Give Jamal Crawford A Break Guys!!!
by Carmelballin on Dec 30, 2008 3:07 AM PST
129 comments
I know it may seem like Jamal Crawford hasn't been a part of many good Warrior wins this season, and there are a lot of people who think that they play better without him, but consider these factors:
1. Crawford comes in and he is expected to immediately become our starting point guard?! He has never been a starting point guard on a consistent basis, if ever. A new offense at the point guard position isn't that easy.
2. He seemed like he was trying to find himself in the offense, and was reluctant on when to take shots. He was trying to be a facilitator at first, and was doing the right thing by trying to pass the ball more. He was never able to get into a rhythm offensively when scoring, other than that Charlotte game when he was all they had.
3. Crawford wants to win, but I'm not sure whether he knows exactly how to yet. He just hasn't been around winners, but I think that can change. In Chicago, he never was on a great team since it was during the Bulls rebuilding era after MJ's Bulls. In New York, you can't expect anyone to succeeed in that situation for the past few years. I mean the Knicks may have been the most dispicable franchise in the past five years.
4. If you haven't been following Crawford throughout the years, he has had his share of game winning shots. He is pretty clutch.
5. As far as individual talent, he may be the most talented guy on the floor whenever the Warriors play. But like I said before, I think he's taking this adjustment one step at a time and not trying to do too much, just trying to be a facilitator.
Give Jamal some time, it takes everyone some time to adjust. When Stephen Jackson and Al Harrington first arrived, it took them a while. We didn't win our first few games. And we couldn't be more depleted health wise than we were. Stay positive for Jamal.
This FanPost is a submission from a member of the mighty Golden State of Mind community. While we're all here to throw up that W, these words do not necessarily reflect the views of the GSoM Crew. Still, chances are the preceding post is Unstoppable Baby!
1 recs |
129 comments
Email
Print
Comments
the guy shoots to late and to quick
if i remembered it don’t matter what offense you are in if your open you should be able to make a shot. hes been doing that for years were he gets a huge trigger finger. hes good when he is online but a lot of times he is not.
So I don't have a signature well these words would do! Who knew that upgrades can have downgrades too!
by 24k state fan since 87 on Dec 30, 2008 3:20 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I like him because he is a solid ball handler with solid driving skills
hes a good player and he seems content to take a backseat and even a seat on the bench. if jack scored 50 he would demand the ball or a trade (LOL JK). we can’t ask for much more.
inside threat needed!!!
by HoLdEmUP on Dec 30, 2008 3:44 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Ya he's a quality player
You can’t truly judge him until he gets adjusted to the system and Monta returns. Together, Crawford and Monta could be dangerous. Plus, he is a proven NBA guard who can really score. And if Belinelli’s the real deal then you can use him whenever Crawford’s slumping.
by T-Money on Dec 30, 2008 11:00 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Can we judge him by his 9 previous seasons where he was a low efficiency shooter who couldn’t rebound well for his position despite being taller than the average point guard?
He’s proven, that’s for sure. He’s proven that he’ll rarely shoot well and almost never rebound or play defense.
by jae on Dec 30, 2008 11:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
playing 9 years for a bad bulls team and an even worse knicks team. Thank god
we don’t hold you accountable for the company you keep.
"I say the dumbest things most of the time" Skeptic Con Urquell 12.08
by smearthebeard on Dec 30, 2008 3:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
would playing for a good team magically turn him into a better shooter or rebounder? he had every opportunity to show he could play, but never could. why should we disregard that?
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Dec 30, 2008 3:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
this guys sucks
and should be traded asap
=Gaucho=
by Gaucho! on Dec 30, 2008 7:57 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
he is still better then Al was
Their stupidity is actually entertaining
by Skeptic con Urquell
by Lat We N Trash on Dec 30, 2008 8:04 AM PST up reply actions 3 recs
Al was a good player playing a position of incredible need for this team, Crawford is superflous to our needs
Look at their stats post trade, look at their plus minus stat, or PER, or something to back up you claim because without some evidence you can’t refute that we were a more balanced roster and team before the trade than after it
Al was a key player of a playoff team, a 48 Win team, and lots of folks seem to have a pretty slim memory of that – it wasn’t all Baron, Monta and Jackson …
by hardcore on Dec 30, 2008 2:42 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Correct but...
It’s a moot point because Al did not want to be here; he punked us and quit on the organization. Maybe JC was not the best pickup for us, but we weren’t going to get a quality big man for Al. Everyone wants a big man with some upside, that’s why the Knicks were willing to take a chance on a player with a limited game coming with some heavy baggage. I liked the trade, but it looks like I was wrong. In retrospect I think we should have let Al sit all season with his bad back and say screw him. I’m tired of all the loser cry babies making millions while most of us can’t even afford the price of a decent ticket. At least JC wants to be here and seems like a class guy.
by Jeffo on Dec 30, 2008 11:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
should have let Al sit all season with his bad back and
- and wait for a better deal, or let him and his contract walk at season’s end, agreed (technically Harrington had a player’s option but no player is going to sit out two years imo)
you’re right, it’s moot – we just disagree on who quit on who, as much as I respect Nelson my take is that he quit on Harrington …
by hardcore on Dec 31, 2008 9:12 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The Nellie/Harrington dispute got stupid and cost the team quite a bit. I’ve never been more than lukewarm to Harrington as a player since his last days in ATL, but the way things were handled took a guy who many still thought had value and essentially putting him in a trade that seemed to begin with both teams saying, “you think YOU have problems…”
To hear Nellie, he told Harrington they’d play him as much as he wanted to help boost his value for other teams IF he shut up about it and did his job. And it seemed that was what was happening until Harrington went public with the feud. That’s a situation Nellie never should have let begin and Harrington never should have screwed up. Plenty of blame to go around. Imagine: being traded to the Knicks was a step up. Shows how poorly things have gone here in such a short, short time.
