Who Would Win? In a game between the current active Warriors and the 09-10 injured/missing Warriors

by Cannonballden on Dec 5, 2009 10:41 AM PST

Who would Win?

If you pitted the Warrior current healthy roster against their injured and inactive players (assuming of course they were no longer injured) which team would be better!?

Let's break it down by position real quick (tough to do on the dubbs, but here goes):

Team GIMP

C Andris Biedrins PF Ronny Turiaf/B-Wright SF Buike/AR/Buike/Bell G - Claxton/Buike/Bell/Morrow*

Current Starters

C Moore/Hunter PF Hunter/Maggette/BigBadVladRad SF Maggette/Morrow Gs - Monte/Curry/Watson

Okay, obviously the Gimps are a little light in the back court, and let's hope they stay that way, but since Morrow is out on leave tonight, we'll stick Ammo in there.

And even w/out the slick shot of Morrow, The Gimp's front court would dominate the Starter's. (oh, and I didn't even mention Deavon George! (huge pick up for us this year. If he was a Giant, he'd be the ultimate "professional hitter")

Gimps win 8 out of 10 in my opinion.

Makes you almost look ahead to '10-'11 the way things are going at the end of this decade. . . but that's what we were saying last year. At some point, these injury excuses have got to stop.

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!

Tweet Comment 20 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Anthony Randolph

He’s missing on your rosters.

The Ultimate Opportunist

by Rated-R Superstar on Dec 5, 2009 11:24 AM PST reply actions

The guy listed AR as a small forward on the gimp team. I still don’t understand why people continue to insist that he is a 3.

by WYK on Dec 5, 2009 11:34 AM PST up reply actions

He’s on the Gimps. But even if we leave the two Anthonys out of it, I’d probably take the Gimps over the Remains of the Warriors.

Bell- Buike-Wright-Turiaf-Biedrins
v.
Curry-Monta-Maggette/VladRad-Moore-Hunter

There will be no extra point!

by Sleepy Freud on Dec 5, 2009 11:36 AM PST up reply actions

I'd say its pretty even actually

If I had to choose I think I would choose the healthy players just cause they have Monta

by freerandolph on Dec 5, 2009 12:18 PM PST up reply actions

The remains would also have Watson.

I think I take remains slightly over gimps, because gimps would have Don Nelson as thier coach and I don’t know if he can utilize a lineup like that efficiently.

Thing B

by warriorsscore110 on Dec 5, 2009 11:47 PM PST up reply actions

Well since the Gimps have our entire front-court on their team, I’m going to have to go with them. The Gimps also have our best perimeter defenders, Buike and Bell, so Monta wouldn’t exactly be able to carry his team.

by samuraaaaiiiiiii on Dec 5, 2009 12:28 PM PST reply actions

How do you figure that? The fact that we can send out two not terrible lineupes means our whole team combined is terrible?

by Missing Barry on Dec 7, 2009 8:45 AM PST up reply actions

What constitutes "not horrible"

The Dubs haven’t been winning many games man…

by freerandolph on Dec 7, 2009 11:00 PM PST up reply actions

Yeah well, we’ve played pretty respectable ball since the Jack trade against a tough schedule. If Nellie puts some bigs back in the other night, that should have been another W. Not anywhere close to a playoff team, but not anywhere close to the Nets, either…

by Missing Barry on Dec 8, 2009 2:00 PM PST up reply actions

Man we would be good if we were healthy and had a real coach!

At some point, these injury excuses have got to stop.
its hard to call them excuses when your talking our starting and backup 5, potential starting 2 and 4 and our starting 3

by pre10d on Dec 5, 2009 2:52 PM PST reply actions

oops rookie mistake only first line was to be blockquoted

by pre10d on Dec 5, 2009 2:53 PM PST up reply actions

If we had zero players injured right now...

We’d be the deepest team in the league, or one of the deepest. I think we’d be pretty good.

by Aliengames on Dec 5, 2009 6:38 PM PST reply actions

We’d pretty much be all depth, if that makes any sense.

by Reverend_Randy on Dec 5, 2009 7:23 PM PST up reply actions

Depth is overated,

unless you are team that is going to compete for a championship. Being top heavy is way better than having 12 rotational players.
When you are a ‘deep’ team that can’t make the playoffs, your a mismanaged team.

Thing B

by warriorsscore110 on Dec 5, 2009 11:45 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

Agreed. Any team would be glad to have quite a few of our players to compliment a star or two

But a team with 12 players who can play valuable minutes as role players, and Monta, is not a good team.

by freerandolph on Dec 7, 2009 11:02 PM PST up reply actions

We are a team full of role players

Depth only counts if they are backing up quality starters. Even if healthy, right now we would be fighting for the 8th seed, 7th at best

by Pearlsofwisdom on Dec 7, 2009 2:29 PM PST reply actions

haha, I just said the same thing before I saw this.

The only thing is, that if Curry and/or Randolph turn into allstars, we’ll be REAL good! If the Warriors can get luck in the draft lottery (for once. I think they’ve never moved higher their record indicated they should be!) then we could start looking a lot like Oklahoma City, or Portland, as far as having a lot of young talent goes.

by freerandolph on Dec 7, 2009 11:04 PM PST up reply actions