Reply With Quote
sedday, getting his San Antonio Nets on!
Kidd, because he actually played stellar defense. It is pretty close, and props to Nash for still being able to play this well this late into his career.
sedday, getting his San Antonio Nets on!
HeatBurn 305... why?
Do your accounts automatically die at 5000 posts or something?
Sure, a 37 year old Jason Kidd who was never blazing fast to begin with played a part in a 14 years younger player beating him to spots. I guess that's a flaw ancient PG's tend to have.
Katie girl doesn't like me spending too much time on here.
That nasty
Steve Nash NBA career highlights:
* 2× NBA Most Valuable Player: 2005, 2006
* 7× NBA All-Star: 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010
* 7× All-NBA selection:
o First team: 2005, 2006, 2007
o Second team: 2008, 2010
o Third team: 2002, 2003
* 2× NBA All-Star Weekend Skills Challenge winner: 2005, 2010
* 4× NBA regular season leader for assists per game: 2005 (11.5), 2006 (10.5), 2007 (11.6), 2010 (11.0)[10]
* 4× NBA regular season leader for total assists: 2005 (861), 2006 (826), 2007 (884), 2010 (892)[10]
* 2× NBA regular season leader for free-throw percentage: 2006 (.921), 2010 (.938)[10]
* 6× NBA regular season leader for assists per 48 minutes: 2004 (12.6),[59] 2005 (16.1),[60] 2006 (14.2),[61] 2007 (15.8),[62] 2008 (15.5),[63] 2010 (16.1)
* 5x member of 50-40-90 Club: (2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010)
o Has more 50-40-90 seasons than any other player in NBA history
o One of only five players to have ever shot 50-40-90
o One of only two players to have shot 50-40-90 more than once
o Only player to have shot 50-40-90 five seasons in a row
* Lou Marsh Trophy (Canadian athlete of the year): 2005[64]
* 3× Lionel Conacher Award (Canadian male athlete of the year): 2002, 2005, 2006
* J. Walter Kennedy Citizenship Award (NBA award for outstanding citizenship and community service): 2007
Jason Kidd:
* 10-time NBA All-Star: 1996, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2007, 2008, 2010
* 6-time All-NBA:
* First Team: 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004
* Second Team: 2003
* 9-time All-Defensive Selection:
* First Team : 1999, 2001, 2002, 2006
* Second Team: 2000, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007
* NBA co-Rookie of the Year: 1995 (with Grant Hill)
* NBA All-Rookie First Team: 1995
* NBA All-Star Skills Challenge champion: 2003
* 5-time NBA regular-season leader, assists per game: 1999 (10.8), 2000 (10.1), 2001 (9.8), 2003 (8.9), 2004 (9.2)
* 3-time NBA regular-season leader, total assists: 1999 (539), 2001 (753), 2003 (711)
* NBA regular-season leader, total steals: 2002 (175)
OK, who's imitating Culburn with the new troll?
Imemulatedao!!
I don't know, but they should sent themselves directly to the tree of woe.
How does Kidd's age excuse the fact he just decided to float off Hill and leave Hill wide open? It's not like Hill kept beating him off the dribble, he just kept giving Hill wide open shots.
The defense and rebounding argument isn't nearly enough to top all of Nash's advantages IMO..
Kidd's defense is overrated in general, and Nash's defense isn't nearly as bad as stated IMO..more importantly, PG defense is extremely overrated in general, and it's not as valuable as the defense at any other position from an individual standpoint..
Another thing about prime Kidd is that not only did he not dominate against quick PGs from a defensive standpoint, but he would also struggle even more in this era, since he was one of the biggest "handcheck defenders" of all-time on the perimeter..
Even in his prime, Kidd had no mid-range J, struggled at shooting 3s, struggled to finish at the rim, was never a great 3-point shooter, and had trouble in general at beating half-court defenses..Kidd has only led one top 10 offense during his entire career IIRC, which speaks volumes on their difference as offensive weapons..even though Nash has had a better supporting cast, Kidd's offense is clearly overrated and limited to running fast breaks/transition from a dominating standpoint..
Is defense and rebounding from the PG position enough for Kidd to outweigh Nash's positives and numerous offensive advantages over him?..
In fairness to the Mavs, I don't think anyone expected Hill to have the series he did. God knows Hill got destroyed by the Suns in the 2nd round bricking shot after shot. The Mavs game plan wanted the Spurs taking outside shots because they didn't have too many reliable 3 point shooters. George Hill changed that series, but missed all those shots in the 2nd round while the Suns hit all of theirs.
Btw the old PG Hill played in the next round didn't struggle with knowing not to leave an NBA player wide open.
Sup SpursDynasty
"They just shot some shots"
It's not like Kidd left Hill open a few times and then adjusted, he literally kept doing the exact same thing expecting Hill to magically start missing.
Well, that settles it! Nash's defense > Kidd's
I'd like to think so. Nash had one of the best offensive games for a PG ever, but Kidd was a triple double threat night in and night out. I don't know if I agree that Kidd's defense was overrated. He's obviously a pretty damn good defender in his prime, and I don't think 9 all NBA defensive teams was a mistake. An argument can definitely be made for Nash being the better PG, but Kidd was just a much more versatile player, despite his offensive limitations.
lol strawman arguments
Kidd is much much slower now too. Not sure what the "SpursDynasty" comment is about. Nash burned Hill way more on the offensive end than defensive. Kidd definitely got murdered on some pick and rolls, but not even Spurs fans expected Hill to have the series he did. He shot lights out.
Kidd's also a better defender (in his prime) and a pretty good rebounder for a guard.
Nash for sure. Much more complete offensive player.
yeah, its' kind of a known specialty of yours
He shot lights out because he was wide open. If Nash gave him as many wide open shots as Kidd did, the exact same thing would have happened. He was a 40% 3 point shooter during the regular season, those aren't players you just float off and hope miss the open 3's you give them.
If you value defense and rebounding more, then I can understand..
If I was picking, I would take running an offense over defense and rebounding from the PG position by an easy margin, I just don't think either one of those aspects is that big of a deal in comparison(defense and rebounding for PG)..
A prime Nash really had no weaknesses offensively..he was arguably the best pick and roll PG of all-time IMO, he ran extremely well in transition too, he could attack the rim off the dribble and finish, he's a legendary shooter from anywhere on the floor, he led elite offenses every year, he was just as good of a passer as Kidd..
If you gave Nash competent defenders behind him(which he has never had), your team defense would be fine IMO..there's nothing you can really do to hide Kidd's offensive flaws IMO, he would still be unable to finish from anywhere on a consistent basis or consistently run a half-court offense..
Btw the Spursdynasty comment was about you basically saying "George Hill just shot some shots"
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
