Towns or Okafor or Mudiay or Russel?

[Thugger HBC]

You know I'm not saying he's had a top 5 career at his position. I'm saying he's a top 5 player. If you could take 5 PGs at their peak Stephen Curry should be one of the 5 selected or pretty close. Outside of Magic, Oscar, and Nash he's there with anyone else including Penny, CP3, and Isiah.

My original comment was about a specific statement made in the thread. Curry is not a top 5 all time, thats what my comment was based on.

He's very good good, one of the best of today. No, he would not be my choice given players peaks, I'd likely choose at least 10 that I would want more if not 15. I dont go gaga over shooting like some.

15 PGs over him? Just curious but do you think Steve Nash is a top 10 player of the last decade (meaning from 01-10)?

I'll put it this....I would take a peak from Steve Nash over ANYTHING from Steph Curry to date. Nash peak lasted nearly the entire decade.

50-40-90.....Curry cant compete with Nash 8 seasons in Phx, let him get the years first or since we're using shooting as a bar can

Curry hit 50% of his shots in one season? Just one? This is why I dont go gaga over shooting....plenty have done better than Steph Curry.

And I'd actually take 10 pg peaks over Nash.

[Marty McFly]

Because Steph Curry is the player we missed out on because we didnt "tank harder"....although he was drafted 7th and nobody would have drafted him with a top 4 pick. So the debate makes no sense, none at all.

To be fair, the knicks had 3 more wins than GS so its not an argument against tanking at all.

i'm hazy on the details, but i remember their being talk about him being a knick after his sophomore(he came out after his jr year) season, with comparisons to nash given that mda being the knicks coach.

come draft time, i'd bet most would have preferred curry to hill and it isn't just hindsight. i remember being annoyed at all the end of the season d lee/doodoo led stat padding, when it was highly likely that lee wasn't going to be with us next season. but that's on dant. you'd a thought he would have learned his lesson after not getting rose the lottery before, but nah.

he desperately wanted to be a knick. and i desperately wanted to draft him.

i wonder if we would have traded him in the 2010 2-max cap clear though. i didn't shed any tears for jordan hill. but the discussioun of trading steph might have been a hot one if he were able to come in and be as good as he's been in oakland.

i don't think the knicks would have. i remember even lebron talking steph up. I'd have a hard time thinking the knicks would have dealt him to clear more space for a second max slot. i think we had just enough for lebron, the following year we'd have space for another. coincidentally, i was hoping we'd get melo to pair with lebron. that would have been oh so lovely.

[E-Balla]

My original comment was about a specific statement made in the thread. Curry is not a top 5 all time, thats what my comment was based on.

He's very good good, one of the best of today. No, he would not be my choice given players peaks, I'd likely choose at least 10 that I would want more if not 15. I dont go gaga over shooting like some.

15 PGs over him? Just curious but do you think Steve Nash is a top 10 player of the last decade (meaning from 01-10)?

I'll put it this....I would take a peak from Steve Nash over ANYTHING from Steph Curry to date. Nash peak lasted nearly the entire decade.

50-40-90.....Curry cant compete with Nash 8 seasons in Phx, let him get the years first or since we're using shooting as a bar can

Curry hit 50% of his shots in one season? Just one? This is why I dont go gaga over shooting....plenty have done better than Steph Curry.

And I'd actually take 10 pg peaks over Nash.

I'd take Nash over Curry too. He's one of the guys I said is over Curry. I wouldn't take 10 guys over a PG that won back to back MVPs and deserved both. We're way off topic so I'll leave it by saying you underrate offense so much it makes me scratch my head.

[Marty McFly]

Understood, but none of this supports tanking. GS was awful but werent tanking, neither were the Knicks, they just werent good. Curry wasnt a top 5 pick, the argument makes no sense. The Knicks certainly wanted him though no doubt.

Even with D'antoni the simple fact that his best players in Z-Bo and Crawford were traded almost immediately and he still found ways to win some games might actually be a testament to him (i dont like him btw).

As far as Derrick Rose goes, D'antoni wasnt the coach that year.

He was at the lottery.

you don't have to want to get a top 5 pick for it to constitute tanking. if the knicks lose 4 more games than gsw, curry's a knick and jordan hill is something else altogether.

Curry wasnt viewed as a player worth tanking for though, and thats where I dont understand the debate. Tanking absolutely indicates one of the worst records which top 5 certainly would be in any year. Sure, the Knicks lose a few more..he's a Knick....maybe.

that's the first time i've heard of that definition for tanking. a top 5 worst record prerequisite?

tanking wouldn't have been that bad a look for us either when all dant needed to do was give gallo and wilson the keys. they would have developed a little faster while the teams lost enough games to get a higher pick. the thunder drafted durant in 07, gave him the keys, and a year later they took westbrook at 4. it's not a bad strategy when the endgame(lebron) is still a couple of years away.

all of this moot at this point though.

[Thugger HBC]

15 PGs over him? Just curious but do you think Steve Nash is a top 10 player of the last decade (meaning from 01-10)?

I'll put it this....I would take a peak from Steve Nash over ANYTHING from Steph Curry to date. Nash peak lasted nearly the entire decade.

50-40-90.....Curry cant compete with Nash 8 seasons in Phx, let him get the years first or since we're using shooting as a bar can

Curry hit 50% of his shots in one season? Just one? This is why I dont go gaga over shooting....plenty have done better than Steph Curry.

And I'd actually take 10 pg peaks over Nash.

I'd take Nash over Curry too. He's one of the guys I said is over Curry. I wouldn't take 10 guys over a PG that won back to back MVPs and deserved both. We're way off topic so I'll leave it by saying you underrate offense so much it makes me scratch my head.

There's a reason why I underrate offense, because winning the more meaningful games takes an equal level of defense if not more.

And your post said "peaks" so you seriously cant find 10 pg's who's peaks were better than Nash? I can easily.

Steph Curry isnt gonna shoot his way to the WCF or finals. He is a good defender but that side of the ball will have to step up higher than his offense to make such leaps. Klay understands this very well. Curry will need to follow suit.

[newyorker4ever]

interesting

I loved Tyreke when he came into the league, in fact I still think he can be a very good player, but he seems to have stopped trying to grow his game

Mudiay is such a mystery to me - his attitude, his maturity, his raw tools

I love a guy who can be a lockdown defender at the 1, who can get to the rim and finish at will in the NBA, and a guy who is a skilled and willing passer. i don't like a guy who can't hit a shot when open or who's focus is in question.

I have to give the edge to Russel over him at this point just from my exposure and access alone

I like your points for what you like and dislike about Mudiay's game but one of the most troubling thing for me is his free throw shooting and i think that people sometimes forget just how important it is to have good free throw shooters in close games in the 4th quarter or OT. I think the question shouldn't be who we want if we have the 1st pick but who we like at 2/3 or 4??
Okafor
Towns
Russell
S.Johnson
Mudiay
I love Russell but put Towns above him because i know how important it is to have a couple of good bigs in Phil/Fishers triangle but would be absolutely happy with Russell. I'm also a big fan of WCS but think he'll take 3 years before we see his true potential but i think he'll be awesome in his 3rd/4th year.

[E-Balla]

I'll put it this....I would take a peak from Steve Nash over ANYTHING from Steph Curry to date. Nash peak lasted nearly the entire decade.

50-40-90.....Curry cant compete with Nash 8 seasons in Phx, let him get the years first or since we're using shooting as a bar can

Curry hit 50% of his shots in one season? Just one? This is why I dont go gaga over shooting....plenty have done better than Steph Curry.

And I'd actually take 10 pg peaks over Nash.

I'd take Nash over Curry too. He's one of the guys I said is over Curry. I wouldn't take 10 guys over a PG that won back to back MVPs and deserved both. We're way off topic so I'll leave it by saying you underrate offense so much it makes me scratch my head.

There's a reason why I underrate offense, because winning the more meaningful games takes an equal level of defense if not more.

And your post said "peaks" so you seriously cant find 10 pg's who's peaks were better than Nash? I can easily.

Steph Curry isnt gonna shoot his way to the WCF or finals. He is a good defender but that side of the ball will have to step up higher than his offense to make such leaps. Klay understands this very well. Curry will need to follow suit.

Problem with that is defense is usually a team effort. People like Carlos Boozer have played large roles on some of the best defenses in recent memory but guys like Tony Allen don't start for great offenses.

[newyorker4ever]

"Durant and Curry are a tad overrated and need to do more to be truly great." For christ's sakes you have to be kidding me. And that was only maybe the third most ridiculous thing you said.

You too are basically misunderstanding me lol. They are top players but to the extent people think they're finished products, already in the HOF and have done everything they need to do individually to win a championship -- which is basically what most fans think -- I disagree. To win titles and establish themselves as all-time greats, they need to perfect their games and round them out. They need to work on footwork and moves that will make the most of their great jumpers. I don't think they're there yet. If Dirk had not worked on it and gotten better, he'd be a great shooter with no titles.

A thing as simple as working on 1 or 2 unstoppable moves that you can go to in the clutch is big. Right now Durant uses his height and speed to get to the basket at will -- I'm not sure that's good enough. Durant is to me closer to already great great than Steph.

Too many people fall in love with stats and the NBA marketing machine. I mean really what have Steph and Durant done to warrant scoffing at the idea that they should work to mold their talents into better players? Not much. Steph never in a Finals and Durant's team got handled easily in his one Finals. The bar just keeps getting lower. As long as a guy is talented and flashy and can shoot, he's untouchable and beyond critique?

Gimme a break.

Your threshold is absurd. There's not a player ever who couldn't have added something to their game and been better. Those 2 can never get an ounce better and be first ballot no doubt hall of famers.

What does whether they've been in the finals or not have to do with them as individual players?

I don't want to disrespect anyone but it is pretty crazy to hear a guy on a message board critiquing guys like Dirk and Durant.

[Thugger HBC]

I'd take Nash over Curry too. He's one of the guys I said is over Curry. I wouldn't take 10 guys over a PG that won back to back MVPs and deserved both. We're way off topic so I'll leave it by saying you underrate offense so much it makes me scratch my head.

There's a reason why I underrate offense, because winning the more meaningful games takes an equal level of defense if not more.

And your post said "peaks" so you seriously cant find 10 pg's who's peaks were better than Nash? I can easily.

Steph Curry isnt gonna shoot his way to the WCF or finals. He is a good defender but that side of the ball will have to step up higher than his offense to make such leaps. Klay understands this very well. Curry will need to follow suit.

Problem with that is defense is usually a team effort. People like Carlos Boozer have played large roles on some of the best defenses in recent memory but guys like Tony Allen don't start for great offenses.

Not really, people want to claim team defense when they refuse to give defenders their individual props. You'd be hard pressed to find a good team defensively that dont have good individual defenders. One makes the other...not the other way around.

Where's is Miami and Indy's team defense? Gone with the guys who made it. Team defense takes players who actually can defend and do it well when called upon.

Speaking of tony Allen...havent the majority of the team he's been been known for being a good defensive team? I do believe so.

[E-Balla]

[quote="E-Balla]
Problem with that is defense is usually a team effort. People like Carlos Boozer have played large roles on some of the best defenses in recent memory but guys like Tony Allen don't start for great offenses.[/quote]
Not really, people want to claim team defense when they refuse to give defenders their individual props. You'd be hard pressed to find a good team defensively that dont have good individual defenders. One makes the other...not the other way around.

Where's is Miami and Indy's team defense? Gone with the guys who made it. Team defense takes players who actually can defend and do it well when called upon.[/quote]

Indy is still a top 10 defense and they lost 2 of their 4 best defenders and another one of those top 3 (David West) has been battling injuries all season (he's played less than a quarter of their games). Indy supports my point if anything. Now Miami is different but that's because the whole makeup of the team is different but they're running the same scheme.

Of course you need defenders but not at all 5 positions and definitely not at PG of all positions. I don't think Steph is that bad anymore either he's at least trying now and he's got a nose for the ball.

[Thugger HBC]

[quote="E-Balla]
Problem with that is defense is usually a team effort. People like Carlos Boozer have played large roles on some of the best defenses in recent memory but guys like Tony Allen don't start for great offenses.[/quote]
Not really, people want to claim team defense when they refuse to give defenders their individual props. You'd be hard pressed to find a good team defensively that dont have good individual defenders. One makes the other...not the other way around.

Where's is Miami and Indy's team defense? Gone with the guys who made it. Team defense takes players who actually can defend and do it well when called upon.[/quote][/quote]
Indy is still a top 10 defense and they lost 2 of their 4 best defenders and another one of those top 3 (David West) has been battling injuries all season (he's played less than a quarter of their games). Indy supports my point if anything. Now Miami is different but that's because the whole makeup of the team is different but they're running the same scheme.

Of course you need defenders but not at all 5 positions and definitely not at PG of all positions. I don't think Steph is that bad anymore either he's at least trying now and he's got a nose for the ball.[/quote]

The Pacers are losing because of their defense...they cant get a stop to save their lives now. Their rating is totally skewed. if they were are a top defensive team then so were the Knicks under D'antoni when they were 6 games under .500....they really werent.

Agreed on the defense point you're making now, you gave the impression that you dont need any, but you certainly need a capable one at the wing and in the paint, those are critical. Steph is good, hasnt been bad ever imo, but not at a ship level that Klay definitely is.

[Jeff Van Gully]

To be fair, the knicks had 3 more wins than GS so its not an argument against tanking at all.

i'm hazy on the details, but i remember their being talk about him being a knick after his sophomore(he came out after his jr year) season, with comparisons to nash given that mda being the knicks coach.

come draft time, i'd bet most would have preferred curry to hill and it isn't just hindsight. i remember being annoyed at all the end of the season d lee/doodoo led stat padding, when it was highly likely that lee wasn't going to be with us next season. but that's on dant. you'd a thought he would have learned his lesson after not getting rose the lottery before, but nah.

he desperately wanted to be a knick. and i desperately wanted to draft him.

i wonder if we would have traded him in the 2010 2-max cap clear though. i didn't shed any tears for jordan hill. but the discussioun of trading steph might have been a hot one if he were able to come in and be as good as he's been in oakland.

i don't think the knicks would have. i remember even lebron talking steph up. I'd have a hard time thinking the knicks would have dealt him to clear more space for a second max slot. i think we had just enough for lebron, the following year we'd have space for another. coincidentally, i was hoping we'd get melo to pair with lebron. that would have been oh so lovely.

yeah, had we landed dude... man. i don't like to think about it. and he has easily the best contract in the NBA. though, that's due to the fact that he has peanut brittle ankles. they've held up the past couple of seasons, though. so hopefully that's behind him.

[E-Balla]

Not really, people want to claim team defense when they refuse to give defenders their individual props. You'd be hard pressed to find a good team defensively that dont have good individual defenders. One makes the other...not the other way around.

Where's is Miami and Indy's team defense? Gone with the guys who made it. Team defense takes players who actually can defend and do it well when called upon.

Indy is still a top 10 defense and they lost 2 of their 4 best defenders and another one of those top 3 (David West) has been battling injuries all season (he's played less than a quarter of their games). Indy supports my point if anything. Now Miami is different but that's because the whole makeup of the team is different but they're running the same scheme.

Of course you need defenders but not at all 5 positions and definitely not at PG of all positions. I don't think Steph is that bad anymore either he's at least trying now and he's got a nose for the ball.

The Pacers are losing because of their defense...they cant get a stop to save their lives now. Their rating is totally skewed. if they were are a top defensive team then so were the Knicks under D'antoni when they were 6 games under .500....they really werent.

Agreed on the defense point you're making now, you gave the impression that you dont need any, but you certainly need a capable one at the wing and in the paint, those are critical. Steph is good, hasnt been bad ever imo, but not at a ship level that Klay definitely is.

How is their defensive rating skewed? They're good at not allowing opponents to shoot a high FG% probably because Hibbert locks down the paint and everyone else is pretty good rotating. They aren't ranking high because of turnovers like the Knicks were under D'antoni (or should I say Woods on because his switching along with Shump and Tyson's rotations made them so disruptive) but they actually rank high in the most important measure - eFG%. Their offense is just completely horrid and their defense did fall pretty noticeably. 1st to 9th is a big drop just not large enough to where I would say those guys had a major impact.

Speaking of defense anyone else think Jahlil might transform his body ala Marc Gasol and become a good defender. He's already quick as it is so imagine if he lost 15 lbs and played at 260. He'd still be one of the strongest C's in the league.

[Thugger HBC]

Indy is still a top 10 defense and they lost 2 of their 4 best defenders and another one of those top 3 (David West) has been battling injuries all season (he's played less than a quarter of their games). Indy supports my point if anything. Now Miami is different but that's because the whole makeup of the team is different but they're running the same scheme.

Of course you need defenders but not at all 5 positions and definitely not at PG of all positions. I don't think Steph is that bad anymore either he's at least trying now and he's got a nose for the ball.

The Pacers are losing because of their defense...they cant get a stop to save their lives now. Their rating is totally skewed. if they were are a top defensive team then so were the Knicks under D'antoni when they were 6 games under .500....they really werent.

Agreed on the defense point you're making now, you gave the impression that you dont need any, but you certainly need a capable one at the wing and in the paint, those are critical. Steph is good, hasnt been bad ever imo, but not at a ship level that Klay definitely is.

How is their defensive rating skewed? They're good at not allowing opponents to shoot a high FG% probably because Hibbert locks down the paint and everyone else is pretty good rotating. They aren't ranking high because of turnovers like the Knicks were under D'antoni (or should I say Woods on because his switching along with Shump and Tyson's rotations made them so disruptive) but they actually rank high in the most important measure - eFG%. Their offense is just completely horrid and their defense did fall pretty noticeably. 1st to 9th is a big drop just not large enough to where I would say those guys had a major impact.

Speaking of defense anyone else think Jahlil might transform his body ala Marc Gasol and become a good defender. He's already quick as it is so imagine if he lost 15 lbs and played at 260. He'd still be one of the strongest C's in the league.

Your true defense will be reflected by your record....really no other way to look at it.

Okafor certainly could develop defensively to the point of being good. He has youth on his side and really it's a mentality as he already has the tools. Just use effort and brain....he'll be ok if he does both.

[E-Balla]

The Pacers are losing because of their defense...they cant get a stop to save their lives now. Their rating is totally skewed. if they were are a top defensive team then so were the Knicks under D'antoni when they were 6 games under .500....they really werent.

Agreed on the defense point you're making now, you gave the impression that you dont need any, but you certainly need a capable one at the wing and in the paint, those are critical. Steph is good, hasnt been bad ever imo, but not at a ship level that Klay definitely is.

How is their defensive rating skewed? They're good at not allowing opponents to shoot a high FG% probably because Hibbert locks down the paint and everyone else is pretty good rotating. They aren't ranking high because of turnovers like the Knicks were under D'antoni (or should I say Woods on because his switching along with Shump and Tyson's rotations made them so disruptive) but they actually rank high in the most important measure - eFG%. Their offense is just completely horrid and their defense did fall pretty noticeably. 1st to 9th is a big drop just not large enough to where I would say those guys had a major impact.

Speaking of defense anyone else think Jahlil might transform his body ala Marc Gasol and become a good defender. He's already quick as it is so imagine if he lost 15 lbs and played at 260. He'd still be one of the strongest C's in the league.

Your true defense will be reflected by your record....really no other way to look at it.

Okafor certainly could develop defensively to the point of being good. He has youth on his side and really it's a mentality as he already has the tools. Just use effort and brain....he'll be ok if he does both.

I guess the SSOL Suns had an amazing defense then...

[DrCoach]

Magic, Oscar, isiah, Stockton, Kidd, Clyde, even Gary Payton who was a defensive beast... There's no way Steph Curry can be considered at there level career wise at this point.

Nash, chris Paul, he'll. Even Rose has a MVP

[Thugger HBC]

How is their defensive rating skewed? They're good at not allowing opponents to shoot a high FG% probably because Hibbert locks down the paint and everyone else is pretty good rotating. They aren't ranking high because of turnovers like the Knicks were under D'antoni (or should I say Woods on because his switching along with Shump and Tyson's rotations made them so disruptive) but they actually rank high in the most important measure - eFG%. Their offense is just completely horrid and their defense did fall pretty noticeably. 1st to 9th is a big drop just not large enough to where I would say those guys had a major impact.

Speaking of defense anyone else think Jahlil might transform his body ala Marc Gasol and become a good defender. He's already quick as it is so imagine if he lost 15 lbs and played at 260. He'd still be one of the strongest C's in the league.

Your true defense will be reflected by your record....really no other way to look at it.

Okafor certainly could develop defensively to the point of being good. He has youth on his side and really it's a mentality as he already has the tools. Just use effort and brain....he'll be ok if he does both.

I guess the SSOL Suns had an amazing defense then...

A truly good defensive team wont have a losing record. Phx defense was a blisteringly efficient offense, although they did have a few good defnders on their teams during those days.

[CKamm1]

Magic, Oscar, isiah, Stockton, Kidd, Clyde, even Gary Payton who was a defensive beast... There's no way Steph Curry can be considered at there level career wise at this point.

Career-wise of course not he's only been playing for 6 seasons. However, his past few seasons statistically have been on par or better than guys like Isaiah, Clyde, GP. So it is not unreasonable whatsoever to suggest he is on a path towards that top 5 level if he stays on this trajectory for a while.

Also, I would hope that leaving Paul off that list was just an oversight, because it would be lunacy to purposely do so,

[moocow007]

Magic, Oscar, isiah, Stockton, Kidd, Clyde, even Gary Payton who was a defensive beast... There's no way Steph Curry can be considered at there level career wise at this point.

Career-wise of course not he's only been playing for 6 seasons. However, his past few seasons statistically have been on par or better than guys like Isaiah, Clyde, GP. So it is not unreasonable whatsoever to suggest he is on a path towards that top 5 level if he stays on this trajectory for a while.

Also, I would hope that leaving Paul off that list was just an oversight, because it would be lunacy to purposely do so,

Offensively...in a league where it's a lot easier for scorers to score...

[Johnny Hoops]

Magic, Oscar, isiah, Stockton, Kidd, Clyde, even Gary Payton who was a defensive beast... There's no way Steph Curry can be considered at there level career wise at this point.

Career-wise of course not he's only been playing for 6 seasons. However, his past few seasons statistically have been on par or better than guys like Isaiah, Clyde, GP. So it is not unreasonable whatsoever to suggest he is on a path towards that top 5 level if he stays on this trajectory for a while.

Also, I would hope that leaving Paul off that list was just an oversight, because it would be lunacy to purposely do so,

Offensively...in a league where it's a lot easier for scorers to score...

I would estimate that possibly no PG in history restrained his scoring more than Isiah Thomas ---- that dude could have just gone off if he wanted to but often put his game on cruise control for the teams benefit.