<div class="quote_poster">StateofFlux Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">It seems that there must be some power forwards that Nellie could play at the PF spot that can rebound and run an offense, right? The TMC thing was before my time, but I tend to remember the other positions rebounding better than their opponents and that would make up for the lack of rebounding in the front court. Would Nellie blame our lack of rebounding on Harrington, or on Baron/Jrich/Jackson, etc? We've been playing Ellis so much and he's all scrawy as heck and he still jumps in there. I get so pissed when I see guys leaking out before the ball even is more than half way in the air. We have issues that are rebounding and perimeter defense. Wouldn't we change our style to alter those issues, like keeping more guys in for the def. rebound, or switching away from zone, I thought that's what we got jackson/Harrington for, was so we could play more man, that seemed to work as far as getting those 3P% down below 40% at least. </div> The problem with the Warriors is they lack size and rebounding at the 4,5 positions. We only have one guy that does that (Biedrins), but it's crucial he stays on the floor away from foul trouble otherwise we're really dead meat defending the rim. We need more guys like him or we need a guy that can put a big body on opposing bigs so they can box out for him. It also helps if we have an auxilary defender at the basket to defend if Biedrins is taken out of the play (which happens on plays intended to isolate the stronger players and to pound the weakest). That's why I didn't like Harrington, Murph, Jamison or Dun at power forward either. Too weak and soft and they're a prime target for anyone looking to attack the weakside or on the power forward side of the basket. The other thing is if we don't have strong interior defense, teams will just run up the middle on us a lot and kick out for a wide open shot when we collapse on them. I mean we swarm the paint to double up and we play trapping zones, but that just leaves wide open shooters on the perimeter that can take a three or a deep two or make another move to get a defender stuck between trying to stay close to home to prevent an entry pass or to try and go out on the shooter. Zone is often overrated defensive coverage because one can't anticipate or react to deny entry passes or guys penetrating or moving inside the zone. It's really designed for players who just can't stay in front or handle their own man. It's terrible for defending the three point line and it's terrible against guys too quick for zone coverage to work. <div class="quote_poster">StateofFlux Wrote</div><div class="quote_post"> Maybe it's just rotten luck because it doesn't make sense that these issues would be significant even when we take into account weaknesses. I mean, we are by far first in opponent's 3PT attempted, and take away the suns, and teams have made 200 more threes on us then anyone else. I don't see how that could be due to our players as a unit because they are so athletic. I mean, come on, 50% from three, that's happened at least 10 games for us. Most teams couldn't do that without any defenders. We certainly couldn't.</div> Athleticism has nothing to do with good defense. Yeah guys can run fast in a straight line and jump, but are they quick going side to side and are they strong enough to fight through screens? Are they smart and experienced enough to recognize the play before it happens so they can react sooner? Plays are over in a split second, no player is that fast if they aren't ready mentally and quick/strong enough physically. And I sort of don't get what you mean by three point attempts... I can say that zone defense type scheme just leaves wide open three point shooters on the arc. It's not hard for three point shooters to shoot 50% if we're not defending that area of the court. If we're playing too far away from the open shooters, we run out to contest, they either drain it or fake a shot, they drive past, or they hit some other guy with a pass when one or two people start running out to defend the three point arc... I've seen it happen lots of times because they have several "weakest links" that can't play up on their own man. I really don't like over-dependence on zone, but people play it a lot if they know their guys are too weak or too slow to defend as a regular man-to-man assignments. You can have all the teamwork in the world to try and hide the weakest defensive player or cover an area on the floor, but defense has to switch up its schemes if it wants to prevent guys from taking uncontested long range jump shots at will. The sad thing is we play something other than zone for a long while, Biedrins will just get shoved off the block by bigger, heavier players on isos and guys like Harrington, Richardson, and Sjax will get owned off the dribble. Ellis can be a ballhawk, but I haven't seen very much in terms when teams start setting a lot of screens and picks. If guys switch on a man to man assignment, I don't see very many other warrior players being able to cover very well.
Something that bears keeping in mind when comparing Nelson's team now with his Run TMC lineup is that Tim Hardaway, Mitch Richmond, and Chris Mullin were all extremely clever and overachieving in addition to being superb talents. Baron Davis could've played with them, so could Ellis, Biedrins, and possibly Richardson. Those are the only players we have that are of any real use to building a winner here. I actually don't think Richardson on talent alone would crack my list for untouchable players, but watching him night after night giving every ounce of effort he has has softened me on the occasional dribble off the knee. Anyways, while it was nice to free up some payroll in that trade, that may be exactly what it was- just a payroll dump. Stephen Jackson has had some good games, but is erratic, and has shown a propensity for taking but missing the late game shots. Al Harrington, while he seems like a delightful guy, is basically a cheaper Antwan Jamison, and I don't think we have any more need for that player now than we did last time.
<div class="quote_poster">custodianrules2 Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Well if Nelson is so great as a front office guy, I don't see why we have to keep Higgins and Mullin around.</div> Whoa Nellie. Nelson isn't such a great front office guy. I'm still mad at him when I think he was the one who traded Mitch Richmond for Billy Owens which was when I first became a full-time Warrior fan. Run TMC was great and a lot of fun to watch. Just look at the guy. The guy is a change FREAK!!! He hasn't had a steady starting lineup. He's already dismissed POB when we don't even know what kind of player he is. Sure, POB looks like a stiff, but he's improved his game and habits in D-League. It's not so easy to tell with big guys how they will turn out. A fine example is Andris Biedrins. OTOH, Mullin is the guy who resists change. He was being patient (and way too optimistic) with Foyle. He was staying the course with Murfleavy. Still, he has his good points, too. Sometimes, being stubborn is a good thing, when you got the right pieces and want to let it grow and build with it. The Utah Jazz is a great example of this. So, it's really a collaboration between Mullin and Nelson that we hope works out. I mean if it doesn't, then we'll likely see BOTH of them getting their walking papers, but I rather see both of them through for Nelson's term (two more years). <div class="quote_poster">custodianrules2 Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I'm sorry if I'm pessimistic but I don't have much faith in small ball as a long term solution or the Warriors at this point. I'm a big fan of the balanced attack, not the unbalanced one where we get our butts kicked entirely because our one-sided attack fails to do any damage or the other team exploits the crap out of our huge flaws and we have no answer. </div> You got to look at the Phoenix Suns. That's the type of game Nelson plays. That said, I'm not sure Nelson will be around to see the fruits of his labor. I've said this before, he's been more a change agent wherever he's been than the guy who coaches the team to a championship. As for other coaches and styles, if we have to start over, then it'll be the same even if we get a super good coach and new GM. It takes years to build a winning team, but with a good coach and GM (new system), it will take about four years. It's why the Warriors have failed so miserably for the last 12 years. It's laughable. The poor - less than mediocre changes this organization has gone through. I started out as a STH, but dropped it after one year after the San Jose move (You can only enjoy a refurbished arena for so long). If you want to blame somebody, it's Cohan. He's the guy who's decisions have screwed up this organization. It's not a coincidence that we had this drought on his watch. Puhleeze Cohan, sell the team to Larry Ellison. But doubt that works. If dumb bastard Cohan looses his shirt on the team, then he will. Oh, I didn't click on that link. I had a suspicion as to what it was you were referring to. Put down that link and walk away slow...
<div class="quote_poster">jason voorhees Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Whoa Nellie. Nelson isn't such a great front office guy. I'm still mad at him when I think he was the one who traded Mitch Richmond for Billy Owens which was when I first became a full-time Warrior fan. Run TMC was great and a lot of fun to watch. </div> That was saracasm. If Nelson was considered such a great front office guy.... <div class="quote_poster">jason voorhees Wrote</div><div class="quote_post"> Just look at the guy. The guy is a change FREAK!!! He hasn't had a steady starting lineup. He's already dismissed POB when we don't even know what kind of player he is. Sure, POB looks like a stiff, but he's improved his game and habits in D-League. It's not so easy to tell with big guys how they will turn out. A fine example is Andris Biedrins. OTOH, Mullin is the guy who resists change. He was being patient (and way too optimistic) with Foyle. He was staying the course with Murfleavy. Still, he has his good points, too. Sometimes, being stubborn is a good thing, when you got the right pieces and want to let it grow and build with it. The Utah Jazz is a great example of this. So, it's really a collaboration between Mullin and Nelson that we hope works out. I mean if it doesn't, then we'll likely see BOTH of them getting their walking papers, but I rather see both of them through for Nelson's term (two more years). You got to look at the Phoenix Suns. That's the type of game Nelson plays. That said, I'm not sure Nelson will be around to see the fruits of his labor. I've said this before, he's been more a change agent wherever he's been than the guy who coaches the team to a championship. As for other coaches and styles, if we have to start over, then it'll be the same even if we get a super good coach and new GM. It takes years to build a winning team, but with a good coach and GM (new system), it will take about four years. It's why the Warriors have failed so miserably for the last 12 years. It's laughable. The poor - less than mediocre changes this organization has gone through. I started out as a STH, but dropped it after one year after the San Jose move (You can only enjoy a refurbished arena for so long). If you want to blame somebody, it's Cohan. He's the guy who's decisions have screwed up this organization. It's not a coincidence that we had this drought on his watch. Puhleeze Cohan, sell the team to Larry Ellison. But doubt that works. If dumb bastard Cohan looses his shirt on the team, then he will. Oh, I didn't click on that link. I had a suspicion as to what it was you were referring to. Put down that link and walk away slow...</div> You know big men are the hardest to project and they can spell riches or ruin for your franchise. Because like all teams, you need as many kinds of weapons as you can get. If you have more weapons both defensively and offensively, then the harder it is for other teams to beat you. I would have loved to see us develop a system where the attack was balanced and we could go inside for once. Plus team play would probably be more cohesive if we got rid of the guys too slow or too dumb to play nba basketball. Barnes, Dunleavy, Pietrus, and Foyle and Murphy, I'm just so sick of those guys. I don't like pretty much the whole team outside of Jrich, Baron, Ellis, and Biedrins. The rest suck IMO. I'd rather be patient with a good role playing power forward/center that plays like a power forward/center and could develop into a very good player like a Sean May or Zach Randolph or Carlos Boozer. Instead, Don Nelson has his own preferences on what a power forward role should be in his offense. We're talking about the guy that covetted Antoine Walker of all players for point forward. This is coming from the guy who wanted to try out the Murphleavy experiment and he wasn't willing to give Ike more minutes like he deserved? It's because Nelson favors small ball and not so much that he doesn't care about rebounding or defense. You lose those things when you go small. It's the style of basketball that he knows best and has made a great career from it. It is what he thinks will work to turn this franchise around because we have no great big players, but we had okay ones. And many small ball proponents believed we have no great alternative to be stuck in the middle as a team that can't play any tempo well fast or slow, big or small. Maybe that's right, but it doesn't help us if we now have no size anywhere and guys at the smaller positions don't play big very well like the Suns do. The franchise needs good top 5 talent. But we've blown so many opportunities in recent time to find the big player we need that can control the glass, score high %, can get to foul line and convert three point plays... It's just difficult. How many warriors fans have lost their faith over all these years? I bet a lot.
<div class="quote_poster">Montaman Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Something that bears keeping in mind when comparing Nelson's team now with his Run TMC lineup is that Tim Hardaway, Mitch Richmond, and Chris Mullin were all extremely clever and overachieving in addition to being superb talents. Baron Davis could've played with them, so could Ellis, Biedrins, and possibly Richardson. Those are the only players we have that are of any real use to building a winner here. I actually don't think Richardson on talent alone would crack my list for untouchable players, but watching him night after night giving every ounce of effort he has has softened me on the occasional dribble off the knee. Anyways, while it was nice to free up some payroll in that trade, that may be exactly what it was- just a payroll dump. Stephen Jackson has had some good games, but is erratic, and has shown a propensity for taking but missing the late game shots. Al Harrington, while he seems like a delightful guy, is basically a cheaper Antwan Jamison, and I don't think we have any more need for that player now than we did last time.</div> You're totally right about everything. I guess I'm dwelling on the bad regarding why we even had to make that trade. So many people could see that Dunleavy thing was such a huge mistake and also the Fisher/Foyle thing set us back somewhat. That money could have been used for somebody better that might want to play with a guy like Baron Davis... instead nothing but standing pat during the offseason.
What do you all think about AK47 as the PF? The Warriors seem to need defense. I wonder if the Jazz would bite on Al and Jackson for AK47. What are your thoughts? Baron/Monta/JRich/AK/AB??
<div class="quote_poster">Clif25 Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">What do you all think about AK47 as the PF? The Warriors seem to need defense. I wonder if the Jazz would bite on Al and Jackson for AK47. What are your thoughts? Baron/Monta/JRich/AK/AB??</div> I drool over that trade
That's all we give up? Where do we sign? I'll take anybody that can pass and defend and rebound. Is he injury prone? Not a problem. I think Baron needs some company in the courtside, anyway. But then again, Kwan warns "Save every penny". If several guys are making the max or near max, we'll probably have to dump somebody that ain't injured.
Well, Jackson and Harrington have 4 years contract and AK47 has 5 years contract. Their contracts match too. So, feel free to make this deal...
