I personally am really annoyed with all the "monta's moped" hate talk that seems to circulate threw all the threads here, and general insulting of Monta Ellis without any real factual evidence that involves basketball. Monta did have a couple off the court issues that were annoying (i.e. the moped accident) and I'm not totally saying we shouldn't be mad at him for them. However, I think that he came back strong enough to overlook the moped accident, considering he played pretty well during the 25 game stretch he was able to play last season. And given Monta is known for having a very strong work ethic, I think he should be coming into the 09-10 season better than ever. HE IS DEFINITELY THE BEST PLAYER ON THE WARRIORS WITH OUT A QUESTION.
The 1st thing I would like to go into detail about is all the "Curry should replace Ellis" talk, which really has no basis. There games aren't really as similar as people try to make them seem. The only real similarity to me is that they are both scorers with similar heights and play the same position. But in my opinion, they play two totally different styles which should be obvious because MONTA IS A SLASHER and STEPHEN IS A SHOOTER. Another thing i don't understand is how some people can complain about how Monta doesn't pass the ball enough, and then want to replace him with a another scoring guard(who is unproven). STEPHEN CURRY IS A SCORER, not a passer. Stephen Curry played 3 years of college ball at Davidson and in his best year he averaged 5.6 assist with 3.7 T.O.'s(wich was also his best turn-over/assist ratio in college.. which is below average for a good pg) . If you average all 3 years Stephen played college he only averaged 3.76 assist, which for a point guard isn't good at all considering he doesn't have a good assist to turnover ratio(only 3.76 assist to 3.03 turnovers in his 3 years of college... NOT A GOOD RATIO FOR A PG). So I think that is proof enough that he is mainly a scorer, and frankly I'm not sure he can be a scorer in the NBA considering his lack of athleticism and his summer league performance. A lot of people said that AR and AM 40 point performances didn't mean much because the quality of defence in summer league isn't up to par with the NBA., well S.Curry didn't put up good numbers at all against sub-par D. Even the warriors new gm Larry Riley said Stephen Curry has been just average in summer league and then an ESPN article said he has been disappointing. WHY THE HECK WOULD WE REPLACE MONTA ELLIS WITH SOME ONE WHO IS JUST AVERAGE. I may sound like I'm bashing Curry, but i was very disappointed in his play. here are the cons so far with Curry:
1.) He isn't athletic
2.) He hasn't had a good FG% with sub-par Defence(monta is known for having a great fg%)
3.) If you look at his stats from Davidson, his turnover to assist percentage isn't good... so much for good court vision and basketball i.q.
And if your going by potential... Curry is only about 2 years younger then Monta, so they both still got room to grow. In my opinion Monta has more potential than Curry, because there is no way Curry could become as athletic as Monta and its more possible for Monta to gain the supposedly better court vision that Curry has(i really don't even think curry has better court vision at all). Monta has better basketball skills than Curry in most areas except shooting range, which I am actually happy about because Monta isn't know for JACK-ing up 3's (a pun on how Steven Jackson shoots to many 3's). So why would you give up a player who is proven to a certain extent and still has potential(Monta Ellis), for a player who has disappointed many in summer league, and is unproven... who's upside/potential is arguably lower than the player your giving up. TO ME THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE AT ALL, AND WOULD BE JUST LIKE LETTING BD GO IN THE HOPES THAT MONTA WOULD IMMEDIATELY FILL HIS VOID. In my opinion this will probably be Monta's break out season, because it will be his first whole season as a consistent starter without BD.
The second issue i have with a lot of threads on GSoM, is everyone jumping to conclusions about who are best player/ franchise player is. This subject is more debatable then the other one to me, because there are 3 names that come up that are pretty legit(Jackson, Monta, Randolph). But once again, I am going with Monta on this one. While Ellis does have some maturity issues... it has never effect how he played the game(i.e. he never has refused to play or sat out because of attitude.... doesn't get alot of technical fouls). I don't think Monta Ellis really had a chance to display if he could lead the team, seeing as how he was injured most of last season. So to say he is too immature to lead our team is unwarranted because he has never had a full season to showcase his ability to be an on-court leader. Stephen Jackson could be considered our "leader", but then again we've seen plenty of instances that shows he is irresponsible and immature despite being the oldest person on the warriors roster. Jackson's decision making isn't that good, and he is a very inconsistent player in general. All in all, he doesn't seem like he has good leadership qualities at all. The other name you hear a lot on the threads is Anthony Randolph... and he does show a lot of promise but is just too inexperienced and unproven to be considered a leader or the best player on our team. I'm not saying Randolph can't be a franchise player in the future, just not now. It's not like a team can only have one franchise player(i.e. the 3-peat lakers), I think in the future they will both be our franchise players. However, I must say that in my opinion Monta is our franchise/best player/leader until Randolph(or anyone) proves them self to be better in the NBA. I doubt Curry will ever surpass Monta... but i could be wrong(i highly doubt it though..lol).
On a lighter note: I have been extremely happy with how Morrow's and Randolph's games have evolved. I believe our future lies in A.R., A.M., and Monta Ellis, i think they could develop into something similar to the Celtics "Big 3". In my opinion Monta's game is comparable to Paul Peirce when he played pg for the celts before they got Garnette or Allen. Morrows game has always reminded me of Ray Allen and even Reggie Miller(not saying he is as good as any of them, but i think that could be his peak potential). Randolph gets a lot of comparisons to Lamar Odom, but to me his game has always looked like an early KG, from his athleticism to the intensity he plays with. With those 3 as our core, we are only a couple role players away from being a contender if each lives up to their potential.