Posted by EnySpree:

You are absolutely correct Briggs. No shame in evaluating and looking towards the draft. That's why I was so pissed there were no moves made at the deadline. Speeding up the process to cap flexibility and draft position should be priority numero uno........but*

Posted by BlueSeats:

Playing the rookies would amount to the "audition" approach that Brown used. But people and players complained they didn't know their roles and they were losing their joy.

We can't have that. The important thing from here forward is that we continue to reward players who underperform. We must play them according to their contracts. We must give them at least 3 days off per week. Isiah must masturbate them so they don't soil their own hands. And more than anything else, they should think of Isiah not as a coach, but as a hip, likable camp counselor.

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by BlueSeats:

Playing the rookies would amount to the "audition" approach that Brown used. But people and players complained they didn't know their roles and they were losing their joy.

We can't have that. The important thing from here forward is that we continue to reward players who underperform. We must play them according to their contracts. We must give them at least 3 days off per week. Isiah must masturbate them so they don't soil their own hands. And more than anything else, they should think of Isiah not as a coach, but as a hip, likable camp counselor.

why would playing the rookies amount to the audition approach Brown used? Do all teams that play their rookies resort to some hometown guy starts strategy, or couldn't you play rookies without doing the nonsense Brown did?

Posted by BlueSeats:

Playing the rookies would amount to the "audition" approach that Brown used. But people and players complained they didn't know their roles and they were losing their joy.

We can't have that. The important thing from here forward is that we continue to reward players who underperform. We must play them according to their contracts. We must give them at least 3 days off per week. Isiah must masturbate them so they don't soil their own hands. And more than anything else, they should think of Isiah not as a coach, but as a hip, likable camp counselor.

Posted by BlueSeats:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by BlueSeats:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by BlueSeats:

Playing the rookies would amount to the "audition" approach that Brown used. But people and players complained they didn't know their roles and they were losing their joy.

We can't have that. The important thing from here forward is that we continue to reward players who underperform. We must play them according to their contracts. We must give them at least 3 days off per week. Isiah must masturbate them so they don't soil their own hands. And more than anything else, they should think of Isiah not as a coach, but as a hip, likable camp counselor.

why would playing the rookies amount to the audition approach Brown used? Do all teams that play their rookies resort to some hometown guy starts strategy, or couldn't you play rookies without doing the nonsense Brown did?

Brown used the term "audition" to mean players needed to earn the right to be here the following season. Rookies like Lee, Frye and Robinson were getting plenty of play and an opportunity to unseat the veterans. How is that nonsense compared to what we've witnessed since?

No, what we've seen now is *also* nonsense. But the hometown starting, the playing of Lee about 15 mpg while Curry starts and Malik even plays a third of the PF minutes and Mo Taylor plays about 20 mpg; the barely playing of Jackie Butler even when we didn't know whether he had potential at the time all were nonsense. It's easy to look back and say, "Isiah's gotten it all wrong. Larry disagreed with Isiah. Therefore, Larry must have been right" but Larry was honestly terrible and irrational. (Isiah just happens to be even worse.)

[Edited by - bonn1997 on 03-03-2008 6:18 PM]

But brown played all those guys, in spite of Isiah was telling the owner he's squandering his $135M/yr playoff caliber payroll. And while half the people bashed Brown for not playing the rookies "enough" the other half bashed him for destroying the veterans confidence by confusing them of their roles. it was a no-win situation.

I honestly don't remember one person criticizing Brown for confusing the veterans--confusing the rookies, maybe, but not the veterans. You seem to view playing time dichotomously (did he ever play? Yes or no?), which does not make sense to me.

Posted by tkf:

Posted by BlueSeats:

Playing the rookies would amount to the "audition" approach that Brown used. But people and players complained they didn't know their roles and they were losing their joy.

We can't have that. The important thing from here forward is that we continue to reward players who underperform. We must play them according to their contracts. We must give them at least 3 days off per week. Isiah must masturbate them so they don't soil their own hands. And more than anything else, they should think of Isiah not as a coach, but as a hip, likable camp counselor.

Blue, remember how much time you and I spent on realgm defending brown and how he like to tear down before he builds up? remember how most of the posters hated brown and even went as far as to take personal and cheap shots at his bladder problem.. I never liked that at all... I bet most of those fans now would die to get brown back in here. The different lineups they complained was confusing the players, I mean all of the excuses... i guess what we find out, the constants to this ongoing problem we have are the players, Isiah and dolan, coaches and GM's have come and gone, but the problem persists... with this same core bunch at that..

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by BlueSeats:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by BlueSeats:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by BlueSeats:

Playing the rookies would amount to the "audition" approach that Brown used. But people and players complained they didn't know their roles and they were losing their joy.

We can't have that. The important thing from here forward is that we continue to reward players who underperform. We must play them according to their contracts. We must give them at least 3 days off per week. Isiah must masturbate them so they don't soil their own hands. And more than anything else, they should think of Isiah not as a coach, but as a hip, likable camp counselor.

why would playing the rookies amount to the audition approach Brown used? Do all teams that play their rookies resort to some hometown guy starts strategy, or couldn't you play rookies without doing the nonsense Brown did?

Brown used the term "audition" to mean players needed to earn the right to be here the following season. Rookies like Lee, Frye and Robinson were getting plenty of play and an opportunity to unseat the veterans. How is that nonsense compared to what we've witnessed since?

No, what we've seen now is *also* nonsense. But the hometown starting, the playing of Lee about 15 mpg while Curry starts and Malik even plays a third of the PF minutes and Mo Taylor plays about 20 mpg; the barely playing of Jackie Butler even when we didn't know whether he had potential at the time all were nonsense. It's easy to look back and say, "Isiah's gotten it all wrong. Larry disagreed with Isiah. Therefore, Larry must have been right" but Larry was honestly terrible and irrational. (Isiah just happens to be even worse.)

[Edited by - bonn1997 on 03-03-2008 6:18 PM]

But brown played all those guys, in spite of Isiah was telling the owner he's squandering his $135M/yr playoff caliber payroll. And while half the people bashed Brown for not playing the rookies "enough" the other half bashed him for destroying the veterans confidence by confusing them of their roles. it was a no-win situation.

I honestly don't remember one person criticizing Brown for confusing the veterans--confusing the rookies, maybe, but not the veterans. You seem to view playing time dichotomously (did he ever play? Yes or no?), which does not make sense to me.

Bonn, I think it's you who are creating a dichotomy of whether or not the rookies played "enough," as if there was a clear cut yes or no answer. IMO, the rookies were played roughly an appropriate amount of time considering the circumstances.

If this had been a rebuilding team with few veterans, a scant payroll, and a novice coach, which added up to 23 win expectations it would have been a different matter, But fans thought we were on track for a highly successful season: our payroll was around $135M; and we had one of the premier coaches in the league. Don't you understand that all those expectations are to much pressure for rookies? These guys weren't stars on championship teams. You can't throw guys like Frye, Nate and Lee out there and ask them to fulfill the enormous expectations of the fans and owner. That's not how you develop talent, and it's an insult to the GM and owner who think their veterans rock.

As rookies, Frye and Lee each started 14 games and Nate 26. Frye and Robinson got more total minutes than anyone on the team other than Marbury, Crawford and Curry. Lee was the starter during our 6 game January win streak. Let me ask you...

A) exactly how many minutes, starts, etc, would you have considered "enough" such that the players would be markedly better players for it today? Consider also the possibility that with veteran infighting and GM scapegoating they could also have been made worse with extended exposure to unfulfilled expectations.

B) How do you think it would have (and did) go over with Isiah and ownership to have Brown telling them and evidencing that late round rookies where better than their $135M bust/fiasco roster of "talent"? Has it ever crossed your mind that one of the reasons Brown lost his job was for playing the rookies too much and making our "stars" look bad in the process?