A New Way Of Thinking.

Discuss anything related to Golden State Warriors basketball here

Moderators: Mr. Crackerz, JREED, Guybrush, hobbes

Are You Willing To Watch A Slow Down/Defensive Team In Order To Win?

Yes
8
80%
No
2
20%
 
Total votes : 10


All Star
Posts: 3069
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 11:03 am
Location: san jose
Poster Credit: 17
PostPosted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 7:01 pm
Martin i commend you for taking the road less traveled, but in this situation there it is an ABSOLUTE TRUTH and that comes from results.

Just look at the teams that have won the last NBA Champions from the Lakers to the Celtics, the pistons, the heat, etc etc, teams that have won have ARE NOT SMALL, until a small ball unit wins an NBA CHAMPIONSHIP then going BIG is truly the formula of SUCCESS written in big huge letters in the sky.

If the warriors were atop their division then we can all praise Nellie for his job well done, but results say otherwise. So sometimes in this discussions there are absolute truths or nearly absolute truths.
User avatar
Franchise Player
Posts: 6145
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 10:13 am
Location: looking down at the Warriors practice facility
Poster Credit: -7
PostPosted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 8:12 pm
Martin, I appreciate your position and the discussion it provoked.

I think the frustrating thing for me is what I will call the "banging your head against the wall" syndrome that has become Nelson's coaching.

I think regardless of where you lie in the Nelson debate, we can ALL agree that this team has not been very sucessful the past two seasons. We are losing ALOT of games and are among the bottom 5 in the NBA.

With that being said, it gets very frustrating the Nelson's answer for EVERTHING is "going small". It is NOT working. Look at our record. Look at rebounding disadvantage, etc.

Why would you at least not TRY to change it up and go big at times to see how the team responds. Why not try this for an extended period of time in a game. Or for a couple games. Or for a week. What do we have to lose.

The mark of a great leader is adaptability to changing variables. No matter what the variables in the equation are for Nelson, he solves the problem by "going small" irregardless of the success rate.

With Portland being decimated in their front court, why not at least try to take advantage of that by going "big". Crush them on the glass. Give them zero 2nd chance points and create 2nd chance points for yourself. I mean just give it a try.

Nelson has is stubborn or perhaps even lazy in his coaching the past couple of years. He seems unwilling to try something new despite failing with the status-quo. And that is frustrating and tiresome to us all.
_____________________________________________________
http://WWW.GOLDENSTATEWARRIORS-RT.COM

All Star
Posts: 2320
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 5:40 pm
Location: lithuania, gargzdai
Poster Credit: 10
PostPosted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 8:30 pm
i believe those teams winning had nothing to do with superior talent to warriors team that we have? pistons from all of them was with less susperstars and they won which to me is a nice surprise. more than usual all champion teams are full of stars, and the bigger amount of talent usually wins or has a chance to contend. especially when you have superior talents all over in bigs and smalls, celtics and lakers as of late. yes, when talent is more or less equal teams contend and then better coaches have an upper hand, but this is not everything, since doc river's celtics winning aginst lakers were hardly a more talented and bigger team and i suppose not a superior coach in doc.
again, no one says that 5 guards is good lineup in most cases, but i have hard time in believing that teams with mediocre bigs are any good. for the record, mini is sitting down there with us, having monster in jefferson. timberwolves were sucking deep with monster in garnett and so on.
no, playing usual lineup is not a guaranteed success.
as playing unusual lineup is not a guaranteed loss.

none of this is even close to qualify as being absolute and exclusive opposites.

yes, some systems rely on big players more, others - on guards.
best systems are those that rely on both if and only if they have equal talent on the floor.
i don't know any warrior big which is as good as a big as is monta as a small, thus trying to open lanes for him is the surest option to get your best offensive player do some damage. as we see, this damage is not enough. well, maybe you'd prefer going usual big lineup, but i hardly see how it could work in this roster as of now. ther would simply be no one to give us points. i saw it suck deep end in first quarter against the celtics.
"i wish i was a little bit taller" skee lo

All Star
Posts: 3069
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 11:03 am
Location: san jose
Poster Credit: 17
PostPosted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 9:12 pm
Well Martin you just don't get it then, I don't argue just for the sake of arguing. Majority of your points have holes and are not really supported, just the "could be". Am a man of facts and of results, and you seem to be a man a speculation.

