I assume Staukas is talking about his whole game experience, which implies the players on the opposing team knew about his tangibles while playing him, so as the game wore on, whatever coverage he received became a correction on his contribution to the game.This is the case for all players, including rookies, whom are often worse than other players and thus might receive special attention to take advantage of mistakes. So Staukas' noted experienced can be explained by rookie scorer experience alone, which you still have yet to acknowledge. Instead you harp on allusions. Given Staukas didn't have any inclination he had any proof or sincerity behind his comments, they might just have been word salad from his own head. In pro sports I don't think there's any "stereotyping" that happens in a real game. I don't see it in the NFL. Weddle gets the same routes thrown at as anyone else.
Eric Weddle isn't a rookie. No shyt. No one treats Steve Nash like this either, for the same reason. Enough is known about them that you don't have to rely on lazy stereotypes.
NBA players are probably not familiar with his game yet, so they are likely to rely on some sort of stereotype. One of those stereotypes might just be "white rookie who probably can't defend for shyt / just a shooter" and
they'd actually be pretty spot on huh?
Last edited:


. So saying the dude is "rookie that is poor defensively and more of a shooter" and playing him as such is spot on. Are teams and players supposed to ignore scouting reports when the truth doesn't fit into some dumb narrative? How does Staukas know he wasn't played the way he was because of his scouting report and rookie status?
this thread.
even white boys be some thugs