It's sad that history will remember Nash as a better player than Iverson [Archive] - Message Board Basketball Forum

Kblaze8855

07-20-2012, 01:40 PM

Give Nash the teams AI had he would have Iversonish results. 06 was his best work far as doing something with a merely pretty good team..and he won 54 games and beat a 41 or so win team and a 44 or so win team in 7 games each. Impressive in a way...but not a turning water to win situation. AI had years like Nashs last couple for most of his life:

I read what AI failed to do aside from 01. In 02 the teams top 4 scorers missed a total of 97 games. They were 36-24 in the games AI started...even with the rest of the offense being in and out.

In 2000 his second leading scorer played just 32 games and Hill, Ratliff, and Huges missed chunks of the season(hughes missed 32 games ratliff 24). AI himself 12. And he still got them 49 wins. Healthy I can see 55 or more. But they still won a series.

In 03 his second best player was a 2 years from retirement Keith Vanhorn. But he led them to 48 wins and a playoff series win.

In 04 he missed 34 games, Glenn Robinson(his newest "sidekick to take pressure off him") missed 40 games, and they changed coaches. Team did nothing.

Then hes got straight role players top to bottom plus 21 games of Webber.

The only year they should have probably been better than they were...in his entire Philly run...is 2006.

He goes to Denver...one year Nene misses a chunk of the season and Melo gets in the fight in NY so hes out for a while suspended. 15 games I wanna say. Next season Nene misses the whole season. They win 50 games anyway. He comes back healthy the next year and they also add Birdman as Camby left and they win 4 more games so they play the Hornets in the first round instead of the Kobe/Gasol Lakers or Spurs who won the title that they got to play with AI. Anyone think Melo minus the suspension or Nene playing at all might help them win 3-4 more games?

AI got a lot of bad breaks. But we sweep them under the rug. When someone else gets judged at face value of the season we look into why. With Ai not doing so well...people act like its him.

When its Wade, Kobe, or most anyone else....we gotta look deeper. Ai? Judge it by the cover.

SilkkTheShocker

07-20-2012, 01:42 PM

Nash has had some of the best supporting casts I've ever seen minus the last couple years.

Yea but Nash made a lot of these guys better players. Iverson didn't make anyone better. And Iverson's team was whack as f,uck but at the time, the was one of the best squads in the East. Its not like he had to go through the 08 Celtics, 12 Heat, or 04 Pistons to get to the Finals. They beat a past-prime Indiana team, Vince Carter/Antonio Davis, and Bucks team that had a weak ass frountcourt aside from Big Dog.

Levity

07-20-2012, 01:42 PM

Kobe will do his best to prevent this when he starts blaming Nash for the inevitably playoff exit.

hey, not bad. it only took 8 posts for some insecure poster to bring kobe up and try and derail the thread.

Umad101

07-20-2012, 01:43 PM

It's not how u start it's how u finish baby

JohnnySic

07-20-2012, 01:44 PM

Iverson was better; in fact, the best small player ever.

Nash is good but has gotten overrated.

RaininTwos

07-20-2012, 01:50 PM

Yea but Nash made a lot of these guys better players. Iverson didn't make anyone better. And Iverson's team was whack as f,uck but at the time, the was one of the best squads in the East. Its not like he had to go through the 08 Celtics, 12 Heat, or 04 Pistons to get to the Finals. They beat a past-prime Indiana team, Vince Carter/Antonio Davis, and Bucks team that had a weak ass frountcourt aside from Big Dog.
First of all, Indiana just made the finals the year prior and the Bucks were legit. They had a mini-Big three going on but AI went through them as well. You guys need to stop revising history.

Nash didn't make people better, that''s non-sensical. Joe Johnson improved without Nash in Atlanta and became a 20+ PPG scorer. Marion was already established and Amare is still Amare without Nash. I don't think you realize just how much talent this guy had on his squad those early Suns years. There was no excuse for a player that is supposedly "better than an all time great player like AI" to come up short year after year.

AI's 2001 team that everyone tries to hype and say it was built perfectly for him was so damn flawed. They had no shooters, AI was the best three point shooter on the team. Take that in for a second, AI was the best shooter from three point range on the team. That's a major flaw. Defensively, his teammates were great, but I wouldn't dare call a one-sided team a great team or the best in the conference when Indiana had a great squad that were two wins away from a ring the year prior.

Milwaukee had way more balance and offensive firepower as well with Cassell, Ray Allen and Glen Robinson.

It wasn't anywhere near a cakewalk to get out the East that year, considering AI had to carry the offensive load for his teammates.

Maniak

07-20-2012, 01:51 PM

why?? That will only make him stupid and blinded by illusions, like most laker fans
I don't need any bandwagon heat fans agreeing with me, thanks.

SilkkTheShocker

07-20-2012, 01:56 PM

First of all, Indiana just made the finals the year prior and the Bucks were legit. They had a mini-Big three going on but AI went through them as well. You guys need to stop revising history.

Nash didn't make people better, that''s non-sensical. Joe Johnson improved without Nash in Atlanta and became a 20+ PPG scorer. Marion was already established and Amare is still Amare without Nash. I don't think you realize just how much talent this guy had on his squad those early Suns years. There was no excuse for a player that is supposedly "better than an all time great player like AI" to come up short year after year.

AI's 2001 team that everyone tries to hype and say it was built perfectly for him was so damn flawed. They had no shooters, AI was the best three point shooter on the team. Take that in for a second, AI was the best shooter from three point range on the team. That's a major flaw. Defensively, his teammates were great, but I wouldn't dare call a one-sided team a great team or the best in the conference when Indiana had a great squad that were two wins away from a ring the year prior.

Milwaukee had way more balance and offensive firepower as well with Cassell, Ray Allen and Glen Robinson.

It wasn't anywhere near a cakewalk to get out the East that year, considering AI had to carry the offensive load for his teammates.

Carried them by being inefficient as f.uck. And Mutombo had some monster games that playoff run. Hell, the 76ers still kept it competitive in game 3 of the ECF when Iverson didn't play with an injury. And don't tell me im re-writing history. The East was at its worst during that time. I don't even care for Nash, but saying he doesn't make players better is beyond retarded. I bet you are a huge fan of streetball :oldlol:

RaininTwos

07-20-2012, 01:57 PM

Carried them by being inefficient as f.uck. And Mutombo had some monster games that playoff run. Hell, the 76ers still kept it competitive in game 3 of the ECF when Iverson didn't play with an injury. And don't tell me im re-writing history. The East was at its worst during that time. I don't even care for Nash, but saying he doesn't make players better is beyond retarded. I bet you are a huge fan of streetball :oldlol:

You are an idiot.

You think that going on basketball reference and finding a couple bad games that AI had where the team came through disproves my point? Please try again.

MetsPackers

07-20-2012, 02:00 PM

First of all, Indiana just made the finals the year prior and the Bucks were legit. They had a mini-Big three going on but AI went through them as well. You guys need to stop revising history.

Nash didn't make people better, that''s non-sensical. Joe Johnson improved without Nash in Atlanta and became a 20+ PPG scorer. Marion was already established and Amare is still Amare without Nash. I don't think you realize just how much talent this guy had on his squad those early Suns years. There was no excuse for a player that is supposedly "better than an all time great player like AI" to come up short year after year.

AI's 2001 team that everyone tries to hype and say it was built perfectly for him was so damn flawed. They had no shooters, AI was the best three point shooter on the team. Take that in for a second, AI was the best shooter from three point range on the team. That's a major flaw. Defensively, his teammates were great, but I wouldn't dare call a one-sided team a great team or the best in the conference when Indiana had a great squad that were two wins away from a ring the year prior.

Milwaukee had way more balance and offensive firepower as well with Cassell, Ray Allen and Glen Robinson.

It wasn't anywhere near a cakewalk to get out the East that year, considering AI had to carry the offensive load for his teammates.

Stopped reading right here. Nash combined with Phoenix's style of play for so many years did wonders for a lot of players' efficiency and made them a lot of money. Guy made average players look above average, and above average players look like borderline all stars, etc

kennethgriffin

07-20-2012, 02:01 PM

iverson was better in his prime

but i would give the career to nash

nash's prime has lasted till age 39 for god sake

dudes still putting up double doubles with 50% fg's, 40% threes, 90% ft's

i've never been more happy to get a 39 year old pg on my team... wouldnt say that about any other player in nba history if they joined at the same age

RaininTwos

07-20-2012, 02:04 PM

Stopped reading right here. Nash combined with Phoenix's style of play for so many years did wonders for a lot of players' efficiency and made them a lot of money. Guy made average players look above average, and above average players look like borderline all stars, etc

We are going to act like he's Jesus of the hardwood, making players better. Did you ever think that this works both ways? Don't you think that his strong, all-time strong cast helped him play better as well?

Derrick

07-20-2012, 02:07 PM

We are going to act like he's Jesus of the hardwood, making players better. Did you ever think that this works both ways? Don't you think that his strong, all-time strong cast helped him play better as well?
You can argue that. Look at this recent season, still averaged 10.7 assists second to only Rondo. You're going to say Jared Dudley and Gortat helped Nash play better? :coleman:

Sarcastic

07-20-2012, 02:07 PM

Iverson doesn't make people better?

Without Iverson on the team in 2001, Larry Brown likely does not with COY, and Aaron McKie likely does not win 6th Man of the Year.

StateOfMind12

07-20-2012, 02:08 PM

Nash didn't make people better, that''s non-sensical. Joe Johnson improved without Nash in Atlanta and became a 20+ PPG scorer. Marion was already established and Amare is still Amare without Nash. I don't think you realize just how much talent this guy had on his squad those early Suns years. There was no excuse for a player that is supposedly "better than an all time great player like AI" to come up short year after year.
I suggest you take a look at how much more efficient players were playing with Nash than without him. Amare and Marion were much more efficient when they were playing with Nash than without him. Those two were capable of putting up 20+ ppg without him but they were pretty inefficient at it. I also suggest you take a look at the 3 point shooters that played with Nash like Barbosa, Bell, etc. and look at how much better and more efficient they shot with him than without him when they left Phoenix.

There is no question that Nash makes his teammates better, it is practically an indisputably fact.

dunksby

07-20-2012, 02:08 PM

We are going to act like he's Jesus of the hardwood, making players better. Did you ever think that this works both ways? Don't you think that his strong, all-time strong cast helped him play better as well?
Because he is a PG and the main ball handler, he makes plays, he decides the pace and dictates his game on the opponent and his own team. Get it or should I simplify it even more?

RaininTwos

07-20-2012, 02:16 PM

Because he is a PG and the main ball handler, he makes plays, he decides the pace and dictates his game on the opponent and his own team. Get it or should I simplify it even more?
So playing with Shawn Marion,Joe Johnson and Amare Stoudemire didn't make his play improve? Are you guys this slow?

You dont think teams fearing Amare off the pick and roll helps Nash make plays for his team?

RaininTwos

07-20-2012, 02:17 PM

I suggest you take a look at how much more efficient players were playing with Nash than without him. Amare and Marion were much more efficient when they were playing with Nash than without him. Those two were capable of putting up 20+ ppg without him but they were pretty inefficient at it. I also suggest you take a look at the 3 point shooters that played with Nash like Barbosa, Bell, etc. and look at how much better and more efficient they shot with him than without him when they left Phoenix.

There is no question that Nash makes his teammates better, it is practically an indisputably fact.

Of course they were more efficient with him, just like Nash had his best years with them. My point is that it's not a one sided thing like you guys try to make it.:facepalm

You can argue that. Look at this recent season, still averaged 10.7 assists second to only Rondo. You're going to say Jared Dudley and Gortat helped Nash play better? :coleman:

His play would take a hit if those guys weren't in the lineup. Just like his play took a hit when Amare left. When you lose good teammates and get surrounded with lesser ones, parts of your games are going to be more difficult.

When Kobe lost Shaq, it was harder for him to score. You can tell by watching the games and seeing the spacing on the floor, it was easier to double him with Smush on the floor than it would be with Derek Fisher. You wouldn't hesitate to help off Kwame, but leaving Gasol/Bynum alone would be stupid. During those rough Pre-Gasol days, Kobe had to carry his so much offensively that his defense slipped a bit. Now while that's something that wont show up in the stat sheet, we can still see that having help around him made him a better player.

SilkkTheShocker

07-20-2012, 02:17 PM

You are an idiot.

You think that going on basketball reference and finding a couple bad games that AI had where the team came through disproves my point? Please try again.

LOL at this f.aggot with a Justin Bieber avatar calling me an "idiot". Its revisionist history to act like Iverson carried that team. He scored the most points but he was ineffecient the whole playoffs and got some help from Mutombo, especially closing out Milwaukee. You made yourself look like a drooling retard already by saying Nash doesn't make players better. Why don't you go put on your And 1 shirt and watch some streetball, clown.

RaininTwos

07-20-2012, 02:33 PM

LOL at this f.aggot with a Justin Bieber avatar calling me an "idiot". Its revisionist history to act like Iverson carried that team. He scored the most points but he was ineffecient the whole playoffs and got some help from Mutombo, especially closing out Milwaukee. You made yourself look like a drooling retard already by saying Nash doesn't make players better. Why don't you go put on your And 1 shirt and watch some streetball, clown.

I love And 1, but havent watched streetball in a while actually. Even if I did, I don't know why you keep referring it.

Iverson did carry that team. Just because other players had moments where did some lifting offensively, doesn't make my statement invalid.

In fact, Iverson scored 2207 of the teams 7763 points. He scored (2207/7763) 28.4% of the teams points. That's an extremely high amount of your offense coming from one player. That's the very definition of carrying.

Nash doesn't make players better in the sense that everyone here tends to think. He isn't a life form that parasites feed off of, it's a symbiotic relationship. Nash elevates the level of play of others, but others do the same for him as well. Anyone who has ever played basketball knows that great players play better when they are surrounded with great talent when the pieces fit and they certainly did in Phoenix. JJ,Marion,Amare,Barbosa,Kurt Thomas,etc...all brought a tools or skills to the table that made Nash a better player(as in more effective) as well.

AI also made players better as well. Another point that people in here are missing apparently. The 01 team was a defensive juggernaut in part because of AI's ballhawking skills. Lazy passes around the perimeter would be picked off and loose handles would be exploited due to his quickness defensively. His teammates allowed him to become better at that by hustling and playing tremendous defense. See? It works both ways. His ball-hawking makes them better defenders as well, within reason. Sometimes his gambles were a little mindless to be honest.

I was wrong to say that Nash doesn't make players better because its quite clear that he does but its also clear that half of you don't know what the hell you are talking about either.

He's had some awesome, all time great supporting casts over the years and couldn't break through his own conference, falling short multiple times. A better player, like AI, would have taken them through to the Finals. I couldn't imagine AI on a team with JJ,Marion,Amare,etc...it would be ridiculous. That kind of talent is something that he NEVER had, yet he still made a huge impact in the league.

onhcetum

07-20-2012, 02:42 PM

I admire both of these guys. Both put teams on their backs and carried them the way guys like Kobe could never. It's a shame they never joined playoff success and at least win a title. AI's 2001 run will go down as one the greatest runs in history.

DatAsh

07-20-2012, 02:48 PM

Linspired

07-20-2012, 02:50 PM

nash is the smartest PG ever. AI just doesn't have the basketball IQ of nash.

RaininTwos

07-20-2012, 02:52 PM

Nash was a better player than Iverson :confusedshrug: Peak play is about equal with A.I. perhaps having a slight edge, but Nash's 5 year prime is better than Iverson's 5 year prime, and longevity isn't even a contest.

I would hope Nash goes down as a better player all time.

Nash will be ranked as a greater player, due to longevity and his MVP's.

That is different than saying who's the better player.

DatAsh

07-20-2012, 02:55 PM

Iverson did carry that team. Just because other players had moments where did some lifting offensively, doesn't make my statement invalid.

:wtf:

Nash doesn't make players better in the sense that everyone here tends to think.

:wtf:

There are maybe 5-7 players in the history of the game that improve the play of their teammates as much or more than Nash. What game do you watch?

DatAsh

07-20-2012, 02:56 PM

Nash will be ranked as a greater player, due to longevity and his MVP's.

That is different than saying who's the better player.

Not to me it isn't. To me the better player is the one who gives you the best chance at winning the most championships over the course of their career, and that player is clearly Nash.

RaininTwos

07-20-2012, 02:57 PM

Not to me it isn't. To me the better player is the one who gives you the best chance at winning the most championships over the course of their career, and that player is clearly Nash.
Nash hasn't even made the finals.:biggums:

Droid101

07-20-2012, 02:58 PM

Nash is better than Iverson in just about every way.

DatAsh

07-20-2012, 03:01 PM

Nash hasn't even made the finals.:biggums:

Your point? :confusedshrug:

Smoke117

07-20-2012, 03:10 PM

He was a better player by a significant margin.

BlackVVaves

07-20-2012, 03:36 PM

Nash has had some of the best supporting casts I've ever seen minus the last couple years.

Explain, describe, and point out the pieces of "one of the best supporting casts" you've "ever seen."

And, in response to your second post, how Nash didn't make his teammates better.

get these NETS

07-20-2012, 03:38 PM

Your point? :confusedshrug:
how can YOUR definition stand when Nash has NEVER led his team to the finals?

get these NETS

07-20-2012, 03:40 PM

in the late 90s..there was a shortlist of NBA mvps who had never won a ring

Barkley, Mailman, Admiral

thanks to tim duncan..admiral is off that list

new list is of mvps who have never taken teams to finals

shortlist

Nash and D. Rose

RaininTwos

07-20-2012, 03:41 PM

Explain, describe, and point out the pieces of "one of the best supporting casts" you've "ever seen."

And, in response to your second post, how Nash didn't make his teammates better.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/PHO/2005.html

I admitted I was wrong about the second part. I had a lot of thoughts in my head and said something stupid.

Dictator

07-20-2012, 03:41 PM

how can YOUR definition stand when Nash has NEVER led his team to the finals?

:oldlol: :lol

CavaliersFTW

07-20-2012, 03:55 PM

http://youtu.be/mOz22MDBGf4

Jim King is better than both of them.

Cali Syndicate

07-20-2012, 04:11 PM

So playing with Shawn Marion,Joe Johnson and Amare Stoudemire didn't make his play improve? Are you guys this slow?

You dont think teams fearing Amare off the pick and roll helps Nash make plays for his team?

Nash put up better numbers the season Amare got hurt.

BlackVVaves

07-20-2012, 04:14 PM

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/PHO/2005.html

I admitted I was wrong about the second part. I had a lot of thoughts in my head and said something stupid.

Must have missed that. Yea, players have been on the record saying Nash gave them their best playing days.

RaininTwos

07-20-2012, 04:14 PM

Nash put up better numbers the season Amare got hurt.
then look at his 06-07 numbers

Heavincent

07-20-2012, 04:17 PM

Kobe will do his best to prevent this when he starts blaming Nash for the inevitably playoff exit.

Why are you so obsessed with Kobe? Kinda creepy.

wagexslave

07-20-2012, 04:18 PM

Allen Iverson was nothing more than a glorified Nate Robinson

trolololololololol

Cali Syndicate

07-20-2012, 04:18 PM

then look at his 06-07 numbers

And look at 06. With or without Amare, Nash put up great numbers. And even without Amare still led his team to the WCF.

SilkkTheShocker

07-20-2012, 04:18 PM

Why are you so obsessed with Kobe? Kinda creepy.

LOL, look who is talking. 98% of your posts are about Kobe.

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

07-20-2012, 04:20 PM

Does OP realize Nash is a 2x MVP? A top 5 PG all-time at that.

RaininTwos

07-20-2012, 04:22 PM

And look at 06. With or without Amare, Nash put up great numbers. And even without Amare still led his team to the WCF.
I have looked at 06.:facepalm

Look at 07 and compare those two years. You will that his scoring remained the same, but his shooting efficiency went up and so did his assists when Amare was back.

PickernRoller

07-20-2012, 04:23 PM

Lebron stans going at it...:roll: :roll:

http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc262/Reef-Shark/popcornmunchMJ.gif

RaininTwos

07-20-2012, 04:25 PM

Lebron stans going at it...:roll: :roll:

http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc262/Reef-Shark/popcornmunchMJ.gif
wrong thread?:wtf:

Cali Syndicate

07-20-2012, 04:33 PM

I have looked at 06.:facepalm

Look at 07 and compare those two years. You will that his scoring remained the same, but his shooting efficiency went up and so did his assists when Amare was back.

Then look at 08'. Amare was scoring 25ppg. That "pick n' roll threat" must have been real strong right? Then why is his FG% so much lower? Because that's not how it works.

Truth is Nash was coming off 2 straight MVPs in 07. His confidence and game was rolling. Plus it was his third season with the core players. Kinda helps his rhythm and decision making when he knows how his teammates play.

08' he kinda just started falling back to earth.

Point is Nash even without Amare didn't miss a beat....neither did the team's success.

RaininTwos

07-20-2012, 04:47 PM

Then look at 08'. Amare was scoring 25ppg. That "pick n' roll threat" must have been real strong right? Then why is his FG% so much lower? Because that's not how it works.

Truth is Nash was coming off 2 straight MVPs in 07. His confidence and game was rolling. Plus it was his third season with the core players. Kinda helps his rhythm and decision making when he knows how his teammates play.

08' he kinda just started falling back to earth.

Point is Nash even without Amare didn't miss a beat....neither did the team's success.

taking less shots and playing less tends to affect your scoring.

in 08 his team got worse. they tried the shaq thing which really got rid of their depth and ****ed up their offense.

StateOfMind12

07-20-2012, 04:56 PM

Nash hasn't even made the finals.:biggums:
It's not that big of a deal considering how he played on a much tougher conference. You really think that there is any doubt that if the Suns were in the Eastern Conference that they wouldn't make the Finals either? You have to factor in the level of competition and Nash's competition to get to the Finals every season was tough whereas Iverson's competition in 2001 was pretty easy.

DCL

07-20-2012, 04:58 PM

MVP ivey when he was dropping 50s and 40s like nothing and stomping over tyronn lue like he was just a piece of dead log > MVP mark price, i mean steve nash.

in terms of longetivity and consistency, obviously nash. and nash was compatible with a lot more people, better chemistry/less clashes with teammates.

but in terms of just pure sickness, like gimme the ball and just chill, fellas cuz i got this sh1t, prime iverson had it going on.

noosaman

07-20-2012, 04:59 PM

Allen Iverson was nothing more than a glorified Nate Robinson

trolololololololol

No one would have put up with Iverson if he were white

Cali Syndicate

07-20-2012, 05:00 PM

taking less shots and playing less tends to affect your scoring.

in 08 his team got worse. they tried the shaq thing which really got rid of their depth and ****ed up their offense.

OR? Could 07' just be one of those statistical fluke years like many players experience? 08' statistically was practically no different than any season he's had with Amare. So 07' really doesn't prove your point about pick n' roll threats. 06' however shows Nash wasn't a product of Amare, which was my point.

Nick Young

07-20-2012, 05:01 PM

AI is a canswer. Nash is the answer

RaininTwos

07-20-2012, 05:09 PM

OR? Could 07' just be one of those statistical fluke years like many players experience? 08' statistically was practically no different than any season he's had with Amare. So 07' really doesn't prove your point about pick n' roll threats. 06' however shows Nash wasn't a product of Amare, which was my point.
What point of pick and roll threats? :biggums: That was an example. The point was that Amare also helped Nash play at a high level and that improvement goes both ways.

No one said Nash was a product of Amare, that wouldnt make sense.:facepalm

How is 07 a fluke? They played great that year.

RaininTwos

07-20-2012, 05:12 PM

It's not that big of a deal considering how he played on a much tougher conference. You really think that there is any doubt that if the Suns were in the Eastern Conference that they wouldn't make the Finals either? You have to factor in the level of competition and Nash's competition to get to the Finals every season was tough whereas Iverson's competition in 2001 was pretty easy.
You can't just drop the Suns in the Eastern Conference. Iverson's team wasn't that great for the final time. First of all they had a helluva time getting out of the East. Their competition was just as good as they were. The East was weak but so were the Sixers.

The Suns were just as strong, some years stronger than almost every team in their conference yet they couldn't make it out once.

StateOfMind12

07-20-2012, 05:14 PM

The Suns were just as strong, some years stronger than almost every team in their conference yet they couldn't make it out once.
The Suns were never stronger or better than the Spurs, never. The Suns would have never gotten past the Spurs in a 7 game series as long as Mike D'Antoni was their coach.

Iverson is a top 50 player of all-time but Nash is top 30.

RaininTwos

07-20-2012, 05:16 PM

The Suns were never stronger or better than the Spurs, never. The Suns would have never gotten past the Spurs in a 7 game series as long as Mike D'Antoni was their coach.
So the Suns in 06-07 weren't even just as strong as the Spurs? Really?

Don't even give me that coaching shit, we've seen inferior coaches win series against Pop.

Iverson is a top 50 player of all-time but Nash is top 30.
That's not the question.

Greater isn't the same as better.

StateOfMind12

07-20-2012, 05:19 PM

So the Suns in 06-07 weren't even just as strong as the Spurs? Really?
Maybe based on talent, but they were inferior completely when it came to matchups and coaching.

Don't even give me that coaching shit, we've seen inferior coaches win series against Pop
The only time inferior coaches won a series against Pop was when their team was completely superior to his or had a serious upper hand in terms of matchups. Every time Pop's team was just as good as the opponents or better, he wins.

Feel free to name all the coaches that won a series against him.

2012 - Brooks, Thunder had the completely superior team
2011 - Hollins, Grizzlies had the huge upper hand in terms of matchup.
2010 - Gentry, Suns finally got a coach and they also matched up well
2009 - Carlise, I believe the Spurs were hampered with injuries.
2008 - Jackson, no shame here
2006 - Avery Johnson, this series was dead even.

RaininTwos

07-20-2012, 05:23 PM

Maybe based on talent, but they were inferior completely when it came to matchups and coaching.

The only time inferior coaches won a series against Pop was when their team was completely superior to his or had a serious upper hand in terms of matchups. Every time Pop's team was just as good as the opponents or better, he wins.

Feel free to name all the coaches that won a series against him.

2012 - Brooks, Thunder had the completely superior team
2011 - Hollins, Grizzlies had the huge upper hand in terms of matchup.
2010 - Gentry, Suns finally got a coach and they also matched up well
2009 - Carlise, I believe the Spurs were hampered with injuries.
2008 - Jackson, no shame here
2006 - Avery Johnson, this series was dead even.

Bolded were upsets, so let's not pretend that he hasn't been beaten when the majority of people thought he had the upper hand. Especially in those Memphis/Suns series. Very little thought the Grizz or Suns had a chance.

The 2007 Suns had matchup problems with who? Amare was eating the Spurs alive.

Cali Syndicate

07-20-2012, 05:26 PM

What point of pick and roll threats? :biggums: That was an example. The point was that Amare also helped Nash play at a high level and that improvement goes both ways.

No one said Nash was a product of Amare, that wouldnt make sense.:facepalm

How is 07 a fluke? They played great that year.

In the six seasons Nash played with Amare, Nash's 53% shooting in 07' was a one time deal while the other 5 seasons reverberated between 50-51%. A fluke in that sense since you were pushing his shooting in 07 was mainly due to Amare's presence.

And for the bold above....as I said before, Nash didn't miss a beat in 06' when Amare missed the entire season.

StateOfMind12

07-20-2012, 05:26 PM

Bolded were upsets, so let's not pretend that he hasn't been beaten when the majority of people thought he had the upper hand. Especially in those Memphis/Suns series. Very little thought the Grizz or Suns had a chance.
They had the matchup advantage though which is my point that the Suns never got past the Spurs because the Spurs were a bad matchup for them. I remember Suns fans saying they wanted the Mavericks from '05-'08 instead because they knew they could beat them but they weren't so confident against the Spurs.

Matchups and coaching dictate playoff series more so than talent.

The 2007 Suns had matchup problems with who? Amare was eating the Spurs alive.

You are thinking of 2005 but they definitely had a matchup problem since they couldn't defend anybody against the Spurs which is D'Antoni's fault.

RaininTwos

07-20-2012, 05:28 PM

They had the matchup advantage though which is my point that the Suns never got past the Spurs because the Spurs were a bad matchup for them. I remember Suns fans saying they wanted the Mavericks from '05-'08 instead because they knew they could beat them but they weren't so confident against the Spurs.

Matchups and coaching dictate playoff series more so than talent.

Umm...you cannot win a playoff series without talent. You can have all the coaching in the world, but you cannot win without talent. That's a fact. You are overrating the impact that coaches have a tad bit just to excuse Nash's playoff failures but still say he's better than AI.

No Amare ate up the Spurs on 07 as well.

You guys have no shame.

RaininTwos

07-20-2012, 05:32 PM

In the six seasons Nash played with Amare, Nash's 53% shooting in 07' was a one time deal while the other 5 seasons reverberated between 50-51%. A fluke in that sense since you were pushing his shooting in 07 was mainly due to Amare's presence.

And for the bold above....as I said before, Nash didn't miss a beat in 06' when Amare missed the entire season.
You are completely missing the boat sir. I said that in the game of basketball playing with better players, depending on their skill set, can enhance your game.

You keep making stuff up and trying to pass it off as if I said it. The obvious answer for 06 is that everyone stepped up, namely Marion,Diaw,Thomas and Barbosa to keep the team going. Something that would be obvious to anyone who watched them but nope, you would rather give Nash all the credit because he's so great.

No shame at all.

StateOfMind12

07-20-2012, 05:35 PM

Umm...you cannot win a playoff series without talent. You can have all the coaching in the world, but you cannot win without talent. That's a fact. You are overrating the impact that coaches have a tad bit just to excuse Nash's playoff failures but still say he's better than AI.
Sure, but the Suns were at a complete disadvantage when it came to matchups against the Spurs.

Everybody on the Spurs beasted offensively due to the fact that the Suns couldn't play defense to save their lives. There is no question that D'Antoni was the one responsible for the lack of defense from the Suns. They always played small ball and had someone who was naturally a PF like Amare or Diaw play Center instead because all he cared about was offense.

Tim Duncan put up 28/14 with 57% shooting against the Suns. Why? Because the Suns had nobody to guard him except Kurt Thomas, too bad as soon as Kurt went to the bench due to foul trouble or whatever, Duncan would completely destroy whoever was on him which was either Diaw or Amare.

Spurs never made an attempt to shut down the Suns's offense back when they met in the post-season. The Spurs would just outscore them instead because that was how much of a joke their defense was.

No Amare ate up the Spurs on 07 as well.
Feel free to tell me who was the one setting him up for dunks, open mid-range shots, etc.

Nash also played well in that Spurs series by averaging 21/13 with high shooting efficiency as always.

Nash never choked or disappeared in the post-season, his teammates were usually the ones that did.

You really expect one player to win a playoff series by himself?

You only blame star players for losing if they were the cause for losing. Nash was never the cause for losing.

liquidrage

07-20-2012, 05:37 PM

vol

RaininTwos

07-20-2012, 05:41 PM

Feel free to tell me who was the one setting him up for dunks, open mid-range shots, etc.

Nash also played well in that Spurs series by averaging 21/13 with high shooting efficiency as always.

Nash never choked or disappeared in the post-season, his teammates were usually the ones that did.

You really expect one player to win a playoff series by himself?

You only blame star players for losing if they were the cause for losing. Nash was never the cause for losing.

I get it, Nash gets credit for everything positive but none of the blame.

He couldn't have called D'antoni out, or set the precedent for playing defense himself, oh no...that would have been too much for poor little nash. He was already carrying one of the deepest teams in the past 10 years, god forbid he try to do more.:rolleyes:

So Nash set up everything for Amare, but when I say that Amare's presence gave Nash a bit more room to roam, my point gets trashed?

If the Suns had a joke defense like you say, and Nash was the leader of this team, how does he NOT get blamed for losing?

Out of all the people to cry about having little help in the playoffs, you are really going to go there with Nash? In a thread where he's pitted against Iverson? Really?

I'm out.

Laimbeer_Rodman

07-20-2012, 05:45 PM

Bernard King
Career FG% .518

SilkkTheShocker

07-20-2012, 05:49 PM

I get it, Nash gets credit for everything positive but none of the blame.

He couldn't have called D'antoni out, or set the precedent for playing defense himself, oh no...that would have been too much for poor little nash. He was already carrying one of the deepest teams in the past 10 years, god forbid he try to do more.:rolleyes:

So Nash set up everything for Amare, but when I say that Amare's presence gave Nash a bit more room to roam, my point gets trashed?

If the Suns had a joke defense like you say, and Nash was the leader of this team, how does he NOT get blamed for losing?

Out of all the people to cry about having little help in the playoffs, you are really going to go there with Nash? In a thread where he's pitted against Iverson? Really?

I'm out.

:oldlol:

PickernRoller

07-20-2012, 06:15 PM

wrong thread?:wtf:

Silk and RaininTwo....I believe I am in the right thread. Keep on...

Cali Syndicate

07-20-2012, 06:45 PM

You are completely missing the boat sir. I said that in the game of basketball playing with better players, depending on their skill set, can enhance your game.

You keep making stuff up and trying to pass it off as if I said it. The obvious answer for 06 is that everyone stepped up, namely Marion,Diaw,Thomas and Barbosa to keep the team going. Something that would be obvious to anyone who watched them but nope, you would rather give Nash all the credit because he's so great.

No shame at all.

What have I made up?

You stated…..

You dont think teams fearing Amare off the pick and roll helps Nash make plays for his team?

I replied that the season Amare was gone, Nash played just as good, arguably better.

Then you….

then look at his 06-07 numbers

You said that his FG% and assist numbers were up as if to imply these increases were a direct reflection of having Amare back.

I replied that 07 was a fluke year in terms of his FG% because in 6 seasons together Nash was consistently 50-51% from the field.

My whole point revolved around your point about Amare and you were defending that point and I showed that Nash wasn’t impacted from Amare at all. The system helped Nash thrive, not necessarily Amare. In 06, Suns lost both Amare and JJ yet Nash still thrived and Marion along with Diaw have arguably their best season of their career but I’m sure Nash had nothing to do with that.

But whatever you say…

Xiao Yao You

07-21-2012, 04:50 AM

He is a better player. A better talent maybe not but certainly a better player. There's a reason he's still getting paid big bucks at his age and no one wants to have anything to do with AI.

ILLsmak

07-21-2012, 05:05 AM

Nash is better than Iverson in just about every way.

If prime Iverson and prime Nash got matched up in a series Iverson would make dude retire.

Iverson would have done really well on those Phoenix teams, too, especially because he could have played 40+ minutes a game. That's one of the larger downfalls of the Suns teams is they could never do shit when Nash was out of the game.

If you had to build a GOAT case for both players, I'd say Iverson would come closer. That, to me, means he's better.

All of that efficiency shit matters, I guess, but not that much. Nash made some tough shots, but he was able to pick his spots pretty well. With Iverson, it was like give him the ball and hope you can get in position for a rebound.

-Smak

Go Getter

07-21-2012, 06:05 AM

He is a better player. A better talent maybe not but certainly a better player. There's a reason he's still getting paid big bucks at his age and no one wants to have anything to do with AI.
If AI spent his early years behind a HOF PG he might still be lpaying today who knows.

AI had a franchise on his back as a teen darn near, Nash hasn't ever had that type of pressure.

Bigsmoke

07-21-2012, 07:07 AM

Nash better

I LUV KOBE

07-21-2012, 07:49 AM

Iverson better

Go Getter

07-21-2012, 07:49 AM

Prime Iverson would annihilate prime Nash. It would be brutal. They'd have to call in the national guard or some shit.

Xiao Yao You

07-21-2012, 07:52 AM

If AI spent his early years behind a HOF PG he might still be lpaying today who knows.

AI had a franchise on his back as a teen darn near, Nash hasn't ever had that type of pressure.

We might not even talking about AI if hadn't been in Philly. It's not every team in the league that would have let a little guy shoot as much and as inefficiently as him.

BlueCrayon

07-21-2012, 09:02 AM

Iverson better

I have a feeling that if Iverson was on the Lakers you would say Nash is better.

Go Getter

07-21-2012, 09:05 AM

We might not even talking about AI if hadn't been in Philly. It's not every team in the league that would have let a little guy shoot as much and as inefficiently as him.
WINS>>>>>>>Efficiency

AI knew how to win. And it doesn't matter what team he went to. Young AI was one of the best scorers ever at 6 feet tall. A blur with the ball, BEST handle ever, sticky fingers, amazing finisher, etc, etc.

Would we be talking about Nash if he was forced to play d to earn minutes?

pauk

07-21-2012, 09:18 AM

nash is better than iverson period. iversion is wildly inefficient on offense and he only put up stats cuz he was allowed to take everyshot

Sounds like Kobe

Yung D-Will

07-21-2012, 09:22 AM

Nash was a better player than AI. And Nash will be remembered among the top 8 or so pg's of all time. Arguably the most efficient guard of all time.

Xiao Yao You

07-21-2012, 09:23 AM

WINS>>>>>>>Efficiency

How much does he win with greater efficiency is the question?

AI knew how to win. And it doesn't matter what team he went to. Young AI was one of the best scorers ever at 6 feet tall. A blur with the ball, BEST handle ever, sticky fingers, amazing finisher, etc, etc.

He wouldn't have been allowed to play like that in Utah amongst other teams. He was a warrior. His basketball IQ was extremely low.

Would we be talking about Nash if he was forced to play d to earn minutes?

Sure. Like AI there would have been teams that would have welcomed what he did bring to the table.

Go Getter

07-21-2012, 09:47 AM

How much does he win with greater efficiency is the question?

He wouldn't have been allowed to play like that in Utah amongst other teams. He was a warrior. His basketball IQ was extremely low.

Sure. Like AI there would have been teams that would have welcomed what he did bring to the table.
And Nash would not have been able to coast through a season guarding no one
under Scott Skiles or Jerry Sloan.

The fact remains that head to head Nash couldn't guard AI on his worst day while AI could bother Nash on D.

And AI was a smart player. Maybe over confident and definitely egotistical though.

Xiao Yao You

07-21-2012, 10:09 AM

And Nash would not have been able to coast through a season guarding no one
under Scott Skiles or Jerry Sloan.

Jerry would have loved Nash without a doubt. Deron Williams didn't play D for either but he could run the vaunted offense.

And AI was a smart player. Maybe over confident and definitely egotistical though.

Throwing up prayers against triple teams with wide open teammates standing around isn't smart. It will get you some big scoring numbers though.

Yung D-Will

07-21-2012, 02:38 PM

wakencdukest

07-21-2012, 04:25 PM

Does it matter? Iverson was great, Nash was great, but they both had flaws. They'll both be remembered as guys who could not quite carry their teams to titles.

Walker

07-21-2012, 05:04 PM

You can't just drop the Suns in the Eastern Conference. Iverson's team wasn't that great for the final time. First of all they had a helluva time getting out of the East. Their competition was just as good as they were. The East was weak but so were the Sixers.

The Suns were just as strong, some years stronger than almost every team in their conference yet they couldn't make it out once.
The level of stupidity and ignorance you have brought to this thread is staggering.
Those Suns teams ran head long into the Spurs constantly, you know that team that will go down as one of the great teams in history?
Not to mention they would have beaten them if not for poorly timed injuries, total bullshit suspensions and cheating (fact) referees.

Trying to claim "great players"? Marion was a career 45% fg shooter, Nash comes on board and that shoots up to 50-52% instantly, dropped right back down when he left, but hey Nash doesn't make people better right?
Joe Johnson, what the guy that couldn't even get on the court for a terrible Celtics team? Comes to Phoenix and suddenly he's great, funny that. Same thing with Diaw, hmm.....
STAT was a kid, he was always gonna be good, Nash's guidance made him GREAT. Look up what Nash does when players mess up sets...
Shall we mention the total scubs like Tim Thomas, James Jones, Eddie House and so on that suddenly looked great with Nash?

Trying to mention a joke shot jacker like Iverson in the same light as Nash is straight laughable. The only arguement anyone could have is scoring. You give Nash 30 shots a night he'd have averaged 30+ too, no problems....

jbot

07-21-2012, 06:31 PM

i would say is a better team player.

willds09

07-21-2012, 06:33 PM

iverson iz better than nash no doubt at all:applause:

RaininTwos

07-21-2012, 06:46 PM

The level of stupidity and ignorance you have brought to this thread is staggering.
Those Suns teams ran head long into the Spurs constantly, you know that team that will go down as one of the great teams in history?
Not to mention they would have beaten them if not for poorly timed injuries, total bullshit suspensions and cheating (fact) referees.
Which Spurs team will go down as one of the great teams in History? The 05 team? The 07 team? The 08 team? The 2010 team?

You cannot be serious here. You guys keep making excuses for Nash here. He's had more talent on his teams than the vast majority of players we've seen in this league but couldn't get out of his conference.

Trying to claim "great players"? Marion was a career 45% fg shooter, Nash comes on board and that shoots up to 50-52% instantly, dropped right back down when he left, but hey Nash doesn't make people better right?

Joe Johnson, what the guy that couldn't even get on the court for a terrible Celtics team? Comes to Phoenix and suddenly he's great, funny that. Same thing with Diaw, hmm.....
STAT was a kid, he was always gonna be good, Nash's guidance made him GREAT. Look up what Nash does when players mess up sets...
Shall we mention the total scubs like Tim Thomas, James Jones, Eddie House and so on that suddenly looked great with Nash?

trash, pure trash. Nash makes people better but he's played with talented people that made him much better as well. This is two sided. Why do you think Nash's all around play went up when he got a loaded team like Phoenix?

That 04-05 team has to be one of the best teams to ever not make the finals but I'm sure there are excuses to be made for that as well. We are just going to shit talk his supporting casts like Tim Thomas wasn't once a decent player pre Nash and that James Jones and Eddie House weren't lights out shooter before joining Phoenix. Gotcha.

Trying to mention a joke shot jacker like Iverson in the same light as Nash is straight laughable. The only arguement anyone could have is scoring. You give Nash 30 shots a night he'd have averaged 30+ too, no problems....
Nash couldn't score like AI in his dreams, boy please. Trying to mention a one dimensional player like Nash in the same light as AI is just laughable.....

StateOfMind12

07-21-2012, 06:53 PM

He couldn't have called D'antoni out, or set the precedent for playing defense himself, oh no...that would have been too much for poor little nash. He was already carrying one of the deepest teams in the past 10 years, god forbid he try to do more.:rolleyes:
There is nothing I hate more than the argument that the player should also be the GM. Their job is to simply play the game and produce to help their team win, not demand great players and great coaches. The fall is on the Phoenix Suns organization, not Steve Nash.

Like I said, just because you have talent doesn't mean you have it all. You still need a coach to make it all work together and Nash never had that until Gentry took over as coach which was a little too late considering how it was just one season and Amare left after Gentry's 1st (1st and a half) season.

So Nash set up everything for Amare, but when I say that Amare's presence gave Nash a bit more room to roam, my point gets trashed?

There is nothing wrong with this point to me, just because some others disagree doesn't mean it is invalid.

If the Suns had a joke defense like you say, and Nash was the leader of this team, how does he NOT get blamed for losing?
Feel free to point out the poor defense that Nash played in the post-season cause I don't recall. He would usually defend the team's worst perimeter offensive player but I don't recall that player lighting up Nash and having a series of his life.

Yung D-Will

07-21-2012, 07:00 PM

This can't be real life, someone arguing that A.I is a superior player whiles stating the OTHER PLAYER is one demensional. Especially when he's arguably the most efficient guard of all time, the best shooting pg of all time, and one of the the top 4 passing pg's of all time.

chips93

07-21-2012, 07:03 PM

funny how people are talking about the suns being stacked, while nash joined them and took them from a 29 win team to a 62 win team

ShaqAttack3234

07-21-2012, 07:48 PM

I believe Nash was a better player. He became pretty much the perfect offensive PG in Phoenix when he had complete control of a team. He was already an elite PG by '02, but took the next step in Phoenix, unusual to progress like that at 30/31, but it probably had to do with getting his own team.

He's about as good of a passer and playmaker as you'll find, but balanced playmaking and scoring extremely well in both Dallas and Phoenix. He could take over a game when he had to do because he's one of the all-time great pure shooters, but also had the creativity to get to various spots, and the craftiness to finish despite his size and athleticism. He could hit shots with a great degree of difficult from just about anywhere on the floor whether it was pull up 3s or contested 10-15 foot fadeaways.

His '07 season is about as good of a pure shooting season as I can think of. He really surprised me with his comeback year in '10 when he led Phoenix to the WCF at 36 and gave the Lakers a good fight. His cast was really subpar in '11, but prior to Nash's injuries midseason, he still had an argument for best PG in the league and looked to be headed towards the playoffs.

Punpun

07-21-2012, 08:01 PM

How is it sad ? Nash is one of the best PG ever. Iverson ? According to Simmons, a 33 years old Kobe was just as good as Iverson ever was.

LamarOdom

07-21-2012, 08:03 PM

His '07 season is about as good of a pure shooting season as I can think of. He really surprised me with his comeback year in '10 when he led Phoenix to the WCF at 36 and gave the Lakers a good fight. His cast was really subpar in '11, but prior to Nash's injuries midseason, he still had an argument for best PG in the league and looked to be headed towards the playoffs.

Yeah he was amazing 2010 against the Lakers I believe he average 19/12 against us.

Only bad thing in that series was his terrible three point shooting I think it was below 30%

RaininTwos

07-22-2012, 12:01 AM

Go Getter

07-22-2012, 05:27 AM

Go Getter claiming that Nash wouldn't get tons of minutes under Jerry Sloan ,clearly shows that you lack an understanding of Utah basketball. Do you know some of the point guards we've giving minutes to ? Jerry Sloan's specialty was covering up players weaknesses. Why do you think people actually believed Boozer was a dominant big? :biggums:

No one believed Boozer was a dominant big at all--ever. And I could see Sloan sitting Nash because he's getting torched by Tony Parker--yes.

Anyways, you took my comment out of context as normal....you can't tell me shit about Utah basketball or basketball in general until CJ Miles has that breakout season you promised.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

konex

07-22-2012, 05:40 AM

I like Iverson more, but Nash's career shits on his when you factor in team success.

Give Iverson the teammates Nash has had and he'd have won a ring. Nash never even made the Finals with all those stacked teams

Hittin_Shots

07-22-2012, 10:56 AM

SteveNashMVPcro

07-22-2012, 01:06 PM

No actualy it's not sad.Nash is a guy who made a name for himself by hard training and practice while AI had all the talent but never wanted to practice hard.
The most common argument I've read here and overall in all Nash vs AI debats is that Nash had stacked teams while AI had scurbs.
Well that's is not true.Only the 2006/2007 team was truly stacked while the 2004/2005 and 2005/2006 teams had a lot of flaws.Let's just break them down.
2004/2005-Suns lost to the Spurs in the WCF 4-1.Amare and Nash were beasting but Marion who was the Suns 2nd leading scorer in the RS averaged onnly 8ppg on 40% shooting,JJ was out the 1st 2 games,the Suns played a 7 man rotation (:hammerhead: ) and also they had DAntoni as the coach.While DAntoni has to be given some credit for his 7SOL offensive sistem,he had no defensive schemes,he called the time outs late or never when the oposing team went on scoring runs and didn't even try to develop the bench play.
Also they played Amare and Marion out of position with Amare as the C and Marion as the PF.That team was just not built to win against the Spurs-no bench,weak D and rebaunding.
In 2005/2006 the Suns lost Amare for the whole season,JJ went to ATL and QRich was traded and the Suns lost 4-2 in the WCF against the Mavs.And it wasn't really anybody fault,the Mavs were just a better more complete team at the time.And nobody on the Suns could've guraded Dirk who beasted all series long.
In 2006/2007 Suns lost again to the Spurs 4-2.It was an even series until Horry's hip check on Nash and the suspension that followed.Also the officialing in the series was in favor of the Spurs by which Spurs' players got away with obvious fauls and the Suns were called for fantom touches.
After that Suns traded for Shaq and everything got messed up until 2009/2010 in which Nash and Amare led an average unit to the WCF and eventually lost in a tight series to the Lakers.

WINS>>>>>>>Efficiency
Funny thing is Nash beats AI in both categories.
Nash also was/is the better team and individual player.
AI had better handels,played the passing lanes better and was a better volume scorrer.Nash was a far more willing and overall a better passer,a better shooter,more efficient and although scoring wasn't his prime concern he still could've take over games with his scoring.
Both didn't play lock down man to man D but Nash gets flamed too much for it.He isn't a horrible defender,he's just a bit below average but exploited more due to playing on horrible defensive teams.
And at the end,Nash just singed a 3 year 25 mil contract with the LAL with whom he has a shot at the title while AI is nowhere to be found.