No move a good move?

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: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:30 pm
TMC has eloquently argued my point. It is always better to get the best basketball player than the best potentialed athlete. let's use our Pietrus as an example. He is an amazing athlete. He can run like the wind. He can jump out of the gym. But his basketball skills and knowledge are below NBA standards.

Now look at players like Gary Payton or Sam Cassell, even Jason Kidd None of these guys are the fastest, or leapers, or even great shooters, but boy, there basketball knowledge is off the chart. Even the great Magic Johnson didn't have the greatest measurable skills, but the man could play basketball.

I could go on even in other sports like Emmitt Smith and Walter Payton. Neither of these guys would wow you in the NFL combines but look who are the top 2 all-time leading rushers in the NFL.

I rest my case.
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 21380
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:50 am
Location: Perth
Poster Credit: 27
PostPosted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:42 pm
TMC wrote:
migya wrote:Unless there is no decent player to cover a need, you draft for need!


:scratch:

Where did you get that one?. From Isiah's "How to screw a NBA franchise from inside" handbook? :mrgreen:

Drafting for need never works. Never... And drafting for potential barely does. It's always better to play it safe and draft talent, even if it's for a position in which you don't need much help. May the best player keep that spot... and then you can trade the other for need.



:-s

Glad you aren't the GM :wink:

Look at the Atlanta Hawks and their drafting of talented players that play the same position! It just doesn't work. Sure you can trade the one that is doing less but you may still not fill the need!

If a team needs a PF, for example, and there is a pretty talented PF (O'bryant does not really fit that description but he does fit the next one somewhat) available in the draft, you pick him to be safe of covering the need. If you have a great SG and pick another very good one in the draft, you may never get much for him or things could just not gel well and you risk losing him for nothing if you keep him the full three or four years. O'bryant, for example, may still be traded for something good because he is a Center and that is the position most hard to fill decently. Mullin at least has that. I'm thinking he could trade O'bryant, Pietrus and maybe someone else or a future 1st rounder for someone like Al Jefferson or even Pierce if he demands a trade and Ainge wants to do his stupid thing
Image



Image


migya make the ring fall on ya
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 21380
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:50 am
Location: Perth
Poster Credit: 27
PostPosted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:47 pm
uptempo wrote:
TMC wrote:
migya wrote:Unless there is no decent player to cover a need, you draft for need!


:scratch:

Where did you get that one?. From Isiah's "How to screw a NBA franchise from inside" handbook? :mrgreen:

Drafting for need never works. Never... And drafting for potential barely does. It's always better to play it safe and draft talent, even if it's for a position in which you don't need much help. May the best player keep that spot... and then you can trade the other for need.


Drafting talent, regardless of position, makes the most sense. If the team needs a big man and the choice is between a project big man and an excellent guard, it is better to draft the guard. In a way, the team with its veterans, is loaded at the shooting guard and small forward positions. Perhaps there is a possibilty to move some of the pieces along with our #1 to get that complimentary big man who can fit into Nelson's style.

In a way, getting rid of Ike was a great move for this franchise. He, Ike, would have never fit in with a Nelson-coached team. It's too bad that Mullin could not have gotten rid of Foyle, too.



Getting rid of Diogu was a bad move and something I won't soon forget and neither will most Warriors fans over the next decade! Diogu is playing very little time the last few games for the Pacers I've noticed. Diogu was the answer inside for the team and now there is NOONE that can do that efficiently!
Image



Image


migya make the ring fall on ya
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 13533
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:03 pm
Location: Golden State
Poster Credit: 52
PostPosted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 11:00 pm
Ike Diogu has too many needs to be a workable member of any system.

Unless he's put on a team with nothing but scrubs (ala, Harrington on the Hawks last year) where the team can cater to every beck and call of Diogu, he'll bury himself under his own inabilities.

What good is an undersized post player who can't pass out of a double-team or score on lankier players? Not to mention the kid doesn't know the playbook on either side of the ball...

Diogu has the skills and talent... but there seems to be too many obstacles in the way of him becoming great. He'll probably end up as a Derrick Coleman.
Image
GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS DIE HARD
Image
Image
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 21380
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:50 am
Location: Perth
Poster Credit: 27
PostPosted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 11:22 pm
32 wrote:Ike Diogu has too many needs to be a workable member of any system.

Unless he's put on a team with nothing but scrubs (ala, Harrington on the Hawks last year) where the team can cater to every beck and call of Diogu, he'll bury himself under his own inabilities.

What good is an undersized post player who can't pass out of a double-team or score on lankier players? Not to mention the kid doesn't know the playbook on either side of the ball...

Diogu has the skills and talent... but there seems to be too many obstacles in the way of him becoming great. He'll probably end up as a Derrick Coleman.



