Reply With Quote
I don't understand it either. I genuinely like the guy and am fond of him, but people have short, short memories. No way he's better than Payton. A better outside shooter than Payton was in his prime, but that's about it.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/dailyd...estPointGuards
Some interesting quotes by ESPN:
Getting eliminated by the Spurs twice and the Mavs in '06 puts him above Gary Payton now? Strange considering Payton's led his team to the Finals before, was cheated out of a Finals appearance in '93(where Phoenix shot 65 FTs), and played in two other Finals series. Oh yeah, he has a ring too.
Not to mention his DPOY award, his superior career averages, his career 8966 assists(compared to 5979 for Nash), his 8 All-Defensive First team selections, 2 All-NBA First team selections, 5 All-NBA Second team selections, 9-time All-Star.
What does Nash have in comparison?
3 All-NBA First team selections and 5 all-star appearances. Oh and two tainted MVP awards(thank you Phoenix media).
Tainted the award, plain and simple. He'll probably go down in history as the worst MVP winner of all-time.
Anyway, first one should have gone to Shaq. Second one to either Lebron, Kobe, or Wade.
Dallas got better after he left. Marion and Amare were already good players before he joined the team.
Has this ever worked out for him? More importantly, he's a defensive liability that's never been able to lead a team to the Finals.
ESPN's comments about Payton:
lol, talk about hypocrisy.
I don't understand it either. I genuinely like the guy and am fond of him, but people have short, short memories. No way he's better than Payton. A better outside shooter than Payton was in his prime, but that's about it.
Gary Payton should be ranked ahead of Steve Nash. Me and Payton beat the Mavericks in 2006 for the championship. I was just dunking dunks that I was supposed to dunk and he made a winning shot that he was supposed to make in the game that was supposed have taken place. All these rankings are fluke rankings.
Diesel and Flash are back.
This is one of the better dynasty posters.
Agreed. Payton did far more with less natural talent. Could score, pass, run the offense and oh, by the way, would lock down his man at the other end. Perennial top 5 in steals leader during his heydey. I don't want to get into head-to-head comparisons, but the glove is certainly way underrated here. To rate him behind Nash is a definite injustice to Payton.
Payton has that many assists?
This is utter bull .
wow
You can argue about the offense all day. They both had their good and great attributes. What you cannot argue is that Nash plays no defense and Payton was elite.
Payton >> Nash
Note how ESPN said "his performance", as opposed to "his team's performance". Nash played very well in the playoffs during his time in Phoenix, none of our eliminations were because he failed to step up or to play well.
Yeah, Payton had superior averages. However, Nash had superior peak years, you can't just base rankings off of mean performance, as they don't tell the full story.
Oh, and the Phoenix Media?! What the ? Since when has anybody ever heard of the Arizona bias. We don't have a high profile within the sports media.
Nash rightfully deserved both awards. With the MVP, you'll typically have two or three deserving candidates, but the voters place alot of emphasis on succeeding pre-season predictions, which both Nash led Phoenix teams did.
Faulty cause and effect. There were many different variables that changed in Dallas since Nash left, and to say that the Mavericks became better because they lost Nash is totally baseless and completely illogical.
Who gives a whether or not your team gets to the finals. Whether you lose in the first round or in the big game, it doesn't matter. Gary Payton couldn't do it until he was old and rode Shaq and Wade's coattails to a win. And you know what? That shouldn't be counted against him. Like Nash he never shrunk in the playoffs and his postseason undoing were because of his supporting cast.
B/C of the two nash mvps, the award has become "Offensive Player of the Year"* award.
It is utterly apparent that one does not have to even know how to play defense to win the mvp anymore.
*Moreover -- Nash wasn't even the best offensive player in either of the two years that he won.
MoreMOREover -- who the respects an ESPN analysis anway?
hahahaha...either nash makes his teammates 'better' or he doesn't. Either he is a great 'leader' or he isn't. Either he is part of a 'team' or he is a one man show.
You can't say that "It wasn't stevie's fault that the suns have never had postseason success!!!"
His postseason 'undoing,' as you call it [failures as I do], were because the other team was always BETTER. Unfortunately, that concept has always and will always be lost on a ing suns fan.
I agree, but wasn't this a major line of reasoning people used to give Nash his MVP in 2005?
First of all, this article is old.....Johnny Ringo is such a tool.
Secondly, go ask the Rockets how overrated Nash is.
If you can't see that Nash is one of the greatest point guards of all time (FAR better than Kidd) then your just a hater.
The way Nash plays is inspiring. The guy NEVER gives up and never takes a play off. What he lacks in natural talent he makes up for with effort.
Its gonna be hard to watch the Suns after he leaves. He's not the best player in the league, but he has defined what an MVP is suppose to be.
What's with this false dilemma bull . There are more than two possible outcomes here. Nash is a good leader. Nash makes his teammates better. Nash does not play all five positions on the floor and he can't win every series single handedly. Just because he has the ability to run the offense and allow his teammates to work better inside of the offense doesn't mean that he should bear the full responsibility for series defeats when he plays well. As KG said, "It takes five."
And why the not? Nash has always played well in the postseason and done all he can. That's all you can ask for out of a player.
You do realize that when I say that Nash's team was worse, it typically then implies the other team was better. But nice job.
The two situations are pretty different. In one season, the Suns went from a 29 win team to a 62 win team with the best record in the league, whereas Dallas only posted a six win increase.
If you think Nash is better than Kidd, you're just a homer.
All true. And it makes him admirable. Doesn't make him better than prime Gary Payton or prime Jason Kidd, though.The way Nash plays is inspiring. The guy NEVER gives up and never takes a play off. What he lacks in natural talent he makes up for with effort.
I've always thought that as he makes his teammates better, they make him better as well. It's a symbiotic relationship. Together they've done things they couldn't do apart.Its gonna be hard to watch the Suns after he leaves. He's not the best player in the league, but he has defined what an MVP is suppose to be.
Didn't the Suns trade away their starting PG early into that season? And didn't Amare miss a lot of time with injuries? Nash is certainly better than Marbury, by quite a bit in fact, but the Suns were a young team that won 44 games in 02-03, and they were continuing to get better. At best you can say it was an 18-game improvement, and probably even a little less than that, since 04-05 Amare and 04-05 Joe Johnson were certainly better than they had been in 02-03.
As for Dallas, they exchanged Nash for a rookie PG and a classic tweener in Terry, and a decent but not great C in Dampier. Shaq, on the other hand, left the Lakers in exchange for 60 cents on the dollar and the Lakers fell apart, whereas he lifted Miami from true mediocrity to the East Finals. And they probably would've made the Finals if not for the injuries they suffered in that series.
Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the Suns' turnaround was totally Steve Nash, although he did have alot to do with it. But by the same token the Dallas turnaround wasn't Steve Nash either. I was merely pointing out that with MVP (and COY also) the media typically looks at a team's turnaround as evidence of worthiness, however flawed that may be.
Oh, and Findog is right. While I believe that Nash is better than GP, career wise he isn't better than Kidd, although I believe that at this very moment he is.
Im not even going to argue about this. I watched Kidd for YEARS in his prime. He couldn't carry a team the way Nash does. Kidd is a good passing point guard, but his defensive abilities never made up for the fact that he just couldn't shoot.
Nash is just on another level. There's no question in mind. If you guys want to debate it thats fine, but you kidding yourselves (no pun inteded).
I agree that Nash is by far the superior OFFENSIVE player when compared to Kidd. If the game is on the line and I needed a bucket, I would choose Nash over Kidd any day of the week.
BUT, Kidd is a much much much better defender and far more of a triple threat (I can't ever see Nash getting 19 boards in a game)
Also, Kidd took a horrendous NJ team to the top seed (granted, in a very weak conference) with FAR LESS TALENT than what Nash had when he arrived in Phoenix.
So yeah,
Kidd >>>> Nash
He didn't have the caliber of teammates that Nash does. Antonio McDyess, Cedric Ceballos, Rex Chapman, Hot Rod Williams, Cliff Robinson, Tom Gugliotta, a washed-up Penny. He took the Nets to the Finals twice with just Kenyon Martin and Richard Jefferson and not much else. You keep Nash from scoring and you take away a large portion of his impact. You take away Kidd's scoring, which is not that hard to do, and he's still a major factor.
Kidd is a GREAT passing point guard.Kidd is a good passing point guard,
Kidd didn't need to consistently hit the outside jumper to have a huge impact. His defense more than made up for it.but his defensive abilities never made up for the fact that he just couldn't shoot.
The kindest thing you could say about Nash is arguing that he's Kidd's peer. No way he's "on another level."Nash is just on another level.
I agree. If it's an end of game situation, I'd much rather run a play to get a look for Nash over Kidd.I agree that Nash is by far the superior OFFENSIVE player when compared to Kidd. If the game is on the line and I needed a bucket, I would choose Nash over Kidd any day of the week.
da_suns_fan can't understand the importance of defense to save his life.BUT, Kidd is a much much much better defender and far more of a triple threat (I can't ever see Nash getting 19 boards in a game)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions