Fair enough, Jason, I agree with our personnel not being quite there yet, but I just think the coaching ain't the problem as much as people make it out to be, it's a teamwork issue and some dogs can't learn new tricks or they learn them slow. I don't know about Stephon Marbury being a better Warrior than Baron (under Montgomery) or Dick Vitale's comments. I'm pretty much in disagreement with those things. BTW, JV try to avoid derogatory terms in the future. I know it wasn't meant to offend, but it can be taken as offensive. Keep up the posts.
You make some good points Jason. If Baron isn't going to be influenced at all by our coaches then Marbury would be better for our team because he penetrates more and hes a better shooter. If our coaches could at least control what Baron does most of the time then Baron is far superior to Marbury. Last year when Baron ran the show the team was awesome, now with Monty getting more time to teach his offense it seems like the team is nowhere near the offensive beast it was at the end of last year. I really haven't seen much in Monty that makes me want to see him around long term.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Run BJM:</div><div class="quote_post">You make some good points Jason. If Baron isn't going to be influenced at all by our coaches then Marbury would be better for our team because he penetrates more and hes a better shooter. If our coaches could at least control what Baron does most of the time then Baron is far superior to Marbury. Last year when Baron ran the show the team was awesome, now with Monty getting more time to teach his offense it seems like the team is nowhere near the offensive beast it was at the end of last year. I really haven't seen much in Monty that makes me want to see him around long term.</div> Waht up Run BJM. I'm not sure who's at fault in the Baron vs Monty issues. Prolly both. Baron doesn't seem to listen and Monty's doesn't have the players on the same page. For example, during the Clippers game where they came from behind to win. Baron didn't know to run the play right away. 1) Monty didn't make sure Baron knew to run it fast. He took responsibility and even Dun said that Baron didn't know. 2) Baron ran the clock down and then tried to drive and take the shot, but he fell down. I doubt that was the play Monty wanted. Baron took blame for that one. Right now, I'm ranting more on Monty. Bad substitutions or not having the right players out there. Monty complains after the game about rebounding, but a lot of the time in the game he has the small team out there. Foyle has become reluctant to go after rebounds and instead focus on blocked shots. Monty should be on Foyle to go after the ball more. Shooting too many 3s. Again, Monty has the small ball lineup in there. It's not like he's running plays for Ike or AB inside. It's either Baron drives the ball in, he passes to Murphy for an outside 3-ball, gives it to JRich for a slash or pull up 3-ball or Dun sometimes so he can drive or be wide open for another 3-ball. Mix it up. Run some screen rolls where the ball goes back to the cutter. Does Monty even run any plays besides out of bounds? Finally, if Monty was hired to develop our young players, then how come none are in the all-star game or rooks game?
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting custodianrules2:</div><div class="quote_post">Fair enough, Jason, I agree with our personnel not being quite there yet, but I just think the coaching ain't the problem as much as people make it out to be, it's a teamwork issue and some dogs can't learn new tricks or they learn them slow. I don't know about Stephon Marbury being a better Warrior than Baron (under Montgomery) or Dick Vitale's comments. I'm pretty much in disagreement with those things. BTW, JV try to avoid derogatory terms in the future. I know it wasn't meant to offend, but it can be taken as offensive. Keep up the posts.</div> Well, I have to agree things DID change a lot for Monty when Baron arrived. Especially after the wins at the end of season. He and Mullin couldn't have foresaw that. What it did do was raise expectations and that's not necessarily a good thing for a young team. Still, one would expect Monty to rise to the challenge. I mean if you expect Ike to play center (sarcasm)... BTW to digress, what happened to the Murphy at center experiment? It's like he hardly played there. Oh I'm not ready to trade Baron, but something should be done if he's not listening. And I don't think he should run the show over Monty. As for the offensive post, maybe I put in the wrong emoticon. I know a couple of people here from another board and it was meant as an "inside" joke.
It's true that Davis didn't exactly performed his best in this season. And, there is definitely something going on between Davis and Monty. So what should we do? 1. Keep both and hope that they will resolve the difference. - Probably the most peaceful way. But, is this realistically possible? At this point, I really don't see it. The major reason Davis doesn't have a respect toward Monty is because not only Monty didn't prove anything in NBA, Monty really didn't show that his plan would be successful in NBA. The way things are going, I just don't see Monty even getting a chance to fully control the team and prove his worth. 2. Keep one and move another. Most likely solution at this point is to keep Davis and move Monty, because the talents like Davis just don't come out very often. With proper coaching and correcting Davis' weakness, Davis can be the top PG in NBA. Also, among number of bad moves Mullin made, Davis trade is the crown jewel of what Mullin made. If Mullin removes Davis, he really will not have anything to show for. Bottom line is that in two years, Monty really didn't do much to save his job, and if Warriors didn't make a PO this season, Monty may be sacrificed to take a blame regardless of Davis-Monty relationship. Frankly, I never saw Murphy at center in long term, because regardless of who we put at PF (Dunleavy or Diogu), our inside defense would be absolutely horrendous. I mean, our inside defense is already one of the worst in the league to begin with. And, that's probably why we do not see Murphy at center in long term...
There were a few dozen points worth exploring,and I'll try getting back to somw when I'm a bit more awake. My sense is the W's tend to go to the same small lineup in the 4th,which does give you FT% guys,dribblers,but fewer boards and too many guys who think a contested 3 is a good shot. We fail to VALUE EACH POSSESION which is important always but vital in a close end game. We HAVE 2 point G's and our "point forward" and yet nobody manages to get the ball inside to Murph. Screens? Foyle sets good screens and lots of them,often he's not in for the end game however. Many of Foyle's screens go to waste as the perimeter guys are not using them well to either take a shot or seperate from the defender. A good player should be able to improv off a good pick or screen,and sometimes our guys do. A lot of the time however we have our big man 20 ft out setting a pick,and it's wasted and a weak 3 is chucked with us shorthanded on the boards. We'd be better off doing fewer perimeter picks,more midrange ones,would be better havig some bigs to rebound if we are going to be firing from outside. There is no magical way to play the 4th every night,a good approach is to do what's worked so far. A good point to note,if we burn out Murph,Baron,J rich earlier,they won't be at their max at the end.. Meanwhile,a guy like Monta,who is very quick,and won't have even 20 mins,will look super fast in the late game.
Just a thought...Zarko also does not get a lot of minutes,is an inside outside threat,a good passer in traffic. I'd think he could develop into a 4th quarter guy,it would give him a role he could build on.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Kwan1031:</div><div class="quote_post">It's true that Davis didn't exactly performed his best in this season. And, there is definitely something going on between Davis and Monty. So what should we do? 1. Keep both and hope that they will resolve the difference. - Probably the most peaceful way. But, is this realistically possible? At this point, I really don't see it. The major reason Davis doesn't have a respect toward Monty is because not only Monty didn't prove anything in NBA, Monty really didn't show that his plan would be successful in NBA. The way things are going, I just don't see Monty even getting a chance to fully control the team and prove his worth. 2. Keep one and move another. Most likely solution at this point is to keep Davis and move Monty, because the talents like Davis just don't come out very often. With proper coaching and correcting Davis' weakness, Davis can be the top PG in NBA. Also, among number of bad moves Mullin made, Davis trade is the crown jewel of what Mullin made. If Mullin removes Davis, he really will not have anything to show for. Bottom line is that in two years, Monty really didn't do much to save his job, and if Warriors didn't make a PO this season, Monty may be sacrificed to take a blame regardless of Davis-Monty relationship. Frankly, I never saw Murphy at center in long term, because regardless of who we put at PF (Dunleavy or Diogu), our inside defense would be absolutely horrendous. I mean, our inside defense is already one of the worst in the league to begin with. And, that's probably why we do not see Murphy at center in long term...</div> I'm not sure if it's Monty, Baron, Baron vs Monty or other players. Monty may have been a good college coach, but he's not a good fit here and was the wrong hire. Imagine if Jeff Van Gundy was coach here. His philosophy of playing D, slow the ball down and half court offense wouldn't be right for the personnel we have. Same with Monty. You can't change a coach's philosophy because that's what works for him. Also, Monty's hiring was very strange to me. No other coach was interviewed and Mullin just got promoted to VP from management trainee. I suspect it was Cohan who hired Monty and that's why he can't be fired now. Second, even if we get rid of Monty, then we still have Baron. He has had a history of not listening to coaches and getting them fired. He's got some strong opinions about how to run the team. Only trouble is he's not the coach. At this point, I rather see Monty go and we start running again. Maybe we can make a run again like last season .
Good comments guys. I'm definitely think JV/Kwan's got a point about Monty not being able to reign certain guys in, especially since Montgomery is only an unproven Sophmore year coach, he doesn't have his kind of guys anymore, and he's got the "college coaches don't make good nba head coaches" stigma surrounding him. Maybe we're not mentally/physically geared to play Jeff Van Gundy or Montgomery "dumbed down" half court style offense, but we certainly have to play both their style of defense, get some effort on glass, and get better passing the ball if we want to be a fastbreak team. We can't even get the rebound half the time after playing defense or recognizing where the outlet pass is suppose to go or when the ballhandler is supposed to push. In college, I read that Montgomery hardly ever used zone defenses, had to worry about free throws, overdribbling or running a break, it was straight up man to man using slow, unathletic players and good fundamentals. Why the hell can't we do that? Well it might be our growth as a team, talent level and the league's talent level in general preventing us from playing solid man-to-man D and executing. But still the minute we zone up or rely too much Baron Davis' talent, players get kind of lazy, especially on the glass because they're not moving. It's like the same with our offense where only one guy is moving and that's the guy with the ball. And no wonder sometimes he doesn't want to pass or follow plays if nobody else is helping him. I think this is where we need to get some guys who will do whatever it takes to play defense, play dirty work, set those screens and not have to worry about getting bailed out like JRich, Baron and Murphy do. I kind of miss that Brian Cardinal/Eduardo Najera players that actually make others better. Now it's like we have just a bunch of scorers that don't help each other out if they're not in posession of the ball. This is why I think Baron has to express his concerns in a little more constructive manner than letting things get to his head and not being professional about them. You never ignore the coach. Also, I think REREM explained Monty's Murphy at C, Fisher at sg strategy pretty well. I just hate that strategy, but at least we understand what Montgomery is aiming for when our best strengths are Murphy and Fish's ability to catch and shoot off dribble penetration. The problem is the few guys who can set really good screens are missing from the 4th quarter. We can't win without the dirty work somebody has to do. It's like everyone is concerned about being the man and doing well on the stat sheet that we have few impact setup guys looking to get others involved or we have no guys involved in plays to create separation for the ballhandler. Also you have to remember that Montgomery wouldn't even play Foyle at times because he was that lost on offense. Foyle (and also Biedrins) still has problems with setting some screen as he does it too far away from the play, gets bumped off or he commits some kind of violation off the ball. 3 seconds, moving screen, whatnot. Foyle is our best player in terms of doing the dirty work a center needs to do, but it's not good enough to let's say a dirty work guy like PJ Brown, Emeka Okafor, younger Dale Davis, or Kurt Thomas. Murphy doesn't even do half the stuff that Foyle does behind the scenes. Like REREM said there are sometimes posessions where guys will try to do their own thing and they don't work with their teammates trying to help them out off the ball. That's when certain hands or lineups are forced when we're trying to gain some chemistry/fluidity out there. I bet if contract situations were a little bit nicer and there wasn't such an urgency to get to the playoffs, we could slow down and play more rookies. Right now the Warriors have to play almost perfectly in order to win and the best guys to do that are the guys who have experience and have seen the most playing time together. We have perimeter talent, but in this league you can't win without good solid big men that can make the guards better, you can't win without consistent defense/rebounding. Just look at the Nets from awhile ago when they had Kenyon Martin. Martin ain't the biggest offensive talent, but he did the little and big things in terms of activity, rebounding, defense, to fuel guard play. The point is he does a lot more than let's say Murphy or Foyle at both ends of the floor. Sometimes we have too few dimensions for role players surrounding the guards. The guards are supposed to be this franchise's building blocks and Mullin didn't recognize that sooner because he did some major damage before he even acquired Baron with the Fish and Foyle contracts... and possibly the Dunleavy one. Fisher we probably have to keep playing because there's no team option on his 6th year. We've got to make some moves soon for the future.
Clif metions dumbing down plays,and another way to see that is simplification. Lombardi used to use a very small group of plays but his teams learned to execute them so well that they could be unstoppable. Having a few things you do perfect is always good....and yet it is also good to have the unexpected,some things so not by the book that surprise becomes a big edge. I think Foyle sets very good screens,but Foyle often is not in the end game. We send out a rather small lineup,ball handlers,perimeter shooters,and they handle it a lot,shoot from the perimeter a lot,and we get a passive,cautious game that trusts to luck. We don't have JJ Reddick,a guy who may hit 3-4 long J's in a row,we do have Fish,and Fish CAN hit a contested 3...but thinks he can hit them ALL.. Baron hits clutch 3's too,but whoever is chucking,about 2/3 of 3's will be a miss. Those misses become rebounds and we don't get nearly enough of those boards. On the other end,our small guys are pests on the perimeter,but,so what,the guys who have the ability to defend in the paint,are sitting,so what our D "gives" is not the perimeter game,but the higher % inside stuff. We need some variety,we need quick,fresh,legs,but we also need rebounding,defense in the paint,we need to consider what matchups are working,what tactics worked at other points that night,what got us results. Reverting to a formula is not proving to be especially effective. Murphy has lately unveiled a lot of previously dormant (or repressed?) talents. Zarko is a 6-11 who can hit a J,drive,pass. Ike has a bunch of neat power moves,a nice FG%,a nice FT % and he blocks some shots. Monta is jet-quick a guy opponents don't have a book on...hell,we don't have a book on him,but especially,Monta is not going to be at 3/4 speed from playing 35 mins. We have options. I probably should have re-read my earlier post..as I repeated too much. We have all agreed that a W's problem had been too much chuck-a-three ball. The team HAS seen that,and has cut back on the 3's...except for the endgame. It was interesting that without Baron or Murph,the W's had to use a different 4th qtr game,and it worked fine,right out of the box.
Nice points REREM. It's also probably why we're too predictable at times and guys don't want to run a set play: either because they can but its predictable or they can't because they're not very comfortable at executing the play precisely as it was drawn up. We have a little different situation from the Knicks but I think the Warriors are related to the Knicks struggles in certain ways. http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/story/392719p-333031c.html Knicks have a good basketball coach, a lot of players with overpriced tags, a lot of guards, but these three things aside, does the talent fit together and do they always work hard and listen to the coach who is focussing on the game plan? Do the Knicks even have any flexibility for long term strategy or an identity? Warriors seem very similar in ways to the Knicks despite our GM not being as hyper on making deals for the short term. I just think no matter what happens with players or coaches, the GM ultimately is responsible since he put those things together. On some degree it could be the ownership if he is interfering with or hiring bad personnel for basketball operations or changing the long term plan or budget. You want the guys who don't have the scope of knowledge as professionals to stay out of the way. Mullin has almost two years of being in office. Hopefully there are continued improvements and no setbacks based on financials. But this whole overpaying players might prove to be the same undoing of all the other GMs, especially if Baron doesn't work out and guys like Dunleavy get paid bucks without having to prove much. Foyle and Fish could have been blamed on poor bargaining leverage, but still Foyle was snatched up seemingly without hesitation compared to other free agent big men in discussions.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting custodianrules2:</div><div class="quote_post">Good comments guys. I'm definitely think JV/Kwan's got a point about Monty not being able to reign certain guys in, especially since Montgomery is only an unproven Sophmore year coach, he doesn't have his kind of guys anymore, and he's got the "college coaches don't make good nba head coaches" stigma surrounding him. Maybe we're not mentally/physically geared to play Jeff Van Gundy or Montgomery "dumbed down" half court style offense, but we certainly have to play both their style of defense, get some effort on glass, and get better passing the ball if we want to be a fastbreak team. We can't even get the rebound half the time after playing defense or recognizing where the outlet pass is suppose to go or when the ballhandler is supposed to push. In college, I read that Montgomery hardly ever used zone defenses, had to worry about free throws, overdribbling or running a break, it was straight up man to man using slow, unathletic players and good fundamentals. Why the hell can't we do that? Well it might be our growth as a team, talent level and the league's talent level in general preventing us from playing solid man-to-man D and executing. But still the minute we zone up or rely too much Baron Davis' talent, players get kind of lazy, especially on the glass because they're not moving. It's like the same with our offense where only one guy is moving and that's the guy with the ball. And no wonder sometimes he doesn't want to pass or follow plays if nobody else is helping him. I think this is where we need to get some guys who will do whatever it takes to play defense, play dirty work, set those screens and not have to worry about getting bailed out like JRich, Baron and Murphy do. I kind of miss that Brian Cardinal/Eduardo Najera players that actually make others better. Now it's like we have just a bunch of scorers that don't help each other out if they're not in posession of the ball. This is why I think Baron has to express his concerns in a little more constructive manner than letting things get to his head and not being professional about them. You never ignore the coach.</div> I don't know what kind of players are Mike Montgomery players. If we want to compare it to his college teams, then I guess Mike's roster would have to be a roster with much better talent compared to the opponents, good shooters, and the best big men in the league. I hope that it doesn't take until the Warriors can get this kind of talent, that all of a sudden Mike Montgomery becomes a good NBA head coach. One of the things that Mike was good at, was his ability to bring good players in(not the NBA head coach's job). In college he always had strong talent, which usually stayed for 4 years, three years at least, and he was good at getting the team to play hard together as a team, and had an offense that strived off having good perimeter shooters and people who worked in the paint and big men who had nice skills. Mike's defense in college was very much a straight up man-to-man defense. The perimeter defenders played very strongly and put a lot of pressure on the guards and wing players. The post players were good at defense because they were usually much more skilled than their opponents and usually had some great shot blockers such as Bourchardt and Tim Young or the Collins' twins. And I believe that Mike's rotations were usually much bigger than what they are now. I think Mike's rotations in college were more about having the players on the court play with all of their energy, especially the guards, and then if they get tired, then put in the bench guys. But in the NBA he has said that the NBA is a players' league, which has lead me to believe that he doesn't like to play the bench players so much, but rather the "proven players". This defense probably doesn't translate greatly with the Warriors because there aren't so many strong perimeter defenders on the Warriors, the opposing guards are much more athletic and skilled than the ones of whom Mike faced in college, it's easier for opponents to get penetration, there aren't many big men who can help as greatly near the hoop like Bourchardt, Young, etc. and also if you play strong tough perimeter defense in the NBA, you'll probably be called for a lot more fouls than what you can in the NCAA. The NCAA is much more condenced and not as spaced as the NBA is, which also makes rotations a bit more difficult and tricky in the NBA, especially without any illegal defenses or what not. As for energy guys, like Cardinal/Najera, I think the Warriors have those players in Zarko who gets quite a few offensive boards when he gets PT, and with Diogu who also grabs a ton of offensive rebounds when given the PT(both of those PF's are good passers and with the ball too and with shooting). The guards like Ellis and Dunleavy (who seems to be taking the ball to the hoop more) are good energy guys off the bench, Pietrus is usually a good energy player. Biedrins is all energy and hustle and is always everywhere on the court and usually in the right spots too. I don't think a lack of energy players is a problem, just that they don't get used properly is the problem. Like before during the losing streaks in December and early January, Mike was saying how little energy there would be on the court, yet he fails to realize that there are tons of energy players on the bench, that he fears to use.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Clif25:</div><div class="quote_post">I don't know what kind of players are Mike Montgomery players. </div> I think Monty guys are those who buy into the system without ego, are unselfish and guys who have all around fundamentals that know the game in any kind of style or environment. Outside of Jrich/Baron there are very few players who have all-around skills that bring impact on a nightly basis and make others better. We also need strong, tough, good passing big men with court awareness because a team that lacks quick ballhandlers / understanding of floor spacing needs to be good at being aware, making good decisions with the ball, passing and cutting (Princeton offense/backdoor plays - inside/outside game). We also need better screens, I don't think anyone tries as hard or can be unmovable as Foyle at this point except for maybe Ike. And on defense we just don't contest a whole lot of shots in time, protect the weakside, or stop quick guards. We need to improve our perimeter defense so we can play straight up man to man D and also have something reliable inside just in case. Right now Foyle isn't that intimidating or as mobile as he used to be. We also need execution, better shot selection, and a mixture of quickness, energy and physical toughness. Sometimes we don't even get that from our star and franchise players. Balanced team players that bring a lot of strengths inside and outside/ on defense and offense is what we're trying to find wouldn't we? It makes the most sense to find some kind of balance to this roster and to run Montgomery's halfcourt and use the defense to fuel fastbreaking offense. But we go for whatever is available through the draft (BAP) and through free agency and trades. I just hate how the financial situation is because we're now stuck with improving primarily through the draft or dangling rookies we've developed and selected through the draft. We've got a lot of hard-to-trade or low demand contracts and we're over the salary cap with no way to make deals happen unless we're giving up something of value or we wait until one of the big deals is near expiration. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting Clif25:</div><div class="quote_post"> Mike's defense in college was very much a straight up man-to-man defense. The perimeter defenders played very strongly and put a lot of pressure on the guards and wing players. The post players were good at defense because they were usually much more skilled than their opponents and usually had some great shot blockers such as Bourchardt and Tim Young or the Collins' twins. And I believe that Mike's rotations were usually much bigger than what they are now. I think Mike's rotations in college were more about having the players on the court play with all of their energy, especially the guards, and then if they get tired, then put in the bench guys. But in the NBA he has said that the NBA is a players' league, which has lead me to believe that he doesn't like to play the bench players so much, but rather the "proven players". </div> Right on Clif on the observations. Again, I think our team lacks depth and size, or we would have gone to the bench for that size and production a lot more this season and sooner. We need to be more skilled than the other team and I feel like we're overrated because we're not using other parts of the game to make up for not having a true franchise player or big man inside. Baron Davis can be a true franchise player if he works on his team game and plays the way we expect a point guard to play. No franchise player ever shot almost below 40% unless they were bringing things to the table like a young Jason Kidd would. Sorry I digress from the Monty talks. The thing about Monty is he's a coach like Larry Brown who doesn't like to depend on the rookies too much. Whether it's for the good of the team or for the good of the rookie's confidence and development, I do not know. All I know is we play small and we don't spread those minutes well enough to buy time for 4th quarter players. The 4th quarters, which we can be lackadaisical in either from fatigue or not having the right personnel, leaves us why an all offensive team can't score the ball efficiently. Well the attitude used to be that Monty wouldn't even call a timeout because he would expect players to fight hard instead of give up and expect a timeout. I hated that logic as well, but when he's forced to call it, it's either you feel the matchups on the floor are bad, the team effort is bad, or the teamplay is bad or all of the above. To me it's a team issue more than it is a coaching issue because I believe that basketball is about ball movement/inside/outside play and a lot of times we've lacked the kind of players that make that happen. No depth. We go with our best set of players and we still can't find that chemistry. We go with our role players and they don't get it done. To me it's the personnel and the coaching can't make capers and tom collins' mix into a 3 course meal whether you throw fillet mignon into it or not. We're pretty much a one or two man show rather than a solid 5 man team with depth. Anytime we take Baron away from the floor, we suck. Anytime Baron loses focus and starts taking over too much and misses shots, we lose. It wasn't until recently players started to work together and get used to each other. It didn't solve offensive woes, but we played the D and did other things well that don't show up on a stat sheet like hustle. Anytime anybody else tries to be like Baron, we lose. Anytime we stand around on D playing zone, we don't come up with the boards, or we fuel the other team's fastbreak with missed shots, poor box outs, and poor effort on rebounding, we lose. If only we could play straight up on defense, play unselfishly, and know what to do as a starting five to play towards strengths we'd be winning more in 4th quarters. My expectations of this team aren't as high as others, but at least we can try run something through the post and give the rookies a chance. We are so slow and weak as a team sometimes and Montgomery won't try to find alternatives like Musselman did (and maybe it's why Muss got fired because it's not what general management wanted from him in giving up on guys like Mike Dunleavy Jr.). However, bumping up Pietrus to the starting lineup was a start to improve that quickness, defense and hustle, but now we just need fundamentals, floor spacing, court awareness, passing, and teamwork, some things that Dunleavy at least brought to the team behind the scenes. We've won against some teams by simply playing the defense, things that Murphy and Baron sometimes lack the energy or skill to do against much quicker, more determined players. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting Clif25:</div><div class="quote_post"> This defense probably doesn't translate greatly with the Warriors because there aren't so many strong perimeter defenders on the Warriors, the opposing guards are much more athletic and skilled than the ones of whom Mike faced in college, it's easier for opponents to get penetration, there aren't many big men who can help as greatly near the hoop like Bourchardt, Young, etc. and also if you play strong tough perimeter defense in the NBA, you'll probably be called for a lot more fouls than what you can in the NCAA. The NCAA is much more condenced and not as spaced as the NBA is, which also makes rotations a bit more difficult and tricky in the NBA, especially without any illegal defenses or what not. </div> Yeah I agree with this, but then again I think Mullin is trying to build for the long term and not worry so much about short term. It's why he waited on Murphy and Jrich's deals (but balked and re-signed at the last possible moment) but jumped on good role players like Foyle and Fish early in the offseason and wasted the MLE and remaining cap space. Maybe he felt those who could serve as good mentors and be valuable contracts when their deals are up was the right way until the Warriors found a great deal or a franchise player. (not certain for sure, but why overpay that much that soon in the offseason? The leverage for Foyle couldn't have been that bad, but now he's more valuable to us when his deal is near expiration). But back to Monty and 4th quarters. As a coach in the NBA, where it's a players game, it's probably more about coaches managing minutes than getting the players to do what he wants them to do because players ultimately develop the team chemistry in the end and coaches try to find that by observing. A coach can only suggest and try to teach, but somebody has to listen and act on doing the right things out there without hesitation. The millionaires with nba experience with a lot more money invested in them long term has greater leverage than that of the coach with no experience, but they need to listen to the guy that really knows the game inside and out. They have to realize they don't need to settle for threes or stand around while Baron has the ball. Get open! Be Aware of the spacing and angles! Mainly, it's just execution and that takes awareness to be able to react to what the defense throws at you. It's why teams that win either have once in a lifetime players that are truly great and make anyone better or a group of guys with enough skill and unselfishness to play the right way, their execution is almost flawless and they get good shots. Either way, they all buy into what the coach is saying and they know what to do out there to hide their weaknesses and play to their strengths. Maybe we don't have that identity yet because our longest tenured warriors weren't even vetted like the winning teams do and we've got a lot of weaknesses and a very limited strengths. Murphy and Jrich were forced into roles pretty quickly in their careers and its not like we had a Dwayne Wade, Lebron James, or Chris Bosh that could come in immediately and set the tone (or proven vets for that matter). Guys like Jrich and Murphy didn't have enough time to really slow the game down and focus on certain things, but we're seeing new things from them even this year. I mean this team is still young, they need to learn the right way to play together in a variety of styles and that's the team development we need in order to get better with limited weapons we have already. That's my opinion. And Baron Davis, he does a lot of things that help the team, but he also needs to take some pointers from somebody about his weaknesses as a player. It's a franchise position he's playing. The biggest problems with our past point guards is they couldn't shoot or couldn't attack the lane all while figuring out how to set up their teammates. Baron has a chance to do that, and we're still waiting for some help for him and also waiting for him to learn to control himself out there and listen to the coach. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting Clif25:</div><div class="quote_post"> As for energy guys, like Cardinal/Najera, I think the Warriors have those players in Zarko who gets quite a few offensive boards when he gets PT, and with Diogu who also grabs a ton of offensive rebounds when given the PT(both of those PF's are good passers and with the ball too and with shooting). The guards like Ellis and Dunleavy (who seems to be taking the ball to the hoop more) are good energy guys off the bench, Pietrus is usually a good energy player. Biedrins is all energy and hustle and is always everywhere on the court and usually in the right spots too. I don't think a lack of energy players is a problem, just that they don't get used properly is the problem. Like before during the losing streaks in December and early January, Mike was saying how little energy there would be on the court, yet he fails to realize that there are tons of energy players on the bench, that he fears to use.</div> I agree the bench looks nice with Dunleavy being productive, Zarko giving some flashes of Dirkness, and Biedrins being the answer for us inside at some point. Pietrus has energy that has helped us a lot in setting the tone, so do Zarko/Biedrins/Ellis, but I think it's been a matter of them now spacing the floor and developing the courtvision and decision making that makes teams better. I mean it's important because the home viewer doesn't always catch it. They are more caught up in the guy that has the ball or catches the most attention at the moment. If you look at Pietrus he won't do some of the things polished players do, but he will be constantly moving like a super Brian Cardinal and you never know when he'll come up with a hustle play or an aggressive move to the rim or wonderfully made 3 point shot. He's exciting, but the flip of the coin is he won't make the team better unless he continues to develop. Besides Baron Davis, we lack polish and we also don't want players that emulate holding onto the ball or shooting below 40%. We need Baron Davis and all of the other guys that stand out to come together and play as a team. So we think we have a franchise talent at point guard, but none at big men and questionable role players. One thing I hate that about Montgomery and his stance on rookies. He's not playing to his strengths if he has no dependable big man that knows the game as well . Maybe Ike is still learning himself, but man we need his presence. Montgomery's got this problem where he feels rookies need to be developed slowly and earn those minutes over time no matter if there are flashes of good and bad. What if its not what the rookies want and confidence/pressure isn't a problem? Coaches in general don't like throwing in players where they don't know what they're going to get. On this developing team we need to figure out what we got before we lock up the wrong guys which we might have already. Part of the reason we don't make good investments is because we have to start somewhere and protect the current investments. There's been nobody to build on except for maybe Baron and Jrich and that's about it... then we also overpay guys and waste up cap space. We lost Arenas to lack of bird rights and no cap and Jamison was too overpaid to keep a team together around him. I hope the future doesn't repeat because we lost two players that could actually hit their free throws (must need for dependable 4th quarter play) and have made the all-star team because they did other things. They probably listened to their coach too and are learning to take the right shots they know they have a good chance of making. Sometimes in 4th quarters players try to go outside their capabilities rather than trusting teammates.
Wow CR2, you definitly have your brain thinking about the Warriors. Nice to meet fans with your passion. Your posts get me thinking, though I usually don't agree with what you may be saying, well at least in this last post, but then you are thinking so much it seems that you kind of switch positions mid post, and haha I really don't know what your stands are on a few issues. But for my reply to your post, this is my try. I think your second to last paragraph and third to last paragraph are reasons why it's bad that Montgomery hasn't been using the bench, even if it is full of rookies or players like that. One it doesn't give guys like Diogu some decent PT so that he could produce in areas where the Warriors need production. Same for Ellis on defense and being a play maker(how many deflections did he get the last game? and how many assistant coaches have said how great Ellis plays in practice, about him being the best player in scrimmages at times or about not being shocked about how well he's been playing?), along with Biedrins who is a needed post defender and rebounder, and also Zarko who hasn't gotten enough PT. Also they haven't played NBA live minutes together, so of course they aren't going to look very crisp. But if they were given more faith by Montgomery, then I think it would be different. It is the same way how Montgomery treated Pietrus last season, that is until Montgomery relaxed and used Pietrus more and then Pietrus just skyrocketed. The same thing is happening now and has happened throughout this season. Your fifth paragraph is started with a statement that I disagree with, though this paragraph is one that I do agree with in some ways, mostly in ways that I posted before in this thread. The Warriors played well in games that Baron has been injured, I think they have beaten the Cavs twice pretty well too, and the Clippers when Baron has been out. So I don't agree that the Warriors "suck" without Baron Davis. I could agree that the Warriors play better when there isn't anyone else playing like Baron on the team. I think that comes into play what I said in a previous post in this thread about maybe their being subtle problems with both Baron Davis and Jason Richardson as a back court and both wanting to be the player(s) to carry the team to victory. And the team play that you have said that has currently improved has happened when at one stretch only Jason was out, and now recently only when Baron was out. This was the time where also the bench got more PT and more opportunities(this going back to my first arguements). Yeah, and talking about dumbing down plays, I kind of like to take a dumbing down philosophy about basketball. The team that puts the ball in the other team's goal more times than the opponents wins the game. Well, ok sometimes my mind is so filled with thoughts that I have to think that basic. But really, in my mind, the NBA coach's job just has to be to prepare teams for the opponent, set up matchups, assign roles for each player, condition the team, develop a system for the team offensively and defensively that is set up for the team's personal to do what I said earlier "put the ball in the other team's goal more times than the opponents" or to stop the other team from scoring. No maybe it's not that easy, but sometimes I don't think it's very hard to beable to do these things as a basketball head coach for an NBA team for NBA players. And sometimes I think Mike Montgomery is not good at most of those things that I think makes an NBA head coach.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Clif25:</div><div class="quote_post">Wow CR2, you definitly have your brain thinking about the Warriors. Nice to meet fans with your passion. Your posts get me thinking, though I usually don't agree with what you may be saying, well at least in this last post, but then you are thinking so much it seems that you kind of switch positions mid post, and haha I really don't know what your stands are on a few issues. But for my reply to your post, this is my try. </div> All the time. I mean the Warriors are on the verge of something, but it could go either way in terms of results. It's a turning point. It may seem like I switch positions on some issues, but I still hold onto the ideal and argument that a good team for years to come, tries to play a balanced style of team ball on both ends of the floor and through nice moves made at the general management and coaching level. It's about making the right choices and that's not easy. Pietrus was promoted recently and I've been wanting that for the longest time, even though he's probably not going to be this guy that will make others better with the ball. It's at least one step in the right direction while making sure Dunleavy doesn't get in a funk about coming off the bench or complaining about lack of opportunities this season. And BTW, if I do seem like I'm switching stances on certain things, what I'm actually doing is trying to offer different ideas/explanations based on what we perceive as problems or benefits to this current basketball team. I can relate to a lot of things. After all perceptions are based on various levels of basketball knowledge as a fan or based on different perspectives or popular beliefs toward the game. I've grown as a fan to see a lot of different opinions and observations about the game that some fans may not see depending on how they see things to begin with. That's why I love this board. Opinions/observations with explanations and all the reasons for why they think or believe a certain way. For instance, sometimes I take sides with players like Baron because he's a unique talent and we're better with him more times than not. Sometimes I'm against him because he goes against the ideals that I have about the game which means more solid passing by him and his teammates, less dribbling with the ball, more movement off the ball, better shot selection, commitment on defense and doing things that make others better like he did last year (like having faith in other players and teaching/directing them). Obviously we need more talent around Baron and some other guys, but we can win without them if we try hard and produce. Sometimes I take sides with the coaching because they have the methodology and philosophy about the game that I share, but they don't always make the right decisions (in my mind) that can show that their way is going to work. That leads to team personnel/coaching staff and if we have the right guys for the beliefs that I share. Then that leads into what will work with this current roster for the mean time because obviously we can't pound the ball inside if Ike isn't ready or we have no post game except for guards... or if certain guys aren't going to be reliable in some areas of the game. I can relate on any number of issues as a longtime Warriors fan who discusses a lot of topics with other Warriors fans from different boards and has been around guys that have played a fairly high level of game. I have observed a lot of things that can work for other teams and possibly for the Warriors, but the thing is the Warriors have to start developing a lot more strengths than their weaknesses as of right now so they can match up with other teams and develop that identity, now and for the future. They need to get better as a team, develop more weapons to beat teams, play smarter which they're slowly doing even without Baron Davis or 3rd option scorer Troy Murphy in the lineup. The Warriors won't become perfect, but if they become balanced and develop some inside/outside threats, a strong 5 man defense, solid matchups, unselfishness, the dirty work, and strong execution, they wouldn't have to worry about not making the playoffs. We outsiders have it difficult understanding the Warriors position because we only get our information based on what we watch, what they release and from news articles and listening to commentators/analysts. But it's obviously clear there's the long term and short term objectives of this club that can be conflicting with one another. Both the short term and long term are just unforseeable. We could be great for years to come we could be bad for years to come. We could be missing the playoffs or going on a huge run for the 6th seed while other teams flop. It's like I have good vibes about certain players, but their flaws concern me and it is often good teamwork mixed with skill/attitude that makes a team great rather than individual talent and four other guys. But we also need that great individual talent to build a team around. You kind of get where I'm coming from? If it's not one issue it's another. It's a catch 22 with what we have. We're reacting to some things we see short term and long term and there's no immediate answer so we tend to isolate the things we see right now and that spawns more issues which we discuss. "Well Dunleavy sucks more times than not, but he knows where to be off the ball and he's making smart plays that good players are supposed to do." "Well Pietrus is awesome because he's so gifted physically and aggressive and he plays defense and has quickness that nobody else can match," but he makes stupid mistakes and is out of position so much that it makes the other four guys having to deal with him as well. For the team you need both skill and all those great mismatches in our favor as well as the teamwork, intangibles, direct results, chemistry, leadership and basketball I.Q. Tons of things to even isolate them in discussion. The Warriors have never been balanced like that or have found the ideal player that can lead a team the way great franchise players do. Baron Davis is the closest in a long time and he pretty much is the guy that will make others better, but he's got many flaws as well. If he closes up we're not good, if other people aren't contributing we're not that good. Mullin needs to figure out where we want to go and who is the right fit or if this team is capable of developing into a great team. That might take years depending if there is flexibility, faith in players, and the right opportunities for this club. Maybe just concentrating ont he short term this team can win, but they have to buy into what the coaching wants them to do in terms of an inside/outside movement of the ball with organized, dynamic game plan and getting open looks or clear paths to the basket for high % shots. They also have to play the defense and recognize many things at once to value or earn those posessions. It's hard work, but you have talent that has money invested in them long term and they have to find more ways to win than just playing individual ball. As we're waiting for all of this to unfold, we have certain levels of faith of the unknown. I'm just trying to emulate the feelings that we may have, but also back up the philosphy of the game that I admire. As long as there is an understanding of what the approach is, you don't mind the results not being there in this stage of development. I perceive the Warriors are still developing and victims of unfair hype to make the playoffs since they they've landed Baron Davis and have played some stellar open court basketball last half season. In all that hype I think the team has forgotten a few things while other teams got a lot stronger. A few things have been consistent with other teams that win. It's the attitude, skill, confidence in one another, teamwork, execution, and everything else like having a strong management team and ownership to be there. There's so many things we perceive as problems/benefits that might not be the real issue for short term and long term predictions. Like coaching for instance can be erratic in our minds that we blame a coach for not playing a rookie or the way we perceive certain players on the floor doing what they're doing regardless if that's how the coach wants them to play. Or what if players are just not able to do what they want in terms of results, but they have the right mindset and attitude for the game. It's hard to tell. What I think is wrong with the Warriors is that they are still finding themselves and learning to be consistent on defense and offense as a team. Unfortunately, we may not have the personnel, we may not have the depth, the coaching style may not be there. I'm seeing different results on a game to game basis and perceiving different things as well. A team without Baron Davis and Murphy should have gotten killed last week, but they played well as a team and moving the ball around and executing. When Baron Davis is playing, he's looking to make plays, but nobody else is trying to get open or moving where they should be or making their shots. The other 4 guys rely on him than any kind of game plan and when he gets taken out the Warriors collapse unless he gets subbed in. Was it just his energy and not so much his creativity in making offense for others? Was he following coaches orders? Can we continue to play well without Baron Davis like that or was it too small of a sample size to judge or was the end result having to do anything with the coach or certain guys not playing. Was it just pure desire of going out on a high note before break and not losing? These are all ideas I'm trying to throw out there. I really do think that sometimes we don't have the right personnel in terms of players and we're not playing the right way the coaches intended for the players to play. It could also be the Warriors aren't focussing on the short term goals they want to achieve as a team, but just making the playoffs. They can't think like that. They have to play all the way through and work one step at a time and develop these things as a team before they can talk playoffs. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting Clif25:</div><div class="quote_post"> I think your second to last paragraph and third to last paragraph are reasons why it's bad that Montgomery hasn't been using the bench, even if it is full of rookies or players like that. One it doesn't give guys like Diogu some decent PT so that he could produce in areas where the Warriors need production. Same for Ellis on defense and being a play maker(how many deflections did he get the last game? and how many assistant coaches have said how great Ellis plays in practice, about him being the best player in scrimmages at times or about not being shocked about how well he's been playing?), along with Biedrins who is a needed post defender and rebounder, and also Zarko who hasn't gotten enough PT. </div> I agree. I want Diogu in there, but I don't know enough about him or if its going to put another guy at the foul line with rookie fouls while taking away touches from somebody else more capable. I've seen flashes of Diogu being great, on both ends of the floor, while doing the little things (the intangibles) like effort on positioning, boxing out, moving off the ball in the right place, spacing out, etc. It's why short term I'm going to be pissed at Monty, but down the road I know Ike will get playing time. He's ideal for a play system that values a good high post passer, rebounder, shotblocker, and guy who can post up and score or hit it from outside. Again, we see the flashes of good whereas later on we become really down on a certain player like Biedrins and Pietrus have had. Players might not have enough experience or opportunities to fight their way back in the lineup without the fouls or turnovers or bad plays. Like what's wrong with Zarko? Is it the issue of his contract coming up? I know there's consistency and our immediate needs on the court (rebounding/defense), but he's a good player that worked for us well last season and our lineup hasn't changed much since then. Can it be one of these things where a player needs to work on short term goals as an individual before they get regular minutes to help out where needed or is it his confidence? I can't explain it, but I've never been charged with developing a guy or handling his pressure or whatnot. Also, who is to say that it was Montgomery's plan to play these guys. What if Mullin the boss says play Fisher so we can trade him? I mean there were no GMs back in college, but I'm glad Mullin and Montgomery are at least not at odds like Musselman and Gary St. Jean. Again I'm throwing out ideas. All we've been doing in the last two drafts is drafting big men, they will see some action hopefully when they are ready. Ellis, that kid definitely needs to play early in the game because we need some impact without worrying about costly mistakes late in the game. We don't have anybody that quick or gifted penetrating to the hoop outside of maybe Baron or Pietrus (at times). <div class="quote_poster">Quoting Clif25:</div><div class="quote_post"> Also they haven't played NBA live minutes together, so of course they aren't going to look very crisp. But if they were given more faith by Montgomery, then I think it would be different. It is the same way how Montgomery treated Pietrus last season, that is until Montgomery relaxed and used Pietrus more and then Pietrus just skyrocketed. The same thing is happening now and has happened throughout this season. Your fifth paragraph is started with a statement that I disagree with, though this paragraph is one that I do agree with in some ways, mostly in ways that I posted before in this thread. The Warriors played well in games that Baron has been injured, I think they have beaten the Cavs twice pretty well too, and the Clippers when Baron has been out. So I don't agree that the Warriors "suck" without Baron Davis. I could agree that the Warriors play better when there isn't anyone else playing like Baron on the team. I think that comes into play what I said in a previous post in this thread about maybe their being subtle problems with both Baron Davis and Jason Richardson as a back court and both wanting to be the player(s) to carry the team to victory. And the team play that you have said that has currently improved has happened when at one stretch only Jason was out, and now recently only when Baron was out. This was the time where also the bench got more PT and more opportunities(this going back to my first arguements). Yeah, and talking about dumbing down plays, I kind of like to take a dumbing down philosophy about basketball. The team that puts the ball in the other team's goal more times than the opponents wins the game. Well, ok sometimes my mind is so filled with thoughts that I have to think that basic. But really, in my mind, the NBA coach's job just has to be to prepare teams for the opponent, set up matchups, assign roles for each player, condition the team, develop a system for the team offensively and defensively that is set up for the team's personal to do what I said earlier "put the ball in the other team's goal more times than the opponents" or to stop the other team from scoring. No maybe it's not that easy, but sometimes I don't think it's very hard to beable to do these things as a basketball head coach for an NBA team for NBA players. And sometimes I think Mike Montgomery is not good at most of those things that I think makes an NBA head coach.</div> Sorry this is probably going to be a short reply. kidding But I think you're right about taking a chance. We're at the midway mark and players should be more or less ready to take on a larger role. Chemistry could definitely be an issue right now and its still in my mind a developing team. Also when I meant we're bad without Baron Davis, I meant when the Warriors weren't making an effort to run plays or handle the situation without him. I'm talking about the days the Warriors offense would come to a standstill without him to rely on and start taking more threes in his absence. But we beat the Cavs just by playing the defensive side of the court while not taking long attempts and we got a lot of players involved early on in the Clippers game. Defense has been key and maybe Baron and Murphy weren't as focussed at times? Maybe? I'm not sure about this because it's such a small sample size. All I know is all 5 guys + bench have to be productive at all times. That is why the announcers say all the time on how the Warriors need to play almost perfectly to win. They are not a rebounding team or a good defensive team or playmaking, dribble-penetrating, shooting, low post team. That's why I pray for the players to buy into a coaching style where they share the ball and move constantly to get open like a Rip Hamilton. Rip doesn't shoot threes but he does a lot of other things well, especially making the defense work at getting him. The bottom line is the more weapons we have we can win, playing smart is one weapon, playing more inside is another, so I want to see more of Ike being a threat in the post while doing other things players like Dunleavy and Zarko do.
Yep, yep, yep. I agree. The Warriors have a lot of "young" talent and expectations. Yet the exacution hasn't been there to get what you are talking about with "a balanced style of team ball on both ends of the floor", or to bring in victories or good basketball for 4 whole periods; which is why the thread title is called 4th quarter blues. And CustodianRules2 you do bring a lot of good perspectives and debates and conversations to the table, that is one of the reasons I like this forum better than others, as other posters follow your suit, with good conversations about Warriors basketball and the NBA. And I think I understand your position better now. And it is difficult to really predict anything out of this team this year(especially after the collapse that happened in December-January). I believe this is especially when the team really lacks a true identity. Some games you really don't know who's going to show up, how the team will play, what the team's strategy may be, or who will get the opportunities to shine under matchups or what not. And you can also possibly blame some on a lack of IQ for some players as well.
Thanks Clif, I like your analysis as well. It's why you got voted all those awards from the site when they were still doing monthly awards for top posters. You definitely make the forum better. Sorry if my ideas tend to drift in a lot of places or i'm not clear on some things. I can get too wordy or less focussed on the main points because I'm trying to make an effort to explain everything that I'm thinking or relating to at the moment... then I over-explain or digress into other issues. Like I meant in that last paragraph that we should find ways to be consistent in every single quarter of a game and also take a chance on rookies if the guys seeing big minutes aren't getting it done. We need to figure out a lot of things, obviously. I mean the easy part is just seeing how we play. By just looking at the way the Warriors individual players shoot the ball poorly at times (% wise) and who takes the most shots per game, it's not a successful way of playing on offense. Let's ask ourselves are we a good defensive team that can rebound the ball well, earn extra posessions, capitalize on turnovers/free throws/offensive boards? Are we active, aware, and in control on the court in any style? I think a lot of times we aren't for whatever reasons, it's a different issue each time with this club. Free throws get us, rebounds get us, poor shooting accuracy gets us... It's hard to teach the players how to correct it in mid-season, players just have to do it. They should know to do it. It's about desire, endurance, skill, cohesiveness, reacting fast mentally/physically to a situation in the appropriate way. If we don't have a good level of that, it's hard to believe in the overall team. I think that's my thoughts (in a smaller post) about the Warriors situation right now and what I hope they can achieve.