Record wise warriors are 3rd worst with only 9 wins so far this year, 9, and the way it has been coached by giving minutes to Moore(waived, pretty much a useless figure to a losing team) instead AR one would think its because they are expected to win. Am talking about coaching patterns and you are in some other galaxy mentioning demons/evil vs good, morality, emotions, etc. etc. etc. Am talking about coaching as a verb, like many have mentioned Nellie seemed to have given up or mis-coached the team. At 6 million a year he is one of the top paid coaches but coaches like the bottom 5.

I give it to you that teams that won finals had huge payrolls the Lakers, the Celtics, not sure about the spurs or Pistons, but the common theme was their line-ups were not SMALL or even close to SMALL. You claim there is no right or wrong, or a blueprint on the type of team that is successful, when obviously the blue print is to have a traditional line-up. A line-up with a regular C, PF, SF etc etc.

While I agree the warriors roster is flawed, I have mention numerous times that was seen before the season started and should not be used as an excuse, if the warriors did not like what they see then change it. Don't think its a conceitedness either that the team had 5 pgs to start the season.

It has been proven teams with traditional line-ups are successful, warriors on the other hand have had 2 unsuccessful years playing small, I mean is it necessary to play Monta, Curry, Watson at the same time the answer is hell no. Rebounding, post play, interior defense are important part of basketball and small line-up does not provide none.

Its proven by our loses and while likes of AR gets yo-yoed in and out of the line-up. You obviously watch games since your always bitching and complaining about how we get out-rebounded, and out played consistently, but here you are arguing for that type of play, I find that perplexing.

This is what am talking about, your point makes no sense, absolutely none.

"no, playing usual lineup is not a guaranteed success.
as playing unusual lineup is not a guaranteed loss."
User avatar
All Star
Posts: 3244
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 6:29 am
Poster Credit: 0
PostPosted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 9:34 pm
bada wrote:Martin, I appreciate your position and the discussion it provoked.

I think the frustrating thing for me is what I will call the "banging your head against the wall" syndrome that has become Nelson's coaching.

I think regardless of where you lie in the Nelson debate, we can ALL agree that this team has not been very sucessful the past two seasons. We are losing ALOT of games and are among the bottom 5 in the NBA.

With that being said, it gets very frustrating the Nelson's answer for EVERTHING is "going small". It is NOT working. Look at our record. Look at rebounding disadvantage, etc.

Why would you at least not TRY to change it up and go big at times to see how the team responds. Why not try this for an extended period of time in a game. Or for a couple games. Or for a week. What do we have to lose.

The mark of a great leader is adaptability to changing variables. No matter what the variables in the equation are for Nelson, he solves the problem by "going small" irregardless of the success rate.

With Portland being decimated in their front court, why not at least try to take advantage of that by going "big". Crush them on the glass. Give them zero 2nd chance points and create 2nd chance points for yourself. I mean just give it a try.

Nelson has is stubborn or perhaps even lazy in his coaching the past couple of years. He seems unwilling to try something new despite failing with the status-quo. And that is frustrating and tiresome to us all.



Spot on. At no point have I said, "going big is the only answer" but why not give it a shot when going small over and over clearly isn't working?

and martin, it seems I have upset, or offended you. Certainly wasn't my intention, but I apologise if that is indeed the case

Starting Lineup
Posts: 693
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 4:55 pm
Poster Credit: 2
PostPosted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 1:35 am
It's almost as if Nelly takes it as a personal affront if other teams go small on us, like he invented the game. He couldn't just turn the tables on them the way so many opponents in the past have turned the tables on us.
I see no evidence that that if we went big the Blazers would have spread the floor on us. They were 5-15 on 3's.
If we were outsmalled, somehow they outrebounded us 43-36.
The truth is we played an average of 1.3 big men during the course of the game. I think using 3 bigs is generally a bad strategy for the Warriors, but averaging closer to 1 is insane! Barring injuries, it should almost never fall below 1.75.
We should have hung in there through poor early performances to use our obvious advantage to exploit their weaknesses.
War Years
User avatar
All Star
Posts: 2347
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 6:05 pm
Location: Sucka Free City
Poster Credit: 0
PostPosted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 9:42 am
No one is going to shoot lights out for 80 some odd games.... You can't rely on it 100%... look at CJ and Morrow in the last few games. If they had somewhere else to go to for points when the shots aren't falling, perhaps that would A. keep us in the game. and B. Inspire the guards to start hitting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3pIsA0Q ... re=related

Steph Curry fakin Chris Anderson out of his jock: awesome!
look on Turiaf's face: priceless

All Star
Posts: 2320
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 5:40 pm
Location: lithuania, gargzdai
Poster Credit: 10
PostPosted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 10:08 am
what you call a'fact' is only an interpretation of certain data accumulated through history. and that data doesn't say whether nelson tactics are completely bad or useless, if that was so, he would be 10-1000 coach, ok, he wouldn't, because he would be out of the league. but he isn't. he is credited in building dallas to team to a third best winning percentage wise team of the decade only after lakers and spurs. he has not won it all, but in 2003 series aginst spurs they were playin three games without nowitzki and still had a chance that he blew up in on fourth quarter. yes, he has a history of doing not so good with new york, but he was not the first coach that got fired there. yes, people like to think that something that is done for hundred years will be succesful no matter what, but it's not true. if it were, we would still be living in feudalism and capitalism would be the best of it all, but it isn't.

again, you blame nelson for this teams' bad play, i do not. i see a team that has started rebuilding after baron left (whether that was good, is not the point, i cannot change the thinking of cohan and rowell). this organization saves and makes money. to your surprise that's what all teams in usa do, it's called a culture of profit. the way they achieve it is different and sad for some teams that have no huge market, that is what capitalism brings - some will always be poor no matter what.
now, you have a coach that's been known to succesfully rebuilt teams from zero. this is what runs with this organization - rebuilding means hope, hope sells. after unsuccesful rebuilding in between nelson years, you had one nice quick fit repair for two years, which only broke down one summer later.

here you have a team that is in rebuilding mode without knowing exactly what fits and what not due to injuries and due to so much new bodies being brought up into the mix. this is no good situation for any coach.
nelson does his job, tries to win, experiments and so on, yes, we do not win much, but this is what could've been expected after the devastating start to the season with 4 start/rotation guys out.

ok, some teams win through injuries. some. not all. and not all of them are coached by nelson. wvery few teams win with roster changing every second month and playing youngsters and d-league players.
these are facts of the situation. this is the data one has to work with.
i started this discussion by analyzing some concrete game situations and so on. was not the first to bring countless historical anecdotes to prove any point. this is not how i like to discuss, but, alas, i was pushed to do it.
aand the history remains that there are and were plenty of under .500 coaches in this league. most of them played tradition basketball, it was no success.

of course i'm all for big fast talented men in the lineup, it brings more fun and makes attack more crisp. but no, hunter types of unmoving stiffs, sorry, i don't see them as being basketball players.
as for andris and rony, they are nice palyers, andris, when healthy, seems to be good solid rebounder, which the last games was not the case.
rony is amzing energy guy but does not even start on national french team. he is not a saviour of franchise. he is, what he does here, role player.

randolph is a beast of its kind and it's hard to judge under usual norms of play.

well, this is it. our big men.
two just came from injuries, one is a young athletic freak with few if some basketball fundamentals (would be a bench warmer for any usual type of team).

of course there are more ways to use them than nelson does, but also there are more ways to use any player than any coach does.

as for me getting emotional in the games, that's what they are for. as for me not drawing conclusions from my emotions, well, i've lived enough to know that emotions are not the best things to draw conclusions from.
"i wish i was a little bit taller" skee lo
Previous

Return to Warriors Basketball

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron