Reply With Quote
Suns fans might very well be the biggest homers in the planet.
The Glove is a better all around player than Steve Nash. I don't knowwhat those ESPN geniuses were thinking when they ranked Nash ahead of Payton.
Suns fans might very well be the biggest homers in the planet.
Steve Nash if total compared to Gary Payton in his prime. He shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence as Payton.
Why is ESPN always sucking this guys balls? I guess when the little whines after they get their ass kicked in playoffs this year, ESPN will be there to toss his salad and trash the team that beat Phoenix in the media.
Next thing you know, they'll be comparing him to Magic Johnson and Michael Jordan.
He hasn't done but lose and whine. him.
Considering that an ESPN panel comprised of non-Suns fans voted for Nash over Payton, this could hardly be attributed to Phoenix homerism.Suns fans might very well be the biggest homers in the planet.
Talk about obsessed. Every thread Johnny Ringo posts is dedicated to hating Steve Nash. While I agree that Payton should be ranked ahead of Nash, it isn't a stretch to suggest Nash belongs among the top ten point guards of alltime.
Top ten of this generation? Sure.
All time? I dunno. There's some stiff compe ion Nash is facing there.
Once again, Johnny, you reveal yourself to be a simpleton. You're seriously gonna dispute that Nash is a better player than Payton? You think Payton is better just because he's got a ring? You're an idiot for thinking that winning a championship somehow magically puts him in a class above Nash. Winning a championship has to do with having a good team, and has nothing directly to do with how good a player is. It's not an individual accomplishment. And you think his MVPs are tainted? Talk of anything being "tainted" by a Spurs fan is pretty ing re ed. Welcome to the short bus.
I would take Nash over Payton. GP was a better athlete but IMO, Nash was smarter and unselfish. Two things Payton will never be accused of.
Like I said, Im not even argue about this. Let the haters believe what they want.
Saying Kidd is better than Nash is like saying Dirk is better than Larry Bird.
There's absolutely no question in my mind. I can't tell you how many times Nash will take over a game and I'll just shake my head in disbelief and say "Man....that guy is so good."
You haters can believe what you want. I wouldn't trade Nash for Kidd (in his prime) if you paid me.
btw - I love how all other Suns fans on this board have picked up on the fact that Johnny Ringo doesn't post ANYTHING except how much he hates the Suns. My favorites are when he bring up how much he hates the Suns into a thread that has absolutely nothing to do with them.
I.E. "What does everyone think about the Nuggets"
Johnny Ringo: The Nuggets play defense, unlike the ty Phoenix SOns!!!!
Not to nitpick, but who exactly was comparing Nash to Kidd in this thread before you did?
I think it's a toss up, personally. Depends on the type of team you have constructed around said PG. No one can argue that Nash isn't the better pure PG, the better passer and the better shooter. No on can argue that Payton isn't the better slasher and defender. However, Payton had many a issue with teammates and coaches in his time, whereas Nash has never. So again, it all just depends.
However, the logic used in the orginal post to diminish Nash is so flawed it's not even funny. No facts beyond what I just admitted to above (like being the better defender), mostly just biased opinion such as the MVPs being tainted because of the Phoenix media machine. Well since when did Phoenix become New York, and its press become a publications everyone in the country reads? Let's not be rediculous.
Also, you're comparing a now-retired Payton to a still in-prime Nash. Stevie may very well add another two All-NBA 1st teams, giving him a total of five to Payton's two.
Beyond that Nash was faulted for some playoff struggles, failing to get the youngest-team in the League at the time (04-05 Suns) past a very experienced Spurs team, then in 05-06 failing to get an undermanned, undersized Suns team that was using three SFs as a frontcourt rotation to the Finals, then selling the 06-07 Suns short, a team who had been more than competative at full strength with the Spurs, and while it's true it's their own damn fault they got suspended, nobody can diminish the impact said suspensions had on the series.
Overall, the only series of the three they really should have won was last year, but after being stupid, that was never much of a reality beyond game five.
I can understand favoring Payton over Nash because of his all-around prowess, but not to the point where a legitimate top-10 PG is made to seem inferior and underserving to even be mentioned in the same sentence. It's not like Payton is in the top-half of All-Time PGs. Until he landed his Shaq/Wade-given le late in his career, it's not like his team's didn't suffer some humiliating defeats in the playoffs *cough, cough... '94 Nuggets... cough*
Oh I see...this a strictly Payton vs. Nash thread?
Fine. Would anyone honestly trade Nash for Payton?
If your answer is yes, then you need to watch more Suns games.
Good post on this subject
*shrugs* Since Ringo started the comparison, might as well keep it there.
Besides, there's already a Kidd/Nash thread in the front page of this board.
On Payton/Nash? Can't give an unbiased opinion there, cause I think Payton is an assclown.
Compared to the 6 All NBA Selections (5 First Team), 9 All Defensive Selections, 89 Triple Doubles (3rd All-Time), Leading the NBA in Assists 5 times, and 2 Finals Appearances?
Why exactly does Kidd = Dirk and Nash = Bird again?
I much as I like seeing Nash play, I'll never believe that he suddenly decided to elevate his game when he turned 30, after joining a new team with a completely different and unique run-and-gun system. I don't why anyone would be a hater for choosing Kidd over Nash, the ESPN article in this thread put Kidd two spots over Nash; the issue here was Payton or Nash.
I won't debate that Kidd has had the better career of the two, but if there was ever an asterisk moment in the NBA, then the Nets two Finals appearances should qualify. On their trek, they literally defeated just on 50-win team to get there. This was before the Eastern Conference broke through and win a Finals. This was the very definition of the Leastern Conference. If you don't think that Nash, even that same time Nash, couldn't have switched places with Kidd and led those Nets teams to the Finals, then you're fooling yourself.
I don't think the gap between Kidd and Nash is as wide as you believe. JKidd is a triple-double machine. Which means that he's one of the best rebounding guards in NBA history. Take whatever shots you want about his shooting ability (or lack thereof), but his rebounding prowess and defensive abilities narrows the gap between he and Nash considerably.
To be fair, if the Suns had made the finals 2 years ago, they would have done the same thing (albeit beating a 60 win team and two 40 win teams). No one on that Nets team even averaged over 15 PPG (Kenyon and Van Horn their leading scorers) and even the 54 win Suns team minus Amare of 05-06 had a better supporting cast than a team made up of Van Horn, Kittles, Martin, and Todd MacCulloch. Like I said before, it's hard for me to believe Nash drastically evolved as a player the second he left Dallas, but I certainly don't think it's a given that Nash could've done what Kidd did in '02.
To me, it's not really significant that Kidd played in an inferior conference to get to the Finals, because his team was not at all vastly superior to the teams he faced during the run. Kidd had to be a beast in those playoffs, averaging like 20/9/8, so it wasn't like he didn't have to elevate his game to get his crappy Nets team into the Finals.
Likewise, the Suns have been a top tier, 60 win team with Nash in the superior Western Conference for the past 3 years. They've already proved they're among the elite in the conference, so I don't see why the difficulty in the conference can be used as a reason when they get knocked out of the playoffs . It's different if the Suns were an 6-8th seed, first round fodder team that would likely spank everyone in the Eastern Conference, but they're clearly on par with the elite teams they've faced (Spurs, Mavs).
I just had a huge response when my comupter crashed. !!!
So now, in bullet form...
1. You can't expect the youngest team in the League that missing a 20-ppg scorer to defeat a two-time Champion, therefore you can't really use said series loss against any of the Suns players. That's ed up if you do. They went as far as they were supposed to according to the experts. They were just too young and hadn't enough depth to make up for the injured Johnson. Not taking anything away from the Spurs. With a healthy Johnson, I still think the Spurs win in no more than six. That just speaks to the advantage San Antonio had stemming from their experience and coaching.
2. You can't hold it against an injury-ravaged team to lose in the Western Conference Finals. I mean, take the starting PF and C off any team and they'd be lucky to get as far as Phoenix did, no matter the seeding break Phoenix got. Frankly, I picked them to lose to any playoff team past the Lakers, so in beating the Clippers in seven games they surpassed my expectations.
3. Your comparison of the 05-06 Suns and the 02-03 Nets is flawed because that Nets team was 90% healthy. As I recall Martin was hobbled, but still able to play and play well. Take he and Mutombo off the Nets and see how far they advance. I seriously doubt they get past the Pistons. Of course it's all speculation at this point, and I don't bring this up to slight Kidd as a player, just to say that his Leastern Conference series wins are a joke compared to the teams Nash has had to face out West.
4. The only reason I bring it up is vs. the West Kidd is 0-fer. Nash is 9-7, including 5-7 vs. 50+ win teams, with three of the seven 50-win series losses coming in the Conference Finals. So, despite never playing in the Finals, Nash-led team have a far superior record vs. the far superior Western Conference than does Kidd-led teams. Like I said, had the 01-02 and 02-03 Nash been on those Nets teams, I imagine he'd have advanced to the Finals as well. The East was just terrible from 2001 to 2003, accounting for a 3-12 record in the Finals vs. the West. Once the East gets better, the Nets fail to beat a 50-win team from then on out (0-4). In total Kidd is like 1-9 vs. 50-win teams in his career. Nash, again, is 9-7, despite playing his entire career in the tougher conference.
Says the pwned guy. I present facts while you S0ns fans have nothing but garbage to bring to the table.
Uh, yeah. That was the point of the topic, re .
No. Reread the first post, moron. Payton's better because:
-has a championship ring
-has three appearances in the NBA Finals(should have been four but the refs gave Phoenix 65 FTAs in the '93 Western Conference Finals)
-superior career averages including his career 8966 assists(compared to 5979 for Nash)
-DPOY award
-8 All-Defensive First team selections
-2 All-NBA First team selections
-5 All-NBA Second team selections
-9-time All-Star
Now let's compare that to Nash who has:
-0 rings
-0 Finals appearances
-3 All-NBA First team selections
-5 all-star appearances
Payton's defense, in his prime, was excellent. He held Jordan to his lowest ever Finals averages(much better than anyone on the pathetic '93 Suns roster who allowed Jordan to go off for 41 ppg). Also, Payton and his Sonics held Jordan's Bulls to the lowest-scoring quarter in the Bulls' NBA finals history.
In all-time NBA history Payton ranks:
-21st in points (21,813) - passed Larry Bird (21,791) on March 26, 2007
-6th in assists (8,966)
-3rd in steals (2,445)
-7th in minutes (47,117)
-8th in games (1335)
Payton also ranks fifth all-time among guards in defensive rebounds, 12th in offensive rebounds, and 10th in total rebounds for a guard.
Not to mention his work ethic...In 16 seasons, Payton only missed 11 games, and at one point held the longest active streak for consecutive games played, with over 300.
Thanks for confirming that Steve Trash's MVPs mean nothing since they were really team accomplishments. Shaq, Wade, Lebron, and Kobe all had better individual numbers, and thus, deserved the MVP more than Nash.
Stop denying the taint. Nash has no business winning one MVP award, let alone two. Why the does this clown have the same amount of MVPs as Duncan and one more than Shaq?
Duncan's sixth on the all-time career effciency list. Just for comparison's sake, Nash is 65th. Duncan's carried some horrible Spurs teams to 50 win seasons in the early 00s, has never been eliminated in the first round of the playoffs, and he's played all-star calibre basketball since the day he joined the league. Proof here:
http://www.wagesofwins.com/RookieStar.html
While guys like Garnett and Kidd started out rough(Steve Nash has a negative value for his rookie year-LOL) Duncan, along with Shaq, have been top level players from day they entered the NBA. There's a reason why they're both called the best players in the game since Jordan retired.
Considering this fact, how the does someone like Nash get two MVPs...the same amount as a 4-time champ like Duncan and one more than a 4-time champ like Shaq. He's only played good basketball for the last three years and he's somehow more valuable than either of these two? Gimme a ing break. Perfect example of the the Phoenix hype machine at work trying to make Nash the great white hope of the NBA.
Haha, this is pretty hilarious. Check it out:
LMAO, this fool accuses me of obsession while he goes off on a tangent(3 times!) about Jason Kidd. I thought this topic was about Payton vs Nash?
Sensitive much?
And, for the record, Kidd is better than Nash. I'll take a real point guard, anyday, over a gimmick like Nash.
That he won shamelessly chasing a ring and riding on the coattails of Shaq and Wade. Payton could never lead his own team to a championship, something that Nash hasn't done either. So that's hardly an advantage.
I must've forgot that they handed out rings for winning Conference Championships. Totally irrelevant how far you lead your team into the playoffs unless you're choking (which neither Nash or Payton did) or you actually win the le.
First Nash's career isn't over, and he's only getting better (he's improved the past three years). Secondly, career stats are a very small piece of the puzzle. It's also important to look at peak years, because clearly Nash has improved his game greatly since he came into the league.
No argument there. Payton was a better defensively player than Nash.
The MVP is not an award that is bestowed based upon individual performances.
Total red herring. What does Nash's rookie year have to do with his MVP awards? And the validity of an MVP award has nothing to do with direct comparison to others who had won it. His race also has nothing to do with it, nor how long he's been playing MVP caliber basketball. And there's no such thing as the Phoenix hype machine.
OlDirt, just leave RIngo alone. His happy in his ignorance. He seems to delight in bashing the Suns and Suns players more than anything his Spurs or Spurs players could ever give him.
I'd venture to say half his posts are on the Suns, with nary a one being positive.
EDIT: OK I searched and for just a reference of his "S0ns" catchphrase turned up 149 posts out of just over 600. That's just posts containing "S0ns" mind you. Since there's no way to really know if he's got posts on the Suns without said word, I'll just let your imaginations wander with a minimum over 20% of his site's posts bashing the Suns.
He's definately one of the Spurs fans that Suns fanatics claim is obsessed. He is. No doubt about it.
I just had a huge response when my comupter crashed. !!!
My point was not that the Suns should've beaten the Spurs and Mavs the past few years, it was that they were on the same level as them. Likewise, the Nets were on the same level as their Eastern Conference opponents; it's not like they were as good as the present-day Suns and had a cakewalk to the finals.1. You can't expect the youngest team in the League that missing a 20-ppg scorer to defeat a two-time Champion, therefore you can't really use said series loss against any of the Suns players. That's ed up if you do. They went as far as they were supposed to according to the experts. They were just too young and hadn't enough depth to make up for the injured Johnson. Not taking anything away from the Spurs. With a healthy Johnson, I still think the Spurs win in no more than six. That just speaks to the advantage San Antonio had stemming from their experience and coaching.
Again, I didn't mean to imply that Phoenix should've gotten to the Finals. But they certainly weren't underdogs in their first two series; they were a 54 win team without Amare for the whole season and facing two 40-something win teams from their own division. The fact that they were in a tougher conference doesn't change the fact that they were among the elite in that tougher conference and significantly better than the Nets teams.2. You can't hold it against an injury-ravaged team to lose in the Western Conference Finals. I mean, take the starting PF and C off any team and they'd be lucky to get as far as Phoenix did, no matter the seeding break Phoenix got. Frankly, I picked them to lose to any playoff team past the Lakers, so in beating the Clippers in seven games they surpassed my expectations.
I've stated earlier that even with the injures, the Suns were a formidable opponent in the Western Conference, winning 54 games. Amare didn't go down midseason, hampering their postseason chances. They knew what they had from the beginning and were still a pretty good team with Marion, Nash, Bell, Barbosa, Thomas and Diaw.3. Your comparison of the 05-06 Suns and the 02-03 Nets is flawed because that Nets team was 90% healthy. As I recall Martin was hobbled, but still able to play and play well. Take he and Mutombo off the Nets and see how far they advance. I seriously doubt they get past the Pistons. Of course it's all speculation at this point, and I don't bring this up to slight Kidd as a player, just to say that his Leastern Conference series wins are a joke compared to the teams Nash has had to face out West.
But if you recognize the mediocrity of the Eastern Conference during that time, you have to include the Nets! That's my main point; why should Kidd getting the Nets Finals be taken any more for granted than Nash taking the Suns to the Finals? Kidd played in an inferior conference with an inferior team; I don't see his path as remarkably easier to the Finals considering his team than it should've been for Nash in the past 3 years on a top 3 Western Conference team.
I'd dispute the similarities between the Suns team Kidd played for and the teams Nash played for. I don't remember any of the Suns teams Kidd played for ever being a top 3 seed in the West or having similar personnel and coaching philosophy the Suns have now. I don't believe we can attribute Kidd's playoff record in the West solely on Kidd's shoulders if were gonna consider other factors (experience, injury) for to explain why Nash hasn't made the Finals.4. The only reason I bring it up is vs. the West Kidd is 0-fer. Nash is 9-7, including 5-7 vs. 50+ win teams, with three of the seven 50-win series losses coming in the Conference Finals. So, despite never playing in the Finals, Nash-led team have a far superior record vs. the far superior Western Conference than does Kidd-led teams. Like I said, had the 01-02 and 02-03 Nash been on those Nets teams, I imagine he'd have advanced to the Finals as well. The East was just terrible from 2001 to 2003, accounting for a 3-12 record in the Finals vs. the West. Once the East gets better, the Nets fail to beat a 50-win team from then on out (0-4). In total Kidd is like 1-9 vs. 50-win teams in his career. Nash, again, is 9-7, despite playing his entire career in the tougher conference.
I am not saying that Nash is better then Payton or vice versa but 2 things. You do realize that the Sonics lost to the Bulls 4-2. Why are will still having the MVP debate 3 years later? Yes Shaq improved Miami by 17 wins his first year. Nash on the other hand improved his team by 33 wins in 04-05. In 05-06 when the media was all gloom and doom when Amare went down for the season Nash still managed to lead the Suns to 54 wins and 6 games in the WCF against the Mavs. Last thing what is the Phoenix hype machine? So far this season the only teams that have been talked about most have been the Spurs,Dallas and Boston.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
