What's new
By:

Obtaining a floor-spreading big

Broncster said:
Who are the teams that have a good stretch big that's forcing us to have one as well? I think a lot of teams that go small-ball with a stretch 4 or a stretch big are teams that dont have a good center or PF that can do other things. They are simply playing to their strengths as we should. We have an excellent Center and PF in Favors and Gobert, we should focus around those players. Favors can "stretch"/"space" the floor just fine with his mid range jumper and his ability to slash to the rim which requires defenders to stay with him. Gobert is developing that mid range jumper that will make players step out on him but also requires attention since he rebounds so well offensively. Those two are going to beat down players on the inside if they try to go small stretch players. We also will dominate the boards giving good perimeter players lots of opportunities to score. Having great interior defenders allows our wings and pg to play very aggressive on defense on the perimeter.

Trevor Booker shot a better percentage from 3 than than Draymond Green, should we put him in as starter over Favors so he can "stretch the floor?" If GS had Favors and Gobert they would start those two and be an even better team.
Click to expand...

Woah, hang on. I'm not talking about replacing or reducing minutes for Favors or Gobert and I'm not talking about starting anyone else. I tried to elaborate in the OP that we're not needing a stretch big because that's the trend but because it adds diversity to our team. Currently we have diverse choices of players from positions 1-3. We have Hood and Hayward who are reliable deep shooters, but we still lack outside shooting. Many people have advocated adding wings that can shoot under the belief that somehow we can add another wing and still have minutes for everyone. I've fought against this false notion. Our bigs rotation, however, has room to add players that would bring diverse skill sets. To paraphrase dala, it's not so important to go from the 5th best defense to the first as it is to go from an offense in the late 20s to one in the teens. This has nothing to do with taking minutes away from Gobert or Favors. It's taking minutes away from Pleiss and Lyles. I'm all for giving people a chance to see what they can do but we lack depth up front behind our starting lineup and if Gobert of Favors goes down with an injury this is going to be exposed. As we are still short on outside shooting, there's only one place in the roster we can add someone who could get minutes without it affecting anyone else's playing time and that's the backup big man spot (unless people really have their heart set on Pleiss and Lyles getting those minutes).
 
Why not just have Favors develop his three point shot?

Why do we have to go over this over and over again? The 3 point shot is not that hard of a shot. Lots of big men can learn how to shoot it. We already went through this with Millsap. A lot of people said he couldn't shoot it. Then what you know, he learns how because he gets the green light.

Favors has nice touch on his jumper. We seen him make a 3 last year.

Favors is going to be our stretch 4. Watch and see. Quin will let him develop it.

I can't believe I'm the only who can see this coming.
 
NUMBERICA said:
PHP:

You're as dense AND obnoxious as I remember.
Click to expand...

You are seriously just describing yourself. Every time you hit someone with one of these insult blasts, it's at the worst possible time.

Beantown is spot on with this one.

You aren't very bright.
 
Hack said:
Why not just have Favors develop his three point shot?

Why do we have to go over this over and over again? The 3 point shot is not that hard of a shot. Lots of big men can learn how to shoot it. We already went through this with Millsap. A lot of people said he couldn't shoot it. Then what you know, he learns how because he gets the green light.

Favors has nice touch on his jumper. We seen him make a 3 last year.

Favors is going to be our stretch 4. Watch and see. Quin will let him develop it.

I can't believe I'm the only who can see this coming.
Click to expand...

I think he has a ton of potential to hit a lot of corner threes.
 
Hack said:
You are seriously just describing yourself. Every time you hit someone with one of these insult blasts, it's at the worst possible time.

Beantown is spot on with this one.

You aren't very bright.
Click to expand...

Beantown, Numberica insults me all the time. I think he has some mental problems, so just ignore him.
 
QS said during the game that their roster was set so we may be looking at the guys we're going to be looking at come end of September.
 
infection said:
I think the only real priority this off-season is being able to pick up a backup 4/5 that can spread the floor and shoot with range. Stretch fours have become all the rage over recent years but I'm not saying this to have a token stretch four. The way our team is presently constituted, our biggest need is both shooting and having a reliable player to come off the bench that can play 4 or 5 and preferably both (and not some guy who's 6'7" that we pretend is a center). To complement Favors and Gobert, we need someone who's more offensive-minded or who at least is a shooting threat. Defense isn't as important. I really liked the idea of Spencer Hawes but he ended up in Charlotte. During that discussion people talked about drafting Kaminsky, which I thought would have been ideal, but alas. I'm still somewhat disappointed that we exchanged Kanter for a bag of Cheetos. It would have been nice to at least get a decent rotation player for him like Ilyasova who was sent out as a salary dump.

That being said, there may be a few guys out there who may or may not be obtainable. Some of these guys aren't very good, but I believe their value to our team is much increased by being able to help our offense function more efficiently and open up the floor for other players. As we also have a lot of assets, I believe it's time to go into competition mode. If we're going into next season with the only big guys on the bench being Booker, Pleiss, Lyles and Cooley, then we're not looking to compete. We would not be able to survive at any competitive level if Favors or Gobert were out for any period of time.

A number of people I'm not sure what their status is but I'll just mention all possibilities from top to bottom:

I think Ryan Anderson would be ideal. With the new cap jump his contract is probably pretty reasonable so I doubt NO looks to move him. Kelly Olynyk would be an excellent pickup and has good size. Josh McRoberts plays a small role and I believe I've periodically heard rumblings about him being moved. Probably an unpopular choice and may be overpriced, but I'm a little curious about Andrea Bargnani as I haven't heard anything about him this off-season. I don't think he's a guy you build around but I think he could play a pretty solid and important role complementing Favors/Gobert. I've heard reports of Channing Frye and his contract being something needed for a dump, but I'm not sure how that stands after seeing all the deals this summer. Getting further down the list, what's the status of Chris Kaman's corpse? A guy that I actually wished we had played more when he was with us was Steve Novak. Despite his deficiencies elsewhere, the fact that he can shoot threes at an elite level I thought was worthy for a bit more burn on a team that lacks shooting. And, the last one I can think of that I really wouldn't mind signing is Mr. Red Rocket himself, Matt Bonner.

tl;dr we need a backup center/pseudocenter and preferably a floor-spacing one. The guys we have won't cut it.
Click to expand...

Bargnani has always sucked, believe me you do not want him, I saw enough of him here in Toronto! I repeat you do not want Bargnani. He is a bust. I do agree with you, I like Ryan Anderson also, I wanted the jazz to get him for awhile now. I fear however, that we don't have a spot on our roster for him now.
 
The problem with the majority of the guys the OP has mentioned (and who are obtainable) is they can't guard a cardboard cutout on the other end. What good does it do to have a stretch-4 who may hit 40% of his shots, but gives up easy opportunities on the other end? Sorry, it's a myth that Rudy can cover for them. Yes, Gobert (or Favors) slides over to stop the player who has just flown by Novak, Hawes, etc. and leaves his man wide open for a pass and dunk.

The key term is "3 AND D," not "3 and who cares about the D." Great defense means having FIVE players who are good on defense. If there is one weak link, team defense falls apart.
 
Stifle Tower said:
The problem with the majority of the guys the OP has mentioned (and who are obtainable) is they can't guard a cardboard cutout on the other end. What good does it do to have a stretch-4 who may hit 40% of his shots, but gives up easy opportunities on the other end? Sorry, it's a myth that Rudy can cover for them. Yes, Gobert (or Favors) slides over to stop the player who has just flown by Novak, Hawes, etc. and leaves his man wide open for a pass and dunk.

The key term is "3 AND D," not "3 and who cares about the D." Great defense means having FIVE players who are good on defense. If there is one weak link, team defense falls apart.
Click to expand...

I agree.

This desperation for a stretch 4 is stupid.

Why not just have an elite defense like we have, and hold opponents to league lows. Then we don't need to score as much. Bring in the stretch 4, then we aren't as good defensively. Then we really need those points from the stretch 4, which won't always be there. The defense most likely will be.

Besides all that. Favors will be shooting threes. Problem solved.

This conversation is pointless.
 
What it sounds like people are saying is that the minutes a Hawes, McRoberts or Olynyk take from a Pleiss, Booker or Lyles will significantly impair our defense. Is this right?
 
If OKC releases Novak would anyone want him back?
Might take him over Cooley as the #15 guy on roster just cause he is an elite shooter and mentor for other big guys.
 
slc said:
If OKC releases Novak would anyone want him back?
Might take him over Cooley as the #15 guy on roster just cause he is an elite shooter and mentor for other big guys.
Click to expand...
So a guy who didn't play at all last season because he couldn't guard anybody is an upgrade over Cooley? How may times down the court is he going to be that "elite" shooter. Maybe 1 in 3 times he gets am open shot and makes it 40% of the time, right?

Now, how many times does he have to defend on the other end? Every time! And his opponent easily beats him causing everyone to shift and scramble resulting in an open shot - whether that's Novak's original cover or someone else.

I'm not saying we shouldn't bring in a "stretch-4." But that player better be able to play good defense on the other end. Otherwise it's a net liability. Haven't we learned that from guys like Boozer, Big Al and Kanter?
 
Stifle Tower said:
How may times down the court is he going to be that "elite" shooter. Maybe 1 in 3 times he gets am open shot and makes it 40% of the time, right?

Now, how many times does he have to defend on the other end? Every time!
Click to expand...

Not to imply that Novak would be an ideal or someone I'd want to see playing a lot, but for the sake of argument the question you should be asking isn't how many times down the floor he'll be connecting from deep but how many times down the floor will the defender have to follow him out deep. In this sense, one's value isn't necessarily directly proportional to the amount of points they're scoring off of threes.
 
infection said:
Not to imply that Novak would be an ideal or someone I'd want to see playing a lot, but for the sake of argument the question you should be asking isn't how many times down the floor he'll be connecting from deep but how many times down the floor will the defender have to follow him out deep. In this sense, one's value isn't necessarily directly proportional to the amount of points they're scoring off of threes.
Click to expand...
And how many times down the floor is he a complete liability on defense? 100%!
 
Stifle Tower said:
And how many times down the floor is he a complete liability on defense? 100%!
Click to expand...

And if your 15th man has an elite ability that can be used situationally then you could do a whole lot worse. Sure, you could get a 15th man who has a little bit better defense at the sacrifice of an elite skill but what's the point?
 
I can't understand why people are against the the idea of stretch-4 for when we are desperately trying to create 2 stretch-4s from career %60 FT shooters.
 
Hekate said:
I can't understand why people are against the the idea of stretch-4 for when we are desperately trying to create 2 stretch-4s from career %60 FT shooters.
Click to expand...
Are we trying to develop stretch-4's? I think the objective is to have the Jazz be a top defensive team while improving the offense. I've never heard Quin say Favors' role is going to be shooting 3's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top