cp3 vs kidd vs payton

[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.).

[QUOTE=game3524]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]

Nothing against Russ and Durant, but the role players for OKC has I think it was game 4 or 5, one of the greatest mid range shooting performances of all time for a bunch of relatively speaking average to poor shooters, that cost the spurs a game right there and was a major factor in that series. That was just a team that was supposed to beat the spurs that year.

Giving only credit to their two stars grossly ignores the reality of that series.

[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]

We're talking about the same spurs team that went to back to back finals and won a title? That spurs team?

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]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.[/QUOTE]Paul collapsed in ONE game at one moment that shouldn't even have affected the outcome if the obvious correct call would've been made (OKC, game 5, 2014).

And I don't get the last part of you're post. If not getting to the finals or conference finals should be held against Paul than how is Kidd not better by default?

[QUOTE=game3524]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.).[/QUOTE]Yeah and the Clippers actually faced good teams...the Nets didn't. They faced teams that wouldn't even have made the playoffs in the Clippers' conference.

And no the Clippers weren't always at a huge disadvantage. They could've beaten OKC and Houston. The thing is those 2 teams were also quality teams that the Clippers had to beat without homecourt.

The Nets even relative to their conference had it much easier. This is why you can't just point to where each of their teams finished in the playoffs to determine who is better between Kidd and Paul. Their circumstances weren't similar.

[QUOTE=dhsilv]Nothing against Russ and Durant, but the role players for OKC has I think it was game 4 or 5, one of the greatest mid range shooting performances of all time for a bunch of relatively speaking average to poor shooters, that cost the spurs a game right there and was a major factor in that series. That was just a team that was supposed to beat the spurs that year.

Giving only credit to their two stars grossly ignores the reality of that series.[/QUOTE]

Ibaka killed Duncan in one of those games, but KD poured in 36 in the same game as well.

Harden and Ibaka played major roles, but KD and Russ were out of their minds in the last 4 games(especially Durant.....SA had no answer for him).

[QUOTE=Young X]Paul collapsed in ONE game at one moment that shouldn't even have affected the outcome if the obvious correct call would've been made (OKC, game 5, 2014).

And I don't get the last part of you're post. If not getting to the finals or conference finals should be held against Paul than how is Kidd not better by default?

Yeah and the Clippers actually faced good teams...the Nets didn't. They faced teams that wouldn't even have made the playoffs in the Clippers' conference.

And no the Clippers weren't always at a huge disadvantage. They could've beaten OKC and Houston. The thing is those 2 teams were also quality teams that the Clippers had to beat without homecourt.

The Nets even relative to their conference had it much easier. This is why you can't just point to where each of their teams finished in the playoffs to determine who is better between Kidd and Paul. Their circumstances weren't similar.[/QUOTE]


Wait...what?

You think that if I criticize Paul for what has happened the last two years in the playoffs...that somehow means I have to take Kidd "by default" over Paul?

I don't see how the two are connected. I don't automatically take a player over another just because of advancing deep in the playoffs.

It's more than fair to criticize Paul for the last two years...that, however, doesn't mean Kidd is a better player than Paul.

Each player is only in their own circumstances...in a case like this...like I already said...the circumstances are just too different to compare both in terms of their own teams and competition.

That doesn't mean Paul just gets a pass for the last 2 years...

[QUOTE=dhsilv]We're talking about the same spurs team that went to back to back finals and won a title? That spurs team?[/QUOTE]

The 2012 Spurs were not on the same level as the 2013 and especially the 2014 Spurs.

[QUOTE=Young X]Paul collapsed in ONE game at one moment that shouldn't even have affected the outcome if the obvious correct call would've been made (OKC, game 5, 2014).

And I don't get the last part of you're post. If not getting to the finals or conference finals should be held against Paul than how is Kidd not better by default?

Yeah and the Clippers actually faced good teams...the Nets didn't. They faced teams that wouldn't even have made the playoffs in the Clippers' conference.

And no the Clippers weren't always at a huge disadvantage. They could've beaten OKC and Houston. The thing is those 2 teams were also quality teams that the Clippers had to beat without homecourt.

[B]The Nets even relative to their conference had it much easier. This is why you can't just point to where each of their teams finished in the playoffs to determine who is better between Kidd and Paul. [/B]Their circumstances weren't similar.[/QUOTE]


When have I said that. I took Kidd over Paul due to his size/defensive/leadership advantage over CP3.

[QUOTE=Young X][B]Paul collapsed in ONE game at one moment that shouldn't even have affected the outcome if the obvious correct call would've been made (OKC, game 5, 2014).[/B][/QUOTE]

well, if the initial correct call would have been made, OKC would have had 2 FT's, which ironically would have been alot better for LAC than the 3 OKC was about to get.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]Wait...what?

You think that if I criticize Paul for what has happened the last two years in the playoffs...that somehow means I have to take Kidd "by default" over Paul?

I don't see how the two are connected.

It's more than fair to criticize Paul for the last two years...that, however, doesn't mean Kidd is a better player than Paul.

Each player is only in their own circumstances...in a case like this...like I already said...the circumstances are just too different to compare both in terms of their own teams and competition.

That doesn't mean Paul just gets a pass for the last 2 years...[/QUOTE]My bad, I misunderstood something you said in your post.

[QUOTE=game3524]When have I said that. I took Kidd over Paul due to his size/defensive/leadership advantage over CP3.[/QUOTE]Alright, cool. I was speaking in general about people using the Nets' finals trips as a reason why he's a better player. Getting to the finals in a conference like that isn't like getting to the finals in a tough conference.

[QUOTE=ArbitraryWater]well, if the initial correct call would have been made, OKC would have had 2 FT's, which ironically would have been alot better for LAC than the 3 OKC was about to get.[/QUOTE]They shouldn't even have given OKC the ball. It should've been Clipper ball and Paul's turnover wouldn't even have mattered. They got straight up robbed.

[QUOTE=Young X]They shouldn't even have given OKC the ball. It should've been Clipper ball and Paul's turnover wouldn't even have mattered. They got straight up robbed.[/QUOTE]

Nah, I mean on that play, it should have been OKC FT's... they didnt call a foul though, so they were only allowed to check who it went off of, under that new set of circumstances, yea, LAC ball, but only because they missed, I think Barnes it was, fouling Jackson.