by jae on Dec 31, 2008 9:25 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
To hear Nellie
you, of all people on this board, citing what Nelson said about an issue!? ;)
naming Al a captain looks pretty disingenuous in retrospect, actions speaking louder than … ah, I just gotta get over it, water over the dam now …
by hardcore on Dec 31, 2008 9:31 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, Nellie’s actions (giving Harrington a bunch of undeserved PT) is consistent with what he said, and Harrington did gripe about being here even after this, so at least there’s no inconsistencies in Nellie’s story this time. No, Nelson’s statements aren’t always in line with reality, but at least here, there’s nothing that clearly marks his words as BS (like, for instance when he said Dunleavy was a natural PF, or when he said he was going to start playing Wright more often).
by jae on Dec 31, 2008 1:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I liked Al better
I will always be your fan JRich. Good Luck
by chili01 on Dec 30, 2008 8:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
he does not suck
he is a great passer and he can shoot
by Ali luvs monta on Dec 30, 2008 1:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
“great” passer? Kidd is a great passer. Nash too. Stockton was a great passer. Magic was a great passer. Crawford is not a great passer. Good perhaps, but not great.
Of course, you’re not alone in this sort of player ‘grade inflation’. Elevating a guy to “great” when he isn’t seems to be pretty common, even among GMs. It’s how mediocre players wind up with $10mil/yr contracts that are shortly thereafter regretted.
[He can shoot. Unfortunately, shooting isn’t as important as shooting and making the shot, something that happens far less often.]
by jae on Dec 30, 2008 1:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
he makes crafty passes
albeit not very often
by HoLdEmUP on Dec 30, 2008 1:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Of course, you’re not alone in this sort of player ‘grade inflation’.
Not to mention the oft-overused term “(Future) Hall of Famer”
John 8:44 -Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.
by triplesix on Dec 30, 2008 2:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
he's made good passes
i’m not saying he’s a “hall of famer” or a super player, he’s good enough to be on the team, he can shoot and pass
by Ali luvs monta on Dec 30, 2008 6:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You said he was a great passer. “Great” was your word. His passing is acceptable for a combo guard playing some point. It is not great.
He can shoot. He shoots quite often. Sometimes the shots even go in the basket.
by jae on Dec 30, 2008 8:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I know great was the word i used.
Look, I like the guy, he can shoot well when given the opportunity, and he has made good passes, you can’t deny that. He still is not used to the Nellie system, just give him a chance before saying that he sucks, most of us thought Bellinelli sucked be he showed us wrong. Alright this is stupid, I am not going to waste any more time aruguing with you when we are obviously not going to agree.
by Ali luvs monta on Dec 31, 2008 12:53 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
*sometimes go in the basket
the stop calling him "beans" movement
by pervisNeverNervous on Dec 31, 2008 10:31 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
when he said "Great", he didnt mean GOD-Like.
dont be a douche, it was an expression.
plus jamal’s 50 point games didn’t happen by accident. He is a good player and he doesn’t need to take crap from ppl like you.
get ownd
by GsWBush on Dec 31, 2008 1:51 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m giving him crap? I’m giving a realistic evaluation of him as a player based on his playing career on a board that it’s unlikely he even reads.
When ‘great’ becomes an expression to describe ‘sometimes good, but mostly hovering somewhere closer to average if not below’, it’s an expression that doesn’t mean anything. Words matter on a board where all you have are your words. Am I supposed to know that someone doesn’t really think he’s great because it’s “just an expression”? What was he going to say if he really was delusional and thought Crawford was great?
by jae on Dec 31, 2008 7:38 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Crawford is an average NBA player.
Its fustrating when people say he is great passer or scorer because he really is not either. He is average shooter, mostly from the outside, and shoots in large quantities. 50 point game sometimes happen when you are having a great shooting day and your coachgives you the green light to do whatever the hell you feel like on the court.
What is the status of our petitions to fire Robert Rowell and have Chris Cohan commit Hari Kiri, or at least sell the team?
by warriorsscore110 on Dec 31, 2008 12:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not every player can score 50 points or over more than once
in their career and be average.
by Ali luvs monta on Dec 31, 2008 7:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
"he can shoot"
well, shooting like he does, anyone in the world can shoot actually… 22seconds remaingn on the shot clock, 2 steps into the offensive end and BOOMM there goes another wild three pointer by crawford… poor rim :-)
come on, Al Harrington was a joke but this goes just blows
I can’t wait until Jan21st to come so we can pack him, Maggette and Jackson for a decent player
=Gaucho=
by Gaucho! on Dec 31, 2008 4:49 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
he doesn't have the make-up
to play tough defense, he doesn’t like contact and therefore doesn’t drive hard to the hoop and the guy seems clueless on offense as to what is a good shoot and when it is ok to take a heatcheck shot and when it isn’t.
I can’t deny that he has some skills obvioulsy but even when he is trying to not shoot he just seems to not have a good fell for things IMO
by SFzig on Dec 30, 2008 8:59 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
i think he will get his chance
to prove just how good or bad he really is. his contract will make it very difficult to move him so he will be around for a while.
be the change you wish to see in the world.
by Rach on Dec 30, 2008 9:00 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
He’ll be great for us coming off the bench. I hope Ellis and Belinelli end up being the starting guards.
by YaHeard on Dec 30, 2008 9:25 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I think he is ok off the bench too
but I am worried this means Nelson goes right back to Maggs at the 4 and Wright to the bench
That seemed not to work well
by SFzig on Dec 30, 2008 9:51 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
that would be awful
Wright is doing great at the 4, maggette cannot play that position!!
by Ali luvs monta on Dec 30, 2008 1:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Even without Wright at PF
Nelson will have too many guards 1-4 to start Belinelli: Monta, Crawford, Jackson, Maggette …
agree – Maggs at 4 did not work, theoretically we have Monta, Jax, Maggs 1-2-3 with Wright, AB while Crawford, Marco, KAz back up 1-2-3, Randolph & Turiaf 4-5 …
Crawford, Marco, KAz could be a pretty potent second group to keep the pace up …
by hardcore on Dec 30, 2008 2:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
what about CJ?
proud father of the newly acquired Brandon Crawford..
by Azmanz on Dec 30, 2008 8:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
and yes, CJ
YaHeard referred to Marco starting – I never considered CJ as a starter with both Monta and Crawford at PG, and if Belinelli keeps up his recent trend CJ could slip to third string in the backup 1-2 competition once everyone is healthy …
by hardcore on Dec 31, 2008 9:20 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The word ‘great’ gets tossed around rather freely. He’d be less of a detriment coming off the bench than as a starter. There are situations where having him coming off the bench would be an asset.
But I don’t think that “great” and Crawford really belong in the same thought unless it’s something like “Scott, did he really fire up another ill-advised jumper when he was was 1 on 4 without a teammate on the same side of half court to rebound? GREAT!” or " it would be great if we had someone who had Crawford’s height and physical ability but actually played like a guy who had his combination of athleticism and size in the backcourt, but we don’t".
by jae on Dec 30, 2008 10:28 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
he is a hidden gem in the NBA
give the guy some time, he just joined the team like a month or 2 ago, have you been watching the games? he is a great passer and he can shoot well when he has his on days. he’s still trying to get used to the nelson system
by Ali luvs monta on Dec 30, 2008 1:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
A hidden gem?
Hidden by what? He has been in the league for quite some time. I don’t see why we should expect him to suddenly translate his raw skill-set into being an efficient NBA player. Look I’m not saying the guy sucks. I actually enjoy watching him play alot (kind of a guilty pleasure). But he is not particularly good either. He is one of those deceptive guys that shows ability but for some reason can’t bring himself to take advantage of it on a regular basis. His problems may be mental, but that doesn’t excuse him and it doesn’t make him any more likely to change his game at this point in his career.
How many times have you heard Jim say during the telecast that he can turn the corner anytime he wants? Now compare that with the number of time you’ve actually seen him turn the corner and get to the basket. Whatever the reason, he decides to settle for the jumper way too often.
Having a sweet cross-over doesn’t do you any good if all you use it for is to set up contested 18 foot jumpshots.
"...OlympicMike is clearly the Barack Obama of GSoM"-Sleepy
by olympicmike on Dec 30, 2008 1:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
hidden
by the small market teams in new york and chicago. no one’s had a chance to see his skills playing there.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Dec 30, 2008 3:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Excellent points
I too enjoy watching JC play the game, but wish he’d put the God given tools he has to better use. He has the physical tools to do some great things, but he doesn’t often enough; who knows.
by Jeffo on Dec 30, 2008 11:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I have been watching the games. I do not regard his passing as ‘great’ by any stretch. I do not consider inconsistent shooting that’s well below the league average to indicate that someone can shoot. Everyone can shoot well on their ‘on days’. The problem is that he has fewer of these than he has ‘off days.’
I’d give him some slack for ‘learning the system’ if in the past he’d been a good shooter and was just out of step. But he wasn’t a good shooter in the previous 8 seasons. I have zero reason to believe that he’s somehow going to miraculously figure it out now that he’s here.
by jae on Dec 30, 2008 1:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
he was on other sucky teams
he can shoot but has had made bad shot selections for the past 5 games
by Ali luvs monta on Dec 30, 2008 6:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
for the past 5 games
You misspelled “for the past 5 years”.
by jae on Dec 30, 2008 8:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
made me lol
"...OlympicMike is clearly the Barack Obama of GSoM"-Sleepy
by olympicmike on Dec 31, 2008 12:34 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
he doesnt have to be the best shooter or the best scorer.
he just has to make the team better. you shouldnt expect to see Jamal Crawford as the new Baron or Kobe. He tries to get the whole team involved and helps the rookies with their confidence.
and as for the on or off days, have u seen capt. jack?
he is a walking turnover. and he is a very streaky shooter.
if anything, jamal could atleast handle the ball and penetrate.
what can jaxson do?
and dont get me wromg jax can get his points up, but he cant carry the team.
thats where jamal comes in.
by GsWBush on Dec 31, 2008 1:59 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
A hidden gem?
when has he ever brought any type of winning success to any team he has been on?
What is the status of our petitions to fire Robert Rowell and have Chris Cohan commit Hari Kiri, or at least sell the team?
by warriorsscore110 on Dec 31, 2008 12:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Crawford...
is a future Hall of Famer!
John 8:44 -Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.
by triplesix on Dec 30, 2008 2:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not to mention the guy has soem of the best skills on the team
and is the only player capabale of putting up 50 on any given night. The problem is tomm many fans have no real knolwedge of the game. Jamal has skills.
"I say the dumbest things most of the time" Skeptic Con Urquell 12.08
by smearthebeard on Dec 30, 2008 9:58 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
So the argument for him is that because he can put up 50 points, he’s good to keep around even though he’s more likely to go 4 for 15 with scarcely a rebound than he is to put up a big scoring night? Tony Delk put up 50+ points. So did Tracy Murray. Judging a guy by his best game while ignoring that he’s regularly not anything similar to his best is a mistake.
He may have skills, but throughout his career, he hasn’t used these skills to positive ends often enough. “Skills” only help if you put these skills to use to get ‘results.’ He doesn’t do that very often. He’s not a rookie. He’s not an up-and-comer. Expecting him to suddenly put these ‘skills’ together at this point is unwarranted. If you marvel at skills and think it’s a dance contest, maybe he’s your guy. If you’d rather have someone help you win games, Crawford ain’t the guy to rely on.
by jae on Dec 30, 2008 10:32 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Its hard to understand with Jamal because
he really seems like a nice modest guy. Some much of defense is the will to play it. He would be some much better if he tried to penetrate but I watch him and even when he seems to be trying to fit in with the offense he just doesn’t. He instinctively takes bad shots and can’t seem to play team basketball.
You would think a guy like him could change but perhaps after 8 years on bad teams and not much college his bad habits are set
by SFzig on Dec 30, 2008 10:45 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think that his character (‘nice guy’) is an issue. He’s just not a particularly good (or particularly bad) player. His status seems elevated because his ppg has been ‘good’ for much of his career. PPG alone is a lousy, albeit probably the most common, way to judge a player.
Shot selection seems one of the more difficult things to change in a player. It’s not impossible, but it’s tough, and almost a decade into a career, it’s foolish to think that he’s suddenly going to change.
by jae on Dec 30, 2008 11:57 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
lol.
the real question is, why are you comparing tony delk and tracy murray to jamal crawford? is there really an argument to be made here when you’re talking about two players with sub-10 career ppg who aren’t even in the league anymore?
jamal is a WAY better player than those two despite his streaky shooting, and i’m sure jamal has put up 50 more than once.
by jchao204 on Dec 30, 2008 10:59 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Why am I comparing Crawford to Delk and Murray? Because the argument seems to be presented that Crawford can score 50 points a game, thus he’s good. Murray and Delk also scored 50 or more points in a game. Neither were particularly good. Alone, the “he can score 50 points a game” argument doesn’t tell you what you’re liable to see on most nights. What he is likely to do on most nights will have more to do with the team’s success than what he will do once every few seasons.
by jae on Dec 30, 2008 11:54 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not to be picky, jae, but its not a bad arguement because Jamal has a history of putting up big scoring games. He’s had three 50+ games (with three different teams, and three different systems), whereas Delk put up 53 once in an overtime game, and murray dropped 50 on a really shitty Warriors team.
The point shouldn’t be that he scored 50, a lot of NBA talent players have a decent chance to do it. It should be that Crawford has proven its not a fluke, and unceremoniously dumping a guy like that is stupid. Just getting rid of talented players to make room for young guys is a major reason why we were so horrible for so long.
by IceDubs on Dec 30, 2008 3:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Crawford has scored 50 when HE has been on crappy teams where there really where no other legitiment scores.
What is the status of our petitions to fire Robert Rowell and have Chris Cohan commit Hari Kiri, or at least sell the team?
by warriorsscore110 on Dec 31, 2008 12:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I guess you should be our GM then! You are so smart!
"I say the dumbest things most of the time" Skeptic Con Urquell 12.08
by smearthebeard on Dec 30, 2008 3:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No one’s offered me the job. I’d take it in a heartbeat if someone did.
by jae on Dec 30, 2008 3:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
was that a complement? would you be a complimentary GM for this organization?
by hardcore on Dec 31, 2008 10:58 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Complimentary? Hell no. They’d have to pay me. But I suspect that I have skills that would complement a GM if he listened.
by jae on Dec 31, 2008 1:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Jamal has skills
not he is not a winner. He occasionally gets hot and is an unstoppable scorer, he is quick shoot free throws and can handle ok. No doubt about it. He has very few other basketball skills, is a low percentage, low IQ basketball player and he seems to avoid contact on both the offensive and defensive end of the floor.
He seems like a nice guy and when he is hot the guy is sensational but I wonder in the history of the NBA has there even been a career 40% shooter over 8 seasons who have had so many 50 point games? I think Jamal has been allowed to basically gun everywhere he as been.
I even see him trying to fit in and move the ball but it just isn’t him.
by SFzig on Dec 30, 2008 10:42 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
to many fans have no real knolwedge of the game.
too bad you probably fall under this category.
by the evil monkey on Dec 30, 2008 10:43 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He's a font of "knolwedge"
Indeed, when he was young, the big kids at school would give him “knol-wedgies”…
OBAMA AMABO
by Sleepy Freud on Dec 30, 2008 11:04 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
an idiot you are, but at least you are consistent!
"I say the dumbest things most of the time" Skeptic Con Urquell 12.08
by smearthebeard on Dec 30, 2008 3:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Aw shucks.
But if I’m the still the dumbest of them all, how come I don’t rate in your sig line anymore? :,-(
OBAMA AMABO
by Sleepy Freud on Dec 30, 2008 3:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
ya
he has skills, i like him better than maggette
by Ali luvs monta on Dec 30, 2008 1:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
you better put up fifty if you jack up 20+ shots
the stop calling him "beans" movement
by pervisNeverNervous on Dec 31, 2008 10:35 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
knowing how to play the game (Nash) is much more important than sheer skill (Barbosa). though toughness is an immeasurable skill which Jamal lacks. he just plays bad 1on1 defense, is a liability in screen/roll, plays horrible team defense, is slow on rotations, and has zero understanding of position defense.
he seems like a nice guy though – i hope he opts out this offseason and gets rewarded somewhere else with a nice contract.
there are circumstances surrounding the records such as competition and home vs away, but still it remains true that they are 4-14 w/ JC, 6-9 w/o him. just as they are 3-13 w/ Maggette and 7-10 w/o.
by the evil monkey on Dec 30, 2008 10:32 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
The guy can get to the rim… but he never does. The guy can create for others.. but he never does.
Bad Defense, takes quick contested shots, soft player.
Oh…. but he can get hot and score 40 or 50 sometimes…. WHO CARES.
He doesn’t make the team better… and that the only thing that should matter.
by Gurthy on Dec 30, 2008 10:46 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
50 Point Warriors
No one has scored 50 points for the Dubs since Antawn did it back in like 2000. That alone should give you a feel for what Jamal is capable of.
Yes, he takes too quick a shot sometimes and yes he passes up shots ironically, but the guy needs a little time to understand the flow of the Dubs. Hell, the Dubs don’t really have an identity yet, so don’t short change the guy just quite yet. I think after Monta comes back and the Dubs have a sense of who they are as a full squad, Jamal will round out the team and contribute to some success. Jamal and Monta will be nice. It’s about the best thing the Warriors will have going for them aside from their great patient fans and Andris.
On paper the Dubs won’t be too shabby. Monta, Crawford, SJax, Maggs and Andris as starters. Buike, Belinelli, Morrow, Wright , Randolph and Turiaf off the bench ain’t too bad either… I can work with that considering…
Also, as mentioned by someone else, Crawford has been on HORRIBLE teams. Good players on bad teams never seem to win peoples hearts. Put a good player on a good team and all of a sudden that player is worth something. Swap Rajon Rondo for Crawford and we’d hear how awesome Crawford is. Swap Crawford for Mo Williams and you’d hear how valuable Crawford is. The Chicago and NY teams he played for were really bad. So are the Dubs. Maybe that’s why he’s getting a bad response by some people here in the Bay? Dude is good. Give him and the Dubs some time…
by gabezgsw on Dec 30, 2008 10:50 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
“Capable of” and "is likely to do’ are different things. Building based on the former is not as reliable a method as building on the latter.
Crawford didn’t shoot well in NY despite multiple seasons to try to “understand the flow” there. Ditto for Chicago. Why would you expect him to start shooting well and suddenly radically improve his shot selection when he’s not shown that it’s something he’s done in the past? Hope spring eternal for some I guess.
Was Crawford a good player on horrible teams or was he a moderate player on horrible teams who, because he wasn’t more than moderate, wasn’t enough to keep his team from being horrible? He’s not terrible, but neither is he particularly good. He is not all of the problem, but he’s not much of a solution either.
[Swap Rondo for Crawford and we’d see the perimeter defense and rebounding of the Celtics decline. I base this on the fact that Rondo is a good individual defender who rebounds well and has shown a tendency to take smart shots, while Crawford is a terrible individual defender who is a terrible rebounder and hasn’t shown any tendency to take smart shots.]
by jae on Dec 30, 2008 12:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
i can't wait
to see a back court of Jamal and Monta, fast break mania!!! it would be nice to see belinelli a lot as well. Jamal needs time to get in rhythm with the system, he is a great passer and can really shoot!
by Ali luvs monta on Dec 30, 2008 1:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And about a game after that Nellie is going to go with a Monta-Marco backcourt. I can see it now, TP/Manu 2.0 FTW!!!
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
by kenntoe on Dec 30, 2008 1:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks Gabe for having some intelligence
unlike, clones like jae, sleepy, and their little entourage.
"I say the dumbest things most of the time" Skeptic Con Urquell 12.08
by smearthebeard on Dec 30, 2008 3:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
dude he sucks...
i mean have you watched his games??
one game hes hot and goes for 25, the next he can shoot for his life,
i mean look ,against the lakers, 22 points. against the raptors 9 points(?) on 2 of 10 or somthing
i just think hes too soft, takes too many 3ees, i mean i dont even see him get inside.
and hes streakey as a mofo
by gswfan1 on Dec 30, 2008 11:38 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
GET JAMAL UNDER CONTROL!
Nellie and Keith need to let Jamal know that he needs to play defense and grab rebounds to stay on the floor. If the jumpshot is not going, take it to the cup and get fouled. There is little doubt the guy is skilled, but he really needs to change his tendencies to help the W’s. COACH THIS GUY – PLEASE!
by terryteagle on Dec 30, 2008 11:49 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Crawford has never been even an adequate rebounder or defender. I doubt that insisting that he does this will change that. At some point, you have to accept that a guy is what he is. Rebounding especially seems to be one of the most difficult things for a player to make big changes in. He’s not a kid anymore. It’s more than coaching is going to change.
by jae on Dec 30, 2008 12:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
well it looks like maggs dont want to be a clipper again
“Who me? No. I love it here, man,” Maggette said. “It’s been a big change for me. Fans here are absolutely great. That’s the biggest thing coming from Los Angeles. They have a mixture of Lakers and Clippers fans. Here, it’s the Bay Area team. They love their Warriors. That’s what’s great about them.”
When Maggette missed those consecutive shots in a span of a humming bird’s flap,
Crawford simply looked at the bench and said, "Are you serious?"
by gorillas on Dec 30, 2008 11:49 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
It’s funny, because when he said that he probably was thinking about the money, money, money…
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
by kenntoe on Dec 30, 2008 1:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Toronto Game
I was at last nights game. And everytime Jamal came in the Raptors made the game close. Look at Crawfords stats. Craw and Wright were the only the only 2 warriors in the minus Crawford -5 and Wright -4. Wright was only in for 7 minutes so it did not bother me. But Crawford played 35 minutes! Bellinelli was + 16!! That is the difference. We play better, we move the ball better w/ Bellinelli and CJ. Rocky also has way better defense
( Knockout punch). Turiaf 2 blocks in a row last night were AWESOME. Its great to see the effort these guys are putting in. When we get healthy I want to see Ellis and Maggs putting in the same amount hustle and pass the ball!!
by Saxmania on Dec 30, 2008 11:53 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
more +/- fun
For the season, Jamal’s +/- is -6.84. Over the past two years, it’s -5.42. That’s right, not only does he make our team worse, but he made the New York Knicks worse too. PPG and fancy dribbling ain’t everything, kiddos
by YaHeard on Dec 30, 2008 1:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
last night
he was dreadful. inexcusibly bad. every time he touched the ball it was to dribble twice and shoot a long two with a hand in his face. for such a “great passer” he sure seems to have tunnel vision. he never even looked to pass. he was the worst player on the court last night. by a lot.
and normally, i’d say that wright needs to play more than 7 minutes every night, but when toronto is only puttin bosh out there as a legitimate big man, it seems better to make sure biedrins or turiaf on him than wright. which is probably why he played so little, and was a -4. (i’m actually surprised that crawford was only a -5, it was painful watching him botch every possession with an ill-advised jumper with 17 seconds left on the shot clock.)
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Dec 30, 2008 3:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
jamals good
sixth man good, not starter good
"Don't be nervous, Be at their service".
by SlimShady on Dec 30, 2008 12:23 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
poor JAE
I feel your pain.
Look guys, there’s no doubting that Jamal Crawford is a very talented player. He’s got great handles, a quick pull up J, decent playmaking ability, and the balls to take and make the big shots during crunchtime.
But he’s not going to evolve into some kind of superstar right in front of our eyes, especially in such an undisciplined Don Nelson system. He’s going to continue to do the things that have hurt his teams in the past, maybe even more so. He’s going to take bad shots, he’s going to take alot of them, and he’s not going to rebound nor play defense consistently. He doesn’t play winning basketball.
Ideally, he’ll be coming off the bench for us when our roster is fully healthy.
by YaHeard on Dec 30, 2008 1:55 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Sixth man...
I’m looking forward to seeing how he would handle that role. Unfortunately I’m not sure if Nellie would put him in that role but that’s another discussion.
"...OlympicMike is clearly the Barack Obama of GSoM"-Sleepy
by olympicmike on Dec 30, 2008 1:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree that....
it’s too early to be pulling the plug on jamal. This guy came to our team and was asked to play PG, something that he hasn’t done since his NBA career, and we all want instant success? This is the NBA not coffee.
I guarantee all the jamal haters on this post was bashing bellieneliie at one point in his NBA career. The same ones that are on Rocky’s jock right now.
by nuttinbutnet on Dec 30, 2008 1:55 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
why do ppl disregard stuff just b/c they haven't seen it?
Belinelli’s stats still correspond closely to a Vujacic level player (Marco’s shot better to this point, but Vujacic’s had the better rebounding rate and a smaller turnover % at age 22). other than last season, Vujacic actually puts out better assist #‘s. besides Marco’s 1.6 assist to turnover rate is about the same as Jack’s 1.53 rate, but everyone forgives Marco for dumb mistakes and not Jack. regardless, at least Marco’s NBA history consists of only 1.3 years.
however, Crawford’s been in the league 8.3 years. this is who he is. his stats with the W’s are about the same as his career stats.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/profile?playerId=165
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/stats?playerId=165
actually, it’s more likely Maggette improves than Crawford. he’s shot well below his career ‘s and has been an even bigger ball hog and rebounded less than he has historically (which has been masked by the increase in pace of play that he’s seen going from the Clips to the Dubs. you can see his assist rate has dipped from the 10.1-13.9 range to 8.2 this season. his rebounding rate has fallen down to 8.7 from the 9.1 to 11.5 range.
2nd question: when will ppl stop falling for flashy highlights? it’s like when all those fans thought Jason Williams was an all-star and compared him to Pistol Pete.
besides, it’s not that it’s Jamal’s fault. it’s just a bad fit when you add a guy who is an even worse rebounder & defender to a bad rebounding/defending team. in addition to making a soft team an even softer team. so far his shooting has pretty much negated the improved ball handling and it’s not as though he’s crushing CJ in this aspect (2.43 a/t vs 2.14 a/t).
by the evil monkey on Dec 30, 2008 2:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
yawn...
"I say the dumbest things most of the time" Skeptic Con Urquell 12.08
by smearthebeard on Dec 30, 2008 3:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Jamal's effect
It’s ludicrous to blame Jamal Crawford for our pathetic record since he’s joined the Warriors. This team had problems much larger than Crawford’s lax defense or inability to make other players better. Jamal Crawford for Al Harrington was a fair deal and he will help us win more games than not. One effect he has had that is immeasurable is the tremendous free throw shooting this team has had since his arrival. I couldn’t find statistical breakdown on a game by game basis, to prove this, but anecodotally something has happened to drastically change the free throw percentages of this team. Jamal is at 90% on the season. Belinelli, Jackson and Turiaf have been right there with improvements from KAZ and CJ being obvious. I’d rather see Turiaf at the 5 than Biedrins in the last 5 min. of a close game because of his FT shooting performance. i don’t think we win Boston nor Toronto games had we not been this good from the line.
So, this impact alone should speak to the influence of Crawford’s approach has helped the team. Moncrief alone certainly didn’t get them there. FT shooting is contagious and I think we have a shot at finishing the year at .500 based on our ability to close out games alone now.
"We're Menudo," -BB
by eshock on Dec 30, 2008 2:40 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
What most of these metal midgets do not get is that
his pick up was intended to be with Monta as a backcourt partner. We blame a new player for all the problems when we have been missing monta, mags, and jackson at one time or another. The team has been an incomplete mess with no continuity. Yet these brainiacs blame the guy who is only the 4th player in the history of the nba to score over 50 points for 3 different teams. The other 3? All top 20 of all time players, yet I guess Jamal sucks.
"I say the dumbest things most of the time" Skeptic Con Urquell 12.08
by smearthebeard on Dec 30, 2008 3:09 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
why
is jamal monta’s ideal backcourt mate? because they are both undersized 2s who can’t really guard any shooting guards? the fact that they are both fast does not make them a good backcourt, it makes them a redundant backcourt. with jamal being the terrible half of it. i would rather have al faking a back injury for the rest of this year and the next and have him come off the books than have jamal wasting payroll for an extra year while playing embarrassingly badly.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Dec 30, 2008 3:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Why not at least let them play and let their results speak for
whether it will work or not. You all are condemning him before the plan is in effect.
"I say the dumbest things most of the time" Skeptic Con Urquell 12.08
by smearthebeard on Dec 30, 2008 3:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
you haven't seen it either
why are you lauding it as a great idea before letting the results speak for themselves? i don’t see any reason to assume that it was the plan. it looked like an expensive band-aid, something to give the team another body in the backcourt (for some terrible reason) until monta returned. wasn’t the plan to move him to 6th man when monta came back? i don’t know, because i haven’t seen it, but i don’t see why are jamal and monta going to work in the same backcourt
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Dec 30, 2008 3:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think the “plan” was to get Harrington out of town. The Knicks presented themselves as buyers and had a limited number of players who made salaries work. One possibility was Malik Rose, who would have been an expiring contract but provides nothing on the court at this point in time. The other possibilities were Curry, who has the distinction of being more inept at D and rebounding than just about any center in the league and could not keep up in Nellie’s offense, and Crawford. Either the Knicks decided against Malik Rose and his expiring deal or the Warriors decided they’d rather have someone who could actually play the game (mediocre as he really is), but in either event we wound up with Crawford. Was that a ‘plan’ or some sort of salvage move when they decided that Al had to go? I don’t know, but given the lack of ‘plan’ in most of the moves the Warriors have made over the last year or so, I think it safer to say that it was just a move, no planning involved.
by jae on Dec 30, 2008 3:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
There is a possibility that the “plan” will work, that somehow there will be some synergy with the two that allows Crawford to do things he’s regularly done before. That’s possible.
But it’s not probable. Any plan that relies on a 9 year vet suddenly doing things he hasn’t done before (defending, shooting for a high percentage, covering for an undersized back-court-mate who doesn’t defend well) is a flawed plan. No, we don’t know what will happen, but we can assess some probabilities and the probability that we’ll see something far greater than the sum of the parts is low.
Do realize that there’s a difference between saying that Crawford isn’t particularly good, that he’s not really part of a solution and saying that he sucks. He’s clearly an NBA talent who can at times do some pretty amazing things. He’s also demonstrated over a span of many seasons that he does these amazing things inconsistently. Depending on him to do them regularly as your plan for a solid backcourt is a long shot gamble. Building a team with longshot gambles rarely works.
by jae on Dec 30, 2008 3:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And neither guy ever going over the top of a screen
I am not sure either guy can really guard a good point guard either
by SFzig on Dec 30, 2008 6:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Gotta Love GSoM
Crawford is good. Not bad, not horrible, not really good, not great. He’s just good-nothing to write home about. Its all perspective I guess. No amount of statistical jibber jabber will convince me he will get the Dubs to the Playoffs nor will it convince me he “sucks”.
Point is, this season is a wash. People are bitter and want to vent. Crawford has been linked to this team since BD left. Crawford is filler for two of our guards who either left the team or were hurt in a moped accident. Its not like John Stockton or Isiah Thomas are going to magically appear in free agency land. Crawford is who he is. A slightly above average player who lacks many “dominate” attributes; kinda like 80% of the league unless your Deron, CP3, Parker or BD.
The enitre point of the post was to simply say “chill out” and let the missing peices of this puzzle come together and you’ll probably see this kid ain’t too bad considering we lost 2 of the better guards in the NBA. Besides, Crawford probably won’t even be around next season anyway so who gives a flying fu*k…
by gabezgsw on Dec 30, 2008 4:01 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
that's the problem
The “missing pieces of this puzzle” can’t just magically come together anymore. We have a thing called the salary cap in the NBA.
By trading Harrington’s shorter contract for Crawford’s longer contract,
By giving Jackson that fatty extension,
By giving Maggette that ridiculous contract,
By giving huge contracts to Monta and Biedrins (two very flawed defensive players only now greatly overshadowed by the rest of the team’s bad defense)
Warriors management is saying that THESE ARE the missing pieces of the puzzle. We went from a team with the most financial flexibility in the league to a team with absolutely no financial flexibility: a roster full of high-priced immovable contracts and a non-contender for the 2010 Free Agency sweepstakes.
Granted, we’re going to be a fun team to watch for years to come, we’re just not going to win many games. And as long as we, as fans, stay in our little fantasy land and believe the pieces will come together sooner or later, and that the veterans we have will magically turn into better players, and that any other team would actually give up talent to trade for the bad contracts we just handed out… then I guess CC and RR really do know how to skin a sheep.
by YaHeard on Dec 30, 2008 5:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
just to put things into perspective...
If we hadn’t made all of those stupid moves this summer, we’d be around $35 mil under the salary cap come 2010 free agency time (and that’s INCLUDING Ellis’ and Biedrins’ contracts too.) That might even be enough to sign two max-contract superstars to back-loaded contracts.
What could have been our 2010 Roster:
PG Ellis / Watson
SG Wade / Belinelli
SF Lebron / Azubuike
PF Wright / Randolph
C Biedrins / Turiaf
Or insert whichever two superstars you prefer, take your pick from Ginobili, Amare, Bosh, Boozer, Aldridge, Roy, etc.
Instead, we’re getting none of them.
What’s going on now doesn’t quite upset me as much as what could have been. We had the perfect opportunity to rebuild during one of the most strongest free agent classes in NBA history, and we blew it.
by YaHeard on Dec 30, 2008 6:02 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
This is the heart of it
there is no plan with this front office. They were throwing money at everyone is desperation once Baron opted out. I mean we could easily have a maxed out Gilbert right now sitting. How about that?
Its pretty sad when there is a legitimate debate about whether your 5 year 50 million free agent and your 10 million per (or whatever Crawford is) even make you team better.
by SFzig on Dec 30, 2008 6:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Just think
It could be worse. This is the same front office that offered $100M+ to Gilbert Arenas and $80M+ to Elton Brand just this past summer. Just ask Washington and Philadelphia how those deals are working out.
Sometimes the best deals are the ones that don’t get done.
by UncleCliffy on Dec 31, 2008 12:43 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
C'MON AL DAVIS!!!
Some of you guys have what I call the Al Davis Syndrome, where you think just because something doesn’t work right away, it never will.Give these guys a chance to prove themselves, and i don’t mean 8 or 9 games, i mean 2 to 3 months.
If we would have traded everybody who didn’t work out right away we wouldn’t have…
Andris, Monta, Marco or Azubuike!!
Yes, Crawford is a proven good player and yes he will fit in! All you Al Davis’s need to stop taling about trades and just support our team that we have.
GO DUBS!
by VERY VERY BUSY on Dec 30, 2008 5:32 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
8 or 9 games?
try 8 or 9 years. crawford has failed to be anything better than mediocre in that time span. i don’t think he’s getting much better this year.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Dec 30, 2008 5:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Crawford is a proven reasonably high ppg scorer. That is not a synonym for “good player”.
Should we “support our team” when management goes out and screws us over by assembling a collection of merely adequate players who don’t fit well together and destroy a reasonably good, flexible salary structure in the process? I still want the Warriors to win, but hell if I need to be silent and pretend that what they’re doing is good.
by jae on Dec 30, 2008 6:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
look
no breaks or second chances for these players they are payed millions. He needs to pass to open teammates shoot the ball at the right time
I will always be your fan JRich. Good Luck
by chili01 on Dec 30, 2008 8:05 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
PPG isn’t the only thing Crawford’s got. He’s big, (appears) reasonably strong, very quick, good finisher, good handles, good shooting stroke.
What he’s lacking seems to be all mental: shot selection, learning and trusting the system, defense, etc.
By the way, I don’t believe anybody who is 6’5, 200+ pounds with great foot speed and vertical is somehow a natural bad defender or rebounder. I’m a bad defender and rebounder because I’m 5’10/120 with about 5 inches of vertical. Maybe nobody ever made Crawford play defense, maybe he didn’t see the point just like Ray Allen didn’t play defense in Seattle, and now he’s checking Kobe. Maybe he was always told to leak out instead of box out.
So maybe, Crawford will develop go-to moves when his shot isn’t falling. Maybe he will start defending and rebounding to the best of his ability in the minutes he gets. Maybe he’ll believe in this team, but first it wouldn’t hurt for some fans to believe in him.
Everybody’s looking for the next Kobe or MJ in the draft- 80% of them end up as busts. 20% of them end up something like Crawford.
by antihero on Dec 30, 2008 10:31 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Crawford may be tall, but he doesn’t play tall. He does not utilize his height to get rebounds. If he’s strong, it doesn’t seem to help him out on defense. I’m not sure why people are marveling at his shooting stroke. Is it a beauty contest? The end result is either the ball goes in the basket or it doesn’t, and his consistently not very good FG% is an indication that it doesn’t more often than the average player.
Crawford is not new to the league. He has a long history of not rebounding, of not shooting well. Whether or not it’s ‘mental’ doesn’t mean that we should expect it to change. Odds are that we’ll continue to see what we’ve seen. Odds of that are better than expecting him to solve his problems and become a better player at this point in his career.
by jae on Dec 30, 2008 11:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Next game I’ll keep an eye on Crawford’s rebounding and defense, neither of which have seriously offended me in the past. Maybe they’re horrible- maybe not- I’d rather not pass hasty judgment based on reputations and stats.
Shooting stroke matters. Anyone who has ever played basketball can back me up on this. The kind of shots you take, the role you play on a team, your attitude, minutes, etc. are important, but your stroke remains constant. Maybe I put certain things on a pedestal. But I really do believe you can tell more about a player by watching him play than by reading his stat sheet.
Anyway, I rewatched the clip of him breaking Ray ray and I…
by antihero on Dec 31, 2008 1:21 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
jamal cant rebound but he can do other things that some players cant do on the team.
like penetrate at anygiven time, get and 1’s like it was nothing, throw smart passes, and even get himself to the line. plus the 50 point games?hello?
just because he isnt a good rebounder or defender, doesnt mean he is necisseraly a bad or detrimental player.
by GsWBush on Dec 31, 2008 2:07 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If he can penetrate at any given time, why does he instead take jumpers that he only hits about 40% of the time.
And of course, what he can do is far, far less important to the team than what he does do.
Just because someone isn’t a good rebounder or defender doesn’t mean he’s “necisseraly” a bad player, but it’s a long way towards that. Those are very important parts of the game if you’re concerned with more than youtube highlights, if you actually care about trying to win. It means he better do something else real well to make up for it.
by jae on Dec 31, 2008 7:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
your act is getting really old!
I Love me some me!
by sleepy con skeptic on Dec 31, 2008 9:34 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Act? Who’s acting?
Shucks! I guess I better hop on the bandwagon and start praising Crawford. My ‘act’ is getting old!
by jae on Dec 31, 2008 1:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
give jamal the rest of the year unless were getting a star
i think jamal should be given the rest of the year to fit in unless he is dished for a star]baron,wallace,howard because like some other posts above he cant be judged until monta comes back hell neither can maggs even though i think he needs out
trade Jackson!!!!!!
by gswfan13 on Dec 31, 2008 2:27 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Jamal for 6th man, once we get Monta back
I would really like this idea of having him come in as the lead scorer of the 2nd team, kinda like a better Barbosa. That being said, with Nellie’s erratic supstitution patterns noone ever has a defined role like that so that will never happen. Here’s my great idea:
1st team: 2nd team:
Belli Crawford
Monta Buike
Jack Maggette(Morrow, when Maggette’s hurt)
Wright Randolph
Biedrins Ronny
by mr40waters on Dec 31, 2008 11:06 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
dude
why does everyone love jamal.
i dont hate him but hes wayy to streaky, and just a horrible defender
by gswfan1 on Dec 31, 2008 7:02 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I can't stand Jamal Crawford
He is a very good ball handler, but he is a below average passer who occasionally sees the floor and makes the good pass. The guy is also a streakier shooter than Captain Jack, and his shot selection is ten times worse than Baron’s. I can’t stand him. It’s no wonder that he and Maggette have come from perenial losing teams. I don’t care that they’re 15-20 point per game scorers. They suck and they don’t make their team/teammates better. Having Maggette and Crawford on the team makes me long for the days of Murphleavy. I never hated Murphyleavy as much as I hate Mags and Crawford.
by 1rabidwarriorsfan on Jan 1, 2009 11:03 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
and another thing. . . .
I know many guys in the NBA don’t box out, but he is the absolute worst I have ever seen. Last night’s game against OKC was a perfect example. I can sort of understand not boxing someone out around the top of the key or near the three point line. But several times in the game he was near the basket, and the thought of boxing out didn’t even enter his mind. He just allowed whomever he was guarding to just stroll up to the basket and get in better position than him, for a rebound. Awful, just awful. The only thing Crawford is good for is a game of streetball. He’s all flash, no D, and thinks the NBA has a 6 second shot clock.
by 1rabidwarriorsfan on Jan 1, 2009 11:11 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
nellie's a loser
THAT’S why crawford (as well as anyone else on the team) will NEVER improve defensively or reboundingly.
as long as you are tall, skinny, can run up and down the court aimlessly, and make at least 25% of your perimeter shots, nellie will be satisfied. rebounding and defense have nothing to do with nellie-ball—and NEVER WILL.
by nelliehater on Jan 2, 2009 9:44 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
