PG Claxton, NVE, Dunleavy, ? SG Jrich, Pietrus SF Dunleavy, ?, Crob PF Murphy, Crob, Biedrens, Dunleavy C Foyle, Crob, Biedrens, Eschmeyer, Murphy, Crob (horrible rebounder) If the above is the assumed rotation or somewhere near it then I think PG and C is the one thing that can prevent the warriors from making the playoffs for the 11th consecutive time. At the middle, we've only got Foyle (undersized but long and quick), an oft injured Eschemeyer who missed the entire season last year with bum knees, two power forwards that can play center (both can't shotblock/only one is a good rebounder), a rookie from Latvia who some feel may not be able to contribute at the NBA level right away and we've lost Damp, who we are slowly running out of options for him in a good sign and trade that meets the team criteria for the future and current team plan. If we had at least extra veteran center that is a jack of all trades defensively, I'll be happy. [Point Guard] At the one spot we're going to need a healthy Claxton and NVE. Frankly, I'm not very confident about their ability to play all 82 games next season. It got so bad last year that all 3 of our points were hurt and we had to rely on Dunleavy to play an offensive point guard and sign some D leaguers (who weren't true playmaking point guards) to play the backup role. IMO, Dunleavy wouldn't be able to play the one spot full time because he couldn't provide the dribble penetration due to his lack of quickness. (Backdoor cuts could work but sometimes its just a little too obvious for help defenses that will just rotate to cover him and get rid of any isolation he has over his defender). Also Dunleavy's an excellent passer for a man his size, but with size like that you want him to post up and score rather than pass (and those would be great in situations where the W's are really feeling it from the perimeter when Dunleavy kicks the ball out to the wing off a double team in the low post). Bottom line I guess, W's definitely have to rely on dribble penetration for the easy buckets in the paint (and get to the foul line. You take guys like Amare Stoudamire, Paul Gasol or Yao Ming out of the game, the other team loses its inside scoring). Also another good thing that having good dribble penetration is that if you want guys like Foyle to score inside (Damp got all his dunks and layups from what Claxton/NVE provided), we better have point guards that can create for him. BTW I consider Foyle's footwork to be average, his dribbling isn't so hot, but he's got better reflexes than Damp at grabbing at pass. I think he could get a lot of dunks if Claxton and NVE or at least someone else on the roster can provide a level of playmaking based off dribble penetration/some backdoor cuts that can isolate defenders off their man or put a big man on a smaller guy for the point blank layup or slam dunk. [Shooting Guard] SG we're definitely set. We've got a upcoming and star (not a true superstar) Jason Richardson who is getting better and better every year. If he improves his ballhandling enough to take a man off the dribble, improve on split defenders on the drive, score consistently every night and sinks his free throws, play consistent defense then we've got a superstar. Then, we've got Pietrus who is another dynamite athlete that can provide the aggressive level of defense needed at the two spot. Hell, it's a requirement that you play pesky defense with high scoring shooting guards like Kobe/Tmac/Vince Carter/Ray Allen/Rip Hamilton running around the league. Pietrus will be a lockdown defender once he develops his body a bit more for a good balance of strength and quickness and his understanding of the game improves. Part of the biggest problem I've seen with him is his ability to read an offense and get around screens/fight through picks. But he's gotten better. [Small Forward] We could use another small forward that can make the other team pay with an outside shot. They'd also have to play some aggressive defense for those defensive stops. Too bad we couldn't have Bruce Bowen (although he's not a scorer, if Dunleavy is blowing it then Bowen can be counted on to hit the wide open J's from downtown). I guess Pietrus will have to fill that role although his outside shot is really streaky. I've always believed the 3, 4 spot is the place where you want to punish slower defenders for playing zone, rotating off you, or double teaming someone else. All the guard positions seem to be too quick to contest shots but that's not the case if quicker defenders rotate off you and it happens all the time. Still a tall guy like Rashard Lewis has enough speed and length to alter your shot if he bothers to contest you. [Power Forward] I think we're set, beacuse this is as good as it gets for us. No Okur. No Boozer. I like Murph and some of Crob's offensive game. In general, it's hard to find someone who can play down low like a center, is as big as a center, can defend, hit a consistent deep perimeter or midrange shot, rebound, block, dribble and pass. I think Tim Duncan is the only guy that does all these things pretty well (and that's why they call him the big fundamentals). I think the Warriors are pretty deep at this spot although I wish Murphy was a better man to man defender (Faster forwards just go right around him and guards will just go right through the gaps). He can however hold his position in the paint, he occupies a lot of space on the floor, boxes people out, rebounds and can block a shot every so often. I think the best thing I like about Murphy is the fact he's not afraid to take the ball to the hole. His midrange game has always been excellent, he's developing some ballhandling skills, he's got some post game, and he's got size and footwork. I think he could thrive under Montgomery and put up some big numbers similar to the 2002-2003 season. Crob, he's a team leader and the league's best post defender according to Kevin Garnett who thinks highly of his defensive game. I hope we can keep Crob as one of the mentors the rooks will look up to. He's a guy that doesn't complain, won't be afraid to shoot the last shot and take the blame, and he's got a great attitude regarding his place on the team. However, I can't stand the fact he's a streaky shooter that lives and dies by the 3 and he doesn't rebound as well as he defends. Oh well, you gotta love that low post defense though, even though defensive rebounding and shotblocking aren't part of his game apparently. His contract amount is also pretty attractive for a trade, although I'd hate to do this, the future is more important. I also hope Biedrens can play some power forward or center this year because I want to see what this kid is all about. But I think he will be started out slowly a la Darko Millicic but will find more minutes as he earns them. I think that's fair.
I think Pietrus should start at SF. There is no reason why Dunleavy should start over Pietrus. I think Pietrus is much more valuable to this team than Dunleavy. I believe Pietrus makes this team so much better with his defense and energy and his improving offense(we all saw this last year when he got more playing time) that he should get a strong chance to start, and I believe he should start at SF, unless if Dunleavy really surprises. The only reasons why Dunleavy should start would be that he was a third overall pick and Pietrus was eleventh, or that Mike Montgomery strongly believes that Dunleavy's decent passing abilities are extremely vital for this team. The first reason is stupid if you want a winning team, and the second reason I don't believe is true from my eyes from watching this team last year. Maybe it would be different from Mike's eyes but I don't see it. Thus the Warriors could use another tall SG, that could play the 2 and possibly the 3 if needed. And I believe that the PG position is good right now, except I agree with you Custodian, that health-wise it isn't too optimistic. So adding another PG for emergency purposes wouldn't hurt, also Dunleavy moving to the PG position at times helps as well. I think the lineup is pretty good, with some good players. But I see some really big holes right now. I don't see the Warriors surviving with the big men they have. The Warriors will get crushed defensivly down low and on the glass. Two things that they were somewhat strong at last year. And I think having a new coach is going to be questionable. I am a Musselman supporter, and I just thought he was a great fit for this team. And I really think he should had stayed. And now I can see another lousy start once again, with a new coach, and the Warriors could be out of the race early, especially with how tough the West can be. So in a nutshell: Pietrus should start, the Warriors will be missing a big pressence down low(if we don't make changes), and the coaching transition could kill the Warriors' playoff chances this year. And just on the topic of the roster. I still don't see why everyone was saying that Mullin was going to save this team. He hasn't done much of anything to say that. He's made his moves, but it's still difficult to say that he is the one that will make this a playoff team. First it was letting go a successful coach in Musselman and now the big contract to Foyle. His draft moves might had been slick, but everything else is still very questionable. This free agent period is going to be the test to see what Mullin is made of. And it just seems like the Warriors can never keep a core together. Last year they let go of Jamison and Arenas, this year Musselman, and now what looks like Dampier. And I know the Arenas situation was one that was hard for the Warriors since they didn't have the cap flexibility to resign him, but the fact is that they haven't been able to keep a core together. And the Jamison trade was to get more cap room, yet we are going to use our cap flexibility to resign Foyle to a huge contract, but what about Dampier? He's supposed to be going? The one that is all-star or at least starting center material we will let go? The things don't seem to be changing that much with Mullin in charge. There has to be something up Mullin's sleeve. Because as it may seem, I'm becoming very skeptical. The Warriors were so close last year. And now two of the huge pieces from last year's team is gone in Musselman and I guess Dampier from what I hear.
You know Clif, it never donned upon me that we have a new coach. That'll probably kill off any chances of making the playoffs this year if the new players can't get adjusted to Montgomery and his organized system. Just look at the big problem that Steve Francis/Cuttino Mobley had adjusting to Jeff Van Gundy's 2003-2004 Rockets. Both "the cat" and "the franchise" were used to running before Yao, but when he came along their style of play had to change under the new coach. I am confident, however, that inside scoring will come as easy with an organized system that will get the ball to the isolated man just as easy as Jamison posted up smaller forwards in the paint. Also, many fans swore that the team got better despite scoring less points because of better defense and ball movement and I think with Montgomery there will be better suited for playing in any tempo of game. I think if the coach/player chemistry is there by midseason, and the players are playing well consistently, then there is a good chance that a rookie coach could make the playoffs. Nobody thought Stan Van Gundy (ignore his assistant coaching expierience) would make the playoffs with the way the Miami heat were starting off, so even if the warriors start off slow, I think they have the type of leadership that could climb back into it. You saw it near the end of the season with guys like Crob, Cheaney, Jrich, Speedy, others, etc. They didn't give up and if it weren't for injuries, they would have made the playoffs. It's all about leadership, attitude, and having a good coach and I think this year we still have the leadership influence and we have that good coach now in Montgomery. And Clif, I am as concerned about inside scoring like you are so that's why we need emphasis on dribble penetration, quick plays and to grab some fastbreaks here and there if it can be executed safely (God knows I hated watching the Warriors in the 2002-2003 season when they failed a shot and got beat in transition going the other way). Also I agree that Dunleavy is a bit too slow/streaky to compete at the NBA level to make a difference in the league. I think Pietrus does more to frustrate an offense despite being a bit raw and the guy can keep up. But, we will see if Dunleavy jr. is even deserved to be compared to Stojakavic or Larry Bird (haha) like he was initially projected to be. I guess after all this analysis, I'm a bit confused myself where this team is going. If we had an inside presence and a healthy point guard lineup we wouldn't be as concerned. Damp was the closest inside presence we've had last year since canning Jamison. It's like if we don't have an inside presence or/and a pure point guard, it's almost second nature to run the ball before the defense gets set. Sort of like the Championship Pistons, except everyone of them played defense under Larry Brown and they won because they were organized. The offense was "run the ball if you can and if you can't give the ball to Chauncey and let him shoot". Hell it worked. They did nicely neverthless against a team loaded with superstars like the Lakers. So maybe Mullin is trying to put together that type of Pistons team (and I'm sure many Gm's are trying to copy that mold as immitation is the greatest form of flattery). And if Mullin ever does put together the right pieces for a Pistons like team, I think Montgomery would be the type of coach to succeed in the NBA given his smarts and ability to make nobodies into contenders. We'll just have to hope that we get a "Rasheed Wallace" midseason to push us over the hump and really emphasize good playmaking and team defense. But I guess first things first. Let's make the playoffs and build from there. Play defense, make plays happen, good work ethic, and play defense.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Clif25:</div><div class="quote_post">I think Pietrus should start at SF. There is no reason why Dunleavy should start over Pietrus. I think Pietrus is much more valuable to this team than Dunleavy. I believe Pietrus makes this team so much better with his defense and energy and his improving offense(we all saw this last year when he got more playing time) that he should get a strong chance to start, and I believe he should start at SF, unless if Dunleavy really surprises. The only reasons why Dunleavy should start would be that he was a third overall pick and Pietrus was eleventh, or that Mike Montgomery strongly believes that Dunleavy's decent passing abilities are extremely vital for this team. The first reason is stupid if you want a winning team, and the second reason I don't believe is true from my eyes from watching this team last year. Maybe it would be different from Mike's eyes but I don't see it. </div> As of right now I think I would rather start Dunleavy. From what Ive seen I think Dunleavy will play better if he starts then coming off the bench. He seems like a player who needs to start the game in order to get in the flow of the game. On the other hand when you bring in Peitrus he's immediatley gonna get involved in the game and play with high energy(ie: Bobby Jackson) I feel he would play a better role of coming off the bench. In the long run I think Peitrus is definetly gonna be a more worthy starter but he still has some growing/learning to do.
^ I agree with the points UltimateWarrior has made. I just would like to add a technical point to why Pietrus shouldn't start, which is that Pietrus is a natural 2, even though he's athletic enough to guard bigger and taller 3s. Off the bench, he'll have an easier time adjusting, but to start the game against a bigger guy, there could be more potential matchup difficulties. He certainly doesn't yet have the decision-making skills that Dunleavy already has, but this will come with time. Roles also play an important part in basketball. Players play more confidently knowing their roles. Dunleavy has been a consistent starter, and it wouldn't be a beneficial shakeup to put a rookie who's unproven (even with his second half). I suppose that it boils down to if you're a Dunleavy believer. Myself, ever the optimist, believes that he deserves his own chance to excel and improve upon last season just as much or moreso than Pietrus, because he's been carrying such a chip on his shoulder. Pietrus proved last season he was a worthy pick and can get his chance to show that he can replace or run aside J-Rich for the future, but he has time. As for the coaching change, I doubt it'll make much difference. Montegomery is a great teacher who will not have trouble communicating to his team, and who's used to the constantly changing rosters of the college game, just like Musselman was used to his constantly changing CBA rosters. Our team chemistry is pretty good as these young guys have been playing with each other for a few years now. For FA losses, our major ones are Cardinal, A.Johnson, and possibly Dampier, which overall is a low turnover.
Custodian, I wasn't talking about the low post offensive threat, I am more worried about what our team has defensivly in the low post. Foyle is good but undersized and Cliff is very good but old, and plus he's not going to be a starter. And so our defense in the post is relying on those two players along with a 18 year old in Andris. That area needs a lot of help, especially if you plan to start Dunleavy, which would give the Warriors a big hole defensivly on the perimeter, which makes the low post defense that much more important, and in this case look absent or nonexistant. And losing Dampier is a big turnover, especially if you can't replace him with a solid big man. I don't believe Foyle is that player to fill in for Dampier. "Dunleavy has been a consistent starter, and it wouldn't be a beneficial shakeup to put a rookie who's unproven (even with his second half)." Dunleavy hasn't been a consistant starter at all. The only reason he has started was because they wanted to get rid of Jamison, and the only backup to Dunleavy was Brian Cardinal and Calbert Cheany, two players playing out of position at the SF. Also Pietrus isn't going to be a rookie. And Pietrus has a lot of pro basketball experience along with his year in the NBA last season. And I don't think you can discount his performances last year. He was simply amazing last year against the Rockets, Chicago, Indiana, and basically all of the last couple of months last season. And I remember Dunleavy doing fine coming off the bench at the end of his rookie season. And the reason why he wouldn't be a good player off the bench is because he isn't in the game mentally 100% of the time. And that is why he should be on the bench, in my opinion. The only logical reasons for Pietrus not starting over Dunleavy would be that Pietrus would get too much foul trouble or you don't believe he could survive at the SF position, which I doubt is true about not being able to play SF. For all the people looking to get rid of JRich to give Pietrus more time, it's a wonder why people wouldn't start Pietrus over Dunleavy. And I won't say Mike Montgomery is going to be a bad coach or unsuccessful. But getting rid of Musselman is just ludacris. And Mike Montgomery might be a good "teacher." But is that what the Warriors need? Do the Warriors need a teacher or a leader who is going to get his teams to play hard and be prepared each game like Musselman did for them. Also Musselman had a ton more pro/NBA basketball experience than Mike Montgomery has right now compared to when Musselman entered the league as a head coach. Musselman had been around the pro game since he was very little with his dad being an NBA head coach, and he coached in several other pro leagues and was an assistant for several years in the NBA as well. Basically the Warriors are putting their money on a coach to teach what the coach knows nothing about, the NBA game. All of these players have already learned all they needed to know that Mike Montgomery knows in college. Dunleavy has learned it from Coach K, JRich with Izzo, Murphy at Notre Dame, etc. What exactly will Mike teach these players? The NBA game is about making adjustments nonstop. Every team out there is going to know exactly what you are going to do, and there will be times where the league will catch up with you. Is Mike Montgomery that flexible and crafty enough to keep his offenses and defenses from being stale? for the lack of a better term. Or will he be like an old dog and not be able to learn new tricks?
I think there's a fundamental mistake some people are making when trying to analyze who should start at sf, and that's that they aren't taking the coaching change into account. It's clear that Musselman didn't like Dunleavy's style of play. Whereas Montgomery heavily recruited him coming out of high school and is on record as being a big fan. Montgomery never had athletes like Pietrus and Richardson at Stanford, so playing Dunleavy big minutes is going to be part of his comfort zone. He knows how to use guys like Dunleavy, just look at what he did with Jacobsen and Childress. He had very good defensive teams at Stanford and he was able to do it even though his teams were among the least athletic in the Pac-10. I'm sure Montgomery is going to start Dunleavy, and he's going to give him the confidence to excel. I think we're going to have to throw out Dunleavy's first years and judge him from here on out because a player is never going to be as productive as he should be when his coach doesn't know to use him the right way or is simply unwilling to do so.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting wtwalker77:</div><div class="quote_post">II think we're going to have to throw out Dunleavy's first years and judge him from here on out because a player is never going to be as productive as he should be when his coach doesn't know to use him the right way or is simply unwilling to do so.</div>With that said, I still believe Dunleavy had a productive sophmore season. He didn't get any minutes his rookie season and this past season he actually got some PT. I have no doubt that he will continue to mature and develope into a great basketball player that will be in the game in clutch situations.
^Oh, I certainly believe he had a more productive sophmore year than rookie year, but I definately don't think he was as productive as he could have been. Now, I place about half the blame on Musselman and about 1/2 on Dunleavy. The main problem is that Dunleavy isn't aggressive enough, part of it is Dunleavy's personality, but it didn't help that Musselman always had him on a short leash. The two guys I'm really looking forward to seeing play big minutes next year are Dunleavy and Murphy. I fully expect both to average more than 15 ppg and get over 30 minutes per game. Foyle isn't the rebounder that Damp is, so I expect Murphy's rpg numbers to be about what they were two years ago as well. As for Dunleavy, I can see him getting 16/6/4 next year if he gets 30-35 minutes a game. I base all this on Murphy being healthy, Damp being gone, and Montgomery using Dunleavy the way Mullin wanted Musselman to use him.
Oh ok, I see what you mean. I was just implying that with the minutes and attention that Dunleavy got from Muss, he had a pretty productive season. I also am looking foward to Murphy and Dunleavy having breakout years. What do you think their added minutes + production will do to J-Rich's game? He won't be counted on as much to carry the offensive load assuming the Warriors are able to stay healthy. Hopefully it will take some pressure off him offensively so he can focus on his defense.
I personally think that Musselman was the best type of coach for Dunleavy. Musselman was a coach that would push Dunleavy. I don't see Dunleavy being that player that is always willing to push himself to the extreme to compete to the highest level, and I think Musselman was a coach that would push him to try to compete harder. I guess Dunleavy just couldn't go as smoothly with what Musselman was trying to do in making him the best player he could be like he had with the likes of JRich and Dampier, and even Arenas. But I guess we'll see what kind of player Dunleavy will be with Mike Montgomery in charge. And I don't know what to think of Murphy's numbers. I could see it somewhat go up in boards with Dampier gone and having more rebounds to get. But on the other hand there won't be Dampier clearing out the lane and boxing out for Murphy to run wild and grab down all of those rebounds. Same thing with Dunleavy and the other perimeter players. And I believe Murphy is the tallest player on the Warriors, so he will probably be matched up toughly to get some of those rebounds now. I'm hoping that Murphy's production improves. Either way I think Murphy will have a good season, along with Jason Richardson. Murphy could average about 15/9 and JRich something like 20/5/3.
^ Musselman's personality to drive his players may have been good, but his extreme tendency to play veteran players in the 4th quarter and to yank rookies when they've made a mistake while letting veterans get away with a few miscues irked me a bit. His half-court preference worked well for the team we had, but he failed to make enough adjustments in close games. I won't discount Pietrus starting if he starts to fire up in the Summer League / Preseason / early in the season. IBut right now, the lineup wouldn't benefit from running both Pietrus and JRich at the same time. I never mentioned that I thought someone was a better player than another, that's not the way I prefer to analyze a team. Rather, basketball is a game of matchups. The better player shouldn't always be the starter. If you put Pietrus in, you lose the better mid-range and long range shooter, a better cutter, and a better decision-maker. You put him up against most teams who have 2 or more inches on him. You ask him to be a rebounder and to be the last offensive option among all the vets, even behind Foyle. As was the point I was trying to make, Pietrus will have problems with the other starting 3, not just foul trouble but problems on offense facing a bigger guy. I'd rather leave Dunleavy in, who works pretty fluidly without plays, moves the ball in a half-court and transition, who makes a better matchup off the start of the game, and who fills a role on the team get open and to knock down open jumpers. I don't trust Pietrus with that role, yet, even if he is the better player. As far as current projections, plotted along an approximate age curve including growth and decline over last season with a 8-man rotation and a relatively healthy season, I see Foyle at 8 points, 8 rebounds, 1 assist per game over 28 minutes; Murphy 12/11/1.5/30; Dunleavy 14/6/4/33; Richardson 20/6/3/38; Claxton 13/3/6/31; Robinson 9/4/2.5/26; Van Exel 9/1.5/4/26; Pietrus 8/3/1/20; Biedrins 3/3/.5/8. (Totals: 95 points, 45 rebounds, 22 assists). Minutes and production will vary depending on if we obtain other players, or if the vets start instead.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Clif25:</div><div class="quote_post">Custodian, I wasn't talking about the low post offensive threat, I am more worried about what our team has defensivly in the low post. Foyle is good but undersized and Cliff is very good but old, and plus he's not going to be a starter. And so our defense in the post is relying on those two players along with a 18 year old in Andris. That area needs a lot of help. </div>Well, what about Murphy? He's a decent post defender (considering most other big men don't have any post up skills on offense anyway it makes Murphy decent defending in the low post with his footwork, strength, and size) I believe that Foyle can hold his own. The guy is 260 pounds and extra long. You see what makes Cliff so great is that he's got good footwork for his size, he's willing to work hard to make the other guy work harder and he knows how to be crafty in poking the ball away. I think Foyle could be decent enough as he's pretty swift moving laterally, he's got the bulk, and he's long. He won't be like Dampier who has excellent body strength and bulk to avoid getting pushed around in the paint, but I think Foyle could be decent in the low post defense plus you know he'll always try hard. I don't remember Foyle being that bad in the low post to tell you the truth. He's got a lot of tools that can thwart someone trying to back him down. Extra length to poke the ball away, he's got good bulk, and he's pretty quick for a big man. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting Clif25:</div><div class="quote_post"> And I won't say Mike Montgomery is going to be a bad coach or unsuccessful. But getting rid of Musselman is just ludacris. And Mike Montgomery might be a good "teacher." But is that what the Warriors need? Do the Warriors need a teacher or a leader who is going to get his teams to play hard and be prepared each game like Musselman did for them. Also Musselman had a ton more pro/NBA basketball experience than Mike Montgomery has right now compared to when Musselman entered the league as a head coach. Musselman had been around the pro game since he was very little with his dad being an NBA head coach, and he coached in several other pro leagues and was an assistant for several years in the NBA as well. Basically the Warriors are putting their money on a coach to teach what the coach knows nothing about, the NBA game. All of these players have already learned all they needed to know that Mike Montgomery knows in college. Dunleavy has learned it from Coach K, JRich with Izzo, Murphy at Notre Dame, etc. What exactly will Mike teach these players? </div>Although Montgomery is a real big risk factor, I think the other assistant coaches that do have NBA experience will help him a lot. He's got like 3 now, including one with head coaching experience (Terry Stotts who inherited a really bad team in the Hawks, but is a decent coach if you look at his win record near the end of the season). Clif, I think the bottom line was the Warriors needed an organized system, something that Musselman never had. I mean, open offense is not organized. It's chaotic, it's overly predictable, and it really caused a lot shotclock violations this year and the point guards weren't sure what to do a lot of times given his crazy adjustments in the second half. Because of this reason, I think Montgomery was brought in in because he's the guy that knows how basketball should be played as a team. I don't think he needs to teach our players anything more about college (they're way passed that), but winning close games, developing organized teamwork and running playsets don't really change from college to the pros. If you looked at who was on the team this year, the warriors didn't need Musselman to get them to play hard. We had strong leadership in the lockeroom and on the court. Plus, Montgomery isn't a bad leader himself if you look at his team and the team record and the guys that come out that program. Montgomery was pretty special for making the Stanford program a force to be reckoned with year after year. It's not because they have superstars, its because their teamwork and basketball smarts are that good. And since we don't have Kobe Bryant and we don't have guys like Shaq we need to have a system in place like Larry Brown and other successful college coaches that emphasize team defense (see above what walker wrote), organized playmaking, and effectiveness coming out of a timeout (Musselman just wasted timeouts with his lack of plays). A guy like Montgomery will also make good or average players better much like Larry Brown in my opinion. There's no doubt in my mind once he adjusts to the NBA game he will be one of the better coaches in the league. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting Clif25:</div><div class="quote_post">The NBA game is about making adjustments nonstop. Every team out there is going to know exactly what you are going to do, and there will be times where the league will catch up with you. Is Mike Montgomery that flexible and crafty enough to keep his offenses and defenses from being stale? for the lack of a better term. Or will he be like an old dog and not be able to learn new tricks?</div>How good were Musselman's adjustments again? As I recall his effectiveness coming out of a timeout was just awful. His erratic substitutions were appalling. His small ball tactics are tired. What about Musselman letting Dunleavy rot on the bench when he was the team's most consistent shooter in the game? And what about letting Pietrus rot on the bench when we're supposed to be utilizing his skills? His choices in assistants are subpar, just look at right hand man Tom Sterner as a defensive coach. At least Montgomery's selection choices become head coaches at other top schools. Also the way Musselman coached 2nd halves and close 4th quarter games were worthy of high school coaches. Absolutely bonehead and it's because he's not an x's and o's guy. You have to understand all the plays beause it will not only help the team offensively, but defensively as well and the overall understanding of the game situation. And because of the lack of proper coaching, it wasn't until later that some of the veteran players expressed their dislike for Musselman's coaching tactics publicly. Van Exel was probably the most frustrated (although he probably might have done it beause he was frustrated at himself and his injuries) and expressed pretty much how some or most of the veterans felt about their coach (I think the team still doesn't miss him at all now). Avery Johnson, don't forget was one of the guys that really helped the warriors along as a leader, coach and sometimes as a player. Cliff was a leader. NVE is actually quite a leader himself. We had a team of leaders. They did this together as a team. Anyway, back to responding to your question of "Is Montgomery flexible enough to adjust offense/defense": Hopefully he will do so more than Musselman did. I mean Montgomery isn't an idiot that just watches the game. He acts. And he has the help of several assistant coaches with NBA experience. He let's players play, but really organizes them to play their best within their game. He's not domineering, but he will stress teamwork. He has a system that the players understand and operate in. And Montgomery, I assure you, will be better at coaching close games better than Musselman because of all this.
How can you say Musselman was bad at coaching close games? The Warriors were terrible in close games the year before Musselman came. The next year they were much improved late in games. I remember Musselman stressing late game situations with his drills in practice, such as the 5 or 2 minute drills which was supposed to simulate those situations. Then last season you had a whole new core of players, players leaving and coming daily, and there was no consistancy room for Musselman to have a lot of faith in his players because there was such a lack of time for them to prepare for games since at least one or two people were always injured. So of course they weren't perfect in some periods of the game. Which granted a timeout, because you can't let your team just make bone-head play after bone-head play. And I remember the Warriors rarely making the same mistakes consistantly throughout the season. There might be a two game stretch, but once the third game came, they were usually better and improved on it. "A guy like Montgomery will also make good or average players better much like Larry Brown in my opinion." Wasn't that what Musselman did? Dampier? Boykins? Cardinal? Cliff? Speedy? I don't really want to make any more judgements on Montgomery though. I think he is a good coach and he can fit in well here. I'm happy for him to have this opportunity. But letting go Musselman is something that I think will probably hurt this team. And I'm saying I have my doubts about Mullin and his moves, most of them being uneccessary in my mind, and right now I see them being stupid. Letting Musselman go and Foyle's contract signing is making me scratch my head. But who knows I thought the Pistons letting Carisle go was dumb, but they proved me wrong. Yet I don't think anybody can say that Montgomery, being a good coach, is at the level that Larry Brown was at. This will be an interesting season.
It will be interesting. And I guess that's fair to say Musselman had it rough with injured players, but still his substitutions were crazy at times. Here you had Damp with only 3 fouls and he yanked him out to have Cliff Robinson and Cardinal play the center and power forward spots. The guy was nuts. Also I think Boykins, Dampier, Cardinal, Cliff, and Speedy were always good, and they had to step things up a lot more with some of the missing players like Troy Murphy, NVE. What I liked about Musselman is that he likes the same players that I do which are the high energy players that hustle or are just really quick. But even I know its dumb to put in Brian Cardinal for a defensive stop at power forward late in the game. He just gets outmatched even though its his true position. Ultimately a good coach will use a mix of size and speed and I think at times where's he's failed to put in Dunleavy, Pietrus or Dampier in the game it's just been disastrous. I just don't agree with his matchups and like its been said over and over: Basketball is a coach's game and a game of mismatches. Musselman just doesn't make the right substitutions at times (see Toronto game/see Bucks game)
Was Muss' sub pattern questionable? Maybe. But, the bottom line is that with Muss, we always won many games from given talent and had very small number of blown out games. Also, he was very good at understanding strength/weakness of the team and created team philosophy, instead of forcing his own philosophy. Last year, he tried to outscore with Jamison, Arenas and others, and this season, he mixed up offense/defense, since we no longer had Jamison and Arenas. There is no question that guys like Speedy, Boykins, Cardinals or Dampier had talents. However, it was Muss who actually recognized and utilized their talents, unlike previous coaches. He should get a credit for that. Well, I guess it's useless at this point. Like Mullin, I have no opinion on Montgomery at this point. This season is for Dunleavy to make or break. If he cannot show significant improvement on his game, pull the plug or at least stop spoonfeed him. I wonder what NVE will do this season. In one hand, we expect him to play like Mookie. In other hand, unlike Mookie, he can still get one last contract from some team, and that should motivate him to play like two years ago.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Kwan1031:</div><div class="quote_post"> This season is for Dunleavy to make or break. If he cannot show significant improvement on his game, pull the plug or at least stop spoonfeed him.</div>Exactly. I am expecting a big year out of him. I assume he will get a lot of PT and get a chance to prove himself. If he can't live up to the hype, time to move on. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> I wonder what NVE will do this season. In one hand, we expect him to play like Mookie. In other hand, unlike Mookie, he can still get one last contract from some team, and that should motivate him to play like two years ago.</div>I am still a believer in NVE. If he can stay healthy, big IF, than he can really be a contributer to this club. There is no doubt that he still has the passion to win, he also has a big passion for money which will be a plus for us next year.
Kwan, I guess I'm wishy washy when it comes to Musselman. I mean Musselman wasn't that bad It's just my critique of him in hindsight with the games that were blown and they should have been wins. And you know with the W's, they need every win they can to slip into an 8th seed. I mean we almost made it... again... But almost just isn't good enough especially when you're leading the entire first halves and then suddenly get blown out. Umm... Is it because he's too predictable on offense and he's not running the plays? He was never known as an x's and o's guy and you need those guys if you want to run a play you know the other team doesn't respond well too. BTW I believe NVE still has a place. We need a guy who isn't afraid of handling the ball late in the game and has good vision of the court. Claxton isn't quite there yet in terms of having the court vision that blows me away but he's gotten better. I mean Claxton is starting to look really good everytime I watch his highlights. But his size and the way he keeps his head down as he drives kind of hurts his playmaking a bit. I mean its decent, but NVE just wows you when he's on. It's like how did he do that pass? NVE's attitude is just misunderstood because he wants to win so badly.
I didn't think we had enough talent to make PO in West last year. And, if we had one of Jamison, Arenas, or even Boykins, we would not blow the lead as much as we did last year. And, if blame Muss for blowing the lead, you also have to give a credit for building that lead at the beginning. I also don't believe Muss is a great OX guy. However, last season was his second and he is workholic, who will improve his coaching over years. Bottom line is that he again overachived with given talent and it's really shame that Muss and Mullin couldn't get along...
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Kwan1031:</div><div class="quote_post">I didn't think we had enough talent to make PO in West last year. And, if we had one of Jamison, Arenas, or even Boykins, we would not blow the lead as much as we did last year. And, if blame Muss for blowing the lead, you also have to give a credit for building that lead at the beginning. I also don't believe Muss is a great OX guy. However, last season was his second and he is workholic, who will improve his coaching over years. Bottom line is that he again overachived with given talent and it's really shame that Muss and Mullin couldn't get along...</div>I think the talent was good, but not great. And with Jamison and Arenas you get a lot of points but also give up a lot of points due to their lack of defense and teamwork. Boykins would have just been posted up again and again. I dunno. As to making the playoffs... It's probably more or less the injuries than it was the coach, but there were times when a game was ours and he had these bologne substitutions and matchups. I mean Crob on Shaq? Dampier out for Cliff Robinson on that Toronto loss in overtime where the team only scored 2 pts in the 4th after leading by 28? 2 pts??? The guy couldn't make the right substutions to outscore my 80 year old grandma. I mean we had a pretty much even record going into January. Then came the losing streak as we got into february and mid march with injury problems and a tough schedule. Losses in overtime and just really bad performances on the road (especially back to back nights). Then Musselman's matchups and substitutions just got way too erratic. I know we could have used a consistent scorer especially on those back to back games, but still you got Pietrus who can give some quality minutes where Cheaney was just blowing it on offense and defense, then you got Foyle who says he's ready to play and yet he subs in Crob to play center, you got calls to make NVE the starter and he's not even in the right condition to be a starter with those bum knees and an open offense of cutting and passing. Is that good coaching and decision making? I mean he even tried to shift the blame away from himself on that Toronto Game and he was all ready to have his players go in the film room and watch where they messed up. Jeez. Here's what happened when the drama was at its highpoint: the veterans like Avery Johnson/Cliff Robinson/Popeye/Cheaney had to make a stand and calm things in the lockeroom because it was getting to the entire team and the coach. It was veteran leadership all the way because last year we would have self destructed. I bet if you were to ask the warriors team themselves what they thought of Musselman they know they could do better under a coach that has a system and it was the role models that Mullin brought in that got the team to play hard. You have leaders that play hard for pride and the rest of the players will play hard. If you compare the end of the season and the attitude of this year's to that of lasts, this year's finish was stronger even though both seasons the team knew they weren't making the playoffs. I think it was totally the veteran roster and its leadership that had more to do with the stuff Musselman got credited for which was leadership and getting the team to play hard. I'm not going to disagree with you on the talent not making the playoffs. But better coaching, player leadership, pride, work ethic and team chemistry could have. The had all of it except for coaching.
