You really are stupid as fukk and clearly don't watch games, did I say he was going to ISO? No, guys run at him because he's out at the 3 line you dumbass, he's one of the few "stretch" fours in the league that can put the ball on the floor from the 3 line and find shooters or get the hockey assist. With every single post you make, you show how little you actually watch the NBA, nowhere did I even imply that he'd go into Isolation with him
fukking idiot
You said that he goes by guys and forces the defense to rotate. What you you have just now described is him getting open shots/lanes to the hoop due to people rotating off of him. He doesn't create the defensive rotations, he benefits from them. Teams play off of him to help against Steph and Klay. That's my point. He doesn't get many hockey assists because he's not a creator. His assists are usually somebody else's hockey assist. He get's the ball in a playmaking position due to somebody else breaking the defense down. You're arguing that a guy like Oakley couldn't guard him on the perimeter as if he's some kind of go-to threat out there. He's not. I'm making that clear whether you actually came out and said it or not. Dude is 6-20 in the first 2 games with the defense playing off of him.
and you're damn right I edited at 4am, I had to add that you're a clown to the post.
The sad part is you're not even ashamed to admit that you have nothing better to do.
More stupid shyt, the Grizz made 1 less 3 in the two games they won, the games they lost the Warriors made 40 more threes than them and the games weren't close, like usual you have no idea what you're talking about.
The point remains. You said that the only way to beat this team is to hit a bunch of 3s. I refute that dumb shyt by pointing out that the Grizz took 2 of the first 3 without hitting a lot of 3s. I suspect that Tony Allen re-injuring himself and not being the same after the first 3 games had something to with the difference in how the last 3 games played out. Regardless, you don't need to shoot a bunch of 3s to beat a team like this. If you can play defense and limit their 3point efficiency then that can work too. Obviously you can't just allow them to make a bunch of 3s while you only hit 2s, that's basic math that goes without saying. Ole one way to skin a cat ass lame.
And nobody on the Knicks could create at all, you're trying to knock the Warriors for something that the Knicks simply couldn't do at all. You don't even understand how defense works today and how having 1 post player on the floor with 4 non-shooters would be neutralized.
I'm not knocking the Warriors at all. I'm just responding to you're over the top dikkriding. You say that nobody on the Knicks could create off of the dribble as if this Warriors team is loaded with cats that can. Pointing out that Steph and Klay(2 people) are the only 2 who consistently can isn't a knock, it's a response to your comparison.
I understand perfectly well how defenses work today. What you don't seem to understand is that the difference in how defenses work today is directly due to the difference in the way that the game is called and played. This is why your thread is stupid. It's a different fukking game. If these Warriors had to play under 90's rules they wouldn't be able to zone up on a dominant post player playing off of non shooters covering their weakness inside. The Cavs are beating them up on the inside with no feature consistent post player. Mosgov and Thompson are giving them fits inside. This weakness would be magnified against a team that had a go-to low post player.
fukk you and YOUR premise, the thread is about a team from the 90s playing a team from today, go make your own thread about the differences in eras
Again, you disregard the differences in eras and the factor that plays in your bullshyt hypothetical because you're a stupid motherfukker. I don't have to make my own thread to prove how stupid yours is.
You're using two different rules to imply that both of them made it easier for perimeter players today, when that isn't even remotely true. Only 1 of them made it easier, and removing it had to be done because of the fact they were allowing teams to zone up. The zone itself is effective against post players and perimeter players as well, and the fact you basically repeated what I wrote is comical. The zone had a bigger effect on making it harder for post players, but they can still prosper as long as they have 3 or 4 shooters around them
You and the other idiots act like the 90s guys were playing against a zone and handchecking as well, and that getting rid of handchecking is why guys today turned into stars.
You really are slow. While the zone can be effective against dominant perimeter players it's clearly more effective against dominant post players. The zone along with the lack of quality big men and other factors caused teams to stop building around low post players. This made the game more perimeter oriented. I didn't say anything about the zone making the game easier for perimeter players you stupid fukk. Learn how to read. I said that the league deliberately tried to bolster scoring particularly on the perimeter. The zone might not have made the game easier for perimeter players, but the changes in the way that the game is called damn sure did. I'm not even not even the one who brought up handchecking, you did. It's not even just handchecking tho. I just talked about the ways in which the rules made the game more perimeter oriented. Giving more opportunities to guards/sfs taking opportunities away from centers/pfs. The way that you can't bump cutters, commit hard fouls at the hoop to discourage driving, while they allow the offense to set illegal screens all play a role in making it easier to score on the perimeter in addition to outlawing handchecking.
One year? he averaged 15/8 on 44% shooting for the Bullets, which are numbers on par with Mike Conley, he did it in the 90s so he must be better than Conley, right?
@ you having the audacity to say someone is on some feminine shyt when a couple posts down you're calling
@ghostwriterx names because he can see how much of a fukking clown you are and how empty your posts are. You're a fakkit of the highest order, your posts below speak of how much a bytch you are, if someone wants to agree with you cool I'm not going to throw a hissy fit like your bytch ass.
Yea, pretend as if name calling is feminine while you call names of your own. You're melting down to the point that you're not even making sense. I can call you every name under the sun while still staying on topic. Mentally weak emotionally fragile geeks like you can't do that. I don't have to take breaks from arguments to call you names. I insult you while I'm making a point.
Kyrie had "empty stats" last year as well, Adams posted numbers on a winning team in the 80s as well, so basically you're stupid as shyt.
Kyrie putting up empty stats last year, Michael Adams putting up "numbers" in the 80s, and your mother being a man has nothing to do with the topic at hand. You think that I call you feminine just as an insult, but I'm using it as an adjective. You actually argue like a emotionally unstable woman. Right now you're just arguing to save face because I've hurt your feelings. You're need to calm down and realize that you're not even making sense. You've dug up little ass Michael Adams because I said something about not knowing what kind of pg Conley would be in the 90s
Tryna equate him to a Michael Adams doesn't really refute my point. Conley consistently leads winning teams and is generally seen as the most underrated pg in the league today. Nothing against Michael Adams, but you couldn't say that about him. Most of the teams he played on sucked. The teams he put up his best numbers on sucked. He didn't play on many winning teams and he was never looked at as the most underrated point guard in the league. So if you're saying that Conley would be what Michael Adams was in the 90s, a starting pg putting up low efficient empty stats on shytty teams then that doesn't refute anything that I've said.
So Bogut wouldn't be able to defend anyone at all, just because you say so, of course! Lets act like the Bulls themselves didn't have garbage ass centers who weren't always overmatched.
This is another example of your femininity. First you misrepresent what I've said then you weakly try to dismiss my point after you've disingenuously framed it. I didn't say "Bogut wouldn't be able to defend anyone at all" you limp wristed fakkit. I said that the Warriors wouldn't be able to get away with single covering a decent 90s low post center in that area without being severely exposed. You can't guard a decent low post scoring 90s center one on one which is why those guys garnered double teams. That's not even a knock against Bogut. The Bulls had centers that were overmatched but they had more depth at center than the Warriors and they also had two of the best wing/team defenders in the history of the sport. I have to spoonfeed your dumbass.
You keep saying the Warriors are "small" because they play Green at PF, as though he's not the same height as Rodman, by your definition the Bulls from 96-98 played "small" since Green is heavier than Rodman. Are you going to say Rodman could guard 5s? Cause Green has done that as well, so what will your next bullshyt line be about.
So now Green=Rodman huh? You'll literally say anything at this point. The definition of a clown. He couldn't even keep Tristan Thompson off of the boards. Son had 6 offensive boards 1st game and 7 more the last night. Pathetic.
He's been better than Charles Smith was with the Knicks, PERIOD. Get out your feelings, you stay a bytch in every thread and I'd say at least half your fukking replies on this site are to me which is just
you may as well just start following me.
At your delusional ass. I've got 5k posts(
at your 37k) and you think that half are quoting you? You're telling on yourself bruh. You quoted me you dumb fukk, I didn't quote you. What are you smoking?
The Warriors in the 90s were soft as shyt and never had trouble scoring, they couldn't defend, these modern teams can. Very few teams in the 90s had PFs that were post up guys that could expose any of these PFs. But since they played in the 90s they're given special attributes they didn't have, like Oakley somehow taking advantage of Green, even though Zbo & Gasol couldn't. It's never too late to call a fakkit a fakkit, fakkit.
For the umpteenth time, it's a different game. These Warriors would have a harder time playing defense in the 90s as they are currently constructed. Mosgov was giving them fits last night and he's not even a post up player. Just his pure size and presence gave the Warriors problems. My point is that the size and strength that teams had down low in the 90s would give this team problems similar to what we saw last night.
Who gives a shyt what your opinion is
You do fakkit, that's why you quoted me. You really are a woman.
you keep talking about how the thread is invalid yet keep responding to it, and now your bytch ass is calling people names when they don't agree with you. This GS team would be able to take advantage of the 3 line in the 90s, there is zero reason for them to be constructed differently, other than you thinking the 90s was gladiator basketball.
Just look at your girly ass way of thinking. "You say that the thread is invalid but you keep responding......you call me names
" Like you're only supposed to threads that you agree with. Like you aren't calling names. Making the argument that your hypothetical is why I'm responding you idiot. I came in and stated my opinion, you quoted me trying to challenge my opinion and here we are. Get off that emotional shyt. I call you names because they fit. You're a stupid motherfukker who doesn't know what he's talking about and you're a bytch about it. I've explained why the team would need to be constructed differently if there were playing in a different era under different rules playing a different game.
I don't care what your post was in response to, you literally cannot break the game down beyond just players comparison, you couldn't explain what the Bulls would have done different to win that game. The Knicks were Championship contenders in the 90s, with John Starks being the 2nd best player, fukk outta here with your bullshyt. Your agenda is to preserve the fond childhood memories you have of the NBA, I love basketball as a whole and give a fukk about what rose colored memories you have of the NBA 20 years ago, teams today are better PERIOD.
You literally said nothing here. Just bytchmade feminine conjecture that means nothing. "The Knicks were contenders with Starks as the 2nd best player". You say that as if that statement alone somehow deads the debate. The Cavs just beat this Warriors team at home with Mosgov as the 2nd best player. They beat the Warriors with Lebron shooting 11-34. The Cavs just beat the Warriors with Matthew fukking Dellavedova starting at point. Learn basketball.
me the most is none of the teams today are not complete as the Warriors with an all time shooter in Steph Curry... old as Duncan with old ass Manu an K Leonard TP have pretty much dominated the last 3 years..the Spurs don't shoot as many threes and don't have a "elite" shooter but somehow a team that's similar built like them from the 90's wouldn't dominate...it's 
get out your feelings too fakkit, you in here calling everybody names when they disagree with you like a bytch. This is my last response to you too, you on some true bytch shyt with how you're responding to other posters in here, shyt is pathetic.
Next time just don't quote me that way you want have to tuck your tail between your legs and run off when I put my foot in your loose ass. Ole pop shyt then cry when someone slaps you in the mouth ass lame.
