No name: And hasn't that been the story of Chris Webber's career, a nice touch for a big man, but God help you if you expect him to grab a big rebound or set a screen?

Yeah. And the story of David Ortiz is "nice swing, but God help you if you want a slick-fielding first baseman." A great coach gets the most out of his players as they actually are, not as he wants them to be.

Webber was one of the league's elite forwards for years. He's averaged as many as 13 rebounds a game in a season, and for his career he's over 10. That's counting his decline period. Any bozo can set screens for the league minimum.

KWRussell: I doubt that Nelson will let the team backslide, so at worst, they'll hover around the 9 seed when playoff time rolls around. After a few years of that, Mullin can just say Nelson couldn't turn the team around, and it's time for a fresh start.

Yeah, but at what price? How many times, figuratively speaking, will Nelson chase off a Chris Webber and sign a Nick Van Exel, the better to run, gun, and win 50? Hiring Nelson puts off any real work toward building for a championship run, which I realize might never happen anyway.

ericami: King: Do you just hate the Mavericks?

Actually, I like the Mavericks. They are players in the Complicated Calculus of Teams I Root For. They're not at the top, but they're in there.

Yay, Priya. I had completely forgotten about "We." I read it either in high school or early college, forget which, after having read something about how it influenced "Brave New World" and "1984." Dystopian visions were very attractive to me at the time. I was heavily influenced by the works of Johnny Rotten.

I found it at the library and read it and loved it. I felt like an insider, cause everybody knew about "1984" and "Brave New World," and most people had even read "1984."

Going from memory, I have to agree with those who say "1984" is a vastly superior book to "We," but I think "We" compares well to "Brave New World." It's no goofier or more ham-handed. And I loved "Brave New World."

One of these days maybe I'll read all three again. Who was it upthread who said there's plenty of time to read books? What's that like?!

spike2: And people wonder why I've grown so disgusted with the NFL and turned to the EPL for a purer sport.

Count me among those people. What makes it a superior system that your favorite team can self-destruct financially and end up relegated, doomed to minor-league status and competition for a long time, if not ever?

I see what you're saying about the NFL, and it is appalling the way they go demanding public money, but the rest of what you describe is good stuff. The bad teams, rather than getting relegated, get first crack at the best new players. This gives them a leg up and helps them become good teams. The salary cap tends to make it difficult for good teams to stay good.

Yes, there are the very occasional teams who abuse the "stay in the league, no matter how terrible you are" system, pocketing profits and not fielding teams that can compete for titles. The Bengals and Cardinals in the last decade and a half, and both seem to have abandoned that strategy. But generally speaking, the churn of teams from bottom to top and back is one of the best things the NFL has going. If your favorite team is down, it's not a slippery slope to relegation. They'll be back unless they actively screw it up, and maybe even then.

And even the worst teams are still pretty good. Still competitive. There aren't those 66-0 games that are common in college football. There hasn't been a winless team in three decades. You know how good a football team has to be to win one NFL game? Can we agree the Saints were the worst team in the league last year? Their average final score was a 25-15 loss. By NFL standards, that's not competing, but it's less than two scores. They were within one score in five of their 13 losses. The 49ers had a worse point diferential, but their average final score was still only 15-27.

The stadium issue is separate from all that, except for the common and obvious lie that the home team needs a new, publicly financed stadium to stay competitive. (It might need a stadium, but can afford to build one in almost all cases.)

Not swindling the taxpayers is good, but aside from that, what's good about Arsenal blowing $730 million on a stadium? Does it fly or something?

DMBfan34: Do you know something we don't? Re: Carolina Panthers (sorry, had to take the bait) King: there are serious questions in the secondary.

I don't know anything anybody doesn't. But according to Football Outsiders, the Panthers have been terrible on third down pass defense for two years running. Their letting nickel Ricky Manning Jr. go probably wasn't just a financial issue.

Lucas and Gamble are good, but two corners does not a secondary make. The safeties tend toward the journeyman side of the spectrum, and there's not a lot of depth. They might be OK, especially if Richard Marshall, the second-round CB pick, is ready right away. I'm not sure I trust early-entry guys from mid-size conferences (Fresno State) to be big-time players right away.

I don't think it's a glaring weakness or anything. Just an area with some serious questions. They might be fine. The answers to the questions might be yes. Or the front seven might be so good it won't matter much.