Here's another question...

[Diesel]

All Offseason long, there has been a lot of complaining about Nate not letting rookies play (even though nobody paid attention to the details)...

Here's the question..

If JJ gets Gallo's old minutes and he's very good...  Say 12/7/1.4 in 16 mpg... 

 

 Would you continue complaining that Nate was holding him back last year?

or 

Would you praise Nate for allowing JJ to come up through the G-League system?

 

[theheroatl]

Nate isn’t a bad coach. Now he isn’t a Steve Kerr motivational genius but I believe there is a rhyme or reason for not giving first years tons of minutes. It puts your team at risk of losing games. Nates job is to win games.

Nate got an even better team for 2022-2023 with Murray. If he can’t get to 50 wins then yes he is underperforming. If JJ breaks through he will be a part of that because as of right now by default he probably will get more minutes since we acquired mostly guards.

[kelston827]

47 minutes ago, Diesel said:

All Offseason long, there has been a lot of complaining about Nate not letting rookies play (even though nobody paid attention to the details)...

Here's the question..

If JJ gets Gallo's old minutes and he's very good...  Say 12/7/1.4 in 16 mpg... 

 

 Would you continue complaining that Nate was holding him back last year?

or 

Would you praise Nate for allowing JJ to come up through the G-League system?

 

LOLOL at JJ even sniffing 12/7 this season. Good one.

[AHF]

47 minutes ago, Diesel said:

All Offseason long, there has been a lot of complaining about Nate not letting rookies play (even though nobody paid attention to the details)...

Here's the question..

If JJ gets Gallo's old minutes and he's very good...  Say 12/7/1.4 in 16 mpg... 

 

 Would you continue complaining that Nate was holding him back last year?

or 

Would you praise Nate for allowing JJ to come up through the G-League system?

 

Neither.  I'd say "thank goodness Nate let him have a chance this season!"  The lack of NBA playing time is a sunk cost.  Whether I'm happy with Nate or not for player development will depend on what he does this year, not last year.  I'm willing to buy into him not having an issue developing rookies and that last year was  just a case of a very raw rookie, but how I view Nate this season will be all about what he does this year.  I want to see rotation minutes for JJ (16 mpg would definitely qualify) and developmental minutes for Griffin.  Both should have had enough NBA run this season so that they can be used in the playoffs if they prove to be productive in that time.

[nathan2331]

4 hours ago, Diesel said:

All Offseason long, there has been a lot of complaining about Nate not letting rookies play (even though nobody paid attention to the details)...

Here's the question..

If JJ gets Gallo's old minutes and he's very good...  Say 12/7/1.4 in 16 mpg... 

 

 Would you continue complaining that Nate was holding him back last year?

or 

Would you praise Nate for allowing JJ to come up through the G-League system?

 

If JJ puts up numbers that good in 16 minutes, I'll be cussing the coach out for not figuring out how to get him on the court for 30+. If he's healthy, I do think JJ will be productive when given a chance.

[Diesel]

7 hours ago, AHF said:

Neither.  I'd say "thank goodness Nate let him have a chance this season!"  The lack of NBA playing time is a sunk cost.  Whether I'm happy with Nate or not for player development will depend on what he does this year, not last year.  I'm willing to buy into him not having an issue developing rookies and that last year was  just a case of a very raw rookie, but how I view Nate this season will be all about what he does this year.  I want to see rotation minutes for JJ (16 mpg would definitely qualify) and developmental minutes for Griffin.  Both should have had enough NBA run this season so that they can be used in the playoffs if they prove to be productive in that time.

Seems like a good way not to give Nate any credit for what he may have been doing.   If Nate saw that JJ was progressing better in G-League than on the end of his bench, then how can you be so non-commital to giving the coach some praise.    Had JJ played this past season and sucked and Nate brought him back this season and he were good, you would give him praise then right?  I mean, I heard the equivalent of somebody saying that same about Tony Parker.   Well, it seems that Nate is damned either way or he gets no praise if it works but all the condemnation in the world if it doesn't work out. 

[Diesel]

8 hours ago, theheroatl said:

Nate isn’t a bad coach. Now he isn’t a Steve Kerr motivational genius but I believe there is a rhyme or reason for not giving first years tons of minutes. It puts your team at risk of losing games. Nates job is to win games.

Nate got an even better team for 2022-2023 with Murray. If he can’t get to 50 wins then yes he is underperforming. If JJ breaks through he will be a part of that because as of right now by default he probably will get more minutes since we acquired mostly guards.

Steve Kerr Motivational Genius?  There's a lot of respect put on Steve Kerr and Popp's name.. but isn't the Lore brokered on Talent?  I mean, when all Kerr's talent was hurt except Draymond, GS was the worst team in the league.  There was no Doc Rivers in Orlando moment for Kerr.

I think this coaching differences is really what can you do with a handful of talent?

If you have a bigger handful, you can do more.. unless your name is Nash.

 

 

[AHF]

12 hours ago, Diesel said:

Seems like a good way not to give Nate any credit for what he may have been doing.   If Nate saw that JJ was progressing better in G-League than on the end of his bench, then how can you be so non-commital to giving the coach some praise.    Had JJ played this past season and sucked and Nate brought him back this season and he were good, you would give him praise then right?  I mean, I heard the equivalent of somebody saying that same about Tony Parker.   Well, it seems that Nate is damned either way or he gets no praise if it works but all the condemnation in the world if it doesn't work out. 

The problem with that approach is you can give him credit if you are inclined either way or criticize him either way.

Scenario 1 - JJ gets minutes this year and excels

Response A:  See - he should have been getting minutes last  year!  We sure could have used that in the playoffs.  #$#ing Nate.

Response B:  Looks like the gleague developmental plan paid off perfect.  Nice work Nate!

Scenario 2 - JJ gets minutes this year and struggles badly

Response A:  You don't give him developmental minutes with the big club then of course he will struggle.  Nate screwed his chances at contributing this year by hiding him in kindercare last season.

Response B:  See - this is why Nate didn't give him minutes last season.  He wasn't ready then and he still isn't ready now.

 

Put whatever scenario you want in there and you can take the approach that the red shirt season was a great idea (ala Drew Brees) or that he should have been allowed to work with the big boys (ala Peyton Manning). 

I didn't think he shouldn't have had time in the gleague but I did think he should have had developmental minutes with and against NBA talent last year.  None of us know how things would be different if that played out and if you are pro-Nate then you can read whatever results in a way that is positive to Nate and if you are anti-Nate you can do the same.  I thought Nate made the wrong move last year but I'm focused on what Nate does this season at this point.

[Wretch]

I must have missed Nate's response to the question of rookie PT...?  I remember reading that JJ felt like it was better for him to stay in the GLeague and get time vs. coming back and sitting on the bench - and I remember Nate saying how professional that was.  I don't recall anyone asking him about his decision and him responding to it directly.

It's hard for me to judge looking from the outside.  On one hand, it's hard for me to get my mind around their egregious lack of playing time.  Like, it doesn't surprise me that their PT was limited, but their minutes compared to all other rookies was eye opening.  Especially when we were short handed.  There's also the reports of them not being happy with their usage.

On the other hand, it's hard for me to believe there is no method to the madness.  There has to be a valid reason for not developing them in the NBA - not the least of which would be JJ's questionable defense that someone highlighted in a video.  I'll need to hear Nate's logic, but I'm inclined to think that I'll hold it against him if JJ comes out balling this year.

[macdaddy]

9 minutes ago, Wretch said:

I must have missed Nate's response to the question of rookie PT...?  I remember reading that JJ felt like it was better for him to stay in the GLeague and get time vs. coming back and sitting on the bench - and I remember Nate saying how professional that was.  I don't recall anyone asking him about his decision and him responding to it directly.

It's hard for me to judge looking from the outside.  On one hand, it's hard for me to get my mind around their egregious lack of playing time.  Like, it doesn't surprise me that their PT was limited, but their minutes compared to all other rookies was eye opening.  Especially when we were short handed.  There's also the reports of them not being happy with their usage.

On the other hand, it's hard for me to believe there is no method to the madness.  There has to be a valid reason for not developing them in the NBA - not the least of which would be JJ's questionable defense that someone highlighted in a video.  I'll need to hear Nate's logic, but I'm inclined to think that I'll hold it against him if JJ comes out balling this year.

Everything here is the way i feel.   There were definitely games where JJ should have been playing but i look at it this way.   Neither JJ or Coop were ready for the NBA.   Coop just wasn't that necessary for us at all.   Lou, Wright, and even Mays were all in his way at various points.  So I'm not surprised he didn't get time.

JJ was more puzzling but early on watching CP games it was obvious he wasn't ready.  He kind of rambled around the court a lot on both ends and put up numbers because of his elite athleticism.  He improved a ton in G league.   I think though by the time he was playable we were so close to not even making the play in that Nate thought it was too risky.   People point to the Warriors and other top teams finding room to play rookies but they have a cushion.  When ownership is saying 'you better make the playoffs' and you're struggling to do it you roll with the best players. 

[AHF]

3 minutes ago, Wretch said:

I must have missed Nate's response to the question of rookie PT...?  I remember reading that JJ felt like it was better for him to stay in the GLeague and get time vs. coming back and sitting on the bench - and I remember Nate saying how professional that was.  I don't recall anyone asking him about his decision and him responding to it directly.

It's hard for me to judge looking from the outside.  On one hand, it's hard for me to get my mind around their egregious lack of playing time.  Like, it doesn't surprise me that their PT was limited, but their minutes compared to all other rookies was eye opening.  Especially when we were short handed.  There's also the reports of them not being happy with their usage.

On the other hand, it's hard for me to believe there is no method to the madness.  There has to be a valid reason for not developing them in the NBA - not the least of which would be JJ's questionable defense that someone highlighted in a video.  I'll need to hear Nate's logic, but I'm inclined to think that I'll hold it against him if JJ comes out balling this year.

I think Jalen embraced the gleague very early in the season because Nate wasn't going to play him:

Quote

With playing time limited, Johnson has fully committed to playing with the College Park Skyhawks. The team recently offered to bring him back to the Hawks but Johnson elected to stay with College Park in order to keep playing.

This was published on December 15, 2021 when JC, Hunter and Gallo were all healthy. 

Nate thought that was very mature.  Here is Nate's comment:

Quote

But if you read that you can't help but notice that things changed.  JC was out for a big part of the season.  Hunter missed 2 months worth of time.  We ended up giving minutes to dead end "never going to be with the team next year" players like Kevin Knox and TLC.  So I don't rely on the early season embrace of JJ preferring to play regularly in College Park when for a lot of the second half of the season JC and his 31 mpg were completely gone from the lineup.

Bear in mind as well that JJ's minutes were historically low.  Only 6 players from the entire draft class (2nd round picks included) played fewer minutes than him.  You had second round picks who played 2000 more minutes than him.  

But to Diesel's point I guess we can look at the 3 first round picks who got redshirted (Jalen Johnson, Kai Jones, and Jalen Springer) and see how that developmental choice prepares them for their second season and compare that to players who got more NBA run as rookies.

[macdaddy]

3 minutes ago, AHF said:

JC was out for a big part of the season.  Hunter missed 2 months worth of time.  We ended up giving minutes to dead end "never going to be with the team next year" players like Kevin Knox and TLC

This is the part that's kind of insane.   We rolled out Gallo/TLC PF rotation for a lot of games.   TLC, despite me constantly ragging on him, actually played well at the end of the season but still it's crazy JJ didn't see minutes then. 

[sturt]

4 minutes ago, macdaddy said:

still it's crazy JJ didn't see minutes then

What was our record? How certain were we of a play-in game? Was there any hope for a top 6 slot? How much experimenting ought a head coach do in high leverage circumstances? Should he do more or less experimenting with players whose experience is amounted to something like 40 games over the course of 3 years?

 

 

[macdaddy]

3 minutes ago, sturt said:

What was our record? How certain were we of a play-in game? Was there any hope for a top 6 slot? How much experimenting ought a head coach do in high leverage circumstances? Should he do more or less experimenting with players whose experience is amounted to something like 40 games over the course of 3 years?

 

 

Yeah that's exactly what i think was going on too.   But it's still surprising giving how thin we were because of injuries.  It's not like TLC was much of a sure thing either but i get it. 

I'm hoping for a good year from JJ.   

[sturt]

Just now, macdaddy said:

but i get it.

I'm in your boat. I wish he'd taken some chances. But I fully understand why McM didn't.

[AHF]

5 minutes ago, sturt said:

What was our record? How certain were we of a play-in game? Was there any hope for a top 6 slot? How much experimenting ought a head coach do in high leverage circumstances? Should he do more or less experimenting with players whose experience is amounted to something like 40 games over the course of 3 years?

 

 

I guess Kevin Knox playing minutes doesn't count as experimenting since we knew he would suck?  You can't give those minutes to JJ for fear of him I guess sucking worse?

Amazing how 28 other teams found the ability to give their first and second round picks more run.

[Spud2nique]

1 minute ago, AHF said:

Amazing how 28 other teams found the ability to give their first and second round picks more run.

Nate may be worse than Don Nelson and he was bad. Then he ran into a string of guys he simply couldn’t keep off the floor like Mitch Richmond and Tim Hardaway.

Hopefully that’s our JJ and AJ.

[sturt]

6 minutes ago, AHF said:

I guess Kevin Knox playing minutes doesn't count as experimenting since we knew he would suck?

I know it's a rhetorical question, AHF, but don't you think McM would answer back something like, "The devil I knew was better than the devil I didn't"... ? And/or... "I didn't care about what failure would mean to Kevin Knox' future. But there was some sense in which I was also protecting this kid... and that's what he is... from making screw ups that people would be able to point to and claim his failures were key to the team's ultimate failure to get to the post season."

I think he would.

9 minutes ago, AHF said:

Amazing how 28 other teams found the ability to give their first and second round picks more run.

I rarely think you make statements that are beyond the pale, but this is one. It's only amazing if one wants to view the situation from 30,000 feet and not dig down and look closer.

I know you've looked closer, yet you keep zooming back to 30,000 feet, and I don't know why.

JJ's development was, from the beginning, going to be crock-pot like, not fast food.... by necessity of the minutes available in ATL at first, but then by necessity of his own health, then by necessity of the team's situation where every game that followed the Great Recession was high leverage in terms of post season hopes. If not for those last two, certainly you may have seen McM begin incorporating JJ toward the end of the season (... but even then, there could have been the prospect of gaining the #1 seed, and he may have resisted anyhow).

Sherife's development was, from the beginning, going to be crock-pot like, but even a bit worse since we had not two but three players who were predestined to get significant minutes at his position (Trae, Delon, and LouWill). But then, truth was, Sherife didn't really impress anyhow in G-league for the first 3/4 of their season.

How is any of this so beyond you that you would say "amazing how 28 other teams found the ability to give their first and second round picks more run."... ??? You're a highly intelligent guy, and ordinarily, you may disagree with a perspective, but you at least grant the latitude that others' perspectives... in this case McM's... are reasonable.

[macdaddy]

On a whole 'nother topic.   I still can't figure out why Kevin Knox sucks.  Shoots well, good size, good athleticism, good attitude.   Maybe he just lacks the grit?

[sturt]

17 minutes ago, Spud2nique said:

Don Nelson

Your anti-GSW bias is fine, but you need to realize that Don Nelson as a coach held and has held a very high regard. And that's not me speaking as one of his fans, because I'm really not. But I'm sober enough to understand that my opinion of Nelson isn't the one that most people tend to have.