<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Nelson, in a most candid interview Wednesday, dissected the Warriors and a variety of subjects in between puffs on his cigar. Q. You're 66, financially secure, and you could find nothing among the swaying island palms to fill the void of basketball? A. Most of the people I hung out with there were working, so the void was that I didn't know what to do during working hours. But (coaching) is something I do well, and I've done it a long time. I did miss it, I have a passion for it, and the main thing I was wanted here. Badly. So I came. Q. You had prostate surgery five years ago. How is your general health today? A. Everything is good. I'm cancer-free. My wife has gone through breast cancer, so we're both cancer survivors and just doing well. Q. What is the best method of rebuilding a franchise? A. This is the fourth time I've been asked to cure a struggling franchise, and I've done this one before. You have to evaluatethe roster and see how many players are salvageable in the system you want to play. In Dallas, I got rid of the whole team. In Milwaukee, I built from the ground through draft picks, like we did here the first time. But this particular roster I happen to like, so I'll do this one different from the others. This team is pretty well ready to roll, and if they're not, they've got to prove that to me. Q. What is it exactly you like about these Warriors? A. I think their best team is a small team, and I'm good at coaching small teams. They have a lot of natural ability. They have strengths that other players don't have, like (Mike) Dunleavy at 6-11, able to handle the ball and be a point forward. And we have a really good point guard (Baron Davis). The big men aren't star players, but they can fill in at that spot. If we change the tempo, that should be good for everybody. And then to see if these players will do what I want them to do, and I think they will be able to. Q. What things are those? A. There are a hundred things, but, basically, to change their style of play to a faster pace, and a higher scoring game, if you will. And to play an unselfish game always anchored by a good solid defense, in which not everyone can guard successfully, but you get support from other guys which hasn't been a particularly strong point of this team. But I think we have a chance to make the playoffs. I feel real good about that. Q. What improvement must you make? A. Mikael Pietrus is one of my mystery guys. He will play for me, if he does what I want him to do, emphasizing the defensive end and not to worry about the offensive end. He's a great athlete, and he can run. And I'm looking for runners. There are other mystery guys; I don't know if they'll be able to make the next move I want them to make. I'm going to need (Troy) Murphy to play some center for us. If he can make some adjustments, he'll have his best year. And it will allow me to play Dunleavy at the "4," because he basically struggles at small forward. He can function offensively better against the "4s" in the league. And (Monta) Ellis is a mystery guy. I'm not sure as a high school player (two years ago) if he's ready to play big minutes. I'd like him to, and I'm going to give him the opportunity. Q. In your system, do you need one team leader, or is it a composite thing like Run TMC? A. In Run TMC, (Tim) Hardaway was our leader. It's better if your point guard is the leader. (Davis) is a great player, and he's going to flourish in my system. But he's too heavy to play my style of ball. He's got to get thinner; everybody has to be thinner than they are. Q. How do you psychologically convince this team it can win? A. My approach is that they're going to have to show me why they can't win. I don't know why this team doesn't win. They should be a better team than they are, even playing in a tough conference and division. Q. A familiar pattern: The Warriors unravel in the fourth quarter. How do you cure that? A. There's some obvious things. They're one of the worst foul-shooting teams in the NBA; we've got to remedy that. Then there's some situations like decisions and spacing. But if you can't make your foul shots, it's going to be hard to play down the stretch for me. Q. Chris Webber left the Warriors, and they've yet to recover. Looking back, could you have handled that situation differently? A. Not after I got him here. If I had known more about the person, I wouldn't have taken him. The guy who was going to do all the positive things turned out to be a negative situation. He was young and unwilling to do much of anything, and has had many problems since. I don't think anyone would have succeeded with Chris early in his career. There's only been a couple of great players who haven't enjoyed playing for me, and he's one. Q. But because it was you or him at the time, do you feel any responsibility for the Warriors' ensuing playoff disappearance? A. I feel more responsibility in them making the playoffs. Q. Owner Chris Cohan chose you over Webber, then you left abruptly soon afterward. You're back, but have you and Cohan made up? A. It wasn't difficult. It wasn't Cohan I had the problem with; it was the owner beforehand, Jim Fitzgerald. Today we're best of friends, but I begged to leave after Chris' rookie year. He was going to hold out, and I had another job lined up with the San Antonio Spurs. My good friend Gregg Popovich was the GM; he wanted me to come if I could get out of my contract. Fitzgerald didn't want me to do that, partly because the team was going to be sold, and I was part of that. That was a huge mistake for the franchise. Q. You've traditionally been hard on rookies, but have you mellowed generally as a coach? A. I don't know that I've mellowed with rookies, because rookies make a lot of mistakes, so I don't play them much. But we all mellow with age. Q. How is the NBA better since you began coaching in the league 30 years ago? A. We can do more stuff within the illegal defense guidelines. And we got away from a lot of the isolation stuff, which makes our game flow better. And athletes are better and in better condition than the old days. Q. Where has the NBA fallen off over the last 30 years? A. Something that needs to be addressed is the charge line near the basket; it's too close and hurts our game. There are seven or eight charges a game, like college ball. Players are getting hurt, and it detracts from the sensational play, like the drive dunk in traffic, which you don't see any more. We need to extend the charge line out another foot or foot and a half. Q. A general question: Has the rest of the world caught up to America in basketball, based on international results this century? A. Other countries are different than we are; they play more together in the summer leagues. They're more apt to play better together than we are after being assembled a month before we go (into international competition). But we still have the best basketball players in the world here. Q. You played in the NBA in the 1960s. If you needed a last-second shot to win an NBA championship, which player would you pick from the last 40 years? A. There would be two, Kobe (Bryant) and Michael (Jordan). I'd want the ball in their hands because they can throw in a shot any time they want. Q. But wasn't Jerry West "Mr. Clutch"? A. He was a great player, but he didn't have the ability to get in creases. He didn't do what those two could do. </div> Source Nellie seems intrigued with Monta Ellis, which I like. I never realized Nellie and Fitzgerald where the ones butting heads after Nellie left. I always thought he didn't get along with Cohen. Awesome Q&A session from Nellie. Anyone remember the commercials the Warriors had when Nellie first took over coaching? He was walking around the playgrounds in tennis shoes and they tried to sell him as the blue collar coach, who isn't flashy, but knows what he's doing.
The context of the interview sounded like he did not like him because of how young he was. I like Monta overall better than I like Pietrus...
Yeah Nellie needs to realize Monta is smarter and faster than Pietrus. Not to mention his man to man defense is better and so is his offensive game. I like Pietrus, but he plays like a rookie still while Monta has surprised us all. And Murphy at C? The softest C there can be. Expect him to get all of his shots blocked. And Dunleavy is charmin soft. Moving him to PF will get him killed on defense. KG? JO? Dwight? Bosh? ... Lets hope this works.
He certainly says all the right things. I like his confidence in the team when he was asked how he makes the team believe they can make the playoffs. Why shouldn't they make make it? If they buy into his system and get their asses in shape. Nellie is definately challenging Davis to get into better shape if he wants this team to be successful because he is the undeniable leader.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting AnimeFANatic:</div><div class="quote_post">Yeah Nellie needs to realize Monta is smarter and faster than Pietrus. Not to mention his man to man defense is better and so is his offensive game. I like Pietrus, but he plays like a rookie still while Monta has surprised us all. And Murphy at C? The softest C there can be. Expect him to get all of his shots blocked. And Dunleavy is charmin soft. Moving him to PF will get him killed on defense. KG? JO? Dwight? Bosh? ... Lets hope this works.</div>Hmm. you have a limited view of basketball. Nellie said he's going to go small and fast with the team - they're not going to beat their guy by OVERPOWERING at each position, but by bringing the guy OUT to the 3 point line, and using speed as an advantage. As in how Phoenix does it. Power is only ONE factor. If power was the only factor, would Dirk be the best 4 in the league? hardly.
Really? My view of basketball is limited? Thanks for the heads up. By the way it's spelled Fundamentals. Using speed as an advantage? Murphy is one of the slowest PF's in the league. And I never said they were gonna OVERPOWER anyone, Dunleavy and Murphy can NEVER do that, I believe I said both were soft. If you've seen them play you'd know that. Dunleavy and Murphy at C is like the worst defensive combination. Re-read my post and quote me on where I talked about POWER.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting phunDamentalz:</div><div class="quote_post">Hmm. you have a limited view of basketball. Nellie said he's going to go small and fast with the team - they're not going to beat their guy by OVERPOWERING at each position, but by bringing the guy OUT to the 3 point line, and using speed as an advantage. As in how Phoenix does it. Power is only ONE factor. If power was the only factor, would Dirk be the best 4 in the league? hardly.</div>I think what he was getting at is that DEFENSIVELY, we are going to get killed down low with Dunleavy at the 4 or Murphy at the 5. Yes they can also create mis matches when they are on offense but they will get over powered on D. Nellie acknowledged this in the interview though: <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">And to play an unselfish game always anchored by a good solid defense, in which not everyone can guard successfully, but you get support from other guys ? which hasn't been a particularly strong point of this team.</div> He realizes that there will be mismatches on Defense with these small line ups but this is where team defense will come into play.
The problem with team defense is it only gets you so far unless you have good individual defensive men to begin with (ones that don't expect too much help, but will give great help and has excellent reaction time, floor awareness and lateral quickness to respond/recognize the defensive play). The other issue on our defense is we have a poor transition defense and guys that can't guard weakside like Foyle can. Another defensive problem is if guys are constantly having to expect help it gets a lot of people out of position to rebound. There's no box-outs in the paint for close range misses or guys have trouble getting out on those long missed three pointers that tend to bounce back out to the shooter. We've got to limit other team's second chance points while increasing our own second chance points (thereby getting more shot opportunities from open spots on the floor or put back those points in the paint) On offense, it will be tricky because like Nelson brought up free throws and poor decision-making as a team has absolutely killed us. It's like the Warriors has no discipline, chemistry, or mental game to do the little things like make the 75-80% shot, the uncontested j, the wide open off-hand layup, and taking care of the ball and choosing the right shots. Also, ball movement hasn't been as fluid as successful teams because guys don't create very well with or without the ball due to low skillset or guys are not being very gifted athletically/mentally to hold or beat their assignment. I think offense can be effective if guys learn to shoot better and move with/without the ball and to make it so our power guys can get at the rim (jrich/pietrus or any other highflyer that can play above/below the rim). It's obvious we can't run transition every single trip down the floor, unless guys defensively rebound, get the outlet pass out quick, run it, make smart decisions on the break. Even if we can't run most of the time (esp in the 4th), we need to find out how to make plays when we're facing a set defense that's not transitioning from offense to defense. I think Coach Nelson is a bandaid for a bleeding wound. I don't know how bad the wound is, but it seems like a gunshot wound. If this wound ain't so severe as a gunshot, then maybe Nelson is better than having no bandaid at all. I think like Nelson says, we need to find players that can step up and if we can't find those guys, we need to keep rebuilding and this time not screw our cap with guys not named Jrich. I think we have some good role players, but my impression is that no teams really want them for that price and contract length because they don't feel they do enough things like a Shane Battier or a Bruce Bowen or a rebounder like Udonis Haslem or Reggie Evans. This is troubling because we need to make room to address our needs and find guys with a higher ceiling to do more at the big positions and small forward positions. We've got a lot of money tied up to bench guys like Foyle, (middle-of-the-pack starter) Murphy, (10th man) Dunleavy. Murphy is only justified making that much because he produces tangible numbers, but the rest are suck. But with Murphy, I think we need more intangibles in addition to the tangible stats (Dun + Foyle offer those intangibles during moments.). I mean it's like the Antwan Jamison effect and the salary he was getting, with other mediocre overpaid players joining the future mostly one-dimensional all-star. Unless we structure things like the Detroit Pistons or land a true superstar, we've got not business wasting lots of money on guys like Foyle, Murphy, Dunleavy, Fortson, Dampier, or whoever lacks the mentality, skill, or ability to play both ends of the floor as an important starting team player.
