apparently alot of people think curry is better than evans...
- Thread starter fxhsurjono
- Start date
There's no indication that Reke is a limited offensive player. He's actually quite a good offensive player. His jumpshot is shaky, but that's common among twenty year old guards that have relied on their ability to get to the basket throughout their career. Kobe, LeBron, MJ, Wade, etc., all had inconsistent jumpshots early on.
Comparing him to Tyson Chandler or Stromile Swift, players who never had anything resembling a strong offensive game, is kind of senseless. The speculation on those players was always "IF they can develop offensively, they could be all stars". The speculation on Tyreke is "IF his jumper develops, he'll be unstoppable". Totally different.
The discusssion about what these players are today IS relevant, because they are two totally different players. If Curry becomes the best player he can be -- based on his style of play -- he's Ray Allen. If Evans becomes the best player he can be -- based on his style of play -- he's Dwayne Wade. You can build a title contender around Wade, not Allen. And that's where the debate should end, really. There's no indication that Tyreke will bomb out and fail to reach his potential, but we still don't know. Still, projecting based on what we know about the way these guys play, Tyreke is a potential cornerstone-type player, whereas Curry is a nice complementary piece, but not the kind of player that has EVER led a team to a championship.
Comparing him to Tyson Chandler or Stromile Swift, players who never had anything resembling a strong offensive game, is kind of senseless. The speculation on those players was always "IF they can develop offensively, they could be all stars". The speculation on Tyreke is "IF his jumper develops, he'll be unstoppable". Totally different.
The discusssion about what these players are today IS relevant, because they are two totally different players. If Curry becomes the best player he can be -- based on his style of play -- he's Ray Allen. If Evans becomes the best player he can be -- based on his style of play -- he's Dwayne Wade. You can build a title contender around Wade, not Allen. And that's where the debate should end, really. There's no indication that Tyreke will bomb out and fail to reach his potential, but we still don't know. Still, projecting based on what we know about the way these guys play, Tyreke is a potential cornerstone-type player, whereas Curry is a nice complementary piece, but not the kind of player that has EVER led a team to a championship.
K
Not really. He's basing his argument on the idea that Curry reaches his potential and becomes a very good complementary piece and that Evans doesn't and stays a 20-5-5 with a steal and a half per game kind of player that is able to dominate down the stretch of games. I fail to see how him comparing Tyreke who already is a special offensive player to players who have no offensive game to even speak of is a valid point. Tyreke has already accomplished something as a rookie that VERY few ELITE players have done, and the idea that he is not going to improve any with his hard work ethic is preposterous. He is unpolished yet brimming full of potential, Curry is polished and really doesn't have much to work on but gaining experience. Curry already has experience on Evans at this point, being older and playing more basketball. But Tyreke is a machine, a basketball playing machine, born and bred to do one thing: dominate. That's what he spends his time on, and to think that Curry will improve exponentially more than Tyreke, to not only catch Tyreke at his level, but then surpass him as a player, being that Curry is older, more experienced, not blessed with the same physical attributes, already polished as a player, and spent his rookie season playing in a system which inflates #'s (as ALL of Nelson's systems have been shown to do for players under him), is almost insanity itself.
I never said he wasn't a good offensive player. I was simply making the point that there is more room to improve then just his outside shooting, which some have commented is his only offensive weakness.
Then you missed my point. I wasn't comparing Evans to them. I was bringing them up to illustrate that "potential" is not a valid argument when discussing Curry and Evans today, because there's no guarantee either will reach their full potential. If the debate was about their futures, and POSSIBLE peaks, then we can discuss potential.
Totally false. Ray Allen has never been able to play point full time, and Curry has that ability. Again, people have attempted to pigeon-hole Curry as only a shooter. This isn't Dell Curry we are talking about. Steph has already proven to be a combo guy who can play off the ball and shoot, or play point who can score and distribute.
Again, this is irrelevant for two reasons:
- First, is that those comparisons are not accurate.
- Second, is that whether or not you can build a team around them is irrelevant when talking about them today for two reasons. First, either of them don't have to be that kind of player in order to be more successful than the other, and second is that neither have proven to be able to be that franchise player. For all we know, Evans might not ever reach that level, so there's no point in giving him that mantle to him. He has to go get it. So until that day comes, there's no point in bringing that up with current comparisons. Unfulfilled potential = irrelevant when discussing the two player TODAY.
And again, if this debate was about potential and the future of their careers and which will have the opportunity to have a higher peak, then that argument would be valid. I have said myself Evans has a higher ceiling. He can be a top player in the entire league, while Curry has a chance to just be a top player at his position. That's the difference between a Roy and a Wade type player. But I came into this thread NOT having that debate. I was simply attempting to make the point that TODAY, one player isn't clearly superior to the other, and that an argument can be made for either as the better player. So, my entire point has been that those who think Curry may be the better player TODAY are not crazy.
Then you missed my point. I wasn't comparing Evans to them. I was bringing them up to illustrate that "potential" is not a valid argument when discussing Curry and Evans today, because there's no guarantee either will reach their full potential. If the debate was about their futures, and POSSIBLE peaks, then we can discuss potential.
Totally false. Ray Allen has never been able to play point full time, and Curry has that ability. Again, people have attempted to pigeon-hole Curry as only a shooter. This isn't Dell Curry we are talking about. Steph has already proven to be a combo guy who can play off the ball and shoot, or play point who can score and distribute.
Again, this is irrelevant for two reasons:
- First, is that those comparisons are not accurate.
- Second, is that whether or not you can build a team around them is irrelevant when talking about them today for two reasons. First, either of them don't have to be that kind of player in order to be more successful than the other, and second is that neither have proven to be able to be that franchise player. For all we know, Evans might not ever reach that level, so there's no point in giving him that mantle to him. He has to go get it. So until that day comes, there's no point in bringing that up with current comparisons. Unfulfilled potential = irrelevant when discussing the two player TODAY.
And again, if this debate was about potential and the future of their careers and which will have the opportunity to have a higher peak, then that argument would be valid. I have said myself Evans has a higher ceiling. He can be a top player in the entire league, while Curry has a chance to just be a top player at his position. That's the difference between a Roy and a Wade type player. But I came into this thread NOT having that debate. I was simply attempting to make the point that TODAY, one player isn't clearly superior to the other, and that an argument can be made for either as the better player. So, my entire point has been that those who think Curry may be the better player TODAY are not crazy.
Last edited:
Curry is a finesse outside-in player, and Tyreke is a bruising inside-out player. I think our biggest argument relates to which archetype is more successful in post-season basketball. I would argue that you need both, but as a number one option, the bruising inside-out player is far preferable.
As to the relevancy of whether or not Tyreke and or Curry become first option playoff guys...it doesn't matter for this argument. You must assume that they will be for the argument to be valid at all. If you don't believe that Tyreke is going to be a superstar scorer, which may be true, you stop arguing over who's easier to build a team around, and go out and get a true number one option and build around that guy (trade, tank, or FA). The rebuild can't ever be over until you get that player. I think for the sake of this argument, which is also reflected in the official positions of both the Warriors and Kings organization/fans, both of these players could very well be in that group.
Here's how I look at it:
Right now, you could argue that Tyreke and Curry are fairly close in terms of how 'good' they are. However, how they've reached this level is very different. Tyreke is probably something like 75% talent and 25% skill. Curry, on the other hand, is more like 50% talent and 50% skill. Historically speaking, high talent, mediocre skill guys are more likely to go on to become superstars than high skill, mediocre talent ones. There are always exceptions to the rule, of course, but it's always safe to bet on the younger guy that can take over a game physically than the older one who takes over with smarts.
As to the relevancy of whether or not Tyreke and or Curry become first option playoff guys...it doesn't matter for this argument. You must assume that they will be for the argument to be valid at all. If you don't believe that Tyreke is going to be a superstar scorer, which may be true, you stop arguing over who's easier to build a team around, and go out and get a true number one option and build around that guy (trade, tank, or FA). The rebuild can't ever be over until you get that player. I think for the sake of this argument, which is also reflected in the official positions of both the Warriors and Kings organization/fans, both of these players could very well be in that group.
Here's how I look at it:
Right now, you could argue that Tyreke and Curry are fairly close in terms of how 'good' they are. However, how they've reached this level is very different. Tyreke is probably something like 75% talent and 25% skill. Curry, on the other hand, is more like 50% talent and 50% skill. Historically speaking, high talent, mediocre skill guys are more likely to go on to become superstars than high skill, mediocre talent ones. There are always exceptions to the rule, of course, but it's always safe to bet on the younger guy that can take over a game physically than the older one who takes over with smarts.
What other weakness does he have offensively? He can't shoot. He can dribble, he can pass, he can finish ... what else is there? Yeah, he can improve in all of those aspects, but the game is already there. He just needs to develop his jumper.
I didn't miss your point. Your point was weak. You're talking about players that had NO offensive game. Their potential was limited, and the "if" in their case was huge: If Tyson Chandler goes from being a no-offense high schooler to being a solid-offense pro, then he can be an All Star. In Tyreke's case, the "if" is much smaller, and it's the same "if" that other superstar wing players have had throughout the past 25 years. Some overcome it, some don't. But in each case, you're not talking about a player that really doesn't have any discernible offensive skills, which is the way you would have to define Tyson Chandler and Stromile Swift in the infancy of their professional careers. You're talking about a player with already a really good foundation offensively, who needs to improve overall but only really has one shortcoming in his offensive game.
Ray Allen played the point almost exclusively when he first went to Seattle, then they drafted Luke Ridnour and Ray went back off the ball. But to assert that he was limited in that respect is out of bounds. I'm not pigeon-holing Steph Curry as exclusively a shooter; I don't pigeon-hole Ray Allen as a shooter. Steph is certainly more of a combo guy, but being a shooter or not is not his limitation. His limitation is that his game and body style are better suited for the perimeter, especially in comparison to Tyreke, who excels closer to the rim. As has been mentioned, Tyreke is an inside-out player, while Steph is an outside-in player. That difference in style of play is what puts Tyreke in the Kobe/Wade/LeBron/MJ category, while Steph is in the Allen/Miller category.
Yes they are. See above.
You evidently lack the foresight to be able to look at two players and determine that one can be special, whereas the other, while incredibly talented, is a little more ordinary. But sometimes you can look at two players, even in the early stages of their careers, and say "dude is gonna be good, but that other dude is just gonna be a freakin monster." It's the difference between OJ Mayo and Derrick Rose.
Sure, it's all speculation. NEWSFLASH: This is a message board. Speculation Central. But you look at the makeup of Tyreke Evans and compare it to the makeup of Stephen Curry, and you assume that both players reach their individual zenith, and you see great, great things for Evans. You like Curry's ceiling, but it's nowhere near Evans. Of course it all has to actually happen, but that's no reason to pretend like the projections for each player don't matter TODAY. They do.
Okay, so maybe you do have the foresight. I don't know what we're arguing then. Whether you think Evans is better than Curry by a lot or by a little doesn't really matter. It's pretty obvious that no one inside the Kings organization (or any of their thinking fans) would want to trade Evans for Curry. That's not because Evans is such a better player now, whether we think he is or not. It's because we've seen a snapshot of Evans career, and it has superstar written all over it. We're just waiting for the Polaroid to develop.
I didn't miss your point. Your point was weak. You're talking about players that had NO offensive game. Their potential was limited, and the "if" in their case was huge: If Tyson Chandler goes from being a no-offense high schooler to being a solid-offense pro, then he can be an All Star. In Tyreke's case, the "if" is much smaller, and it's the same "if" that other superstar wing players have had throughout the past 25 years. Some overcome it, some don't. But in each case, you're not talking about a player that really doesn't have any discernible offensive skills, which is the way you would have to define Tyson Chandler and Stromile Swift in the infancy of their professional careers. You're talking about a player with already a really good foundation offensively, who needs to improve overall but only really has one shortcoming in his offensive game.
Ray Allen played the point almost exclusively when he first went to Seattle, then they drafted Luke Ridnour and Ray went back off the ball. But to assert that he was limited in that respect is out of bounds. I'm not pigeon-holing Steph Curry as exclusively a shooter; I don't pigeon-hole Ray Allen as a shooter. Steph is certainly more of a combo guy, but being a shooter or not is not his limitation. His limitation is that his game and body style are better suited for the perimeter, especially in comparison to Tyreke, who excels closer to the rim. As has been mentioned, Tyreke is an inside-out player, while Steph is an outside-in player. That difference in style of play is what puts Tyreke in the Kobe/Wade/LeBron/MJ category, while Steph is in the Allen/Miller category.
Yes they are. See above.
You evidently lack the foresight to be able to look at two players and determine that one can be special, whereas the other, while incredibly talented, is a little more ordinary. But sometimes you can look at two players, even in the early stages of their careers, and say "dude is gonna be good, but that other dude is just gonna be a freakin monster." It's the difference between OJ Mayo and Derrick Rose.
Sure, it's all speculation. NEWSFLASH: This is a message board. Speculation Central. But you look at the makeup of Tyreke Evans and compare it to the makeup of Stephen Curry, and you assume that both players reach their individual zenith, and you see great, great things for Evans. You like Curry's ceiling, but it's nowhere near Evans. Of course it all has to actually happen, but that's no reason to pretend like the projections for each player don't matter TODAY. They do.
Okay, so maybe you do have the foresight. I don't know what we're arguing then. Whether you think Evans is better than Curry by a lot or by a little doesn't really matter. It's pretty obvious that no one inside the Kings organization (or any of their thinking fans) would want to trade Evans for Curry. That's not because Evans is such a better player now, whether we think he is or not. It's because we've seen a snapshot of Evans career, and it has superstar written all over it. We're just waiting for the Polaroid to develop.
Last edited:
I've already explained this in previous posts, but nobody seems to care to read any of it.
No, it was clear by your explanation of your understanding of my post that you missed the point. I was not drawing a direct comparison, which is what you explained was your understanding.
No, it does not. You are discussing the POTENTIAL of each player to reach those levels instead of discussing who they are today. A player can have a similar body type and style that is close to some superstars, but are NOWHERE NEAR those same stars in effectiveness and productivity. Just because Evans can drive to the rim and has a game that is similar to a rookie Wade does not automatically put him in Wade's class TODAY. That's the difference you can't seem to grasp. You want to debate a point in a discussion totally unrelated to what I was discussing.
Seriously, do you even read the posts you respond to? I have said THIS EXACT SAME THING, BUT HAVE CLEARLY STATED THAT I'M NOT ATTEMPTING TO DEBATE POTENTIAL OR PROJECT BASED ON POTENTIAL. Try f**king reading before you respond to something that you don't even understand.
I'm done responding to retards. I've stated as clearly as possible exactly what my point was, and yet I get retards who clearly haven't understood the most basic and simple points. You responses clearly show you are arguing on YOUR OWN PLAIN OF DISCUSSION, debating points that I'm not even trying to address. it's clear you haven't understood me from the multiple times I've tried to explain that my point was NEVER about which player will be better, which has more potential, etc. You are debating a point which I'm not even contesting!!!
POINT BLANK SUPERMAN: YOU LACK READING COMPREHENSION NECESSARY TO UNDERSTAND THE MOST BASIC POINTS. It's crystal clear you have no idea what you are discussing with me. Move on.
I have said myself Evans has a higher ceiling. He can be a top player in the entire league, while Curry has a chance to just be a top player at his position. That's the difference between a Roy and a Wade type player. But I came into this thread NOT having that debate. I was simply attempting to make the point that TODAY, one player isn't clearly superior to the other, and that an argument can be made for either as the better player. So, my entire point has been that those who think Curry may be the better player TODAY are not crazy.
If you want to continue to bring up potential, play style, room to improve, ceiling, etc, THEN THAT IS A DIFFERENT DISCUSSION ENTIRELY, WHICH I'M NOT EVEN DEBATING.
No, it was clear by your explanation of your understanding of my post that you missed the point. I was not drawing a direct comparison, which is what you explained was your understanding.
No, it does not. You are discussing the POTENTIAL of each player to reach those levels instead of discussing who they are today. A player can have a similar body type and style that is close to some superstars, but are NOWHERE NEAR those same stars in effectiveness and productivity. Just because Evans can drive to the rim and has a game that is similar to a rookie Wade does not automatically put him in Wade's class TODAY. That's the difference you can't seem to grasp. You want to debate a point in a discussion totally unrelated to what I was discussing.
Seriously, do you even read the posts you respond to? I have said THIS EXACT SAME THING, BUT HAVE CLEARLY STATED THAT I'M NOT ATTEMPTING TO DEBATE POTENTIAL OR PROJECT BASED ON POTENTIAL. Try f**king reading before you respond to something that you don't even understand.
I'm done responding to retards. I've stated as clearly as possible exactly what my point was, and yet I get retards who clearly haven't understood the most basic and simple points. You responses clearly show you are arguing on YOUR OWN PLAIN OF DISCUSSION, debating points that I'm not even trying to address. it's clear you haven't understood me from the multiple times I've tried to explain that my point was NEVER about which player will be better, which has more potential, etc. You are debating a point which I'm not even contesting!!!
POINT BLANK SUPERMAN: YOU LACK READING COMPREHENSION NECESSARY TO UNDERSTAND THE MOST BASIC POINTS. It's crystal clear you have no idea what you are discussing with me. Move on.
I have said myself Evans has a higher ceiling. He can be a top player in the entire league, while Curry has a chance to just be a top player at his position. That's the difference between a Roy and a Wade type player. But I came into this thread NOT having that debate. I was simply attempting to make the point that TODAY, one player isn't clearly superior to the other, and that an argument can be made for either as the better player. So, my entire point has been that those who think Curry may be the better player TODAY are not crazy.
If you want to continue to bring up potential, play style, room to improve, ceiling, etc, THEN THAT IS A DIFFERENT DISCUSSION ENTIRELY, WHICH I'M NOT EVEN DEBATING.
Last edited:
Here's the difference between guys like Curry, and guys like Evans: Evans can look you in the eye, tell you exactly how he's going to score the basketball, and then proceed to score the basketball in the precise manner he said he would, because there's nothing you can do about it. We saw that at the end of the Milwaukee game. Everybody knew he was taking the last shot, everybody knew he was going to try to take it to the basket. What happened? He beat his defender, and then the big shot-blocker at the hoop (Bogut), and laid it in with .9 seconds left to win the game. That's why Evans is, right now, better than Curry. That's why, in the future, he will continue to be better than Curry. All the crafty, fancy, namby-pamby little tricks don't mean **** when your go-to move is to run the other team over like a diesel truck.
NBATV is showing the top 10 games of the season, and the Golden state- Milwaukee game that Jennings scored 55 pts was one of them. Jennings scored a good portion of those 55 pts on who else... Curry!
ps something was in the air that night in Milwaukee...you have Jennings who supposedly can't shoot going nuts, and you have a half court shot from Jodie Meeks that somehow banks in at the end of the 3rd quarter.
ps something was in the air that night in Milwaukee...you have Jennings who supposedly can't shoot going nuts, and you have a half court shot from Jodie Meeks that somehow banks in at the end of the 3rd quarter.
One could make that argument. But then one would lose. I would say those who make that argument are passionate Curry fans, and they have a right to be that way and make that argument. But if the argument was made in a rational environment, they would lose. That argument could be made, but it would be the wrong one. Tyreke is the superior player today, yesterday, three weeks ago, three years ago, and ten years from now.
Don't get me wrong, I think Curry is a very fine player. But he's no Tyreke.
Don't get me wrong, I think Curry is a very fine player. But he's no Tyreke.
Evans is certainly a more superior player than Curry right now. Evans played the whole season with teams defenses focused solely on stopping him and yet he consistently delivers, of course he had a few bad nights here and there. Curry, on the other hand, who is playing in a stat friendly system, and without other teams defenses focusing on him, was able to produce great numbers only half of a season.
Evans can break down his defender, have an opposing coach generate a defensive scheme designed to stop him and only him, not the Kings, from scoring. And singlehandedly carried the Kings to more wins than the previous season. Can this be said for Curry? I don't think so. And that shows why Evans is a more superior player than Curry. IMO, at least.
Evans can break down his defender, have an opposing coach generate a defensive scheme designed to stop him and only him, not the Kings, from scoring. And singlehandedly carried the Kings to more wins than the previous season. Can this be said for Curry? I don't think so. And that shows why Evans is a more superior player than Curry. IMO, at least.
Richmond was never known for his athleticism, but was more athletic that many give him credit for (he just didn't show it very often). I remember a game during his final season in Sacramento (can't remember who we were playing). It had been a dogfight the whole game and was late in the 4th quarter. Richmond seemed frustrated and got the ball in the corner on the baseline. He faked a shot to get around his man and proceeded to drive and go right at the center of the other team and dunk over him. It wasn't something you saw from Richmond very often, but certainly brought most Kings' fans to their feet at that moment.
Well with regards to the debate between Tyreke and Curry based on their rookie seasons .. I honestly don't know whether stopping Stephen Curry was the defensive plan of almost every team, but I know that stopping Tyreke was. Curry has a lot of talent, has a wonderful shot and a lot of good solid offensive moves. I will disagree that he has superior vision to Tyreke though - I think Tyreke does see guys and on occasion has made some pretty fancy passes. He's no Steve Nash, but he usually makes the right plays. Curry is probably the better passer at this point (in terms of actually getting the pass through), but I didn't see anything that convinced me Curry has much better court vision.
But the thing is Showtime, the whole Wade VS Allen thing does matter, even if both of them aren't at that level yet. If you don't take into consideration defense and style of play, all you end up comparing is stats. I can then make the argument that Curry was playing with the Warriors. But whatever it is, based on stats I would agree that thinking Curry is better than Tyreke isn't that absurd an idea. If that's all you're comparing ... I don't see how else you can compare two players other than stats without talking about who you'd rather build a team around and stuff like that, or who has the higher potential. Perhaps you could explain how you'd compare them (and I apologise if you have already stated how you would but I've missed it) based on their rookie season alone, aside from stats.
But the thing is Showtime, the whole Wade VS Allen thing does matter, even if both of them aren't at that level yet. If you don't take into consideration defense and style of play, all you end up comparing is stats. I can then make the argument that Curry was playing with the Warriors. But whatever it is, based on stats I would agree that thinking Curry is better than Tyreke isn't that absurd an idea. If that's all you're comparing ... I don't see how else you can compare two players other than stats without talking about who you'd rather build a team around and stuff like that, or who has the higher potential. Perhaps you could explain how you'd compare them (and I apologise if you have already stated how you would but I've missed it) based on their rookie season alone, aside from stats.
You know what though, I am amazed at the horrific lack of quality defense being played in that reel. You know what else can't be taught? Defense, to any of those dudes. Is there some group of schools in some region of the country that tells you to stare through the controlling guard's neck as he pounds the ball into the hardwood in front of you? Poke at the ball! There's only 3 feet of player you need to look at when they're crouched as low as Evans is right there, and the ball is traveling straight up and down! The saving graces here are: Evans is a bulldozer, he posts up smaller guards, and he's not in front of small guards on the perimeter for very long; otherwise he'd be averaging a couple more turnovers a game.
Edit: I will leave above shortsighted post in tact, but I will amend my stance because I just remembered how tall Evans is. He shadows the ball in a crouch, making it hard for lesser specimens to crowd him. Still, they shouldn't just stare in awe at the dude... er... Okay, maybe they should, for Kings fan's sakes.
Edit: I will leave above shortsighted post in tact, but I will amend my stance because I just remembered how tall Evans is. He shadows the ball in a crouch, making it hard for lesser specimens to crowd him. Still, they shouldn't just stare in awe at the dude... er... Okay, maybe they should, for Kings fan's sakes.
Last edited:
Evans is one of those players that is going to make even the good defenders look bad a lot because all of the shaking and quaking and shoulder fakes and stutter steps and head nods and everything else he throws at you just gets people off balance and going for a ride. Watching it I am really reminded more than anything else not a basketball player, but of a football player: Barry Sanders. He could do that same thing, only in pads, have his body going in 3 different directions at once, throw that lazy limp leg out and just seem to hover waiting for the defender to embarass himself and lose his balance, and then boom, he was gone. Still to this day the most talented runner I have ever seen (you will notice I do not say best running back, but rather most talented runner). Evans has that same effect on people, even people who pride themselves on being really good at stopping people.
Edit: youtube is cool:
Edit: youtube is cool:
Last edited by a moderator: