hahaha, that blog is definitely funny, but they also have some analysis that i don't necessarily agree with, but respect. that's game knowledge guys, not stuff you get from the boxscore alone.

http://goldenstwarriors.blogspot.com/20 ... t-iii.html

All 2 of the Dunleavy fans out there think he can play 4 positions including point guard because of his dribbling skills. Dunleavy can dribble fine for a 4 or 5, but he's a 3. He's an average ball handler for an NBA swingman at best and below average for an NBA point guard. When he brings the ball up he gets trapped at half court, since he can't beat anyone off the dribble. This unnecessarily kills 3-4 seconds off the shot clock and results in some poor, forced shot attempts. Get the point?

Throwing slow, wound up, telegraphed passes does not make you a "great passer".
For all the talk about how Dunleavy is a great passer, "Passleavy" has a career average of a little over 2 assists and 1.5 turnovers a game. Not exactly John Stockton-esque. Putting it in perspective, former Warrior fan favorite Antawn Jamison usually averages around 2 assists per game.
[quote][/quote]

#32 wrote:

migya wrote:his stats, which are pitiful do tell the story of a player that is not performing well!

Weren't you JUST arguing with me a week or so about how stats don't tell the whole story?... you were making a case for Bruce Bowen?

Bowen plays his role very well for the Spurs and is effective, dun is not, at least so far

I'm not getting into another battle with you about the Spurs. They're not the perfect team, no matter how much you love them.

Didn't say they were perfect, just the best right now

The final part of the BLOG Dunleavy story so far

http://goldenstwarriors.blogspot.com/

reason #44: One day I'll wake up and this nightmare will end.

so funny, but sad and true

They sure saythings in an easy to understand manner.......... hahahaha

haha, their one liners always crack me up!

It's funny, but the guy seems overly concerned about #34...

After scrolling up and down several pages, I've found that the author(s) can't go two seconds without a cheap crack at Mike Dunleavy. While they can joke all they want because they are, afterall, funny, their criticism doesn't show any forward movement at all. I wonder how long they've actually been Warrior fans...?

They probablt have been for a long time and they are pissed like the rest of us, at how bad dun is playing and how he is a reason a guy like Pietrus is not getting the opportunity to help the team win to the fullest

Comments like "ignore the 2 steals and 1 block; he was just in the right place at the right time" aren't constructive to the Warriors or their players at all. They seem like fanboys who hoped on the wagon after JRich won the Dunk Contest. I'm not trying to defend Mike by saying this; I'm just questioning the credibility of the source. They don't seem to have a positive outlook on the Warriors and their players; making a continual punching bag out of a starter on the team is not a productive thing to do towards the team. Make a case for Pietrus, but don't do it by slamming Dunleavy over and over. I'd respect it a lot more if they helped point out Mickael's advantages instead of pointing fingers at Mike over and over like the annoying kid back in first grade who'd follow every rude/insulting thing he said with "it's true!" Be supportive, yet realistic; pessimism gets you nowhere in sports except more unhappy with the team/player.

True but they are just frustrated like the rest of us.

They also aim to have a bit of humour

I totally got a laugh out of that blog the first time I saw it, but I read pages of their work and find them to be continually stuck on Mike Dunleavy.

Frustrated is one thing. I'm frustrated, sure, as I'm sure most of us are, but we don't drone on every 3 posts tossing a cheap bash into the mix just for out health. These guys seem obsessed.

they always make comments about how they've followed the warriors throughout the 11 year drought and all they can do is laugh. i think that's why they're so comical. i have to agree with them. if you don't see the past 11 seasons as funny for the warriors, then you'd just go crazy being depressed.

at least these guys still follow the warriors and give us a great blog.

Staying through the 11-year drought wasn't a problem (really, if you jump ship during the bad years, you're not a real fan). Seeing humor in it is fine. But scrambling the brains of Mike Dunleavy over and over and over and over...

They don't seem too loyal to me. Questioning and critiquing the squad is natural; but insulting and disowning it is not. There's a fine line between constructive criticism from a concerned fan who feels a change would improve the team and a completely shut-minded punk who'll throw the worst player on the team (or the most over-rated) to the wolves. I don't think Dunleavy's been doing his job well, but I'm not making him my personal, face-less, cyberspace piñata. That's a totally unnecessary mean to go to in the name of improvement for the squad.

Just to throw a real life example out there, I didn't vote for Arnold in the California elections, but I don't crap all over him because I think he's doing a poor job. I make my case for my candidate, but not at the expense of my opponent. Why start a brawl over the issue? We're all Californians who are just looking for the best Governor. Likewise, we're all Warrior fans... we just want the best small forward! Make your case for Mickael, but don't slam Dunleavy. It makes it seem like you're short on things to brag about when it comes to Pietrus and you have to resort to cutting down the opposition to even try to compete.