Which two player would you rather have Curry/Randolph or Evans/Thompson???
I'm just curious. If you had a chance to choose between them which combo would you choose?
about 2 years ago
GoldenSt8OfMind
85 comments
1 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Evans and Thompson
As a rookie, Evans is putting up 20 points, 5 rebounds and 5 assists. Jason Thompson, in just his second year, is averaging around 14 points and 9 rebounds.
I think Evans is better than Curry, but I do think Randolph will eventually turn out to be better than Thompson; however, I think that Evans is the best player overall of the four.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Jan 18, 2010 8:59 PM PST reply actions
As the great Sleepy Freud said...
You basically nailed it.
Even though my opinions don’t count, initially I hated our past two draft picks in Randolph last year and Curry this year.
My initial thought for drafting AR….“WHATTTTTTTTTTT THE UFFFF!! We already have Brandan Wright!!!! what are you doing Mullin!?”
My initial thought for drafting Curry…“WHATTTTTTTTT THE UFFFF?!! We have a similar player in Monta Ellis. We got Belinelli and I still want to see how a Marco and Monta combination pans out!! ARE WE TRADING ELLIS AND BELINELLI?!”
For each draft pick, all I had to do was remain calm and see what happens.
Even though AR is still raw, I love everything he brings to the Warriors and as many Warrior fans continue to believe, He will be a Superstar Stud in this League and we all hope it’s in a Warriors Jersey.
Stephen Curry? Well…Damn. He is just a straight up baller that continues to impress me. I love everything that this young cat brings to the Warriors. He has been nothing but professional, shows a bunch of class, doesn’t complain (especially when Monta crapped on him in the beginningof the season), has a very High Basketball IQ, is proving he definitely belongs in the NBA, and definitely is proving he belongs with this Oakland Golden State Warriors Organization with the strong chemistry he has built with specific teammates and I know he appreciates the Warrior fans we got in this town.
This was a very very good topic to bring up GoldenSt8ofMind person…but I think this is an easy question to answer. Not only because it may seem biased, but only because of the key thing of team chemistry that has developed with Curry & AR not with just the team but with the fans as well. I truly believe they see a future here regardless of the idiotic Warriors Organization that we have here. I know they got that loyalty just as many Warrior fans posses here and I know they want to bleed Warrior blue til they die.
I honestly think Tyreke Evans is an absolute stud even as a rookie. I been blabbering that he will be ROY from day one like some people have predicted. I absolutely wanted him along side Monta Ellis, but I’m glad Curry is proving me wrong and I think having him on our team can really work.
As for Jason Thompson, I thought he was going to be a bust, but I think he is a very good player that we could use on our team. The thing is I could live without having Evans and Thompson.
As much praise I currently have for Evans especially, I have no complaints at all with Curry and Randolph being “a Warriors”
Romes Mac Mojous
by ROMESdavidWOOD37 on Jan 19, 2010 12:20 AM PST up reply actions
Thompson
I also thought he was going to be a bust, but he definitely proved us and a lot of other people wrong.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Jan 19, 2010 6:28 AM PST up reply actions
By definition, right?
Not sure why the thread question is particularly “obvious.” I think it’s damn close. Rated-R Superstar basically nailed it, imo: I’d take Evans over Curry; and Randolph over Thompson; and, if you twisted my arm, Evans out of the four of them.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Jan 18, 2010 9:24 PM PST up reply actions
AR is better than Thompson.
Thompson is bigger, but Randolph has a much better game. In 34 minutes a game, Thompson averages 14 points, 9 rebounds, 1 block, and 2 assists on 47% shooting. In 22 minutes, Randolph is averaging 11.6 points, 6.5 rebounds, 1.3 blocks, and 1 assist on 44.3% shooting.
Thompson per 36: 14.8 points, 9.4 rebounds, 2.2 assists, 1 block, 2.3 TOs
Randolph per 36: 18.5 points, 10.3 rebounds, 2 assists, 2.5 blocks, 2.4 TOs
Add that to the fact that AR is 20 and Thompson is nearly 24, and I’ll take Randolph’s upside+Curry’s solidness over Thompson and Evans.
By the way, looking at the stats, Evans’ numbers and Curry’s numbers look almost identical, Evans brings down .8 rebounds more than Curry per 36, and shoots the ball 4 times more in that time. That just pushes me to AR+Curry>Evans+Thompson even more.
The only thing that Thompson really has on Randolph is
that he fouls slightly less and shoots more efficiently.
by Reverend_Randy on Jan 18, 2010 10:38 PM PST up reply actions
and he can actually play low post D
by basketballcrazed on Jan 18, 2010 11:14 PM PST up reply actions
Yet still can't put up the same numbers as AR.
Kind of makes you wonder if “low post offense” really matters.
it does, a team will never be a contender without a post scoring big
by dubtown on Jan 18, 2010 11:43 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
orlando, atlanta, boston, cleveland last year, detroit in its title year, and denver are/were all lacking a traditional, back to the basket, post up, go to work player. they’ve all got capable bigs, but you don’t need a great post scorer.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
Denver – carmelo can definitely score in the post and anywhere + their bigs could rebound, putback, and box-out.
Cleveland – LBJ enough said. (eastern conf)
Detroit – Rasheed Wallace can post up as well as shoot the three
Boston – You have a point on this one, they did not have a dominant scoring big man, but they have Pierce, Garnett, RayAllen . Garnett does a lot beyond scoring for a big. Pierce has a post up game.
Atlanta – Does not really have a dominant post scoring big, but they have good bigs smith, horford, williams and a great scorer in joe johnson – wont go for the title any time soon though.
Orlando – Dwight Howard not the traditional back to the basket type but could still score in the painted area.
bottom line all these teams have some sort of post scorer with the exception of Atlanta which is the weakest in this list IMO. There needs to be a scoring threat in the post to be a contender otherwise you need super gifted/talented players like LBJ to make up for it.
Horford does more down low than a bunch of the guys you named. Rasheed? Yeah, he’s capable of being a pretty good post player, and maybe if he spent more of his career down there he would have more to show for it. The thing is….he doesn’t post up. Like….ever. You’re really stretching for “low post presence” in some of these cases – having the skills to post up at times doesn’t mean you’re actually adding value to the team with those skills – if Paul Pierce posts up twice a game, is that really adding a “low post presence”? Not in any meaningful way.
Overall, I’m all about shots near the basket. I’d love a good post player for the Warriors. I just don’t think that list makes your point that it’s necessary at all. And how is Howard not traditional back to the basket? His moves might not be too refined, but other than running the pick and roll, all he does is post up…
by Missing Barry on Jan 19, 2010 2:12 PM PST up reply actions
fair point on howard. i look at him as a guy who mostly just stands near the hoop and dunks when he can. that was mostly my aesthetic judgment of his playing style than a real scouting report.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
Yeah I mean he’s more Shaq than Duncan, of course, but he definitely strikes me as “traditional post presence” considering how often he gets the ball down on the block with his back to the basket….
by Missing Barry on Jan 19, 2010 2:20 PM PST up reply actions
agreed, i just started that list by thinking of really good teams devoid of guys who are creative post players and ended up listing a few teams that, realistically, just don’t have anyone who posts up and scores as a primary offensive function (nene definitely posts up, but “get it to nene in the post” is hardly a big part of denver’s offense). the latter is a much more useful judgment of team playing style.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
I was working from the list capnhack created initially.
Players with post scoring skills adds value because the defense must respect their presence there, freeing up some space in the wings, rather than executing pick and roll with a big who can not create for himself.
With Howard I was trying to emphasize that he is a post scorer.
Players with post scoring skills adds value because the defense must respect their presence there, freeing up some space in the wings, rather than executing pick and roll with a big who can not create for himself.
Sure, I have no problem with this, I’d even go as far to say I agree. The problem is when they’re only doing it a couple possessions a game it really isn’t making much of a difference. That’s the point I’m making – in a lot of those cases it’s such a small part of the offense it’s not really meaningful to their success.
by Missing Barry on Jan 19, 2010 2:36 PM PST up reply actions
of course they have talented bigs, you need talent everywhere to contend. my point is that none of these teams have a traditional back to the basket, post scorer. they all have guys that can score, but none of them are your usual “post scorers.” they get their points in ways beyond your typical post up. thompson and AR do that and can be very helpful on a contender, even if they aren’t paired with a back to the basket guy.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
well your also ignoring the low post d thing.
randolph gets eaten alive by fundamentally sound post players or just bigger players in general. over the off season he needs to seriously hit the gym and learn post moves and footwork
by basketballcrazed on Jan 18, 2010 11:51 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah. The majority of those guys were centers. He was playing center
when Biedrins and Turiaf were injured. He’s also schooled many power forwards using just athleticism. I’m not saying that Randolph shouldn’t bulk up, but it doesn’t seem to be affecting him too much.
The fouls are actually similar
P36-AR: 4.4 PF
P36-JT: 4.1
Also, Randolph ahs TS% of 52.1% compared to Thompson’s 52.9%
The only thing that Thompson really has on Randolph is
that he fouls slightly less and shoots more efficiently.
Dude, you realize that 4.1 is “slightly less” than 4.4, right? And that 52.9>52.1? It’s slightly better in each case… which is pretty much what the OP pointed out.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Jan 20, 2010 10:48 AM PST up reply actions
Yeah you do realize that I said similar,
and not the same. I also did not say that Randolph’s stats are better.
Similar – having characteristics in common; strictly comparable
Not the same, comparable.
Interesting points
I do think at this point Evans is the best out of the four because I’m really not sure if Randolph will reach his potential. And also don’t think Curry is that far away from Evans but they are certainly different type of players.
by GoldenSt8OfMind on Jan 18, 2010 9:36 PM PST reply actions
Curry/AR
Why? Curry is a PG. Evans is a SG. I see Curry becoming an elite PG.
AR is way younger than Thomas and has a way higher ceiling to me. Once/If AR starts getting more towards his potential within the next two years, he is going to be far better than Thomas.
You know I spit technique to the freshest freak
Gimme a call you will see results in just a week
With the soul of a LOST HAWK
Is there a heaven for a Rap Cat, let's talk
The Kings are using Evans kind of like Roy/Johnson
He might not be your typically PG but he does have the ball in his hands a lot. And can drive and create for others
by GoldenSt8OfMind on Jan 18, 2010 10:38 PM PST up reply actions
yeah thats whats hes gonna become
exept better than both
by basketballcrazed on Jan 18, 2010 11:15 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
LOL
You know I spit technique to the freshest freak
Gimme a call you will see results in just a week
With the soul of a LOST HAWK
Is there a heaven for a Rap Cat, let's talk
Hmmm… Tyreke is very tempting. He may well become the best of the four. Then again, a big man is more of a difference maker and harder to get. A PG is also a tough position to fill. I’ll take Curry and Randolph, as Randolph’s upside will be greater and a 2 is an easier spot to fill. Besides, we have Ellis, who is certainly no slouch. Still, it’s a tough choice. Tyreke crazy good.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
Curry has the "potential"...
to become a CRAZY scorer,and he has proven he can rebound and assist like any other guard.
by Cpt. Jack in the Box on Jan 19, 2010 12:24 AM PST reply actions
I believe Curry will have at least the second best career (behind Evans) if not the best.
Hopefully it’s with the Warriors. It’s all just a matter of time before we see it unfold.
"Monta is the MAN." -Bob Fitzgerald
by WarriorForLife on Jan 19, 2010 12:38 AM PST up reply actions
Or somehow...
the Warriors manage to trade him for 2nd round picks.
Believe me,it’s what we do!
by Cpt. Jack in the Box on Jan 19, 2010 4:56 PM PST up reply actions
Curry/Randolph
Curry is going to be a much better all around player than Evans…..And Randolph will be a greater player than Thompson…
I believe Curry will put up better numbers than Evans next year, he is in a system that does not feature him like Sac does Evans…
Before the draft I had Blake #1, Evans,#2 Rubio #3, and Curry #4….BJ #5……But I think I would be happy with the Curry Randolph duo in the long run…You can’t go wrong either way…But my experience is the grass is always greener on the other side..
Guess this gives the Sac fans something to do.
Curry/AR Curry is about to become a top 3 point guard and maybe the best scoring point guard in the whole league. Evans is an awesome 2 guard, which are more easily come by and Thompson is gonna be a nice player but hardly AR’s stature.
by Eschew Obfuscation on Jan 19, 2010 7:54 AM PST reply actions
Evans isn't just a 2 guard
I see a lot of posts saying that. What he can do is create for others and he’s only going to get better at that. Yes 2 guards are easier to come by but not the 2 guards that can create for others like Johnson/Roy and probably eventually Evans. That being said I still go with Curry/Randolph because of randolph’s insane potential. I could just be biased though
by GoldenSt8OfMind on Jan 19, 2010 10:00 AM PST up reply actions
I’m gonna go against the grain here and pick our guys.
Evans, while obviously doing a great job for a rookie, is not yet a guy that seems to help a team. His plus-minus numbers actually resemble Monta’s… the Kings have a much easier time scoring, and play much better overall, when Evans is off the court, and the sample sizes in Evans’s case are bigger. Until Evans’s production aligns itself with winning basketball, I have trouble seeing superstar potential in him… he’s an amazing athlete, but not an absolute freak like Randolph, and I don’t know that he’ll be able to physically dominate twos all that consistently. Evans is a safer bet than Randolph by far, but I’m not convinced that his ceiling is as high.
I’m not quite as high on Curry as some; I don’t think he’s any more of a point guard than Evans is, and I don’t love his chances of bodying up twos effectively. Tweeners like that can be problematic to build around. But I think Curry can be as productive as Jason Thompson, for sure. Curry’s still improving (as he plays more and more like a shooting guard), while Thompson may have already hit his ceiling. Curry has been the vastly better player in January, and while Thompson will surely bounce back from this month, I see no reason to think that he’ll be better than Curry going forward.
So yeah, I’ll take Randolph and Curry. They’re the bigger gamble, but if you’re a bad team, swinging for the fences is not the worst idea. If Randolph heals up, and we get a coach that’s willing to play Randolph and teach Curry, they’ll be a pretty valuable pair.
Golden State Worriers: Angst & Analysis
Until Evans’s production aligns itself with winning basketball
I’m really not sure I see where you’re coming from here. Aside from all the problems I have with +/- (and I have a lot), just the sample size alone makes his +/- numbers completely meaningless, so I don’t see that as evidence that Evans production doesn’t help win. Of course I’d like his efficiency to be higher (if he were on our team, that is), but considering his age (let’s remember he’s only 20 years old), the volume he’s already scoring at, and the fact that his efficiency is still average, and that’s something that seems to me like it has a great chance of improving substantially over the next few years….I’m just not seeing where you’re coming from. Does anything suggest to you his production isn’t the kind that wins games other than +/-? I don’t know much about his D – how does he look at that end? With his size and athleticism I’d have to think he’d be passable at worst, and potentially pretty good on that side.
by Missing Barry on Jan 19, 2010 2:17 PM PST up reply actions
All indications are that Evans’s D is pretty good, in fact very good for a rookie. It’s offense that’s the issue. And if you delve more closely into his on court/off court numbers, I don’t think it’s as simple as his plus-minus numbers being meaningless.
When Evans is in, the Kings’ offense is not very good. When he’s not, it’s excellent — their effective field goal percentage goes up four points, they go from assisting 50% of their buckets to 58%, and they get to the line a good bit more often. Overall, their offense is about nine points per game better with Tyreke on the bench. And this isn’t a Monta situation where the off-court sample size is so small that you can’t possibly draw any conclusions; they’ve played almost twelve games’ worth of non-Tyreke minutes now, in addition to the twenty-five games’ worth of minutes they’ve played with him. The sample size isn’t huge, but when there are across-the-board offensive improvements when a guy leaves the floor, it’s probably not an accident.
From all appearances, it looks like the Kings’s offense is going through the same thing ours has: they’re being hurt by The Tyreke Evans Show. His scoring efficiency isn’t far below average, but it is below that of several of his teammates… you don’t want your playmaker calling his own number repeatedly unless he’s actually a better option than the other ones available. Tyreke gets himself to the line at a good clip, but when he’s playing, almost nobody else does; he’s not finding tons of guys underneath for easy scores and whistles. And he doesn’t pass accurately enough to make his ball-dominance useful; he doesn’t find enough open targets to justify his high turnovers.
Now, as in Monta’s case, this doesn’t mean Tyreke sucks or is being selfish. It just means he’s being asked to do something he can’t do well. Tyreke is, like Monta, not a point guard in any sense of the term. A lot of shooting guards would average 5 assists and 3 turnovers if you had them run your offense… that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. Tyreke’s a wing. And like Monta, he’ll be more effective when played there; he’ll score more efficiently, and the dip in his assist totals will be more than mitigated by the dip in his turnover totals.
So far, so good. But the question is, is Tyreke Evans likely to dominate at the two? And while I’d say he’s a good bet to more than hold his own, I’m not convinced that he’ll be one of the league’s very best shooting guards. He’s big, but it’s not like he’s bigger than the Kobes, Wades and Roys of the world; he’s fast, but so are lots of guys that’ll be covering him. He’ll need a strong jumper to be a very good shooting guard, let alone a great one, and he doesn’t have that. And while he already seems able to defend and rebound the position quite well, he doesn’t actually pass much better than the average two; about a dozen starting shooting guards have better passing numbers than he does, and they don’t get the benefit of running plays.
Tyreke Evans is already really good, and should get better from here… I’m not saying I wouldn’t love to have the guy. But to me, he’s just a shooting guard, full stop, no asterisks. And when viewing him through that lens, I don’t think he can quite equal Randolph’s upside. YMMV.
Golden State Worriers: Angst & Analysis
by onlxn on Jan 19, 2010 3:44 PM PST up reply actions 3 recs
very good post
keep up the good work
by GoldenSt8OfMind on Jan 19, 2010 4:25 PM PST up reply actions
Good analysis, but I really think it supports him more than it hurts his case. All the things you talk about Tyreke needing to improve are things that players tend to improve upon. Learning to be an effective piece of an offense rather than a one on one player. Scoring efficiency. Passing/court vision. Getting teammates involved. Developing a jump shot. All things that can easily improve dramatically with some good coaching and hard work. Let’s remember he’s 20 years old, and it’s not like a year under Coach Cal did anything for him (Calipari is a terrible coach. Great salesman. Poor coach.). Dude should see a lot of growth, and considering how he’s already big and strong and athletic enough to be effective for a rookie, all I’m seeing are positive things from him in the future, especially if his D and rebounding are already good. I’m not too concerned about how effective he is at the moment as much as what he’s capable of and whether the weaknesses in his game are things that can (and often do) improve.
Heck, just look at someone like Kobe. He was a seasoned vet when Shaq left and he had no clue how to play offense as “the man”. As time passed, he became much more effective as a team player, but still the focal point of the offense. Look at Wade – as a 22 year old rookie, he wasn’t as good as Evans has been so far. Even if Evans isn’t great at the moment in terms of playing winning basketball….just remember, he’s a rookie. There’s a lot of development ahead for him in the next 3 or so years (if I remember jae correctly, that’s generally when the biggest jumps in ability occur)….
by Missing Barry on Jan 19, 2010 7:28 PM PST up reply actions
Some excellent points. I guess I’m just not convinced that Evans will ever become an elite passer, even at the two. It’s true that many young players become better passers over the course of their careers, but that trend is less common for the young players that were already expected to make plays. Kobe, for instance, didn’t really have to hone his playmaking skills until he got good enough for his passing to be a priority… to put it clumsily, the Lakers didn’t know how good a passer he could be until they bothered to ask. The Kings are asking right now. They’ve been giving Evans every opportunity, in terms of coaching and play-calling, to show off his playmaking ability. Thus far, it hasn’t been very good. And I can’t think of many guys who failed as playmakers early in their careers only to succeed later on… really Chauncey is the only one who comes to mind, and even he passed a bit better than Evans as a rookie.
I could be totally wrong on this. Evans is young and athletic and off to a blazing start, and is not the kind of player one should often bet against. And I’d certainly love to have him. But it’d take a lot for me to choose a shooting guard over a big man, and Evans doesn’t quite get there for me. Lest we forget, Anthony Randolph 1) is only two months older than Tyreke, 2) has only played about 500 more NBA minutes, 3) hasn’t received much solid coaching in his life either, and 4) has played pretty well in the NBA so far himself. Randolph makes more mistakes than Tyreke, but I actually regard that as a positive in this context; I’d rather bet on a player fixing his mistakes than a player developing new skills.
Golden State Worriers: Angst & Analysis
Hmmm….interesting points. Maybe I’m just a little more down on Randolph’s chances of developing than you, or even than I should be in general. I agree that I’d prefer a big over a guard, I guess I just really question whether there’s a good chance the rest of Randolph’s game develops. I’m really not sure how good of a bet that is. Tyreke seems like he has superstar potential as well, but even if he doesnt reach it, is a good bet to be a pretty good player overall.
Also curious, Tyreke is averaging just under 5 assists per 36, which is good for a 2 (which is what I’ve accepted Tyreke is destined to be), right? If it is, when you say his playmaking ability isn’t up to SG standards because of the role he’s in with the Kings, where he should be racking up more assists than that? I just don’t watch the Kings, so I really don’t know a whole lot about their team…
by Missing Barry on Jan 20, 2010 6:51 AM PST up reply actions
Also curious, Tyreke is averaging just under 5 assists per 36, which is good for a 2 (which is what I’ve accepted Tyreke is destined to be), right?
It’s pretty good for a 2 that doesn’t have the ball in his hands as often as a 1. For a 2 who’s playing as a team’s defacto 1, not so great. Decent, but not great.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Jan 20, 2010 11:09 AM PST up reply actions
I’m curious to learn more about where that really puts him compared to others. Kobe never averaged more than his 4.8/36 until his 6th year in the league, and has been at around 5 or so ever since. Wade blows it away now (mid 6’s-7/36), but only put up 4.7 his first season in the league. Roy was only at 4.1/36 as a rookie, and only 4.9/36 for his career. As amazing as Lebron is (~7/36 now), even his 5.4 wasn’t that much higher than Tyreke. I dunno, if people have better data I’m love to hear it, or even some quality thoughts, but just looking objectively at his stats, it looks to me like Tyreke has the kind of playmaking we should be looking for?
by Missing Barry on Jan 20, 2010 11:15 AM PST up reply actions
He was a seasoned vet when Shaq left and he had no clue how to play offense as "the man". As time passed, he became much more effective as a team player, but still the focal point of the offense.
Has he really? I’d argue that it was more the acquisition of Pau Gasol (one of the best big men in the league) for nothing, the improvement of Lamar Odom, and the role players fitting their roles. I don’t see any marked improvements from Kobe over the last 5 years, but I do see an improvement from:
Smush Parker, Brian Cook, Lamar Odom, Kwame Brown, and Chris Mihm
to
Derek Fisher, Trevor Ariza, Lamar Odom, Andrew Bynum, and Pau Gasol
Notably that going from Chris Mihm to Pau Gasol is probably worth 20-25 games in and of itself…
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Jan 20, 2010 11:05 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I’ve seen a big shift from the Kobe post-Shaq to the present version of Kobe. Look at his 2005-2006 – his assists dropped, his shots increased, efficiency decreased – he was really a one man show offensively, and the Lakers were worse for it. Since then he’s become much more efficient – some of that having guys like Gasol, of course, but also some of it, in my opinion, was maturity – he saw he couldn’t do it alone and began to play in the offense more, as opposed to jacking up shots all over the place like he did the year he averaged 35.4 ppg.
by Missing Barry on Jan 20, 2010 11:21 AM PST up reply actions
I’m not quite as high on Curry as some;
When you think of Curry think in year five for Steve Nash, because Curry is doing better right now at this point in the season as Nash was doing in his 5th year…
He has a high BB IQ, and the game looks like it comes to him so easy, the longer he plays with the same guys the better he’s gonna be,……I think this choice comes down to what each team needs, and right now we need a PG and he is a PG in the making….That h2h with Rose shows he takes his game up to the level of his competition…
I think hi’s passing skills are already better than Rose and his offence is starting to come around, also hes a better rebounder…both SAC and GS had a great draft…
When you think of Curry think in year five for Steve Nash, because Curry is doing better right now at this point in the season as Nash was doing in his 5th year…
no he isn’t. he doesn’t pass as well as nash did that year, doesn’t score nearly as well as nash did that year and since they play totally different styles of basketball, i’m not even sure why you’d make the comparison. is it because they’re both small and shoot 3s? curry looks like a combo guard, nash is a pure point.
right now, curry is a better scorer than nash was during his rookie year and a better rebounder. that’s good, but it doesn’t mean he’s going to be steve nash or even play a similar game to nash. frankly, i don’t see where the comparison has merit and considering nash’s otherworldly leap as a passer in his 9th NBA season, when he was 30 years old expecting anyone to follow the steve nash career arc seems silly.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
expecting anyone to follow the steve nash career arc seems silly
Basically this. Steve Nash is the exception – players simply don’t go through the career progression he did. If you’re betting on someone pulling a Steve Nash, you’re going to be wrong such a huge percentage of the time you’d probably make the worst GM in the history of the game…
by Missing Barry on Jan 19, 2010 2:19 PM PST up reply actions
I disagree, I think he does pass as good as Nash that year, for one thing Nash had the ball in his hands in year 5 and on up most the time, and Curry very little because Monta don’t trust him yet…
He is not getting the recognition as a PG because Monta is not willing to give it up yet, because Curry has made some mistakes and Monta don’t fully trust him, but that’s all starting to change…
With the ball in his hands his APG will double, he will have no problem scoring his 20PPG and he’s a better rebounder and defenses player already..
I think he should set the bar to Steve Nash and pattern his game after his…and if he does he will have have a similar carrier….the more he plays with the same guys the more he will read them and get the ball to them where they want it, you can see that he has that mentality…
I think he does pass as good as Nash that year, for one thing Nash had the ball in his hands in year 5 and on up most the time, and Curry very little because Monta don’t trust him yet…
a couple things. one, do you actually remember steve nash during year 5 in particular, or are you just arbitrarily picking a year and saying that curry is just as good? two, it’s not just that curry doesn’t have the ball that much, it’s that when he does, he turns it over almost as often as he gets an assist. if you pass as well as a young steve nash (who wasn’t even as good as old steve nash), you put up a better a/to ratio. this is a team with plenty of scorers and he still fails to get them the ball in positions to score.
i’m not going to pretend to know exactly how playmakers develop, but it seems like the fact that he wasn’t a good playmaker in college, hasn’t passed the ball particularly well here (no matter how pretty it looks, the a/to ratio doesn’t lie) and it’s asking a bit much to assume that anyone will have the career arc that steve nash did, maybe we should drop the comparison. in fact, i’m calling for a complete halt on any steve nash comparisons for any basketball player. the fact is that guys don’t play good basketball for their first 8 years in the league and then suddenly see an increase of 2.5 assists per 36 in year 9. it just doesn’t happen. nash is the exception. betting anyone else to do what nash did is a stupid bet.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
Sure I recall Nash in year five. that was his break out year and the next couple of years he was very good with Dallas….I seen the Stockton comparisons with him and Dirk back then..I was shocked they let him walk…
Nash had more turnovers in year 5 than Curry has this year, but I think Nash is a very good comparison to gauge Currys progress by…it’s true he took a quantum leap when he got to PX……
I’m not alone Nelson who drafted Nash compares Curry to him, Bobby Knight said he thought Curry the best passer he ever seen at the College level, and my eyes don’t lie either…
The first part of this year he has been on pins and needles around Monta because it’s as if he’s coming after Monta’s job..He has defered to him almost to the point of being timed…it’s only over the last 15 games he is starting asset himself…
He was called the best passer in Collage? but at the same time he was the best scorer and was called upon to do both…You have sold the kid short by over analysis…he has as mush of not more of a BB IQ thanNash had and is on his way to being the next great PG in the NBA….
Remeber you heard it first right here from Cryptic
You might as well play the lottery. Despite what you see, you simply aren’t recognizing the fact that projecting the future is an imperfect science. Guys doing what Nash does come around very rarely, and again, betting on it to happen is a stupid thing to do. I’m also wondering where your eyes are failing to acknowledge that unlike most other elite players, Curry struggles to break down the defense off his dribble – where guys like Nash, Paul, Parker, Rondo get wherever they want on the floor whenever they want, Curry hasn’t shown any ability to do that. You can be the greatest passer in the world, but if you can’t get anyone open, what does it really accomplish…?
by Missing Barry on Jan 19, 2010 7:48 PM PST up reply actions
and to add to that, it seems like every young guy who knows how to pass well or at least looks like he does gets the “he’s the next steve nash!” comments (x3 if he’s a white guy, x10 if he’s a white guy with floppy hair), but the thing about nash is that he’s not just a very good passer and floor leader, he’s a preternaturally good passer and floor leader. he’s a once in a generation point guard (offensively) and to say that anyone will develop into a similar player requires massive amounts of blind(ish) faith or homerism.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
I honestly think Steve Nash is the most skilled player I’ve ever seen, and possibly the most skilled player ever (on offense, that is). To accomplish what he can with his….limited athleticism, to say the least, is ridciulous…
by Missing Barry on Jan 20, 2010 6:53 AM PST up reply actions
I honestly think Steve Nash is the most skilled player I’ve ever seen,
It’s not just my opinion some of the greatest minds in basketball have made the comparisons of Curry/Nash
The question is do we have a special player in Curry? Does he have the potential to be one of the elite PG in basketball? Does he have the tools to become great? Can he lift his team to the next level….
So far Nash has not won anything; he has a small window left, so when you talk about Nash as the most skilled player in history you need to back it up a trophy….
The grass is not always greener on the other side of the fence, I’m not expecting Curry to be the next MJ or Evans either…were comparing which players we would rather have for the future, Evan’s/Thompson or Curry/Randolph……and right now I will take our guys…
It’s not just my opinion some of the greatest minds in basketball have made the comparisons of Curry/Nash
And by that you mean people paid to talk up NBA guys. Have you ever wondered why anytime a young guy gets a comparison, it’s never someone that isn’t good? We naturally think of the stars – they’re the first player that comes to mind. When was the last time anyone was billed as the next Derek Fisher? Or Kelenna Azubuike? Or the next Ryan Anderson? Funny how most guys end up being on a similar level as Anderson, Fisher or Azubuike, yet nobody gets compared to them…
So yeah, with Curry we’re seeing a short, unathletic kid that can shoot, went to a small college, took them much farther than they ever should go in the NCAA’s, makes nice passes at times, and can’t play defense. Of course that brings to mind Steve Nash. That doesn’t mean he’ll be Steve Nash…
The question is do we have a special player in Curry? Does he have the potential to be one of the elite PG in basketball? Does he have the tools to become great?
Chances are, no. Most players don’t. Also, judging someone by championships is ridiculous. That’s essentially dismissing the player as an individual and judging them based on how well they end up on a good/great team. Also note that I called him the most skilled – not the best. I’m making a disctinction between athleticism and skills. Shaq was never very skilled – but had the physical attributes to be great. Jordan combined impressive skills with impressive physical attributes, same with Lebron (and many others). I’m asserting that Nash’s passing ability, vision, IQ, decision making, shooting ability, understanding of angles, reading the defense, etc – all those skills, are the best I’ve ever seen (and maybe the best ever). Too bad he’s a 6’2, unathletic (relative to his NBA peers, of course), skinny white dude who doesn’t seem to be long or strong. So yeah, not calling him the best offensive player ever.
by Missing Barry on Jan 20, 2010 11:31 AM PST up reply actions
So yeah, with Curry we’re seeing a short, unathletic kid that can shoot
Are we even looking at the same player? is there another guy by the name of Curry out there =)
For starters Nash is pretty athletic, have you seen the guy dance =) He’s got the moves….
Curry is not what you would call super athletic but he’s athletic enough, he is not what I would call a high flyer like Monta but he’s plenty athletic…
For the high praises your giving Nash I think he should have a ring to show for it, he’s been on two of the best teams in the NBA with great ensemble of players around him so your argument is a little thin…
Don’t get me wrong I like Nash and think he has had a couple astounding years but I don’t put him on the pedestal you do and think no other player will ever reach his status…I think Curry’s game will come around to be a great PG that works with other players much like Nash does..
I think your problem is your judging Curry by 30+ games and not able to see down the road….He is growing game by game and taking his lumps to, but his upside is looking real good…take a look at the article on NBA.com
On Curry, Ravin had this to say: “He was under my umbrella the whole summer, so I had him working out with veterans. Guys like Kevin Durant, Carmelo, Chris Paul. He impressed all the vets. Everyone walked away saying, ‘that kid’s gonna be tough.’ I told him, ‘You know, you’ve got a long way to go, but just to let you know, you’re earning the respect from these veteran guys.’ What’s interesting about him is there’s no rookie transition. He’s grown up around this game his whole life, so the cars and all these accoutrements don’t influence him. Nothing was a surprise to him, since he’s been around it his whole life. … I truly believe he could be scoring 20 points a game. He could be Rookie of the Year if he wanted but he’s playing within the system.”
i think stephen curry is going to be a good player. he’s pretty good already, but i just do not see the skillset of steve nash. at all. you are completely underrating how fantastically skilled nash is. as MB said:
Nash’s passing ability, vision, IQ, decision making, shooting ability, understanding of angles, reading the defense, etc – all those skills, are the best I’ve ever seen (and maybe the best ever).
again, he’s not the athlete that a lot of elite guys are, but he makes up for it with his amazing skill level. curry isn’t anywhere near that level and almost certainly will never reach it. that’s not a knock on curry, that’s just understanding how talented steve nash is. he didn’t win championships because his team’s owner never saw fit to spend the money to plug the holes on that team and none of his teams were particularly impressive on the defensive side of the ball (an obvious steve nash weakness). that doesn’t diminish what a relatively unathletic, little player does for a team offensively. don’t burden stephen curry with steve nash expectations; he won’t meet them. no young player will.
i honestly do not expect another player like nash in our lifetimes. the emphasis will always be on athletic guys and a point guard with his physical tools will not likely be a major part of an NBA team in the future. enjoy it while you can. he’s probably the last of his kind.
again, i’m not trying to say that curry won’t be good. i really like him, but i see him as a shoot first combo guard with respectable court vision. he can make passes, but his most impressive skill is his jumpshot. his playmaking should improve, but he’s probably never going to be nash, paul or williams. it’s just not where he really shines.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
i’m not trying to say that curry won’t be good. i really like him, but i see him as a shoot first combo guard with respectable court vision. he can make passes, but his most impressive skill is his jumpshot. his playmaking should improve, but he’s probably never going to be nash, paul or williams. it’s just not where he really shines.
We’re looking at 30 + games into a carrier, he has not even started to be the player that he’s going to become yet, he led the whole nation in scoring last year and was considered by Knight as the best passer he’s seen in collage history…Your evaluation of him at this point is not even close….
You have him pigeonholed as an average PG who has a nice jump shot who isn’t much of a playmaker, but what your failing to seven see is he is blending into a system that is featuring a 2 guard at the point that demands the ball 90% of the time…
He on almost every single play defers to Monta as soon as he brings the ball up court….So you don’t have a clue what kind of real play maker he is yet because he is playing a very limited role still…
When Monta realizes that Curry is the PG and defers to him and allows him to run the team his APG will double right now and we will start to see how he does the same kind of pick and roles that Nash does and can get to any place he wants on the court….I see it starting to emerge already, he uses screens like Nash and understands the pick and roll and his passing is phenomenal…..
I’m going on record right now saying he will become an all star and be considered one of the best passers in the league with one of the best shots….I look for him to be a 20 PPG-10 APG-5RPG with 2+SPG for years to come…..Not a middle of the road tweener as you guys are making him out to be….
monta can be effective next to a good point guard, in fact, he was far and away his most effective next to a good point guard. we have a coach who loves to innovate with lineups and play to his guys’ strengths. given those two factors, why have we seen curry’s passing numbers drop as the season has progressed?
it’s not just monta who doesn’t realize curry is a point guard, it’s nellie who has been shifting point guard duties monta’s way. if curry really was a fantastically gifted passer, i find it hard to believe this would be totally ignored in the offensive gameplan. he’s become better this year as he’s focused more on scoring and less on passing.
again, i’m not saying he’s a bad passer or that he’s just a spot up shooter who can’t run an offense, i’m saying he does not seem to have the phenomenal passing abilities that you and many others have been claiming he has. to me, he looks like a much better shooting mike bibby. that’s still a good player, but i really don’t see where all this “10 APG” talk is coming from.
i’ll go on record and say that bobby knight was spitting nonsense when he called curry “the best passer in college history.” a small player who wasn’t even asked to play point guard for his team until his 3rd season because he was so much more of an asset off the ball than he was at the point guard is certainly not the best passer in college history. knight’s comments were ridiculous and almost impossible to back up. he was wrong.
why is it such a problem to appreciate curry as a scoring lead guard with potential to be a fantastic scorer? why do i need to pretend he’s a better passer than he is?
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
it’s nellie who has been shifting point guard duties monta’s way. if curry really was a fantastically gifted passer, i find it hard to believe this would be totally ignored in the offensive gameplan.
I think it’s just a matter of a little more maturity, Curry was making some sloppy passes which I attribute to playing to timed, he don’t want to have a problem with Monta, he’s willing to bide his time because he knows his day will come….
Also Don by letting Monta handle the ball is taking a lot of pressure off of Curry and it’s allowing him to grow without the full load on his shoulders…I suspect in the second half Don will start to feature Curry more with the ball in his hands if he can set up Monta…that’s the key right now, if you’re going to have the ball in your hands you need to find your #1 option as well as make plays for the rest of the guys…he’s not there yet, but he will be…
I remember seeing Monta in pre-season or summer can’t recall, but it only took a couple games to see that he was unique with his driving ability, and now 5 years later it’s on full display every night…what was once flashes is now the norm, and I see the same thing with Curry…
It’s amazing to me that you can’t recognize his court vision and passing skills, for a little man his passes are like bullets when he wants to let it go and there right on the money most the time…a lot of being the point is knowing the others guys game and where they like the ball, that takes time..by the end of year the offense could be running through him, Monta can get his shot off or create for himself almost anytime he wants…
I think when Monta realizes he can’t win by himself they need what Curry brings to the table then we will see those APG numbers go way up….remember I told you first !!!
I think you’re also overestimating how much the passing skills you’re describing (court vision, passes like bullets) actually lead to a guy being a playmaker. I’m not saying they don’t matter – they definitely help make a guy a better passer, but one signfiicant factor you’re leaving out is how he gets others open. You do this through dribble penetration – drawing the help defender, getting to the key, getting the defense focused on you so they lose their man/responsibility – that’s a huge factor in racking up assists and getting your team good shots. Vision/passing skills don’t mean a whole lot when your teammates aren’t open.
by Missing Barry on Jan 20, 2010 2:33 PM PST up reply actions
This is the one area that he has to prove himself in, his handles are very good, he uses screens very well, makes for good pick and rolls for beans and others, I see he has the mind set to make those kind of plays, but I have only seen flashes because he is playing with another guard who demands the ball in his hands at least 80% of the time…he’s on a short leash…
I’m not just being a homer, I think if he was on another team and we took say Flynn we would be green with envy…but time will tell…
Speaking of athleticism it can be over stated, there are a few freaks like LB and others that defy the rules…but there are many great athletic players in the NBA that will never be anymore than average, if you rely only on athleticism you will have a short carrier, marred by injuries, AR could be a prime example , I hope not, but that’s the pit fall…On the other hand if a guy has good athleticism but has the mental game along with a great BB IQ he will go a lot further in most cases…
Examples: Rick Berry, Larry Bird, Abdul-Jabbar, Tim Duncan, to name a couple…all time greats that were not as gifted but understood the game and had the BB IQ to beat you…I threw in Jabbar because the sky hook made him great without having to be fast or a great leaper…
So as far as Curry is concerned he is in the mold of the type of player that don’t just depend on his speed or leaping he will beat you by knowing how to execute and use his BB IQ….that’s the way I see it my friend…
I miss Ricky B also =0
if you rely only on athleticism you will have a short carrier, marred by injuries
Why do you think that?
Athleticism isn’t some be all, end all, not arguing it is. A guy like Nash can be great while some of the better athletes in the NBA never amount to much. It’s just one of many factors involved in making a good basketball player. Ceteris paribus, the better athlete will be the better player. Given it’s not something a player can change in any substantial way, it’s just one factor working against Curry that he’ll never be able to improve upon in a meaningful way….
by Missing Barry on Jan 20, 2010 4:30 PM PST up reply actions
a lot of being the point is knowing the others guys game and where they like the ball, that takes time
this is really important, not just knowing your teammates, but knowing how to run any offense. one of the reasons that i expect curry to improve significantly is that this is only his second year playing the point. he does make some nice passes, good basketball iq and seems to have a fair amount of potential to get better, so i do think he becomes a good enough playmaker to be a point guard for a long time.
what i am struggling to see is how he’s going to get to the point where he makes his living setting up teammates and shifts into full time distributor mode. he’s already a very good scorer. he’s not a good distributor yet. he can get there, but i think waiting for him to become a nash/paul/williams pass first guy isn’t the best way to look at him. he’s a smart, skilled scorer, who knows how to pass. i like the idea of him being a lead guard a lot, but i don’t see “pure point” in his future.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
this is really important, not just knowing your teammates, but knowing how to run any offense
My opinions were formed in summer league, he didn’t shoot well but because we already knew what he could do it didn’t affect my opinion I felt that part of his game would come around…
What I was impressed with most was the way he controls the tempo of the game and knows how to run a team, he has great court vision and good passing and ball handling , and seems to settle down the other players , so that’s what excited me the most, because I knew Monta could not run the offense, he was turnover prone and didn’t make good decisions with the ball in his hands at the end of games…so I seen Curry as a God send for this team for those reasons…but he has to grow into that player now and is coming along.
If I took all my opinions just from the 30+ games this year then I might be more willing to agree with your assessment, but I seen a different side to him in the summer league when it was all on his shoulders…and he impressed the hell out of me ;)
i have a hard time putting too much stock in summer league, but i think it’s fair to say that curry is pretty skilled and has a lot of potential. my guess is that he takes the full-time pg role from monta at the start of next year and we’ll see exactly which of his skills he really showcases.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
I guess I should say that he can get those numbers with good players around him, you have to have the right players around you, Stockton/Malone Nash/Amare Magic/Worthy++++ You need the go to guys that can finish….
I realize this is all speculation, and I have Nash as one of the best PG of all time…but hey it’s fun to compare a young guy with his skills to one of the greats and you never know he may have what it takes….I think he does…
I don’t put him on the pedestal you do and think no other player will ever reach his status
Just to clarify, neither do I, for instance, Chris Paul is already better than Steve Nash ever was. Defense counts, and when PG’s play Steve Nash, it’s like the other team is playing with Chris Paul (because Nash can’t guard anyone). I dunno if I’ll ever see a similar player to Nash, but there are players that will end up as good…it’s just the very, very small minority of players that will ever become similarly good, and I’ll take my chances on the almost sure thing (that a player won’t be that good).
Curry is not what you would call super athletic but he’s athletic enough, he is not what I would call a high flyer like Monta but he’s plenty athletic
Curry is athletic enough to play in the NBA. He’s not athletic enough to use his athleticism to great advantage. Things like jumping and quickness tend to go together – if you have fast twitch muscles in your legs, it allows you to do both well. Curry just isn’t that quick, he doesn’t jump that high, he’s not big, he’s not strong, he doesn’t have amazing lateral quickness or length (all similar to Nash)…I mean, he’s a better athlete than I am, no doubt, but compared to his NBA peers, he’s nothing special. It doesn’t mean he can’t be really, really good…it just puts him at a disadvantage compared to a lot of other players. It’s not a coincidence guys like Howard, Wade, Lebron are some of the best players in the NBA – they have the ahtleticism AND the skills (more of the first for Howard). Sure, it’s possible Curry ends up a superstar, he’s just starting without the same advantages of these other guys, so he has a lot more to make up.
I think your problem is your judging Curry by 30+ games and not able to see down the road
Nah, not at all. I fully understand sample size issues. I’m also looking at things he can’t change in any meaningful way (physical attributes), adding in a dose of “playing the percentages”, and trying to limit my bias for a guy just because he’s on the team I’m rooting for….
by Missing Barry on Jan 20, 2010 2:28 PM PST up reply actions
After I said all things great things about him today, now watch him got out and lay and egg tonight =)
Eh, don’t worry, sample size of one. Not too meaningful…
by Missing Barry on Jan 20, 2010 4:31 PM PST up reply actions
Nothing like a little fanshot about our two youngest players (is that even true? I’m just guessing) to bring out the homers.
I see Curry becoming an elite PG
Curry has the “potential”… to become a CRAZY scorer,and he has proven he can rebound and assist like any other guard.
I believe Curry will have at least the second best career (behind Evans) if not the best.
Hopefully it’s with the Warriors. It’s all just a matter of time before we see it unfold.
Curry is going to be a much better all around player than Evans.
I believe Curry will put up better numbers than Evans next year, he is in a system that does not feature him like Sac does Evans
Curry/AR Curry is about to become a top 3 point guard and maybe the best scoring point guard in the whole league.
Yeah…..no. We all realize that guys like Nash – guys that turn into superstars, are the exception, right? Chances are, Curry won’t be that player, it’s simple probability. Especially given that he’s not tearing up the NBA right now – we play at the fastest pace in the league (at least last time I checked), yet Curry still isn’t even racking up as many assists as Tyreke per 36 minutes, despite turning it over more (barely). Tyreke isn’t going to be a PG – but he looks like a SG that can distribute a fair amount for his position, and he’s already scoring in bulk at average efficiency, something that likely will improve a decent amount in the coming years. This is a no brainer for me – I want the best player in the swap. That player is Tyreke Evans. I’d much rather have AR than Thompson (basically the same player, but given his age/athleticism, Randolph has lots more potential/probability of improving), but Tyreke is easily the most desirable player of the 4. His size and athleticism and ability he’s already shown offensively make him a decent player now, with the potential to be very, very good (especially if he becomes good on defense – not hard to imagine with his physical attributes). Curry? Yeah, he’s alright, but let’s check the homerism at the door for a second and realize he’s not looking like Steve Nash. He’s a tweener (struggles to create shots for himself and others) who isn’t much of a defensive player, doesn’t have the size/athleticism you look for in terms of “potential” or even to play his position….
Kings made a great call with Tyreke. Yes, I am jealous.
Definitely would take Evans and Thompson!!
"I dont just go tatoo any muthafucka on my chest! dis is ma life line! my LEGACY!!!
Definitely Curry/ randolph
If you gave Randolph Thompson’s minutes you would see that Randolph is a hell of a lot better in every way except for poor judgement.
evans is better than Curry, but Curry has the superior Randolph. If you gave Steph Reke’s minutes he would be a little more similar to Reke. They have similar rebounding stats and assists stats. While Reke is a drive and cutter and horrible shooter, Curry is a great shooter, good penetrator and driving to the rim.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
"UNSTOPPABLE BABY!"
Golden State Warriors rookie Marc Jackson to the Mavericks' bench, after hitting a lay-up during a 29-point loss (2000)
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
Most Commented
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Days of NBA Lives: Wherein Roy Hibbert tap-dances to Maine
- Grizzlies Valentine’s Day cards are the key to love
- Kevin Love would like the NBA to take the MLB’s approach on All-Star games
- Kobe Bryant fires a few hilarious salvos at Jeremy Lin
- Brandon Jennings states the obvious regarding his 2014 free agency, everyone goes nuts
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
