Pleiss

[Coach Ellis]

Here's a quick sketch of how the minutes might be distributed, on average.

Exum (25) / Burks (20)
Carroll (30) / Burks (10) / Hood (8)
Hayward (30) / Hood (18)
Favors (25) / Booker (20) / Lyles (3, and increasing)
Gobert (32) / Favors (7) / Pleiss (9)

If the Jazz wanted to add Carroll, this is how I'd see the average minutes stacking up. While the numbers would vary nightly, this is essentially getting the bulk of the minutes to the starters, top 4 reserves and then some of the young players who need experience to develop.

1 (48 minutes) - Exum (24), Burks (20), Burke/Cotton/Hanlan (4)

2/3 (96 minutes) - Hayward (30), Carroll (30), Hood (24), Burks (8), Jingles/Millsap (4)

4/5 (96 minutes) - Favors (30), Gobert (30), Booker (16), Lyles (12), Pleiss (8)

Playoff rotation (top 9 players) of Exum, Burks, Hood, Hayward, Carroll, Booker, Lyles, Favors and Gobert. Maybe swap some of Booker's minutes to Jingles if the other team goes with a lot of small-ball lineups.

 

[♪alt13]

Wait, are you saying that the rest of the board do not want to trade trey? I'm going to have to say you are way off on that one

No I"m saying that most of the board seems to think that Trey can handle PG better than Alec can. Also I should have included you in that list that thinks otherwise.

 

[fishonjazz]

No I"m saying that most of the board seems to think that Trey can handle PG better than Alec can. Also I should have included you in that list that thinks otherwise.

Oh I see.
For that I have no idea but I would like to find out!

 

[Maneesh]

No it does not. I want to see him get more than 2-3 minutes as well but the Jazz can take it slower with Lyles. Get him ready for the next 2-3 seasons when he is the premiary back up at PF and is logging a heavier load.

Jazz are loaded with young talent at every position now. Time is now on their side.

You cant develop players play 2-3 minutes? WHAT IS THIS?????

 

[NUMBERICA]

Exum (28)/Burke (15)/Burks (5)
Hood (28)/ Burks (20)
Hayward (32)/Ingles(16)

The cake-baking lineup.

That cake has a lot of corn syrup in it. You'd rather give 30 minutes to Burke/Ingles than have Carroll and just let our wing ballhandlers pick up the slack in the second unit? Why?

 

[Deleted member 848]

keep strumming that tune, boi. You may want to watch some Hawks basketball soon, though.... or you can continue sounding like a fool instead.... if you want.

Was talking about Burks-- get some reading comp, boi.

 

[NUMBERICA]

Exum/
---------/Burks
Hayward/
---------/Hood
Carroll/
(Favors/Booker/Carroll?)
Who plays "2" and who plays "3" is the wrong question. Who is "PG" and who is strictly an off-ball player/wing is the wrong question. It comes down to skillset and matchups, and whoever is doing best for whatever reason in a game gets rewarded with more minutes. If the other team has a lightning quick wing (and quicker than their own point guard), then maybe you defend him with Exum. If the opposing team has a bruiser for a wing, put Carroll on him, and if they don't, then great. And if the Jazz just can't find a matchup on the perimeter defensively that they don't have a precise answer for, they have Favors and Gobert. There will be opportunities for Carroll to get his minutes as a small-ball 4 if/when the situation calls for it. With that 5-man rotation on the perimeter, the Jazz would ALWAYS have a MINIMUM of two ballhandlers on the floor at all times and USUALLY have at least one top tier defensive player, often two.

Why anyone would want to give significant minutes to Jingles and Burke when they could possibly plug in a Carroll or Green is mystifying to me.

 

[Deleted member 848]

That cake has a lot of corn syrup in it. You'd rather give 30 minutes to Burke/Ingles than have Carroll and just let our wing ballhandlers pick up the slack in the second unit? Why?

Because addressing our offensive woes (we were 25th in the league) is as of now much, much more important than our defensive woes.

Burks and Hood, if given roles where they best succeed in this offense, will give much more offensive diversity in a wider range of roles and positions than Carroll ever could. Carroll can gun threes, great-- Burks and Hood can both do more. The only way Demarre is coming to Utah is if he's promised a ****-ton of minutes (at the expense of players on this squad who have higher ceilings) and his contract costs a ****-ton, stretched over an extensive period of time. Why on earth are we doing this when we have an extensive amount of evidence that our perimeter D post-ASB was good, and yet our offense still wasn't?

Stunting the development, and giving strange roles to players we're investing a ton in purely for the sake of "having a bulldog" is simply stupidity, in my opinion. Burke's and Joe's minutes can both be taken away by multiple players on this roster who've shown potential to have NBA-level games themselves, along with playing good minutes in winning games last season.

