mesaak47 on January 29, 2009 said:

good point!
i always wonder why the jazz dont want to guard the 3 pt line!
and why the hell they dont wanna shoot more 3s if they brought kyle korver and have shooters like d will okur cj miles, even brewer knocks them down

Jacob on January 29, 2009 said:

I think we should trade C-booze for Tyson Chandler if we can, that would be good.

Aaron Johnson on January 29, 2009 said:

Because Jerry Sloan does not know who to teach the player how to guard the 3 point line. Jerry slone is a good teacher but his coaching has gone down hill. Why do you think in the last week we have been loosing? I think somtimes we would be such a better team if we got rid of jerry sloan. Phil Johnson would know how to teach them to run and gun and guard the 3 point line.

Mal on January 30, 2009 said:

If Jerry doesn’t start getting them to guard the 3, I’m going to scream! And since I don’t see that happening anytime soon, well…..

I’m with you Aaron, the timing of this losing skid is not coincidental. Same thing happened last year when Jerry re-signed.

Brian McCann on January 30, 2009 said:

Jacob- Boozer is a two-time olympian and a two time-allstar. He is a 20-10 guy that hasn’t hit his prime. He is heads and tails a better player than Chandler. Why would that be a good trade? Trade one of the top ten players in the league for a good but not great player?? Trading just to trade doesn’t make sense. Its like a Shaq for Odom deal.

Aaron- You have a lot of trust in Phil…he is a good guy, but where are you getting your facts? Sloan is the most consistant coach in NBA history (for what he has been given). The guy obviously knows what he is doing.

The Jazz are not a great team right now because of injuries. Its not the players or the coaches. Lets read the writing on the wall before we start deciding to blow the team up.

carl h on January 30, 2009 said:

I disagree, games are won in the paint. Stability is formed in the paint. The best most stable teams play in the paint. As the saying goes, if you live by the three, you die by the three. It’s not a stable philosophy, and it hurts the team more than it helps. It’s alot like life, you can’t stand around and and expect things to be easy all the time, and things to always go your way. It’s what I think this three point philosophy is like, i think it’s garbage. Sloan knows what he’s doing, there’s a reason he’s the coach; this three point analysis isn’t any good. It’s good when you’re hot, but when you’re not, then what is it?

Johnathan Kendrick on January 30, 2009 said:

Carl,
Thanks for adding to the conversation. For conversation sake let’s assume for a minute that everything you know is wrong. What if “live by the three, die by the three” is just an old saying and not a fact at all. You know kind of like “the Earth is flat” or “you can’t go swimming for an hour after you eat.”

The statistics are sound. It’s hard to argue with the math. It’s hard to argue with what the Orlando Magic are doing.

One might also argue that not guarding the three and just packing the middle is “the easy way out.”

J R Stewart on January 30, 2009 said:

The best 3 point opportunities are from the point guard penetrating and kicking it out to the 3 point line, for a feet set, extra time, clear look shot.
The other way is a low post presence demanding a double team, with a pass out of the double team, to a wide open, undefended 3 point attempt.
Just watch Parker, penetrate and kick or Duncan, set up in the low post and pass out of the double team, for the Spurs.
Then watch the Jazz, Deron seldom penetrates and kicks, and even with Boozer back, he plays at the high post, elbow, not the low post.
So, it’s not just the playbook, it’s the personnel too.

If you watch, a lot of other NBA teams give up wide open 3 pointers too. 3 pointers are a high reward shot, but a layup is an extremely high percentage shot, frequently turning into a 3 point play, not part of the 3 point stat above. The pick and roll usually dictates a switch or usually help, to avoid a layup, which also opens the 3 point line, but not as much as the low post double or the penetrate and kick. This is where the Jazz try to get their 3 point opportunities, because of personnel involved. These are just not as open as the pass off a double or a drive.

The Jazz have 3 point shooters. They don’t have a penetrating guard or a low post threat to enable those 3 point shooters. Watch the difference in the quality of the 3 point attempts with a team like the Spurs vs the Jazz.

The Jazz don’t have highly motivated 3 point defenders. Watch how many times there is a lack of anticipation and effort getting back out to the 3 point line. I love Deron, but watch his lack of 3 point defensive effort. How many time a game does he give up and just watch the shot? Then watch Shawn Battier or Ron Artest on 3 point defense.

It’s fun to just watch one player for a few plays, to see what he does on offense/defense and off the ball.

The solution would be for one of the other teams to feel sorry for the Jazz and give them a “Pau” for free, maybe throw in a “Devin Harris.”

Jazzaholic

Mal on January 30, 2009 said:

Carl, I’ll agree with you that teams who live by the three do die by the three. (I might have to turn you in, though, for not properly citing Barkley for that material). But the best teams don’t do either–instead, they integrate the three into their game plan. The stats don’t suggest that everyone should go out and play Nellie-ball. Rather, they suggest that three-point shooting is a rewarding part of the game, and if you don’t use it (and especially if you don’t defend it) you will pay.

And since when has playing sucky defense been considered taking the high-road?