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

[hayesc0]

What good is 'distributing well' if you can't run an efficient offense? Rondo distributes well but he can't run an efficient offense to save his life. I think we all can agree that both Kidd and Nash are basically on the same level as passers, however one ran some of the greatest offenses in history, while the other only ran average-to-bad offenses (and that was only on a season scale, not in history). Besides you can only have so much impact defensively from the PG position, and at the end of the day Kidd's defense didn't make up the margin he gave up to Nash on offense.

The fact that you tried to use rondo as your example I just can't anymore. He is possibly the biggest state padder ever next to wilt so I'm just gonna ignore you for now on.

 

[hayesc0]

Lmao come on guys, Melo was good out the block compared to someone like Curry who took years to DEVELOP!

See how stupid that sounds? Who cares if Kidd was better out of the block, Nash was better in his prime.

Nope that's not what I said you missed my point. The point was that he was a system pg and wasn't that good a large portion of his career before Antonis system.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

The fact that you tried to use rondo as your example I just can't anymore. He is possibly the biggest state padder ever next to wilt so I'm just gonna ignore you for now on.

The principle remains the same, Rondo was a great passer (as was Kidd) who couldn't run an efficient offense (mostly because he wasn't an efficient scorer and he wasn't a threat to score - same applies to Kidd). You said you were gonna ignore me the other day and yet here you are...

 

[Professor Emeritus]

What good is 'distributing well' if you can't run an efficient offense? Rondo distributes well but he can't run an efficient offense to save his life. I think we all can agree that both Kidd and Nash are basically on the same level as passers, however one ran some of the greatest offenses in history, while the other only ran average-to-bad offenses (and that was only on a season scale, not in history). Besides you can only have so much impact defensively from the PG position, and at the end of the day Kidd's defense didn't make up the margin he gave up to Nash on offense.

Gimmicky Harden-like regular season offences.

Give me a tall PG who can make the right pass, make the open shot, create mismatches, and play D, and I'm good. Kidd was starting PG for Finals teams 10 years apart because he's the kind of piece you want to build around. Nash's best playoff victory with those great offences was...?


P.s. - Rondo too, and he couldn't even make the open shot.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Nope that's not what I said you missed my point. The point was that he was a system pg and wasn't that good a large portion of his career before Antonis system.

A system PG is a PG who's only good because of the system and/or can only play in that system. Nash was the system.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Gimmicky Harden-like regular season offences.

He also ran the #1 offense in 2003 and the #1 offense in 2004 in Dallas, before he even went to Phoenix. Besides it's not like Nash was a gimmick player, he ain't out here averaging more FTs than FGMs, and he ain't out here averaging 5-6 turnovers a game.

Give me a tall PG who can make the right pass, make the open shot, create mismatches, and play D, and I'm good. Kidd was starting PG for Finals teams 10 years apart because he's the kind of piece you want to build around. Nash's best playoff victory with those great offences was...?

i) Kidd went to the Finals when he was the leader during the worst period of Eastern conference basketball
ii) Kidd went to the Finals in his latter years (past his prime), as a role player
iii) Nash actually had more playoff wins during their respective primes in a far tougher conference:

Nash put up 24 ppg on 52% shooting and 11 assists and 20 ppg on 50% shooting and 10 assists in two separate postseason runs (WCF appearance both years), and Kidd put up 19 ppg on 40% shooting and 9 assists and 20 ppg on 42% shooting and 8 assists en route to the Finals, and you think Kidd is the better player simply because he ended up going to the Finals?

Never mind the fact that Nash had A LOT MORE impact during his WCF postseason runs
Never mind the fact that Kidd played against teams with a 42-40 record, 44-38 record and 49-33 record during one Finals run and a 42-40 record, 44-38 record and 50-32 during the other
Never mind the fact that Nash played against teams with a 45-37 record, 58-24 record and 59-23 during one WCF run and a 45-37 record, 47-35 record and 60-22 during the other
Never mind the fact that FOUR of the SIX Eastern conference teams that Kidd played en route to his Finals appearances weren't even good enough to make the playoffs in the West
Never mind the fact Nash had a 30 ppg on 55% shooting and 12 assists series against a prime-Dirk Mavs team who had a 58-24 record (Kidd didn't have a series that even remotely came close to this)

How dishonest can you be that despite Nash proving he was the better player by having more impact in his postseason runs, playing against FAR better competition in the playoffs - that despite not making it out of the WCF (you know a circumstantial and team-related line) - it therefore means he isn't better than Kidd. Does that mean all the PGs that made the Finals are better than Nash?
.

 

[Houston911]

First of all, Nash was playing at a high level when he was entering his late 20s (around 27-28) when he was still in Dallas. In his second to last season as a Mav, he was basically averaging 18 ppg on high efficiency + 7-8 assists a game (while running the league's best offense). The only notable change in surface stats when he went to Phoenix was his assist #s, and that was largely due to being given more freedom on offense, surrounded by better overall finishers and the fact he was now the face of a team (he was never going to surpass Dirk as the lead man in Dallas).

He basically had the same ability during his final years as a Mav, as he did during his peak years in Phoenix. Nash was a unique player and there really isn't a blueprint for his career. However, there are a few dudes who bloomed later on in their careers - Chauncey Billups being one of the main PGs in recent memory, who didn't hit his stride until he was in his late-20s and he continued that on until he was in his mid-30s. Sam Cassell's another player who had a similar career-trajectory (late-20s until his mid-30s). Gary Payton too was a late bloomer.

Nash certainly isn't an isolated case.

Chauncey billups wasnt a superstar
Sam cassell wasnt a superstar
Gary payton was an all star at 25 and he was known as a premiere defender already

None of these cases are anything like nash at all

Nash went from being a guy who nobody thought was worth the max, to immediately winning 2 mvps at the age of 30

There has never been anything like that

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Chauncey billups wasnt a superstar
Sam cassell wasnt a superstar
Gary payton was an all star at 25 and he was known as a premiere defender already

None of these cases are anything like nash at all

Nash went from being a guy who nobody thought was worth the max, to immediately winning 2 mvps at the age of 30

There has never been anything like that

My breh, I just said that there really isn't a blueprint to Nash's career. I mentioned Billups, Cassell and Payton because they had similar career trajectories (particularly the first two), when they rose to stardom around 27-28 and continued a similar pace until they were in their mid-30s. The difference with Nash is he went to a franchise we could be the lead man, the fact that he's white and the fact that his team went from having one of the worst records in the league (yes they had a lot of injuries and a roster imbalance) to having the best record in the league in his first season (and continued on having some of the best records in the league). Those things were all in his favor, except when you look at his ability it's really no different to his latter seasons he Dallas and it's really no different to the career-improvements of Cassell and Billups.

 

[Houston911]

My breh, I just said that there really isn't a blueprint to Nash's career. I mentioned Billups, Cassell and Payton because they had similar career trajectories (particularly the first two), when they rose to stardom around 27-28 and continued a similar pace until they were in their mid-30s. The difference with Nash is he went to a franchise we could be the lead man, the fact that he's white and the fact that his team went from having one of the worst records in the league (yes they had a lot of injuries and a roster imbalance) to having the best record in the league in his first season (and continued on having some of the best records in the league). Those things were all in his favor, except when you look at his ability it's really no different to his latter seasons he Dallas and it's really no different to the career-improvements of Cassell and Billups.

This is a post that i agree with

Nash was not a better player in phoenix then he was in dallas

Dgoatoni just laid the infrastructure that made it look like he was

Same way he did with lin
Same way he did with felton

Same way hes doing with harden


d'antoni is gifted

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Yeah

He also ran the #1 offense in 2003 and the #1 offense in 2004 in Dallas, before he even went to Phoenix. Besides it's not like Nash was a gimmick player, he ain't out here averaging more FTs than FGMs, and he ain't out here averaging 5-6 turnovers a game.



i) Kidd went to the Finals when he was the leader during the worst period of Eastern conference basketball
ii) Kidd went to the Finals in his latter years (past his prime), as a role player
iii) Nash actually had more playoff wins during their respective primes in a far tougher conference:

Outside of wins against awful LA teams, there was...?

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Actually I should've used my posts from an earlier argument in this thread, I was really downplaying Nash's achievements - he didn't run two #1 offenses before going to Phoenix, he actually ran THREE #1 offenses:

2002 - #1 offense (in Dallas - he averaged 18 ppg that season)
2003 - #1 offense (again in Dallas - again he averaged 18 ppg that season - 17.7 ppg to be exact)
2004 - #1 offense (again in Dallas)
2005 - #1 offense (first season in Phoenix)
2006 - #1 offense (starting lineup of Raja Bell, Kurt Thomas, Marion, Boris Diaw)
2007 - #1 offense
2008 - #2 offense
2009 - #2 offense
2010 - #1 offense

Nash had a decade long-run of orchestrating the best or second best offense (some are among the greatest in history), on two different teams with 3-4 different coaches and with every style/skillset of player you could think of.

@houston911

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Yeah


Outside of wins against awful LA teams, there was...?

Both those "awful" Lakers and Clippers teams were better than four of the six teams Kidd played. Nash's Suns also beat a 50-win T'Blazers team, better* than almost every squad Kidd played during his teams' Finals' runs (I'm surprised you forgot about this - *although technically they were without Roy) and they also swept a 50-win Spurs team that had Duncan, Ginobili and Parker in their primes.

Meanwhile, Kidd was out there playing against teams in the playoffs that would've been lottery teams out in the West.

 

[Goatpoacher]

Real question: Who's better, Prime Nash or current Kyle Lowry :jjjjj:

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Real question: Who's better, Prime Nash or current Kyle Lowry :jjjjj:

Better question: How many Raptors games have you actually watched over the last two seasons?

 

[I.AM.PIFF]

they also swept a 50-win Spurs team that had Duncan, Ginobili and Parker in their primes.

Probably only Parker was in his prime that year tho. TD & Manu were already on the wrong side of 30 back then.