Reply With Quote
Since when did Nash become a capable defender?
If Nash is pushing 40 then Duncan is pushing 38.
Since when did Nash become a capable defender?
Yeah but TD has the fortune of not having to defend a wide range of All-Star caliber bigs since there's a shortage of them compared to PGs in the league. And, oh yeah, TD isn't a defender unlike Nash. TD may be old but the defense is still there.
In bizarro world.
Capable team defender.
You know, like how Larry Bird was a house defender but good in a team situation.
The lakers have a history of reloading their roster with stars. The spurs have to wait until they draft their stars.
Nash is getting old but he is still an upgrade to what they had there. Nash and Sessions is a solid pg rotation.
Of course, because everything conveniently always works out for them and because this move alone doesn't vault them into pole position. But Howard? He would or at the very least would have the potential to. Just like how every other time they're on the verge of being irrelevant something emerges out of the blue and saves them.
You have any video clips to prove that because that's the first time anyone has put capable and defender in the same sentence with Nash whether it's mentioning the team or individual.
If the Spurs traded for a player that will turn 39 before the next playoffs begin, and has a reputation as a poor defender, you'd be in here talking about what a puny,futile move the Spurs had made.
Oh, they won't be signing Sessions now. It will be Nash and Blake.
I even doubt the Thunder or Heat were better.
Nash is a good offensive player, a top floor general and he will get the bigs more involved. He will work well with breaking down the defense and getting kobe the ball on the break.
Yeah, because Kobe has always had trouble getting the ball before...riiiiiggght.
Kobe has never played with a pg as good as Nash.
Good point...but with the Thunder getting a good draft pick, they're better now and KD, Harden and Westbrook haven't reached their primes yet.
With 5 championships, Kobe never needed one. He just needs one who can play some defense. The only reason he wanted Nash to play for them is so he can continue to pad up his stats in his never ending obsession to be like Mike...which he'll never be.
Nash is adept at drawing charges. His physicaly limitations inhibit him on defense, not his mind. He is a decent team defender. Capable.
Manu is also a below average man defender, but is a very good team defender. The two aspects are different.
Nash has his vacations planned by the end of April... it isn't changing now... If they wanted no-defense playoff-clutch they should've stayed with Fish...
i remember when the Lakers got O'Neal how many Spur fans said it wasn't going to make any difference because Shaq never won a le.
I remember when the Lakers got Gasol Spur fans said he wasn't any good, was too soft and never won anything.
No matter how good other teams upgrade talent spur fans will find a way to say it wasn't a good move.
I will agree to disagree but to insult Manu is pretty low, man.
And no matter what the Spurs do, there you'll be to piss on it.
It's a great move for the Lakers. Those of you saying otherwise are just not really seeing what Nash can do for them. His defensive limitations wouldn't be as bad with two good bigs behind him.
Nash is a capable team defender like MI21 said.
And trust me on that, it's not often I compliment Lakers players.
That's revisionist history. Most sane people complained about the Lakers getting Shaq and most people definitely believed the Grizzlies got raped by the Lakers in that deal, with even Pop complaining about that deal.
I am not comparing anything. I am saying that no matter what deal the Lakers pull off many in here will say it wasn't a good move.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
