What's new
By:

Pleiss

Noomskull said:
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.
Click to expand...

Would still rather have Tomic, but if that's not an option, then Pleiss it is. As long as the team has one true backup 5 to give Rudy a break without forcing Favors to always cover at center.
 
dalamon said:
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.
Click to expand...

how many times are you going to resort to the word "stupid" instead of making an actually compelling argument?
 
ouch, just caught up with the thread. Dalaburke got run over in this thread. Then dragged behind the car.
 
NUMBERICA said:
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?
Click to expand...

You seem to fundamentally ignore the point that not playing any PGs as backups to Exum means Burks having to play a majority of his minutes there. Is playing 70% of Burks' minutes at the 1 offensively (and defensively) better than having him play mostly at the 2? Is playing Hood less minutes better for our offense than playing Carroll?

This is more about signing Carroll and its negative ramifications on the roles of two of the most promising young wings in the NBA this coming season-- as opposed to robbing the playing time of Burke and Ingles. Both players are competent back-ups, and both can have their contributions easily overtaken by other promising players on the roster later in the season if they blow it. NBA teams don't roll 12 deep.

NUMBERICA said:
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.
Click to expand...

See above. Our offense has much more potential by giving lots of playing time to multiple playmakers with versatile scoring repertoires than giving it to a true SF when we already have a damn good one to begin with.

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

Or because of the fact that playing 70% of Alec's minutes at the 1 would be stupid, and it would neuter the huge contributions he could have with the team next season.
 
NAOS said:
ouch, just caught up with the thread. Dalaburke got run over in this thread. Then dragged behind the car.
Click to expand...

NAOSpergers with a stellar 'contribution' in this thread, instead of 'making a compelling argument'.
 
I will eat my ****ing shoe if the Jazz offer Carroll a contract, and he signs with the team. It's simply an idea rooted in several echelons of wishful-thinking, and delusion. I know I know, #nobuLLdogNoperimtearD but we might just have to deal with it.
 
dalamon said:
You seem to fundamentally ignore the point that not playing any PGs as backups to Exum means Burks having to play a majority of his minutes there. Is playing 70% of Burks' minutes at the 1 offensively (and defensively) better than having him play mostly at the 2? Is playing Hood less minutes better for our offense than playing Carroll?

This is more about signing Carroll and its negative ramifications on the roles of two of the most promising young wings in the NBA this coming season-- as opposed to robbing the playing time of Burke and Ingles. Both players are competent back-ups, and both can have their contributions easily overtaken by other promising players on the roster later in the season if they blow it. NBA teams don't roll 12 deep.



See above. Our offense has much more potential by giving lots of playing time to multiple playmakers with versatile scoring repertoires than giving it to a true SF when we already have a damn good one to begin with.



Or because of the fact that playing 70% of Alec's minutes at the 1 would be stupid, and it would neuter the huge contributions he could have with the team next season.
Click to expand...

The statement preceding bold makes it moot. If Alec plays 20 min at the 1 then there would still be 28-30 min for Hood at the 2/3. You should just argue what you really want to. That Trey is Black Jesus.
 
backpedal.gif
 
dalamon said:
I will eat my ****ing shoe if the Jazz offer Carroll a contract, and he signs with the team. It's simply an idea rooted in several echelons of wishful-thinking, and delusion. I know I know, #nobuLLdogNoperimtearD but we might just have to deal with it.
Click to expand...

Lolo, boi. That's right, I said we had no perimeter D. Like, zero. That's what I said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top