THAT TEAM WAS BUILT TO WIN IT ALL
THEIR DEFENSIVE WEAKNESS IS THE PRIMARY REASON THEY DIDNT
Did Nash Deserve Those Two Mvps
- Thread starter darryl
- Start date
THAT TEAM WAS BUILT TO WIN IT ALL
THEIR DEFENSIVE WEAKNESS IS THE PRIMARY REASON THEY DIDNT
Gil Scott-Heroin
Veteran
Again, it's not as simple as that (you're blatantly leaving out important factors to push an agenda), and even if Nash was The Glove on the defensive end, they still wouldn't have won it all, because it wouldn't have moved the needle to where you perceive their defense needed to be in this context. A proper scheme with better defensive big men would've been the difference.
And even with that said, despite Nash's physical limitations, he still was a decent defensive player: ranked near the top in charges drawn during his prime, high defensive BBIQ, regularly gave effort (which is 80% of defense), put his body on the line etc.
If we were to point the finger at Nash for why the Suns didn't win it all, his inability to break the shackles of a traditional PG on the offensive end played more of a role than whatever he gave up on defense.
How do you figure that when the Suns won 54 games with a starting lineup of Nash, Bell, Marion, Diaw and Thomas (barring Marion, all of whom were limited offensive players), and had one of the greatest offensive seasons of all-time? From Dallas to Phoenix, Nash ran the #1 offense for basically an entire decade - a player of that caliber would've put the '06 Lakers in the position to grab a playoff spot, to say they'd struggle to win 20 games is bordering on insanity.
Again, it's not as simple as that (you're blatantly leaving out important factors to push an agenda), and even if Nash was The Glove on the defensive end, they still wouldn't have won it all, because it wouldn't have moved the needle to where you perceive their defense needed to be in this context. A proper scheme with better defensive big men would've been the difference.
And even with that said, despite Nash's physical limitations, he still was a decent defensive player: ranked near the top in charges drawn during his prime, high defensive BBIQ, regularly gave effort (which is 80% of defense), put his body on the line etc.
If we were to point the finger at Nash for why the Suns didn't win it all, his inability to break the shackles of a traditional PG on the offensive end played more of a role than whatever he gave up on defense.
How do you figure that when the Suns won 54 games with a starting lineup of Nash, Bell, Marion, Diaw and Thomas (barring Marion, all of whom were limited offensive players), and had one of the greatest offensive seasons of all-time? From Dallas to Phoenix, Nash ran the #1 offense for basically an entire decade - a player of that caliber would've put the '06 Lakers in the position to grab a playoff spot, to say they'd struggle to win 20 games is bordering on insanity.
NASH WAS A DECENT DEFENDER? OK, NOW IVE HEARD IT ALL LMFAO
IF NASH WAS AN ALL-DEFENSE LEVEL PLAYER, SUNS DEF WOULDA MADE A FINALS AT THE VERY LEAST, AS TONY PARKER WAS THE DIFFERENCE IN THEM SPURS-SUNS SERIES’
ALSO, THEM SUNS TEAMS WERENT STARTING PLAYERS LIKE SMUSH, KWAME, OR LUKE .. NO WAYYYY NASH MAKES PLAYOFFS WIT THAT ROSTER.
Gil Scott-Heroin
Veteran
You only think like that because you don't understand how basketball works.
SAYS THE GUY WHO OBVIOUSLY NEVER PLAYED ORGANIZED BALL ON ANY LEVEL
SAYS THE GUY WHO CLAIMS KYLE LOWRY IS BETTER THAN JASON KIDD
YEA, THATS U
@19-
YOU ASKED EARLIER IN THIS THREAD WHY IM SO DEEP IN THE RED
U SEE WHAT JUST HAPPENED? THATS WHY
LOOK AT HOW I JUS SONNED @Gil Scott-Heroin SO BAD THAT HE COULDNT DO ANYTHING IN RETURN BUT NEG ME
EACH NEG I’VE EARNED BASICALLY REPRESENTS A W
YOU ASKED EARLIER IN THIS THREAD WHY IM SO DEEP IN THE RED
U SEE WHAT JUST HAPPENED? THATS WHY
LOOK AT HOW I JUS SONNED @Gil Scott-Heroin SO BAD THAT HE COULDNT DO ANYTHING IN RETURN BUT NEG ME
EACH NEG I’VE EARNED BASICALLY REPRESENTS A W
Gil Scott-Heroin
Veteran
You're this board's whipping boy, you don't get wins. Perhaps, if you took a step back and looked at things more carefully, and stopped drowning yourself in a pool of unreasonable bias, you would see where you regularly go wrong.
You're this board's whipping boy, you don't get wins. Perhaps, if you took a step back and looked at things more carefully, and stopped drowning yourself in a pool of unreasonable bias, you would see where you regularly go wrong.
A DUDE WHO THINKS LOWRY IS BETTER THAN KIDD DOESN’T GET THE PRIVILEGE OF LABELING SOME1 A WHIPPING BOY
YOU PRETTY MUCH PLAYED YOURSELF WIT THAT ONE AND FORFEITED ANY CHANCE OF ANY1 EVER TAKING U SERIOUS AGAIN
HOLD THIS L GRACEFULLY SON
Gil Scott-Heroin
Veteran
Here, @Sccit, since I'm feeling in a good mood, let me help you out here:
You claim that if Nash were an All-Defensive player, the Suns would've "definitely" made the Finals at the very least, because Parker was the difference in them SA/PHO series'.
First of all, let's start off by saying Nash's defensive ability (or lack thereof, as you argue), had minimal effect on the luck (which extends to every single action in a game, which naturally all teams who win benefit more from), officiating (particularly how the officiating benefitted the Spurs for more or less two decades), the movements/plays/sets, the defensive scheme, the coaching, the defensive ability/play of his teammates that he wasn't a factor in, the offensive ability/play of the opposition players that he wasn't a factor in etc. What you're essentially arguing is that if all those variables stayed and played out exactly as they're recorded now in history, and the only adjustment was Nash was an All-Defensive player, the Suns would've won, which is quite literally impossible -- not improbable -- but impossible.
Your argument is not even theoretically possible, let alone in a practical sense.
Continuing on, if Parker in your opinion was the difference, what exactly were Duncan, Manu, and Pop? Were they complete non-factors? Did they not contribute, at all? What about the Suns players that were guarding them, did they play perfect defense; making the right movements and giving maximum effort on every single possession? Did 'Antoni have a perfect defensive gameplan and scheme in place? And if so, was Nash the only one who crippled whatever defensive gameplan/scheme they had? Was Nash's defensive ability to blame for every possession where the Spurs scored, and not any of his teammates, at all?
What is your argument for Parker having greater offensive series' against better defensive PGs? Why did he perform to a higher standard against better defensive players if you're arguing that Nash's defense was the ONLY reason for the Suns losing to the Spurs?
You claim that if Nash were an All-Defensive player, the Suns would've "definitely" made the Finals at the very least, because Parker was the difference in them SA/PHO series'.
First of all, let's start off by saying Nash's defensive ability (or lack thereof, as you argue), had minimal effect on the luck (which extends to every single action in a game, which naturally all teams who win benefit more from), officiating (particularly how the officiating benefitted the Spurs for more or less two decades), the movements/plays/sets, the defensive scheme, the coaching, the defensive ability/play of his teammates that he wasn't a factor in, the offensive ability/play of the opposition players that he wasn't a factor in etc. What you're essentially arguing is that if all those variables stayed and played out exactly as they're recorded now in history, and the only adjustment was Nash was an All-Defensive player, the Suns would've won, which is quite literally impossible -- not improbable -- but impossible.
Your argument is not even theoretically possible, let alone in a practical sense.
Continuing on, if Parker in your opinion was the difference, what exactly were Duncan, Manu, and Pop? Were they complete non-factors? Did they not contribute, at all? What about the Suns players that were guarding them, did they play perfect defense; making the right movements and giving maximum effort on every single possession? Did 'Antoni have a perfect defensive gameplan and scheme in place? And if so, was Nash the only one who crippled whatever defensive gameplan/scheme they had? Was Nash's defensive ability to blame for every possession where the Spurs scored, and not any of his teammates, at all?
What is your argument for Parker having greater offensive series' against better defensive PGs? Why did he perform to a higher standard against better defensive players if you're arguing that Nash's defense was the ONLY reason for the Suns losing to the Spurs?
Last edited:
SOUNDING LIKE A PRETENTIOUS DOUCHEBAG WHO TAKES 4 PARAGRAPHS TO SAY WHAT COULD BE SAID IN 1 SENTENCE ISNT HELPIN UR CASE HERE FAM .. SAVE THAT SHIIT FOR UR DRAWN OUT MOVIE REVIEWS
NO MATTER HOW MUCH U WANA OVERCOMPLEXIFY IT, BASKETBALL IS A SIMPLE SPORT - A BETTER DEFENDER IS A HUGE PLUS FOR A TEAM, ESPECIALLY WHEN WERE TALKIN BOUT THE BEST PLAYER ON SAID TEAM. U CAN TRY TO SPIN THAT HOWEVER U LIKE, BUT FAILIN TO GRASP SUCH A SIMPLE CONCEPT IS AN L EITHER WAY.
Gil Scott-Heroin
Veteran
A dude who thinks Lowry at his peak was better than Kidd at his, clearly is the type of individual who thinks for himself and understands how the game works. Again, I don't expect you to understand this, because you're neither of those things.
A dude who thinks Lowry at his peak was better than Kidd at his, clearly is the type of individual who thinks for himself and understands how the game works. Again, I don't expect you to understand this, because you're neither of those things.
U THINK LOWRY IS BETTER THAN KIDD BECAUSE U CLEARLY DONT VALUE DEFENSE THE WAY U SHOULD, WHICH IS WHY U IN HERE CAPIN FOR NASH AND TRYNA ACT LIKE DEFENSE AINT SHIIT
ITS WHY U ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT IS CONSIDERED THE LAUGHINGSTOCK OF COLI BASKETBALL TAKES
HERES A CLUE, BUDDY - DEFENSIVE SCHEMES DONT MEAN SHIIT IF U PLAYIN WIT TERRIBLE DEFENDERS
Gil Scott-Heroin
Veteran
So after you say "LOOK AT HOW I JUS SONNED @Gil Scott-Heroin SO BAD THAT HE COULDNT DO ANYTHING IN RETURN BUT NEG ME ", you more or less do exactly what you accused me of, by essentially not doing anything in return; not even so much as at least try to counter or respond to my argument. I guess going by your logic, it looks like I "sonned" you.
SOUNDING LIKE A PRETENTIOUS DOUCHEBAG WHO TAKES 4 PARAGRAPHS TO SAY WHAT COULD BE SAID IN 1 SENTENCE ISNT HELPIN UR CASE HERE FAM .. SAVE THAT SHIIT FOR UR DRAWN OUT MOVIE REVIEWS
What you call "overcomplexify", reality calls breaking down and understanding how it truly works. Indeed, basketball is a simple sport, which is why it's hilarious that folks like you have had a hard time comprehending what's actually going on.
Except that is not the argument.
You're arguing that Nash's lack of defense, was literally the only reason why the Suns lost to the Spurs - not that if Nash was a better defender it would've been a huge plus for the team. I'm telling you that if Nash was an All-Defensive player, the Suns still would've lost, simply because he could only have so much influence on the defensive end due to the position and role he played; he's not a big man, he's not a rim protector, he's not anchoring the movements of PnR play - if a center and a PG have equal defensive ability in relation to their position, the center will naturally have more defensive impact, it's how the game works. He's not the one who coaches the team, he's not the one who creates and puts the defensive scheme into place etc.
On the other side of the floor, if a PG and a center have equal offensive ability in relation to their position, the PG will have more offensive impact. Which is why when valuing PGs (specifically ball-handlers), offense matters more than defense does - it's not a 50/50 thing. They're the ones controlling/anchoring the offense (therefore, in general they have more influence/impact on offense than the other players do), they can't control/anchor defense in the same manner, regardless of how great they be on that end.
This is why Nash was able to have the historical impact he did on all the teams he was on, it wasn't a 50% offense and 50% defense type thing.
It's got nothing to do with that, and all do with role/position. If Nash was a C/defensive anchor, then most definitely, his defense would be more of a factor in this, but he was a cotdamn PG, being the best player on those teams doesn't come into the equation.
You shouldn't even be talking about "simple concepts", when you can't even grasp the game from a rudimentary level.
Last edited:
So after you say "LOOK AT HOW I JUS SONNED @Gil Scott-Heroin SO BAD THAT HE COULDNT DO ANYTHING IN RETURN BUT NEG ME ", you more or less do exactly what you accused me of, by essentially not doing anything in return; not even so much as at least try to counter or respond to my argument. I guess going by your logic, it looks like I "sonned" you.
What you call "overcomplexify", reality calls breaking down and understanding how it truly works. Indeed, basketball is a simple sport, which is why it's hilarious that folks like you have had a hard time comprehending what's actually going on.
Except that is not the argument.
You're arguing that Nash's lack of defense, was literally the only reason why the Suns lost to the Spurs - not that if Nash was a better defender it would've been a huge plus for the team. I'm telling you that if Nash was an All-Defensive player, the Suns still would've lost, simply because he could only have so much influence on the defensive end due to the position and role he played; he's not a big man, he's not a rim protector, he's not anchoring the movements of PnR play - if a center and a PG have equal defensive ability in relation to their position, the center will naturally have more defensive impact, it's how the game works. He's not the one who coaches the team, he's not the one who creates and puts the defensive scheme into place etc.
On the other side of the floor, if a PG and a center have equal offensive ability in relation to their position, the PG will have more offensive impact. Which is why when valuing PGs (specifically ball-handlers), offense matters more than defense does - it's not a 50/50 thing. They're the ones controlling/anchoring the offense (therefore, in general they have more influence/impact on offense than the other players do), they can't control/anchor defense in the same manner, regardless of how great they are on that end.
This is why Nash was able to have the historical impact he did on all the teams he was on, it wasn't because it was 50% offense and 50% defense.
It's got nothing to do with that, and all do with role/position. If Nash was a C/defensive anchor, then most definitely, his defense would be more of a factor in this, but he was a cotdamn PG, being the best player on those teams doesn't come into the equation.
You shouldn't even be talking about "simple concepts", when you can't even grasp the game from a rudimentary level.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ME AND YOU IS THAT IM NOT SCARED TO ADDRESS YOUR NONSENSE
THE ONLY REASON U EVEN REPLYIN TO ME NOW IS BECAUSE U TRYNA JUELZ UR WAY OUT THAT SONNING
YOU TRY SO HARD THAT ITS PRETTY EASY TO SEE THAT UR OVERCOMPENSATING .. HALF YOUR POSTS ARE U TRYNA PROVE JUS HOW MUCH U KNOW ABOUT BASKETBALL, WHICH IS A STRUGGLE IN ITSELF.
A GOOD PERIMETER DEFENDER ABSOLUTELY MAKES A DIFFERENCE, ESPECIALLY WHEN FACING OFF AGAINST TOP TIER PGS. ONLY AN IDIOT WOULD TYPE PARAGRAPHS TRYNA EXPLAIN HOW THAT ISNT TRUE.. SUNS WERE LITERALLY A TECHNICAL FOUL AWAY FROM GOIN TO THE FINALS. THE FACT THAT U THINK GREAT DEFENSE AT THE PG POSITION WOULDNT HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE EXPOSES JUST HOW LITTLE U UNDERSTAND THE SPORT OF BASKETBALL COMPARED TO WHAT U THINK.
Gil Scott-Heroin
Veteran
Lowry's one of the best defensive PGs in the game, and only marginally had less impact than Kidd did on that side of the floor. It's not even particularly close on offense - you know the side of the floor where PG ball-handlers have the most impact/influence on the game.
First of all, a defensive scheme is the MOST important facet of defensive play. Are you saying that D'Antoni wasn't to blame, at all, for not having a proper scheme in place? Second of all, you claimed that Nash's defense was the sole reason for why they lost to the Spurs, so why use defender(s), plural, insinuating that the Suns had more than one terrible defender? If Nash was the only bad defender (as in relation to your original argument), how come D'Antoni couldn't cover it up if none of the other players were without blame on defense?
Last edited: