TBH, I wrote a response to this two separate times previously but didn't really know how to put it right so I deleted it. We hashed this over so much in your absence and I didn't want to open that can of worms up and derail the thread, so I gave more of a blunt response instead. I apologize for misreading your question, which is more than clear now, and giving a contextual response when I shouldn't have.
Your questions are too general in nature in that they include multiple players where development is a person to person issue. Are you referring to a mishandling of one player in particular, or complaining that the FO didn't handle them appropriately as a group?
Maybe I have been misunderstanding your position, or maybe we are just talking about 2 different things. I think we agree on the way Corbin played the young guys, for the most part. I do agree with Fish about his concern with Burks vs CJ, et al. But I also see why he played AJ, Marv, Sap, et al over Favors/Kanter to a point. We were trying to win right then and it makes more sense to play the vets you have already invested in when that is the case.
I really was intrigued by the assertion that this means that Corbin has handled their development appropriately. I do not think that he has, from a purely developmental stand point. I think putting Favors and Kanters more heavily in the mix from the get-go, combined with effective coaching, practice and scrimmage would have done more for them than the way they have been used so far.
But, as I said, I understand it from an organizational standpoint. So I was curious. If you feel not only that the organization did the best thing (right thing? debatable) they could under the circumstances, but also that Corbin did the "best" or "right" thing in handling their development in general regardless of organizational circumstances, as seems to be your position, then what benefit did they gain by being limited in minutes as they were, even if it was only 5 or 10 mpg? Is there something concrete that makes this more optimal than playing them for those minutes to begin with?
Everyone knows Kanter wasn't ready for big minutes too. Corbin has been flawless bringing all three of these players along.
I personally can't see it. I think that, again ceteris paribus, the extra game-time would be only a boon to their development, a net gain over the other developmental activities. It allows for more analysis by the coaching staff and for more real-world application of practice, which is necessary to convert "book", or let's say "gym" learning to street smarts, or game-time ability. You seemed to believe otherwise, and I was curious why and if there were any examples, even speculative or anecdotal, of players who suffered in their development due to too much PT early on.
If I misunderstood your position, or have mischaracterized it, I apologize, but that seems to be what you have been saying.
Sorry if I missed this already. If you can point me at a thread I would like to read it.
