ISH All-time Top 25 Guards Project: #12 - Steve Nash vs. Clyde Drexler

[NugzHeat3]

[QUOTE=Fatal9]Nash is better but something for Clyde because he'll get overlooked...

Offensively he helped his teams in every way imaginable. Very good scorer, top 5 passer ever from the SG positions and by the numbers THE best offensive rebounding guard ever (most people don't realize this). No other guard has gotten over 3.5/game and he is the only one to average more than 3/game multiple times (he was good for putbacks couple of times a game). So dude scored 20-25 a game efficiently and in a way that fit well with the team (never pounded the ball, made his moves quickly), got putbacks and offensive rebounds for you at the rate of a center and passed/made plays at an elite level. On top of that he was a very active defender who was great at converting his defense ( or missed shots) into an easy fast break opportunity for his team. The only thing he lacked was handles that didn't really allow him to break down the defense like an MJ, Kobe or Wade, so if his jumper was off, you weren't gonna get great one on one scoring from him.

His teams were really talented, but imo his impact gets underrated because of that, especially offensively. Overall in his prime (

[L.Kizzle]

High quality stuff though you're overlooking how deep those rosters were.

Drexler missed a significant amount of games in 1993 and Portland had a higher winning % in those games. It was the same deal in 1994.

Those two teams got knocked out in the first round right? Yep. When Clyde was healthy the 3 previous seaons, Finals,, West Finals, Finals ...

[Miller for 3]

I would go with Nash. Could do more with less than Drexler imo. But as others have stated, Drexler did A LOT of really good things. Its really close. Personally I would rank both of them over Kidd and Stockton

[NugzHeat3]

Those two teams got knocked out in the first round right? Yep. When Clyde was healthy the 3 previous seaons, Finals,, West Finals, Finals ...

And what does that have to do with the Blazers performing better without Drexler than with him?

The Blazers problems in those years went beyond Drexler's injury issues.

They had chemistry issues with Duckworth showing up out of shape, their 3 guard rotation was broken up with Ainge bolting to PHX and the signing of Strickland who needed the ball to be effective unlike Porter who could work well off-ball.

[Kblaze8855]

Im not sure how Nash did more with less. They both had great talent...but Drexlers teams had more playoff success. Im not sure what the "more" could be.

Plus Nash had total control of his teams. Drexler was like a role player who had a big game out of nowhere...every night. Which doesnt really make sense but I cant think of any other way to explain it. They didnt even get the ball to him really. He would catch it and hit an open jumper. Or faceup and useh is first step...dribble once and jump 35 inches straight up, palm the ball, wait for the D to fall, and flick it in on the way down. Get out and run and bang on someone. But he wasnt a traditional "Give him the ball and get out of the way" scorer.

He doesnt just get put on a guy to shut him down. But hes gonna come out of nowhere for 2-3 steals. Block a shot. You dont give him the ball to make a play...but...he somehow ends up with 9 assists. He might get the ball on the break, take 2 steps, and throw it behind his back....ahead of him...for a layup. He would come out of nowhere and tip in a miss or sky for a rebound and drop it off around an opponent for Kersey to dunk it back in. If the ball is moving around and he happens to catch it at 18 feet and his man is leaning the wrong way or not making contact he just explodes by him in half a second and flips in a finger roll. He played like a guy somewhat out of control who you are happy to get anything out of....except he does it so well and so often you have to call him a star.

You couldnt really depend on anything he did(post scoring aside...but he didnt do it often)...at any given moment. But the game would present so many chances for him to seemingly get lucky...he ends up with 22/8/7 and 5 highlights.

But give him the ball with 20 seconds left and get out of the way....hes not as good as his numbers suggest.

But he was perfect for a talented team that didnt need anyone to dominate the ball. I dont think he "made others better" but hes one of the best stars ever at not keeping his teammates from showing what they can do.

Hes a star that plugs in on any team and wouldnt be a problem. But he didnt just...carry a team. Not as much as putting up like 27/7/5 suggests.

[L.Kizzle]

And what does that have to do with the Blazers performing better without Drexler than with him?

The Blazers problems in those years went beyond Drexler's injury issues.

They had chemistry issues with Duckworth showing up out of shape, their 3 guard rotation was broken up with Ainge bolting to PHX and the signing of Strickland who needed the ball to be effective unlike Porter who could work well off-ball.

The Blazers were a good team with and without Drexler. Clyde took them over the top. They'd still win without Clyde but they need his presence. Its a whole different game with him there.

[NugzHeat3]

The Blazers were a good team with and without Drexler. Clyde took them over the top. They'd still win without Clyde but they need his presence. Its a whole different game with him there.

Can't be that different with the most overrated player of the 90s.

People say the Suns are a good team without Nash too and list all the talented All-Stars that he plays with and ignore the absolute shittastic record the Suns have without him. Why? Beats me.

[L.Kizzle]

Can't be that different with the most overrated player of the 90s.

People say the Suns are a good team without Nash too and list all the talented All-Stars that he plays with and ignore the absolute shittastic record the Suns have without him. Why? Beats me.

So you saying the Blazers make 2 finals and a west finals with Clyde deleted from the team?

[Kblaze8855]

Nash dominates the ball. He runs the offense totally. Remove him for a game or two its a bunch of people playing outside their comfort zones. You arent combining prime Amare, Marion, and 05 JJ and having a terrible team no matter what their record was in individual games without him. Not when you really set the team up to play without him.

Drexler is easier to play without because they didnt play through him anyway. He was just one of the guys....who just happened to score the most. Terry Porter would have been harder to play without for them.

[NugzHeat3]

So you saying the Blazers make 2 finals and a west finals with Clyde deleted from the team?

No, I was just trolling for a bit. I don't like Drexler.

[L.Kizzle]

Nash dominates the ball. He runs the offense totally. Remove him for a game or two its a bunch of people playing outside their comfort zones. You arent combining prime Amare, Marion, and 05 JJ and having a terrible team no matter what their record was in individual games without him. Not when you really set the team up to play without him.

Drexler is easier to play without because they didnt play through him anyway. He was just one of the guys....who just happened to score the most. Terry Porter would have been harder to play without for them.

Clyde would run the pg if Terry was absent. I thibk he ran at the pg in the 85 86 season.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Fatal summed it up well, and I agree that Nash is better.

Nash in Phoenix has been pretty much an ideal point guard offensively. Not many other players possess anywhere near that type of passing ability and even fewer have the ability to take over a game and know the appropriate time to do so like Nash. Despite all of the talent he's played with, it's no coincidence that his Phoenix teams have regularly struggled with him out of the lineup.

I appreciate Nash even more over the years when I see him a 36/37 year old Nash lead a team like this recent Suns team to a 39-36 record when he played(and I think the 1-6 record without him is actually an accurate representation of how good they were without him).

[L.Kizzle]

I would go with Nash. Could do more with less than Drexler imo. But as others have stated, Drexler did A LOT of really good things. Its really close. Personally I would rank both of them over Kidd and Stockton

Could do more with less? Drexler in Portland never played with an Amar'e or a Marion (or hell maybe even a Joe Johnson.) I like Terry Porter and Kersey but they can't touch STAT and Martix. Buck Williams in Portland was past his prime, if this was a New Jersey Buck than that's a different story.

[EricForman]

Could do more with less? Drexler in Portland never played with an Amar'e or a Marion (or hell maybe even a Joe Johnson.) I like Terry Porter and Kersey but they can't touch STAT and Martix. Buck Williams in Portland was past his prime, if this was a New Jersey Buck than that's a different story.

I don't agree with the "Nash had prime Amare/JJ/Marion" argument. Nash has since gone to the WCF twice, once without Amare/JJ and another without Marion/JJ, so Nash really needed ONE of those three, along with 4 more solid guys, to make something happen.

Nash has that Magic Johnson quality, not only does he make everyone better in basketball abilities, but also the intangibles stuff like chemistry.

[L.Kizzle]

I don't agree with the "Nash had prime Amare/JJ/Marion" argument. Nash has since gone to the WCF twice, once without Amare/JJ and another without Marion/JJ, so Nash really needed ONE of those three, along with 4 more solid guys, to make something happen.

Nash has that Magic Johnson quality, not only does he make everyone better in basketball abilities, but also the intangibles stuff like chemistry.

I'm not saying Nash didn't make players beter cause he did. But did he really have less talent than Portland?