What was Kidd like in prime?

[Aidz]

I never saw him on those Nets teams that made the finals.

I imagine a better/faster/less fat version of Deron Williams.

Could he shoot the J?
Or was he drive n' kick / go for the lay-up?

[eurobum]

Not really comparable with Deron Williams.

He actually played defense, to begin with. Could guard the other team's ones and twos and perhaps the smaller threes. Not just in the perimeter but also in the post.

His outside game wasn't as developed as later in his career, but he could certainly knock down open threes.

Offensive game consisted mainly off penetration and transition.

A great leader, a great passer (obviously). His greatest strength was orchestrating the offense, the tempo. The Nets had an awesome transition game in a "between-era" that had awful pacing.

[#number6ix#]

Something like a tony Parker with better rebounding and passing but no jumper... Dude could control the game like few others before him.

[9512]

I agree with the above posts but also as a fan , it was somewhat frustrating to see miss some lahups because he may pass it at the last minute but changed his mind again to lay it up then would miss it ultimately.

That's my small pet peeve of him.

I do remember him dribbling downcourt as fast as any athletic PGs of today.

[eurobum]

Something like a tony Parker with better rebounding and passing but no jumper... Dude could control the game like few others before him.

Yes, forgot the rebounding. He would routinely have high rebounding games. 15, 16, etc. (many times part of a triple double). He was awesome, a joy to watch. Played all facets of the game and his game now is a testament to that -- being nearly 133 years old but having adjusted his game to account for arthritis and other old man diseases like inflamed prostate, probably.

Also, was an underrated athlete, sort of like Deron Williams, actually, in the sense that he didn't look athletic or muscular, but he was robust as f*ck, had incredible upper and lower body strength and generally seemed like a well-oiled machine.

[#number6ix#]

Now that I think about it he was more like rondo in his prime but with a higher basketball iq

[kennethgriffin]

oh... you mean Ason kidd

ya i remember him before he had a J

great defender. great play maker... he was lucky to have lead those nets team during an era when the _eastern confrence had an L at the beginning of it

didn't care for the guy. or the team

deron is nothing like him... he was more like rajon rondo

[SyRyanYang]

Something like a tony Parker with better rebounding and passing but no jumper... Dude could control the game like few others before him.
More like a mini Magic with top notch D.

[DuMa]

mini magic during showtime era. he was absolutely an one man fastbreak if he got the long rebound on the opposing FT line. He was absolutely so faster than everyone even with the ball, with dribble as well. His crossover at full court speed was lightning quick speed and he could lay it up with both hands.

His J was weak as hell and his game kinda suffered a bit in the half court setting. Its really amazing how much his J has come as his career comes to a close.

[pauk]

He was an extremly flashy passer with super vision/passing skills and amazing rebounding for his size, always was a smart defender aswell.

If Magic Johnson was 6'4" he would probably be much like J-Kidd.

[Reggie43]

Too many people selling magic johnson short. I dont remember magic being a sub 40% shooter most of his career.

[Xiao Yao You]

Offensive game consisted mainly off penetration and transition.


Consisted mostly of a lot of missed shots. He shot way too much for a sub 40% shooter.

[Y2Gezee]

Now that I think about it he was more like rondo in his prime but with a higher basketball iq

This, except much better.

Rondo is one of those players that controls the ball and passes for assists.

Think Steve Nash as a passer, with Rondos ability to do everything else. Except I'd say a better jumper than Rondo, and great defense.

I maintain that he's the 3rd best pg ever after Magic and Isiah.

[Round Mound]

Kidd was one of those players that early in his career you knew right away he was HOF caliber. The dude was just asoume too watch. The closest thing to Magic Johnson in the 90s in playmaking, passing and rebounding. He never developed into a good far range shooter (a must for a pg of today) thats the only knock on him. Other than that, the dude was just a best controling the tempo, splitting defenses, great fundamental handles, head up all the time, great presicion passing (in Stockton style) and great defense. He would be the best defensive pg right now if he was in his prime.

[VIP2000]

Good defender, pretty good 3 point shooter (though not as good mid-range), fantastic at transition offense. Him + Kenyon Martin + Richard Jefferson in the open court was fun to watch.

[JoshCoward]

He just made winning plays after plays. And I always thought Kidd was underrated in terms of scoring. Bear with me, I know he was terrible compare to other scoring superstars or the likes of Nash, Payton, Stockton etc. but he scored when it mattered and developed decent jumpers (way better than Rondo at least, opposition respected his shot). He stepped up especially in playoffs and there was times where he was marked tightly / double teamed etc. because he was going off in the fourth quarter. Plus, he always defended the opposition's best players (from my memory during playoffs, he defended Reggie Miller, Baron Davis, Kobe, Tony Parker etc.)

During his rookie Mavs days, he was probably the fastest guy with the ball on transition but was hot and cold (inconsistent).

[LockoutOver11]

I'll just add whatever hasnt been said yet.

Mutha****a was clutch when you needed a shot.

His shooting during the game wasn't the greatest... but give the ball to jason when you need to tie it or making a winning play, he got you.

[sundizz]

He finished second in the MVP race in 2001-2002

Season averages: 14.7 ppg, 9.9 apg, 7.3 rpg, 2.1 spg
All NBA 1st team
All NBA 1st team defensive
Finished 1st in conference

Playoff averages: 19.6 ppg, 9.1 apg, 8.2 rpg, 1.7 spg
20 games
Lost to the Lakers in the finals
Random fact, he was the 3rd highest paid on the team. Jayson Williams, and KVH both made more than he did that year lol.

Basically, he was a one man wrecking crew. He could guard the other team's best perimeter player usually (and well), could rebound the shot, could get end to end with lightning speed, and pass with pinpoint accuracy on the lob, on the bounce or out for the tres. This worked against everyone except a team with an amazing halfcourt efficient offense, aka the Lakers. They slowed the game down so much with Shaq that there was no chance to run and gun against them. Finished second in MVP voting that year.

At that level he played for that year, that was easily the best level pg play (for that one season) between 1992 and 2012 in my opinion. Honorable mentions to John Stockton and Steve Nash, but he did more with less and he did it completely on both ends and in all areas. Couldn't shoot but with the way (tempo) he ran the offense, that didn't matter until the Laker series.

[ErhnamDjinn]

Too many people selling magic johnson short. I dont remember magic being a sub 40% shooter most of his career.
hence everyone saying he had no J, I think the Magic comparissons are just the court vision and defense, I dothink he was faster then Magic, as somone mentioned he thrived in the open court and controlling tempo. He was a wing player and runnings bigs dream PG.

[scm5]

Kidd was a little like Rondo in terms of his emphasis on passing and defense.

Offensively, he was like if Rondo traded his finishing ability at the rim for the ability to shoot 3's. Kidd, as athletic as he was in his prime, was never a great finisher at the rim.

[Blue&Orange]

He played in a weak era.



Too soon? :confusedshrug:

[scm5]

He played in a weak era.



Too soon? :confusedshrug:

Compared to right now, yes he did. There are so many incredible PG's in this era that Kidd in his prime would only be borderline Top 5 PG in the league right now.

He would be better than Rondo but it would hard to make a case for Kidd over CP3, Westbrook, Rose, and Parker.

Then you have to consider up and coming PG's that might outdo whatever Kidd did in his prime in Kyrie and Lillard. Both of their ceilings are incredibly high considering their rookie seasons and Kyrie's progress in just his second season.

[Clifton]

Bill Russell, only on offense.

Or, Magic Johnson, but 6'4, and rather than majestic, he was quick and gritty.

As for his jumper... they didn't call him Ason Kidd for nothing. A jumper (and touch in general) is what separated him from Larry Bird and makes him "only" a top-30 all-time player. (The same goes for Dwight and Ewing. There's nothing like good, soft hands.)

One of four players in history (who I know well enough to say it) who actually did have such an intangible hold on the game that he beat you with his teammates. (Hence the Russell comparison, which I know is weird, given that he's a PG with 0 rings as best player.)

[Mrofir]

It's been mentioned in some way or another. But to be very concise I think you can summarize Kidd's prime in 2 ways:

1) best PG defender in the league during prime

2) could get down the court without losing control, faster than anyone else in the league. Could change directions while pretty much sprinting, and court vision while sprinting down court better than any other. That quality right there is what set him apart.

He really didn't shoot too well. If he had developed a consistent J (earlier), he would have been top 5 pg all time with no arguments.. as it is he is very borderline but probably doesn't make that cut



Suns fans still have love for JKidd

We don't bother with the comparisons.. Nash and Kidd are very different players and both deserve the recognition they've got.

[juju151111]

Compared to right now, yes he did. There are so many incredible PG's in this era that Kidd in his prime would only be borderline Top 5 PG in the league right now.

He would be better than Rondo but it would hard to make a case for Kidd over CP3, Westbrook, Rose, and Parker.

Then you have to consider up and coming PG's that might outdo whatever Kidd did in his prime in Kyrie and Lillard. Both of their ceilings are incredibly high considering their rookie seasons and Kyrie's progress in just his second season.
Prime Kidd would get to the basket know with no handchecking and less phyical play.Small players are the one who took the new rules in 06 and we have seen great numbers since. This is why you can't compare eras.

[Crown&Coke]

Prime Kidd was an animal. Would defend anyone you wanted him to 1, 2 or 3 and he wasn't overmatched. He imposed his will on games. Could win a game for you and have only 10 points

I swear the ball gave him super powers, he was faster with the ball than without it.

[FatComputerNerd]

Who remembers this commercial?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wdMLutQfe8

[scm5]

Prime Kidd would get to the basket know with no handchecking and less phyical play.Small players are the one who took the new rules in 06 and we have seen great numbers since. This is why you can't compare eras.

I don't know how much you watched him, but prime Kidd could get to the basket at will, he just wasn't a very good finisher.

[Celts34]

Prime Kidd was an animal. Would defend anyone you wanted him to 1, 2 or 3 and he wasn't overmatched. He imposed his will on games. Could win a game for you and have only 10 points

I swear the ball gave him super powers, he was faster with the ball than without it.


:applause: this. Kidd' defense was out of this world good. He wasn't just gambling for steals or playing the passing lanes(although he could do that and did do that). He could body u up, move his feet and play great man to man defense. He was very crafty with the ball, I don't think I've seen anyone get away with as much carrying as he did. He was so good you didnt notice it. Kidd was Rondo on steroids. His ability to impact the game was immense. I mean he'd have games where he'd only get 8-12 points and still be the best player on the court.

[Pointguard]

He finished second in the MVP race in 2001-2002

Season averages: 14.7 ppg, 9.9 apg, 7.3 rpg, 2.1 spg
All NBA 1st team
All NBA 1st team defensive
Finished 1st in conference

Playoff averages: 19.6 ppg, 9.1 apg, 8.2 rpg, 1.7 spg
20 games
Lost to the Lakers in the finals
Random fact, he was the 3rd highest paid on the team. Jayson Williams, and KVH both made more than he did that year lol.

Basically, he was a one man wrecking crew. He could guard the other team's best perimeter player usually (and well), could rebound the shot, could get end to end with lightning speed, and pass with pinpoint accuracy on the lob, on the bounce or out for the tres. This worked against everyone except a team with an amazing halfcourt efficient offense, aka the Lakers. They slowed the game down so much with Shaq that there was no chance to run and gun against them. Finished second in MVP voting that year.

At that level he played for that year, that was easily the best level pg play (for that one season) between 1992 and 2012 in my opinion. Honorable mentions to John Stockton and Steve Nash, but he did more with less and he did it completely on both ends and in all areas. Couldn't shoot but with the way (tempo) he ran the offense, that didn't matter until the Laker series.
Great Post.

Yeah he took a last place team that had the most productive point guard in Marbury a 24 and 8 guard and converted them into a two time finals team. He amazingly took a team of guys that never had any type of impact anyplace else - both Kenyon Martain and Richard Jefferson made good money from who they were then with Kidd - this team that had nobody score 15 ppg and nobody above 7.5 rebounds to the finals for two years. Kidd totally just ran the team like a champ. He had masterful control of when to run and when not run. They were a true pleasure to watch cause they had this methodical way of beating you. Kenyon was the only finisher, but he was basically a dunker. Van Horn was a long range shooter but shot bad below the three point line. Nobody else was creative on that team.

He was the only guy I ever seen play make winning plays early in the game. Didn't need to score to be effective and his leadership was crazy. He didn't do things fancy but once in a while you would see a bowling ball pass, a totally duped pass end up with a Kenyon slam, or suck three players only to get a three pointer out of it. They didn't have the fire power to blow out teams but Kidd made them win close games continuously. Would have beat the Piston's team that won it all if he didn't get hurt - sobeit they couldn't beat the Lakers. The team wasn't a run and gun and could win games in the half- court.

He was special.

[Tking714]

He was completely NOT anything like Deron Williams

[Clifton]

Yeah he took a last place team that had the most productive point guard in Marbury a 24 and 8 guard and converted them into a two time finals team.
That's the funny thing. HE WON. A lot of people thought Marbury was the best PG in the game back then. Guy couldn't win shit. No impact on the game whatsoever outside of numbers.

Those Nets teams were... not good. Make the Finals with KVH and Kmart and Richard Jefferson and Kerry Kittles? Preposterous. And their Centers were atrocious. They had one who was an okay backup (his name might have been Williams; he was pale; I don't remember) but none of the others belonged on an NBA roster.

[Tking714]

Compared to right now, yes he did. There are so many incredible PG's in this era that Kidd in his prime would only be borderline Top 5 PG in the league right now.

He would be better than Rondo but it would hard to make a case for Kidd over CP3, Westbrook, Rose, and Parker.

Then you have to consider up and coming PG's that might outdo whatever Kidd did in his prime in Kyrie and Lillard. Both of their ceilings are incredibly high considering their rookie seasons and Kyrie's progress in just his second season.

I'm sorry but the bolded guys are shooting gaurds, and anything they ever do will not be comparable to what J Kidd could do on the court.

Compare those guys to scorers and shooting gaurds. Ala Marbury. Nice numbers, but predictable on the court, and low impact

[Crown&Coke]

That's the funny thing. HE WON. A lot of people thought Marbury was the best PG in the game back then. Guy couldn't win shit. No impact on the game whatsoever outside of numbers.

Those Nets teams were... not good. Make the Finals with KVH and Kmart and Richard Jefferson and Kerry Kittles? Preposterous. And their Centers were atrocious. They had one who was an okay backup (his name might have been Williams; he was pale; I don't remember) but none of the others belonged on an NBA roster.

Aaron Williams? He was pretty pale. They had the White Mamba on that team too, he might have been a rookie

[Rake2204]

I like this thread. It seems often great players of yesteryear are given the glossy treatment, where everything they did is magnified to the level of godliness and the line begins to blur between what they were really like and what we wish to remember they were like. Kidd was in fact outstanding, but as you guys have mentioned, he wasn't perfect. Of his downfalls, like others said, I tend to remember how he'd randomly miss the easiest layups possible and I haven't basketballreferenced him yet, but I'm guessing his shooting percentage wasn't great from what you guys have said so far.

My favorite aspect of Kidd's game was his court vision and the means with which he moved the ball from point A to point B. Watching games with Kidd on the floor, you knew certain basketball possibilities were unlocked, so to speak. What I mean is, he just made unique passes, at unique times, from unique areas and as you watched it all unfold, it was like, "Wow, that play made a lot of sense and looked awesome. Why don't more people do that?"

To be clear, I don't mean he always made absolutely stunning plays. Sometimes the simple things were just as awesome to watch. For instance, I remember him pushing a break up the right side of the court. Vince Carter was trailing the play by 10 to 15 feet on the far left side of the floor. Still, Kidd crossed halfcourt and knowingly flung a leading, floaty, perfectly timed bounce pass across the court that allowed Carter to run and gather the ball precisely in his sweet spot (stepping into a pull up triple in transition). It seems so simple, but I was still left wondering "Who else would have made that play?"

[kNicKz]

Penetrated very well in pre rule changed league

amazing passer

racked up tons of steals, without too much gambling

Lock down D

emphasis on amazing passer

You wanted this guy on your team. Truly electrifying point guard that improved those around him

[kNicKz]

Kidd in his prime would only be borderline Top 5 PG in the league right now.



http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/mj-laughing.gif

[kNicKz]

He really said Kidd wouldn't be top 5 today

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

This site never ceases to keep me from laughing to the point of tears

[imnew09]

Compared to right now, yes he did. There are so many incredible PG's in this era that Kidd in his prime would only be borderline Top 5 PG in the league right now.

He would be better than Rondo but it would hard to make a case for Kidd over CP3, Westbrook, Rose, and Parker.

Then you have to consider up and coming PG's that might outdo whatever Kidd did in his prime in Kyrie and Lillard. Both of their ceilings are incredibly high considering their rookie seasons and Kyrie's progress in just his second season.

Negged for being one of the dumbest idiot.

[ProfessorMurder]

A bigger, stronger Rondo.

[vert48]

When Kidd was at Cal, I was at USC. I can remember my wife saying to me "is it just me, or is really that much better than everyone else?"

[Lebron23]

Wife Beater. But seriously he's way better than the numbers that he posted during his prime. Prime Kidd is still going to be a top 5 PG in today's league. We have plenty of talented PG's right now.

[9512]

He was completely NOT anything like Deron Williams

I agree. The only reason why the comparisons even exist is bc their physiques and skin tone are the same.

Like any 6 foot 7to 6 10 white guys are almost automatically compared to Larry Bird (Adam Morrison, Tom Guguliota)

[PP34Deuce]

I remember those Kidd Nets teams. They bounced my Celtics out.

Kidd in the early 2000's to 2006 was Fast, strong as an ox for a PG. very smart, good 3 point shooter. He also slashed to the basket much better for lay ups.

Walking triple double.

Higher IQ Rondo

[Rake2204]

Also, one time he did this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxnBXvPrnCA#t=0m22s

[Thorpesaurous]

Pretty much everything that needs to be said has been said.

But I will add one of the things that made him so special was his size and strength. There were guys as fast as him end to end, but almost no one his size, and it extended breaks and secondary breaks, because as most everyone is taught defensively to "stop the ball" on the break. He, unlike most smaller points who could get up the floor as fast as him, could force it further toward the baseline, and create different angles from which to get trailers buckets.

He also passed with more touch than most. That's what Rake is saying up there about "floating" a bounce pass to VC for a trailing three. He made it easier to finish than most guys, even though they may hit you in the same spot at the same time, his ball just seemed more catchable, and it's something that can't really be quantified.

I don't know how he'd do now. People can say that the increased attention to handchecking would allow him to be more physical and get to the hoop more, but it would also affect him defensively where he was elite (I'd argue it isn't that much different now than in his prime in NJ, things really changed early in his career). And his getting to the hoop more might be mitigated some by rotations having been made easier by turning the illegal defense into defensive 3 seconds, which has made rotations a little easier. Then again rotations coming to him aren't exactly a good thing because it just leaves guys open, which he's gonna be able to find better than anyone playing now from that spot because of his size. His jumper would be more of an issue now because more sag is played with, but no one pushes tempo now like he did.

And yeah he couldn't shoot. It's crazy to me to see that he's turned himself into a good shooter. It was so bad that his becoming good at it is one of the biggest tributes I can think of to a players work ethic. To see that he's like 3rd on the threes made list is nuts to me. He even said it at the half of the Heat game Sunday when asked about coming out of his slump. "I wasn't staying in my shot, and I'm just not good enough a shooter to not stay in my shot." Self awareness is one of the best attributes one can have.

Rondo has a similar skillset, but his approach is different, less frantic, and less forcefull than Kidd's was. You wouldn't get the lazy stretches you get from Rondo (which I'm a huge fan (a C's fan), and sometimes it feels like an effect of the offense). I remember Kidd with the Nets where they'd run horn rubs and hand offs for him. He'd enter to the high post, then run a fade off of a screen from the other high post, and if he didn't get it, he'd come ripping back off that same screener, deek in for a dive, and if that wasn't there, come back to run off the ball for a hand off. It always looked crazy to me because it looked almost like the team was in a panic if he didn't have the ball, like everyone was going nuts trying to get the ball back in his hands, but it was just the frantic pace he was capable of playing at.

A fair question is who would you rather have, Kidd or GP. Their size and defense gives them enough similarities that you can't throw out the defense as a plus like you can against some other players. It sort of comes down to your preference for Payton's post game vs. what Kidd brought in Tempo and intangibles, which are far harder to quantify. I'm not sure I know the answer. I live in the greater NY area, so I know I've seen Kidd a whole hell of a lot more.

[Heavincent]

Kidd running the fastbreak with Carter and Jefferson was a thing of beauty.

And this is one of the most insane pass fakes I have ever seen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7mqB57LL4I

[upside24]

Who remembers this commercial?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wdMLutQfe8
Nice commercial.:cheers:

[Rake2204]

Kidd running the fastbreak with Carter and Jefferson was a thing of beauty.

And this is one of the most insane pass fakes I have ever seen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7mqB57LL4IThat is fantastic. One of my favorite lob passes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DtSYebQUAM#t=0m11s

[The_Yearning]

A bigger, stronger Rondo.

Kidd > Rondo by miles. You think Rondo could have taken those Nets team to back to back finals? :roll: :roll:

[JoshCoward]

Some great posts in this thread. Even before his Nets days, he carried a heavy load in that Suns team in 2000(I believe?) that consisted of injury-prone & done Gugliotta and Hardaway, Rookie Marion, aging Cliff Robinson, and pretty good role-players in Rodney Rogers and Tony Delk to a 51 win in a tough Western Conference. And with when Hardaway and Kidd played together, they had a record of 33-12 - so it could've been interesting had Penny stayed healthy.

My favourite pass from Kidd is the one he made in an All-Star game to Kenyon Martin. A look-away one hand lob :bowdown:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOTwuifcXo8#t=01m30s

[Pointguard]

Kidd running the fastbreak with Carter and Jefferson was a thing of beauty.

And this is one of the most insane pass fakes I have ever seen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7mqB57LL4I

Classic example of Kidd playing chess while everybody else is playing checkers. He used to totally disarm defenses.

[longhornfan1234]

Ineffiecient Pg.

[iDunk]

Great defender, didn't chose to score as much as people wanted him to, pass first, flirted with a triple double almost every game, 3 point shot wasn't as good as it is now but still effective.

[ProfessorMurder]

Kidd > Rondo by miles. You think Rondo could have taken those Nets team to back to back finals? :roll: :roll:

Did I say anything about Rondo being as good? No. I said they were similar.

[TheBigVeto]

I never saw him on those Nets teams that made the finals.

I imagine a better/faster/less fat version of Deron Williams.

Could he shoot the J?
Or was he drive n' kick / go for the lay-up?

He's better than Deron in everything except scoring. A walking triple double like Lebron, Big-O, Bird and Magic.

[Xiao Yao You]

Great defender, didn't chose to score as much as people wanted him to, pass first, flirted with a triple double almost every game, 3 point shot wasn't as good as it is now but still effective.

Who wants a sub-40% shooter to score more? He should have shot less even if it cost him triple doubles.

[Reggie43]

I feel that Kidd gets vastly overrated as a player by his two finals appearances in the early 2000s.

Dont get me wrong going to two straight finals is pretty impressive but when the only good teams you have to go through in those 2 years are the 50 win Pre-Rasheed Wallace Pistons and the 49 win Celtics led by Pierce and Walker it certainly puts the accomplishment in perspective.

In their last Finals appearance the Nets record in the nba leaguewide placed them at 8th place but was lucky enough to play in the eastern conference thus giving them the 2nd seed in the east playoffs. Place that Nets team in the west and they would merely be the 7th seed in the playoffs facing the 59 win Sacramento Kings led by Webber/Peja/ Bibby and they would be hardpressed to win that matchup to advance in the 2nd round.

To be fair it wasnt the Nets fault that the east was at its weakest and they took advantage of the situation and took care of business.

[OhNoTimNoSho]

His son had a really large head

[DuMa]

Who remembers this commercial?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wdMLutQfe8


classic man. just classic

[FKAri]

Rondo-like with less statpadding and actual impact.

[Rake2204]

I feel that Kidd gets vastly overrated as a player by his two finals appearances in the early 2000s.

Dont get me wrong going to two straight finals is pretty impressive but when the only good teams you have to go through in those 2 years are the 50 win Pre-Rasheed Wallace Pistons and the 49 win Celtics led by Pierce and Walker it certainly puts the accomplishment in perspective.

In their last Finals appearance the Nets record in the nba leaguewide placed them at 8th place but was lucky enough to play in the eastern conference thus giving them the 2nd seed in the east playoffs. Place that Nets team in the west and they would merely be the 7th seed in the playoffs facing the 59 win Sacramento Kings led by Webber/Peja/ Bibby and they would be hardpressed to win that matchup to advance in the 2nd round.

To be fair it wasnt the Nets fault that the east was at its weakest and they took advantage of the situation and took care of business.I agree with your general notion that the New Jersey Nets benefited from being in the Eastern Conference. The paths to their Finals appearances did not include slaying dragon after dragon (as opposed to, say, Houston's '95 run through Phoenix, Utah, San Antonio, and Orlando). However, I do not believe that notion means Jason Kidd was any less of a great player.

That said, I suppose if there's people out there whose base statement on Kidd's greatness was, "Dude, he took the Nets to the Finals in back to back years so he must have been great" then I agree such a statement would have to be followed with at least a debate on the strength of his own conference at that time. However, I think most of the kudos Kidd tends to receive has to do with how he played the game and what he did while he was on the floor. That is, I think he would have been great anywhere he chose to play.

Moreover, to go back to team success for a moment, even with the Eastern Conference being weak, I still believe there's something to be said about turning the Nets (a 26 win team the year prior) into instant championship contenders upon his arrival. Yes, New Jersey added very solid vet Kerry Kittles and a rookie Richard Jefferson in '02, but I don't feel they impacted the team's culture and on-court product as drastically as Kidd was able to do. And I think that's why his rating tends to usually be accurate. Any team he played for, he changed things. He made every player on his team better, and that's tough to quantify.

[bagelred]

What was Kidd like in his prime? He was much darker....he looked very black. But over time, lost some of the pigmentation....and here we are.


Weird question, though.....

[Pointguard]

I feel that Kidd gets vastly overrated as a player by his two finals appearances in the early 2000s.

Dont get me wrong going to two straight finals is pretty impressive but when the only good teams you have to go through in those 2 years are the 50 win Pre-Rasheed Wallace Pistons and the 49 win Celtics led by Pierce and Walker it certainly puts the accomplishment in perspective.

In their last Finals appearance the Nets record in the nba leaguewide placed them at 8th place but was lucky enough to play in the eastern conference thus giving them the 2nd seed in the east playoffs. Place that Nets team in the west and they would merely be the 7th seed in the playoffs facing the 59 win Sacramento Kings led by Webber/Peja/ Bibby and they would be hardpressed to win that matchup to advance in the 2nd round.

To be fair it wasnt the Nets fault that the east was at its weakest and they took advantage of the situation and took care of business.

Kidd got hurt in the second game against the championship Pistons and played hobbled the rest of the way, and hobbled Kidd still took that series to seven games. They also beat the Spurs twice in that championship run which was equivalent to what anybody in the West did. And the officiating wouldn't let Kenyon go near Tim Duncan (pretty sure its the most free throw shooting he ever did). The Spurs were a better team, much taller and more talented, with more grit players and scorers, but it wasn't like this great West had put up a better effort than the Nets.

Lastly nobody in the league could have taken that team that far.

[bizil]

I think u have three kinds of PG's who qualify as great players. You have dominant scoring PG's like Rose, Parker, Westbrook, Arenas, etc. who are very good passers, but actually are kinda of slanted to a SG or combo guard mentality. U have your PG's like Magic, Isiah, CP3, Big O, Payton, prime Nash, Tiny, etc. who are the perfect blend of dominant passing-floor generalship and dominant scoring. Then u have PG's like Kidd, Stockton, Rondo, Cousy, Mo Cheeks, Mark Jackson, etc. who are your dominant passer-floor general guys but not dominant scorers. Kidd in my book is the best PG of all time for his style of play at PG. He's really the only one outta the group I would take over many guys in the other two categories I named. Kidd was a walking triple double at PG, great defender capable of defending PG, SG, and SF, and was one of the greatest as well as flashiest passers of all time. And in his younger days he's arguably the best combo of power and speed I've ever seen at PG. If Kidd had devolped his threeball when he was at his peak of play, u are talking shit that is even more scary. Put it like this, Magic, Big O,and Isiah are the only PG's FOR SURE I would take over J Kidd.

[Bandito]

I never saw him on those Nets teams that made the finals.

I imagine a better/faster/less fat version of Deron Williams.

Could he shoot the J?
Or was he drive n' kick / go for the lay-up?
How young are you?:roll:

[Reggie43]

I agree with your general notion that the New Jersey Nets benefited from being in the Eastern Conference. The paths to their Finals appearances did not include slaying dragon after dragon (as opposed to, say, Houston's '95 run through Phoenix, Utah, San Antonio, and Orlando). However, I do not believe that notion means Jason Kidd was any less of a great player.

That said, I suppose if there's people out there whose base statement on Kidd's greatness was, "Dude, he took the Nets to the Finals in back to back years so he must have been great" then I agree such a statement would have to be followed with at least a debate on the strength of his own conference at that time. However, I think most of the kudos Kidd tends to receive has to do with how he played the game and what he did while he was on the floor. That is, I think he would have been great anywhere he chose to play.

Moreover, to go back to team success for a moment, even with the Eastern Conference being weak, I still believe there's something to be said about turning the Nets (a 26 win team the year prior) into instant championship contenders upon his arrival. Yes, New Jersey added very solid vet Kerry Kittles and a rookie Richard Jefferson in '02, but I don't feel they impacted the team's culture and on-court product as drastically as Kidd was able to do. And I think that's why his rating tends to usually be accurate. Any team he played for, he changed things. He made every player on his team better, and that's tough to quantify.

Nice post and I agree with most of it and he certainly was a great player but was not that much better or better at all than the likes of Gary Payton, Kevin Johnson, Tim Hardaway, Price, Archibald, Frazier etc. and thats not including some of the top point guards still playing today. He gets ahead of them on all time lists on the strength of those two finals appearances which seems a bit unfair for me given the aforementioned quality of opposition.

[Glide2keva]

Good defender, pretty good 3 point shooter (though not as good mid-range), fantastic at transition offense. Him + Kenyon Martin + Richard Jefferson in the open court was fun to watch.
One of my favorite teams to play with on 2K.

[Reggie43]

Kidd got hurt in the second game against the championship Pistons and played hobbled the rest of the way, and hobbled Kidd still took that series to seven games. They also beat the Spurs twice in that championship run which was equivalent to what anybody in the West did. And the officiating wouldn't let Kenyon go near Tim Duncan (pretty sure its the most free throw shooting he ever did). The Spurs were a better team, much taller and more talented, with more grit players and scorers, but it wasn't like this great West had put up a better effort than the Nets.

Lastly nobody in the league could have taken that team that far.

All of those are very true except the last statement. You really think the likes of Shaq, Duncan, Garnett, Webber, Kobe and maybe even Mcgrady would have a hard time facing the Pre-Rasheed Pistons and Pierce/Walker Celtics given the same Nets team replacing Kidd?

[Whoah10115]

All of those are very true except the last statement. You really think the likes of Shaq, Duncan, Garnett, Webber, Kobe and maybe even Mcgrady would have a hard time facing the Pre-Rasheed Pistons and Pierce/Walker Celtics given the same Nets team replacing Kidd?



McGrady flat out had no chance. I know T-Mac fans get upset with that but his Orlando team was hardly worse than the Nets without Kidd. And they couldn't get out of the first round. Webber, if he took the initiative he took when he first got to Sacramento, could maybe have done something. As far as talent...he's as talented as any PF who's played. And he played the right way, but he lacked conditioning, didn't play hard enough on D (so I guess not completely the right way), and had some issues he never got over. Duncan would have a shot, but Duncan didn't make people better anywhere near what Kidd did. His best advantage would be that he would play C (where they sucked) and a big man is always a difference maker. KG would be right between Duncan and Kidd...a big guy (tho he wouldn't play C) and a guy who excelled at making others better. Shaq would dominate the people he went up against but he wouldn't beat the other team by himself, and he wouldn't make the guys around him better like that.

[Xiao Yao You]

Webber, if he took the initiative he took when he first got to Sacramento, could maybe have done something. As far as talent...he's as talented as any PF who's played. And he played the right way, but he lacked conditioning, didn't play hard enough on D (so I guess not completely the right way), and had some issues he never got over. Duncan would have a shot, but Duncan didn't make people better anywhere near what Kidd did. His best advantage would be that he would play C (where they sucked) and a big man is always a difference maker. KG would be right between Duncan and Kidd...a big guy (tho he wouldn't play C) and a guy who excelled at making others better. Shaq would dominate the people he went up against but he wouldn't beat the other team by himself, and he wouldn't make the guys around him better like that.

Webber and KG's biggest problems like Stockton was that they were too unselfish. As much as Kidd gets credited with being a pass first pg he shot the ball way too much.

[Whoah10115]

Webber and KG's biggest problems like Stockton was that they were too unselfish. As much as Kidd gets credited with being a pass first pg he shot the ball way too much.



I don't think he shot too much. He just never played on very good teams. If you put him on those Celtic teams or if he ended up traded to the Lakers earlier on, then I can bet that he wouldn't have shot as much...or maybe he would have worked on his jumpshot and hit some more open shots.

[Xiao Yao You]

When you shoot under 40% and you are shooting as much as he did it's way too much.

[Pointguard]

All of those are very true except the last statement. You really think the likes of Shaq, Duncan, Garnett, Webber, Kobe and maybe even Mcgrady would have a hard time facing the Pre-Rasheed Pistons and Pierce/Walker Celtics given the same Nets team replacing Kidd?
They definitely beat post Rasheed Pistons that won the title if Kidd didn't get hurt early in that series. And Shaq and Kobe had experienced championship players around them most of their careers. The Pistons with Sheed would not have beaten the Pacers if their two main players, center and point guard, didn't get hurt as well. That year the Pistons were the third best team out East. The next year they were better.

But the Lakers win one game against them. Shaq, Webber and McGrady never flourished out East and had better teams than Kidd did, so they are out of the question. That Nets team was among the worse team in the league the year before with one of the games best PG playing the position. Kidd only had K Mart as a finisher but he had a bad touch, Nets had very inconsistent shooting that was wasn't dependable in the playoffs. No rebounders or rim protectors. He had no other creators on those teams. Remarkably his teams were even worse in the half court. No body making all defensive team but the same team went from 22nd to 5th in defense when Kidd arrived. They weren't big, very talented or great shot makers. And its very different if four or five players played better than they every did with Kidd those years. Kenyon Martain and Richard Jefferson despite being very young rarely, ever had years like that again.

On the reverse side of the coin I can't imagine what Kidd would have done with a team of Anfernee Hardaway, Anderson, Scott, Horace Grant, Koncak, Bowie and Shaw. Or Kobe, Rice, Harper, Fox, Fisher, Horry, AC Green and Shaw. I've always maintained that Duncan was a unique great winner but I am beginning to doubt how much I gave him credit for. Pop just has a great winning way about him. But no, that Nets team needed an engine not players like you named so they definitely don't succeed two years in a row like that. I think every very good player had a much better team than those Nets teams.

[bdreason]

I like the Rondo comparison. I think Kidd did everything(a little better than Rondo though.

Kidd's biggest asset was his floor leadership. Even playing in an uptempo, open-court style like those Nets teams did... it still felt like Kidd always had the game under control. Guys like Martin and Jefferson owe half their paychecks to J. Kidd.

[Reggie43]

They definitely beat post Rasheed Pistons that won the title if Kidd didn't get hurt early in that series. And Shaq and Kobe had experienced championship players around them most of their careers. The Pistons with Sheed would not have beaten the Pacers if their two main players, center and point guard, didn't get hurt as well. That year the Pistons were the third best team out East. The next year they were better.

But the Lakers win one game against them. Shaq, Webber and McGrady never flourished out East and had better teams than Kidd did, so they are out of the question. That Nets team was among the worse team in the league the year before with one of the games best PG playing the position. Kidd only had K Mart as a finisher but he had a bad touch, Nets had very inconsistent shooting that was wasn't dependable in the playoffs. No rebounders or rim protectors. He had no other creators on those teams. Remarkably his teams were even worse in the half court. No body making all defensive team but the same team went from 22nd to 5th in defense when Kidd arrived. They weren't big, very talented or great shot makers. And its very different if four or five players played better than they every did with Kidd those years. Kenyon Martain and Richard Jefferson despite being very young rarely, ever had years like that again.

On the reverse side of the coin I can't imagine what Kidd would have done with a team of Anfernee Hardaway, Anderson, Scott, Horace Grant, Koncak, Bowie and Shaw. Or Kobe, Rice, Harper, Fox, Fisher, Horry, AC Green and Shaw. I've always maintained that Duncan was a unique great winner but I am beginning to doubt how much I gave him credit for. Pop just has a great winning way about him. But no, that Nets team needed an engine not players like you named so they definitely don't succeed two years in a row like that. I think every very good player had a much better team than those Nets teams.

So I guess its safe to assume that you think that Kidd was the best player in the league in those two years he made the finals going by your opinion.

Do you really think that three of the top ten players in nba history in Shaq, Duncan and Kobe would have a hard time leading the nets individually given the same supporting cast in the east at that time?

[Reggie43]

McGrady flat out had no chance. I know T-Mac fans get upset with that but his Orlando team was hardly worse than the Nets without Kidd. And they couldn't get out of the first round. Webber, if he took the initiative he took when he first got to Sacramento, could maybe have done something. As far as talent...he's as talented as any PF who's played. And he played the right way, but he lacked conditioning, didn't play hard enough on D (so I guess not completely the right way), and had some issues he never got over. Duncan would have a shot, but Duncan didn't make people better anywhere near what Kidd did. His best advantage would be that he would play C (where they sucked) and a big man is always a difference maker. KG would be right between Duncan and Kidd...a big guy (tho he wouldn't play C) and a guy who excelled at making others better. Shaq would dominate the people he went up against but he wouldn't beat the other team by himself, and he wouldn't make the guys around him better like that.

I think its true that Mcrady and Webber might not be able to pull it off but do you really think that other 4 hall of famers in Shaq, Duncan, Kobe and Garnett would have a hard time those years?

Each of those players have won championships as the main guy and you think they wont win the Eastern Championship when the competition was at an alltime low?

[JoshCoward]

I think its true that Mcrady and Webber might not be able to pull it off but do you really think that other 4 hall of famers in Shaq, Duncan, Kobe and Garnett would have a hard time those years?

Each of those players have won championships as the main guy and you think they wont win the Eastern Championship when the competition was at an alltime low?

Kobe? No. Not during 2001-2003 years. Yes, he was a great player but he would not fit into that Nets system + lead them to two NBA finals because he wouldn't have been able to fully utilize the players around him at the time + (even though the Eastern Conference was below-par, they had one or two teams that were capable of beating few top Western teams on any given night).

Garnett and Duncan? This is a tough call - the teams that Nets faced during the playoffs consisted of Jermaine O'neal, Antoine Walker, Ben Wallace in C/PF position and Garnett & Duncan would've done well going up against these players but they wouldn't have been able to stop back court players in Reggie Miller (I watched this game many times and Kidd only let Miller get 2 or 3 touches when defending him in 4th Q and OT), Baron Davis, and remember Kidd also matched up well against the Celtics and Pistons (with Celtics, he's averaged TD from my memory). Plus with Duncan, I agree with Pointguard - don't think he'll flourish as much with Byron Scott as he did/does for Pop.

Shaq, I give you. If he was as motivated as he was during those years, he would've led the Nets team to possible Championship.

[Reggie43]

Kobe? No. Not during 2001-2003 years. Yes, he was a great player but he would not fit into that Nets system + lead them to two NBA finals because he wouldn't have been able to fully utilize the players around him at the time + (even though the Eastern Conference was below-par, they had one or two teams that were capable of beating few top Western teams on any given night).

Garnett and Duncan? This is a tough call - the teams that Nets faced during the playoffs consisted of Jermaine O'neal, Antoine Walker, Ben Wallace in C/PF position and Garnett & Duncan would've done well going up against these players but they wouldn't have been able to stop back court players in Reggie Miller (I watched this game many times and Kidd only let Miller get 2 or 3 touches when defending him in 4th Q and OT), Baron Davis, and remember Kidd also matched up well against the Celtics and Pistons (with Celtics, he's averaged TD from my memory).

Shaq, I give you. He would've led the Nets team to possible Championship.

Your opinion of Kobe on the Nets somewhat makes sense but its hard to bet against Bryant not being able to do that given the strength of opposition and him being in his athletic prime.

In regards to Duncan and Garnett, I still maintain my position that they would have done the same given that they were two of the best power forwards in nba history and were in their primes. Garnett and Duncan might have not have the same success against the whole league given the same Nets roster but they certainly would have enough talent to beat those Eastern teams. Do you really think a combination of Duncan/Martin/Jefferson would be beat by the tandems of Pierce/Walker and Ben Wallace/Billups/Hamilton?

Those backcourt players you mentioned were getting their numbers regardless of who were defending them as they did when they faced the nets from what I remember.

[Rake2204]

Your opinion of Kobe on the Nets somewhat makes sense but its hard to bet against Bryant not being able to do that given the strength of opposition and him being in his athletic prime.

In regards to Duncan and Garnett, I still maintain my position that they would have done the same given that they were two of the best power forwards in nba history and were in their primes. Garnett and Duncan might have not have the same success against the whole league given the same Nets roster but they certainly would have enough talent to beat those Eastern teams. Do you really think a combination of Duncan/Martin/Jefferson would be beat by the tandems of Pierce/Walker and Ben Wallace/Billups/Hamilton?

Those backcourt players you mentioned were getting their numbers regardless of who were defending them as they did when they faced the nets from what I remember.I would question the makeups of these teams (if Duncan or Garnett hypothetically replaced Kidd). I apologize if this was covered in previous posts and I missed it, but who'd be in the backcourt for those Nets teams? Anthony Johnson and Kerry Kittles?

I feel a very large reason the Nets were ever successful is because Jason Kidd's play transformed the on-court product. I believe both Richard Jefferson and Kenyon Martin heavily benefited from Kidd's mere presence, as Jason essentially turned Nets games into controlled track meets, which played right into the strengths of players like Martin and Jefferson. Neither of those players were particularly skilled at creating their own offense. Especially early in their careers, each of those guys tended to score from filling fast break lanes, catching perfect alley-oops, and having the table set by Kidd himself.

In a Duncan/Martin/Jefferson lineup (sans Kidd), I'm not sure a lot would be happening there aside from Duncan doing his usual dominant thing. He'd get his, and he might be able to create a little inside-outside thing with someone like Kerry Kittles, but that team's motor would be gone. With a mediocre point guard running the show, suddenly they'd have been a half court team where Duncan was the focal point and Martin and Jefferson struggled to fill in the blanks. I think Garnett taking Kidd's place would have resulted in something similar (Garnett actually had teams like that in Minnesota).

I just have this feeling that Kidd was someone who was able to take a team like New Jersey - who didn't have a real shot to do much of anything - and found the one way they could be successful at that time (by running, gunning, and working). I think we'd have to find another player with similar attributes to Kidd in order to make that team fully function on the same level. Even when discussing someone like Bryant, he no doubt would have imparted his will on the team, but would his game would have been something that could have transformed the team and maximized his teammates as much as possible? Or would it have been more of a situation where Bryant became frustrated and requested better teammates?

[Kyle_korver]

didnt he shoot like 30 to 40 fg% in his prime

[Whoah10115]

I think its true that Mcrady and Webber might not be able to pull it off but do you really think that other 4 hall of famers in Shaq, Duncan, Kobe and Garnett would have a hard time those years?

Each of those players have won championships as the main guy and you think they wont win the Eastern Championship when the competition was at an alltime low?



Shaq is of no use to a bad team. Is he gonna get 30PPG on that team? He'd need to take more shots than he used to, because he had no one to give him the ball. He'd have to do more. If that forced him to take the leadership role that he thinks he took throughout his career, then maybe. But probably not. Shaq is not a guy who is going to excel on a bad team. And Duncan is not that kind of leader. He will make players better but he is not going to be the system all by himself. KG is a maybe.

[Reggie43]

I would question the makeups of these teams (if Duncan or Garnett hypothetically replaced Kidd). I apologize if this was covered in previous posts and I missed it, but who'd be in the backcourt for those Nets teams? Anthony Johnson and Kerry Kittles?

I feel a very large reason the Nets were ever successful is because Jason Kidd's play transformed the on-court product. I believe both Richard Jefferson and Kenyon Martin heavily benefited from Kidd's mere presence, as Jason essentially turned Nets games into controlled track meets, which played right into the strengths of players like Martin and Jefferson. Neither of those players were particularly skilled at creating their own offense. Especially early in their careers, each of those guys tended to score from filling fast break lanes, catching perfect alley-oops, and having the table set by Kidd himself.

In a Duncan/Martin/Jefferson lineup (sans Kidd), I'm not sure a lot would be happening there aside from Duncan doing his usual dominant thing. He'd get his, and he might be able to create a little inside-outside thing with someone like Kerry Kittles, but that team's motor would be gone. With a mediocre point guard running the show, suddenly they'd have been a half court team where Duncan was the focal point and Martin and Jefferson struggled to fill in the blanks. I think Garnett taking Kidd's place would have resulted in something similar (Garnett actually had teams like that in Minnesota).

I just have this feeling that Kidd was someone who was able to take a team like New Jersey - who didn't have a real shot to do much of anything - and found the one way they could be successful at that time (by running, gunning, and working). I think we'd have to find another player with similar attributes to Kidd in order to make that team fully function on the same level. Even when discussing someone like Bryant, he no doubt would have imparted his will on the team, but would his game would have been something that could have transformed the team and maximized his teammates as much as possible? Or would it have been more of a situation where Bryant became frustrated and requested better teammates?

While I dont deny that Kidd made his teammates better the same can be said about Duncan and Garnett. In fact Garnett had much worse teammates which he led to a better record in a much tougher western conference.

Kidd being replaced by either Duncan or Garnett would certainly make those Nets mostly a half court team and Im pretty sure the trio of Martin, Jefferson, Kittles would have adjusted accordingly. Those players would have really benefited from all the open shots that Duncan/Kg would have generated because of being double teamed constantly.

[ChuckOakley]

While I dont deny that Kidd made his teammates better the same can be said about Duncan and Garnett. In fact Garnett had much worse teammates which he led to a better record in a much tougher western conference.

Kidd being replaced by either Duncan or Garnett would certainly make those Nets mostly a half court team and Im pretty sure the trio of Martin, Jefferson, Kittles would have adjusted accordingly. Those players would have really benefited from all the open shots that Duncan/Kg would have generated because of being double teamed constantly.
How would have Martin and Jefferson benefited from open shots?
They were strictly transition players back then. KK was the 2nd best transition player (after Kidd), but he could at least shoot.

That Nets team was a running team and suffered in the half court.

[Tking714]

A lot of you get off on referring to FG% for one of the highest ASSIST leaders of all time. And one of the best Passers the game will ever see.

Seriously. Put two and two together and please figure out why FG% shouldnt matter as much as some of you want it to.

[Reggie43]

Shaq is of no use to a bad team. Is he gonna get 30PPG on that team? He'd need to take more shots than he used to, because he had no one to give him the ball. He'd have to do more. If that forced him to take the leadership role that he thinks he took throughout his career, then maybe. But probably not. Shaq is not a guy who is going to excel on a bad team. And Duncan is not that kind of leader. He will make players better but he is not going to be the system all by himself. KG is a maybe.

I respect your opinions but I have to disagree. I have watched too much of those aforementioned players to think otherwise.

[Pointguard]

So I guess its safe to assume that you think that Kidd was the best player in the league in those two years he made the finals going by your opinion.

Do you really think that three of the top ten players in nba history in Shaq, Duncan and Kobe would have a hard time leading the nets individually given the same supporting cast in the east at that time?

Shaq is definitely out of the question. No he could not do anything with that team. In Shaq's 21 years he never had a team with less talent than the Nets. He never had a team with as bad as shooters as the Nets. He's never had a team with with at least two other creative players - without Kidd the Nets had none. Shaq always had veteran help, For his first 8 years his next two highest scorers average over 15 ppg - that Nets team had none. After that Shaq always played with a top 3 perimeter player when still in his prime. There is no way you are going to tell me that Shaq with less talent, less skilled players, less shooters and and less creative players is going to thrive and make his mark with a bad team. Plus it wasn't a team built around him. No chance.

Kobe was simply too young to handle a young inexperienced team. Duncan and Garnett need a great defensive team to win at that time. On that Nets team their 23ppg at that time would have not been enough even in the East. The Nets' best player played Duncan and Garnett's position so it would be very hard to make Kenyon better. Also the East played a convoluted style that collapsed on people and made it hard on Power Forwards. In general the West Coast PF's like Sheed, Webber, Juwan Howard, Jamison, Elton Brand and Shawn Kemp all had offensive problems in the East - They all shot better and played better out West. Players like Derrick Coleman and Chris Bosh would have better out West as well.

Kidd maximized what was there. He was the best piece to that puzzle. They needed a thinking man's engine for that team and Kidd was the right ticket.

[Reggie43]

How would have Martin and Jefferson benefited from open shots?
They were strictly transition players back then. KK was the 2nd best transition player (after Kidd), but he could at least shoot.

That Nets team was a running team and suffered in the half court.

Nba players are much too skillful to not be able to adjust. If ever either KG/Duncan were double teamed all they have to do is cut to the basket for the free layup or an easy dunk.
Those Nets teams would certainly have been atleast a decent halfcourt team with Duncan/KG replacing Kidd.

[ChuckOakley]

Nba players are much too skillful to not be able to adjust. If ever either KG/Duncan were double teamed all they have to do is cut to the basket for the free layup or an easy dunk.
Those Nets teams would certainly have been atleast a decent halfcourt team with Duncan/KG replacing Kidd.
I don't think so.

Cutting to the hoop and running the court are much different. They also didn't have any 3 point shooting to play half court. They had to play a running game.. I don't think TD or KG have ever played on running teams.

[Reggie43]

Shaq is definitely out of the question. No he could not do anything with that team. In Shaq's 21 years he never had a team with less talent than the Nets. He never had a team with as bad as shooters as the Nets. He's never had a team with with at least two other creative players - without Kidd the Nets had none. Shaq always had veteran help, For his first 8 years his next two highest scorers average over 15 ppg - that Nets team had none. After that Shaq always played with a top 3 perimeter player when still in his prime. There is no way you are going to tell me that Shaq with less talent, less skilled players, less shooters and and less creative players is going to thrive and make his mark with a bad team. Plus it wasn't a team built around him. No chance.

