Who's the better franchise player: Steve or Steph?

Hmmm... tough call...

Steve refused to play for the Grizz when he got drafted... then he was belligerent with Van Gundy....

But Marbury is a conceited ass...

hmm...

 

I wish there was an "Nether" option... I guess ill go for Steve because he was on the Rox.

 

I'm starting to hate the term "franchise player" if you go by the definition of most people there are only 10 or so true franchise players in the NBA, and in a league with 30 franchises that's a problem. Anyway, I picked Steve because I think he's the better player, and would help me win more, when motivated at least.

 

Brian Hill is just like Jeff Van Gundy, they both have Napolean complexes (I think that's the phrase), there's nothing wrong with that coaching style with a particular type of player, but with Steve you're just asking for problems. He would do good under a Rudy T., Mike Dunleavy, Maurice Cheeks, Nate McMillan, Byron Scott or Scott Skiles all those guys don't try to make basketball seem like brain surgery, they go on the strength of the players, not the strength of their particular system. Larry Brown wouldn't be good for Steve either, he's a grumpy old man now, Steve wouldn't take the verbal PUBLIC abuse he's dishing out now a days.

 

With all this talk about how certain coaches "go on the strength of the players and others trying to force fit a system" I was wondering how or in what way you think SKiles, scott, Nate etal does one or not the other? In other words, what makes you say these coaches do this and others dont?

 

Back on Topic, this is a tough one... I've always wonder who was better, even though Francis was one of my favorites while Marbury was umm well to put it mildly, not a player/personality i cared for.
Marbury is probably the better shooter/scorer/decision maker... while francis the better distributer, competitor and rebounder. Thier defense is a wash, so while i marbury may be a more refined offensive player I'd rather have francis since I think hes a much better competitor, hustler and provide more intangibles.

 

Seems to me like Marbury has always posted higher assist numbers. I'd go with him. Someone (not me) should post career numbers for comparison.

 

neither of them has the ability to be a franchise player.

sucks to be the knicks and magic...though the magic at least have Dwight Howard taking over in the next couple.

 

None of these guys are franchise players, they are good second fiddles but you can't build a successful franchise around them as the primary focus and the #1 go-to-guy. Both very talented, not exactly coachable, but good scoring guards in undersized bodies.

I have always thought these two guys were dead-even as players, but if I had to choose one player over the other it would be Marbury, I just think he's mentally tougher and a bit more consistent than Francis.

 

Neither is a franchise player. I've always thought Steph was a better player than Steve.

 

Their history, Skiles, Scott, and Nate have changed styles as their teams change, Van Gundy, Hill, Jackson, Brown etc. have been the exact same way through out their coaching careers. They always want total control, that doesn't work with every player out there, Steve is one of those types of players that need freedom, without it they're not having any fun and they look unmotivated.

 

thats exactly what i was thinking.

 

Nate, Skiles and JVG all are from the same school of coaching. I can't imagine Steve doing much better under Skiles or McMillan.

 

Marbury's garbage dude. Steve is definitely better to have on your team.

 

seems like francis has better all around numbers tho...
and if you base your desicion on going with a player on stats, then we would have traded Yao Ming for tons of others a long time ago.

 

Neither.