The Five Epic Qualities of Jerry Eugene Sloan

An eternity ago I wrote about The Five Epic Errors of Jerry Eugene Sloan. There were a variety of reactions to that article, some in agreement, others in argument -- ultimately though I think it was a pretty interesting take on things. Jerry isn't perfect -- and the points I made way back in September seem to elucidate that point quite nicely. That said . . . there are very few coaches that I'd want to be the coach of my team (the Jazz), and I can't really think of any off the top of my head. (Maybe Lenny Wilkins? Maybe not . . . no, definitely not.) It's not all bad with Jerry, in fact, there is a lot of good out there. Here are just five:

Photographed by David Zalubowski for AP Photo

1. He's a no nonsense guy:

Jerry is a straight shooter. He tells it like it is. If his team gets beat on the glass he'll say it like it is. If he messes up, he'll own up to it. If he wants a player to do something, he'll try to communicate it. Jerry probably doesn't think himself to be 'smart enough' to be any other way but humble, direct and honest. He may miss out on some of the cerebral mind games that some other coaches play (against their own rosters as much as they play it against the media and refs) like Phil Jackson. (Btw, he's not zen. That's bullshit. Really, stop calling him the zenmaster. Zen Buddhism isn't about making $10 Million dollars per year, possessions are fleeting . . . but he wouldn't know that, because he's a fraud) Anyway, back to Jerry . . . Sloan isn't going to be all smug and cryptic all the time, and then whine to the media in post game interviews about the other team.

I remember reading an interview of Jackson's years ago when he was first coaching the Lakers -- they lost a game and he blamed the loss on everything from his players injuries, the crowd noise, the pre-game festivities, to refs, the style of play, and on the fouls not called -- he basically blamed the loss on everything BUT the other team doing things well.

That's just a sore loser to me.

Jerry may not have any Coach of the Year awards, or coached any team that's won a ring, but when he does lose, he does it graciously as he's a no nonsense guy. Even better than Jackson, he also wins with humility, and he tries to treat his players fairly (which is subjective). Maybe a more touchy-feely coach would have been able to coax more out of the Ostertags and Giriceks that Sloan has had to coach . . . but that's just not Jerry's strong suit.

2. Jerry fights for his players:

One of his strong suits is that he'll never throw his players under the bus (or, you know, write a book about a particularly difficult season, airing out all the secret details without his players' consent and laugh all the way to the bank while talking trash about his meal tickets). Jerry does the exact opposite, as he's frequently ejected from games because he cares so much about his players. What does Phil Jackson do? He sits with his legs crossed in a chair all game long and occasionally whistles at his players. That's inspiring. Jerry Sloan gets into it with refs when he feels like his players are getting the short end of the stick.

Players are going to be willing to fight if they see how hard their coach his fighting. Very rarely do the Jazz lose games (to the best of my memory) that Sloan is thrown out of, they tend the get fired up and play harder. Not to make this one of those really weepy eyed, inspirational deals . . . I can see Sloan making a Tony D'Amato type of speech while Phil Jackson would be reading a poem about rabbits and hoping that his talented roster does all the work.

Jerry Sloan was a fighter as a player, and as a coach he is responsible for taking care of his team out there. It's not the place of the players to really talk to the refs, but it's the Head Coach's duty to do so when he feels like his guys are getting the screwjob. I'd rather have a coach who actually reacted to the game than one who sat down and did a Sudoku puzzle.

3. Superb game to game adjustments:

I mentioned this in the other write-up, but I honestly don't see the Jazz getting beat the same way more than once, unless in the rare cases that the are playing a team that just has our number (like the Minnesota Timberwolves or Portland Trailblazers last season), or one really unstoppable guy (Kobe Bryant). There's one good reason why we don't get beat the same way often -- it's because Sloan (and his staff) make really good adjustments in-between games. Sloan does his homework, and his vast experience makes it a bit easier to see patterns and develop strategies. He's a very under-rated X's and O's guy -- people talk about Rick Pitino knowing about shooting range and shooting percentage ratios. Pitino was a horrible NBA coach though, and didn't do anything in the league. Partly because he relied a little too much on the three point shot.

Sloan, on the other hand, doesn't rely on anything except rebounding, hustling on defense, and playing fundamentally sound basketball -- especially on offense (layups are emphasized, one on one play and three pointers are not).

4. Fundamentals aren't just buzzwords with him:

Frankly, this is one of the reasons why the Jazz have won so many games under Sloan (closing in on 1000 with the Jazz). If you don't box out your man he'll replace you with someone who will. If you don't run the plays, you'll sit on the bench. There are really three components of Jerry's offense: move the ball around for a layup, get to the foul line, don't try to be a hero -- pass the ball instead of taking a contested shot. There are really three components of Jerry's defense: funnel guards into bigmen, don't leave shooters open, don't foul jump shooters. This is pure, distilled fundamental basketball that can be applied to grade school ball all the way up to the NBA.

Some coaches play lip service to fundamentals, and when the game starts, their players play some undisciplined monkey ball, or alternatively, the game plan shifts to a series of gimmicks . . . like posting up their PF at the three point line (like what Avery had Dirk do instead of posting him up near the basket), or just relying on one player to do everything for his team, and have no real plays or anything ("Chris Paul -- go dribble a lot, and when the defense collapses on you, pass to an open guy. Do this 40 times a game! Go!" -- Byron Scott). Is it any wonder that teams coached by those types of players rarely impress in the post season?

If you play fundamentally sound basketball your team has a chance to win -- regardless of the make up of the roster, or how many super star calls you get. He almost made the playoffs with Carlos Arroyo and Ben Handlogten. Phil Jax would have retired that season because he didn't have any top 2 players on his team. (Seriously Phil, take a chance on your coaching ability and actually coach a team instead of relying on your player's star power . . . remember what it was like when you got beat by Detroit and Boston in the finals the last few seasons? Those teams were coached... yours was on autopilot after having the West given to you on a platter.)

5. Expects you to leave it all on the floor

He may hate you in a game, but off the court, he may be one of your staunchest supporters -- Jerry Sloan was this way with Greg Ostertag. All he wants is your best effort -- which is why he rewards players that play hard. (Like the Adam Keefe's of the world) Why is Jerry so hung up about effort? Probably because he knows that's what got him where he is today -- and if a simple farm boy from southern Illinois can be an NBA All-Star and make it in the NBA that anyone can (well, most gifted athletes that make up current NBA rosters) if they work hard enough. He can't do it for his team, but he can try to make his team work hard, so that they can do it for themselves. His teams can do it for themselves if they work hard.

Simple, huh?

Now watch this video of Al Pacino showing us how to inspire professional athletes/professional actors playing professional athletes. It's not just because it's a good scene, but I'm sure there's a lot of Jerry in this scene . . . especially the part about the guy who's willing to die being the one who's going to come out alive. Sloan's not a perfect coach, but just like how I ended the critical article, I still feel like there is no other coach I'd want to coach the Jazz this season.

His faults are still faults, and his propensity to make people have to earn it when they are clearly better can be a problem at times -- but really, aren't you happy that Jerry coaches the Jazz, and not that smarmy, self-aggrandizing pseudo-intellectual Phil Jackson?

I know I am.

Things to look for this season: Kyrylo Fesenko

If the only news you get is from the major news outlets in Salt Lake City you get the impression that NBA MVP Kosta Koufos (tentative) is not only the best draft pick EVAR, but also a lovely boy scout! The articles I read leave me to believe that some reporters are crushing a little bit on him . . . I understand the need and utility of a fluff piece (most of my stuff is just that). But even I can't stand it. That's not to say that I have issue with Kosta Koufos -- it just appears that way because in a preview of Fesenko's next season all I've done in rant about the new guy. It's just that fluff pieces, saying 'sir' and shooting three pointers when you are over 7 feet tall HARDLY qualifies as helping the Jazz out on the glass; with blocks; and with interior defense and intimidation.

How is a 7 foot tall teen with pimples/boy scout/three point shooter who calls everyone 'sir' going to be a force in the paint and help out our anemic defense of our basket? It's almost as if winning the paint is less important than winning some magical award for having 'morally upright' kids on the team who help old ladies cross the street.

That's not going to help us block shots in the playoffs, or play defense against other bigs without fouling them. We don't need another soft guy to come off the bench to replace Boozer or Memo. We need someone hard and mean. Someone who eats old ladies who try to cross the street. Someone -- at this stage -- that I don't think Mr.Polite Koufos is, or will be. Don't get me wrong, I want Kosta to succeed, I want him to be a legit NBA player. I think Kosta is going to be a solid NBA player. I also want the Jazz to have someone come off the bench, and actually play like a 7 footer who bangs, blocks shots and gives hard fouls. You know, things that we don't have on this team right now. I don't think that Kosta fills our greatest need.

Somehow this pictures reminds me of that scene from Napoleon Dynamite where Deb is photographing Uncle Rico . . . audio here

Alas, no one seems to say anything good about Fesenko, so perhaps he's not going to be that guy either -- which would suck, seeing how at this part of the season, last season, everyone was on the Fes bandwaggon. (How quickly people turn on you . . . not unlike how Boozer was loved then hated, then loved, and now hated again)

So, in a world where we must temper our feelings for Fes, while our projections for Kosta run with wild abandon what do I see Kyrylo doing this season?

1. Make the best of his time on the floor with the Jazz: Fes isn't going to play in 70 games this season unless something amazing happens (like Jarron Collins goes all Bison Dele on the Jazz, or Fes levels up into an NBA player at some point), so he's going to have to really bring it when he is playing with the big boys. I can imagine how someone who has trouble self-motivating can slack off in the D-league, he still put up good stats (10 ppg, 8 rpg, 2 bpg, 2 apg) for someone they just pulled off of the hard streets of Kiev. His NBA career is only 9 games long, and he's only played more than 10 minutes in any given game on three different occasions. His season averages are horrible because he played three times this season: once in November, then during a stretch of 6 games in December (the worst month of the season for our entire team), and then in a back-to-back set all the way in March. There isn't much continuity there, especially how he'd get into the game for 4 minutes there, or 36 seconds there ... all the while dropping his averages down. If you look at the four games where he played at least 8 minutes you get a chance to see some good in Fes. First of all, when he plays extended minutes the Jazz usually win (3 wins, 1 loss), in addition to that, he seems to play better when he actually has some time to settle down into a game. During those four games (Nov 30 vs. Lakers, a win; Dec 15 vs. Seattle, a win; Dec 17 vs. Atlanta, a loss; Dec 21 vs. Orlando, a win) he averaged 4.3 rpg (2.3 offensive), 0.75 bpg, 0.5 apg and 3.5 fpg in a little over 12 mpg. He also chipped in 2 ppg, but he hardly shoots, and that's not what he's in there for. Fes can be effective, against Bynum he had 7 boards (4 offensive) and threw it down a few times.
2. Corner the market on a skill: Fes isn't going to be better than Memo or Kosta at jump shooting. He's not going to be better than Jarron at flopping, or knowing the playbook (he hasn't been here for 73 seasons like Jarron has). Fes has to develop that one (or more) skill that sets him apart from the other guys on the roster. He has to be so proficient with it that the Jazz coaches feel good with him on the floor, instead of on the bench. That skill is going to have to be dominating the paint. Fesenko has the size, strength and agility to dispel the common ideas of European bigmen. While he may lack it in the girth department, he does have Shaq-like size. He can run the floor and play physical basketball. He can rebound and block shots. He just needs to keep working on this part of his game to the point where even old man Jer (who always comments on peoples' conditioning . . . hey, Shaq sucked at conditioning Jerry, he has 4 rings and you have none, sometimes talent requires playing time) has to play him. No one needs Fesenko to be David Robinson on offense, just as long as he can catch the ball and dunk it then he'll be okay. (And last time I checked, Fes and catch the ball and dunk it, ask the Lakers about that) Conditioning is good and great, but we're looking for a guy to lumber up and down the floor for 12 mpg as a backup to Memo/Booz (who'll play most of the mins at the 5 this season). I'd rather have the guy who barely makes it through 12 mins, but actually does something in that time than the guy who plays 12, has the conditioning to play 22, but does nothing in that time.
3. Want it more: Often a big guy gets conscripted into playing basketball just because of his height. (see: Eaton, Mark) After a while he either loves the game and wants to be better, or he's just happy to make money doing something like this. Kyrylo needs to want it more, or at least, show that he does. (He may want it, but may not show it for a variety of reasons, but we don't need to go into psychology here) Who he is, and his future with the jazz may very well boil down to what happens this season, especially in relation to the wunderkid Kosta Koufos. Fesenko has to want it more, as he has an uphill battle against him where he not only has to beat out Koufos, but also a conditioning obsessed Coach (you know, Adam Keefe plays 27 mpg while Chris Morris sits) and a media that idolizes his competition as well.

The Five Epic Errors of Jerry Eugene Sloan

I like Jerry Sloan and respect him for what he has done for the NBA, and what he has brought to the game. He and his staff (Phil Johnson, and any combination of Ty Corbin, Gordon Chiesa, Kenny Natt, Scott Layden, etc) are undervalued developers of talent and teachers of the game. For example, DeShawn Stevenson was not an NBA player when he joined the league -- 4 years learning in Utah made him a player. For one, they completely broke down his shot, and rebuilt it like the $6 Million Dollar man over those 4 years as he worked with Hornacek for quite a bit -- now he's a capable three point shooter, not an athletic Desmond Mason type with ugly mechanics and no outside shot. Another thing that is undervalued is the fact that Jerry Sloan (and staff) is quite good at making game to game adjustments. (Some will argue that he doesn't make meaningful adjustments -- but those are in-game adjustments, which I readily agree he is poor at -- his game to game adjustments are among the best in the league. For proof watch the NBA playoffs)

Sloan is well respected in league circles, though he is consistently regarded as a few notches down from the likes of Phil Jackson, Gregg Popovich, Pat Riley, Don Nelson (who has 3 CoY awards!), Larry Brown, Rudy Tomjanovich, Jeff Van Gundy (who is not currently employed as a coach) and others. Sloan is well respected, but guys like Bryon Scott, Sam Mitchell, Rick Carlisle, Doc Rivers and Don Chaney have won Coach of the Year Awards. [Opinion Alert: I think that Sloan is a better coach than any of those guys]

Scott is an okay coach, Mitchell is a 5 game loss streak away from being fired, and Doc Rivers was fired as a coach something like 7 times already. Don Chaney has a .406 winning percentage, of if you will allow me, roughly a 60% losing percentage. He has two playoff wins in his career as a coach. He has been a CoY, while Sloan has not.

It's not about Coach of the Year Awards though, as Sloan's top assistant coach (Phil Johnson) was NBA Coach of the Year in 1974-1975. What it is about, though, is understanding why Sloan (for all of his good attributes) seems to be a step behind that first group, and stuck in a situation where former Players with little coaching experience get awards that have so far eluded him. What are the major lacunae in Jerry Sloan's abilities as a coach?

1. Playing Time / Rotation Management:

		Jerry Sloan has had the benefit of having John Stockton QB his teams since Jerry Sloan first became the Head Coach in '88. Stockton has always heeded Jerry's command (like any good soldier), and as such, he was at the mercy of Sloan during the most important 12 games of John Stockton's career -- the NBA Finals in 1996-1997 and 1997-1998. Jer' has coached John for quite a while, so you'd think Jerry knew how important these games were to John's career and future legacy.
Photographed by Andrew D. Bernstein/NBAE via Getty Images

But one of Jerry Sloan's major flaws was expressed in those 12 games. Sloan likes to stick to a rotation, which may or may not have contributed to prolonging the careers of his players at the expense of wins. Malone and Stockton both played up to the age of 40 -- but a few seasons before they'd reach those milestones they were in the NBA Finals. In those years Sloan's regimented playing time and rotation scheme called for Stockton to exit the game at the 6 min mark of every first quarter -- regardless of any other circumstances in the game (who was on the floor, were the Jazz on a run, who had fouls, who were they playing against, what the score was, etc). Sure, this may have saved John for the playoffs -- but when the Jazz finally got to the finals, why did he continue to hold John back?

Stockton was easily the best and most consistent player during those finals runs, and it would be pure folly to imply that the Jazz weren't a better Jazz team with Stockton on the floor (no matter how very adequate, and sometimes amazing Howard Eisley actually was during those same years -- you know, like having your back-up PG go coast to coast to hit game winning threes with the audacity to not call a time out, or pass to a starter). The fact that the Jazz were better is not debatable. While there are many factors which influence a win (especially in the NBA Finals), in the games that the Jazz won against the Bulls over those two seasons had John Stockton averaging 37.0 mpg. What about in the Jazz losses? John was anchored to the bench for 33.8 mpg. Correlation does not always translate to causation -- but really Jerry, what were you saving Stockton for when you had him playing 31 mins and 33 mins in game 4 and 6 in the 1998 Finals -- games where the Jazz lost by a COMBINED 5 points, were you saving him for the next round after that, or the off-season? Now, I'm not saying that if Jerry played Stockton more that we would have won the title, no one can say that. What I am saying is that perhaps if he was on the floor more (like to end the 1st quarter, so the Jazz wouldn't start the 2nd quarter already behind and have to fight their way back into every game), the Jazz would have had a better shot to win more games.

	1996-1997				1997-1998
Finals Game #	Stockton's Minutes Played	Outcome	Difference		Stockton's Minutes Played	Outcome	Difference
Game 1	38	Loss	-2		35	Win	+3
Game 2	39	Loss	-12		31	Loss	-5
Game 3	37	Win	+11		26	Loss	-42
Game 4	38	Win	+5		31	Loss	-4
Game 5	36	Loss	-2		38	Win	+2
Game 6	37	Loss	-4		33	Loss	-1

Stockton's MPG in Wins: 37.0 mpg -- Stockton's MPG in Losses: 33.8 mpg.

Current examples of Jerry Sloan's crazy substitution pattern exist in the whole Matt Harpring / Andrei Kirilenko dynamic (where Harpring's mins have been cut a bit, but he still gets way more burn than he needs in the face of evidence that Andrei's magic number is 37 mpg, any less, and he's not amazing). And let's not even get into the whole "younger player" issue (you know, like playing Deron Williams so little as a rookie, and at that, playing him at Shooting Guard instead of Point Guard, and so forth -- but more on that below).

Jerry's use (or disuse) of Stockton at a very critical time is probably the best example of him being bull-headed and sticking to his system against evidence that suggests that it may be okay to run the horses a bit. Then again, this was the Jazz Sloan who used to play Adam Keefe 27.5 mpg or something insane like that.  

2. Very slow to adapt to changes in the game:

Do you ever watch games on TV and when one team goes on a run, to stop the momentum and regroup, the other team's coach may call a time out? Yeah, Jerry Sloan hardly ever does that. Jerry Sloan hoards time outs and possibly thinks that they are like roll-over minutes with his cell phone plan. Unfortunately they are not. Some coaches can get away with not calling a time out, like Phil Jackson, but that's only because he has some heady vets on his team (like Kobe and Fisher, who have played in a few NBA Finals games) -- Sloan could get away with this back when the average age of the team was 33 and everyone was battle tested in the playoffs like in those Finals teams. That's not the case with this team -- he should probably use time outs a bit more. Especially when other teams go on their 2nd quarter runs.

Photographed by unknown, NBAE/Getty Images

That's just one thing though . . . adaptation is the key to survival -- in nature and in the NBA. (unless you have tenure, like Sloan does) Sloan does an okay job making game-to-game adjustments as I've already mentioned . . . but he loves his game plan. He will go into a game with one plan, and one plan alone. If the plan does not work, he will continue with that plan just to prove a point or because he is stubborn, or maybe, because he honestly did not believe than an alternative plan was even needed. (As he sits dumbfounded with his mouth agape as the Jazz get blown out in the finals by 42 points in one game) If another guy is really hot, how often do we see any defensive scheme changes to counter this? Jerry Sloan's idea of changing things up defensively seems to just mean shuffling around who defends a particular player. (Hmmm, Tim Duncan is killing Memo one on one, let's put Boozer on him . . . hmmmm . . . Tim Duncan is killing Boozer one on one, let's put Jarron on him . . . . hmmmm . . . Tim Duncan is killing Jarron one on one, let's put Hoffa on him . . .  ad nauseam)

3. His Personal Pet Peeves hamstring the teams he coaches:

You ever wonder why some players just go off on the Jazz? It's partly because of the whole inability to make in-game changes. The other, probably more chronic, issue is the fact that Jerry Sloan has a very diverse and particular set of pet peeves. No, I'm not talking about everyone having to have their shirt tucked in, or no head bands or whatever . . . I'm talking about the fact that he'd rather kiss Phil Jackson's ass than actually set up a defensive scheme that calls for double teaming someone. Do you guys remember that game where LeBron James had his first 50+ point game of his career? The game where it was basically Devon Brown, Matt Harpring and Andrei Kirilenko guarding him one on one for 48 minutes? [just watch that video, each one of his baskets is made by being defended one on one, even after he had scored 39 points, Sloan keeps the Jazz in single, man to man defense] I know LeBron is good, Jerry should too by now. I know he can win a game by scoring 50+ points -- I'd rather go with him passing it up to Anderson Varejao or Eric Snow (who was on the team back then) and have them try to beat us instead.

