Reply With Quote
MVParker would've been a hall of fame calibre player no matter where he was drafted.
Truthbomb. If the Celtics had gone through with drafting him instead of changing their mind at the last second, he'd be long since out of the league by now and nobody would have ever heard of him.
MVParker would've been a hall of fame calibre player no matter where he was drafted.
And Nash torched him right back all while being the engine of his team's offense. Enrique OTOH was the Spurs #3 during those match-ups.
Yeah, and as great as he was Dirk wasn't on Duncan's level. Amare, Marion, JJ weren't on a prime Manu's level. D'Antoni/Nellie weren't on Pop's level.
Enrique won bc the #1 and #2 guys on the Spurs were better than the other teams #1 and #2. Not bc he has some magical winner gene that Nash didn't.
Stick to povertyball... your basketball, hockey, and political takes are horribleMVParker would've been a hall of fame calibre player no matter where he was drafted.
Nash: 2-time MVP, 8 time all-star, 7 time all-NBA (3 1st team, 2 2nd team, 2 3rd team)
Rique: FMVP as a 3rd banana, 6 time all-star, 4 time all-NBA (3 2nd team, 1 3rd team)
smh there's no comparison. Seriously how much of a homer do you have to be to give Rique the nod just bc he was Duncan's teammate?
What is this thread about again?
lol
What was a clutch performance by Nash in the playoffs?
Nonsense. You belittle great players to aggrandize Nash. He was on loaded teams, but he wasn't as good as you say.
Just from today's postgame, he got trolled for over an hour resulting in...
Bad take. Those are awards voted by the media. They loved Nash and always overrated him. They are the same guys that called the Spurs boring. Funny how Manu is "better" than any of Nash's teammates, but by your own standards in terms of all stars, Dirk, Amare, and Marion were actually better.Nash: 2-time MVP, 8 time all-star, 7 time all-NBA (3 1st team, 2 2nd team, 2 3rd team)
Rique: FMVP as a 3rd banana, 6 time all-star, 4 time all-NBA (3 2nd team, 1 3rd team)
smh there's no comparison. Seriously how much of a homer do you have to be to give Rique the nod just bc he was Duncan's teammate?
I make no apologies. Nash and Kidd are the two most overrated PGs of all time.
lol wut
Duncan wasn't better than Dirk? Prime Manu wasn't a better #2 than Amare, JJ or Matrix? Pop wasn't better than Nellie/D'Antoni? Not to mention the fact that you are comparing a #1 to a guy who was a 3rd banana.
Nash is an overrated loser. He never had the compe ive fire. His MVPs are directly attributable to D'Antoni's system of putting up big, flashy offensive numbers while leaking like a sieve on defense. It was a churning factory of overrated players: Quentin Richardson (have you heard of QRich since his Suns days?), Amare, Marion... prior to that, he played for Don Nelson, the master of the fast paced offense.
Nobody is surprised that Nash never won a championship. He played "for fun". On top of that he ducked his children...
I appreciate what he did to the Lakeshow, but I really have no sympathy for the guy.
Nah don't be dumb. Manu agreed to come off the bench and play fewer minutes than other great players. Enrique was never handicapped by that, if anything he benefited from being the leading scorer of the system-dependent Spurs (once Timmy & Manu got older)...that's how he racked up most of his all-star nods. No different than Teague benefiting from Pop/Bud's system tbh.
Nash was an Amare/Diaw suspension and a Tim Donaghy game away from potentially having a championship, tbh
I don't think he deserves to be mentioned in the same breathe as other guys with multiple MVPs. Don't think he deserved his second one either. With that said, D'Antoni's system hasn't done without Nash. It was tailor suited for him but that doesn't diminish how great he was at running it. He was the orchestrator and a lot of player's inflated numbers had as much to do with his ability to run the system as it did the system itself.
Yeah, that was one of the worst regular season MVPs in modern basketball, tbh...
It's hard to tell how Nash would've fared with a coach that asked him to play some defense... He went from Don Nelson, the original master of run and gun, to D'Antoni, a guy that only cared about one side of the floor. Not that Steve would complain.
I'm not counting his first couple of season with Ainge, since he was still pretty raw.
That D'Antoni system had Kendall Marshall averaging 8.8APG in 28 minutes on a team with little talent last year.
Nash revolutionized the game
How is dribbling around near the paint until someone gets open revolutionary.. Phoenix was Phoenix, it's not like teams all lined up to emulate the Phoenix run and gun offense of 8 years ago.
The ABA used to regularly have teams score into the 120s. D'Antoni and Nash did not invent running and chucking.
Awesome offensive player, smart, great court vision, shot lights out, wicked passer, unfortunately for Nash basketball is more than just offense and he never learnt how to or never had the desire/physical tools to play defence. That seemed to be contagious to his team mates also, thus why he never won a ring. Brilliant to watch offensively though, gotta give him props for that but basketball is a 2 way game.
How dem defending champs the Kings doing? In a playoff spot I assume?Stick to povertyball... your basketball, hockey, and political takes are horrible
I'm torn on Nash in a lot of different ways and I think he gets a significant part of the acclaim that he does because he has allies in the media who are willing to sing his praises without much consideration of his faults. On the one hand, he could be absolutely magnificent in distributing the ball and he was absolutely and exceptional shooter; he played the game very efficiently and, in an era dominated mostly by defensive behemoths, he and those Suns teams showed that you could be a high-level team while playing a fun and exciting brand of basketball.
I don't think there's any question that those Suns teams from 2005-2010 really pushed the notion that being offensively brilliant could be a way to compete at the highest levels and once the league moved in the direction of favoring that style of play, their concepts became more and more widely-adopted. So, I'm not sure that there's a particularly good argument to deny that the Suns (and Nash as the maestro of those teams) have had a significant impact on the way basketball is played at the NBA level right now; how much of that credit goes to Nash and how much to D'Antoni is worth debating.
There's a legitimate question about whether a player who is excellent on one end and abysmal on the other can be considered a great player. A player who is an exceptional defender but unable to do much offensively is almost never even considered to be much more than a journeyman, but being a great offensive player with substantial defensive limitations almost always results in that player being considered at least good and sometimes great.
The narrative of Nash as an all-around good guy seems a choice to ignore some of the off-the-court stuff ElNono mentioned, which is a curious editorial choice within the media, but it is what it is.
We're in a McDavid spot
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions