Who says? They won with good wings before they got a great one in KD. But they weren't built around their wings, which was all I was originally disputing. Nothing more, nothing less. You can read more into it if you want, but im moving on.
Chauncey simply has a huge learning curve....he can't get caught watching the game when he needs to be coaching the game....he needs better endgame plans from everything I've seen...you have to have talent to win in this league and when you get talent you need to put them in a position to succeed....Chauncey is struggling with the endgame and not great at keeping fresh legs on the court....he needs to stop opposing teams runs when they get up 6...not up by 12....in a close game Popovich would call a timeout if the other team got up two possessions...Chauncey is waiting until they have double digit runs.....that needs to change...also this ball movement idea only works if you have some zip on a pass and the guy can catch it....and if I coached these guys would be shooting a thousand freethrows at practice...we went from a great free throw team to a team you want to foul.
Agian, Klay and Draymond are both great 2 way wings. They would have no championships without them. And their backups were better than any wing we've had since Brandon Roy, and even then they are all better defenders than Roy was. That's what made them better. They are a great team because of their defense. That comes from their wings. They are elite because they have that, and also have one of the best scoring guards in the history of the NBA. It's important that we give those wings the credit they deserve. They allow Curry to be great.
GS was the best at getting hands on the ball. No player could go into the paint w/o Warrior hands all over the place.
Klay is a wing? I thought that was small and power forward? Ive already stated Klay was part og the backcourt. Iggy and dray were the wings. Not Klay. Good better than average wings, but neither close to the caliber of s great wing in KD. Again. Gsw was built around their backcourt which is steph and Klay. Not thier wings. Fact.
2s and 3s are wings. A stretch 4 can be a wing as well. Draymond is a unique player in that he is a wing as a creator in the offense and often defends wings as well, so that's why I included him as a wing.
Can be, for sure. Really just PG and center. But really the argument can be made that even Steph is as much of a wing as he is a PG. But he's short and defends PG, so he's not considered a wing. Which further supports the idea that the team is absolutely LOADED with wings.
Seems to me like trying to compare what Steve Kerr started with and what Chauncey has to start with might be a dead end conversation?
On the other hand it doesn’t seem like Steve Kerr or even Steve Nash have had near the problems running the game and making game decisions that Billups has had. Both seem to have been way better from the get go. Most can say that might have something to do with their assistants? Brooks might not be all that good either?
It's a lot easier to make decisions when you have an MVP with an all-star next to them. Kerr recently said if he would've taken the Knicks job when he was offered it, he would've been fired in two years and probably would've never got a coaching job. I'm with you that Billups hasn't been overly impressive, but he's working with less than a full deck, just like the previous coach.
I got to say one thing. Scott Brooks pulled Tony Snell and kept him off the court in the first half. Problem was he only had Elleby to replace him with. Brooks also was a bit better at calling a timeout at a 6 point run instead of a 10 point run.
No question Billups has had nothing like the lineups Kerr or Nash have had. My problem starts a bit when this conversation was being had three and four years ago. Kerr was gifted a great roster. Portland has not had that kind of roster at any point in the last 9 years with Lillard. Maybe close the year Wes went down but I'm not even sure about that?