Discussion with my friends regarding Nash's Suns vs Paul's Clippers

[tragicbronson]

I said that i think Chris Paul is a better player than Steve Nash just because of defense alone where he is one of the best defensive point guards in the league while Nash is well known as one of the worst, their point was that Nash was MVP 2 times in a row and that it makes him better but i said that this is mostly because of their success as a team and their style of play which produced 60+ wins in regular season while they were never as successful in the playoffs and they responded with the claim that Chris Paul has a better team around him now than Steve Nash had in Suns best seasons :biggums: . What do you think about that, whose side would you take?

[Genaro]

Paul the better player in vacuum IMO but Nash made everyone better so he had the best team. Maybe he could take this Clippers team further.
One could argue that MDA's offense it's easier to work with.

We had to be clear what year are we talking about but as teams I would say 2005 Suns > 2015 Clippers

[StephHamann]

I said that i think Chris Paul is a better player than Steve Nash

http://media.giphy.com/media/O5NyCibf93upy/giphy.gif

[JtotheIzzo]

I said that i think Chris Paul is a better player than Steve Nash just because of defense alone where he is one of the best defensive point guards in the league while Nash is well known as one of the worst, their point was that Nash was MVP 2 times in a row and that it makes him better but i said that this is mostly because of their success as a team and their style of play which produced 60+ wins in regular season while they were never as successful in the playoffs and they responded with the claim that Chris Paul has a better team around him now than Steve Nash had in Suns best seasons :biggums: . What do you think about that, whose side would you take?

Peak Amare is very Blakesque, but the Suns never had anything like DeAndre. If Nash had him he'd be a much better defender because DJ can erase so many mistakes on defense.

Suns were 29-53 the year before Nash and 60-22 in Nash's first year with largely the same roster. This was the major driving force for his MVP, he made everyone amazingly effective. Also, players who thrived in Phoenix struggled elsewhere.
Nash would get more out of Big Baby and Spencer Hawes etc. than Paul does.

Nash was not ineffective in the playoffs, they almost knocked off the Lakers in the WCF in 2010 when Kobe airballed the game 5 buzzer beater only to have it land right in Metta's lap for the putback.

The year the Spurs rolled everyone the Suns had the misfortune of player suspensions and incredibly bad luck.

The Suns had more success than the Clippers and while we all coronate CP3 as amazing, he really hasn't done much.

Nash's Suns would destroy this year's Clippers team because they aren't deep enough and would run them off the floor.

[JohnFreeman]

Nash probably made players around him the most money

[Kobe_6/8]

I said that i think Chris Paul is a better player than Steve Nash just because of defense alone where he is one of the best defensive point guards in the league while Nash is well known as one of the worst, their point was that Nash was MVP 2 times in a row and that it makes him better but i said that this is mostly because of their success as a team and their style of play which produced 60+ wins in regular season while they were never as successful in the playoffs and they responded with the claim that Chris Paul has a better team around him now than Steve Nash had in Suns best seasons :biggums: . What do you think about that, whose side would you take?

Nash was a better shooter than CP3, but his defense was bad so he loses a lot of value. He played with the old rules though so it's hard to judge.

CP3 is a better at getting assists and defense, I would pick him for a balanced team.

Nash is probably better for a high-end team, like the 05-06 Lakers.

Nash's Suns were great shooters, but a combination of age/height/weight made them a bad playoff basketball team.

But WTF is prime CP3? Is this it?

[Young X]

The Suns were better and would've won more times than not.

The only version of the Clippers good enough to possibly win a championship was the 2014 version. They were never a next level team like those Suns teams were in the regular season or the playoffs.

I laugh when people say the Clippers would've given the Warriors trouble this year. They would've gotten killed badly.

The '05 and '07 Suns were better than any version of the Clippers. They would've won it all if not for Horry.

[Clifton]

Two years ago I would have said Paul was clearly the better all around player.

But now I'm not so sure. Nash did have that mysterious quality of "making guys better" that is 60% personality and 40% skill. And it's become very clear that Chris Paul does not. In fact, he has that mysterious quality of making his own teammates doubt themselves and feel afraid. The only player I can remember who didn't look like a choker next to Chris Paul was David West, and you just can't expect your average NBAer to be David West.

Paul has the "Kobe effect" on his teammates but without the dominant individual ability or the Phil Jackson-type coach who can make such a personality work in a team context.

You watch the Clippers and you just know they know they can't do it. That wasn't the case with the Suns. Both came up short in ways that look similar on paper, but with the eye-test, it was much different. The Clippers shriveled up and looked absolutely terrified that they might actually succeed. They willed themselves to lose.

[tamaraw08]

Peak Amare is very Blakesque, but the Suns never had anything like DeAndre. If Nash had him he'd be a much better defender because DJ can erase so many mistakes on defense.

Suns were 29-53 the year before Nash and 60-22 in Nash's first year with largely the same roster. This was the major driving force for his MVP, he made everyone amazingly effective. Also, players who thrived in Phoenix struggled elsewhere.
Nash would get more out of Big Baby and Spencer Hawes etc. than Paul does.

Nash was not ineffective in the playoffs, they almost knocked off the Lakers in the WCF in 2010 when Kobe airballed the game 5 buzzer beater only to have it land right in Metta's lap for the putback.

The year the Spurs rolled everyone the Suns had the misfortune of player suspensions and incredibly bad luck.

The Suns had more success than the Clippers and while we all coronate CP3 as amazing, he really hasn't done much.
Nash's Suns would destroy this year's Clippers team because they aren't deep enough and would run them off the floor.
All good takes by genaro, tragic and by you except the part I bolded. I believe that the score was tied when that ONE INCIDENT HAPPENED.
Also the Suns have only TWO wins, it's not like they were one rebound away like the Spurs vs Miami.
Again, it was ONE situation out of thousands more where the Lakers were not in full throttle, remember that 08 Celtics needed all 7 games to eliminate the first 3 teams they faced.

[24-Inch_Chrome]

Steve Nash. :applause:

[tamaraw08]

Two years ago I would have said Paul was clearly the better all around player.

But now I'm not so sure. Nash did have that mysterious quality of "making guys better" that is 60% personality and 40% skill. And it's become very clear that Chris Paul does not. In fact, he has that mysterious quality of making his own teammates doubt themselves and feel afraid. The only player I can remember who didn't look like a choker next to Chris Paul was David West, and you just can't expect your average NBAer to be David West.

Paul has the "Kobe effect" on his teammates but without the dominant individual ability or the Phil Jackson-type coach who can make such a personality work in a team context.

You watch the Clippers and you just know they know they can't do it. That wasn't the case with the Suns. Both came up short in ways that look similar on paper, but with the eye-test, it was much different. The Clippers shriveled up and looked absolutely terrified that they might actually succeed. They willed themselves to lose.

You are making valid points but it's interesting how you mentioned Phil, tho.
MDA seems to have much better offensive schemes than Rivers so IMO, we have to factor that in.While Paul have a very dominant defensive center, he too was a liability on offense, with ZERO low post moves and non existent shot beyond 5 feet, PLUS and an average of 10 FTs missed which is like committing 5 turnovers per game.
Lastly, you seemed to dwell on the 3 losses of HOuston and ignoring the other facts like they have beaten the mighty Spurs 4 times AND eliminating the now dominant Warriors in last years playoffs.
This is one great discussion about two great PGs. Yes, Nash AND MDA looked GREAT esp on offense. But I think the limitations on offense by Barnes and Deandre should also be factored in .