Reply With Quote
These guys aren't pointguards, so who gives a .
I'll say it again, the Suns ain't without Nash.
These guys aren't pointguards, so who gives a .
nash is considered league MVP...
...you cant get that award twice and expect people not to compare your overall contributions to the outstanding players who play other positions.
even though nash is maybe the best point gaurd, he doesnt have the complete game you expect out of an MVP.
...we could all agree to call LeBron a pointgaurd, and i have no doubt he is a better allround player than nash and it really isnt that close.
I never said he is the MVP. I didn't even vote for the MVP, what is the point? Nash means more to his team than pretty much any other team. Have you seen the Nashless Suns play?
In reference to this.
You ask for merits, then dismiss everything as luck, chance and coincidense....whatever you do, just dont ever pause for one moment to take a second to consider the other side or the possibility that you may not be 100% correct.
Diaw was not a lottory pick. I guess you figured since the Hawks selected him he must have been a very high pick, but he wasn't. He was the 21st overall pick. He was known as a defensive stopped upon entering the League. No one had any idea about this offensive game. Until he teamed with Nash.
And you're oh so clever attempt at humor with the "Diop" swipe actually has legs. Not that you intended it to, but if you knew anything about basketball you'd know that the season prior to this one, the Suns signed career underacheiver Steven Hunter one month after he was a throw in in a trade and was then promtly waived. He went on to have a career year alongside Nash, opted out of his League minimum salary and was signed a 5 year, 16 million dollar contract with Philly, who, no more than four months later was looking to dump the waste of talent.
You see, Nash is the one constant that you constantly overlook or dismiss.
You say I'm coming across as 100% correct on the matter. You criticize me for it. Then you pompously sit their and dismiss everything offered, therefore standing by your claims that Nash isn't a top-10 player. Infering he's overrated and that his MVP's are a joke. That he's nothing more than pretty good PG who helped a team of overacheivers to the Finals utilizing a system taylormade for his skills.
You talk and talk and talk and talk about all these scrubs, castoffs and roleplayers being some kind of talent before Nash, despite none of them ever doing anything of note. You talk and talk and talk and talk how Nash benefits from the Suns system and how this system is what makes these underacheivers overacheive for the first time in their careers to the point where they are winning awards and receiving acclaim. You talk and talk and talk and talk about how it's all a coincidense that Nash is leader of this team, but really isn't anything special.
I tell you Nash is the system. I give proven facts in reguards to his teams. I tell you everything you'd ever need to know about it.
Yet you are the one who, without much of any support, claim Nash is underwelming. You cannot be disuaded from your point of view, no matter the content offered to you, yet you sit there all high and mighty casting frowns upon those who believe they are correct in their opinion.
You imply it's wrong to be so confident, all the while being confident in your flawed ideas, facts and notions.
But go ahead. Dismiss this. It's what you do.
Just as you imply I'm a blind homer, I tell you I CHOSE Dirk for MVP this year.
Just as you imply I'm a blind homer, I tell you I CHOSE the Mavs over the Suns in this series.
You dismiss everything that's been said, yet sit in judgement of those who do the same, despite having a much better reason to do so.
You offer nothing of meaning.
sensitive. The thread le is he is not a top 10 PLayer, not PG.
Yes, but if you believe Dwight Howard and Manu Ginobili are top-10 players, you're incredably mistaken and on top of that, the thread's creator said "If he could choose one player for one year to win a le, he could think of 10 players he'd choose over Nash"
If you're choosing Howard and Ginobili as you team's le foundation, then you're going to come up short.
Nash, for all his weaknesses has been to the Wester Conference Finals three times out of the last four years. Had his best bigmen not gotten hurt in 02-03 and this year, maybe he'd have gotten farther.
To just completely dismiss Nash for his defensive flaws is insane. It's like dismissing Ben Wallace for his offensive flaws.
ben wallace could never be league MVP given that his game is so uneven.
...the same could be said of nash. there are too many guys who can do both well to give the award to a oneway player
dwight howard is about to be a top 10 player in the league for the next 10 years
...thanks for correcting me on Diaws draft status.
I thought he was a higher pick than that.
Are you telling me for one year, you'd take Dwight Howard over Steve Nash?! One Year?!
