Thoughts on Jamal Crawford...

by rjnarayen on Jan 9, 2009 5:43 PM PST Comment 55 comments

So it seems recently that a lot of our attention has been focused on the front office saga, Anthony, and Monta. I'm a little surprised that I haven't seen more people talking about Jamal. I think it's clear that he's a very talented, quick scoring guard who still has some pretty serious deficiencies in his game. I was just wondering what you guys think about Jamal's play so far this year. Here are some of my thoughts:

*He's shooting 28% on threes for us this year. That, frankly, is unacceptable. What makes it worse is that he is really, really effective when going to the basket or pulling up for midrange. I think that he really bails out defenses when he settles for threes. I've been hoping for a while that Nellie would treat him like he treated Monte earlier, namely telling him to cut the threes out of his game. It did wonders for Monta and Tony Parker, and I think Jamal would benefit tremendously from it.

*His ball handling is really iffy. While he does execute some ridiculous moves (he shook Fisher in the Laker game), he also loses his handle a few times per game. I'd love to see him be a little more conservative with the dribble, because the last thing our team needs is more turnovers.

*He distributes the ball reasonably wel. He's a pretty high risk player, but he's averaging almost 5 assists a game. Considering he shares the ball handling duties with Jack, CJ, and occassionally other players, that's a pretty solid number.

I think Jamal has a lot of "potential" (in quotes because he is an 8 year vet, so it's unlikely that he'll fundamentally change) to really improve his game. I think that if he simply cut out the 3's from his game, he could average 4-6 more points a game.

What do you guys think?

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!

0 recs | Comment 55 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

He is what he is: a low efficiency shooting tweener scorer who plays much shorter than he is. He’ll put up the occasional monster game, in a way that few people in the league can, but most of the time, he’s another cog in the “not really good enough” machine that makes a team max out at mediocre.

Expecting anything different from him is a sucker’s bet.

by jae on Jan 9, 2009 5:59 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Yep. And in addition to all that, he’s an unusually bad fit for this team. The Warriors are not hurting for scorers… most guys on the roster score as efficiently as Crawford, and many of them more so. And while Crawford is a somewhat better playmaker than the other healthy guards, he doesn’t run an offense so much as whip out a few nifty passes out of isos. That’s nice, but it doesn’t actually address our need for a point guard.

Crawford is simply horrible at the other elements of the game we’re missing. He is one of the worst defensive players in the league (the case can be made that he’s actually the worst defensive player in the league), and he’s one of the worst rebounders in the league for his height. He makes a tiny team even tinier.

Jamal Crawford seems like a nice guy, and I appreciate that he’s kept his chin up about playing for a bad team. But he gives us almost nothing that we need and cripples us in areas where we were already weak. The idea that this guy would be a good addition to this team is, frankly, a bad joke.

by onlxn on Jan 9, 2009 6:30 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

While he definitely isn't "championship team material", I'm not so sure he's a bad fit for this team.

In reality, we have one scorer other than Crawford right now, that’s Maggette. Jax has been forced into the playmaker/scorer role, but he’s really not suited for it, and Monta’s supposed to focus on being a PG when he comes back. So, if Crawford relegates Jax back to his more natural role as a “non-scorer” focusing on playing stellar D and allows Monta to focus on the PG duties that he’ll have to learn, then he’s a good fit. I’m not saying that this is going to be successful or that Crawford’s any more than “another cog in the "not really good enough" machine”, but if that’s the plan, he serves a purpose for this team.

If we can then turn him around in 2010 as an expiring if/when Wright, Randolph, Belinelli, and high draft pick X from this year are worthwhile NBA players, well, we might be able to get somewhere.

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Jan 12, 2009 9:23 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

He’ll put up the occasional monster game, in a way that few people in the league can,

Yeah, What’s with that? Why can he do it sometimes and lay an egg other times? If he could stay consistent I’d rather keep Jamal for our 2 guard then try to trade MontayMoped for a point or a power forward.
Anyone figure out the key to Crawfords big nights?

