Monta + Crawford does not match!

Discuss anything related to Golden State Warriors basketball here

Moderators: Mr. Crackerz, JREED, Guybrush, 32


Rookie
Posts: 65
» Tue Feb 03, 2009 9:50 pm
Hey guys, I rarely post here, but I just thought I'd speak a little bit about what I've been seeing.

Firstly, Monta Ellis and Jamal Crawford should NOT be playing together. These are 2 natural SG's who need the ball in their hands. Monta can get his points no matter what, especially when he gets healthy, because of his ability to drive. But Crawford needs to shoot throughout the game because he is streaky, and once he hits his stride he can put 40 up easily. But, with Monta back, that many shots aren't there for him anymore.

I don't know what the Dubs should do about it exactly, but I would like to see Crawford traded. As has been mentioned several times on here, Crawford for Hinrich would be great for both teams. The fact of the matter is, this team has several scorers, but ZERO distributors. Crawford and Ellis are not PG's; they can handle the ball really well, and make the occasional decent pass. But ultimately their first instinct is ALWAYS to shoot first, look for the pass second.

Maybe I'm just reading too much into it and maybe they need time to gel, but thus far I really dislike the way they have played together. Especially Crawford. He seems to be in an unbreakable funk.

All Star
Posts: 1096
» Tue Feb 03, 2009 10:03 pm
why do the bulls need crawford?
User avatar

Role Player
Posts: 309
» Tue Feb 03, 2009 10:46 pm
Marcus Williams says hi.
User avatar

Role Player
Posts: 415
» Wed Feb 04, 2009 12:27 am
saintdee wrote:why do the bulls need crawford?

Rather than write out my own explanation as to why I think it is a real possibility, here is a quote by 32 from a few days ago which offers a solid explanation:

(1) Trading one of their multi-year-contracted swingmen (Ellis, Jackson, Maggette, Crawford) for a point guard. Kirk Hinrich for Crawford almost makes too much sense to ignore for both teams; Chicago needing a go-to scorer and Golden State needing a playmaker. With Ben Gordon bolting after the year, Larry Hughes expiring soon enough, and Derek Rose sharing the backcourt, Crawford would be an ideal longterm fit for the Bulls (something you can't say about him here). Hinrich's outsider savy and defensive prowess will make him ultra-valuable in Nellie's system as well.

All Star
Posts: 3173
» Wed Feb 04, 2009 1:01 am
D4rk 0ne wrote:
saintdee wrote:why do the bulls need crawford?

Rather than write out my own explanation as to why I think it is a real possibility, here is a quote by 32 from a few days ago which offers a solid explanation:

(1) Trading one of their multi-year-contracted swingmen (Ellis, Jackson, Maggette, Crawford) for a point guard. Kirk Hinrich for Crawford almost makes too much sense to ignore for both teams; Chicago needing a go-to scorer and Golden State needing a playmaker. With Ben Gordon bolting after the year, Larry Hughes expiring soon enough, and Derek Rose sharing the backcourt, Crawford would be an ideal longterm fit for the Bulls (something you can't say about him here). Hinrich's outsider savy and defensive prowess will make him ultra-valuable in Nellie's system as well.


Makes sense where is Mullin when you need him to pull this off.
User avatar

All Star
Posts: 1099
» Wed Feb 04, 2009 6:02 am
The bulls would never trade for Crawford. They fully understand how ineffective he is, they traded him for expiring contracts to the knicks and this was when he was still young and had potential.
User avatar

Moderator
Posts: 13751
» Wed Feb 04, 2009 10:20 am
The Bulls were on the eve of handing giant contracts to Eddy Curry and Tyson Chandler. They thought they had twin towers in the oven and understandably cleared for cap room. It wasn't because they believed Crawford was "ineffective"; in fact, John Paxon was quoted saying:

John Paxon wrote:Obviously Jamal is the best player in this deal, and it's not easy giving up a young talent like that... The way that we looked at it is there were certain things we needed to get. We had to get substantial financial (relief), and this gives us some flexibility.

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource. ... slug=nba06

They JRich-ed him, basically. I doubt you'd say the Warriors labeled Richardson ineffective. He'd fit perfectly in their set-up right now.
User avatar

All Star
Posts: 3040
» Wed Feb 04, 2009 11:02 am
32 wrote:The Bulls were on the eve of handing giant contracts to Eddy Curry and Tyson Chandler. They thought they had twin towers in the oven and understandably cleared for cap room. It wasn't because they believed Crawford was "ineffective"; in fact, John Paxon was quoted saying:

John Paxon wrote:Obviously Jamal is the best player in this deal, and it's not easy giving up a young talent like that... The way that we looked at it is there were certain things we needed to get. We had to get substantial financial (relief), and this gives us some flexibility.

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource. ... slug=nba06

They JRich-ed him, basically. I doubt you'd say the Warriors labeled Richardson ineffective. He'd fit perfectly in their set-up right now.

It is fascinating how some folks don't let the facts deter them concerning Crawford, huh? In Chicago and in New York and here, Crawford has been universally loved and appreciated by his teammates and coaches, and in the Chicago and NY trades he was considered the best player in each deal. For us, since we are overflowing at the 2, it makes sense to move a couple for what we don't have, a PG or a PF (once we have a new coach). If Jamal brings in what we need, I am all for it, since we are committed to MOnta and they basically duplicate each other's position. Even when Jamal went on the ten game tear where he was averaging 28 and 7, his haters were scrambling all over themselves to dismiss or disparage or diminish it. He had as good a ten game run as Maggette has had more recently, but oh well. It gets silly after a while.

He has not played well since Monta's return, kinda become the forgotten and disappearing man. If it is possible to have a too self-effacing game, he may, as he has completely deferred to Monta and Jackson, and has lost effectiveness because of that. Maggette is no shrinking violet and plays a different position, whereas Monta and Jackson more or less are trying to do what Jamal is trying to do, so yeah, that mix of those three doesn't work. We have lost either way, but the ball movement is always better when Jackson is not playing. He has way too many moron let me laboriously dribble the ball then force up a shot moments. When I am watching him on TV, I will often turn to my son when he starts his routine and say, he's gonna shoot it. And sure enough, he does about 98% of the time in the iso one on one. If I can figure this out watching on the screen, have no doubt the other team can as well. It is a lost season, so may as well try every combination and see how it works. It is, of course, utterly ludicrous that Nelson will not play Randolph. What exactly is he hoping to achieve? Is he battling furiously to get the 6th worst slot instead of the 5th?

All Star
Posts: 1910
» Wed Feb 04, 2009 11:13 am
Coltraning,

The way I read Nelson's comments, Randolph will not play until he stops doing certain things and begins doing others. This sounds to me exactly how you should be treating a 19-year-old rookie who thinks he's a star.

This whole AR debate goes round and round in circles. Cpt. Jack had a great post somewhere or other the other day about hindering a young players development by putting them out on the floor and allowing them to play with bad habits because the team needs someone to perform.

AR has a mountain of talent but is not, but what I've seen, really NBA ready. He explodes for dunks and blocked shots, can handle the ball and can even get hot and hit a few jump shots, but he also makes really boneheaded mistakes. When he pulls down a board and dribbles down court he needs to give up the ball, not brick a layup or blow a 3-2 with a pass to a defending opponent.

This kid could be really good, but he needs work and playing him while he's doing that stuff isn't going to iron out those habits. Practice and coaching will do that.
User avatar

All Star
Posts: 2562
» Wed Feb 04, 2009 11:39 am
Thats another problem with the team, we lack floor leadership. If Randolph played for somebody like Boston, the coach would probably be more lenient with his minutes because he has players on the floor guiding him along. For us, we don't really have a teacher on the court. We need somebody like Billups or KG... wishful thinking, I know. But it's hard to develop young talent when they get no help while on the floor, and the coach doesn't seem to care to much about helping off of it.

All Star
Posts: 2956
» Wed Feb 04, 2009 12:20 pm
StuckInSoCal wrote:Coltraning,

The way I read Nelson's comments, Randolph will not play until he stops doing certain things and begins doing others. This sounds to me exactly how you should be treating a 19-year-old rookie who thinks he's a star.

This whole AR debate goes round and round in circles. Cpt. Jack had a great post somewhere or other the other day about hindering a young players development by putting them out on the floor and allowing them to play with bad habits because the team needs someone to perform.

AR has a mountain of talent but is not, but what I've seen, really NBA ready. He explodes for dunks and blocked shots, can handle the ball and can even get hot and hit a few jump shots, but he also makes really boneheaded mistakes. When he pulls down a board and dribbles down court he needs to give up the ball, not brick a layup or blow a 3-2 with a pass to a defending opponent.

This kid could be really good, but he needs work and playing him while he's doing that stuff isn't going to iron out those habits. Practice and coaching will do that.


Hey stuck, are you talking about AR or Jackson? Everything you said applies to Stephen in triplicate. I guess Stephen is not NBA ready either. Don't have a double standard like one of our other poster.

Rookie
Posts: 171
» Wed Feb 04, 2009 12:31 pm
i too agree that playing monta and crawford together is a mistake, and the biggest reason being that both play terrible defense. we need at least one guard, preferrably a big guard (like marco, kelenna, or CJ) who can at least try to play defense against opposing shooting guards and grab some boards. playing them together, we've got 2 undersized shooting guards who are fast on the break but just as fast at letting their man go by them.

on the randolph issue, the more that comes out, the more i feel nelson is correct with his reasoning (wanting him to focus on certain positives instead of doing too much out there when he's on the floor) if that is indeed the real reason and not some dumb grudge like he seems to harbor against marcus williams. while part of me feels nelson is getting a raw deal with all the second guessing, a part of me feels he's earned it with his often clueless rotations.

All Star
Posts: 1910
» Wed Feb 04, 2009 12:46 pm
The Coooach wrote:
StuckInSoCal wrote:Coltraning,

The way I read Nelson's comments, Randolph will not play until he stops doing certain things and begins doing others. This sounds to me exactly how you should be treating a 19-year-old rookie who thinks he's a star.

This whole AR debate goes round and round in circles. Cpt. Jack had a great post somewhere or other the other day about hindering a young players development by putting them out on the floor and allowing them to play with bad habits because the team needs someone to perform.

AR has a mountain of talent but is not, but what I've seen, really NBA ready. He explodes for dunks and blocked shots, can handle the ball and can even get hot and hit a few jump shots, but he also makes really boneheaded mistakes. When he pulls down a board and dribbles down court he needs to give up the ball, not brick a layup or blow a 3-2 with a pass to a defending opponent.

This kid could be really good, but he needs work and playing him while he's doing that stuff isn't going to iron out those habits. Practice and coaching will do that.


Hey stuck, are you talking about AR or Jackson? Everything you said applies to Stephen in triplicate. I guess Stephen is not NBA ready either. Don't have a double standard like one of our other poster.


C'mon now coach, I don't want to get started with Jack vs. AR. One's an NBA vet who would play on any NBA team in the league, and the other is a 19-year-old rook who makes highlight reels for his explosive dunks, tips and blocks but makes lots of errors.

I'm a little biased with Jack as well, since he played so well in the Warriors playoff year. He won us games with huge fourth quarters and clutch shots. Sure, he went 5x23 in many games (along with Baron) but he complimented Monta well by giving the lineup size and, back then, solid D.

I think if we still had Baron we'd be on pace to win 50 this year.

All Star
Posts: 2956
» Wed Feb 04, 2009 12:52 pm
StuckInSoCal wrote:
The Coooach wrote:
StuckInSoCal wrote:Coltraning,

The way I read Nelson's comments, Randolph will not play until he stops doing certain things and begins doing others. This sounds to me exactly how you should be treating a 19-year-old rookie who thinks he's a star.

This whole AR debate goes round and round in circles. Cpt. Jack had a great post somewhere or other the other day about hindering a young players development by putting them out on the floor and allowing them to play with bad habits because the team needs someone to perform.

AR has a mountain of talent but is not, but what I've seen, really NBA ready. He explodes for dunks and blocked shots, can handle the ball and can even get hot and hit a few jump shots, but he also makes really boneheaded mistakes. When he pulls down a board and dribbles down court he needs to give up the ball, not brick a layup or blow a 3-2 with a pass to a defending opponent.

This kid could be really good, but he needs work and playing him while he's doing that stuff isn't going to iron out those habits. Practice and coaching will do that.


Hey stuck, are you talking about AR or Jackson? Everything you said applies to Stephen in triplicate. I guess Stephen is not NBA ready either. Don't have a double standard like one of our other poster.


C'mon now coach, I don't want to get started with Jack vs. AR. One's an NBA vet who would play on any NBA team in the league, and the other is a 19-year-old rook who makes highlight reels for his explosive dunks, tips and blocks but makes lots of errors.

I'm a little biased with Jack as well, since he played so well in the Warriors playoff year. He won us games with huge fourth quarters and clutch shots. Sure, he went 5x23 in many games (along with Baron) but he complimented Monta well by giving the lineup size and, back then, solid D.

I think if we still had Baron we'd be on pace to win 50 this year.


I admit Stuck that I hate Jackson as a player. I think he is everything that is wrong with the Warriors. I don't necessarily agree that he would lay on any NBA team. I feel he wouldn't fit on the Lakers, Celtics, Hornets, or Jazz just to name a few. He is too undisciplined, he is too disruptive. I honestly think most NBA will take AR over Jax right now if they had the chance. But you still didn't answer my question, all those things mentioned about AR, don't they apply to Jackson too?

All Star
Posts: 1910
» Wed Feb 04, 2009 1:01 pm
The Coooach wrote:
StuckInSoCal wrote:
The Coooach wrote:
StuckInSoCal wrote:Coltraning,

The way I read Nelson's comments, Randolph will not play until he stops doing certain things and begins doing others. This sounds to me exactly how you should be treating a 19-year-old rookie who thinks he's a star.

This whole AR debate goes round and round in circles. Cpt. Jack had a great post somewhere or other the other day about hindering a young players development by putting them out on the floor and allowing them to play with bad habits because the team needs someone to perform.

AR has a mountain of talent but is not, but what I've seen, really NBA ready. He explodes for dunks and blocked shots, can handle the ball and can even get hot and hit a few jump shots, but he also makes really boneheaded mistakes. When he pulls down a board and dribbles down court he needs to give up the ball, not brick a layup or blow a 3-2 with a pass to a defending opponent.

This kid could be really good, but he needs work and playing him while he's doing that stuff isn't going to iron out those habits. Practice and coaching will do that.


Hey stuck, are you talking about AR or Jackson? Everything you said applies to Stephen in triplicate. I guess Stephen is not NBA ready either. Don't have a double standard like one of our other poster.


C'mon now coach, I don't want to get started with Jack vs. AR. One's an NBA vet who would play on any NBA team in the league, and the other is a 19-year-old rook who makes highlight reels for his explosive dunks, tips and blocks but makes lots of errors.

I'm a little biased with Jack as well, since he played so well in the Warriors playoff year. He won us games with huge fourth quarters and clutch shots. Sure, he went 5x23 in many games (along with Baron) but he complimented Monta well by giving the lineup size and, back then, solid D.

I think if we still had Baron we'd be on pace to win 50 this year.


I admit Stuck that I hate Jackson as a player. I think he is everything that is wrong with the Warriors. I don't necessarily agree that he would lay on any NBA team. I feel he wouldn't fit on the Lakers, Celtics, Hornets, or Jazz just to name a few. He is too undisciplined, he is too disruptive. I honestly think most NBA will take AR over Jax right now if they had the chance. But you still didn't answer my question, all those things mentioned about AR, don't they apply to Jackson too?


No, I don't think they apply to Jackson. He is who he is. He's an established vet and you're either going to play him or you're not. AR, on the other hand, is a rookie with almost no experience who makes tons of errors but shows great promise. He needs coaching, not just court experience.

You're allowed to hate the guy and I'm not going to try to convince you that he's an all-star.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests