11 Responses to “Thoughts on Game No. 21: Warriors 112, Thunder 102”

1. 

   jaxfor3 December 9th, 2008 at 10:29 am

   Why is Biedrins always the inbound passer? Shouldn’t the inbounds passer be someone who is more in tune with the art of passing, the team does have “point guards” afterall.

2. 

   ajbry December 9th, 2008 at 10:33 am

   Weeda won by 30 with Jack.

3. 

   frenzy December 9th, 2008 at 11:16 am

   jaxfor3,

   Biedrins is the inbound passer because they dont want him to be intentionally fouled because of the poor free throw percentage. But Nelson still wants a big man in there for rebounding and maybe lowpost scoring or tipping. Therefore It makes him the de facto in bound passer. Although they might change that plan now.

4. 

   Cedric December 9th, 2008 at 11:25 am

   I’d love to hear what Nelson says about Wright after he sees tape of the rebounding banishment. If he was, in fact, blocking out Green while reaching for the ball, does Nelli expect him to block out for his teammates and still get that rebound? I think Nelli still feels like BWright is the reason they don’t have JRich and is taking that misguided reasoning out on him. JRich was all heart and effort. BWright is much more laid back in his play and demeanor. Randolph’s style is more like JRich’ and he seems to be in Nelli’s favor more than his abilities (at this stage in his development) dictate,

5. 

   Jon December 9th, 2008 at 1:44 pm

   Can we all chip in for airfare to send Crawford to a junior high basketball camp somewhere so he can learn to box out?

6. 

   kay tweez December 9th, 2008 at 2:48 pm

   ajbry, the warriors would have at more than the 20+ turnovers they had with jax. send him and his awful contract somewhere, anywhere…

7. 

   jsl December 9th, 2008 at 2:51 pm

   Ajbry: Let’s watch the sarcasm. With Jack in, the game slows down — and we’d almost certainly lose in the fourth quarter. Plus, Nelson couldn’t have banished Wright so (relatively) late in the game — when the team still lead by 15-20 because of HIS impact. No, We were lucky to be without Jack and (especially) Maggette yesterday. Another case of addition by subtraction. Too bad nelson’s still there, though.

8. 

   SJ Jim December 9th, 2008 at 3:17 pm

   Geoff, regarding your opening comment about (not) hoisting 3’s with plenty of time on the shot clock, one of the most troubling plays of the entire game for me was in that category. It occurred with about 6 1/2 minutes left in the 4th. Our 18-point lead to start the quarter had begun to evaporate, and Kevin Durant had just hit another 3, cutting our lead to 12. Momentum was clearly shifting. Jamal Crawford, our veteran presence on the floor at that point in time (who finished 1-5 from behind the arc for the game, btw), proceeds to bring the ball upcourt and immediately hoists a 3, which was not only ill-advised, but went ugly. As Fitz likes to say, it went “wide right”. Within the next minute, they cut our lead down to 8 (and Crawford turned it over twice).

9. 

   Ray December 9th, 2008 at 8:22 pm

   Sj JIm how is that play troubling ? Crawford if we could finish around the basket wouldve had an easy double double and from the start was actually provding that veteran leadership.We were destroying them with the high screen and roll in the 3rd with Crawford and Biedrens .It wasnt Crawford who decided to go small and decided to run isolations in the 4th. That was all Don Nelson.I thought Crawford was terrific considering hes out there with a young team on the road and was able to to get us the win to break the streak.

10. 

    SJ Jim December 9th, 2008 at 11:17 pm

    Ray, you ask me how it’s troubling, and then you go on to describe other (positive) things that Crawford did. I’m not saying he didn’t have a decent game overall, but that play bothered me a lot. He’s a veteran, he should know better than to jack up a bad 3 like that (especially when he’d been cold from that distance) so early in the shot clock when we needed to stem the tide of O.C.’s run with crunch time approaching. We had just gone from being up 18 to being up only 12, and a minute after Crawford’s ill-advised shot it was down to 8. It was a bad play at a bad time from a veteran who should be leading by example. How is that not troubling? By the way, did you disagree with or not understand Lepper’s opening premise? Ball movement. Shot selection. Discipline…

11. 

    Geo77 December 10th, 2008 at 12:02 pm

    Geoff- Thanks for giving the rest of the story on Wright’s missed rebound. I couldn’t watch the game, but over the last couple of years I have been continually frustrated by the Ws wing players acting like spectators when defensive rebounds come off. If you’re not releasing down the court put your body on someone in a defensive rebounding situation - is that so hard to teach or learn? The Ws bigs get more than their fair share of criticism because of this.