You made the criteria.
For the next ten years. Fine. Maybe even next five. But for this past year or for next year, you're telling me you'd take a raw, offensively unskilled big man with two years under his belt over Nash, arguably the best PG in the game?
You don't watch the spurs enough. During the Playoffs Manu is easily a top 10 performer, but unless you watch a lot of spurs basketball you can't possibly know that.
as far as one year guys every player needs talent around them.
manu is great and all, but not a top 10 player.
i think thats pushing it. youd have to rank him above guys like arenas/amare etc to put him that high.
hes likely the third best on his team right? im sure there are 8 other guys in the league who are better.
having said that, if the mavs could sign only gino or nash at this point for next year, i'd probably take gino.
if they could only sign nash or d howard for one year (next year), im taking Howard.
...doesnt mean howard could do for phoenix what nash does for phoenix and be as big of a difference maker. but on a team playing standard, championship style basketball like the Mavs, i'll take the big man over Nash.
06 mavs + dwight howard = unstoppable.
06 mavs + steve nash = a force to be reckoned with, but with vulnerabilities.
Last edited by pussyface; 06-02-2006 at 05:41 PM.
I watch a good portion of every single playoff game. EVERY SINGLE GAME.
Manu has point totals of 10, 32, 8, 3, 27, 10, 15, 13, 24, 26, 18, 30 and 23.
He had seven games under 20 points, six above 20. He was just as likely to go 15-or-below (six times) as 23-or-above (six).
He's windly inconsistant. Largely due to injury, but that's just my point. If you think Manu, inconsistancies and injuries included, is a top-10 player, you're flat-out crazy.
jmark... were on the same page here little buddy. how bout that.
Nash is the OPOY, MVP should be given to the player who is the best all around player offensivley and defensivly. Nash gets 10 assist a game because of the time of system they run.
and the no amare, joe johnson or quentin richardson reason is bull . The suns knew he we was gonna be gone most of the season and the other 2 are just roleplayers. What has johnson does in atlanta where he can't just spot up shoot?
Nash won the MVP because people never get to see him play, 2/3 of the voters probably say a couple full games. Then they watch sportscenter and see him have 1 cool behind the back pass and think he is great. It was the same situation with Reggie Bush and the hiesman voting, all sportswriters saw of him were the same 10 plays ESPN showed over and over.
Nash is the offensive player of the year. Very true.
However, the MVP stands for most valuable player. Not best scorer or rebounder or best all around or best season. MOST VALUABLE. That's what Nash and Dirk are to their teams, despite each's defensive shortcomings.
You obviously haven't read this thread. If you had you would see where even D'Antoni says Nash IS the system. He's in charge of everything. If you credit the system, you MUST credit Nash. It's that simple.
Laughable. Utterly laughable. So, you think if Dallas had known entering the season it would be without Josh Howard, Jason Terry and Jerry Stackhouse, that they'd be where they are today with just Dirk, Harris and Daniels?and the no amare, joe johnson or quentin richardson reason is bull . The suns knew he we was gonna be gone most of the season and the other 2 are just roleplayers. What has johnson does in atlanta where he can't just spot up shoot?
I don't.
This is idiocy. This is the first time I've ever heard that being on the West Coast and not having the voters see your games work to your advantage.Nash won the MVP because people never get to see him play, 2/3 of the voters probably say a couple full games. Then they watch sportscenter and see him have 1 cool behind the back pass and think he is great. It was the same situation with Reggie Bush and the hiesman voting, all sportswriters saw of him were the same 10 plays ESPN showed over and over.
There is a reason why these people vote. They aren't shlups off the street. They are qualified voters. I'm sure a great deal of them put a great deal of thought into it. I doubt SportsCenter made their minds up. If it had, it would have been either Kobe or James, since ESPN strokes their manhood all day long.
You obviously know nothing about Bush. I'm not a USC guy, but that kid was sick. Yes, he was better than Young this year over the course of the season and was so against a much tougher schedule.
He had a game where he totaled over 500 yards of offense and it came against a top-25 team. HE TOTALED OVER 500 yards.
That's rediculous.
everything this guy doesnt agree with is "laughable" and "idiocy."
to me its pretty obvious that kobe bryant was the mythical offensive player of the year.
You obviously know nothing about Bush. I'm not a USC guy, but that kid was sick. Yes, he was better than Young this year over the course of the season and was so against a much tougher schedule.
He had a game where he totaled over 500 yards of offense and it came against a top-25 team. HE TOTALED OVER 500 yards.
That's rediculous-------you
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the heisman trophy is not rewarded for one game, but if it was it might have gone to VY on his 600+ yard performance versus OSU.
bush is great but had some games he didn't do much in...
...if you think having the most spectacular highlight reel i've ever seen was not a big factor in bush getting that award or that there is no truth to the idea that many heisman voters historically dont follow west coast teams as closely due to the time zone factor, than you just might be the one who is "ridiculous." you argue to back up the agenda you bring to the discussion, and are not partial to letting truth get in the way.
So, you think the NBA hands out MVP ballots to shlups who don't watch games? OK, now, do you think the NBA hands out two-thirds of its MVP ballots out to shlups who only follow the NBA from SportsCenter? OK, now lastly, do you really think with the NBA handing out two-thirds of its MVP ballots to shlups who only follow the NBA via SportsCenter, the Suns, a West Coast team, is going to get an advantage from the Eastern Sports Propoganda Network?
It's crazy!
And Yes, whenever a team advances to the Western Conference Finals without it's starting frontcourt, I'd say there's some significance.
Like I said, could Dallas have done it without Dirk and Howard? Could San Antonio have done it without Duncan and Nazr? Could the Clippers have done without Brand and Kaman?
Why is it so hard to admit there's significance to it? If it was the Mavericks advancing without the aid of Dirk, it would be noteworthy. I know this because it was noteworthy when they lost to San Antonio in 02-03 because of Dirk's injury. If it matters when a team loses, it matters when a team wins.
his point was not that they are biased towards the west coast, but that they live in the east so for practical reasons (massive time zone difference) many of them don't actually watch PAC 10 teams the way they follow the teams that are local to them/they grew up with.
...Bush became a runaway heisman winner largely because of his incredible highlight plays. I remember hearing play by play guys say things like "wow! just give this guy the hesiman right now! ive never seen anything like this!"
in our 30 secon soundbite world, does it seem like "laughable idiocy" to you that this could trump what hindsight indicates is the more substantive accomplishments of young? texas-young is way < usc - bush.
young became nothing more than an also ran in the race...he was a way distant second. sound right to you?
Last edited by pussyface; 06-02-2006 at 06:19 PM.
the only relevance any of this has, is that it goes to showing that you dont listen to the arguments people are making against your points.
your points are generally reasonable. by the same token, many of the counterarguments made to them are reasonable, but you just fly off about something irrelevant (like saying the east doesnt favor the west) and dismiss the other person as crazy without taking into account the merits of what they are saying.
...now I know there is no truth to what im saying here...tell me where im going wrong and am crazy...
Vince Young didn't have 600+ yards vs. Ohio State. He passed for 270, rushed for 70, passed for 2 TD's, three 2 INT's and was sacked three times.
That's 340 yards, not 600+.
Bush had seven games with at least two touchdowns scored. He had eight games with at least 100 yards rushing, including four of 150 or greater and two of 250 or greater (last two games of the year). He never fumbled (until the le game, though that was more of a lateral, than actual fumble).
True, the highlight real runs helped, but imagine the numbers if he hadn't have split time. That doesn't factor in, but the fact he split time and still put up the numbers he did was amazing.
osu= oklahoma state.
care to give the particulars of that performance?
Yes I do. He said Nash only won the MVP because two-thirds of the voters cast their ballots off two or three plays they caught on sportscenter.
That's exactly what his point was.
I said there's no way the NBA would allow this. I'm quite sure every voter is screened and has a long history of quality service to the League or its coverage.
There's no logical way to excuse someone for saying two-thirds of the voters are unqualified, casual observers of the NBA. Many of them have made it their life's work. I seriously question the sanity of a person who makes such a claim. It's completely outlandish.
If he'd have said some of Nash's highlight real passes helped sway a few voters, that's fine. That's logically possible and realistically true. But two-thirds of the voters casting their spur of the moment ballot after painstakingly covered the NBA for roughly seven months?
Please. Just Please...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
