In game 6, Curry's 2nd (Lebron lowering his shoulder and running into Curry), 5th, and 6th fouls were all questionable. I have no problem if the refs want to call nitpicky fouls on Curry. But then they should also be calling the nitpicky fouls that are committed against Curry, and they weren't.
This. If you want to say that Curry needs to handle non-called fouls because "playoffs" you only call, then I don't want to hear how a lot Curry's fouls are technically fouls and should be called. If you want to play physical against Curry, let him play physical back. Or let neither side play physical. Can't have it both ways.
Answer: play physical on both sides. The problem for Curry is that he does not play physical. He slaps at the ball going for steals. Or he gets called for blocking (like on the play with Shumpert). There's a difference. NBA refs reward shows of strength, like holding your ground when someone runs into you (rather than collapsing like Curry did vs. Shumpert). Or getting a steal by using your body to shield off the other player. It's just common knowledge. If you don't believe me, watch Draymond Green play. He plays physical and that's why he gets the calls. Curry plays soft.
Yet in game 6, Lebron flopped and stumbled to the ground. That "show of strength" forced the refs to whistle Curry for his 6th foul. Curry's foul against Shumpert is indefensible. It was a terrible call. By defending it, you're simply showing your bias. Also, it's pointless to compare Green to Curry. PG's are generally a non-contact position while PF/C's typically have a lot of contact.
PG is a non-contact position after the rule changes. But you said Curry couldn't be stopped even under the old rules. So why are you whining about foul calls now (calls that wouldn't be fouls then)?
Haha. But the Warriors play positionless basketball amirite?? How are the refs supposed to know which players cannot have any contact? Oh yea, the puny guys who don't work out.
When I said that Curry couldn't be stopped under the old rules, I was under the impression that everyone would be playing by the old rules....not just Curry. I do think Curry could play under the old rules, but he'd need time to adjust to them. Let me ask you this though....you obviously don't think Curry would be a superstar under the old rules. Do you really think that these finals games prove you right?
What are you saying, that if everyone were playing under the old rules that Curry wouldn't foul out or something? We are talking about his main contribution, which is his scoring and his efficiency. The ability to grab and hold him, what you call fouls, make him not as effective. This Finals and the last one. What's the evidence that he could excel against physical defense that was standard back in the day? You also said Curry wasn't a defensive liability. We just had two straight series where the other teams gameplan was attack Curry as much as possible. His teammates couldn't cover for him this time. You also said versatility didn't matter. I think LeBron just showed us that versatility can make a huge difference. If Curry's shot isn't falling then he isn't contributing much.
You're exaggerating the level of physical defense as well as the frequency. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K96cZTv4M8o The "Jordan Rules" defense wasn't nearly as prevalent as you think. He's not. Compared to Klay Thompson, Curry is an inferior defender, but by no means is he a defensive liability. Also, how did that gameplan work out for OKC? In the last 3 games, Westbrook shot 11-28, 10-27, and 7-21. Against Irving/Lebron, I felt like Curry played good defense, but that good defense was trumped by better offense.
Good defense or not, the point was the Cavs made it obvious in their gameplan to get Curry on switchs and get the matchup they want with him on Lebron or Kyrie. Thats the point. That alone makes him the defensive liability. When bigs were in like Ezeli/Varejao/Speights those guys then became the defensive liability because the Cavs made the effort to switch on him and get those matchups. Just because a player can play good defense, that doesn't excuse them from being a defensive liability. its all about matchups and what you can best exploit for the team to win.
Is that really a Curry failure though? No one expects Curry to be able to defend LeBron one on one. There aren't many small guards that can guard LeBron one on one period. I feel like that is more Kerr's fault for putting Curry constantly in that situation and making no adjustments.
Wow, the first two posters on this page are so lame. The refs didn't decide this series. All those games were blowouts until the last game and the last game was called very fairly. Can we all agree that refs don't matter in blowouts? No? Okay, then you're stupid I win, you lose.
didn't say it was a Curry failure but in those situations it makes him the defensive liability which is the whole point right now. its not really Kerr's fault because GS also made it an effort to switch back when an open window was given but credit to Clev, whenever that happened it was either an open attack to the basket or a pass out to an open shot. Too much is made about blaming coaches all the time and "adjustments". The adjustments have already been put in place. It comes down to execution. Clev just did it better in the last few minute because that's what the game down to. It could have easily gone either way.
Idk what to tell you man, I thought at least 90% of the fouls called on Curry were legit. There were a few questionable calls, but at the end of the day he just didn't play well. He wasn't in foul trouble in game 7 and was a no show. He had a few excellent games in the playoffs after returning from the injury. No one is 100% this time of year. No excuses.
That's cool. It just means you have double standards and were most likely rooting against Curry. His phantom foul on Shumpert in the 2nd quarter was his 3rd foul. 3 fouls in 2 quarters is "foul trouble". That's an irrelevant cliche. There's a huge difference between accumulating aches and pains through the course of the regular season and actually spraining something in the playoffs and missing a few weeks of action.
I think your definition is a bit off. It sounds like you're conflating "defensive liability" with "weakest link". Thus far, you've been saying that Curry is a defensive liability b/c he's the weakest defender on the GSW starting 5. However, whether or not a player is a "defensive liability" shouldn't be contingent on his teammates or opponents. For instance, let's say that Aaron Brooks played the 1 and Curry the 2. According to your definition, Curry would no longer be the defensive liability. However, that's not how it works. A player who is a defensive liability is a defensive liability regardless of his teammates. Also, regardless of who the Cavs played, they would've tried to scheme for Lebron to be guarded by the weakest defender. According to your definition, at that point, every pg in the league would be considered a "defensive liability". A true "defensive liability" is a guy whose defensive mental lapses are so chronic that he's hidden on the opponent's worst offensive player, and even in those situations, he occasionally gets beaten.
that's your definition of defensive liability and that's fine. Yours isn't incorrect and neither is mine. You're basically trying to go for the textbook definition which isn't something I'm doing right now. I'm speaking in terms relative to the situation he was put in during the matchup with the cavs. Like I said, whenever he was switched to matchup with either Lebron/Kyrie he became the defensive liability in that particular instance. Because thats exactly what the Cavs were looking to exploit. And I've said it before anytime they got the matchup they wanted, that player also then became the defensive liability regardless of who it is. From this perspective that's just what it is to me. You can also call it weak link, doesn't make much of a difference.
Yours is incorrect. According to your definition, whether or not a player is a "defensive liability" depends on each individual game. In game 1, he is. In game 2, he isn't. etc... That's simply wrong. Whether or not a player is a defensive liability doesn't change on a game by game basis. Look at it this way. James Harden is a great scorer, right? Nevertheless, in a game against Brooklyn this year, he only scored 10 points. Him having a bad game doesn't change the fact that he's a great scorer. However, according to your logic, he's a poor scorer against Brooklyn.
lol no sir. hilarious how you're trying to tell someone else they're wrong what are you even talking about. of course a player can change from being a defensive liability. That status is nowhere near etched in stone. There's nothing that says one player can't be. that's ridiculous. every game is different. I have no idea how this is even this difficult for you to understand. You get a switch on Beverley to have him guard KD, he is now the defensive liability in the game, You get a switch on ellis to have him guard Lebron, he now becomes the defensive liability, you get a switch on dunleavy to have him guard Harden, he now becomes the defensive liability. I can go on and on. Point being those particular players become defensive liabilities in those situations. Just because it doesn't fit your broad definition doesn't make it incorrect. Please spare me the attempted lecture on correct basketball. It looks like you still don't get it when I said I'm speaking in terms relative to matchups. Your analogy of scorer doesn't follow that and is irrelevant to this discussion.