Forget the scrubs, if there is anywhere that the Jerry Sloan Jazz want you to beat them from it is from the outside. Utah has always seemed like they just wanted to dare other teams into taking outside shots. This strategy may be a remnant from the Sloan's Dick Motta inspired playbook that was created back when teams did not really shoot often from deep, nor did they have players who were good at that. Times have changed and today's NBA features many teams that not only like to take open three point shots, but have multiple threats from downtown. For example, just look at the LA Lakers who have tons of outside shooters (Kobe, Fisher, Sasha, Vlad-Rad, Farmar, Walton, Ariza and even Odom can knock down jumpers), is it any wonder why we lost to them? Sloan: oh noes! Teams that can make wide open jumpers when no one is even close to defending the open man -- my ONE weakness . . . how did you know?

Photographed by Barry Gossage, NBAE/Getty Images

The whole three point line thing seems to be just an under-explored and confusing aspect of the game for Sloan (like the concept of the female orgasm in good, old fashioned, 1950's America). Local heartthrob Kyle Korver admits that the Jazz do not have plays in the playbook for a last second three -- or any plays that really have the three point shot in mind at all. (Which explains why our last offensive play of the 2007-2008 season was a sequence of bricked shots, or why Matt Harpring was taking awkward looking, last second mid-range jumpers for us in previous seasons when we needed a bucket.) 

So he doesn't like to double team, which allows for the other teams' best offensive player to go to work and score a lot of points. He also doesn't like the outside shot -- and that would work great if there was a specific code of honor that all coaches lived by: 'I won't use the three point line, and you don't use it either, deal?' Jerry, other teams will take what you give them, and if you give them open looks from deep, they will take those shots and burry us with them. (And have been for seasons) Anything else?

He is pretty old school, and that old-school-ness can work for some players and be absolutely horrible for others. Greg Ostertag was a flawed player, but I have no doubt that if Ostertag had a more touchy-feely coach that he could have been no lesser than a Luc Longley (who was a solid starter), rather than a guy who was dunked on slightly less than Shawn Bradley.

His major pet peeve is perceived effort. Which probably explains why guys like Adam Keefe and Matt Harpring get burn over the more talented, yet apparently less hard working guys like Chris Morris and Gordan Giricek (when he was here). [Btw, look at Giri's career stats, he wasn't a bad player at all, neither was Morris . . . yet look at how they were used in our system. Were they bad players, or just used poorly?] I understand the meritocracy involved in rewarding hard working players with playing time, but what about wins?

Photographed by Matthias B. Krause/Icon SMI

Chris Morris and Giricek would absolutely smoke Harpring and Keefe in a game of 2-on-2. They were better players, even if Sloan did not treat them as such. Which brings us to how Jerry Sloan . . .

4. Revels in Power Distance:

Jerry Sloan is the boss. His staff knows it. The owner of the team knows it. The media knows it. And most importantly, his players know it. And as far as being the boss, he's far from the most approachable, understanding, and cooperative one around. He takes issue with star player and scrub alike -- he admitted that if you could freeze time during that moment when Stockton got the defensive rebound and threw the football hail marry pass to Malone in the finals for a key bucket in the 4th quarter that he would have liked to strangle Stockton while the ball was in the air. (Really, who says these things, even if they are true?) The issues that he has with players can stem from a lot of root causes: perceived self-worth (Carlos Arroyo), consistent effort (Greg Ostertag), sexual orientation (John Amaechi), degree of free will and autonomy (Gordan Giricek), inability to read minds and/or complete objectives that are never fully explained or consistent from game to game (Andrei Kirilenko).

I freely admit that I'm kind of an AK-47 homer. He used to be 'The Man' and has had to adjust to different roles on the fly -- while getting none of the credit that he deserves from Sloan. One season, he's the Point Forward and earns a trip to the All-Star game. The next, he's a leper. The next, he starts off as a leper, but due to injuries, his role is expanded. (Guess what, he started to play better!) His role has oscillated like a yo-yo for the last couple of seasons depending on roster moves and injuries to other guys. (as has his playing time) He can do everything from get a triple double or 5x5 to play point guard in the Western Conference Playoffs against Baron Davis. It is insane to think that he's not the most versatile and over-all talented player on the team.

Photographed by Matt Slocum, AP Photo

Deron is the best player, and most consistent. This is not up for debate. Neither should be the fact that Andrei is paid on a scale that only makes sense based on his talent and ability -- and not how he is used or applied. (Who chooses how he is used again? The Head Coach.) As good as Andrei is the last few seasons with Jerry Sloan have pretty much ruined him. It would not surprise me to see Andrei leave the NBA for good after his contract is over and return to his native Russia a hero. Why am I blaming Jerry Sloan?

I'm blaming Sloan because he's the one who should be the guy who helps manage players -- especially players who have changing roles and need to make transitions. Probably no transition is harder to make than from being 'The Man' to being the 5th option on offense, yet the thankless workhorse on defense. Phil Jackson, for all of his smarmy-ness and douche-baggery , has been able to coax nutcases like Dennis Rodman, Bison Dele, Ron Harper, J.R. Rider and others to perform at a high level. Sloan and AK have worked together for 8 or so years now, why does AK still not know what he's supposed to be doing?

Maybe it happens to be because Sloan keeps changing his expectations of him, and due to his power distance, AK is the only one who gets the blame when things go wrong. Other players have long since gotten the boot for getting 'sideways' with Jerry Sloan. (Sloan just knows that AK's defense is so valuable that he can't completely kick him off the team) Personality is a big part of communication, and when you give someone so much power it's hard for their sense of 'right' to not come out in their personality. The psychological aspects of motivation are just as puzzling to Jerry Sloan as the three point shot appears to be. I guess in his hard headed universe (you know, the kind where there is no back up plan for any given game) there is only one way to motivate -- by yelling, swearing and saying mean things. This is probably a contributing factor as to why when AK is taken out of the game he sits as far away from Sloan as possible -- Sloan is just an impossible guy sometimes.

5. Makes mistakes, admits to making mistakes, does not change so mistakes can continue to be made in the future:

Jerry Sloan can be 'like' an abusive spouse in his consistent merry-go-round of making mistakes, admitting to making mistakes, suggesting that changes will be made, but actually no real changes are made, and mistakes continue to occur. How many times do we hear (after a season is over) that "I probably should have played __________ (insert breakout player's name here, some recent examples include Mehmet Okur, Deron Williams, and Ronnie Brewer) more during the season"? Pretty much every season. Memo had a break out year, and Sloan said that it was a mistake to not have played him more. The next season they draft Deron -- and again, Sloan does not play him as much as he should -- only to say that he should have, after the fact. What happens the next season? Ronnie Brewer doesn't play, and after his 2nd season Sloan basically says "My bad" again. And we just eat it up -- our neutral reaction to his maladaptive behavior reinforces his psychopathology.

Sloan is an old dog, and he does not want to learn new tricks. He has shown some improvement over time (that probably only I have noticed), he allows guys like Memo to shoot threes, and is not completely against a guy throwing an alley-oop now and then. (He still may not like it, but he's not going to bench a guy for getting an assist) Unfortunately, the majority of his change seems to occur over a span of 10 games. I don't want to belabor the point but part of the whole AK situation is that Andrei will complain because of how he is used, Sloan and him will talk and Sloan will agree to make changes, the next few games things are better and AK is more productive, then after 10 games or so, things will revert back to normal and the cycle will start again. (Part of the reason why this Sloan/AK deal is less resolved than it should be happens to be because it is never really resolved fully.)

How many coaches would make a habit of pissing off their best players by not giving them the playing time that their skills deserve? Deron Williams will never fully heal, and while he respects Sloan as a coach (and his Boss), he still isn't shy about admitting that he knows he should have played more as a rookie (you know, the season where everyone was all about Chris Paul, and no one mentioned Deron because he wasn't playing?). I don't know if Memo cares about how he was treated, but the younger guys probably do care (like Brewer, and likely, C.J.). For the record, Deron, Ronnie, Andrei and Memo comprise 80% of the starting line-up. Those are all guys that Sloan has made significant impressions (first or most recent in the case of Andrei) on as 'the guy who is going to be a dick and not play you, even though you are better than the guys who get playing time'. One wonders who the 'next' guy he'll come out and suggest he should have played more will be? My money is on Fesenko, after next season when he starts off averaging 4.3 mpg with the Jazz only to end up being better than Jarron Collins and finally usurp his mpg.

Photo from memo13.com

Sloan is old school and I appreciate and respect the fact that when he is wrong he is really okay with saying it like it is. He will admit to being wrong in the instances where he understands that he is wrong. (Unlike a guy like Phil Jackson who will make an infinite number of excuses for anything bad that happens, like blaming the physical play of the other team, their fans, injuries, etc) I would appreciate Sloan even more if he actually stuck to fixing the mistakes, even if that would prevent him from admitting to making them in the first place.

Conclusion:

Wow, if you add it all up these 5 errors truly are epic. This is pretty much a negative review of the only coach my team has had for the last 20 seasons . . . so I'm sure it will have to write a piece about the 5 great things that Sloan does. (And there are at least 5 of them) I don't hate Sloan, but that does not mean that I'm blind to the faults that he does have. I try to be objective on this regard. I think that there is room for improvement (and his staff helps out with this), and I do not know which coach I'd rather have take over my team if you gave me the choice to do so this moment. (Maybe years down the line after Phil Johnson says 'no thanks' I'd be okay with Ty stepping up) All coaches have their flaws, I'm just more intimately aware of Sloan's because I've been an obsessive Jazz fan for the over 60% of my life.

Hoops-pedia: Game of Destiny

Hoops-pedia is a new section (but not a weekly one like YouTube Tuesdays or Flashback Friday) where I would like to take some time to explain something about the game -- be it a play, or a rule, or terminology or something. Often I use terms that are only really known to me and those I regularly discuss basketball with. That's fine and good for those people and I, but not for the general population (i.e. the rest of the world) who are unfamiliar with that term. Hence . . . the necessity of Hoops-pedia. [Of course, there already is a web page named "hoopedia" which was the original name of this section until I typed it in to Google and found out that I shouldn't use that name.]

Anyway, today's Hoops-pedia is about the elusive Game of Destiny. This is a term only to be used in the most reverent ways. We all have Games of Destiny in our lives. They are not just limited to NBA players, or even professional athletes. Every kid in high school who sticks around after school to shoot hoops to the older guys (like me) who lace it up at the YMCA are allowed at least one Game of Destiny in their lives. The Game of Destiny is bigger than basketball though, it's in life when you do the best you can, better than even you thought you ever could -- this is when it becomes a Moment of Destiny. (i.e. something ridiculously great like fighting off a bear with your bare hands in order to save your pregnant sister's life or something . . . while blindfolded and exorcising your demons by finally overcoming your crippling fear of fighting bears)

In the small scale world of the NBA, the Game is Destiny is best realized when a guy with limited talent, Basketball IQ, playing time or heart puts it all together and helps his team win. While it may not be the best example, I look at the game back in the 1997-1998 season where Adam Keefe had a Game of Destiny.

Adam Keefe was probably a better volleyball player than basketball player -- but he had a few things going for him. He was 6'8, and he could jump all day. This allowed him to bat lose balls in the direction of more talented team mates, and surprise people by blocking their shots. He was a starter on an NBA Finals team -- but his NBA career (and relative skill level) was nothing to write home about. He did play in 681 games (regular season and playoffs combined) in the NBA, which is more than I ever will. For a 10th pick in the Draft he didn't really wow people, and ended up with career averages of 5.0 ppg (.502 fg, .714 ft) and 4.1 rpg in about 16.7 mpg. He's nearly a double double guy if you extrapolate his stats to 36 mpg (10.8 ppg, 8.9 rpg career) -- but no team would wish to play him that much. The most he has ever averaged in a season was 25.6 mpg for the Jazz back in 1997-1998. Essentially, he was Jerry Sloan's Matt Harpring before Harpring was even on the Jazz. A gritty, scrappy, under-athletic garbageman.

On March 22, 1998 the Utah Jazz were finishing up their 2nd Eastern Conference 5 Game Road Trip of the month with a game at MSG, in New York City against the Knicks. This game was a great game, as the Jazz ended up coming back from down by 17 (11 in the 4th) to win in Double Overtime 124-119. Karl Malone had 30 points (55% fg, 8/10 fts), 14 rebounds, 8 assists and 2 blocks. John Stockton had 22 points (61.5fg%, 2-3 3pts), 14 assists, 3 steals and 3 rebounds. If you just look at the boxscore, and the boxscore alone it would appear that they were the main reasons why the Jazz defeated a very deep Knicks team (Charles Oakley, John Starks, Larry Johnson, Charlie Ward, Allen Houston, Chris Childs, Chris Mills, Terry Cummings, and injured Patrick Ewing) that was coached by Jeff Van Gundy. If you watched the game live on NBC (like I did), or the YouTube videos of this game, you may notice that Adam Keefe was huge.

You may just notice that Adam Keefe had a Game of Destiny!

Keefe played 41 minutes in the game, shot 8/10 from the floor and 9/11 at the line for a whopping 25 points (or the same number of points as how many points Allen Houston scored as the primary option for a team in a game that goes to double overtime). He had 7 boards, 2 assists and 2 steals to boot. The scorekeepers at MSG cheated and took away the 2 blocks he also had. Just as a point of reference, that season Keefe averaged 7.8 ppg and did not regularly shoot 80% from the floor, . . . but he did in that game. And the Jazz needed it -- as everyone but John and Karl were having horrible games -- even John was missing gimmie shots, getting the ball stolen from him, and shooting 50% at the FT line, Hornacek was missing three throws as well. I would embed part of the game, but the YouTube user TRJ22487 has disabled that method of sharing videos . . . so here's the link instead -- watch Adam Keefe show all the other garbagemen in the NBA how to have a proper Game of Destiny! (It is a really interesting game, so if you have half an hour to kill on YouTube, click away -- this link is only for a section of the end of the 4th quarter though, and does not include any of the over-time periods, you will have to click on the next videos for those).

Flashback Friday: Blue Edwards

Theodore "Blue" Edwards . . . man . . . he probably had the most statistically 'average' career of the most average NBA players. He really had done a whole lot, he was drafted by a perennial playoff team, was in a dunk contest, traded to a cellar dweller, dunked a lot, then moved onto an expansion franchise, got in some legal custody battle, and faded into oblivion . . . the sad part is that I was there every step of the way following his career. Blue was a 6'4/6'5 tweener guard/forward. He didn't really have three point range on his shot (but still shot a very respectable 33.5% from there for his career), and he was mostly a hustle player. The Utah Jazz drafted him 21st in the 1988-1989 NBA Draft. His best season as a pro had to be his first year out of Utah, playing in Milwaukee (part of that Jay Humphries, Larry Krystkowiak trade back in 1992-1993).

He played 33.3 mpg, and played in 82 games. Sure, he was out of the protective passing range of John Stockton -- so his shooting percentage dipped a bit. He still managed 16.9 ppg (off of 51.2 fg%, 79.0 FT%, 34.9 3pt%). 4.7 rpg, 2.6 apg and 1.6 spg -- all career highs. He left Milwaukee after the '94 season ended and somehow split time the next season with the Boston Celtics, and then the Utah Jazz again.

Blue as a Rookie with the Jazz	Blue became our Starter at the Two for a while	A veteran Blue Edwards was a key part of the Grizzlies gameplan

The second stage of his life began when he was taken in the expansion draft and headed north to play for the Vancouver Grizzlies.

He was a solid veteran player by this stage in his career, and was instrumental in guiding them to their handful of wins. I really rooted for him at this stage of his career, he was getting solid minutes and had a solid role for once. There he met and impregnated a nice Canadian girl (Kimberly Van de Perre) and had a custody battle with. (The custody battle went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada) Tsk Tsk. Who do you think you are, Shawn Kemp? But let's not remember him for all of that, that's not the point of Flashback Friday. (there was a point?)

Two distinct Blue Edwards moments come quickly to me, and my rose-colored glasses tinted memories of previous incarnations of the Utah Jazz. One game, I think in the playoffs on NBC, had Blue get an offensive rebound, then he fake dribbling it back out to re-set a play (Stockton even bought it and was waiting for the pass) and then he quickly turned back and drove to the basket and dunked the ball. Some NBC talking head (Bob Costas?) exclaimed that "Blue Edwards is playing like a TIGER!" and, well, that's a strange thing to say. (It's very Ron Burgundy)

The second moment was long after his "interesting" Dunk contest entry back when he was a nobody. This was back when Adam Keefe was a rookie playing for the Hawks and back when no one used to show up to the Omni to watch the Hawks play. This was back when Blue was playing for the Milwaukee Bucks, and for some reason Canadian TV was broadcasting this game between the Bucks on the road against the Hawks (sans 'Nique et al.). It was a broken play in the first quarter and the Omni was so quiet you could hear everything on the court, from the sneaker squeaks to the chatter of the players. It gave the game a more intimate feel in some ways. Well anyway, Blue got the ball in a broken play -- and if for no other reason than for the people sadly watching at home -- he took off from the circle and threw down a one handed traffic jam over a few Hawks. Sadly the play of the game happened in the 1st quarter of play. But I was so NBA starved growing up in Canada that I would watch anything . . . even Blue Edward's led Milwaukee Bucks teams. For good reason that highlight does not exist on YouTube, but I did find this interesting video that DOES feature Blue Edwards. It's a vid of the Top 10 plays of the week, from some random week during the 1990-1991 NBA Season. And thus, it's a classic all by itself and I could probably do a Flashback Friday on just the plays and players that appear in this YouTube offering.

Okay, I just watched this video again, and it truly is a masterpiece, a great collection of moments in time that were part of my childhood.

#10 -- David Benoit bricking a shot for the Jazz against the Spurs (another tough Texas team), Mike Brown being on the Jazz, and Blue skying in out of no where to do something ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as the length ratio of his shorts and his compression shorts.

#9 -- John Battle beating Kurt Rambis off the dribble and getting the And-1 on Tom Chambers. Special note is that Danny Ferry is open but no one passes the ball to him, very classic.

#8 -- Dennis Hopson nails a three from behind half court against the Jazz

#7 -- I was watching this game on TV years ago, and I remember this play. Danny Ainge (who had won titles with the Celtics) does a pretty impressive no look pass on the break that results in a Buck Williams basket.

#6 -- Jordan and Pippen being Jordan and Pippen. Pip is seriously under-rated. Dee Brown (I) and Reggie Lewis are helpless as the Bulls run wild on them.

#5 -- Plastic-man against the Lakers. Kevin Willis and Adam Keefe round out the front court for the Atlanta Hawks in this highlight. The Lakers have Byron Scott, A.C. Green, Sam Perkins and Elden Campbell on the floor.

#4 -- Clyde the Glide basically drives and shoots without looking at the basket. He scores on (teammate) Kevin Duckworth, Doug West (before the alcoholism) and Felton Spencer. Terry Porter (another current NBA head coach / GM type) gets an assist on this, I think.

#3 -- Isiah Thomas with the rebound, assist and stupid face all while sitting on the floor, and not even looking at the ball ... against the Kings.

#2 -- Spudd Webb (how many Sacramento Kings highlights this week?) breaks down Kenny Smith (of TNT fame), and splits Otis Thorpe and "Akeem" Olajuwon for a pretty difficult lay-up.

#1 -- That now famous Larry Bird shot from that same Boston/Portland game that I was watching live on TV as a kid back in my parents basement. He gets the ball, is defended well by Cliff Robinson Clyde Drexler, manages to trip over himself, and throw up a three pointer that ties the game 122-122 with 2.0 seconds left in Boston Garden. Amazing.

Returning to the Promised Land

The Jazz brass, coaches and owner have done three things well in the post Stockton-to-Malone era:

Retuning to the NBA Finals does not occur by chance, but by following out a long term plan.

