Someone recently suggested that both Irving and Lillard will be considered better than Curry by most on this site by year end. As point guards, it might take more than a year, butI think he may be right. Breaking down defenses is the key to winning on offense and that is clearly not Curry's strength.
Curry's best asset is his shot, and the highest percentage shot usually comes when you are not dribbling and the ball is passed to you. He is among the best pure shooters in the league.
So why is this guy the point guard of this team?The simple answer is that he is the best guy at that role, but I wonder if the "Curry the Point Guard-Leader"" mentality may extend beyond the bench to the owners. I also wonder if this guy will ever truly hit his potential in a traditional point guard mold.
I think we are already seeing the Jack/Curry combo because Mark Jackson knows this as well. They are running the ball through Lee occasionally as well. But Jackson can only play guys on the roster.
I am still not convinced that the owners of this team care more about winning than anything else. I like Curry but even if things go well, with Bogut, no one seriously believes this could be a championship team. This may be a bit unfair to him, since he seems like an OK guy, but do the owners feel they need fresh-faced, clean-cut Stephen Curry to build that arena in SF? And although I like the trade for bball reasons, could that be part the reason why Monta was ditched?