You'd better keep thinking of solutions because those first two aren't happening.
Rethinking our roster in light of Finals small ball
- Thread starter Qman
- Start date
You'd better keep thinking of solutions because those first two aren't happening.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
I do. Especially if we get good ball-handling on the screen-and-roll? Both have really good recovery, and quick foot-speed too. Besides, we have quite a bit of length through starters 1-3 in Exum, Hood/Burks, and Hayward. I'm not worried. Only responsibility is to get Gobert to learn how to punish teams off switches, and pass well out of the double if it comes (like it's been coming to Mozgov, and he's been struggling)
mellow
Well-Known Member
Not soon, the trend is still on the up swing, but changes will happen.
Hotdog
Well-Known Member
Does anyone think that the Golden State Warriors would even be in the finals if they didn't have Curry? Would we even be talking about small ball if Steph Curry didn't exist?
The fact of the matter is that Steph is a unique and special player. He is what is making that thing go. Take him out, and we aren't talking about this.
If you think that we are just going to replace our bigs with smalls just to compete with that, and we might win, you are an idiot. Steph Curry's aren't growing on trees. You can't just grab a bunch of guards and expect to replicate the same results.
Taking Gobert and Favors out of our lineup just to be like the Warriors is flat out dumb.
The Suns didn't win any finals and they had Nash, who was the next best thing to Steph Curry. It's not an easy formula to replicatr. You need Steph Curry.
**** all this small ball talk.
The fact of the matter is that Steph is a unique and special player. He is what is making that thing go. Take him out, and we aren't talking about this.
If you think that we are just going to replace our bigs with smalls just to compete with that, and we might win, you are an idiot. Steph Curry's aren't growing on trees. You can't just grab a bunch of guards and expect to replicate the same results.
Taking Gobert and Favors out of our lineup just to be like the Warriors is flat out dumb.
The Suns didn't win any finals and they had Nash, who was the next best thing to Steph Curry. It's not an easy formula to replicatr. You need Steph Curry.
**** all this small ball talk.
They did that in game 4 and Moz and Thompson had big games, they still lost by 21. You cannot say that the small ball issue is not real. It is. Doesn't mean we are doomed, but it is food for thought.
Hotdog
Well-Known Member
You are completely ignoring my Steph Curry argument.
I never said Cleveland would win. I picked GS to win.
That game 4 was a lot closer than the 21 point loss would have you believe. Cleveland was in it for 3 quarters, then they quit.
Hotdog
Well-Known Member
In the shortest way of saying as possible...
The Warriors make small ball look successful because they have Steph Curry.
They also have a guy named Klay Thompson. But without Steph, Warriors aren't the same team. That lack of rebounding and physicality would catch up to Golden State in a hurry without Steph.
The Warriors make small ball look successful because they have Steph Curry.
They also have a guy named Klay Thompson. But without Steph, Warriors aren't the same team. That lack of rebounding and physicality would catch up to Golden State in a hurry without Steph.
The blueprint for winning a championship constantly changes. A few years ago, all the small-ball teams were getting their teeth kicked in once they reached the postseason. Last year's Spurs team didn't play small-ball, and they utterly dominated a team that is a lot stronger than this year's Cavaliers team.
As Hack alluded to earlier, the reason small ball is working for Golden State isn't because small ball is the ultimate blueprint for success - it's because they have the best shooter in NBA history running it.
As Hack alluded to earlier, the reason small ball is working for Golden State isn't because small ball is the ultimate blueprint for success - it's because they have the best shooter in NBA history running it.
mellow
Well-Known Member
Watch how closely the defense face guards Thompson. Just the threat of him catching and shooting is enough to change the entire defense scheme. If it is a less prolific shooter the cavs would be able to drop off him a step or two for help defense. I think Thompson could thrive with many teams, and could thrive without curry. Im not certain the reverse is true for curry.
I disagree. Curry is a fantastic better ball-handler and finisher at the rim as well. Klay Thompson is kind of weak in both of those areas.
Hotdog
Well-Known Member
I'm not even sure what point you are trying make here.
I agree about Curry, just a unique talent. We are hoping Rudy is ours.
mellow
Well-Known Member
IMO, Warriors could replace Steph, easier than replacing Thompson.
or the loss of Thompson would impact the Warriors more than the loss of Curry.
You are ****ing high.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
I would be stunned if there is a single GM in the league who agrees with you. If there is, though, I hope that DL quickly identifies him as a trading partner.
Hotdog
Well-Known Member
I know you are better than that Mellow. We all say stupid **** from time to time. I'll just let that go.
Stifle Tower
Punch Bowl Re-Filler
Would we still be saying small ball is the answer if the Cavs had Love and Irving? I can't remember a team in recent history winning with one guy carrying the whole team. Even Jordan had good support. The Cavs, because they have 3 max players, are extremely thin off the bench.
Don't forget the tide changed when refs started to hand out fouls for less contact from game 4 onwards. That changed everything in favour of more offensively focused team. That's your blue print for success. I wouldn't be surprised to see much less sensitivity in game 6.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
Yep Blatt should start double teaming Thompson instead of Curry. That would shut the warriors down. derp