I'm a fan of the classic lousy game thread...GS @ Phoenix

[Chris Porter's Hair]

WE gotta stop playin RUN-n-GUN and develop a nice half court game, and the transition baskets will happen through good defense / deflections...

This team has a good future, the staff just has to realize how to manage it, or there going to screw this franchise again for another 12 years.

I don't think things are this black and white. Clearly there is a contingent here getting lots of mileage out of, "We can't win a title with small ball, so we need to change everything." (And no, I don't think you've been preaching that, brownwarriors). I don't buy this theory. The way we play now, with the team we have, we nearly won 50 games and scared the hell out of a lot of teams. Throwing that away is rash. But what we DO need to do is stop being such a one trick pony. We need to be able to run at least a passable half court offense. We need to be able to score against a zone defense, one way or another. If we can't accomplish those goals with the roster we have, then we may need to swap a few players.

The one potential move I find really fascinating is Baron and Brand. The Clippers are on the verge of being a pretty damned good team. But they have no point guard. I suppose they could still bank on Livingston coming back big, but that seems really naive. They have Kaman and Thornton playing really well; if they swap Brand for Baron, do they get better? From our point of view, we're on the verge of being a pretty damned good team. But we have no post game and little size. We have Monta growing as a point guard. If we slide guys down in the lineup and start a lineup like Biedrins, Brand, Harrington, Jackson, Monta, do we get better? And yes, I love what I've seen of Wright. If he continues to develop well, that's a nice problem to have. Add to all this that we're in the same division, and that both Baron and Brand have injury concerns, and a deal like this is a definite gut check. I'd need more info than I'm ever going to have about Brand's health, but assuming that looked reasonable, I think I'd do it based on the growth I've seen from Monta. And I'd still try to run like crazy. But on occasions when I found I couldn't, I would no longer have to play Harry High School and launch wild 3's.

[Seasontickets]

Hey Golden State fans,

It's a shame your team will miss the playoffs. I truly enjoyed watching your team play ball...it's really fun to watch. I'll miss the emergence of Monta Ellis, since he's currently my favorite player. I tried to catch every GS game I could from the east coast.

Honestly, I think it was that Laker game that messed you guys up. Shame of a call(Fisher's flop), I'm still upset about it ruining one of the best games of the season.

Cheers

[turk3d]

Believe it or not, that one game could have made the difference, had we won (after taking the first game), we definitely would have been on a roll.

[FNQ]

-= original quote snipped =-


I don't think things are this black and white. Clearly there is a contingent here getting lots of mileage out of, "We can't win a title with small ball, so we need to change everything."

All anyone's said is that running an exclusive smallball gimmick won't win, and if it does eek us into the playoffs, why?

There's not one sensible person who's said what you just did... smallball would be an effective change of pace tool, because we do run it well. It takes a lot of energy though, and to run it sporadically through a 48 minute game (usually with the same 5 or 6 people) is a damned stupid idea.

[zero]

Believe it or not, that one game could have made the difference, had we won (after taking the first game), we definitely would have been on a roll.

quite true.

[Chris Porter's Hair]

-= original quote snipped =-





All anyone's said is that running an exclusive smallball gimmick won't win, and if it does eek us into the playoffs, why?

There's not one sensible person who's said what you just did... smallball would be an effective change of pace tool, because we do run it well. It takes a lot of energy though, and to run it sporadically through a 48 minute game (usually with the same 5 or 6 people) is a damned stupid idea.

I'd agree with that much

Beyond that, I think I disagree with some of your point, and don't understand some of the rest of it. I don't think the problem with our smallball, all in all, was the energy/tiring thing. It was more that if a team countered it in some way, we never made them pay. As I said a few games ago, I honestly don't know why every other team doesn't just open in a zone against us, and stay that way. The part I don't understand is that you say, "to run it sporadically through a 48 minute game (usually with the same 5 or 6 people) is a damned stupid idea.", so I think I heard you say:
1) Smallball isn't worthless
2) Smallball uses too much energy
3) Using smallball sporadically is a damned stupid idea

And I don't know how to resolve those 3 statements against each other. I would bet that I'd like to see more smallball than you would, so when you say that it would be stupid to use it sporadically, I'm not sure what you do want to see.

[FNQ]

Eh, I wasn't clear.

We run the smallball lineups for 48 a game (about 30 if you count the Al/Biedrins frontcourt as normal).

But how often do we actually do the run n gun, fast break part of smallball thats the point of smallball? That's what's sporadic.


Now if we ran those types of lineups for about 6 minute stints, once a game... much more effective.

[Chris Porter's Hair]

Eh, I wasn't clear.

We run the smallball lineups for 48 a game (about 30 if you count the Al/Biedrins frontcourt as normal).

But how often do we actually do the run n gun, fast break part of smallball thats the point of smallball? That's what's sporadic.


Now if we ran those types of lineups for about 6 minute stints, once a game... much more effective.

Gotcha. I understand what you're saying now - thanks. So part of this is the distinction again of "what is smallball, really?" I don't stop calling it smallball when Biedrins is on the floor. It is more the mindset of how are we going to get our points. In my mind, if we believe we're playing smallball, and we're regularly ending up setting up a half court set, then we're failing.

I also think there is seldom a good reason to play these lineups with Azubuike at the 4 and so on, even if you want to play smallball. If all smallball means is, "We're going to play guys that are too short", that's goofy. If we want to run, take early shots, etc., so be it. Then find guys that can do that and actually have a prayer of grabbing a rebound or blocking a shot. Biedrins qualifies. Brandan qualifies, when he's not glued to the bench. Al often qualifies.

The other one that drives me loony is when we go with one of these ultra small lineups, and (for example) Al can't hit a shot, or isn't driving on the other team's gangly 7 foot center. At that point, I invariably end up barking at my TV, "What the hell is the point of committing suicide at the defensive end, if you're doing nothing to make them pay at the offensive end???" My TV seldom responds.

[Souvlaki]

Did you guys see Pietrus blocking the layup of Grant Hill? He is probably the only Warrior that does that kind of play, because he is athletic enough, and cares instead of just letting him get the easy bucket or fouling.

Sad that we might not see that ever again next season.

Yes! The deep hurting is over! Pietrus is a free agent.

Been nice knowing you Abyss.

[Souvlaki]

Oh damn. One more game. At least we don't have to watch the train wreck anymore.

[Sleepy51]

Oh damn. One more game. At least we don't have to watch the train wreck anymore.

Count on Laki to find the bright side. You just made my week.

[Sid the Squid]

Baron is still drunk from last night/this morning.

book it.

gsw posted this before the benching

[Sleepy51]

LF Don't run from the Baron thread. You my last post all wrong.