I'm so tired of the hate...
by Brownie13 on Jan 15, 2011 8:26 PM PST
Email
Print...of Stephen Curry. And of Monta Ellis.
If Steph makes a bad play or poor decision in a game it does not mean that he "sucks." If he makes more than one in a game and is removed by Keith Smart, it does not mean that he needs to be traded and that he is not a good player. It really, truly does not mean that Monta is a better point guard.
Likewise, if Monta misses a difficult shot at the top of the key, or uses three straight offensive possessions, it does not mean that he's a ball hog. Or that he is "hurting the team." If the team goes on a run without him, it does not mean the players on the court are better than him.
The sad thing is...with our team finally healthy and a shot to close in on the .500 mark, we're actually seeing more hate of BOTH players. Of course, early in the season, most of it was directed in Monta's direction. That's cooled off with the way he has played over 40 games, but it gave way to a lot of Steph hate. It seems to me that feelings about Monta carried over from his performance last season, and that once it was evident that most of those criticisms were no longer relevant, fans of Monta who were still upset decided to take it out on Curry.
Yes, there have been stretches where either player has not played well, but it's just so awful to see so many of our own fans tear apart one of our two best players. We are not a good team yet, and we have been slow in getting there for a number of years, and the single opportunity we had to do so fell apart in front of our very eyes down the stretch of that 2007-2008 season. I get the frustration and the expectations from young players who have so much talent. But what is the point of some of the unfounded hate? It's not productive for a number of reasons:
1. Most of the stuff we say on here will never get back to the players or coaches or management
2. If it ever did, wouldn't you want what you said to be constructive? There are ways for you express frustration with players without jumping to unnecessary conclusions.
3. If it's pure frustration, why even post it, especially outside of a game thread?
4. So far, hate just leads to fights.
What frustrates me most, is that I expect fans to talk trash about players they dislike when they're not playing well. For example, LeBron, Kobe, Baron, Jackson, etc anybody else disliked. Even Vlad to an extent earlier this season. But by that logic, why in the world would we rag on and demand the trade of any of our best players, unless we've been presented with a clear, sure way that our team is going to improve. It's not like any of the trade ideas tossed around here have been talked about in rumor columns, and there's no indication that our management is interested in these deals. Why are we deciding we should dump our guys for fantasies? I think that shows a huge problem when looking at a fan base. Nothing is wrong with proposing changes, but so many have been thought up out of either hate or spite.
Now, to the real reason I wanted to make this FanPost.
I think the biggest reason for the division among Warriors fans is the gradual acceptance that Steph and Monta will never be a backcourt that can head an elite level team. Now, I'd say that most think that is because of their size and their defense (and that the two relate very heavily). Now, before I go into this, I want to make sure that of course nothing is certain, and becoming an elite level team is very difficult. However, there have been a few very good teams that achieved it with as little size in the backcourt as the Warriors have now.
The Thomas/Dumars Pistons, the Iverson-led 76ers, the Olajuwon-led Rockets (pre-Clyde), The Stockton/Malone-led Jazz.
Now, here is the size of the Warriors backcourt:
Steph Curry, 6'3" 185 & Monta Eliss 6'3" 175
Pistons: Isiah Thomas 6'1" 180 and Joe Dumars 6'3" 190 (Warriors give up 5 pounds each, but also have 2 inches on Thomas)
Sixers: Allen Iverson 6'0" 165, Eric Snow 6'3" 190 (Warriors actually have a 5 pound advantage overall, and 3 inches)
Houston: Vernon Maxwell 6'4" 180, and Kenny Smith 6'3" 170. (Warriors give up an inch and have weight on them)
Utah: John Stockton 6'1" 170, Jeff Hornacek 6'3" 190 (Warriors are equal in weight and have 2 inches)
Now, these teams aren't directly comparable to the Warriors backcourt, but the first big difference that jumps out to me is some semblance of a defensive system. All of these other players had a good defensive plan as well as other good defenders to help out. Another important thing to note is only two of these teams were actually built around their backcourts. The other two teams had great frountcourt players as well in Malone and Olajuwon. For the Warriors to compare to them, they'd have to find a great big man of their own. However, both the Sixers and Bad Boys were built around their guards. So while Monta and Steph may not be equal to the talent of some of these back courts, is it possible that they ever could be? They certainly are not out-sized by any of these teams, 2 of which won championships, the other two of which made the Finals and were good for years. So, the argument of them not having enough size is old and tired. Not only were the Pistons good with Dumars and Thomas, but they were also their best players, and therefore not needing of a third great player better than either of them. Another important thing to note is Dumars' offensive rating (though known for his defense) was actually better (113-110) over his career. Thomas was near equal with a 106 offensive rating and 107 defensive rating. Both of those guards also love to push the offensive pace. So I don't think it's as impossible as many fans have made it seem that Steph and Monta could be the foundation for a very good (possibly elite) team. They certainly have the skills, they have just never been on a team with a good defensive system and other good defensive players. So give them some time, because blanket statements like "we can never win with Steph and Monta because they're too small," as well as others, aren't necessarily true.
I just would rather we actually had some faith in our players and management than always being so negative. I haven't seen such terrible faith in players anywhere else in the NBA. What does that say about our fanbase? No other teams' fans have had such a large demand for the trade of their two best players and I can guarantee you that.
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!
213 comments
|
37 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Thank you.
I wanted to go deeper but I tend to ramble.
I knew these sentiments were definitely shared by some of the users here, though it’s been hard to tell for a while. Just wanted the rest of the Warriors fans to realize what’s really going on.
Monta.
hall of fame quality post there man!
thanks very much for saying this so well!
rec’d con mucho gusto
"There’s no such thing as off the charts, just get a bigger piece of paper. If you can’t figure that out you shouldn’t be charting anything" - Skep
by Duby Dub Dubs on Jan 17, 2011 9:29 AM PST up reply actions
Yes, yup, yessir.
I think the biggest reason for the division among Warriors fans is the gradual acceptance that Steph and Monta will never be a backcourt that can head an elite level team.
Live every week like it's Shark Week.
Great post.
Full agreement. I’m not in the camp at all that they can’t play together on an elite team. In the right system, the defensive liabilities can be reduced drastically.
Agreed.
Rec’d great points backed it up with empirical data, couldn’t ask for much more. I agree with your system point, that’s precisely why I think we need to start playing some 3-2 zone, it’s tailor-made for their defensive strengths (anticipation and quickness).
The Pistons, though similarly ‘undersized’ in the backcourt, had guys who played superior defense there, and had ridiculously good front court defenders should someone get by them. If you want to look at what the Pistons were “built around” the words aren’t back court. The word is defense.
Agreed.
But also notice that the Warriors defensive system compares even less to that of the Bad Boys’ Pistons. Also notice how our frontcourt defenders not only don’t compare but pale in comparison.
I’m not saying that Monta and Steph are going to be as good defensively as Dumars and Thomas, but I think it’s also clear they can be better offensively. Also, the Sixers’ backcourt certainly wasn’t a great defensive duo. Can the Warriors guard defense be as good as theirs?
I'm looking forward to the Warriors being led to the playoffs by Monta Ellis AND Stephen Curry.
Wait, it’s clear Ellis and Curry can be better defensively than Thomas and Dumars? That’s not remotely clear. I’m not a hater and like both Monta and Curry (although I was very irritated with Monta last year). At the same time, great teams need great defenders and neither Monta nor Curry are great defenders.
And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is Monta Ellis when I lay my vengeance upon thee.
Read again, please.
I said “I’m not saying that Monta and Steph are going to be as good defensively as Dumars and Thomas, but I think it’s also clear they can be better offensively.”
OFFENSIVELY. I also used could, and that’s true because they have the talent. The players I thought they could be better than defensively were the combination of Iverson and Snow.
I'm looking forward to the Warriors being led to the playoffs by Monta Ellis AND Stephen Curry.
Ah. Reading comprehension fail. I must be getting senile. Also, I’m not sure they could be better offensively either.
And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is Monta Ellis when I lay my vengeance upon thee.
Dumars was really, really good.
Isiah wasn’t a particularly efficient scorer, but he was an excellent distributor and facilitator – better than Curry is currently.
Dumars was a very, very good scorer, who flew under the radar because the team wasn’t very showy, and Isiah was seen as the face of the team.
I think the best case scenario for Curry and Monta is a little bit better offensively than those two guys. But defensively they’re not even close.
Also, the Sixers’ backcourt certainly wasn’t a great defensive duo.
Eric Snow was a very good defender. Though not tall, he was strong enough to handle larger guards. I don’t think that the Warriors duo can be as good as Snow and Iverson were.
it seems to me that another major problem is that the roles are not defined
There are other young point guards (Westbrook, Rose, Rondo) where nobody questions that they are the point guard and running the show. Curry hasn’t been given that title. Without that you get situations like Miller and Roy where there is constant tension in the backcourt. In LA it works, because Kobe is “the man”. He couldn’t operate with a top tier PG, because he is too ball-dominant. Ellis seems to be the same way, except he isn’t in the same league as Kobe.
guard roles are not defined
that is the issue with our backcourt. If you look at the thomas/dumars, stockton/hornacek, smith/maxwell, AI/ Snow, they had complimentary styles and defined roles. Curry and Ellis do not, in the sense that when paired together we essentially have two scoring guards starting. Curry is scoring guard with a nasty outside stroke and ellis is a rim attacking guard who has developed a consistant shot. Now, Curry could definately achieve that prototypical pg role but so far this season has not shown to be focusing on it. that is probably due to the dubs needing his scoring/shooting to stay competitive in games and the same is true of ellis but even more so.
So a lot of folk here seem to have taken sides but no one can claim that both curry and ellis are very, very good players and in my opinion the FO and coaching staff need to surround curry and ellis with defensive frount court players and instill a system where one players is the primary PG and the other is SG.
My style is complimentary: I go around telling people, “You the man!” and, “Your suspenders are stylin!” I’m totally complimentary.
And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is Monta Ellis when I lay my vengeance upon thee.
. I haven't seen such terrible faith in players anywhere else in the NBA. What does that say about our fanbase?
That they know more about what wins in the NBA than you do?
Sure we could TRY and win a ring the hard way but why not aim for the easy way?
That’s where stats actually come in handy when trying to figure out the obvious.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 15, 2011 9:02 PM PST reply actions
Well, what exactly is the easy way?
Trading Monta for Iguodala? Or some other trade involving Curry? Let me point out some things:
1. This post’s number one goal was to address the hate. What you’re proposing isn’t exactly hate.
2. I’m saying that it’s going to be incredibly difficult to build an elite team no matter the size of the players on the team, so why trade away something you know is very good, possibly great? Especially before giving those players a legitimate chance defensively.
3. Do we know that anything we trade for brings more talent and potential to this team? Whether you want to use stats or scouting, how certain could you be of that trade? Notice how most of the great teams became great by acquiring talent without giving up their best talent.
Even if we do eventually need to move one of Ellis or Curry, it doesn’t necessarily have to be off the team, rather than out of the starting lineup. What exactly is you’re proposal, then? At this juncture they are our two best players, and the only time a team should let one of them go is if he goal is to rebuild, and our team is far to young to be trying to do that. It’s possible that it could happen for a trade that obviously gives us more talent, but which trade is that?
I'm looking forward to the Warriors being led to the playoffs by Monta Ellis AND Stephen Curry.
Even if we do eventually need to move one of Ellis or Curry, it doesn’t necessarily have to be off the team, rather than out of the starting lineup. What exactly is you’re proposal, then?
we don’t have the luxury of keeping two small guards on the roster and using one as a backup. Binky is gonna want a big boy contract when he grows up just like Montay did.
The logical thing is keep the one who is most likely to be the best player in the small guard slot which due to his handling skills, temperament, and IQ is Binky, and it happens that Montay’s numbers this season work right into our hands as he will bring inflated price to any trade we can work out.
Now who on our roster is playing at their potential based on their positions and salary who isn’t , that’s who we want to keep or move? So based on prototypical guard skills Binky stays as point, DLee and DoorL for now as they are relatively cheap for their skills and Udon as he’s on a cheap contract and might develop. Dre, Vlad, Lou, WTF, etc. can all be replaced by better players if the opportunity comes up and maybe an Ellis deal could benefit us in that respect? He’s gotta be worth a pretty good piece in the right deal, we just need to start looking at teams that could use a scoring small guard and answer the phone when teams call. We just don’t want to get caught in the Iverson trap then discover too late that we blew our chance to maximize the value of the asset.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 15, 2011 9:47 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Well are we playing to keep our salaries low?
Or are we looking to build a winner? Because you can’t do both. Notice how all of the best teams in the NBA tend to have large salaries because of all the good players on those teams. You still haven’t named which player(s) would benefit us that is actually available for us to trade Monta for. It’s always best to try to hold onto the talent you already have, as I said, unless there is a sure upgrade. And how is DLee possibly cheap? He’s got the largest contract on our team and one of the largest among any PF in the league.
I'm looking forward to the Warriors being led to the playoffs by Monta Ellis AND Stephen Curry.
by Brownie13 on Jan 15, 2011 9:56 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
And how is DLee possibly cheap? He’s got the largest contract on our team and one of the largest among any PF in the league.
Cheap is relative when it comes to NBA players, I think they are all over paid when compared to people who really do meaningful work like teachers, police, soldiers,motel maids,farm workers, etc. but that’s the American system.
Maybe the numbers I found were wrong but they have Lee listed at 10.8 mil. and these guys at : Lamarcus Aldrich 11.2, Camby 11.7, JSmith 11.7, Murph 12.0, AntawnJamison 13.3, Boozer 14.4, Bosh 14.5, Brand 16.0,Amare 16.5, KenyonMartin 16.5, Dirk 17.2, Zack Randolph 17.6, Gasol 17.8,and Garnett 18.8.
Guys cheaper than Lee were KLove 3.6, Beasley 4.9, Griffin 5.3, NickCollison 6.7, Millsap 7.6, Odom 8.2, and Diaw 9.0.
So Lee looks pretty reasonable considering his experience and skills. Sure we’d love to get Griffin for 5.3 or Love for 3.6, or Beasley for 4.9 but that’s not gonna happen. We’re lucky to not have Murph for 12.0, Brand for 16.0, Antawan for 13.3, KMart for 16.5 or Zack Randolf for 17.6.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 15, 2011 10:47 PM PST up reply actions
Lee is also in the first year of a contract.
While Murphy, Randolph, and Martin are in their final years. Lee is owed 80 million over 6 years, and pays him more than $15 million in his final year. The only other player there that’s worse (maybe, not definitely) but paid more there is Brand, and we all know what an albatross of a contract his is.
I'm looking forward to the Warriors being led to the playoffs by Monta Ellis AND Stephen Curry.
Beautifully said
The well run organizations see these things early in the process, act accordingly.
And i could accept seeing, first, whether or not a Monta/Curry backcourt would work with just a better frontcourt defensive presence, i.e. an upgrade down there from AB to player X. But I suspect, and would take any good trade for Monta sooner than later if it came along, that it will have to be both moving AB to pair a beefier C with Lee, and moving Monta at the height of his value for a better fitting, larger SG.
Personally, while i like Iguadala as a player, i’d prefer getting a stronger, bigger SG, which Iggy is, who also shoots at least pretty well, which Iggy isn’t. Shooting cures so much and it’d be pick your poison with Curry and player X. It’s that way now with Monta/Curry, but imagine that with better size/D from the SG spot. (And Monta is the superior defender to Curry, has to guard way tougher assignments, just saying it’s easier to get this player X large SG than player X large PG.)
by supersugarCrisp on Jan 16, 2011 11:13 PM PST up reply actions
You sir, speak the truth. Rec'd.
I’ve always been a Monta fan and it is true; I’ve unfairly criticized Curry and his defenders in retaliation to comments posted about Monta. Indeed, I think the bashing on both has escalated as calls for ‘trade monta keep ellis’ and vice versa, have forced people to take sides, even though the third option, keeping both, is still possible if one or both of them improve defensively. I don’t think its clear that neither of them can improve in this department.
I think the word "hate" is overused and misused most of the time.
Just because someone suggests a trade including Steph or Monta doesn’t mean that person is expressing hate towards that player. Sure, there are a lot of times where people are expressing hate, but more often people are trying to consider changes that would make the team better. This doesn’t necessarily mean that their ideas would in fact make the team better.
I’ll admit I’ve considered the idea of trading Monta for a bigger two guard, but I think Ellis is a phenomenal player and I certainly don’t hate the dude. What I think is, our team would be better with Steph running the team with a bigger, stronger two guard that can make up for Steph’s defensive deficiencies. I’ll also admit that I could be completely wrong and I’m still hungover from some of the things Steph did last season (although he hasn’t really dropped of at all this year).
With that said, there is definitely a fair amount of times where people lose their minds over a stretch of games, a game, and even a stretch of plays. For the most part, the regulars on GSoM are pretty intelligent people who want the team to succeed.
Serving it up night in and night out -Steph "The Chef" Curry
by dont_stop_believin' on Jan 15, 2011 10:04 PM PST reply actions 2 recs
Good post.
However GDT’s are supposed to be kinda crazy. They’re fine, but in general, yeah i agree.
Monta Ellis' #1 FAN!!!
by GovernorStephCurry on Jan 15, 2011 10:07 PM PST reply actions
I know.
I’m saying GDT’s don’t really matter, because it’s always going to have people angry and such.
Monta Ellis' #1 FAN!!!
by GovernorStephCurry on Jan 15, 2011 10:43 PM PST up reply actions
You talking about game day threads?
Oh man I can not stand when people start talking about trading players in game day threads. It’s funny that game day threads can be so fun and free flowing but at the same time insanely obnoxious when some idiot starts rambling about trading a player or when someone brings up what is being said in the opposing team’s game thread. Two of the most annoying things ever.
Live every week like it's Shark Week.
by wallywagon11 on Jan 15, 2011 11:05 PM PST up reply actions
Notice how I said it's not really a big deal in game threads.
I said it needs to be cut back outside of them, because frustration is fine during the game.
I'm looking forward to the Warriors being led to the playoffs by Monta Ellis AND Stephen Curry.
Monta haters is a term used rather wimpily,
from I would assume a younger poster whom Monta is maybe their first bonified nba superhero, and they just can’t concieve that other posters would ever want to trade him, and assume malice. Truth is , I’ve never heard a poster say " I hate Monta"
Regrettably, lately I’m starting to hear the term “Curry haters”. And Brownie, I know it’s not your intention, but your mention of " Steph hate" ( a phrase that makes me cringe )may just end up perpetuating it more.
Again I think it’s typically from young pro Curry posters who are upset the “Monta haters” are now taking up to proposing to trade Curry.
I say to both of you " Get over it- " Treat it like a business decision.
by War Years Legacy on Jan 15, 2011 10:57 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Maybe, you're right.
Maybe this post isn’t necessary because all of this is coming from younger fans, but I’ve seen in a a lot of cases where the ones talking have claimed to be older (though young fans often do claim this to seem wiser). I know for a fact many have said to be college-aged and in their 20s. So if you think that this is completely unnecessary, I’d say it’s very possible, however, I still feel like I don’t want to come on here regularly and see so much crap.
I'm looking forward to the Warriors being led to the playoffs by Monta Ellis AND Stephen Curry.
Very very well said
I have put down on the Monta Curry thing, i’ll admit, but most of all i don’t want there to be some stupid, all too human feud among us, the fans about which one makes more sense, to the point people over-rip one or the other.
I think there’s a difference between really thinking a more balanced backcourt size and defense-wise is eventually what the team has to do to win (and by seeing it and acting on it -well you hope your team/GM does see and act on it-early in the process and one of them, in this case Monta, has their value at its peak….) and being a hater.
But i hear you too, and will try to tone down the “likelihood we have to break up the backcourt” posts.
by supersugarCrisp on Jan 16, 2011 11:24 PM PST up reply actions
Great post
Only hate I have is for Keith Smart and Rowell
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
This
I don’t hate Curry at all. It’s just that Monta has been my favorite player for a long time and it pains me to see the pro-Curry camp and the stat whore camp (I like stats too, but not to that extent) call him the 10th best SG in NBA and so on. I mean really?
by HerFavColor on Jan 16, 2011 12:52 AM PST up reply actions
lol, after reading the "state whore camp" line
suprised you didn’t call the pro-Curry people “pro-too-skinny-to-be-a-factor-in-the-NBA-Curry camp”
Live every week like it's Shark Week.
by wallywagon11 on Jan 16, 2011 12:53 AM PST up reply actions
He weighs more than Monta apparently
so I don’t know about that.
Rec'd Brownie13.
You said it best with:
I just would rather we actually had some faith in our players and management than always being so negative.
No other teams’ fans have had such a large demand for the trade of their two best players and I can guarantee you that.
It comes down to being a selective reader on this site. Let them be as they will let us be. There is a reason why the haters and negatives continue to beat on a dead horse. they are starving for your attention and want your attention so badly because you aren’t giving it to them.
They are right. we are wrong and they want you to agree to it. It’s your acceptance that means the most.
But it’s funny once they are proven wrong they don’t want to admit it. they shut up, disappear, create a new ID and continue to bech.
ROMESdavidWOOD37 has taken over the Ongline. He's cool.
by ROMESdavidWOOD37 on Jan 16, 2011 1:02 AM PST reply actions
This is awesome
There is a reason why the haters and negatives continue to beat on a dead horse. they are starving for your attention and want your attention so badly because you aren’t giving it to them.
I have a feeling we are going to see some serious hilarity involving words and phrases like “haters” “fanboys” “stat whores” “shut up” “dead horse” and “troll.” Fun times!
Live every week like it's Shark Week.
by wallywagon11 on Jan 16, 2011 1:12 AM PST up reply actions
woah..
should’ve read your post before posting mine.. xD
THE SKY! THE SKY IS FALLING!
by chickenlittle on Jan 16, 2011 1:34 AM PST up reply actions
Agreed! ...reminds me of this
They are right. we are wrong and they want you to agree to it. It’s your acceptance that means the most.
"There’s no such thing as off the charts, just get a bigger piece of paper. If you can’t figure that out you shouldn’t be charting anything" - Skep
by Duby Dub Dubs on Jan 17, 2011 9:42 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
LMFAO! that is AWESOME.
As the great Gary Radnich enthusiatically and pleasantly once said:
“WHO DOES THAT?!!??”
“WHO HASSS TIME!!?”.
ROMESdavidWOOD37 has taken over the Ongline. He's cool.
by ROMESdavidWOOD37 on Jan 17, 2011 10:24 AM PST up reply actions
Yeah, that is very poignant, to this site and many others.
I know someone else who uses that as his signature.
by War Years Legacy on Jan 17, 2011 10:28 AM PST up reply actions
That cartoon does not correlate in any way to the life of Sleepy and the Sleepyette.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Jan 17, 2011 10:29 AM PST up reply actions
haha!
yeah, I’m sure…
that’s actually what made me think of it…mrs. Dubs is always asking what I do on this site – she sent this cartoon to me earlier this season
"There’s no such thing as off the charts, just get a bigger piece of paper. If you can’t figure that out you shouldn’t be charting anything" - Skep
by Duby Dub Dubs on Jan 17, 2011 12:55 PM PST up reply actions
It's not actually most of the fanbase, it's about 10-15 guys
who distribute their hate for one or another trough posting and such. It’s not like 60% of W’s fans wake up thinking about trades. At least I hope so…
It’s just that this relatively small group of people on GSOM are either really, really frustrated with Monta, Steph, Beans or whomever, or they’re just trolling.. Appears that some of them are quite good mindfutskers, therefor I’d suggest that they take a Jeffrey and stroke the furry wall and we leave it at that. And seriously, there’s too much attention to even the stupidest trade suggestions..
You know what! Trading can get you in so deep, that the only reason you should trade is if you have no chance otherwise. And we do have a chance otherwise. Even if you do get a supposedly better player than the one you traded away, you still damage the chemistry, and there’s no reason to believe that the actual tradee will be goodin said team ur under a new coach.
Leave it. Get some new topics to atract attention..
THE SKY! THE SKY IS FALLING!
by chickenlittle on Jan 16, 2011 1:32 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
good in said team or under a new coach
:<
THE SKY! THE SKY IS FALLING!
by chickenlittle on Jan 16, 2011 1:45 AM PST up reply actions
It is never an issue when someone criticises a player or the coach…its when they do it over and over and over almost like they want everyone to know what camp they are in as if people need to be in a anti player/coach “camp”.
by Only In Fairfax on Jan 16, 2011 7:47 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
okay, i'm going out on a limb here, but
it’s as if there’s a ‘love parade’ to be held soon for these guys.. the showing off is just up there..
Although, sometimes it is really important to get your point through, so..
Making trade proposals here is the same as making offensive schemes..here.
THE SKY! THE SKY IS FALLING!
by chickenlittle on Jan 17, 2011 3:33 AM PST up reply actions
GREAT POST!
Love Monta and Kid Curry.
Think about how much better Monta is since his rookie season!
Think about how much better Curry will be once he gains as much experience as Monta!
THINK ABOUT WHAT IT WILL BE LIKE IN 2-3 YEARS WHEN THEY HAVE LEARNED EACH OTHER’S EVERY ON COURT MOVE, HOW TO REACT TO EACH OTHER, AND GAIN A BIT MORE DEFENSE IQ AND TOUGHNESS!… It will be a sight to see, and I hope we’re blessed enough to see them together still in 2-3 years…
+1 to you
i know that last game thread i was one of the worst perpetrators in inciting argument, but I really mean it when I say I don’t like Monta over Curry, or Curry over Monta, and that I equally love and hate both of them as members of this team. I don’t understand why people have to compare the two — do we compare Wright vs Ellis? or Lee vs Steph? Biedrins vs Vlad? They’re not vying for the same position and neither are Steph and Monta. Even though there is quite the overlap between the two, I don’t think in their minds they feel they’re competing with one another, and I don’t think we should impose this sort of narrative onto their play on the court.
That being said… I really hope that this backcourt gets better playing together. Right now the two have spurts of brilliance, but often look very awkward together. When Curry has the ball, Ellis is standing in the far corner, apparently for “spacing” reasons but still, totally detached from the play. Same as when Curry has the ball. Maybe part of this has to do with playstyles, as both are ball dominant guards who feel most comfortable with the ball in their hand. But I also feel that, schematically, Smart needs to do a far better job of moving one while the other holds the ball. Right now, it’s very similar to the Don Nelson half-court offense where Baron, SJax and Ellis would take turns Iso-ing. Space out someone else and run Curry/Ellis around; use a double screen, set up an open J, whatever.
I think this backcourt can work. Maybe having an Iggy instead of Ellis would work better, but I’m content with what we have and believe in we can make the playoffs, though that’s a bit dependent on whether they can improve their play when playing together. Harris/Terry worked pretty damn fine for Dallas back in the day, and Ellis can do a decent job guarding bigger 2’s when his legs are rested. But that doesn’t mean they’re exempt from criticism, and I hope people continue to criticize as it’s part of the fan experience.. but I hope we can do so without bias. It shouldn’t be about Curry vs Ellis anymore. That axe was buried last summer.
Goal: 8 seed!
so i guess what im saying is that I'm ok with hate
as long as it’s equally and fairly distributed, and comes with a certain degree of love and respect for the player. Sounds paradoxical, I know, but even as I hate on Monta/Curry/Beans/Vlad/Etc., I only do so cuz a particular play is deserving of such hate. But overall, I want these players to succeed and I want our team to do well. I hope other fans feel the same way — that even as they imprint their palms into their faces due to whichever player’s boneheaded mistake, that underneath it all there is a love for the player and the effort he expends for this team.
I know i already said +1 but thanks for your post. Last night after reading a lot of the Curry vs Ellis posts I lost a little bit of faith in.. humanity haha. Actually had a long talk with my gf about how bad things have gotten being a Warriors fan and how I dreaded the Curry/Ellis bias, and the unnecessary obligation I felt to talk down such bias. I think that in trying to stop it I actually made things worse. For that, I really am sorry.
Goal: 8 seed!
I don't hate Monta
I just think it won’t work out with the two of them, just like it didn’t work out with Hardaway and Sprewell. And in that case we got rid of the wrong guy.
Let’s not make that mistake again.
Hey man, we were just trying to help a guy feed his family.
by samuraaaaiiiiiii on Jan 16, 2011 1:13 PM PST up reply actions
In fact, you like Monta so much you're practically quoting him.
It didn’t work between Spreewell and Hardaway because they were both strong personalities that couldn’t co-exist. Spree called Hardaway a “Nellie brown-noser”. Their games were not incompatible.
Regardless, we somehow came away with Bimbo Coles and John Starks which is very bad. I would have rather gotten rid of P.J. Carlisimo before Spreewell tried to help him with out with his yelling problem.
I am not a testicle.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Jan 16, 2011 2:58 PM PST up reply actions
Haha
Regardless, we somehow came away with Bimbo Coles and John Starks
Maybe keeping our undersized but talented backcourt together wouldn’t be so bad after all.
this is the most well thought out and un-biased post of the year so far
Thank you brownie for being the first one to say facts that we have all ben afraid to face. I like that you do not doom Monta or Steph in your post. As for myself, I still see a potential elite team including the duo (they are the highest scoring backcourt afterall), but I 100 percent agree that both Monta and Steph have taken the fall for a lot of the teams shortcomings. As a Warriors community, I feel that we sometimes fail to recognize and forget the talent that Monta and Steph put on the court day in and day out. Defense is the solution to our teams shortcomings, and we can only hope that appropriate changes can be made to fix that.
Steph + Monta for Prez
by j-spliff415 on Jan 16, 2011 11:37 AM PST via mobile reply actions
we sometimes fail to recognize and forget the talent that Monta and Steph put on the court day in and day out. Defense is the solution to our teams shortcomings, and we can only hope that appropriate changes can be made to fix that.
haha, that’s circular logic worthy of a religion. We don’t recognize their talent , our team defense sucks, so we can’t figure out their defense sucks?
and why were folks saying we should trade Montay again? Something about size and defense wasn’t it? How does physics and logic suddenly become “hate”? Ask a religion :>)
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 16, 2011 3:18 PM PST up reply actions
I think Lee takes the bulk of the blame
A strong interior defense can make up for weaker backcourt defense, not vice-versa.
As long as Lee is a weak defender, it really doesn’t matter who is in the backcourt. Even Miami with two of the best defenders in the league in LeBron and Wade need strong interior defenders (Anthony and Z), to make up for Bosh, who is not so great defensively.
A strong interior defense can make up for weaker backcourt defense, not vice-versa.
It still goes both ways. In fact, I would say that having a stronger defensive perimeter is more likely to make up for interior D than vice-versa, based almost entirely with the fact that it serves as a better preventive measure in keeping opponents out of the paint. If a backcourt bleeds too often as it does for us now, the interior D has to worry more about contesting shots rather than guarding their man, which ultimately breaks down the defense because priorities become muddled.
This isn’t to say that having a good perimeter can excuse having a weak defensive frontcourt. Ideally we would want a strong defensive team period, though not every team could be like the various Pistons championship squads known almost exclusively for their hard-nosed defensive systems. I suppose I just prefer having a strong backcourt and just a “solid” interior, rather than a porous perimeter giving a strong interior more work. The 06-08 Warriors teams were a perfect example of having a pretty damn good defensive perimeter (Baron, Jackson, Pietrus, Barnes were all absolutely great defenders… Richardson and Buike were solid as well) to make up for their lack of an inside defensive presence (Biedrins and Harrington were solid, but not outstanding).
I tend to think that it's that you can cover for one (or maybe two) bad defenders if everyone else is above-average.
But right now we have a starting five with only one defender who’s above average.
On the other hand, I think that it’s also a question of focus and technique. No, Monta won’t be able to use technique to stop bigger guards from exploiting his size, but I think if everybody really focused on staying in front of their man, the overall defense would improve some.
have to disagree with your analysis and your facts
That ’06-07 team was 19th in defense. The 07-08 team was 23rd in defense.
If that’s “good defense”, then your baseline is way off.
The 06-07 team was really 3 different teams. There was a team that was a shade below 0.500 and going nowhere with Dunleavy and Murphy on board. Dunleavy was not much of a defender. Murphy was among the game’s worst. Then there was a team after ‘the trade’, a team that stunk with Baron and Richardson out for long stretches. They weren’t much on either end of the court. Team number three was the “we believe” squad that made it to the playoffs. They played scrambling, gambling, turnover causing defense and were rather good at it. But they also only did this for a little less than a 3rd of a season.
A season average suggesting that they were 19th in defense doesn’t indicate what the team was capable of defensively at the end. Granted, the next year with Richardson gone they still weren’t a good defensive team, but I think that some of that reflects that playing the scrambling, gambling defense for 82 games is just something that’s tough to do.
That ’06-07 team was 19th in defense. The 07-08 team was 23rd in defense.
By what measure? Defensive rating? I try to avoid using such a “noisy” stat because defensive rating in particular relies heavily on the points allowed by a team, a category the Warriors will always be towards the bottom because they play up-tempo.
In any case, I never said those teams were “good” defensively. I agree that they were somewhat lacking in terms of overall team defense, where they were only passable-at-best. However, I was using them as an example of a scheme that “worked” based on my preference for a strong perimeter over a strong interior if we could only have one or the other.
Individually, we had a very strong perimeter during those years to make up for whatever we didn’t have inside, and that served as a huge reason for why those squads were ranked in the low 20’s rather than 28th as we have last three years. It’s no coincidence that once Nellie benched Pietus and Barnes in 07-08 that the defense suffered, then with replacing Baron with Jamal Crawford and Jackson’s loss of interest in D that we ultimately fell from 19th at our peak to 28th now. Also note that our interior personnel hasn’t changed all that much since then, with Biedrins paired with a defensively inept power forward primarily anchoring the middle and a couple shot-blockers coming off the bench.
For comparison’s sake, those 06-08 teams were much much better defensively than the one we have now, and much of that has to do with swapping out our good perimeter defenders for poor ones over the last few years. The correlation is there: those We Believe-core teams had a winning record overall, and the last three years we couldn’t even crack the 30 wins mark.
defensive rating in particular relies heavily on the points allowed by a team
It relies on the points allowed because that’s a significant component of defense: stopping the other team from scoring points. I think what you are trying to get at is that a fast-paced team will give up more points because of this, and while true, this is factored into defensive rating and does not present the problem I sense you’re implying.
Defensive rating is a measure of points per possession. Fast paced teams have more possessions and give up more points, but the points per possession has a rather low correlation with the game pace. It’s not a perfect measure, but it doesn’t suffer much from being an up-tempo team.
Fair enough. I still have my qualms about using defensive rating as a measure of defensive ability, but I suppose it’s still a better assessment than I give it credit for.
using defensive rating as a measure of defensive ability
That’s the most important measure! Every point a team gives up in defensive rating equates to an additional 2.5 losses over the course of a season. Doesn’t really matter “how” they get to that rating.
In other words, what you’re saying, is sort of like saying, well, they won 60 games, but that doesn’t really tell me they’re a good team. Or, they won 23 games, but I still think they’re a good team. No! The wins (or losses) are everything. The defensive (or offensive) rating is everything, too!
In other words, what you’re saying, is sort of like saying, well, they won 60 games, but that doesn’t really tell me they’re a good team. Or, they won 23 games, but I still think they’re a good team.
This doesn’t even serve as a justified comparison. A team’s record is much more reliable as a benchmark for a team’s performance. Teams with bad records are simply bad and vice-versa. On the other hand, there have been several instances where good teams have ranked in the bottom half of either offensive or defensive ratings, or horrid teams that receive unjustified higher rankings.
Outliers exist, sure, but a lot of these arbitrary rankings are so obviously wrong (Indiana ranking amongst the top half defensively last season for example) that it gives me pause as to whether they’re even acceptable references of a team’s offensive or defensive ability. In some cases these ratings correlate with what I see and what is reflected in the stats, but other times I’m wracking my brain trying to figure out how exactly a team that gives significant minutes to Troy Murphy and Mike Dunleavy become above-average defensively and better than teams built around defense like Portland and Houston.
A team’s record is much more reliable as a benchmark for a team’s performance. Teams with bad records are simply bad and vice-versa.
Actually, this isn’t true.
If all you had was either w/l records OR point differential, and you were trying to predict future results, you would do much better with point differential than you would with won-loss records.
WYK, I don't mean to be pedantic (well, I guess I do)...
This may help you understand some of these issues a little better, and put us on a level playing field, so to speak (at least, I want you to know where I’m coming from):
http://thecity2.com/2010/12/19/regressing-point-differential-on-the-four-factors-part-1/
Outliers exist, sure, but a lot of these arbitrary rankings are so obviously wrong
You are using the word “arbitrary” incorrectly. Defensive rating is not arbitrary. It’s very, very, very much the opposite of arbitrary.
(Indiana ranking amongst the top half defensively last season for example)
Indiana was 14th out of 16 teams in defensive efficiency. Your prose is constructed to make it sound like they were a rather good defensive team (“the top half”) when they were very, very average. “Just about average” is a more meaningful description of where they stood defensively. A very average defensive team and an offense that was in the bottom 1/3rd (and closer to bottom 1/6th) of the league equated to a team that was not very good. And their predicted record based on offensive and defensive efficiency differential suggests that they pretty much had exactly the record you’d expect from that.
Your personal incredulity is meaningless.
The thing about Lee though....
…..is that it is really,really nice having his work ethic,smarts, leadership, passing, rebounding, and scoring. So we have to live to live with his defense I suppose. The answer is to find an aggressive elite defensive role player as his backup who can rebound as well.
In a similiar vain we need a backup for AB who can score as well as defend and rebound….is Udoh the answer….not yet but possibly down the road. Meanwhile we need to continue looking for “the right depth” in our bigs.
There is a lot of concern about the rotations but this is partly a result of not having the right parts in place which should be the next trade step ie; fix the PF/C depth first(so Vlad can back up the SF position. Then look at the wing situation and depth.
by Only In Fairfax on Jan 17, 2011 12:09 PM PST up reply actions
The answer is to find an aggressive elite defensive role player as his backup
no problem, this is going to be Udoh…
who can rebound as well
awww, maaAAn, never mind
"There’s no such thing as off the charts, just get a bigger piece of paper. If you can’t figure that out you shouldn’t be charting anything" - Skep
by Duby Dub Dubs on Jan 17, 2011 1:00 PM PST up reply actions
I feel that we sometimes fail to recognize and forget the talent that Monta and Steph put on the court day in and day out. "Defense is the solution to our teams shortcomings, and we can only hope that appropriate changes can be made to fix that".
Maybe I’m wrong, but when I read this, what I infer is that Steph and Monta can be forgiven for their poor defense because of their offensive gifts. And the real problem is our frontcourt players. By “appropriate changes” I asume it means to trade one or more of them, because the only other alternative would be for Smart to induce the necessary defensive changes, something I have no confidence in seeing happen.
by War Years Legacy on Jan 17, 2011 11:00 AM PST up reply actions
Hmm
Well, in my experience, any kind of online blog, forum, etc seems by nature to attract more of the negative attention, misery loves company and all that right?
Are there really that many people calling for our player’s and coaches heads on a stake, or are those people just the loudest ones on the board?
The Golden State Warriors, we make Free Throws look difficult!
I believe it is important to note that not only were those four listed teams very good, but there is at least one Hall of Fame player on each team, and three Hall of Fame coaches.
Sure, people shouldn’t cry and moan about how players are bad or anything like that, but on our current course this back-court and coaching combination are nowhere near the level of those teams listed. A once in a lifetime trade is the only thing that would get us from here to elite in a hurry, but I don’t think there is anything wrong with exploring small improvements in any area, even if it includes changing up our back-court.
by samuraaaaiiiiiii on Jan 16, 2011 1:37 PM PST reply actions
One of the frustrating things about the discourse here -
- is that one is often attacked or called a hater for trying to speak honestly about players strengths and weaknesses.
I praised Monta early in the season, when I felt he was playing well. Then he started playing poorly (late November through most of December) and all of a sudden I’m a hater for pointing that out. He’s playing well again and some people are talking like he didn’t have that bad streak, and that saying anything other than that he’s great is somehow because we’re hung up on last year.
If it feels like some of us are “hating,” I suspect it’s because whenever we say something modulated, we’re attacked for not saying how great Monta is all the time. So then the thread branches off being solely about Monta. I mean, heck, just today, in another thread, we had somebody praise how Monta has become a “complete” player, which is nonsense – and should be nonsense even if you think he’s one of the five or six best offensive players in the league.
No, no, no.
I recognize the difference between a well thought out suggestion or an opinion formed from watching a lot of our backcourt, etc and when someone makes the same judgement without any form of good reason. And there have been a lot point blank hater comments ala:
“Steph sucks and willl never play any defense. We need to trade him now.”
and:
“Monta can’t play point guard and isn’t big enough to play shooting guard.”
I understand that often there are much more well-formed thoughts that are similar to these. What I’m tending to see a lot are the ones that seem to catch wind of one of these ideas, dumb them down, and repeat them.
I'm looking forward to the Warriors being led to the playoffs by Monta Ellis AND Stephen Curry.
"Monta can’t play point guard and isn’t big enough to play shooting guard."
This is a ‘hater’ comment?
by jae on Jan 17, 2011 8:01 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
I think the distinction would be this
“Monta can’t play point guard and isn’t big enough to play shooting guard.”
Monta can’t hasn’t shown that he can play point guard and isn’t big enough to play shooting guard without a stronger defense behind him
"There’s no such thing as off the charts, just get a bigger piece of paper. If you can’t figure that out you shouldn’t be charting anything" - Skep
by Duby Dub Dubs on Jan 17, 2011 9:52 AM PST up reply actions
Not only is that splitting rhetorical hairs, but ...
“Monta hasn’t shown that he can play point guard,” is something that one might more properly say about a guy who never had the chance, and thus the best we could say was that we don’t know, or maybe we had some reason based primarily on conjecture to believe he wouldn’t be good at it.
But Monta has played point guard, and he was bad at it. It’s not a question of opportunity. To merely say that he “hasn’t shown” that he can do it suggests that, given the opportunity, he might be able to do it well.
well, if we are just talking about hate here
it is exactly this type of hair-splitting that matters!
The original message is not that he was (relatively) bad at it. It was that “he can’t” play the point. That is just not true
Of course Monta can play point guard
Ellis can do lots of point guardy things, like bringing the ball upcourt, initiating the offense, and knowing the teams’ plays and sets.
He is able to recognize when to run and when to hold it up, when to feed the hot hand, when to take over and where to go on certain mismatches.
He could run the point
He just might not be very good at it.
There are a lot of little nuances involved with running the point that Monta has shown he does not fully “get”
If you meant to say that he is not good at it, fine. But there is no question that he could play that position if needed (and he often does)
"There’s no such thing as off the charts, just get a bigger piece of paper. If you can’t figure that out you shouldn’t be charting anything" - Skep
by Duby Dub Dubs on Jan 17, 2011 10:09 AM PST up reply actions
Okay, fair enough ...
… but the reality is that people say that a player “can” do something, usually, as a short-hand for “they can do it well enough to be a winning part of their arsenal.”
Merely is he physically capable of it without completely embarassing himself? No, that’s not what people mean. By that definition, sure, Monta can do it.
But the funny thing is, by your definition of “can,” your statement is false, too.
“Monta hasn’t shown that he can play point guard,” if you’re using a very literal definition of “can,” is a false statement. So you can’t have it both ways.
I think I get what you are saying
summed up as:
short-hand for "they can do it well enough to be a winning part of their arsenal."
And my response is that I would understand this short-hand, if it comes from certain people (and I would put both you and jae in this group). But in general, it is much more clear (and less inflamatory) to spell it out
Seperate issue (but related I’m sure) I am confused by the closing
But the funny thing is, by your definition of "can," your statement is false, too.
"Monta hasn’t shown that he can play point guard," if you’re using a very literal definition of "can," is a false statement. So you can’t have it both ways.
I don’t see where I offered a definition here, but when I look it up:
to be able to do, make, or accomplish
be physically or mentally able to
still seems to me Like Monta can do these things. Perhaps not as well as others, but he does enough other things well that he could play the point for a winning team. And he is certainly not so horrible at running the point that we lose whenever he plays point…maybe I’m wrong here, but I seem to recall a victory or two with Monta running the point for much of the game. See? He can play the point
"There’s no such thing as off the charts, just get a bigger piece of paper. If you can’t figure that out you shouldn’t be charting anything" - Skep
by Duby Dub Dubs on Jan 17, 2011 2:10 PM PST up reply actions
but he does enough other things well that he could play the point for a winning team.
We have a fundamental disagreement there. I think this is true only in an extreme case where someone has an offense that is not run through a point guard.
And he is certainly not so horrible at running the point that we lose whenever he plays point
No, just most of the time.
back to the original point
hey, I do not want to portray myself as some sort of “Monta as PG of the future guy”
I really just wanted to add some language clarification about why Brownie could legitimately consider those statements as trollish.
The fact that guys like you and Ronaldinho took up this fight makes it tough to continue the conversation because it is not factually untrue. But facts can be easily manipulated.
For instance, did you know if half of you is on fire, and the other half is frozen solid, on average, you are doing ok? ; )
And he is certainly not so horrible at running the point that we lose whenever he plays point
No, just most of the time.
Haha, ok, ok. Agree to disagree though, about Monta playing point for a winning team, because I acknowledge that the offense would have to be pretty unorthadox to work, but I do think it could work…maybe.
And I know he gets blasted pretty soundly for it around here, but I am curious to know how much time has Monta logged at the PG and how are his numbers? Seems like he hasn’t played a ton of minutes at PG…?
"There’s no such thing as off the charts, just get a bigger piece of paper. If you can’t figure that out you shouldn’t be charting anything" - Skep
by Duby Dub Dubs on Jan 17, 2011 5:04 PM PST up reply actions
I really just wanted to add some language clarification about why Brownie could legitimately consider those statements as trollish.
probably more productive to ask how old brownie is and if he or she has ever watched winning teams play ?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 17, 2011 11:43 PM PST up reply actions
thinking about this conversation last night
and am backtracking on this issue
I really just wanted to add some language clarification about why Brownie could legitimately consider those statements as trollish. (<— me)
probably more productive to ask how old brownie<— Skep
I’m out of this conversation. Done with it!…seems like anything said around here (especially if it is critical of someone’s favorite player) could be taken as trollish. But really, we are on a slippery slope here….at what point do you draw the line?
Seems like legitimate criticisms are the lifeblood of this blog!
I think the key is being able to differentiate between those folks around here that are actually able to hold a conversation, and the ones who are only interested in a shouting match (just avoid responding to these guys).
So, I am turning this back over to Brownie, assuming he wants to defend that original statement
"There’s no such thing as off the charts, just get a bigger piece of paper. If you can’t figure that out you shouldn’t be charting anything" - Skep
by Duby Dub Dubs on Jan 18, 2011 9:20 AM PST up reply actions
Without turning this into a thread about Monta, let me steer back to my point:
Whether or not Monta is capable of playing the point for a large number of minutes on a winning team, the statement:
"Monta can’t play point guard and isn’t big enough to play shooting guard."
is not a “hater” statement. It’s a piece of basketball analysis. Now, it may be wrong (you think it is, I think it’s right) and reasonable people can disagree.
But what bothered me about Brownie’s post was the conflation of that statement – a piece of basketball analysis – with “hating.”
Believing that Monta isn’t good enough to play meaningful PG minutes on a good team isn’t “hating” on him.
yeah man, agreed 99% percent
Believing that Monta isn’t good enough to play meaningful PG minutes on a good team isn’t "hating" on him.
but the one percent disagreement (or clarification I guess) is that pooping it all over a thread (or across multiple threads) and rubbing it in people’s faces is hating…
It’s a piece of basketball analysis. Now, it may be wrong (you think it is, I think it’s right) and reasonable people can disagree.
they are just words, depending on how people choose to present this statement, it could very easily be used to “hate”/ troll…especially if they have not done any basketball analysis
Again though, I want to re-iterate that (for myself anyways) I weigh people’s comments. For those most trollish, I pretty much discount their opinion and move on. However, for the folks around here who seem well-read, thoughtful, and articulate I do like these little disagreements – I have definately been swayed a little here and there
"There’s no such thing as off the charts, just get a bigger piece of paper. If you can’t figure that out you shouldn’t be charting anything" - Skep
by Duby Dub Dubs on Jan 17, 2011 4:44 PM PST up reply actions
he is certainly not so horrible at running the point that we lose whenever he plays point…maybe I’m wrong here, but I seem to recall a victory or two with Monta running the point for much of the game. See? He can play the point
but a winning team needs a point guard who can engineer 50 wins not one here and there. JeremyLin can also play point if that’s your only definition.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 17, 2011 11:38 PM PST up reply actions
JeremyLin can also play point if that’s your only definition
careful here!
these are the Warriors we are talking about here!
Not to jinx us or anything, but if Steph gets hurt or something, then we may indeed be looking at Acie Law and Lin running the point.
In that case, I think we would be begging to have Monta run the point
"There’s no such thing as off the charts, just get a bigger piece of paper. If you can’t figure that out you shouldn’t be charting anything" - Skep
by Duby Dub Dubs on Jan 18, 2011 9:28 AM PST up reply actions
t was that "he can’t" play the point. That is just not true
Of course Monta can play point guard…
He could run the point
He just might not be very good at it.
(He could play center too, but he’d be terrible at that.)
He can play the point if you are not interested in winning. If you are interested in winning, he should not have more than spot minutes directing an offense. He has shown that with the ball in his hand that much, he does not effectively get others involved enough to improve their games and is significantly turnover prone relative to how much he helps others.
You can split it all you want, but I find this to be rather indistinguishable from a simpler statement that he can’t play point guard if you intend to win. I think that much of the rating and analysis of players seems to forget that this is the goal.
(He could play center too, but he’d be terrible at that.)
I think this was a little tongue in cheek, but just to be sure, this argument would be crushed in a real debate…(fallacy of weak analogy, and/or perverted analogy) – you expanded the example too far
now this is well-said, it’s a valid point, and most importantly, it is damn far from “Monte suckz, he can’t play PG”:
He has shown that with the ball in his hand that much, he does not effectively get others involved enough to improve their games and is significantly turnover prone relative to how much he helps others.
Look, I only brought up this point because in the context of this post, we are not talking about guys like you and Ronaldinho. This was intended to be directed towards the more trollish among us who take these types of short-hand statements as gospel and then proceed to go off on a long diatribe
I was supporting this comment above
I recognize the difference between a well thought out suggestion or an opinion formed from watching a lot of our backcourt, etc and when someone makes the same judgement without any form of good reason. And there have been a lot point blank hater
"There’s no such thing as off the charts, just get a bigger piece of paper. If you can’t figure that out you shouldn’t be charting anything" - Skep
by Duby Dub Dubs on Jan 17, 2011 2:35 PM PST up reply actions
I think this was a little tongue in cheek, but just to be sure, this argument would be crushed in a real debate…(fallacy of weak analogy, and/or perverted analogy) – you expanded the example too far
Montay can probably post up better than our bigs so he might be able to play center better than he can play point :>)
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 17, 2011 11:43 PM PST up reply actions
He could run the point, He just might not be very good at it.
so why is it hate to point that out? The old shoot the messenger mindset??
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 17, 2011 11:34 PM PST up reply actions
see above
I am punting this back to Brownie (if he wants to defend that statement)
"There’s no such thing as off the charts, just get a bigger piece of paper. If you can’t figure that out you shouldn’t be charting anything" - Skep
by Duby Dub Dubs on Jan 18, 2011 9:29 AM PST up reply actions
Hmmm....That's very PC
But the truth is , there is a world of difference between these 2 comments:
"Steph sucks and willl never play any defense. We need to trade him now."guard."
and:
"Monta can’t play point guard and isn’t big enough to play shooting
First off " Steph sucks" or “Monta sucks” sounds so juvenile and doesn’t support itself.
As far as the Monta statement, We have experimented with Monta at PG, and it didn’t work. His efficiency went down the toilet.. He wasn’t sufficiently including his team mates.
If what comes out of this thread is that we agree to be more tolerant of other’s opinions, than fine. But if that Monta statement above is called " Monta hate". And we choose to ignore pertinent facts so as not to offend anyone, we’re not going to have a real dialogue about anything.
Ok, I can see when Steph’s out, Monta can run the point, but it’s been proven now, that’s not a long term solution for us.
by War Years Legacy on Jan 17, 2011 10:14 AM PST up reply actions
This is a ‘hater’ comment?
haha, remember the world is still flat to the fanatics.Physics be dammed, it’s in my bible.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 17, 2011 11:30 PM PST up reply actions
In the way that it is often not backed up...
and it’s very blanket. And it’s certainly not specific enough. Monta is playing fantastically as a shooting guard this season. And he has played point guard averagely. Obviously, that isn’t a good position to have him at all the time, but he can play it effectively in stretches. As for shooting guard, to say he is too small to play the position is simply wrong. Now, if one were to say “he’s not a consistently good decisions-maker as a point guard, and he struggles to defend bigger shooting guards because of his size,” that would be correct statement. The one you quoted really doesn’t do anything for me other than suggest someone doesn’t want him around anymore.
I'm looking forward to the Warriors being led to the playoffs by Monta Ellis AND Stephen Curry.
Monta is playing fantastically as a shooting guard this season. And he has played point guard averagely.
Here’s the thing:
Monta had a pretty significant stretch this season where he was playing genuinely bad basketball.
Now, this stretch of play coincided with Lee and Curry being out, and thus Monta being asked to carry the load. But honestly, he was just bad. He was last-season’s Monta, jacking up lots of shots, not using his teammates, killing the offense in favor of low-percentage jumpshots and drives into a set defense.
He started the season reasonably strong – was bad for about a month, and now seems to be coming back strong again. (Although I can’t help but wonder if the fans who were chanting MVP watched the first half of that game …)
You say he played PG averagely? When?
He is too small to play shooting guard because being big enough to guard the larger opposing SGs is part of the definition of the requirements of the job of shooting guard. You parsing hairs about saying “he’s too small to play SG” rather than your longer sentence is the same kind of silliness about how people use the word “can” – you know EXACTLY what somebody means when they say Monta is too small to play SG, and you probably even agree with it. BUt using those words is “hating?” Please.
by Ronaldinho on Jan 18, 2011 5:14 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
In the same way that bigger shooting guards give Monta problems defensively...
he gives them problems with his quickness. So no, there is no reason he “can’t” play shooting guard. He has weaknesses because of his size, but he plays the position just fine. And, as the sole point guard, he struggles, but when he’s asked to create offense and play like a point guard, he does just fine when filling in over the course of a game. I understand that he shouldn’t be a full-time point guard, because he’s a scorer first, but to say he can’t play either position is an incorrect blanket statement. If you’re going to criticize what he’s doing that’s fine, but at least get it right because he’s one of the best shooting guard in the NBA this year. How that correlates to not being able to play the position, I don’t understand.
I'm looking forward to the Warriors being led to the playoffs by Monta Ellis AND Stephen Curry.
he’s one of the best shooting guard in the NBA this year. How that correlates to not being able to play the position, I don’t understand.
then you shouldn’t be posting this stuff. Study the Iverson 76ers and see where a small high scoring guard gets you stuck at, then study the MJ bulls and see where a bigger high scoring guard gets you.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 18, 2011 8:17 PM PST up reply actions
When you play the Michael Jordan card, the argument ends…
No relation to Matt Cain...
by Caine Black Knife on Jan 19, 2011 4:05 AM PST up reply actions
When you play the Michael Jordan card, the argument ends…
yeah I definitely won that hand
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 19, 2011 11:05 AM PST up reply actions
Extremely skilled 6'6" shooting guards are available where?
We have a really good shooting guard. Let’s improve the areas we’re not doing well in. Unless of course you know who is going to be the next perennial all-star shooting guard that nobody knows about yet…I mean, sure size would be nice, but you don’t have to have a big guard to be an elite team.
I'm looking forward to the Warriors being led to the playoffs by Monta Ellis AND Stephen Curry.
Extremely skilled 6'6" shooting guards are available where?
that’s what they pay these guys the big bucks to figure out. Without doubt the front office is working on it now :>)
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 19, 2011 2:56 PM PST up reply actions
It's really unlikely that the guy they'd be looking for is in the NBA at this point.
Because if there was a guy like that, teams would most likely be holding on to them. So we’d have to get him through the draft, which would not require the trade of Steph or Monta.
I'm looking forward to the Warriors being led to the playoffs by Monta Ellis AND Stephen Curry.
It's really unlikely that the guy they'd be looking for is in the NBA at this point. Because if there was a guy like that, teams would most likely be holding on to them.
It’s totally likely that guy is in the league, they just gotta find him while his value is low and use our guy for trade bait while his value is high.It’s called sector rotation.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 20, 2011 10:53 AM PST up reply actions
So no, there is no reason he "can’t" play shooting guard. He has weaknesses because of his size, but he plays the position just fine.
“Just fine” is an opinion. He has issues on defense, rather significant issues. He does give people problems with his quickness, but you make it sound like he’s an unstoppable offensive force. He isn’t. He’s a high volume scorer who is a bit above average efficiency this year. He’s not terrible. Don’t pretend that people are saying he is. But he’s not great either.
So u think that he cannot play shooting guard?
Because that was the initial “hater” statement example I used.
I'm looking forward to the Warriors being led to the playoffs by Monta Ellis AND Stephen Curry.
Because that was the initial "hater" statement example I used.
I think there’s a ceiling of how high a team can get with him as their shooting guard unless you do a significant amount of structuring simply to cover up for his shortcomings.
I think that labeling fair criticism of hims as such as being a ‘hater’ is rather ridiculous.
That would be a "no."
You don’t think he can’t play shooting guard well. You just think he can’t play it really well. Which is different.
I don’t know in what world “can’t play shooting guard because he’s too small” is equal to “he can play shooting guard well, just not really well.”
So your statement just now is not equal to the statement I labeled as coming from a hater. See, because a hater would just ignore all the stuff he’s able to do whether he’s 6’3" 175 or not, and say well, he’s not really good at shooting guard because he’s too small. I don’t think that you’re doing that here. Are you?
I'm looking forward to the Warriors being led to the playoffs by Monta Ellis AND Stephen Curry.
That would be a “no.”
Well, your initial prose was substantially clumsy as to make a yes/no reply irrelevant. It was overly simplistic such that a yes/no response doesn’t actually capture real meaning. And as such, I didn’t offer one. I wrote what I mean. Don’t distill it into yes/no unless you’re dead-set on showing that you do not understand what I wrote.
You don’t think he can’t play shooting guard well. You just think he can’t play it really well. Which is different.
What I meant was exactly what I wrote. I chose my words carefully.
I don’t know in what world "can’t play shooting guard because he’s too small" is equal to "he can play shooting guard well, just not really well."
Given that I never made either of those statements, I’m not sure why you’re placing them alongside each other in response to my post other than to raise a strawman.
"Steph sucks and willl never play any defense. We need to trade him now."
and:
"Monta can’t play point guard and isn’t big enough to play shooting guard."
These two statements are wildly different from a “hater” standpoint. The Steph comment strikes me as a hater comment (“sucks”, “will never” when talking about a young player still expected to improve, & and the desire to trade him without any discussion of what we get back).
The Monta statement, however, is two well-established facts.
Big difference.
fwiw, it’s called preview, and it’s right there next to post
"It’s frickin’ Sisyphean to be a Warriors Fan."
by hardcore on Jan 17, 2011 10:44 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Kind of reminds me of a Tom & Ralph session with Steinmetz
Where they were discussing Monta’s limitations at the PG and SG positions. Then Ralph goes on a sarcastic tirade, saying “Monta can’t play point! Monta can’t play the 2! He’s absolutely useless in the NBA, ship him to Turkey NOW!”
Considering his tremendous talents, I find it incredulous that someone with his gifts is stuck between a rock and a hard place. Can’t tweener guards (or tweener anything, really) be useful? Do we really have to shoehorn every player into a specific position?
by jebinitay on Jan 17, 2011 10:50 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Every player?
No.
But starting guys who want to be considered elite players?
There are two different kinds of “tweeners,” by the way. There are guys like who can play multiple positions without really taking anything off the table. They’re usually guys who have the body for the bigger position but the skills and speed to play the smaller oner. They’re rare.
Then you have tweeners like Monta, where, no matter where you play them, you have a hole: you play Monta at point, you have distributor issues. You play Monta at SG, you have defensive issues.
I tend to think guys like that work well as first-guard-off-the-bench guys, because they create matchup problems and change the pace, whereas as a starter the opposing team is morely likely to say, “Oh, here’s the matchup, this is how we exploit it.”
I think his defensive issues are overstated
The real problem is we don’t have interior defense. I’m beginning to think even if we had Iggy at SG, our overall defense only improves a smidge.
I dunno.
There are some matchups he really just can’t handle – Jason Richardson was embarrassing him, for example, against Phoenix.
I’m sure part of that, however, was the combination of a bad physical matchup for Monta and an opposing PG who quickly recognized and started exploiting that matchup. The good news is that most teams don’t recognize and attack favorable matchups that quickly and consistently in the regular season.
The bad news is that in the post-season they do. With time to game-plan for a specific opponent, you see teams more consistently attacking each other’s weaknesses and scheming defensively to adjust. And to me that means that when you have an easily-attackable weakness, you’re going to struggle in the post-season even if you’re otherwise a good team. That may put a ceiling on how good a team which is starting Monta at the two is capable of being unless they have a tremendous ability to protect him defensively.
let's look at Orlando
Would we really be complaining about Monta/Curry’s defense, if you paired them with Howard/Bass? Or really any strong interior defender?
The thing is Steph/Ellis really are two offensively gifted guards. I’m not totally in love with the way they are being used. But I think they can both be assets to the team. The overwhelming major issue with this team is that Lee/Biedrins don’t provide anywhere near the offense+defense that we need inside. I don’t see how we can win without that, no matter what we do at the guard position.
by Evanz on Jan 17, 2011 11:48 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
That's a good question.
The problem is that when a big man has to compensate for weak guard defense, you generally expect better offensive guards on the opposing to to exploit that by drawing the big man and then passing to his man.
You’re still better off with better guard defense, because he needs to leave his man more often.
That being said, sure, yes, get one of the top five help defenders in the league, and our overall defense will improve dramatically. Sure. But that’s not so easy to do.
well here's the real question
how much interior defense would you need to be equivalent to the best perimeter defender you could get. My (admittedly unscientific) guess is that overall defense is much easier and cheaper to improve by strengthening the interior than the perimeter. If Wade is the best defensive SG, I don’t think it is equivalent to say you need Howard to make the same improvement. Howard would make a much bigger improvement in overall defense than Wade. I think this is why when Udoh or even B. Wright subs in the game for Lee or Radman, we see such a marked improvement in defense.
I agree, insomuch as big men are responsible for much more help defense.
Wade may do a great job on his man, but he’s very rarely making a difference on Lebron’s man.
Howard, on the other hand, backs up everybody else.
So I do agree with you that, if you want to upgrade one defense position, in abstract, the interior guys will get you better returns.
However, I would also argue that the upgrade from Biedrins-of-two-years-ago as a help defender, to, say, Howard, is smaller than the upgrade of Monta to Wade, which complicates the equation a bit.
Oh, absolutely.
I just think that Biedrins returning to something close to that form is one of the few ways we can dramatically improve our defense without giving a lot up.
Top help defenders tend to be hard to get. Alas.
He's playing pretty well today.
Been a couple of plays where he’s done a good job with the help defense, only to have Harris make the smart pass for an easy two.
btw
I posted an ezPM analysis of the 2008 team. Biedrins was world’s better than he is now. About +4 compared to today.
http://thecity2.com/2011/01/16/lets-go-way-way-back-to-re-visit-the-2008-2009-warriors/
Evanz I tend to agree with your point there.
I mentioned basically the same in an earlier post. Looking at the ongoing Warriors recontruction project it seems that fixing the depth and defense at P/F and C is the priority. I see Vlad as good depth at SF only if he continues his current play but since we cannot count on that then SF wing defense depth will be a future issue..some day Dorrell will be injured.
I am more worried about having a good defensive backup at PG so Monta is not moved over that position. To bad Reggie has not found his defensive chops…much needed for his carreer as well as the tam.
by Only In Fairfax on Jan 17, 2011 12:30 PM PST up reply actions
Rec'd
Unless we’re obtaining an elite player, preferably an elite big, I don’t consider moving either for a more suited size player.
I’d like to see where this backcourt can take us with that good interior defense. I’d love to see DeAndre Jordan for one. I’m increasingly in love with his size, athleticism and defense. He can give us the offensive production we expect out of Andris (10-12 points) while giving us much better defense.
But what would it take to pry him from LA. Probably not possible….
are we better than a Miami team without LeBron?
that would be about the ceiling for us, I would think.
I’m beginning to think even if we had Iggy at SG, our overall defense only improves a smidge.
Maybe, though when I hear statements like that, it gets real close to "well wouldn’t help much so why bother getting him. The addition of one player may not help much. It might not turn the team into a defensive power, but it’s a step in the right direction. At some point, to play better defense, you have to start getting guys who can play better defense.
I'm not at all opposed to an Ellis for Iggy swap
I think I’ve proposed that very trade numerous times here.
What I am saying is that I don’t think it’s the panacea some might believe.
Our overall defense would still be one of the worst in the league.
Can’t tweener guards (or tweener anything, really) be useful?
sure they can in an SUV world.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 17, 2011 11:48 PM PST up reply actions
They really aren't facts.
I replied similarly to Jae above if you care to read.
I'm looking forward to the Warriors being led to the playoffs by Monta Ellis AND Stephen Curry.
comparable to the Bad Boys?
Daly’s Pistons were nasty, nasty, nasty. Lambier didn’t care about his reputation – he was a thug who could score and he got under every player’s skin thus taking the opponent out of their own game trying to get him back. And Mahorn was worse. Those guys were absolute thugs. With John Salley and Rodman rebounding they were not giving up many second shots either.
Off the bench, Vinnie “microwave” Johnson was a beefy SG that thrived because Dumars could swing from SG to PG and run the team well. Adrian Dantley was a bonefide scorer (though he was later traded for another scorer, Mark Acquirre) so they had at least two two high scoring options off the bench.
We don’t have a SG that can swing to PG, we don’t have a thuggish defensive identity, we don’t have great defensive rebounding, we don’t have two scoring options coming off the bench, etc.
We can hope Monta and Steph are able to be as good as Thomas and Dumars, and we can hope Udoh develops, and hope a whole lot more transactions work out … who knows, we had a prez from Hope so anything’s possible
"It’s frickin’ Sisyphean to be a Warriors Fan."
recurring but superficial comparisons
as hardcore notes, Det had several punishing interior defenders, and Laimbeer could shoot mid-range adequately too. The team also had either Dantley or Aguirre at the 3 (all stars, multi-skilled), and a stable, three guard rotation. As for Iverson’s best teams, Mutombo was a premier inside defender, and several other regular rotation players were above average defenders and rebounders, like Lynch and Hill. Both of those teams, in other words, had solid defenders at at least two of the other positions.
Music is the Healing Force of the Universe (a.ayler)
Lambier didn’t care about his reputation – he was a thug who could score and he got under every player’s skin thus taking the opponent out of their own game trying to get him back.
He would make a good head coach, imo.
by samuraaaaiiiiiii on Jan 16, 2011 8:29 PM PST up reply actions
let's call him
Although, I am starting to come around on coach Smart…maybe he just needs a few seasons to develop
"There’s no such thing as off the charts, just get a bigger piece of paper. If you can’t figure that out you shouldn’t be charting anything" - Skep
by Duby Dub Dubs on Jan 17, 2011 9:54 AM PST up reply actions
Patience is heresy....;-p
He has the team playing like a team and is learning as he goes with the odd rotations but common sense says to look at a season body of work with a new team and system. He probably will not be here next season but he does desearve some……….patience.
by Only In Fairfax on Jan 17, 2011 12:36 PM PST up reply actions
yeah, Poor Man's Commish's write-up
really got me thinking about it. Someone else around here pointed out that we would all be horrible NBA coaches.
I could get a lot more angry about it if our bench was better. But not giving any minutes to Lou, or Udoh, or BWright for that matter…I dunno, it’s not like we’ve got Maggs or Morrow rotting on the pine or anything
Whatever, I think it is pretty much a foregone conclusion that Smart will be handing his clipboard over at the end of this season
"There’s no such thing as off the charts, just get a bigger piece of paper. If you can’t figure that out you shouldn’t be charting anything" - Skep
by Duby Dub Dubs on Jan 17, 2011 1:12 PM PST up reply actions
Great post!
Nobody’s perfect but while they are Warriors we should support then. Before this season I was ready to trade Monta but since I have seen how much of a better player he is I feel we should keep him. I love both Curry and Ellis and I think we can definitely be a winning team with that backcourt. Curry and Ellis are the least of our concerns
Golden State Warriors Fan 4 Life!!!
Biggest GSW fan in NY!
GM: Kevin Prichard
Coach: Brian Shaw
Warriors the best team in 2K11!!!
..............SC30..............
Agreed Monta and Curry are far from the problem
Great comparisons on small backcourts that worked well.
The Warriors just need that anchor in the middle and another clutch shooter/defender/vet.
The guy who really deserves some more flak is Biedrins….As Stienmetz reported he’s lost confidence and has stated this himself repeatedly, this is not good for a guy who plays center. He eats up way too much salary to not have confidence (in his 6th year). He’s becoming the Alex Smith (AKA Alice Smith) of the Warriors.
I think we need to acquire the big first
Then we can properly gauge exactly where the Monta/Curry ceiling is.
i think steph has the ability to be a really special player
but he frustrates the hell out of me right now. the last warrior that used to frustrate me like this was Al Harrington cause he would have the most retarded turnovers one game and the next game be really solid. also baron when he would jack up step back three pointers from half court.
haha
and also Jackson when he would jack up step back three pointers
"There’s no such thing as off the charts, just get a bigger piece of paper. If you can’t figure that out you shouldn’t be charting anything" - Skep
by Duby Dub Dubs on Jan 17, 2011 9:54 AM PST up reply actions
I didn't expect this to recieve so many recs...
And I think a lot of the talk in here has been well written and makes a lot of sense. I don’t currently support the trade of either Steph or Monta, but I don’t think you have to be a hater to have a mentality like that. There are definitely reasons to trade either of them at this point, but what I really wanted to point out is that us fighting over which of them is the problem is by far the worst way to go, because there are still so many other things wrong with this team that it wouldn’t matter how good our backcourt was. Biedrins is not the same player he once was. What’s worse is that the fall has been all mental. It’s hard to play well when your center (who is still a very good rebounder) hides on offense. He’s had some games where he’s rounded back into shape, but there’s been absolutely no consistency. You cannot have a mentally weak center and win in the NBA. It’s just not going to happen. Your center needs to have some sort of toughness about him and Andris doesn’t have half the toughness he used to. Another major problem is the bench. Until very recently, it’s been hard for us to get any production from our bench. Even with it playing better (something far from guaranteed to last), the personnel needs to improve. We have a very bad backup point guard. Our backup big men are a Gadzuric, Udoh, Amundson, and Vlad (who as well as he’s played, really should play spot minutes at PF). Lee doesn’t play defense and has not shown a strong inside game. Infact he’s been very soft, which is something I didn’t expect. He’s got great athleticism, but I want to see him use it more. The biggest thing of all is that we don’t have a winning attitude about this team. Some players have it, but the overall feel is still that of a loser. That needs to be Smart’s biggest focus this season. There have been a ton of complaints about his rotations and poor substitutions, but I could care less. The way he fails this season is if the Warriors don’t show some real mental fortitude and the attitude of a team that knows that can put up a fight against the best teams in the NBA (much like the Clippers as of late). If getting the rotations right infuses this team with energy, great. If Smart can do it another way, it’s just as great. I don’t even think the goal this year is to make the playoffs as much as it is show our players the right way to win. If after that, either Monta or Steph don’t fit and we NEED a change, then maybe a trade could be the right move. But until the organization gives them a real shot at success, we definitely shouldn’t be putting much blame on the players who have been getting us wins.
I'm looking forward to the Warriors being led to the playoffs by Monta Ellis AND Stephen Curry.
Just a little tip
When you are going to write this much, try to break it up into a few more paragraphs (most of your fanpost did this well). I’m going to brave the text-wall right now though. Hopefully it is full of goodies.
by samuraaaaiiiiiii on Jan 17, 2011 4:27 PM PST up reply actions
+1
"There’s no such thing as off the charts, just get a bigger piece of paper. If you can’t figure that out you shouldn’t be charting anything" - Skep
by Duby Dub Dubs on Jan 17, 2011 5:04 PM PST up reply actions
When you are going to write this much, try to break it up into a few more paragraphs
and make it interesting.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 17, 2011 11:51 PM PST up reply actions
Yes, yes, I know.
I was in a hurry.
I'm looking forward to the Warriors being led to the playoffs by Monta Ellis AND Stephen Curry.
I appreciate a positive attitude on Blogs (Specifically warriors ones)
It’s rare.
And I should say positive attitude with good points, not positive attitude as in “Udoh is the next Dikembe! Calm down guys, we’ll win it all in 2012”
Not bad. But that last paragraph is hilarious.
Have some faith…..
Yes! It’s the awful Warrior fans lack of faith that has kept this team out of the playoffs for 82 of the last 83 seasons. If only we all had faith in management like you say….
………………….
I despise it when people force me to use sarcasm as the only possible response. I myself would much rather be constructive. And I try… Until someone comes along and tries to blame everything one the fans – and the best fans in the NBA at that.
Thanks a lot.
Over
by cybermaldonado on Jan 17, 2011 12:08 PM PST reply actions
I blamed the fans for us sucking?
I don’t think so. What I said was that the way a number of the fans have acted THIS YEAR is pretty uncalled for.
I'm looking forward to the Warriors being led to the playoffs by Monta Ellis AND Stephen Curry.
Well said
It was the positive thinking that got the We Believe movement started and it’s positive thinking that will turn this franchise in the right direction.
David Lee quote
(Ellis) is the best player I’ve ever played with," said power forward Davie Lee. “He’s playing great, but he’s not out there hogging the ball, taking bad shots. He’s getting to the rack. He’s taking good, uncontested shots. And when he’s double-teamed, he’s finding other guys for easy plays.” / thread
by illmaticwarrior on Jan 17, 2011 11:40 PM PST reply actions
I am a big fan of Steph and Monta
With that being said I would have a big problem if Steph was traded, not because I like him way better than Ellis but because he is younger and has a better contract right now. Both players could potentially get serious returns in a trade.
The biggest problem the Warriors have is their lack of interior defense and a lack of solid bench PGs/SFs. Honestly this team with a few minor additions/added experience could probably get into the playoffs fairly consistently. The front office needs to ask themselves, are they happy with that? Or do we want an elite team that can compete with Miami and the Lakers?
Honestly I think that the easiest way to go to becoming a premier team is to seize on an opportunity to sign a defensive presence at the Center position and creating a back court that can work together in harmony offensively and defensively. If you trade Ellis you need a big PG like Baron Davis. If you trade Curry you just need a good regular sized SG. I think it is easier to pair someone with Curry than with Ellis.
Another option which I actually like but players/fans might not go for it is to have Ellis come off the bench as the ultimate energy guy, someone who creates mismatches and forces other teams to play differently. You would minimize the amount of time Curry/Ellis shared duties and would make the team very dynamic however it requires a 3rd shooting guard that can play really good defense.
Marco Belinelli has turned out to be a fairly good defensive SG on the Hornets(not saying he is the perfect fit.) But he could have really helped out the depth of this team at this point.
Belinelli
seems like we dropped Belinelli because we found Morrow
and then we dropped Morrow because we found….Reggie?
I’d take Marco back…but then again, I’m pretty confused by the Carney move, we are now dangerously thin at the wings
"There’s no such thing as off the charts, just get a bigger piece of paper. If you can’t figure that out you shouldn’t be charting anything" - Skep
by Duby Dub Dubs on Jan 18, 2011 9:40 AM PST up reply actions
and then we dropped Morrow because we found….Reggie?
We ‘dropped’ him because management thought that he wasn’t worth what NJ was willing to pay him.
We ‘dropped’ him because management thought that he wasn’t worth what NJ was willing to pay him.
Between Morrow’s 3Y/12M and DWright’s 3Y/11.5M, I think we made the right choice…
agreed
when you spell it out like that, I’d hafta agree!
"There’s no such thing as off the charts, just get a bigger piece of paper. If you can’t figure that out you shouldn’t be charting anything" - Skep
by Duby Dub Dubs on Jan 18, 2011 4:17 PM PST up reply actions
Marco Belinelli has turned out to be a fairly good defensive SG on the Hornets(not saying he is the perfect fit.) But he could have really helped out the depth of this team at this point.
Marco plays in a defensive team whose priority is defense first. He plays in between 2 very good defenders and has one of the better defensive bigs backing him up. Marco would not make a difference defensively on this team. Look at Dorell’s defense with Miami v. GSW, by defensive rating metrics it seems he’s got worse, but in reality it’s a systemic change, higher pace, less priority on defense.
People who think Marco next to Monta will make us better are very shortsided. What we’re losing in offense, we won’;t come close to making up in defense. Atleast if your argument is defensive upgrade, lets discuss actual elite defenders.
That said I do think it was dumb to unload him to keep Morrow, as he was a better all around player, with high potential. Never understood the move as anything other than financial and just talent losing.
That said I do think it was dumb to unload him to keep Morrow, as he was a better all around player, with high potential. Never understood the move as anything other than financial and just talent losing.
Totally agree. Don’t even need hindsight to make that statement.
by Doctor Kajita on Jan 18, 2011 10:43 AM PST up reply actions
The game has changed a lot since the 80’s and has gone through quite an evolution, including the rules and players’ abilities. IMO, guards these days are much quicker and stronger and the rules don’t allow defenders to gain an advantage (i.e. hand check).
So, unless you have some of the best defenders on your team like Joe Dumars AND rules that allow you to be a good defender, then you’re out of luck. The Warriors have neither. They are flawed at every position.
At the moment, the Warriors’ backcourt’s success is contingent upon outscoring their opponent and be efficient at it.
At the moment, the Warriors’ backcourt’s success is contingent upon outscoring their opponent and be efficient at it.
Which happens most every night. The amount of games where our opponents back court production is better than ours is far less common.
Now look at the front court and it’s a different issue.
Beautiful post Brownie, Rec'd
Pistons: Isiah Thomas 6’1" 180 and Joe Dumars 6’3" 190 (Warriors give up 5 pounds each, but also have 2 inches on Thomas)
Sixers: Allen Iverson 6’0" 165, Eric Snow 6’3" 190 (Warriors actually have a 5 pound advantage overall, and 3 inches)
Houston: Vernon Maxwell 6’4" 180, and Kenny Smith 6’3" 170. (Warriors give up an inch and have weight on them)
Utah: John Stockton 6’1" 170, Jeff Hornacek 6’3" 190 (Warriors are equal in weight and have 2 inches)
All three had much better interior defense. I want to see us get that first, and then if this team is still unable to pass the first round it’s time to look at opportunities to move one of our two best players. Not before….
All three had much better interior defense. I want to see us get that first, and then if this team is still unable to pass the first round it’s time to look at opportunities to move one of our two best players. Not before….
It’s called maximizing value.We can get better defenders easiest by trading our guy who’s maxed out his value, if we wait there’s no upside left and plenty of downside.Did you sell GM in 2000 at 60 and buy gold at 300 or wait till 2007 when it was 10 and buy gold at 700? ?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 18, 2011 10:43 AM PST up reply actions
That's kind of flawed logic
If we get good interior defense a) I believe we’ll win more and b) that will increase both there trade values should we want to trade them.
I see no reason to believe either will ‘decline’.
You may have a different opinion, but I believe if we got a center of the caliber of Tyson Chandler or Marcus Camby (not that I want either because of injury history or age) I do believe the team could get 50 wins, especially with an addition of another bench piece. Where would it top out? I’m not sure
You may have a different opinion, but I believe if we got a center of the caliber of Tyson Chandler or Marcus Camby (not that I want either because of injury history or age) I do believe the team could get 50 wins,
I think we need a great center too but no one is gonna give us one unless we are willing to move a useful player. Montay is the most visible right now. We might be able to improve our center situation as well as our team defense by swapping guards and centers in some kind of deal?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 18, 2011 11:01 AM PST up reply actions
Why has Monta maxed out?
He’s improved every year. He’s added to his game every year.
Why has Monta maxed out?
cause trees don’t grow to the stars, look at their leaves and you can tell how much they have left.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 18, 2011 10:59 AM PST up reply actions
...
…
Live every week like it's Shark Week.
by wallywagon11 on Jan 18, 2011 11:19 AM PST up reply actions
I've never seen fans of a team so pessimistic over their star player
Who happens to be having a great season.
And I also find defensive criticism laughable, when the same people are advocating Curry and Lee, two worse defenders positionally
Don't think it's pessimism necessarily (for the record I only first jumped in because I was baffled by the whole thing about trees growing to the stars and leaves thing)
I think it’s probably just more of everyone wants to play GM
Live every week like it's Shark Week.
by wallywagon11 on Jan 18, 2011 11:46 AM PST up reply actions
Skep
are you high? Or just in a really peaceful place?
This is the strangest analogy I’ve seen in awhile!
Why has Monta maxed out? cause trees don’t grow to the stars, look at their leaves and you can tell how much they have left.
"There’s no such thing as off the charts, just get a bigger piece of paper. If you can’t figure that out you shouldn’t be charting anything" - Skep
by Duby Dub Dubs on Jan 18, 2011 12:40 PM PST up reply actions
He’s just saying there is an arc to a player’s productivity and it looks like Monta has peaked , so better to sell now than when his inevitable decline begins, which is going to be very soon (in his opinion).
I’m not sure whether or not it’s true that you can tell if a tree has reached it’s maximum height by looking at it’s leaves, but metaphors don’t always scientifically air-tight. As long as you get the meaning . . .
I am not a testicle.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Jan 18, 2011 1:12 PM PST up reply actions
I’m not sure whether or not it’s true that you can tell if a tree has reached it’s maximum height by looking at it’s leaves
determining the species will give you a pretty good estimate of it’s maximum height potential.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 18, 2011 2:53 PM PST up reply actions
Skep are you high? Or just in a really peaceful place?
a peaceful high at pleasure point
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 18, 2011 2:51 PM PST up reply actions
So Skeptic, You're from Santa Cruz?
I was at Pleasure Point about the time you wrote this. I have a friend who lives on 38th. I live up near Summit Rd.
by War Years Legacy on Jan 18, 2011 6:08 PM PST up reply actions
He’s improved every year. He’s added to his game every year.
He’s improved aspects of his game this year. Last year, he had regressed significantly from what he had done a couple of years before. He’s also regressed from being an adequate rebounder to being abysmal. He’s also at the age where, on average, players max out most aspects of their game and much improvement is the exception, not the rule.
All three had much better interior defense. I want to see us get that first, and then if this team is still unable to pass the first round it’s time to look at opportunities to move one of our two best players. Not before….
I dunno.
Against the Nets, I felt like it was really easy to see how bad perimeter defense was contributing to easy buckets for Lopez, who got a couple of dunks when Biedrins – who was playing pretty good help defense that game – had to come over and help.
Biedrins being better doesn’t take those buckets away. Curry or Monta being better does.
Biedrins best isn't particularly good
I’m willing to bet Tyson Chandler, Marcus Camby, DeAndre Jordan, the Gasols, Bynum, Howard, Duncan, possibly horford, heck maybe Turiaf etc. do a much better job altering Lopez’s shot.
Brooks kind of a softy, a physical center with good defensive fundamentals can easily rattle him.
Thats not to discount perimeter defense though. Of course better perimeter defense goes a LONG way. But considering our two best players are undersize guards. Its better to find pieces to fit them
I’m willing to bet Tyson Chandler, Marcus Camby, DeAndre Jordan, the Gasols, Bynum, Howard, Duncan, possibly horford, heck maybe Turiaf etc. do a much better job altering Lopez’s shot.
You’re missing the point.
Biedrins was no longer guarding Lopez and thus couldn’t contest his shot, because Biedrins had to slide over to cut off Harris’ penetration.
It’s not about Biedrins being better at contesting Lopez’s shot – it’s about Biedrins not having to leave Lopez alone under the basket because Curry couldn’t stay in front of Harris. Having Dikembe Mutombo in his prime guarding Lopez wouldn’t have made a lick of difference.
The worse of a job the perimeter defender does, the more often the center has to leave his man to help, and the more often the opposing center gets uncontested looks at the basket off the dish.
You know what I'm tired of...
Being labeled a “hater” if I have a dissenting opinion about this team.
At times it seems that criticizing Monta or Steph is off limits because they’re “trying really hard” or “they’re our best players.” Despite these things, they are still open to criticism.
If I make the observation that the team seems to struggle when Ellis and Curry play together, and back it up with evidence, it’s not hate. It’s criticism.
If I make the observation that Monta is trying to take on more of the offense than he is capable of, it’s not hate. It’s criticism.
Sometimes, I and other posters here might be negative about this team, it’s players, it’s coach, and it’s front offense, but that’s because this team hasn’t really done much to inspire much optimism in the past decade and a half. Even this year’s team has caused constant frustration, constantly repeating their Jeckyll and Hyde act.
Anyhow, this isn’t really directed at BadlyBrowned. His post made some good points about Curry and Ellis. It’s directed more at people who can’t take criticism of this team, and call any criticism, no matter how well reasoned or supported, “hate.”
Monta Ellis's #1 Fan!!!
*Note: This post probably doesn't exist. The author of this post has to be dreaming. He's going to wake up and it's going to be November 1st again. Because there's no way that this really happening.*
by philthiest on Jan 18, 2011 11:39 AM PST reply actions 4 recs
Everyone should just chill and remember that the Giants won the World Series. It’s how I get over most of my problems nowadays.
by belilaugh on Jan 19, 2011 12:28 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
Everyone should just chill and remember that the Giants won the World Series. It’s how I get over most of my problems nowadays.
or it means the world is ready to explode?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 19, 2011 11:06 AM PST up reply actions
That would be if the Cubs won.
"If God made us in his image then he must be dumb too, and a little ugly on the side."
Frank Zappa
That would be if the Cubs won.
No ,the universe would explode in that case.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 20, 2011 10:56 AM PST up reply actions
This is why it pisses me off that Stern wouldn't allow us to get Blake Griffin
No relation to Matt Cain...
by Caine Black Knife on Jan 19, 2011 4:12 AM PST reply actions
Good writeup
But:
Zeke and Dumars = HoF’ers
AI = Future HoF’er, Snow = Elite Defender
Maxwell = Solid clutch role player, The Jet = Excellent 3PT shooter, clutch as well
Stockton = HoF’er, Hornacek = Great role player, Excellent 3PT shooter
The best and closest comparison would be Maxwell and Jet, but remember they won 2 rings a piece. All 4 teams had alot better supporting casts as well.
Can a Curry, Ellis combo work? Possibly yes, but I think it’s not probable. Ellis requires alot of ball and Curry is not a pure PG, he’s a tweener, probably a 1.25 (lol). We can give them more time, but at this moment with almost a year and a half with the 2, it seems it may not work out. Are they getting better? Yes, but it’s only Monta who’s improving, Curry has regressed or has hit that sophomore wall/slump. As many Raider fans have been saying with our own team, “Time will tell.”
But how much is that time worth?
"I tell him straight, 'If you're going to lead, you have to be the first to practice. You have to come in, get your work down and be prepared for practice,' " assistant coach Keith Smart said. "He needs to figure out why he is having stomach problems and he's got to watch how LeBron (James), Kobe (Bryant) and D-Wade (Dwyane Wade) work. He needs to mimic that if he wants his teammates to speak volumes about him." -Keith Smart on Motna Ellis
Curry has regressed or has hit that sophomore wall/slump.
He’s regressed to the tune of scoring more points with higher efficiency than he was last year, while also handing out more assists with only a tiny, tiny rise in turnover rate. His rebounding is slightly down, steals slightly up. He looks tired and has had a few bad games recently, but talk of him “regressing” is taking a very narrow picture. He’s playing better on average than he did last year.
by jae on Jan 20, 2011 4:09 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Yeah I don't honestly get that narrative at all
but then again I have only seen four Warriors games this year.
Live every week like it's Shark Week.
by wallywagon11 on Jan 21, 2011 8:44 AM PST up reply actions
curry/ellis is Ok for now
Talk of breaking up one of the teams strengths is far too premature. They are both young and although Ellis is playing out of his head, he will get wiser if not better. Let Curry grow, he has only played about 100 NBA games.
Need to get a real post player, one that scares some people.That is priority numero uno. Even some one like DeJuan Blair would make a huge difference. Someone who is a consistent 10 and 10 every game and can make more than one free throw a week. We dont need Dwight Howard (OMG, can you imagine him with this backcourt?) I like David Lee, its not him either. Even an average starting center makes this a .500 team now.
by felix botticelli on Jan 22, 2011 2:05 PM PST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
"UNSTOPPABLE BABY!"
Golden State Warriors rookie Marc Jackson to the Mavericks' bench, after hitting a lay-up during a 29-point loss (2000)
NBA Playoffs Content Module
Related FanPosts on Golden State Of Mind
Related FanShots on Golden State Of Mind
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
Most Commented
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- C-a-C: This is probably as close to LeBron James working with John Waters as we’ll ever get
- Dwyane Wade’s hot pink pants: The kind of thing you can get away with when you drop 41
- Lamar Odom to New York? Dwight Howard on the move? For now, it’s all talk
- David West hilariously denies each and every one of his young fans a high-five (VIDEO)
- Behind the Box Score, where the Miami Heat are moving on to the conference finals