Good enough for a point a minute, very good rebounding and shot blocking numbers for the pathetically low minutes he was given on the team! The guy was the answer inside but he is gone now
Image



Image


migya make the ring fall on ya
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 18461
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:48 am
Location: Somewhere in this site...
Poster Credit: -4
PostPosted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 4:07 am
migya wrote: :-s

Glad you aren't the GM :wink:


Hey, we could have been much better. I would never have drafted Dunleavy or signed Monty... :wink:


migya wrote:Look at the Atlanta Hawks and their drafting of talented players that play the same position! It just doesn't work. Sure you can trade the one that is doing less but you may still not fill the need!


Atlanta is not a valid example. They went for potential instead of talent. If not, they would have drafted Deron Williams or Chris Paul instead of Marvin... and they'd be a top 5 team in the east.

migya wrote:If a team needs a PF, for example, and there is a pretty talented PF (O'bryant does not really fit that description but he does fit the next one somewhat) available in the draft, you pick him to be safe of covering the need. If you have a great SG and pick another very good one in the draft, you may never get much for him or things could just not gel well and you risk losing him for nothing if you keep him the full three or four years. O'bryant, for example, may still be traded for something good because he is a Center and that is the position most hard to fill decently. Mullin at least has that. I'm thinking he could trade O'bryant, Pietrus and maybe someone else or a future 1st rounder for someone like Al Jefferson or even Pierce if he demands a trade and Ainge wants to do his stupid thing


Come on. Stop thinking about trading for Jefferson. He's available for the likes of Dwayne Wade and Lebron, not for anyone else...

I think O'Bryant can get us... Jason Collins. At best.
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 21380
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:50 am
Location: Perth
Poster Credit: 27
PostPosted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 6:14 am
TMC wrote:
migya wrote: :-s

Glad you aren't the GM :wink:


Hey, we could have been much better. I would never have drafted Dunleavy or signed Monty... :wink:


migya wrote:Look at the Atlanta Hawks and their drafting of talented players that play the same position! It just doesn't work. Sure you can trade the one that is doing less but you may still not fill the need!


Atlanta is not a valid example. They went for potential instead of talent. If not, they would have drafted Deron Williams or Chris Paul instead of Marvin... and they'd be a top 5 team in the east.

migya wrote:If a team needs a PF, for example, and there is a pretty talented PF (O'bryant does not really fit that description but he does fit the next one somewhat) available in the draft, you pick him to be safe of covering the need. If you have a great SG and pick another very good one in the draft, you may never get much for him or things could just not gel well and you risk losing him for nothing if you keep him the full three or four years. O'bryant, for example, may still be traded for something good because he is a Center and that is the position most hard to fill decently. Mullin at least has that. I'm thinking he could trade O'bryant, Pietrus and maybe someone else or a future 1st rounder for someone like Al Jefferson or even Pierce if he demands a trade and Ainge wants to do his stupid thing


Come on. Stop thinking about trading for Jefferson. He's available for the likes of Dwayne Wade and Lebron, not for anyone else...

I think O'Bryant can get us... Jason Collins. At best.



O'bryant is not that bad and anyway, who would you have chosen instead at the 9th pick? Noone could have made much of an impact for the team that was left at that position
Image



Image


migya make the ring fall on ya
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 18461
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:48 am
Location: Somewhere in this site...
Poster Credit: -4
PostPosted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 6:32 am
migya wrote:O'bryant is not that bad and anyway, who would you have chosen instead at the 9th pick? Noone could have made much of an impact for the team that was left at that position


Carney, Brewer, Cedric Simmons, Marcus Williams (I'm not counting Hilton Armstrong or Sene because I consider then as future busts, too). We could have also traded up, down (so we could pick Kyle Lowry or Sergio Rodriguez) or for future picks or players...

It's not like we didn't have any other options...
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 21380
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:50 am
Location: Perth
Poster Credit: 27
PostPosted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 6:48 am
TMC wrote:
migya wrote:O'bryant is not that bad and anyway, who would you have chosen instead at the 9th pick? Noone could have made much of an impact for the team that was left at that position


Carney, Brewer, Cedric Simmons, Marcus Williams (I'm not counting Hilton Armstrong or Sene because I consider then as future busts, too). We could have also traded up, down (so we could pick Kyle Lowry or Sergio Rodriguez) or for future picks or players...

It's not like we didn't have any other options...



And how would any of those players have helped the team? If anything Monta would have been in a logjam at guard and not had as good of a chance of emerging this season
Image



Image


migya make the ring fall on ya
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 18461
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:48 am
Location: Somewhere in this site...
Poster Credit: -4
PostPosted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 7:01 am
migya wrote:And how would any of those players have helped the team? If anything Monta would have been in a logjam at guard and not had as good of a chance of emerging this season


Easy. Some of them would have solved our needs at other areas (like Marcus Williams or Lowry as Baron's backup)... also, keep in mind there wasn't such a log-jam at the beginning of the season, when Dunleavy and Pietrus were fighting for the SF spot (another position in which Carney would have helped). Simmons is exactly the kind of 4 we're looking for right now...

POB is a project, a long term project according to Nellie. If he never pans out, he's a wasted pick. And wasted picks are what kills a team.

Also, you're ruling out any trade of that #9 pick... We could have traded up or completely out of the draft.

All Star
Posts: 2804
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 4:46 pm
Poster Credit: 7
PostPosted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 8:38 am
migya wrote:
uptempo wrote:
TMC wrote:
migya wrote:Unless there is no decent player to cover a need, you draft for need!


:scratch:

Where did you get that one?. From Isiah's "How to screw a NBA franchise from inside" handbook? :mrgreen:

Drafting for need never works. Never... And drafting for potential barely does. It's always better to play it safe and draft talent, even if it's for a position in which you don't need much help. May the best player keep that spot... and then you can trade the other for need.


Drafting talent, regardless of position, makes the most sense. If the team needs a big man and the choice is between a project big man and an excellent guard, it is better to draft the guard. In a way, the team with its veterans, is loaded at the shooting guard and small forward positions. Perhaps there is a possibilty to move some of the pieces along with our #1 to get that complimentary big man who can fit into Nelson's style.

In a way, getting rid of Ike was a great move for this franchise. He, Ike, would have never fit in with a Nelson-coached team. It's too bad that Mullin could not have gotten rid of Foyle, too.



Getting rid of Diogu was a bad move and something I won't soon forget and neither will most Warriors fans over the next decade! Diogu is playing very little time the last few games for the Pacers I've noticed. Diogu was the answer inside for the team and now there is NOONE that can do that efficiently!


I would agree with you on this point if Nelson was not the coach. No inside player, regardless of how talented he may be, would do well playing for Nelson. Mullin's hiring of Nelson, combined with the desire to get rid of his mistakes of signing DunMurphy to the extended contracts, required Mullin to put Ike in the trade. I believe that Ike will do well, maybe even become an All Star; however, it would have never happened as long as Nelson was coaching the team.

Lastly, yesterday's Clipper game was further evidence why Foyle needs to go. He cannot guard his man (Brand) on the perimeter nor in the paint. Foyle does not work hard. He is stealing money from this team.
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 13533
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:03 pm
Location: Golden State
Poster Credit: 52
PostPosted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 10:27 am
migya wrote:
32 wrote:Ike Diogu has too many needs to be a workable member of any system.

Unless he's put on a team with nothing but scrubs (ala, Harrington on the Hawks last year) where the team can cater to every beck and call of Diogu, he'll bury himself under his own inabilities.

What good is an undersized post player who can't pass out of a double-team or score on lankier players? Not to mention the kid doesn't know the playbook on either side of the ball...

Diogu has the skills and talent... but there seems to be too many obstacles in the way of him becoming great. He'll probably end up as a Derrick Coleman.



Good enough for a point a minute, very good rebounding and shot blocking numbers for the pathetically low minutes he was given on the team! The guy was the answer inside but he is gone now

Everybody's numbers are higher when they get low minutes. Ike Diogu is only played when the team runs specifically through him. You can't put him in as a regular sub, because he's clueless and it's like playing 4-on-5 when he's not setting up in the post.

If Diogu was in the game ALL THE TIME, rather than as a situational player, his points would be lower (as would his %'s) and his turnovers would spike. I can't see his rebounding or shotblocking getting much better or worse, but his 'superstar' looking post game would look a helluva lot worse is he was played like a normal player.

The difference between Ike and Elton Brand: knowing where to be without the ball, meaning all of the time defensively and most of the time offensively. Brand sets screens, gets inside for the boards, helps on defense, and draws the defenders in his direction. Ike Diogu does none of those.
Image
GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS DIE HARD
Image
Image

All Star
Posts: 1218
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 8:56 am
Poster Credit: 2
PostPosted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 5:31 pm
Three coaches and three systems and Ike still sits on the bench? People still say he would be a star if given a chance. I don't know. He has skills, is not a rookie, they pay him zillions of dollars and still he sits. It is odd. Something there we don't know about. Leaves us to speculate and that can be pretty unfair.
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 21380
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:50 am
Location: Perth
Poster Credit: 27
PostPosted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 5:32 pm
32 wrote:Everybody's numbers are higher when they get low minutes. Ike Diogu is only played when the team runs specifically through him. You can't put him in as a regular sub, because he's clueless and it's like playing 4-on-5 when he's not setting up in the post.



Players like Murphy and dun showed that playing small minutes can result in the usual low production! Diogu did great in the time he was given and would have been great had he played over 30mins a game, end of story! Nelson didn't use him properly and that is his fault! Diogu's rebounding at PF was very good also and would have been a big help had he played more minutes
Image



Image


migya make the ring fall on ya
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 13533
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:03 pm
Location: Golden State
Poster Credit: 52
PostPosted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 9:41 pm
DunMurphy never had the offense run through them when they got lower minutes. Ike did.

DunMurphy played 20 minutes a night (role player minutes) when they docked time. Ike didn't (he played 10, if he was lucky).

There's no comparison there.
Image
GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS DIE HARD
Image
Image
PreviousNext

Return to Warriors Basketball

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests

cron