Stephen Curry has been totally exposed

[clyde21]

Watch on YouTube

Meanwhile Elgee being dropping 36 minutes on why Curry was just so good.

saw that, just an absolutely masterful offensive player in every way. and when ElGee speaks you listen.

[Kings4win]

We still pretending the most important player of this generation, who’s at worst the second best player in the league can’t carry a team on his own? Lol ok

Second best? This is why no one can take Curry fanboys seriously

2nd best at worst lmao

[FNQ]

You could argue KD has been the second best player of his generation because of his unstoppable scoring even in the playoffs. You can argue it. But it isn't an undeniable truth at all, there is some strong or even stronger arguments against it.

KD is amazing.. he was a terrible fit for us, but you could hardly tell because he's just so damn good in isolation. He can create from it, for himself or others. He's so long that he can play anywhere on defense. There's not a single team where KD cant do his thing and be super impactful.

But when it comes to other players like Harden and Curry, in systems that are built for them and favor the guards, they are more important than him. Which is weird because in the same breath you can think KD is more talented. Its kinda like Draymond for us.. you can add a more talented player to us and remove Draymond, and we're likely worse, because Draymond is that important to us, in our system.

So the whole 'who's best' stuff.. great fodder for internet genital measurings and all that. But at the end of the day I care more about the players who are more important to the team than who's better than who, in an ever-changing set of standards by numerous people

[zimpy27]

Watch on YouTube

Meanwhile Elgee being dropping 36 minutes on why Curry was just so good.

One of the best of the series.

[zimpy27]

You could argue KD has been the second best player of his generation because of his unstoppable scoring even in the playoffs. You can argue it. But it isn't an undeniable truth at all, there is some strong or even stronger arguments against it.

KD is amazing.. he was a terrible fit for us, but you could hardly tell because he's just so damn good in isolation. He can create from it, for himself or others. He's so long that he can play anywhere on defense. There's not a single team where KD cant do his thing and be super impactful.

But when it comes to other players like Harden and Curry, in systems that are built for them and favor the guards, they are more important than him. Which is weird because in the same breath you can think KD is more talented. Its kinda like Draymond for us.. you can add a more talented player to us and remove Draymond, and we're likely worse, because Draymond is that important to us, in our system.

So the whole 'who's best' stuff.. great fodder for internet genital measurings and all that. But at the end of the day I care more about the players who are more important to the team than who's better than who, in an ever-changing set of standards by numerous people

I find the talent vs fit discussion incredibly interesting tbh, even what we define as talent.

Look at the G league, the guys making teams like Caruso aren't the guys you see as most "talented" there and yet they make it to the NBA. What does talent even mean if being more talented doesn't guarantee you to make it to an NBA roster?

[michaelm]

You could argue KD has been the second best player of his generation because of his unstoppable scoring even in the playoffs. You can argue it. But it isn't an undeniable truth at all, there is some strong or even stronger arguments against it.

KD is amazing.. he was a terrible fit for us, but you could hardly tell because he's just so damn good in isolation. He can create from it, for himself or others. He's so long that he can play anywhere on defense. There's not a single team where KD cant do his thing and be super impactful.

But when it comes to other players like Harden and Curry, in systems that are built for them and favor the guards, they are more important than him. Which is weird because in the same breath you can think KD is more talented. Its kinda like Draymond for us.. you can add a more talented player to us and remove Draymond, and we're likely worse, because Draymond is that important to us, in our system.

So the whole 'who's best' stuff.. great fodder for internet genital measurings and all that. But at the end of the day I care more about the players who are more important to the team than who's better than who, in an ever-changing set of standards by numerous people

Yes. As someone who is something of a latecomer to the sport, at the NBA level at least, it continues to bemuse me that a significant percentage of those who follow the sport don’t seem to have grasped that the sport is played 5 on 5 rather than 1 on 1. The likes of Curry and Harden as well as being significant offensive threats themselves potentiate others, even highly elite others, and elite shooters particularly. LeBron can do so as well of course, but seems to have mostly chosen a different offensive method, before last season’s title win with the Lakers anyway.

[Onus]

You could argue KD has been the second best player of his generation because of his unstoppable scoring even in the playoffs. You can argue it. But it isn't an undeniable truth at all, there is some strong or even stronger arguments against it.

KD is amazing.. he was a terrible fit for us, but you could hardly tell because he's just so damn good in isolation. He can create from it, for himself or others. He's so long that he can play anywhere on defense. There's not a single team where KD cant do his thing and be super impactful.

But when it comes to other players like Harden and Curry, in systems that are built for them and favor the guards, they are more important than him. Which is weird because in the same breath you can think KD is more talented. Its kinda like Draymond for us.. you can add a more talented player to us and remove Draymond, and we're likely worse, because Draymond is that important to us, in our system.

So the whole 'who's best' stuff.. great fodder for internet genital measurings and all that. But at the end of the day I care more about the players who are more important to the team than who's better than who, in an ever-changing set of standards by numerous people

I find the talent vs fit discussion incredibly interesting tbh, even what we define as talent.

Look at the G league, the guys making teams like Caruso aren't the guys you see as most "talented" there and yet they make it to the NBA. What does talent even mean if being more talented doesn't guarantee you to make it to an NBA roster?

KD has been on 3 different teams now and none of the 3 teams were able to build systems around KD no matter how much they catered to him.

[dhsilv2]

You could argue KD has been the second best player of his generation because of his unstoppable scoring even in the playoffs. You can argue it. But it isn't an undeniable truth at all, there is some strong or even stronger arguments against it.

KD is amazing.. he was a terrible fit for us, but you could hardly tell because he's just so damn good in isolation. He can create from it, for himself or others. He's so long that he can play anywhere on defense. There's not a single team where KD cant do his thing and be super impactful.

But when it comes to other players like Harden and Curry, in systems that are built for them and favor the guards, they are more important than him. Which is weird because in the same breath you can think KD is more talented. Its kinda like Draymond for us.. you can add a more talented player to us and remove Draymond, and we're likely worse, because Draymond is that important to us, in our system.

So the whole 'who's best' stuff.. great fodder for internet genital measurings and all that. But at the end of the day I care more about the players who are more important to the team than who's better than who, in an ever-changing set of standards by numerous people

Not sure I see how KD was a bad fit. He very much fit into basically the idea of stretching teams till they broke and shooting on them. The thing is no team with two stars is going to choose a KD iso as their go to offense. It just isn't that good. It's why we saw Westbrook, Curry, and now Harden as the lead guys on his teams. He's a great player but he is very much the secondary option and as that he's absolutely unstoppable.

[FNQ]

You could argue KD has been the second best player of his generation because of his unstoppable scoring even in the playoffs. You can argue it. But it isn't an undeniable truth at all, there is some strong or even stronger arguments against it.

KD is amazing.. he was a terrible fit for us, but you could hardly tell because he's just so damn good in isolation. He can create from it, for himself or others. He's so long that he can play anywhere on defense. There's not a single team where KD cant do his thing and be super impactful.

But when it comes to other players like Harden and Curry, in systems that are built for them and favor the guards, they are more important than him. Which is weird because in the same breath you can think KD is more talented. Its kinda like Draymond for us.. you can add a more talented player to us and remove Draymond, and we're likely worse, because Draymond is that important to us, in our system.

So the whole 'who's best' stuff.. great fodder for internet genital measurings and all that. But at the end of the day I care more about the players who are more important to the team than who's better than who, in an ever-changing set of standards by numerous people

Not sure I see how KD was a bad fit. He very much fit into basically the idea of stretching teams till they broke and shooting on them. The thing is no team with two stars is going to choose a KD iso as their go to offense. It just isn't that good. It's why we saw Westbrook, Curry, and now Harden as the lead guys on his teams. He's a great player but he is very much the secondary option and as that he's absolutely unstoppable.

KD stopped the ball often.. but because his iso was so lethal and because no one could help lest they leave Curry or Klay open. But that ball-stopping could throw the rest of the team, who thrived on ball movement, out of rhythm. And we iso'd him when he wanted to, not when it fit the offense. Part of him and Dray's beef (easy to hear near the court) was who brought the ball up. When KD brought the ball up, he effectively decided when he'd iso.

[dhsilv2]

KD is amazing.. he was a terrible fit for us, but you could hardly tell because he's just so damn good in isolation. He can create from it, for himself or others. He's so long that he can play anywhere on defense. There's not a single team where KD cant do his thing and be super impactful.

But when it comes to other players like Harden and Curry, in systems that are built for them and favor the guards, they are more important than him. Which is weird because in the same breath you can think KD is more talented. Its kinda like Draymond for us.. you can add a more talented player to us and remove Draymond, and we're likely worse, because Draymond is that important to us, in our system.

So the whole 'who's best' stuff.. great fodder for internet genital measurings and all that. But at the end of the day I care more about the players who are more important to the team than who's better than who, in an ever-changing set of standards by numerous people

Not sure I see how KD was a bad fit. He very much fit into basically the idea of stretching teams till they broke and shooting on them. The thing is no team with two stars is going to choose a KD iso as their go to offense. It just isn't that good. It's why we saw Westbrook, Curry, and now Harden as the lead guys on his teams. He's a great player but he is very much the secondary option and as that he's absolutely unstoppable.

KD stopped the ball often.. but because his iso was so lethal and because no one could help lest they leave Curry or Klay open. But that ball-stopping could throw the rest of the team, who thrived on ball movement, out of rhythm. And we iso'd him when he wanted to, not when it fit the offense. Part of him and Dray's beef (easy to hear near the court) was who brought the ball up. When KD brought the ball up, he effectively decided when he'd iso.

I'd generally say the warriors needed a guy who could iso better. The ball stopping was honestly just a flaw in KD's game, more a limiting factor for him being the catalyst of an elite offense. In other words if he's in a "system" for him, it's going to be a worse system because he can't lead a top tier offense the way a Harden or Curry can.

[Rodwilliams]

Warriors blowout the Grizzlies without Curry. Talk about being exposed. There is already a narrative forming this season that he can’t carry a team unless the roster is elite but this blowout win without him enforces it. The Warriors should be a higher seed.

[Openheimer]

Well well looks like they play better without Curry and the cast isn’t so bad. Draymond is the man on that team

[Big J]

It's literally the same roster that had the worst record in the league last year.

[Warriors Analyst]

The typical clowns coming to bump this thread are conveniently ignoring that we won today’s game not just without Steph, but without Wiseman or Paschall, who are the two worst Warriors rotation players by net rating.

[dreamshake]

It's literally the same roster that had the worst record in the league last year.

That's not even remotely true. If you look at this years roster by minutes played 4 of the top 8 guys (Oubre, Bazemore, Wiseman, Wanamaker) weren't even on the team last year and Wiggins only played 12 games. Kevon Looney also missed most of last season. It's not even close to the same roster.

[MindState]

Every dog has its day. Although I will say the Warriors are harder to defend without Curry.

Zomg double/triple team curry! He has the ball! Is a simple defensive strategy that every team has used against the warriors every single game, all game long.

The second Curry was out, teams had no clue how to defend the warriors. Pure comedy to watch.

[GSP]

It's literally the same roster that had the worst record in the league last year.

Oubre, Bazemore, Wiseman, Wanamaker were literally on the team last year?

Dangelo, Glenn, Burks, Wcs, Bowman, Spellman are literally still on the team this year?

Jta and Poole arent rookies anymore either

Wiggins only played 12 games last year for Gs and Draymond only played 43

[art_tatum]

It's literally the same roster that had the worst record in the league last year.

That's not even remotely true. If you look at this years roster by minutes played 4 of the top 8 guys (Oubre, Bazemore, Wiseman, Wanamaker) weren't even on the team last year and Wiggins only played 12 games. Kevon Looney also missed most of last season. It's not even close to the same roster.

Stats and the eye test show oubre and wiseman being net negatives, and wanamaker(28% 3fg) isn't even in the lineup anymore when curry plays. They are playing their rookies/sophmores.
The only major positive is wiggins playing more and better than last year. Bazemore is inconsistent but a positive too.

[dreamshake]

It's literally the same roster that had the worst record in the league last year.

That's not even remotely true. If you look at this years roster by minutes played 4 of the top 8 guys (Oubre, Bazemore, Wiseman, Wanamaker) weren't even on the team last year and Wiggins only played 12 games. Kevon Looney also missed most of last season. It's not even close to the same roster.

Stats and the eye test show oubre and wiseman being net negatives, and wanamaker(28% 3fg) isn't even in the lineup anymore when curry plays. They are playing their rookies/sophmores.
The only major positive is wiggins playing more and better than last year. Bazemore is inconsistent but a positive too.

I wasn't even really commenting on their quality - just that the roster is very different. With that said though, being a net negative doesn't necessarily mean they're worse than whoever got the equivalent minutes last year.

[Rodwilliams]

Well well looks like they play better without Curry and the cast isn’t so bad. Draymond is the man on that team

Not only did they play better without him but they also played with more freedom too instead of just standing around setting picks all day for him.