RealGM

Call me crazy but this Jazz team is actually kind of fun right now. They have a bunch of weird fitting parts that I expect will get moved but lets say they don't. How good do you think they are?

Depth Chart:
Azubuike/Kessler/Vanderbilt
Vanderbilt/Gay
Bogdanovic/Beasley/Bolmaro
Mitchell/Clarkson/Walker-Alexander
Conley/Beverly

You'd expect them to move one or two of that depth in the back court for some depth in the front court but it's actually a sneaky good team if they can find the right piece. Maybe like Boucher for Beverly or maybe they could add a guy like John Collins, who the Hawks have been actively shopping.

This team is too talented to be bottom of the barrel in the league and I expect them to be fighting for the play-in with a few minor tweaks to the roster.

37-45, battling for the 9 or 10

I doubt any Jazz fan would describe this team as "fun" right now

30 wins team, imo they are everything but a "sneaky good" team - they are bad and nothing sneaky about it

as you said, I imagine with or without Mitchell this roster will change throughout the season but current roster is weak. With more complete tanking bottom feeders around the league, perhaps they could have squeaked out a couple of extra wins vs the worst teams but not many of those around this coming season

Spurs, Rockets, indy if they trade Turner\Hield.. then the Jazz
The Rockets might be better if one of their young guys makes a surprising leap

the West is stacked, I honestly have a hard time picturing this roster win more than 30-32 games and if they decide to tank\trade Mitchell and sit veterans out..that figure could go down to 25-27 range imo

Really really far from Victor Wembanyama

I think NBA players really understand when they are on a team that has no future together. They play for individual success, ignoring what is best for the team. They take plays off and games off when it suits their interests. They are more focused on updates from their agents on possible destinations than advice or admonishments from their coach

The Jazz are such a team.

As such, I expect that the Jazz will be less successful than the talent of their individual parts suggests.

Sent from my SM-N960U using RealGM mobile app

I would assume that we would finish between 11th and 13th in the Western Conference. Probably on-par with, but slightly worse than Sacramento.

Scalabrine wrote:Call me crazy but this Jazz team is actually kind of fun right now.

You're crazy. This might be the least watchable team in the league. If they trade Mitchell, they might be the least watchable team in history.

Even if they keep Mitchell, they will basically be a worse version of last year's blazers.

Depends on whether or not they trade Mitchell.

If they don't, they're a 30-39 win team. If they do, they're a <30 win team.

They're meh to me. This is where I would be at odds with ATCQ because I don't have the Jazz.

With how horrific the defense looks without Gobert, I wouldn't doubt the team is still quite awful even with Mitchell on the court

My guess is record wise they'll be better than people think.

One advantage the Jazz have going for them is that not only do they get to play 41 games at home, they get to play them at altitude, and often at the tail end of a back to back with Denver (Denver gets the same advantage as well). I believe this leads to more wins than would be expected. It's why the Jazz have never ever been the flat out worst team in the NBA (or at least in Utah, at least since post Stockton/Malone...I imagine some of those early 80s teams were wretched), even with rosters that were horrible.

I'd put the over under at 25 games and bet the under. They simply have the worst defense perhaps in NBA history as it sits now. This team looks to be ready to start giving up the most 50 point games to stars in NBA history. They didn't just give up Gobert, they gave up O'neal who was really their only other plus defender.

Nate505 wrote:My guess is record wise they'll be better than people think.

One advantage the Jazz have going for them is that not only do they get to play 41 games at home, they get to play them at altitude, and often at the tail end of a back to back with Denver (Denver gets the same advantage as well). I believe this leads to more wins than would be expected. It's why the Jazz have never ever been the flat out worst team in the NBA (or at least in Utah, at least since post Stockton/Malone...I imagine some of those early 80s teams were wretched), even with rosters that were horrible.

Hadn't thought of this...could mitchel pull some kinda run and gun Alex English type thing? I don't see it...just not enough fire power and teams still just shoot too well, but I guess that's at least not absurd to see happening.

If the Jazz busted their proverbial ass, they could be like last year's Trailblazers team. However, I think they're going to trade out Bogdanovic, PatBev and one or two other guys and tank for it.

They are going to tank don't expect the playoffs. Besides Gobert, they lost two starters in Ingles and O'neal. Conley is old. They have two 7 footers that have promise but will go through all the growing pains Gobert did his first couple years.

Fun is definitely not what I would call this Jazz team.

With that said, this Jazz team could have a very good offense if noone gets traded. So how good they are will largely depend on just how bad they are defensively? Historically bad? Or generationally bad? Or just regularly bad? IMO this team is around .500 team, maybe leaning slightly under.

But then again... I don't expect this to be the team when the season starts.

dhsilv2 wrote:

Nate505 wrote:My guess is record wise they'll be better than people think.

One advantage the Jazz have going for them is that not only do they get to play 41 games at home, they get to play them at altitude, and often at the tail end of a back to back with Denver (Denver gets the same advantage as well). I believe this leads to more wins than would be expected. It's why the Jazz have never ever been the flat out worst team in the NBA (or at least in Utah, at least since post Stockton/Malone...I imagine some of those early 80s teams were wretched), even with rosters that were horrible.

Hadn't thought of this...could mitchel pull some kinda run and gun Alex English type thing? I don't see it...just not enough fire power and teams still just shoot too well, but I guess that's at least not absurd to see happening.

Yeah, don't get me wrong, I don't think they'll be good even if Mitchell is there, but I do think they'll get more wins than people think just due to the schedule and the fact that you'll have other teams resting their stars on those back-to-backs (and also have other teams playing more poorly) and the like.

On the other hand, the Nuggets have had some putrid teams in the past, so they kind of kill my theory here haha.

stitches wrote:Fun is definitely not what I would call this Jazz team.

With that said, this Jazz team could have a very good offense if noone gets traded. So how good they are will largely depend on just how bad they are defensively? Historically bad? Or generationally bad? Or just regularly bad? IMO this team is around .500 team, maybe leaning slightly under.

But then again... I don't expect this to be the team when the season starts.

How exactly are the Jazz supposed to have a "very good offense"?

For all the talk of Gobert's limited offense, the reality is that Utah's offense has been considerably better with him on the floor for years now (significantly so).

they're going to miss Gobert on both ends. they're gonna miss Snyder too.

they r going to be very dependant on Conley to make plays and he's 35, he played 70 games last season and hasn't exactly been the picture of health, it's more likely that he will miss more games this season and Pat Bev ain't gonna do squat offensively..

Gobert,Inlges,O'neal, Snyder..that's a whole system right there, takes time to implement a new system and integrate new pieces

Gay is washed, Bojan isn't getting any younger and this team is either in a semi-tank or in a full tank
Mitchell, Bojan, Conley etc. gonna keep them from being bad on offense, but anything more than an average offense will a surprise imo., Vanderbilt is very limited on offense, Azubuike is terrible

I just don't see it

They are pretty bad but I don't think they have caught up with OKC, HOU and San Antonio.