martin wrote:ok. taken and eaten. off to analyzing games and 'defending' nelson wherever i feel there's enough data for that.
as for me, i see this team playing much better lately (except the stinker in portland) and if not 'one injury per game rate' i think we'd be seeing much better basketball every game. in the end, that's the only thing that matters to me.
(and of course, some arguments, even fierce ones, as well )
as great heraclitus the dark said: 'truth is born in argument'

Good good bud..........hey, you know I love my "arguments" and discussions about stuff...........but this subject is just not one that I see COULD be argued.

Hang on a sec.........indulge me a little then if you will:

Take out the injury excuse, because the issues I have with Nelson are irrespective of that...........can you please reason and answer (cuz I respect your opinion and ability to reason) the biggest issue I have with Nelson =

His rotations and situational lineups that repeatedly fail and repeatedly lose us games...........moreover, you say we lose and are so bad because of the injuries, well what about Dallas with 6 players? Portland? what about all the other games weve played and either won and been close in with 6-8 players?

Thats why I dont go with the injuries excuse...........f*ck, Id LOVE an excuse for how bad we are!!! but I just dont seen that being it when there are soooooo many games that have been winnable had it not been for Nelson's subsition patterns (Remember the Hornets game in Nawlins? Nelson's defensive line-up for when Paul hit the go ahead jumper?)
.
.
.
Let me just see what the argument/excuse is for that?

xbay wrote:Wow, talking about sneaking YOUR OWN thread from a year and a half ago back into the mix.

Had to do it man!...........as Rob said a few posts and years back, this is "The Sanctuary" thread.

i think you can find me arguing about portland game and the link to the analysis of the moment in new orleans in this thread

http://www.goldenstwarriors.com/viewtopic.php?t=8851

it begins somewhere page 3-4, i believe.

if you want to become more specific, you can answer there or here.
i'll be glad to discuss, but not in a 'witch hunting' manner.
by the way, i see chum as good addition to members of this forum.

martin wrote:
by the way, i see chum as good addition to members of this forum.

chum is fum

martin wrote:except that it was posted in such a manner and was no better in its way of telling that he doesn't agree than were 32's posts. so, yes it is masonic. especially, with remarks, 'how anyone in its right mind (beware: all who agree are ''knowledgeable basketball fans'') can say this or that'.

my god you're STILL hung up on this? I apologised if i offended you. You didn't remark on that. Its simply a figure of speech. Do i think you are literally out of your mind? Of course not.

I had NO idea you took things so literal. Though not in my nature at all, from now on, I'll be very careful with what I say

martin wrote:so go and make an argument, instead of using less visited forum section, make an argument, instead of using classless labeling 'they'.
as far as i know, lately there have been only two guys not going 'nellie sucks' route and these were me and chum. me and chum. so, which one of 'they' is beyond your understanding and rationale? which one of 'them' is drinking kool aid? which one of 'they' are so jizm infused thatare blinded to see how every team is scucesful doing not what nelson does?
sneaky big (insert whatever you like here).

I've always loved you on this forum martin, you are very funny and even more smart and I enjoy reading your posts, really do.

I understand your angle and attitude on the team and Nelson right now. There have been alot of injuries on the team this season, can't say there hasn't been, but Nelson has misused the roster and the little playing time of AR is the biggest evidence of that. I also don't like the fat old wannker anymore either

martin wrote:i think you can find me arguing about portland game and the link to the analysis of the moment in new orleans in this thread

http://www.goldenstwarriors.com/viewtopic.php?t=8851

it begins somewhere page 3-4, i believe.

if you want to become more specific, you can answer there or here.
i'll be glad to discuss, but not in a 'witch hunting' manner.
by the way, i see chum as good addition to members of this forum.

Man, no "witch hunt" going on here.

I thought I was being "specific" with my question up there...........what are you thoughts on Nelsons subsition and situation rotation patterns?

Thats it.

Martin, you don't understand that this thread was made during a certain point in time when new members were signing up and creating non sense threads in the Warriors forum. So when you would click into the Warrior forum, there'd be these new topics of bullshit, and so James made this since the majority of good posters visit the off topic forum as well. It wouldn't make since to post in the Warriors forum, hey guys i started a thread in off topic to discuss warriors basketball, but don't tell the board idiots!!!! This doesn't really apply to everybody and doesn't single out people for being "new". Chum in fact has been great recently.... I think this thread is just to filter out some of the extra conversations when you want to discuss a certain point.

rob, it's not the way you see it. i'm not arguing about this thread whatsoever. i was specifically addressing one recent post, but it does not matter now, since i think we worked it out with bigs pretty fast.

now. i'll try to reply bigs question, even though it still was not specific.

i do think nelson's rotations are reasonable enough on many levels.
about 'big ball'. one situation - warriors start big against celtics and get down 18 points. celtics bigs are better than warriors, simple. nelson wants to win. he goes small. cj enters and turns the game around by running and forcing turnovers. his tactics are pretty reasonable and in a situation warrios are (i.e. undermanned in 'bigs' ) almost neccessary having in mind that nelson wants to win every game, so he would play his better players and his preffered type of basketball. as any coach would do. as for anthony randolph. he's been playing 20 minutes lately. due to his strengths and weaknesses it's about what he should get. he would not get any of this on more traditional team, because he has no skills to play traditional basketball. i.e. cannot post, doesn't box out, so nelson tries to make him more of an sf type player handling and creating plays. now, this is a challenge for any player, not to mention youngster like he is. he naturally makes mistakes, and bonehead ones, usually playing with abandon on the verge of injuring himself. here's a fire, but a fire still too wild to be used in systematic way more than he is/was.
what else? monta is shining, maggete has his career year under nelson, curry becoming a power being only a rookie. team, despite injuries, playing better with each game and competing with - celts, lakers, cavs. with two probable starters out in azu, wright and then biedrins, rony, now randolph. last year without ellis. like lakers without kobe, not to mention that we have no gasol, bynum, artest here. see how lakers got outmanned by spurs without gasol?
they are young, the roster is changing every weak, it's difficult to build any chemistry that way. jackson case. and the talent level is rather based on potential but not on actual achievements. there's too many factors going not in Ws favor to start dumping on the coach and never giving him credits for the wins.