Is Mavs Steve Nash a good comp for Darius Garland?

[canada_dry]

Yes and no. Garland definitely has that same synergy between his passing/handles and pull up shooting. Garland is probably underutilized on offense in a similar way to Mavs Nash.

Nash was on a different planet in terms of scoring efficiency though. The numbers paint him as always being an efficiency monster who just didn't miss very shots despite taking lots of difficult ones. Garland is too streaky to really touch that. Then there's the passing. Despite the similar assist numbers, if you video scouted both players you're not going to come away thinking that Garland is as capable of making the same number of passing reads. Nash didn't always have his playmaking volume, but even in Dallas he was showing off those eyes in the back of his head passes.

Mavs Nash was probably still the 2nd best point guard in the league. Garland is struggling to get over the hump from borderline all-star into all-NBA level.

Agreed.

Sent from my SM-G960W using RealGM mobile app

[Chokic]

Yes. Stylistically he reminds me alot of Steve Nash which is not totally suprising bc he even admitted he modelled his game after him.

[One_and_Done]

Is Garland a top 20 player all-time? Then no.

[Texas Chuck]

- Mike Bibby was solid and had a couple of impressive scoring runs in the playoffs... but what's really his case over Nash? 0 time all-star who was more solid than spectacular. Good shooter but not an amazingly efficient overall scorer. Big assist guy in Vancouver, but not really a brilliant playmaker overall. He was pretty good in 2004?

Nash was definitely better than Bibbey but I get why a Mavs fan would mention him because Nash and Bibby met 3 years in a row in the playoffs and Bibby played every bit as good as Nash in those series in part because of how he abused Nash's defense. That PTSD still lingers for many of us.

Particularly since Nash got in shape and stopped his party lifestyle only after he left Dallas. We could have gotten great playoffs Nash instead of kinda disappointing playoff Steve Nash had he followed his buddy Dirk's example about the work comes first. But he didn't. He had to get a model pregnant and settle into family life and be pissed off Cuban paid everyone but didn't pay him.

But yeah Nash was already an elite PG in Dallas. The two real differences being Nash's physical improvements in Phoenix and going to a roster perfectly built for him that also needed him in a way Dirk simply didn't. Oh the Dirk/Nash PNR was nasty, nasty, nasty, but a Dirk/JET PNR was plenty good. Nash wasn't nearly as additive to Dirk as he was Amare and Marion and all the shooters.

I don't think Garland approaches Nash from a run an offense standpoint. I agree some of the ways they attack you are similar, but Garland hasn't shown the overall grasp of team offense that Nash already had years before his MVP campaigns.

[JustBuzzin]

I must not watch a lot of Cleveland games.

Everytime I see him I see more of a score first guard. Nash also had a automatic jumpshot. Not sure if Garland is that kind of shooter.

[brackdan70]

lol No. Nash was a late bloomer though so maybe there is still time lol. Nash won 2 MVP and was a perennial all NBA guy. Garland is a good quick guard that will make a couple all star games but nowhere near Nash.
Look at Nash’s career shooting numbers.
.490, .428, .904
Garland will never do that for a month.

[EmpireFalls]

More like Stephon Marbury.

[JujitsuFlip]

I'd like to hear a Garland fan give a passionate argument for him becoming an all-star...

I don't get this comment, the guy was already a 2022 All-Star.

[MavsDirk41]

No not at all…..Nash was a much better shooter and playmaker. Marbury or Francis maybe.

[levon]

I'd like to hear a Garland fan give a passionate argument for him becoming an all-star...

I don't get this comment, the guy was already a 2022 All-Star.

So was DLo. I mean a guy who's a multiple time AS or seriously up for consideration.

[ghillphx]

I feel like that’s the caliber player he is right now. He is one high octane offense away from looking like a superstar.

Not at all. Wtf kind of comparison? You just find a random all-star point guard? Did you watch Steve Nash?

[MrBigShot]

I'd like to hear a Garland fan give a passionate argument for him becoming an all-star...

I don't get this comment, the guy was already a 2022 All-Star.

So was DLo. I mean a guy who's a multiple time AS or seriously up for consideration.

Russell got the nod putting up inefficient raw #s in an East with less guard competition than today. Garland was a legitimate all star caliber player impact wise the year he got the nod, and followed it up with an even better year the season after. If he plays up to his standards he is all star caliber. DLo never has been and never will be.

Anyway Garland is not nash, even stylistically the comparison is odd. Nash was a pure shooter and a much more gifted passer.

[Chokic]

No not at all…..Nash was a much better shooter and playmaker. Marbury or Francis maybe.

Marbury and francis were streaky shooters. Garland is a better shooter than both of them. Better playmaker than francis. Lightning quick release. Garland has yet to prove he's able to shoot on nash level tho.

[Chuck Everett]

Garland's decision making just leaves a lot to be desired. He also plays even smaller than his height since he struggles to finish at the rim.

[JujitsuFlip]

I'd like to hear a Garland fan give a passionate argument for him becoming an all-star...

I don't get this comment, the guy was already a 2022 All-Star.

So was DLo. I mean a guy who's a multiple time AS or seriously up for consideration.

You said becoming... Guy has already became.

[MavsDirk41]

No not at all…..Nash was a much better shooter and playmaker. Marbury or Francis maybe.

Marbury and francis were streaky shooters. Garland is a better shooter than both of them. Better playmaker than francis. Lightning quick release. Garland has yet to prove he's able to shoot on nash level tho.

Nash was a better playmaker too

[vincecarter4pres]

Yes and no. Garland definitely has that same synergy between his passing/handles and pull up shooting. Garland is probably underutilized on offense in a similar way to Mavs Nash.

Nash was on a different planet in terms of scoring efficiency though. The numbers paint him as always being an efficiency monster who just didn't miss very shots despite taking lots of difficult ones. Garland is too streaky to really touch that. Then there's the passing. Despite the similar assist numbers, if you video scouted both players you're not going to come away thinking that Garland is as capable of making the same number of passing reads. Nash didn't always have his playmaking volume, but even in Dallas he was showing off those eyes in the back of his head passes.

Mavs Nash was probably still the 2nd best point guard in the league. Garland is struggling to get over the hump from borderline all-star into all-NBA level.

2000-2004 Steve Nash wasn’t the 2nd best PG in the NBA. Maybe top 5 but not the 2nd best. During that time frame I would put Chauncey Billups, and Tony Parker ahead of Nash (during those years). Some might even put Baron Davis, Stephon Marbury, Andre Miller, Richard Hamilton, Mike Bibby, and Steve Francis ahead of 00-04 Nash.

Chris Paul was drafted in ‘05 when Nash was already in Phoenix.

I think he was the 2nd best point guad in the NBA in 2002 and 2003. 2004 Mavs had too many cooks for Nash's playmaking/scoring to be as impactful, and before 2002 Nash was still ramping up. Even if you aren't personally high on Nash, the media was at the time. Nash made all-NBA 3rd team both years. Kidd finished ahead of him, and one year a 33-year-old Gary Payton did too.

Some of the players you're suggesting weren't on the timeline you're imagining:

- Billups didn't start making waves until 2004, but despite that finals MVP, he didn't become that perfect floor general until 2006. He was averaging 16 and 5 in his best seasons before 2006.

- Tony Parker didn't make his first all-star team until 2006. He's not in any conversation about best point guards from 2000-2004 (His rookie season was 2002).

- You've got to be kidding me with Starbury and Steve Francis. They were exciting and popular but there's no evidence they helped teams win basketball games.

- Baron Davis vs. Steve Nash is a fun debate. Davis had pretty bad scoring efficiency, but he legitimately provided big rim pressure and playmaking. He was healthy enough during this stretch of time too.

- Rip Hamilton is a shooting guard and made his first all-star team in 2006.

- Mike Bibby was solid and had a couple of impressive scoring runs in the playoffs... but what's really his case over Nash? 0 time all-star who was more solid than spectacular. Good shooter but not an amazingly efficient overall scorer. Big assist guy in Vancouver, but not really a brilliant playmaker overall. He was pretty good in 2004?

Feel like we’ve forgotten Jason Kidd existed.

[vincecarter4pres]

Nash? Nah.

Mike Conley Jr.? A lot more realistic.

[Handlez]

Current Nash?

Sure, they're about even.

[robbie84]

What an insult to Steve Nash lol.