Clyde Drexler vs. Kobe Bryant Options

[Chi-town23-33]

Clyde "The Glide" Drexler is one of the greatest showmen in NBA history, performing unbelievable dunks that rival that of Michael Jordan and Dominique Wilkins. However, he has also been one of the most underatted players IMO in NBA history. On the otherside, Kobe Bryant has been one of the most popular and glorified players of the past 10 years (not by the media, but by the fans), and deservingly so. And when the discussion of the greatest shooting guards of the game comes up we get the names of Michael Jordan and Jerry West and now Kobe Bryant, but Drexler is not mentioned. If I was ranking the players I would place Drexler right behind Jordan and West and in front of Kobe and his 81 points.

Stat Comparison

Drexler: 20.4 ppg, 6.1 rbg, 5.6 apg, 2.0 spg, 0.7 bpg, 47.2% FG, 31.8% 3PFG, 78.8% FT
Bryant: 23.9 ppg, 5.1 rbg, 4.5 apg, 1.5 spg, 0.6 bpg, 45.1% FG, 33.6% 3PFG, 83.4% FT

The stats are really a wash. Kobe obviously having the higher scoring average, free throw percentage and the superior three point shot. Howver, Clyde has better numbers in rebounds, assists, steals, blocks and a more efficient field goal percentage.

Awards/Accomplishments

Drexler: 1 NBA Title, 10-Time All-Star, 5-Time All-NBA, 1992 Gold Medal
Bryant: 3 NBA Titles, 8-Time All-Star, 8-Time All-NBA, 6-Time All-NBA Defense

Now it would appear that Kobe wins this battle here, but still I must give the edge to Drexler. Why? Drexler played in arguably basketballs golden age as far as talent and competition goes, the 80s and 90s. We all know the players who played within this time: MJ, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Isiah Thomas, Hakeem Olajuwon, Patrick Ewing, David Robinson, Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, John Stockton, Reggie Miller, Chris Mullin and others legends such as Moses Malone and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, and at the time up and coming players like Gary Payton, Shaquille O'Neal, Jason Kidd and Alonzo Mourning. There are other notables I have not mentioned and plenty of great role players. Drexler led two Blazer teams to the NBA Finals during this time as the leader, and even though he failed to win in Portland he did solidify his place amongst the elite of the NBA. He would eventually win one with Houston and former teammate Hakeem Olajuwon. So a part of the reason for the lack of accolades is due to his competition. Go look up the All-NBA teams and All-Defensive teams from these years and see the level of skill, then compare them to the ones during Kobe's time. Kobe Bryant's competition is inferior. When Kobe won his three titles there were basically five-elite players (other than himself): Shaq, Duncan, Allen Iverson, Jason Kidd, Kevin Garnett. Clyde's defense may actually be better than Kobe's. After all, Drexler has better defensive stats. Also, Drexler's scoring average has dipped after decline and playing amongst stacked teams in Houston. Only time will tell if Kobe's fate is the same. Kobe may be trying to chase Jordan, but as of now, he still hasn't passed The Glide.

[Balta1701-B]

Offensively, I think you have to take Kobe without question.

On the defensive side though, I'm less certain. There are very few guards these days who are all-stars who I think of as really playing a solid, shut-down type defense, like say, Jordan used to do. Drexler always struck me as pretty solid defensively.

[ZoomSlowik]

Kobe has shown that he's a very well rounded offensive force, a fantastic athlete, and not a total scrub defensively.

Clyde the Glide is a bit better than I remembered though. That's a very solid FG% for a guard, and he's got a lot more assists and steals than I would have thought.

Clyde is probably more balance, but Kobe is a beast offensively. I guess who you would take depends on what you want for your team. If your team is bad and you need someone to carry you to competitiveness, Kobe is your man. If you want more of a team player that meshes with other talented players but not be able to carry the team, you take Drexler. He kind of strikes me as the Scottie Pippen of shooting guards.

Depending on what position you consider these guys, I'd put Jordan, West (could be considered a PG), Rick Barry (possibly a SF based on size), Jon Havlicek, and maybe Kobe ahead of him.

As a side-note, Drexler is a one-time champion with the 1995 Rockets.

[Chi-town23-33]

Offensively, Kobe is more explosive, I'm not questioning that. However, the overall gap between them is not as great as many make it out to be. Drexler's game was penetration with a good outside shot. Bryant's game is a great outside shot mixed in with some penetration. I was just stating that Drexler was more efficient and got his 20-30 points a game on an average of five less shots than Kobe has over his career. If Clyde takes five more shots, he most likely makes two or three, and that places their averages even closer. Also, Drexler is going to naturally face tougher defenses as well. Defensively, Drexler was very solid which is something that's often overlooked. I believe Kobe's All-Defensive selections come from the fact that now there are very few other great defenders like Kobe and so he sticks out more than Drexler did during his career.

[SleepyWhiteSox]

I luved Clyde, but kobe is the better individual player.

[madisonsmadhouse]

As an individual player, its Kobe, and it isn't even close. I saw both of these guys in their primes, and you have to remember one thing, much of Drexlers career was played during the golden age of offense in basketball, while Kobe has played during the golden age of defense. Granted the rule changes are swinging the pendulum back to O, but we are still no where close to what it used to be

[eddog2]

As much as I hate Kobe (and that is a lot) he is still a better player then Clyde the Glide. If Kobe had Michael's nack for making everyone better and being a team player he'd likely go down as one of the top 5 players to ever lace up the sneakers. However, he doesn't have those intangibles (yet).

Kobe is better offensively without question. So much so that even if Clyde was a better defender it wouldn't be by enough to pass Kobe's gift for hitting the big shots and for being a lethal scorer.


I also think that Tracy McGrady is a better player then Clyde. Wade and Lebron also are better. T-Mac has had several injuries but if you look at what both players are/were able to do while healthy, I don't think there is even a question, T-Mac could do more on the floor. Clyde was a great player but I think the athletes we have in the league today are slightly better.

Now if you want to compare Nique that is a different story. I think Nique would still have the edge on most of these guys, at least until they finish their season. Nique never won titles or got the prestigious awards but he was a better player then Clyde.

1985-86 NBA Scoring Champion (30.3)
NBA All-Star Slam Dunk Champion: 1985, 1990.
All-NBA First Team: 1986.
All-NBA Second Team: 1987, 1988, 1991, 1993.
Nine-time NBA All-Star: 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994.



Drexler: 20.4 ppg, 6.1 rbg, 5.6 apg, 2.0 spg, 0.7 bpg, 47.2% FG, 31.8% 3PFG, 78.8% FT (15 seasons)
Bryant: 23.9 ppg, 5.1 rbg, 4.5 apg, 1.5 spg, 0.6 bpg, 45.1% FG, 33.6% 3PFG, 83.4% FT
Wilkins: 24.8 ppg, 6.7 rbg, 2.7 apg, 1.3 spg, .6 bpg, 46.1% FG, 31.9% 3PFG, 81.1% FT (15 seasons)

Wilkins never had the supporting cast.


Slam Magazine agrees with me. Their list of the top 75 ever has Nique at 27 and Clyde at 44. T-Mac is barely hanging on at 75 but I don't even think he would be on there if they redid the list. (it is from 2003)

http://www.answers.com/topic/slam-magazine...-75-nba-players

What players should be higher/lower. I like that they ranked Bill Walton 73. I have seen him ranked higher elsewhere. I don't even think he should be on the list. I like that Rodman is on the list. Whether or not he should be higher is up for debate. Of course I would think that Hakeem should be higher then 12 and Wilt should definately be lower than 2. But I guess they have to keep it that way since he was such an influential part of helping the game grow into what it is today. Garnett at 70 seems a little low especially when Duncan is 55.

[ZoomSlowik]

Slam Magazine agrees with me. Their list of the top 75 ever has Nique at 27 and Clyde at 44. T-Mac is barely hanging on at 75 but I don't even think he would be on there if they redid the list. (it is from 2003)

http://www.answers.com/topic/slam-magazine...-75-nba-players

What players should be higher/lower. I like that they ranked Bill Walton 73. I have seen him ranked higher elsewhere. I don't even think he should be on the list. I like that Rodman is on the list. Whether or not he should be higher is up for debate. Of course I would think that Hakeem should be higher then 12 and Wilt should definately be lower than 2. But I guess they have to keep it that way since he was such an influential part of helping the game grow into what it is today. Garnett at 70 seems a little low especially when Duncan is 55.

I think Bill Russell is too high at #4. No way he should be ahead of guys like Kareem, Magic, Bird, and Dr. J. I would bump him down to about #10, with Dr. J and Elgin Baylor moving up a bit. I think Shaq is a little high too, I'd put him at more like 15 or so. I think Stockton is too high as well. He was good, but no way he is top 20. He wasn't the greatest scorer at the position, and he got a ton of easy assists because of Malone. Impressive field goal percentage though and he was obviously a great floor general, so he can't drop too far. Still, no way they don't have a ring if Malone and Stockton are really both top 20, even with the Michael-Scottie combo. I'm not quite sure why Dolph Shayes is that high either. I think I'd also bump Walton off the list. He was a much better college player, though obviously injuries slowed him down. Still, 2 All-Star appearances and only two appearances on the All-NBA teams is somewhat dubious, even with that MVP to his credit.

Guys I'd move up: Rick Barry (up to about the 15 range), Elvin Hayes (roughly where Malone is, they're kind of similar), Scottie Pippen (somewhere in the 25-30 range). I also agree that Garnett is too low. If Duncan is 55, I'd say Garnett needs to be in at least that range. Also if Stockton is that damn high Jason Kidd needs to be A LOT higher, Stockton isn't really that much better. I'd put John around 30, Kidd around 40.

One that is really tough to place is Pistol Pete. On pure talent, he's borderline top-10, but he never quite lived up to that billing for a variety of reasons. I still think I'd move him up a little to like 35 or so.

[Chi-town23-33]

Thanks for posting that Slam Magazine Article, I had been looking for that.

The first six players on that list are all in my top-6, but not necessarily in that order. And Russell is not too high. Anyone who wins that many titles is not overrated. Maybe he was not as dominant as Wilt on the offensive end, but he did dominate defensively. Shaq is a little to high, Hakeem, Baylor and Dr. J are all ahead of him IMO. There are some players I would move up (Duncan, Kobe) and some down but that list is decent. Anyway, its all a matter of opinion.

I also think that Tracy McGrady is a better player then Clyde. Wade and Lebron also are better.

All right, I can understand why you talk about Kobe and 'Nique, but what have Wade, LeBron and T-Mac done so far to warrant that kind of praise? Maybe in time they will be better, but as for now, I don't think one can say that.

[ZoomSlowik]

Thanks for posting that Slam Magazine Article, I had been looking for that.

The first six players on that list are all in my top-6, but not necessarily in that order. And Russell is not too high. Anyone who wins that many titles is not overrated. Maybe he was not as dominate as Wilt on the offensive end, but he did dominate defensively. Shaq is a little to high, Hakeem, Baylor and Dr. J are all ahead of him IMO. There are some players I would move up (Duncan, Kobe) and some down but that list is decent. Anyway, its all a matter of opinion.
All right, I can understand why you talk about Kobe and 'Nique, but what have Wade, LeBron and T-Mac done so far to warrant that kind of praise? Maybe in time they will be better, but as for now, I don't think one can say that.

I absolutely hate using titles as a deciding factor. That's something that isn't entirely under the individual player's control. The fact is, Russell played with a lot of fantastic players. Havlicek and Cousy are both featured prominently on that list, and the Jones boys, Tommy Heinson, and Bill Sharman were also all very good players. That was probably the greatest collection of talent on one roster for that era of the Celtics. Russell was a major part, but you can't give him full credit for those like some other guys.

I just can't put him ahead of guys that did more to carry their team like the guys I mentioned (yes, several of them also played with some good players, but for the most part not as good and not as many good players). I still have him top 10 though, since he is arguably the best defensive player ever. His offense wasn't as strong as just about anyone else in the top 20 though.

[Chi-town23-33]

I absolutely hate using titles as a deciding factor. That's something that isn't entirely under the individual player's control. The fact is, Russell played with a lot of fantastic players. Havlicek and Cousy are both featured prominently on that list, and the Jones boys, Tommy Heinson, and Bill Sharman were also all very good players. That was probably the greatest collection of talent on one roster for that era of the Celtics. Russell was a major part, but you can't give him full credit for those like some other guys.

I just can't put him ahead of guys that did more to carry their team like the guys I mentioned (yes, several of them also played with some good players, but for the most part not as good and not as many good players). I still have him top 10 though, since he is arguably the best defensive player ever. His offense wasn't as strong as just about anyone else in the top 20 though.

I can agree with that, because I don't look at just titles either. That would mean a Malone, Stockton or Barkley were not great, when they are some of the greatest talents the game has seen. However, even though Russell had a substantial level of talent around him, he was really the only constant that remained throughout all eleven titles. He also was so dominant defensively that his offensive defects were masked fairly well, and also, he did not have to be the scorer. He was successful due to grit and that's the top of player I like. He was not the most talented, or the best scorer, but he certainly is probably the smartest player in history. That's why I have him so high on my list.

As a side-note, Drexler is a one-time champion with the 1995 Rockets.

Thank's for the correction. When I was typing it I was just thinking Rockets = 2 Titles, when really he did not arrive until the second title. I can't believe I forgot that even for a second, especially when people were wondering if the trade for Drexler was really even worth it when it happened.

Side-Note
Also I think that one reason Drexler is overlooked is that he did not play for a big market team, like how Hakeem is overlooked. If you go back and look at his best seasons before the injuries started to set in, you see just how good he was and how complete of a player he was. Probably one of the best all-around players that doesn't get his due.

[Jordan4life_2007]

Before last year, I would've easily gone with Clyde. However, what Kobe did last year was spectacular (although I think he, along with many others, benefitted greatly from the new lax rules on the perimiter). Even before last year, I would've taken Kobe offensively. He's just a little more polished on the offensive side overall than Clyde was. I think Clyce was a better rebounder/passer/defender. Clyde was a better teammate as well. I can't think of a single instance in where a player or coach or even an opponent had anything negative to say about Clyde. We all know Kobe isn't exactly Mr. Popular. If I had to choose which guy I'd want on my team, I'd go with Clyde. Kobe's the better player, though. I hope that makes sense.

All right, I can understand why you talk about Kobe and 'Nique, but what have Wade, LeBron and T-Mac done so far to warrant that kind of praise? Maybe in time they will be better, but as for now, I don't think one can say that.

I'll give you Lebron and T-Mac. But you're asking what Wade has done to deserve that kinda praise? LOL. I guess you missed last year's postseason. I'm not saying he's better than Clyde. But he's certainly in the discussion after what he did last year.

[Chi-town23-33]

But you're asking what Wade has done to deserve that kinda praise? LOL. I guess you missed last year's postseason. I'm not saying he's better than Clyde. But he's certainly in the discussion after what he did last year.

Sorry, should have phrased that better in regard to Wade. I know that he has done great and I root for him every minute he is not playing the Bulls (Chicago boy) but I meant to say that Wade must keep it up and that one great season or final does not make the entire career. And the other to I meant exactly what I said. Sorry for the confusion. And yes I watched every game of the playoffs last year for every team.

[eddog2]

I agree that it is too early to say whether Wade or anyone else in the beginning of their career is better then Clyde. However, if you simply rate what each player is able to do and how gifted they are/were then I would say that Wade would be slightly higher then Clyde right now. I also would have to say the same about Lebron and T-Mac. Titles and longevity aside I think they are at a little higher level then Clyde. However, Clyde was a superior talent as well.

In terms of where they will be ranked when their career is over that is another issue. It takes a lot of things for someone to be ranked in the greatest 50 ever. Many times it includes personal or team accolades like "MVP's, Titles, All-Star Appearances, NBA 1st Team Selections, ect."

I don't think that it is fair to always use those individual accolades as a criteria for determining if one player is better then another. There have been many great athletes who simply have never been surrounded by the right group of players that would allowed them to have won a title. (Kevin Garnett) Or even players on good teams that played in an era where another team was dominate (Karl Malone). It is not fair to say that you can't rank those players as high b/c they never won a title.

Karl Malone and KG are 2 of the top 10 forwards in the history of the game regardless of how many titles they did/didn't win.

I think that players should be compared based on how dominate they were and how well they performed against the best talents of their position while they played the game. I think foreign players like Hakeem never did or ever will get the credit they deserve b/c they had a language barrier which made it difficult for them to communicate thus making them less popular. (and that is a shame)

Players like Ron Artest and Rodman won't get as much credit as they deserve b/c of their image. But I can list players I would definately take them over that were fan favorites.

[Chi-town23-33]

I agree that it is too early to say whether Wade or anyone else in the beginning of their career is better then Clyde. However, if you simply rate what each player is able to do and how gifted they are/were then I would say that Wade would be slightly higher then Clyde right now. I also would have to say the same about Lebron and T-Mac. Titles and longevity aside I think they are at a little higher level then Clyde. However, Clyde was a superior talent as well.

Alright, I understand what you were saying a little better now, but even then your argument is still subject to intense debate. It's not that easy judging just by talent because they all possess different areas of expertise. If you pick out one thing someone does (this is anything, not just basketball) you will find another facet where someone else is better.

And like you said later there is more than just natural talent that contributes to a great player. Just look at Larry Legend.