So recently a couple of my friends brought up the idea that PEAK DeMarcus Cousins was better than PEAK Dwight Howard. I pretty much watched all of DeMarcus Cousins prime in Sacramento and he was my favourite player in the NBA for a couple years, but I still cannot fathom how he compares to a player as dominant defensively and offensively like Howard.
As well, Howard led the Magic to a finals appearance in his prime. I do acknowledge that Cousins is the better passer, shooter, and post player, and that if he didn’t have to carry the offensive load as much as he did in Sacramento he could’ve been way more efficient (we got to see a preview of that in NOLA), but are these abilities enough to take him over Howard?
I was a huge Dwight fan in Houston, but unfortunately I never got to see prime Orlando D12. So could you guys please fill in some context?
NOT CAREER-WISE, STRICTLY PEAK
It's Dwight and Jesus Christ what's wrong with people.
DeMarcus had better moves, and better offensive highlights. But he was also a player who was constantly destructive to the chemistry of his team, and top defenders could shut him down.
Andrew Bogut owned him because he just wasn't that fundamentally sound - Bogut ate guys like that up. Demarcus's was so big and fast and strong that his whole career was sort of "man, when this guy fully puts it together" and then he maybe did for like six months (maybe) before his knee injury and that was it.
If you want to tell me that DeMarcus should have been better than Dwight, you might have an argument (which is interesting because it's not like Dwight is a guy where you say "man, that dude got every ounce out of his potential." But even as his peak, DeMarcus was better as a collection of highlights than he was as someone who was going to help you win games.