Kobe was simply too young to handle a young inexperienced team. Duncan and Garnett need a great defensive team to win at that time. On that Nets team their 23ppg at that time would have not been enough even in the East. The Nets' best player played Duncan and Garnett's position so it would be very hard to make Kenyon better. Also the East played a convoluted style that collapsed on people and made it hard on Power Forwards. In general the West Coast PF's like Sheed, Webber, Juwan Howard, Jamison, Elton Brand and Shawn Kemp all had offensive problems in the East - They all shot better and played better out West. Players like Derrick Coleman and Chris Bosh would have better out West as well.

Kidd maximized what was there. He was the best piece to that puzzle. They needed a thinking man's engine for that team and Kidd was the right ticket.

All I am asking is do they have enough to beat the teams Kidd beat to make the finals those 2 years and to me the answer is yes. Walker/Pierce Celtics and the Pre-Rasheed Pistons have no chance of stopping a Prime Shaq from scoring regardless of who his teammates were given that they could atleast throw a proper entry pass to the post.

[embersyc]

The type of man who would break his own son's arm if it meant saving a ball from going out of bounds.

[embersyc]

Do you really think that three of the top ten players in nba history in Shaq, Duncan and Kobe would have a hard time leading the nets individually given the same supporting cast in the east at that time?


None of those guys could of gotten to the finals with Kidd's team.

I mean we are talking about Richard Jefferson, Kenyon Martin and Kerry Kittles as the other names...

J Kidd turned those guys into stars.

[Rake2204]

Nba players are much too skillful to not be able to adjust. If ever either KG/Duncan were double teamed all they have to do is cut to the basket for the free layup or an easy dunk.
Those Nets teams would certainly have been atleast a decent halfcourt team with Duncan/KG replacing Kidd.Well, I think it depends what you mean by adjust. Would Martin and Jefferson still be able to play basketball if Duncan or Garnett was starring instead of Kidd? Sure. But by adjust do you mean they'd suddenly become one-on-one threats and excellent mid-range/long range shooters? I believe not.

Also, as much as I wish it were as easy as, "all they have to do is cut to the basket for the free layup or an easy dunk", you and I both know, it's not. Would Martin and Jefferson be rendered helpless? Again, I do not think so. They'd still dunk here or there and Martin would still crash the boards. But there's nothing really about TD or Garnett's games that make me believe they'd enhance the play of those Nets rosters, aside from my mentioning of Kerry Kittles' and Keith Van Horn's better looks off of kick outs.

Beyond that though, that team would have no motor. At least Garnett had Sam Cassell running things when his team was successful. And Tim Duncan, of course, has had Tony Parker for the majority of his career. But if either of those two were traded to New Jersey in exchange for Stephon Marbury, I can't see them having the same impact on that squad as Jason Kidd. Maybe if one of them was acquired, then the Nets were able to swing a deal for a legit point guard as well (say, a Chauncey Billups) then they're probably be in business. But that's a different story altogether.

To restate my belief, I think Jason Kidd got the best out of every member of his team in New Jersey. He even made Lucious Harris semi-prominent at one point. He did this by the style of play he commanded, the manner with which he was able to share the ball, being able to make the correct basketball plays for himself and his teammates in most occasions, and leading by example and otherwise. I just can't see those Nets flourishing without a presence like that, especially if there was just a dump-it-down post player on that squad in Kidd's place, leaving an empty backcourt.

[Xiao Yao You]

A lot of you get off on referring to FG% for one of the highest ASSIST leaders of all time. And one of the best Passers the game will ever see.

Seriously. Put two and two together and please figure out why FG% shouldnt matter as much as some of you want it to.

It matters because he took too many shots.

[tpols]

No one made their teammates better than kidd did.. And on both sides of the ball.

[Pointguard]

All I am asking is do they have enough to beat the teams Kidd beat to make the finals those 2 years and to me the answer is yes. Walker/Pierce Celtics and the Pre-Rasheed Pistons have no chance of stopping a Prime Shaq from scoring regardless of who his teammates were given that they could atleast throw a proper entry pass to the post.

He would have been on an island. Indiana had size and girth, and he would have been tripled teamed. Nobody on that team could get 15 ppg with Kidd making them better offensive players and Shaq never broke the 30ppg plateau. Shaq without shooters isn't beating 5 other players. No one player is pulling that off. Shaq was in the east with much better players at every position and scoring as much as he every did and it wasn't a cake wallk.

[bdreason]

Duncan, KG, and Shaq may have made it out of the East just based on their raw talent... but I agree with most that those Nets teams were not built to play half-court, inside-out Basketball. No way Kobe takes that roster to the Finals.

[crisoner]

http://www.rantsports.com/clubhouse/wp-content/slideshow/2012/12/25-athletes-with-horrible-haircuts/medium/jason-kidd-blogspot.jpg

He had Blonde hair

Kidd could defend...make teammates better....hit shots....everything you want a PG to do and he did it all at an elite level. Just a smart basketball player.

I saw Kidd play when I was a kid (in the 6th grade I think) and he was a Senior at St. Joseph's High school. He was playing my (Future at the time) High School and he torched us. We kept chanting SAT's (He just took his SAT's at the time) and scored real low. I think that pissed him off and he dropped about 30 to 40 plus that night.

[Rake2204]

http://www.rantsports.com/clubhouse/wp-content/slideshow/2012/12/25-athletes-with-horrible-haircuts/medium/jason-kidd-blogspot.jpg

He had Blonde hair

Kidd could defend...make teammates better....hit shots....everything you want a PG to do and he did it all at an elite level. Just a smart basketball player.

I saw Kidd play when I was a kid (in the 6th grade I think) and he was a Senior at St. Joseph's High school. He was playing my (Future at the time) High School and he torched us. We kept chanting SAT's (He just took his SAT's at the time) and scored real low. I think that pissed him off and he dropped about 30 to 40 plus that night.Good stuff. I obviously don't remember him from high school since I'm from Michigan, but I do remember seeing tons of highlights of him in his years at Cal. His name was almost permanently tied to Lamond Murray. And funny to think about now, but I remember Kidd dunking a lot more back then (a lot more = more than never); usually two-handers off one foot with limited or no hang.

http://assets.espn.go.com/media/motion/2009/0328/RISE_Baller15_Jason_Kidd.jpg

[Dasher]

I think the talent of The Nets is being sold short because of what happened before Kidd got there. The team struggled with Stephon, but most people seem to forget that the team's front court suffered from a rash of broken legs. Before Steph got there, and Sam Cassell was at the the helm, the team was dubbed by MJ and others as The Team of The Future. The Nets played an entertaining style, and would have been more of a threat if Jayson Williams's health had held up, and whatever beef KVH and Kidd had would have been squashed.

That era was a great time to be a Nets fan. They played a beautiful brand of basketball. During the first Finals season, none of the national networks were smart enough to put the team on during the regular season. National fans never got the chance to bond with that team and its style of play. I think that hurt ratings later.

I still sometimes wonder if Eddie Griffin would still be alive if he played with Jason Kidd. If anyone would have been able to coax the talent out of him it would have been Jason.

[crisoner]

Good stuff. I obviously don't remember him from high school since I'm from Michigan, but I do remember seeing tons of highlights of him in his years at Cal. His name was almost permanently tied to Lamond Murray. And funny to think about now, but I remember Kidd dunking a lot more back then (a lot more = more than never); usually two-handers off one foot with limited or no hang.

http://assets.espn.go.com/media/motion/2009/0328/RISE_Baller15_Jason_Kidd.jpg

Lamond Murry!!!

Yeah him and Kidd ran things when they both played for Cal.
Murry went to the NBA as well. I remember him playing with the Clippers....after that lost track of him. Good knowledge.

http://www.prossinsports.com/56208307_10%20Lamond%20shrunk%20crop3.jpg

[Rake2204]

I think the talent of The Nets is being sold short because of what happened before Kidd got there. The team struggled with Stephon, but most people seem to forget that the team's front court suffered from a rash of broken legs. Before Steph got there, and Sam Cassell was at the the helm, the team was dubbed by MJ and others as The Team of The Future. The Nets played an entertaining style, and would have been more of a threat if Jayson Williams's health had held up, and whatever beef KVH and Kidd had would have been squashed.Yes true, they were building something in the late 90's, but as you mentioned, a lot of that had fallen by the wayside by the time Kidd arrived. Van Horn, Kittles, and Harris survived, but gone were Jayson Williams, Chris Gatling, Kendall Gill, and the aforementioned Sam Cassell. But as you are a Nets fan, I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir. I just think by the time '01 rolled around, a lot of that core from the late 90's was gone.

Sidenote, I always thought it was cool what SLAM did with their Nets covers. I remember that original one and I rode that hype train for a minute, so it was neat to see them reference it when things in New Jersey got real.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lep3zu6bTt1qfbzmto1_400.jpg

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lypnahjkHi1qznj8ho1_500.jpg

[Reggie43]

He would have been on an island. Indiana had size and girth, and he would have been tripled teamed. Nobody on that team could get 15 ppg with Kidd making them better offensive players and Shaq never broke the 30ppg plateau. Shaq without shooters isn't beating 5 other players. No one player is pulling that off. Shaq was in the east with much better players at every position and scoring as much as he every did and it wasn't a cake wallk.

That version of the Pacers was an 8th seed for a reason. They were too young and inexperienced to ever make an impact in the East at that time.

From what I remember Keith Van Horn, Kerry Kittles and Lucious Harris were decent enough 3pt shooters to space the floor for Shaq.

[Reggie43]

Well, I think it depends what you mean by adjust. Would Martin and Jefferson still be able to play basketball if Duncan or Garnett was starring instead of Kidd? Sure. But by adjust do you mean they'd suddenly become one-on-one threats and excellent mid-range/long range shooters? I believe not.

Also, as much as I wish it were as easy as, "all they have to do is cut to the basket for the free layup or an easy dunk", you and I both know, it's not. Would Martin and Jefferson be rendered helpless? Again, I do not think so. They'd still dunk here or there and Martin would still crash the boards. But there's nothing really about TD or Garnett's games that make me believe they'd enhance the play of those Nets rosters, aside from my mentioning of Kerry Kittles' and Keith Van Horn's better looks off of kick outs.

Beyond that though, that team would have no motor. At least Garnett had Sam Cassell running things when his team was successful. And Tim Duncan, of course, has had Tony Parker for the majority of his career. But if either of those two were traded to New Jersey in exchange for Stephon Marbury, I can't see them having the same impact on that squad as Jason Kidd. Maybe if one of them was acquired, then the Nets were able to swing a deal for a legit point guard as well (say, a Chauncey Billups) then they're probably be in business. But that's a different story altogether.

To restate my belief, I think Jason Kidd got the best out of every member of his team in New Jersey. He even made Lucious Harris semi-prominent at one point. He did this by the style of play he commanded, the manner with which he was able to share the ball, being able to make the correct basketball plays for himself and his teammates in most occasions, and leading by example and otherwise. I just can't see those Nets flourishing without a presence like that, especially if there was just a dump-it-down post player on that squad in Kidd's place, leaving an empty backcourt.

Kevin Garnett won more games than Kidd playing with the likes of Wally Sczerbiak and Troy Hudson as his best teammates and your telling me that he cant do the same with the core of Kenyon Martin, Keith Vanhorn, Richard Jefferson and Kerry Kittles?

[Rake2204]

Kevin Garnett won more games than Kidd playing with the likes of Wally Sczerbiak and Troy Hudson as his best teammates and your telling me that he cant do the same with the core of Kenyon Martin, Keith Vanhorn, Richard Jefferson and Kerry Kittles?I assume you're referring to Minnesota's '03 season and not '02 but I see where you're coming from in your comparison. However, I do not view one or two more wins than New Jersey (but in the Western Conference) and being swept in the first round as being on the same plane as reaching the Finals in the East in back to back seasons, even if the likes of Boston, Detroit, and Indiana are not respected around these parts.

As such, even though Kevin Garnett was able to experience some regular season team success with his shabby unit, I do not believe he'd have been able to have been traded straight up for Jason Kidd and subsequently lead that Nets team to the Finals in the East.

[Reggie43]

I assume you're referring to Minnesota's '03 season and not '02 but I see where you're coming from in your comparison. However, I do not view one or two more wins than New Jersey (but in the Western Conference) and being swept in the first round as being on the same plane as reaching the Finals in the East in back to back seasons, even if the likes of Boston, Detroit, and Indiana are not respected around these parts.

As such, even though Kevin Garnett was able to experience some regular season team success with his shabby unit, I do not believe he'd have been able to have been traded straight up for Jason Kidd and subsequently lead that Nets team to the Finals in the East.

Fair enough and your opinion does make some sense moreso than the others here but we really have to agree to disagree but nonetheless thanks for the insight.

[crisoner]

Yes true, they were building something in the late 90's, but as you mentioned, a lot of that had fallen by the wayside by the time Kidd arrived. Van Horn, Kittles, and Harris survived, but gone were Jayson Williams, Chris Gatling, Kendall Gill, and the aforementioned Sam Cassell. But as you are a Nets fan, I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir. I just think by the time '01 rolled around, a lot of that core from the late 90's was gone.

Sidenote, I always thought it was cool what SLAM did with their Nets covers. I remember that original one and I rode that hype train for a minute, so it was neat to see them reference it when things in New Jersey got real.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lep3zu6bTt1qfbzmto1_400.jpg

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lypnahjkHi1qznj8ho1_500.jpg


Man.....East Coast Bias at it's best with those two covers.

[Pointguard]

That version of the Pacers was an 8th seed for a reason. They were too young and inexperienced to ever make an impact in the East at that time.

From what I remember Keith Van Horn, Kerry Kittles and Lucious Harris were decent enough 3pt shooters to space the floor for Shaq.
No, they were never consistent and couldn't be depended upon. Lucious had a clutch streak but he was getting like 10 ppg. Shaq had impact but you couldn't just throw him anywhere and say he is going to flourish. His first 12 years was his statistical prime and all of those teams were much better than the Nets and they were built around him. Did Shaq ever have a lot of patience for bad players, heck even great ones? Sure he was crazy dominant and in his prime but he was never this easy guy to fit in with others, much less not talented players.

I'm not saying Kidd was the best player at that time, but he most certainly could do more with the least than anybody at that time.

Kidd was given a team with no strengths. Few can convert that into something. They overachieved and still weren't high production players.

[Pointguard]

I think the talent of The Nets is being sold short because of what happened before Kidd got there. The team struggled with Stephon, but most people seem to forget that the team's front court suffered from a rash of broken legs. Before Steph got there, and Sam Cassell was at the the helm, the team was dubbed by MJ and others as The Team of The Future. The Nets played an entertaining style, and would have been more of a threat if Jayson Williams's health had held up, and whatever beef KVH and Kidd had would have been squashed.

That era was a great time to be a Nets fan. They played a beautiful brand of basketball. During the first Finals season, none of the national networks were smart enough to put the team on during the regular season. National fans never got the chance to bond with that team and its style of play. I think that hurt ratings later.

I still sometimes wonder if Eddie Griffin would still be alive if he played with Jason Kidd. If anyone would have been able to coax the talent out of him it would have been Jason.
The Nets were good from the Kenny Anderson, Pekovic, Chris Morrison and Derrick Coleman days. And I'm sure MJ was referring to that team and not the one you mentioned (which actually was the recession team and much older and less talented team). There was no continuity of talent when Kidd got there except KVH whose game had fallen off.

[Rake2204]

The Nets were good from the Kenny Anderson, Pekovic, Chris Morrison and Derrick Coleman days. And I'm sure MJ was referring to that team and not the one you mentioned (which actually was the recession team and much older and less talented team). There was no continuity of talent when Kidd got there except KVH whose game had fallen off.Ha, you really had me thinking there for a minute. I figured by Pekovic you meant Petrovic, but Chris Morrison threw me for a small loop until I realized you meant Chris Morris. Anyhow, this is neither here nor there, but Jordan was in fact referring to the '98 Nets, not the Coleman/Anderson crew.


The Nets gave the 62-win Bulls everything they could in the first two game of their first-round playoff series in 1998, forcing an overtime in game 1 but losing, and falling five points short in game 2. So for game 3, in front of a sold-out crowd in New Jersey, Michael Jordan showcased why he was the best around, putting the Nets away once and for all by scoring 38 points on 16-22 shooting. The Bulls would win 116-101, sweeping the series, but Jordan had positive words for the Nets organization afterwards, saying to Don Unger, one of the Nets' owners, “You've got to keep this group of guys together. We're breaking up and this team here can be the team of the future.”
http://thebrooklyngame.com/celebrating-michael-jordan-vs-the-nets/

That doesn't mean that '98 squad was awesome, but there was some hype around what was being built there (hence the overzealous SLAM cover shown above). Things just happened to fall apart pretty quickly in the years thereafter, some due to injuries (Jayson Williams), some due to trade (Cassell/Marbury), and some just due to regression or unfulfilled potential (Kittles/Van Horn).

[Dasher]

The Nets were good from the Kenny Anderson, Pekovic, Chris Morrison and Derrick Coleman days. And I'm sure MJ was referring to that team and not the one you mentioned (which actually was the recession team and much older and less talented team). There was no continuity of talent when Kidd got there except KVH whose game had fallen off.

No, he was referring to The Sam Cassell Nets that he faced in the playoffs in 98 that had Kerry, KVH, and Jayson Williams.

Kerry, Kenyon, KVH, Aaron Williams, and Lucious Harris all played with Steph.