Onus wrote:Most other offenses run isolation, pick and roll, drive and kick and dray isn’t really suited for those types of offenses. How many superstars are willing to give up the ball and let dray initiate offense?
The defense will obviously translate.
If we were a .500 team without Steph then you’d have a point. We just lost to one of the worst teams in the nba. A team that hasn’t won when wemby wasn’t playing and it wasn’t particularly close. Hell this year without cp and dray Steph was able to keep us close to .500 and Kerr was really searching but we’ve never had a loss as bad as last night. Even with kd we were a slightly better than .500 team.
Draymond is very important. Has always been our 2nd most important player. But he would struggle in a lot of other situations. Luckily he’s in this situation where he thrives.
Dray moves well off-ball, sets screens well, does drive and kick... he does it on low volume here because its not the offense here. But which of those is he not efficient at, besides isolation? And I dont think any team would ever ask for him to run iso any more than they'd ask Ben Wallace
Basing a whole take off one game where a team shot the lights out and the Warriors didnt isn't a dataset... and most teams would be able to use Draymond well. Its not hard to make high IQ players fit an established system. The problem is that casual fans always equate Draymond to some role player just because he doesnt score. Philly and Denver made that mistake too, and thats how Iguodala dropped into our laps. Its why we don't critique Steph's ability to patrol the paint defensively.. because what sane person would put him in that situation? Play to strengths, and Dray does that better than most in the league. Majority of coaches would find a way to use him - its not like Kerr saw something special in a cast off. That's GP2, if anyone - because he actually would struggle in most systems but can thrive in the Warriors system
