Reply With Quote
& Kobe was a to do that, and a bigger not to take responsibility and accountability. We've had to eat because of that act since then. Don't you know, its indefensible.
Never quit. Anything could have happened.
You might as well make this stat your sig since you manage to include it in every single post.
& Kobe was a to do that, and a bigger not to take responsibility and accountability. We've had to eat because of that act since then. Don't you know, its indefensible.
Never quit. Anything could have happened.
One thing you can say for Nash is that he never played in front of a dominant defensive big that could mask his defensive shortcomings. Magic was a defensive liability towards the end of his career; don't let any Faker fan tell you otherwise. He just had a better defensive frontline behind him.
Dude, I love Kobe's game, but that's just apologia.
No big man could ever cover for Nash defensively as well as Marion could.
It was a de able act by Bryant and a taint upon his resume.
Now Nash carries the same taint.
Why shouldn't I? Somebody has to use facts to counteract the nonsense you spout about Nash all the time.
If Nash had played with Duncan, we'd be hearing a lot less about his lack of defense. A team like the Spurs could mask his shortcomings a lot easier than just crossmatching Marion's man for Nash's man.
Speaking of Marion, what happened to him? He was a allstar with the Suns and now he's been reduced to role player status. His whining and complaining in Phoenix backfired.
It goes beyond team help. The team can't do anything about it when Nash decides to ball hawk and leave someone wide open.
Marion put up similar numbers with Marbury and Kidd. He's on a really good team again, so I'd say everything worked out just fine for him.
He wouldn't do that under Popovich.
The team's leader shouldn't need a coach to tell him to stay on his man.
Claiming Kobe 'quit' in Suns series is nothing but gross hyperbole and exaggeration. Even more hilarious when you realize Kobe was the only guy on the team that showed up in game 7.
2 Finals appearances > 2 MVP's
I can't beleive ppl are comparing them careerwise.
This is like comparing Dirk to Sheed. Dirk is way, way better shooter but when you are really in the mood for a championship you pick a young Sheed over any Dirk.
same applies here. you always pick a young Kidd over any Nash.
Guys like Popovich and Phil Jackson more respect and attention than Alvin Gentry and Mike D'Antoni. It may be in Phoenix that they like him playing the passing lanes and playing safety. I'm just saying that his defensive shortcomings could be mitigated on a team like the Spurs or the 2004 Pistons.
I can't fathom taking Sheed in his prime over Dirk in his prime. Sheed's a classic 2, Dirk is a 1.5
let me put it this way. Put Dirk on that Pistons team and they don't beat the Lakers. And they don't take Spurs to 7 games. And that was not even a young Sheed. Young Sheed was beast.
he was just wasted in that Portland team full of potsmokers.
Kidd has been to the Finals, but you have to remember how bad the Eastern Conference was when he was dominating with the Nets. Both players couldn't beat the Spurs. Nash has won more games. He has led the league's best passer in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2009. Kidd has been more consistent, but Nash is more explosive.
I got to go with Nash.
Dirk in his prime (which is to say this year, since he's playing the best ball of his career, even better than his MVP year) is better than Sheed in his prime. I'd take "Young Sheed" over "Young Dirk" too, for what that's worth, since Sheed was a two-way player and Dirk was not. But Dirk's defense is not a liability anymore. He is always in the right spot now, his rotations are good, he can challenge shots, he takes good fouls at the basket and he can make a play or two now and then. He should never be confused with Kevin Garnett or Ben Wallace in his prime, but the Pistons would easily cruise to the le in 2004 and smoke the Spurs the next year with this version of Dirk.
Put those Finals appearances in the proper context. Kidd played in the pathetic Eastern Conference when his team reached the Finals. I am willing to bet the 8th seed in the West could have won the East during that time. If Nash had played in the East during his career, I am sure he would have gotten to the Finals. Getting to the Finals doesn't mean a thing unless you win the championship.
It still says something about Nash's leadership ability if he needed a coach to tell him to stay on his man.
I mostly agree. I guess it just depends how you define better careerwise. To some it's probably about scoring les, mvps, and numbers. To me it's about who was a better weapon to win a championship. And in this case it's Sheed and Kidd.
You just really want to hate on Nash, don't you?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions