Important franchise positions: 1.) The Point Guard - The one spot We all know what the point guard does on a baksetball team which is to run the offense and call out plays. His role is to be a team player and an extension of the coach on the floor. He is generally one of the most skilled players on the floor and is the fastest. General requirements of this position: Instinctive knowledge of the game. Accuracy with the open outside jump shot. Good ball handler, capable of going left and right and using both hands to dribble or finish. He must be a good, accurate passer with the basic passes like bounce or chest pass. He must be quick and fast with his feet. Play hard-nosed on-the-ball defense. Ablity to penetrate and dish off. The court sense to read defenses and make good decisions quickly. Must have good judgement DFish is a guy with fundamentals and a good shot, but he has no quickness nor the overall knowledge to be a true point guard. He's been putting up numbers and is coachable. Has poor judgement on shot selection. Has Davis worked with any coach very well? His outside shot is suspect. Great talent in everything else. Gambles too much on steals, which puts him out of position to defend. Sometimes can't even finish inside either. Bad free throw shooter. In games where there's point guard battles going on, his ego affects his judgement in giving up the rock and running the team. Generally makes the team play better with his ability to create and get others involved. He's a great interior passer for inside players that can catch and be ready. Ellis has never played much point guard and his ballhandling with his left hand is suspect. Same with some of shooting ability. Other parts of his game are still yet to be determined. Bad free throw shooter. Great defender who demonstrates some ability to read defenses and pass the ball. Good knowledge of the game for what he is: a high school shooting guard learning to be an nba point guard. Has outstanding quickness like Tony Parker. 2.) The Off-Guard The off-guard is also known as the two guard or shooting guard. He is generally an alternate point guard who is a better shooter and his role is to score the ball and pass. The qualities that he needs to possess are: Like the point guard, must be knowledgeable of the game Good at ballhandling left and right hand. Good at passing. Must be fast and quick with his feet. Must play hard nosed, on the ball defense against ballhandlers. Must hit a midrange or deep two consistently. Like the point guard, he needs to be able to drive and dish. Must be able to read the floor and what defenses are allowing. Must move without the ball and know where to be on offense. Must be a secondary point guard if the point guard is being overplayed by his defender. Jrich is great at almost everything, except for ballhandling and defense, traits important to the point guard position. He can shoot consistently from his select spots, make difficult shots off the dribble, he's starting to play better with his left hand, and he moves off the ball. Good passer. Not a drive and dish player or a guy that can stay in front of quicker two guards. On a team that lacks go-to guys and all around talent with results, Jrich is a god among warriors fans. A forward or a guard? Pietrus. Pretty much none of these fundamentals. He can play based on pure athleticism and lateral quickness. Doesn't have the capability to play a secondary point guard due to poor overall knowledge of the game, suspect shooting game and decision making with the ball. More catered to small forward, although Richardson would still make a better small forward due to better skill shooting and posting up. Has some promise with ballhandling if he could make better decisions with his head. His main role looks like defense, hustle plays, and to provide some scoring punch moving without the ball or off the catch and shoot from the baseline. If he can be a reliable one-on-one player with some knowledge of the game to look where to pass, he could be awesome. 3.) The Center (a good backcourt will make this guy shine) The center a.k.a the five man or the guy in the "middle" is a very important piece. Just like the point guard, he is the most valuable and important player on the team in any offense. He is the tallest, biggest guy on the floor that can look over defenders on offense and his role on defense is just as important since he's often the last line of defense inside, next to the power forward position. I would rate the center higher for franchise positions in some offenses than others, since most teams do not go very far if they're a "donut squad" i.e. nothing in the middle. This guy is supposed to bring a brand of defense and offense that is dominant. He doesn't have to be a scorer, but he has to keep it honest and be a presence when scoring. Required traits: He must be quick enough to get to the ball or get position. He must "own" the paint. This means being an aggressive rebounder and intimidating shotblocker with a meaness to his game. He must be a sort of intimidator to ward off players attacking the lane. Defensive leadership Must have some dependability at short and midrange shooting and ability to score on either side of the rim, left and right hand. Ability to see the floor and make good passes to the open man. Decent footwork and the ability to "read" by feel with his back to the basket in the low post. Good strength Good leaping ability Good hands. Foyle, not really an intimidator like he "owns" the paint. Not really quick, not a leaper, bad hands. No offensive game outside of some occasional midrange or hook shots that often miss. No ability to score with the off hand. Has problems setting some screens, but could be a miscue from the guards who never bother to use them anyway. Sometimes "soft" or "nice" or whatever you want to call it. Biedrins. Not ready for primetime yet due to lack of strength. Has the mean streak, leaping ability, quickness, good hands, decent passing and okay footwork. Poor at shooting anything beyond 10 feet. Is unselfish and never intimidated. Could be a player some day. Some day.... Fans want this guy to play now, but he simply picks up too many fouls to be a reliable starting center who can make defensive stops. He could dominate on offense, if he played more power forwards trying to play center like Michael Ruffin. He's pretty much going to play like Stromile Swift or Marcus Camby on offense without the midrange or 20 foot jumpers. He could probably also convert on alley-oops if the coach would let him. Taft. Not enough is known outside of good hands, shotblocking, decent positioning on the blocks and his awesome combo of strength/athleticism. Can be an intimidator with his thick size and presence. 4.) The Power Forward (IMO equally as important as having a good center) The power forward aka strong forward or "the four" is a little bit like the team player the point guard is, only he acts more like a center with more skills. So essentially, it's good to have a strong fundamentals type of guy at this position to handle both inside and outside play. In most offenses he is designed to be a dirty work player and enforce the paint like the center, so inside presence/"controlling the paint" is important. Charateristics must be similar to that of a center with ability on the offensive and defensive glass. He and the center control the painted area on defense, but on offense the power forward has more shot range and ballhandling to create space on the floor. Must be a good passer (not off the dribble though). Good at scoring. Ability to intiate some offense whether through footwork or ballhandling skills. Good runner on the break. Must run the length of the floor well in transition. Must be somewhat imposing on both ends of the floor like the Center should be. Isn't required, but good to have a guy that can finish with either hand at the basket. Murphy. Faster than he is quick, poor defense, poor inside game, good passer although he rarely passes, doesn't initiate plays that well (doesn't understand them or just doesn't play that way), has good rebounding, shooting, and okay ballhandling skills with his good hand, but doesn't really do the dirtywork or enforce both ends of the floor like a true banger in the paint would. He's more like a finesse small forward without the big man skills. As the poorest defender on the floor, he probably sets up more of his teammates to take the intentional foul than any other player on the floor IMO. Diogu. Good fundamentals, especially passing and boxing out. Kind of small, despite bulkiness. Not very athletic. Case still pending on what he could bring to the table. Big men like the power forward and the center sometimes take longer to get better than other positions in the NBA. He's a good enforcer type player when you need him to be. He's not afraid to lower his shoulder or create separation by creating contact. Great inside footwork. Zarko. Good fundamentals, not really that physical at doing the "enforcer in the paint" type work. A tall perimeter shooting small forward that lacks quickness at small forward. Would be a Dirk Nowitzki type guy if he could rebound and play more consistent and take advantage of his size inside and out. If the power forward and the center can't rebound or score inside. That's trouble brewing. 5.) The Small Forward (a good guy to complement the shooting guard in some offensive schemes) I may be underrating the small forward, but I'll credit the small forward to be the most skilled important complementary piece you can have in any offense. He's like a glue player and a scorer, but generally he is the most skilled guy with some guard skills and some big man skills. He's an all around guy and well balanced. Required: Like all perimeter players, he should posess feet quickness. He must be a good rebounder. He must play defense inside and out. He must pass the ball well (not necessarily off the drive). Must be a good all around scorer inside and out. Must shoot from the wings, from midrange, top of the key, posting up on the block or finishing inside the paint. This doesn't hold true for strong midrange shooting players who can create their own shot and get others involved. But it's nice to have a small forward that can score from almost anywhere. He must run the floor well in a fastbreak situation. Dunleavy has like two or three things on that list and we all know what he isn't particulary good at in the NBA. He's talented, has good size, but takes no advantage of it. I won't waste my breath to say what a disappointment he has been for the last 4 seasons. On paper he looks great, but his results aren't getting it done. You could argue that the power forward and center positions are in bigger trouble for what they do in their roles to the team, but Dunleavy has been a poor player in terms of tangible results. Pietrus... not even a good fit here because of his size. He is nice to have for rebounding, running the floor well, defense, quickness, and being a scoring machine. Doesn't really pass well, and Jrich covers more areas in this position than him including the post game and abilty to score from anywhere better than Pietrus. Warriors offense essentially has two forwards that are guard size and two shooting guards trying to play point guard. I'm pissed Why didn't Mullin get us a better small forward if Dun wasn't getting it Done? Anyway, the reason I wrote this is because I couldn't sleep and I felt like talking about some of the roles this team needs to fill in their positions. I feel like it's missing so much from the starting positions, a foundation, if you want to call it. It's hard to identify all these things the Warriors don't have. Some of it isn't as obvious as things like Foyle, Dunleavy and Fisher being disappointing starters. We're just not getting the right things from the positions that we have even with Jrich or Murphy as the "solid core" we're supposed to have. If you look at all the winning teams, they've got a combo of all these traits their starting positions need, plus a great bench with guys who can read the game situation and jump in, contribute, without getting warmed up. And the best part is the core guys are under contract and well within budget to play for many years together. Plus, the winning teams have good managers that can find replacement talent if something isn't working. Then winning teams are also unselfish, play without ego, are mentally strong/patient like true veterans, and they play well together. Those teams are strong in almost every possible way with few noticeable weaknesses and that's why they win. It also helps to have at least two true stars on the team rather than border-line stars. It helps to have a good bench so you're not wearing out one or two important players or can't find the player to respond to the other team's matchups. It also helps to have a solid starting five with roles that fit together on offense/defense. Teams win based on both their offense and defensive capabilities, not just effort alone. Hell, Foyle gives unquestionable effort every game, but he only shows up with an 18 point game once every blue moon and he doesn't play the kind of defense you need outside of shotblocking. It's also why we couldn't get it done with Dampier, either, despite him being the better player overall. Sad sad sad... I guess we have to be patient until the next cycle. It's hard to turn around a franchise without making any good moves other than Baron and Baron btw ain't the lone guy who is going to help this team become completely better. I don't think we could win the championship with a guy like Baron, but maybe make the playoffs if he was healthy.
custodian, you need your own website for warriors analysis where u can post up all of your articles regarding the team. u got some real knowledgeable info on the team that deserves more exposure than just being on this site. keep it coming.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting 707to805:</div><div class="quote_post">custodian, you need your own website for warriors analysis where u can post up all of your articles regarding the team. u got some real knowledgeable info on the team that deserves more exposure than just being on this site. keep it coming.</div> I second it. Custodian is my model as a poster. He gives good advice, is very friendly and is a community member.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Air Pietrus:</div><div class="quote_post">I second it. Custodian is my model as a poster. He gives good advice, is very friendly and is a community member.</div> How do we get him to shut up? Just kidding. Custodian, I don't know how you do it, but keep it up. Of course, I think at times you contradict yourself by speaking too much too soon, but it's more than I can say or do.
Custodian, I thought you were not supposed to post the entire article on this website?..... Just kidding. Just another example of your informative and well thought out posts. I came to this website on your recommendation and I appreciate the basketball knowledge of the posters. Keep them coming.
damn! i have to admit that this is like my first time going into the warriors forum. i never knew it was so active before! lol. custodian rules, what can i say. that post was just brilliant. i just wish i had that talent. lol.
Thanks guys. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting Kensaku:</div><div class="quote_post">Of course, I think at times you contradict yourself by speaking too much too soon, but it's more than I can say or do.</div> Contradiction? Oh did you mean the part where I said we might have made the playoffs with a healthy Baron and then also the Warriors possibly not being good enough to make the playoffs before the season started? I think other times I might have said the warriors "just can't" and that was probably said out of frustration for the Warriors just not playing high %'s (but that might be the nature of how this team was built since there's no high% shooting guys, especially on the inside). I think deep down though, I knew the Warriors at full potential were probably 8th seed. But you know the Warriors... they just can't get it done when it counts. Even Dunleavy and Zarko took steps backward this season. But I can understand how that's confusing to say the Warriors could and could not. I guess I forgot to explain my reasoning: I guess I was trying to say it was a roll of the dice this year and there were a lot of variables that could affect how we play in an 82 game season because the three point shot won't always fall and we have few other weapons without a guy like Baron who has the ability to play smart and unselfishly. It's either healthy or he's not, or he's passing the ball or he's chucking. Then there's also health, consistency, stamina, chemistry, etc. So many variables. But let's combine things into just two variables for each player in terms of offense. For instance, there's two sides to Baron and the rest of the team every night on offense. One side is what kind of player are they when shots are actually falling on target? The other side is what kind of player are they when the shots aren't falling? What I'm getting at is basketball is all about using teamwork to get high %'s so if a guy can't hit shots, find the guy who can, and set him up for the high % shot. Its up to the team to create offense with the passers getting the ball to the hot hand and its up to the scorer to make the best chance of the ball going in the basket. Larry Bird said it best that "It's not who scores the ball, but who gets the ball to the scorer." Larry Bird was a great player and all, but even he had lots of help and plenty of players with abilities to make this happen. Hall of fame players that played in the paint like Kevin McHale and Robert "The Chief" Parish gave Bird some weapons inside. I think they also had Danny Ainge who was a decent point guard. Also, I know the Celtics could shoot from outside, but they also had two legitimate threats in the post and they could also pass the ball well both inside and out. That's hard to defend when the ball can be scored from practically anywhere. Now it's not fair to compare what the Warriors have to anything the Celtic Championship team had, but the Warriors have nowhere near the type of chemistry from its individual players to make the other guy better. They also don't have the inside-outside team design, the Warriors are very perimeter oriented. It's why they've tried to play team basketball to make the most out of a perimeter oriented game, but they are coming up short on both ends of the floor, especially without a reliable inside game to keep the perimeter game honest. This definitely points back to Baron and the others who are generally shooting lower %'s and not making the effort to get open, to create offense, or to set other people up who are in a better position to score. Part of its smarts and the other is just pure ability and effort. I don't think the way the team is designed makes it easy to coach or for the point guard to run it. I think this is the reason why we're either hot or cold this year, but mostly cold because we're faulty by design when the perimeter game isn't working and we're not getting layups at point blank opportunities. Plus, its not like we have the defense to keep things honest like when the Pistons weren't shooting well.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting AnimeFANatic:</div><div class="quote_post">Not going to do an analysis on coach Monty? </div> We've already explained this several times though. If the players can't get it done because they don't have the fundamentals, talent that fits, or the chemistry, what can the coach really do, or the next coach, or the next coach... It's like the band-aid over a gunshot wound. Fix the underlying problem before anything else: that problem is the weak foundation the Warriors have had for years. It's not like I'm a fan of Montgomery, but I feel for the guy. He's a stable personality that suggests things rather than order things. He doesn't put unecessary pressure on a team that doesn't handle pressure well. I also think Montgomery is a rookie coach still learning the game and he'll get better as he listens to others. I think he's a coach put in a bad situation because the Warriors didn't have an identity or a foundation that existed before he did. It's probably also why college coaches don't do well in the NBA because there's no foundation to begin with or enough time/luck to install a foundation. This foundation I keep referring to is an inside outside game, solidness on both ends of the court. Is that so hard to ask? Warriors for years have been horrible on one end or the other, plus they've lacked go-to guys or guys that can step up when guys like Dunleavy or others start shrinking. I insist the Warriors need pieces that fit together, mental toughness, patience, quickness, intelligence, some chemistry, more talent at the big positions and a point guard that can run the team like a point guard. Otherwise what can the coaches do but sit there and watch these guys waste posessions and get burnt on defense? What can he do when the guys that the GM put before them, mess up over and over? Then there's this late season winning that has some fans fooled for next season. Those games don't matter and it doesn't count. What good are those games if they don't play consistent that way all season long? These games mean nothing, but only to make fans more hopeful that "next season is the season" or "Montgomery's plays don't work so they win if they stop making the effort to run plays". Ridiculous. He's a rookie coach, but I think criticisms about the coach should come from guys who've coached before to know how frustrating it is. I've never coached, but I've had teammates do stupid rookie things after telling them what to do. Hell, I've done stupid things based on reacting rather than thinking, because you can't really "slow it down" and think unless you're a natural player with a mindset for it. Anyway I digress... The main point is show me some evidence of a winning team in the past and I'll blame the coach for not making the team better. But right now, this team's design is extremely flawed. It has been for some time for the past 12 seasons. Where is the inside-outside ball movement? What about defense? That's right, motion offense or any offense can't work if four guys stand around not knowing what to do while the fifth guy is moving. It can't work if we can't shoot high %'s from the perimeter or from midrange, and there's no reliable player to get the ball inside to or reliable ballhandler to get past defenses. Even rookies like Ike is struggling to become integrated into the lineup so he doesn't go into the post with nobody to kick out to and become a blackhole Murphy/Zach Randolph type player. Subsequently, the guards don't know how to feed Ike Diogu if they hold on to the ball too long, they can't dribble drive passed defenders or they don't look to make the entry passes. Plus, what about free throws? Coaches aren't responsible for our best players not getting it done at the line. There's nobody guarding them. What is the problem? So do I like Montgomery? Not really as a Warriors coach, but I respect him for what he's done for schools like Montana and Stanford. He's turned them around after losing seasons and getting his guys who understand fundamentals and they have some talent. It's about the sum of the parts equalling the whole or even more. It's hard to really judge Montgomery in this bad situation other than I don't like the fact he doesn't play the rookies more and he's stubborn in some ways which turn out to be bad gambles in hindsight. But he's learning the game, he's got the same mentality as guys like Larry Brown who just want to see good basketball. Even Knicks fans call out Brown, but they should be really calling out the players Zeke picked out for the Knicks. This is why I'm like, "What do some fans know?" I was one of those fans at some point until I actually started caring enough to think about what's going on rather than be mad about it. Also, the way I see it is that Montgomery's the boss, but he can't pick his own employees. How messed up is that? "You mean I have to play Foyle or Dunleavy because my boss says that's the way it is?" Plus, what if I know something about the rookies that fans don't know like Biedrins and Pietrus' or the right way to develop rookies doesn't mean throw them out there? I mean if fans were so brilliant why don't they do coaching for a living? Why don't they explain the "right way" to play. F that, what a ridiculous job where I'm set up to fail and get sht for it. I'm a hall of fame college coach, how anticlimatic is this to join the ranks of other college coaches in the nba that have failed because the GMs had put together bad or mediocre teams that don't take good shots on goal or play the defense? Maybe nba players are a different mindset than college players, but the players still need to play the game without ego. Together they need to be more than what they show on paper. Maybe that's the problem with this nba game. It's that money corrupts and it often rewards the wrong guys that don't do a good job. Maybe GMs don't have this incredible insight we thought they'd have or they just aren't prepared or there at the right times to get those opportunities. Okay, I'm also done. Let me just say that Montgomery is still learning, though, just like Mullin being the GM. I read the background on this guy and he's old school, but pragmatic enough to adjust to the player's strengths (for now) which is mainly a perimeter game with Fisher and Jrich as the best shooters on the team. That still isn't flawless, because the Warriors strengths expose some weaknesses on the defensive end. Also a strength from last season was drawing double teams, but who outside of Baron can even break down defenses or run a fastbreak well? Who can rebound the ball and play defense? We have unreliable weapons this season plain and simple. Let's just say if Montgomery loses for the next 3 years, but turns it around like he did at Montana, I'll be happy he's with the W's. Somebody needs to emphasize the fundamentals first before the Warriors players decide to do their own thing and play a risky game they can't play consistently. Montgomery should be like: "So you don't want to follow my plays or you don't want to pass? You want to cast three point shots without driving it inside first or passing it back? Go for it. See if you'll win that way." I want to see what Montgomery can do with a team that can actually make the playoffs (by playing defense and playing smarter on offense to get those high %'s) before I completely rule him out. I think we need a better starting five for that. Just like a coach needs good team play to be successful, so does a chef with the right ingredients. A chef can't make fillet mignon out of dog food. Everybody knows that. Dilton can't make Moose, from those Archie comics, a better math student. Archie comics fans know that. When we put together a good, winning team with the players on the same page as the coach, I'll be looking at the coaching performance. Right now I don't believe we have the players for it.
I am amazed about the review of Troy Murphy. I think it is a little too hard on him. Blaming a post player for not initiating offense is a bit odd to me, because the only big men that can ignitiate actual plays for like teams are KG and Dirk, and once in a while if needed Tim Duncan. Most of the time it is usually the guards who ignitiate plays. I also disagree that Murphy is the worst defender on the court. I have to say that Jason Richardson is at least just as bad as Murphy, I think Jason's actually worse than Murphy on defense actually. Derek Fisher is also a weak link on defense as well, especially against opposing starting PG's. Murphy is bad in team defense and help defense, but I think he is about average man-to-man. A reason that his defense seems worse than it is, is that the perimeter defense is so weak that it will exploid his slowness on the help defense. And to say that Murphy isn't a banger is quite apalling to me. He may not be an all-star presence in the paint on both sides, but he gets at it on the glass and he gets dirty in there. Maybe it hasn't been as strong as it has been in the past, I think because of the coaching, I mean it's a thing that has affected the whole team, a lack of strong energy 100% of the game. Nothing has changed in terms of our disagreement about Mike Montgomery though. First off Mike Montgomery is not a rookie head coach. Second for the number of players who have stated frusteration, confusion, being lost, or not understanding the offense or the systems of the team or finding an identity as a team, I must say that is enough to prove that this team and Mike Montgomery is not going to work out. Third, I don't like the strife that seems to be forming between the players and the coach. This whole Baron Davis injury status stuff is all strange, and with players not playing 100% at all times not because they are being lazy but not sure of where they fit on the floor with certain players is just another bad mark that Mike Montgomery has not fixed at all. This is a mark that is Montgomery's main problem to fix as well as head coach. He has not done it. My problem with the strife is that it seems to becoming player vs. player. Before when there was some sort of strife between Eric Musselman and the players the players actually decided to work harder together. This strife just gives the players excuses for not playing well. One thing I will say about Jason Richardson is that he is slow at starting plays and getting others involved. He often dribbles too much and also puts up a lot of bad shots from this. As a scorer and go-to scorer he has done well. But sometimes he just has two gears, and it takes too much time to switch between the two. It's either gear 1 which is to score and look for as many shots as he can get. And gear 2 which is just let the game come to him and to the team and try to set up some plays. If Mike Dunleavy were used properly with Baron Davis then I believe this wouldn't be a problem or a big problem, but with how the offense is set, I would like to see Jason become better at playing at this second gear more and still being able to score more as well. If the coach called more off the ball screens and off the ball plays for Jason that could help as well too. Just something I'd like to see, because it would take him from a good go-to-scorer to a good go-to-playmaker.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Clif25:</div><div class="quote_post">I am amazed about the review of Troy Murphy. I think it is a little too hard on him. Blaming a post player for not initiating offense is a bit odd to me, because the only big men that can ignitiate actual plays for like teams are KG and Dirk, and once in a while if needed Tim Duncan. Most of the time it is usually the guards who ignitiate plays. I also disagree that Murphy is the worst defender on the court. I have to say that Jason Richardson is at least just as bad as Murphy, I think Jason's actually worse than Murphy on defense actually. Derek Fisher is also a weak link on defense as well, especially against opposing starting PG's. Murphy is bad in team defense and help defense, but I think he is about average man-to-man. A reason that his defense seems worse than it is, is that the perimeter defense is so weak that it will exploid his slowness on the help defense. And to say that Murphy isn't a banger is quite apalling to me. He may not be an all-star presence in the paint on both sides, but he gets at it on the glass and he gets dirty in there. Maybe it hasn't been as strong as it has been in the past, I think because of the coaching, I mean it's a thing that has affected the whole team, a lack of strong energy 100% of the game.</div> Interesting point about JRich being the worst defender out of the starters. That is spot on. JRich at times doesn't even know where his man is. Murphy's D sucks, too, but I think it's a question of effort with him. He needs to at least try to stay with his man even though he gets beat. What's difficult to say about JRich and Murphy is how far their ceiling is. They're still young, and have shown improvement each year so you think they'll improve. They both need to show a lot more effort on the defensive side of the ball just to get to be an average or even a below average defender.
