Originally Posted by DanH
It's a matter of interpretation. You could be ridiculous, and assume that the "3rd" references only the bigs off the bench, in which case you make the assumption you did.
Or you could apply reason, give people the benefit of what little actual doubt there should have been, and understand that he clearly meant 3rd big man in the rotation, and as such, coming off the bench.
It's not a matter of interpretation, This is not a philosophical debate.
The guy who made the thread clearly said have him come off as the third man off the bench. That is why I asked why not gave him come off the bench as first or second big.