Lowell Cohn: Warriors prove they’re far more than Stephen Curry

OAKLAND

Don’t insult the Golden State Warriors by making this playoff series with Portland about Stephen Curry. Curry is absent - no fault of his own. Don’t insult the Warriors by showing close-ups of Curry on the bench in street clothes. Don’t do it.

Game 1 of this mismatched second-round playoff series between the Warriors and Portland Trail Blazers was not about Curry. Not in the least. The Warriors didn’t need Curry to demolish the Blazers 118-106.

Didn’t need Curry to reveal Portland’s point guard Damian Lillard as a fine player who cannot carry his team even against the Curry-less Warriors.

Didn’t need Curry to end the first quarter with a 20-point lead and never look back.

Didn’t need Curry to prove harshly that Portland’s undersized - shrimp? - backcourt could not defend Shaun Livingston and Klay Thompson.

Didn’t need Curry to expose the Blazers’ front court as weak, almost anemic. Andrew Bogut, an unsung hero in this extraordinary Warriors’ enterprise, scared off Blazers from driving the hoop. And when they dared drive, he rejected their shots or made them change their shots into weak things that clanked off the rim. He officially had three blocks. Seemed like more by the dozen.

Didn’t need Curry for Draymond Green to take over the game. Just take over. He had a triple-double: 23 points, 13 rebounds, 11 assists.

Didn’t need Curry to expose the Blazers center, Mason Plumlee - one point - as an inferior practitioner of his craft who shot like a man with a broken wrist. He didn’t exactly play center. He did center-like things - which isn’t the same thing.

Didn’t need Curry for Thompson to go absolutely nuts. Eighteen points in the first quarter. Statement quarter. He finished with 37, could get his shot anywhere anytime he felt like it. Took up the slack for Curry, although he said he didn’t try.

“I just want to play as myself and to my strengths,” he said afterward. “Obviously, I don’t have the handle and creativity of Steph, so I have to get it differently. I’ve got to use my teammates. These guys set great screens to get me open and I was in a great rhythm to start the game - not settle for good shots, but get great shots. I really don’t feel more pressure when Steph’s out.”

Didn’t need Curry to outcoach and outsmart the raw, inexperienced Blazers, in awe of the big moment, unprepared for the big moment, unable even to comprehend the bigness of the big moment.

Didn’t need Curry to change the Blazers from Rip City to Ripped City.

Didn’t need Curry in the least. Can let him sit game after game deep into this series so he’s well the next time he plays. Really well, not struggling as he did in Game 4 in Houston.

I bring up this Curry stuff because of what happened before the game. Obligatory media sessions for both coaches. Steve Kerr first in the interview room, Kerr sitting on a stage wearing a T-shirt.

First question: What’s the status of Curry?

Kerr: “He actually got on the floor yesterday and did some shooting. He’s progressing well.”

Second question: Is Kerr, who said Curry won’t play in Game 2, optimistic he will play in Game 3 in Portland?

Kerr: “Just depends on how his week goes. The two-week timetable (for recovery) is just a random guess.”

Before I move on, I must say this. I understand why reporters asked those two questions first. Curry’s knee is important news. My cousin in New York asked me about his knee. “Is it serious?” And those reporters were assigned to write about Curry. If I were in their place I would have asked the same questions. All cool with me.

After they were done, I asked Kerr, “When you have meetings with your coaches these days, do you talk a lot about Stephen Curry or about other things?”

To which Kerr said, “We talk most about the Lakers, actually. How Luke (Walton) wants to use Jordan Clarkson and (Julius) Randle and what offense he’s going to run. We’re really trying to help him out.”

Wise guy.

“No, we actually don’t talk much about Steph,” Kerr finally admitted, “because he can’t help us right now. We will talk a lot about Steph if and when he’s ready. For right now, we’re just talking about Portland, we’re talking about our own rotation, how we want to defend. We’re locked in on our opponent.”

“So, in fact,” I said, “aside from the Lakers talk that you have, Steph’s a nonfactor at this moment.”

“Well, he’s a nonfactor in terms of our strategy. But he’s always our captain and our emotional leader, and he’s still a big part of the group and the dynamic. But, yeah, we’re going to kind of miss his 30 points a game, so that’s a problem.”

Well, they didn’t miss Curry’s 30 points. And they didn’t miss Curry’s emotional leadership and his captaincy. And, frankly, they didn’t miss Curry in the least. Because Curry was distinctly off the point. Because he can’t play and he didn’t play. And in sports the only players who matter are those who suit up. “You bring your available guys and we’ll bring our available guys, and we’ll play a game.” Bottom line.

This focus on Curry diminishes the remaining Warriors, the non-Curry Warriors. Focus on who is there. No disrespect to Curry. Never an ounce of disrespect to him.

Before the game, Blazers coach Terry Stotts, the latest designated victim, tried to explain the Warriors, to explain what it’s like to play them when they have Curry and when they don’t have Curry. He spoke with respect bordering on awe.

“Well, they’re a great team without Steph,” he said. “They’re an historically great team with him.”

So, OK, the Warriors weren’t historically great on Sunday. They merely were really and truly great. Quite sufficient.

For more on the world of sports in general and the Bay Area in particular, go to the Cohn Zohn at cohn.blogs.pressdemocrat.com. You can reach Staff Columnist Lowell Cohn at lowell.cohn@pressdemocrat.com.