Recap #2: Golden State Warriors 99, Chicago Bulls 91 - Forging an Identity
by olympicmike on Dec 27, 2011 1:25 AM PST
Email
Print
It's quite early, but after two preseason games and two regular season games, I must say that I like what I'm seeing. On paper you'd think that when a team has the same starting five from one year to the next there shouldn't be much mystery, but I feel like I'm watching a whole new team. With the new coaching staff and the overhaul of the bench, these look like some very different Warriors. Jump for some game notes, and some quick thoughts on this team's newly emerging identity.
Game Note:
- Stephen Curry tweaked his injured right ankle about halfway into the fourth quarter. The offense certainly didn't flow as well from then on, but the Warriors played tough and were able to preserve the lead and secure the win. He left the game with 21pts (on 12 shots) 10ast 7reb and 6stl in 37 minutes. Wow.
- On offense Curry, Ellis, and Lee looked like the best versions of themselves tonight. They each scored more than 20 points, and they did it in the right way. It was a good reminder of this team's offensive potential to see them do that against what should be one of the leagues best defenses.
- Kwame Brown looks to be playing his way into game shape, but he provided 23 great minutes at the center spot tonight. With Lee, Udoh, Biedrins, and Kwame, this Warriors team has a pretty respectable complement of big men, whose skills seem to complement one another, and that's a compliment... I think, right? Did I mention this recap is complimentary? Seriously, put your wallet away.
Identity
With the shortened training camp and preseason it would be impossible for Mark Jackson to have any sort of system fully installed at this point, but here are a few thoughts about what I think I'm seeing, or maybe what I hope I'm seeing.
Defense:
From what we've seen on the court Coach Jackson seems to demand a much higher level of defensive effort and activity than we are accustomed to seeing here in the Bay. Tonight the Warriors came away with 16 steals (7 from the center spot!) and were getting deflections that were constantly disrupting Chicago's offensive flow and forcing them to turn the ball over twice as many times as the Warriors did. Enforcing this kind of effort over the course of an entire season can be tough for a coach, but it doesn't hurt having guys like Brandon Rush, Udoh, and Brown ready to come in off the bench and play hard defense. Whatever he's doing to keep guys focused on that end of the floor seems to be working so far. It's only two games in, but we've already seen the team show a variety of looks on D, handling things like the pick and roll, post threats, and guard penetration a few different ways, and doing it effectively. I've heard people say that defense is one of the only places in basketball where coaching and effort matter more that raw talent, and this will be an interesting team to watch if you'd like to test that theory. I'll be very impressed if Coach can change the defensive culture enough to make competent defenders out of guys like Ellis and Lee over the course of the season.
Offense:
So far we've heard Mark Jackson use words like "random" and "freestyle" when referring to this team's offense. It's pretty clear that the focus for the coaching staff has had to be on the other end of the floor, as it should be. It's actually been refreshing to see the team get back to basics like moving the ball around, and getting guys the ball in places they've proven they can be successful. I haven't seen Jackson calling as many plays as Smart did, and that has meant far fewer isolations, and better movement without the ball. He's trusting his player to create scoring opportunities in the flow of the game, for themselves and others. So far the best signs have been Steph's aggressiveness, Lee getting the ball on the move to the rim, and Ellis drawing attention on the drive and dropping it to the big men when the defense collapses. There is still plenty of room for improvement, but I'd bet this coaching staff already has a better idea of how to play to the team's strengths than we saw last year. And let's not forget that the more turnovers you create on defense, the more fast break opportunities you have. Back when Ellis was at his most efficient he just so happened to be leading the league in fast break points on a team that was second in the league in steals, and first in opponent's turnovers... coincidence? I think not.
GSoMer tafkasam, for going to the game and calling the victory in the game thread!! Okay, okay, not really. I have to give this one to Steph Curry for filling out the stat sheet in all the right places. I would have loved to see a healthy Steph grab three rebounds and four steals in the second half of that fourth quarter to end the game with the Quadruple-Double! Big honorable mention goes out to Kwame Brown for anchoring the defense during some big Warrior runs.
256 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
+1
KB is a large dude who can actually move around pretty well. I really like our front court with beans, KB, and Udoh!
Add in Rush and we have some excellent defensive options to balance out steph, monta, and lee
I was at the game and saw him and Monta goofing around during warmups,
"You don't need to be an Adonis to be a good pro player...
…but Lee looks like he’s lived in zero gravity his whole life"
-the Bimbo Coles Experience
by Duby Dub Dubs on Dec 27, 2011 8:50 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
oops, typo correction...overdue
lost this on the bottom off the bottom of my iphone screen
I was at the game and saw him and Monta goofing around during warmups,
was going to say that it was nice seeing Monta relaxed, and that it looked like Kwame fit in really easily into our lineup
"You don't need to be an Adonis to be a good pro player...
…but Lee looks like he’s lived in zero gravity his whole life"
-the Bimbo Coles Experience
by Duby Dub Dubs on Dec 28, 2011 3:49 PM PST up reply actions
I'm liking it
Seems like this group can get it together
KB is hungry
And beans has been pretty damn good sofar with the limited use early… He’s gotta compete for minutes now!
And rush has me giddy hahaa
I actually think the warriors got the best of that deal for a change! (should have gone n grabbed G Wallace but rush is a nice alternative!
by RTM707 on Dec 27, 2011 2:05 AM PST via mobile reply actions
Im happy all the defensive preaching isnt BS
I can see the guys buying in and playing with some hunger and its about damn time. The starters were waay too comfortable last year with no bench depth, now Jackson has them competing for minutes.
by Xtremelink on Dec 27, 2011 3:23 AM PST via mobile reply actions 1 recs
Depth has a lot to do with it dino, you're right.
Not only does it allow starters to catch their breath, but it also allows competition for minutes.
"That was very funny about the old man basketball skills. One is lucky to escape injury when playing against those crafty, crusty sumbitches. And it’s just demoralizing when they demonstrate yet again how to use the backboard from range." - Charlie Custer
by SmittytheCutman on Dec 27, 2011 11:26 AM PST up reply actions
So far we’ve heard Mark Jackson use words like “random” and “freestyle” when referring to this team’s offense.
Jackson might be on to something here, though. In all seriousness, just like in football, you want to be unpredictable as an offense. I think it helps that we have two guards that can create shots and make plays.
Totally agree. Curry and Monta, properly coached and clicking, give us one of the most potent backcourts in the game!
I am concerned about Curry’s ankle, though. He really needs time off to heal. Unfortunately, unlike last year, there is no one on the bench to fill in.
Correct me if I'm wrong...
Did I see Coach HandDownManDown pull Monta when he made horrible decisions twice?
If my memory serves me correct, I recall Monta being pulled when he took the early shot clock shots.
Also, can you imagine Steph and Monta’s assist totals if majority of our bigs didn’t have stone hands?
by tafkasam on Dec 27, 2011 6:57 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Yeah
I mean, Kwame and Udoh did a lot of other good things (mainly defense) however, one could imagine, if this this team had a competent 2 way big man with hands (like that big latvian dude) we’d be a strong contender to make the playoffs. And if we had that dwight howard fellow, i truly think we’d win the west with no other roster adjustments.
After watching two games, I feel as long as we get 58+ games from our top 3
we are already are:
a strong contender to make the playoffs
Envisioning Chandler as our starting C (example of the 2-way player), I think that’d make us at least on par with the Clippers. No diss on Kwame, he’s been great so far, but it’s just too bad we couldn’t land Tyson, because he would have made us a very good team.
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
How do you feel about Deandre?
I was glad we didn’t get him. Thought the deal was unwarranted. And he didn’t impress me last year.
However sunday night he looked every bit worth it.
I think we could have ended up putting ourselves in the same position we are with Biedrins.
Except it would cost us even more money. He’s a great shot-blocker, but offensive, a guy like Tyson is still miles ahead of him. I mean, Deandre is so bad offensively, that even the past two seasons, Biedrins has been about as good as him on that end. That’s bad.
And he did look great in the paint Sunday night, but a lot of that was a product of us being unable to make an outside shot. We had to attack rather than try to draw their him outside and he ended up with a ton of chances to block shots as we were sort of desperate for points. He also looked like a huge offensive liability, confirming how truly terrible he is on that end.
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
Fact remains, that we are weak inside. Lee is a baller. There is a way to compensate for that offensively
by becoming masters at kicking the ball out! The best biggies in the league know how to do that well!
When did Tyson learn how to score? I must have missed that.
Over
by cybermaldonado on Dec 27, 2011 9:05 AM PST up reply actions
10 points in 28 minutes on 65% FG and 73% FT is light years better than either Andris, Kwame, or Deandre Jordan. Tyson finishes plays, period. He has good hands, and great body control around the rim.
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
What about him?
Regardless of who’s passing Tyson the ball, he has good hands, great body control, and good finishing ability.
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
I agree he finishes well. Don’t necessarily agree he does it better than Andris. At the least they’re very comparable – for example, Biedrins top two scoring seasons were both higher (in points per 36 minutes) than anything Chandler has ever done. As for Deandre, he actually finishes pretty well, too, and his career scoring numbers are fairly similar to Chandler’s. When Biedrins isn’t being a scared headcase is easily the best offensive player of the 3…and Kwame easily the worst in all cases.
by Missing Barry on Dec 27, 2011 5:11 PM PST up reply actions
You’re talking over their careers, but Tyson has shown in the past two seasons than he can get it done at the line when he’s fouled. Neither of the other two can. Biedrins is still headed the opposite way (despite an impressive first game of the season).
And are you really saying Deandre’s offensive ability is near equal to Tyson’s? If you are, I don’t think I can take this seriously anymore.
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
Deandre shot almost 70% from the floor last year (68.6%). They’re essentially the same player offensively – very limited players who finish, and nothing more. And no, I don’t think there’s much real improvement from Tyson Chandler now compared to his past. He’s been the same player for a long time now – the only thing that changes is how often he get utilized and how good his teammates are at getting him the ball where he can finish. The one area I’ll give him credit in is FT shooting. Looks like a real improvement to me. Other than that…he’s still the same Tyson Chandler he was 5 years ago.
by Missing Barry on Dec 27, 2011 5:36 PM PST up reply actions
I told you I couldn't take it seriously.
Did you think I was joking?
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
And what’s not serious about it? What is it, exactly, that Tyson does on offense that makes him so much better?
by Missing Barry on Dec 27, 2011 5:52 PM PST up reply actions
Not being an offensive liability?
Being able to shoot if left wide open from 10 feet? Any semblance of a post move at all? Being able to dribble the ball without immediate fear of a turnover?
Why do I need to even point these things out?
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
Being able to shoot if left wide open from 10 feet? Any semblance of a post move at all? Being able to dribble the ball without immediate fear of a turnover?
Why do you need to point them out? Because I don’t think Chandler does a single one of those things capably.
by Missing Barry on Dec 27, 2011 6:04 PM PST up reply actions
Check out Chandler’s hoopdata page:
http://hoopdata.com/player.aspx?name=Tyson%20Chandler
Worth noting is the shot location data.
I was initially looking at %AST data to show how little offense he creates for himself, but when it looked weird (for all 3 of Chandler, Jordan, Biedrins), I realized non-assists are almost all offensive rebounds. It’d be nice to have that broken out in a separate category, but such is the limit of statistics. Maybe Evanz can provide Synergy numbers…?
by Missing Barry on Dec 27, 2011 6:08 PM PST up reply actions
Been there already to look at the same thing.
Took a look, saw nothing to make me question my thinking, and kinda shrugged.
I don’t need numbers to know what I see in Jordan. He’s just bad on offense. Most limited offensive player getting major minutes in the NBA.
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
You didn’t notice that Tyson Chandler shot 16 total shots from 10+ feet last year? He barely even takes shots from 3-9 feet, and doesn’t finish those at a high percentage. So when you talk about who has a better jumpshot…it doesn’t matter. Chandler probably would win a jumpshooting contest, but neither player actually take those shots in games (and the very, very few times they did, it wasn’t a positive for the team). They’re both extremely limited, but at least neither of them attempt what they can’t do.
by Missing Barry on Dec 27, 2011 6:26 PM PST up reply actions
That was 2 years ago.
Last year he shot 51 and made a good percentage. That’s not the shot you want him taking, but if the shot clock is running down and he’s in that position, being able to do that is a big plus. Also you can’t just let him have the shot the way you could if it was Deandre. You don’t have to defend Jordan there, you do have to do a little if Tyson is.
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
I guess I just don’t think you have to defend Tyson at all there, either. Agree on the last second thing, but the reality is, that might happen like 5 times a season or something? Just not enough to make a difference.
by Missing Barry on Dec 27, 2011 6:32 PM PST up reply actions
He might only shoot that shot 5 times a season.
But the fact that the center is more likely to follow him further out of the key opens things up. Even if it’s only one more step, or two, that’s one more step he has to recover on if another player goes to the basket. I actually think a lot of Tyson’s points are a product of Tyson leading his big out towards the perimeter, then crashing hard right behind him when his teammates attack. He ends up with easy points, because the C was going full speed to stop the other guy and no one is there anymore to stop Tyson
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
No matter how well Chandler does any of them
He still does them better than Jordan, who’s probably the starting NBA center worst at all of them.
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
It’s irrelevant though because neither of them do those things.
by Missing Barry on Dec 27, 2011 6:23 PM PST up reply actions
Not irrelevant
because Deandre is much more of a liability in all of those categories. He’s less capable in every way. Because Tyson is more neutral, it gives him and his team much more flexibility in giving him the basketball. Deandre is so bad that he won’t barely touch the ball on offense for most of the game. Tyson can flash out to help a teammate in trap. He can go the high post to help move the ball from one point on the court to another. Clippers can’t do that with Deandre. They have to hide him. It’s sad really.
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
I agree on Deandre. I just view Tyson as that kind of liability, as well – I think it’s reasonable to think Tyson is more skilled across the board, but I think he’s still enough of a liability that he avoids those situations almost as often as Deandre and when I watch he rarely touches the ball himself.
Biedrins is the one I think is actually capable of doing those things. No jumpshot, but he handles the ball well enough to make up for that – if the D sags off him too much with the ball, there are ways to make them pay for that if he’s comfortable handling the ball a bit (like a handoff, or pass and screen).
by Missing Barry on Dec 27, 2011 6:36 PM PST up reply actions
I’m also not sold on Biedrins at his best being better than Tyson is now. You’re big on TS% right? Tyson has been at .620 or better in 4 of the last 5 seasons:
.620
.632
.581
.643
.697
Andris has gotten over .600 just once as an NBA starter.
Personally, I could give a crap about the numbers. I know what Tyson can do, and I know that he’s a better offensive player now than Biedrins has ever been. Tyson had some very bad seasons in Chicago, but he’s found his niche in the NBA, and has become a very capable two-way player.
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
Tyson’s a better FT shooter than Biedrins. Biedrins, however, is much more comfortable with the ball. He can pass some. He can start the break from a rebound or steal by taking a couple dribbles up the court. He can handle the ball on the perimeter. You can actually play through Biedrins to some degree. All Chandler does is finish. He’s as one dimensional as it gets on offense.
by Missing Barry on Dec 27, 2011 5:39 PM PST up reply actions
Tyson also has a mid-range shot when left open
and is just as good creating in the post as Biedrins. He’s not the passer that Andris is, but a lot of times, Andris passes when he shouldn’t so that negates the value of that skill a little.
Bottom line either way, is Biedrins best years compare to most of Tyson’s recent ones. Andris isn’t the same player. So as a player that would be a great fit as a two way player who can finish easy baskets in the paint for us, Tyson is a great fit. A better fit than the other options we have or were looking at this season.
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
Andris isn’t the same player.
Agree, until he proves otherwise, we should assume Andris is the crappy version we’ve seen the last two seasons. I’d say Nene was a better fit than Tyson (not taking cost into account). I also don’t think Jordan is that good right now – think he still needs to improve on the mental side of things to really be productive day in and day out, especially defensively.
As for Tyson, it’s also not like last year was some long trend. His production wasn’t that great the two years before that – pretty much what you expect from a finisher (I’d actually expect more his last season in NO – after all, he had Chris Paul)..
by Missing Barry on Dec 27, 2011 6:12 PM PST up reply actions
I'd say Tysons has been good for 5 seasons.
And had his best season last year in a role that suited him more than any other has.
I think he’d fit similarly here. Nene isn’t really what I’m looking for. He’s better offensively, and I know you like his defense, but Tyson just fits better and brings intangibles that Nene just doesn’t have.
I don’t think Nene can almost single-handedly transform a defense the way the addition of Tyson did. Nene doesn’t bring much leadership or energy, and Tyson has had those qualities for a while. I just like him as a post-season player much more than I like Nene, and he also has a significant contribution in the regular season. Just my opinion, though.
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
Yeah I mean our real difference in the Tyson/Nene thing is how much we value their respective contributions. I think more of Nene’s D than you, and less of Tyson’s “transformation” of the Mavs last year. I think we’d be in agreement on who the better fit is if we actually agreed on what the players actually bring to the table.
by Missing Barry on Dec 27, 2011 6:28 PM PST up reply actions
DJ is the reason the Clippers beat us. Look at all the layups he erased. He made us shoot jumpers in which we could not knock down. He is a beast. He’s underpaid.
Oh I agree
DJ and Paul down the stretch.
But it was just one game. He didn’t do much of that last year at all
DJ is the reason the Clippers beat us.
Sigh, again with this? Jordan was one of the reasons. That CP3 guy was another one of the reasons. Plus, as tafka notes: one game.
You obviously know your hoops, J-RIDAH. If you toned down the hyperbole a bit and realized that causes and effects in the real world tend to be rather complex, I suspect a lot of the negative reaction your posts provoke would magically melt away.
New Year’s Resolution? ;-)
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Dec 27, 2011 10:31 AM PST up reply actions 4 recs
If you toned down the hyperbole a bit and realized that causes and effects in the real world tend to be rather complex, I suspect a lot of the negative reaction your posts provoke would magically melt away.
completely true. most of the time, the hyperbole is really the only problem i have with his posts.
by bigkino217 on Dec 27, 2011 10:42 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Maybe I phrased it wrong, lets try again. Deandre Jordan was the primary reason we lost to the Clippers. If you add up all of the layups and close range easy shots that he erased its obvious we could have won that game even with CP3 scoring. CP3 went on a run on us in the 4th quarter, but guess what (Romanowski line) so did CJ Watson and Deng last night. The difference is we were able to respond to those runs by getting to the line and getting easy buckets. The clips went on their run and stopped us from scoring because DJ had everybody terrified to come to the paint. He took 16 points off the board from us in blocks and another 12 or so points away from fear of his presence in the paint. He was my MVP of that game. We could have easily responded to Paul’s offensive production if DJ did not play.
the main problem with DJ
is that he still jumps at everything. it’s mind boggling that the warriors almost never pump faked.
Now this we can agree on. He’s gonna be top 3 in blocks easily this year tho. Im gonna go on the record and say he’ll be a allstar this year aswell if they only base the voting on position votes and dont allow 4’s to play the 5 spot.
4's can only take the place of the 5 spot in the case of an injury
yao ming is not there to win the all star voting anymore, so the top vote-getting center will get to start the all star game.
Do they still idiotically list Duncan as a PF? I can’t argue with you here – don’t see much competition for the C spot in the West. Nene, and…..? Marc Gasol I suppose (though he doesn’t put up big numbers)? Okafor? Perkins?
by Missing Barry on Dec 27, 2011 1:16 PM PST up reply actions
Very slim pickens. With Lob city in full effect, the only thing that will stop DJ from getting the most allstar votes at the 5 spot is a injury. He’s a lock.
I'm a Clipper fan and I have to say...
Say WHAT?!
You’re kidding right…? You have to be…
Proud member of Club FTR. falconPUNCH! for president!
the backup doesn't have to be a C
coaches selections are where you can take the 4’s that play some 5 and put them as the backup 5. only 1 center is guaranteed to be picked for the all-star team, and if healthy, it’ll be bynum.
Of course, with Bynum, that’s a big qualifier…
by Missing Barry on Dec 27, 2011 3:58 PM PST up reply actions
Bynum wont get more votes than the highlight reel. That dunk he did on the Lakers in the pre-season sealed it.
Bynum has been the clear 2nd highest vote getter two seasons in a row
behind Amare in 2010, and Yao in 2011
Both are gone.
Last year, Biedrins, Cousins, and Kaman all got more votes than Jordan.
That’d be an incredibly big swing of votes
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
Just watch what Paul does for DJ. All eyes in the NBA world are on the Clippers. Bynum got the votes because he was on a popular team. He’s no longer on the hottest team in L.A. Just watch, I really think DJ will get more votes than Bynum. Its the same reason Vince Carter always got alot of votes. Highlights on ESPN carry alot of weight.
D. Jordan = Iverson?
No. Iverson was arguably the greatest little man ever to play the game and an extremely popular player for all of his career. He gets in on reputation and a large loyal fanbase. Jordan has neither.
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
Like Brownie said, do you think DJ has the same fanbase as AI? Cmon.
by GovernorStephCurry on Dec 28, 2011 2:00 AM PST up reply actions
No, my point is production does not equate allstar votes. Popularity does, and by the time february comes around, DJ will be the 2nd most popular C in the league.
by the time february comes around, DJ will be the 2nd most popular C in the league.
I think it will be freshsinko
Mirror on the wall
Here we are again.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Dec 28, 2011 10:47 AM PST up reply actions
only as an injury replacement for yao ming
he’s on the ballot as a 4, so he can’t be voted in as the 5
Duncan and Pop
have always maintained that Timmy is a PF.
The year that they listed him as a C on the ballot(2007), he was unhappy and vocalized that displeasure openly.
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
Yet more evidence that hard classifications for positions are stupid. You could fix the whole thing easily by just voting for PG’s, Wings and Bigs.
by Missing Barry on Dec 27, 2011 5:13 PM PST up reply actions
I call BS
You’re not going to win a championship with two 6’8" All-Star PFs
So even in the All-Star game, the contributions of a true “BIG MAN” like Tyson Chandler or similar should not go unrecognized.
I’ll give you, Timmy has always been a tweener, but centers need love too, and its his choice to regard himself as whatever position he and his coach want.
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
You’re not going to win a championship with two 6’8" All-Star PFs
Depends on the rest of the team, of course, and how well those guys fit together and their particular skillsets. Of course, at 6’8, you’re really getting to the short end of things. As I said elsewhere, at the extremes positional differences do start to matter more. Anyways, looking at the last few years, you’d have PF’s like Duncan, Pau and Amare playing…all guys that also play C….no need to let limited role playing C’s in to the game when you have real talent like that…
As for Timmy, he’s been playing the official “Center” position for years now. He’s a great example of a guy who has the skills to do whatever. You can play him next to any big man, and he’ll complement them, because he does everything. Big man #2 for SA the last few years (by total minutes played) – Blair, McDyess, Bonner, Oberto, Oberto/Elson. Yeah, Timmy is the bigger one every time, and more of a traditional post/down low guy than Bonner or McDyess….
by Missing Barry on Dec 27, 2011 6:20 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah.
If you’re looking at just overall talent and skill, you could do it that way. But way single out PG in that format? Shoot, we could just take the 5 highest vote-getters and start them all, lol
I’d actually prefer an even more individualist view of it, with a PG, SG, SF, PF, and C starting.
I just feel like it shouldn’t all be about talent and skill. Because different positions and players are asked to do and are capable of different things on the court.
You’ve got your stars, but the centers are huge parts of good teams, even if they’re offensive roles are limited. I feel like players at every position should be recognized, even if they don’t have as much skill as some other player at a different position.
Whether you regard Timmy as a C or a PF doesn’t matter to me. As long as everybody has a chance to be recognized for their contributions.
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
I single out PG’s because I don’t trust anyone else to try to set up teammates. Bunch of oafs and ballhogs at the rest of the positions. ;)
by Missing Barry on Dec 27, 2011 6:29 PM PST up reply actions
In my hypothetical scenario, by the way, I still would want the coach to try to play the roster he’s given in a way that makes sense. Like if Amare is on the floor, pair him with a defensive big like Garnett or Duncan or Howard, you know? Still get players on the floor that complement each other, but that’s basically on the coach, rather than using specific position voting requirements to do it…
by Missing Barry on Dec 27, 2011 6:31 PM PST up reply actions
Well
All-Star game is just not about defense anyway. So it may never matter.
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
Yeah, true, the NBA doesn’t take it seriously, so they probably don’t even see a problem.
by Missing Barry on Dec 27, 2011 6:37 PM PST up reply actions
I'm a point guard at heart
but I don’t think, as much as I love PGs, that they’re any more important to winning a Championship than other positions. Actually less in most cases. I wish it weren’t so, but to me it’s just the way of the NBA.
College ball, point guards matter much more. It’s one of the reasons I like watching the best PGs in the NCAA. They seem to dominate everyone because a good PG owns a over-eager zone defense.
In the NBA, I’m not at all worried about not having a PG, because so much has become based off of isos. Teams isolate weak defenders with their offensive strategies, and defensive schemes are designed to get the best defensive players in good iso situations against the offense. Points guards kind of just get lost in the mix come playoff time. Not all of them, but enough.
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
Yeah, and really, it’s all about whether a team has enough passing, not whether the PG is good enough. When the Celtics won their championship, Rondo wasn’t very good yet, to be honest. He was still a 21 year old in his 2nd year, and clearly the 4th wheel of that offense. Garnett, Pierce and Allen were all unselfish, though, and played great team ball, and the result was good team basketball and a solid offense. They didn’t need a PG for that – their other positions provided what they needed. When the Lakers are playing good team ball (read: Kobe not ballhogging), they get great ball movement going, too, essentially without a PG. I think playing team ball and avoiding iso/one player taking on too large a load is essential to winning a championship – however, that does not require a PG. Good PG’s often do facilitate that kind of play, though.
by Missing Barry on Dec 27, 2011 6:45 PM PST up reply actions
Point guards just cant be the best player on a championship team anymore.
The last two are Isiah and Magic, and with Magic, he was just a great basketball player, period. He did everything.
You can talk about a wing player ballhogging and destroying the offense, but I think it’s just as easy for an efficient PG to do the same, even if he racks up 15 assists. Paul used to dominate the ball way too much to facilitate the offense. I feel like Nash still does.
In the post-season, it’s so easy to defend that kind of offense. You put one guy on the PG and don’t bring too much help. CP3 has gotten a lot better since his injury with that, though. I think it’ll be interesting to see if that remains so as a Clipper.
Same goes for lots of other past NBA PGs. It’s a hard thing to do, to distribute the ball to everyone without dribbling too much, and even harder when the defense knows how you want to do it.
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
I think a PG can be the best player on a championship team. The rest of the team might have to have a little more talent, though – the biggest issue with a PG is he can’t impact the defensive side of the ball the way a Duncan or KG can, which basically limits how good they can be, and means you have to have more talent around them to make up for it.
by Missing Barry on Dec 27, 2011 8:54 PM PST up reply actions
I do think you have a point with Paul/Nash…I’d throw Rose last year in that category, too, in that they all dominate the ball so much the offense is pretty one dimensional. Paul and Nash might create enough for their teammates to make that ok, though. I was really hoping to see Paul team up with Dwight Howard so we could get a taste of just what a player like him could do with some real help. Perfect complements on offense and defense…throw in a good wing like Iguodala or someone like that, and that’d be a fun team to watch, and one I would enjoy seeing win a few championships (as long as it wasn’t in the purple and gold!)….
by Missing Barry on Dec 27, 2011 8:57 PM PST up reply actions
I just can’t agree with that. First, Deandre Jordan’s defense wasn’t 19 points good. That would be unreal. The very best defensive players are more in the 5 point range, and certainly not more than 10, by all the evidence we have. Second, the Clippers scored 105 points on about 95 possessions by my quick estimates (81 FGA + 10 TO’s + ~17 FTA possessions – 13 OReb). That’s an effective offense. Stopping them was a bigger problem for us than our own lack of offense. That includes Deandre’s 4-12 FT performance, by the way. If you’re going to compare the difference in success between the game, you have to acknowledge that we held the Bulls to 91 points in a faster paced game than the one the Clippers scored 105 in. THAT was the biggest difference. It wasn’t that we weathered the Bulls offense better – it’s that we didn’t let the Bulls offense do what Chris Paul and the Clips did.
by Missing Barry on Dec 27, 2011 1:12 PM PST up reply actions
(Bulls had about 98 possessions – 82 FGA + 20 TO’s + ~10 FTA possessions – 14 OReb) – the real difference in D was the turnovers we forced against the Bulls.
by Missing Barry on Dec 27, 2011 1:13 PM PST up reply actions
But then you should acknowledge the point J was trying to make.
CP3 and Clippers as a whole didn’t get offensively clicking till mid/end of 3rd. Until then they were ugly.
Jordans 6 first half blocks was a big reason they stayed in the game. Warriors couldn’t finish at the rim.
Jordan played well and made an impact on D, I do agree with that.
by Missing Barry on Dec 27, 2011 1:34 PM PST up reply actions
RIDAH is also forgetting that when DJ goes for the weakside block...he leaves his own man
And a simple slip pass to the open guy that DJ leaves ends up scoring. That counts as a negative in my book.
Proud member of Club FTR. falconPUNCH! for president!
I knew Sleepy’s post was gonna turn green the moment I seen it. It seems alot of ppl think I Hyperbolize alot. I speak the truth tho.
Well, I do think you're fairly knowledgeable about basketball ...
… but you have a tendency to overestimate your handle on the “truth.” You’ve got some blind spots (so do we all, for what it’s worth) but unlike some people you seem to forget that you have them. You act as if you were omniscient, rather than just a pretty knowledgeable basketball fan with access to some not-entirely-reliable inside information.
Might be and age thing.
by Ronaldinho on Dec 27, 2011 1:45 PM PST up reply actions 3 recs
We do not all have blindspots! I have none. I always had great peripheral vision!
(Just kidding, of course!) :)
I dont think I overestimate my handle on the truth at all. Its the truth as I know it. I always say I can be wrong and im not ignorant to evidence that is contrary to whatever I state. Thats the difference between me and the guy you are saying I am.
I dont think I overestimate my handle on the truth at all.
Well, duh.
by Spider Jerusalem on Dec 27, 2011 8:16 PM PST up reply actions
Its the truth as I know it.
I think this pretty much sums it all up right there. You make these generalized statements and proclaim them as the truth. Instead of coming out saying it like it is the truth, present it in a way that clearly shows it’s just your opinion.
Example:
J-Ridah: “Mark Jackson doesn’t want to play this guy because of this reason”
Reply: “Mark Jackson said that?”
J-Ridah: “no…just something I observed”
Do you see how your initial comment is said as if it’s a fact or the truth? Someone asked if that’s something Mark Jackson actually told people, but he didn’t. It was only something you observed. That does not make it the truth. That is just something you think might be happening. It could be true…it could be false.
I don’t know that i agree with that. yes he erased a lot of layups and we were forced to shoot jumpers, but we are generally a team with many players that are great shooters and they all had an off night. if you look back, they were constantly getting good mid range looks and just weren’t draining them. even a below average shooting night from our backcourt instead of the nonexistent one that we had that night would have won the game. lot of positives going on and Rush is looking just like he did when i was watching him on KU. SOOOO glad we made that trade and brought him in.
by dannyschmanny on Dec 27, 2011 11:56 AM PST up reply actions
Agreed!! I thought he'd have been the perfect fit with this squad.
"That was very funny about the old man basketball skills. One is lucky to escape injury when playing against those crafty, crusty sumbitches. And it’s just demoralizing when they demonstrate yet again how to use the backboard from range." - Charlie Custer
by SmittytheCutman on Dec 27, 2011 11:27 AM PST up reply actions
Right move. Coaching Monta is key to maximize this extraordinary backcourt.
Both, Curry and Monta, can penetrate, dish, and shoot lights out! Doing it together is the golden key. Too bad Reggie isn’t playing, to give us another lights out shooter, capable of adding another 30 on any given night!
Totally agree it's the right move
Monta needs stern coaching if he’s ever going to evolve from exciting, stat hog to an actual winning basketball player.
I do believe part of the problem the last two years was mental with Monta, however when coaches give him free reign, you can’t expect it to improve.
Agree. Coaching was the main problem. Monta was the go-to-dog in an unimaginative (to say the least) offensive scheme.
In addition to penetrating and scoring, and, penetrating and dishing to biggies inside, when Curry and Monta start penetrating and kicking OUT to each other (and Wright – too bad Reggie is not around), this team is going to be something to watch. It is really basisc stuff – kicking out – and the biggies have to learn to do it as well.
I think, all the hype of 'best backcourt in nba' is not unrealistic
But it was unwarranted up till now.
We have a dynamic backcourt most teams dream of. Maybe a defensive liability, but it should be an edge most nights because of what they can do offensively.
It wasn’t last year, largely do to coaching, but I don’t think that negates talent level.
Barring a big trade, I’m excited to see what they do under this staff, who clearly has better ideas than previous ones.
So far
I’m kinda believing the smartest person in the “front office” is Mark Jackson. I feel like he might have been the guy really pushing for Kwame and Rush, or at least good defensive backups after we failed on Tyson and Deandre.
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
Don't overlook
Malone, and the rest of the asstants. Those guys have been around, and have likely worked with some of these players in the past.
Man - this kool-aid is really good! What did you put in it?
If this defense plays like this all season, say goodbye to Mike Malone. He’ll be a head coach somewhere. Maybe in NY.
The glass is always half empty with you, isn't it? :)
I think what we saw in Boston demonstrates that you really need the great X’s and O’s coach for a year or two to implement the scheme, then these things become a little more self-sustaining because you have a core of players who understand their responsibilities and have bought in.
Obviously, we’d like to keep him, but I think two games into the season is a little early to worry about losing him.
"...then these things become a little more self-sustaining because you have a core of players who understand their responsibilities and have bought in."
I think that’s true for a veteran championship contending team with a core that is set in stone like Boston.
Not sure that the same will hold for the Warriors who could quite likely still see some changes in the future.
But…like you said, two games…should probably get to 66 before we start thinking about this. :)
Twitter: @NateP_SBN.
by Nate Parham on Dec 27, 2011 11:19 AM PST up reply actions
Well Ronaldinho. If you watched the ESPN broadcast of the game vs the clipps you woulda heard Mullin and Van Gundy both say that there is no doubt that Malone will be a head coach in the league very soon. If he can bring down the opponents field goal % at any rate similar that he did in N.O and Cleveland, I think its pretty obvious that the NBA owners/GM’s will notice. If anybody can turn the Warriors into a respected defensive team they will be credited with doing 1 of the greatest coaching jobs of alltime.
That's why
Lacob needs to pay that man!
extrabaggs
"Just your typical Giants scoring rally: A faceburger on the basepaths, two errors from the second baseman and a bases-loaded balk."
by Badly Browned on Dec 27, 2011 11:55 AM PST up reply actions
Hey...
They did make him the highest paid assistant in the league. Not much more they can do to keep him around.
by olympicmike on Dec 27, 2011 12:10 PM PST up reply actions
Pay him more!
lol
extrabaggs
"Just your typical Giants scoring rally: A faceburger on the basepaths, two errors from the second baseman and a bases-loaded balk."
by Badly Browned on Dec 27, 2011 12:19 PM PST up reply actions
Haha
let’s have two guys on head coach salaries!! I’d be totally ok with that, as long as no one sends me the bill…
by olympicmike on Dec 27, 2011 12:50 PM PST up reply actions
Jerry Jones did that with the cowboys a couple years back. It can work for a season but eventually that Assistant is gonna want to be in the big chair. Lacob should be scouting the NBA and NCAA for the best defensive mind available for a assistant job. Getting Malone was the move of the offseason so far. He chose us over the Lakers. The day Lacob can get players to do that is when this franchise has been totally changed.
I agree with you...
I don’t see Malone hanging around all that long. The only way he stays more than two years is if the team performs very poorly. I think the likely scenario is that this team sees a substantial improvement on the defensive end in that time, and Malone gets a head coaching gig.
If Malone is so great, then why not fire Mark Jackson when the time comes. I do not see the problem. Our FO should have plenty of info to make the decision by then. This is a no lose scenario no matter how I look at it. You seam greedy to have your cake and eat it too.
With all due respect, I am a Analyst Hall of Fame candidate. If you are offended by my comment, I did write "With all due respect".
by KillaContract on Dec 27, 2011 3:11 PM PST up reply actions
Because MJ can get guys to do things Malone probably could not if he was the HC. Thats why leadership is important, Lawrence Frank is a great X’s and O’s guy but the average NBA player cant relate to him and wont go through a wall for him. MJ is more equipped to deal with the ego of the modern day NBA player, Leadership with great X and O assistants is the total package.
by J-RIDAH on Dec 27, 2011 7:52 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Because MJ can get guys to do things Malone probably could not if he was the HC
If we had actually MJ I’m sure the guys would follow him but why would they follow our TV announcer/rookie coach more than an experienced coach?
They just tell him and the media what they want to hear and wait to see how it all shakes out.
Mirror on the wall
Here we are again.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Dec 27, 2011 8:05 PM PST up reply actions
Vets followed MJ as a rookie. He’s probably the 1 man in basketball you’ve never heard any of his peers say a bad thing about. Even a legend like Jordan has a rep for being a rude asshole. Mark Jackson is a leader of men. As much as I wanted Budenholzer, who would you rather have talking to Monta about being a better leader between him and MJ?
Can we stop calling him MJ?
I keep thinking it’s “Michael Jordan” lol
As much as I wanted Budenholzer, who would you rather have talking to Monta about being a better leader between him and MJ?
Jordan probably would connect with Montay better
Mirror on the wall
Here we are again.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Dec 27, 2011 9:31 PM PST up reply actions
He was never a good teamate
you do know the goal of teams is winning ?
Mirror on the wall
Here we are again.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Dec 27, 2011 9:51 PM PST up reply actions
Just because his teams won made him a good teamate? How many of his ex-teamates congratulated him when he became a owner? He did not make anybody better. He was just out of this world great as a player thats why they won. That makes him a winner, not a good teamate. If you was to ask MJ for a autograph and told him you bought every pair of Jordans that ever hit the market, you would find out what kind of guy he is when he tells you to get the f__k out his face.
He did not make anybody better.
I disagree strongly with that. He may be a dick, and his teammates may not have liked him, but he did make his teammates better in a variety of ways. First, the level of intensity he brought to practice and the way he got on his teammates if they weren’t busting their ass meant everyone on MJ’s team was going hard in practice day in and day out. That level of intensity and competition will make everyone a better player. Second, his own work ethic, both in practice and outside of practice, is going to pressure his teammates to work hard during and outside of practice. Third, MJ as a player would do whatever it took to win, which meant involving his teammates and helping put them in a position to succeed. As a player on the court, his play made his teammates better by creating good shots for them and allowing them to play to their strengths and avoid their weaknesses.
Now, I don’t disagree with your overall point. I’m not saying his teammates liked him. I’m not saying he’s a great guy. However, he did make his teammates better.
by Missing Barry on Dec 28, 2011 9:16 AM PST up reply actions
MB, the same argument could be used to say T.O was a good teamate. His work ethic is a thing of legend, his production is hall of fame worthy. But there is a reason TJ Houshmenzadah has a job and T.O does not.
I did not call MJ a good teammate. I only said he makes his teammates better.
by Missing Barry on Dec 28, 2011 9:29 AM PST up reply actions
And this is where we differ, I see no way Jordan has made any teamate better. I dont recall any of his teamates saying he made them better. Playing with a super talented ball hog does not make you a better player.
Ball hog? Hmmm?
Horace Grant, a close friend of Pippen’s who won three titles with Jordan’s Bulls, was shocked to hear of Pippen’s comments.
“Pip is my man, and we will always be close but I totally disagree,” Grant said Friday on “The Waddle & Silvy Show” on ESPN 1000. "LeBron is going to be one of the top players to ever play the game. But Michael Jeffrey Jordan, who we bumped heads with at times, is I think in my era, the best who ever played the game.
“I’m kind of at a loss for words because Michael Jordan … when you win numerous MVPs and you’ve taken the team to six championships — and probably could have been eight if he didn’t retire those two years — and MVPs in the playoffs … and he made us better.
“Believe me, he made myself, Scottie, B.J. [Armstrong], even Bill Cartwright who I love, he made us better players. He gave us that confidence. But first we had to earn his trust. And once we earned his trust you saw championship after championship.”
http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/nba/news/story?id=6599168
That was the very first article I found looking for a teammate saying Jordan made them better.
I know you’re a big Jordan fan, if you haven’t read it already, I’d recommend this biography on him. Practices with Jordan were definitely something that made guys better. You can’t help but get better practicing with that kind of intensity. A few players couldn’t handle it and had their confidence completely crushed by Jordan’s relentless criticism, but for the most part, it lead to a whole lot of hard work from the entire team. That’s not the same as saying Jordan is a good teammate, or well-liked, or a good person…but he did make his teammates better.
by Missing Barry on Dec 28, 2011 10:08 AM PST up reply actions
Well if Horace said he made them better, who am I to disagree? You got me MB. This is what I mean when I say im willing to capitulate when im proven wrong.
Playing with a super talented ball hog does not make you a better player
you keep forgetting that the objective is to win games so the player that can make your team win the most is by definition the best team mate. You don’t need to like him or respect him, those feelings are not the goal in a numbers scored sport.
Mirror on the wall
Here we are again.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Dec 28, 2011 10:56 AM PST up reply actions
J -
The difference between MJ and TO is that MJ pushed his teammates to new heights. TO didn’t and was only divisive.
There were undoubtably some teammates who couldn’t handle Jordan’s competitiveness. But to say that the way he pushed them didn’t make them better, well, that’s revisionist history.
Just because his teams won made him a good teamate?
now you got it.
Mirror on the wall
Here we are again.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Dec 28, 2011 10:49 AM PST up reply actions
Alright, you go to your local park and get in a pickup game with the best player in the park as your teamate, allow him to take most of the shots along with the second best player on the team while you get to share the credit for the wins. I dont think that makes you a better player just because you rode on their backs to victory. But if you do more power to you.
Well that really depends on what you define as being a better player. Maybe you don’t become a better scorer because the other 2 guys are taking all the shots, but that doesn’t mean you did not become a better player by playing with them. There are other aspects to the game than just scoring, or being able to score on your own.
I dont think that makes you a better player
the question was who is the better team mate not who could make you the better player. The better team mate is the guy who wins the most games for the team. Making you a better player is not the issue.
Mirror on the wall
Here we are again.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Dec 28, 2011 3:27 PM PST up reply actions
Jackson has a cheap HC salary.
2 million is very low. No reason we couldn’t give Malone 1 milloon.
by GovernorStephCurry on Dec 27, 2011 4:55 PM PST up reply actions
Probably, but we knew that
No way he was lasting.
That said, if he instills the principals and our other coaches are bright, we’ll be ok.
Boston didn’t fall apart without Tibs. I mean they were a Kendrick Perkins injury away from beating Lakers in 2010.
I mean they were a Kendrick Perkins injury away from beating Lakers in 2010.
They were also a healthy Bynum away from not even making it to game 7. I just feel the need to always point that out for fairness’ sake. ;)
by Missing Barry on Dec 27, 2011 1:20 PM PST up reply actions
ooooh Good point.
Rematch.
Need more KG scowls.
woah woah woah
Jerry West
the logo is the way to go!
Don't agree, here. No one gave Curry credit for d, but u saw what a lame Curry did to Rose last night!
It was a coaching problem last year, plus these guys are growing. Same applies to Monta and Reggie. With some solid team d, their offensive POTENTIAL and value has always been there. Jackson appears to be capable to teaching that to the guards. If they click, this backcourt is a dream backcourt!
unimaginative (to say the least) offensive scheme
Aptly described.
I'm the soul brotha' like no other!
Can’t agree with that. I saw some nice motion on some possessions I didn’t see all of last year. Really liked a few of the sets we ran. Also saw a lot of variation – we were running pick and roll, post ups, motion…so basically, I completely disagree.
by Missing Barry on Dec 27, 2011 1:22 PM PST up reply actions
I think he was referring to last year's offense...
by warriorsablaze on Dec 27, 2011 1:47 PM PST up reply actions
Oh, then yes, I’d agree. So far we look better in that respect this year.
by Missing Barry on Dec 27, 2011 1:49 PM PST up reply actions
I was referring to last year. I am not a wordsmith,but, "unimaginative" is the kindest way I could describe it.
I have a few other words to describe our offensive rotations and scheme for last year, but, they would not be appropriate for use, in here!
Also, can you imagine Steph and Monta’s assist totals if majority of our bigs didn’t have stone hands?
Need to give Kwame Beans’ hands.
extrabaggs
"Just your typical Giants scoring rally: A faceburger on the basepaths, two errors from the second baseman and a bases-loaded balk."
by Badly Browned on Dec 27, 2011 8:18 AM PST up reply actions
and feet.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Dec 27, 2011 8:52 AM PST up reply actions
...
And David Lee’s shooting touch and basketball IQ. Then we’d have a big man to be reckoned with!
I have to say, though it may be largely psychological, having a big man who is actually bigger (in height, length, and bulk) than most opposing bigs is a pretty welcome sight.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Dec 27, 2011 9:00 AM PST up reply actions
GSoMer tafkasam, for going to the game and calling the victory in the game thread!!
Best christmas gift. Ever
by tafkasam on Dec 27, 2011 6:58 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
Also, maybe consider this a stocking stuffer...
There were times during last night’s game where I was thinking, “Maybe tafkasam was right about this team being able to challenge for the playoffs”. ;)
If they play the way they did last night every single game, this is going to be a better team than a lot of people predicted…self included.
I do think teams will start to “catch up” to the W’s effort, but they also still have yet to get Klay Thompson really going as a scorer (and I really think his shot will start falling) and the team as a whole clearly hasn’t gelled offensively…so they could be considerably better mid-season…?
*Takes small sip of Kool Aid *
Twitter: @NateP_SBN.
by Nate Parham on Dec 27, 2011 10:05 AM PST up reply actions
*takes a smaller swig of Kool Aid
"I gots ta say the nay no." - Pootie Tang
by Tremendous Hops on Dec 27, 2011 10:46 AM PST up reply actions
When considering the Curry-Monta Coaching Project, one has to keep in mind
that Curry has made a heck of an effort at point guard. As we know, he is not a pure PG, and made his mark as a lights out SG. His TOs reflect that transition. His extraordinary effort to redefine his game at that position is beginning to show. Monta is also a lights out SG, who can pass very well while penetrating. If Jackson can get these two guards clicking together, getting someone to spell them will be his biggest problem in the backcourt. I think the rookie, Jennings, has great potential at PG. If the schedule allows it, I would love to see him get some quality minutes. Of course, if Lin comes back, that is another option (spell time). Not much depth at SG for Monta. Thompson can possibly get some minutes there, but, he is more appropriate for SF spell time. That is why we blew it in the long run, by letting Reggie go. He gave us the option of spell time at SF, SG, and even PG (though I never felt PG was a proper role for him).
I’ve never been a big believer in differentiating between the 2 and 3. They’re both wings. Thompson and Rush fit both positions.
by Missing Barry on Dec 27, 2011 1:24 PM PST up reply actions
Monta, however, does not. It’s only at the extremes that you need to differentiate.
by Missing Barry on Dec 27, 2011 1:25 PM PST up reply actions
I'd argue that with Monta it's only about defense.
He just gives up way too much size to come close to compensating for it against larger wings.
size and effort
Proud member of Club FTR. falconPUNCH! for president!
The 3 needs to be a better rebounder than the 2. The 5 can be pulled either way by play action and the 3 needs to rebound the side where the 4 isn’t.
With all due respect, I am a Analyst Hall of Fame candidate. If you are offended by my comment, I did write "With all due respect".
by KillaContract on Dec 27, 2011 3:21 PM PST up reply actions
the 3 doesn't have to be a better rebounder than the 2
they just have to be able to guard the bigger 3s
they just have to be able to guard the bigger 3s
This can be offset on the other end by the bigger 3 not being able to guard the smaller 3. The rebounding problem remains.
With all due respect, I am a Analyst Hall of Fame candidate. If you are offended by my comment, I did write "With all due respect".
by KillaContract on Dec 27, 2011 3:38 PM PST up reply actions
Your team needs a given amount of rebounding. Doesn’t particularly matter where it comes from. If you have Dwight Howard and Kevin Love to gobble up every rebound, both your wings can be inept rebounders and your team is fine. It’s all about putting together combinations that give the team what it needs on the whole. It’s not about making sure every position fits a prototype.
As for side to side things, any of your players can end up anywhere on a given play when the shot goes up. You rebound based on where you are at that time.
by Missing Barry on Dec 27, 2011 4:02 PM PST up reply actions
You needed a hypothetical team of Dwight Howard and Kevin Love to refute my logic. You then must need Dwight Howard and Kevin Love on your team for your “a wing is a wing” logic to be true. I could say Dwight Howard and 4 Dwyane Wades would also work but my comment was intentionally made to be very general.
With all due respect, I am a Analyst Hall of Fame candidate. If you are offended by my comment, I did write "With all due respect".
by KillaContract on Dec 27, 2011 4:29 PM PST up reply actions
if your 2 guard is a good rebounder, your 3 doesnt have to be
there no rule that says as you go down the position ladder you have to get more rebounds than the smaller players. there are plenty of 3s in the league that can’t rebound.
You: 3 needs to be a better rebounder than 2
Me: Your team needs rebounding, for instance, Dwight/Love on one team would mean you could have two crappy wing rebounders – ultimately it’s about making sure the team has enough rebounding, wherever that comes from
You: …?
I feel like we had a miscommunication. Your post doesn’t appear to me that it addresses the points I made? For instance, my Dwight/Love combination hypothetical didn’t even touch on the point of SG vs SF rebounding….
by Missing Barry on Dec 27, 2011 4:56 PM PST up reply actions
Just to clarify my point. Very generally speaking a a good rebounding 3 can help with the problem I detailed in this comment:
The 3 needs to be a better rebounder than the 2. The 5 can be pulled either way by play action and the 3 needs to rebound the side where the 4 isn’t.
This is a nuance to the game that your are overlooking. And no the 5,4,2,1 can not compensate for this because “in general” this would mean they are out of position.
In other words, if both your “wings” are poor rebounders, then your team will likely suck in rebounding unless you have superman at center.
With all due respect, I am a Analyst Hall of Fame candidate. If you are offended by my comment, I did write "With all due respect".
by KillaContract on Dec 27, 2011 5:41 PM PST up reply actions
In other words, if both your "wings" are poor rebounders, then your team will likely suck in rebounding unless you have superman at center.
Yes, I agree with that point. The point of teambuilding is to make sure you are good enough in all the areas that matter to winning. If you have rebounding deficiencies at certain positions, they must be made up elsewhere. If your wings suck at rebounding, you need better rebounding from the 4 and 5 spots, most likely.
This is a nuance to the game that your are overlooking. And no the 5,4,2,1 can not compensate for this because "in general" this would mean they are out of position.
I’m not sure what I’m overlooking. You have one specific situation where apparently the 4 and 5 are on one side, and the 3 is the one with the most rebounding responsibility on the other side. No doubt this happens at times. On the same note, sometimes it’s the other wing, or the PG in that position. Depends on where the offensive players are. Most times, it’s the big men that are around the hoop that are going to end up with the rebound. The goal is for the team to get that rebound as many times as possible, not to win one specific matchup as often as possible (in this case, that matchup is the 3). If you lose the 3 matchup more often than you like, you can still have good team results from winning other matchups more often. If your 3 is a weak rebounder, and your 2 a strong rebounder, those will mostly offset each other. My whole point is you need to be pairing players that complement each other to make sure the team has what it needs. It’s necessarily a contradiction of what you’re saying, more like an alternative thought process.
by Missing Barry on Dec 27, 2011 5:51 PM PST up reply actions
If your 3 is a weak rebounder, and your 2 a strong rebounder, those will mostly offset each other.
In support of my out of position point, in general this is not true because I would rather see the 1 and 2 leaking down the court on a fast break or back on D. Like JB always says a 2 on 1 is better than a 3 on 1.
With all due respect, I am a Analyst Hall of Fame candidate. If you are offended by my comment, I did write "With all due respect".
by KillaContract on Dec 29, 2011 12:31 PM PST up reply actions
From day one ( Vegas) it was evident that Curry has the ability to control the tempo of a game, he does it by seeing the whole floor and constantly moving the ball up court…
This was one play last night that was bothersome, Lee and Curry went for a rebound and Lee wound up with it and it stead of dropping the ball off to Curry he passed across court to Monta, I wonder what Lee was thinking?
The key to this team is to get the ball into Curry’s hands and allow him to puch the ball up court, because everyone else slows the game down..
We may be remembering different plays, but from what I saw at the game, seemed like the defenders didn’t completely run back out yet when Lee cleared the rebound, the pass to Curry had a higher chance of turning into a turnover than the pass to Monta
by JustSomeName on Dec 27, 2011 9:20 AM PST up reply actions
The play I am referring to was when Lee took the ball out of Curry’s hands to get the rebound, Curry was standing right next to him and Lee passed cross court to Monta, it was a strange moment….made one wonder what was going on between him and Lee…
Probably nothing.
Big men are coached to look up the floor and make the first pass to a guard they see to launch a break. Their instincts don’t usually tell them that there’s a PG right next to them.
Big men are by nature big dumb oafs (generally with stone for hands). They don’t have instincts or vision. Probably had no idea Curry was there. It’s just the natural order of things…
by Missing Barry on Dec 27, 2011 1:26 PM PST up reply actions
PG, at that. Too many passes off the oaf’s hands. ;)
by Missing Barry on Dec 27, 2011 1:31 PM PST up reply actions
lol, I kinda guessed u also played the point MB...
However, I am a big believer in the difference between what a 2 and a 3 should, and can be doing, and how you use them in the offense and defense. I have not always seen them, or, used them, as simply wings.
The reason I don’t differentiate is because of what I said in my previous statement – it’s not about an individual providing a certain trait, it’s just about making sure your team has enough of that trait. It can come from anywhere, though. On average, different positions provide different things, including the 2 and 3…but we aren’t that concerned about averages when it comes to pairing individuals. We’re concerned about what each individual provides and how that fits in with the rest of the team.
by Missing Barry on Dec 27, 2011 4:05 PM PST up reply actions
As one of the people who was very critical of the team before the season started...
…I confess I am glad to now be eating a little bit of crow. This team is FAR better than I initially thought they would be. Not saying they should start sizing up rings, but there is clearly something very different about the team this year. You get the sense that they are all determined to endure whatever they have to endure to get the franchise back on the right path. They have shut out all the haters and are keeping the majority of the struggle in-house.
As a result, I am starting to think Kwame Brown may have been one of the better moves. For a guy that the league and most of its fans essentially threw out to wind up on the Warriors is loaded with irony. However, Kwame’s arrival on the Warriors could not be set up for a greater story. If he does anything good whatsoever and/or the Warriors make the playoffs, Kwame will be a fan favorite. Mark my words.
"I gots ta say the nay no." - Pootie Tang
by Tremendous Hops on Dec 27, 2011 9:17 AM PST reply actions
You aren’t eating crow yet though. It’s been two games (one of which we lost). We still are probably headed towards basketball purgatory.
No, I' eating some crow and I'm glad to.
I was talking some pretty serious ish about this team. This is the first time I actually started the season feeling like “F it”. With our same starting 5 coming back, I didn’t see how we made any improvements whatsoever, especially with Biedrins still in the lineup. Then to bring in Kwame Brown???? All this while we strike out on some good free agents, and CP3 goes to the Clippers. You can understand why, as a Warrior fan, that might have seemed like less than the desired result.
But what I see is Mark Jackson having some immediate impact. I just hope he can pull a sustained Singletary maneuver. It sure seems like the players are buying in. With a little success to build on, this Warrior team could actually be quite good. I worry about what will happen when they lose 4 or 5 in a row. Will they buckle? Or will they stand and deliver?
"I gots ta say the nay no." - Pootie Tang
by Tremendous Hops on Dec 27, 2011 10:21 AM PST up reply actions
"I worry about what will happen when they lose 4 or 5 in a row. "
Agree.
And related, I wonder what happens when people have time to really examine game film and figure out how to beat their aggressive defensive scheme. It’s great to see them putting forth the effort to trap the way they are, but it’s high risk – the rotations are sometimes slow and the Clippers showed that good ball movement (or a Chris Paul) can exploit that.
It actually wonders if the next priority really is working on the offense (as most of us assume) or adding some depth to their defensive repertoire. I think what they’re showing now is that they can create offense from their defense because of outstanding perimeter play.
Twitter: @NateP_SBN.
by Nate Parham on Dec 27, 2011 10:30 AM PST up reply actions
The final score of the Clips game was kinda misleading.
If the W’s didn’t collapse in the 4th quarter, they could have pulled it off. You can say whatever you want about what happened in the 4th but the Warriors played the new NBA darlings very tough for 3 quarters largely WITHOUT the input of our two ass-kicking guards. No Top 10 Plays for Griffin? I consider that a victory.
Not terrible if you look at it with rose colored glasses.
"I gots ta say the nay no." - Pootie Tang
by Tremendous Hops on Dec 27, 2011 10:35 AM PST up reply actions
I definitely agree.
I couldn’t be happier with the performance thus far.
Twitter: @NateP_SBN.
by Nate Parham on Dec 27, 2011 10:40 AM PST up reply actions
No Top 10 plays has more to do with it beign a 7:30 game
I liked what I saw, and I definitely think they contained Griffin, but ESPN doesn’t care about stuff like that. He had 22 points! who cares of ten of them came in garbage time and most of the rest on free throws. ESPN rarely airs any highlights from anything after 9 PM eastern.
by Ice Watter In His Veins! on Dec 27, 2011 11:42 AM PST up reply actions
Kwame Brown
You’re absoultely right, Kwame has a chance to reidentify himself as a decent player and us fans will love him if he continues to do what he did yesterday.. Marcus Thompson II said this in a tweet but there was a pass that came quick to Kwame and he caught it! The fact that he was able to catch the pass was impressive, especially with his history of being so bad that he can’t even catch a cold…
I kept waiting for the the typical 4th Q meltdown.
It raised its ugly head but the “W’s hung in tough”. Cani believe that I was able to say that.
by Only In Fairfax on Dec 27, 2011 9:54 AM PST reply actions
I love how ESPN is totally ignoring this great Warriors win. I love me some Rose but c’mon. Truly great win.
Pavelski soaks panties faster than a firehose - Mr. Plank
by GoldenStateGuerrero on Dec 27, 2011 10:03 AM PST reply actions
I heard the apologist 'chicago was tired on a back to back'
Cause we didn’t play last night…
Let the haters hate
They always do. That’s what makes us the greatest fans on earth.
"I gots ta say the nay no." - Pootie Tang
by Tremendous Hops on Dec 27, 2011 10:25 AM PST up reply actions
Heh
This also the same ESPN reporting that lead to their pundits dismissing the Niners at 6-1 because they play in the NFC West, even though, at that point, they had only played one game in conference. Ironically, most of their wins came against the NFC East, the same conference they can’t stop touting.
by Ice Watter In His Veins! on Dec 27, 2011 11:50 AM PST up reply actions
That division is actually worse than the West lol
In my mind at least. Definitely competing for the worst with the AFC South and AFC West
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
Center steals
Beans/Kwame overplays to get steals was quite interesting – without those forced turnovers we would probably have lost.
Main downside is that beans was not handling defensive rebounds well, he was not blocking out guys (same with Lee).
It's kind of a smart strategy
Most bigs are not used to ball pressure on their dribble or in low post.
Particularly for how slow Noah and Boozer play.
It might not work v. Amare or Howard, but it will vs. a lot of teams, who try to work it inside.
Well done staff
Definitely...
You can see that they handled Blake much differently than Boozer/Noah. Against LA they were doing a lot of doubling on the first dribble in the post, and last night they played the bigs straight up with super aggressive defense on the entry pass from the lone defender. Jackson has said repeatedly that they are going to mix it up on defense, and show a lot of different looks to opposing players.
by olympicmike on Dec 27, 2011 12:14 PM PST up reply actions
Scouting/Game Planning
Pretty cool concept our coaches got here :)
I have to say, I love the fact Jackson is so flexible and open-minded. Really checks his ego at the door and seems to trust his staff’s recommendations as opposed to thinking he knows it all.
He seems to be more open to engaging a conversation on how to defend someone, then why they can’t (and saying let’s just out run them).
It's early..
but I’ve been impressed with Jackson so far. I was pretty skeptical coming into the season, but I’m pulling for the guy.
To your point about flexibility and checking his ego, I remember one time out where after he finished talking to the players Malone came up and said something in his ear. He started nodding and got this look on his face that I read as a sort of “my bad” self critical wince. The communication between the two seems to be pretty good, from the outside looking in.
by olympicmike on Dec 27, 2011 12:54 PM PST up reply actions
Do you think the whole NFL system of coaching will become a new trend?
With assistants becoming more powerful like coordinators and head coaches acting more like managers.
You see it a bit in Dallas (though Carlisle does a lot, he leans heavily on his stafF), you saw it in Boston, etc.
u gotta remember
Jackson went to the niners HQ during the lockout and asked Harbaugh how he changed his team. Jackson seems to be doing exactly what Harbaugh does: Changing game plans according to opponents and allowing his assistants to do their jobs are two big ones that have helped the niners all season.
What happened with Legos, they used to be simple. Oh come on, I know you know what I’m talking about, Legos were simple. Something happened out here while I was inside. Harry Potter Legos, Star Wars Legos, complicated kits, tiny little blocks. I mean I’m not saying its bad I just wanna know what happened.
I’ve been happy with the limited bit I’ve seen of Jackson so far this year. I expected the coaching version of the insight-less commentary he pitched on TV. So far it’s been much more interesting than that.
I expected the coaching version of the insight-less commentary he pitched on TV. So far it’s been much more interesting than that.
it’s almost like he has a ghost coach pulling his strings?
Mirror on the wall
Here we are again.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Dec 28, 2011 3:28 PM PST up reply actions
either that or...
as some people around here suggested, he was specifically asked to have a certain on-air personality.
whatever the reason, I’m happy. So far (yeah, I know: 2 games), the new staff seems to be able to deliver on their promised emphasis on D. Rotations are far and away better than what we had to endure under Smart.
"You don't need to be an Adonis to be a good pro player...
…but Lee looks like he’s lived in zero gravity his whole life"
-the Bimbo Coles Experience
by Duby Dub Dubs on Dec 28, 2011 3:53 PM PST up reply actions
Boozer is a lazy SOB
He doesn’t hardly ever come towards passes. He saves his energy for when he’s already got the ball where he wants it.
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
If I didn’t know better, I would have thought an entirely different group of players last night were wearing the Warriors unis. We looked like a crappy pushover in game 1. Last night, we looked like a serious force to be reckoned with, stomping Chicago down like flies in our path. The truth? Like always, it’s probably somewhere in the middle. Where remains to be seen. Excellent showing last night, though. Team looked like a talented and well oiled machine. More of that, please!
Where is Charles Jenkins?
There’s no possibly way that he’s worse than Ish Smith.
by Spider Jerusalem on Dec 27, 2011 2:17 PM PST reply actions
Weird, right?
I know there was a lot of word from the get go that Jackson liked Ish a lot, but I expected Jenkins to win the job. It will be interesting to see how that plays out.
As a 2nd round pick from a small school who’s older than most other draftees, seems very plausible to me that Jenkins could simply not be an NBA caliber player, and worse than Ish Smith at that…
by Missing Barry on Dec 27, 2011 4:06 PM PST up reply actions
Could be. I’ve never seen him play, so I don’t have an opinion of him. I’m just pointing out that it’s a possibility, and all 3 things I cited were simply things that make it less likely he succeeds. He may be talented enough to overcome it all – time will tell.
by Missing Barry on Dec 27, 2011 4:24 PM PST up reply actions
Ish Smith has already shown that he isn't an NBA player at this point.
Might as well give Jenkins a shot to show if he’s any better.
by Spider Jerusalem on Dec 27, 2011 4:46 PM PST up reply actions
Not disagreeing with that. Just saying Jenkins could possibly be worse.
by Missing Barry on Dec 27, 2011 5:07 PM PST up reply actions
I've also followed his career for a while, and am aware of his abilities.
I’d be surprised if he didn’t end up as a quality rotation player.
by Spider Jerusalem on Dec 27, 2011 4:47 PM PST up reply actions
I like him a lot, also, gov.
There was a game in college that Rose went down to play Mr. Jenkins. Rose creamed him for 3 quarters, but he hit 17 in the fourth quarter in a losing effort. He is strong, and CAN score (unlike what I have been hearing).
Look at the speed of the pg’s we played the 1st 2 games. You’d much rather have Ish on those guys than CJ. Look for CJ to get nice minutes against NY.
So if you're fast you can play defense?
Even if you’re small and skinny?
by Spider Jerusalem on Dec 27, 2011 8:14 PM PST up reply actions
Ish can stay in front of any pg in the league, Jenkins cant. So when it comes to on ball defense at the 1 spot, speed matters alot. Its not everything because if it was Nash would be all defense, but look at the 3 games Ish has played here and tell me he’s not a good defender.
Ish can stay in front of any pg in the league
a rabbit can stay in front of a mack truck but that don’t mean he can stop it?
Mirror on the wall
Here we are again.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Dec 28, 2011 3:29 PM PST up reply actions 3 recs
LMFAO!!
a rabbit can stay in front of a mack truck but that don’t mean he can stop it?
pretty much sums up the Beans school of defense (arms in air, get in the way of the opposition…foul)
"You don't need to be an Adonis to be a good pro player...
…but Lee looks like he’s lived in zero gravity his whole life"
-the Bimbo Coles Experience
by Duby Dub Dubs on Dec 28, 2011 3:55 PM PST up reply actions
My favorite part of last night
Was when Monta got posted up by a bigger player and didn’t reach wildly and leave an open path to the basket, but instead held his ground with only a little bit of a reach and allowed his help defense to force a difficult shot (or was it a Turnover?).
This is what gives me the most encouragement that things are changing going forward.
Anybody remember Ronnie Fields out of Chicago? This is what he says about small(er) guards in the backcourt (Interview by SLAM).
SLAM: From a talent standpoint, do you think you could have played in the League and had some success?
RF: Oh yeah, definitely. That was the Jordan era, the big guard era. I’m 6-3 now, almost 6-4, so at the time, they were saying that I would have to play the point. But you notice that era changed. Most of your scorers that come off the bench, your Jason Terry’s, Jamal Crawford’s, a lot of guys aren’t actual point guards. A lot has changed now. You can put two guards out 6-3, 6-4 together. Last night Boston had three with [Ray] Allen, Nate Robinson, and Rondo. So yeah, definitely now. And even back then I think I could have played, it just would have took a process of watching and learning, but I still know could go out and compete at that level.
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
- Shaquille O’Neal is in a Chinese beer commercial, too (VIDEO)
- ‘Deep Thoughts’ and Cheap Thoughts: San Antonio Spurs vs. Oklahoma City Thunder
- 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
