Post#37 » by OptionZero » Sun Apr 12, 2009 6:30 pm
Warriors fan here.
Scouting report on Crawford?
He has an exceptionally good handle that he can use to get his own shot any time, anywhere. His range extends out beyond the 3P line. He has good passing ability.
Unfortunately, his shot selection is horrendous . . . so horrendous that it negates nearly all of his penetration and distribution abilities. Crawford will have a number of possessions where he destroys his man and finds his teammates for easy buckets . . and then as many or more possessions where he takes quick shots with no passing at all. Thus, while he has the physical gifts to be a good point guard, he never learned the mindset. Whether it's his fault he played on bad teams or not, I believe that has negatively impact him so much that it's too late to correct his flaws.
Beyond his offensive talents and mental faults, however, Crawford contributes virtually nothing else. He's a negative on the glass, which is saying quite a bit, since he's a point guard and not expected to contribute much. There was a game that went to overtime, and Crawford and Stephen Jackson played a combined 100 minutes. You know how many combined rebounds they got?
...
...
Three.
three boards in 100 minutes. I think Jack had 2 of those, and Crawford got 1. Along the way, the Warriors lost (probably not BECAUSE of the lack of rebounding from those 2, but surely it did not help mitigate the damage done by the other team).
Crawford does not play defense. He has the footspeed to be effective, but no willingness to stay in front of his own assignment and no awareness of where he should be in the team's scheme. With a thin frame and no muscle development, he's vulnerable in the post against most shooting guards. That's a problem, since he's too weak to guard shooting guards and too lazy to guard point guards. You'd need an excellent shotblocking frontcourt and another backcourt defender to make up for him, and even then it hurts to have a such a weak link in your defense.
Having said all that, if there were a team that Crawford might be useful in . . . it's the Hawks. Joe Johnson is an above average rebounding guard and an excellent ballhandler. The glasswork makes up for Crawford's aversion to rebounding; the ballhandling means you can take the ball out of Crawford's hands instead of depending on him the way the Warriors had to w/o Ellis or any worthwhile guard most of the year. Johnson can also handle the opposing team's best perimeter scorer, and you have two shotblockers in the frontcourt. That lets you "hide" Crawford to some extent.
Additionally, Crawford's ability to push the ball on the break and space the floor as a shooter will be welcome in an uptempo offense. In the halfcourt, his shot creating ability can bail you out.
I see no credible backup PG on the Hawks roster (not that I watch many Hawks games, so correct me if i'm wrong). Crawford is an iron man (mostly because he doesn't use any energy on defense), so he can carry an offense while Johnson is out with his own scoring.
As for a trade with the Warriors . . . I don't expect Crawford to leave $20M on the table in this climate. He doesn't have postive trade value, but he's not a malcontent, so I hesitate to call him a huge negative. If the Hawks were willing to part with Speedy Claxton and Zaza's expiring contracts, I'd have to say it's a fair trade on the whole. We could use a banger in Pachulia, and Claxton can be bought out or rot on the bench for all I care.
you are really going to blame him for everything? do you actually think that Curry, Murbury, and Monta are anywhere near on the same level as Joe Johnson?!?!
