What's new
By:

Official Utah/Minnesota/Philadelphia Pick Watch

infection said:
There's too much of a bias in determining which teams have talent and which don't. If the team is winning, it will be more favorably looked upon as having talent compared to teams that aren't winning (obviously good talent correlates with wins, too, but that relationship is so much muddier than we give it credit for). The late 90s and early 2000s Blazers had some of the most concentrated talent we'd seen in a long time on one roster but they never really did anything. Compare that to the first year of the post-Hayward Jazz and we didn't really have talent at all. The last couple years of the Jazz had more talent than we've ever had, yet we will forget about that because it didn't translate into the desired outcome. To use the Boston cliché again from last year where mid-season people would have said they lacked serious talent, but then magically had good talent when they were in the finals.
Click to expand...
Blazers is an interesting one... cuz the culture there wasn't just not good... it was a full on **** show. They had a VERY talented Lakers team dead to rights before they came back. So I wouldn't say they did nothing. They desperately needed some adults in the room though.
 
fishonjazz said:
Reason I liked it is because talent is the most important part.
Giannis, Lebron, Steph, etc. You have those dudes on your team and even if you had a losing culture prior to acquiring them suddenly you have a winning culture simply by getting one of them dudes. Talent is by far the most important part. Other things matter too but having an MVP caliber player is the first thing you want. Then you build the rest around that mvp caliber player. Having that player by itself isn't simply enough (see luka, and doncic) but having that player is the most important part.
For instance, Durant just got injured. There is a good chance they start losing games now until he comes back. Does that mean that suddenly their culture went from a winning culture to a losing culture and will suddenly switch back to a winning culture when he returns? Does it mean the coach got worse? The clutchness? The coherence, conditioning etc? Of course not. It just means that the team became less talented due to the injury.

Lebron is another example. Cleveland had a losing culture, drafted lebron and suddenly had a winning culture and made the finals, lebron left for miami and suddenly cleveland had a losing culture again, then lebron came back and suddenly they had a winning culture again and won a championship. Talent or lack thereof creates the winning or losing culture a lot of the time.
Click to expand...
First off, the post said "it is all about the talent". It didnt say that talent is the most important factor.. it said that talent is by far most important.

Secondly, to downplay the importance of other aspects is to say that the teams with the most talented top players in the league should win it every year. Sometimes very talented teams dont even survive to the 2nd round. Or in case of Lakers.. might not make the playoffs 2 years in a row.

Giannis, Steph and Lebron have many other aspects besides their obviously otherworldly talent. You can see it by comparing them to their peers. Also are they far superiorly talented compared to Kevin Durant, James Harden, Joel Embiid, Trae Young or many other superstars who either havent won or havent won without one of those 3? No. Yet Durant has had many superteams but only won with Steph. Harden hasnt won anything because he isnt clutch. Trae (the best example) is immensly talented but borderline toxic to good team basketball... up to the point where their roster keeps getting better and better but their performance keeps getting worse and worse. Embiid might not belong there since he really hasnt had a good situation at any point.. and that year when Simmons froze wasnt on him at all.

Hell how many top 5 picks do the Magic currently have? At least 2 #1s in Fultz and Banchero. Both playing good ball. Yet.. they suck at this thing called winning.
 
So Nets pick probably gets alot better, but then we end up getting Philly pick anyway. 25 is probably best case unless Philly has a key injury also.
The pick itself should just be attached to somebody outgoing in the next couple weeks to get upgrades
 
HermanG said:
First off, the post said "it is all about the talent". It didnt say that talent is the most important factor.. it said that talent is by far most important.

Secondly, to downplay the importance of other aspects is to say that the teams with the most talented top players in the league should win it every year. Sometimes very talented teams dont even survive to the 2nd round. Or in case of Lakers.. might not make the playoffs 2 years in a row.

Giannis, Steph and Lebron have many other aspects besides their obviously otherworldly talent. You can see it by comparing them to their peers. Also are they far superiorly talented compared to Kevin Durant, James Harden, Joel Embiid, Trae Young or many other superstars who either havent won or havent won without one of those 3? No. Yet Durant has had many superteams but only won with Steph. Harden hasnt won anything because he isnt clutch. Trae (the best example) is immensly talented but borderline toxic to good team basketball... up to the point where their roster keeps getting better and better but their performance keeps getting worse and worse. Embiid might not belong there since he really hasnt had a good situation at any point.. and that year when Simmons froze wasnt on him at all.

Hell how many top 5 picks do the Magic currently have? At least 2 #1s in Fultz and Banchero. Both playing good ball. Yet.. they suck at this thing called winning.
Click to expand...
Ya you have to draft the right player so orlando hasn't done that yet. Thing is if you dont have the #1 pick then there is a chance you dont even have the chance to draft the steph, lebron, giannis, durant (he belongs in that convo), luka, doncic, etc.
You look at all of the championship teams in history and like 98% of them had an mvp caliber player on the roster. Those guys typically aren't available for trade and aren't available in free agency and if they are they dont typically come to the jazz.
The best (maybe only) way to get a lebron, steph, durant, giannis, luka, doncic type player for the jazz is through the draft. Getting the best pick possible is giving your team the best chance to draft that dude. If you draft one of them dudes then your culture will be just fine they day you draft them even if it sucked before.
 
fishonjazz said:
Ya you have to draft the right player so orlando hasn't done that yet. Thing is if you dont have the #1 pick then there is a chance you dont even have the chance to draft the steph, lebron, giannis, durant (he belongs in that convo), luka, doncic, etc.
You look at all of the championship teams in history and like 98% of them had an mvp caliber player on the roster. Those guys typically aren't available for trade and aren't available in free agency and if they are they dont typically come to the jazz.
The best (maybe only) way to get a lebron, steph, durant, giannis, luka, doncic type player for the jazz is through the draft. Getting the best pick possible is giving your team the best chance to draft that dude. If you draft one of them dudes then your culture will be just fine they day you draft them even if it sucked before.
Click to expand...
Only 1 of those you listed is a #1. Everyone picking #1 those years chose the wrong guy.... and were applauded by making the right choice.. until they werent.

Its a crapshoot. The higher you are the better the odds.. but thats it.

Developing players to maximum potential is just as important as drafting the right guy... who is rarely the #1 according to history.
 
HermanG said:
Only 1 of those you listed is a #1. Everyone picking #1 those years chose the wrong guy.... and were applauded by making the right choice.. until they werent.

Its a crapshoot. The higher you are the better the odds.. but thats it.

Developing players to maximum potential is just as important as drafting the right guy... who is rarely the #1 according to history.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The higher you are the better the odds. That is literally the point being made.
Drafting the right guy is the most important thing (or acquiring the right guy in free agency or a trade. which never ever happens for the jazz). Getting the best odds to draft that guy is what people want. Which makes total sense to me.
 
Not sure what happened to Ant but he only played 10 minutes first half... Pistons up on the wolves by 1 at half. Wolves looked awful without Ant.
 
FrenchJazzFa said:
He did not play much last game too. He may get some issue. Rudy play quite okay, but he is the only one with Reid.
Click to expand...
Pistons went small and after they hit a couple threes Finch subbed Rudy out. That's not a great look.
 
Ant has a sore hip... Pistons up 13. Just when you think the Wolves are figuring **** out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top