Steph was very injury prone when he was 22 because the game was only medium soft at that time...now it's super soft and Young didn't have to go thru the physical hardships a guy with his physique would have gone thru when Steph was 22 in the league...i would want the guy who was going to be on the court more often than not
Stu...If trae was averaging what he is averaging based off of similar FG% and 3 Point FG% as Curry during his 1st 3 years..then I would agree that he is better at this point of their careers...Just like at Oklahoma..He was not efficient and was a ball hog..Put up numbers but took a lot of shots to get there. Like I said..Numbers do not lie. Also the fact that his 3 point% is average in the NBA thru 3 season is concerning...
You don't know what you're talking about and clearly haven't watched a fraction of the Warriors basketball I have. I guarantee i've seen more Steph Curry games live than you have period. I guarantee you don't understand basketball as well as me. I guarantee you've never played organized basketball at any level. Like I said, it's like arguing the meaning of a book with someone who's only read half the book. And the book is in a language they are not fluent in.
Some guys are just volume shooters. Steph is the greatest pure shooter of all time. Of course he shot a higher percentage than Trae but he was just a spot up jump shooter.
Now I know you’re full of shit. Steph Curry has never been just a spot up shooter. That’s what made him such a human highlight film at Davidson his ability to make ridiculous shots and that he wasn’t a spot up shooter.
As i've said several times, Steph's college game didn't immediately transfer to the pros. He wasn't able to do the things he was doing in college at 22 in the pros. All the things you guys have said about Trae are true. Inefficient shooter, ball hog but his game, and this was a complete shocker to me, his game has transferred to the NBA. He gets to the rim better, he creates more for his teammates. He has a smaller frame than Steph but he's stronger and more explosive than Steph at 22. Again, shocking to me, but it's true. It's clear that you guys are remembering Steph at 25 or 26 and using that memory for what he was at 22. He was an amazing player in college. He's a phenomenal player now but at 22, he was still fleshing out his game. It wasn't simply because of Ellis. His handle is much improved. His finishing inside is much improved. It's clear you guys are having visions of Steph at a later stage of his career. Darts even mentioned his first playoff series. That's not the player Steph was at 22. I don't think 28 year old Trae will be as good as 28 year old Steph. I don't think freshman Trae was as good as freshman Steph but at 22, as an NBA player, he has a more well-rounded game. He has a lower ceiling. His ceiling is a shorter less explosive Russell Westbrook. I wouldn't pick Trae over Steph. I wouldn't pick him over Luka but at 22 he's better at finishing at the rim, better at creating for his teammates, gets called for less fouls. More explosive. I really didn't like him at Oklahoma. I thought he was too small and his ball hogging game wouldn't transfer over to the league but it has. He gets to the rim in ways Steph wasn't until he was winning rings and MVP awards. Yes, he did these things at Davidson but he wasn't immediately able to against pro competition. He really had to get stronger. Steph has a bigger frame but Trae is stronger and more explosive at 22.
Let this be the last word, Stu. These guys are just trolling. There is zero substance to their “what if” arguments and their use of shooting percentages to prove Steph was a better player at 22. Zero substance. 
@begginerboy
I don't think they are trolling at all. I think in their minds they are being objective but it's revisionist history. They're picturing this highlight reel version of a young, emerging 26 year old Steph, coupled with some googled stats, and putting that up against a 22 year old Trae. It's clear that they weren't watching the Warriors of 2010. And that's fine. Most people weren't. I've got no beef with either and respect both of their opinion but when it comes to this team, especially in the years before they were in the spotlight, i'm sorry but I just know better. I just have more of a sample size. Not a fairytale version. Not the sportscenter version. I watched all the games, start to finish. There were games i'd watch twice. Or watch live then on TV. This is my home team. Not home like "I'm from the Bay Area." Home like i'm from Oakland. So I was never missing games even when they sucked. And these bandwagon johnnie come lately fans are full of shit if they try to say they watched even a fraction of the Warriors basketball I watched in '09-'10. They weren't on National TV a lot and nobody was consistently using their NBA package to stay up til 11 or later on the West Coast, 2 or 3 in the morning back east, to watch the Warriors in 2010. I maybe didn't watch 1 or 2 games that season. Went to 20-30. You could get Warriors tickets in the cereal box in those days. These dudes probably watched 5 games that year, tops and they have the audacity to debate. That's why all they keep saying is shooting percentage. Any bot can say that. These dudes weren't watching the actual games and it's clear. Even people from other parts of the Bay who act like they've been life long Warriors fans, it's bullshit. This team got good and all of a sudden everyone was an expert.
Shooting %'s are "zero substance"? Ha ha ha. No wonder you guys think Trae is better.
He did not stop being better than Trae early in his NBA career.
Trae's 22 year old shooting line
22 shots per game 43/34/88
Stephs 22 year old shooting line
14 shots per game 48/44/93
Steph's numbers as a 22 year old were #1 FT shooter in the league, #3 3pt shooter in the league. One of the most efficient players in basketball just like he was in college. Nothing changed. He simply was in a different situation where he was held to 33 min a game and monta ellis was the primary ball handler. The only thing Trae has over Curry is he touches the ball a lot more than he did. Otherwise, Curry was a much better offensive player than Trae. And since Trae is trash on defense, he doesn't get any points for that. So what exactly is Trae better at. His game is supposed to be like Curry's yet he shoots 3s like Blake Griffin. Curry had better handles, he was a better shooter, better finisher, could create off the dribble, catch and shoot. There is nothing Trae is better at that is good enough to make him better than Curry. Your vision of who Curry was does not match his numbers. Someone who "struggles" in the NBA does not put up numbers that makes him pretty much the most efficient shooter in the league as a 22 year old. It's not even close, anyone would be a fool to not choose 22 year old Curry over Trae. That Hawks team with a 44% shooting PG would be incredible. Their biggest issue is Trae's inefficient shooting.
@ThrowDemDarts
Like I said, it's clear you weren't even watching Steph Curry when he was 22. You're remembering Steph Curry at 26-27. It's comical trying to argue with someone who wasn't even watching the games. Like I said, Anthony Morrow had a higher shooting and 3 point % than Steph. So by your logic, he was better. He just needed more shots. Steph took less shots because he couldn't get to his own shot and he couldn't finish at the rack. It wasn't because Ellis was holding him back.
Another non-reader, I see. Who said anything about best ever?! We are comparing careers/abilities of players around the same age.
You say too many dumb things to have watched the games or you didn't understand what you were watching. Monta Ellis was the primary ball handler or at least shared the role with steph, who played more min and took more shots than Steph. He was the Trae Young for that Warriors team. Steph was not the primary ball handler. He did not touch the ball nearly as much as Trae, he still doesn't. Many times he plays off the ball because his game is to score, not be a true pg. People who understand basketball understand why Steph Curry is light years ahead of Trae because his ability to score at an efficiency that has never been seen in the NBA for the style of play he plays. Picking Trae Young over the most skilled offensive player to ever play the game is comical, lol. "But I watched the games". You obviously didn't understand what you were watching. Inefficient Trae is nothing special. He had a good game one, great. So many games he kills the hawks with his inefficient Russell Westbrook like chucking. You obviously don't watch Trae like you did Steph. Trae better than Steph, I've heard it all now.
@thorpe
Nobody said best ever. I don't even like the dude. I actively disliked him in college but we're not talking about college, or their overall careers. We're talking about better at 22. The problem is #1, the average sports fan doesn't know dick about the sports their watching. The real X's and O's. So their opinions are subjective rather than objective. Then #2, after some years pass, they get these fairytale memories of highlight reels. It's revisionist history. "How big was the fish?" "Two feet!" "How big?" "It was three feet long if it was an inch! Fought him for an hour!" These dudes clearly weren't even watching Steph at 22. So they have these highlight reel memories of Steph at 26-27, and they impose their sportscenter memories over googled shooting percentages. It's clear they weren't watching Warriors games when Steph was 22 whereas I probably missed two games, tops. I love Steph. He singled handedly changed the entire culture of a team. I would give that man a kidney but he wasn't the player he is today at 22. Darts had the audacity to say he was better at finishing at the rack. That's insane. In those days Steph probably averaged 4 points in the paint and those were on floaters and short jumpers. Trae has a low ceiling imo. I don't think he'll end up as good as Steph. I think he is who he will be. Someone made the comparison to Russell Westbrook and I think that's what his ceiling is. A less talented, less explosive, shorter Russell Westbrook but we aren't comparing careers. We're saying at 22. These guys clearly weren't watching Steph at 22.
Established in 1995,
Hot Forum Topics
