Yes another Curry thread

[tentoes4rings]

Hell no, read my last post and tell me your argument.

Okay, I can make somewhat of a case on the Ray argument but the Bird one was just plain asinine. The Bird mention was what I was sure you'd take a mulligan on.

 

[mauconnfan]

Oh damn this wasn't about me?

 

[huskypantz]

Okay, I can make somewhat of a case on the Ray argument but the Bird one was just plain asinine. The Bird mention was what I was sure you'd take a mulligan on.

What about Bird? He had a great career but it could have been even better if not for back problems. The correlation is that you can't guarantee that Curry is going to play a generally healthy 15-17 year career. If he does, he might end up being the best player ever.

 

[methodology]

Well then that's your problem. A career requires longevity and performance over an extended period of time. Is Curry a better pure shooter? Yes. Is he a better all-around player? Yes. Barring injuries, will he blow away all of the records? Yes. But Ray has twice the threes that Curry has - so has he accomplished more as a three point shooter if you compare the two careers today? I say yes.

On Curry's current pace he will only need to play 5 more seasons to break Allen's career 3 pointers made record. It took Ray 19 seasons to accomplish that.... It will only take Steph 12 seasons

If Ray went to Kentucky would you still be backing him up instead of acknowledging Curry as the greatest 3 point shooter to live even if he were to retire tomorrow.

 

[auror]

Unless someone wants to argue (and I'll listen) that the upgrade from Barnes' O to Durant's O is on the whole less than going from Durant's D to Barnes' D, I'd cool the "Warriors would be better not getting Durant" take. The chemistry talk is overrated. Super teams DO work in basketball, just look at the teams this year (Heat, Cavs, Spurs, etc.)

 

[Huskyforlife]

Unless someone wants to argue (and I'll listen) that the upgrade from Barnes' O to Durant's O is on the whole less than going from Durant's D to Barnes' D, I'd cool the "Warriors would be better not getting Durant" take. The chemistry talk is overrated. Super teams DO work in basketball, just look at the teams this year (Heat, Cavs, Spurs, etc.)

Normally you'd be correct. But this is different. The Warriors play perfect basketball . Adding another Iso scorer would screw with their offensive chemistry. If they win the title this year, why fix something that ain't broken?

 

[Huskyforlife]

Not to mention they need to save money for currys eventual mega deal

 

[intlzncster]

Normally you'd be correct. But this is different. The Warriors play perfect basketball . Adding another Iso scorer would screw with their offensive chemistry. If they win the title this year, why fix something that ain't broken?

But does Durant have to be just an ISO scorer? Or is that just how he is used given OK's system?

 

[tzznandrew]

Here's a question: who says Durant is only an iso scorer? He's a great shooter who is versatile and multitalented. He's not a ball-stopper like Anthony.

I think it is unlikely he goes there. And I also think it is unlikely the team's regular season record would get any better. But it can't hurt to have him, since this Warriors team was pushed hard in the Finals by a team of LeBron and nobodies. Now, maybe that was Finals jitters. Clearly the Warriors were the better team. But when the game slows down, it's much better to have a Durant than a Barnes.

EDIT: Dammit @intlzncster you beat me to it.

 

[tentoes4rings]

What about Bird? He had a great career but it could have been even better if not for back problems. The correlation is that you can't guarantee that Curry is going to play a generally healthy 15-17 year career. If he does, he might end up being the best player ever.

Oh, I thought you were saying Bird could have been the best three point shooter if not for the back problems. I think he's still tremendously well regarded, even with the shortened career. He's one of the two best small forwards in history, either way.

 

[tentoes4rings]

Here's a question: who says Durant is only an iso scorer? He's a great shooter who is versatile and multitalented. He's not a ball-stopper like Anthony.

I think it is unlikely he goes there. And I also think it is unlikely the team's regular season record would get any better. But it can't hurt to have him, since this Warriors team was pushed hard in the Finals by a team of LeBron and nobodies. Now, maybe that was Finals jitters. Clearly the Warriors were the better team. But when the game slows down, it's much better to have a Durant than a Barnes.

EDIT: Dammit @intlzncster you beat me to it.

I just don't think he's necessary, unless San Antonio or Cleveland improve considerably. The big 3 plus key role players should keep them at the top.

 

[Connecticut34]

If they lure Durant in the offseason, and with the passing of the Duncan/Parker et al era, that should be doable.

I hope it gives way to the Kawhi/LaMarcus era

 

[auror]

Uhhhh

 

[auror]