Reply With Quote
Over the Knicks job. Seems a bit obvious to me.
Over the Knicks job. Seems a bit obvious to me.
One of those what-if scenarios.
Of course Pop would steer Kerr away from that pompous , Jackson.
That's what I woulda done.
IT wouldn't have mattered as far as their transformation..Stan Van Gundy was probaly next in line, which would have equally made them the juggernaut they are today..they were a team on the come up--an ac ulation of elite talent/assets-- where elite coaching was last missing piece..
Nah dude. No one ever gives the coach credit.
Curry rallied and railed for Markey Mark to remain the coach. Lol.
That's why GM's shouldn't listen to their players wishes, unless said player is damn, damn smart.
Even Timmy thought Parker wouldn't be anything, upon first sight.
And after watching Walton's dumbass kid drive that train the first half of the season, I don't either.
Mmmh, I don't know if SVG would have implemented the motion offense that Kerr implemented and I don't know how well he would got alone with the players.
Well the system was already in place and he was still running the show from that back. Dude built the system.
Is it really that different from the system Mark Jackson had, or did the ton of talented players all just mature at the right time?
The potential was there in 2013. The system wasn't.
Curry was also only 25 then. Klay and Draymond were only 23. They weren't nearly the same players they are now.
Are you suggesting Kerr had nothing to do with it?
Kawhi is 24 and the second best player in the world.
Yes but the system had a lot to do with it, that was one of the biggest criticisms of Mark Jackson. The BBallbreakdown guy was ripping Jackson all the time back then and did predict the Warriors would be very much improved under Kerr. He was right.
TBH the Warriors didnt even know they were going to be this good, they offered Thompson, Barnes, and Bogut for Kevin Love......things broke right for them, but that pretty much always needs to happen for any successful NBA team.
Of course not. I'm saying you can't really compare players who are entering their primes to who they were as players 3 years ago. Obviously Kerr had a lot to do with it. Mark Jackson's "system" consisted of him running the same play over and over were Curry or Klay ran baseline to baseline trying to get open off a screen. It was dumb and much easier to defend adjacent. But they're also just a much more talented team now with much better depth as well. Curry is on an entirely different level now.
Agree with this.
Wasnt obvious at the time, pretty much all the indications were that he was going to NY, Golden State was not Golden State at the time. Golden State was a team that looked like a middle of the road team that might have been stuck in mediocrity like most mediocre teams are. Especially considering they lost a series to a Clippers team that was in turmoil because of the Owner situation.
I would think that watching the Spurs you would understand the need for a system.
There were some that thought Phil would pull him there, but the better roster, better owners (not that Golden State's ownership was considered anything special, but anything is better than Dolan), Kerr's daughter being in California, his own west-coast roots, made it pretty clear that it was the better move. Only thing that made it even a debate, was would Kerr pass up the opportunity to learn from Phil. But having already learned from him as a player (as well as from Pop) he didn't need that tutorship.
They drastically changed the style of play son. From an old school, pick and roll/isolation offense to a motion based one. The Warriors wouldn't be the team they are today without that change of system.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
