RealGM

Against all odds, the Nuggets and Jazz have the same number of wins right now, but the Nuggets are arguably bold favorites to win tonight. It is a home game, and several important Utah players will not play (Markkanen, Clarkson, Conley, Sexton).

Murray looks like he's getting comfortable with his scoring again, a very good sign.

Nuggets giving up too many 3pters tonight, while ours aren't dropping.

Looks like bench is gonna be a letdown tonight

skywalker33 wrote:Murray looks like he's getting comfortable with his scoring again, a very good sign.

We should call old (I mean young) Jamal Murray is officially back! Murray scored 20+ points this season only twice in the first 11 games he played but 8 times out of 11 in the last 11 games he played.

The win is a win, but when the contender team leads +8 on halftime at home vs 2nd unit of the other team it should be a routine win, not last-minute tied game drama, especially when MVP doing MVP things (30+ triple-double) and Murray has 30-5-5 night, which clearly means the rest of the team underperformed badly.

The bench only scored 20pts and BB was off his usual sparkplug game, scoring only 4pts. UTH always plays us tough and as you pointed out, a win is a win.

I guess I’m the only one who was happy with the way we played? Yeah they were missing all of their good players, but we were still on the wrong side of some really vicious 3-point variance—and still held on for the win. Our defense was much improved, we cut down on turnovers, and we were getting consistently great looks on offense. I thought we looked great.

davoarid wrote:I guess I’m the only one who was happy with the way we played? Yeah they were missing all of their good players, but we were still on the wrong side of some really vicious 3-point variance—and still held on for the win. Our defense was much improved, we cut down on turnovers, and we were getting consistently great looks on offense. I thought we looked great.

The point being, if they had their good players, would we of even been in this game ? They do seem to have some hungry backup players but still...If you're happy, that's fine but if you want to consider this a true contender that should have you a bit worried.

skywalker33 wrote:The point being, if they had their good players, would we of even been in this game ? They do seem to have some hungry backup players but still...If you're happy, that's fine but if you want to consider this a true contender that should have you a bit worried.

The Jazz started the game by shooting 7/11 for three, their first 20-something points were literally all threes. Having their "good players" doesn't necessarily mean they would've been shooting 11/11 Good players can have bad games, bad players can have good games etc. Murray looked way more comfortable than recently and that's a pretty good thing.

Richard Miller wrote:

skywalker33 wrote:The point being, if they had their good players, would we of even been in this game ? They do seem to have some hungry backup players but still...If you're happy, that's fine but if you want to consider this a true contender that should have you a bit worried.

The Jazz started the game by shooting 7/11 for three, their first 20-something points were literally all threes. Having their "good players" doesn't necessarily mean they would've been shooting 11/11 Good players can have bad games, bad players can have good games etc. Murray looked way more comfortable than recently and that's a pretty good thing.

Saying we would have had the same chance without Jokic, Murray and AG50 would be about the same situation (already without MPJ) as the Jazz were dealing with. To call that as a legit game is silly IMO