In their primes, who do you take: Nash or Jkidd

[Big Dick]

So @Gil Scott-Heroin you're saying Jason Kidd held the nets offense back? You take him out and studs like Lucious Harris and Kerry Kittles would have been free to play to their real potential?

I don't buy that argument. You're definitely in the minority not many people claiming Jason Kidd was a "net negative" on offense.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

So @Gil Scott-Heroin you're saying Jason Kidd held the nets offense back? You take him out and studs like Lucious Harris and Kerry Kittles would have been free to play to their real potential?

He wasn't necessarily holding the players back as individuals, but the offense as a whole. If he was capable of scoring at a higher volume on high efficiency it would've taken those average/bad offenses and transformed them into good offenses (because he was the offensive anchor), not only from his own production/efficency but teams would've played him as a scoring AND passing threat and not just a passing one - opening up the floor for the rest of his players allowing them more room to operate with, favorable matchups and open shots. All throughout his stay in NJ, opposition teams would often play 5v4 on defense in the halfcourt because they knew Kidd wouldn't/couldn't try to score (he only would as a last resort), so they gave him a cushion and helped on other players. It stagnated the offense and put the other players in difficult spots because the main ballhandler wasn't attracting any defensive attention for his scoring ability, and defenses were just focusing on him passing and staying that extra step closer to provide help defense on other players.

All the great PGs in today's game (Curry, Westbrook and CP) run great offenses because they're threats to score and pass, at any given time, and they do it at a high level. It's all about finding that balance of when to pass/score - but you must, MUST always be a threat to score or pass at all times.

So
I don't buy that argument. You're definitely in the minority not many people claiming Jason Kidd was a "net negative" on offense.

"I mean from the age of 26 to age 35 the offenses he was in charge of ranked - 16th, 22nd, 17th, 18th, 25th, 26th, 25th, 16th, 25th."

He was, because he was detrimental to what they could've been as an offense. I'm not questioning his IQ, passing ability or vision - he just wasn't talented enough on the that end to have a positive effect - the good things he did (running the break and finding players, giving the ball to players in rhythm or to develop it, distributing the ball, giving them easy shots on occasions, remaining active etc etc) were ultimately outweighed by the bad.

 

[iamduval]

Prime kidd in any era. Nash never been to the finals

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

You bring up all these points to make your opinion known but you are beating a dead horse here. I have gave Nash his props and think he was great but I still take Kidd over him all day. Sorry if you feel different.

If that's who you prefer than that's fine. My argument has never been about trying to change your opinion on your preference.

 

[Reggie]

If that's who you prefer than that's fine. My argument has never been about trying to change your opinion on your preference.

Feel that but me and the majority think Kidd was the superior player not just about who I prefer. If I wasn't a fan of either of these guys I would still pick Kidd.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Feel that but me and the majority think Kidd was the superior player not just about who I prefer. If I wasn't a fan of either of these guys I would still pick Kidd.

This board is completely incapable of having a reasonable discussion when it comes to Nash.

 

[Reggie]

This board is completely incapable of having a reasonable discussion when it comes to Nash.

If you say so. But most on this board and the so called real "experts" call Nash what he was. A good player who turned into a great player once he got into a certain system.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

If you say so. But most on this board and the so called real "experts" call Nash what he was. A good player who turned into a great player once he got into a certain system.

Yeah this is why I can't dudes seriously if they say this.

 

[Houston911]

Yeah this is why I can't dudes seriously if they say this.

If you think Nash was a "great player" in Dallas then you're tripping

Mark Cuban isn't letting a "great" player walk for less than the max....especially when he's best friends with dirk

He was a very good player, that's where it stops.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

If you think Nash was a "great player" in Dallas then you're tripping

Mark Cuban isn't letting a "great" player walk for less than the max....especially when he's best friends with dirk

He was a very good player, that's where it stops.

The problem with this is, the system that everyone keeps talking about as cause for him being great - well he is the system.

 

[Houston911]

The problem with this is, the system that everyone keeps talking about as cause for him being great - well he is the system.

Raymond Felton, Kendall Marshall, Jeremy Lin were the system too?

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Raymond Felton, Kendall Marshall, Jeremy Lin were the system too?

i) A brief period of them having good production doesn't mean anything considering Nash did it for multiple years - while running some of the greatest offenses the league has ever seen - Kendall, Felton and Lin didn't.
ii) When given minutes, all players proved they could put up similar production to when they were under Pringles on other teams (look at the difference in shot attempts too, not just the PTS by themselves):

Kendall -

Lin -

Felton -

iii) D'Antoni's record with Nash:

232-96 (.707), 26-25 playoff record, 4 50+ win seasons out 4 (2 60+ win seasons)

D'Antoni's record without Nash:

223-330 (.403), 0-8 playoff record, 2 winning seasons out of 8

iv) Nash proved he could score in Dallas on the same level he did in Phoenix (18 ppg in Dallas and 18.8 ppg in Phoenix) and he proved he could pass on the same level - the only real difference is in Phoenix he was given more offensive freedom and the Suns executed plays within the first third of the shotclock. It accentuated his skills, that's all. The scheme didn't make him shoot as great as he did, the scheme didn't make him pass as great as he did. He was a late-bloomer, who only really got a chance to prove himself and show what he was truly capable once in got into Phoenix.
v) D'Antoni said around 2007 that he basically left the offense and what the team did up to Nash. Basically he had autocracy.
vi) After D'Antoni left Phoenix - Nash proceeded to lead TWO more top-20 offenses of all time as well as averaging a career-high in assists (11.4)

 

[Reggie]

Yeah this is why I can't dudes seriously if they say this.

That's cool if you cant take it serious and it's cool if you call Nash the system. But it's a reason why guys like Felton and Lin balled too and it wasn't cause they were the system.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

That's cool if you cant take it serious and it's cool if you call Nash the system. But it's a reason why guys like Felton and Lin balled too and it wasn't cause they were the system.

Felton "balled" in Charlotte.when given similar minutes and Lin "balled" in Houston when given the same minutes too.

Felton in Charlotte ('08) - 14 ppg on 12.6 shots, 7.4 assists, 2 turnovers
Felton in NY (under Pringles) - 17 ppg on 14.8 shots, 9 assists, 3 turnovers

While Felton scored three more points, it took him over TWO extra shots (basically he had relatively the same efficiency as he did in Charlotte) and he had a worst AST/TO rate under Pringles too.

Lin in in Houston ('13) - 13 ppg on 11 shots, 6.1 assists, 2.9 turnovers
Lin in NY (under Pringles) - 14 ppg on 11 shots, 6.2 assists and 3.6 turnovers

Taking into account the .7 of a turnover more in NY, the numbers are basically identical.

As you can see there isn't that much difference between their play under Pringles and what they displayed elsewhere under other "systems". Second of all, can you even tell me anything about how Pringles' system magically turns players into good PGs or are you just regurgitating casual fan talking points? Thirdly, Lin only played 30-odd games and Felton played 50-odd games under Pringles (they didn't play years under him to if they could keep up that production), and considering their output had hit a mean reversion in the last month in NY, there's all reason to suggest they would've hit a wall or put up identical numbers to what they did under other systems.

Lastly, Nash ran TWO top-10/20 offenses in the modern era when D'Antoni left Phoenix where he ended up averaging a career-high in assists (11.4) - not to mention he led the #1 offense in 2002 in Dallas; averaging 18 ppg and 7.7 assists.

 

[Reggie]

Felton "balled" in Charlotte.when given similar minutes and Lin "balled" in Houston when given the same minutes too.

Felton in Charlotte ('08) - 14 ppg on 12.6 shots, 7.4 assists, 2 turnovers
Felton in NY (under Pringles) - 17 ppg on 14.8 shots, 9 assists, 3 turnovers

While Felton scored three more points, it took him over TWO extra shots (basically he had relatively the same efficiency as he did in Charlotte) and he had a worst AST/TO rate under Pringles too.

Lin in in Houston ('13) - 13 ppg on 11 shots, 6.1 assists, 2.9 turnovers
Lin in NY (under Pringles) - 14 ppg on 11 shots, 6.2 assists and 3.6 turnovers

Taking into account the .7 of a turnover more in NY, the numbers are basically identical.

As you can see there isn't that much difference between their play under Pringles and what they displayed elsewhere under other "systems". Second of all, can you even tell me anything about how Pringles' system magically turns players into good PGs or are you just regurgitating casual fan talking points? Thirdly, Lin only played 30-odd games and Felton played 50-odd games under Pringles (they didn't play years under him to if they could keep up that production), and considering their output had hit a mean reversion in the last month in NY, there's all reason to suggest they would've hit a wall or put up identical numbers to what they did under other systems.

Lastly, Nash ran TWO top-10/20 offenses in the modern era when D'Antoni left Phoenix where he ended up averaging a career-high in assists (11.4) - not to mention he led the #1 offense in 2002 in Dallas; averaging 18 ppg and 7.7 assists.

And those post D'antoni offenses were just mirror images of what he ran when he was the coach. His system was get it and go and let the shots fly. Say what you want but none of his points put up numbers as good as they did when he coached them including Nash.