They're right and you know it

by freerandolph on Sep 29, 2009 9:11 AM PDT Comment 36 comments

Who can really be mad at Monta Ellis or Stephen Jackson? They just make so much sense. Moped recently said something to the effect of "I don't want to play in a back court with Curry." And Jackson recently said something to the effect of "Get me the f*ck out of here. This team is not good, and will not be good for... well... forever?" Now Jackson saying this right after getting his contract extension is infuriating, but was really nothing more then stupidity by the Warriors.

Now, it seems that people on this website are mad at Ellis, but serioiusly? Do y'all seriously think that having tow 6"3' guards is a good idea? Do y'all seriously think that will work defensively against Kobe, Durant, or even V. Carter? No, it won't. It won't work against any team with an average sized two guard who is decent. How could it?

As long as the Warriors are making bad bussiness moves (Jackson, C.M.) and keep doing random things. seemingly without any direction whatsoever, then who can really be mad at Jackson for wanting out? If I were Jackson I would rather go to... any other team then the Warriors. Minnesota? Hell yeah. At least they have a bunch of young players the fit somewhat together, with potential. Add Jackson to that and you might have a decent team. Until the Warriors prove that they can make better moves then I could if I owned my own franchise I see no reason why any decent player would want to stay with them.

This may be a bit harsh, and I do love my dubs and want to see them do well, but the truth is the truth. And sometimes the truth hurts. The truth is that the Dubs are dysfunctional. Half the time it doesn't seem that they have a coherent plan. And the other half of the time, their plan seems... well... stupid.

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 36 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Looking

Through the transcripts to find where Ellis basically asked off the franchise like people are saying he did… he said the back court wouldnt work, so you try it and if it fails it fails. He met the guy yesterday… Ellis is being a bit hasty, and the TRUTH will come out rather than speculation on a quick first interview

How are we not more potent than THE WOLVES??!! Are you kidding me? We define “young exciting core of talent”. This is getting silly…

by pinkycheal on Sep 29, 2009 9:19 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

How are we not more potent than THE WOLVES??!! Are you kidding me?

If you are one of the many that support the 8th seed or bust philosophy and ok with getting the 10th seed as long as we were semi competetive, than yes we will more than likely be better than the TWolves this year. However if you are looking for a team that has good young talent and boat loads of salary cap space and other good trade assests and is building for the future, than the Wolves are in a much better situation. I guess it would be a matter of preference.

Thing B

by warriorsscore110 on Sep 29, 2009 10:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’m happy as long as we have a good plan, a good core of young talent and I feel we’re going to get better next year.

Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.

by Naticus2 on Sep 29, 2009 3:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Players are just whiny

Of course Ellis doesnt like the idea of playing in a backcourt with a player similar to him. He wants a complimentary player, but it was in the best interest of the team to keep Cury and see if they like him better than Monta.
One of them will be trade bait. Ellis will have to suck it up and play.

by warriorsvictim on Sep 29, 2009 10:11 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Everyone wants a complimentary player. They clap, they cheer for you, they tell you how great you are and what a smooth stroke you have. Complimentary players ROCK.

Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.

by Naticus2 on Sep 29, 2009 3:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It doesn’t matter how right Monta is- he has no business taking that attitude re: Curry to the media. Some things should be kept between him and the coach. This is the week when all the vets heap praise on their rookies, and Curry gets to start his season with this?

It’s not like we’re slotting pieces into our championship roster right now, just gathering the best pieces we can find. Curry won’t need full-time starter minutes for maybe two seasons anyway, so play Monta 35, Curry 18, that’s only 5 minutes of Monta/Curry backcourt.

An empty barrel makes the most noise.

by antihero on Sep 29, 2009 10:19 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

monta

Don’t knock it till you try it. And maybe Monta should stop bitchin about how him and Curry wont work defensively and take it upon himself to play more defense cause I honestly feel like Curry will be a better defender than him this year.

by FeartheBeard4 on Sep 29, 2009 11:47 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs

That is my biggest problem

Sjax and monta did not admit to their own problems. Sjax said he was one of the few who played on both sides of the court – yet he still takes bad shots and complains about non-calls rather than continue playing.

And monta – hello moped.

by mosdl on Sep 29, 2009 11:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Monta didn't say he won't play with Stephen at the same time

He just pointed out how him and Steph would make for the worst defensive backcourt in the league. Which is true. There are a few exceptions like Dallas and Cleveland, but most teams that are legit, roll with a 2 guard who has legit size.

I agree with Monta on this point. He, Jack, and either Buike or Morrow should start. Steph should purely be the backup PG. Our biggest weakness is defense and rebounding, Steph doesn’t help to solve those issue.

Unless there are injuries, Steph and Monta should rarely be on the court together.

This is all assuming Steph will be slightly better than he was in summer league. Based on summer league, he is third on the PG depth chart behind CJ, but he’s still ahead of Acie and Speedy

by myk on Sep 29, 2009 12:18 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs

Agreed on all points

like he said.

Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky

by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 29, 2009 3:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nothing Monta said was particularly insightful. It’s tough to play 48 minutes with 2 6-3 combo guards in your back court. If that’s the plan, it’s terrible. But I doubt it is the plan.

Monta has received infinitely more playing time in NBA games than I have, but it still doesn’t look like he’s been paying attention. It’s rare for one starter to play 48 minutes, rarer still for both starting guards to do this. There will be times when the game slows down and that backcourt will have problems. Luckily, the rules of basketball allow for something called “substitutions”.

by jae on Sep 29, 2009 6:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It’s rare for one starter to play 48 minutes, rarer still for both starting guards to do this.

I don’t think he specified how many minutes it would happen, just that he didn’t think it would work. I’m glad to see the kid has a functioning brain and is learning how the game works. Maybe if he’d explained it to the management sooner they would have tried to keep Boom till they found a viable replacement?

by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 29, 2009 8:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

He just pointed out how him and Steph would make for the worst defensive backcourt in the league. Which is true. There are a few exceptions like Dallas and Cleveland, but most teams that are legit, roll with a 2 guard who has legit size.

the biggest problem defensively with a Monta/Curry backcourt is that Monta is one of the worst defenders in the league and Curry is probably not a good defender.

anyway, i see your point, but think it’s short-sighted. i don’t know about starting & whatnot, but they’re probably going to win like 30-40 games with he, jack, buike or morrow anyway….. why not play Curry to see what they have there at PG?

(in regards to long term defensively) it’s a lot easier to find a good SG to pair with Curry than it is to find a good, big PG who can complement Monta’s game. long term, the dubs have to decide whether to continue to build around an undersized SG (Monta) in their backcourt. and they’ll have a much better idea if both players are playing 36 min/g…. that doesn’t mean they have to always play together, but it does mean they’ll probably see some court time together.

and if Curry’s one of their better players, it’s ludicrous to have a good player sitting on the bench on a team filled with so-so players. will they win championships with a Curry / Ellis backcourt? no. but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t put your best players on the floor for the most amount of time and win as much as you possibly can.

by homer simpson on Sep 30, 2009 12:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

(in regards to long term defensively) it’s a lot easier to find a good SG to pair with Curry than it is to find a good, big PG who can complement Monta’s game

This is my feeling on this. That’s why it makes sense to me to trade Monta to a team that already has a big PG (or a team that doesn’t care about defense) for something of equal value. The Jazz come to mind, assuming they think Monta can defend 1’s reasonably well. Monta plus some stuff for Kirilenko? We keep Curry and Morrow in the backcourt. I like Monta and all, but he’s too undersized for us.

Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.

by Naticus2 on Sep 30, 2009 7:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why does Curry get so much credit as a "PG"?

I’ve watched all the live practice videos, because I’m a loser. What I’ve seen is that Monta is, at this point, a better passer than Steph is. I saw Curry throw the ball away on several occasions when there was no defense.

I find it ridiculously stupid to assume that Curry is a better PG than Monta, he hasn’t done anything in college, summer league, or training camp to prove that to be true.

At this point Monta as a PG is a way better option than Curry.

by myk on Oct 1, 2009 1:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’ve watched all the live practice videos, because I’m a loser.

Haha, I guess someone has to watch them?

by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 1, 2009 2:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed on all points. Rec.

There will be no extra point!

by Sleepy Freud on Sep 29, 2009 12:45 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Reply fail: meant for myk.

There will be no extra point!

by Sleepy Freud on Sep 29, 2009 12:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Reply fail:

testing 1, 2,3, etc.

by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 29, 2009 3:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

We define "young exciting core of talent".

Sounds like the company line too me…We are gonna win between 36-40 games this year…But the whole, “Hey it’ll be exciting and fun to watch” is crap.

Winning Product and Consistency > Fun to watch and happy with losing…

I’m actually glad that Monta and Jack are sticking it to the FO…If the dubs are bad this year on the court, at least it is gonna be great fun to watch all the squirming and back pedaling the FO will be doing to justify their ineptitude.

by UCdubsFan on Sep 29, 2009 1:25 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Every team has to lose at various times. It sucks to go to the playoffs and get blown out by the Lakers, for example. That’s not a happy situation. I like having an exciting, young core of talent. I’d like it a lot better to get into the playoffs. Of course, I hope we get there this year and hope to go deeper next year.

Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.

by Naticus2 on Sep 29, 2009 3:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

various times?

how about 1 playoff berth in nearly 2 decades? there’s a saying… once is a fluke, two is a trend, three is evidence. W’s have sucked for so long what is the plan?? to get ‘young talent’ and then trade them away?? AAA GSWarriors!!!!!

by mr.freez on Sep 29, 2009 4:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

But judging by recent history is a better measure. The last few years have shown promise, a playoff birth a near playoff-birth and some seriously bad luck with injuries. The the thing that killed us was Baron leaving. But as it turns out, there’s a pretty good chance that if he didnt’ leave, we would’ve sucked anyway with Monta injured and Baron in decline. We would’ve been worse than the year before but good enough to not get Randolph. Could be a lot worse.

Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.

by Naticus2 on Sep 29, 2009 8:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

As long as the Warriors are making bad bussiness moves (Jackson, C.M.) and keep doing random things. seemingly without any direction whatsoever, then who can really be mad at Jackson for wanting out?

So he’s upset because they made bad moves like paying him more than he’s worth? Sort of the “wouldn’t want to belong to a club that would have him as a member” conundrum, ain’t it?

The argument most cited for why the Jax extension wasn’t the worst thing in the world (and yes, at the time, some people didn’t think it was bad and a few even applauded it) was that it would keep him happy and since he was a vital piece, this was important. This was errant both because if he is that important, the team cannot be very good and if you need to buy someone’s happiness, it won’t last. Predictably, it didn’t, but instead of dealing with an unhappy Jax a year ago with only 2 years on his contract, we deal with it now when he’s a year older but has 4 more years on his contract. No, this isn’t hindsight.

Do I blame him for wanting out? I blame him for not being a professional and shutting up and realizing that he signed a contract with no guns to his head, a contract that was ridiculously one sided in his favor and a complete gift given his actual contributions.

Yes, the Warriors are dysfunctional. This doesn’t give any player a free pass for contributing to this problem.

by jae on Sep 29, 2009 6:32 PM PDT reply actions 6 recs

Knocked it out of the park. Rec!

There will be no extra point!

by Sleepy Freud on Sep 29, 2009 6:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

+1!

Chris Cohan- YOU'RE FIRED!

by bonbrillio on Sep 29, 2009 6:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hear ye! Hear ye!

I was going to write, “Hear! Hear!” but I decided to go with the archaic. Point is, I agree.

Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.

by Naticus2 on Sep 29, 2009 8:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ok

I’m not saying that Jackson is mad about his own contract, but he is probably mad about the other bad decisions that the Warriors made. He is mad most of that the team is dysfunctional in general (which you seem to agree with) and because of this, he wants out.
All I’m saying is that if I was in his shoes I would probably want out too. I am NOT saying that he gets a “free pass” to create problems, but I can’t blame him for wanting out, and if that causes the problems for the Warriors thats their problem (looking at the situation from his perspective).

by freerandolph on Sep 29, 2009 10:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

In terms of “bad decisions,” his own contract extension was quite possibly the worst of the bunch. So yeah, he should just shut his trap already.

Thing C

by markdash on Sep 29, 2009 11:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The problem is that the contract he signed makes it harder for him to get out and harder for the team to improve. He is part of the problem. He is not an easily tradable piece anymore, meaning his “wanting out” has significant roadblocks. He has versatility in that when motivated he can defend many positions, he can handle the ball reasonably well , but he is also a rather poor shooter and not terribly efficient offensively, though his shot volume doesn’t seem to reflect this. “Ultimate teammate” or not, his game has big holes in it, and he’s better suited to being a complementary player.

From his perspective, they drove the dump truck full of money up in front of his house and he’s not made of stone. And looking at one’s self and realizing that he’s in no small part responsible for the situation he wants out of takes a level of introspection that most people don’t have. But from an outsider’s point of view, it’s transparent what the problems are and it’s clear he’s part of them. The grousing about how he wants out shows a level of shirked responsibility that bothers the hell out of me. He’s the “ultimate teammate” only if he’s happy with the direction of the team; his own responsibilities for the direction are not entirely regarded as relevant in his thinking.

by jae on Sep 30, 2009 9:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

"Ultimate teammate" or not, his game has big holes in it, and he’s better suited to being a complementary player.

He’d be even better as a complimentary player. Problem is, he can’t seem to find anything nice to say about his young teammates, and he won’t play for free…

There will be no extra point!

by Sleepy Freud on Sep 30, 2009 9:51 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs

Too Small?

No @#$%! Where is the out rage on this site about the too small comment?

I thought GSoM didn’t believe in that statement. I thought we wanted Lawson, Fylnn, Jennings. My good Lord, we drafted the tallest PG available and were too small?

They should have asked Monta, What he meant, as in, a) are you too small to play SG or is Curry too small to play SG? Therefore are you admitting that you must be a PG to succeed in this league.

by Balance on Sep 30, 2009 10:03 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Therefore are you admitting that you must be a PG to succeed in this league.

I think he was admitting this, more or less, which is why a few people here felt his comments showed a welcome intelligence and maturity.

There will be no extra point!

by Sleepy Freud on Sep 30, 2009 10:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

disagree. he reiterated his “i’m a guard” comment last night when asked about playing PG. based on these types of statements, he seems to be saying he still wants to play SG on offense and PG on defense which might not be the case when Curry is in the game alongside of him.

by homer simpson on Sep 30, 2009 1:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Unless Monta is able to play point guard at a very high level, something that remains to be seen, it remains an area of need for the team. “Big point guard” able to play next to Monta? Sure, a nice dream, but also seemingly not available in the draft, certainly not one who seemed like he was a good enough gamble to take with a top 10 pick. The desire for one of the smaller point guards wasn’t so much a statement that it wouldn’t present problems (it would, some of which were accurately described though some of those presented by posters here being overblown nonsense) but that any player drafted represented some sort of compromise. Given the importance of a playmaker, and the real possibility that Monta won’t be one, and the apparent lack of quality at other positions available where the Warriors drafted, the compromise taken was Curry, drafting for apparent talent rather than for immediate “fit”.

by jae on Sep 30, 2009 11:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs