Discussion in 'Golden State Warriors' started by Legacy, Jun 25, 2009.
He's come full Nellie.
R.I.P. Drazen Petrovic. I was actually in Germany the summer he passed.
I'm of the Boston approach - accumulate as many young players as you can and turn 3 or 5 of them into 1-2 superstars. Build around those with the rest of your young players and then sign veterans and you got yourself a team all grown up without any work!
I do think that growing your own players is alot more rewarding, but it's so much more rare in today's NBA climate. For one, it's difficult, and two, players generally don't just "bust out" - they are good and then become great in most cases. I.e. Monta is worth growing. Belinelli probably won't. A "inbetween" player like Pietrus had a chance (to go from average to good, for example as he did), but he needed a chance of scenery as well - something we couldn't provide.
Also, players don't stay on one team anymore. Of course, it's more fair to the players this way - the old way, players had less power and couldn't go anywhere. Being able to choose gave the players a much better deal.
Okay, I officially have gotten a warmer attitude towards Curry because of all the positive posts here and the articles after the draft on Curry. After seeing his youtube, I was like why do we need another shooting guard? We have Monta Ellis. However, with Monta and Curry we could have two ball handlers and passers on the court at the same time and Curry and Monta seem to complement each other even though they are short on the defensive side of the ball.
IMO, Curry will be twice the PG that Monta could be. He's a natural, that's all. floor vision, ball handling, leadership, passing...
Monta's a great player, but Curry's a natural point and this pick really alleviates that PG problem for GS, assuming Curry stays.
Hmmm... Curry is 6' 3" now.
1" more = Jason Kidd
2" more = Oscar Robertson
He only began to play PG his junior year, so to say he's a natural I think is...well, false. That being said, it sounds as if Nellie and Riley are betting the farm that this kid is THE PG for the team. So, we'll see.
What recent great players have moved teams? Nash. JKidd. Shaq. KG. (Allen is a wonderful player, great? Not so sure.) AI? Nah, past his greatness. Billups? Maybe so.
Now think of the great players right now. LeBron, Kobe, Howard, Wade, Dirk, Bosh (for those who think that, not me), Melo, Yao, Pierce. See anything different? Yeah, they are all with their original team.
What about the new stars? Rose? Roy.
There are very few shortcuts to the making of a great team. You have to grow your own. Yes its hard work and you need some luck. Plus its cheaper without gutting your team.
Blockbuster trades are exciting momentarily, but usually the team improves/declines slightly but nothing earth shattering. Unless you're giving away a Gasol for expiring contracts (like Dale Davis for Baron.)
Sure I'd love a quick fix, but the reality is the Warriors need to stay the course and develop Randolph, Monta, Biedrins, Wright, Curry.
Shaq, Kidd, KG, AI, Billups have all been to the finals. I don't think there is one clear-cut way to developing a team.
You've just got to make smart, and perhaps lucky moves. Perhaps one example of that is Divac for Kobe trade in 1996, or like you said the Gasol trade for Lakers, or how GSW got Baron Davis.
If you develop your team from drafts you need top picks, which we never get. If we do, it's in a weak draft and we end up with Mike Dunleavy.
I don't care much for developing Wright, since he is injured all the time, starting from day 1, when apparently he was actually injured during the draft. I'm for developing the rest. It's too bad we do not have the Clifford Ray or Patrick Ewing to help develop Andris' skills.
The only top teams that have stuck around from developing their own players has been the Spurs. However they got extremely lucky since they won the Tim Duncan sweepstakes and faired off well with Parker and Manu draft picks. It's easier to make a few moves to get better than hope for that miracle.
Have you watched him play?
No, I haven't. I've only seen YouTube videos. He seems to have good overall skills and a tremendous shot (at volume). I want to reserve judgment on his passing and running the point until I see him. I just read up that he wasn't a PG until his junior year and his stats show that. He may be a natural bball player, but I didn't think he was a natural PG, especially given his scoring prowess.
Bob Knight has a video on youtube breaking down his PG skills. Also the Davidson-St. Mary's NIT game is on youtube in its entirety- I would try to find it for you but I gotta leave soon.
I just saw the Bob Knight analysis. Pretty good, I suppose. Trust me, AO and everybody, I'm not hatin' on the guy at all. I had the presupposition that he wasn't a "true" or "natural" PG, but rather just a really good bball player with great basketball instincts. If that's what AO meant, then I misread it. Isn't that what Monta says he is too?
I'll just wait till I see him in a Warriors uni.
It may have to do with the fact that Curry grew up with a dad who was an NBA pro. I mean, there's photos on page 2 of this thread that shows him on the Golden State bench as a toddler. So he grew up with a basketball in his hands. That's what I mean about him being a natural.
Monta probably did, too, but not like Curry, I imagine. Monta didn't have anybody there to help him, from what I've read, he just grew up in the Mississippi ghetto shooting baskets in like a milk crate or something.
But, from what I've watched of Curry, and what I've watched of Ellis, Curry seems to be a much, much better fit a PG. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying he'll be better than Monta. Because Monta has the freak athleticism that Curry does not. Monta can dunk over anybody in the league, at any moment. Curry cannot.
But, it's obvious to me that Curry is a natural at PG, and what I mean by that is he looks like he just has that feel for the game, the floor vision, the timing, the passing ability, the handling, the leadership, the presence.... that Ellis just does not have.
And I love Ellis, but I've been saying all along that the PG experiment with him is faulty. He needs to be an off the ball scorer. That's why he did so good with Baron, he could just run around, catching alley-oops, catching outlet passes for fast-breaks, and coming of screens to hit his deadly midrange jumper.
When you try to force him to be the "floor general," his game suffers. He's not a natural. He has a high dribble and is prone to getting his pocket picked. And he makes the same lazy one-handed passes today that he made year-1. I'm shocked he hasn't corrected it, but it's just a tell-tale sign of where his game lies -- no true PG would ever make a lazy one-handed cross-court pass, or if they did, it would be once and that would be the last time. Ellis does it over and over, the way Pietrus steps out of bounds on the corner three. Will it ever change?
It may have to do with Curry being born with a basketball in his crib. But you can see, when he plays, that the ball just feels right in his hands. He's no Chris Paul or Steve Nash yet, of course, but I'm stoked we got him...
I think that's the key with Curry. I agree that he's not a real "true PG" like a Nash or Paul but that doesn't necessarily mean he won't be a great PG. Look at Tony Parker, Chauncey Billups, Deron Williams. These guys came into the league as shoot first PGs or combo guard type PGs. They're still scoring well at the PG spot but they've developed into great floor generals due to great instincts and coaching. 10+ apg does not a great PG make. Give me a guy who controls the game, has low TOs and high efficiency. I think Curry can be a PG in that mold.
I really hope so. If we got a Parker, Billups, or DWILL (!) in Curry, I will be in heaven.
Don't hold your breath. Billups and DWill are a different breed of point. Parker may be the right mold, however Curry's a much better shooter. I honestly can't think of a scoring pointguard that's not physically strong that has made it in the league. Not to say that it won't work, it should be an interesting experiment though.
Side note @Kajita: I miss Peter Griffin's beard bird.
Trust me, I'm not holding my breath. I actually am more anxious to see if Randolph can play 30+ mins/game fo 82 games.
Re: Peter Griffin. I'll bring the beard back!!!
FWIW Curry benched 185 lbs 10 times (pretty good for a guy that weighs 181 lbs). Thats the same as Budinger, Flynn, Tyler Smith, and BJ Mullens. Also the same as Chris Paul and Derrick Rose when they came out of college. More than Terrance Williams, Gerald Henderson, Tyreke Evans, DeRozan, Clark, Babeuois. Also note that he put up a max vert of a half inch higher than Deron Williams.
There's Peter! I'm silkscreening a Petoria Flag Tshirt for concerts this season
I hear ya BJ. Interesting stat on benching. I wouldn't put too much into it. I'm talking more about stature than benching. Magic, Kidd, DWill, those guys are generals a much different mold. Tim Hardaway was short but built like a tank, he could still back guys down, shoot and take guys off the dribble, Curry's not that type. Isiah, Stockton could score, but weren't what I would call scoring point guards, I put CP3 in their mold (although he's really his own mold, he's like Isiah but better...not sure I ever thought I'd see someone have Isiah's passing and still be able to score at will). Parker's also in that mold (albeit anot in the same class...actually not sure why we're even really mentioning him with this class of player). Curry's more of a shooter/scorer. I don't ever remember watching a deadeye shooting pointguard succeed.
Does anyone remember someone run a team that could flat out shoot...I mean like Reggie Miller shoot, not wide open setshot shoot.
Separate names with a comma.