Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
He's actually not. NBA guys call him three greatest out of the offense scorer in league history. He gets his points in a very specific fashion. He's also the third best player on his team. Klay is 90 percent as good offensively while being twice the defender and more durable.
So you are claiming that Klay was the primary reason for why Golden State won their championship in 2015, i.e. the year before they signed Durant?
The the fact that Steph Curry was the NBA MVP that season and averaged 26 points and 6.3 assists per game during the NBA Finals would seem to counter your argument. [Reply]
Originally Posted by KCChiefsFan88:
So you are claiming that Klay was the primary reason for why Golden State won their championship in 2015, i.e. the year before they signed Durant?
The the fact that Steph Curry was the NBA MVP that season and averaged 26 points and 6.3 assists per game during the NBA Finals would seem to counter your argument.
You mean the NBA Finals where the bench player (Andre Iguodala) won the Finals MVP? That's your argument for Curry's Finals performance?
Originally Posted by PAChiefsGuy:
You're just a hater. He didnt have it easy GS Warriors sucked when he got there. He gets criticized all the time both on and off rhe court. You don't win NBA MVP award twice by having it easy.
Sure you do. He couldn't win the MVP award unless he had it easy.
The Warriors sucked for most of his first several seasons, and he couldn't elevate them until he had Klay and Draymond.
He doesn't have to carry a heavy minutes load, nor does he have to carry a defensive load at all. It's easy to put up big numbers on offense (Irving, Harden) when you don't have to expend much energy on defense. [Reply]
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
Sure you do. He couldn't win the MVP award unless he had it easy.
The Warriors sucked for most of his first several seasons, and he couldn't elevate them until he had Klay and Draymond.
He doesn't have to carry a heavy minutes load, nor does he have to carry a defensive load at all. It's easy to put up big numbers on offense (Irving, Harden) when you don't have to expend much energy on defense.
Apparently, leading your team in scoring is 'having it easy' [Reply]
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
You mean the NBA Finals where the bench player (Andre Iguodala) won the Finals MVP? That's your argument for Curry's Finals performance?
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
Sure you do. He couldn't win the MVP award unless he had it easy.
The Warriors sucked for most of his first several seasons, and he couldn't elevate them until he had Klay and Draymond.
He doesn't have to carry a heavy minutes load, nor does he have to carry a defensive load at all. It's easy to put up big numbers on offense (Irving, Harden) when you don't have to expend much energy on defense.
That is silly Hamas. His early years he was hurt because of his ankles. Once he was healthy he exploded. [Reply]
Here’s my take on the “Warriors don’t need KD” debate:
The Warriors needed KD for 2 things:
1) To break up OKC 2) To counter LeBron in the Finals
However, if KD never went to GS, they might’ve been able to win again anyway. Unfortunately, we’ll never know for sure.
— Barry McCockiner (@SportsTalkBarry) May 11, 2019
And we’ll never know thanks to Durant’s laughable move to the team who beat him to grab a few counterfeit championships, a move even he is ashamed of. [Reply]
Originally Posted by New World Order:
Apparently, leading your team in scoring is 'having it easy'
A part of me feels bad for James Harden. He certainly didn't play poorly against the Warriors, he just doesn't have the luxury of being able to play like Sebastian Telfair for 3 quarters like you know who does.
— Barry McCockiner (@SportsTalkBarry) May 11, 2019
Being able to do nothing for entire games/series and still winning is having it easy, yes. [Reply]
