Curry anyone?
- Thread starter Dustinlikestodance
- Start date
I like him way more than Jennings--I know Jennings has matured and obviously has the potential that come with undersized scoring guards, but I do have reservations since he's barely played at Europe and I'm not sure about his receptiveness to defense and passing, two of the things that we need more in our point guards. He's not a bad pick--I like him more than Harden--in that he provides point guard quickness on top of the legit scoring, but I think Curry will provide us with smarter play, consistent three point shooting, and potential passing ability (he averaged 6 assists per game in college). But again, we'll see...
Also, to address the OP, I absolutely agree...Petrie loves shooters, and honestly he may try to make up for the Quincy Douby mistake by drafting a guy similar to his prototype. I think Curry has several things going in his favor that Douby doesn't--he's intensely competitive and really carried his team through the big games, but most importantly showed the passing ability and unselfishness that Douby completely lacked at the college level. Those two alone should make him a solid NBA player in some capacity.
Also, to address the OP, I absolutely agree...Petrie loves shooters, and honestly he may try to make up for the Quincy Douby mistake by drafting a guy similar to his prototype. I think Curry has several things going in his favor that Douby doesn't--he's intensely competitive and really carried his team through the big games, but most importantly showed the passing ability and unselfishness that Douby completely lacked at the college level. Those two alone should make him a solid NBA player in some capacity.
Last edited:
Why wouldn't he fit in the Princeton? Not being spiteful, just wondering why you thought that way.
Edit: Arby's totally agree with what you're saying. He'll play the same role in the Princeton as Bibby did. Catch, shoot, pick and rolls. Not to mention he's gotten tremendously better at handling the point within a year of being moved there. Impressive stuff to say the least.
Edit: Arby's totally agree with what you're saying. He'll play the same role in the Princeton as Bibby did. Catch, shoot, pick and rolls. Not to mention he's gotten tremendously better at handling the point within a year of being moved there. Impressive stuff to say the least.
Last edited:
I think Curry has a place in the league. I just think his role is going to be more shooter then play maker. If we want that type of player i would go for Teague. Not including Jennings i like a few other point guards more then Curry. If we got a mid first round pick i would be all over him but at #4 I think its a big reach.
So just reaching a bit here... wouldn't that make him a GREAT fit for our offensive system?
to nbrans: not to mention quicker IMO and craftier. Will never be as strong, but then again, beefed up Bibby didn't do so well for us.
to nbrans: not to mention quicker IMO and craftier. Will never be as strong, but then again, beefed up Bibby didn't do so well for us.
Mike Bibbly
This guy has potential to creep up into a top 5 pick. He can create his own shot as well Plus he's actually played PG for one season already with a decent 5+ assist/game at Davidson. If we stick with Princeton, then there is less of a need to him to be a full time assist man.
A Stephen and Spencer's pick and roll game would be sweeeet.
This guy has potential to creep up into a top 5 pick. He can create his own shot as well Plus he's actually played PG for one season already with a decent 5+ assist/game at Davidson. If we stick with Princeton, then there is less of a need to him to be a full time assist man.
A Stephen and Spencer's pick and roll game would be sweeeet.
It's not ours to decide. As long as Coachie is with us, a lot of his principles and offensive style are going to rub off. That means similarities to the Princeton. I do agree with Brick, however, that our backcourt would be atrocious on defense.
And I ask, how is it restricting? It's not a fullblown Princeton where nobody gets to post up. Webber and Divac had plenty of opportunities running Coachies O.
And I ask, how is it restricting? It's not a fullblown Princeton where nobody gets to post up. Webber and Divac had plenty of opportunities running Coachies O.
From what I've seen (this INCLUDES the glory day Kings), the Princeton is plenty versatile. Presents a ton of pick and roll opportunities, open shots, chances to post. How is that strict in any way? Unless you think that J-Will and company were FORCED to play in a wild and entertaining playground style, not to mention successfully, how could you think that?
Edit: Just to add on- ANY person can adapt to an offensive system. Any offense has a type of player that fits it best or better than others. So, by this logic, you are saying all offenses are bad because they restrict what players are chosen? Triangle requires a certain player. Princeton requires a certain player. Even Mike freaking D'Antoni's all you can eat system has a certain player that fits it best.
Edit: Just to add on- ANY person can adapt to an offensive system. Any offense has a type of player that fits it best or better than others. So, by this logic, you are saying all offenses are bad because they restrict what players are chosen? Triangle requires a certain player. Princeton requires a certain player. Even Mike freaking D'Antoni's all you can eat system has a certain player that fits it best.
Last edited:
JWill struggled mightily as the Princeton took hold -- his impact was out in the open court. As we morphed into a halfcourt Princeton team he was a fish out of water, lsot his minutes, and eventually lost his job.
Here are the types of players the Princeton works against:
-- slashers w/o jumpshots
-- rebounding/shotblocking bigs without much offense
-- one on one players
-- PGs who dominate the ball
-- physical guys without high I.Q.
Well even with Bibby, we had a very fluid offense. And he was quite the PG for the Grizzlies before he got to Sac. Around 8 assists/game. So what I'm saying is that every offense has a particular player that it has in mind. But players can adapt, which is what Bibby did when he was traded for.
And, unless you're a superstar, I don't think any team would want a ball dominating PG. And wouldn't slashers thrive in the Princeton since there's so much cutting. I agree with the rest though.
And, unless you're a superstar, I don't think any team would want a ball dominating PG. And wouldn't slashers thrive in the Princeton since there's so much cutting. I agree with the rest though.
Me thinks that there has been a few championships won using the Triangle offense. But your right about limiting the type of players you need to run any motion offense. They need to be skilled players, like Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant, or perhaps Scotty Pippin.
By the way, I agree with you on Curry..
By the way, I agree with you on Curry..