And this is a first of a back to back... Not smart to extend their minutes when they have a winnable game against the struggling Jazz tomorrow.
Umm this is a winnable game also. Lakers have been struggling. We match up well against LA. Not to mention we already beat them once and took them to the brink in our first game.
None of what you just stated is "new". The game may change to adjust to new rules and personnel but its execution remains the exact same. So yes, they do "more" of it now. But do you really think that Adleman, Popovich, or Jackson are surprised when they see a guard posting up? Did you ever watch Gary Payton play? Are the fundamentals of executing/guarding the pick and roll any different? The point remians that if you think an experienced coach A) hasn't seen those scenarios thousands of times or B) is a hinderance to your team because individual players are not sharp enough to pick up the subtlies of a system you're an idiot.
Actually, about 1/3 of these posters are saying we should change the system to accommodate our 12th man, which implies that they think he's a star. After all, who else would you change a system for? I just think its hilarious that this guy is held in such high regard despite having been given thousands of minutes of NBA time and shooting under 40% and having an offensive rating that makes Kelvin Cato look like Hakeem.
Taking teams to the brink doesn't count...Remember how we won that game? One of the big factors of that game is on the way back to the D-League. Right now the bench has NO chemistry what so ever with Brooks at the point. Also, a barrage of threes late in the game by Battier. Bynum is back, and no we do NOT match up well with L.A We've struggled all season against big lineups.. The only way Rockets win tonight is if they're hot from the 3-point line, cause they're not going to get anything in the paint except for fast breaks. Hopefully I'm wrong.
I think it has more to do with new blood, a lot of us are tired of playing the same rotation that has mustered up a record of 44-54 since we started 20-13 last year and are simple frustrated. We see a young, energetic play-maker that cost us a 1st rd pick(maybe) and want to see the shiny new toy in action as opposed to what we've been seeing. Trust me, if we were 27-22 and fighting for the 6th/5th seed, I doubt everyone would be complaining as much.
Amen....I'm one of them I'm just not enthused at all about seeing the same ol' rotation...It would be different if, when the players are struggling, he had better subbing methods. They possibly have a player sitting on the bench that could make the game easier for everyone...at least in the second unit. Right now they have no playmakers that Hill, Lee, and Budinger need.
Even when it seemed that Williams and Bud were connecting a lot, i thought he see more playing time. This is crazy.
I'm not going to get into that. It's not my argument. Thousands of NBA minutes? The kid has been in the league for barely a year and a half, and hasn't really gotten any consistent time this year. Is it hilarious to hear people talk about changing the system to accommodate a second year player who hasn't proven that he's a future star yet? I guess. It's just as hilarious, though, to hear all these contrarians come out of the woodwork with hyperbole that's just as ridiculous, and hold about as much truth as the things people on the other side of the argument are saying. I just have no idea why a reasonable conversation can't be had on this topic. Why is it that Terrence Williams, as far as this place is concerned, is either a future sure fire All-Star, or a D-Leaguer twelfth man head case? That's just an insane way of looking at things, and I don't really see anyone else on the current roster, save for Aaron maybe, that attracts these kinds of extreme responses.
I think what they're saying is that we should change the system to accommodate the Rockets' current situation, that our tactical decisions should reflect our strategic reality. In Scenario A, we shorten the rotation and play the hell out of Battier, Scola, and Martin. Their experience and refined skills will win us more games. In Scenario B, we play the young guys like Patterson, Hill, Bud, Ish, and yes, T-Will 15-20 minutes per game. Though talented, their mistakes and inexperience will lose us more games. So what do we have? In Scenario A, we will still probably miss the playoffs. In the unlikely event we do sneak into the 8th spot, we'll be crushed by the Spurs or whoever en route to the WCF. In return for this privilege, we cost our young guys valuable in-game experience, we put more miles on our old vets, and we hurt our lottery position. In Scenario B, we recognize that this is probably not a year we're going to make a run at the championship. We make better use of a scarce resource, playing time, to develop the guys we have to hasten the arrival of the day in which we ARE able to contend. We simultaneously improve our draft position and lower the risk of injury to a guy like Martin. Agree with this or not, it's not just about T-Will
