I agree with i hate the warriors. Curry does make some boneheaded plays and I think that's why he gets yanked. He's not the second coming of Steve Nash. He's a combo guard who is shoot first, but he's a good one who can handle the rock. Monta is good, too, but more like Allen Iverson who can drive, but also has an outside shot. He can dish assists, too, when he's double teamed or his lane is taken away. Neither Curry nor Ellis are like the pass first Nash. And Lee was too weak in that Charlotte game. He needs to wrap a person up instead of just pushing him in the back. I don't want to review all the bad plays, but just saying that Curry and Lee should take the blame, too. Lee also has been making some weak passes. He needs to see how the defense is playing before making the pass. Anyway, I'm at the point where I'm okay with firing Keith Smart now. Smart is not a winning coach. He could be another Jim O'Brien type casualty if the Warriors lose another four or five straight. Instead, why not just cut bait now? It does not mean the players get a free ride. They still have to produce and if they don't under a new coach, then they should be put on the trading block.
Has Biedrins made any improvement mentally? I would say he has regressed. His FT has somehow plummeted. He no longer blocks shots the way he used to. He makes the same stupid touch fouls 30 feet from the basket in year 7 that he made in year 1. Is he ever going to change this? Is Monta ever going to stop making that careless one-handed pass? Or stop getting caught in the air with nowhere to go? Or stop standing and reaching on defense, or standing and watching on rebounds? Will Reggie Williams ever become anything other than who he is right now? Are the Warriors going to suddenly "wake up" one day and start playing smart like the Spurs? I'm sorry, but I don't think so. You can learn and be taught systems in the NBA, but frankly, if you get to this point and still don't have common sense and fundamentals, chances are you aren't going to improve much there. I don't really see anyone being pessimistic. But I did have much higher hopes for this team. I thought the addition of an all-star staring PF would mean something. I thought Beans was going to return to form after injuries. The one bright spot, really, has been DWright out of nowhere, but even he (the super value that he is) has serious flaws, including being the weakest finisher in the entire NBA. I don't think anyone is making Curry exempt from criticism. But, to be fair, that's not essentially equal. Curry's A/TO ratio is much better, at 1.94 vs. 1.31. He's much better with the ball. And he's year 2, which gives him more room to grow, and thus more incentive to "stay with."
The team looked pretty solid today. It's nice to see bench production. It allows for the starters from feeling like they need to do much (Ellis tonight). I liked the rotations Smart was using. I think he did a good job tonight. It's nice that others got to shine since they were put in more natural positions to shine, as in no Vlad at the 4. Also it's nice to see Reggie Williams produce too. I also think it's interesting B Wright plays more often as the 3. I wonder if they want him to become a AK47 like player... Vlad at 4 and Brandan at 3, kind of odd.
Plus, a lot of Monta's assists come from drive and dumps off of 1 on 1 scenarios, not from within the flow of the offense. Not that I'm against building that skill, I'm glad Monta has. But Curry has a much higher ceiling in that category.
Yeah, there were some nice things to come away with from tonight. Keeping in mind, though, that Utah looks like a bottom-feeder without Deron Williams. Curry was fantastic. That's the kind of thing I would like to start seeing regularly. He needs to be the man. I don't know if he'll ever be allowed--psychologically, maybe--to be the man, as long as Monta is here. But when Curry's the man, and goes with aggressiveness, he looks awesome. Didn't hurt that Deron was out though, lol. But how good is Curry at going to the rack? He looks like Steve Nash. He finishes better with his off-hand than Dorell Wright does with his shooting hand! And Beans had another solid outing -- 11pts, 10 reb, 3 blk. I see an odd number of points there, which either means a 3pt shot or a FT. Yes, Beans had an and-1 and hit the FT! Things went well tonight, against a team that looked direction-less. Well, that is, except for Raja Bell having his way with Monta, both offensively and defensively. That was a nasty match-up. Udoh looked pretty good too. So did Lou and Law. After blowing that lead to Charlotte, it's going to be tough -- schedule wise and mentally -- to start winning games again. This was a good start, to show they haven't crumpled mentally. But POs are still a non-issue, so the brass should be thinking rebuild mode. I like that Lacob is realistic about it. I say give Udoh the run. Heck, give Brandan Wright the run, for better or worse. Let Curry be the man. Recall Lin. Trade Monta, Radmonovic, and Gadz. They are three valuable trade pieces right now. Move anybody who gets you a good value -- long-term -- in return. I'd definitely trade immediate value for long-term rebuilding potential. Of course, Iggy is only 2 years older than Monta, so I still consider him a long-term piece to try to get, lol. Get me some young leapers like DeAndre Jordan or JaVale McGee at the C spot, and a tough defender like Iggy at the SG...
I didn't see the game, but saw a couple of highlights and comments. Monta Ellis played very good defense according to David Lee. Had a bunch of loose balls. Lee said defense won the game. And Monta had an off-shooting night, so the rest of the team picked up the slack according to Smart. Interesting. If you have Ellis' game, then he's going to drive and dish or dump off for his assists. It's another way of playing the guard spot and the way Kobe does it. It's a matter of spacing, so you give Ellis his room and then rotate for the pass. If you're open, then it's Ellis' job to get it to you. I guess the triangle is better for someone like Kobe or Ellis. As for the higher ceiling, I would be looking for ten assists as the mark where I think a PG is a pass first type PG. Guys like Nash and Baron seem to be able to put up the assists in a hurry when they got it going. Curry is a shoot first guy though and he needs to make his shots to get his game going. Let's see how Curry does when the defense starts to focus on him or double him. He'll have to adjust his game.
Shoot 1st point guards can still run the offense and get others going. Look at Tim Hardaway. I'm not comparing the 2, but I think it's way too wide of a brush to paint with to categorize guys as shoot-first of pass-first and say hat's where one can be effective in the NBA. Would you say Deron Williams is a pass-first point guard? He's Arguably the best point guard in the league next to Paul. I'd consider both of them guys who take what the defense gives them. Curry needs to get to that point. He's still forcing shots, but I think he can definitely get there. I'd love to see him play under a great coach. Can you imagine him running the pick and roll under Sloan? I still want Ty Corbin as our coach for that reason. I'm not too sure Monta is in that same group as far as assist/turnovers are concerned. I'd like to see him not force it as many times and recognize when there are mismatches that will result in easier shots. But to be fair, I don't expect him to. he's one of the best pure scorers in the league. I think he's pretty close to as good as he's going to get right now, which is a place that many would love to be.
I'm right there with you CohanHater. With Curry I don't think you can label him any real type of PG. Is he a "pure PG" a la Kidd or Nash, I suppose not. But I also wouldn't label him a "shoot first PG" which is where you see guys like Steve Francis, AI (when he played PG), Gil, etc. Like CH said most of the best PGs also have scoring ability. Curry is a very, very good shooter and highly efficient but I'd would also say hes firmly a PG as far as position goes- he gets guys involved, makes the right pass, sets guys up, etc. He and Monta average almost the same apg but the difference is visible, Monta is looking to SCORE and just finds guys in midair when he gets shut down. Curry is facilitating. There really aren't many Jason Kidd or Rondo types out there who aren't capable of scoring a lot. Even Nash will have his outbursts but look at the majority of top PGs: Chris Paul, Deron Williams, Chauncey Billups, Russell Westbrook, Tim Hardaway of old, prime Baron. They can all score, they'll take (and make) the shot if the defense gives it to them. Even a guy like Tony Parker who really isn't a natural PG at all hes become so dangerous because hes got that scoring ability and developed a great floor general attitude. In a way I think the PGs who can really light you up are among the most successful in the playoffs. Chauncey, Parker, and Deron are/were forces in the playoffs in their prime and none of those guys generally dish out huge numbers of assists, they're damn hard to stop scoring and a nightmare for defenses and then when they get collapsed on they kill you with the pass. Its all about getting the highest % shot. Curry's a 47% shooter which is a concern for the defense so if he creates and gets a good look, you have to like that shot. If the defense collapses, someone else must be open for a better % shot and Curry will find them. Of course he'll also find open men in the mean time and create opportunities where they otherwise do not exist. Curry's a very, very efficient scorer. Hes lethal with the jump shot. He'll make some great passes and just look at the team and individual FG%'s last night- he makes guys better. IMO hes a PG, not a SG. You can play him at SG because hes a very good scorer but its also limiting his abilities and his maximum impact on the team. Hes still only 22 and didn't make the switch to PG all that long ago. I've referenced Chauncey taking time to really become a PG, Nash took a while to really get going. Curry is already having a huge impact when allowed to dominate the ball, over time the TOs, defense, fouls, and floor general-ing will get much better.
Never said shoot first PGs couldn't run the offense. I said Curry was a shoot first PG in regards to the higher ceiling remark. I think guys like Chris Paul and Deron Williams have reached the plateau in that they can dish out assists and score at the same time. I'd put Nash in there, too. Still, I consider those guys pass first PGs who became scorers. In Curry, we have a combo guard who is shoot first and playing PG. I think he's going to score more than hand out assists just like Monta only their games are different. Maybe in terms of game flow, Curry would score more within the flow than in iso situations. Second, I questioned if he was double teamed like Monta, then how would he react. Right now, he's got Monta taking the heat off him, so it's a valid question as how Curry would do to take the double team. I checked on some 2009 games where Monta was out and Curry took upon the scoring load. It didn't seem like he upped his assists. Also, the Warriors lost a lot more games than they won. This is Don Nelson coaching now. Maybe that's why Ellis is still the number one option.
It's hard to say. I think if you put Curry in a different offense on a different team, you'd see a drastic improvement in his game. I'm not too sure about Monta though. I disagree about Paul and Williams being pass-first guys who learned how to score. They can fill it up, but they have a team and a system around them that give them the flexibility to not have to score. I think if they were put in Curry's role, they would probably look to score more than they currently do. Don't get me wrong, Curry's not in their league now...But I think he could be. I think Monta hit his ceiling. A "team-oriented" Monta is a Iverson-Rip Hamilton mix. I still don't see him distributing much in that role though.
I think you can put Paul and Williams on any team and the team would be better because they're pass first guys. I'm not sure if Curry can get to their level right now. The problem we're having with Curry and Ellis is that they both want to shoot the ball. There's not enough touches to go around. Also, people probably do not like Monta because he's short. If he's Kobe size and doing what he's doing now, then no one would be complaining. I rather just keep our back court for now and see how they do with a better front court.
I think you're right there. It's not so much height, but strenght. He simply can't guard bigger guards. Or get to the line of offense. He has to avoid contact or he'll just get beat up over the course of the season. I'd rather try them out together with a "real" coach too. That is, unless we can significantly upgrade the front court by moving one of them.
Yes, I agree. Monta's and Curry's games are night and day. Shoot-first and Pass-first are really limited, confining terms that don't accurately portray what's happening at the position. Really, what it comes down to is what kind of feel does the player have for the game? That's the essential question. Heck, even a 6'10" guy can play "point forward" if he has that special feel for the game. It's something that, while it can be taught, is primarily something that seems innate, intangible, instinctual. Having court vision, a sense for the spatial relationships on the court, the natural feel and flow of the movements of all 10 players on the court, the timing, the tempo, the touch and feel to deliver passes in tight spaces without having to "think" about the pass first... Those are some of the "it" qualities that make a point guard special. Whether they prefer to use these gifts to pass first (to set up their scoring) or shoot first (to set up their teammates) is rather irrelevant. The fact that they are inherently "tuned in" to the wavelengths of the court, the spacing, the schemes, and the vibes of the players -- that is what makes a PG special. Does Monta have this? No, not really. Has he developed some tools and improved his game over the years? Sure, to some extent. But does he really seem to embody this natural "feel" for the game? Of course not. He's a superman athlete who does extraordinary things. But he still has not learned how to "be quick without hurrying." He still seems to have only one gear, going 100 miles an hour, getting caught in the air, crashing on offensive fouls, or making spectacular plays. Nash, on the other hand, exudes this "presence." This consciousness. This awareness. He is always getting anywhere he wants on the court. Not because of quickness, but because of spatial relationships. Energy flow. Balance. Kinesthetic awareness. He is the epitome of "be quick but don't hurry." He rarely has to force anything, because everything has a right time. It doesn't always have to be fast. Sometimes, the more decisive, clear, precise movement is the slower one. On the break, slow up slightly to get the defender off balance, feel the flow of your teammates on the wings, allow them to move in a way that creates dynamic spatial relationships, and then allow the ball to move into their hands naturally, in the right moment. Does Curry have this? He shows signs. He is much more on this side of the spectrum and Monta is much more on the freak athlete side of the spectrum. Curry was born with a basketball in his hands. Born dribbling circles around his dad. He has this feel. Can he elevate and dunk on 7 footers, or blow by the guards like the Mississipi Missle Monta Ellis? No, of course not. Can he finish on these guys as well as Monta? I would argue yes. But it would help to have watched the game last night to know what I mean. Did you see Curry finish time and again amongst Kirilinko, Milsap, and Al Jefferson? Did you see him finish right over the big oaf Fesenko, with his left hand (just like Nash does?) That was pure feel. Yes, of course he practices those moves, but it's obvious he is "in tune" with the game in a way that, well, Monta Ellis will never be. Totally different players, other than physical appearance.
Good post, Oop. I like the points you made, and I agree. And I agree with CohanHater too...I'm over Smart. Lets get an upgrade there. Might be easier said than done, but I don't see anything good coming out of the current situation.
Thanks, yeah, with Smart it's a tough read for me. I was pretty happy with the idea of Smart initially, because I remember him being the "defensive coordinator" for Nellie, and I remember him playing two real bigs together (i.e. no Mags at PF) when he took over for Nellie from time to time. But this is one of the most atrocious defensive teams in the league right now, so there goes that theory. However, I think it's personnel as much as the coach. With Monta/Curry, though, you're going to get what you're going to get. It's a trade off -- fast paced offensive back court, paper thin defensive back court. And because the perimeter is so penetrable, everything else breaks down. Is this Smart's fault? Well, he's not appearing to help things. But I do like how he's still motivated, relatively young (coaching wise), and he has the players believing still. They have good body language. That's a positive. So, I can't give up on him yet. WE just need to make some moves and shuffle our assets around to get some better defense and toughness. I'd gladly take a downgrade in offensive "flash" for some toughness and defense on the perimeter. Dorell Wright is scoring twice what Shane Battier is right now (16 vs 8). Still, I'd probably take the downgrade in points and replace Wright with Battier. I'd gladly take the downgrade, and give up some of Monta's points to get an increase in size, toughness and defense. That's why I do Iggy+equalizer for Monta. Iggy + one of the following: Lou Williams, Marreese Speights, Spencer Hawes, Jodie Meeks -- Philly has a lot of young talent, and with Jrue Holiday playing PG, Lou Williams isn't getting much run and could back-up Curry. For example, this works: http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=46dkd2e Monta+Vlad for Iggy+Speights+Lou Williams. Get Iggy, get a quality back-up PG, and get a young C prospect. Philly gets Monta plus nice cap-relief. Or heck, dream big, and go with this one: http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=49arbdu Monta+BWright for Iggy+Jrue Holiday Philly would probably laugh at that, but it's hard to guage Monta's value in the league right now. On paper, he's a superstar, and on paper, that trade is fair. But in reality, GS would be winning big. Either way, get Keith Smart Iggy at the SG, and a guy like Carl Landry at the back-up PF, or Shane Battier at the SF, and suddenly the look of this team will change considerably. For the better, IMO.
I'd say on paper, Monta is "good." If you go by PPG, sure, he's "elite." But smart teams use all the metrics that are out there.
Well, actually, I'm going by all areas of the game, on paper. Monta Ellis is #1 in the NBA in assists amongst shooting guards, at 5.6 per game. He's nearly a full assist above the next guy (Kobe is #2 at 4.9). Monta Ellis is #1 in the NBA in steals amongst all shooting guards (#3 in the entire NBA) at 2.26. He's the only shooting guard in the league over 2. Counting PGs, there are only 3 players in the NBA over two: Rondo, CP3, and Monta. Monta Ellis is 8th in the league in FG% amongst shooting guards at 46%. That's not amazing but it's very good. He is also #1 in the NBA in MPG, at 41.1. He's more than 3 minutes ahead of the net guy (Eric Gordon is #2 at 37.8). On one side, these extra minutes help pad his stats a bit (assuming he can keep up his production even after the 40 minute mark) but also attest to his durability and willingness to sacrifice his body without complaint. Oh, and then there's the 25.1 PPG, yes. 6th in the league, behind only a handful of superstars in Durant, Stoudamire, LeBron, DWade, and Kobe. Next is Monta... I mean, just on paper, he is amazing all around. Looking closer at the compounded stats, though (I know you like Win Shares) would probably not be so flattering. But, in the paper, when a trade goes down, who mentions win-shares? Right now, NBA TV, ESPN, etc, all look at PPG, APG, RPG, Steals, Blocks, and percentages, and on paper -- Monta is an elite player IMO. So let's trade him, lol.
We always seem to come full circle on this topic lol. I'm ok with trading him and I won't repeat myself in depth, but of all the potential Monta trades, Iguodala is the only one that I was really down with. I'm down to trade him for a good return, but some of you guys make it sound like getting Monta the hell out of Oakland is the first priority at Oracle these days. I know that's not how you feel, and I know you wouldn't trade him for peanuts. I just feel that with his contract, it's gonna be hard to get a good deal in return. Even AI is gonna get paid 2, 3 and $4 million more than Monta in the final years of his contract. I would probably still do it, but there's just not a lot of other potential scenarios I can see working. We seem to all be in agreement: sacrificing Monta's firepower for some defense and bulk would be favorable. But I just think that's way easier said than done. Monta is a statistical superstar, so I just want to make sure that he's valued that way right now in the trade market.
What was the reason nobody was into Josh Smith? What about Curry/DWright/JSmith/Lee/Udoh(Biedrins)? That would definitely be a better defensive squad. Haha what if we traded Monta, Biedrins and anybody for Smith and Horford. Or even Ellis and Biedrins for Smith and Crawford, and have Crawford's $10.8m come off the books at the end of the season? haha I'm dreaming right?
Yes, but as you see for yourself, all those stats are based on high usage, minutes, and volume; I don't really think it's a supplementary observation - it is the reason why he leads the league in certain categories. I don't necessarily "like" Win Shares because I don't fully understand it. I do understand efficiency though. Monta is just average when it comes to that. His bad games are horrendously inefficient, costing his teammates precious possessions. I will say that his last game was bad, yes, but at least he didn't force up a ton of shots and actually made an effort to do other things. But he was still 1 for 9. When Monta is in the above-average category of efficiency, all his flaws are much more tolerable, which is why I keep going back and forth with "do we trade him or do we keep him?" Overall though, he's just been average, and the team overall is below-average. You're right, ESPN and most fans will look at the superficial stats, but the most damning evidence against Monta is the team's record. So, you can't be elite unless your team is below .500. And there is a correlation between Monta's efficiency and the team's record. If we're just talking about the All-Star game, then yeah, I think Monta should be in it because he's exciting to watch, but when we're talking about elite status, Monta, even with all the per game average stats, is not. And it appears everyone gets it.
