We're finally going to get to see how good Curry is.

[clyde21]

Well it’s a legitimate question whether he can carry a team or he is just one to dominate with a goat level cast. We’re about to find out.

Are we ignoring 2015-2016 now?

That team on paper should have been nowhere near 73 wins.

Come on that was a really really good team. I’m merely talking about carrying a bad team. And I’m not even saying he can’t its just a different challenge and something people question

Steph led Mark Jackson Warriors to 50 wins and a 6 seed in a deep West in 13-14, and took the Clippers (a 7+ SRS team at the time) to 7 games in the POs single handedly (was a +37 for that series)

does that count?

[thebigbird]

Read my post - "replace", as in move LeBron's team to the west and move any top 4-5 team to the East, that team makes the finals. LeBron has literally never had to beat a real championship contender to get to the finals.

The 2007 Pistons were championship contenders. So were the 2011 Bulls. They won 62 games and had MVP Rose on their team. LeBron beat them 4-1. The 2012 Celtics were also championship contenders.

Lol the 2011 Bulls were led by 22 year old Derrick Rose. Keith Bogans was their starting SG.

In 2012, the Celtics big 3:
Ray Allen 37 years old.
Paul Pierce 35 years old
Kevin Garnett 36 years old.

The 2007 Pistons didn’t even have Ben Wallace.

GTFOH

22 year old Derrick Rose who won the MVP and led them to 62 wins and a 6.53 srs, second highest in the league.

[bmurph128]

Yea let’s finally see how good steph is with 60 million in cap space rehabbing. How is that even fair when he will have a depleted roster? Genius.

it'll be more like 70 mil sitting on the rehab bench, and 17 more in a 35-year-old hobbled Iggy that can barely play 20 mpg when he's not taking games off for rest.

but NOW we get to see how good Steph is!

The Warriors would still be close to or over the salary cap even without those salaries so that's not a good argument.

For years I've heard that Draymond was better than Klay and a top 20 player - if Steph is really that good, having a top 20 player next to him should be enough to compete with almost any team.

But I'm guessing the road from here will be that now Draymond is worse than Klay and not an all star level player.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using RealGM mobile app

[KrAzY3]

Are we ignoring 2015-2016 now?

That team on paper should have been nowhere near 73 wins.

73 win Warriors team lead by Curry was one of the best all time - RealGM
Curry isn't very good - Also RealGM

[clyde21]

Yea let’s finally see how good steph is with 60 million in cap space rehabbing. How is that even fair when he will have a depleted roster? Genius.

it'll be more like 70 mil sitting on the rehab bench, and 17 more in a 35-year-old hobbled Iggy that can barely play 20 mpg when he's not taking games off for rest.

but NOW we get to see how good Steph is!

The Warriors would still be close to or over the salary cap even without those salaries so that's not a good argument.

For years I've heard that Draymond was better than Klay and a top 20 player - if Steph is really that good, having a top 20 player next to him should be enough to compete with almost any team.

But I'm guessing the road from here will be that now Draymond is worse than Klay and not an all star level player.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using RealGM mobile app

What? They'd be near the cap without that 87 milly locked up in KD/Klay/Iggy? what maths are we using here?

and Dray was not an all-star level player this last year, hence the fact that he didn't make the all-star team.

[whatisacenter]

should be fascinating! I think a good comparison would be LeBron. This year we got to see what he could do on his own and he missed the playoffs.

[zimpy27]

It will be very interesting. As long as GSW have Draymond then the system that brings out the best in Curry will still be possible. They just need some other shooters.

Curry could have a very big year.

[TANKNATION]

Hope i get number 1 pick in my fantasy draft next season...

[bmurph128]

it'll be more like 70 mil sitting on the rehab bench, and 17 more in a 35-year-old hobbled Iggy that can barely play 20 mpg when he's not taking games off for rest.

but NOW we get to see how good Steph is!

The Warriors would still be close to or over the salary cap even without those salaries so that's not a good argument.

For years I've heard that Draymond was better than Klay and a top 20 player - if Steph is really that good, having a top 20 player next to him should be enough to compete with almost any team.

But I'm guessing the road from here will be that now Draymond is worse than Klay and not an all star level player.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using RealGM mobile app

What? They'd be near the cap without that 87 milly locked up in KD/Klay/Iggy? what maths are we using here?

and Dray was not an all-star level player this last year, hence the fact that he didn't make the all-star team.

I was just talking about KD and Klays contracts - even not counting those they would use up just about all their space.

So if you add up all the guys salaries that will be playing early in the season next year and it totals what the salary cap is, hard to argue that it's a depleted roster. Might not be a great roster aside from Steph and Draymond, but it shouldn't have to be. I would argue that if you take the top two players off every team in the West, there's not really a team that is significantly better than the Warriors roster would be next year. Say what you want about Iggy, he held Kawhi down pretty well for a big chunk of this series, as well as hitting some timely jump shots. Livingston remains one of the better backup guards.

As for Green - he made the all star team three years in a row prior to this year - it's safe to call him an all star caliber player even without the nod this year. He was probably the Warriors 2nd best player in game 6 too.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using RealGM mobile app

[bmurph128]

should be fascinating! I think a good comparison would be LeBron. This year we got to see what he could do on his own and he missed the playoffs.

That is not a good comparison, at all. Who was the Lakers 2nd best player last year? Not as good as Draymond. Kerr has also been proven to be an elite head coach. Lakers showed to be a complete dumpster fire and it had nothing to do with LeBron.

The best comparison would be Giannis. Both have good head coaches and are/would be surrounded by role players.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using RealGM mobile app

[Warriorfan]

There is a reason he is 1st unanimous MVP

[sikma42]

I remember being devastated when Chris Mihm got hurt as a Lakers fan. That's how bad the Lakers team Kobe carried was.



Sent from my SM-N960U using RealGM mobile app

[BallerTalk]

Curry was leading the Dubs to 50 win seasons way before the Kerr era Warriors.

Not quite.

The Curry Warriors had a grand total of ONE 50 win season (51 wins in 2013-14) before Kerr arrived.
Curry's teams averaged less than 37 wins a season during the 5 years he was there before Kerr.

[clyde21]

The Warriors would still be close to or over the salary cap even without those salaries so that's not a good argument.

For years I've heard that Draymond was better than Klay and a top 20 player - if Steph is really that good, having a top 20 player next to him should be enough to compete with almost any team.

But I'm guessing the road from here will be that now Draymond is worse than Klay and not an all star level player.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using RealGM mobile app

What? They'd be near the cap without that 87 milly locked up in KD/Klay/Iggy? what maths are we using here?

and Dray was not an all-star level player this last year, hence the fact that he didn't make the all-star team.

I was just talking about KD and Klays contracts - even not counting those they would use up just about all their space.

So if you add up all the guys salaries that will be playing early in the season next year and it totals what the salary cap is, hard to argue that it's a depleted roster. Might not be a great roster aside from Steph and Draymond, but it shouldn't have to be. I would argue that if you take the top two players off every team in the West, there's not really a team that is significantly better than the Warriors roster would be next year. Say what you want about Iggy, he held Kawhi down pretty well for a big chunk of this series, as well as hitting some timely jump shots. Livingston remains one of the better backup guards.

As for Green - he made the all star team three years in a row prior to this year - it's safe to call him an all star caliber player even without the nod this year. He was probably the Warriors 2nd best player in game 6 too.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using RealGM mobile app

Not really -- didn't play like an all-star at all this year tbh...even the POs he honestly only had 1 good series, the Portland series and a lot of that had to do with the fact that their front court was pretty small and could punish our lack of size up front.

[Dupp]

Are we ignoring 2015-2016 now?

That team on paper should have been nowhere near 73 wins.

Come on that was a really really good team. I’m merely talking about carrying a bad team. And I’m not even saying he can’t its just a different challenge and something people question

Steph led Mark Jackson Warriors to 50 wins and a 6 seed in a deep West in 13-14, and took the Clippers (a 7+ SRS team at the time) to 7 games in the POs single handedly (was a +37 for that series)

does that count?

Yeah probably does. I remember that series but tbh can’t remember that season that well.

I think a lot of people like myself were a little slow on realizing how good curry is

[clyde21]

Curry was leading the Dubs to 50 win seasons way before the Kerr era Warriors.

Not quite.

The Curry Warriors had a grand total of ONE 50 win season (51 wins in 2013-14) before Kerr arrived.
Curry's teams averaged less than 37 wins a season during the 5 years he was there before Kerr.

his first three years in the league he had ankle issues throughout, including 1 year where he played only 24 games...pretty disingenuous to count those towards his average, tbh.

his last two years with Mark Jackson, 47 wins (lost in 2nd round against Denver) and 51 wins (lost in the 1st round in 7 against Clippers).

[Triple7]

He will struggle next season. First offensively, teams will focus solely on stopping him. Next is defensively. without klay he would have to exert effort on defense. Without Klay and KD, they can’t afford to give him rest days. He’d be dead tired at the end of the season, and much more prone to injuries. They better get a decent back up as Cook would probably be gone.

[MrBigShot]

Steph is remarkable and this finals did nothing to change my opinion of him. I think what people want from Curry is for him to have that Kobe/Westbrook type mentality in big games where he will force the issue and try to will his team to a win by any means necessary, and that's just not who Steph is. But regardless, he played extremely well during the post season and ultimately injuries were the warriors' downfall.

With Klay & KD's injuries, we are likely going to see Curry return to his 15-16' historic offensive form. He's gonna have to be magnificent for them to get a reasonable playoff seed.

[BallerTalk]

Curry was leading the Dubs to 50 win seasons way before the Kerr era Warriors.

Not quite.

The Curry Warriors had a grand total of ONE 50 win season (51 wins in 2013-14) before Kerr arrived.
Curry's teams averaged less than 37 wins a season during the 5 years he was there before Kerr.

his first three years in the league he had ankle issues throughout, including 1 year where he played only 24 games...pretty disingenuous to count those towards his average, tbh.

his last two years with Mark Jackson, 47 wins (lost in 2nd round against Denver) and 51 wins (lost in the 1st round in 7 against Clippers).

Come on now, disingenuous?

If my comment was disingenuous does that make yours flat out dishonest?
You said something that wasn't accurate. I just pointed out the facts.

[clyde21]

Not quite.

The Curry Warriors had a grand total of ONE 50 win season (51 wins in 2013-14) before Kerr arrived.
Curry's teams averaged less than 37 wins a season during the 5 years he was there before Kerr.

his first three years in the league he had ankle issues throughout, including 1 year where he played only 24 games...pretty disingenuous to count those towards his average, tbh.

his last two years with Mark Jackson, 47 wins (lost in 2nd round against Denver) and 51 wins (lost in the 1st round in 7 against Clippers).

Come on now, disingenuous?

If my comment was disingenuous does that make yours flat out dishonest?
You said something that wasn't accurate. I just pointed out the facts.

how was mine dishonest? he literally led the Warriors to a 51 win season in 13-14, and 47 the year before. Does that not count as 'carrying'?