I want to start debate battles in the Warriors forum to make it more active and fun. Here's an example: http://www.justbball.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57293 If you are intrested in being one of the people in the debate PM me.
CohanHater, I humbly disagree and would like to take this opportunity to formally debate you about your statement above. First off, I'd like to call into question the very nature of your prose, that of the language choice "laid back." This key-phrase is merely an ambiguous rhetorical spin which, when dissected, quickly breaks down into nothing tangible. Let's start with "laid." When you say "laid," do you purpose that we, the fan-base of this forum, acutually spend our time "laying" on the ground or otherwise relaxing in a prone position? Or perhaps do you suggest that we go about our business wearing colorful garlands of Hawaiian flowers wrapped around our necks? I mean, c'mon CohanHater, why don't you give us a clear answer here. And "back." let's take a closer look at this one. In the context of "laid back," do you mean to say that such individuals prefer to lie down on their backs rather than stomachs? In this case how can you be so bold as to make such a gross generalization about the sleeping preferences of an entire sports fan-base. Or perhaps this is figurative. Surely you aren't suggesting that we here at the Warriors forum are "laid back" in the past, that we are stuck "back" in the past and refuse to move forward, refuse to progress or learn from things like WWII or the civil rights movement? C'mon!
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting AlleyOop:</div><div class="quote_post">Let's start with "laid." When you say "laid," do you purpose that we, the fan-base of this forum, acutually spend our time "laying" on the ground or otherwise relaxing in a prone position? Or perhaps do you suggest that we go about our business wearing colorful garlands of Hawaiian flowers wrapped around our necks? I mean, c'mon CohanHater, why don't you give us a clear answer here.</div> I think I've been doing it wrong. I've been laying colorful garlands of Hawaiian flowers down on the ground on THEIR backs. Is that wrong? I'm confused.
I like the idea. It would kind of be like PTI or something like that. I say lets do it and come up with a real topic. BTW, sleeping on your back is the best option for optimal spinal support. Lying on your stomach is the worst...
We used to have this. It was called 'Around The Forum'. Different guys would compete on topics such as 'who is the best head coach in the league' and 'does streetball help the nba's popularity'.
On a serious note I think it's better to let friendly debates crop up naturally as they will rather than have a "face-off" and say "ok go to it!" This "face-off" aspect is rather contrived. Stepping into, say , a Hip-Hop cypher is different, because there the point of freestyling is to "battle." But in the Warriors forum, we're not here to battle, we're here to chat. In a battle your success comes at the expense of the opposition. Here, your success depends on your interaction with others, IMO.
I did the around the forum thing. I was one of the finalists, but it was too time consuming to cover all the angles on one topic. Plus, maybe I was too "wordy". heh. I scored pretty well, but I ended up dropping out because I wanted to do something else. I do like having variety of discussions here that can inform, teach, entertain, explain their reasoning and demonstrate why their point of view is legit. This adds to the forum's overall quality and the writer's reputation. It also leaves some good options to choose from in joining high intensity or low intensity in debates. I guess, in the end, it boils down to the consensus where both the conservative (less radical moves, slow change) and liberal (more radical moves, fast change) points of view regarding the Warriors, all have their points and meet somewhere in the middle. I used to be radical, but now I'm more conservative because we don't want to make a long term committment hasty decision and then immediately have to backtrack when the thing doesn't work and might never work (i.e. Foyle/Fisher). I'm pretty much in the middle about there needing to be a whole lot of change, because I do not want another costly long term mistake. It has to be a good move so we can have some momentum going forward. We need to make moves somewhat quickly before the window of opportunity to improve closes when Jrich or these other guys get too old or too unfocussed to play. I also appreciate posters who put a lot of thought into their posts so people don't feel they are wasting their times reading or responding with nothing to gain out of it. Nothing statements that leave a lot of questions and don't really say something new kind of hurts the people involved in a forum. Thank goodness the people here don't really do that.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting custodianrules2:</div><div class="quote_post">Plus, maybe I was too "wordy". heh.</div> CR2 I can't imagine
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting AlleyOop:</div><div class="quote_post">CR2 I can't imagine </div> Hey, it's better to elaborate than be brief and leave more questions unanswered. Then again the Warriors are a question mark that needs to be answered. Can a team built primarily through the draft with no impact free agents or franchise player prospects, win more games than they lose? Can they help develop those prospects and win with inexperienced management and coaching? Of course I'd say no, because one would need a combo/balance of everything to be successful. Most importantly the Warriors need a strong vision and guy who can look ahead before gambling on a risky move (Mullin needs plan B and Plan C). A franchise like the Pistons didn't blow their budget unwisely, they didn't invest in players unless they were darn sure they wanted them as part of the future or they knew they could easily trade them, and they got a solid starting five that could play defense and work together as a team on offense. Plus, they had the right coach for that team design. What scares me is the Warriors don't even have a good team design or a starting five for more than a decade. So that's why I'm pretty apathetic to coaching's effect. I do know that Montgomery has trained his own red shirt freshmen, with some growing good enough to eventually become nba draft picks. I could live with Montgomery's slower style if we weren't going anywhere anyway. Mullin has been an absolute disaster so far because his only achievement was getting Baron for nothing and then drafting well in '05. He's made no effort to create any flexibility for him to make moves or strengthen the wing since acquiring Baron. Now, it's only been two years and honestly, that is not enough time to turn things around under anyone unless a franchise player or impact FA is to be had. But two years has shown that Mullin can invest so unwisely that we could probably feel its effects for years until the players improve together, a salary dump happens, or he starts making more good moves rather than no moves or very bad moves. Mullin has a very tough job that we cannot imagine doing unless we are in his shoes, but he's done a horrible job planning ahead because he overrates guys and has no sense of think ahead planning. Sometimes, I wonder if his history of alcoholism shows what kind of decision-maker he is. I mean guys dig deep all the time when it comes to political figures and policy makers' character, why should it be no different with Mullin's job? We're wondering what is this guy about? Can he handle the pressure and is he wise enough to know what is right for this team to make the right steps forward, rather than steps backward? We figure a former nba player who was well rounded knows a little something about building a team that fits. But meanwhile, he's showing the side of him that is more like a player who favors other players rather than a decision-maker who will lay it down without playing favorites.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting custodianrules2:</div><div class="quote_post">Hey, it's better to elaborate than be brief and leave more questions unanswered.</div> You know I enjoy reading your posts CR2. Your intelligent and sincere observations are a refreshing change of pace from the typical forum user. You're a big reason why I switched over to JBB.
I enjoy playing in the heavy traffic over at real GM...but it gets nuts. There's a whole Lemming faction-W's fans who Evidently feel we somehow collected a roster of unsalvagable zombies-they then propose to deal our best zombies---for guys with all the flaws they cite in our guys---except twice as bad. Another faction wants to give all our quality-for one big name 30-something "Superstar"who gets about $20 mill a year. We rely on that guy to be 100%.and even then-how are we different from the one-star teams that finished below us...or just a few wins ahead of us. I have a tough time with making "allowances" for the Monty factor. It becomes the old enigma--The Chicken or the Egg..which came first? Actually-there is an answer-though even then-with an asterisk. So--is Monty a negative who is preventing players from showing their full ability? Is he retarding the progress of players needing to get up to speed as pros? Is he creating a style,Identity,a team unit? Is Monty more focused on control-on standing by his system even if it's looking like the Titanic? Is he really communicating? Do the players have confidence-do they think he's an asset? Or-are most of our players limited,creatures of habit who go through the season,take a beating sweat,run----yet are mental loafers,unwilling to think beyond the basics,unable to get behind executing plans. Are these guys-ranging from 20 yrs old to 26....set in their ways? Are they too dumb to remember the details of a plan invented-or modified-for Stanford types? I happen to now feel pretty convinced that Monty has-so far-failed to meet the need. I have seen,at times,Monty adjusting to fix a problem,or to add something needed to the mix...but the lag can be a few months after the need is clear. At that pace...He won't ever catch up to fixing a handful of things a coach ought to cover in one or two practices. Meanwhile-how to judge players abilities-skills-intangibles when/if they are pushing a boulder up a mountain? If you put a 300 lb fat lady on Secretariat-he would not win any races. That don't mean the horse becomes Alpo...it means you got the wrong jockey. Put a good jockey on Secretariat-and then you let him run...and see what happens. At the time of the Foyle/Fish deals...we really were shakey. Mullin made bad calls rather than risk having nobody at C and an often injured PG. In retrospect-other options were better. The Dunleavy signing...that's the thing that I just don't get. Dun had proven he's inconsistant. For every good game-there's one that really sucks. He's not quick on D,Not strong inside,not accurate at 3 range and fails to really focus on doing a lot of what he does do well. A $4 mill per year deal would have been kindness...a $9 mill deal is crazy. Unless MD turns into Reggie Miller from deep-here's no chance he ever EARNS that.
Evolution happens-or not. If not-burn all the books on History-Biology-Astronomy-Technology-Science. Change is built on change-what works endures as what fails is abandoned. Thus-the first "CHICKEN" was the evolved offspring of birds not quite yet qualified as Chickens. It came out of an egg. Therefore-the Egg came first. The FIRST Rhode Island Red,was the offspring of two other chickens not yet Rhode Island Reds...exactly where one draws the line-that's a side issue The mentioned asterisk...some creationists would maintain that adult chickens were created as-is. How this conflicts with the history that has Leghorns,Arucanas,Rhode Island Reds all breeds that farmers "evolved" by selective breeding-that's kind of a problem that's shoved aside...people believe what they WANT to believe.
Yeah the bigger sites do get nuts. I make this site my primary site even if I wasn't as involved in cleaning up the posts or keeping trolls out (really, it's no work at all though and good thing). I look at higher traffic sites, but yeah I get annoyed when there's too much going on and not enough meat and potatos basketball discussion. Like guys who don't take the time to explain their reasoning or put out new ideas not covered yet. Some noobies on those sites either talk in hindsight or they jump to conclusions without any real basis other than hunches. That's really nothing new IMO, but I'd rather skip to the guys who really know their stuff so maybe I can learn from it. Regarding what the Warriors should do now, I think they should stand pat if they don't have the flexibility to assume more risk. I believe they should bench Foyle use him as expiring contract in a few years, promote one of the bigs (any of them who can stay out of foul trouble and not be a liability on the floor). Play up both Pietrus at SG/Dunleavy at SF to solve this Piety vs. Dun deal and find some suitable backup for SF that we can trade or keep if necessary. I believe the Warriors should play up Monta Ellis because although he's young, supposedly he can shoot very well and pass pretty intelligently. Dribble penetration and defense is something we need from him much like what we got from Speedy Claxton and Arenas (well not Arenas' defense but penetration and slashing ability). That's about it. There's really no moves unless Mullin can shill the heck out of somebody. I believe we have too many projects than we do actual nba ready prospects. If Mullin can sell Biedrins or POB or Zarko or Pietrus to some team that will offer fair trade based on our guy's potential, then I would do it it gives us something now and later. But the coach has to play these guys out and get their values up. Fans may not like Montgomery and wish for Musselman, but let's just say Montgomery didn't coach no 2-point quarters yet. Montgomery at least needs to have a chance to get his kind of players including a real center, an actual 5 man team + a reliable bench that can all play defense and offense without being a liabilty on either end or crazy with foul trouble. I elect we give Mullin and Montgomery more time to straigten their crap out. They are both rookies, but Montgomery knows basketball enough to do things with the right team. Mullin should be wise enough to learn from his mistakes and he's standing pat, which is fine by me. He shouldn't have tried to do it all in '04 because now it is costing his ability to make moves going forward. He can only move laterally or do nothing when free agency or trades aren't an option at this point in time. Since '02 we've gotten worse in terms of talent. '03 we had a fit that made better sense and had depth + experience, but was too old and injured. '04 on up without Baron Davis we seemed to have downgraded in ways both '02 and '03 showed. With Baron Davis, we're better as a franchise. Like with all other elite pure point guards that can score, he makes us better, but he's unreliable as our team's chances to win with him singlehandedly. We still need big and physical inside presence. The majority of young dudes we need to wait on. I hope as a big man, Ike is going to be good consistently, because what a disappointment if he isn't as nba ready as we thought... We've got too many raw or soft bigs that the backcourt can't make work... it's especially hard when the backcourt consists of the weaknesses of Fisher because of Baron getting hurt and Jrich's non-dribbling, non-distributing small forward style of play. Fisher's worst attributes can sometimes be Baron's... plus Baron can't even keep the foul line honest... Problems just spiral everywhere... until we can cover them by fixing the bench + frontcourt and build around or towards something rather than nothing. I'd hate for Mullin's building plan to be around Dunleavy. But it does explain his bizarre moves.
To me the main thing we gained when Baron came-was we went from static to dynamic. The W's had talked for years about transition,building a team that could thrive in a fast aggressive open cout attack. We-however had PG's who-no matter what-would walk the ball upcourt. Mookie-Mugsy-Speedy-Sneezy-Grumpy...always bogging down...we wind up with Dampier's half court moves the defining play. Baron-from the get-go-is running-pushing the tempo on a miss or a make. With defenses not given 10 free seconds to clog up the middle-we get a lot of options,going fast also means we need to sub in fresh legs-so the youing bench guys play and improve and mesh and we got----style and we---win games and it's all groovy. WRONG That was FOOLS GOLD we don't WANT wins like that...we don't want that spontaneous creative stuff. We are the French Army in 1938 we march in neat ranks.do excellent parades...are what an army should be. Well...not quite..in fact..we don't march right in formation and our tunics are not properly starched-our shoes not shiny enough. But we shall prevail. We got a bunch of guys who could have done well on Guadalcanal,at Bastogne...but can't cut the mustard as a parade army. Maybe we need to look at what we are trying to achieve?
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting custodianrules2:</div><div class="quote_post">I guess, in the end, it boils down to the consensus where both the conservative (less radical moves, slow change) and liberal (more radical moves, fast change) points of view regarding the Warriors, all have their points and meet somewhere in the middle.</div> I think this is the first time I've ever been called a conservative in anything.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting REREM:</div><div class="quote_post">people believe what they WANT to believe.</div> I dunno about the chicken and the egg thing, or which came first, but both would probably make the playoffs before the current Warriors regardless if an egg or a chicken coached every other team in the NBA and we changed coaches yet again. I believe it's how bad we are as a franchise when compared to the Nuggets and Cavs who made steps since acquiring their star players and still kept their coaches for a while before getting replaced. You can't build something that's not there. Yeah we need to develop, how the Warriors go about developing a young player is up for debate. Sometimes rushing them in without the rookie knowing what to do with the other four guys on the floor can be a problem. That's why young guys need time, the right backups or guys playing in front of them, or they just need to be more nba ready than they are showing. Obviously, many guys weren't earning playing time and I doubt Foyle was first choice ever for starting center since Clif Robinson beat his ass out for starting center in '04. I'd like to see Biedrins play in the style that other lightweight centers played by fixing his shot and staying out of foul trouble like Theo Ratliff, Marcus Camby or Keon Clark. But he's not ready and possibly overrated due to the all-around dislike of backup center Foyle starting yet again. REREM, as always, I appreciate your insight and that's why I love a reliable and balanced consensus from Warrior fans of all walks of life because it takes your unique thoughts which I can relate to because of how you write (and it also has me taking the stuff I believe in, which goes back to believing in what you truly believe rather than "wanting" to believe something that is genuinely false). I can be learning something from different inputs. It doesn't matter what position you take just as long as you justify with accurate facts and explanations so one who doesn't relate can relate. I definitely do relate how we're stuck with having to make a move for the now or later regarding our rotation, but not sticking us in an even worse situation. Let's just say I love all the players that you like, but I'm quickly falling out of favor of our "projects" on this team that don't live up to the hype soon. Pietrus can bounce back, but it just bothers me that we have no true shooting guard other than Dfish or some 6'3, 170 pounder high schooler more suited down the line for point guard or some utah Jazz castoff we got in a salary dump. Biedrins is pretty impressive for his size/quickness, but can be overrated especially if he doesn't do other stuff and stay out of foul trouble. Other guys like Ike, Taft, and Ellis I want to see more years out of before I get too caught up in them. I absolutely loathe Foyle and not too proud of Murphy and Dun being on the same team. That's a team that just says, "dunk on me, please". Even if we replace those guys with more athletic contemporaries or older personel we still lack balance of smarts, physical mismatch, skill, chemistry fit. Like very few people can actually handle the ball, shoot, create their own shot, and play defense. At this point Murphy is the guy to ride with because he specializes in more things than Dunleavy and is a lot more tradeable because of tangible numbers, but Murphy couldn't be a worse fit at the big positions than Dunleavy at SF or PF. I mean who helps out more on D and passes the ball better while providing decent help on rebounding and ballhandling much like Zarko? It's definitely more Dunleavy than it is Murphy. Despite rebounders and shooters, we still need guys who can play better all-around D, get others involved, and do other things that are needed each night. Other tweeners like KG and D-wade at least do something their team needs. We've got too many players with holes in their game and as a team too many holes in their game. There needs to play more balance which is why I definitely don't like guys like Murphy/Foyle/Dunleavy/Fisher/Pietrus being on the team when their simple fundamentals of the game become problematic. Things like catching, shooting, decision-making. It's just bad.