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 9, 2009 6:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Because he shoot and shoots and shoots, and then shoots some more. On some nights those shots go at a high rate and you got a coach who rides his veterans to the dirt and you got a 50 point game.

Other nights he gets 18 points, but it comes from 6 of 22 shooting.

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 Jan 10, 2009 10:37 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Every coach rides their "hot" players

If you’ve got a guy who scored 30 points in a half, you’d be stupid to take him out of the game.

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0

by Dubs fan in Boston on Jan 12, 2009 9:26 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

He would be an ideal 6th man in this league.

by YaHeard on Jan 9, 2009 6:03 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Jae doesn't really care for any Warriors players so take his opinion with a grain of salt.

by dungeness crabdribble on Jan 9, 2009 6:05 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I like Biedrins and Monta and think Wright was coming along such that he should play more. I think Turiaf is a perfectly adequate backup and thought Maggs was a good buy and still hold out hope that he’ll return the form he had before this year. Other than that, the lineup doesn’t leave a lot to like. I don’t have anything personal against the rest of the team. They’re just sub par for the NBA and aren’t going to help you win often enough to be worthwhile. I don’t say that players are better than they are just because they play for my team.

Take my word with a grain of salt, or take all the yahoos telling you that so and so is great because he’s got YouTube moves (but has played for losers for his career and appears to be part of the reason) with more salt. Honesty’s a bitch, sometimes.

by jae on Jan 9, 2009 7:38 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

… is bummed that you don’t love him. Morrow too.

I’d put them both squarely in the “average/adequate” category, and I think they’re both young, smart and driven enough to become “slightly above average.” I wouldn’t call either “sub par.” And I’ll dry-hump your opinion if you disagree with me. ;-)

-- That’s my opinion. Hate it or love it.
-- I’m actually going to dry-hump it if you don’t mind.

by Sleepy Freud on Jan 9, 2009 8:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Ronny's just coming to give him a high five!

VERY NICE

by antihero on Jan 9, 2009 8:11 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

jae seems lto like players who

are efficeint scorers and impact thier team positively(rebounding consistently, low turnovers, foul rate, etc), using stats to back up his findings.

If your line of thinking is ‘AR is going to be a star just like Monta cuz he has so much potential’ you would probably disagree with alot that he has to say.

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 Jan 10, 2009 10:42 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

jae seems lto like players who are efficeint scorers and impact thier team positively(rebounding consistently, low turnovers, foul rate, etc), using stats to back up his findings.

I’m funny like that. I have this strange thing where a player’s ability to help improve his team’s chances of winning factors heavily on my evaluation of whether or not the player is any good.

I also tend to think that what a player has done is a better indication of what his impact on the team will be than some nebulous description of ‘potential’. This isn’t always true, but I’ve seen more guys described as having ‘potential’ who didn’t amount to squat than I have seen guys who did good, albeit not flashy, things on the court continue to help their team and help them win. Hell, sometimes these guys even eventually get recognized as being good players.

by jae on Jan 10, 2009 11:31 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

i dont have a problem with his handles

he has a NASTY crossover, top 10 in the NBA easy. but he literally just lets his man run right by him without any attempt to stay in front of him.

by HoLdEmUP on Jan 9, 2009 7:36 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Crawford

Crawford is a scorer and really only a scorer. I’d rather see him dealt for a true point guard or a big man, really. Sure, he has a great crossover and he can score, but it’s not on a consistent basis.

The Ultimate Opportunist

by Rated-R Superstar on Jan 9, 2009 7:55 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Like an Al Harrington for instance???

Nah. No way the Knicks would trade a rare skilled big man for a mediocre 2 guard. And the W’s don’t need any big men. Ask Nellie.

by formerlythecity on Jan 13, 2009 1:22 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

he's mind-numbingly inconsistant

he’s basically the same as harrington in that way except that he has the potential to go off for a bigger game. more often than not tho he seems to be hovering around 10-15 points

by AJC3317 on Jan 9, 2009 9:10 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

part of that has to do with

the fact that hes fitting in with a new team. He is still trying to find a comfort zone and a defined roll. Time will tell but I htink we could fit nicely with Monta as his wingman.

by dungeness crabdribble on Jan 9, 2009 9:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

crawford

For a guy that’s been in the league like 9 or 10 years he plays so undisciplined and raw. At times he reminds me of the rookie version of white chocolate(J-Will). I think that i’d prefer more of the non-And1 Jamal.

I pray i never have to use a gun again...

...unless i'm at a strip club parking lot...

...and somebody tries to run me over with their car...

...But how often does that happen??

by ssmokinjoe on Jan 9, 2009 9:47 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

hes a great one on one player

and hes really streaky. if hes on hes on of the most prolific scorers in the league but when hes off he contributes very little to the team

by montadaboss on Jan 9, 2009 9:52 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

6 and 8 are runnin mates

lets wait and see what happens when monta comes back and they jell for a few games…then decide how you like him

personally i love his attitude and playstyle…hes just gettin comfortable with a bad warriors squad and hopin monta comes to help run the show with him…

and about his 3 point percentage…in NY…he had an extreemly high 3 point percentage…so i think its more about him jellin with the team than anything…which will come with time and monta commin back to free up space

tony.psd! make a 6 and 8 are runnin mates themed graphic please!!

You know I spit technique to the freshest freak
Gimme a call you will see results in just a week
With the soul of a LOST HAWK
Is there a heaven for a Rap Cat, let's talk

by LostHawk on Jan 9, 2009 10:51 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

nellie's a loser

and has anyone noticed that jason richardson has greatly improved both his free throw and 3-pt shooting (over 45% this year!!!!!) the past two years?
due totally to his leaving the idiocy that is nellie-ball.

by nelliehater on Jan 9, 2009 10:52 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

We Suck

With Crawford Period. I feel we actually win games that he doesn’t play. As talented as he may be, we just don’t play well with him, except for that one outburst of points he had.

The Time Is Now! Win Warriors Win!

by ballin on Jan 9, 2009 10:53 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

nellie's a loser

and of course crawford’s 3-pt shooting has declined dramatically—just the opposite of j rich’s shooting.
NOT a coincidence—the former entered the idiocy that is nellie-ball, and the latter departed that same idiocy.

by nelliehater on Jan 9, 2009 10:55 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

as much as i hate nellie also

why does nellie ball hurt ur 3 point %? seems like more of a coincidence

You know I spit technique to the freshest freak
Gimme a call you will see results in just a week
With the soul of a LOST HAWK
Is there a heaven for a Rap Cat, let's talk

by LostHawk on Jan 9, 2009 11:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

nellie's a loser

and it’s because nellie-ball leads to: too much one-on-one, poor passing, and little-to-no cutting to the basket—all leading to forcing up bad shots as the clock winds down.

by nelliehater on Jan 9, 2009 11:09 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

yeah i feel you on this

Jamal is talented, but then again he is a waste and he just doesn’t help the team. I mean i really hope it works out for everyone but we have been doing worse since he came.

by Agent Zero on Jan 9, 2009 11:11 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I think he's awesome.

And I think he needs time. Transaction periods are always hard. And he’s improving with the team. Give him some credit!

by Shells on Jan 10, 2009 12:12 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

transition I mean.

by Shells on Jan 10, 2009 12:13 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

he’s had eight years in the league and never played particularly well. what makes you think he’ll figure it out now?

heart of a champion, will of the warrior.

by cap'n hack on Jan 10, 2009 12:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Because third time is the charm. =)

And I’m being hopeful. Don’t crush my line of hope. You know, I don’t know basketball particularly that well, (in fact, not much) but Jamal didn’t get groomed in ….great teams. The Bulls and Knicks were pretty much where the Warriors are that now. In fact, aren’t the Knicks known for bad defense as well? (and human wonder why he’s defense isn’t that great) And he was with them for 5 years. (4?)

The way I see it, you can be a great player, but you’ll need the proper backing. A team doesn’t consist of a sole player only.

And he is improving. He’s better at scoring. I don’t care if he attempted 26 shots, but makes only 10. The bottom line is, he scored. And his scores are now consistent. Can’t you at least see that?

Show some love cap’n hack!

by Shells on Jan 10, 2009 2:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t care if he attempted 26 shots, but makes only 10. The bottom line is, he scored.

This is a ‘logic’ used by many fans who look at point total as the single most important tool for rating a player. Problem is that if someone takes 26 shots and only makes 10, he’s taking shot opportunities away from other players. Given that 10 for 26 is well, well, well under the league average shooting percentage, on most nights, letting your teammates shoot some if you’re a 10 for 26 kind of guy will result in more wins than jacking it up. Your teammates can’t score when you’re taking all the shots and it’s not an individual’s points that matter at the end of the game, it’s the total for your team.

Efficiency matters. It’s what wins games. Since, by definition, possessions are basically equal in a game (at the end of a possession, the other team gets a possession, the team that makes the better use of their possessions will win, with very, very few exceptions.

The Bulls and Knicks weren’t very good with Crawford. There’s some cause-effect going on in that. Not entirely his fault, but he certainly wasn’t helping the situation.

by jae on Jan 10, 2009 4:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Isn't Jamal a go to type of guy?

I notice he tries to create plays for others. Jae, I definitely don’t want to overburden myself with stats. I’m not even close to there yet. If the boys’ shot goes in, then I thank every god there are.

And if he makes those 10 shots (say they’re all from the field), that’s 20 points! Even if it’s below 40% shooting…. I am happy.

by Shells on Jan 10, 2009 6:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Even if it’s below 40% shooting…. I am happy.

Well, on an existential basis, I guess that’s good. Happiness should never be frowned on. But being pleased with a guy shooting below 40% means you’re pleased with someone who is more often hurting the team than helping it.

by jae on Jan 10, 2009 7:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm still happy.

If our scorers aren’t scoring…maybe. Jamal isn’t the only scorers. Besides, even with the team high scoring %, we still lose.

I can’t wait to see Monta play.

by Shells on Jan 10, 2009 9:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

even with the team high scoring %, we still lose.

Cause we are not good

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 10, 2009 9:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

no.

We’re good. We’re just not that great.

by Shells on Jan 10, 2009 10:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

i tend to think that good teams win at least half of their games, but if you want to say that almost every team in the nba is good, i guess that’s true. none of us could make any of those teams…

heart of a champion, will of the warrior.

by cap'n hack on Jan 11, 2009 12:43 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

In the sense that we’d be a dominant team in the college ranks and almost certainly go undefeated against HS teams, we’re good. In the context of being an NBA team, we’re terrible.

by jae on Jan 11, 2009 9:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

let's find out

i smell a state championship in 2010!

heart of a champion, will of the warrior.

by cap'n hack on Jan 11, 2009 9:38 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

“And with that rebound, McClymonds seals it. They can just dribble out the clock. Crawford won’t even try to foul. Another heartbreaking loss for the Warriors, who showed they can compete with the best, but just can’t close it out.”

by jae on Jan 11, 2009 9:53 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

you can’t help but laugh, and then feel sad after reading that. you can just see the 15 year olds jumping up and down while maggette just glares at everyone who shakes his hand. crawford wouldn’t make eye contact and nelson would already be packed for hawaii. monta would still be in street clothes while we debate whether or not we win it if he could have played.

heart of a champion, will of the warrior.

by cap'n hack on Jan 11, 2009 10:35 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

that’s 20 points! Even if it’s below 40% shooting…. I am happy.

The trouble is those missed shots are wasted possessions and the other team probably gets over half of those rebounds. Better percentage means more of a points advantage to us in the long run.

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 10, 2009 9:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I know.

But I gotta look on the positive side of things. We’re a good team…we’re a good team.

Dang, we are a good team. I hope Danny Granger doesn’t kill us tomorrow.

by Shells on Jan 10, 2009 10:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I gotta look on the positive side of things.

Well, the positive is we could be a good team if we had better players :>)

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 10, 2009 10:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

we can't have better players if they refuse to join us.

We’re still a good team. And by better…are you referring to Monta? Cap Jack? =)

And is that the only positive you can dig up?

by Shells on Jan 10, 2009 11:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

is that the only positive you can dig up?

No, the good thing is basketball is not very important in the overall scheme of things so we can suck without it really mattering.

Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me

by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 11, 2009 11:01 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It's why people thought Baron was "good"

When he shouldn’t be taking many shots at all. (Watch him play with the Clips if you want to know how good Baron is.) A player could score a hundred points a night, but if he has to take 500 shots to do it, he is hurting your team. It’s as simple as that.

by formerlythecity on Jan 13, 2009 1:30 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Baron was good, very good, but his scoring totals weren’t really that indicative of what he was doing that was good.

Had he shot less, especially from long range, he’d have been even better. What Baron did well was set up his teammates and kept the ball under control. He wasn’t turnover prone for someone who had the ball as much as he did, but more so, he seemed to keep teammates from making turnovers by not putting them in positions where they had to force things themselves. He was also an above average rebounder for a guy on the perimeter and could be an effect player in creating turnovers on the other team.

This year, it appears that Baron’s doing less of all of that, except shooting and missing, which he’s doing more of.

by jae on Jan 13, 2009 8:06 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Missing shots

… and maybe more importantly, missing games. Basically, both of his Achilles’ heels. If he were a better shooter and less fragile he could have been an all-time great.

-- That’s my opinion. Hate it or love it.
-- I’m actually going to dry-hump it if you don’t mind.

by Sleepy Freud on Jan 13, 2009 9:06 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Does anyone think that if Monta can play the point well enough, a Monta/Jamal backcourt will have ridiculous scoring potential? Granted, they also couldn’t stop a middle school girl’s team, but considering that’s the direction Nellie (or should I say defensive coordinator Keith Smart…) has us going, does it really matter?

by rjnarayen on Jan 10, 2009 12:52 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

im thinkin

jamal at the point, and ellis at the 2…but they can both share the responsibilities…but ya…the scoring potential and fast break potential is redic…hopfully smart can use their speed to make a pesky defense that bothers teams and forces turnovers/steals

You know I spit technique to the freshest freak
Gimme a call you will see results in just a week
With the soul of a LOST HAWK
Is there a heaven for a Rap Cat, let's talk

by LostHawk on Jan 10, 2009 1:36 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

BD was our pesky defender last season

He was the one that started all of those turnovers really with his lazy picking at the ball instead of playing defense we’d get the ball and monta would already be running down court which is how we led the league in fast break.

by bojangles408 on Jan 10, 2009 12:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Go Away Crawford

I F’ING HATE JAMAL CRAWFORD. FOR THOSE THAT TIVO’D THE PORTLAND GAME TODAY. . . . Watch him at 6:22 left in the 3rd Quarter. That is the essence of Jamal Crawford. He is a selfish bastard who is a lazy ass on defense. He starts by missing the baseline three pointer, then watches the entire Blazer team run full speed to the other end of the court while he just jogs back on D, letting Aldridge (who was the one that challenged Crawford’s three and was initially even further from the Blazer basket than Crawford) get to the rim on a fast break. If you let the video run, you will see that he is the last Warrior down the court. Why does Nellie give him such a long leash while other Warrior players like Marco are on short leashes? Why does Nellie not punish him for his poor shot selection and defensive lapses? Off the ball on D, he turns his head more than any player I have ever seen. How can Anthony Morrow play almost an entire quarter’s worth of minutes in the first half and not get Crawford to get him a decent look at the basket? There were several times when Crawford could’ve made the extra pass and given Morrow a good look at the basket, but he didn’t because he is a selfish bastard. The best thing that Crawford can do for the Warriors is opt out at the end of the season. Please, please Jamal. Opt out and get out! We may still lose games without you, but at least we can lose them as a team passing the ball and not lose because of you jacking up shots whenever you please.

by 1rabidwarriorsfan on Jan 11, 2009 12:18 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

nellie's a loser

and HE was the one who wanted crawford (not some front office puke making 1/2 of nellie’s salary).
lazy defense is just ONE of the many fine attributes in the idiocy that is nellie-ball.

by nelliehater on Jan 11, 2009 10:53 AM PST reply actions 0 recs