I. The first thing that the Jazz brass (and co.) has done well is they've established a winning formula, and have enjoyed a consistency that other franchises have lacked. While this has the drawback at some level of inherent stagnancy, the NBA mandated rules changes have kept the Jazz coaches on their toes. One particular rule change which threw a major wrench in the system was the removal of the previous Illegal defense rules. Now Zone Defenses are allowed -- even pseudo-Zones are hard for the Jazz to handle as it's man-to-man defense, but an extra guy to rove around and get in passing lanes -- daring the pound it inside Jazz to shoot from outside. (This was particularly difficult for the Jazz to do during December of that 2007-2008 season, which resulted in many losses)

The Zone Defense friendly NBA forced the hand of the Jazz brass and they have endeavored to start playing 5 on 5 basketball on offense for the first time ever (but more on that later). They needed to avoid Zone defenses in order to properly run their offensive sets. Previous versions of the Jazz would run their forward based offensive sets (Malone, Dantley, Bailey) and involve strong guard play all while the center fell asleep at the top of the key.

This has always been the case as the Jazz used to park Mark Eaton up at the top of the circle while he watched the finesse guys do their thing. Then Greg Ostertag came in and was able to use his height to exploit a high-low passing game inside. If you did that now, no one would follow Mark or Greg outside, and the paint would get clogged very quickly. To counter that the Jazz have further evolved by getting one of the few true bigmen (check out his rebounding games in the playoffs if you don't believe me that he's a bigman) who has a very legit three point shot -- Mehmet Okur. While the NBA has made several rule changes since the Stockton-to-Malone era, the evolution of the Jazz sets has been sped along because of smart roster moves.

The signing of Okur allows for the Jazz to move him farther than Jerry Sloan had ever imagine moving Eaton or Ostertag -- out beyond the three point line. Furthermore, Okur needs to be defended out there -- thus necessitating luring out the guy who defends him (a defensive big), or a smaller guard (causing a miss match somewhere else on the floor). The biggest benefit to this roster quirk is that it retains the floor spacing that is needed for the majority of the Jazz sets: pick and roll with the PG and PF, or finding a cutter in the vacuum left by a vacating center for easy dunks for Andrei and Brewer. I'm surprised at how well it works, and encouraged by this -- it shows that the coaches are working with the front office to get players that can do good things on the court, and work within a system. You couldn't get away with this offensive set back in the Stockton-to-Malone days . . .

II. The second thing that the Jazz brass (particularly the coaches) have done well is that they've tried to learn from their mistakes. Often Stockton was the only guy on the floor who could get the job done; and often, he was the best player on the floor. All too often (save for that elimination game 4th quarter vs. the Rockets where it was Stockton vs. Houston); unfortunately John didn't call his own number enough -- and that hurt the team. What have the Jazz done now? They've got a good passer and floor leader at the point guard -- but someone who is ultimately the most confident in his own abilities. We've had Deron for three seasons now, as we know that when it counts he's not afraid to be 'The Man' -- something Stockton always deferred to Karl (who, honestly, was not as clutch) about.

Another example happens to be expanding the game to involve more people on offense. At their most dangerous the Stockton-to-Malone teams were filled with subordinates like Hornacek and Russell, or Bailey and Griffith. Never did they fully get a chance to have 5 good offensive players on the floor at the same time (thanks, Rony Seikaly -- you could have really helped against Michael Jordan and the Chicago Bulls back then). It's hard to win titles playing 4 on 5.

This version of the Jazz has the ability to play 5 on 5 on offense for the first time in franchise history -- and this has not come at the expense of needing to change the entire playbook. Once the Jazz secured a good, smart point guard to tandem with their beast of a power forward (acquired as a free agent) it was going to be the pick and roll show all over again. This play used to kill teams back in the illegal defense era. Now people are allowed to zone, and as a result, relying on the pick and roll is harder to do.

In order to prevent the picker getting immediately double teamed by bigmen the Jazz need to lure out a bigman outside. Chicken and egg thing with Point I and Point II -- but that displays how inter-related things are: in order to learn from your mistakes you have to have a winning game plan. Thus, if the Jazz wanted to keep relying on forward based offensive scoring sets from the paint, some tweaks were going to be needed to be made.

III. The final thing that they have done well is that they've been able to key in, identify and get similar types of players on the roster -- attempting for coax lightning to strike twice. The obvious comparisons exist -- Carlos Boozer plays like an older, jump shooting Malone. Deron Williams is an adept passing lead guard who is clutch at the end of games, like Stockton. As always, it's more than just replacing Stockton and Malone.

Then:	Now:	Difference:
John Stockton	Deron Williams	Not better: but more willing to step up in crunch time
		Stockton was the consummate professional and floor leader. Possessing not just physical tools (like good health and excellent stamina), he also had vast amounts of Basketball IQ -- essentially being another coach on the floor. There would be no success without John. Similarly, Deron Williams is the heart of this version of the Jazz. He is adept at passing (had over 10 apg in his 2nd NBA season, John didn't break that barrier until his 4th). He's not the coach on the floor though, but the Quarterback who calls his own plays -- and is much more willing to do it himself. Sadly, the Jazz could have used a more selfish version of John Stockton. They may have the next best thing in Deron Williams.
Jeff Hornacek	Kyle Korver	Gives up floor game and passing for a more min/maxed player
		Jeff Hornacek, some people forget, was an All-Star for the West. He was the principle piece that the Sixers got back for trading Barkley -- and all he did was put up 19 ppg (.47/.39/.87), 7 apg, and 2 spg in return. Not too shabby. Hornacek had every shot, and was a much more skilled NBA player. His age and lingering injuries prevented him from being a great defender for the Jazz. Kyle Korver, also acquired in a mid-season trade from the Sixers, is more of a specialist. He is statistically a better three point shooter and free throw shooter. Over this last season Kover received shooting training with Hornacek -- and Jeff admits in his 'aw shucks' type of way that Kyle is a really great shooter, maybe better than Jeff. Jeff brought more to the table though and started.
Bryon Russell	Andrei Kirilenko	Better: much more creative and a great shot blocker
		Before being emasculated by Jordan in the finals Russell was a confident and competent forward who was the best defensive stopper on the Jazz who could run, dunk, do whatever was asked of him, and unassumingly hit threes just when the Jazz needed them. Sound like anyone we know? Andrei is more versatile -- playing everything but center in the playoffs for us between 2006-2007 and 2007-2008; though, let's not forget that in 1998-1999 Russell had to guard Chris Webber in the playoffs due to foul trouble. Like Russell, AK-47 always has to guard to other teams' best offensive player and as often as he gets beat, he comes up with a timely deflection, steal, or block at a more critical juncture in the game. His offensive ability is truncated in his role with the Jazz, but is the most talented player on the team.
Karl Malone	Carlos Boozer	Worse: but possibly owns more left-handed post moves though
		Carlos Boozer is a beast by today's standards. (at least in the regular season) If you put Karl Malone at his peak in today's game he would own all of these passive, physical play avoiding bigmen. (Seriously, Amare Stoudemire never step on the same court against Charles Oakley.) Both have (at least in the eyes of jaded Jazz fans) built a reputation for not being able to equal their production in the playoffs. Unfortunately for Boozer, his drop off is so severe that it's pure folly to even talk about these two forwards in the same breath. If you want to really get a picture of how ridiculous the comparison is then read this.
Antoine Carr	Paul Millsap	The same: the only difference is age and experience vs. youth
		The "Big Dawg" was taller and at that stage, a very savvy veteran who had all the sneaky, esoteric knowledge on how to get away with fouls. Millsap gets called for a ton of fouls -- though they are essentially the same player. Millsap is younger, has some upside, and has a lot more energy and vigor. Both had surprisingly developed offensive games -- but mostly scored close to the basket, often on put backs / tip ins. Carr was a great bench guy for any playoff team, who defended the paint, got boards and blocked some shots. He even had a 20 point game in the NBA finals once. It's not impossible to see Millsap do that well.
Howard Eisley	Brevin Knight	Better: Knight + Price > Eisley + Vaughn
		Eisley's career before the Jazz was nothing to write home about, and his NBA career after the Jazz was almost as pathetic as Shandon's was. Because of this many people fail to realize that he was the best back-up point guard the Jazz have ever had since John Stockton was coming off the bench. He could push the ball up the floor, knew all of the sets, was active defensively and was able to shoot the three with deadly accuracy and even hit game winners. That game winner that Deron had vs. the Cavs last season? Well, Eisley used to do that type of thing back for the Jazz in 1998. While there is little chance for Knight to be as good all-around as Howard was for the Jazz, Knight is a very solid veteran who can run a club, never turns the ball over, and is a good steals guy. This looks like another downgrade; however I'd take Knight and Price (basically a younger, more exciting Howard Eisley with less playmaking and more highlight making skills) over Eisley and Jaques Vaughn any day of the week.
Shandon Anderson	Ronnie Brewer	Better: by sheer virtue of Brewer being taller and able to play the 1, 2 or 3
		Shandon Anderson was a young, athletic, defensive minded player who played within his limitations. He never tried to become an outside bomber. His bread and butter was to sneak around and find an open spot on the floor as the other team was concentrating on the other guys (Stockton, Hornacek and Malone) more than they were on him. He turned hard cuts into layups and dunks. Ronnie Brewer is much the same, being an offensive opportunist using his speed, size and athleticism to get easy dunks as the defense pays him no attention. Both benefited from playing with eager passers (Stockton, Hornacek and Malone for Shandon; Williams, Kirilenko and Boozer for Ronnie). Both are the 2nd member of their families to be part of the NBA (Shandon's older brother, and Ronnie's dad both played). Ronnie is longer, faster and has top 5% NBA athleticism (as seen in the pre-draft combine). His shot is broken, but appears to give more to the Jazz than Shandon did -- for one thing, Ronnie starts.
Greg Foster	Mehmet Okur	Better: and it's not even close
		Foster was an occasional starter during the two finals seasons, managing to do so in over 50 games. Okur is our full-time starting center. Both were outside shooting bigmen who were not regarded as big-time rebounders. Memo is a much better rebounder, defender, outside shooter, inside player, and is a serious playoff perform who does all the clutch things you need to win (game winners, or offensive rebounds). Foster was a better dunker -- and both guys are some crappy fight in them. Foster getting into it with the Lakers' Rick Fox, and Memo coming close to throwing down on Juwan Howard among others. Foster was an okay player, but was very annoying in that Sasha Vujacic type of way. Memo has been an All-Star and is a serious upgrade for the Jazz.
Adam Keefe	Matt Harpring	Better: and also a better fitting role for this type of player
		I guess we need a frame of reference when bad mouthing our own players. Adam Keefe used to start on one of our NBA Finals teams. (and play 25.6 mpg!!!) How insane is that? Keefe, who may be a better beach volleyball player than basketball player, couldn't shoot, and hardly ever caught passes. At least those are two things that Matt Harpring does (sometimes). They both were solid rebounders from the small forward spot, and both did not have three point range. Both used to get torched on defense -- but at least Harpring occasionally has one of those games where he gets 14 points, 1 steal and 5 rebounds. Keefe didn't even give us that as a starter. Harpring is a good bench guy.
Chris Morris	C.J. Miles	Not Better, Not Worse: Anything we do get will be better though
		By the time Chris Morris made his way the Utah, he was a serious NBA performer who could put the ball in the basket. After three NBA seasons C.J. Miles is a guy who can't get off the bench, but who could one day be a serious NBA player. Both are taking lesser roles to play here -- Morris was a starter in New Jersey; and C.J. Miles could start for some teams (or at least, get more playing time). Both have legit three point range and can bust out for some nasty jams. Both have had clashes with Jerry Sloan -- especially over their roles. Right now we can only hope that C.J. can one day become the player that Chris Morris was before coming to the Jazz. If not, then whatever, we still have Morris Almond . . .

The Jazz brass has done a more than adequate job of emulating the roster of those Finals teams. Those finals teams sported a good mix of talent -- two Olympians, who were also All-Stars mixed in with another former All-Star and a variety of (mostly older) veteran role players. There were no specialists off the bench save for Foster who could hit an outside jumper better than most centers in that era. This team currently has three Olympians, an All-Star mixed in with two other former All-Stars (and one to be in Deron Williams). The bench is almost exclusively comprised of specialists -- Korver is the shooter, Harpring is the hustle guy, Millsap is the paint terror. There have been improvements on all major archetypes save for the fact that Morris/Miles, Carr/Millsap and Hornacek/Korver are all pretty much washes. Okur is clearly better than Foster and while Stockton is ahead of Williams in career ability, Deron Williams is far from a bad player on any given playoff game. Malone destroys Boozer, but the overall talent is upgraded. Kudos to the Jazz for being able to (at least on paper) recreate their championship contending team. Is that all? Is this team NBA Finals worthy?

One large piece is missing . . . you know, a big (7 feet tall at least), rebounding and shot blocking guy. It's a roughly Greg Ostertag sized hole. A Mark Eaton or Ostertag -- something the Jazz has always had the advantage of having, is just not an archetype that the Jazz Brass has been able to duplicate on this version of the team. Three potential prospects exist though -- one is an American born, 7'0, 19 year old Greek who can block shots, but is more likely to make them; another is a 7'1, skinny Croatian who is far removed from playing in the NBA; and the last is a 7'1 Ukrainian who has a questionable work ethic. The previous Jazz teams had to fight against the passage of time. The limiting reagent in this equation happens to be the salary cap.

Compared to those glory year teams, our current roster is better -- but we are behind in the big defensive galoot department. Does that mean that the one guy who is hated for his play, but loved for his goofiness (Ostertag) is the dividing line between serious championship contender and what the Jazz currently have? Essentially, this appears to be more truth than fiction -- as the only major weakness exists as a lack of a shot blocking presence stationed in the paint. Ideally internal improvement of our young centers will satisfy this component -- we do not need a quantum leap in center ability, we just need to get Kosta or Kyrylo to channel their inner-Ostertag. And then we'll be back in the promised land.