What's new
By:

Where does Utah fit in the West?

silesian said:
I think you must have time traveled from 2010 if you think Howard is still a legit NBA star.

This stuff drives me a bit crazy since everyone has a convenient and amorphous definition of "legit star" or "superstar" --some say it must be a person who take over a game offensively, some say a one-dimensional defensive player can be a superstar. Some say that you must be an all-time great to lead a team to a title. Then when someone outside the category wins a title, folks use ex poste facto logic to say "well, they really were a superstar, we just didn't see it until the won a title" or they write exceptions to the rule (Chauncy, Bill Walton, etc). And those who don't win a title, they say it is because they really weren't a superstar after all.

The Kevin Love argument is silly. He led the TWolves to greatness (sarcasm). And if he were co-superstar with LeBron and Kyrie, who could beat them? How does a two-time All NBA second teamer qualify as a superstar in the same category with LeBron, Curry and Durant -- he is nowhere near these guys. One can credibly argue that Love is better than Hayward, but not that he is in a completely separate category.
Click to expand...

You are all over the place with this post. I don't even know where to start.

Hayward is not a star.

Love is a star.

It's that simple. If you want any hope of doing anything, you need a star.

Love can average 25 pts a game. Not many people can do that. No one on the Jazz can do that. Love is a PF that is an elite level rebounder and can stretch the floor with his three point shot.

We HOPE Lyles can do that, and reality is, Lyles will probably never be as good as Love.

Those of you knocking Love...just don't. It doesn't speak well of you.
 
green said:
Hood is the new Burks. I always said Burks ceiling was sixth man of the year. Looks like I may be right.

Hood is so over-rated here. He is a solid starter. Nothing more. Utah needs a starting role wing player now.
Click to expand...

Hood is a starting role wing player. Now if you mean a superstar wing player than sure that is better than Hood and I'd take it. But Hood is a fantastic player.
 
For those of you on the Hood bandwagon, do you realize that he did not improve from year 1 to year 2?

Look at his first year vs his second year, per 36 mins:

15 pts, 1.5 TO's, 1 steal, 3 assists, 4 rebs, 46% 2ptFG, 37% 3pt, 13 FG attempts.
16 pts, 2 TO's, 1 steal, 3 assits, 4 rebs, 47% 2ptFG, 36% 3pt, 14 FG attempts.

Hood's big "improvement" was getting more minutes. Other than that, he is the exact same player.

Expecting him to jump up to a 20 pts a game scorer is silly. It's not realistic. He is what he is. A nice wing player. Much like Burks, he is a great bench guy or a solid starter.
 
green said:
You are all over the place with this post. I don't even know where to start.

Hayward is not a star.

Love is a star.

It's that simple. If you want any hope of doing anything, you need a star.

Love can average 25 pts a game. Not many people can do that. No one on the Jazz can do that. Love is a PF that is an elite level rebounder and can stretch the floor with his three point shot.

We HOPE Lyles can do that, and reality is, Lyles will probably never be as good as Love.

Those of you knocking Love...just don't. It doesn't speak well of you.
Click to expand...

Neither does Love's history. Yes we need a star to carry us to a chip. Yes, Love is a great player. No, Love is not a player capable of carrying Utah to a chip.
 
NAOS said:
Is that proven yet?
Also, what about the injury?

We need help on the perimeter, regardless of Exum. It doesn't need to be a starting-caliber stud, but we need a specialist at the very least.
Click to expand...

The only evidence was have, 1 season, says he is. So it is not set in stone but it is more proven than saying he isn't a good perimeter defender.
 
But how are we supposed to get Love if we also need to max Harrison Barnes? You need to coordinate how this works with PGAB.
 
green said:
For those of you on the Hood bandwagon, do you realize that he did not improve from year 1 to year 2?

Look at his first year vs his second year, per 36 mins:

15 pts, 1.5 TO's, 1 steal, 3 assists, 4 rebs, 46% 2ptFG, 37% 3pt, 13 FG attempts.
16 pts, 2 TO's, 1 steal, 3 assits, 4 rebs, 47% 2ptFG, 36% 3pt, 14 FG attempts.

Hood's big "improvement" was getting more minutes. Other than that, he is the exact same player.

Expecting him to jump up to a 20 pts a game scorer is silly. It's not realistic. He is what he is. A nice wing player. Much like Burks, he is a great bench guy or a solid starter.
Click to expand...

lol at those stats. GTFOutta here. The whole ****ing world has moved on from those simple stats. How many Monsters today, brough?
 
Jazz had a 29 game sampling of the type of defense they could play with Exum's perimeter defense combined with Gobert's interior defense.Pretty damn eyeopening holding opponents to 89ppg. This year without that perimeter defense the Jazz held opponents to 95.9 ppg.
Can the Jazz return towards that 89 ppg they did before.With Exum 21 years old ,stronger and a year of watching and learning NBA defenses from the front row it wouldn't surprise to see the Jazz defense (if healthy) lead the NBA in team defense ,say 92 ppg.
Even finishing #28 in team offense the Jazz had a plus 1.8 in pt.differential.
Jazz were in the top 2 youngest team and the NBA's slowest paced team.Exum was one of the top fastest players in the NBA and if he returns to that ,the Jazz won't be walking up the ball with Hayward and Hood .The ball will be moving up alot faster up the court with Exum bringing it up ,the offense will score more pts. Say 100ppg ,thats 2.3 ppg more.....Now your talking elite ,going from 1.8 to 8 ppg pt differential.
This is what I think why the Jazz are so high on Exum and what they think having him running the show as PG on offense and defense will be.

So what are your thoughts on this , Jazz better on defense and offense, what is the best guess on the pt differential and is this reasonable?
 
The offense could improve by a handful of points per game the very moment Lyndsey decides to actually build out the whole roster. Like, build it for an actual run in the playoffs.

Ingles, Johnson, Pleiss, Burke, and Booker are, with respect to offense, easily upgradable. Look at what Portland did to the middle and end of its roster in a single ****ing offseason. One. And then look what it's getting them right now.

Our offensive ineptitude this year points directly at Lyndsey, and indirectly at everybody else.
 
NAOS said:
it was not a full season.
Click to expand...

And yet it is all we have to go on and it points to him being a great defender on the wing. I am not arguing against picking up a wing defender. I am saying all the evidence we have says that Exum will help address that issue. It'll take more than 1 to have elite perimeter D
 
NAOS said:
it was not a full season.
Click to expand...

And yet it is all we have to go on and it points to him being a great defender on the wing. I am not arguing against picking up a wing defender. I am saying all the evidence we have says that Exum will help address that issue. It'll take more than 1 to have elite perimeter D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top