Originally Posted by lakerfreak
This question has always been in the back of my head, and I've wondered if others thought this as well.
Is this a case of "its either Nash or Howard" ?
I'm seeing it like this. Phil Jackson and his system nixes Steve Nash's style of play, because he wouldn't get the ball as much as he is used to handling it. Once he does get the ball in a system like the triangle, he does not have as much freedom as he had on other teams to do what he can with the rock.
With D'Antoni, so much emphasis is put on how the guards control the floor, and as a result, they may or they may not choose to pass in the post. They pass in the post when it is more convenient for them to do so (i.e. if Dwight gets an open dunk out of it).
Has anyone else ever thought that perhaps you cannot build on Nash and Dwight because of how much they both need the ball to be effective offensively?
At his age, Phil Jackson would have been the better coach for Steve Nash, this is not the young, fly down the court 14 assist per game Nash, this is the slower, fundamental decision making, game manager, selective shot Nash.
You don't have to race down court in order to make a great pass.
I completely disagree with anyone who says Nash wouldn't thrive under Phil.
A good coach will get the players to the right spots and right situations to make them and the team successful......we don't have a good coach.