Should the Jazz Punt Game 2?

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Then add to that trying to defend the statement that being down 0-2 is no big deal. I'll tell you what would be a big deal to me: Discovering that DM is willing to miss a playoff game over a stubbed toe.

Turf toe took George Hill from being a border-line All-Star to a lower tier starter. It's nothing to sneeze at.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Also - no one is questioning Donovan's toughness, or desire to play. I posted myself in the game thread about how wonderful it was seeing him so determined to get back in the game after Quin pulled him. It's great.

But it's silly to think the front office and coaching staff aren't considering things from a slightly more emotionally removed strategic vantage point.

You are one of the few reasonable people to post here.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Punting comes from football where it literally means to give up on a scoring opportunity to give the ball back to the other team. You can hardly blame others for your imprecise language if giving up scoring a win isnt what you meant by punting on game 2.

The other team might fumble the punt on the return, they might commit a penalty like running into the kicker, etc. The point is that a series, like a football game, is a long game that isnt completely dependent on a single possession in the first half of the game. Giving up would be taking a knee.

Like, is Donovan's injury a 4th and 15 on our side of the field? Is it a 4th and 1 on the opponents 45 yard line? IDK, but that is why I asked the hypothetical question.

People are freaking out about it because either they are idiots, they dislike me so they will take any opportunity they can to attempt to clown me, or both.

And again, we saw this literal decision and thought process in real time in game 1 TWICE.

 

[JFFR]

Should MJ have sat out of Game 5? He had the flu/food poisoning. He could have gotten dehydrated and died! That would have really put them back for game 6.

 

[str8line]

I've seen Tony Jones and Andy Larsen say he's fine and will almost certainly play. We're talking about a stubbed toe. Rudy came back after a fricking knee injury last year and we're talking about holding Donovan out for a bruise. Come on man. The Jazz training staff will of course determine if he is able to go, or not. Punting has nothing to do with it.

Is it the same toe he jammed earlier this year?

 

[gomretat]

I think he will play but unlike others, I think it is a legit question to ask. In some cases having someone at full strength and 100% in game 3 is better than 75% two games in a row. In this series I don't think we come back from a 2-0 deficit - even though we have not lost at home.

 

[Gameface]

Yea, but the whole point is to gain better field position. You aren't just giving up on scoring because you decided you don't care about it at the moment.

If the nature of Donovan's injury were such that resting five days would bring him back to 100%, but he would be stuck at 70% or lower continuously, until having that 5 days rest, it would be worth considering the potential that getting him back strong for the final 5 games equates to better "field position". You still hope you can beat the Thunder tomorrow, regardless.

I don't understand what about the above line of thinking is so outrageous to people. It's a pretty straightforward cost-benefit analysis question, and it shouldn't be so controversial -- especially since no one is even advocating for him resting.

Because in this situation it would be like punting from the 50 yard line on 2nd down with 7 yards to the first down. That's what's so outrageous about it.

 

[Gameface]

I think he will play but unlike others, I think it is a legit question to ask. In some cases having someone at full strength and 100% in game 3 is better than 75% two games in a row. In this series I don't think we come back from a 2-0 deficit - even though we have not lost at home.

Keeping donovan out if he's injured and might further injure himself is not at all the same thing as "punting."

I'm pretty sure all of us agree, if Donovan is hurt and cannot be effective in the game and/or playing will extend or worsen the injury or increase the likelihood of another more serious injury, then he sits out. There's no discussion to be had there. We all agree on that point.

What 90%+ of us also agree on is that if the above is not the case then Donovan should play, even through some pain, even if it means he'll have a little pain in game 3 and 4.

If he's not running right, sit him. If it's more than a bruise that hurts a little and it needs rest in order to heal, sit him. If during practice the medical team thinks there is a concern and that playing could lead to a more serious injury and resting could mean recovery in time for game 3, sit him. Otherwise, players play. Donovan should play. All signs point to Donovan playing.

Should we have a discussion about what would happen in the NBA brought soccer balls to the game instead of basketballs? I mean that's how pointless this discussion is.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Keeping donovan out if he's injured and might further injure himself is not at all the same thing as "punting."

I'm pretty sure all of us agree, if Donovan is hurt and cannot be effective in the game and/or playing will extend or worsen the injury or increase the likelihood of another more serious injury, then he sits out. There's no discussion to be had there. We all agree on that point.

What 90%+ of us also agree on is that if the above is not the case then Donovan should play, even through some pain, even if it means he'll have a little pain in game 3 and 4.

If he's not running right, sit him. If it's more than a bruise that hurts a little and it needs rest in order to heal, sit him. If during practice the medical team thinks there is a concern and that playing could lead to a more serious injury and resting could mean recovery in time for game 3, sit him. Otherwise, players play. Donovan should play. All signs point to Donovan playing.

Should we have a discussion about what would happen in the NBA brought soccer balls to the game instead of basketballs? I mean that's how pointless this discussion is.

Yes it is. Why do you punt? Because you are at a disadvantage that isnt wise to test (like being in a long 4th down situation on your side of the field). That is analogous to having your leading scorer injured. Like all analogies, there isnt 1:1 perfect symmetry, but you have to be an ******* to act like there should be and bitch about it.

People are just being willfully stupid to argue with me. You just went through the entire thought process behind this thread and said it was valid, but then said it was pointless to talk about because the team is going to do what's best. Then why are you on a sports forum? If all you want to do is post "Go Jazz!" then you dont have to open this thread.

Every discussion on here is ultimately pointless, but we still have them. The longest thread on the site every season is the draft thread, where we talk about who we would draft. The Jazz have never listened to us and they end up drafting who they think is best, so it's all ultimately pointless.

 

[Ron Mexico]

Lol this analogy is getting way out there.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

My concern here is the long term... if this is something that affects him long term and playing makes that worse then sit him... I don’t think it is that type of injury. If he’s 75% now and can play through it is unlikely 2-3 more days gets him to 100%.

He likely isn’t 100% healed in the next week or two... so if he can go he should. Random stuff is going to happen and we need to take every chance we can to get a win. What if he comes back 100% for game 3 and Westbrook goes bananas in that game... we will lose. OKC has two guys that can individually win them a game and there is very little we can do to slow them down when they are on.

 

[radiohegel]

Lol this analogy is getting way out there.

The whole thread has turned into a discussion on the semantics of football analogies. Anyone want to bring another sport into the conversation?