What's new
By:

Who can help solve the 3 pt shooting?

Pick 2 3pt shooters you would choose

  • Steve Novak sf

    Votes: 5 19.2%

  • Brandon rush sg/sf

    Votes: 11 42.3%

  • Daniel green Sg

    Votes: 1 3.8%

  • Chase budinger sf

    Votes: 1 3.8%

  • Courtney lee sg

    Votes: 3 11.5%

  • Ray Allen sg

    Votes: 4 15.4%

  • Jarod bayless pg

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Willie green combo g

    Votes: 1 3.8%

  • Marvin Williams sf/pf

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Matt Carroll sg/sf

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    26
What we need is the willingness to take a player with only one skill and magnify it while masking their deficiencies. What we do is take a player with no skill and magnify it by masking their deficiencies with lip service and some intangible justification.

So until then you can continue to sign as many one-dimensional players as you please but it still won't solve our refusal to play the cards we're dealt.
 
infection said:
What we need is the willingness to take a player with only one skill and magnify it while masking their deficiencies. What we do is take a player with no skill and magnify it by masking their deficiencies with lip service and some intangible justification.

So until then you can continue to sign as many one-dimensional players as you please but it still won't solve our refusal to play the cards we're dealt.
Click to expand...

Didn't we go down that road with Okur, Korver, Boozer, Brewer a few years ago and decided that it wasn't working?
 
Hotttnickkk said:
Didn't we go down that road with Okur, Korver, Boozer, Brewer a few years ago and decided that it wasn't working?
Click to expand...

I see it from the other way around. With Boozer we kept going to him and refused to bench him because "lol hes the cronerstone of are offense git real bro". Despite his inability to come through down the stretch, we kept feeding him. Despite that numerous times while we kept Millsap on the bench we kept watching Boozer fumble the ball, shoot jumpers, and get his *** blocked. Everyone (well, a lot of people) kept making the argument that we can't bench Boozer for Millsap because his offense was just too important.

We got bumped from the playoffs by the Lakers three years in a row in successively less games without making a single adjustment, despite even having a small amount of diversity sitting on the bench. Boozer kept getting owned by anyone on the Lakers frontline, both on offense and defense, and we never attempted anything different because apparently Boozer's offensive intangibles (which is the only thing you could argue because his offense alone wasn't getting anything accomplished) were just too important to our offensive system. Fesenko, despite having no offensive skill and was completely clueless most of the time, seemed to shake things up but we refused to play that card. Obviously, you can't bring up Fesenko without everyone getting their jockstrap in a bunch and have them respond to some charicature of your opinion as if you think Fesenko is the next Mutombo. Bottom line is that Boozer's offense was overrated, despite a large portion of the fanbase hating him, yet we kept insisting that he needed to be on the floor, needed to play in the crunch, and needed to be fed the rock.

As far as Korver, we never tried to play to that strength. He was supposed to come in and basically play the role of every other SG we've had. But, unlike every other SG we've had since Hornacek, Korver could actually shoot. Because of this, he'd actually hit his shots and so it appeared we were playing him different than we played any other idiot we'd throw out at the 2 spot. Despite Korver being one of the best shooters in the league, we never set him up. How often did we set Matt Harpring up? Also, for whatever reason it may be, everyone failed to acknowledge that he was in fact our best wing defender because he was the only person who actually played D away from the ball. He also had the ability to stay in front of his man better than any of the other wings, which really isn't saying a whole hell of a lot. We rarely had him guard the tough matchup, instead thinking Brewer was some kind of defensive stopper. Also, if you recall that San Antonio was also trying to obtain Korver at the same time we were. Had he wound up in San Antonio we'd probably all have a much different perspective on him. The Spurs, often with the Jazz's help, can make Bonner look like Memo. Imagine what Korver would have looked like. Yes, a lot of that is the other guys they have to work with, but a lot of it is also understanding players' strength and playing to it rather than trying to force some other arbitrary system on a situation that it won't work on.

Memo, I thought, was played decently, though I believe we could have been a bit more solid if we relied on him offensively more than Boozer. Him and Boozer together on defense were obviously bad. Also, in the last San Antonio series it would have been nice to see a bit more of Araujo (cue the laughs). He was the only one who did/could push Duncan out of position. But, since the status quo was "too valuable" to experiment with anything else, we sat Hoffa and let the status quo get the results it got. Now, I know everyone who got a C- or above in introductory statistics wants to rush to the "dude sample size.. i know about sample size iz iz smrt" to defend the fact that we kept playing deficient lineups when they proved to be failures.

Last draft I had expected us to pick up Kawhi Leonard when he was available come our pick. Later, I heard Phil Johnson (as much as I admire and respect him) mention that he's not the prototypical SF for the Jazz system and that he's more of a PF-esque SF rather than SG-esque SF and that the Jazz use the more traditional wing forward in their system. Now I'm not arguing drafting Leonard or not drafting Leonard (though that's who I would have taken), what I am taking issue with, however, is that there's an implication that we need to take guys who fit into the "system". Now if the system means guys who are good teammates, hard workers and are willing to pass the ball then yes, I believe always having a "system" needs to come before anything else. What this demonstrates, however, is that the system is more than just a philosophy of basketball, but rather it is a very arbitrary view of precisely how basketball needs to be arranged and that there is a set formula that you mussn't vary. Obviously Johnson likely wasn't privy to the whole situation, but the underlying feeling persists -- that is that we must fit our pieces into our schema rather than shape our schema around our pieces.

So, back to the topic, a one-dimensional three-point shooter in no way fits into our schema. They can be a three-point shooter, and that's great, but their role will be something else. Mehmet Okur has thus far been the only exception to this. So we can go ahead and get our three-point guru, but his time will always be limited by guys like Raja who are defensive stoppers, or guys like Howard who have the experience, or guys like Jefferson who are just too important to the system to take minutes from.
 
It doesn't matter who we get...the Jazz game plans treats the 3-point line like the plague and something to be avoided at all costs on BOTH the offensive and defensive end.
 
akirac73 said:
It doesn't matter who we get...the Jazz game plans treats the 3-point line like the plague and something to be avoided at all costs on BOTH the offensive and defensive end.
Click to expand...

What's a 3-point line?
 
Why isn't that guy named CJ Miles on the list? ;)











holy ****.... that really wasn't funny.
 
infection said:
I see it from the other way around. With Boozer we kept going to him and refused to bench him because "lol hes the cronerstone of are offense git real bro". Despite his inability to come through down the stretch, we kept feeding him. Despite that numerous times while we kept Millsap on the bench we kept watching Boozer fumble the ball, shoot jumpers, and get his *** blocked. Everyone (well, a lot of people) kept making the argument that we can't bench Boozer for Millsap because his offense was just too important.

We got bumped from the playoffs by the Lakers three years in a row in successively less games without making a single adjustment, despite even having a small amount of diversity sitting on the bench. Boozer kept getting owned by anyone on the Lakers frontline, both on offense and defense, and we never attempted anything different because apparently Boozer's offensive intangibles (which is the only thing you could argue because his offense alone wasn't getting anything accomplished) were just too important to our offensive system. Fesenko, despite having no offensive skill and was completely clueless most of the time, seemed to shake things up but we refused to play that card. Obviously, you can't bring up Fesenko without everyone getting their jockstrap in a bunch and have them respond to some charicature of your opinion as if you think Fesenko is the next Mutombo. Bottom line is that Boozer's offense was overrated, despite a large portion of the fanbase hating him, yet we kept insisting that he needed to be on the floor, needed to play in the crunch, and needed to be fed the rock.

As far as Korver, we never tried to play to that strength. He was supposed to come in and basically play the role of every other SG we've had. But, unlike every other SG we've had since Hornacek, Korver could actually shoot. Because of this, he'd actually hit his shots and so it appeared we were playing him different than we played any other idiot we'd throw out at the 2 spot. Despite Korver being one of the best shooters in the league, we never set him up. How often did we set Matt Harpring up? Also, for whatever reason it may be, everyone failed to acknowledge that he was in fact our best wing defender because he was the only person who actually played D away from the ball. He also had the ability to stay in front of his man better than any of the other wings, which really isn't saying a whole hell of a lot. We rarely had him guard the tough matchup, instead thinking Brewer was some kind of defensive stopper. Also, if you recall that San Antonio was also trying to obtain Korver at the same time we were. Had he wound up in San Antonio we'd probably all have a much different perspective on him. The Spurs, often with the Jazz's help, can make Bonner look like Memo. Imagine what Korver would have looked like. Yes, a lot of that is the other guys they have to work with, but a lot of it is also understanding players' strength and playing to it rather than trying to force some other arbitrary system on a situation that it won't work on.

Memo, I thought, was played decently, though I believe we could have been a bit more solid if we relied on him offensively more than Boozer. Him and Boozer together on defense were obviously bad. Also, in the last San Antonio series it would have been nice to see a bit more of Araujo (cue the laughs). He was the only one who did/could push Duncan out of position. But, since the status quo was "too valuable" to experiment with anything else, we sat Hoffa and let the status quo get the results it got. Now, I know everyone who got a C- or above in introductory statistics wants to rush to the "dude sample size.. i know about sample size iz iz smrt" to defend the fact that we kept playing deficient lineups when they proved to be failures.

Last draft I had expected us to pick up Kawhi Leonard when he was available come our pick. Later, I heard Phil Johnson (as much as I admire and respect him) mention that he's not the prototypical SF for the Jazz system and that he's more of a PF-esque SF rather than SG-esque SF and that the Jazz use the more traditional wing forward in their system. Now I'm not arguing drafting Leonard or not drafting Leonard (though that's who I would have taken), what I am taking issue with, however, is that there's an implication that we need to take guys who fit into the "system". Now if the system means guys who are good teammates, hard workers and are willing to pass the ball then yes, I believe always having a "system" needs to come before anything else. What this demonstrates, however, is that the system is more than just a philosophy of basketball, but rather it is a very arbitrary view of precisely how basketball needs to be arranged and that there is a set formula that you mussn't vary. Obviously Johnson likely wasn't privy to the whole situation, but the underlying feeling persists -- that is that we must fit our pieces into our schema rather than shape our schema around our pieces.

So, back to the topic, a one-dimensional three-point shooter in no way fits into our schema. They can be a three-point shooter, and that's great, but their role will be something else. Mehmet Okur has thus far been the only exception to this. So we can go ahead and get our three-point guru, but his time will always be limited by guys like Raja who are defensive stoppers, or guys like Howard who have the experience, or guys like Jefferson who are just too important to the system to take minutes from.
Click to expand...

Not even going to attempt to reply to everything you've said above, just want to make 1 point. It's OK if your team have 1-2 of these 'one dimensional guys'. If we look at Championship teams they all have them: Steve Kerr, Robert Horry, etc, etc. But when you have a whole 'collection' of these guys in the starting line up it becomes too difficult. Boozer & Okur is just bad defensively, let alone having to play them together for 35+ min. per game.
 
Hotttnickkk said:
Not even going to attempt to reply to everything you've said above, just want to make 1 point. It's OK if your team have 1-2 of these 'one dimensional guys'. If we look at Championship teams they all have them: Steve Kerr, Robert Horry, etc, etc. But when you have a whole 'collection' of these guys in the starting line up it becomes too difficult. Boozer & Okur is just bad defensively, let alone having to play them together for 35+ min. per game.
Click to expand...

I don't think we're disagreeing.
 
2013 offseason has several unrestricted free agents that could be considered 3-pt specialists.

Dorell Wright
Morrow
Korver
D. Cook
G Neal

there are probably other decent shooters that will become available but these guys stood out to me.

I also like the idea of signing Lawson or Curry (depending on his ankles) to an offer sheet and see if their teams match. both those guys are great shooters as well and solid young pgs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top