Perhaps Stephen Curry may become yet another Jason Terry, a scoring combo better suited igniting off the bench.
Jonny Flynn reminds me more of Jason Terry.
I just don't think Curry will have the ability to get to the rim in the pros. It certainly won't be a strength in his game.
Is it possible that Steph Curry's upside is, in fact....Dell Curry?
Jonny Flynn? Are you serious. A shooting guard, igniting the bench. Flynn may be a starting point guard by the end of next season.
But Steph Curry has much more to offer than Dell Curry had. Dell Curry was just a spot up shooter, he was a great shooter but that was really it. Steph Curry has so much more to his game than most people are giving him credit for. Forget other college players he has a better understanding of the game than 95% of NBA players already. He's the opposite of most college players going to the league, they get drafted based on elite athleticism and potential and have no clue about how to play let alone all of the nuances of the game. This kid is a pro already and will succeed in the league. If Delonte West can make it in the NBA Curry is gonna be fine.
People really do not know much about basketball when they post this stuff. Jason Terry was sent to the bench not because he sucked or should not start. They need more fire power off the bench and to balance their team he accepted that role. That would be like saying Ginobli is just a bench player when the only reason, he did it was to balance the team offensively. In the NBA starting is cool but it is all about minutes and Terry plays quality minutes. Curry will be alright but I think because many are stuck on his scoring skills they may not see him as the complete player he can be. Also Curry is pretty quick, and also anytime you are in college and a coach uses his whole team just to slow you down, that is saying a lot. If he falls to them the Knicks need to grab him. He is perfect for their style.
Terry's more athletic and a much better ball handler than curry. When terry came into the league, he played PG for most of his career until coming to the mavs. I think stephen will have a very similar career to his father's: solid player who could score 10-15 ppg and have a long career. He's not going to be a true star in this league. However, he won't be a bust either as many ignorant people are predicting.
One former player that Curry reminds me of is Dana Barros. Leave him open for a split second and he drains one. I think his upside is limited but he should be a great addition to an established team. A nice first guard off the bench and situational player. Look out NBA all star weekend, the three point shoot out could be his shining moment.
Dana Barros? Are you kidding me. He had one fluke season. Anyway, Curry is a player. In two years (please NBA draft.com note this) he'll be averaging 17-20 ppg.
DHamp I agree especially if the Knick draft him he may average that in his first year.
Totally agreed on the Knicks picking him and what he might do as a rookie on that team, such an upgrade over Duhon and Nate and he would be very good in that system immediately.
wenich, are you that unaware of the type of numbers nate robinson put up this year, especially after the all star break? In a 14 game span, he put up 25+ 10 times (4 of which were 30+, and 1 with 41). He had career highs of 17 points and 4 assists / game. The only thing curry has over nate is his pure shooting ability. Nate's quicker, more athletic, a more versatile scorer, better passer, and arguably a better defender. In no way would curry be an upgrade over nate, unless of course the knicks can't resign him.
im not with you fellas on this prediction. for him to get 17-20 he would have to get starter minutes. for him to get starter minutes he would have to be able to actually guard someone or play on a team that doesnt stress defense like Golden State or the Knicks. and i dont even think he could do that on those teams. is an nba team even going to be willing to make him a first or second option? thats what it would take for him to put up 17-20 ppg. if he is a first or second option, that means he will face the opponents best defenders. in other words there are only a few ideal situations in which he would even have a shot to do that. personally, i think he will be Steve Kerr deluxe. if that makes me ignorant, then so be it.
No way Curry averages 17-20 ppg his rookie year, but in a few years he could. I think its going to take him a few years in the NBA before he becomes an effective scorer. He needs to gain a little more weight and get accustomed to NBA athletcism (especially when tring to get his shot off). I think at best Curry can a 6th man in the mold of Jason Terry, a combo guard that can put points on the board in a hurry. Curry vs Robinson would be a intresting match up....
curry is not an upgrade over nate. robinson has proven he can be very successful in the NBA. even dominant at times. curry will be lucky to have that type of success.
deshawn stevenson anyone?
Stephen Curry is alot like Barros, except he is a better passer.
I did not say upgrade as a player but an Upgrade as a point guard. This is why people need to fall in love with players some much. I like Nate Robinson. I believe he is a very good player but he is not a point guard. He is also a streaky perimeter player. I believe that Curry shooting and playmaking ability in the mold of say a Steve Nash type of player would be better for the Knicks. Read and actually understand what is being said. Even Nate Robinson knows he is not really a playmaker. Duhon and Nate are not that great on defense so I don't see what the problem is. Anytime you have other NBA stars that are excited about you, that has to tell you something. Lebron is raving about this dude but yall who are not as talent or basketball savy says he is garbage. OJ Mayo scored almost 20 a game and he is plays in a slower system and also did not shoot a good percentage for the whole season. He did start off good though.
I never said nate was a PG. Duhon's their only real PG, and he was actually having a good season until the minutes caught up with him (he was playing nearly 40 / game with a back injury as opposed to his usual 25 prior to coming to the knicks). They didn't really have a back up PG, so they probably will be looking to sign / draft one this year. However, I'm not sure how anyone thinks curry will be a PG in the NBA. Yes, he did play PG for davidson, but his ball handling + decision making aren't good enough to run a team in the NBA. He's basically just an undersized pure shooter at the next level.
wenich, how much have you really seen nate play this year? He actually improved his game quite a bit under d'antoni, learning not to settle for the jumper, but instead take it to the hole. As far as hurting his team, that's seriously a bunch of BS. He actually single-handedly won some games for the knicks this year. I would agree that curry would be a nice fit in NY, but he isn't worthy of a lottery pick when their needs are a pure PG and or a shot blocking big man. Even if they did draft him, a projection of 17-20 ppg is too high.
[I won't get into it that much since I know the knicks were pretty poor defensively this year. However, the idea that d'antoni's teams never played defense is basically a myth. When he was with the suns, they were actually right in the middle in defensive ratings for most of his time there.]
i feel you Sheltwon, but Lebron raves about everybody. he's that type of guy! lol. & if he did somehow end up with cleveland, he would excel. & i'm not saying he's garbage, but he's not getting 17-20 ppg anytime soon.
My post agreeing with the possible numbers that he could put up are strictly based on if he plays for the Knicks, no one else. For the person who responded about his defense, I am also skeptical about how he will guard at the next level so playing for D'antoni defense is taken out of the equation, and I stick by my assumption that he would thrive in that offense. Nate Robinson is an athletic freak but he is in no way a pg and numbers really don't impress me, actually watch how a guy plays. Steph Curry's basketball IQ is already a 10 while Nate is about a 2. Nate has a lot of heart and athleticism but I personally think that his game makes him teammates worse while Steph's would make them better.
I live in NY so I watched Nate play parts of numerous games, gotta admit I couldn't sit through watching even 1 whole Knick game this season. You are not wrong about his ability to score, I just personally do not think he is a good basketball player. Just because he can score does not mean he has a clue how to play.
Again you are using stats to say that the Suns played defense under D'antoni. I don't know anything about there ratings, I know what I saw when I watched them play and what I saw when I watched the Knicks play, for the most part his teams do not have a common desire to shut other teams down. Other than Raja Bell I can not think of 1 player who took pride in their defense on any of his teams. I think team defensive principles are much more important than just shutting YOUR man down, but it has to start with getting individuals to buy in. Sorry to go off the subject but that is why I don't think the Knicks will ever do anything more than the Suns did no matter who they get in 2010 as long as D'antoni is there. Should have hired Mark Jackson.
We'll have to agree to disagree about robinson. I think he brings more to the table than just scoring, and does "have a clue how to play", but whatever.
As far as the suns defense, I was merely saying that they were an average defensive team under d'antoni, and not a "team that played no defense" as many like to say. Stats don't always tell the whole story. However, in this case, how can you argue that they weren't an average defensive team when basically half the teams in the league each year gave up more points than they did?
You say the knicks under d'antoni won't go any farther than the suns went. As a knicks fan, I wouldn't be too upset with trips to the conference finals after the turmoil we've had over the last 7 years. No one in their right mind would've wanted mark jackson over d'antoni, by the way. Not sure why you'd want a coach with no experience taking over a team that's trying to rebuild and change their image.
I'm the one who first stated Curry would soon average 17 to 20 ppg and I'm sticking with it. He has all the fundamentals, a high I.Q. he's been around the league since childhood and understands it. And if he can shoot like he father and get a shot off in .3 of a second it over. Hmmmm. Speaking of, he could be an 6 foot 3 version of Mahumaed Adul Rauf --- Chris Jackson for those unware.
Ha ha, I did it again.
D Hamp I agree with you and people don't understand that Knicks are not the only up tempo team and also Curry is does have playmaking skills. People overlook it because of his shooting. He may need to work on his dribbling skills but that is something all college players to some degree has to improve. He will be fine. Some people are caught up in the hype. They have the same thought process to all those college teams that did not pick Stephen Curry up and are wishing they did. Also Mike D may not have focus on Defense but they did play defense. They have Shawn Marion, Boris Diaw, Raja Bell and all are top notch defenders. They also use technique to funnel players into their big men just like Detroit use to do when Billups first came on the scene. People forget that Billups was not a great defender when he came to Detroit. Neither was Richard Hamilton. Curry will be fine and I do believe he will put up Jamal Crawford top numbers before he left the Knicks in his first year. When it happens D Hamp, we both can post a "I told you so posts". I can't wait because I want to see what people arguments are then. I will say this most of my accessments of players have been dead on. I have not watch the college game as much though so I can speak on at many players.
lol, good stuff fellas. i'll still be here to read your "i told you so" posts. i'm prepared to eat my words! are you?
Yeah I have never been shy about admitting I was wrong. I tend to agree with you on a lot of stuff Alpha Male and I am also a bit shocked at your decision this time around. Some things you have to agree to disagree again on. I am only getting a little pasionate about this because people are not saying why they feel, he will not be good. I have seen him play as well as people taken last year and past drafts and I can't see how it will not be able to do what I am saying here. I do know that if he goes to a team and not get minutes like Jerry Bayless then he will not put up numbers which is understandable because I feel like Bayless could have put up Westbrook type number if he got minutes and possessions. I just wish I could see where yall are coming from on this because I really can't. I am have not even kept track on him like that to like him enough to argue and build him up but for no reasons. My biggest thing is if you say someone is going to be terrible based on what is in the NBA or is coming in. I saw a few games and saw his scoring and the fact that he seems to know the game. I actually had to Youtube it to find out about his passing game because, I watch him last year mostly and from what I can see, his playmaking skills are solid. He is no Jason Kidd but I think with his learning curve, that he can average 7 or 8 assist in a up tempo game and maybe 5 or so in a slower game.
yeah, i almost always agree with what you have to say, and there's a good chance you will be right in this instance as well. my feeling is this. i think he is a boy joining a mans league. i think he is under 6'2 and i dont think he has a natural position. i think he can make solid contributions to whatever team he joins. but, i dont think he can be a starter at the 1 or 2. i think he would be better served as instant offense off the bench, like House maybe, so you can hide him on defense. i wouldnt want him as my pg because that negates his shooting prowess somewhat. i would want him off the ball running off screens and stuff like Rip so he can get his shot off. but he cant play sg because he is short and weak for that position. sure, his playmaking is adequate, but does it warrant being an NBA pg? for all those reasons, i dont think you can start him. if you did, and you really wanted to take advantage of his strengths as a scorer, you would have to pair him with a big pg like J. Kidd who can guard sg's. i think thats the only way he can ever put up big scoring numbers. so to sum it up, everything would have to fall exactly into place. but i'm no John Wooden, so forget what i just said. lol
Antonio Daniels me and you don't have to agree to disagree with Robinson. You need to read my posts, I like Nate Robinson. Dude Nate Robinson is about my height and I love that he made it and he is not that great of a playmaker at that height and can still make it. He is amazing dude. All I said was I felt from a playmaking and perimeter shooting point of view that Curry would be an upgrade at the point. Nate Robinson is really a undersized athletic two whose height has him playing the point. I am not saying he is dumb but I feel like Curry has a better basketball IQ when it comes to running a team. What I said is not a knock against Robinson. Everyone knows he is not a playmaker. My bad Antonio Daniels you were not talking to me, I was kind of wondering how that came about because it seems like you thought I said something bad about Nate Robinson. I also was the one that said that Phoenix Suns was a decent defensive team with a few key defensive stoppers to make key stops but their focus was on offense. The Knicks did not really have any defensive players but they still did good by relying on a high powered offense and I am pretty sure that Mike D is going to pick up some players how can do a little defending at the post position because in the right system anyone can look like they know how to play D.
I see where you coming from alphamale. I read up that he could still be growing and also everyone that comes in the league works on their strength. Durrant is like a totally different player strength wise than his was his rookie year. He is not terrible Defensively and also now with the rule changes it is hard guard even quick point one on one. I think he is smart of enough to at least funnel players in the defense. I see him as Chauncey Billups type. Billups is not the quick athletic type but he is smart using his strong upper body and can shoot in the clutch. I saw him and he moves well. People are comparing him to super quick points and thinking he is slow. I believe his biggest thing will be working on his dribbles and figuring out when to shoot and to pass. I will say this for someone who can score a lot he does not have a strong shoot first mentality like a lot of combo guards. Jason Terry is small and also more of a shooter than a playmaker and he played the point position decent in Atlanta for a couple or years and I can see some similarities to Terry but he is not as quick as Terry though but i believe he can still get his shot off because he has a quick stroke and his shooting ability is on a Ray Allen/Michael Redd level. The Knicks offense would make it easy for him to average great numbers and also they are kinda rebuilding so he will get minutes.
Stephen curry doesn't have the strength of chauncey billups. i think curry can be a successful combo guard in the league. i think a combo guard like curry is an asset. he cant be asked to run the point or be the starting 2 guard. if he comes off the bench like a nate robinson, lou williams, jason terry, and ben gordan he can put up very good numbers. they put anywhere from 14-20 ppg with a few assists a steal, and a rebound or two. that is good value off your bench. and why does he have to be a jason terry or chauncey billups or anyone else. can he be a stephen curry? can he do his own thing in the nba? maybe.one thing i do know is that he can shoot and he has a quick release, that can translate to a good nba career.
Sheltwon, I like the way you think. And Alphamale, I'm prepared to eat my words. But the only way Curry doesn't put up those numbers is if he doesn't get the mins, i.e. joining a team loaded with guards, such as Portland.
Sheltwon, yeah I was referring to wenich's posts, not yours. It'd be nice if we could actually quote other posts on this forum, unless i'm missing something? (I see there are different HTML tags to put text in bold, italics, etc, but no "quote" button)
I never said he had the strength of Billups but neither did Billups when he came into the league out of Colorado. I am saying he can possibly be on that level but he is already ahead of Billups in some things. Most rookies gain strength after their first season once they know exactly what they need to work on. Like I said earlier sorry for the Confusion, Antonio. I appreciate the support D Hamp. I love these discussions. I am more hype for the draft now and I am hype anyway. I don't have cable but may need to get it for a month so I can see the draft.
Trinajoe, I only use those players to support my argument that Curry can be a good player using other players as a kind of status. Stephen Curry will be his own player and also Ben Gordon is starting now and also Jason Terry used to start. I know he will probably play behind Duhon if drafted by the Knicks early on by he is a coaches son and it should not take him a while to learn the offense so he may start later on like Gordon did except hopefully there will be no injuries involved. Lou William needs to up his playmaking and basketbal IQ before he starts but he is a nice player. All the those guys you mentioned are double digit scorers and also most of them in the 17 -20 range that me and D Hamp agree Curry will score if he gets the minutes.
that is so true. Stevenson is a total opposite of Curry it isn't funny. cheerios red flag on that post.
Deshawn Stevenson, the shooting guard who declared out of a California high school? Drew Gooden's best friend? Wow! The comparisons are chasms apart. The comparisons are not even close.
No prob Sheltwon, I'm always looking to support people who KNOW basketball. Unlike people on this site such as HoopFreakz or KATASTROPHE.
Lol yeah sure you think Devo is gonna be an NBA player and rotation player for a playoff team.......
"KATASTROPHE, I read a lot of your comments; they're OK."
Ha ha ha. So now you're pulling my comments from other posts. That's funny!!! You still don't know basketball though.
It all depends on what team he gets drafted to. He has a chance to average 20ppg if he gets drafted to an uptempo team like the Knicks, Golden State, or even Philadelphia who needs a good shooter. He he were to go to a team like the Jazz or the Rockets, who play half court sets, he will be exactly like his NBA draft.net comparison is, Juan Dixon. A small shooting guard who has decent point guard skills, but will be mainly used for scoring in bunches. Juan Dixon suits him to a tee because he lacks the strength and sheer athleticism of a Nate Robinson. Since he doesn't have that he relies on a more cerebral game. Curry will be a 6 man of the year candidate. He will put up good numbers, but I don't see him becoming an elite scorer in the league or a consistent starter.
If he were to go to a team like the Jazz or the Rockets, who play half court sets, he will be exactly like his NBA draft.net comparison is, Juan Dixon
His nbadraft.net comparison is actually Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf / Steve Kerr:
I like the abdul-rauf comparison. I think he'll have a longer career with a somewhat lower scoring output, but also be more consistent.
Oh yeah, I forgot they changed that. He was Juan Dixon before they upgraded the profile. But the Chris Jackson comparison is nice too. He's not as explosive as a scorer, but still nice.
i really like the Juan Dixon comparison. nice.
I'm with those who think the Chris Jackson/Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf comparison fits the best. Super quick release, perfect mechanics, crazy range, and good (not great) ball handling skills allow him to get his own shot. Terry is a better athlete but doesn't have quite the same range, and is more of a spot up shooter. Curry's a better shooter than Dixon and has better all-around skills than Kerr, IMO.