Better Career: Jason Kidd or Steve Nash

[vicphoenix13]

Game's played on both ends of the court.

Yeah, and how many great defenders can you name in the NBA? Defense doesn't have the same value as offense because star players are going to have a bigger impact on offense than on defense. In fact, defense is a team attribute where you need five guys helping each other out. Even though Nash isn't a good defender, he has never played on a great defensive team.

As great a career as Kidd has had, it is embarrassing to have shot 40 percent for a career. Its a tribute to him that he's so good at other aspects of the game or he wouldn't be a hall of famer. Whether you like it or not, shooting and scoring are the most important skills in the NBA.

[Findog]

Yeah, and how many great defenders can you name in the NBA? Defense doesn't have the same value as offense because star players are going to have a bigger impact on offense than on defense. In fact, defense is a team attribute where you need five guys helping each other out. Even though Nash isn't a good defender, he has never played on a great defensive team.

As great a career as Kidd has had, it is embarrassing to have shot 40 percent for a career. Its a tribute to him that he's so good at other aspects of the game or he wouldn't be a hall of famer. Whether you like it or not, shooting and scoring are the most important skills in the NBA.

We can go round and round on this, but Kidd is a better all-around player, and I would take 2001-2002 Jason Kidd over 2005-07 Steve Nash. Nash was a borderline All Star in Dallas, his production dropped off under Terry Porter, and now he's back to putting up eye-popping stats under Gentry. He's only been this kind of impact player in the SSOL system. The Nets don't come anywhere near the Finals in 2001 or 2002 with Nash running the Princeton offense, but I guarantee the Suns do equally as well in 2005-07 with Kidd running SSOL.

[vicphoenix13]

Game's played on both ends of the court. Also, Nash played on 8 straight 52+ win teams. His teams went fishing in large part because he couldn't guard Mike Bibby or Tony Parker.

Okay, Bibby played better than Nash in one playoff round back in 2004. That's back when Bibby was one of the better guards in the NBA. As for Parker, the Suns didn't try to have Nash defend him very often in the playoffs. Besides, Parker played great regardless. It wasn't like Nash was the only guard that Parker played better than in the 2006 playoffs.

As for Kidd, wasn't he exposed by Chris Paul two years ago in the playoffs? Or how about what Chauncey Billups did against him last year? You Mavs fans hold Nash to a higher playoff standard than your own point guard.

[vicphoenix13]

We can go round and round on this, but Kidd is a better all-around player, and I would take 2001-2002 Jason Kidd over 2005-07 Steve Nash. Nash was a borderline All Star in Dallas, his production dropped off under Terry Porter, and now he's back to putting up eye-popping stats under Gentry. He's only been this kind of impact player in the SSOL system. The Nets don't come anywhere near the Finals in 2001 or 2002 with Nash running the Princeton offense, but I guarantee the Suns do equally as well in 2005-07 with Kidd running SSOL.

I don't think you've been watching the Suns all that closely this year. They aren't playing the same way they did under D'Antoni. This version of the Suns is more comfortable with setting up in the half court. They are now middle of the pack in fast break points. It is a complete myth that Nash can't work in a half court offense.

As for Kidd running SSOL just as well as Nash, don't be so sure of that. One of the things required in SSOL is that the point guard be an excellent shooter. If the point guard is a weak shooter like Kidd, the defense can drop off and cover the other shooters. Just look at how Mike D'Antoni has faired in New York. His SSOL system isn't working to well with the Knicks because Chris Duhon is a pathetic shooter.