The Warriors are so much better at moving the ball without Durant in the lineup

[QUOTE=Loco 50]It's almost like Westbrook wasn't the only problem in Okc. I'm stunned.

Durant loves isoball to the detriment of his teammates. Always has.[/QUOTE]
OKC has done worse since Durant left though. :lol

[QUOTE=Loco 50]It's almost like Westbrook wasn't the only problem in Okc. I'm stunned.

Durant loves isoball to the detriment of his teammates. Always has.[/QUOTE]
Amen!!!!!


Realsst thing ill read all morning!

They'll need Durant if they want to win against Milwaukee.

I have Toronto beating them, but Milwaukee has enough talent and depth to stymie a Durant-less Warrior team.

At some point, their gutted bench will begin to show. And the Warrior starters will finally look wasted. That's when KD will be needed most.

KD gives GSW a reliable top scorer who diverts attention from Curry & Klay. That's why it's almost impossible to beat them in 7 games. They went 73 wins without him, now with him, they basically shut the door behind them and they will never lose until KD leave or someone gets injured.

Kobe fans sound so butt-hurt in this thread :oldlol:. Durant being the biggest poosy in sports history will forever hold a special place in their hearts because it assured the only thing they care about (LeBron losing). So they continue to pedal this fantasy where it was either KD or bust for GS after 2016. Rightttt :rolleyes:. As if simply a small upgrade over Harrison Barnes wouldn't have done the trick. Or heck, a few bounces here and there and they would've even won in 2016. But it's not the big security blanket the presence of KD on a 73-win roster gives Kobe fans, so they'll continue to push this agenda of him being oh so necessary as opposed to the league-ruining overkill that it was.

Which makes GS' dominance without KD the last 3 seasons + the continued mockery of his worthless rings so enjoyable. And that's what infuriates Kobe fans. They want the world to believe KD's presence was a major necessity for GS to triumph over LeBron the last 2 Finals (you know, when GS annihilated Cleveland). I bet they root against GS like no tomorrow when KD's out.

[QUOTE=Indian guy]Kobe fans sound so butt-hurt in this thread :oldlol:. Durant being the biggest poosy in sports history will forever hold a special place in their hearts because it assured the only thing they care about (LeBron losing). So they continue to pedal this fantasy where it was either KD or bust for GS after 2016. Rightttt :rolleyes:. As if simply a small upgrade over Harrison Barnes wouldn't have done the trick. Or heck, a few bounces here and there and they would've even won in 2016. But it's not the big security blanket the presence of KD on a 73-win roster gives Kobe fans, so they'll continue to push this agenda of him being oh so necessary as opposed to the league-ruining overkill that it was.

Which makes GS' dominance without KD the last 3 seasons + the continued mockery of his worthless rings so enjoyable. And that's what infuriates Kobe fans. They want the world to believe KD's presence was a major necessity for GS to triumph over LeBron the last 2 Finals (you know, when GS annihilated Cleveland). I bet they root against GS like no tomorrow when KD's out.[/QUOTE]

The grief, the anger, the unyielding despair

:D

Thank you. Come again. :applause:

[QUOTE=Ben Simmons 25]You're a dumb fa[COLOR="Black"]g[/COLOR]got.

If you don't think the Warriors play more as a team and move the ball more without KD, you LITERALLY have not watched a SINGLE Warriors game. Not one. NOT ONE!!!

Not in anything other than a coma induced brain dead state, anyways.

Not a single ****ing game.[/QUOTE]
You alright dude?

Never did I suggest that, I actually agree fully with this particular point.

But I've seen some suggest the Warriors are better without KD, which is absolutely moronic.
I personally believe your point about Curry being the BITW the past 3-4 years is also dumb, but that's an opinion.

Anyone who thinks the Warriors definitively NEEDED KD for the past 2 titles is a moron.

The Warriors *ONLY* lost in 2016 because Draymond Green had an emotional outburst that cost him essentially what amounts to 2 games.

They were going to win that series in 5 games.

Guess what, fellas? They don't gut their depth in the 2016 offseason if KD is never in the picture... and they're just as good if not better than they were.

