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.
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)
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.