2007 Nash or 2021 Curry?

[Stephonit]

Nash in 2007 was 32 same as Curry will be in 2021. Which player would you rather have on your team?

[Stanley Kobrick]

I'll take 2017 Nash, who despite Amare getting injured still overcame a 3-1 deficit to Kobe. when klay became injury, stephen curry quit for the season and the year early lost to Fred VanVleet

[Bronbron23]

Nash in 2007 was 32 same as Curry will be in 2021. Which player would you rather have on your team?

Steph. Nash is definitely the better passer but steph's shooting and scoring ability is much greater than nash.

[Wally450]

2007 Nash, because I know what he did. I don't know what Steph Curry coming off not playing for several months is going to give me.

[red1]

2007 Nash, because I know what he did. I don't know what Steph Curry coming off not playing for several months is going to give me.

agree


curry is injured I'll take nash

[Kiddlovesnets]

With major injuries to the second best players of the team, Nash took the suns to WCF in 2006 while Curry’s Warriors were the worst in the league.

[999Guy]

Probably Curry.

Nash was the shit for at least 3 extra years after his last MVP though

[highwhey]

I'll take 2017 Nash, who despite Amare getting injured still overcame a 3-1 deficit to Kobe. when klay became injury, stephen curry quit for the season and the year early lost to Fred VanVleet

very good point. 2007 Nash had an iconic playoff moment when he defeated Kobe while the Suns were missing Amare Stoudemire who averaged 26PPG the previous season...26 points per game and he STILL defeated Kobe. that's iconic. i will wait for someone to list a curry iconic playoff game.

[Kiddlovesnets]

very good point. 2007 Nash had an iconic playoff moment when he defeated Kobe while the Suns were missing Amare Stoudemire who averaged 26PPG the previous season...26 points per game and he STILL defeated Kobe. that's iconic. i will wait for someone to list a curry iconic playoff game.

Curry's iconic playoffs game:
https://i.imgur.com/Jg6TZJ1.gif

[Smoke117]

Curry for sure.

[FourthTenor]

I'll take the guy who's only physically soft (Nash) over the guy who's physically and mentally soft (Stephanie)

[Axe]

I'll take 2017 Nash, who despite Amare getting injured still overcame a 3-1 deficit to Kobe. when klay became injury, stephen curry quit for the season and the year early lost to Fred VanVleet
:cheers:

Meanwhile, curry needed klay to overcome a 3-1 lead against a team led by a superstar who would later join him as his henchmen and even got the fmvp award two titles later.

[wagexslave]

Nash easily, how is this even a question?

[wagexslave]

Steph. Nash is definitely the better passer but steph's shooting and scoring ability is much greater than nash.

Yes Curry is more of a volume scorer. But Nash was still one of the most efficient shooters of all time. His career FG% is actually HIGHER than Steph, and his career 3pt% is only 0.7% lower. FT is only 0.2% difference. And that's INCLUDING years when he was past his prime late into his 30's, which Curry's past-prime has yet to be seen. But the fact is that Steve Nash(49.0%, 42.8%, 90.4%) was closer to averaging 50/40/90 than Steph Curry(47.6%, 43.5%, 90.6%) is right now, and we don't know how all of these injuries and time off for Curry is going to affect his game late into his career. For all we know, Steph's career averages are only going to get worse from here on out.

But the biggest difference between the two is Nash was completely unselfish though, only went off with huge scoring nights when he needed to. One thing's for sure, he would always rather choose to find open men to pass it to instead of chucking logo shots for the highlights. No question in my mind that if you plug prime Nash into those mega-stacked Warriors teams they're just as good if not better with Nash making those crazy good teammates even better. Klay+KD and company could easily have taken on more of the volume scoring load if they had to with Nash setting them up.

Also Nash didn't play in an era that's nearly as soft defensively and promotes 3-pt shooters like crazy like today's NBA. Shit, he also had to play against one of the best defensive teams ever the prime Spurs. And there's also the fact that Nash had to play against proven rigged refs who admitted they fixed games against Phoenix. And had to deal with dumb ass suspensions that the majority of people unanimously agreed cost him a ring, but lets not get into all that. Meanwhile Baby Face Steph gets phantom fouls left and right if you breathe on the guy wrong. Shit, Nash would have loved to play his prime in this era.

[pandiani17]

2007 Nash, because I know what he did. I don't know what Steph Curry coming off not playing for several months is going to give me.

This. We haven't seen Curry play yet, so it is not possible to make a judgement. We can have this discussion once this upcoming season is over.

[Stephonit]

This. We haven't seen Curry play yet, so it is not possible to make a judgement. We can have this discussion once this upcoming season is over.

I am asking precisely because I think we should already have an idea of what Curry is capable of. To say after the fact shows a lack of confidence in current assessment.

[Axe]

I am asking precisely because I think we should already have an idea of what Curry is capable of. To say after the fact shows a lack of confidence in current assessment.
After coming out of a fake hand injury since the earlier season without klay? Who would have thought.

[Bronbron23]

Yes Curry is more of a volume scorer. But Nash was still one of the most efficient shooters of all time. His career FG% is actually HIGHER than Steph, and his career 3pt% is only 0.7% lower. FT is only 0.2% difference. And that's INCLUDING years when he was past his prime late into his 30's, which Curry's past-prime has yet to be seen. But the fact is that Steve Nash(49.0%, 42.8%, 90.4%) was closer to averaging 50/40/90 than Steph Curry(47.6%, 43.5%, 90.6%) is right now, and we don't know how all of these injuries and time off for Curry is going to affect his game late into his career. For all we know, Steph's career averages are only going to get worse from here on out.

But the biggest difference between the two is Nash was completely unselfish though, only went off with huge scoring nights when he needed to. One thing's for sure, he would always rather choose to find open men to pass it to instead of chucking logo shots for the highlights. No question in my mind that if you plug prime Nash into those mega-stacked Warriors teams they're just as good if not better with Nash making those crazy good teammates even better. Klay+KD and company could easily have taken on more of the volume scoring load if they had to with Nash setting them up.

Also Nash didn't play in an era that's nearly as soft defensively and promotes 3-pt shooters like crazy like today's NBA. Shit, he also had to play against one of the best defensive teams ever the prime Spurs. And there's also the fact that Nash had to play against proven rigged refs who admitted they fixed games against Phoenix. And had to deal with dumb ass suspensions that the majority of people unanimously agreed cost him a ring, but lets not get into all that. Meanwhile Baby Face Steph gets phantom fouls left and right if you breathe on the guy wrong. Shit, Nash would have loved to play his prime in this era.

Yeah nash would definitely be better now and its definitely close. To me the big difference is teams defenses didnt worry about nash scoring ability. Yeah he could shoot and he was crafty but he wasn't gonna kill you scoring wise. Steph on the other hand can demoralize a team. Once he starts hitting threes and the crowd gets into it it's game over. As a defense you have to focus so much on steph.

The other part of it is defense. Both are pretty bad but at least steph has his moments. Nash was all time terrible

[Stanley Kobrick]

very good point. 2007 Nash had an iconic playoff moment when he defeated Kobe while the Suns were missing Amare Stoudemire who averaged 26PPG the previous season...26 points per game and he STILL defeated Kobe. that's iconic. i will wait for someone to list a curry iconic playoff game.
steve nash iconic playoff moments are etched in stone, cannot say the same for stephen curry

[Stanley Kobrick]

:cheers:

Meanwhile, curry needed klay to overcome a 3-1 lead against a team led by a superstar who would later join him as his henchmen and even got the fmvp award two titles later.
:cheers:

[wagexslave]

Yeah nash would definitely be better now and its definitely close. To me the big difference is teams defenses didnt worry about nash scoring ability. Yeah he could shoot and he was crafty but he wasn't gonna kill you scoring wise. Steph on the other hand can demoralize a team. Once he starts hitting threes and the crowd gets into it it's game over. As a defense you have to focus so much on steph.

The other part of it is defense. Both are pretty bad but at least steph has his moments. Nash was all time terrible

True but the point is we know how good Nash was that year, while we don't know how good Curry will be after missing so many games with injuries. The few games he played last season weren't very pretty. Hell, we don't even know if Curry will get injured again or not. He could get injured out for the season game 1 then the comparison would be a joke. If the question was about "Curry from a few years ago" or something then it would be a real debate and I could see why people would give Curry the edge. But it would be too risky for me to even see taking Curry as a viable option.

Besides, even at their best, they're 2 sides of the same coin. You can't really go wrong with either of them. Both extremely efficient offensive PGs, just with 2 different strong suits. Just depends on what kind of offense you want to run and who the teammates are. But I do think Nash would put up at least a few more PPG in this era though since PG scoring is the wave and shooters are so pampered now, and there's so many poor defensive guards now too. And maybe Steph would have focused on passing more if he played back then since that was the wave at the time.