Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 87
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    31,709
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    You can't ignore that defenses play them drastically different. With Curry teams will send multiple guys outside the 3 point line just to have him give up the ball at times even if it leaves 3 v 4. I mean we saw multiple laughable times where teams close out to him and ignore a guy going for a layup with the ball. This gravity matters for the team as a whole and will impact the individual stats put up. Even with that in consideration though here are their numbers compared to each other when they played and GS beat OKC despite OKC being up 3-1 at one point and should have won... Steph 28/6/6 on 113 ortg Durant 30/8/3 with more turnovers than assists for the series. Steph outplayed KD, coming back from injury and down 3-1 to even be there in the first place. KD shot 40/105 in those final 4 games himself. GS had no business being there in the first place if you wanna play this game and given how teams play Curry/KD (you will note Curry took less shots and Green's assists jumped in part due to extra doubles sent out top) it still helps Curry in overall context.

    Durant is more likely to put up scoring numbers, shoot the ball, turn it over without the playmaking/assists/same attention and so on sure. His game is designed around beating guys 1v1 and scoring. He is not a creator in the same way, teams don't have to treat him like a Curry or Lebron in that manner at all. I prefer the individual overall capable of similar numbers while having an impact on the game outside that too (taking focus of defense and still creating for others).

    It isn't a double standard if you are aware how each plays and have watched the way defenses defend against them. Curry was seen as better without KD there each leading their own teams, KD was able to perform better with attention on Curry and then just taking advantage. Instead of Iggy or Green boosting their numbers at times given the way Curry was played it is now KD. This is consistent. Iggy won FMVP and look at Greens numbers the series you mention Curry's are down... This is directly related to Curry and how teams played him. Having KD and Klay makes you better in the sense of easier/efficiency and the team but which person takes attention from the defense and which benefits by scoring off that/easier opportunities matters.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawkeye15 View Post
    for those of us that watched, there is context here. Has anyone of Durant's caliber ever had the individual freedom he had with the Warriors? Curry doesn't bend the floor like Shaq, or like some paint it, but he is absolutely the focus of the defense when on the floor over everyone else on the Warriors. Are we really penalizing him for simply playing decoy much of the time, while KD is given single coverage nightly and kills it as expected?

    Durant's career isn't over, and thank god for his legacy, because his move for sure negates some of his statistical dominance in those Warrior years.
    I'm sorry, gentlemen. All of these words ultimately boil down to "Here are a bunch of excuses for why Curry has underperformed and why Durant has played better in the playoffs." And I understand what you're saying and watched the same series you all did—I appreciate context as much as the next guy. But even if it's all true, why is it that Curry was capable of outplaying Durant in the regular season, but not the playoffs?

    We all acknowledge the guy's range is out of this world, his ability to but the ball in the basket from anywhere on the floor is unparalleled, and the guys is an absolute killer. Then why are we OK with him not dominating in the postseason, and why are you so quick to give him a pass while not giving KD his due? I just will never understand it.

    You can provide all the context in the world and draw up all the Xs and Os you want, but results are still results. I don't give a damn if Curry creates space and plays decoy to Durant—I care if he puts the ball in the hoop or not. I don't ooh and aah over Curry's ability to stand still 40 feet from the basket and draw a defender; I do it when he ACTUALLY puts the ball in the basket. And the bottom line is that Durant has consistently been way better at doing that in the playoffs than Curry, especially when they were on the same team.

    If Michael Jordan set the greatest screens of all-time and Pippen was the one putting up 35 a night in the playoffs, would we still be talking about MJ as the GOAT? Hell no. So you guys can take Steph "I'm awesome at standing out here in no man's land 40 feet from the rim and taking credit for all these titles" Curry. I'll take the Finals MVP.

    (And again, we haven't even touched on defense yet. Once that part of the floor even gets brought up, how is Durant now the better player?)


  2. #32
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,822
    Quote Originally Posted by mightybosstone View Post
    I'm sorry, gentlemen. All of these words ultimately boil down to "Here are a bunch of excuses for why Curry has underperformed and why Durant has played better in the playoffs." And I understand what you're saying and watched the same series you all did—I appreciate context as much as the next guy. But even if it's all true, why is it that Curry was capable of outplaying Durant in the regular season, but not the playoffs?

    We all acknowledge the guy's range is out of this world, his ability to but the ball in the basket from anywhere on the floor is unparalleled, and the guys is an absolute killer. Then why are we OK with him not dominating in the postseason, and why are you so quick to give him a pass while not giving KD his due? I just will never understand it.

    You can provide all the context in the world and draw up all the Xs and Os you want, but results are still results. I don't give a damn if Curry creates space and plays decoy to Durant—I care if he puts the ball in the hoop or not. I don't ooh and aah over Curry's ability to stand still 40 feet from the basket and draw a defender; I do it when he ACTUALLY puts the ball in the basket. And the bottom line is that Durant has consistently been way better at doing that in the playoffs than Curry, especially when they were on the same team.

    If Michael Jordan set the greatest screens of all-time and Pippen was the one putting up 35 a night in the playoffs, would we still be talking about MJ as the GOAT? Hell no. So you guys can take Steph "I'm awesome at standing out here in no man's land 40 feet from the rim and taking credit for all these titles" Curry. I'll take the Finals MVP.

    (And again, we haven't even touched on defense yet. Once that part of the floor even gets brought up, how is Durant now the better player?)
    Hahaha your violen and the start is an example of words that boil down "I can't argue against the context in any way". You clearly don't understand context or just choose to ignore it if you have to boil it down to this meme level take and calling it excuses. Curry performed so well in the playoffs teams focused on stopping him as opposed to KD when they played together which limited his numbers and boosted KD's (which context shows happened to others guys feeding off that Curry gravity like FMVP Iggy and Green). It isn't that he didn't play better it is that he was being stopped and given tougher assignments and doubles while those guys got left alone, open shots or easy 1v1's without help.

    I am explaining how he used that shooting/scoring ability and dominated the post season by creating for the team by taking so much attention, something unlike KD has ever provided for a team in his career at any point. Why did 2001 Kobe "dominate" the post season more than Shaq at times like most important Spurs series? Is he as good or even better than peak Shaq then for scoring similar with better ortg? How is this not similar to what I am getting at and context that absolutely matters if being consistent about why numbers may look like that in the playoffs when teams gameplan more specifically for players? I am not saying Curry is Shaq but I am saying that given both of these guys are levels below him taking the attention like that matters when they are together because a scorer will benefit from it (even guys like Iggy/Green can to levels we saw in previous 2 years). They both get their due as very similar all time great players to me with different abilities, I am curious why so many are so quick to say KD is better.

    Results are results. Curry without KD 1 ring (and 2 MVP's). KD without Curry 0 rings (and 1 MVP). You are trying to prop up KD's results with his time spent next to Curry when they both won titles but he got the FMVP award (so did Iggy and when Curry was better player 2 years prior). An award can easily be explained with context, the same context and reasoning for Iggy (and Dray 2016 numbers) is related to the attention Curry got as focal point of that offense/system. If all you care about is putting the ball in the hoop I guess Magic isn't that great nor is Russell and so on. I care about far far more than one simplistic look like this and I think you normally would too.

    No. This is nothing like the context clearly laid out. I mean cmon you know how ridiculous this comparison of one MJ setting screens the other Pippen scoring is right? This is why real context/reality is so important to understand when evaluating, screens lol.

    I agree and even said KD was better here. My issue is your lack of addressing the context pointed out and some of the arguments/comparisons just being way off base (seeming to show a lack of understanding of said context). If you only care about scoring more then fine we can agree to disagree, that is where the difference is I guess.

    I have been questioning some of the reasoning being used more than anything else as I think this is a close one. I think there has been a ton of reaching from you so far without being able to address what actually happened/real context instead of "what if Jordan could screen great and Pippen scored alot".
    Last edited by mngopher35; 07-09-2020 at 05:57 PM.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    San Jose, Ca.
    Posts
    678
    I watched every game Curry and Durant played together, and Curry is easily the better player. If you want to ask who would win one on one or is a more all around versatile player, I would not argue with Durant. If you are asking who has a much larger impact on winning in a five on five basketball game, Curry is the answer.

    It is not like Durant has some immaculate playoff record before playing with Curry. In fact, many labeled him a choker in the playoffs until he teamed up with Curry. mngopher35 already went over why this was possible, Curry's gravity and being the focus of the others team's defenses.

    Every time Durant played great in a playoff series, so did Curry. in 2017, both players played amazing. Even in the finals with the focus of the defense on him, Curry came just shy of being the first player ever to average a triple double in the NBA Championship. In 2018 he outplayed Durant in three of the four games, but **** the bed so bad in game three, so he did not deserve the FMVP.

    What is crazy is everyone says this team was overkill and could have won without one of Curry or Durant. Yet when Durant sat the Warriors played at like a .800 win percentage, but when Durant sat they were only around a .550 win percentage. Durant can always put up the numbers, but his playing style does not impact winning anywhere near the same level as Curry does.

    This last years playoffs is very telling. Durant played the best basketball we have ever seen him play and the Warriors as a team struggled a bit. The Clippers with no stars took two games off of them, and once again the Rockets had a legit chance at beating them. The second Durant went down with an injury, Curry turned it on, was clearly the best player on the court, the entire team played better, and the Warriors defeated the Rockets and swept the Blazers in the conference finals. The second Durant went down the entire team got better.

    Durant is clearly the superior defender, but Curry is vastly underrated on that end. The impact Curry has on the team as a whole and the impact Curry has overall on simply winning a basketball game is clearly superior to Kevin Durant.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    7,426
    Curry wasn’t “Curry” until Kerr showed up and Durant was always Durant-the second best player in the league (regardless of team) since he’s entered the league (although Kobe mighta had a word with that at times). If Curry stopped hitting threes, he’d be average.....if Durant stopped doing one thing he’s great at, he’d still be great because of everything else he does.

    I would LOVE to see Curry get to the Finals without Kerr/Klay/Draymond because he’s a lot of fun to watch when he’s on but if he was playing for the Wolves or Mavs, he’d be a fringe all star that could hit threes like no one’s business.......kind of like what he was like before Green was inserted into the starting lineup in a Steve Kerr system.

    Lacomb might be a jerk but he does get a lot of credit for giving the players everything they’ve needed to strive and Myers gave Lacomb the players to take advantage of it. So much luck though by tanking, other teams making huge mistakes in the draft (Timberwolves.....what the h?), and a second rounder becoming one of the biggest glue guys out there (I hate typing that as Draymond Green is such a prick in so many ways).


    I feel like I’m ******** on Curry here but meh........if everything else was equal, it’s Durant that’s more of a needle mover than Curry.
    Last edited by Saddletramp; 07-10-2020 at 01:09 AM.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    31,709
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    Hahaha your violen and the start is an example of words that boil down "I can't argue against the context in any way". You clearly don't understand context or just choose to ignore it if you have to boil it down to this meme level take and calling it excuses. Curry performed so well in the playoffs teams focused on stopping him as opposed to KD when they played together which limited his numbers and boosted KD's (which context shows happened to others guys feeding off that Curry gravity like FMVP Iggy and Green).

    It isn't that he didn't play better it is that he was being stopped and given tougher assignments and doubles while those guys got left alone, open shots or easy 1v1's without help.
    Again, though, I'm not debating that Curry's gravity on offense and how teams have to gameplan for him doesn't make him an incredibly dangerous player. Or that this gravity doesn't allow for his teammates to look good because they're getting easier looks. That's all true.

    But if teams can so easily gameplan for him for him not to go off every night, why is that not happening in the regular season? Also, in the history of the sport, teams will always gameplan around superstars. What makes them special is they're supposed to be able to dominate anyway. You don't think teams gameplanned for Jordan? Or that they don't try different schemes against Lebron? That doesn't stop those guys from going off anyway.

    Also, I'll heartily disagree on the "it isn't that he didn't play better" point. In Games 5-7 against Cleveland in 2016, he shot 8-21, 8-20 and 6-19 and shot worse than 36% from the 3-point line while turning over the ball 12 times and dishing out a whopping 7 total assists. 7!!!! Is it a coincidence that Golden State lost those three games when its star player underperformed so poorly? I think not.

    I am explaining how he used that shooting/scoring ability and dominated the post season by creating for the team by taking so much attention, something unlike KD has ever provided for a team in his career at any point. Why did 2001 Kobe "dominate" the post season more than Shaq at times like most important Spurs series? Is he as good or even better than peak Shaq then for scoring similar with better ortg? How is this not similar to what I am getting at and context that absolutely matters if being consistent about why numbers may look like that in the playoffs when teams gameplan more specifically for players? I am not saying Curry is Shaq but I am saying that given both of these guys are levels below him taking the attention like that matters when they are together because a scorer will benefit from it (even guys like Iggy/Green can to levels we saw in previous 2 years). They both get their due as very similar all time great players to me with different abilities, I am curious why so many are so quick to say KD is better.
    I get what you're saying here with the Shaq comparison from a sheer Xs and 0s standpoint. I really do. Teams gameplan for Superstar X. Superstar X uses that added attention to ensure others score instead. Team wins. This is not rocket science, it's basketball.

    But Shaq is still a HORRIBLE comparison from a production standpoint, even in 2001. Kobe was great that postseason (29/7/6), but Shaq still put up 30/15/3/2! And he won Finals MVP again with a ridiculously dominant 33/16/5/3 against Philly and Mutombo. Shaq is the very player who makes my criticism of Curry all the more valid. Teams gameplanned against him, and he was still totally dominant night in and night out.

    Results are results. Curry without KD 1 ring (and 2 MVP's). KD without Curry 0 rings (and 1 MVP). You are trying to prop up KD's results with his time spent next to Curry when they both won titles but he got the FMVP award (so did Iggy and when Curry was better player 2 years prior). An award can easily be explained with context, the same context and reasoning for Iggy (and Dray 2016 numbers) is related to the attention Curry got as focal point of that offense/system. If all you care about is putting the ball in the hoop I guess Magic isn't that great nor is Russell and so on. I care about far far more than one simplistic look like this and I think you normally would too.
    I've said for years that rings alone are a bad barometer to judge superstars. I care more about how you performed in the postseason than that you got a ring out of it, because you can play like complete garbage, have your teammates pick you up and still win a title (as Curry as at times done).

    When it comes to postseason performance, Durant's superior overall numbers and two Finals MVPs impress me more than Curry's extra ring. Also, as previously stated, I don't think he gets enough credit for getting OKC to the finals when he was 23, just like Lebron doesn't get enough credit for getting the Cavs to the Finals earlier in his career.

    No. This is nothing like the context clearly laid out. I mean cmon you know how ridiculous this comparison of one MJ setting screens the other Pippen scoring is right? This is why real context/reality is so important to understand when evaluating, screens lol.
    I was making a joke, chief. We're in the middle of a pandemic, and I've left my house like 7 times in the last four months. Allow me the occasional moment of levity? Or do we have to always take sports so seriously?

    I agree and even said KD was better here. My issue is your lack of addressing the context pointed out and some of the arguments/comparisons just being way off base (seeming to show a lack of understanding of said context). If you only care about scoring more then fine we can agree to disagree, that is where the difference is I guess.
    Can you get over yourself for a minute maybe? It's basketball! Do I understand how Curry standing 40 feet from the basket with a defender draped on him and a second guy hovering stunts his offensive production and benefits his teammates? Of course. You know I've watched like 70-80% of Harden's games with the Rockets, right? This happens literally all the time to him, and not just in the playoffs. I lost count of how many times that happened to him this season pre-pandemic.

    The big difference is when Harden doesn't produce in those circumstances, especially in the poastseason, he's seen as a massive choker (rightfully so in many cases, he's been abysmal at times in the playoffs). When it happens to Curry, he's sacrificing for the betterment of his team, and the lack of production is understood. It's a total double standard, and I'll never understand it.

    And just like Shaq and other superstars throughout the history of the sport, double teams are not new. But superstars find a way to perform like superstars. Sometimes Curry has done that. A lot of times he hasn't. I think the latter outnumbers the former, and I think the guy deserves just a little criticism.
    Last edited by mightybosstone; 07-10-2020 at 08:53 AM.


  6. #36
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,822
    Quote Originally Posted by mightybosstone View Post
    Again, though, I'm not debating that Curry's gravity on offense and how teams have to gameplan for him doesn't make him an incredibly dangerous player. Or that this gravity doesn't allow for his teammates to look good because they're getting easier looks. That's all true.

    But if teams can so easily gameplan for him for him not to go off every night, why is that not happening in the regular season? Also, in the history of the sport, teams will always gameplan around superstars. What makes them special is they're supposed to be able to dominate anyway. You don't think teams gameplanned for Jordan? Or that they don't try different schemes against Lebron? That doesn't stop those guys from going off anyway.

    Also, I'll heartily disagree on the "it isn't that he didn't play better" point. In Games 5-7 against Cleveland in 2016, he shot 8-21, 8-20 and 6-19 and shot worse than 36% from the 3-point line while turning over the ball 12 times and dishing out a whopping 7 total assists. 7!!!! Is it a coincidence that Golden State lost those three games when its star player underperformed so poorly? I think not.
    Great that we acknowledge this, except you mention Lebron/Jordan and not KD. There is a reason for this and it is that this gravity is something Curry shares with a guy like Lebron or MJ or Shaq but that KD has never been able to match himself. Also in the RS teams would not have the same time to game plan how to consistently get away with doubling a guy so far out and practice it enough for it to be something they can pull of consistently and still contain others. That teams would go to such extremes to stop him in the post season is a big factor that seperates him from KD even if you note other stars like Lebron perform with this treatment that is different than KD performing without it. I am not saying Curry is Lebron or Shaq in total but this ability to be the focus helping the team is and KD doesn't match it.

    You are going to disagree because of 3 games? Again KD did this while losing to Curry before this and without the same attention making it much worse to do so. I know Curry isn't perfect but bringing up examples of him playing poor with major attention isn't worse than losing a round earlier without major attention while playing better than KD himself in said series. KD had a 3 game stretch of 8/24, 12/31, 10/31 without garnering the same attention, 11 to 9 assists to turns. One thing that is different? Westy helped OKC win one of these games by going 36/11/11. Durant had someone next to him taking over and winning a game at times when he played this poor even without taking attention and still couldn't overcome.

    Quote Originally Posted by mightybosstone View Post
    I get what you're saying here with the Shaq comparison from a sheer Xs and 0s standpoint. I really do. Teams gameplan for Superstar X. Superstar X uses that added attention to ensure others score instead. Team wins. This is not rocket science, it's basketball.

    But Shaq is still a HORRIBLE comparison from a production standpoint, even in 2001. Kobe was great that postseason (29/7/6), but Shaq still put up 30/15/3/2! And he won Finals MVP again with a ridiculously dominant 33/16/5/3 against Philly and Mutombo. Shaq is the very player who makes my criticism of Curry all the more valid. Teams gameplanned against him, and he was still totally dominant night in and night out.

    I am not saying Curry is peak Shaq, I am noting something that him and a peak Shaq have in common that KD does not. I am noting how that gravity guys like this have can help boost the stats of teammates like a Kobe or a KD. This is massively important considering what we have been talking about. Kobe putting up similar points, more assists and better overall offensive efficiency that post season is similar to KD putting up better numbers than Curry while Curry gets attention. The difference here is Shaq/Kobe were closer because Shaq was also clearly a much better player still at his peak than young Kobe, Curry/KD are close so when Curry gets that attention and KD doesn't it won't lead to slightly better numbers now, it could be a larger gap since players are closer together (and that's what we saw). The idea of taking attention and helping teammates #'s is the main key here, I am not taking the step to say Curry as as good as Shaq/Lebron/MJ because he couldn't match the individual numbers along with this impact/creating/focus of defense to levels they were.


    Quote Originally Posted by mightybosstone View Post
    I've said for years that rings alone are a bad barometer to judge superstars. I care more about how you performed in the postseason than that you got a ring out of it, because you can play like complete garbage, have your teammates pick you up and still win a title (as Curry as at times done).

    When it comes to postseason performance, Durant's superior overall numbers and two Finals MVPs impress me more than Curry's extra ring. Also, as previously stated, I don't think he gets enough credit for getting OKC to the finals when he was 23, just like Lebron doesn't get enough credit for getting the Cavs to the Finals earlier in his career.

    Well your performance is also more than just individual stats. I agree on performance being huge but you seemed to narrow it down to FMVP minus context or numbers together minus context. That's similar to rings without context imo. The context of it all is what starts separating Curry with how teams had to play him and so on offensively compared to Durant. They both have struggles and so on but when Curry struggles he is creating and the focus of the defense shifting it in major ways often while KD does not have that same effect on the team.

    Well his superior numbers next to each other come without the same context for himself and that context separates great players often (carmelo could score but didn't affect game/impact like these guys either, young Kobe next to a player like this is a Robin). The FMVP doesn't make Iggy better and only further shows the context in which KD put his numbers/got those awards. You can't ignore this to push stats/fmvp just like I shouldn't ignore all aspects to push rings that way is my point I guess. You mentioned results and I gave an example though, winning rings. Just like you could say FMVP or stats. The context added is what hurts KD and helps Curry when saying FMVP or stats just like there may be context behind rings too.

    Quote Originally Posted by mightybosstone View Post
    I was making a joke, chief. We're in the middle of a pandemic, and I've left my house like 7 times in the last four months. Allow me the occasional moment of levity? Or do we have to always take sports so seriously?
    Lol I just responded to what was there, to me the whole thing had aspects that seemed ridiculous so it was hard to tell what was serious about the post.

    Quote Originally Posted by mightybosstone View Post
    Can you get over yourself for a minute maybe? It's basketball! Do I understand how Curry standing 40 feet from the basket with a defender draped on him and a second guy hovering stunts his offensive production and benefits his teammates? Of course. You know I've watched like 70-80% of Harden's games with the Rockets, right? This happens literally all the time to him, and not just in the playoffs. I lost count of how many times that happened to him this season pre-pandemic.

    The big difference is when Harden doesn't produce in those circumstances, especially in the poastseason, he's seen as a massive choker (rightfully so in many cases, he's been abysmal at times in the playoffs). When it happens to Curry, he's sacrificing for the betterment of his team, and the lack of production is understood. It's a total double standard, and I'll never understand it.

    And just like Shaq and other superstars throughout the history of the sport, double teams are not new. But superstars find a way to perform like superstars. Sometimes Curry has done that. A lot of times he hasn't. I think the latter outnumbers the former, and I think the guy deserves just a little criticism.
    You shared a smiley, boiled my point down to a ridiculous quote you made up, and brought strawman like the above "joke" in your last post without addressing what was said lol. When your level of response is troll like I might respond a little over the top myself, sorry it upset you and consider your own posting style. Harden is different himself, Curry was on another level in how teams were playing him on GS. I guess I didn't watch enough this RS but I have never seen teams attack a guy like Curry was in the playoffs at the top of the key/on perimeter.

    I am not sure what you are even going off about on double standard now as they are different and I never said anything about Harden at all. If it makes you mad he doesn't get credit for shifting defenses (he does this more than KD imo even if I don't think Curry level) then fine, probably want to start factoring this in for others yourself then. KD/Curry/Harden have all choked in their careers but that doesn't change the aspects being pointed out. Not choking because you have a massively easier position next to a guy getting major attention by joining a 72 win and championship team in place to get said stats/accolades is not the same as stepping up individually and being the main guy/focal point/superstar like Shaq/Lebron/Curry which should factor in when comparing.

    Double aren't new, some people demand a large amount of them due to their ability (Shaq/Lebron/Curry) and others aren't as lethal demanding quite that same attention. Sometimes Curry has performed well and others he hasn't, I guess like Lebron hasn't sometimes too or heck even KD struggles despite not garnering same attention. The key is he separates himself from KD with his ability/forcing teams to react to him in this elite superstar way. This can hurt his own numbers (he isn't Shaq) and help a teammates feeding off the attention he gets. When pushing numbers of him and a teammate this is a massive issue that makes the comparison need a lot of context as young Kobe can outpace peak Shaq on offensive stats/ortg next to each other even. That doesn't make young Kobe better (and the gap between KD/Curry is much smaller so KD should outpace his #'s logically given the context).
    Last edited by mngopher35; 07-10-2020 at 12:45 PM.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    San Jose, Ca.
    Posts
    678
    Quote Originally Posted by Saddletramp View Post
    Curry wasn’t “Curry” until Kerr showed up and Durant was always Durant-the second best player in the league (regardless of team) since he’s entered the league (although Kobe mighta had a word with that at times). If Curry stopped hitting threes, he’d be average.....if Durant stopped doing one thing he’s great at, he’d still be great because of everything else he does.

    I would LOVE to see Curry get to the Finals without Kerr/Klay/Draymond because he’s a lot of fun to watch when he’s on but if he was playing for the Wolves or Mavs, he’d be a fringe all star that could hit threes like no one’s business.......kind of like what he was like before Green was inserted into the starting lineup in a Steve Kerr system.

    Lacomb might be a jerk but he does get a lot of credit for giving the players everything they’ve needed to strive and Myers gave Lacomb the players to take advantage of it. So much luck though by tanking, other teams making huge mistakes in the draft (Timberwolves.....what the h?), and a second rounder becoming one of the biggest glue guys out there (I hate typing that as Draymond Green is such a prick in so many ways).


    I feel like I’m ******** on Curry here but meh........if everything else was equal, it’s Durant that’s more of a needle mover than Curry.
    I do not get this at all. Do you not remember how terrible the Warriors were before Curry arrived. They were considered one of the worst organizations year in and year out in the league. Curry was not "lucky" and drafted to a top notch organization with superstars around him like a Magic or Kobe. The rise of the Warriors started with the drafting of Curry. Also, Curry was very good to great before Kerr ever arrived and he was still rising. Kerr deserves his credit, but he took over a very good team with a horrible offensive system and put in a good offensive system. Of course things would get much better after that. Mark Jackson just had no idea what he was doing on offense.

    Not sure about the all things equal part, because Durant has had a ton of help throughout his career. Westbrook, Harden, Ibaka and good role players is plenty of help for a superstar. You make is sound like Durant was like LeBron on those early Cleveland teams.

    Also, it is not like Curry has had some epic level help in talent around him. Early in his career his top help was Monte Ellis and David Lee. Nothing special there. When the Warriors became great, he had Thompson, Green and Iguadala. Good players, but other all time greats have had more help. None of his help were superstars before Durant arrived. In fact, when we look at the all time greats, most have another star with them better than Thompson as their #2.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    7,426
    Quote Originally Posted by Allphakenny1 View Post
    I do not get this at all. Do you not remember how terrible the Warriors were before Curry arrived. They were considered one of the worst organizations year in and year out in the league. Curry was not "lucky" and drafted to a top notch organization with superstars around him like a Magic or Kobe. The rise of the Warriors started with the drafting of Curry. Also, Curry was very good to great before Kerr ever arrived and he was still rising. Kerr deserves his credit, but he took over a very good team with a horrible offensive system and put in a good offensive system. Of course things would get much better after that. Mark Jackson just had no idea what he was doing on offense.
    Sure, it started with Curry but without a lot of the moves that happened after Curry’s arrival, he never would’ve hit the level that he’s hit. My point about Kerr is that some guys need a system to dominate in (like Curry). Some don’t.

    Not sure about the all things equal part, because Durant has had a ton of help throughout his career. Westbrook, Harden, Ibaka and good role players is plenty of help for a superstar. You make is sound like Durant was like LeBron on those early Cleveland teams.
    Durant came in projected as a hoss and has always been one, even exceeding his projections but yeah, I’m not going to argue that he had a great team in Sea/OKC.

    Also, it is not like Curry has had some epic level help in talent around him. Early in his career his top help was Monte Ellis and David Lee. Nothing special there. When the Warriors became great, he had Thompson, Green and Iguadala. Good players, but other all time greats have had more help. None of his help were superstars before Durant arrived. In fact, when we look at the all time greats, most have another star with them better than Thompson as their #2.
    They all hit their stride (when, of course, Kerr got there) at the same time. If Klay was an average 3 point guy or if Draymond could only cover forwards I don’t think Curry would be what he is.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    26,180
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Adaptable View Post
    Curry is not a true #1. He has way exceeded his expectations, good on him, and everyone who helped his legacy (Durant).
    This

    Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk
    Quote Originally Posted by nycericanguy View Post
    well unfortunately it looks like you were right about Bargs...

    but hopefully we can use his expiring, if not at least we unloaded Novak's deal...

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    26,180
    Somebody nailed the answer earlier. Nobody views him as a number 1 so he is not expected to carry. If anything he's probably cheesed by it.

    Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk
    Quote Originally Posted by nycericanguy View Post
    well unfortunately it looks like you were right about Bargs...

    but hopefully we can use his expiring, if not at least we unloaded Novak's deal...

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    San Jose, Ca.
    Posts
    678
    Quote Originally Posted by Saddletramp View Post
    Sure, it started with Curry but without a lot of the moves that happened after Curry’s arrival, he never would’ve hit the level that he’s hit. My point about Kerr is that some guys need a system to dominate in (like Curry). Some don’t.



    Durant came in projected as a hoss and has always been one, even exceeding his projections but yeah, I’m not going to argue that he had a great team in Sea/OKC.



    They all hit their stride (when, of course, Kerr got there) at the same time. If Klay was an average 3 point guy or if Draymond could only cover forwards I don’t think Curry would be what he is.
    Curry was already one of the best players in the league before Kerr ever arrived and he was still rising. Dude would dominate in any system. He was even great in Mark Jackson's lack of a system. Take him off ball like Kerr did, and he is one of the greatest off ball players all time. Put him on ball and give him the crazy usage of guys like LeBron, Westbrook and Harden and he puts up the crazy numbers those guys put up. Problem is those numbers and high usage would negatively affect his teammates like it does those other players.

    To the part about Curry having the help of Kerr, Thompson and Green, so did all the other all time greats. None of them won on their own. Why expect Curry to do something none of the other all time greats did?

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    10,340
    Quote Originally Posted by Jamiecballer View Post
    This

    Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk
    Well said.

    At risk of angering the ghost of tredigs, I'll add onto it - Curry has had more help than any other star of the past decade. Dray and Klay form a big 3 with Curry - but too soon we forget how enormous guys like Iguodala (FMVP), Bogut, and Livingston were. Harrison Barnes, Leandro Barbosa... my goodness. That team was super stacked before Durant even joined them.
    The Baker has come. Believe the hype.


  13. #43
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    The Bay
    Posts
    15,847
    Quote Originally Posted by mightybosstone View Post
    Curry was phenomenal those seasons, and I'm not trying to take anything away from his regular season performance. His playoff performance deserves criticism, though, especially in 2016. He was coming off one of the greatest individual regular season performances in the history of the NBA and pretty much crapped the bed that year. Especially in the series against Cleveland.

    That Cavs team had no business winning the title that year and was clearly inferior—the Draymond Green suspension shouldn't have mattered as much as it did. But Curry was held to less than 20 points in four out of those seven games, including freaking 11 points in Game 1 and a god awful 17 points (6-19 shooting) in Game 7. If other all-time greats performed that way (Durant included), they'd be crucified for it.

    That Cavs team had no business winning the title that year and was clearly inferior—the Draymond Green suspension shouldn't have mattered as much as it did. But Curry was held to less than 20 points in four out of those seven games, including freaking 11 points in Game 1 and a god awful 17 points (6-19 shooting) in Game 7. If other all-time greats performed that way (Durant included), they'd be crucified for it.

    I did a quick check, and Durant scored less than 20 points only 10 times in a postseason game since 2011. That's 10 games out of 133, or about 7.5% of the time. Including those four games in 2016, Curry has been held to 10 or less 25 times in that time span out of 110 games, or about 22.7% of the time. How does a guy not hitting 20 points in nearly a quarter of his postseason games not deserve criticism?

    Also, I'm a little sick and tired of the double standard with Curry and Durant. When Durant performs well in Golden State, it's "Look how easy the players around him make the game for him." But when Curry performs well surrounded by superstar talent, it's "Holy ****! Curry is a god!" Shouldn't the same logic for Durant also apply for Curry? Having Kevin freaking Durant and Klay Thompson around you probably makes the game easier for you, no?
    I legit don’t have the time or energy to dive into this as it properly deserves and I’m sure most of what I say will be taken with a grain of salt as a warriors fan.

    Wasn’t he injured twice in the playoffs that year? A leg or hip injury in the first round then an elbow and hand injury in the WCF.

    He def had some off nights scoring and no KD wouldn’t have those same nights but he also wouldn’t create for others the same way Curry does and I’m not just talking assists. I can’t tell you how many times I almost broke my TV screaming at Barnes missing wide open look after wide open look. Klay also wasn’t good at getting to the rim. He still isn’t great at it but he’s much better at it now.

    No excuses they should have won that year all things aside.

    The double standard isn’t really a double standard. Curry built that. He’s what makes it all work no one else. Look at their record with and without Curry. It’s night and day.

    That is all for now. I’m going to hibernate before I get back after it.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    The Bay
    Posts
    15,847
    Quote Originally Posted by Vee-Rex View Post
    Well said.

    At risk of angering the ghost of tredigs, I'll add onto it - Curry has had more help than any other star of the past decade. Dray and Klay form a big 3 with Curry - but too soon we forget how enormous guys like Iguodala (FMVP), Bogut, and Livingston were. Harrison Barnes, Leandro Barbosa... my goodness. That team was super stacked before Durant even joined them.
    They were a great team but Curry was the only one that could create his own shot at anytime. We actually really relied on Barbosa to create at times. At the time Klay was viewed as a great 3&D tho I disagreed as he was more. He just needed to move. He wasn’t taking you off the dribble. Still isn’t but is better at it.

    Curry is the system. He wasn’t plugged into one. They built something around what he did. He took a something that was great and made them special. You swapped KD for Curry and they make a different system but it wouldn’t be as effective and they likely wouldn’t win a ring.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    San Jose, Ca.
    Posts
    678
    Quote Originally Posted by Vee-Rex View Post
    Well said.

    At risk of angering the ghost of tredigs, I'll add onto it - Curry has had more help than any other star of the past decade. Dray and Klay form a big 3 with Curry - but too soon we forget how enormous guys like Iguodala (FMVP), Bogut, and Livingston were. Harrison Barnes, Leandro Barbosa... my goodness. That team was super stacked before Durant even joined them.
    If we are talking about the pre-Durant years, then I would absolutely disagree. If we are talking about depth over top end talent, Kawhi has had crazy deep teams his entire career. If we are talking about top end talent, Thompson and Green are good, but LeBron had Kyrie and Love as well as Wade and Bosh. Duncan had Kawhi, Parker and Ginobli. Kobe had Gasol, Bynum and Odom. Those are just the champions of the last decade. Also, just to add in, Durant had Westbrook, Ibaka and Harden. Curry did not have some amazing advantage over these other superstars.

    Also, Livingston was not some amazing player. He was good, but he bounced around the league after his injury and was simply a solid backup. Most claim that Bogut's injury in the 2016 finals was non-consequential because he was not very good. Now he is a part of Curry having too much talent. If he is as good as you make him out to be, then you must agree his injury cost the Warriors their championship in 2016. Barnes was a nice player, but he did nothing special in Dallas, has done nothing special in Sacramento, and was horrible for the Warriors in the 2016 finals. He was not even a real starter in 2015, the Warriors just preferred Iggy off of the bench. For Barbosa, he was out of the league before the Warriors brought him back, He played well with the Warriors, and was out of the league within 2 years after he left. Personally, I think you are overrating Curry's help just to underrate him.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •