ISH All-time Top 25 Guards Project: #12 - Steve Nash vs. Clyde Drexler

[G.O.A.T]

Make your arguments here for the next 48 hours on rather Steve Nash or Clyde Drexler should advance and continue to move higher on the list. Put the players name you are voting for in BOLD so I don't miss it when I tally. The loser of this poll will be ranked #13 in our project.


http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/nashnose(2).jpg

15 seasons
7x all-NBA
7x all-star
2005 & 2006 MVP
5x Assists Leader
2x FT% Leader
1st All-time in FT%
8th All-time in 3pt fg%
10th All-time in 3-pointers made


Votes (10)
magnax1
ThaSwagg3r
RobertdeMeijer
NyCelt84
SteveNashMVPcro
Shaqattack3234
Big 164
Rose
1987 Lakers
NugzHeat3

http://www.intentionalfoul.com/images/clydedrexlerstache.jpg


15 seasons
5x all-NBA
10x all-star
One of five players to average at least 20-6-6 for their career (Magic, Oscar, Bird, West)
Averaged at least 16 points 5 rebounds and 4 assists 13 of 14 years of his career
9th all-time in steals
25th all-time in scoring
1995 NBA Champion

Votes (9)
SuperPippen
WillC
neyca
bizil
iamgine
Gotterdammerung
Toizumi
L. Kizzle
G.O.A.T

[magnax1]

As in the last matchup, Drexler is the better defender (though obviously it's not the same gap) and Nash is the better offensive player (also, not the same gap) However, I do think Nash made more of an impact. Drexler never seemed to be the scorer his #s would suggest, and more of an impact by the fact that he did a bit of everything. I think Nash's ability to turn any team into a top 10 offense ends up being more valuable. I always feel that if Nash ever had the defenses around him these other players did, he would've at minimum made quite a few finals, and in all likelyhood won a couple. The only year I would've really said he had a chance to win (07) he had terrible luck.
Anyway, all in all I'd say Nash made more of an impact on his teams
Nash

[Maniak]

Nash

I'm too lazy to really explain why. I'll just echo what magnax said. Especially with the impact factor.

[SunsCaptain]

Steve Nash averaged 16 PPG and 10 APG on 40 50 90 for a decade 2000 to present day. Boy can he run an offense and shoot lights out. :cheers:

Id say that Steve Nash was also a better performer in the playoffs.

[G.O.A.T]

^you don't have a vote unless you ask to and no one objects and you show a commitment to the project not just your favorite player.

Check the main thread and request to vote if you are interested.

[Maniak]

Oh ok.

I'm not interested, I just saw Nash's name and wanted to post.

[G.O.A.T]

Oh ok.

I'm not interested, I just saw Nash's name and wanted to post.

Then by all means share your opinion on this matter but don't do the bolded vote. it make its confusing when I do the tallies.

[ThaSwagg3r]

My vote goes to Steve Nash. This is a tougher comparison since they play completely different role and it's funny because they would probably be great compliments to each other.

Nash was better offensively in my mind, he did not score better than Drexler did but that was because that was not his role. Nash proved that he had great scoring ability in the 2005 playoffs when the Mavericks dared him to be a scorer rather than a playmaker/passer and here was his statline....

Game 1: May 9, 2005- 11 points 13 assists
Game 3: May 13, 2005- 27 points 17 assists
Game 4: May 15, 2005- 48 points 5 assists
Game 5: May 18, 2005- 34 points 12 assists 13 rebounds
Game 6: May 20, 2005- 39 points 12 assists 9 rebounds

Drexler may have scored better in volume and was the better scorer in general but Nash was more efficient. Nash took smart and efficient shots, he did not waste possessions. Nash has had numerous of 90/50/40 seasons while Drexler never had any but that was because he wasn't as good of a shooter as Nash was.

Nash has the absolute clear edge in playmaking and passing, clear edge. Drexler was no slouch in the passing/playmaking area (had many 5-6+ apg seasons) and it is not like he was some pure scorer like Dominique Wilkins who lacked those traits but he wasn't as good as Nash was, not even close. The gap between their scoring is a hell lot closer than their gap in passing/playmaking.

Here is the last offensive thing I want to say Nash had the absolute edge in.....closing ability. Nash was the closer on those Suns teams while Drexler wasn't....Terry Porter was the closer on those Blazers team. Terry Porter was underrated as hell and he was the real closer for those Blazers team not Drexler. Nash was not LeBron when it came down to closing either, Nash was very clutch and would hit big time shots.

Drexler has the clear advantage in rebounding (Drexler was one of the greatest rebounders in his position) and defense. Drexler's defense was nothing special but it was better than Nash. I don't think Clyde's advantage in rebounding and defense is significant to overcome Nash's great offensive advantages over Clyde. That is why my vote goes to Steve Nash....hard comparison at the end because they are so different and would have been great compliments to one another.

[Kblaze8855]

Nash is going to win this. And win it by such a margin that listing reasons Drexler might deserve more consideration than hes getting would just be a waste of time.

If Payton didnt win by being 40 times the defender nash is then Drexler isnt winning for being 20 times the defender plus a little less modern and respected by current fans.

This is so clearly going to Nash id suggest skipping the voting but im sure we wont. So ill just leave it alone until someone says something I cant ignore like "Drexler cant even dribble without looking at the ball...how is this a debate?"".

[G.O.A.T]

Nash is going to win this. And win it by such a margin that listing reasons Drexler might deserve more consideration than hes getting would just be a waste of time.

Considering they finished in a dead tie based on the polling before these threads, I can't see it being a landslide. A lot of people would have to have changed their minds for that to happen.

[D.J.]

Clyde Drexler. Better all-around player and got to the Finals multiple times as the go to guy. He would have a ring most likely if it weren't for Jordan. And 20-6-6 for his career. Only 4 others have done it.

[Fatal9]

Nash is better but something for Clyde because he'll get overlooked...

Offensively he helped his teams in every way imaginable. Very good scorer, top 5 passer ever from the SG positions and by the numbers THE best offensive rebounding guard ever (most people don't realize this). No other guard has gotten over 3.5/game and he is the only one to average more than 3/game multiple times (he was good for putbacks couple of times a game). So dude scored 20-25 a game efficiently and in a way that fit well with the team (never pounded the ball, made his moves quickly), got putbacks and offensive rebounds for you at the rate of a center and passed/made plays at an elite level. On top of that he was a very active defender who was great at converting his defense ( or missed shots) into an easy fast break opportunity for his team. The only thing he lacked was handles that didn't really allow him to break down the defense like an MJ, Kobe or Wade, so if his jumper was off, you weren't gonna get great one on one scoring from him.

His teams were really talented, but imo his impact gets underrated because of that, especially offensively. Overall in his prime (

[OmniStrife]

Clyde did more stuff well than Nash, but the things Nash did and does well, he's one of the best of all time at them.

Nash's impact goes miles beyond his numbers.


Steve Nash.

[G.O.A.T]

Not ready to reveal my vote yet. This one is very, very close and they are very similar. With that in mind, I'm just going to share my notes on each player with you. I'll add to it you have a guy in Nash I believe is the 10th best offensive player of all-time and a guy in Drexler I ran as the 10th best all-around player of all-time. Hope this helps, looking for a persuasive argument here.



Stephen John Nash
15 seasons
11 quality seasons
10 prime level seasons

7x all-NBA (3-2-2)
7x all-star
2005, 2006 MVP
2nd

[SuperPippen]

Nash is probably gonna win this one, seeing as how everyone loves to crap on Drexler and Nash is one of the most beloved players in the NBA, but I'm actually gonna take Clyde Drexler on this one.

Many people tend to disrespect Drexler, especially when in comparison to a guy like Jordan, who consistently outplayed him throughout his career, but Glide was a fantastic all-around player in his own right. His game had few notable holes; he could score, pass, rebound, get steals etc. His only real faults were his inconsistent jumpshot and his subpar handles (people love bringing up the whole "looks at the ball during fastbreaks" thing, but whatever, he was still fantastic in transition, so f*ck it).

Clyde was probably the least impressive scorer among the the SG's that are commonly considered among the greatest of all time, and could never really dominate a game solely by scoring like the Jordans, Kobes, Gervins, and Iversons of the world, but he had a well-rounded game that more made up for it.

- Drexler was terrific in transition and a spectacular dunker. He was a fantastic athlete, was slightly bigger than the average SG, and dunked with power, grace, and style. His name rarely comes up in the discussion of best dunkers of all time, but IMO, Clyde is up there. In his prime, he was as exciting of a player as there was, and on the fast break, he was nearly unstoppable.

- Clyde's skill as a passer is often overlooked, but was a GREAT passer with great court awareness. He could thread passes between opposing players with an impressive amount of skill, and was particularly adept at penetrating the hole and then dropping off a pass to a teammate for an easy basket. He was a constant triple-double threat. He reminds me a lot of Larry Bird in this regard. If Drexler had had better handles, he would've made a fine point-forward, IMO.

- Very few guards in the NBA ever rebounded the ball as well as Clyde. Most notably, Clyde excelled at taking down offensive rebounds like no guard in NBA HISTORY ever has. During those years when the Blazers were consistently contenders for the title, Drexler's offensive rebounding numbers often matched or exceeded those of the team's frontcourt players, including those of Buck Williams.

- Although Drexler's defense wasn't particularly strong, he was shrewd and athletic enough as a defender to rack up an impressive amount of steals. It wasn't uncommon to see him with a game of around 4 or 5, and sometimes even more, and these inevitably led to easy fastbreak points. He was a capable shotblocker, as well.

- Clyde was able to reinvent himself and serve as a very valuable sidekick to Hakeem during the '95 season. He played an important role and won a championship on an otherwise unimpressive team. If he had landed in the role of a complimentary player in the vein of someone like Scottie Pippen, I really think we'd be arguing about Drexler being the greatest sidekick ever.

Maybe this might all just be personal bias speaking for me, as Clyde the Glide was always one of my favorite players to watch, but depending on what kind of player I needed for a team, I think I'd take Drexler over Nash more times than I'd take Nash over Drexler. I just think Drexler could give me slightly more than Nash could, in a wider variety of roles, whether I needed a star scorer to carry a team or a fantastic 2nd banana to compliment another fantastic player.

In short, give me Clyde the Glide.

[SuperPippen]

[QUOTE=Fatal9]Nash is better but something for Clyde because he'll get overlooked...

Offensively he helped his teams in every way imaginable. Very good scorer, top 5 passer ever from the SG positions and by the numbers THE best offensive rebounding guard ever (most people don't realize this). No other guard has gotten over 3.5/game and he is the only one to average more than 3/game multiple times (he was good for putbacks couple of times a game). So dude scored 20-25 a game efficiently and in a way that fit well with the team (never pounded the ball, made his moves quickly), got putbacks and offensive rebounds for you at the rate of a center and passed/made plays at an elite level. On top of that he was a very active defender who was great at converting his defense ( or missed shots) into an easy fast break opportunity for his team. The only thing he lacked was handles that didn't really allow him to break down the defense like an MJ, Kobe or Wade, so if his jumper was off, you weren't gonna get great one on one scoring from him.

His teams were really talented, but imo his impact gets underrated because of that, especially offensively. Overall in his prime (

[WillC]

I want to vote for Nash (since he's one of my all-time favourite players), but was he better than Drexler? No. Did he have a better career than Drexler? No.

Clyde Drexler took his Blazers to the Finals and, in 1991, they were one of the all-time best teams not to win a championship (which shows how good Jordan's Bulls were). Read 'The NBA From Top To Bottom' for more information.

Drexler could do it all, he was a phenomenal athlete, he could score at ease, good defender, got a nice amount of rebounds and assists.

[PTB Fan]

I don't know. It's a tough comparison for me

[necya]

Drexler cant even dribble without looking at the ball...how is this a debate?

this site is amazing seriously...Payton, now Drexler ? :oldlol:
i bet you guessed my vote :pimp:

[bizil]

I think for me I gotta roll with the Glide. Awesome scorer and all around player. MJ gets the props for redefining the SG spot, but Glide was right there doing it to. Both brought Dr.J size and athletic ability to the SG spot. Something that was never seen before. But MJ and Clyde had tremendous all around games. MJ could play PG, SG, and SF at awesome levels. Even though Clyde catches heat for dribbling with his head down, he was an all time great passer from the SG. Which leads me to believe that he could run PG in additon to SG and SF. I know he has run PG some back in the day, but MJ was so fundamentally sound that it put him on another level. MJ and Clyde have been known to get 8 boards and 8 assists in a season. That's awesome production to go with there scoring.

Nash is a legend and all that. But it's get hard comparing a 6'3 PG to a 6'7 SG who's a freak athlete, Batman player, and awesome all around player. And I'm just talking in terms of a peak value-better player list. GOAT wise, I feel Clyde still has the edge on Nash. Clyde has been to three finals and has a ring. And Clyde was great for a long ass time just like Nash has been. But believe it or not, Nash has major run left in him. He just needs to link up with the right squad to get that ring.

[RobertdeMeijer]

This is close:
I have Nash as the lowest guy on my "great guards" tier and Drexler as the highest guy as "almost great" tier.

To me, Drexler is underrrated: led to two finals appearances (in heavy league) and then won a championship as the second best player. Toss in his all-round skills, and you can't get any closer to greatness. But the history is: he was always a tier-2 guy.
Drexler was always something of an afterthought. Before him were Jordan, Magic, Stockton, Isiah. Neither was he very special in our eyes: He was a poor man's Dr. J until Jordan eclipsed him. In 1992 he finally made the first All-NBA team, and he got seriously owned by Jordan. He even underachieved in the dunk contests. This high on the greatness list, a player can't afford to be so un-special.

If Steve Nash stayed in Dallas and even won a title, I think Drexler would win. But Nash has so much going for him history-wise, thanks to his Phoenix years, it puts him on another tier.

[iamgine]

Clyde Drexler

[nycelt84]

Steve Nash

[SteveNashMVPcro]

Steve Nash

[L.Kizzle]

Haven't posted in these in 2 rounds. Anyways, Clyde is geting seriously underrated. Dude took his team to the Finals 2 times in the late 80s and early 90s. Nash has 2 MVP titles in the mid 2000s. Which was harder to accomplish? They both played in a tough era for guards, who's era was tougher?

[iamgine]

Haven't posted in these in 2 rounds. Anyways, Clyde is geting seriously underrated. Dude took his team to the Finals 2 times in the late 80s and early 90s. Nash has 2 MVP titles in the mid 2000s. Which was harder to accomplish? They both played in a tough era for guards, who's era was tougher?
Actually Clyde would have an MVP if not for Michael Jordan.

[Niquesports]

This is close:
I have Nash as the lowest guy on my "great guards" tier and Drexler as the highest guy as "almost great" tier.

To me, Drexler is underrrated: led to two finals appearances (in heavy league) and then won a championship as the second best player. Toss in his all-round skills, and you can't get any closer to greatness. But the history is: he was always a tier-2 guy.
Drexler was always something of an afterthought. Before him were Jordan, Magic, Stockton, Isiah. Neither was he very special in our eyes: He was a poor man's Dr. J until Jordan eclipsed him. In 1992 he finally made the first All-NBA team, and he got seriously owned by Jordan. He even underachieved in the dunk contests. This high on the greatness list, a player can't afford to be so un-special.

If Steve Nash stayed in Dallas and even won a title, I think Drexler would win. But Nash has so much going for him history-wise, thanks to his Phoenix years, it puts him on another tier.
I have to take CLYDE

Here is why Impact Clyde has lead a College and NBA team to mutiple finals. Nash never has. How much of an impact player are you if you can't make one finals. I would say the talent around each was equal if not slighty infavor of nash .

Scorer
Clyde was the better all around scorer. Sure Nash had the better jumper but the bottom line is who could score and Clyde was cledarly the better scorer.

Then go Match up.
Clyde would do better defending Nash than Nash would do defending Clyde.This here is the selling point to me.

[iamgine]

I have to take CLYDE

Here is why Impact Clyde has lead a College and NBA team to mutiple finals. Nash never has. How much of an impact player are you if you can't make one finals. I would say the talent around each was equal if not slighty infavor of nash .

Scorer
Clyde was the better all around scorer. Sure Nash had the better jumper but the bottom line is who could score and Clyde was cledarly the better scorer.

Then go Match up.
Clyde would do better defending Nash than Nash would do defending Clyde.This here is the selling point to me.
That part isn't so clear. Nash can score a lot more than his number suggest but his responsibility is a PG.

[L.Kizzle]

That part isn't so clear. Nash can score a lot more than his number suggest but his responsibility is a PG.
Clyde is a slightly better scorer. He could score in more ways than Nash could.

[iamgine]

Clyde is a slightly better scorer. He could score in more ways than Nash could.
That's called more versatile, not better scorer.

[NugzHeat3]

[QUOTE=Fatal9]Nash is better but something for Clyde because he'll get overlooked...

Offensively he helped his teams in every way imaginable. Very good scorer, top 5 passer ever from the SG positions and by the numbers THE best offensive rebounding guard ever (most people don't realize this). No other guard has gotten over 3.5/game and he is the only one to average more than 3/game multiple times (he was good for putbacks couple of times a game). So dude scored 20-25 a game efficiently and in a way that fit well with the team (never pounded the ball, made his moves quickly), got putbacks and offensive rebounds for you at the rate of a center and passed/made plays at an elite level. On top of that he was a very active defender who was great at converting his defense ( or missed shots) into an easy fast break opportunity for his team. The only thing he lacked was handles that didn't really allow him to break down the defense like an MJ, Kobe or Wade, so if his jumper was off, you weren't gonna get great one on one scoring from him.

His teams were really talented, but imo his impact gets underrated because of that, especially offensively. Overall in his prime (

[L.Kizzle]

High quality stuff though you're overlooking how deep those rosters were.

Drexler missed a significant amount of games in 1993 and Portland had a higher winning % in those games. It was the same deal in 1994.
Those two teams got knocked out in the first round right? Yep. When Clyde was healthy the 3 previous seaons, Finals,, West Finals, Finals ...

[Miller for 3]

I would go with Nash. Could do more with less than Drexler imo. But as others have stated, Drexler did A LOT of really good things. Its really close. Personally I would rank both of them over Kidd and Stockton

[NugzHeat3]

Those two teams got knocked out in the first round right? Yep. When Clyde was healthy the 3 previous seaons, Finals,, West Finals, Finals ...
And what does that have to do with the Blazers performing better without Drexler than with him?

The Blazers problems in those years went beyond Drexler's injury issues.

They had chemistry issues with Duckworth showing up out of shape, their 3 guard rotation was broken up with Ainge bolting to PHX and the signing of Strickland who needed the ball to be effective unlike Porter who could work well off-ball.

[Kblaze8855]

Im not sure how Nash did more with less. They both had great talent...but Drexlers teams had more playoff success. Im not sure what the "more" could be.

Plus Nash had total control of his teams. Drexler was like a role player who had a big game out of nowhere...every night. Which doesnt really make sense but I cant think of any other way to explain it. They didnt even get the ball to him really. He would catch it and hit an open jumper. Or faceup and useh is first step...dribble once and jump 35 inches straight up, palm the ball, wait for the D to fall, and flick it in on the way down. Get out and run and bang on someone. But he wasnt a traditional "Give him the ball and get out of the way" scorer.

He doesnt just get put on a guy to shut him down. But hes gonna come out of nowhere for 2-3 steals. Block a shot. You dont give him the ball to make a play...but...he somehow ends up with 9 assists. He might get the ball on the break, take 2 steps, and throw it behind his back....ahead of him...for a layup. He would come out of nowhere and tip in a miss or sky for a rebound and drop it off around an opponent for Kersey to dunk it back in. If the ball is moving around and he happens to catch it at 18 feet and his man is leaning the wrong way or not making contact he just explodes by him in half a second and flips in a finger roll. He played like a guy somewhat out of control who you are happy to get anything out of....except he does it so well and so often you have to call him a star.

You couldnt really depend on anything he did(post scoring aside...but he didnt do it often)...at any given moment. But the game would present so many chances for him to seemingly get lucky...he ends up with 22/8/7 and 5 highlights.

But give him the ball with 20 seconds left and get out of the way....hes not as good as his numbers suggest.

But he was perfect for a talented team that didnt need anyone to dominate the ball. I dont think he "made others better" but hes one of the best stars ever at not keeping his teammates from showing what they can do.

Hes a star that plugs in on any team and wouldnt be a problem. But he didnt just...carry a team. Not as much as putting up like 27/7/5 suggests.

[L.Kizzle]

And what does that have to do with the Blazers performing better without Drexler than with him?

The Blazers problems in those years went beyond Drexler's injury issues.

They had chemistry issues with Duckworth showing up out of shape, their 3 guard rotation was broken up with Ainge bolting to PHX and the signing of Strickland who needed the ball to be effective unlike Porter who could work well off-ball.
The Blazers were a good team with and without Drexler. Clyde took them over the top. They'd still win without Clyde but they need his presence. Its a whole different game with him there.

[NugzHeat3]

The Blazers were a good team with and without Drexler. Clyde took them over the top. They'd still win without Clyde but they need his presence. Its a whole different game with him there.

Can't be that different with the most overrated player of the 90s.

People say the Suns are a good team without Nash too and list all the talented All-Stars that he plays with and ignore the absolute shittastic record the Suns have without him. Why? Beats me.

[L.Kizzle]

Can't be that different with the most overrated player of the 90s.

People say the Suns are a good team without Nash too and list all the talented All-Stars that he plays with and ignore the absolute shittastic record the Suns have without him. Why? Beats me.
So you saying the Blazers make 2 finals and a west finals with Clyde deleted from the team?

[Kblaze8855]

Nash dominates the ball. He runs the offense totally. Remove him for a game or two its a bunch of people playing outside their comfort zones. You arent combining prime Amare, Marion, and 05 JJ and having a terrible team no matter what their record was in individual games without him. Not when you really set the team up to play without him.

Drexler is easier to play without because they didnt play through him anyway. He was just one of the guys....who just happened to score the most. Terry Porter would have been harder to play without for them.

[NugzHeat3]

So you saying the Blazers make 2 finals and a west finals with Clyde deleted from the team?
No, I was just trolling for a bit. I don't like Drexler.

[L.Kizzle]

Nash dominates the ball. He runs the offense totally. Remove him for a game or two its a bunch of people playing outside their comfort zones. You arent combining prime Amare, Marion, and 05 JJ and having a terrible team no matter what their record was in individual games without him. Not when you really set the team up to play without him.

Drexler is easier to play without because they didnt play through him anyway. He was just one of the guys....who just happened to score the most. Terry Porter would have been harder to play without for them.
Clyde would run the pg if Terry was absent. I thibk he ran at the pg in the 85 86 season.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Fatal summed it up well, and I agree that Nash is better.

Nash in Phoenix has been pretty much an ideal point guard offensively. Not many other players possess anywhere near that type of passing ability and even fewer have the ability to take over a game and know the appropriate time to do so like Nash. Despite all of the talent he's played with, it's no coincidence that his Phoenix teams have regularly struggled with him out of the lineup.

I appreciate Nash even more over the years when I see him a 36/37 year old Nash lead a team like this recent Suns team to a 39-36 record when he played(and I think the 1-6 record without him is actually an accurate representation of how good they were without him).

[L.Kizzle]

I would go with Nash. Could do more with less than Drexler imo. But as others have stated, Drexler did A LOT of really good things. Its really close. Personally I would rank both of them over Kidd and Stockton
Could do more with less? Drexler in Portland never played with an Amar'e or a Marion (or hell maybe even a Joe Johnson.) I like Terry Porter and Kersey but they can't touch STAT and Martix. Buck Williams in Portland was past his prime, if this was a New Jersey Buck than that's a different story.

[EricForman]

Could do more with less? Drexler in Portland never played with an Amar'e or a Marion (or hell maybe even a Joe Johnson.) I like Terry Porter and Kersey but they can't touch STAT and Martix. Buck Williams in Portland was past his prime, if this was a New Jersey Buck than that's a different story.



I don't agree with the "Nash had prime Amare/JJ/Marion" argument. Nash has since gone to the WCF twice, once without Amare/JJ and another without Marion/JJ, so Nash really needed ONE of those three, along with 4 more solid guys, to make something happen.

Nash has that Magic Johnson quality, not only does he make everyone better in basketball abilities, but also the intangibles stuff like chemistry.

[L.Kizzle]

I don't agree with the "Nash had prime Amare/JJ/Marion" argument. Nash has since gone to the WCF twice, once without Amare/JJ and another without Marion/JJ, so Nash really needed ONE of those three, along with 4 more solid guys, to make something happen.

Nash has that Magic Johnson quality, not only does he make everyone better in basketball abilities, but also the intangibles stuff like chemistry.
I'm not saying Nash didn't make players beter cause he did. But did he really have less talent than Portland?

[wally_world]

Steve Nash

Their primes are pretty close, but what puts Nash over the top is his peak. As great a player Clyde was, he was never really a MVP player.

[L.Kizzle]

Steve Nash

Their primes are pretty close, but what puts Nash over the top is his peak. As great a player Clyde was, he was never really a MVP player.
Well Iverson was and he's two spots back ... Nash 2 MVPs shouldput him in the top 5 right

[magnax1]

Nash dominates the ball. He runs the offense totally. Remove him for a game or two its a bunch of people playing outside their comfort zones. You arent combining prime Amare, Marion, and 05 JJ and having a terrible team no matter what their record was in individual games without him. Not when you really set the team up to play without him.
I just have to say, that's just not what would really happen. What happened to the individual players as they left Phoenix is proof enough that the team would not have been very good. The team was basically built around scoring efficiently, and nobody was that amazingly efficient without Nash. Amare this year dropped his TS% from 62 to 57. Marion when he left went from 59% to 52% the next season, 50% the same season he was traded, and only jumped back up to 54% with Jason Kidd. Raja Bell shot 53% in his best season in Utah. It immediately jumped up to 59% once joining Phoenix. Jared Dudley from 56, to 61, Frye from 53 (47 the year before he joined Phoenix) to 60, and the list goes on and on. I don't know why you'd expect a team built on being more efficient then their opponents to succeed without Nash, when he is plainly the reason they were so efficient. Even Amare hasn't been that great without Nash considering all he can do is scoring 25 points extremely efficiently. Now he scores 25 points moderately efficiently while blocking out his team mates with more turnovers and fewer rebounds.

[Maniak]

http://gyazo.com/07db076195c0d5de8b8fbad9fd78631c.png

[EricForman]

I'm still having trouble adjusting to the fact that Nash bloomed so late. I mean really, if I had told you, as recently as 2004, that Nash would have a strong case for being above GP, Iverson, and Drexler, you guys woulda slapped me. Who the hell jumps a level like this AFTER 31?

What happened to Nash is equivalent to Raymond Felton suddenly making the next 7 all star teams and a few all NBA teams and one day end up in the same discussion with Deron Williams. Freaking uncanny.

[Story Up]

Amare & Marion are ideal players to have for an offensively minded point guard; they strive off transition offense. Big part to Nash's success over the years, IMO.

You guys shouldn't ignore Nash's inability to stay in the game for 40+ minutes either. Can he carry a team when they're struggling without getting his 12 minutes of rest?

[RRR3]

I'm still having trouble adjusting to the fact that Nash bloomed so late. I mean really, if I had told you, as recently as 2004, that Nash would have a strong case for being above GP, Iverson, and Drexler, you guys woulda slapped me. Who the hell jumps a level like this AFTER 31?

What happened to Nash is equivalent to Raymond Felton suddenly making the next 7 all star teams and a few all NBA teams and one day end up in the same discussion with Deron Williams. Freaking uncanny.
You mean he won't?

[Kblaze8855]

Have I ever said anything that would lead you to believe I care about Raja Bel or Jared dudleys true shooting or what Marion did in Toronto or miami as opposed to how good he was in 2005?

Joe Johnson, Marion, and Amare would not take much to be a good team. They sure as hell arent having a 25% winning percentage or whatever it was without Nash that year. They didnt even have a backup point guard at the time.

Unless you consider Barbosa a point. JJ was the closest thing to a second ballhandler.

That team with even a..Charlie Ward..or an..Earl Watson...could have done something. Given the time to gel and really gameplan...knowing they wouldnt have Nash?

Judging a team by a 3-4 game record without the guy they depend on totally to run its offense just doesnt make sense to me.

One game here and there in a totally different setup with guys playing outside normal roles doesnt show much of anything.

[EricForman]

Joe Johnson, Marion, and Amare would not take much to be a good team. They sure as hell arent having a 25% winning percentage or whatever it was without Nash that year. They didnt even have a backup point guard at the time.



Weren't the 2004 Suns, with Amare/Marion/JJ, pretty bad?

[G.O.A.T]

Weren't the 2004 Suns, with Amare/Marion/JJ, pretty bad?

When you consider that Amare missed 30 games and that he and JJ were both 21 and made a huge jump the next year that has continued even after they left Nash, you can see how that's not a valid example, can't you?

[EricForman]

When you consider that Amare missed 30 games and that he and JJ were both 21 and made a huge jump the next year that has continued even after they left Nash, you can see how that's not a valid example, can't you?

You have a point. To clarify, I'm not trying to say I completely disagree with Blaze's point and claim that JJ/Marion/Amare would stink in 05 had Nash not been there. But I also think they woulda been nowhere near 60 win good. I mean swap Nash with an average or solid PG and it's not improbable for them to win anywhere from 35 to 50 games. Long ways from 62.

I'm not arguing they would be/were nothing without Nash, I'm arguing they wouldn't be elite good, or even very good.

Nash has since had success without any of those three guys. As for Amare, let me know when he's the best player on a team that wins more than 45 games....which may never come really.

[magnax1]

Unless you consider Barbosa a point. JJ was the closest thing to a second ballhandler.

And that's exactly my point. I'm sorry to say that a team of 5 guys that were just finishers and shooters doesn't do very well without Nash. Amare, Marion and everyone is are not going to make a very good offense when they don't have Nash. I get that you're just saying that they aren't as bad as their record without Nash, but I don't think they are more then a 35-40 win team without him in 05. The 07 team might fair better though.
Like I said, for a team built around being more efficient on offense then their opponent, they just wouldn't be very good when everyone's efficiency drops dramatically without Nash.

[Kblaze8855]

The 04 Suns played if I remember correctly...15 players who didnt play onthe team in 05...they blew up the team for capspace after Amare got hurt....they played the young guys like 40 minutes a night(Barbosa and JJ mostly I think) and they had no real expectation of winning. By the end of the year they were just letting Amare, JJ, and Barbosa play to grow.

Besides they won like 30 games with Amare being hurt for about 30. They would have been decent if only by having him around.

And Joe was what? 21? 22?

Its been done a hundred times. The 04 Suns were not the 05 suns. They were as different as can be.

[L.Kizzle]

Weren't the 2004 Suns, with Amare/Marion/JJ, pretty bad?
They were a playoff team wth Marbury running the point 2 seasons prior.

[Kblaze8855]

And that's exactly my point. I'm sorry to say that a team of 5 guys that were just finishers and shooters doesn't do very well without Nash. Amare, Marion and everyone is are not going to make a very good offense when they don't have Nash.

When I said:


You arent combining prime Amare, Marion, and 05 JJ and having a terrible team no matter what their record was in individual games without him. Not when you really set the team up to play without him.


Did you think I meant that they would set up the team to play without him...and not decide that having a point on the roster would be nice?

[nycelt84]

I'm still having trouble adjusting to the fact that Nash bloomed so late. I mean really, if I had told you, as recently as 2004, that Nash would have a strong case for being above GP, Iverson, and Drexler, you guys woulda slapped me. Who the hell jumps a level like this AFTER 31?

What happened to Nash is equivalent to Raymond Felton suddenly making the next 7 all star teams and a few all NBA teams and one day end up in the same discussion with Deron Williams. Freaking uncanny.

Nash was better than Felton though in his Dallas days. And Felton is still 27 so he still has 3 years to go to be like Nash but even so no one would still believe it.

[Gotterdammerung]

Solid posts, y'all. Since I won't regurgitate what most already said... & I'd much rather compare these players to others who played the same position and had the same responsibilities, and we end up with a clearer picture of who's better. It's almost like comparing a running back to a wide receiver in football. :confusedshrug:

Otherwise, for players of equal talent/careers, but from different positions, we're picking between their responsibilities. Let's try Dr. Jack style breakdown. :D

Originality: Steve Nash was pretty much the prototypical PG at his height and his skills indicate the PG ceiling at shooting and passing. Imagine a John Stockton with more pizzazz and clutch genes. Clyde Drexler was a poor man's Dr. J i.e., an athletic big swingman with great hands & deadlier during open-court than the halfcourt. Since 1990, more players qualified for this role (Bryant, McGrady, etc). But Drexler was an early prototype, whereas Nash was probably the perfection of one first instituted by Cousy 50 years earlier.
Drexler

Calling Card: Nash ran the 7 seconds or less offense to perfection. Who other than Magic Johnson can we imagine pulling this off, and probably not as effective from outside (since the pick & roll depended on the dribbler's accuracy from outside if the defense doubled the roller)? Drexler's card is the fastbreak dribble with his head down yet make impossible passes to his blind spots, or unleash a monstrous dunk (see 1995 Finals, game 4).
Tie

Nickname: Nash the gash? Steve's SSOL? Glide is the clear winner here. That nickname alone fits his smooth, seamless, apparently effortless game, and his unstoppable slashes to the basket that seemed more ethereal than Dr. J's powerful ones.
Drexler

What-if? Nash didn't have suspended players for game 5 of the 2007 west semifinals? What if Joe Johnson didn't bust his face in the Mavericks series in 2005? What if Nash never left the Mavericks in 2004 and they didn't sign an overpriced stiff in Dampier? But Drexler trumps them all: what if Houston traded Sampson for him and the 2nd pick in the draft to Portland? Yes, that means 10 titles for Houston Rockets with Olajuwon and Drexler and some guard from North Carolina. :oldlol:
Drexler

Scoring ability: While Drexler had the better numbers and higher peak scoring ability, Nash was the better shooter everywhere. Drexler was probably right behind Kobe & Jordan & Ice in scoring 25 points in the flow of the game and nobody could stop him. We can speculate about what if, and based on one series Nash went off vs the Mavericks in 2005. But we have evidence to go by instead. Drexler was versatile (fast-break, quick moves in halfcourt, blended seamlessly w high powered offense) and streaky.
Tie

Mentality: Drexler was criticized for not being an alpha dog enough, for not being a dominant ballhandler like later day guards Kobe or McGrady, but that was not his persnality. He preferred to win as a team, and that may have hurt his potential for greatness. Nash was ultracompetitive as hell, and ice-like during the playoffs.
Nash

Defensive prowess: Nash is probably over-criticized here, but he also had to save his energy for the most important task: running a team. Drexler was a strong & long defensive guard that even MJ couldn't post up with regularity.
Drexler

Winnability: Bill Simmons invented this category as a trait that the overall package of a player's skills & intangibiles lend to an overall combination. Drexler blended his skills well in a high scoring team, led them to the finals twice in Portland and an inside-outside team in Houston & won a title. Nash won a lot but only on his terms as a ring-leader.
Tie

Clutchness: Nash is amazing in the clutch, and Drexler, probably not as much due to his streaky outside shot.
Nash

Final tally: Drexler, 7-5. Clyde Drexler to me was the greatest off-guard not named Jordan of the 90s. :hammerhead:

[OmniStrife]

Nickname
:wtf:

[NugzHeat3]

I'm still having trouble adjusting to the fact that Nash bloomed so late. I mean really, if I had told you, as recently as 2004, that Nash would have a strong case for being above GP, Iverson, and Drexler, you guys woulda slapped me. Who the hell jumps a level like this AFTER 31?

What happened to Nash is equivalent to Raymond Felton suddenly making the next 7 all star teams and a few all NBA teams and one day end up in the same discussion with Deron Williams. Freaking uncanny.
In retrospect, its not hard to see why he was a late bloomer.

He didn't get better as a player. He worked on his physical conditioning but he was really the same player that he was in Dallas. It was all about having the keys to the offense.

Nash's impact just couldn't be seen in Dallas because they were a great offensive team as it is and they relied a lot on isolation sets for their scorers. Nash was just part of the offense while in Phoenix, he was the offense.

If you read up on Nash around the time he got drafted, you'll see he always had the playmaking skills (he got Stockton comparisons), control the tempo and the ability to thrive in both the halfcourt set and the open court.

Any PG would have had his touches and numbers limited on those Dallas teams.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Nash was better than Felton though in his Dallas days. And Felton is still 27 so he still has 3 years to go to be like Nash but even so no one would still believe it.

Yeah, Nash had already made 2 all-nba third teams in Dallas and was regarded as one of the best point guards in the game(don't remember anyone calling him the best, though). So a lot different than Felton.


In retrospect, its not hard to see why he was a late bloomer.

He didn't get better as a player. He worked on his physical conditioning but he was really the same player that he was in Dallas. It was all about having the keys to the offense.

Nash's impact just couldn't be seen in Dallas because they were a great offensive team as it is and they relied a lot on isolation sets for their scorers. Nash was just part of the offense while in Phoenix, he was the offense.

If you read up on Nash around the time he got drafted, you'll see he always had the playmaking skills (he got Stockton comparisons), control the tempo and the ability to thrive in both the halfcourt set and the open court.

Any PG would have had his touches and numbers limited on those Dallas teams.

Great post as usual, that obviously made a big difference going to a team where he was given more control and had a team built around him with players who were at their best when playing off of Nash, though Nash and Dirk were a really good duo, everyone should remember the Nash/Dirk pick and roll.

And when you look at the numbers, the rise seems easier to understand.

2004 with Dallas- 14.5 ppg, 8.8 apg, 2.7 TO, 47 FG%(10.8 FGA), 40.5 3P%(3.3 3PA), 91.6 FT%(3.2 FTA), 59 TS%, 33.5 mpg (Team pace was 93.2)

3rd in assists, 6th in TS%

2005 with Phoenix- 15.5 ppg, 11.5 apg, 3.3 TO, 50.2 FG%(11.4 FGA), 43.1 3P%(2.9 3PA), 88.7 FT%(3.2 FTA), 60.6 TS%, 34.3 mpg (Team pace was 95.9)

1st in assists, 8th in TS%

And of course, all offensive numbers were way down in 2004 when the average team scored 93.9 ppg on 43.9% shooting with an average offensive/defensive rating of 102.9 while the average team scored 97.2 ppg on 44.7% shooting with an average offensive/defensive rating of 106.1 in 2005.

Nash was actually only 0.4 apg behind Jason Kidd for the assists lead in 2004.

[Sampsonsimpson]

Drexler

[Toizumi]

Totally different players, but a real close comparison. I had Drexler one spot ahead of Nash on my original top 25 list and I stick with my pick.. eventhough I'm in doubt about it.

Somebody posted that Clyde wasn't an MVP type player. I'm must speculating here, but if it wasn't for MJ, I think that Clyde wins the 92 MVP (he was second in voting that year). The Blazers had a deep team that year, but Clyde was great. An elite player, with MVP type talent.

Nash and Clyde are really different players and who I'd prefer on my team (whatever team that would be) would depend on the roster I'd be working with.
Nash is one of the greatest playmakers of all time and one of the best shooters in the history of the game as well. Great decision maker and superb at running an offense.
Clyde, a true SG, an elite wingplayer. We've seen more of those in the history of the NBA and they've always had a lot of team succes.

Steve Nash has been one of my favorite players of this decade, a lot of fun too watch and a player that is easy to root for.. Going by accomplishments and individual awards, it's easy to rank him over Drexler.
However, I have Drexler ranked either with, or just a notch below the truly elite SG's (Jordan, Kobe, Wade etc). He led his teams to playoff succes and won a ring later on in his career as well.
Him not having the same type of individual succes as Nash (All NBA teams/recognizition somewhat), also has something to do with Drexler playing in the same days as MJ, Magic, Stockton and some other elite guards..
That said, Nash played in an era with some great guards as well.

Like I said, I'm not sure about my pick. I vote Drexler over a player that I enjoyed watching more and a two time MVP winner. Looks like Nash is gonna win this round anway, so I won't feel to bad about it.

[Kblaze8855]

I hate the "If not for ____" argument when talking about players falling short of some award or a ring or something.

If not for MJ, Wilt, Russell, Kareem, Magic, and Bird 26 MVPs are up for grabs...but the Clydes, Hondos, Bernard Kings and so on dont have MVPs...because they were not good enough to beat out the true greats.

The league always has a few. Clyde was never one of them. Him being second in MVP voting matters as much to me as Jermaine Oneal and Peja being like 3rd and 4th one year.

clyde was no more the second best player than they were top 3 or 4.

Clyde was no Mike, hakeem, Barkley, Drob, Ewing, or even Malone.

He just approached an MVp because his team won a lot of games and someone had to get love for it.

[Gotterdammerung]

Kblaze that's a bad argument because 66% of sports discussions consist of speculation and what-if arguments.

The remaining 33% consists of who knows their stats better.

Either u have a nerd's paradise of stat-mongers or you have a rich cornucopia of poets and analysts of the game. I pick the latter.

[Big164]

Tough vote because they play very different roles. But Nash is closer at being the best at what he does. There aren't many distributers/playmakers You can safely rank above Nash, but Drexeler is looking up at several shooting guards and small forwards who were just flat out better scorers and all-round players.

Despite their talents I liked both guys better as sidekicks. Nash would've done better staying with dirk and clyde should've joined Dream earlier.

The 2x MVP Steve Nash gets my vote.

[Toizumi]

I hate the "If not for ____" argument when talking about players falling short of some award or a ring or something.

If not for MJ, Wilt, Russell, Kareem, Magic, and Bird 26 MVPs are up for grabs...but the Clydes, Hondos, Bernard Kings and so on dont have MVPs...because they were not good enough to beat out the true greats.

The league always has a few. Clyde was never one of them. Him being second in MVP voting matters as much to me as Jermaine Oneal and Peja being like 3rd and 4th one year.

clyde was no more the second best player than they were top 3 or 4.

Clyde was no Mike, hakeem, Barkley, Drob, Ewing, or even Malone.

He just approached an MVp because his team won a lot of games and someone had to get love for it.

Like I said in my post, it's was just speculation, not facts..
I posted what I did, to point out that the MVP's on Nash resume (eventhough he earned them and they mean alot) don't necesarily win this comparison in Nash's favor.
No, Clyde was not the 2nd best player in the game back then. With all due respect to Nash, he wasn't the best player in the league during his 2 MVP seasons either.

[Rose]

I ranked Nash two spots above Clyde. And after reading some of these arguments I'm in serious doubts about it. At first I thought it'd be a Nash win easily, but some of the arguments for Clyde really made me second guess my decision. But I just can't imagine taking a guy with less, playoff success, less MVPs(granted Nash plays in a easier era) over Nash. Even though Clyde played a HUGE role in the Rockets second title. I don't think I can choose him over Nash.

I choose Steve Nash.

[G-train]

Back in 1990/91/92 we (bball fans) were debating whether or not Clyde was actually better than MJ.

That's how good Clyde was.

Steve Nash is a great playmaker and excellent shooter, and a two time MVP.
Yes I am one of many that believe his first should have been Shaq's, without a doubt. Absolute laughable joke. Second one I can handle better.

[G-train]

Drexler is easier to play without because they didnt play through him anyway. He was just one of the guys....who just happened to score the most. Terry Porter would have been harder to play without for them.

Not sure if serious.

[magnax1]

When I said:



Did you think I meant that they would set up the team to play without him...and not decide that having a point on the roster would be nice?
You said with Earl Watson they could've done something with the team. I don't know exactly what that means, but unless you're talking about 35-40 wins being something, then I dont agree at all.

[Kblaze8855]

Back in 1990/91/92 we (bball fans) were debating whether or not Clyde was actually better than MJ.

That's how good Clyde was.

Debating it among stupid people doesnt mean it was actually close enough to ask.

Which was made obvious quite quickly.

[bizil]

Solid posts, y'all. Since I won't regurgitate what most already said... & I'd much rather compare these players to others who played the same position and had the same responsibilities, and we end up with a clearer picture of who's better. It's almost like comparing a running back to a wide receiver in football. :confusedshrug:

Otherwise, for players of equal talent/careers, but from different positions, we're picking between their responsibilities. Let's try Dr. Jack style breakdown. :D

Originality: Steve Nash was pretty much the prototypical PG at his height and his skills indicate the PG ceiling at shooting and passing. Imagine a John Stockton with more pizzazz and clutch genes. Clyde Drexler was a poor man's Dr. J i.e., an athletic big swingman with great hands & deadlier during open-court than the halfcourt. Since 1990, more players qualified for this role (Bryant, McGrady, etc). But Drexler was an early prototype, whereas Nash was probably the perfection of one first instituted by Cousy 50 years earlier.
Drexler

Calling Card: Nash ran the 7 seconds or less offense to perfection. Who other than Magic Johnson can we imagine pulling this off, and probably not as effective from outside (since the pick & roll depended on the dribbler's accuracy from outside if the defense doubled the roller)? Drexler's card is the fastbreak dribble with his head down yet make impossible passes to his blind spots, or unleash a monstrous dunk (see 1995 Finals, game 4).
Tie

Nickname: Nash the gash? Steve's SSOL? Glide is the clear winner here. That nickname alone fits his smooth, seamless, apparently effortless game, and his unstoppable slashes to the basket that seemed more ethereal than Dr. J's powerful ones.
Drexler

What-if? Nash didn't have suspended players for game 5 of the 2007 west semifinals? What if Joe Johnson didn't bust his face in the Mavericks series in 2005? What if Nash never left the Mavericks in 2004 and they didn't sign an overpriced stiff in Dampier? But Drexler trumps them all: what if Houston traded Sampson for him and the 2nd pick in the draft to Portland? Yes, that means 10 titles for Houston Rockets with Olajuwon and Drexler and some guard from North Carolina. :oldlol:
Drexler

Scoring ability: While Drexler had the better numbers and higher peak scoring ability, Nash was the better shooter everywhere. Drexler was probably right behind Kobe & Jordan & Ice in scoring 25 points in the flow of the game and nobody could stop him. We can speculate about what if, and based on one series Nash went off vs the Mavericks in 2005. But we have evidence to go by instead. Drexler was versatile (fast-break, quick moves in halfcourt, blended seamlessly w high powered offense) and streaky.
Tie

Mentality: Drexler was criticized for not being an alpha dog enough, for not being a dominant ballhandler like later day guards Kobe or McGrady, but that was not his persnality. He preferred to win as a team, and that may have hurt his potential for greatness. Nash was ultracompetitive as hell, and ice-like during the playoffs.
Nash

Defensive prowess: Nash is probably over-criticized here, but he also had to save his energy for the most important task: running a team. Drexler was a strong & long defensive guard that even MJ couldn't post up with regularity.
Drexler

Winnability: Bill Simmons invented this category as a trait that the overall package of a player's skills & intangibiles lend to an overall combination. Drexler blended his skills well in a high scoring team, led them to the finals twice in Portland and an inside-outside team in Houston & won a title. Nash won a lot but only on his terms as a ring-leader.
Tie

Clutchness: Nash is amazing in the clutch, and Drexler, probably not as much due to his streaky outside shot.
Nash

Final tally: Drexler, 7-5. Clyde Drexler to me was the greatest off-guard not named Jordan of the 90s. :hammerhead:

Great post! I agree that it's often times better to compare players by position first. Then when it comes time to accumulate a GOAT list u can go from there. Different positions have different responsibilities. I feel the main positions that can be compared to each other are SG and SF. Cause there is a lot of fluctuation between the two. Great SG's like MJ, Drexler, Gervin, Kobe, T Mac, Vince, etc. all played plenty of SF. And several SF's played plenty of SG. Dr. J even moved to the backcourt later in his career.

[Gotterdammerung]

Great post! I agree that it's often times better to compare players by position first. Then when it comes time to accumulate a GOAT list u can go from there. Different positions have different responsibilities. I feel the main positions that can be compared to each other are SG and SF. Cause there is a lot of fluctuation between the two. Great SG's like MJ, Drexler, Gervin, Kobe, T Mac, Vince, etc. all played plenty of SF. And several SF's played plenty of SG. Dr. J even moved to the backcourt later in his career.

Really? A long-time friend of mine said it was the worst analysis I've ever written, since it's more arbitrary and less analytical than what I usually write. :oldlol:

But you're right: without a fair comparison of positions we're left with a subjective ordering of criteria for two different positions (nash a better playmaker as a PG than Drexler as a scorer, or Drexler a better playmaker than Nash as a scorer? WTF :wtf: )

[G-train]

Debating it among stupid people doesnt mean it was actually close enough to ask.

Which was made obvious quite quickly.

Nah I don't think you were part of the debate actually.

It was just after he dropped about 28/7/6 and 3 steals for a couple of seasons then 21/7/7 as he led the team to the finals, where he played quite well again from memory in losing to Detroit.

Jordan was better then, and it even more so as time went on. But to say the question wasnt being asked due to Clyde's brilliant play and post season success is stupid in itself. Which is to be expected, cos ur stupid. Just write alot. But most of its stupid.

[Gotterdammerung]

Nah I don't think you were part of the debate actually.
It was just after he dropped about 28/7/6 and 3 steals for a couple of seasons then 21/7/7 as he led the team to the finals, where he played quite well again from memory in losing to Detroit. Jordan was better then, and it even more so as time went on. But to say the question wasnt being asked due to Clyde's brilliant play and post season success is stupid in itself. Which is to be expected, cos ur stupid. Just write alot. But most of its stupid.

I remember the hype leading up to the 1992 finals, where the Bulls & Blazers were on a collision course but 2 years too late. In 1990 the Blazers made it to the finals, only to be mowed down by the Pistons who beat the Bulls in a tough 7 game slobberknocker. In 1991 the Blazers were the best team in the league, only to be upset by a wily Magic Johnson in the West finals before they could meet the Bulls. By 1992 the Blazers were already on the decline, questioned as a talented team that repeatedly shot itself in the foot in the clutch. :facepalm

http://cdn3.iofferphoto.com/img/item/143/211/725/bkXv.jpg

If I remember right the Blazers beat the Bulls twice in the 1991 season. But the Bulls beat them twice the following season. Had the Blazers got past the Lakers, who know what would've happened since the Blazers were a bit stronger, less mentally fragile in 1991?

[NugzHeat3]

Back in 1990/91/92 we (bball fans) were debating whether or not Clyde was actually better than MJ.

That's how good Clyde was.

Steve Nash is a great playmaker and excellent shooter, and a two time MVP.
Yes I am one of many that believe his first should have been Shaq's, without a doubt. Absolute laughable joke. Second one I can handle better.
That's true for 1992 only and people debating something doesn't mean it was a worthy debate.

Drexler's rep was pretty poor in 1990 so I doubt people thought he was as good as Jordan. People called him out for getting Mike Schuler fired and being a coach killer. Nellie called him the most overrated player in the league and his rep doesn't seem that good amongst the media either. Buck Williams got more MVP votes than he did.

The only year it was debated is 1992 and that was quickly shut down in the finals.

But like I said, people and the general community are wrong on a lot of things. David Robinson was called the best player in the league in the early 90s by a few coaches. It doesn't make it true.

[NugzHeat3]

I remember the hype leading up to the 1992 finals, where the Bulls & Blazers were on a collision course but 2 years too late. In 1990 the Blazers made it to the finals, only to be mowed down by the Pistons who beat the Bulls in a tough 7 game slobberknocker. In 1991 the Blazers were the best team in the league, only to be upset by a wily Magic Johnson in the West finals before they could meet the Bulls. By 1992 the Blazers were already on the decline, questioned as a talented team that repeatedly shot itself in the foot in the clutch. :facepalm

http://cdn3.iofferphoto.com/img/item/143/211/725/bkXv.jpg

If I remember right the Blazers beat the Bulls twice in the 1991 season. But the Bulls beat them twice the following season. Had the Blazers got past the Lakers, who know what would've happened since the Blazers were a bit stronger, less mentally fragile in 1991?
No, they were mentally fragile in 1991 as well and it showed in the Laker series.

They blew a double digit lead in game 1 thanks to Adelman keeping the bench in at the start of the 4th and choked late in game 6 on a 4 on 1 fastbreak and then Terry Porter missed the GW.

[Kblaze8855]

Nah I don't think you were part of the debate actually.

Was no real debate to be had. I did heard a lot more about Nique being better. But I had moved to the south in the early 90s.



It was just after he dropped about 28/7/6 and 3 steals for a couple of seasons then 21/7/7 as he led the team to the finals, where he played quite well again from memory in losing to Detroit. Jordan was better then, and it even more so as time went on. But to say the question wasnt being asked due to Clyde's brilliant play and post season success is stupid in itself. Which is to be expected, cos ur stupid. Just write alot. But most of its stupid.

I said:


Debating it among stupid people doesnt mean it was actually close enough to ask.

Which you take to mean....I think it wasnt debated at all.

But I am the one with the mental issues?

[Miller for 3]

When you consider that Amare missed 30 games and that he and JJ were both 21 and made a huge jump the next year that has continued even after they left Nash, you can see how that's not a valid example, can't you?

the last 31 games of the season they were all healthy iirc and the Suns went 10-21

[Gotterdammerung]

No, they were mentally fragile in 1991 as well and it showed in the Laker series.
No shit, sherlock. I said "Had the Blazers got past the Lakers.."

Perhaps English is not your first language. :confusedshrug:


They blew a double digit lead in game 1 thanks to Adelman keeping the bench in at the start of the 4th and choked late in game 6 on a 4 on 1 fastbreak and then Terry Porter missed the GW.
I remember that all too well. :facepalm
For more, check this recap (http://snaptakes.wordpress.com/2011/07/08/lockout-time-machine-game-11991-wcf-lakersblazers-pt-1/)
I also remember Magic's savvy defensive play of rolling the ball to run out the clock in that very same game 6. Youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4YTifBU1tE)
:facepalm :facepalm

[magnax1]

Yeah, KBlaze is right. Just because some idiots tried to say a guy who at his best was maybe the fifth best player in the league was better then the best player ever in his prime doesn't mean it was any sort of legitimate debate.

[NugzHeat3]

No shit, sherlock. I said "Had the Blazers got past the Lakers.."

Perhaps English is not your first language. :confusedshrug:


I remember that all too well. :facepalm
For more, check this recap (http://snaptakes.wordpress.com/2011/07/08/lockout-time-machine-game-11991-wcf-lakersblazers-pt-1/)
I also remember Magic's savvy defensive play of rolling the ball to run out the clock in that very same game 6. Youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4YTifBU1tE)
:facepalm :facepalm
The way you worded it made it seem like you were saying Portland would have had a better chance against Chicago in 1991 since they were less mentally fragile that year.

I obviously disagreed citing they had a breakdown in the Laker series. Perhaps a misinterpretation on my behalf.

That Magic play was ridiculous. Great game management and recognition of the clock.

[L.Kizzle]

drexler

[I.R.Beast]

Drexler...why is this even a debate?.....

[RRR3]

Drexler...why is this even a debate?.....
Hoo knows?
http://www.photosot.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/night_owl_1.jpg

[OmniStrife]

Drexler...why is this even a debate?.....
Cause Nash is better?

[SAKOTXA]

Nash

[DC Zephyrs]

Steve Nash

[1987_Lakers]

Steve Nash

Drexler to me just wasn't the same scorer in a half court game (you can say the same for his team in Portland). In today's game I see a peak Drexler only averaging 21-22 PPG while having a good all-around game. Nash was the better offensive player overall & Drexler's defense (nothing special) wasn't good enough for me to put him over Nash.

[G.O.A.T]

We have a tie at nine votes each. The next vote will decide it.

The following people still have a vote

KGMN
crossover
Boston C's
PTB Fan

Will also except votes from any of these contributors...

ThaRegula8r
NugzHeat3
Psileas
KBlaze8855
alexandreben

After we get the deciding vote, I'll start the next thread.

[NugzHeat3]

Steve Nash.

[Gotterdammerung]

Drexler remaining tied to one of the most overrated players of all time is a shamockery. IOW, not only is this false, but actually scornfully contemptuous in its incorrectness. :facepalm

Drexler led his team to the finals vs stronger competition twice and won a title despite being underdogs in every round in 1995.

Nash for one has never done so despite being on loaded teams and has never led his team to any upsets in the playoffs.

NEXT!

[Droid101]

NigsHeat3

Was that typo an accident? :lol

[Droid101]

Drexler led his team to the finals vs stronger competition twice and won a title despite being underdogs in every round in 1995.

This thread is about guards, not centers, and which teams they carried.

[G.O.A.T]

Steve Nash.

Thank you Nugz even if you picked the wrong guy.

Nash advances

[Gotterdammerung]

This thread is about guards, not centers, and which teams they carried.

Uh... I take it u meant the 1995 Rockets weren't led by a guard. While Hakeem was on another level, Clyde was no slouch. Had explosive games throughout the playoffs, especially in round 1. He smelled the title and never let up, relentlessly running the fastbreak, routinely outrunning guys 10 years younger.

[D.J.]

Why isn't my vote counted? I voted for Clyde.

[G.O.A.T]

Why isn't my vote counted? I voted for Clyde.

you're not on the roster and you never requested to join the voting. Plus you've only posted in one or two threads.

[Soothing Layup]

I've requested voting and my vote still doesn't count :cry: :cry:

[G.O.A.T]

I've requested voting and my vote still doesn't count :cry: :cry:

You are on my ignore list...why?

[Soothing Layup]

You are on my ignore list...why?

I have no clue..?

[iamgine]

He was on mine too.

[Soothing Layup]

Again, what for exactly?? I'm hardly even known around here I have 600 posts in 3 years...

[1987_Lakers]

It's crazy to think this was even a debate, look how many people picked Drexler. :oldlol:

Just shows you how some present players can underappreciated.

Nash was clearly better, I stated this earlier in this thread (page 7)

[Lee]

Nash Steve, I guess, despite he was horrible defensively.

[kawhileonard2]

Drexler no contest, got to finals twice as the man, Nash couldn't even with HCA or playing with a guy who won league mvp in Dirk.

[1987_Lakers]

Nash is better but something for Clyde because he'll get overlooked...

Offensively he helped his teams in every way imaginable. Very good scorer, top 5 passer ever from the SG positions and by the numbers THE best offensive rebounding guard ever (most people don't realize this). No other guard has gotten over 3.5/game and he is the only one to average more than 3/game multiple times (he was good for putbacks couple of times a game). So dude scored 20-25 a game efficiently and in a way that fit well with the team (never pounded the ball, made his moves quickly), got putbacks and offensive rebounds for you at the rate of a center and passed/made plays at an elite level. On top of that he was a very active defender who was great at converting his defense ( or missed shots) into an easy fast break opportunity for his team. The only thing he lacked was handles that didn't really allow him to break down the defense like an MJ, Kobe or Wade, so if his jumper was off, you weren't gonna get great one on one scoring from him.

His teams were really talented, but imo his impact gets underrated because of that, especially offensively. Overall in his prime (


Fatal summed it up well, and I agree that Nash is better.

Nash in Phoenix has been pretty much an ideal point guard offensively. Not many other players possess anywhere near that type of passing ability and even fewer have the ability to take over a game and know the appropriate time to do so like Nash. Despite all of the talent he's played with, it's no coincidence that his Phoenix teams have regularly struggled with him out of the lineup.

I appreciate Nash even more over the years when I see him a 36/37 year old Nash lead a team like this recent Suns team to a 39-36 record when he played(and I think the 1-6 record without him is actually an accurate representation of how good they were without him).

Fatal and Shaqattack, the GOAT ISH posters.

Both extremely knowledgeable. Fatal stopped posting because he said he wanted to focus more on work or school, Shaqattack admitted he had drug issues, stopped posting out of nowhere, hope he is fine. Nobody pissed off MJ stans like fatal, not only was he very intelligent, but a pretty skilled troll.

[kawhileonard2]

Fatal and Shaqattack, the GOAT ISH posters.

Both extremely knowledgeable. Fatal stopped posting because he said he wanted to focus more on work or school, Shaqattack admitted he had drug issues, stopped posting out of nowhere, hope he is fine. Nobody pissed off MJ stans like fatal, not only was he very intelligent, but a pretty skilled troll.
Fatal stopped posting after getting broken down and then made up excuses.

[1987_Lakers]

Fatal stopped posting after getting broken down and then made up excuses.

I remember him making you cry a couple of times on your Duncan21formvp account.

[kawhileonard2]

I remember him making you cry a couple of times on your Duncan21formvp account.

I remember him being broken by me. I don't know who Duncan21 is.