Reply With Quote
You're not remembering correctly.
Yeah, but on the other hand, IIRC the Nets were never really seen as the favorites to come out the East.... people were expecting the Raptors, Magic, Hornets, Pacers, etc. to be the sacrifical lamb to the West champs... even though the East was trash, it does reflect well on Kidd's leadership that the Nets rose to the top of that crapheap....
You're not remembering correctly.
It doesn't change the fact that he made it to the finals with a meh team two years in a row. That is calledbeing productive in your prime.
real talk...why do you call yourself Jordanobili 2320...do you think Jordan would have ever gotten only 70,000 votes for an All-Star game...you may want to consider changing your name ....
I like Kidd here tbh even if daf86 remarks make sense too even if his offensive relative struggles vs. Nash never became a liability in his prime: you don't let Kidd in his prime open in O. Also one cannot forget his impact on this Knicks team, he is one of the reason they came together this year.
take the year 01'-02'jkidd went to the finals, and the year nash 2010 went to the WCF and switch them does nash beat the lakers in the finals in '02 or does j kidd beat the lakers to advance to the finals and possible beat the celtics in'10...
for example
J Kidd would of had, amare, hill , j rich, frye, lopez, dragic, dudley, barbosa, and few others..
Nash would of had, brandon armstrong, richard jefferson, kerry kittles , kenyon martin, aaron williams, keith van horn..
i think j kidd took that team the farthest they could of gone, as great as nash is, i dont think would of been able to take them farther.
"Nash would of had, brandon armstrong, richard jefferson, kerry kittles , kenyon martin, aaron williams, keith van horn.."
8th seed in East
How is that funny? You hurt my feelings man!real talk...why do you call yourself Jordanobili 2320...do you think Jordan would have ever gotten only 70,000 votes for an All-Star game...
good points here
defense ain't the most important attribute for a PG but it doesn't mean you can be a defensive liability either imho. nash might have the ability to be a good scorer himself but on the other end of the floor he would allow the opposing PG to score more, and you can hardly cover it up with good team defense when the opposing team moves the ball well. plus nash's impact on offense is rather limited when he faces a lento half-court defense or when he doesn't have a quality big to play p'n'r with
^This.
Nash needs P&R to score and be successful!
Kidd can help the team on the halfcourt-offense too!
i dont understand the pick n roll is part of the game.. if he can be successful most the time using it, and hes mastered it. why wouldnt that be his play of choice
The 2002 Nets and 2003 Nets were 17th/18th in the NBA, offensively..they were fast break-reliant teams that struggled in transition, mostly due to their lack of a shot creator, including Kidd..
Offensively, Nash is better in every aspect of the game..he led some of the best offensive teams in NBA history, and his impact upon arrival to Phoenix is legendary, from a numbers perspective..regarding your pick&roll comment, every team in the NBA attempts to rely heavily on pick&rolls, it is the most effective play in basketball..
As for supporting cast..Nash's help was superior, but if you replaced him with Kidd, the Suns would be noticeably inferior..their entire system would have collapsed..the Suns were a meltdown away from winning an NBA le..also, Nash still managed to lead a team to the WCFs without Amare, in a difficult Western conference..
Kidd's Nets competed in some of the worst conferences in NBA history, tbh..
Meh he shot 40% from 16 ft to 3pt line from 01-08 before he was traded to Dallas and his game started changing tbh. I guess it was a stretch on my part to call it solid but I also wouldnt say thats a liability either. also shot around 33-34% from three during that stretch surprisingly, and other than 01' made over 100 3s every season too. I think alot of us (including myself) are selling his jumpshot short tbh. He was never a liability like Rondo is, or even someone like Parker who makes about 20 3s a season and who hasnt shot over 40% from that same midrange distance once the past three seasons despite his improved shot.
Regarding the argument against him about the weakness of the East at the time. The Nets sucked before he got there, it doesnt minimize the impact he had on the team...not sure if it was bigger than the Spurs turnaround in 98' but I know the win-loss turnaround was up there as the best ever in 02' when Kidd first got there. Also that same argument could be used when talking about MVPs tbh...does Nash beat out prime TD/KG/Shaq out during the early 00s? Nash won his in a weaker era. I dont think its unfair to say Kidd couldve won atleast one if Timmy and KG were a few years older in 02-03.
Im sorry, why would the Suns have collapsed with Jason Kidd running the show? As if he wouldn't have set up a young Stoudemire, Marion and JJ? Also, Amare was on the team Nash led to the WCF so you must be on some serious crack.
The 2002 Nets and 2003 Nets were 17th/18th in the NBA, offensively..they were fast break-reliant teams that struggled in transition, mostly due to their lack of a shot creator, including Kidd..
Offensively, Nash is better in every aspect of the game..he led some of the best offensive teams in NBA history, and his impact upon arrival to Phoenix is legendary, from a numbers perspective..regarding your pick&roll comment, every team in the NBA attempts to rely heavily on pick&rolls, it is the most effective play in basketball..
As for supporting cast..Nash's help was superior, but if you replaced him with Kidd, the Suns would be noticeably inferior..their entire system would have collapsed..the Suns were a meltdown away from winning an NBA le..also, Nash still managed to lead a team to the WCFs without Amare, in a difficult Western conference..
Kidd's Nets competed in some of the worst conferences in NBA history, tbh..
Amare missed the 2006 season..
Phoenix's pick&roll game was dangerous due to Nash being one of the best shooters in NBA history..
Kidd couldn't shoot and he was poor at finishing at the rim..Kidd isn't nearly as threatening in the pick&roll, opposing teams have never been afraid of his scoring potential..
Nash. If I had to pick based on stats or something, like say (just randomly) Isiah Thomas vs Big O, it'd be much harder. But I've seen a bunch of both players, and IMHO, Nash just impacts his team more. His defense sucks but he does draw charges at a high clip. Additionally he requires a very strong individual effort.
It's close but I take Nash in a real game.
kidd is one of those players whose impacts cannot be easily sensed until you lose their services imho. nash and him both deliver massive assists and it's really a hard call who is the better passer but kidd is more portable and it takes him no time to fit in a totally new system no matter in dallas, new jersey or NY, while nash only functions in run-and-gun systems.
So much revisionist history in this post.
sup DUNCAN?
sup Axe
Not a whole lot brother. Just trying to find a way through the day, light for a night
Just playing the recorder waiting for the cuck cobra to pop its head out etc
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions