SVonhof
Remember, Golden State was up 3 games to none in this same series a year ago against Cleveland (without Durant), before they essentially choked with not being able to win a single game of the remaining four.
So to answer your question - while Golden State has proven that they didn't necessarily need Durant to beat Cleveland, there's no denying that his presence gives them an enormous advantage.
That's not to say that Cleveland still can't be competitive against the Warriors, even with Durant. Friday night's game is proof... What Cleveland finally figured out, albeit two games too late imo, is that they can't win playing soft. They played a very physical game Friday evening, forcing turnovers, fighting through screens and rotating on defense, forcing Golden State to make tough, contested shots.
Cleveland played like pussies the first three games and got slapped in the face. They finally adjusted in the last game and played like they had nothing to lose.
If Cleveland can somehow pull out a miracle performance in Monday night's game on the road, then I think the pressure suddenly shifts back to the Warriors. Cleveland has proven they can win with their backs against the wall, like they did last season.
But Durant, imo, is where the difference lies this time around. He adds another dimension to this Warriors team that they didn't have last year when they were struggling to close out the series.