 

[Deleted member 848]

Exum/
---------/Burks
Hayward/
---------/Hood
Carroll/
(Favors/Booker/Carroll?)
Who plays "2" and who plays "3" is the wrong question. Who is "PG" and who is strictly an off-ball player/wing is the wrong question. It comes down to skillset and matchups, and whoever is doing best for whatever reason in a game gets rewarded with more minutes. If the other team has a lightning quick wing (and quicker than their own point guard), then maybe you defend him with Exum. If the opposing team has a bruiser for a wing, put Carroll on him, and if they don't, then great. And if the Jazz just can't find a matchup on the perimeter defensively that they don't have a precise answer for, they have Favors and Gobert. There will be opportunities for Carroll to get his minutes as a small-ball 4 if/when the situation calls for it. With that 5-man rotation on the perimeter, the Jazz would ALWAYS have a MINIMUM of two ballhandlers on the floor at all times and USUALLY have at least one top tier defensive player, often two.

Why anyone would want to give significant minutes to Jingles and Burke when they could possibly plug in a Carroll or Green is mystifying to me.

1) A team 25th in offense without any superstar offensive players giving a contract to the incredibly-inversatile Danny Green would be a bad decision, plain and simple. With our PG play being as anemic as it is, the last thing we want is giving up Burks, Hood, and PG minutes to play a dude who simply parks his *** in the corner, and can't put the ball on the floor to save his life.
2) If a team has a bruiser for a wing, we can put Hayward on him cuz guess what-- it ****ing worked last season. End of story.
3) We have three power-forwards currently on the roster that are fully deserving of minutes-- and Hayward makes for a much more scary small-ball 4 than Carroll. Shift Hood to the 3, Burks at the 2, whoever at the 1.

With Carroll on the roster we are reducing the amount of players by 1 on the court who can create their own offense, and facilitate the offense of others-- which is of HUGE ****ing importance when we're TWENTY FIFTH IN THE NBA IN OFFENSE

 

[NUMBERICA]

Because addressing our offensive woes (we were 25th in the league) is as of now much, much more important than our defensive woes.

Burks and Hood, if given roles where they best succeed in this offense, will give much more offensive diversity in a wider range of roles and positions than Carroll ever could. Carroll can gun threes, great-- Burks and Hood can both do more. The only way Demarre is coming to Utah is if he's promised a ****-ton of minutes (at the expense of players on this squad who have higher ceilings) and his contract costs a ****-ton, stretched over an extensive period of time. Why on earth are we doing this when we have an extensive amount of evidence that our perimeter D post-ASB was good, and yet our offense still wasn't?

Stunting the development, and giving strange roles to players we're investing a ton in purely for the sake of "having a bulldog" is simply stupidity, in my opinion. Burke's and Joe's minutes can both be taken away by multiple players on this roster who've shown potential to have NBA-level games themselves, along with playing good minutes in winning games last season.

Who said this was strictly about defense? Carroll is a better offensive option than Burke and Ingles by a mile. Asking ballhandlers to handle the ball is bizarre?

 

[NUMBERICA]

1) A team 25th in offense without any superstar offensive players giving a contract to the incredibly-inversatile Danny Green would be a bad decision, plain and simple. With our PG play being as anemic as it is, the last thing we want is giving up Burks, Hood, and PG minutes to play a dude who simply parks his *** in the corner, and can't put the ball on the floor to save his life.
2) If a team has a bruiser for a wing, we can put Hayward on him cuz guess what-- it ****ing worked last season. End of story.
3) We have three power-forwards currently on the roster that are fully deserving of minutes-- and Hayward makes for a much more scary small-ball 4 than Carroll. Shift Hood to the 3, Burks at the 2, whoever at the 1.

With Carroll on the roster we are reducing the amount of players by 1 on the court who can create their own offense, and facilitate the offense of others-- which is of HUGE ****ing importance when we're TWENTY FIFTH IN THE NBA IN OFFENSE

Backup for a second. Your answer to improving the offense is playing Burke and Ingles? More specifically, your cure to our bad offense is putting a guy on the floor who wants the ball in his hands, is often an unwilling passer, doesn't get to the line, and usually shoots like complete dog-**** without remorse? How does having an off-ball option that converts on good efficiency and taking no more minutes than Burke/Ingles 'stunt' the growth of anybody? It seems to me that the inverse is true.

The only reason Burke should have a spot reserved in the rotation right now is his potential potential.

 

[Noomskull]

Jody Genessy @DJJazzyJody
7-foot-2 center Tibor Pleiss is in town to discuss his future with the Jazz. The fact he's here obviously shows there's mutual interest.