I did... but he clearly did cite those as both reasons for not doing a (in my opinion) better job of balancing. I don't agree that "... if the nerf touches one champion but you have to buff many others to have the same effect." For one, their track record proves that they simply dole out nerfs over and over turning the cycle of who's strong from a kit perspective to more of a number's perpsective.

For example, Graves kit leads to a lane-bully style of play but in lane he is being out damage and out traded by the people who he's supposed to be beating (Vayne for instance). You (and I'm not saying 'you' in particular have this opinion) could say that Graves burst is unhealthy, but I would then turn and point to the fact that Graves has to be in a very close range to get any decent buckshot damage in exposing him to being traded with and punished by a ganking jungler. Or you can play passively and farm it out with a longer range champ, or even pick longer ranged champions to outright counter him.

But due to the repetitive nerfs, the people he is supposed to be able to bully (low range, high dps, low burst) are outshining him in the laning phase unless the Graves player completely outplays the other or the other player makes a punishable mistake.

I'll admit I didn't touch on his statement on short time frames because I think that's a bullshit answer. If balance requires more weeks to actually get done than a regular patch schedule, fine. Or hell, introduce the new content (game modes, maps, skins, etc) and then later on in the patch introduce the balance changes when you think you've got yourself in a good place.

What haven't I touched on in his answer?