That is a different question, and I wouldn't be sure. I think it would depend on my team. Both are great players with different weaknesses so it would be a tough decision.
I would choose Steve Nash. In my estimation, I feel he's a better passer, ballhandler, shooter, and leader. Jason Kidd is very strong in many ways, but I'm putting a premium on point guard skills from the point guard position. In my ideal world, whether or not Jason Kidd out rebounds Nash, or plays better post D is irrelevant, since those aren't abilities that I'm coveting at that position, similar to how just because Chris Webber was known as an elite passing big man, I wouldn't weigh that too heavily in the debate to take him against another premier forward. Ultimately, because Kidd is a model of consistancy while Nash's career had been good but not great until a few years ago, I find myself forced to evaluate this as less of a numbers game and evaluate what I see from each player on the court.
Since Carter came he really doesnt get the attention he deserves, but Nash has had two great seasons, with some not well known players and took them far. Jason Kidd did the same thing with the Nets when they went to back 2 back nba championships. Kidd had a bad team he turned K-mart into a superstar and helped RJ mature into what he is now. The rest of the team was really bad but kidd made it work. In those 2 seasons nash coulda won the mvp award but he never got the attention. So I cant see how you can say nash is better in two seasons. Two whoever said defense isnt important at the point is wrong, if you can lead your team and stop the others teams point then there gonna have a hard time setting the tempo for the game.
I'd say Jason Kidd and Nash both have equal talent on their teams. Its how much Nash improves his team which gives him the edge over Nets. When Nets signed with Suns, nobody thought they would do so well, they overachieved. Nash made the players around him well known and so much better. When Carter signed with Nets, Nets were expected to do good, if not amazing. But, they underachieved. Sure, Kidd is a good poing guard, but that didn't make the Nets much better. Nash's success translated over to Suns record. Jason Kidd's succes has translated into wins also, but not nearly the same impact as Nash has had. Two advantage Nash and Kidd have on each other are: Nash's shooting Kidd's defense and I think they equal each other out, so all I'd compare is their passing skills and how they make their team better. Nash shoots a much higher percentage and hands out more assists. But Kidd kills Nash in rebounding. Then again, Nash has better rebounders on the team like Marion and Amare.
<div class="quote_poster">Pakman Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I'd say Jason Kidd and Nash both have equal talent on their teams. Its how much Nash improves his team which gives him the edge over Nets. When Nets signed with Suns, nobody thought they would do so well, they overachieved. Nash made the players around him well known and so much better. When Carter signed with Nets, Nets were expected to do good, if not amazing. But, they underachieved. Sure, Kidd is a good poing guard, but that didn't make the Nets much better. Nash's success translated over to Suns record. Jason Kidd's succes has translated into wins also, but not nearly the same impact as Nash has had. Two advantage Nash and Kidd have on each other are: Nash's shooting Kidd's defense and I think they equal each other out, so all I'd compare is their passing skills and how they make their team better. Nash shoots a much higher percentage and hands out more assists. But Kidd kills Nash in rebounding. Then again, Nash has better rebounders on the team like Marion and Amare.</div> So tell me, what kind of impact did Kidd bring to Dallas when he was drafted in '94? His level of game gave Dallas 23 more wins than the previous year. How about when he came to the Suns? What happened after he left? Yea they were winning around 23 games per season after his departure. What kind of impact has Kidd made on the Nets? 2 finals appearances and more. I could get into detail if you want. It's funny how people tend to forget the things Kidd brings to any team he is on. 3 different teams, same high level of play by Kidd.
Exactly what I was saying people forget what kidd did Nash is just doing the same thing kidd did with the nets.
<div class="quote_poster">fitch4delk00 Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Exactly what I was saying people forget what kidd did Nash is just doing the same thing kidd did with the nets.</div> true, but there has been a bias in favor of the western conference the last few years. people just don't think the East is at the same level.
<div class="quote_poster">Pakman Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I'd say Jason Kidd and Nash both have equal talent on their teams. Its how much Nash improves his team which gives him the edge over Nets. When Nets signed with Suns, nobody thought they would do so well, they overachieved. Nash made the players around him well known and so much better. When Carter signed with Nets, Nets were expected to do good, if not amazing. But, they underachieved. Sure, Kidd is a good poing guard, but that didn't make the Nets much better. Nash's success translated over to Suns record. Jason Kidd's succes has translated into wins also, but not nearly the same impact as Nash has had. Two advantage Nash and Kidd have on each other are: Nash's shooting Kidd's defense and I think they equal each other out, so all I'd compare is their passing skills and how they make their team better. Nash shoots a much higher percentage and hands out more assists. But Kidd kills Nash in rebounding. Then again, Nash has better rebounders on the team like Marion and Amare.</div> First of all. What are talking about? When Nash went to the Suns, he already had notable players in Marion, Amare, etc. Where has he led them huh? When Kidd was traded to New Jersey, who did he have? Kittles, Van Horn? A young Kenyon? And where did he take them? 2 straight EAST RINGS! As for passing. Kidd is the better passer. Why? You said it yourself, Nash is the better shooter, so when he has nowhere to go after running around in circles and he get doubled up, it's common sense to find the open man. Kidd on the otherhand can find people regardless if he's double teamed or not. Kidd doesn't have to dribble as much to create situations for his teammates. And for someone who doesn't shoot well, he commands more respect from the defenders simply because they how much of a threat he is. Nash' game starts and ends with his shooting. And that's a FACT. Nash is the better shooter of the two, in fact Kidd's shooting is nowhere near Nash'. But Kidd gets rebounds, plays excellent D, amazing court vision, incredible during clutch situations and is a leader. So yeah, Nash is better because he scores more. That's what a PG does right?
The East was and still is a hell of a lot weaker than the West. How far do you think those Nets would've gone in the Western Conference? Anyways, all this talk about the past is irrelevant. The question is who would you choose now. And its no longer a clear cut decision. You could make a decent argument for both.
I'd choose Kidd anytime of the day over Nash. But here's a good one. I'll take Nash as the shooting guard alongside Kidd. That's one hell of a backcourt. Nash would probably average 25+ points a game.
