The Golden State Warriors are NOTHING Without.....

[tlance]

This creates 3 questions for me.

1. Could that player evolution not be because of the coaching from Steve Kerr?
2. Is it your opinion that it's just a coincidence that the Warriors, out of nowhere, become THIS good once Steve Kerr becomes coach?
3. Are the Golden State Warriors THIS good with Mark Jackson as coach the last 4 years?

No. Kerr's system was part of their improvement.

But take a look around the league. 3rd, 4th and 5th year players make production leaps all the time. Your position gives Kerr ALL the credit for their improvement, which just isn't correct. Especially for Curry. Because I watched him play in high school when he looked like a good D3 player, nothing more. Dude has put in the work and deserves all the credit for his ascension. Same with Klay.

Draymond's rise should give more credit to Kerr than the others because of the role change. Even then, any good coach would have noticed Dray's unique skill set fit with Steph and Klay a lot better than David Lee's offensively focused game.

 

[tlance]

If anything, if they had a real good coach, they'd have 4 rings in a row...

That is a bit unfair,

But point taken. Steve Kerr was the biggest internal reason the Warriors lost in '16. More so than the injuries and the Dray suspension. Kerr's rotations were mind numbingly stubborn in games 6 and 7. Ty Lue outcoached Kerr to a ridiculous degree in that series.

 

[jontaejones]

That is a bit unfair,

But point taken. Steve Kerr was the biggest internal reason the Warriors lost in '16. More so than the injuries and the Dray suspension. Kerr's rotations were mind numbingly stubborn in games 6 and 7. Ty Lue outcoached Kerr to a ridiculous degree in that series.

In my opinion, NBA coach is much less meaningful than say football and baseball. MUCH less.

But a guy like Brad Stevens for example might have drawn up enough plays to get them the win that game 7.

 

[msgkings322]

In my opinion, NBA coach is much less meaningful than say football and baseball. MUCH less.

But a guy like Brad Stevens for example might have drawn up enough plays to get them the win that game 7.

Football no question. Baseball not so sure, I think actually basketball coaches matter more than baseball ones. Baseball is ultimately an individual sport, batter vs pitcher, one batter at a time. Basketball is a team sport and you need a conductor.

 

[CitySushi]

In my opinion, NBA coach is much less meaningful than say football and baseball. MUCH less.

But a guy like Brad Stevens for example might have drawn up enough plays to get them the win that game 7.

Regular season football and baseball are absolutely more important. But in the playoffs the coaching matters significantly in the NBA. During the regular season for the most part the coaches rely on their preparation and overall style of play to overcome the opponent. But in the playoffs, in a series, the game planning goes to the next level. At this point teams are concentrated on focusing on certain aspects of the other team and finding the best way to combat what the other team does well. Prime example is the Dallas Mavericks in 2011 against the Miami Heat. Look at what they did to take the ball out of Lebron's hands and the different looks they threw at them. They implemented a zone defense just for that series.

There's all sorts of different factors that go into coaching a basketball game. The offensive sets, defensive rotations, after time out plays, etc. are all instrumental in developing a team.

 

[jontaejones]

Football no question. Baseball not so sure, I think actually basketball coaches matter more than baseball ones. Baseball is ultimately an individual sport, batter vs pitcher, one batter at a time. Basketball is a team sport and you need a conductor.

In baseball, the manager decides when to take a pitcher out.

That in itself is much more meaningful than how any NBA coach can impact a game.

 

[msgkings322]

In baseball, the manager decides when to take a pitcher out.

That in itself is much more meaningful than how any NBA coach can impact a game.

Um, basketball coaches don't decide when to take players out?

 

[WiggyRuss]

Football no question. Baseball not so sure, I think actually basketball coaches matter more than baseball ones. Baseball is ultimately an individual sport, batter vs pitcher, one batter at a time. Basketball is a team sport and you need a conductor.

ehhhhh

a good baseball manager, especially in the NL, managing a bench, bullpen, etc. is pretty relevant.

the Cavs got to a Finals with basically everyone ignoring David Blatt. I could have coached that team to the Finals.

If you coached the Warriors instead of Steve Kerr they are still the favorites to win it all.

 

[jontaejones]

Regular season football and baseball are absolutely more important. But in the playoffs the coaching matters significantly in the NBA. During the regular season for the most part the coaches rely on their preparation and overall style of play to overcome the opponent. But in the playoffs, in a series, the game planning goes to the next level. At this point teams are concentrated on focusing on certain aspects of the other team and finding the best way to combat what the other team does well. Prime example is the Dallas Mavericks in 2011 against the Miami Heat. Look at what they did to take the ball out of Lebron's hands and the different looks they threw at them. They implemented a zone defense just for that series.

There's all sorts of different factors that go into coaching a basketball game. The offensive sets, defensive rotations, after time out plays, etc. are all instrumental in developing a team.

I agree there's teams that play above their talent level because of the system in place and the whole being greater than the sum of their parts. And a coach can really help with that yes.

But that's not the case with the Warriors IMO. What they need is a guy who can call plays to get them a good shot, instead of Steph Curry dribbling around and jacking up a desperation contested 30 footer.

But it's a moot point now with Durant. They won't have a meaningful, close game and if they do, just "Give the ball to Durant."

 

[WiggyRuss]

I agree there's teams that play above their talent level because of the system in place and the whole being greater than the sum of their parts. And a coach can really help with that yes.

But that's not the case with the Warriors IMO. What they need is a guy who can call plays to get them a good shot, instead of Steph Curry dribbling around and jacking up a desperation contested 30 footer.

But it's a moot point now with Durant. They won't have a meaningful, close game and if they do, just "Give the ball to Durant."

Kerr was instrumental in eestablishing their system which is HUGE- but after that- the day to day operations arent that critical.

 

[msgkings322]

I agree there's teams that play above their talent level because of the system in place and the whole being greater than the sum of their parts. And a coach can really help with that yes.

But that's not the case with the Warriors IMO. What they need is a guy who can call plays to get them a good shot, instead of Steph Curry dribbling around and jacking up a desperation contested 30 footer.

But it's a moot point now with Durant. They won't have a meaningful, close game and if they do, just "Give the ball to Durant."

Yeah that's why they had such an easy time getting past the Rockets in the playoffs last year, they just gave it to Durant over and over.

 

[CitySushi]

Kerr was instrumental in eestablishing their system which is HUGE- but after that- the day to day operations arent that critical.

THIS. That's why when people say Mike Brown or Luke Walton is proof that they don't need a coach is fooling themselves. Steve Kerr put that system in place. The players are good enough to run it themselves once it's been learned.

 

[trojanfan12]

Oh i understand what they want to do- I just think its stupid.

No, you apparently don't. You seem to think that a team can just get any player they want any time they want.

The Lakers had several plans based on how the off-season went.

Plan A was Lebron and another max FA. That would have put the Lakers squarely in the upper portion of the West. Paul George decided he wanted to stay in OKC, the Spurs weren't trading Kawhi to the Lakers and Boogie blew his Achilles.

They got Lebron, which meant they had to switch to plan B. So, they signed some 1 year guys to preserve cap space and so they can try to land a max guy next off-season.

What would have been stupid would have been to use up their cap space to sign 2nd tier players that wouldn't have gotten them past the Warriors anyway.

"Wasting" one year with Lebron to develop the kids and preserve cap space is a helluva smarter than wasting 4 years because they signed 2nd tier guys to 3-4 year deals.

 

[WiggyRuss]

No, you apparently don't. You seem to think that a team can just get any player they want any time they want.

The Lakers had several plans based on how the off-season went.

Plan A was Lebron and another max FA. That would have put the Lakers squarely in the upper portion of the West. Paul George decided he wanted to stay in OKC, the Spurs weren't trading Kawhi to the Lakers and Boogie blew his Achilles.

They got Lebron, which meant they had to switch to plan B. So, they signed some 1 year guys to preserve cap space and so they can try to land a max guy next off-season.

What would have been stupid would have been to use up their cap space to sign 2nd tier players that wouldn't have gotten them past the Warriors anyway.

"Wasting" one year with Lebron to develop the kids and preserve cap space is a helluva smarter than wasting 4 years because they signed 2nd tier guys to 3-4 year deals.

f you could read you would have seen that I said they should have traded for Kawhi

they def could ahve traded for George at one point as well before LeBron even go t there- thats a fact

I am SURE if they offered a palatable deal for Jimmy Butler they could swing him too.

but that does not fit your narrative. lol

LeBron has MAYBE 2 years left as the best player alive and the Lakers decided to throw in the towel for one of those years

unforgivable. ESPECIALLY if they strike out in free agency next offseason. They will be BEGGING to go back tothe days where they could have landed Paul George for the #2 pick.

 

[trojanfan12]

f you could read you would have seen that I said they should have traded for Kawhi

they def could ahve traded for George at one point as well before LeBron even go t there- thats a fact

I am SURE if they offered a palatable deal for Jimmy Butler they could swing him too.

but that does not fit your narrative. lol

LeBron has MAYBE 2 years left as the best player alive and the Lakers decided to throw in the towel for one of those years

unforgivable. ESPECIALLY if they strike out in free agency next offseason. They will be BEGGING to go back tothe days where they could have landed Paul George for the #2 pick.

What part of "the Spur weren't going to trade Kawhi to the Lakers" are you unable to grasp?

No, they shouldn't have traded for Paul George. OKC was asking for too much. Paul George staying in OKC because he was butthurt that the Lakers didn't trade for him makes me question his intelligence. Why the hell would they weaken the team to get him when he could have signed with a stronger team this past off-season. That's the kind of shit that helped the Knicks get to where they are.

Jimmy Butler hasn't really been on the Lakers radar.

As for fitting a narrative. That's hilarious for someone who's on his last warning because he keeps taking people's posts out of context to try to make them fit his narrative.

 

[WiggyRuss]

What part of "the Spur weren't going to trade Kawhi to the Lakers" are you unable to grasp?

No, they shouldn't have traded for Paul George. OKC was asking for too much. Paul George staying in OKC because he was butthurt that the Lakers didn't trade for him makes me question his intelligence. Why the hell would they weaken the team to get him when he could have signed with a stronger team this past off-season. That's the kind of shit that helped the Knicks get to where they are.

Jimmy Butler hasn't really been on the Lakers radar.

As for fitting a narrative. That's hilarious for someone who's on his last warning because he keeps taking people's posts out of context to try to make them fit his narrative.

OKC was asking for too much?

the #2 overall pick is what INDIANA asked for- and the Lakers thought they could just sign him in free agency and blew it.

And then they were unwilling to even discuss Ingram in a Kawhi deal so no wonder the Spurs wanted nothing to do with them.

and there is nothing stopping them from making an offer for Butler right now.

 

[trojanfan12]

OKC was asking for too much?

the #2 overall pick is what INDIANA asked for- and the Lakers thought they could just sign him in free agency and blew it.

And then they were unwilling to even discuss Ingram in a Kawhi deal so no wonder the Spurs wanted nothing to do with them.

and there is nothing stopping them from making an offer for Butler right now.

I meant Indy was asking for too much. The #2 pick is not all Indy asked for.

The Spurs wanted nothing to do with them even if they included Ingram. The fact that you can't see that the Lakers weren't willing to become the Knicks when they got Melo just shows how your hate blinds you.

Yes, there is something stopping them from signing Butler. It's the fact that he doesn't get them any closer to beating the Warriors. They can go after better FA's in the off-season.

 

[Yo Tee]

Your position gives Kerr ALL the credit for their improvement, which just isn't correct.

I believe Kerr has a bigger part in the improvement of Curry, Klay and Draymond than many think.

 

[WiggyRuss]

I meant Indy was asking for too much. The #2 pick is not all Indy asked for.

The Spurs wanted nothing to do with them even if they included Ingram. The fact that you can't see that the Lakers weren't willing to become the Knicks when they got Melo just shows how your hate blinds you.

Yes, there is something stopping them from signing Butler. It's the fact that he doesn't get them any closer to beating the Warriors. They can go after better FA's in the off-season.

A. you are wrong- Indiana would ahve taken the #2 pick.

Pacers would’ve traded George to Lakers if they got Ingram or No. 2 pick

unless you have a better source than Adrian Wojanrawoski. Maybe you do???? I would LOVE to see it.

“The Pacers would’ve done a deal to trade Paul George to the Lakers if they got the No. 2 pick in the 2017 draft or Brandon Ingram,” ESPN reporter Adrian Wojnarowski said on The Woj Pod.

B. Who in free agency is better than Butler?

I can think of ONE guy- Kawhi Leonard- and Adrian Woj and others have reported that if he goes to LA it is most likely the Clippers.

I CERTIANLY dont think Kyrie is going to join LeBron in LA thats for sure. lol.

unless you think Durant is a realistic option- which- I dont know anyone that thinks that is a realistic option.

the next tier of guys include KEmba, Cousins, Dragic, Horford

Middleton would be a good fit- but he certainly doesnt change the calculus of the West.

 

[trojanfan12]

A. you are wrong- Indiana would ahve taken the #2 pick.

Pacers would’ve traded George to Lakers if they got Ingram or No. 2 pick

unless you have a better source than Adrian Wojanrawoski. Maybe you do???? I would LOVE to see it.

I believe that's what Woj was told. I don't believe that the Pacers were elling him the truth.