Reply With Quote
Without Amare.
I think they can be. They certainly are better defensively. Neither one of those players play well with Shaq. The Diesel has shown that he still has a little in the tank and the paint is where les are won. Instead of trying to move Shaq, they should try to move those players. As good as Nash is he is a liability on defense. Shaq will constantly be in foul trouble with Nash on the court. If Phoenix really wants to win a le, they'll move Nash.
Without Amare.
Without Nash? no. Without Amare is up for debate. Team chemistry improves without him.
I don't see why not without nash. You guys put Nash on a pedestal when he should not be. He is one dimensional and great for the run and gun game, if that's all you want. We all know what that will get you. NOTHING! The Suns will never win a le with Nash at the point.
No
i think you keep Stoudemire get rid of Nash. Nash has shown his entire career that he has been a liability on defense and you will see it every game. they may struggle to win games at first, but the entire at ude of the team will change ala the Mavs when nash left and Avery johnson came to town.
Nash is to the Suns what Iverson is to the Pistons. Get rid of him.
The suns added Nash 4 years ago and turned into a 60 win team.
The Pistons added Iverson and turned from a solid 55 win team into a mediocre team.
How the are the two comparable? The Suns record without Nash the last 4 years has been horrible.
I thought about it and still NO
Suns might be better off with them in the short term, but the scrubs like dragic and others will come to earth over an extended period of time. Most of those guys shouldn't be in the league
if by better you mean worse.
You have to keep Nash. He's aging now and there's no way to get equal value for him, and since the Suns' game is predicated on his abilities, you'd be shooting yourself in the foot.
Amare is different. He doesn't show a commitment to play heady defense in Phoenix, mostly due to his apparent lack of grey matter. But he's young and has been relatively healthy. The Suns could get a pretty good package deal in return for him. When Shaq's contract comes off the books, they could be looking at a very deep team with some signing power.
I would trade Amare in the off-season to the highest bidder. Otherwise, you are banking on a post-player who makes consistent mistakes and refuses to play 48 minutes of defense for a franchise. Not a smart move. In many ways, Amare is the complete an hesis of Duncan -- explosively athletic, using his agility and power to overwhelm defenders. Completely devoid of BB IQ. He doesn't have a fantastic feel for the game and doesn't know how to use good body placement. He's driven by his ego and talents, rather than learning the game. Not a fantastic passer, either.
I feel sad, because there seem to be a few legitimate sports fans in Arizona, and they deserve better than this. If they trade him though.... they could make a deep team that can contend in the West for a while.
Nash and Amare are at different points in their career. Nash, along with Shaq, Grant Hill are all have a couple seasons left playing period. Amare could be there long after that. If you are trying to win right now with the current cast, then yeah Amare doesnt fit. If you are thinking about the potential in the future, keep Amare.
If i would be a GM moving Nash and Amare would be my first and second missions in the offseason.
But im not... so it! :P
This team isnt going anywhere while it is led by wannabe superstars that cant play defense. Entertaiment is the most you can expect from them.
As for Shaq.... props to him to be such a great player at 37. Incredible!
spurs, suns and lakers = stone, scissors and cloth
don't be fooled. Lakers quality of play = quality of compe ion / 100
this thread is ing re ed. they arent going to win a championship the way they are built period. no way in . but if they want to win as many games as possible, Nash and Amare >>> Shaq.
Making sure Gentry understands that this team needs to get better at defense if he wants any sort of long term future with the Suns would be mine.
Look at what Dallas did without Nash. Although they did not win a le, they were a better team after Nash left.
The Suns historicly do not do well when Nash is out but their game is geared to his style of play. Of course they'll miss him when he's out. If you put a solid point guard in his position and change your strategy, the Suns would be successful, imo.
That probably wasn't directly due to Nash, it was more due to the fact Avery coached that team extremely well, they got Jason Terry and J-Ho emerged the year Nash left.
But the Suns will never win a le with Nash and Shaq on the same team, that's for sure. The other championship teams Shaq has been on have had a blue collar PF who rotates extremely well on defense and a big PG who fights through pick and rolls extremely well.
You can't put Shaq on the same team as arguably the worst pick and roll defender at PG and PF.
Exactly! If you don't have a guard that plays defense and is able to stop the penetration of other guards, Shaq will not be as effective.
Nash does the one thing that's worse for Shaq than stopping penetration. He makes no effort whatsoever to fight through screens and always leaves Shaq out on an island guarding a PG 20+ ft. away from the basket.
I am sick and tired of the Nash haters talking about his lack of defense. Didn't the Lakers score 130 points against the Suns last Thursday when Nash didn't play? Didn't Mo Williams score 44 points against the Suns a month ago when Nash didn't play? The reality is that the Suns are a poor defensive team and Nash being absent from the lineup doesn't improve things. By the way, Nash is second in the NBA in charges drawn so he does put in a effort on defense.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
