Fes proved himself enough to play in games by playing in games.
That is the debatable point. I don't think he did. And it comes at the expense of others who need time in the system.
Jerry might be fully aware of his lack of adjustment of lineups to what is going on in a given game, but that doesn't mean that it's effective.
This is a correct statement. My point was to show that when any of us reference that Jerry doesn't see this or that, I think he does and it is a decision process not a ignorance issue.
And it is absolutely laughable that you are using Tree as an example to prove your point. Even after Collins had years of experience (including the minutes) he was not necessarily benefitting the whole team to play out there. Collins is yet another example of a player whom Sloan overrated and played too much because of Collins' demeanor (and maybe work ethic and maybe practice; I don't have evidence of that). You are totally walking into my argument if you are using Collins as an example of Sloan's decisions working well.
It is not laughable. He rated Collins on his willingness/ability to play in the SYSTEM. Of course I think Jerry makes mistakes in his own plan or within his own strategy. He says it. We all know that. Ultimately finding a singular example of a mistake does not change that a strategy of consistency with the core rotation is a good philosophy, one that has been proven successful.
I agree that boozer's dogging it did HURT THE TEAM as you said. However, it is a risk at that point in dealing with Boozer...
LOL. Your example to prove your point (and perhaps cost the team a victory) is when Memo failed?? And you're trying to defend not putting in Fes because he'll hurt the team (when more often than not he didn't)? Think more carefully before you craft your claims; you might be contradicting yourself.
Yes, i believe fully that sloan allowed that Dallas situation to happen. In this case it was his theory that the team would understand that playing one-on-one is not a good idea. That was a single event to alert or wake up the team. If i thought that by playing Fes one game (one quarter), one instance, that it would have the same amount of emphasis on the point of supporting the team, via the team concept then i would agree with you. However i don't see it that way. Ulitmately, i think Fes' skill set, demeanor, ability to keep the system moving was not enough to get him time in games.
And you think that sitting Boozer for 5 minutes is going to "rip the situation apart"--more than his matador defense? Your logic is worse than Sloan's. You and others are so focused on players jackpotting around in practice when that has far less to do with the team's success than players who are jackpotting around in games. .
I do think Boozer was "this close" at any point being a negative distraction significantly larger than any "in-game-strategy" would be as a positive. And this is Boozer not all players. I think no one on the team today is that powerful for example. The reason is also related to having boozer be as happy as possible for trade-bait, etc.
What Sloan does well: instill a sense of work ethic and team play. What Sloan does not do well: adjust lineups and in-game strategies to address what is going on in a given game, and develop players who are not already self motivated (and thus who would probably develop well without him).
Agree. And i think that plan of his:
* Choose consistency of playing time toward maximizing the system is a reasonable trade-off against
potential confusion/disapointment of In-Game-Strategy movement
* To not spend time/effort on those who are not self-motivated (which is a pretty common rule of business)
is a pretty sucessful plan.
