David wrote:If you'll notice, the rookies who got to play a lot a few years ago, for the most part, have been 4 year college players. Guys who weren't kids without basketball training.
The rookies coming in now are would-be college sophmores, with little, actual, basketball training. They have to get their training on-the-job. If your team is trying to make the playoffs, all players have to earn their playing time.
If the Ws play their rookies, just because, then the Ws aren't trying to make the playoffs. They're playing for the future, like the Sonics did last year.
I don't think you can cry about playing the rookies and expect to, realistically, make the playoffs. IMO, if you think a team can be a contender with college sophmores in the lineup, not name Jordan, KG, LBJ or Magic, your delusional.
The gaps in Nelson's coaching career without rookies, Nelson was out of coaching or didn't have rookies, or in the case of recently, didn't have rookies capable of playing on a playoff contender.
What does "WAN'T GOOD ENOUGH" mean in English?
I saw your name and thought to myself 100-1 odds it is about Nelson. You never disappoint. Of your posts thus far, what percentage do NOT involve a defense of Don Nelson? Is there any other aspect to this game or team that interests you? You seem like a bright enough guy, but your focus is incredibly narrow. I bet you cannot do 10 posts in a row without defending Nelson directly or indirectly...I know you are not Don Nelson (you write too well) but seriously. Are you a friend, a relative, or just a Stan-style fan?
I hope you're not another one of those people who tries to control the posts of others besides themselves. I'd be disappointed that there's another one.
Let me point something out, that you probably haven't noticed. I'm responding to something
. I didn't just start a thread about how great Don Nelson is. I'm trying to address a misconception, or an instance of misinformation. The subject, that I, didn't start
, was Don Nelson. I'm not sure why it's cool to express irrational hate for someone but uncool to offer a rebuttal to that irrational hate.
For every post that I'm defending Nelson, that means there's a post that prompted me to respond, yet I'm considered narrowly focused. What about the people I'm responding to? Aren't they just as narrowly focused or are there several I'm responding to? Am I the one making things up and throwing it out there or am I the one looking things up to offer an informed opinion?
If you're wondering how many of my posts are about Nelson, do a search by name. You might be surprised.