Reply With Quote
Kidd is the most overrated PG, IMO. Always has been, always will be. He'll never lead a team to a le unless he gravy trains it, but that wouldn't be leading i guess.
On the night that Steve Nash receives his Most Valuable Player trophy and David Stern says that the Nash "lives" the intangibles we all like to talk about, the guy who used to start over Steve Nash and who's actually played in the Finals...
breaks out his shooting slump for 22 points, 9 rebounds, 7 assists, and 4 steals in a 12-point win on the road, and a series lead.
Coincidence?
Kidd is the most overrated PG, IMO. Always has been, always will be. He'll never lead a team to a le unless he gravy trains it, but that wouldn't be leading i guess.
I think it's unfair to Jason Kidd and to a lesser extent Chauncey Billups that Steve Nash is a two-time MVP and they don't have one. There's nothing that Nash has done in the last two years that Kidd didn't accomplish in his first two years in New Jersey. Kidd is arguably best rebounding point guard in league history. He's a walking triple-double, and a damn good defender (before the knee injury).
No one can convince me that the teams the Nets beat on their way to the Finals were any worse than what the Suns has played in the last 2 postseasons. Nash owes Kidd a lot. There was a groundswell to get Kidd the award in both those years, and I believe it softened up the ground for Steve Nash.
When I think of the great point guards of this era, Steve Nash is not the first name that will come to mind. It's Jason Kidd.
Typical from a Suns fan.
This was all over Detroit radio today about Steve "Canadian Bacon" Nash.
Basically, the guy doesnt even rank among the top 10 point guards in the last 10 years, God forbid in history.
His stats are inflated by the "system", hes a ing turn-style on defense. I mean, the guy doesnt even feign interest in defense, he has resigned himself to the fact that he will never be anywhere near capable at it.
Him winning 2 MVPs in a row is a travesty, IMO. No, just so its out there, I dont think Chauncey deserved it. No, no at all actually. Maybe some votes (which he got), but not to win it.
Just disgusting. 20 years from now we are going to see a list of the only players to have won back-to-back MVPs with names like Jordan, Chamberlain, etc with some dumb one-dimensional player named Nash who will NEVER win ANYTHING in his entire career (which is winding down).
The radio show ended with this...Nash won because he is white. I cant argue with it too much either.
Jason Kidd is half white. Is that why he came in second to Duncan?
Not to take anything away from Nash, but winning it back to back without even ever taking your team to the Finals, ever? That's laughable. Jason Kidd still managed to take his team to back to back Finals appearances.
Typical response from a clueless Spurs fan.
I've watched him since his Cal days to Dallas to the Suns to the Nets. My opinion has never changed. While you get to see mostly ESPN highlights and NY style articles I've followed him much closer (Cal/Pac-10 & w/ the Suns).
Always been the most overrated PG IMO. He can put up some good #'s here and there, but lacks the important leadership quality.
As long as "intangibles" don't include defense, Stern is somewhat justified in his statement.
Yeah, and some would consider those two years to be the worst years in the history of the EC. Didn't they have the best record one year with 50 or 52 wins? And once in the finals they got pounded by the Spurs and Flakers.
Seriously, those year's were TERRIBLE , whenever I'd see an EC team's playing each other, it was painful to watch. Take any "superstar" from the west and place them in the East, that'll take them to the FINALS every year.
Everyone knew it was "Whoever wins the WCF" is guaranteed the Ring
...Only did the assembly of the Detroit Pistons did things changed, and then Shaq getting traded....And the East STILL has a long way to go from now to balance out with the West.
And your opinion is ridiculous. Your last paragraph described Nash, not Kidd. While I get to see Kidd take terrible players to the Finals because he plays defense, whether it's attractive to the NBA or not, you get to blow Steve Nash because he played in two of the top three "offense at the expense of defense" systems in the modern era.
If you followed Kidd when he was at Cal, did you miss them going to the sweet 16 and Kidd making the plays to win both games? Please quit bringing such weak to the discussion, homer.
- Memphis Grizzlies (45-37) - 0-12 all-time in the playoffs.
- Dallas Mavericks (54-28) - Never has won the shootout series.
- LA Lakers (45-37) - No interior presence, trying to play big ball. They almost succeeded in beating the Suns, beating them 3 of the first 4 games.
- LA Clippers (47-35) - Their first 2nd-round appearance in 30 years.
He's currently benefitting from a broken playoff system. His team should be starting a series with the Dallas Mavericks right now, not the Clippers.
2001-02:
- Indiana Pacers (41-41) - This is the same team that won 61 games, just a little younger. Took the Nets to the brink, 3-2. Their first playoff series win in 20 years.
- Charlotte Hornets (44-38) - Jamal Mashburn, Elden Campbell, Baron Davis, David Wesley - this was considered a Conference Contender, but they were struck with injuries, done in 5 games.
- Boston Celtics (49-33) - Paul Pierce and Antonie Walker were the lifeblood of this team, done in 6 games.
- LA Lakers (58-24) - Had no answer for Shaquille O'Neal. Big suprise, swept in 4 games.
11-9 (.688) - As with most teams, they had to learn how to close out a series, and they did.
2002-03:
- Milwaukee Bucks (42-40) - with Gary Payton, Sam Cassell, Desmond Mason, Michael Redd, Anthony Mason, and Toni Kukoc, the Bucks were another fun-and-gun team. They knotted the series at 2-2 before the Nets put them away. That's significant because for however bad the Conference was, they wouldn't lose again until the Finals.
- Boston Celtics (44-38) - Swept.
- Detroit Pistons (50-32) - Swept without homecourt advantage.
- San Antonio (60-22) - Tied the Spurs at 2-2, holding homecourt until the Spurs won game 5. They had a huge lead in San Antonio, hoping to force game seven when the Spurs went on a huge streak.
14-6 (.700) - Two wins away from the NBA Championship.
I see no difference in what Steve Nash has had to play thus far, and guess what? New Jersey had much more success.
Finals is Finals. They still managed to take the Spurs to 6 games if I recall...
Anyways, my biggest gripe with Nash is his no-defense policy and the fact that if his value was so indispensable, how do you explain the fact that the team he left still managed to win 55-60 games without him?
Like I said, no one is denying that Nash has amazing talent when it comes to the "intangibles." But his success is partly due as a result of the system in which he plays under.
And your posts are pointless. I'm not comparing Nash to Kidd you ass monkey.
Did Kidd lead Cal to a le? No
Did Kidd lead Dallas to a le? No
Did Kidd lead Phx to a le? No
Did Kidd lead NJ to a le? No
It's laughable why so many put him up on a pedestal because he lacks that leadership quality that so many other players have.
Step on down from yer high horse Tonto. Kidd ain't all you wish he were. The only way he gets a ring is to gravy train it.
You just happen to be a Suns fan that has this encyclopedic knowledge of Jason Kidd and why he isn't any good, but you don't place any value on his beating the Grant Hill Bobby Hurley Duke team in the NCAA tournament, or his two trips to the Finals. LOL. You are if nothing else consistently bad at judging the quality of a basketball point guard. I watched the Finals against him when the Spurs played and he was ing awesome. That team should have been way overmatched and Kidd nearly willed them to a game seven.
Here's the deal, chief, you may not be comparing them, but I am. Kidd may not be any good, but he's still better than Steve Nash.
He could take some lessons from Nash, since that's the way he gets MVP awards.
Did Nash lead Dallas to a le? No
Did Nash lead Phx to a le? No
Is Nash a 2-time MVP? Yes.
Jason Kidd is 33-years-old.
Steve Nash is 32-years-old.
I'd say the comparison is legit.
In 2001-02, the New Jersey Nets won a franchise-record 52 games. They won 26 games the season before. They have yet to have a losing season since that time. Where is Jason Kidd's MVP?
Steve Nash did lead 15th ranked Santa Clara in an upset of the biggest choking Arizona team in history (they lost to the number 14 the year before).
Yes it's a coincidence
You two are the ones comparing Kidd to Nash. All i'm saying is that Kidd is highly overrated.
He did less with a more talented Suns team than he did with a weak NJ team in a very weak EC. You could have taken the WC #8 those years and they would have beaten any EC team from thos PO's.
Let's not forget Kidd was the #2 pick that year. He's never had that leadership quality that you'd expect from a "superstar" as so many call him.
Keep this in mind, if Nash didn't get it, it would have gone to Lebron
He was in Phoenix for 3 1/2 seasons. They lost in the 1st round to the Portland Trailblazers, a team with supierior size (Brian Grant, Rasheed Wallace, Arvydas Sabonis). Their free-agent prize, Tom Gugliotta, was completely shut down.
I especially remember the 2000 season when he and Penny Hardaway exchanged spots on the injury list. It got so bad they brought Kevin Johnson out of retirement. Tom Gugliotta had a seizure on the team bus and was never the same after that. Despite all that, the Suns still managed to develop Shawn Marion and get the Sixth Man of the Year in Rodney Rogers.
They still managed to win 53 games and get out of the first round for the first time since 1995, two years before Jason Kidd came to the team. By the Steve Nash rules of Most Valuable Player, he should've won the award right then and there.
In 2001-02, Jason Kidd and the Nets went from 26 wins to 52.
In 2001-02, Stephon Marbury and the Suns went from 51 wins to 36.
So Nash "took" the suns from 29 to 62. He also took, what many people predicted to be a lottery team when Amare went down, to 54 wins, a division le and a rally from a 3-1 hole. Nash is a better shooter, Kidd is a better defender. Big whoop.
The both have their pros and cons and i don't want to compare the two. My stance is that Kidd does not have that leadership quality to lead a team to a championship.
Look at it this way, since you're so high on Kidd, would you rather have Kidd or Parker running your team? I'd take Parker any day of the week over Kidd.
Neither Steve Nash or Jason Kidd have ever deserved to be the League MVP at any point in their respective careers.
Shaq should have won it last season.
LeBron or Kobe should have won it this season.
Tim Duncan deserved it when he beat out Jason Kidd.
While both players are fantastic players, and both are among the best point guards over the last five or so seasons, neither one has been more valuable than Shaq has been for his teams before this season. Neither one has been more valuable thanTim Duncan or even Kevin Garnett. Neither one has been more valuable than Allen Iverson at any point in either's career, including this season.
Steve Nash deserves a lot of recognition he's gotten over the last two seasons, but he not the League MVP.
But, that's just my opinion.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
