yea, but we're not talking about the '08 suns. we're talking abou an '08 nash. he had a weak year as soon as they switched up the system. then when alvin gentry took over and brought that style of play back to phoenix, nash was suddenly nash again. go figure.
and with that said, its not about d'antoni. im not trying to make pringles out to be a genius at all. you talk about 2010, but youre ignoring the fact that when gentry took over, he implemented a system similar to d'antonis. come on man. the chit is obvious.
lol @ the harden comparison. for one, we already knew what harden could do. more importantly, the comparison doesnt make sense. nash was the starting point guard in dallas. everything ran thru him. nobody was holding him back or hindering him from doing anything. the bottom line is the system enhanced his career, as well as others in phoenix. not just him.
and youre conveniently ignoring how d'antoni had felton looking like an elite point guard and how he had alot of bums looking important. theres people that played under d'antoni in phoenix & new york that are
extremely well off of contracts they signed off the back of being dressed up in d'antonis system.
so they were a better team simply because they were fortunate enough to play against weaker competition? what kind of special shoe logic is this?
i dont know, nor care how many 30 point games iverson had. youre too focused on googling stats. at some point, you have to have an understanding of the game.
by your logic of looking at the '08 playoffs, i guess carmelo became
that year as well. im not saying that iverson was in 2001 form on any of these teams. not even the nuggets. but the idea that you can go from being the 3rd best point guard in the league, to a guy that doesnt deserve to start in a matter of mere months is tom-foolery.
the team chemistry was better with chauncey? for one, there were a number of other key changes to the nuggets that year outside of the chauncey/iverson trade. secondly, the nuggets offense was putting more points on the board before chauncey got there than they did with him. what people dont realize is that in addition to billups, they also added utility players.
now do i think that the team clicked a lil bit better with chauncey? of course. but that has nothing to do with iverson's departure, and everything to do with the fact that the nuggets lacked an impact point guard. that has nothing to do with iverson.
everything isnt A & B buddy. sometimes you have to think outside the box and apply critical thinking. people that dont do this are seen as gullable and are the main people that get taken advantage of.
im not saying that pringles is some sort of guru at all.
nash clearly benefited from the style of play. its not even just d'antoni, but alvin gentry as well.
i totally agree. not arguing this at all. ive even said this in a previous thread about the nuggets before.
but that doesnt mean that they were a much better team.
BEST POST IN THIS THREAD.
HANDS-DOWN!!
:congratulations:
the one that burns me even more, is the one where sanchez threw that lil @$$ pass to santonio. my man caught the ball and basically killed himself going like 60 yards for the winning touchdown. iirc, that play was even better than the demaryus thomas chit.
but when they showed the highlights, i believe it was phil simms who immediately yelled out that "mark sanchez MADE that play" with such authority. i couldnt believe that chit.
i think some people tend to get carried away with the fact that marvin & peyton werent buddies.
and you know how that goes. the more people use them as an example of "duos that didnt hang".......sooner or later, the public percieves them to be enemies.
go get us a bucket is hard as hell. Yet thats another staple of what we want to see when we are sideline coaching
