THE WARRIORS STILL CAN;T SHOOT!

Discuss anything related to Golden State Warriors basketball here

Moderators: Mr. Crackerz, JREED, Guybrush, hobbes


All Star
Posts: 2958
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 8:41 am
Poster Credit: 3
PostPosted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 10:59 pm
the Warriors still need shooters. The new Warriors are like the old Warriors, they are volume shooters. Although both Jackson and Harrington had a good game, both have glaring holes in their game. Harrington plays below the rim on offense and is a terrible rebounder. Jackson shoots but does nothing else. He is also slow. we still need a good inside big man. Harrington has a good touch fronm the outside but he needs to get his big butt on the boards more.

With all that said, I still LIKe the guys much more than the guys we gave up.

GO WARRIORS :D
User avatar
All Star
Posts: 3042
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 5:42 pm
Poster Credit: 0
PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 12:28 am
ReginaldLewis wrote:the Warriors still need shooters. The new Warriors are like the old Warriors, they are volume shooters. Although both Jackson and Harrington had a good game, both have glaring holes in their game. Harrington plays below the rim on offense and is a terrible rebounder. Jackson shoots but does nothing else. He is also slow. we still need a good inside big man. Harrington has a good touch fronm the outside but he needs to get his big butt on the boards more.

With all that said, I still LIKe the guys much more than the guys we gave up.

GO WARRIORS :D

I would move Pietrus yesterday for a quality big...I have been watching the dude for years and I believe what you see is what you get: Tremendous leaping, great speed, streaky shooting, no handles, fitful good D and just really dumb as a basketball player.
To Live is A Value Judgment - Albert Camus
3 reasons for living: Jazz, Hoops and women

President Barack Hussein Obama - America chose Hope over Fear
ImageImage
User avatar
Starting Lineup
Posts: 811
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 11:46 pm
Poster Credit: 0
PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 12:42 am
ReginaldLewis wrote:the Warriors still need shooters. The new Warriors are like the old Warriors, they are volume shooters. Although both Jackson and Harrington had a good game, both have glaring holes in their game. Harrington plays below the rim on offense and is a terrible rebounder. Jackson shoots but does nothing else. He is also slow. we still need a good inside big man. Harrington has a good touch fronm the outside but he needs to get his big butt on the boards more.

With all that said, I still LIKe the guys much more than the guys we gave up.

GO WARRIORS :D


I agree about the shooter part. I was hoping Sarunas could provide that, but he really hasn’t shown me that the last couple of games. But he'll get back his touch.

Harrington is a fairly decent rebounder. He’s a career six, which I’ll take along with his skills—and I think he can still improve. He did grab 13 or 14 boards in his first game with us, but didn’t shoot the ball well. Jackson is hard-nosed, cagey player, and he’s quite capable on both ends of the court—and can be a solid defender. Bottom line, yes, these guys are better shooters/scorers, and definitely better defense, fit, and athleticism than the two goons we just unloaded. We don’t win this game tonight with Dung and Murph.
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 18461
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:48 am
Location: Somewhere in this site...
Poster Credit: -4
PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 2:41 am
ReginaldLewis wrote:the Warriors still need shooters. The new Warriors are like the old Warriors, they are volume shooters. Although both Jackson and Harrington had a good game, both have glaring holes in their game. Harrington plays below the rim on offense and is a terrible rebounder. Jackson shoots but does nothing else. He is also slow. we still need a good inside big man. Harrington has a good touch fronm the outside but he needs to get his big butt on the boards more.


Cabbage is a great shooter. Even if he didn't look like that the last few games, he's the best shooter of the team... but it's true that we don't really have more good shooters, just players that can score from outside.

Harringotn is weird. He grabbed 12 boards against the Cavs... and only 1 against the Lakers and 4 vs the Nets?. Weird rebouding lines...

coltraning wrote:I would move Pietrus yesterday for a quality big...I have been watching the dude for years and I believe what you see is what you get: Tremendous leaping, great speed, streaky shooting, no handles, fitful good D and just really dumb as a basketball player.


Yeah, but... for who?. Big guys are much more expensive than forwards, so I'm not sure we're could get a good one for just Pietrus.

Starting Lineup
Posts: 967
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 6:14 pm
Poster Credit: 0
PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 4:37 am
coltraning wrote:I would move Pietrus yesterday for a quality big...I have been watching the dude for years and I believe what you see is what you get: Tremendous leaping, great speed, streaky shooting, no handles, fitful good D and just really dumb as a basketball player.


You know im still down to move pietrus for a quality big, but i just gotta say Pietrus IS our best defender and no player brings the energy he brings to the court. We play better as a team when hes in. But we might not be able to keep him, so might as well trade him before he walks. Unles we can resign him for like 4-5 million a year.

Role Player
Posts: 284
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL
Poster Credit: 0
PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 8:23 am
tradedunleavy wrote:but i just gotta say Pietrus IS our best defender and no player brings the energy he brings to the court.

I am not so sure I agree with this. Mikael is definitely one of the most athletic players on the team and has the ability to be a lock down defender, BUT.....he is not.

As another poster mentioned, his basketball IQ is very low. What I am getting at is that Mikael is usually assigned to guard the best player on the opposing team. In the past few games I have noticed him bodying the likes of Vince Carter, Kobe Bryant and LeBron James and getting called for unneccessary fouls 30 feet from the basket.

Now, some might say that those calls were made because he was guarding star players, but I watched the games and they were indeed fouls on Mikael.

I just think Mikael has a lot to learn defensively and all-around as a player as well. Just because someone is athletic, does not mean he is a good defender.

Being athletic means you have the potential to be a good lock-down defender, but being a good defender requires not just athleticism, but smarts and know-how as to the best way to position yourself to stop your respective opponent game in and game out.

In my book, Pietrus is a good player, but as others have said, he is not going to get all that much better. He is an above average role player who will likely be paid more than he is worth in the offseason. Therefore, if you can trade him to get a big in return that does not have a horrible contract, I would be in favor of the move.
User avatar
All Star
Posts: 2558
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 8:53 am
Location: where you aren't
Poster Credit: 0
PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 8:27 am
Harringotn is weird. He grabbed 12 boards against the Cavs... and only 1 against the Lakers and 4 vs the Nets?. Weird rebouding lines...

Sounds like murphy.......
ImageImage
User avatar
All Star
Posts: 1221
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 9:54 pm
Poster Credit: 0
PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 9:26 am
tradedunleavy wrote:You know im still down to move pietrus for a quality big, but i just gotta say Pietrus IS our best defender and no player brings the energy he brings to the court. We play better as a team when hes in. But we might not be able to keep him, so might as well trade him before he walks. Unles we can resign him for like 4-5 million a year.


I will have to entirely disagree...I'd say he might be our most athletic and physically gifted. but that doesnt equate to being a good defender. MP is dumb as a rock...i've yet to see him stop anybody this year.

his enery equates to hacking, reaching, fouling jump-shooters...

i'd really have to say jackson is our best defender in the sense that he's smarter, more seasoned... knows how to play D w/o the foolish fouls.
User avatar
Rookie
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 3:47 pm
Poster Credit: 0
PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 9:56 am
Cabbage is a great shooter. Even if he didn't look like that the last few games, he's the best shooter of the team... but it's true that we don't really have more good shooters, just players that can score from outside.



cabbage hasn't really been a great shooter since coming to the NBA, he started to look a little promising at the end of the year. i think he was one of the few that startes to like that new ball. in his first year he started off with a wonderful FT%, that slowly headed south. i don't know if he'll ever adjust to the NBA 3 pt. line, if he was as good at shooting 3's overseas as they say, you wouldn't think it would take him this long to adjust.
Go Colts!!!!!!! Superbowl Champs!!!!!!!

All Star
Posts: 2958
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 8:41 am
Poster Credit: 3
PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 10:02 am
I have to disagree with all you guys. Pietrus is not dumb. Pietrus is smart enough to be the best defensive rebounder on the team besides Adris Biedrins. Pietrus is smart enough to know he is not the best ballhandler in the world so he usually looks to give it up right away to a ballhandler. Pietrus few turovers usually comes because he is trying to get the ball to a guard right away. Pietrus muoves his feet very well. he plays the passing lanes extremely well.

I think most of you have been dubbed by the idiot Jim Barnett always has made Pietrus his whipping boy while he concsistently kissed Dunleavy's ass. I thought Mike made the most dumb moves on the court than any Warrior but he would always considered inteligent because of his pedigree and school.

The bottom line is that basketball is mostly and instinctive, reactionary game. pietrus does this very well. He has gotten better and better every year. I like Jackson, but I would take pietrus overall game over Jackson's any time. :agrue:

Role Player
Posts: 284
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL
Poster Credit: 0
PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 10:22 am
I do not want to get into a Stephen Jackson vs Mikael Pietrus debate as that is not really the issue at hand. I am not saying that Mikael is dumb at all. In fact, I think he is probably a rather intelligent guy. I just think his basketball IQ is not as high. Not to say it can't get better, but I see a number of things Pietrus struggles with:

1. Fouls - he fould 30 feet out and is constantly hacking at people and going over the back.

2. Passing - rarely, if even do you see Mikael make a great pass to a teammate in a scoring area. In other words, he creates very few scoring opportunities for this teammates.

