What's new
By:

Name the 5 starters and

Pg. Exum/Burke
Sg. Burks/Hood
Sf. Hayward/Hood/Burks
Pf. Favors/Booker/Ingles
C. Gobert/Favors/Booker

Love the versatility of the different lineups we can have in this roster. A few notes.

1. I don't want Burks playing pg. I want him in attack mode at all times.
2. I'd like the Jazz to turn Ingles into a full time stretch 4. I think his body has room to take on more weight. If he can do this it takes away his biggest weakness and makes it a strength (lack of speed) this makes him as quick or quicker then most of the guys he'd guard and turns him into more of a situational player who can also be that point forward.
3. If Green for golden state can play C why not our Booker.
 
NAOS said:
it's not about "lead guard" or "point guard" or whatever. The point is that you'll see plenty of the combo of Burks, Hood, and Hayward on the floor at the same time. That's why "1" was in scarequotes.
Click to expand...

Opposing teams would salivate, as Burks gets buried in screens/gets caught sleeping on D while opposing PGs zip around. Highly highly doubt seeing any extensive PG minutes for Burks whatsoever.


Also, would bet my life that the Jazz won't go after Carroll this offseason.
 
Exum/Burke
Hood/Burks (interchangeable)
Hayward/______
Favors/Booker
Gobert/_______

Two glaring roster holes. Will Ingles and Millsap give us the shooting we need at the backup 3? Their defense is competent enough. Getting Rudy a backup is priority #1 for this team. We simply cannot risk the dude's health. Idgaf if it's Pleiss, or we fill it with the draft pick-- get the man a back up.


Next off-season we can look at our pieces, and make splashes in FA depending on if we have any weaknesses (like PG play, if Exum and Burke don't develop ).
 
Dr. Jones said:
Fine.. (let's only go two deep on the depth chart, please)

PG - Exum / Burke
SG - Hood / Burks
SF - Hayward / Hood
PF - Favors / Booker
C - Gobert / Favors

Where would you disagree?
Click to expand...

I think Burks likely starts. Hood said he'd come off the bench, so that solves the problem. I think Hood is a better fit playing with the starters, though. He's really the only gunner we have. Hayward and Burks are just adequate 3PT shooters and hopefully Exum comes back improved, but Hood is the only one capable of hitting 40%+ on his 3's.

The problem we have is STILL Burke. Pair him up with Burks and Alec doesn't get to drive. Pair him with Rodney and Hood would barely get to shoot. Trey needs to be traded to make way for Hood OR Burks to head up the 2nd unit. Either one is MUCH more efficient than Burke.
 
dalamon said:
I would kill a man to bring Ante Tomic to this team
Click to expand...

What good will that do? A man will be dead and Tomic will still be with his current team. And you'll be some guys bitch in prison and Trey black Jesus Burk will lose all his savior like powers as there will be no one left to worship him.....

So by all means killing a man to get Tomic in is what's best for this team. :)
 
dalamon said:
Opposing teams would salivate, as Burks gets buried in screens/gets caught sleeping on D while opposing PGs zip around. Highly highly doubt seeing any extensive PG minutes for Burks whatsoever.
Click to expand...

You just wrote the bio for most of our perimeter defenders, bro. Hood has these qualities in spades. Your boi Burke has them too, if he doesn't just give up. I'll watch at least see 40 games of a healthy Burks under coach Q before I say anything like you just wrote.

dalamon said:
Also, would bet my life....
Click to expand...

very interested in any wager on these terms.
 
Stifle Tower said:
I think Burks likely starts. Hood said he'd come off the bench, so that solves the problem. I think Hood is a better fit playing with the starters, though. He's really the only gunner we have. Hayward and Burks are adequate 3PT shooters and hopefully Exum comes back improved.

The problem we have is STILL Burke. Pair him up with Burks and Alec doesn't get to drive. Pair him with Rodney and Hood would barely get to shoot. Trey needs to be traded to make way for Hood OR Burks to head up the 2nd unit. Either one is MUCH more efficient than Burke.
Click to expand...

Burke has literally accepted every role given to him, AND he played in the same games where Rodney controlled the rock extensively in 4th quarters.

He doesn't need to ball-dominate, so long as he develops a three-point shot. That, and working on his fast-breaks are my two big hopes with him (along with the obvious-- finishing at the rim).
 
NAOS said:
You just wrote the bio for most of our perimeter defenders, bro. Hood has these qualities in spades. Your boi Burke has them too, if he doesn't just give up. I'll watch at least see 40 games of a healthy Burks under coach Q before I say anything like you just wrote.
Click to expand...

Which is why I don't want Hood guarding PGs either. I get what you're saying, and in principle Burks should have the range to annoy PGs a la Exum, but I have my strong doubts. Regardless, i think we should be parsimonious with the roles of our players-- sure, if Hood and Burks are both playing well, you can roll them both out. Many of our players can play 2 positions, which is important. With that said, preemptively assigning Burks a role as a 1 seems rather rash.



very interested in any wager on these terms.
Click to expand...

Just give up dude-- way too much money in a year where have a better player at the 3, and we aren't even gearing for a deep playoff run,
 
dalamon said:
Which is why I don't want Hood guarding PGs either. I get what you're saying, and in principle Burks should have the range to annoy PGs a la Exum, but I have my strong doubts. Regardless, i think we should be parsimonious with the roles of our players-- sure, if Hood and Burks are both playing well, you can roll them both out. Many of our players can play 2 positions, which is important. With that said, preemptively assigning Burks a role as a 1 seems rather rash.
Click to expand...

So you don't think we'll see a lot of Burks, Hood, and Hayward on the floor at the same time. Ok. That means that you still see Burke as a sixth man, and either Hood or Burks as the 7th (whomever doesn't start, obvi). That's pretty funny.

Oh.. and Burke suxxxx at D, so.......



dalamon said:
Just give up dude-- way too much money in a year where have a better player at the 3, and we aren't even gearing for a deep playoff run,
Click to expand...

DeMarre can play alongside Hayward. I care little whether you call one of them a "2" and the other a "3" or vice versa. Q don't care either. Start them both. This is a perfect offseason to spend, and we lack a player with DeMarre's impact.

I wonder, are we're gearing for an early and unceremonious ending to the season???

Get talent.
 
Dr. Jones said:
I don't see Burks playing point/lead guard more than a few times for very limited minutes. Will be interesting to see.
Click to expand...

This. Why do people keep calling Burks a PG? Where did this idea come from? He isn't a PG. He will never be a PG. He is a SG. He is a solid SG. Why move him from being a solid SG to a ****ty PG?

I don't get this line of thinking. Makes no sense.
 
Dr. Jones said:
So in order of importance, it seems we need;

1) Either a backup C or a stretch 4.
2) Better shooting from the wings.
3) More veteran leadership/playmaking at PG.

Looks like our best trade bait without giving up tooo much is Burks.
Click to expand...

Is Burks worth anything? I think his contract makes him pretty untradable right now.
 
green said:
This. Why do people keep calling Burks a PG? Where did this idea come from? He isn't a PG. He will never be a PG. He is a SG. He is a solid SG. Why move him from being a solid SG to a ****ty PG?

I don't get this line of thinking. Makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Do you think we'll see plenty of minutes with Hood, Burks, and Hayward on the floor at the same time? Why or why not?
 
dalamon said:
Exum/Burke
Hood/Burks (interchangeable)
Hayward/______
Favors/Booker
Gobert/_______

Two glaring roster holes. Will Ingles and Millsap give us the shooting we need at the backup 3? Their defense is competent enough. Getting Rudy a backup is priority #1 for this team. We simply cannot risk the dude's health. Idgaf if it's Pleiss, or we fill it with the draft pick-- get the man a back up.


Next off-season we can look at our pieces, and make splashes in FA depending on if we have any weaknesses (like PG play, if Exum and Burke don't develop ).
Click to expand...

I think our only hole is backup 5. You can have three players play the 2 and 3 spots. Hayward and Hood can play the two or three. Hayward, Hood and Burks can each get 30 mins. They have Millsap and Ingles have 2-3 mins each. I really like our 2/3 rotation right now.
 
NAOS said:
Do you think we'll see plenty of minutes with Hood, Burks, and Hayward on the floor at the same time? Why or why not?
Click to expand...

I don't think we will see a lot of all three on the floor at the same time.

I dunno. Maybe we will, but I think we'd see them at the 2, 3, and 4 instead of the 1, 2, and 3. I still think Utah brings in another PG

I think Exum's mins go up and I think Burke takes a big step forward not having to shoulder the scoring load.

That being said, I can't wait for summer league to see Exum. I want to see this new and improved kid. If he has any aggression to his game...

Here is to hoping.
 
green said:
I don't think we will see a lot of all three on the floor at the same time.

I dunno. Maybe we will, but I think we'd see them at the 2, 3, and 4 instead of the 1, 2, and 3. I still think Utah brings in another PG

I think Exum's mins go up and I think Burke takes a big step forward not having to shoulder the scoring load.

That being said, I can't wait for summer league to see Exum. I want to see this new and improved kid. If he has any aggression to his game...

Here is to hoping.
Click to expand...

Would you mind putting together a depth chart with these pieces and estimating their average minutes? Dal, you too?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top