Where does Utah fit in the West?

[NAOS]

His opinion is that I, fishonjazz, think that trevor booker is the utah jazz 4th or 5th wing player on the jazz.

I think that trevor booker is our 3rd or 4th big.

But ya his opinion of what I think in my own mind is as valid as what my opinion of what I think is. That seems ridiculous to me.

check your pos rep, bish. I meant to type big, but typed wing instead.

And, you said Booker was our 4th or 5th big, which is downright laughable.

 

[Thee Jazz Fan]

Booker is a pretty decent third big if u ask me. Not a great offensive player or defender, but he makes winning plays and sets the attitude and drive for this team. Next year, if still on the team would be the 4th big, and it's thanks to cake baking.

That's right NAOS! I'm one of those idiot cake bakers!!

 

[fishonjazz]

check your pos rep, bish. I meant to type big, but typed wing instead.

And, you said Booker was our 4th or 5th big, which is downright laughable.

i will do a real quick list of 4th wings (like ingles) and 4th bigs (like booker) of those teams.



As for 4th bigs (booker or lyles)

I dont see anywhere that i said 5th big at all. (cause i didn't) And imo for part of the year booker was the third big, then lyles became the third big and booker the 4th big.
I believe withey to be the 5th big btw. probably laughable as well huh?

Oh and btw

Looks like I'm not the only one who thinks booker is the jazz 4th big.

 

[fishonjazz]

And babe says I'm the one who doesn't realize that others have valid opinions.

Yet I post evidence that I never had booker as a 5th big and then find evidence that booker is actually listed as the 4th big for the jazz. Yet I guarantee that naos will never recognize my opinion as valid.

 

[NAOS]

lmao. You said 4th or 5th. The OR is your usage, not mine. And LMFAO at you flashing the online depth chart. Depending on the injury status of Favors or Gobert, Booker was as high as our SECOND big for long stretches. They tried starting him, but his offense fell off a cliff so dramatically that they had to just use him as bench energy (3rd big). Lyles definitely didn't start the year ahead of him on the chart, and even when it was starting to click for him offensively, he had to be pulled for defensive reasons. When Lyles first got the start over Booker, that was for fit reasons, not because he'd earned it. I'd agree that Lyles jumped Booker on the depth chart by the last 15 or so games, but he definitely didn't before then.

But even if you "win" the argument about Lyles over Booker, what have you proven? That the jazz had an untested rookie who struggled for half the season as the 2nd or 3rd big? Is that what you want to win?

Booker was way more to us than a 4th or 5th big. Your efforts here smack of making an apology for the front office.

 

[NAOS]

current depth chart proves fishy's point, guis. Current is fine.

 

[fishonjazz]

lmao. You said 4th or 5th.

Quote where I said that.

I knew you couldn't give me any credit.

I said that that either booker or lyles was our 4th big. (The other would be the third big)

**** you. I'm done

 

[NAOS]

I'm not going to spend any more times on this. Here's one instance that basically functions like an "or"

Compare booker and withey with other teams 4th and 5th bigs.

To this you can add the fact that you're just plowing ahead as though Lyles was ahead of Booker on the depth chart from the tip. And acting like that's a good point to win.

I also liked how you summarized the Thunder's injury problems last year as because of "one dude".

I'm simply having a hard time sorting through your words in this thread. It's up to you to be clearer.

 

[NAOS]

**** you.

problems at Dannon lately, obvi

 

[fishonjazz]

So when I say to compare booker and withey vs other teams 4th or 5th bigs that means that I think booker is a 4th or 5th big?

Most people can figure out that I'm saying that booker is the 4th big and withey the 5th. And to compare booker with other teams 4th bigs and withey against other teams 5th bigs. It seems pretty obvious.


I think most jazz fans understand that the jazz bigs depth chart is favors and Gobert (1 or 2), booker and lyles (3 or 4), and withey and pleiss (5 or 6).

 

[Ron Mexico]

I'm not going to spend any more times on this. Here's one instance that basically functions like an "or"

I would read Booker and Withey as the 4th and 5th big as Booker is the 4th and Withey is the 5th since that is what is implied in the sentence. But it is true that grammatically it could be read as him saying "or". Clearly he has defined that he did not mean "or" and he has Booker higher on the depth chart in comparison to Withey.

 

[NAOS]

So when I say to compare booker and withey vs other teams 4th or 5th bigs that means that I think booker is a 4th or 5th big?

Most people can figure out that I'm saying that booker is the 4th big and withey the 5th. And to compare booker with other teams 4th bigs and withey against other teams 5th bigs. It seems pretty obvious.


I think most jazz fans understand that the jazz bigs depth chart is favors and Gobert (1 or 2), booker and lyles (3 or 4), and withey and pleiss (5 or 6).

but Booker wasn't the 4th big. Why don't you get that?