# Bench Jamison? Start Dunleavy?



## D5 (Jun 23, 2003)

I personally think this idea would be *GREAT*, Dunleavy is a two-way player, he's improving offensively and he's sound defensively while Jamison, who is a talented offensive player, is not up to standards defensively. I would sit Jamison and start Dunleavy and just go to Jamison for 'instant' points.

Opinions?


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

BAAAD idea!
Dunleavy is still struggling with his shot, and with Murph on the starting 5, the forward must have a good offense. Hence... Jamison.


----------



## Jason Caffeine (May 31, 2002)

Murphy doesn't start at the 5...


----------



## D5 (Jun 23, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Jason Caffeine</b>!
> Murphy doesn't start at the 5...





> Originally posted by <b>PauloCatarino</b>!
> BAAAD idea!
> Dunleavy is still struggling with his shot, and with *Murph on the starting 5*, the forward must have a good offense. Hence... Jamison.


That means in the starting lineup.


----------



## dr-dru (Feb 9, 2003)

i don't like it, and even if the warriors decide to bench there leading scorer, who knows if he'll do well coming off the bench. plus that is just total disrespect to jamison. he'd be asking for a trade if that happened.


----------



## tdizzle (Apr 12, 2003)

Personally I think the Warriors need to build the franchise around Jamison, he is a very solid player. I really think the Warriors will be a good team in a few years with the great young nucleus of players they have.


----------



## D5 (Jun 23, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>tdizzle</b>!
> Personally I think the Warriors need to build the franchise around Jamison, he is a very solid player. I really think the Warriors will be a good team in a few years with the great young nucleus of players they have.


He is a good player but his attitude on and off court is all wrong. He rarely takes the blame for his mistakes on court and off the court he's a total jerk. I waited outside of Oakland Arena after one game and a few people went up to his limo to get autographs and he rolled down the window and basically said:
'Get the hell away from my limo.'
That's not the right attitude towards fans.


----------



## MussWin (Apr 11, 2003)

I am all for cutting down his minutes a bit, he is so one dimensional it kills us sometimes. We can't bench him though, he is the friggin "franchise" player. Dunleavy really does bring so much more to the table, he is the best passer on the team, decent handles, his D is already better than Tawn, and he will eventually become a better, more consistent outside shooter. Jamison was a much better team player this year, he didn't sulk quite as much as in the past, he didn't complain too much when he felt he wasn't getting enough shots because the team was winning. I think Jamison will be good trade bait in 2 years when his contract isn't quite so daunting and a team is looking for someone to just score. I don't think he has any problem playing second fiddle if we keep Gil, please God let us keep Gil!


----------



## whiterhino (Jun 15, 2003)

Didn't Jamison have a really terrible FG% this past season. He was on one of my fantasy teams and I started to bench him because my FG% suffered so much!


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>whiterhino</b>!
> Didn't Jamison have a really terrible FG% this past season. He was on one of my fantasy teams and I started to bench him because my FG% suffered so much!


Not so terrible! (.470 FG%)
But if Arenas splits and you bench Jamison, who's gonna score?
Richardson (.410%)? Dunleavy (.403FG% - sure it's bound to improve, but how much?)?

Who else, then?


----------



## D5 (Jun 23, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>PauloCatarino</b>!
> 
> 
> Not so terrible! (.470 FG%)
> ...


Murphy CAN contribute but I see what you're saying.


----------



## Skiptomylou12 (Jun 25, 2003)

face it, jamison is not our franchise player, our franchise palyer is gilbert arenas at this moment. well if gil leaves we can try out dunleavy at point-forward and see what happens


----------



## takis (Jun 25, 2003)

i think this is one of THE most idiotic comments ive ever heard.

regardless of how these players will be in the future.. jamison is 100x the player dunleavy is. sure mike has great fundamentals and can play some D but without jamison in the lineup wed score about 60 points a game. cmon people.. im all about getting better defensively but that is not the answer.

what we need to do is start playing better team defense.


----------



## D5 (Jun 23, 2003)

> Originally posted by takis!
> i think this is one of THE most idiotic comments ive ever heard.
> 
> regardless of how these players will be in the future.. jamison is 100x the player dunleavy is. sure mike has great fundamentals and can play some D but without jamison in the lineup wed score about 60 points a game. cmon people.. im all about getting better defensively but that is not the answer.
> ...





> Harassment occurs when a member insults, attacks, and/or denigrates another member at any time. For instance, the use of terms such as "idiot," "moron," "stupid," and like terms constitutes harassment. Harassment not only includes individuals but also can apply to insults against teams, players, and groups of BasketballBoards.net members. Repeated critical and sharply negative posts toward a team forum, team forum members, and/or a team's fan base as a whole can also constitute harassment.


I believe you have just constituted harrasment. I don't like being harassed. 

I'm not sure whether you read my statement or not. Jamison would definently still be part of the team. He'd be a bench player but the most played bench warmer, he'd bring offense when needed. 
As for Jamison being x100 of Dunleavy, that comment is not only ignorant but is also absurd. Dunleavy is a great shooter, one of the best passers on the team and also a great defensive player but due to his lack of play time he can not show his full talent and/or potential.


----------



## dr-dru (Feb 9, 2003)

he was referring to your post..not you. so it's not harassment. just as you refer to his comment as being idiotic and absurd.


----------



## D5 (Jun 23, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>dr-dru</b>!
> he was referring to your post..not you. so it's not harassment. just as you refer to his comment as being idiotic and absurd.


1st of all, I was joking. I should of put a smiley or something, my bad.
2nd of all, I said ignorant and absurd.


----------



## dr-dru (Feb 9, 2003)

oh


----------



## takis (Jun 25, 2003)

i think this is one of THE most idiotic comments ive ever heard.

regardless of how these players will be in the future.. jamison is 100x the player dunleavy is. sure mike has great fundamentals and can play some D but without jamison in the lineup wed score about 60 points a game. cmon people.. im all about getting better defensively but that is not the answer.

what we need to do is start playing better team defense.


----------



## D5 (Jun 23, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>takis</b>!
> i think this is one of THE most idiotic comments ive ever heard.
> 
> regardless of how these players will be in the future.. jamison is 100x the player dunleavy is. sure mike has great fundamentals and can play some D but without jamison in the lineup wed score about 60 points a game. cmon people.. im all about getting better defensively but that is not the answer.
> ...


:uhoh: Why'd you post this again?


----------



## Hero (Jun 28, 2003)

I think I'll covert into a Denver Nuggets fan if the Warriors EVER bench 'Twan and start that idiot-looking Dunleavy!

All jokes aside, Dunleavy IS NOWHERE the player that 'Twan is! Not now, not tommorow, not ever! The white boy is just too damn shaky when he gets the ball (rookie curse? NAH!), and often would rather just get picked pocket than pass the freakin' rock. I'll give you Dunleavy fans that he is a pretty good shooter, and did made some huge 3's for us this past season, but he CAN'T make shots for himself for sh*t! At least 'Twan can get the ball and dribble it down the baseline and fire one of his trademark finger-rolls. Also Jamison is also a MUCH better rebounder than Dunleavy, I think he's second in the team grabbing 7 boards a game.


----------



## takis (Jun 25, 2003)

sorry.. dont know why itposted the same message twice. it wasnt intentional.

id like to say that i DO like dunleavy.. AND think he will be a good player for the W's in the future.


----------



## . (Jun 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>D5</b>!
> I personally think this idea would be *GREAT*, Dunleavy is a two-way player, he's improving offensively and he's sound defensively while Jamison, who is a talented offensive player, is not up to standards defensively. I would sit Jamison and start Dunleavy and just go to Jamison for 'instant' points.
> 
> Opinions?


i PERSONALLY think you have no idea at what you are talking about, tawn clearly is the BEST player in the warriors team, how could you bench him over a rookie ?? clearly dunleavy isnt ready to contribute right away and is a couple of years away from being a legit starter so how can you start a rookie over a player worth of all star caliber ??


----------



## benfica (Jul 17, 2002)

*Have you watch Dunleavy in the summer leagues?*

He is headed for stardom, his upside is way up there. The best
that GS could do is trade Twan for a big men and move Mike D. into the starting lineup why denie the inevitable.

Mike is a much better all around player, shoots better outside and can create his own shot.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Jamison is a player who doesn't look like a dominator but flat produces. Until Dunleavy proves he can really produce at the NBA level (summer league virtuoso performances don't count), there's no way the Warriors are a better team with Dunleavy Jr. starting instead of Jamison.

As far as trading Jamison for a big man, what big men who can score 20 points per game are going to be available in trade? Jamison produces more than anyone the Warriors are likely to get for him in a deal.


----------



## dmilesai (Jul 19, 2002)

I'd love to trade Jamison for a defensive minded PG. Say, Eric Snow, and a sign-and-trade with Derrick Coleman (can contribute off the bench) or just a cap-filler? This gives the Sixers the 2nd scoring threat which they sorely need. This really helps out the Warriors, getting a top 5 defensive PG, and a guy that can hit clutch shots. He also isn't flashy, which means he doesn't make bonehead mistakes like other players.

Warriors line-up

Snow/Richardson/Dunleavy/Murray/Dampier

Off the bench: Another defensive stopper in Pietrus/Coleman/Foyle/Welsch/Sura

Looks like in can be a great team to be. Much better defensively than last year, and you don't lose TOO much offensively.


----------



## INDY (Jul 11, 2003)

Arenas is coming back so there is no point to bringing in Snow to back him up.

Coleman said that he'd retire before ever playing for the Warriors. So that rules out that idea.

Jamison is one of the top 30 players in the NBA, easily. He is worth more than what you think he is, inflated contract and all.

I wouldn't mind seeing him traded if Dunleavy is ready to take over but that could still be another season or two. When he is traded I would expect at least a good center/power forward, or a top draft pick/salary that came off the books the next season.

If he can't be traded anytime soon, I'd love to keep him as automatic offense off the bench. Imagine a developed Dunleavy going to the bench and then throwing Jamison at them. The opposing SF's would not be able to keep up.


----------



## FanOfAll8472 (Jun 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> Jamison is a player who doesn't look like a dominator but flat produces. Until Dunleavy proves he can really produce at the NBA level (summer league virtuoso performances don't count), there's no way the Warriors are a better team with Dunleavy Jr. starting instead of Jamison.
> 
> As far as trading Jamison for a big man, what big men who can score 20 points per game are going to be available in trade? Jamison produces more than anyone the Warriors are likely to get for him in a deal.


Well said. I say, you gotta give Dunleavy some more minutes, but please, dont bench jamison or severly cut his minutes.


----------



## Knicksbiggestfan (Apr 29, 2003)

Mike Dunleavy intrigues me. Everyone says he is so versatile but it seems he can only play the three or four. Can you play him at the two? Their seems to be some discrepancy on his handle, how good is it? Can he create his own shot. Is he laterally quick enough to guard some of the quicker 3's in the league? Just curious I never understand him as a #3 pick. Though he did hit some clutch shots last quarter I really didn't have the time to watch him.


----------



## Triskill (Jul 18, 2003)

Antawn Jamison= Tawn instead of 'Twan


----------