3. Shot Selection - not that other Warriors are not guilty of this as well, but Mikael is the king of taking shots with his foot on the three-point line or simply just taking ill-advised long shots with plenty of time on the shot clock.

The above three areas are ones I think Mikael struggles with. I think he can and will improve somewhat in those areas, but he seems to be a player to me that just does not have the basketball IQ of Baron Davis, Andris Biedrins, Monta Ellis and a few others. These three players seem to know where their teammates are, how much time is left on the shot clock and game clock as well as having the general overall ability to lead on the court.

Once again, everyone has been bad at times with shot selection, but Mikael not do a better job of knowing where he is on the court and what situation the team is in before he jacks up shots with his foot on the line or something like that.

I am NOT claiming Mikael is an IDIOT or that he is as dumb as a box of rocks, I just think his basketball IQ is a bit lower than others on the team and at times it can hinder the team.

All Star
Posts: 2958
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 8:41 am
Poster Credit: 3
PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 10:36 am
ChicagoTom wrote:I do not want to get into a Stephen Jackson vs Mikael Pietrus debate as that is not really the issue at hand. I am not saying that Mikael is dumb at all. In fact, I think he is probably a rather intelligent guy. I just think his basketball IQ is not as high. Not to say it can't get better, but I see a number of things Pietrus struggles with:

1. Fouls - he fould 30 feet out and is constantly hacking at people and going over the back.

2. Passing - rarely, if even do you see Mikael make a great pass to a teammate in a scoring area. In other words, he creates very few scoring opportunities for this teammates.

3. Shot Selection - not that other Warriors are not guilty of this as well, but Mikael is the king of taking shots with his foot on the three-point line or simply just taking ill-advised long shots with plenty of time on the shot clock.

The above three areas are ones I think Mikael struggles with. I think he can and will improve somewhat in those areas, but he seems to be a player to me that just does not have the basketball IQ of Baron Davis, Andris Biedrins, Monta Ellis and a few others. These three players seem to know where their teammates are, how much time is left on the shot clock and game clock as well as having the general overall ability to lead on the court.

Once again, everyone has been bad at times with shot selection, but Mikael not do a better job of knowing where he is on the court and what situation the team is in before he jacks up shots with his foot on the line or something like that.

I am NOT claiming Mikael is an IDIOT or that he is as dumb as a box of rocks, I just think his basketball IQ is a bit lower than others on the team and at times it can hinder the team.


Mr. ChicagoTom. Monta makes more turnovers than anyone on the team. He is the king of the pass and crash. I don't like the subject of basketball intelligence. If Pietrus was not an intelligent ball player Nelly would not play him so much, or at crunch time. pietrus makes errors of aggression. I can live with that. the guy can play on my team anytime and evidently Nelly feels the same way. I think Nelly knows a little bit more about basketball intelligence than any of us on this board, so I will surrender my judgement on basketball intelligence to Nelly. he loves Pietrus. He hated Dunleavy, Mr. Intelligent, Mr. Basketball IQ. Mr. Pedigree, Mr. Duke.

Plus, Chicago Tom, why are you comparing Pietrus to Monta and Baron? They are point guards who are suppose to control their team. They are the quarterbacks of the team. Pietrus is just a versatile forward who can and do guard anyone from a point guard to a power forward (remember Nelly started him on Nowitzki). i think you have to have pretty good baskeball IQ to do that, don't you?
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 18461
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:48 am
Location: Somewhere in this site...
Poster Credit: -4
PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 10:42 am
It's funny, but it seems like you both agree on what you're discussing:

1.- Pietrus is one of the few that cares about defense (and, actually, helps the team there).

2.- He ain't exactly bright on offense, where most of his flaws are.

Role Player
Posts: 284
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL
Poster Credit: 0
PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 10:58 am
ReginaldLewis wrote:Pietrus is just a versatile forward who can and do guard anyone from a point guard to a power forward (remember Nelly started him on Nowitzki). i think you have to have pretty good baskeball IQ to do that, don't you?

No, not really. You need to have decent size and athletic ability.

Don't confuse athleticism with basketball IQ. Also, remember this, there are a lot of players in the league that play that do not have the best basketball IQs.

Now, on that note, I am not going to keep up this debate as we both are going to think what we think and not convince the other of our own beliefs on the topic. I respectfully disagree with you Reginald although you do bring up some points to ponder.

I will let Mikael's actions on the court answer the question for us.

All Star
Posts: 2806
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 4:46 pm
Poster Credit: 7
PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 11:02 am
tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:
Harringotn is weird. He grabbed 12 boards against the Cavs... and only 1 against the Lakers and 4 vs the Nets?. Weird rebouding lines...

Sounds like murphy.......


The rebounding numbers do; however, Harrington goes to the basket and plays in the paint, too!
Next

Return to Warriors Basketball

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests