<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Mike Kahn of FOX Sports has begun ranking the NBA's top players, starting with point guards...although the definition seems loose. Kahn rates Jason Kidd No. 7, after Steve Nash, Allen Iverson, Chauncey Billups, Gilbert Arenas, Tony Parker and Chris Paul and just ahead of Baron Davis. Kahn says Kidd's diminishing scoring ability contributed to the Nets' "incredibly erratic" play last season.</div> Source This crap is seriously annoying me now.
How the hell is Parker better than Kidd? Also Paul, sure he's good but all ready higher than Kidd, I'm not so sure about that. Who the hell is Mike Khan anways! haha
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Iggy:</div><div class="quote_post">How the hell is Parker better than Kidd? Also Paul, sure he's good but all ready higher than Kidd, I'm not so sure about that. Who the hell is Mike Khan anways! haha</div> These writers watch one game where Kidd might struggle, and they base his ranking on that one bad game. I don't care what anyone says but Kidd is underrated and this article proves it.
If this is based on last year's statistics alone, then he should sit at the 5th, maybe 4th spot. If we look at their whole careers, then i'd definitely pick Kidd 1st. The writer fails to mention his ability to rebound, which makes him stand out from the rest of pack.
In terms of running an offense, I think he is probably #2 or #3. If I had to choose a pg for my team, for next season only, I would probably take him #2. The only thing that worries me is that he is older than some of those pgs, and the chances of serious injuries increase with age. Other than that, if I was assured he was healthy he is definitely a top 3 pg (in terms of a pure pg). Obviously if I wanted someone to be a huge scorer, I would take AI or Gilbert Arenas over Kidd anyday.
but kidd is the best out there to me..AI just scores and passes a little..Gilbert arenas is great and i would take him but doesent average 8 rebounds.... tony parker is someone i would never pick..sure CP3 is great but id never pick him over kidd...kidd is the ultimate pg and averages more rebounds then some centers,averages alot of assists and is a clutch player wen needed
No way should Parker and CP3 be rated higher. They`re both execellent point guards but no way are they better than Kidd.
No way should Parker and CP3 be rated higher. They`re both execellent point guards but no way are they better than Kidd.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Carter:</div><div class="quote_post">This is BS. These writers should be fired.</div> This is one of the reasons I hate the offseason. It's a boring time and we have to end up reading crap articles like this.
I dont know...i dont really think that that list is really that bad. all the gaurds on that list are better then kidd, with the exception of billups, parker, and paul. Kidd is easily the most rounded player out of the whole group, but does the fact that he gets about 7 boards a game really make him that much better? He's had a great carreer, but hes getting older and there are MUCH more talented players at his position right now.
If I could have any guard on my team, (discounting potential) it would definately be Kidd. The way I see it is only CP3 and Stevie can give him a run for his money, at least for now.
Nash and Billups are the only justifiable choices ahead of Kidd. The others are either too young or not enough of a distributor.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Answer_AI03:</div><div class="quote_post">I dont know...i dont really think that that list is really that bad. all the gaurds on that list are better then kidd, with the exception of billups, parker, and paul. Kidd is easily the most rounded player out of the whole group, but does the fact that he gets about 7 boards a game really make him that much better? He's had a great carreer, but hes getting older and there are MUCH more talented players at his position right now.</div> For a guy whom you say is getting older does a lot more than these players on the list. For a guy who's getting old, he once again led the league in triple doubles... And yes, his rebounding makes him much better than the others. He doesn't have to rely on the the big guys to get the rebounds for him to get things starting, he does it himself. For an "old" guy he gets rebounds against young big men who can jump their ass off. Iverson is an incredible player, but he is not a "point guard". I believe the article is about the top "POINT GUARDS". He's scoring maybe down, but it's not what Kidd is about. He looks for opportunities for his teammates, because that's what "point guards" do.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Chutney:</div><div class="quote_post">Nash and Billups are the only justifiable choices ahead of Kidd. The others are either too young or not enough of a distributor.</div> Now that's a laugh! Put Nash and Billups on the team the Nets had when they won the east... Neither Nash or Billups would have brought the Nets past the 1st round. Nash has Amare, Marion, Barbosa, Bell, Diaw on his side, he has a great cast. Billups had, Ben Wallace, Rasheed Wallace, Hamilton, Prince when they won the championship (against a disgruntled Lakers). Kidd had young guys in Martin, Vanhorn and Jefferson. If there's anything that these guys have on Kidd, is their scoring. But then again, it's not a point guards job to score is it?
Well what makes kid more of a point gaurd then iverson, or arenas for that matter? just becasue they are talented scorers, doesn't mean that they are any worse of playmakers. Yes, Kidd averages around 8 rebounds and 8 assists per game, but he also only shoots around 40% from the field and scores about 13 a game. If you look on Paper, iverson and arenas do MUCH more for their teams statistically speaking. And you could also make that same arguement for Nash, Davis, and even marbury. I think Kidds lack of scoring ability is just as much of a bad thing as another gaurd not rebounding as much. Just because a player is good at scoring doesnt mean he's not an exceptional destributor or a great "point gaurd" as well.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Answer_AI03:</div><div class="quote_post">Well what makes kid more of a point gaurd then iverson, or arenas for that matter? just becasue they are talented scorers, doesn't mean that they are any worse of playmakers. Yes, Kidd averages around 8 rebounds and 8 assists per game, but he also only shoots around 40% from the field and scores about 13 a game. If you look on Paper, iverson and arenas do MUCH more for their teams statistically speaking. And you could also make that same arguement for Nash, Davis, and even marbury. I think Kidds lack of scoring ability is just as much of a bad thing as another gaurd not rebounding as much. Just because a player is good at scoring doesnt mean he's not an exceptional destributor or a great "point gaurd" as well.</div> Iverson, Arenas, Nash gets their assists mostly off driving and passing at the last minute or kickouts. They are double teamed because of their scoring. Kidd is double teamed even though he is not as much as a threat offensively like the others. He gets doubled up to prevent him from making plays. Kidd has the ability to get the ball to his teammates. Kidd creates opportunities for others even without scoring. Kidd is the best point guard among the list. And, oh yeah, Davis, Nash and even Marbury has done a lot for their teams... Just look at how far they brought their respective teams throughout their careers. Marbury? Just goes to show what your definition of a point guard is...
