Hayward's role was too small. He should have been taking more shots. Nothing about his efficiency suggest the role was too big for him.
Yes, he should have taken more shots. But he didn't. Why? Not sure. Did he pass up a lot of them so he could be viewed as unselfish?
As to the pessimists...
Would Utah be a much better team with Hayward? Of course. I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise. Healthy, Utah could have/should have won 60 games last season.
Can Utah still match their 51 win total? I think that's possible.
PG: Rubio and an improved Dante >> Hill for 49 games and hobbled in many more and Mack.
SG: Hood, Mitchell, Burks > an oft-injured Hood and Ingles
SF: Ingles/Sefolosha <<< Hayward
PF: Favors/JJ/Jerebko>>> Fat Boris/JJ
C: Gobert/Udoh >> Gobert/Withey
If Utah has the same injury troubles as last season, then no, Jazz won't make the playoffs. But Utah essentially played 1.5 starters short (Favors and Hill). Hayward missed time. Hood missed time. I forget the term, but Utah was 7th in games missed, but LED the league when adjusted for impact.
I think all of those factors may be enough to offset the loss of Hayward. I'm counting on Utah winning around 50 games. Now that could very well be the 8th seed. There have been a few seasons, IINM, when all 8 WC playoff teams won 50. I think that happens again. And the last playoff teams in the EC could be in the mid-to-low 30's.