teams doing what you are proposing. Even if they simply traded one of their players at that position the very next year like you suggest the jazz would do.

You probably can't. Maybe you are living in fantasy land.
Or you are just dense.
 
dalamon said:
Wait so we need perimeter D more than we need scoring and versatile offense?

News to me.
Click to expand...

Burks gives us one of those, while being a major weakness at the other.

Matthews would be better overall.

Just my opinion. You can never have too much defense, especially if it improves your shooting.
 
Howard said:
I like Hood. I think he's a good starter right now. I'd like to see him do it for longer, that's all. Carlisle is a great coach, and I respect his opinion a lot, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with everything he's said.

Right now Hood has played well for as long as he's played bad. So which is the real Hood? Somewhere in the middle? The good? The bad? I'm an optimistic fan, so of course I'm going to think and hope it's the good, but I can't know for sure. That's what I mean when I say he has a small sample size.
Click to expand...


No one is saying that he's a 29 ppg player. Obviously he has ebbed and flowed, but there have 100% been constants, which certainly can't be cast away due to "small sample size":


- he is absolute mayhem in the P&R
- he is a great passer for player of his size and position
- his midrange game is superb
- he has good mechanics and fundamentals across every realm of offense, as well as a good IQ with decision-making
- his defense is sound


These are all things that haven't changed at any point in the season. That's why Carlisle is high on him. That's why Zach Lowe is high on him. That's why every intelligent mind in basketball is high on him. He passes every visual test, and the advanced stats are right there with him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top