bada wrote:since I dont watch games anymore, just have the boxscore to go on, but 36 team assists!!!! WOW.

Did it appear the ball movement was much better without Monta out there, or did it just look like the Clipps did not care much?

Sorry you missed the game. The best game the TEAM played all year. Anthony Tolliver is a well coached well schooled basketball player. he doesn't have nearly the physical gifts as Randolph but he has a good basketball head on his shoulders. his passing skills and defensive position skills are fantastic.

The Coooach wrote:

bada wrote:since I dont watch games anymore, just have the boxscore to go on, but 36 team assists!!!! WOW.

Did it appear the ball movement was much better without Monta out there, or did it just look like the Clipps did not care much?

Sorry you missed the game. The best game the TEAM played all year. Anthony Tolliver is a well coached well schooled basketball player. he doesn't have nearly the physical gifts as Randolph but he has a good basketball head on his shoulders. his passing skills and defensive position skills are fantastic.

Turiaf and Tolliver had some nice chemistry going. Rony has looked really good the past few games.

"Always" Next wrote:

The Coooach wrote:

bada wrote:since I dont watch games anymore, just have the boxscore to go on, but 36 team assists!!!! WOW.

Did it appear the ball movement was much better without Monta out there, or did it just look like the Clipps did not care much?

Sorry you missed the game. The best game the TEAM played all year. Anthony Tolliver is a well coached well schooled basketball player. he doesn't have nearly the physical gifts as Randolph but he has a good basketball head on his shoulders. his passing skills and defensive position skills are fantastic.

Turiaf and Tolliver had some nice chemistry going. Rony has looked really good the past few games.

Man, I agree. Turiaf really knows how to play the game. I wish he was a better rebounder. I wish we could combine he and Biedrins in one body.

The Coooach wrote:

"Always" Next wrote:

The Coooach wrote:

bada wrote:since I dont watch games anymore, just have the boxscore to go on, but 36 team assists!!!! WOW.

Did it appear the ball movement was much better without Monta out there, or did it just look like the Clipps did not care much?

Sorry you missed the game. The best game the TEAM played all year. Anthony Tolliver is a well coached well schooled basketball player. he doesn't have nearly the physical gifts as Randolph but he has a good basketball head on his shoulders. his passing skills and defensive position skills are fantastic.

Turiaf and Tolliver had some nice chemistry going. Rony has looked really good the past few games.

Man, I agree. Turiaf really knows how to play the game. I wish he was a better rebounder. I wish we could combine he and Biedrins in one body.

Turiaf just needs to stay on the floor. His main problem on the boards is he tries to block EVERYTHING and he ends up out of position to grab the rebound. I love the guys heart and intensity though and he was running the floor very nicely last night. When Monta comes back, he needs to be a trus SG. Curry showed last night why he should be the main ball handler.

Let's hear it for Anthony Morrow. His mid-range game is really coming on. HIs confidence is high and he reallyacts like he belongs here.both he and Curry have such refreshing personalities.

bada wrote:since I dont watch games anymore, just have the boxscore to go on, but 36 team assists!!!! WOW.

Did it appear the ball movement was much better without Monta out there, or did it just look like the Clipps did not care much?

Combo of the two. Clippers really did not seem into the game, well, ever.

But, the ball moved more than usual. There were basically NO isolation plays. Lots of pick and rolls (Tolliver for 29!). Passes actually INTO the paint, and it resulting in actual points for the big men.

migya wrote:Hey, good performance by Curry, but one game isn't everything. He has played great for a couple of weeks or so definately, if not longer, but consistency is the key if he is to be untouchable for trades

I'm going to pull a Coooach here and toot my own analysis horn on Curry. I think I've missed maybe three Warriors games this season. Curry didn't need to have this kind of game to convince me of his dominance. Curry didn't need to have this kind of game to convince me that he was/will be a special point guard. JUST WATCH THE GAMES, NOT THE BOX SCORES!!!

Curry's court awareness has been superb from the begining. He had a lot of turnovers because he was a ROOKIE PG!!! Of course he is going to have a lot of turnovers. The speed of the game alone is going to cause this to happen to a rookie PG, regardless of his talent level.

Curry is very quick, has amazing court awareness and over the top hand-eye coordination. He footwork is veteren like, and he already has the confidence needed to make him a top level player.

I've been saying, in multiple posts and in multiple ways, that us getting the #1 draft pick will be problematic. John Wall would need to pan out as a 2 guard, which I think he can, but he really isn't needed since we already have a sure thing at PG. It isn't worth trading Curry if we win the John Wall lottery. We'd be better off trading the pick.

btw we shouldn't trade for Chris Paul for the same reason. I think Chris Paul is awesome, but Curry IS all we need at PG. I'll give you that he's not as good as Chris Paul yet, but he certainly looks like he'll be as good. Curry's game looks more like Nash's than Paul's but excellent none the less.

btw I've seen a fair amount of anti-Tolliver talk on these forums. Dissing Tolliver because he's a D-Leaguer. Have you actually watched him play? He's a big, tough, athletic player who fights for rebounds and takes good shots. He's also a very good passer both on the perimeter and in the paint. He changes the dynamic of the team completely when he is out there. Right now, I'll say it, he makes a better PF than AR when AR is healthy. He knows where to be on the court and he makes the best of his time. Pairing Tolliver with Turiaf, or Beans, makes for a very good combo, and it has for several games. Tolliver is beefy as well. He looks like he could snap AR in half.

I'm not directing this entire rant at you Migya. I agree with your posts more often than anyone else's on this board. You definetly understand what makes a team good or bad. BUT there is too much judgment made on boxscores here and not enough made on actually watching the players play.

Where I agree with you, Chum, is that our D league players know good fundamental Basketball that they've learned from the ground up. To a draftee with one year of College experience, ( which is starting to become the rule with first round draftees , if they're drafted as Juniors, people are questioning their credentials now! ) they come into the NBA with little real experience and they wilt on the bench developing anxiety about what they are going to do if they ever get playing time. So how are they going to get better? In Baseball, being "sent down" to get playing time isn't near the stigma as it seems to be in the NBA. And that's regrettable.
I like Tolliver, isn't it interesting that Cartier Martin also scored 20 points once he was given the opportunity. The truth is a lot of NBA players can score 20 points a night, if given the chance. My guess though I hope I'm wrong is you will see some real holes in his game before too long. But whose to say he won't then make adjustments?, we'll see.

I think Chris Paul is awesome, but Curry IS all we need at PG. I'll give you that he's not as good as Chris Paul yet, but he certainly looks like he'll be as good. Curry's game looks more like Nash's than Paul's but excellent none the less.

I think it's a big stretch to put Curry in that category, at this point. I think if you have a chance to get Chris Paul you take it, but right now I think it's a pipe dream.

Chris Paul is not nearly the dead-eye shooter that Curry is. Curry has unlimited range. he is not the penatrator the paul is but his stop and start quickness is incredible. Neither paul nor Curry have hops. But that'snot a requirement for a top-notchpoint guard. Anyone that ever watched Curry at Dvidson knew he was NBA ready. The game has slowed down for him now. He needed jackson to leave so he could exert himself to be a main focal point on this team. Monta, Jackson, and magette was too much ego for him in the beginiing and they would not surrender any authority to their young point guard. Monta realized that he was wrong about Curry and has fessed-up.

I have to somewhat disagree about tolliver being athletic. he is not very athletic nd he doesn't jump very hig. He is hard-nosed and don't mind doing the dirty work. he plays like he belongs in the league. he might bring the front-court toughness that we have only seen in Turiaf. together, these to can make it unpleasent to drive the lane.

War Years wrote:I like Tolliver, isn't it interesting that Cartier Martin also scored 20 points once he was given the opportunity. The truth is a lot of NBA players can score 20 points a night, if given the chance. My guess though I hope I'm wrong is you will see some real holes in his game before too long. But whose to say he won't then make adjustments?, we'll see.

I'm not saying Tolliver has no holes in his game, what I'm saying is that he is very good and if you really watch him play you can see that. Tolliver's scoring is secondary to his defense, rebounding and passing imo. What is very good about his scoring is that he doesn't need to be a first option scorer. He shoots when he is open and gets put back points. It's all you can ask for in a non-Allstar player. But really focus on Tolliver during the game. His beefyness, athleticism and focus are difficult for other teams to deal with.

One of his most telling plays was a missed dunk when they were playing Dallas. He had the ball near the foul line. He looked to pass, quickly saw nobody was open, made a fluid pivot followed by a vicious charge to the hoop. I don't remember who was in his way, but they got the hell out of his way. He would have crushed the defender if the defender stood his ground. The only other players on the Warriors that can impose themselves physically like that right now are Turiaf and to a lesser extent Mags. The defender would have stood his ground if AR was trying to make the play. Tolliver missed the dunk, barely, it banged off the rim. I guarantee he makes that same shot next time. He is a beast, and he's our best PF right now and if everyone is healthy.

War Years wrote:

I think Chris Paul is awesome, but Curry IS all we need at PG. I'll give you that he's not as good as Chris Paul yet, but he certainly looks like he'll be as good. Curry's game looks more like Nash's than Paul's but excellent none the less.

I think it's a big stretch to put Curry in that category, at this point. I think if you have a chance to get Chris Paul you take it, but right now I think it's a pipe dream.

Curry isn't as good as Chris Paul right now, but he does look like he COULD be as good as Chris Paul, or at least close. If we traded for Chris Paul we don't get that much better. If we trade Monta for a big we do. Anyway, as most have said, it's unlikely we'll make a trade of much importance. The front office doesn't look very capable.

Chum wrote:[I've been saying, in multiple posts and in multiple ways, that us getting the #1 draft pick will be problematic. John Wall would need to pan out as a 2 guard, which I think he can, but he really isn't needed since we already have a sure thing at PG. It isn't worth trading Curry if we win the John Wall lottery. We'd be better off trading the pick.

Not that I disagree with that sentiment exactly, but that would be almost impossible to do. Because this pick essentially has no salary to it, if we traded the pick for a super star, we would have to be under the salary cap by as much as that contract. Not going to happen. And no way should we trade away a potential once in a lifetime player for anything less than a superstar. So this would take packaging the pick, plus players with big salaries.

Certainly Maggette falls into that bucket. But that alone is not going to get you there. So do you throw in Monta as well? Now you are talking about trading a CRAP load of assests and potential. We better be damn sure Curry is the guy AND we get back a stud.

Might be a tough sell for a GM. After all, he does not want to become the next "Passed on Michael Jordan because we already had Clyde Drexler" GM. Not saying Wall is a Jordan but you get my gist.

One interesting scenario (but would risk the above mentioned 2nd guesing if we pass on a once in a decade type player), is to trade Monta (and Wright or another filler) for a legit bigman. Then IF we get the #1 pick and we are convinced Curry is our PG of the future, is instead of trading the pick for a player, trading the pick for a pick and move down. Have an arrangement with another team (much like we did when we traded for Webber on draft day) where we draft Wall for them, then they draft Wesley Johnson (or Evan Turner) for us and they trade us 3 future #1 picks in 2012, 2014, and 2016.

Then we go:
Curry
Morrow
Johnson
"Big man in trade"
Beans

A young and talented base but also getting multiple picks that would be huge assests in completing the team.

Would be a bold move and a risky one and certainly dont have much confidence in the current FO that they would take advantage of the picks but it IS a thought.

The Coooach wrote:Chris Paul is not nearly the dead-eye shooter that Curry is. Curry has unlimited range. he is not the penatrator the paul is but his stop and start quickness is incredible. Neither paul nor Curry have hops. But that'snot a requirement for a top-notchpoint guard. Anyone that ever watched Curry at Dvidson knew he was NBA ready. The game has slowed down for him now. He needed jackson to leave so he could exert himself to be a main focal point on this team. Monta, Jackson, and magette was too much ego for him in the beginiing and they would not surrender any authority to their young point guard. Monta realized that he was wrong about Curry and has fessed-up.

Spot on.

The Coooach wrote:I have to somewhat disagree about tolliver being athletic. he is not very athletic nd he doesn't jump very hig. He is hard-nosed and don't mind doing the dirty work. he plays like he belongs in the league. he might bring the front-court toughness that we have only seen in Turiaf. together, these to can make it unpleasent to drive the lane.

I'll agree to disagree with you on the athleticism part. He doesn't have an athletic looking build, but basing performance on looks is very faggety, not that there is anything wrong with that , and not that you are doing that Coooach. Too me, athleticism is a combination of all sorts of physical qualities, not just hops. I've seen Tolliver make some very "athletic" moves. Perhaps he isn't a great vertical leaper. That I can't say for certain one way or the other.

bada wrote:

Chum wrote:[I've been saying, in multiple posts and in multiple ways, that us getting the #1 draft pick will be problematic. John Wall would need to pan out as a 2 guard, which I think he can, but he really isn't needed since we already have a sure thing at PG. It isn't worth trading Curry if we win the John Wall lottery. We'd be better off trading the pick.

Not that I disagree with that sentiment exactly, but that would be almost impossible to do. Because this pick essentially has no salary to it, if we traded the pick for a super star, we would have to be under the salary cap by as much as that contract. Not going to happen. And no way should we trade away a potential once in a lifetime player for anything less than a superstar. So this would take packaging the pick, plus players with big salaries.

Certainly Maggette falls into that bucket. But that alone is not going to get you there. So do you throw in Monta as well? Now you are talking about trading a CRAP load of assests and potential. We better be damn sure Curry is the guy AND we get back a stud.

Might be a tough sell for a GM. After all, he does not want to become the next "Passed on Michael Jordan because we already had Clyde Drexler" GM. Not saying Wall is a Jordan but you get my gist.

One interesting scenario (but would risk the above mentioned 2nd guesing if we pass on a once in a decade type player), is to trade Monta (and Wright or another filler) for a legit bigman. Then IF we get the #1 pick and we are convinced Curry is our PG of the future, is instead of trading the pick for a player, trading the pick for a pick and move down. Have an arrangement with another team (much like we did when we traded for Webber on draft day) where we draft Wall for them, then they draft Wesley Johnson (or Evan Turner) for us and they trade us 3 future #1 picks in 2012, 2014, and 2016.

Then we go:
Curry
Morrow
Johnson
"Big man in trade"
Beans

A young and talented base but also getting multiple picks that would be huge assests in completing the team.

Would be a bold move and a risky one and certainly dont have much confidence in the current FO that they would take advantage of the picks but it IS a thought.

This is exactly the kind of thing we should be trying to do. You are right about trading Wall for a player, I've been struggling with what to do with that. I like your trade for picks idea.

Another thing we can do is trade Wall plus our lower end players for a big time big. As long as the salaries match up in the end it doesn't matter. Mags and Beans could come into play here. I like both of those players but Wall/Mags/Beans for say ???? I actually can't think of anyone. I don't know. I like your Wall for picks idea.

Curry is an all-star point guard though. Bank on it. The only way it doesn't happen is due to injuries which, since we are cursed, is a real possibility.

btw I'd actually **** rainbow colored bricks of joy if we got Wesley Johnson plus 2 or 3 future 1st round picks in a trade for Walls.

bada wrote:

Chum wrote:[I've been saying, in multiple posts and in multiple ways, that us getting the #1 draft pick will be problematic. John Wall would need to pan out as a 2 guard, which I think he can, but he really isn't needed since we already have a sure thing at PG. It isn't worth trading Curry if we win the John Wall lottery. We'd be better off trading the pick.

Not that I disagree with that sentiment exactly, but that would be almost impossible to do. Because this pick essentially has no salary to it, if we traded the pick for a super star, we would have to be under the salary cap by as much as that contract. Not going to happen. And no way should we trade away a potential once in a lifetime player for anything less than a superstar. So this would take packaging the pick, plus players with big salaries.

Certainly Maggette falls into that bucket. But that alone is not going to get you there. So do you throw in Monta as well? Now you are talking about trading a CRAP load of assests and potential. We better be damn sure Curry is the guy AND we get back a stud.

Might be a tough sell for a GM. After all, he does not want to become the next "Passed on Michael Jordan because we already had Clyde Drexler" GM. Not saying Wall is a Jordan but you get my gist.

One interesting scenario (but would risk the above mentioned 2nd guesing if we pass on a once in a decade type player), is to trade Monta (and Wright or another filler) for a legit bigman. Then IF we get the #1 pick and we are convinced Curry is our PG of the future, is instead of trading the pick for a player, trading the pick for a pick and move down. Have an arrangement with another team (much like we did when we traded for Webber on draft day) where we draft Wall for them, then they draft Wesley Johnson (or Evan Turner) for us and they trade us 3 future #1 picks in 2012, 2014, and 2016.

Then we go:
Curry
Morrow
Johnson
"Big man in trade"
Beans

A young and talented base but ain o getting multiple picks that would be huge assests in completing the team.

Would be a bold move and a risky one and certainly dont have much confidence in the current FO that they would take advantage of the picks but it IS a thought.

Passing up Jordan because you had Drexler was not a blunder at all. Drexler was a hell-of-a player. Everyone would have done that with a Drexler in hand with a potential (Jordan) in the bush. they both played the same position and was somewhat the same size. The mistake was taking Bowie instead of Jordan.

Chum wrote:

bada wrote:

Chum wrote:[I've been saying, in multiple posts and in multiple ways, that us getting the #1 draft pick will be problematic. John Wall would need to pan out as a 2 guard, which I think he can, but he really isn't needed since we already have a sure thing at PG. It isn't worth trading Curry if we win the John Wall lottery. We'd be better off trading the pick.

Not that I disagree with that sentiment exactly, but that would be almost impossible to do. Because this pick essentially has no salary to it, if we traded the pick for a super star, we would have to be under the salary cap by as much as that contract. Not going to happen. And no way should we trade away a potential once in a lifetime player for anything less than a superstar. So this would take packaging the pick, plus players with big salaries.

Certainly Maggette falls into that bucket. But that alone is not going to get you there. So do you throw in Monta as well? Now you are talking about trading a CRAP load of assests and potential. We better be damn sure Curry is the guy AND we get back a stud.

Might be a tough sell for a GM. After all, he does not want to become the next "Passed on Michael Jordan because we already had Clyde Drexler" GM. Not saying Wall is a Jordan but you get my gist.

One interesting scenario (but would risk the above mentioned 2nd guesing if we pass on a once in a decade type player), is to trade Monta (and Wright or another filler) for a legit bigman. Then IF we get the #1 pick and we are convinced Curry is our PG of the future, is instead of trading the pick for a player, trading the pick for a pick and move down. Have an arrangement with another team (much like we did when we traded for Webber on draft day) where we draft Wall for them, then they draft Wesley Johnson (or Evan Turner) for us and they trade us 3 future #1 picks in 2012, 2014, and 2016.

Then we go:
Curry
Morrow
Johnson
"Big man in trade"
Beans

A young and talented base but also getting multiple picks that would be huge assests in completing the team.

Would be a bold move and a risky one and certainly dont have much confidence in the current FO that they would take advantage of the picks but it IS a thought.

This is exactly the kind of thing we should be trying to do. You are right about trading Wall for a player, I've been struggling with what to do with that. I like your trade for picks idea.

Another thing we can do is trade Wall plus our lower end players for a big time big. As long as the salaries match up in the end it doesn't matter. Mags and Beans could come into play here. I like both of those players but Wall/Mags/Beans for say ???? I actually can't think of anyone. I don't know. I like your Wall for picks idea.

Curry is an all-star point guard though. Bank on it. The only way it doesn't happen is due to injuries which, since we are cursed, is a real possibility.

btw I'd actually **** rainbow colored bricks of joy if we got Wesley Johnson plus 2 or 3 future 1st round picks in a trade for Walls.

It certainly would be a way to just START over and all the picks would give us a lot of options in filling the holes in our roster and give us a complete makeover.

And IF a team in the 2-5 range needs a pg and they are of the belief that Wall is a once a decade player, 3 future #1's could easily be had.