Wade was CLEARLY the number 1 when he won his first ring. Anyways, Give Wade that same supporting cast Drexler had in 91-92 and he would take them to the Finals as well. That Rip City Blazer team was absolutely stacked. They had like 6 players average double digit points aside from Glyde.
.... .... I agree for the most part. People often focus on the Pistons brutish physicality, yet disregard their defensive strategy and versatility. I honestly believe that the 03-06 Pistons were superior in overall defense in comparison to the Bad Boy Pistons. Laimbeer and Edwards made a great center/power forward combo adding Rodman, Mahorn, and Salley to mix later, but collectively I would not have chose them over the Wallaces ... especially on defense. Ben Wallace stands as one of the greatest defensive players, shot blockers, and rebounders in history, along with the more versatile Rasheed Wallace. Throw in long-limbed, athletic, and smart Tayshuan Prince; pretty decent Richard Hamilton; very skilled Chauncey Billups and an interchangeable, yet well-rounded bench would've been able to win a title or two in the late 80s. That Pistons squad seemed to have a knack in slowing down high-powered scoring teams or superstars. What does this have to do with the argument ... not much, but more than you think? What Wade did against the Pistons had to be all-time playoff performances ... because those Pistons defenses have to be somewhere amongst top 5-9 defenses in history. Beyond that playoff series, I do feel Drexler stood a bit more well-rounded throughout his career, while Wade held a little more relentlessness and unstoppable mentality to his game, also being better defensively. If I had to choose, I'd go with D-Wade. Sorry Houston fans.
Pretty much agree with this. One of the biggest reasons I like Clyde and Hakeem so much is they were great at some fundamental skills of their positions that sometimes seem forgotten in today's game. -Hakeem was a true dominant offensive post player: today there really are none of those. All the talented big guys want to take the long J and drive to the basket. -Clyde, on the other hand, was special because he was a superstar perimeter player who didn't dominate the ball... he played off the ball exceptionally well. And that was without an entire team being specifically instructed to set up a gamut of screens for him to run through (Reggie Miller, Rip Hamilton). Practically every superstar perimeter player today likes to dominate the ball and isolate. Thus I think the comparison between Clyde and Wade is pretty far off. Their play styles are so different that it's difficult to say who's better. Wade in his prime was a ball-dominating superstar who could win games basically by himself, and his first championship was an incredible achievement. Clyde never really even tried to dominate in that manner; he stayed within a team concept no matter what situation he was in. I do think Clyde was more versatile. But better? Eh. Too tough of a comparison. It's truly apples and oranges.
Wade was easily better at his peak, and has probably already had a better career I don't understand the irrational homerism
I wish Harden can play more like the Glide We would be championship contenders if his game could evolve
Prime Wade vs. Prime Glide, I have to go with Wade. Old Wade vs. Old Clyde, I will take Clyde. Wade suffers from the newer era stars who are unable to positively impact the game in other ways once their offensive prowess leaves them as they age. I believe that it is because the younger folks never learned how to play the game in any manner that didn't showcase them as the primary ball handler. Old school guys flat out learned what they needed to do to win. When Clyde had a 5/15 shooting game he still gave you seven assists and nine rebounds. When Wade has a 5/15 game he gives you 1 assist, three rebounds and three TOs.
Prime Wade is definitely better. But let's see how Wade ages. His regular seasons the past few years still have been All-NBA level; his playoffs haven't. Lets see how his body holds up.