2016 Golden State Warriors > 2017, 2018 Golden State Warriors.

That's not an opinion. It's a fact. "HURR DURR BUT THEY LOST TITLE 2016 NO DURANT AND WON TITLE 2017 & 2018 WITH DURANT HRUR DURRRRRR LOLZZ YOU MORAN BENSIMMONS LOLZZZZZZZZULOLOUL!!" Nope... you're a surface level thinking moron. **** off.

KD's ball dominance causes Curry to float in and out of games in terms of focus and engagement. Throw that in with KD's ball stopping, and both of those things are a detriment to their entire team on both sides of the court.

The thing that KD provides the most for the Warriors is... someone who can ISO you a bucket when shit gets tight in the closing moments. But the Warriors were so good without him, back when they had depth, most of the time, they didn't need an ISO player in the last 2 minutes of games because they were winning by so much.

[QUOTE=Ben Simmons 25]Anyone who thinks the Warriors definitively NEEDED KD for the past 2 titles is a moron.

The Warriors *ONLY* lost in 2016 because Draymond Green had an emotional outburst that cost him essentially what amounts to 2 games.

They were going to win that series in 5 games.

Guess what, fellas? They don't gut their depth in the 2016 offseason if KD is never in the picture... and they're just as good if not better than they were.

2016 Golden State Warriors > 2017, 2018 Golden State Warriors.

That's not an opinion. It's a fact.[/QUOTE]
In the playoffs? 2017 Warriors > 2016. They were scorched earth that postseason, nearly running the table

[QUOTE=SouBeachTalents]In the playoffs? 2017 Warriors > 2016. They were scorched earth that postseason, nearly running the table[/QUOTE]

Maybe because Curry tore his MCL in 2016? Uhhh might have something to do with it?

Lmfao ****ing so low iq

[QUOTE=SouBeachTalents]In the playoffs? 2017 Warriors > 2016. They were scorched earth that postseason, nearly running the table[/QUOTE]

That might be true... but it's clear that overall Durant *CAN* be a detriment to the entire team. Not that he IS. Not that he ISN'T a great player. He is clearly a ****ing amazing player. But team dynamics are more complicated than that. It's also NOT true that they definitively "NEEDED" Durant in 2017 to win the title. I don't believe it. They hold onto their depth instead, and they're right there.

And warriorfan was right all along. Curry did also lose a little something because of that injury despite his "I'M HERE I'M BACK" egotistical cocksucking bullshit. But nevertheless, I still maintain they only lost in 2016 because Draymond Green is emotionally retarded.

I personally can't stand Curry's cocky little ass, but greatness is greatness and I have to admit the truth.

Binary events folks. 2016 happened as it did for any number of reasons, its not to say that the same thing would have happened again in 2017 without KD, or if you pressed a rewind button and replayed the 2016 series under the same conditions that the Cavs win again. KD merely ensured that no team ( other than the 2017 Rockets) would ever really threaten the Warriors during this run. Was he [U]needed[/U]? I don't think so. The 2016 Warriors were one shitty behind the back pass turnover by Steph, one from out of nowhere block from Lebron, one Kyrie jumper over Steph away from history recording the outcome of that series differently. In other words, games won or loss on how the ball bounces. There's little reason to think that the Warriors couldn't have upgraded from Barnes( and there's alot of small forwards better than him but not close to KD) and won in subsequent years.

[QUOTE=Bankaii]You alright dude?

Never did I suggest that, I actually agree fully with this particular point.

But I've seen some suggest the Warriors are better without KD, which is absolutely moronic.
I personally believe your point about Curry being the BITW the past 3-4 years is also dumb, but that's an opinion.[/QUOTE]

My bad. I misinterpreted. I apologize.

[QUOTE=Phoenix]Binary events folks. 2016 happened as it did for any number of reasons, its not to say that the same thing would have happened again in 2017 without KD, or if you pressed a rewind button and replayed the 2016 series under the same conditions that the Cavs win again. KD merely ensured that no team ( other than the 2017 Rockets) would ever really threaten the Warriors during this run. Was he [U]needed[/U]? I don't think so. The 2016 Warriors were one shitty behind the back pass turnover by Steph, one from out of nowhere block from Lebron, one Kyrie jumper over Steph away from history recording the outcome of that series differently. In other words, games won or loss on how the ball bounces. There's little reason to think that the Warriors couldn't have upgraded from Barnes( and there's alot of small forwards better than him but not close to KD) and won in subsequent years.[/QUOTE]


I don't think it's fair to compare a turnover or a missed shot or a made shot to a guy having an emotional outburst yet AGAIN and costing his team literally 2 games because of it, by which point the momentum had shifted... and it still only came down to 1 shot.

We can play the "woulda coulda shoulda" game a thousand different ways, no doubt about it, you're right... but Draymond definitively costing them 2 games for NON BASKETBALL RELATED REASONS was clearly the by far and away biggest reason they lost that series. It's not close.

[QUOTE=Ben Simmons 25]I don't think it's fair to compare a turnover or a missed shot or a made shot to a guy having an emotional outburst yet AGAIN and costing his team literally 2 games because of it, by which point the momentum had shifted... and it still only came down to 1 shot.

We can play the "woulda coulda shoulda" game a thousand different ways, no doubt about it, you're right... but Draymond definitively costing them 2 games for NON BASKETBALL RELATED REASONS was clearly the by far and away biggest reason they lost that series. It's not close.[/QUOTE]

The main point I was making is these events occur as they occur . I don't know the percentages or the ratio of which event is more or less to blame than others....only that what happened and yes Draymond was a factor. So was dumb turnovers. So was whatever else that happened in the manner it did. They all play some part, in some way. That's simply the natural and organic flow of how a basketball game goes, much like life really. It's like the ole throw a stone in the lake and watch the ripple effect. Everything impacts everything else which impacts everything else....and so on.

The main point of what I'm saying, KD joining the Warriors was basically overkill. There's any number of players who could have filled his spot and they're still positioned to win from 2017 till now.

how the warriors do next year if kd leaves could answer a lot of questions. Yea they might sign more bench guys or a free agent sf but it'll be a good evidence of kd's impact(unless one of the big 3 really declines or they get another star somehow).

They're not going be 2016 level since lot of role guys are older and they're depth is worse. That team legitimately looked like a solid playoff team that could win 50+ without curry and was beating some other playoff teams easily(then again that still means curry was worth like 20+wins which is huge). I think 55 wins is a good over/under number.

[QUOTE=34-24 Footwork]Do the Warriors beat the bucks or raptors without KD? Yes or no? Are Steph, Klay, and Dray enough? Do they have anyone to make Kawhi or Giannis work defensively?

And what do you mean by "it doesn't matter if the Blazers come back"? You insinuating that if the Blazers beat the Warriors, it won't be because they didn't have KD?[/QUOTE]

My god, it is unreal...

I don't know about whether or not they'd beat the Raptors / Bucks...or even Blazers.

My guess would be that they'd beat the Blazers and Raptors, but lose to the Bucks...just a guess...all 3 series likely could go either way without KD.

With KD...obviously I think they are huge favorites.

Again, this is not the point...nobody thinks this team is better without KD. What this team is without him is an elite title contending type team that could beat anyone in the league.

Then you add an all-time great player to said team and it becomes absurd.

Again, what is so ****ing hard to understand?

As to the point about the Blazers...it is because they just lost KD...they didn't replace him. They have a gaping hole on the roster now and limited depth. If they replaced KD with another quality small forward...and lost...then I'd care and it might mean something.

I swear, it is like you people can't remember 4 years ago. This team won 67, a title, 73, and was within 2 plays of another...all with ****ing Harrison Barnes. I see no reason why this team wouldn't be all-time good with just an above average small forward like they were in the past.

And, of course, you clowns need to address the elephant in the room;

29-1 without KD and with Steph in the last 30 games...:roll:

[QUOTE=Indian guy]Kobe fans sound so butt-hurt in this thread :oldlol:. Durant being the biggest poosy in sports history will forever hold a special place in their hearts because it assured the only thing they care about (LeBron losing). So they continue to pedal this fantasy where it was either KD or bust for GS after 2016. Rightttt :rolleyes:. As if simply a small upgrade over Harrison Barnes wouldn't have done the trick. Or heck, a few bounces here and there and they would've even won in 2016. But it's not the big security blanket the presence of KD on a 73-win roster gives Kobe fans, so they'll continue to push this agenda of him being oh so necessary as opposed to the league-ruining overkill that it was.

