cp3 vs kidd vs payton

[QUOTE=ArbitraryWater]Nobody says that.. the 2008-2012 East is SUBSTANTIALLY better than the 2000-2003 and 2007 East...

LeBron wasn't even top 3 in 2007, his run isn't very impressive to me at all, for the same reasons Kidd's wasn't. Bron did however have one of the greatest games ever, that is undeniable.[/QUOTE]

Interesting .

I pick Lebron for third best player with Kobe in 2007 . I also pick Kidd for my top 3-4 in 2002 and 2003 .

East become stronger with 2008 cause Celtics and Magic were top 3-4 teams of the NBA .

East had one great team(2004-2006 Pistons) at between 99-07 .

Kidd had better rebounding,playmaking than Payton . And he was probably second goat pg defender after Payton .

CP3 will probably pass Kidd when his career over . But Kidd has best career of that group .

[QUOTE=Young X]No it doesn't even out.

The Nets were still the best team in the east, facing inferior teams in every round and had homecourt advantage throughout the playoffs.

The Clippers were the 3rd-5th seed and had to face the Spurs (twice), Thunder, Warriors, Grizzlies, and Rockets. Most of those series on the road.

The Nets had to beat the 44 win Baron Davis/Jamal Mashburn Hornets to the conference finals.

The Clippers had to get through the 59 win Durant/Westbrook Thunder to get to the conference finals.

Kidd faced ONE 50 win team to get to the finals in the those years, CP3 never faced a team with less than 51 wins in the playoffs.

The east in the early 00's was a complete joke. There's a reason Kidd went from either losing in the 1st round or missing the playoffs in his first 7 seasons playing in the west to immediately getting to the finals as soon as he went to the east.[/QUOTE]

It does even out because the Nets roster wasn't anything special. In fact talent wise, the 8th seeded Pacers and a healthy Hornets team were better on paper.

[QUOTE=game3524]It does even out because the Nets roster wasn't anything special. In fact talent wise, the 8th seeded Pacers and a healthy Hornets team were better on paper.[/QUOTE]I don't care who was better on paper. The Nets were the best team in that garbage conference. They had homecourt for every series except against Detroit.

The Clippers were never the best team in the west. There were always teams better than them that they had to get through to get to the finals.

Which is tougher or more unlikely:

The 50 win Clippers beating the 62 win Spurs in 2012?

or

The 52 win Nets beating the 44 win Hornets?


What about...

The 57 win Clippers beating the 59 win Thunder?

or

The 49 win Nets beating the 44 win Celtics?

If your answer is the Clippers then I don't see how everything evens out.

[QUOTE=Young X]Here's what the Nets faced on their way to the finals...

42 win Pacers
44 win Hornets
49 win Celtics

42 win Bucks
44 win Celtics
50 win Pistons

You gotta be f*cking kidding me.

They faced one good team in 6 rounds. They faced TWO 44 win teams in the 2nd round. What a f*cking joke.[/QUOTE]

I don't care who they faced, when you win 3 straight playoff series in back to back seasons with the kind of rosters the Nets had those years, it's impressive. Kidd completely revitalized a franchise that had routinely competed with the Clippers for being the laughing stock of the league. I don't know if some of you are too young to remember or what, but the Nets' organization was an embarrassment.

The east being weak in the early 2000's is well documented, but it doesn't diminish what Kidd did for that franchise. He controlled the game in a way that few PG's in history ever have. At his absolute best, Kidd had more impact than Payton or Paul at their absolute best.

[QUOTE=GrapeApe][B]I don't care who they faced, when you win 3 straight playoff series in back to back seasons with the kind of rosters the Nets had those years, it's impressive.[/B] Kidd completely revitalized a franchise that had routinely competed with the Clippers for being the laughing stock of the league. I don't know if some of you are too young to remember or what, but the Nets' organization was an embarrassment.

The east being weak is well documented, but it doesn't diminish what Kidd did for that franchise. He controlled the game a way that few PG's in history ever have. At his absolute best, Kidd had more impact than Payton or Paul at their absolute best.[/QUOTE]


Why? Have you taken a look at the other teams in 2002 particularly? It would actually be an embarrassment to have lost to any of those teams, tbh...

Of course it doesn't diminish what he did, its simply not that impressive. Barring injuries of course the Pistons would be in the 2003 finals, also.

You say your last sentence like its a fact that can be backed up with impact stats, it can't.

[QUOTE=GrapeApe]I don't care who they faced, when you win 3 straight playoff series in back to back seasons with the kind of rosters the Nets had those years, it's impressive. Kidd completely revitalized a franchise that had routinely competed with the Clippers for being the laughing stock of the league. I don't know if some of you are too young to remember or what, but the Nets' organization was an embarrassment.

The east being weak is well documented, but it doesn't diminish what Kidd did for that franchise. He controlled the game a way that few PG's in history ever have. At his absolute best, Kidd had more impact than Payton or Paul at their absolute best.[/QUOTE]It's not about diminishing what Kidd did for the Nets.

The problem is when you compare situations and try to draw conclusions without looking at circumstances and context. The Nets didn't face good teams and had a much, much easier path to the finals then Payton or Paul's teams. To ignore that and not factor that in when comparing their team results is really stupid.

Why didn't Kidd get past the 1st round in his first 7 years playing out WEST? Why didn't he make the same "impact" for the Suns when he was actually facing good teams in the playoffs?

[QUOTE=ArbitraryWater]Why? Have you taken a look at the other teams in 2002 particularly? It would actually be an embarrassment to have lost to any of those teams, tbh...

Of course it doesn't diminish what he did, its simply not that impressive. Barring injuries of course the Pistons would be in the 2003 finals, also.

You say your last sentence like its a fact that can be backed up with impact stats, it can't.[/QUOTE]

why are you all of people trying to detract from a team because of the competition they faced on the way to the finals?

Nets faced teams of 42, 44, 49 wins

2013 Heats faced teams of 38, 45, 49

The below .500 bucks, the Nate Robinson led Bulls and the Pacers..

You won't be shitting on those Lebron runs due to lack of competition when compared to the teams other ATG faced on their finals runs.. but all of a sudden in this thread the teams you faced on the way to the finals matters a lot :oldlol: :oldlol:

[QUOTE=TheMarkMadsen]why are you all of people trying to detract from a team because of the competition they faced on the way to the finals?

Nets faced teams of 42, 44, 49 wins

2013 Heats faced teams of 38, 45, 49

The below .500 bucks, the Nate Robinson led Bulls and the Pacers..

You won't be shitting on those Lebron runs due to lack of competition, but all of a sudden in this thread the teams you faced on the way to the finals matters a lot :oldlol: :oldlol:[/QUOTE]

I won't and its simple why, the 2013 Pacers played 81 games, they didn't play their game @ Boston due to the Marathon bombings... so likely thats a 50-win team.

Regardless, Hibbert looked like Wilt against Bosh every post-season, Pacers came into the playoffs with everyone knowing they could give the Heat a scare, like the previous year, where they had the #5 record in the NBA. They were a legit top team and would easily win the East's of the early 2000.

edit:

Its very simple though... they beat the West's best, they won 27 games, and when you beat the best from the other conference, what else are you supposed to do?

Plus, they won the season series against OKC and SAS, and if I remember correctly, had a superior record against the West than the East...

period.

[QUOTE=Young X][B]I don't care who was better on paper. The Nets were the best team in that garbage conference. They had homecourt for every series except against Detroit.[/B]

The Clippers were never the best team in the west. There were always teams better than them that they had to get through to get to the finals.

Which is tougher or more unlikely:

The 50 win Clippers beating the 62 win Spurs in 2012?

or

The 52 win Nets beating the 44 win Hornets?


What about...

The 57 win Clippers beating the 59 win Thunder?

or

The 49 win Nets beating the 44 win Celtics?

If your answer is the Clippers then I don't see how everything evens out.[/QUOTE]


They had the best record, but the gap between them talent wise to the other playoff teams wasn't that big. You are making it sound as if this was like the 2014 Heat, where they by far the best team in their conference. That simply wasn't the case with the 2002 Nets, who weren't even considered by many the favorites to get to the Finals that year. (I remember a ton of people thought Philly was the team to beat with a healthy AI coming back from a broken hand)

[QUOTE=game3524]They had the best record, but the gap between them talent wise to the other playoff teams wasn't that big. You are making it sound as if this was like the 2014 Heat, where they by far the best team in their conference. That simply wasn't the case with the 2002 Nets, who weren't even considered by many the favorites to get to the Finals that year. (I remember a ton of people thought Philly was the team to beat with a healthy AI coming back from a broken hand)[/QUOTE]Were they or were they not still better than the rest of the teams in their conference? Was there a team like OKC or the Spurs standing in their way? No.

You didn't answer those questions in my post:

Which is tougher?

The 50 win Clippers beating the 62 win Spurs?
The 57 win Clippers beating the 59 win Thunder?

or

The 52 win Nets beating the 44 win Hornets?
The 49 win Nets beating the 44 win Celtics?

[QUOTE=ArbitraryWater][B]I won't and its simple why, the 2013 Pacers played 81 games,[/B] they didn't play their game @ Boston due to the Marathon bombings... so likely thats a 50-win team.

Regardless, Hibbert looked like Wilt against Bosh every post-season, Pacers came into the playoffs with everyone knowing they could give the Heat a scare, like the previous year, where they had the #5 record in the NBA. They were a legit top team and would easily win the East's of the early 2000.

edit:

Its very simple though... they beat the West's best, they won 27 games, and when you beat the best from the other conference, what else are you supposed to do?

Plus, they won the season series against OKC and SAS, and if I remember correctly, had a superior record against the West than the East...

period.[/QUOTE]

ok so if they won 50 then Miami's competition looks like this - 38 win team, 45 win team, 50 win team compared to The Net's facing a 42, 44 and 50 win teams

what's the difference? :oldlol: Celtics were garbage, Bulls were led by Nate Robinson and your excuse for the Pacers is that an all star player stepped up? That separates the competition? Paul Pierce put up 30/8/8/3 against the Nets, I guess that means their competition was stiff :lol

in 2014 they didn't face a 45 win team until the conference finals where they met the Pacers who had already been collapsing since the all star break and were 16-14 post ASG.

I guess facing weak competition on the way to the finals only detracts from you run when you're not AW's favorite player.. Keep it up this double standard is hilarious.

[QUOTE=Young X]No it doesn't even out.

The Nets were still the best team in the east, facing inferior teams in every round and had homecourt advantage throughout the playoffs.

The Clippers were the 3rd-5th seed and had to face the Spurs (twice), Thunder, Warriors, Grizzlies, and Rockets. Most of those series on the road.

The Nets had to beat the 44 win Baron Davis/Jamal Mashburn Hornets to the conference finals.

The Clippers had to get through the 59 win Durant/Westbrook Thunder to get to the conference finals.

Kidd faced ONE 50 win team to get to the finals in the those years, CP3 never faced a team with less than 51 wins in the playoffs.

The east in the early 00's was a complete joke. There's a reason Kidd went from either losing in the 1st round or missing the playoffs in his first 7 seasons playing in the west to immediately getting to the finals as soon as he went to the east.[/QUOTE]

That Nets team was the best in the east because of Kidd. They were one of the worst teams in the league before he joined, specifically one of the worst defensive teams and under his leadership became the best defensive team in one of the toughest defensive era's the NBA has had to offer. it's unfair to use that as a point against Kidd.. it's not like he teamed up with a bunch of other all stars to form "the best team". The help was serviceable and Kidd made them look way better than they were.


Yes, Kidd's teams when he was in the West were perennial first second round fodder.. but look at his help relative to that competition. Loaded dual star teams like Lakers, Jazz, Spurs, etc. all in the West. Who did Kidd have? A bunch of journeymen...

How you can look at those Sun rosters and come away with "Kidd should've done more" is beyond me..


Meanwhile Paul is playing with a HOF caliber second option PF, All league defensive center who would be even better with Kidd.. a coach that's been there before.. a few guys who can knock down shots. That is waaaay better than what Kidd had, and there's no question Paul could've done more with them because he's a couple chokes away from having gone much farther than he went.

I'm not even saying Kidd >>> Paul.. all these guys are somewhat close, I just like Kidd's game better and think he would do more with what Paul has had than Paul would do with what he had.

[QUOTE=TheMarkMadsen]ok so if they won 50 then Miami's competition looks like this - 38 win team, 45 win team, 50 win team compared to The Net's facing a 42, 44 and 50 win teams

what's the difference? :oldlol: Celtics were garbage, Bulls were led by Nate Robinson and your excuse for the Pacers is that an all star player stepped up? That separates the competition? Paul Pierce put up 30/8/8/3 against the Nets, I guess that means their competition was stiff :lol

in 2014 they didn't face a 45 win team until the conference finals where they met the Pacers who had already been collapsing since the all star break and were 16-14 post ASG.

I guess facing weak competition on the way to the finals only detracts from you run when you're not AW's favorite player.. Keep it up this double standard is hilarious.[/QUOTE]

Its a fundamental difference...

A (2003 team): Goes to the finals because of incredibly bad competition (and an injury which you forget to mention)

B (2013 team): Wins title, beats West's best team, was the best team overall regardless of conference, PLAYED WHO THEY COULD PLAY IN THEIR CONFERENCE, then moved on and finished business in the finals....

PLUS 2nd longest winning streak in NBA history, positive season records against the West's TOP TEAMS, AND an even BETTER record against the West than their conference..

I urge you, please don't be dense for once and just think logically, I know you can :(

[QUOTE=Young X][B]Were they or were they not still better than the rest of the teams in their conference? Was there a team like OKC or the Spurs standing in their way? No.[/B]

You didn't answer those questions in my post:

Which is tougher?

The 50 win Clippers beating the 62 win Spurs?
The 57 win Clippers beating the 59 win Thunder?

or

The 52 win Nets beating the 44 win Hornets?
The 49 win Nets beating the 44 win Celtics?[/QUOTE]

No, they weren't. They went 2-6 against both Boston and Detroit that year in the regular season and the only reason they even beat Boston in 2002 was due to Kidd's impressive play(Dude averaged a triple double for the entire series).

As for your question, I would say the Nets is tougher since they were a mediocre team. The Clippers against SA had the two best players and against OKC, they weren't overmatched or anything.....they choked.....which is again another knock on CP3.

[QUOTE=tpols]That Nets team was the best in the east because of Kidd. They were one of the worst teams in the league before he joined, specifically one of the worst defensive teams and under his leadership became the best defensive team in one of the toughest defensive era's the NBA has had to offer. it's unfair to use that as a point against Kidd.. it's not like he teamed up with a bunch of other all stars to form "the best team". The help was serviceable and Kidd made them look way better than they were. [/QUOTE]Yeah and the Clippers were the worst franchise in NBA history before CP3 got there. He elevated them to a relevant franchise.

They became the best offensive team in the league and Paul's impact/prescence was the biggest reason for that.

[QUOTE=tpols]Yes, Kidd's teams when he was in the West were perennial first second round fodder.. but look at his help relative to that competition. Loaded dual star teams like Lakers, Jazz, Spurs, etc. all in the West. Who did Kidd have? A bunch of journeymen...

How can you look at those Sun rosters and come away with "Kidd should've done more" is beyond me..[/QUOTE]But see, when he played in a competitive conference he fared no better than Paul did. He actually fared much worse.

There were no finals and conference finals trips in those years. Did Kidd suddenly have a huge impact when he got traded to the east where he got to face a bunch of mediocre 44 win teams on his way to the finals?

[QUOTE=Young X]Yeah and the Clippers were the worst franchise in NBA history before CP3 got there. He elevated them to a relevant franchise.

They became the best offensive team in the league and Paul's impact/prescence was the biggest reason for that.

But see, when he played in a competitive conference he fared no better than Paul did. He actually fared much worse.

There were no finals and conference finals trips in those years. Did Kidd suddenly have a huge impact when he got traded to the east where he got to face a bunch of mediocre 44 win teams on his way to the finals?[/QUOTE]

He fared worse because he had Clifford Robinson instead of Blake Griffin ... amongst other discrepencies. Their teams are world's apart talent wise, despite the competition level being the same.. you cant just ignore team help. That's the other half of the equation you just omitted.

[QUOTE=tpols]He fared worse because he had Clifford Robinson instead of Blake Griffin ... amongst other discrepencies. Their teams are world's apart. I don't know how youre even comparing the situations right now.[/QUOTE]

I think whether one takes Kidd over Paul or not...the reasoning being that Kidd made the finals and Paul hasn't is a bad reason.

However, this just speaks to why it's so critical that Paul and his team choked two really good chances to advance and perhaps do something special away.

We saw Kidd at least get a team to the finals...we haven't even seen CP3 get a team to the conference finals. Yes, different circumstances, but it's hard to credit players with things they haven't really shown a sign of doing.

I certainly don't think beating the Rockets in round 2 is a very big "ask" out of Paul and the Clippers.

Granted...I think Paul is the better player here, but none of this stuff is going to stop. Some of it warranted...and some of it not.

[QUOTE=game3524]No, they weren't. They went 2-6 against both Boston and Detroit that year in the regular season and the only reason they even beat Boston in 2002 was due to Kidd's impressive play(Dude averaged a triple double for the entire series).

As for your question, I would say the Nets is tougher since they were a mediocre team. The Clippers against SA had the two best players and against OKC, they weren't overmatched or anything.....they choked.....which is again another knock on CP3.[/QUOTE]So the 2012 Clippers had a better chance at beating the Spurs (who won 62 games and 20 straight at one point) than the 2002 Nets had at beating the Jamal Mashburn led 44 win Hornets?

You can't be serious, that's completely ridiculous. If the Nets were a mediocre team than what were the Hornets?

I'd take CP3 over both.

Better overall player than either Payton or Kidd, and still has room to add to/improve his legacy.

[QUOTE=ArbitraryWater]Its a fundamental difference...

A (2003 team): Goes to the finals because of incredibly bad competition (and an injury which you forget to mention)

B (2013 team): Wins title, beats West's best team, was the best team overall regardless of conference, PLAYED WHO THEY COULD PLAY IN THEIR CONFERENCE, then moved on and finished business in the finals....[/quote]

Not quite wienerschnitzel. :no:

The B squad also faced casts that were injured (Bulls), played in a historically weak conference, and beat mediocre teams on their way to the finals.

I do agree with something you said though; and that's Miami winning a title proved they were the BEST team, no matter the conference.

If Jersey were to do the same, the "weak conference" stuff would've been water under the bridge, although weak [I]is[/I] weak.

[QUOTE=ArbitraryWater]

someone just said that here thanks :oldlol:

[URL="http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=183977"]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=183977[/URL][/QUOTE]
You really should take an English class or two. I'm pretty sure that they're available online for free, if you can't afford to pay. :cheers:

[QUOTE=Smoke117]No...he isn't. Payton has become one of the most overrated pg's ever because of how he was allowed to do whatever the hell he wanted after the Sonics title aspirations ended. He was NEVER an elite team defender and his impact defensively was never as high as Kidds overall.


Kidd
CP3
Payton[/QUOTE]
Not really. IMO, he's actually underrated because he never had the typical PG stats. Dude is one of the greatest perimeter defenders of all time. Definitely better than Kidd, if you factor in over all impact as a defender. Then comes scoring. GP >>> Kidd as a scorer. You can be the greatest playmaker EVER, but you also need to have some semblance of an scoring game to actually carry teams in close games. Kidd was terrible at that aspect of the game. I'd take GP's defense and scoring over Kidds' playmaking and rebounding. Also, lets not forget that GP averaged like 9 APG and 22 PPG over ~8 seasons. Dude was actually an elite passer as well.

I think Kidd is actually being overrated. He did carry teams to the Finals, but those teams wouldn't make the Finals in any others year. They [I]probably[/I] wouldn't even make the ECF, going back to the '80's.

[QUOTE=kuniva_dAMiGhTy]I'd take CP3 over both.

Better overall player than either Payton or Kidd, and still has room to add to/improve his legacy.



Not quite wienerschnitzel. :no:

[B]The B squad also faced casts that were injured (Bulls), played in a historically weak conference, and beat mediocre teams on their way to the finals. [/B]

I do agree with something you said though; and that's Miami winning a title proved they were the BEST team, no matter the conference.

If Jersey were to do the same, the "weak conference" stuff would've been water under the bridge, although weak [I]is[/I] weak.[/QUOTE]

Yeah I know, I just added the rest, Bulls being injured to me isn't really an excuse... they're always banged up, primarily Rose. You can't really say Rose isn't healthy when he's never really been healthy since 2011 until last year, and he still sucks. And the one year they were healthy LeBron's team won the series in 5. Their [I]REAL[/I] opponent were the Pacers, who were healthy, unlike the Net's [I]REAL[/I] opponent.

[QUOTE=Young X]So the 2012 Clippers had a better chance at beating the Spurs (who won 62 games and 20 straight at one point) than the 2002 Nets had at beating the Jamal Mashburn led 44 win Hornets?

You can't be serious, that's completely ridiculous. If the Nets were a mediocre team than what were the Hornets?[/QUOTE]

The Clippers had the two best players in the damn series.:oldlol:

Generally speaking when you have the two best players, you should win the series. I mean we saw this happen the very next round with OKC vs SA. SA got backdoor swept because OKC two best players played like superstars, unlike the Clippers, who's best player played like shit.

[QUOTE=ArbitraryWater]Yeah I know, I just added the rest, Bulls being injured to me isn't really an excuse... they're always banged up, primarily Rose. You can't really say Rose isn't healthy when he's never really been healthy since 2011 until last year, and he still sucks. And the one year they were healthy LeBron's team won the series in 5. Their [I]REAL[/I] opponent were the Pacers, who were healthy, unlike the Net's [I]REAL[/I] opponent.[/QUOTE]

The pistons of the early-mid 00s are > pacers of early 10's though.. Those piston teams beat a loaded Laker team- made them implode, and then came within an eyelash of beating a loaded Spurs team the next year.

Jason Kidd's Nets routinely punked those Piston teams and were even up 3-2 on the 2004 Detroit team that everyone remembers before losing.. with, ironic to your point, Kidd being the one battling injury. So it's not like the Nets never had to beat anyone. Those Detroit teams were all world teams once they rounded out.


The 10s Pacers are a footnote.. and a very cheap imitation at best. Comparing a Roy Hibbert led defense to Ben Wallace led one gives me a good laugh.

[QUOTE=GrapeApe]Kidd turned around one of the worst organiztions in the league and took them to back to back finals. Prime Kidd is one of the few players in history who could dominate a game without scoring a point.[/QUOTE]

True, especially at the guard position.




.

[QUOTE=game3524]The Clippers had the two best players in damn series.:oldlol:

Generally speaking when you have the two best players, you should win the series. I mean we saw this happen the very next round with OKC vs SA. SA got backdoor swept because OKC two best players played like superstars, unlike the Clippers, who's best player played like shit.[/QUOTE]lol the Clippers were nowhere near the Spurs that season and both of their 2 best players were injured.

Only on ISH does a decimated 50 win team have a better chance at beating a 62 win Spurs team than the Nets had at beating the Hornets who won 44 f*cking games.

[QUOTE=ArbitraryWater]Yeah I know, I just added the rest, Bulls being injured to me isn't really an excuse... they're always banged up, primarily Rose. You can't really say Rose isn't healthy when he's never really been healthy since 2011 until last year, and he still sucks. And the one year they were healthy LeBron's team won the series in 5. Their [I]REAL[/I] opponent were the Pacers, who were healthy, unlike the Net's [I]REAL[/I] opponent.[/QUOTE]

That's a fair point, but they're only NOW known for that.

Everyone patiently waited for Rose to make his return before the postseason, and dude just decided to sit out while eating candy on the bench.

[QUOTE=tpols]The pistons of the early-mid 00s are > pacers of early 10's though.. Those piston teams beat a loaded Laker team- made them implode, and then came within an eyelash of beating a loaded Spurs team the next year.

Jason Kidd's Nets routinely punked those Piston teams and were even up 3-2 on the 2004 Detroit team that everyone remembers before losing.. with, ironic to your point, Kidd being the one battling injury. So it's not like the Nets never had to beat anyone. Those Detroit teams were all world teams once they rounded out.


The 10s Pacers are a footnote.. and a very cheap imitation at best. Comparing a Roy Hibbert led defense to Ben Wallace led one gives me a good laugh.[/QUOTE]
The 37 win Hawks took the 66 win (and eventual champs) to 7 games. As did the 45 win Cav's. The '12 Celtics nearly eliminated the '12 Heat. The Jazz beat the 67 win Mavs in the first round. Etc..

Kobe just sucked ass in that series. He wasn't even Kobe. If he actually was himself, the Lakers would've WRECKED the Pistons. The Pistons were damn good, but Kobe's ego cost them that series. IMO.

[QUOTE=tpols][B]The pistons of the early-mid 00s are > pacers of early 10's though[/B].. Those piston teams beat a loaded Laker team- made them implode, and then came within an eyelash of beating a loaded Spurs team the next year.

Jason Kidd's Nets routinely punked those Piston teams and were even up 3-2 on the 2004 Detroit team that everyone remembers before losing.. with, ironic to your point, Kidd being the one battling injury. So it's not like the Nets never had to beat anyone. Those Detroit teams were all world teams once they rounded out.


The 10s Pacers are a footnote.. and a very cheap imitation at best. Comparing a Roy Hibbert led defense to Ben Wallace led one gives me a good laugh.[/QUOTE]

right, not the injury riddled 2003 team of the post-season, though.

[QUOTE=Young X][B]lol the Clippers were nowhere near the Spurs that season and both of their 2 best players were injured.[/B]

Only on ISH does a decimated 50 win team have a better chance at beating a 62 win Spurs team than the Nets had at beating the Hornets who won 44 f*cking games.[/QUOTE]

Give me a break, Paul had a hip flexor...not exactly the world most series injury. I mean Blake's injury was worst and he still played much better then Paul.

[QUOTE=aj1987]The 37 win Hawks took the 66 win (and eventual champs) to 7 games. As did the 45 win Cav's. The '12 Celtics nearly eliminated the '12 Heat. The Jazz beat the 67 win Mavs in the first round. Etc..

Kobe just sucked ass in that series. He wasn't even Kobe. If he actually was himself, the Lakers would've WRECKED the Pistons. The Pistons were damn good, but Kobe's ego cost them that series. IMO.[/QUOTE]

Warriors...not Jazz.

Have to disagree with you on the 04 and 05 Pistons...once they got Rasheed...they were able to play even better defense and they could generate points well enough playing as slow as possible.

If you looked solely at 04...you could maybe have an argument, but then 05 happened...and it saw the same Pistons team almost beat probably the best Spurs team ever or at least on the short list...in a series.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]Warriors...not Jazz.[/quote]
I don't even know why I said the Jazz beat the Mav's. :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]Have to disagree with you on the 04 and 05 Pistons...once they got Rasheed...they were able to play even better defense and they could generate points well enough playing as slow as possible.

If you looked solely at 04...you could maybe have an argument, but then 05 happened...and it saw the same Pistons team almost beat probably the best Spurs team ever or at least on the short list...in a series.[/QUOTE]
The '05 Pistons would've lost in the ECF, if it wasn't for Wade's injury. Dude was murdering them until his injury in G5. Shaq and UD played well in that series as well.

[QUOTE=aj1987]I don't even know why I said the Jazz beat the Mav's. :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm


The '05 Pistons would've lost in the ECF, if it wasn't for Wade's injury. Dude was murdering them until his injury in G5. Shaq and UD played well in that series as well.[/QUOTE]

So what? I agree they probably would have, but the 05 Heat were an elite championship level team.

You had 4 legit championship level teams that year. I don't see how the Pistons maybe not beating a Wade/Shaq championship caliber Heat team means much here.

[QUOTE=game3524]Give me a break, Paul had a hip flexor...not exactly the world most series injury. I mean Blake's injury was worst and he still played much better then Paul.[/QUOTE]The point is both of the Clippers best players were playing injured. The Spurs were on a completely different level as a team. To say otherwise is revisionist history. They won 20 games straight at one point.

Those Nets teams even despite not being as talented as the Clippers still had much more of a chance at getting to the finals than the Clippers did.

You don't need talent when you're facing 44 win teams with negative point differentials in the 2nd round.

Those Nets teams and all the other teams in their conference wouldn't even make the playoffs in the 2014 west. To ignore shit like this when comparing Kidd and Paul's team success in the playoffs is idiotic.

[QUOTE=Young X]The point is both of the Clippers best players were playing injured. The Spurs were on a completely different level as a team. To say otherwise is revisionist history. They won 20 games straight at one point.

Those Nets teams even despite not being as talented as the Clippers still had much more of a chance at getting to the finals than the Clippers did.

You don't need talent when you're facing 44 win teams with negative point differentials in the 2nd round.

Those Nets teams and all the other teams in their conference wouldn't even make the playoffs in the 2014 west. To ignore shit like this when comparing Kidd and Paul's team success in the playoffs is idiotic.[/QUOTE]


The Spurs were a great team, but they weren't some unbeatable juggernaut. They didn't have a true superstar, so their potential was maxed out at a certain level. They were very similar to some of those late 2000s Pistons teams.

Hell, CP3 didn't even need to play like 2008 post-season CP3. If he was even 80-85% of what he normally was, they have a great chance of winning that series.

Also Charlotte didn't have a negative point differential. In fact, they were a slightly better offensive team then New Jersey and were still a top ten defensive team.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]So what? I agree they probably would have, but the 05 Heat were an elite championship level team.

You had 4 legit championship level teams that year. I don't see how the Pistons maybe not beating a Wade/Shaq championship caliber Heat team means much here.[/QUOTE]
I was saying originally that the '04 Pistons would've lost to the Lakers, if it wasn't for Kobe's ego. Also, the '04 Lakers would've actually beat the '05 Heat. Those teams weren't anything special (as in an ATG championship team). Great defense? Yep, not gonna disagree, but they were actually lucky to win in '04 (thanks to Kobe) and make the Finals in '05 (Wade's injury).

Done for the day. Will check this thread tomorrow.

[QUOTE=aj1987]I was saying originally that the '04 Pistons would've lost to the Lakers, if it wasn't for Kobe's ego. Also, the '04 Lakers would've actually beat the '05 Heat. Those teams weren't anything special (as in an ATG championship team). Great defense? Yep, not gonna disagree, but they were actually lucky to win in '04 (thanks to Kobe) and make the Finals in '05 (Wade's injury).

Done for the day. Will check this thread tomorrow.[/QUOTE]

I disagree...once they got Rasheed Wallace they became a team capable of dominating with all time great defense...and scoring enough in the half court while playing a slow pace that made them a very tough team to beat in the playoffs.

Of course Kobe/Lakers imploding made life easier, but that is what the Pistons did. They just wrecked you with their defense...

[QUOTE=game3524]The Spurs were a great team, but they weren't some unbeatable juggernaut. They didn't have a true superstar, so their potential was maxed out at a certain level. They were very similar to some of those late 2000s Pistons teams.

Hell, CP3 didn't even need to play like 2008 post-season CP3. If he was even 80-85% of what he normally was, they have a great chance of winning that series.

Also Charlotte didn't have a negative point differential. In fact, they were a slightly better offensive team then New Jersey and were still a top ten defensive team.[/QUOTE]The Celtics in 2003 had a negative point differential and only won 44 games. The Hornets had a slightly positive point differential but that's still pathetic for a 2nd round team.

You're missing the point though. The early 00's Nets and the Clippers weren't in similar situations.

The Nets relative to their conference had a much better chance at getting to the conference finals and finals than the Clippers did.

They were at the top of their conference, had homecourt in 5/6 series and were facing teams that were worse than them. The Clippers never had that luxury. Even if you feel they should've won one of the series they lost, they still at least faced a quality team that was either at their level or better.

I'll say this again.

Using the argument that Kidd made the finals and Paul hasn't made it out of the 2nd round is not a good argument for why one thinks Kidd is better.

It's too different of circumstances both within their own teams and their competition.

But, like I said before, this is why Paul/Clippers collapsing the last 2 years makes it so difficult. Paul has nothing to hang his hat on in terms of a deep playoff run. So it begs the question as to why.

And that answer is a complicated combination of many factors and while it's an interesting conversation to be had...I don't think the simplistic view of most here allows that conversation to actually take place.

So...it should be held against Paul about what happened these last 2 years. However, that doesn't make Kidd better by default just because he beat some scrub teams in the East.

I don't think anyone was arguing black and white, Kidd made the Finals, Paul didn't, therefore Kidd > Paul. We only have the circumstances they were dealt and what they made of them.


Kidd was dealt mediocre rosters for most of his prime, but made the most of them.. much like Paul did with New Orleans I guess you could say. Kidd was never given "great" help though like Paul has been with the Clippers. So far Paul has failed to live up to his own hype with said rosters.

We can only speculate how far Kidd could've taken a good team in a good conference, since we've really only seen him take bad/mediocre teams far in a poor conference.


In order to have Paul over Kidd you would have to assume he would fail with these Clipper teams.. and lose to the likes of James Harden and old stiff Dwight Howard in playoff series where his team was capable of even winning games without him entirely.

An opinion's an opinion but damn I have a hard time believing that.


After seeing what prime Kidd did with Kmart, and even old Kidd did with Tyson Chandler, I think a JKidd-Blake-Jordan combo would be a sick combo to witness, and would not disappoint.

[QUOTE=Young X]The Celtics in 2003 had a negative point differential and only won 44 games. The Hornets had a slightly positive point differential but that's still pathetic for a 2nd round team.

[B]You're missing the point though. The early 00's Nets and the Clippers weren't in similar situations.[/B]

The Nets relative to their conference had a much better chance at getting to the conference finals and finals than the Clippers did.

They were at the top of their conference, had homecourt in 5/6 series and were facing teams that were worse than them. The Clippers never had that luxury. Even if you feel they should've won one of the series they lost, they still at least faced a quality team that was either at their level or better.[/QUOTE]

They aren't, the Clippers were actually good teams.....the Nets weren't.

Seriously, You make it sound as if the Clippers are always at some huge disadvantage. They have had several years where they weren't overmatched, but simply didn't play up to par(sometime it was Paul, other times it was Blake.).