Golden State Warriors: Overrated or No?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Are the Warriors overrated?

  • Yes

    Votes: 25 52.1%

  • No

    Votes: 23 47.9%
  • Total voters
    48
Fonzthecpt1 said:
Cleveland Cavaliers - Overrated or no?
Click to expand...
I say yes, if for no other reason than the fact people might claim they are the 2nd best team in the league right now. If the Cavs get swept or even lose in 5 games then some of those claiming the West fell off need to re-analyze their claims. Cleveland ran through the first 2 rounds, and didn't have that much trouble with Toronto in the ECF. Warriors faced progressively difficult competition as they advanced through the West.

I'm a bit of a homer but I would claim there wasn't much difference between our series vs the Warriors and the Thunders series vs the Warriors. We very well could have been up 3-1 if we had not given away leads in games. The Thunder didn't get ahead on the Warriors like we did, but they were able to go blow for blow with them better than us.

Would have liked to see Cavs - Thunder in the Finals. I think we would have gotten a better read on where the two conferences stand compared to one another.
 
Fonzthecpt1 said:
Cleveland Cavaliers - Overrated or no?
Click to expand...
Definitely. Watching this series I can't help but think that we were more competitive against GSW. I think the following teams would definitely beat the Cavs:
GSW
SAS
OKC
LAC

And I'd give even odds to both POR and a healthy MEM. Basically, the only teams in the West that CLE would definitely beat in a 7-game series would be DAL and HOU.
 
I have to grit my teeth and say no.

The Blazers challenged, far more than anyone expected, but when they absolutely had to the Warriors outplayed Portland.
OKC "should" have won the series, with a 3-1 lead and Game 6 at home and a double digit lead, but they dropped the ball and GSW picked it up.
Cleveland has looked like Houston, totally outclassed.

I'm not happy about it but barring world class choke the Warriors will win the series, probably in 5. Ugh. Life among the bandwagon jumping homers.
 
Dominate! Yes of course. 73 wins, first time ever. Coming back from a 3-1 deficit is rarely done, but they did it. I picked the Warriors in 5 to win the Championship series, If I had to change it,
I would pick 4 not 6.

Watched every dominate team since the 50's, Warriors are as good as any and probably better line up, 1 -9 than any before. Perhaps they also have an all time great coach too.
 
Is there a difference between dominant and one of the best ever? What I mean is that the biggest flaw the Warriors have is that they can be a bit too carefree and careless and that can lead to some losses that, according to talent, shouldn't happen. As good as the Bazers games were, I never felt that the Warriors came out all that strong against them and they really didn't need to becuase they had the ability to come back and win. In the OKC series, you all point to losing the 2 in OKC as a sign that they aren't dominant and I agree that they shit the bed those 2 games but shouldn't it count for something that they were able to come back from 3-1 and win? That's what dominant teams do; they respond to adversity. Please don't start with the OKC choked stuff, aside from the last 5 min of game 6 they played well but the Warriors just out played them. And this doesn't look like a fluky season as it is coming off a #1 seed and championship.

I know that Jordan is Jordan and all that but it seems crazy to me that people take it as a given that the 96 bulls would sweep or even win in 5. And some of the other teams I've seen mentioned here like the Isiah and the Larry Brown Pistons, Kemp's Sonics, Nash's Suns...come on, those teams weren't even close to what we are seeing here.
 
Yes there's a difference. Dominant implies they beat you all 48 minutes. Not the last 12. The last 12 indicates depth that overcomes the better team getting tired.

4-0, maybe 4-1, is dominant. No excuses need to be made if the team really is dominant.

One of the best ever means you sort the teams by record. The Warriors were the best ever in that regard.

The dynasty Bulls won 3 championships, missed 2 with prime Jordan playing baseball, the three more. I say they win the season before if Pippen plays game 7, and the two years Jordan missed. That would have been 9 in a row. But no excuses. In those 6 seasons, they won 72, 69, 67, 62, and 61. They won 55 without Jordan.

As good as the Bulls were, they lost to the Pistons 3 straight times. Those Piston teams were damned good.

Assuming the Warriors win this finals, we can talk about greatest ever after they win 60+ 5 times and 3 or 4 more championships.
 
During today's NBA no the Worriers are not overated. Compared to the 80s & 90s NBA champions yes they are overrated. As I've said, the NBA has gotten weak.
 
I don't understand how the nba is "weak" because they don't allow shitty basketball players to act like they're on a football field. If you're not talented enough, or athletic enough to stay in front of someone, you shouldn't be able to hang on them, or take them out in mid air. That's not basketball. That's shitty players getting beat, and saying fuck it, I'll just try to fuck them up.

If you go play basketball at any park, the slowest, shittiest players are going to give their best 90's basketball defensive impression, and hang all over you.

If the Warriors could play defense the same way they did in the 90's wouldn't that just make them even better? And they would still be draining 3's from hella far out.

Clearly this is a generational thing. I respect a player than can stay in front of his man. I don't respect hanging on someone. I also respect a good cross over, and if someone crosses me up, I'm not going to just say fuck it and grab them.
 
Rastapopoulos said:
The Warriors are NOT overrated.

Steph Curry's importance TO the Warriors IS overrated.
Click to expand...
Their stars are great but probably fall short of the greatest of the greats. On the other hand their supporting cast/bench is hands down the best I've ever seen. Add Livingston or Iguadala to Portland's roster & they win 50+ with ease. Ezeli is their 2nd or 3rd string Center, but he's better then any Big on Portland. Their team D is outstanding. They defend the 3 point line as well as anyone, have length throughout the roster that allows them to switch on screens seamlessly, have several shut down individual defenders & Bogut/Draymond do a fantastic job of defending the rim.

I do hate their TV announcers though...worst in the league. On the other hand the obnoxious bandwagon fans that some are complaining about remind me of every other obnoxious bandwagon fans... as a Duck I've seen this from the inside.

STOMP
 
Do not know if they are overrated or not, I enjoy watching them play basketball. That's good enough for me.
 
Nate said:
Clearly this is a generational thing.
Click to expand...
If that's what you're going to resort to then I'm going to assume you're young and weren't alive to witness 80s/90s basketball, and therefore don't know what you're talking about. It has nothing to do with the rules, and everything to do with the talent disparity. You make it sound like Bird/Magic/Jordan/etc/etc/etc wouldn't have been able to figure out how to play under today's rules and that's just asinine - they would have been even more dominant today than they were when they actually played.

There is simply no denying that the league's top-tier talent was exceedingly more talented and deep than today's top-tier talent. If you try to deny that you're just flat out wrong. It's only today's role players that are better than the role players of the 80s/90s. The floor has come up, but the ceiling has come crashing down.
 
As good as LeBron is, I think he's about as good a player as Karl Malone. They're similar in build, scoring, shooting, etc. They differ in ballhandling, assists, and rebounding.

That's not a knock on LeBron. Malone was simply that good.
 
STOMP said:
Their team D is outstanding. They defend the 3 point line as well as anyone, have length throughout the roster that allows them to switch on screens seamlessly, have several shut down individual defenders & Bogut/Draymond do a fantastic job of defending the rim.
Click to expand...
I'm not denying their defense, but I also don't know that I'm wholly buying into it.

Exhibit A: We hung 120 points on them in three straight games.
Exhibit B: OKC went up 3-1, including 133 and 118 point performances. (And then the refs really swung momentum in G5 for GSW.)
Exhibit C: CLE is playing the game at half-speed - that has nothing to do with GSW's defense.
 
Denny Crane said:
As good as LeBron is, I think he's about as good a player as Karl Malone. They're similar in build, scoring, shooting, etc. They differ in ballhandling, assists, and rebounding.

That's not a knock on LeBron. Malone was simply that good.
Click to expand...
Agreed. The more I watch LBJ the further he falls short of the Jordan comparisons. He's not even Kobe or Wade-level. Karl sounds about right. Of course, that's current LBJ not peak LBJ.
 
Biggest issue with Lebron has been his jumpshot.

WTF happened to it? It looked great in MIA.
 
blue9 said:
If that's what you're going to resort to then I'm going to assume you're young and weren't alive to witness 80s/90s basketball, and therefore don't know what you're talking about. It has nothing to do with the rules, and everything to do with the talent disparity. You make it sound like Bird/Magic/Jordan/etc/etc/etc wouldn't have been able to figure out how to play under today's rules and that's just asinine - they would have been even more dominant today than they were when they actually played.

There is simply no denying that the league's top-tier talent was exceedingly more talented and deep than today's top-tier talent. If you try to deny that you're just flat out wrong. It's only today's role players that are better than the role players of the 80s/90s. The floor has come up, but the ceiling has come crashing down.
Click to expand...
I was talking about defense. So I'm not sure what you're talking about.
 
blue9 said:
If that's what you're going to resort to then I'm going to assume you're young and weren't alive to witness 80s/90s basketball, and therefore don't know what you're talking about. It has nothing to do with the rules, and everything to do with the talent disparity. You make it sound like Bird/Magic/Jordan/etc/etc/etc wouldn't have been able to figure out how to play under today's rules and that's just asinine - they would have been even more dominant today than they were when they actually played.

There is simply no denying that the league's top-tier talent was exceedingly more talented and deep than today's top-tier talent. If you try to deny that you're just flat out wrong. It's only today's role players that are better than the role players of the 80s/90s. The floor has come up, but the ceiling has come crashing down.
Click to expand...
Did you even read my post?
 
blue9 said:
Agreed. The more I watch LBJ the further he falls short of the Jordan comparisons. He's not even Kobe or Wade-level. Karl sounds about right. Of course, that's current LBJ not peak LBJ.
Click to expand...
Not even on Kobe or wades level? Now you're just talkin shit.
 
Nate said:
I was talking about defense. So I'm not sure what you're talking about.
Click to expand...
I'm talking about muthafuckin basketball. Both sides. Regardless of the changes in defense, yesteryear's stars were WAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYY better than today's. I'm not falling for your strawman argument that's only taking into account the defensive side of the game.
 
Nate said:
Not even on Kobe or wades level? Now you're just talkin shit.
Click to expand...
Current-day LBJ? Not even close to Kobe/Wade level...unless you're comparing him to current-day Kobe/Wade, in which case he's much better than at least one of them.
 
LeBron is still the best player in the league. The hate for him here is ridiculous.
 
HOw can we get Livingston from GSW?

I REALLY Like his game and think he would be a great addition as a BU SF
 
Isn't it interesting that it seems only in basketball do people want to compare generations. Sure the whole "Greatest QB to ever play" debate comes up, but not with near the reluctance to give up legends of past. Also interesting that expansion seems to only hurt basketball from a telent standpoint in the eyes of fans.
 
Schilly said:
Isn't it interesting that it seems only in basketball do people want to compare generations. Sure the whole "Greatest QB to ever play" debate comes up, but not with near the reluctance to give up legends of past. Also interesting that expansion seems to only hurt basketball from a telent standpoint in the eyes of fans.
Click to expand...

I hear comparisons of Montana and Favre. Brady/Manning compared to Elway.

Ive also heard Bartolo Colon compared to Fernando Valenzuela
 
blue9 said:
I'm talking about muthafuckin basketball. Both sides. Regardless of the changes in defense, yesteryear's stars were WAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYY better than today's. I'm not falling for your strawman argument that's only taking into account the defensive side of the game.
Click to expand...
So basically I was like "I don't think the nba is weak because of the 2004 rule change" and you were like FUCK THAT JORDAN BIRD AN MAGIC WERE BETTER THAN ANYONE IN THE NBA TODAY good talk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top