Which makes GS' dominance without KD the last 3 seasons + the continued mockery of his worthless rings so enjoyable. And that's what infuriates Kobe fans. They want the world to believe KD's presence was a major necessity for GS to triumph over LeBron the last 2 Finals (you know, when GS annihilated Cleveland). I bet they root against GS like no tomorrow when KD's out.[/QUOTE]

Exactly.

But they've already lost. Non elite teams can't go 29-1 when the player that is supposedly "carrying them" goes down...and they certainly don't win road playoff elimination games against other great teams.

It is so hilarious...they all have to pretend that Curry / Klay / Iggy / Green isn't an elite core 4 that would be contending and winning titles with just a Harrison Barnes type player in the lineup.

So pathetic considering we already saw said team ****ing set the NBA wins record and win a title.

:confusedshrug:

[QUOTE=NBAGOAT]how the warriors do next year if kd leaves could answer a lot of questions. Yea they might sign more bench guys or a free agent sf but it'll be a good evidence of kd's impact(unless one of the big 3 really declines or they get another star somehow).

They're not going be 2016 level since lot of role guys are older and they're depth is worse. That team legitimately looked like a solid playoff team that could win 50+ without curry and was beating some other playoff teams easily(then again that still means curry was worth like 20+wins which is huge). I think 55 wins is a good over/under number.[/QUOTE]

The thing is the Warriors culture could motivate other quality players to join and keep the train moving another few years. Steph is 31. Dray and Klay are 29. You got guys like Iggy and Livingston who are aging and will need to be replaced, but there's a culture of excellence under current management which could prove very inviting for prospective free agents. KD leaving opens up a space for someone else, or somebodies else, to shore up the team.

The hell with petty agendas.

I'm a basketball fan. And the Dubs without Durant are fukking good. Be it w/ results, style or just plain entertainment.

imagine complaining about having Durant on your team. what a luxury :oldlol:

[QUOTE=Vino24]imagine complaining about having Durant on your team. what a luxury :oldlol:[/QUOTE]

:roll: :roll:

Too true brotha

[QUOTE=Phoenix]The thing is the Warriors culture could motivate other quality players to join and keep the train moving another few years. Steph is 31. Dray and Klay are 29. You got guys like Iggy and Livingston who are aging and will need to be replaced, but there's a culture of excellence under current management which could prove very inviting for prospective free agents. KD leaving opens up a space for someone else, or somebodies else, to shore up the team.[/QUOTE]

yea theoretically dray would stop coasting if kd leaves but I could still see him chilling during the RS. Free agents can be hit or miss and they dont have much space but I guess I should see who they sign before making conclusions. I saw one article just now, it threw out names like Rudy, Ariza, Marcus Morris, and Danny Green for the mle. Not bad but nothing great and unlikely(most of these guys will ask for more than the mle for one). I've said it before I think 2020 is the year they go after someone after iggy and dray become fa's

[QUOTE=kuniva_dAMiGhTy]The hell with petty agendas.

I'm a basketball fan. And the Dubs without Durant are fukking good. Be it w/ results, style or just plain entertainment.[/QUOTE]

They play to win. Not to be entertaining while being shutout for 5min in a game 7 finals :lol

Warriors need a player that they can CONSISTENTLY lean on when times get tough and the effectiveness of the "entertaining ball movement" runs dry.

They can win AND be entertaining. Not mutually exclusive.

[QUOTE=34-24 Footwork]They play to win. Not to be entertaining while being shutout for 5min in a game 7 finals :lol

Warriors need a player that they can CONSISTENTLY lean on when times get tough and the effectiveness of the "entertaining ball movement" runs dry.

They can win AND be entertaining. Not mutually exclusive.[/QUOTE]


And shown they can do both without Durant.

Thanks for proving my point, I guess? :confusedshrug:

[QUOTE=kuniva_dAMiGhTy]And shown they can do both without Durant.

Thanks for proving my point, I guess? :confusedshrug:[/QUOTE]
Rockets would of won last year and Cavs would of won the year before if it wasn't for Durant's iso game

[QUOTE=Vino24]Rockets would of won last year and Cavs would of won the year before if it wasn't for Durant's iso game[/QUOTE]

We don't actually know that.

And, again, it wasn't Durant or nobody. You people have to stop acting like they weren't going to upgrade from Barnes with another player or perhaps 2 other players to fill out the depth.

What we are seeing right now is not how the team would look if they didn't sign KD...it would be considerably improved from the team we are watching now.

You know, the team that just won a road elimination game against the Rockets, beat the Blazers in game 1 easily, and has won 29 of the last 30 without KD and with Steph.

Like, as I asked earlier, can we please just retire the "Warriors need Durant" to be elite narrative? It is over...they don't.

Does he make them better? Hell yes. Is KD an amazing player? Hell yes.

Just don't tell me this team without him can't contend...and certainly don't tell me that you know what would have happened last year or the year before with another player or players in place of KD.

Because...not too long ago...not many would have given the Warriors sans KD a chance against the Rockets. Lillard was better than Steph...etc.

I just don't get what is so hard in admitting that with KD...the Warriors are nearly unbeatable unless they play like shit. Without him...they are still contenders, but could lose to a number of the best teams in a playoff series. What is so hard?

[QUOTE=34-24 Footwork]Do the Warriors beat the bucks or raptors without KD? Yes or no? Are Steph, Klay, and Dray enough? Do they have anyone to make Kawhi or Giannis work defensively?

And what do you mean by "it doesn't matter if the Blazers come back"? You insinuating that if the Blazers beat the Warriors, it won't be because they didn't have KD?[/QUOTE]

Thats irrelevant to his point.

The fact that they are 2nd best at worst if they DO LOSE the finals without Durant, shows just enough how good they are.

[QUOTE=NBAGOAT]how the warriors do next year if kd leaves could answer a lot of questions. Yea they might sign more bench guys or a free agent sf but it'll be a good evidence of kd's impact(unless one of the big 3 really declines or they get another star somehow).

They're not going be 2016 level since lot of role guys are older and they're depth is worse. That team legitimately looked like a solid playoff team that could win 50+ without curry and was beating some other playoff teams easily(then again that still means curry was worth like 20+wins which is huge). I think 55 wins is a good over/under number.[/QUOTE]

Not retroactively.

The Warriors already have answered all the relevant questions for this 5 year stretch.

They won 67, a title, 73, within a couple plays of another...then over the last 3 years...have dominated with Steph and without KD.

We all know what they've been these last 5 years. Curry haters and KD stans just can't bring themselves to admit it.

If something changes next year...then it changes next year. It won't change how good these guys have been from 15 to present though.

Like I said alongtime ago... They wouldve been better with prime bogut and anybody that can do better than Harrison "15%" Barnes. Bogut enhanced their big man passing & screen game even more, and was the best rim,protector in the league. Perfect fit.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]Not retroactively.

The Warriors already have answered all the relevant questions for this 5 year stretch.

They won 67, a title, 73, within a couple plays of another...then over the last 3 years...have dominated with Steph and without KD.

We all know what they've been these last 5 years. Curry haters and KD stans just can't bring themselves to admit it.

If something changes next year...then it changes next year. It won't change how good these guys have been from 15 to present though.[/QUOTE]

it wont change anything retroactively but it'll be easily the biggest amount of data we'll get so could affect our conclusions. The record is ridiculous without kd but I like to see some wowy numbers(which account for opponent srs etc). However tbf kd's never been the most impactful guy in the league based on some plus/minus stuff. Like westbrook I think was doing better in 16.

[QUOTE=NBAGOAT]it wont change anything retroactively but it'll be easily the biggest amount of data we'll get so could affect our conclusions. The record is ridiculous without kd but I like to see some wowy numbers(which account for opponent srs etc). However tbf kd's never been the most impactful guy in the league based on some plus/minus stuff. Like westbrook I think was doing better in 16.[/QUOTE]

Nah, the biggest amount of data is what we already have. We have 15 and 16 without KD...average of 70 wins...one title, and almost another...

Then we have them winning the last 2 titles...with KD...and now an unreal good record without KD in what is getting to a pretty large sample by itself...and has some playoff games now as well.

Data is in.

This team is a title contending team without KD...an all-time great team with KD that is nearly unbeatable...and probably close to unbeatable with 2 really good rotation players instead of KD if they had gone that route.

Something happening next year is close to irrelevant in my view...especially as the players are now aging in a way that sees a drop off.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]Because not one person is arguing that they are better without him. That is why.

And, the Warriors pre-KD...there wasn't a gaping hole in the middle of the team like there is now without him. They had Barnes...and were always going to improve that spot.

It wasn't KD or nothing.

Your post is exactly what I'm talking about. A team going 29-1 without Durant and potentially making the finals...apparently doesn't matter. Like...what?

And we are supposed to give Durant a bunch of credit for winning titles on a team that is about as good as anyone else in the league without him? And already proved they could win a title and set the wins record with Harrison Barnes instead of him??????

I just...I can't believe that we have to explain this shit to people. Its all happened less than 5 years ago. It is happening right now...people need to stop pretending that Klay/Curry/Green/Iggy isn't probably the best top 4 in the league. Yes, they lack depth, but it is still an elite roster capable of beating any team...and they continue to prove it night in night out with KD.

Again...how are we having this debate when a team is ****ing 29-1 without KD? It is over for KD stans...they lost. Doesn't matter if the Blazers come back...etc. No team should be capable of losing their "best player" and going 29-1...and win big road playoff elimination games as well.

It was stupid and unfair when KD joined...and nothing has changed. Despite what he and his moronic fan base claim.[/QUOTE]

If LeBron gets credit for his 3 titles playing with two other prime all-stars, so does Durant. Let's be consistent.

[QUOTE=BallsOut]If LeBron gets credit for his 3 titles playing with two other prime all-stars, so does Durant. Let's be consistent.[/QUOTE]
he's lebron stan kobe/kd hater

[QUOTE=BallsOut]If LeBron gets credit for his 3 titles playing with two other prime all-stars, so does Durant. Let's be consistent.[/QUOTE]

I'm not going to rehash the Miami vs GS thing...

All I'll say is that both were bitch moves, but KD joining the Warriors was a total different ballgame.

And I don't really even care about that....I'm simply addressing the KD "carrying" narrative.

I'll just keep posting this;

29-1 without KD and with Steph in the last 30 games. Someone please address that.

[QUOTE=BallsOut]If LeBron gets credit for his 3 titles playing with two other prime all-stars, so does Durant. Let's be consistent.[/QUOTE]

even in their primes. Wade/Bosh alone werent winning a title however, that was obvious. By 14, werent even a playoff team. same for kyrie/love title wise. also, kd is playing with 3, that makes a difference

[QUOTE=NBAGOAT]even in their primes. Wade/Bosh alone werent winning a title however, that was obvious. By 14, werent even a playoff team. same for kyrie/love title wise. also, kd is playing with 3, that makes a difference[/QUOTE]


Wade already proved he could win a title with a guy worse than prime Chris bosh... An old fat 12ppg shaq. Never ceases to amaze me how people underrate them.

[QUOTE=NBAGOAT]even in their primes. Wade/Bosh alone werent winning a title however, that was obvious. By 14, werent even a playoff team. same for kyrie/love title wise. also, kd is playing with 3, that makes a difference[/QUOTE]

:wtf: Wade already won a title with lesser players than LeBron and Bosh before LeBron joined his team. What are you smoking? :lol

[QUOTE=warriorfan]:wtf: Wade already won a title with lesser players than LeBron and Bosh before LeBron joined his team. What are you smoking? :lol[/QUOTE]


Dudes are on something else...

An old Kobe and pau went back to back..

A small kid from davidson, a second rounder, and klay Thompson formed one of the best dynasties ever..

But prime Dwayne wade and an all NBA PF [I]obviously[/I] couldn't win anything.

[QUOTE=tpols]Dudes are on something else...

An old Kobe and pau went back to back..

A small kid from davidson, a second rounder, and klay Thompson formed one of the best dynasties ever..

But prime Dwayne wade and an all NBA PF [I]obviously[/I] couldn't win anything.[/QUOTE]

Totally insane. :lol