If we had a better roster, absolutely...with that being said, if we don't (high probability) who's going to be better than RA?
As said many times. He deserves a year with a full roster. Yao and TMac has not allowed this so far, but next year might be the year. We are getting one of the OKC centers almost sure.
The poll has been at about 75% the entire time, it seems most of us really want him back. It makes me wonder, do people want him back because they really like him and think he can do a good job if he's given a full roster? Or do they simply think that he's the best we can get? Pugs
I personally really like his coaching. Just think about it, what coach would have done it better, given the cirscumtances? Think not just in coaches available to the Rockets, but in all NBA coaches. Losing TMac, Yao, a flood of injuries 09-10 season, a constant flood of minor trades. After the trade deadline, Rockets were already assembled, with the players knowing the system, and the FO has the brilliant idea of getting rid of an HOF coach to hire who knows who? With one single addition, a REAL defensive C, Rockets would have been a contender. Think about it, almost 70% of victories after the trade deadline? and that after losing the final games without Scola & Lowry (being preserved inmediatly after chances to playoffs were gone).... Can the FO see the strenght of this team, after the players learned the system, and the major chemistry killer, Ballhog Brooks was gone? Can they realize that this very same roster, with a real C, would become next year... Even if no superstar is gotten?
Rick Adelman should be back. It is just unfair for him to coach past two seasons without Yao Ming who went down with some foot injuries and also without any superstars. If we have at least one or more superstars, I am sure he will win a lot of games and could get this team to championship run. It's amazing how he was able to win 43 games with this young squad. Never had losing seasons with Houston Rockets. So I want him back.
48÷2(9+3) is 2. if you do it algebraically, you can't get 288 as an answer. 48 ÷ x(9 + 3) = 288 48 ÷ 9x + 3x = 288 48/12x = 288 4/x = 288 4 = 288x 4/288 = x 1/72 = x = 2 = false 48 ÷ x(9 + 3) = 2 48 ÷ 9x + 3x = 2 48/12x = 2 4/x = 2 4 = 2x 2 = x = true
You did it wrong. 48 ÷ x(9 + 3) = 288 48 ÷ x(9)+48 ÷ x(3)=288 ==> x=2 OR 48 ÷ x(9 + 3) = 288 48 ÷ x(12) = 288 ==> x=2 You changed the problem to 48 ÷ (x(9 + 3))
but the way you did it doesn't work either. (48 ÷ 9x) + (48 ÷ 3x) = 288 (48 ÷ 9x) + (144 ÷ 9x) = 288 192 ÷ 9x = 288 21.33333333x= 288 x = 288/21.33333333 not = 2 OR 48 ÷ x(9+3) = 288 48 ÷ x(12) = 288 48 = 288 * x(12) 48 = 3456x x = 48/3456 = 1/72 not = 2
