Steve Kerr responds to Kevin Durant's comments about Warriors' offense

[spacemonkey]

2014 is an asterisk to to Kerrs idea that no system will dice up a finals defense.

[PhilBlackson]

Fair enough. What did Durant say again?

He said "Now everyone wanna play for the Warriors and Lakers? Let's go back to being competitive and going at these peoples".

[Dominator83]

Fair enough. What did Durant say again?

He said "Now everyone wanna play for the Warriors and Lakers? Let's go back to being competitive and going at these peoples".

It was actually Heat and Lakers

[PhilBlackson]

Fair enough. What did Durant say again?

He said "Now everyone wanna play for the Warriors and Lakers? Let's go back to being competitive and going at these peoples".

It was actually Heat and Lakers

Cue Simpsons' "thatsthejoke.jpg".

[XxIronChainzxX]

The Golden State system would have worked fine if Harrison Barnes could hit a 3 pointer in the 2016 finals.

The last 3 games he went 1-6, 0-5, and 2-4...but I remember almost everyone being wide-open.

But that's kinda KD's (and Kerr's) point. Sometimes scrubs are gonna scrub. If you base your offence on creating shots for them, they're gonna fail you. That's why you need a superstar to dominate and take over.

The Raptors had a plenty creative offense ... but when it all came down to it, they went to Kawhi and asked him to make something happen.

[XxIronChainzxX]

Shouldn't be a surprise. Kerr isn't oblivious. He played with MJ in Phil Jackson's triangle system. It's a well known fact that MJ (and Kobe) weren't huge fans of the triangle, but they'd play within it for most the game, then go ISO ball in the 4th Q in crunchtime.

The 2 biggest shots KD hit for the Warriors were pure ISO plays, where it's just a 6'11" superstar shooting right in someone else's face. There's no defense for that.

There weren't big shots KD hit for the Warriors. The only real series they had was against Houston, and Curry outplayed him in that one.

[XxIronChainzxX]

Shouldn't be a surprise. Kerr isn't oblivious. He played with MJ in Phil Jackson's triangle system. It's a well known fact that MJ (and Kobe) weren't huge fans of the triangle, but they'd play within it.

The 2 biggest shots KD hit for the Warriors were pure ISO plays, where it's just a 6'11" superstar shooting right in someone else's face. There's no defense for that.

Warriors won 4-1 and 4-0...it's not like if he missed those shots the series would have changed, lol.

Those shots are overrated as hell...he misses them and the Warriors probably win 4-2 and 4-1 instead.

Ridiculous.

The dude cheated his way to two titles.

Not taking away from the fact that he's a great player, but KD benefited from the fact that he rarely got double teamed playing for GSW.

Let's not go into this again.

If it was so easy, then Harrison Barnes (a guy who 2 teams gave not so insignificant contracts to) would've closed the deal in 2016 and we wouldn't be having this conversation to begin with. Evidently, it's not as easy as some people think.

If you'll remember in 2017, if he missed that shot, the likely outcome would be that the series would go back to Oakland tied 2-2. The Cavs outplayed the Warriors for most of Game 3, all of Game 4, and for most of the first 2 quarters of Game 5. The series was much closer than people think.

That was a better Cavs team in 2017 than in 2016. Anyone who think the Warriors would've won in 2017 with Harrison Barnes in KD's place are pretty much on something.

This is revisionist nonsense. It's like saying LeBron's humiliating beatdown vs. the Spurs was close because when he got swept the last 2 home games were decided by 3 points total.

The Warriors obliterated the Cavaliers and the series wasn't close. The 2017 team was worse than 2016, and it's just KD stanning to suggest otherwise. The only thing to go on is the 2017 team beating down a sad sack East, but that doesn't make them better. LeBron was worse - he couldn't recapture his offensive and defensive dominance - and most of the role players fell off too.

[durden_tyler]

Kerr is lying and just did not want to stoop down to Durant's level.

This beautiful system, pre-Durant, already brought them championship(s).

[dc]

This is revisionist nonsense. It's like saying LeBron's humiliating beatdown vs. the Spurs was close because when he got swept the last 2 home games were decided by 3 points total.

The Warriors obliterated the Cavaliers and the series wasn't close. The 2017 team was worse than 2016, and it's just KD stanning to suggest otherwise. The only thing to go on is the 2017 team beating down a sad sack East, but that doesn't make them better. LeBron was worse - he couldn't recapture his offensive and defensive dominance - and most of the role players fell off too.

Not sure what you're talking about: In 2014, the Spurs winning margins against the Heat were by 15, 19, 21 and 17 points. They won going away in each of their victories. The only Heat victory was a 2 point game. The Warriors-Cavs in 2017 was absolutely more competitive.

The Cavs in 2017 were historically good offensively. The Warriors, who were a Top 3 defense all year long, weren't able to stop them from scoring. Kyrie scored 28 a game on good efficiency despite incredible defense from Klay. The Warriors had to resort to outscoring the Cavs. The final scores in that series reflected that fact.

You'd be a fool to think that the Warriors with a lesser player than Durant would've beaten the Cavs in 2017.

Without Durant, the Cavs would have 2 out of the 3 best players in that series and they simply wouldn't have been able to keep up with the amount of scoring necessary in that series.

I would agree that the Warriors obliterated the Cavs in the first 2 games. They won going away (just as they did in 2016). But the Cavs actually played better than them in more parts of games 3-5.

Game 3:
The Cavs led for most of the 2nd half and almost all the 4th before Durant went on a run to close it.

Game 4:
The Cavs blew out the Warriors and scored a record amount of points in a half in the Finals. This was the least competitive game of the series, and it was won by the Cavs.

Game 5:
Cavs were up for most of the 1st half until the Warriors went on something like a 19-2 run that seemingly broke the game open for them, but the Cavs never went away in the 2nd half and it was single digit game down the stretch.

From the losing team's perspective, Games 3-5 of the 2017 Finals was far more competitive than the 2014 Finals.

[XxIronChainzxX]

This is revisionist nonsense. It's like saying LeBron's humiliating beatdown vs. the Spurs was close because when he got swept the last 2 home games were decided by 3 points total.

The Warriors obliterated the Cavaliers and the series wasn't close. The 2017 team was worse than 2016, and it's just KD stanning to suggest otherwise. The only thing to go on is the 2017 team beating down a sad sack East, but that doesn't make them better. LeBron was worse - he couldn't recapture his offensive and defensive dominance - and most of the role players fell off too.

Not sure what you're talking about: In 2014, the Spurs winning margins against the Heat were by 15, 19, 21 and 17 points. They won going away in each of their victories. The only Heat victory was a 2 point game. The Warriors-Cavs in 2017 was absolutely more competitive.

The Cavs in 2017 were historically good offensively. The Warriors, who were a Top 3 defense all year long, weren't able to stop them from scoring. Kyrie scored 28 a game on good efficiency despite incredible defense from Klay. The Warriors had to resort to outscoring the Cavs. The final scores in that series reflected that fact.

You'd be a fool to think that the Warriors with a lesser player than Durant would've beaten the Cavs in 2017.

Without Durant, the Cavs would have 2 out of the 3 best players in that series and they simply wouldn't have been able to keep up with the amount of scoring necessary in that series.

I would agree that the Warriors obliterated the Cavs in the first 2 games. They won going away (just as they did in 2016). But the Cavs actually played better than them in more parts of games 3-5.

Game 3:
The Cavs led for most of the 2nd half and almost all the 4th before Durant went on a run to close it.

Game 4:
The Cavs blew out the Warriors and scored a record amount of points in a half in the Finals. This was the least competitive game of the series, and it was won by the Cavs.

Game 5:
Cavs were up for most of the 1st half until the Warriors went on something like a 19-2 run that seemingly broke the game open for them, but the Cavs never went away in the 2nd half and it was single digit game down the stretch.

From the losing team's perspective, Games 3-5 of the 2017 Finals was far more competitive than the 2014 Finals.

I'm talking about the 2007 NBA finals, and I was wrong. It was 4 points. The Spurs won game 3 75-72, and game 4 83-82. That series wasn't close.

I'm not going to dignify this nonsense further. If you think 2017 was close, that's a hill you're free to die on. But here's a counterexample: the Blazers led the Warriors multiple times before getting obliterated 4-0. The Pacers played the Cavaliers extremely close in 2017, and they got swept.

Sometimes, games are close. Doesn't mean they're actually competitive. But as I said, you feel free to die on this hill.

[dc]

I'm talking about the 2007 NBA finals, and I was wrong. It was 4 points. The Spurs won game 3 75-72, and game 4 83-82. That series wasn't close.

I'm not going to dignify this nonsense further. If you think 2017 was close, that's a hill you're free to die on. But here's a counterexample: the Blazers led the Warriors multiple times before getting obliterated 4-0. The Pacers played the Cavaliers extremely close in 2017, and they got swept.

Sometimes, games are close. Doesn't mean they're actually competitive. But as I said, you feel free to die on this hill.

Nonsense? I never said the 2017 Finals was the ultimate nail biter, but the series was closer than most people think, and that a lesser player in KD's place (like a Harrison Barnes) would've resulted in a Cavs title (which is the main point).

The Cavs would've won against a KD-less Warrior team by simply having 2 of the 3 best players in the series.

[sacking123]

“I wasn’t at all offended by what Kevin said because it’s basically the truth,” Kerr told Anthony Slater of The Athletic. “You look at any system, I mean, I played the triangle with Michael Jordan. The offense ran a lot smoother all regular season and the first couple rounds of the playoffs than it did in the conference finals and Finals. It just did.

"That’s why guys like Michael Jordan and Kevin Durant and Kobe Bryant are who they are. They can transcend any defense. But defenses in the playoffs, deep in the playoffs, combined with the physicality of the game — where refs can’t possibly call a foul every time — means that superstars have to take over.

"No system is just going to dice a Finals defense up. You have to rely on individual play. I didn’t look at (his comment) as offensive. I look at that as fact.”

https://www.nbcsports.com/bayarea/warriors/steve-kerr-responds-kevin-durants-comments-about-warriors-offense

This is painfully obvious to anyone that knows basketball.
The people that bagged KD out for his comments were from 1 of 2 positions. They either 1) don't know basketball or 2) hate KD and will make anything he says out to be bad.
It's as simply as that.

[XxIronChainzxX]

I'm talking about the 2007 NBA finals, and I was wrong. It was 4 points. The Spurs won game 3 75-72, and game 4 83-82. That series wasn't close.

I'm not going to dignify this nonsense further. If you think 2017 was close, that's a hill you're free to die on. But here's a counterexample: the Blazers led the Warriors multiple times before getting obliterated 4-0. The Pacers played the Cavaliers extremely close in 2017, and they got swept.

Sometimes, games are close. Doesn't mean they're actually competitive. But as I said, you feel free to die on this hill.

Nonsense? I never said the 2017 Finals was the ultimate nail biter, but the series was closer than most people think, and that a lesser player in KD's place (like a Harrison Barnes) would've resulted in a Cavs title (which is the main point).

The Cavs would've won against a KD-less Warrior team by simply having 2 of the 3 best players in the series.

It's nonsense because the argument is that a 4-1 series was close because it wasn't all blowouts. This era of big scores and MOV has IMO completely messed with people's expectations of a big loss.

The Cavs would've lost in 7, like they almost did the year before, by virtue of having a worse version of the best player in the series and the Warriors having the next 3 best. Irving was not better than Curry, that's absurd.

[Clay Davis]

One of the best coaches in the league right now says KD is right and we have a thread full of people who probably couldn't identify more than 6 plays saying he's wrong. The sad thing is is that this is one of the better places to discuss basketball.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using RealGM mobile app

[Dominator83]

He said "Now everyone wanna play for the Warriors and Lakers? Let's go back to being competitive and going at these peoples".

It was actually Heat and Lakers

Cue Simpsons' "thatsthejoke.jpg".

Got ya covered

[EArl]

Kerr showing KD directions to the high road

[koningcosmo]

The Golden State system would have worked fine if Harrison Barnes could hit a 3 pointer in the 2016 finals.

The last 3 games he went 1-6, 0-5, and 2-4...but I remember almost everyone being wide-open.

Game 5 he shot 4 for 5 from 3.

And he was what their 5th best player? That’s what role players do. Inconsistent in big moments.

Steph shot 4 for 14. Klay 2 for 10 in Game 7.

sssshhh we cant talk about curry choking in big moments.

[Dominator83]

One of the best coaches in the league right now says KD is right and we have a thread full of people who probably couldn't identify more than 6 plays saying he's wrong. The sad thing is is that this is one of the better places to discuss basketball.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using RealGM mobile app

Well to be fair, we do this for fun here. A lot of the talking heads we see on TV that get paid to analyze sports for a living, know just as little as we do

[SpreeS]

I'm talking about the 2007 NBA finals, and I was wrong. It was 4 points. The Spurs won game 3 75-72, and game 4 83-82. That series wasn't close.

I'm not going to dignify this nonsense further. If you think 2017 was close, that's a hill you're free to die on. But here's a counterexample: the Blazers led the Warriors multiple times before getting obliterated 4-0. The Pacers played the Cavaliers extremely close in 2017, and they got swept.

Sometimes, games are close. Doesn't mean they're actually competitive. But as I said, you feel free to die on this hill.

Nonsense? I never said the 2017 Finals was the ultimate nail biter, but the series was closer than most people think, and that a lesser player in KD's place (like a Harrison Barnes) would've resulted in a Cavs title (which is the main point).

The Cavs would've won against a KD-less Warrior team by simply having 2 of the 3 best players in the series.

Are you think that Green would be suspended again in 2017? Iggy/Curry/Bogut would be injured too like in 2016? And Irving would hit clutch 3P in 7th game... A lot of things went wrong in 2016 and Cavs catched us. Also GSW would make adjustments in 2017, plus they would be alot of hungrier. Look what SAN have done with MIA after Allen shot next year.

[Pablo Escobar]

Warriors motion offense is cute during the regular season. Once the post season hits, you need guys that can get buckets without a screen, that's why Curry and Klay struggle when the defense gets tight.