Don Nelson on Randolph’s scattered playing time: “Let me coach my team”
POSTED BY TIM KAWAKAMI ON JANUARY 7TH, 2009 AT 10:54 PM

Short lead-in tonight, ’cause I already wrote a column (Warriors management doesn’t deserve these loyal, passionate fans) and I am getting out of here…

The Warriors played well, just like they have at home for the last few weeks, but got out-gunned in the fourth quarter by the Lakers at Oracle tonight. Short notes:

-The Lakers were on a back-to-back and were without Lamar Odom and Luke Walton.

-The Warriors were without Stephen Jackson and without Brandan Wright after he partially dislocated his left shoulder in the second quarter.

-That put Anthony Randolph in the game, and he was good. Made 4 of his 6 shots in 14 minutes, got 2 rebounds, had one blocked shot and was a strong presence in there–with a few trademark wacky offensive moments.

So of course we had to ask Don Nelson about Randolph–who did not play in the team’s last four games, all by Nelson’s decision.

For once, it wasn’t me who got Nelson riled. It was all Lowell C. But oh yes, Nelson got riled, lots of pent-up frustration about hearing, for years now, that he screws around with young big men and tries to make them fail.

With Randolph being the 2008-2009 example. When Randolph plays like he did tonight, it does make you wonder why he can’t get 5 to 10 minutes every night.

So… the response.

—–DON NELSON, post-game press conference/

-Opening statement: Well, I have no problems with the way we played. Thought we followed our gameplan pretty well. We made some errors, but we played pretty well for a long period of time.

I kind of got the sense that they were just toying around with us, until they wanted to tighten the screws. But that’s not so, sometimes. That can backfire.

They were on a back-to-back and we understand how that is. But we played pretty well. I’ve got no problems when we compete like that.

-Q: How did Anthony Randolph play?

-NELSON: Very well.

-Q: Before the game you talked about him not being NBA-ready. Didn’t he look ready tonight?

-NELSON: Yeah, he did very well tonight.

-Q: Does that mean he might do well other nights?

-NELSON: Look it, I think what you guys need to do is just let me coach my team. Let me bring these guys along the way I see fit. That’s what they hired me for. And stop worrying about a 19-year-old kid.


Because you know what? It’s not good for him, either. Because he takes things for granted and he’s got to work his way in. He’s got work to do. He played well tonight. This is the way we expect him to play. This is the way we hope that he plays.

He’s been practicing like this for three days. And we’re going to take it and go with it. OK?

But he did very well. I’m proud of him.

Nobody’s rooting against this guy. We’re rooting for him. We want him to do well. But he needs to be coached, and we’re doing that.

-Q: You took him out with about 7 minutes left. Did you just feel you got enough out of him?

-NELSON: Yeah. It was time to try something else and I don’t know that he’s ready to close a game yet. But if he plays hard like that and does what he’s supposed to do, he can definitely play some minutes in a game.

But these aren’t the first minutes he’s played, either, by the way.

-Q: What was happening that Gasol was getting to the rim so easily?

-NELSON: Look, they’re a tough cover. The whole team. You have to help on Kobe a lot. And they have a lot of weapons. And he was a guy that was a recipient of some of that. And other than that, he’s got skills. So when they want to go to him, which they did a lot tonight, he was able to have his way with our power forward and our centers as well. So it was a mismatch there and they took advantage of it.

martin wrote:maybe this fire will get nelson more into games and better coaching
plus, have you seen his reaction when randolph dunked it on fast break - nelson jumped up with a fist up high in a moment of satisfaction. this shows he really doesn't hate on the kid. just a tough relationship between two egos.

coltraning wrote:

martin wrote:maybe this fire will get nelson more into games and better coaching
plus, have you seen his reaction when randolph dunked it on fast break - nelson jumped up with a fist up high in a moment of satisfaction. this shows he really doesn't hate on the kid. just a tough relationship between two egos.

That's a good point. I saw that, too. I mean it was an amazing play, and beautiful teamwork, so how could he not be happy? I think that in general Nelson is hating life right about now, as his team has lost about 15 games it had a really good shot of winning. Win even 1/2 of those, and they are 19-18 and in the hunt. The problem is, Nelson's decisions have had a lot to do with some pf those losses.

Nelson has messed up relationships with so many young big men. Other than Nowitzki, who was a freakishly different kind of big, one who preferred staying out and shooting 3s, he has never developed a great big, and has alienated a number of them, including all-time great Patrick Ewing and perennial all-star Chris Webber. I think the burden of proof is on him, since he insists on playing Kurz, a player not remotely in the same league as Randolph or Wright.

"Always" Next wrote:

coltraning wrote:

martin wrote:maybe this fire will get nelson more into games and better coaching
plus, have you seen his reaction when randolph dunked it on fast break - nelson jumped up with a fist up high in a moment of satisfaction. this shows he really doesn't hate on the kid. just a tough relationship between two egos.

That's a good point. I saw that, too. I mean it was an amazing play, and beautiful teamwork, so how could he not be happy? I think that in general Nelson is hating life right about now, as his team has lost about 15 games it had a really good shot of winning. Win even 1/2 of those, and they are 19-18 and in the hunt. The problem is, Nelson's decisions have had a lot to do with some pf those losses.

Nelson has messed up relationships with so many young big men. Other than Nowitzki, who was a freakishly different kind of big, one who preferred staying out and shooting 3s, he has never developed a great big, and has alienated a number of them, including all-time great Patrick Ewing and perennial all-star Chris Webber. I think the burden of proof is on him, since he insists on playing Kurz, a player not remotely in the same league as Randolph or Wright.

Colt,
I think playing Kurz and all of the undrafteds comes from Nellie wanting to do something with nothing. I believe that he feels that peoples expectations of him will be lower if he puts the low rent pieces on the floor. He has much more to lose if Wright and Randolph dont produce than he does if Kurz does not produce. We all want Brandon and Anthony on the floor....but what happens if they do start getting big minutes and they dont live up to our expectations? I really think with Nellie its always about low expectations and trying to limit the possibility for dissapointment.

coltraning wrote:

martin wrote:maybe this fire will get nelson more into games and better coaching
plus, have you seen his reaction when randolph dunked it on fast break - nelson jumped up with a fist up high in a moment of satisfaction. this shows he really doesn't hate on the kid. just a tough relationship between two egos.

That's a good point. I saw that, too. I mean it was an amazing play, and beautiful teamwork, so how could he not be happy? I think that in general Nelson is hating life right about now, as his team has lost about 15 games it had a really good shot of winning. Win even 1/2 of those, and they are 19-18 and in the hunt. The problem is, Nelson's decisions have had a lot to do with some pf those losses.

Nelson has messed up relationships with so many young big men. Other than Nowitzki, who was a freakishly different kind of big, one who preferred staying out and shooting 3s, he has never developed a great big, and has alienated a number of them, including all-time great Patrick Ewing and perennial all-star Chris Webber. I think the burden of proof is on him, since he insists on playing Kurz, a player not remotely in the same league as Randolph or Wright.

first off wrote:I'll add that on top of those 15 winnable games, there were 4 games we really didn't deserve to win.

-our first win in New Jersey
-Overtime Minnesota
-@ Charlotte
-the OKC win

all of them we kinda gave up in the 4th and just happened to squeak by with a win.

martin wrote:

coltraning wrote:

martin wrote:maybe this fire will get nelson more into games and better coaching
plus, have you seen his reaction when randolph dunked it on fast break - nelson jumped up with a fist up high in a moment of satisfaction. this shows he really doesn't hate on the kid. just a tough relationship between two egos.

That's a good point. I saw that, too. I mean it was an amazing play, and beautiful teamwork, so how could he not be happy? I think that in general Nelson is hating life right about now, as his team has lost about 15 games it had a really good shot of winning. Win even 1/2 of those, and they are 19-18 and in the hunt. The problem is, Nelson's decisions have had a lot to do with some pf those losses.

Nelson has messed up relationships with so many young big men. Other than Nowitzki, who was a freakishly different kind of big, one who preferred staying out and shooting 3s, he has never developed a great big, and has alienated a number of them, including all-time great Patrick Ewing and perennial all-star Chris Webber. I think the burden of proof is on him, since he insists on playing Kurz, a player not remotely in the same league as Randolph or Wright.

i agree, nietzsche my ass
but, if nelson was using bigs (not james, sorry, buddy ) more often in proper positions, wouldn't he be able to do some outstanding stuff with warriors? i mean we have bigs, nelson has coaching skill, would not then nelson be a best coach for this team? and we would regain our run and gun hustle fast game?
what i'm saying - if we think maggs can change and do something more for the team, could nellie come with a big surprise?
certainly, it looks like it will never happen, but...
ah, i'm not sure on this, it's just too much 'what ifs'..