Is Mavs Steve Nash a good comp for Darius Garland?

[uncleduck13]

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

[levon]

A slightly better and more promising, but smaller DAngelo Russell?

[uncleduck13]

A slightly better and more promising, but smaller DAngelo Russell?

lol I must be incredibly high on DG

[cupcakesnake]

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 many 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.

[levon]

A slightly better and more promising, but smaller DAngelo Russell?

lol I must be incredibly high on DG

I haven't watched him enough but I really don't get his appeal, looking at his stats. He just looks like a dime-a-dozen combo guard. A less prolific Trae Young?

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

[TwitterFingers]

Nash used to be overrated, but the pendulum has swung far the other way.

[ChipotleWest]

So in other words, Darius Garland is the Dallas Mavericks version of Steve Nash of Steve Nash's?

[uncleduck13]

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.

Interesting analysis. I agree, with the passing 100% . Nash’s vision was otherworldly. Even in Dallas. The gap between the two (in that regard) is the size of the Grand Canyon

[Roger Murdock]

A slightly better and more promising, but smaller DAngelo Russell?

lol I must be incredibly high on DG

I haven't watched him enough but I really don't get his appeal, looking at his stats. He just looks like a dime-a-dozen combo guard. A less prolific Trae Young?

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

He doesn’t pound the air out of the ball the way Trae does. He’s more decisive and dynamic with offball movement and scoring off screens and C&S

I don’t think he’s built the hold the ball all game, and make all the scoring decisions for a team all game the way Trae is, but Trae isn’t good enough for that role and doesn’t seem willing or able to take a smaller role

I’ve *hated* how DG has been used the last 2 years. He’s a sick passer and great off ball. Cavs just spam pick and roll and game.

Garland is one of the best passers in the league utilizing bigs
Amazing catch and shoot player, good off the dribble too but streaky
Very smart and not a ball hog the way some Pgs are

He’s not an engine and shouldn’t be utilized as one.

I’d absolutely kill for him if I were San Antonio or Orlando. He’ll make all NBA on those teams. Just don’t use him as a secondary ball handler in a PnR system that lacks movement the way the Cavs have.

[cupcakesnake]

A slightly better and more promising, but smaller DAngelo Russell?

lol I must be incredibly high on DG

I haven't watched him enough but I really don't get his appeal, looking at his stats. He just looks like a dime-a-dozen combo guard. A less prolific Trae Young?

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

I'm pretty high on Garland and keeping my stock despite his pretty injured season and awkward fit next to another ball dominant small guard.

Compared to Trae Young, he's a lot more fluid as a decision maker. Trae Young has a bit of that James Harden robot offense where he spams his most efficient actions but there's a cost where he's missing looks because he's so locked into his plan. Garland probes the defense a lot more improvisationally, trying to unlock something good and then being able to fall back on a lethal floater game. When he's at his most aggressive, he has that rare ability to pry open passing angles off the dribble and make the right read. Then when his pull up game is going, he becomes a super lethal offensive player.

I don't see the D'Lo comp at all. D'Lo is very limited as a paint scorer, and then as a playmaker he's more than one tier down. I like D'Lo's complimentary playmaking ability, but at the end of the day he's only providing big offensive value when he's hitting 3s.

Before Mitchell arrived, Garland had just averaged 21 and 8 and guided a very injured Cavs team to the brink of the playoffs as the sole offensive creator. Garland maintained his production in Mitchell's first year, but this year he was just injured all the time.

He's not a great defender but he's significantly better than Trae Young, and has better screen navigation than D'Lo.

I do think Garland is the guy that D'Lo teams wish he was. Lead playmaker who can also give you off-ball shooting reps.

[Mr B]

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.

[Deivork]

Their playing styles are definitely comparable but in all honesty he's like the Monta Ellis of Steve Nashes.

[cupcakesnake]

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?

[therealbig3]

This isn’t about this comparison, but people act like Nash went from being a scrub to a superstar overnight once he got to Phoenix which is why they try to wrongly characterize him as a system player and a product of D’Antoni.

But the guy was a multiple time All-Star and a consensus top 5 PG in the league before he ever got to Phoenix. Was part of a 1-2 punch with Dirk on some of the best offenses in NBA history. He was always a damn good player before his potential got unleashed in Phoenix.

[therealbig3]

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?

He was underrated in Dallas, I do remember the media having him in the same conversation as Marbury, Francis, and Davis at the time. With Kidd being the consensus #1. I think a lot of that had to do with a general overrating of volume scoring numbers without regards to efficiency and flash over substance in a lot of ways. Marbury I think was regarded as a close #2 to Kidd by many at the time, rightly or wrongly.

I remember it pretty clearly because I was a Nets fan that loved Kidd and followed these debates closely, and also fiercely advocated for him over MVP Nash and tried to label Nash as the product of a system before I finally let the facts speak for themselves and just admitted that Nash was simply an ATG player.

[DowJones]

If Garland gets connected with the right coach, he could turn into a real star. He has the talent.

[jbk1234]

A slightly better and more promising, but smaller DAngelo Russell?

lol I must be incredibly high on DG

I haven't watched him enough but I really don't get his appeal, looking at his stats. He just looks like a dime-a-dozen combo guard. A less prolific Trae Young?

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

The season before we traded for Mitchell he averaged 8.6 assist per game with Isaac Okoro starting at the 2 guard. With just an average catch and shoot player at the 2, he would've averaged 10 assists per game at 22 years of age. The difference in how Allen and Mobley are involved in the offense when he's the primary ball handler is stark. He's a special player and the Dlo comp is ridiculous.

This season he broke his jaw, lost 12lbs he didn't have to lose, and came back during the hardest part of our schedule when all of Mitchell, Strus, Wade, and Mobley were out. Most of his games where against playoff teams and he was sharing the court with Okoro, LeVert, Niang, and Allen. The entire opposing defenses tilted against him in absurd ways. Trading him now is malpractice. Part of me won't be that upset if Mitchell declines to extend and we get decent value.

[Dominator83]

Like buying cologne at dollar tree

[og15]

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.

But why?

[JonFromVA]

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

There's been a few problems holding back Darius from showing what he might be capable of:

1) He's injured a lot, all starting with his 5 games at Vanderbilt.

2) He's been trying to get stronger since he came in to the league, but he's injured a lot and because he's not stronger he gets injured a lot.

3) He has not done well embracing a faster paced offense or consistently giving the kind of energy he might off the ball; but he's often conserving energy because he's injured a lot.

4) The Cavs have not always done a good job of putting shooters/spacers, cutters, screen setters, and secondary playmakers around him.

5) The Cavs have not done a good job mentoring him. There was hope when they brought in Ricky Rubio, but that didn't last long. Bickerstaff is only interested in defense and playing hard, and Garland has not learned how to run a team inspite of that.

I think it's possible to build a Steph-like offense around Garland if the right pieces were put in to place, he was mentored in what he needed to do; and you know ... he could actually avoid injury long enough to build up his strength, stamina, and confidence.

It would be a glorious 4 weeks I imagine.