Let's see how all you Kawakami haters react to this one.

Discuss anything related to Golden State Warriors basketball here

Moderators: Mr. Crackerz, JREED, Guybrush, hobbes

User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 13539
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:03 pm
Location: Golden State
Poster Credit: 53
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 7:30 pm
Sorry, BF. I gotta go with WSU.

Monta Ellis is enormously better than Andris Biedrins. I'm like you; I believe giving him 35 minutes is a mistake. But if you give him Jarrett Jack's role, he'd put up Jamal Crawford type scoring. Biedrins will never be in the 6MoY runnings. Once Ellis expires and goes to a contender and becomes a squad's top bench gun, he'll be in the conversation every year. That's a LOT more than Biedrins can say. If Bogut is healthy and Thompson goes into another cold spell, that Biedrins-instead-of-Ellis line becomes much less reliable.
Image
GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS DIE HARD
Image
Image

All Star
Posts: 1352
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 1:57 am
Poster Credit: 22
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 7:39 pm
I think you are both misinterpreting what I am saying. I'd say I would rather Biedrens in this given construction. Winning wise, Biedrens negatively affects for his offense. Ellis, winning wise, he negatively affects it because of his offense. And that's not because he is not a talented scorer, it is because he has a low basketball IQ and he is a horrible passer. I am sure if he came off the bench as a seventh man for the Spurs he would score well in the 15 minutes a game they'd give him and Popovich would keep him in line.

Anything more than 15 minutes and without an elite coach to keep him in line, nah, not really. Rather have Biedrens be afraid of the ball than having Ellis take more shots than Dwanye Wade, Kevin Durant, and James Harden.
User avatar
Starting Lineup
Posts: 683
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 1:29 am
Poster Credit: 14
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 1:03 am
Monta Ellis has value the same way Jamal Crawford has value. How many teams has Crawford played for now? I see them as not much different players. Once fans awoke to the Monta Ellis myth (allstar) they realized his bloated stats and negative value to winning. The Bucks incompetent GM fell for it... just like Cohan and Co. fell for it and gave him $11 mil/yr. Probably just cuz he's an 'exciting' player so he can put fans in the seat. But let's see what his "value" got us. Big contract / headcase S Jax (some said an untradeable contract) + an injured Bogut (Bucks fans were sick of it and they were in win now / make the playoffs mode). Healthy Bogut and it's not even close. + we gave them 'promising prospect' Udoh. Trade was a flat out steal. The trade was addition by subtraction. Yes, we added a lot of great FA's and rookies, but Ellis in the picture and there is no TEAM BALL whatsoever. Trade allowed the FO to actually build a normal roster. shocking I know. No more undersized tweener ball, no more ball hog ball, we actually have a normal looking basketball team instead of a roster with an inherent disadvantage by starting a 6'3 midget skinny no-D playing ballhog. This is what a real team finally looks like! lol

Idk if that's some of what Black is saying (?). I think ANY team that puts Monta Ellis as their starting SG puts themselves at an inherent disadvantage. They are now mandated to find a big PG to pair with him (which is why it worked with B Diddy). The things he does to win just aren't enough. He is the anti-Draymond Green. A 1-dimensional AND inefficient selfish volume scorer, who just might be one of the worst defenders in the league and kills team chemistry -- doesn't spell wins. Hasn't for 7 yrs he was the man on the Warriors. I wouldn't read into the Bucks .500 - ish start ... 1) it's the East 2) schedule has been kinda soft
Last edited by rockyBeli on Thu Jan 03, 2013 1:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

All Star
Posts: 3128
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 11:03 am
Location: san jose
Poster Credit: 19
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 1:11 am
Your tripping if you blame warriors of the past losing on one player. Its much much deeper than that, but again this is the type of logic that fuels this convo.

All Star
Posts: 1352
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 1:57 am
Poster Credit: 22
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 1:20 am
warriorsstepup wrote:Your tripping if you blame warriors of the past losing on one player. Its much much deeper than that, but again this is the type of logic that fuels this convo.


You are tripping if you don't think Ellis was part of the problem. The reason the ownership was bad because it gave out big contracts to players like Ellis and Cory Maggete. Clearly, our ownership is the blame for making us shitty, but that doesn't absolve Ellis of being shitty. We could have had good ownership and have a good team and Ellis would still be a detriment as a starting shooting guard.


I am going to reiterate this. Bad ownership doesn't make bad players not bad, however, they do give them big contracts and make bad choices. Bad players tend to be on bad teams, ala Ellis.

All Star
Posts: 3128
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 11:03 am
Location: san jose
Poster Credit: 19
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 2:15 am
Blackfoot wrote:
warriorsstepup wrote:Your tripping if you blame warriors of the past losing on one player. Its much much deeper than that, but again this is the type of logic that fuels this convo.


You are tripping if you don't think Ellis was part of the problem. The reason the ownership was bad because it gave out big contracts to players like Ellis and Cory Maggete. Clearly, our ownership is the blame for making us shitty, but that doesn't absolve Ellis of being shitty. We could have had good ownership and have a good team and Ellis would still be a detriment as a starting shooting guard.


I am going to reiterate this. Bad ownership doesn't make bad players not bad, however, they do give them big contracts and make bad choices. Bad players tend to be on bad teams, ala Ellis.


Whatever makes you sleep better its your opinion

All Star
Posts: 1352
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 1:57 am
Poster Credit: 22
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 3:19 am
warriorsstepup wrote:
Blackfoot wrote:
warriorsstepup wrote:Your tripping if you blame warriors of the past losing on one player. Its much much deeper than that, but again this is the type of logic that fuels this convo.


You are tripping if you don't think Ellis was part of the problem. The reason the ownership was bad because it gave out big contracts to players like Ellis and Cory Maggete. Clearly, our ownership is the blame for making us shitty, but that doesn't absolve Ellis of being shitty. We could have had good ownership and have a good team and Ellis would still be a detriment as a starting shooting guard.


I am going to reiterate this. Bad ownership doesn't make bad players not bad, however, they do give them big contracts and make bad choices. Bad players tend to be on bad teams, ala Ellis.


Whatever makes you sleep better its your opinion


I am losing sleep over this. I don't even know how I can sleep at night now.
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 13539
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:03 pm
Location: Golden State
Poster Credit: 53
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 9:04 am
How about we switch gears for a sec:

Blackfoot, I agree with the vast majority of your points on this subject, but where I draw the line is this idea that Ellis is an inherent loser. I believe any player, given the proper amount (or lack of) responsibility can contribute to a team in meaningful ways. Surely, your scenario earlier involving Ellis as a 7th man was a LITTLE tongue-in-cheek, no? He has been a top NBA scorer for quite some time. Stat manipulation or no, surplus of minutes or touches or any other excuse aside, if every player could average 20+ points they would. And Ellis does. He's instant-offense, just add water, and never was that more apparent than in the We Believe era where Ellis shined as a 6th man. His FG% hovered much closer to the 50% mark when he played 3rd guard, alongside 2 players (Davis and Jackson) who constantly had the ball and would playmake for others.

Anyways, here's my question: if Ellis is on this roster instead of Bogut (let's pretend we dealt Udoh for the Ezeli draft pick, got Barnes, Jack, Landry... It's all the same, except for the Bogut-Ellis swap) AND Mark Jackson convinced Ellis that Klay was the future and Monta would be the super sub coming off the bench... Isn't this team a little better than it is now? If Ellis is allowed to be a 6th man, play 20 minutes, shoot a higher percentage with the ball in his hands less, and live off his fast break game all the while being given a surplus of looks as the B Team's top gun... Don't all his inefficiencies evaporate and suddenly he becomes the Monta of old, the "We Believe" Ellis again?

See, for me, Ellis' contract and his role are the reasons many people undervalue him now. He's not a team's best player, not an $11 million per guy to say the least... But Ellis, at $6.5 million a year, for 22 minutes off the bench, is a 6th Man of the Year candidate. I've always thought so and I continue to believe that his inefficient play would ebb given a proper role and way less looks/minutes.

Agree?
Image
GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS DIE HARD
Image
Image

All Star
Posts: 1352
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 1:57 am
Poster Credit: 22
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 3:21 pm
32 wrote:How about we switch gears for a sec:

Blackfoot, I agree with the vast majority of your points on this subject, but where I draw the line is this idea that Ellis is an inherent loser. I believe any player, given the proper amount (or lack of) responsibility can contribute to a team in meaningful ways. Surely, your scenario earlier involving Ellis as a 7th man was a LITTLE tongue-in-cheek, no? He has been a top NBA scorer for quite some time. Stat manipulation or no, surplus of minutes or touches or any other excuse aside, if every player could average 20+ points they would. And Ellis does. He's instant-offense, just add water, and never was that more apparent than in the We Believe era where Ellis shined as a 6th man. His FG% hovered much closer to the 50% mark when he played 3rd guard, alongside 2 players (Davis and Jackson) who constantly had the ball and would playmake for others.

Anyways, here's my question: if Ellis is on this roster instead of Bogut (let's pretend we dealt Udoh for the Ezeli draft pick, got Barnes, Jack, Landry... It's all the same, except for the Bogut-Ellis swap) AND Mark Jackson convinced Ellis that Klay was the future and Monta would be the super sub coming off the bench... Isn't this team a little better than it is now? If Ellis is allowed to be a 6th man, play 20 minutes, shoot a higher percentage with the ball in his hands less, and live off his fast break game all the while being given a surplus of looks as the B Team's top gun... Don't all his inefficiencies evaporate and suddenly he becomes the Monta of old, the "We Believe" Ellis again?

See, for me, Ellis' contract and his role are the reasons many people undervalue him now. He's not a team's best player, not an $11 million per guy to say the least... But Ellis, at $6.5 million a year, for 22 minutes off the bench, is a 6th Man of the Year candidate. I've always thought so and I continue to believe that his inefficient play would ebb given a proper role and way less looks/minutes.

Agree?



I'd agree in his second year of play, but he stopped being able to shoot at that high percentage after the moped accident. And still after the moped accident we played him 40 minutes a game so he is declining on a regular bell curve, but it started sooner because of the accident and heavy minutes. He has gotten worse every year since four years ago. Not the same player, nor do I think he can be. And, I still think in those 22 minutes a game defense is still a problem for him and I don't think his offense can make up for that.


More to the point, the most offensive three guard rotation in the league is Jack-Curry-Klay. I don't think Monta keeps it that way when we do a three guard rotation.
User avatar
Role Player
Posts: 377
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2008 1:34 pm
Poster Credit: 14
PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 10:30 am
Many factors are to be considered, but the fact is that this team is better WITHOUT Ellis. Its no longer 4 guys watching 1 guy dribble the ball around for 15 seconds just to jack up a shot. The biggest difference I've noticed this season is ball movement. The ball really zips around with this team and I think thats a big reason why they're successful. The other big reason for their success is their defense. They no longer have a 6'3 SG that can't guard most SGs in the league holding them back. Less double teams and better team defense as a whole. Bucks' fans are already sick of watching Ellis and want him out of Milwaukee. You thought a Curry and Ellis backcourt was bad. Imagine what they're thinking of a Jennings/Ellis backcourt. The Warriors have become a team. They're no longer just 1 guy taking 25-30 shots no matter what.
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 13539
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:03 pm
Location: Golden State
Poster Credit: 53
PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 12:08 pm
BayAreaHoopz wrote:Many factors are to be considered, but the fact is that this team is better WITHOUT Ellis. Its no longer 4 guys watching 1 guy dribble the ball around for 15 seconds just to jack up a shot. The biggest difference I've noticed this season is ball movement. The ball really zips around with this team and I think thats a big reason why they're successful. The other big reason for their success is their defense. They no longer have a 6'3 SG that can't guard most SGs in the league holding them back. Less double teams and better team defense as a whole. Bucks' fans are already sick of watching Ellis and want him out of Milwaukee. You thought a Curry and Ellis backcourt was bad. Imagine what they're thinking of a Jennings/Ellis backcourt. The Warriors have become a team. They're no longer just 1 guy taking 25-30 shots no matter what.

+1.

Ellis hucking 30 shots in a night is definitely a fast track to a losing season. But what I'm trying to figure out is this: if you cut Ellis' minutes in half, if you reduce his role and take the ball out of his hands more (making him a cutter, a shooter off screens, a finisher at the rim): doesn't he contribute value to a team?

His defense was definitely bad, but it was not as bad as the stats claim - and he was undeniably more useful against guards his size, rather than bigger 2's. He's also an A-level ball handler and finds finishers close to the cup (not an offensive maestro by any stretch, but he makes the immediate passes when he's put in multiple coverage).

Can't Ellis be a successful 6th man and isn't he being set up to fail by having teams run their entire offense through him?
Image
GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS DIE HARD
Image
Image

All Star
Posts: 1352
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 1:57 am
Poster Credit: 22
PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 3:12 pm
32 wrote:
BayAreaHoopz wrote:Many factors are to be considered, but the fact is that this team is better WITHOUT Ellis. Its no longer 4 guys watching 1 guy dribble the ball around for 15 seconds just to jack up a shot. The biggest difference I've noticed this season is ball movement. The ball really zips around with this team and I think thats a big reason why they're successful. The other big reason for their success is their defense. They no longer have a 6'3 SG that can't guard most SGs in the league holding them back. Less double teams and better team defense as a whole. Bucks' fans are already sick of watching Ellis and want him out of Milwaukee. You thought a Curry and Ellis backcourt was bad. Imagine what they're thinking of a Jennings/Ellis backcourt. The Warriors have become a team. They're no longer just 1 guy taking 25-30 shots no matter what.

+1.

Ellis hucking 30 shots in a night is definitely a fast track to a losing season. But what I'm trying to figure out is this: if you cut Ellis' minutes in half, if you reduce his role and take the ball out of his hands more (making him a cutter, a shooter off screens, a finisher at the rim): doesn't he contribute value to a team?

His defense was definitely bad, but it was not as bad as the stats claim - and he was undeniably more useful against guards his size, rather than bigger 2's. He's also an A-level ball handler and finds finishers close to the cup (not an offensive maestro by any stretch, but he makes the immediate passes when he's put in multiple coverage).

Can't Ellis be a successful 6th man and isn't he being set up to fail by having teams run their entire offense through him?



We will probably see next year whether he can be a sixth man or not.
User avatar
All Star
Posts: 1129
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2010 4:53 pm
Poster Credit: 26
PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 5:25 pm
32 wrote:
BayAreaHoopz wrote:Many factors are to be considered, but the fact is that this team is better WITHOUT Ellis. Its no longer 4 guys watching 1 guy dribble the ball around for 15 seconds just to jack up a shot. The biggest difference I've noticed this season is ball movement. The ball really zips around with this team and I think thats a big reason why they're successful. The other big reason for their success is their defense. They no longer have a 6'3 SG that can't guard most SGs in the league holding them back. Less double teams and better team defense as a whole. Bucks' fans are already sick of watching Ellis and want him out of Milwaukee. You thought a Curry and Ellis backcourt was bad. Imagine what they're thinking of a Jennings/Ellis backcourt. The Warriors have become a team. They're no longer just 1 guy taking 25-30 shots no matter what.

+1.

Ellis hucking 30 shots in a night is definitely a fast track to a losing season. But what I'm trying to figure out is this: if you cut Ellis' minutes in half, if you reduce his role and take the ball out of his hands more (making him a cutter, a shooter off screens, a finisher at the rim): doesn't he contribute value to a team?

His defense was definitely bad, but it was not as bad as the stats claim - and he was undeniably more useful against guards his size, rather than bigger 2's. He's also an A-level ball handler and finds finishers close to the cup (not an offensive maestro by any stretch, but he makes the immediate passes when he's put in multiple coverage).

Can't Ellis be a successful 6th man and isn't he being set up to fail by having teams run their entire offense through him?



I agree with you 32 that Ellis is best suited for a 6th man role, pushing the tempo up coming off the bench. But what I don't agree with is saying that it would not work with him in the starting lineup. As he said his defense was not as bad as some suggest, and defeniately was not getting owned by most teams. His defense on the ball was fine, it was his defense off the ball that sucked. And that might be attributed to lack of discipline and not having the best defensive coaching staff pushing him. Not too long ago we had people saying Curry was a poor defender, but Jackson has been able to get him to perform decently as well as D. Lee for that matter.

As for those that are saying the team is winning now because he is not on the team... how do you think we tanked last season? It was after the trade. Yes, we started played better one or two games after that, but as soon as teams realized how to play us, we were dead in the water. We were hard pressed to win a game. We went from just under .500 to getting the 7th worse record in the league. Our improvement this year is because of the additions to the bench (draft and Free agents), Curry is finally healthy, and a full off season for coaching staff to put in a decent defensive strategy.

At the end of the day, I think that he showed here his skills, but was not in the right system nor had the right players around him to prove that he can contribute to a winning team. Kind of like what everyone thought of about D. Lee.. that he was just a stat stuffer.
"Hard Work Beats Talent, When Talent Doesn't Work Hard"
Image

Image : 2010 - 2011
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 13539
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:03 pm
Location: Golden State
Poster Credit: 53
PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2013 12:39 pm
I dunno bro. Ellis is shooting EXTREMELY poorly this year (sub 40%) and its looking more and more like its not simply a cold slump. Ellis is barely scraping 1-out-of-every-4 three-pointers he tosses up (and he's shooting them regularly; from all over, not just the corners). Obviously, the heavy work load of minutes combined with Milwaukee's lack of backcourt size contributes heavily to his inefficiencies. But this is just plain bad, the way he's been forcing his way to a 18/4/5 stat line by way of tunnel-vision shot-hogging. He's throwing away 3 turnovers a game, his true shooting percentage is abysmal, and he's not stopping anybody on defense.

Really, at this point, looks like the trade was lose-lose for both squads. Both teams are playing better (the Bucks are using the additional threat of Ellis to open up their offense, the Dubs are passing like they haven't in 25 years), but if you're just looking at this trade for the main items, both have regressed into exactly what both teams feared: Ellis, affirming his status as one of the league's black holes and Bogut proving nobody wrong on his brittle, broken reputation.

Strange how both teams are thriving despite getting rid of their franchise players for seemingly nothing in return.
Image
GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS DIE HARD
Image
Image
Previous

Return to Warriors Basketball

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot] and 2 guests