Moody, Kerr, other stuff

[michaelm]

Projections? lmao you're definitely projecting.

GP2 having a great stretch of basketball the last 2 months and now for some reason he's the 10th man off the bench. Kerr is definitely playing based on merit. Right

No I'm saying Schroeder was ass his entire tenure and yet he was still closing games no matter how poorly and how many games we were losing. And trying to say it was based on merit is a wild take.

Moody playing well in 1 game, Kerr admitting he should've kept him in the game after the game tells you that he's not playing based on merit.


We were literally running a bunch of midgets last year closing games with CP3, Curry, Podz. Separate out one of them and lineups were fine. But playing all 3 together was catastrophic.


I don't understand. Sounds like you're trying to make an argument but it's a bunch of nothing. We were literally better as a team when Klay didn't touch the court at all.


this is just all over the place that I don't even know where to start. Kerr values shooting and ball handling but Schroeder and TJD can't shoot.

TJD started 37 games and played in 52 games when he couldn't make layups. Literally the worst finishing player in the NBA and he started 37 games. That's not preference?

Poole did complain which is why he's not on the team. He wanted to start, he should've started but Kerr started Klay over him.

JK literally complained about playing time and then all of a sudden started getting playing time.

Have you just started following the warriors?

Jordan Poole was atrocious since getting his clocked cleaned by dray and has just recently became "not the worst" player in the nba. To say playing him over Klay would have been merit is.... debatable at best. JP was openly sabotaging possessions his last year here and was a complete and total 4$$ to everyone, including Steph. Giving him a starting role in that context would have been insane. If you mean he should have gotten starter minutes during the year we won the title, just go kick rocks. Starting Klay was obviously the right call considering WE WON THE TITLE and JP's role in the playoffs was matchup dependent.

It's clear that you have no memories of this team before Kerr. Nellie played favorites (when he wasn't completely checked out). Mark Jackson played favorites based on personal loyalty and religious devotion. I won't go through our litany of terrible coaches but let's just say the gap between them and Kerr is like the gap between nedovic and curry. Go look that name up, if you're confused.

DS played 24 games for us, starting 18. I'm sure you would have pulled the trigger after 1 quarter but Kerr gave him time to adjust to the most complex offense in the league. He couldn't, got benched, and then got traded. Where's the preferential treatment? We can both agree that DS would have been better with the 2nd unit but he didn't really thrive in that role when he was moved to the bench. Considering how much buddy, moody, and podz were struggling during that stretch, DS wasn't the worst option Kerr could have picked.

TJD played 17 mpg in the 53 games he's played. It's disingenuous to say 'he started 37 games' without adding how many minutes he got as 'starting' implies 'starter minutes.' e.g. Post started yesterday but only logged 10 mins total. Is that Kerr playing favorites? Kerr has been famous for starting players that may not get a ton of minutes later in the game. Have you just started watching this team?

Re: Klay. I understand you and the rest of your ilk wanted Klay gone even before last year. Fair enough. My guess is that Kerr thought the only way this team could compete, on any level, was for Klay to get as close to our 2nd best offensive option as possible. He couldn't, we lost in the play-in, and he was traded. Again, we can disagree with Steve's logic but to say he played Klay instead of these amazing guards we had wasting in the wings isn't correct. You can say it was obvious (to you) that Klay wouldn't be good enough to justify staying with him as long as Kerr did. I would respond by saying we didn't have a better option to go to (and when we did go to moody, he didn't light it up as a starter).

I absolutely despise nonsensical arguments like this. Just because a coach wins a title, it doesn't equate to every decision they make being the correct one. And the same is true for the other 29 coaches that year from the opposite end. Anyone that argues that Klay deserved to start that season has lost their marbles.

He was the worst player in the league for 2 straight months. He would be absolutely atrocious in games and he would still continue closing out games just because feelings are more important than anything else. Kerr did a fantastic job overall creating a well oiled machine in 22 and using the different pieces Bob acquired in the summer, but it wasn't perfect.

Imo the team winning the title in 2022 did just about completely justify Kerr’s coaching that year, all the stuff about how Curry was used in the regular season was pretty much proven wrong, he integrated new players who fitted well (credit to the front office), got a good contribution from Poole, from Wiggins (probably helped by Draymond) and from Klay who iirc was good in the finals at least. This may have been aided by Klay not expecting to play his full former role.

As for last year I agree however good he mostly has been over his tenure playing the micro unit particularly to close was inexplicable, and closing with Klay when he was tired obviously didn’t work either. I was one of those who clamoured for more Moody, but I don’t totally reject the idea that Kerr made him a starter this year when he was ready rather than last year when he may not have been.

[vvoland]

Jordan Poole was atrocious since getting his clocked cleaned by dray and has just recently became "not the worst" player in the nba. To say playing him over Klay would have been merit is.... debatable at best. JP was openly sabotaging possessions his last year here and was a complete and total 4$$ to everyone, including Steph. Giving him a starting role in that context would have been insane. If you mean he should have gotten starter minutes during the year we won the title, just go kick rocks. Starting Klay was obviously the right call considering WE WON THE TITLE and JP's role in the playoffs was matchup dependent.

It's clear that you have no memories of this team before Kerr. Nellie played favorites (when he wasn't completely checked out). Mark Jackson played favorites based on personal loyalty and religious devotion. I won't go through our litany of terrible coaches but let's just say the gap between them and Kerr is like the gap between nedovic and curry. Go look that name up, if you're confused.

DS played 24 games for us, starting 18. I'm sure you would have pulled the trigger after 1 quarter but Kerr gave him time to adjust to the most complex offense in the league. He couldn't, got benched, and then got traded. Where's the preferential treatment? We can both agree that DS would have been better with the 2nd unit but he didn't really thrive in that role when he was moved to the bench. Considering how much buddy, moody, and podz were struggling during that stretch, DS wasn't the worst option Kerr could have picked.

TJD played 17 mpg in the 53 games he's played. It's disingenuous to say 'he started 37 games' without adding how many minutes he got as 'starting' implies 'starter minutes.' e.g. Post started yesterday but only logged 10 mins total. Is that Kerr playing favorites? Kerr has been famous for starting players that may not get a ton of minutes later in the game. Have you just started watching this team?

Re: Klay. I understand you and the rest of your ilk wanted Klay gone even before last year. Fair enough. My guess is that Kerr thought the only way this team could compete, on any level, was for Klay to get as close to our 2nd best offensive option as possible. He couldn't, we lost in the play-in, and he was traded. Again, we can disagree with Steve's logic but to say he played Klay instead of these amazing guards we had wasting in the wings isn't correct. You can say it was obvious (to you) that Klay wouldn't be good enough to justify staying with him as long as Kerr did. I would respond by saying we didn't have a better option to go to (and when we did go to moody, he didn't light it up as a starter).

I absolutely despise nonsensical arguments like this. Just because a coach wins a title, it doesn't equate to every decision they make being the correct one. And the same is true for the other 29 coaches that year from the opposite end. Anyone that argues that Klay deserved to start that season has lost their marbles.

He was the worst player in the league for 2 straight months. He would be absolutely atrocious in games and he would still continue closing out games just because feelings are more important than anything else. Kerr did a fantastic job overall creating a well oiled machine in 22 and using the different pieces Bob acquired in the summer, but it wasn't perfect.

Imo the team winning the title in 2022 did just about completely justify Kerr’s coaching that year, all the stuff about how Curry was used in the regular season was pretty much proven wrong, he integrated new players who fitted well (credit to the front office), got a good contribution from Poole, from Wiggins (probably helped by Draymond) and from Klay who iirc was good in the finals at least. This may have been aided by Klay not expecting to play his full former role.

As for last year I agree however good he mostly has been over his tenure playing the micro unit particularly to close was inexplicable, and closing with Klay when he was tired obviously didn’t work either. I was one of those who clamoured for more Moody, but I don’t totally reject the idea that Kerr made him a starter this year when he was ready rather than last year when he may not have been.

It seems crazy to me that the year Kerr pushed all the right buttons and helped the team to a title, posters on here still go off on how he should have started JP, or benched Klay, or played the rookies more, or whatever. I'm not sure what these people want other than to be proven right. Championships don't come w/ style points, you either win them or you don't. That's before we discuss that JP played terrific in the playoffs, putting up the most efficient stretch of his career (50/40/90 is super hard in the playoffs). Folks like impunity still drag Kerr for starting Klay after he was injured for 2.5 years despite the fact that we haven't seen JP come close to that level of play, before or after that playoff run.

[Impuniti]

I absolutely despise nonsensical arguments like this. Just because a coach wins a title, it doesn't equate to every decision they make being the correct one. And the same is true for the other 29 coaches that year from the opposite end. Anyone that argues that Klay deserved to start that season has lost their marbles.

He was the worst player in the league for 2 straight months. He would be absolutely atrocious in games and he would still continue closing out games just because feelings are more important than anything else. Kerr did a fantastic job overall creating a well oiled machine in 22 and using the different pieces Bob acquired in the summer, but it wasn't perfect.

Imo the team winning the title in 2022 did just about completely justify Kerr’s coaching that year, all the stuff about how Curry was used in the regular season was pretty much proven wrong, he integrated new players who fitted well (credit to the front office), got a good contribution from Poole, from Wiggins (probably helped by Draymond) and from Klay who iirc was good in the finals at least. This may have been aided by Klay not expecting to play his full former role.

As for last year I agree however good he mostly has been over his tenure playing the micro unit particularly to close was inexplicable, and closing with Klay when he was tired obviously didn’t work either. I was one of those who clamoured for more Moody, but I don’t totally reject the idea that Kerr made him a starter this year when he was ready rather than last year when he may not have been.

It seems crazy to me that the year Kerr pushed all the right buttons and helped the team to a title, posters on here still go off on how he should have started JP, or benched Klay, or played the rookies more, or whatever. I'm not sure what these people want other than to be proven right. Championships don't come w/ style points, you either win them or you don't. That's before we discuss that JP played terrific in the playoffs, putting up the most efficient stretch of his career (50/40/90 is super hard in the playoffs). Folks like impunity still drag Kerr for starting Klay after he was injured for 2.5 years despite the fact that we haven't seen JP come close to that level of play, before or after that playoff run.

Yeah folks like me drag Kerr for starting the worst player in the league for 2 straight months and continuing to let him be an **** chucker for 3 straight seasons with total impunity. How dare I.

You have one of the dumbest arguments anybody can make in regards to sports. The team won, therefore everything the coach or players did was correct. Zero arguments for any sort of gray zone. I'd hate to see how else you see anything else in the world.

[EvanZ]

There are people who appeal to authority and those who question it.

[vvoland]

There are people who appeal to authority and those who question it.

Yes, you're the board's current champion for your courage and anti-establishment thinking.

Before you go off misrepresenting my position, however, let me ask you directly, how does starting JP in 21-22 help us win the title that we actually won with him coming off the bench? JP excelled in that role, put up great numbers in the playoffs, and we won a title. What do you think changes if we start JP over Klay? We win in fewer games? Or you get to feel vindicated that Klay is as bad as you claim him to be? I'm just not sure what your theoretical upside is.

Just for the record, I never intimated that every decision Kerr made during 21-22 was correct. What I actually said was, "he pushed all the right buttons and helped the team to a title." I think stripping Klay of his starting spot because of 2 catastrophic injuries may have upset the locker room, particularly Steph and Dray, to an extent that winning the title would have been harder. I don't defer to Kerr's decisions because he's the authority, I think the buttons he pushed in '21-22 were the right ones and he played a huge role in this team winning that 4th title. I certainly don't think it was a given we won that year. Unlike the KD years, I don't think an autistic ape could have coached this team a ring. In 21-22 it was a razor thin margin, particularly vs the celtics.

I don't think I'd change a thing during that year (even Wiseman for Haliburton or Melo as I'm not sure they'd be playoff ready but not playing them would have been impossible and who says JP still puts up the 50/40/90 playoff run if he is looking over his shoulder at lamelo or hali). That goes double for moving Klay out of the starting 5 to give JP the spot. Again, what do you hope to accomplish with that change?

[michaelm]

There are people who appeal to authority and those who question it.

Yes, you're the board's current champion for your courage and anti-establishment thinking.

Before you go off misrepresenting my position, however, let me ask you directly, how does starting JP in 21-22 help us win the title that we actually won with him coming off the bench? JP excelled in that role, put up great numbers in the playoffs, and we won a title. What do you think changes if we start JP over Klay? We win in fewer games? Or you get to feel vindicated that Klay is as bad as you claim him to be? I'm just not sure what your theoretical upside is.

Just for the record, I never intimated that every decision Kerr made during 21-22 was correct. What I actually said was, "he pushed all the right buttons and helped the team to a title." I think stripping Klay of his starting spot because of 2 catastrophic injuries may have upset the locker room, particularly Steph and Dray, to an extent that winning the title would have been harder. I don't defer to Kerr's decisions because he's the authority, I think the buttons he pushed in '21-22 were the right ones and he played a huge role in this team winning that 4th title. I certainly don't think it was a given we won that year. Unlike the KD years, I don't think an autistic ape could have coached this team a ring. In 21-22 it was a razor thin margin, particularly vs the celtics.

I don't think I'd change a thing during that year (even Wiseman for Haliburton or Melo as I'm not sure they'd be playoff ready but not playing them would have been impossible and who says JP still puts up the 50/40/90 playoff run if he is looking over his shoulder at lamelo or hali). That goes double for moving Klay out of the starting 5 to give JP the spot. Again, what do you hope to accomplish with that change?

Yes, Kerr literally can’t do more as a coach than have the team he coaches win the title. The team can’t win the title twice in the same year, and they won reasonably comfortably as I recall. He got disparate elements to gel, and whatever the criticisms of how he employed Curry in the regular season GSW got to the postseason with a good enough seeding to be in a position to win and with Curry in shape to do what he did. OPJ, Bjelica and GP II all were a great fit and employed just about perfectly, OPJ was too injury ridden to contribute elsewhere subsequently, and I can’t see how he could have gotten any more out of Poole by playing him differently, he is a straight out chucker left to his own devices and hasn’t played any defense since 2022. 2022 Klay is also being retrospectively assessed on the basis of how he played and was employed in 2023 and 2024, in 2022 he was an all time GSW hero and 3 time title winner so it was not unreasonable imo to start him, and as I recall he was somewhat useful at least against the Celtics.

[DB23]

It’s not isolated to this fan base. The coach is always the easiest to blame.

Because we can all see things we would do differently and we are not as attached to the coach as we are the players.

It’s true on every forum here.

[vvoland]

It’s not isolated to this fan base. The coach is always the easiest to blame.

Because we can all see things we would do differently and we are not as attached to the coach as we are the players.

It’s true on every forum here.

Good point but I also think it's just people playing the results while giving full range to their biases. Re: coaching, we have no clue how the coaching staff divides responsibilities but every mundane issue goes back to the HC. Defense does well, "thank god we hired stackhouse." Defense does poorly, "Kerr can't get the lineups right."

Not only did we win the title in 21-22, we did so as the underdog, a huge one by the time the finals rolled around. The team was one of the clearest examples of "greater than the sum of it's parts" and there were obvious frictions just under the surface between the vets and the youth. Kerr managed most of it flawlessly: he knew when to start the kids, and when to move back to the vets; he had the balls to bench dray in the finals and did in in a way that kept dray engaged. I really don't know how many coaches get us to the spot when Curry can snatch it out of Boston's hands.

It'd be one think if we had a James Harden on the bench that Kerr refused to play and then we traded a future MVP. Even Jordan Poole's mother wouldn't make that claim. Sure, I want Kerr to play different lineups, be more flexible, give the kids more rope, etc. What people forget is, even Steph will miss a few throw here and there. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good (and in many cases, great).