RealGM

Who had the better peak? Prime? Career? Who would you rather build a team around?

Patrick Ewing. You would much rather go against Nash in a series as your best player than against Ewing. Ewing had some good moments such as beating Bird a top 10 player all time without HCA in 1990.

JordansBulls wrote:Patrick Ewing. You would much rather go against Nash in a series as your best player than against Ewing. Ewing had some good moments such as beating Bird a top 10 player all time without HCA in 1990.

Nash beat Dirk when Dirk was first team all nba, Kobe twice when Kobe was first team and swept Duncan when Duncan was third team. That doesn’t mean Nash > Ewing but h2h playoff series shouldn’t be the determining factor.

Steve Nash. Probably one of the most underrated superstars in the last 20 years.

Like, it's kind of crazy that people think there's a clear gap between Nash and Curry for example. Nash was more of a passer than a scorer, unlike Curry, but the offenses he was leading were as good or better than Curry's. Certainly in the playoffs, where Nash was a much more resilient playoff performer and did ramp up his scoring significantly when the situation called for it. He wasn't blessed with the defensive support that Curry has had though.

Nash at his peak is arguably the greatest offensive player of all time. Right up there with Jordan and Magic and LeBron and Bird.

Nash is comfortably ahead of Ewing offensively, but on defense it's absurd. Ewing must be worth almost an entire extra defender over Nash

JordansBulls wrote:Patrick Ewing. You would much rather go against Nash in a series as your best player than against Ewing. Ewing had some good moments such as beating Bird a top 10 player all time without HCA in 1990.

But Bird was way past his prime with a jacked up back. As pointed out by another poster Nash beat prime Kobe twice (who many have as a Top 10 player) and prime Dirk in the playoffs if that’s how you want to measure it.

Ewing, defense is important.

They both were good at going consistently deep into the playoffs so that's a wash. Ewing had superior stats for 16 years and Nash only really came into his own at 27, but he did win 2 mvps. That's a tough question to answer.

One of the questions though was who would you take if you were building a team, though. And I think the answer to that question is, knowing what we know now, has to be Nash.

Peak: Nash
Prime: Even, slight lean to Ewing
Career: Ewing

Pick: Probably Nash, I think its easier to find championship worthy defensive specialist to fill out your front court than it is to find championship worthy offensive specialist to fill out your backcourt.

Ewing.

He carries the team on both ends of the court and is easier to establish a contender around.

bledredwine wrote:Ewing.

He carries the team on both ends of the court and is easier to establish a contender around.

I'm not convinced by that. The Knicks only had an above average NBA offense twice during Ewings whole career. In '89 and again in '90, and he was probably only their best offensive player in '90 (they weren't great defensively that season either).

I have Nash for prime and career, but Ewing for peak. Ewing never had another offensive season particularly close to 1990, so while i don't want to quite call it an outlier there's a bigger gap between that season and the rest of his prime compared to Nash i believe.

I wouldn't hesitate to take Nash to build around, you give him free reign earlier in his career it's likely his prime looks even better than it already did. Still a reasonable comparison, and i wouldn't fault anyone taking Ewing for two way play.

DirtyDez wrote:

JordansBulls wrote:Patrick Ewing. You would much rather go against Nash in a series as your best player than against Ewing. Ewing had some good moments such as beating Bird a top 10 player all time without HCA in 1990.

Nash beat Dirk when Dirk was first team all nba, Kobe twice when Kobe was first team and swept Duncan when Duncan was third team. That doesn’t mean Nash > Ewing but h2h playoff series shouldn’t be the determining factor.

He's also acting like Bird wasn't past his prime by 1990, he was maybe not even top 10 in the league by that point.

Patrick Ewing.

therealbig3 wrote:Steve Nash. Probably one of the most underrated superstars in the last 20 years.

Like, it's kind of crazy that people think there's a clear gap between Nash and Curry for example. Nash was more of a passer than a scorer, unlike Curry, but the offenses he was leading were as good or better than Curry's. Certainly in the playoffs, where Nash was a much more resilient playoff performer and did ramp up his scoring significantly when the situation called for it. He wasn't blessed with the defensive support that Curry has had though.

Nash at his peak is arguably the greatest offensive player of all time. Right up there with Jordan and Magic and LeBron and Bird.

I agree with this but I'm still taking Ewing. Wanna talk underrated? Ewing led the best defenses post Bill Russell and was comped to Russell coming out of college but his career is defined by what he did offensively in the 1994 Finals.

RCM88x wrote:

bledredwine wrote:Ewing.

He carries the team on both ends of the court and is easier to establish a contender around.

I'm not convinced by that. The Knicks only had an above average NBA offense twice during Ewings whole career. In '89 and again in '90, and he was probably only their best offensive player in '90 (they weren't great defensively that season either).

The best offensive player he played with post 1990 was John Starks. Not hard to see why his offenses were mediocre at best.

E-Balla wrote:

RCM88x wrote:

bledredwine wrote:Ewing.

He carries the team on both ends of the court and is easier to establish a contender around.

I'm not convinced by that. The Knicks only had an above average NBA offense twice during Ewings whole career. In '89 and again in '90, and he was probably only their best offensive player in '90 (they weren't great defensively that season either).

The best offensive player he played with post 1990 was John Starks. Not hard to see why his offenses were mediocre at best.

Proving my point he couldn't carry you on both ends.

RCM88x wrote:

E-Balla wrote:

RCM88x wrote:
I'm not convinced by that. The Knicks only had an above average NBA offense twice during Ewings whole career. In '89 and again in '90, and he was probably only their best offensive player in '90 (they weren't great defensively that season either).

The best offensive player he played with post 1990 was John Starks. Not hard to see why his offenses were mediocre at best.

Proving my point he couldn't carry you on both ends.

When most say carry on both ends they're not saying they can give you an elite offense and anchor an elite defense at the same time with no support, you know that right?

Ewing with good offensive support could lead a good offense and with great defensive support led the best non Russell defense ever.

E-Balla wrote:

RCM88x wrote:

E-Balla wrote:The best offensive player he played with post 1990 was John Starks. Not hard to see why his offenses were mediocre at best.

Proving my point he couldn't carry you on both ends.

When most say carry on both ends they're not saying they can give you an elite offense and anchor an elite defense at the same time with no support, you know that right?

Ewing with good offensive support could lead a good offense and with great defensive support led the best non Russell defense ever.

Wasn't that the 04 Pistons?

No-more-rings wrote:

E-Balla wrote:

RCM88x wrote:
Proving my point he couldn't carry you on both ends.

When most say carry on both ends they're not saying they can give you an elite offense and anchor an elite defense at the same time with no support, you know that right?

Ewing with good offensive support could lead a good offense and with great defensive support led the best non Russell defense ever.

Wasn't that the 04 Pistons?

Technically the '04 Spurs had a better relDRTG (-8.8). Pro-rated with Wallace the '04 Pistons might be though.