RealGM

Title

I can entertain 1989-95 period to consider, though probably not 1989, 1991 and 1995. I think 1990, 1992-94 are better than Draymond ever was, I am high on Ewing defense.

Hmmm Ewing was great 88-97 but 88-90 was probably his best stretch with his scoring and fg% at all time highs.

prolific passer wrote:Hmmm Ewing was great 88-97 but 88-90 was probably his best stretch with his scoring and fg% at all time highs.

He got better and better at reading defense though. Well, until his body started to break down in the mid-90s.

I think Ewing was notably better player in 1992 or 1993 than 1988.

70sFan wrote:

prolific passer wrote:Hmmm Ewing was great 88-97 but 88-90 was probably his best stretch with his scoring and fg% at all time highs.

He got better and better at reading defense though. Well, until his body started to break down in the mid-90s.

I think Ewing was notably better player in 1992 or 1993 than 1988.

Ewing was finally healthy by 88 injuries his first few years in the league. He got better and better from 88-90 in terms of scoring and shooting but after 90 his production started to drop but his defense was still good to great from 91-97.
Ewing was up there with Hakeem and D-Rob in terms of averaging at least 2bpg and 1spg for a number of years but didn't get the respect for that like they did. Dont know why that is.

For the Warriors, none. In a vacuum? 1990-1994 years perhaps. I’m really high on 2016 Draymond.

Ewings entire prime is better than peak draymond. They aren’t comparable, Ewing is multiple tiers greater.

In a lot of ways this comparison is tough because I don't really blame Ewing for playing such an incorrect game on offense and it's tough to really determine how much credit to give Draymond for his offensive game.

I'd probably run with '91-'94, just because Ewing is a bigger player I'll give him the edge on defense and basically call their offense a wash. '16 Dray was probably the optimal "role" player in recent history, and I do think that a guy reaching that level in that role can be better than an improperly featured primary star.

jdzimme3 wrote:Ewings entire prime is better than peak draymond. They aren’t comparable, Ewing is multiple tiers greater.

Ewing was a true superstar and core to build a team, Draymond is great next to a star.

I mean you can build a contender around a prime Ewing as your main option. Idk if you can say the same with a prime Draymond.

RCM88x wrote:In a lot of ways this comparison is tough because I don't really blame Ewing for playing such an incorrect game on offense and it's tough to really determine how much credit to give Draymond for his offensive game.

I'd probably run with '91-'94, just because Ewing is a bigger player I'll give him the edge on defense and basically call their offense a wash. '16 Dray was probably the optimal "role" player in recent history, and I do think that a guy reaching that level in that role can be better than an improperly featured primary star.

Why not 1990? That was probably his best season.