<div class="quote_poster">Quoting boogielew:</div><div class="quote_post">Why do you keep blaming the roster? You keep saying these are'nt his guys, Custodian. Well let's look at that. Baron - traded for during Monty's reign j-rich, dunleavy, murphy, pietrus - were here before monty fisher, foyle singed or re-signed after the hiring of monty carbarkapa - brought in fom a trade during monty's reign biedrins, ike, taft, ellis all drafted during monty's reign bynum - free agent pick up during Monty's reign So only 4 players remain from the pre-Monty days. Now this is all from memory so i might have made a mistake.... but when over 75% of your roster is created while you are the head coach. I would say that it is your fault (Monty's fault that this team is not playing well or properly motivated to do so) and you DO have players that are who you wanted. </div> Okay first of all, you got it all wrong or your logic is hard to relate to or both. The coach and GM are separate decision-making entities in the Warriors organization (or almost any pro sports organization). It's like arguing that "I picked up a gun and I shot you so you must have wanted to get shot because you were standing there while I was shooting." Two separate things going on and they most likely aren't related. Here's what I'll explain: The general manager is the one responsible for the team makeup because he is in charge of the long term direction and decision making for this franchise. Meanwhile, Montgomery, the coach, is responsible for winning games with those players that Mully picked. The reason why this is separate is because it's a franchise run business and it's a player's league and we don't need any more Coach P.J. Carlisimo type blunders with dealing with star players and being involved with deciding on poor drafts like Adonal Foyle to address short term needs. Coaches tend to think how can I win games this season with this current team I have, rather than calling up other GMs on the phone or wanting to wait on guys like Biedrins/Pietrus to finally get physically ready or mentally sound for team basketball. Also, I don't see where Fish and Foyle count as Montgomery's influence and him wanting those guys. Since Montgomery relatively arrived at the same as Dfish and Foyle signings, don't you think that the logic of Monty wanting guys like Fisher and Foyle was jumping to conclusions a bit? They are nothing like the kind of players that stanford was recruiting (traditionally pure point guards and passing, defending big men who are fundamentally smart), but this is besides the point... The real point (and rhetorical question) is: With an unproven nba track record, do you think Mullin would gamble on what his new college coach thought was good for long term? Heck no. He's not involved in that decision process and he shouldn't be because he's an unproven rookie learning the nba. Unless his name was Larry Brown, Phil Jackson, Don Nelson, Jerry Sloan, heck even Pat Riley, Montgomery ain't going to know and he won't be in a position to decide. And since Mullin didn't seem to be looking for those established types of head coaches in the form of nba assistant coaches or some other team's castoffs, it was obvious he wanted somebody on his level of experience and him controlling more influence over decision-making than the kinds of ways established nba head coaches could influence that decision-making. I mean for chrissakes, Monty didn't even know what our own guys were capable of (and it showed in his strange '04-05 subbing patterns) and you're telling me he chose on Foyle and Fish as soon as he started? No way. Foyle was benched in favor of Clif Robinson or Dale Davis that season because he was too stupid to remember any plays. Fish merely started because Claxton was injury prone as Baron Davis was and only slightly a better shooter. You also know it's unrealistic to believe Monty was apart of a move to trade two future second rounders in return for a high potential 2003 first rounder like Zarko Cabarkapa (a guy that Mullin wanted all along in '03 instead of Pietrus). It was just a trade chip, not a guy that would fill in the rotation long term. This especially became clear in '05 because Mullin already invested in Dunleavy before he was really due for an extension and he had Murphy at PF and drafted Biedrins. I'd have to say one of the bigger problems going on this season was that there is not much depth in between first year rookies (whom like Larry Brown, Montgomery feels strongly against playing due to character/confidence development or whatever b.s. reason we can't comprehend because we're not him) and the sucky players under huge contracts that get minutes like Fish/Foyle/Dunleavy (and Murphy if you want to argue that his team defense is a major detriment to this team). We changed the starting rotation several times this year and its obvious Montgomery is searching and searching for the right center or small forward makeup, but it is nowhere to be found. We also settle for ball that is catered towards Murphy and Fisher's style of play with Dun at point guard rather than Baron (hurt) and Jrich and Pietrus/Biedrins style of play. You can probably add up the list of flaws and incompatabilities between getting some good shooting, passing, shot creation, defense, trying to play a certain tempo, inside scoring, whatever and it just becames a huge unsolvable problem at the coaching level. It merely becames what fans want to see more of and what fans want to see less of because of a short term need for entertainment rather than trying to play the right way (or in some Monty haters minds: the wrong way or way that doesn't work for this team. If it doesn't work re-think the players and the team design or just switch the coach and see where this gets us...) Nevertheless, I can't think in my mind how three ball shooting in high volume while allowing opponents to shoot 50% fg would apply to an 82 game season, even though this kind of b.s. ball worked in meaningless games where nobody cared about facing us in the post season because we weren't going and we had the pressure taken off of us because of this). The overall defensive ability of each player and the guys that can create, score and shoot are way too imbalanced to ever be corrected by in-game coaching decisions. Not when the other team has a capable coach too and with players that can respond. That is my opinion. We're forgetting that we need to match and outmatch the other team's weapons and we don't have the players to do this regularly when it counts. Just look at our lineup. It also helps if you've played organized basketball and can see where the breakdown is occuring because you've experienced it and know how the team game works. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting boogielew:</div><div class="quote_post"> So you are saying build the ship and when it actually floats then get someone to captain it and meanwhile deal with the repairs. If that is the case then you should be demanding that Mullin be fired as he is the true architect of this mess and why players don't fit. </div> Franchise Rule #1: You don't fire a GM after 2 years unless you were dumb enough to draft Rafael Araujo #8 in the 2004 draft and make other dumb moves. Why not just two years? Hell even a presidency is a 4 year term, so I think general manager and coach should at least have that time because they're dealing with long term situations that last about that long. I mean contracts can go from anywhere to 1 year to 6 year deals. After those two year long BYC rules no longer apply, then you can make a valid trade move. Just watch what Mullin can do with Foyle, Fish, Murphy or Jrich ( hope not Jrich). I hate Mullin's financial sense and his team design, Mullin seems to be addressing team needs with sensible draft signings that are relatively higher potential than most. Since Mullin's drafts are nice, and he's learning how costly signings made last season can affect what the Warriors can do for the seasons to come, I have some confidence he can turn some things around. He just can't have too much blind faith in these guys and stand pat without a contingency plan in case a guy like Baron were to get hurt or Dunleavy/Pietrus would play even worse or Foyle was suddenly getting to the point where he no longer could be a suitable starting center. I mean look at what he's done since the Baron Davis trade. Nothing. That is how much high faith he had in his role players. Also he had the same idea of building upon continuity (continuity of crap). He was also duped into believing that Baron Davis' health would be constant all year long and that Montgomery would be fine in being able to do something with his "collection of talent". I use "collection of talent" because the Warriors are that and not a "team". <div class="quote_poster">Quoting boogielew:</div><div class="quote_post">Like you said why bring Fisher in and sign him long term when he can't run, can't defend and doesn't fit any offensive scheme that doesnt have a tremendous post presence and a 2 guard that is also demands double teams as well. Obviously not for veteran leadership, is there a player even at the high school level that would have committed the moronic foul that fisher made at the end of this season. His basketball IQ is sub 85 or retarded. Why sign Foyle? he can't run either... I know, fear of not having a big man.. but why long term....another piece that doesnt fit.</div> Mullin wanted a lot of things that the free agency in '04 couldn't offer, but also I think it's because he had no clue of where to go even though he had a clean slate. He decided that Murphy/Jrich/Dunleavy was the core at the time of those signings. That really was the best talent we had after Jamison/Arenas left. Mully clearly had issues like team stability, attitude and high work ethic in mind so he went after the best examples of those qualities with the intention to fill point guard and center positions. He chose home-grown FA Foyle as elder Warrior and looked at Fisher for winning personality and playoff experience. He's more valuable in the locker room and on-floor presence than fans give him credit for. He's just a lousy point, but love him or hate him, nobody reliably shoots like him. Anyway, the signings did not make sense to me to pay so much for so long because Foyle has no inside presence and came off knee injuries and Fisher typically needs guys who can space the floor so he can catch and shoot. Since the only way we score is outside shots and the only way we space the floor is... outside shots, I think this was a bad fit just like many fans do. Whether its close to market price or not, whether the franchise had poor leverage in negotiating or not, the Warriors made a bad choice unless they can make it lead to something better like, through a trade or find another player to compliment these guys' weaknesses. I'm just glad no player is really whining or becoming a headcase, because the media feeds on this type of distracting crap. The only thing I can suggest is patience... I mean the Warriors have had a long term problem that was already "in the making" long before the '04 season. And it started with the personnel choices made at the very top which protected the bottom line, but could not produce a winning organization. Think about that and you'll see going after Montgomery is just one byproduct of why the Warriors fail to produce a winning roster. Mullin is probably the most responsible, but I think he hasn't been given a huge chance to redeem himself and its not like he was the only GM to screw up under this organization... I do believe history is repeating itself. This franchise hasn't had much direction because management didn't offer it and there were no players given to us that could help point the way. We never had a Duncan or a Shaq or a Dirk and therefore it's been difficult to figure out who to build off from and also do it mostly from the draft since GS is not a good FA destination to go to if you want to sacrifice pay for a chance at a ring. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting boogielew:</div><div class="quote_post">I, on the otherhand, believe with a respected and knowledgable coach we have enough pieces, if healthy, and are properly used ( i.e. derek fisher replaces cheaney at the end of the bench as designated cheerleader) we can make the playoffs with a year's growth. They are a young team and i think we need a young coach who relates to his players ala avery johnson and has the players respect. How can we go into this season with a team divided? And clearly after last season we are a team divided thanks to Monty's mishandling of personell. I would like to see Terry Porter brought in or promote from within with Smart or Elie.</div> [/quote] You can believe it all you want. A new coach won't guarantee more wins than losses, especially if Mullin wants the kind that won't be like Musselman when it comes to players or front office management. Then there's the fact that right now fans want blood, any blood, until they get results. I'm merely saying if we played the scapegoat game, there's just going to be another to pop up in his place. Like if Foyle were to go away, I'd be soon after Biedrins and his rawness, until we land somebody of impact like Dampier in his '03 contract year. He was perfect when he dominated both offense and defensive glass and more guys wanted to take jump shots rather than go inside because of him. Also, he along with a PF that could defend and play the high post (Clif Robinson) complimented the perimeter play like centers are supposed to. Now if Dun, Claxton, Jrich, Damp were consistent then maybe they could have achieved a smaller playoff berth... who knows. But I know the '04 and '05 team being practically the same and being mismatched offensively, it just didn't stand a chance under anyone IMO. It's like trying to build a team out of scraps. There will be combinations that fit better than others, but it won't matter if the other team still kicks your butt or you're dealing with situations where you need to give guys rest if you want a chance at the 4th... Also part of the reason why run n' gun strategies don't work is because of fatigue. The other thing I hear about is let's get a guy like Mike D'antoni or Avery Johnson or this guy or this guy. These are all coaches who are put in a position to win because of what their GM built. The coaches just make it better like moving Amare Stoudamire to center. Do we even have such a player? What about Josh Howard, the guy that 28 other teams passed on? What about the fact both Suns and Mavs had a crapload of allstar talent and MVP candidates. I think a lot of these types of examples from another team's success being used to put down Montgomery is taken out of context. Or even the same goes with game situations where Monty's worst game calling moment from the sideline happens near the end of the game and is blown up way out of proportion to the cumulative damage our own players do to lose ball games. I mean you lose games in 4 quarters, not just one, it just happens that the game is over in the 4th. Guys like Dallas and the Suns are all winning teams and winning for a reason. You take away the coach, you still have a team capable of playing a dominant way that's hard to beat, a team capable of making adjustments, or a team that outproduce the other team and slow them down. We don't have that team and if we think we do, we certainly don't show it consistently enough through real 82 game pressure. Why only show flashes of great individual play near the end of the season when games don't matter to us? In conclusion, I don't think Montgomery is a special coach, I just think he's been put in a bad situation from day one and so many fans liked Musselman's methods and his stance towards calling out players and benching them even if it went against the GM's wishes. So isn't there some bias going on here? I mean what Monty and Muss illustrate near the end of losing seasons, is letting the players do their own simple, predictable style of game play and those guys get fooled into thinking its going to work in a real game situation where the playoffs are at stake. Players lacking franchise talent need to be capable and willing to play organized or else they'll fail. That's a promise. Our players under any coach needed to have practiced, practiced, practiced, and got players that could keep up in running plays so they can avoid being predictable, disorganized, and static. I do think that some of the plays the Warriors do get right, just don't work at the NBA level. I know that the inbounds plays work and I wish this type of execution could apply to when the Warriors are forced to a halfcourt situation. This is also why the Warriors front office claims to be addressing Baron to learn the offense and run it because last season it seemed he wanted to do it his own way and it didn't work either. The warriors just need to learn more ways to run their offense rather than trying a few simple ones that don't work and then giving up entirely. I mean there wasn't anything shown to really give the offense a chance to work. That's a losing style mentality to give up like that and it's been constant with our tradition of having talented guys that don't want to play together or don't fit together or give up the coach because of all this lack of unity. Everyone has to be on the same page and I think we are for the most part... just not on the same book. Mullin/Monty have to try harder in building a future team that can do whatever needs to be done to win ball games.
