Nash doesn't make the sixers a better defensive team but he would make the sixers a more efficient offensive team. Even if Iverson has improved his shooting it is nowhere near what Nash's shooting is. Nash's shooting is way ahead of all the guards in the league. Terry is right behind him but Nash can score 30 points if needed but chooses to pass a lot.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mavsfan1000 @ Apr 2 2006, 09:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Nash doesn't make the sixers a better defensive team but he would make the sixers a more efficient offensive team. Even if Iverson has improved his shooting it is nowhere near what Nash's shooting is. Nash's shooting is way ahead of all the guards in the league. Terry is right behind him but Nash can score 30 points if needed but chooses to pass a lot.</div>Wouldn't you think as the shots go up, the percentage goes down? Isn't that logic?
Yeah that is true. That's why Nash doesn't shoot 30 shots a game unless the defense allows him to. Iverson just isn't as good of a shooter as Nash. The Olympics proved that.
Philly would definitely be better with Nash. Korver would get more open looks in a running game, Iguodala would definitely benifit, Dalembert was made for this kind of game, Salmons could get away with taking quick shots, etc. etc.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mavsfan1000 @ Apr 1 2006, 05:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Nash doesn't make the sixers a better defensive team but he would make the sixers a more efficient offensive team. Even if Iverson has improved his shooting it is nowhere near what Nash's shooting is. Nash's shooting is way ahead of all the guards in the league. Terry is right behind him but Nash can score 30 points if needed but chooses to pass a lot.</div>But that brings us right back to the point that you do not seem to understand: The Sixers problem is not offense, it is defense! Why make them a more efficient offensive team (which wouldn't happen, and I'll address that next) when they are just going to turn right around and give up an easy bucket on the other end? There is no way you'll become better in any aspect of life if you try to get your strengths stronger while completely ignoring trying to improve your weaknesses.Nash wouldn't even make the Sixers a more efficient offensive team. The only shooter they have is Korver. Iguodala hasn't developed a consistent outside shot, nor has he developed a consistent inside game (aside from dunking), nor is he aggressive enough to put up 20+ points a night consistently. Nash would not have the same type of players he has around him in PHX.What is he going to do? Set up Webber for an elbow jumper an extra time per game, when AI already gets him 15+ looks from there a game? Is Korver going to get significantly more shots off of Nash's penetration than he does off of AI's? Nope. Is Iguodala magically going to develop an outside shot because Nash is the point guard? Not likely. Is Dalembert going to learn how to catch a ball, develop post moves, learn not to travel when trying to dunk, or commit silly offensive fouls around the basket because Nash is on the squad? Hell no.I'm sorry, but every time you post your argument just seems to fall apart more and more, and it just seems like you're trying to come up with random thoughts to support your argument.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BigMo763 @ Apr 1 2006, 05:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'm sorry, but every time you post your argument just seems to fall apart more and more, and it just seems like you're trying to come up with random thoughts to support your argument.</div>I know what you mean. read the "post your mock draft" section with me and CB4 going back and forth.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (nba dogmatist @ Apr 1 2006, 05:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Philly would definitely be better with Nash. Korver would get more open looks in a running game, Iguodala would definitely benifit, Dalembert was made for this kind of game, Salmons could get away with taking quick shots, etc. etc.</div> That just made me laugh, because Salmons already gets away with jacking up ridiculous shots. He is worse than Iverson. It's like he is just playing for a contract next year. He criticizes Iverson for hogging the ball, and then hogs it more than AI does. He is by far the most inconsistent player ont he squad. He thinks he's MJ and should be taking shots down the stretch without giving the ball to CWebb or Iverson in the final minutes of a game. I appreciate his aggressiveness, but he just doesn't know what he's doing half the time. I'd trade him for a bag of potato chips.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (nba dogmatist @ Apr 1 2006, 05:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I know what you mean. read the "post your mock draft" section with me and CB4 going back and forth.</div>LOL... I'll check that out.
Mavfan, you're just been exposed as being a homer. And yet you called the kings vs lakers thread a homerism test?
So then AI is the VERY ABSOLUTE VERY EXTREME VERT BEST for the sixers? there's gotta be someone who can meet his role better.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Clutch_Melo_061 @ Apr 1 2006, 11:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Mavfan, you're just been exposed as being a homer. And yet you called the kings vs lakers thread a homerism test? </div>huh? Iverson isn't even a top 5 player. Nash made the suns strength bigger so why not the same with the sixers. I bet they would average 105-107 ppg. Iverson does not pass a lot like you make it seem like. And like I said the offense would flow better with Nash since he always makes the right decisions with the ball unlike Iverson that gets turnover prone and that is 2 points easy for the other team when that happens.
Oh my goodness, please stop posting for the love of god. Did he just say Ai is not a top 5 player?This season he may no be top 5 but Duncan isn't also. Now are you going to tell me now Duncan is not top 5 also?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ELiiiTE @ Apr 1 2006, 05:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>So then AI is the VERY ABSOLUTE VERY EXTREME VERT BEST for the sixers? there's gotta be someone who can meet his role better.</div>I'm saying there is nobody out there at the point guard position that would fix their main problem, and that is team defense. Why tinker with the offense when it is already one of the top offenses in the league, and it isn't their weakness? Doesn't it make more sense to address a team's weaknesses? If it ain't broke, don't fix it.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mavsfan1000 @ Apr 1 2006, 05:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>huh? Iverson isn't even a top 5 player. Nash made the suns strength bigger so why not the same with the sixers. I bet they would average 105-107 ppg. Iverson does not pass a lot like you make it seem like. And like I said the offense would flow better with Nash since he always makes the right decisions with the ball unlike Iverson that gets turnover prone and that is 2 points easy for the other team when that happens.</div>Again, have you ever watched the Sixers play... other than when they play the Mavericks?Yes, Nash made the Suns strength better, but he won't make the Sixers any better. Why? Because he won't make their defense better! How many times do I have to say it? I already explained why he won't make their offense better either. Nash won't be able to make that offense any better than it already is because they cannot run-and-gun like PHX does. If you can't see that, well... I don't know what to say.Iverson passes more than you make it seem like. You're talking like the guy comes down every possession and takes a shot without regard to his teammates. If you would watch the Sixers on a consistent basis, you'd realize that most of his buckets come off of passes from Webber, or mid-range jumpers after everybody else has touched the ball. Yes, he does still come down and take a quick shot from time to time, but what superstar in this league doesn't?Wait, so Iverson is more turnover prone than Nash is, right? That's why AI is averaging less TO's per game than Nash is, and the Sixers as a team only commit .7 turnovers per game more than the Suns do?Honestly, do you even read my posts and think what you're about to post, or do you just type out whatever random thought pops into your head first?I have repeatedly refuted everything argument you have thrown out there to support your position, and you have yet to bring something that actually makes some sense. But hey, by all means, keep it coming man because I'm having a lot of fun throwing everything right back at you...
We can agree on these things I'm sure. 1. Nash is a better shooter2. Nash is a better passer3. Both are bad on defense. So where do you get this idea of Nash won't help the Sixers? Nash is the best offensive point guard in the league.
I agree with Mo Show. The Sixers need more defense to succeed, however Iverson has seriously been a dissapointment to me this year. I just don't understand how this team can play so inconsistently. Both offensively and defensively
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mavsfan1000 @ Apr 1 2006, 08:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>We can agree on these things I'm sure. 1. Nash is a better shooter2. Nash is a better passer3. Both are bad on defense. So where do you get this idea of Nash won't help the Sixers? Nash is the best offensive point guard in the league.</div>Wow, 2 hours go by and that is the response I get? I was expecting something a little different after my last post, but then again I guess when somebody destroys my arguments I would probably try not to bring it up again. Anyways, yes, we can agree on those three things.As for the part about why I don't think Nash would help the Sixers... I never said he wouldn't "help" the Sixers... you said he would make the Sixers a better team than they are right now with Iverson, and that is what I disagree with. I honestly can't believe you still have not gotten my point, so I'll type it out in very, very simple sentences, and bold it for you... maybe then you'll understand.The Sixers problem is NOT offense. The Sixers problem IS defense. Nash DOES NOT make them a better team defensively. With Nash, they aren't better offensively... at best they would be about the same as they are with Iverson... AT BEST.So, with Nash the Sixers have the same offense (at best) and the same or worse defense. That means they have a similar record, not a better one.Do you understand now, or do I have to break it down even more for you mavsfan? Seriously, how hard is it to understand that the Sixers main problem is DEFENSE, not offense, and with Nash they don't get better defensively, now do they? Therefore, they are not a better team with Nash.
The part I disagree with you is about the same offense. The suns aren't a good defensive team either but Nash has done wonders for their offense. It will help Webber out to have a great outside shooter in Nash as well so Webber's assist stats will go up. You are reading too much in what the other players do. You could also think how Webber can create for Nash. The offense would be super efficient with Nash but I guess you don't see it that way. The offense is one of the best with Iverson but possibly the best with Nash.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mavsfan1000 @ Apr 1 2006, 09:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The part I disagree with you is about the same offense. The suns aren't a good defensive team either but Nash has done wonders for their offense. It will help Webber out to have a great outside shooter in Nash as well so Webber's assist stats will go up. You are reading too much in what the other players do. You could also think how Webber can create for Nash. The offense would be super efficient with Nash but I guess you don't see it that way. The offense is one of the best with Iverson but possibly the best with Nash.</div>So, then you agree that Nash does not make them a better team, and you're argument was pretty much worthless, right?The Suns aren't a good defensive team, but they make up for it offensively and with the way they force their opposition to play at their up-temp pace. The Sixers with Nash would not be able to do either of those things because of the personnel they have. The only player who would be able to play in that kind of system (aside from Iverson) on the Sixers is Andre Iguodala.Webber doesn't need a point guard that is a "great" outside shooter. The Sixers have a great shooter in Korver. Iverson doesn't usually take long jumpers, rather he always looks to penetrate or pull up for the 15-footer from the left side. Webber's assists aren't high because he does not run the offense. When he griped about wanting to run the offense, the Sixers tried it, and it didn't work out well on a consistent basis, so they continue to give the ball to Iverson and let him create.I'm reading too much into what other players do? Well, aren't you supposed to look at the skill set of the players he would be playing with, and how he would effect them? That is the first thing you look at when you want to make a trade. If anything you aren't looking into it enough.You still have not shown me why the offense would be "super efficient" with Nash. The only reason you have given to support that claim is that Iverson is turnover prone, and that argument was thrown out the window when I brought up the fact that Iverson averages less turnovers per game and less turnovers per 48 minutes than Nash does.Now, for the sake of argument, let's just say that the Sixers are a better offensive team with Nash (which obviously I do not believe they would be), you still refuse to look at the strengths and weaknesses of the current Sixers squad. For the 1000th time, their weakness is defense, not offense. Does replacing Iverson with Nash make the Sixers a better defensive team? No, it doesn't. The Suns lack of defense is masked because of their unparalleled ability to score at will due to their up-tempo style of play. Again, the Sixers do not have the personnel to play the style that Phoenix plays. Webber can't run the floor, Dalembert can't catch the ball, nor can he finish in transition, and the Sixers do not have enough spot up shooters or players capable of hitting the three-point shot consistently, and therefore are incapable of playing the up-tempo style that the Suns play. Iverson would love to play an up-tempo style because it caters to his strengths, but the Sixers cannot do that because of their personnel.You've been trying to argue that Nash would make the Sixers a better team than they are under Iverson, but all you have been looking at is the offensive end of the floor because that is Nash's strength in PHX. You're not looking at the needs of the team, nor are you looking to see if the player will be able to address those needs and weaknesses. Basketball is not all about offense, it is about both ends of the floor. It is mind-boggling to me that you have not even addressed the question of whether Nash would address the Sixers' defensive woes, because THAT is the deciding factor in whether your argument is true or not, and I have been repatedly addressing that for the past two or three pages of this thread.
All these so called limitations of the Sixers was because of Iverson running the team. Like for example Dalembert not catching passes. I bet he would if Nash was running the team considering he is expecting it more. Webber will be the same, Korver will get better looks, and Igodala will improve slightly on the offensive end. Even when Nash was in Dallas they were scoring a ton. The sixers will still be weak in defense but they will improve slightly on offense. It won't matter as much since they are weak on defense but that is still an improvement over what they have with Iverson. Not a DECIDING FACTOR but it helps slightly.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mavsfan1000 @ Apr 1 2006, 11:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>All these so called limitations of the Sixers was because of Iverson running the team. Like for example Dalembert not catching passes. I bet he would if Nash was running the team considering he is expecting it more. Webber will be the same, Korver will get better looks, and Igodala will improve slightly on the offensive end. Even when Nash was in Dallas they were scoring a ton. The sixers will still be weak in defense but they will improve slightly on offense. It won't matter as much since they are weak on defense but that is still an improvement over what they have with Iverson. Not a DECIDING FACTOR but it helps slightly.</div>Wait, so it is Iverson's fault that Dalembert can't catch a pass when he's wide-open under the bucket? That makes no sense, because it isn't only Iverson's passes that he can't catch... it is everybody's passes. How is Iverson to blame when a player has certain limitations to his game? It's not like Iverson is taking away from their game... they just don't have certain aspects of their games that they need in order for the team to be successful. It's like saying Dampier isn't scoring 20+ ppg because of Dirk's presence on the floor. Dampier can't score 20+ ppg with or without Dirk. Why? Because he just doesn't have the offensive aggressiveness, nor the low-post game to do it. Is that Dirk's fault? Amare can't shoot three's... is that Nash's fault? Shaq can't make his free throws... is that DWade's fault? Ben Wallace isn't an offensive beast... is that Billups' fault?Is it Iverson's fault that Webber likes to sit at the elbow and shoot jumpers all day? Is it Iverson's fault that Iguodala doesn't have a consistent outside jumper at this point in his career? What's next? We're going to blame Iverson because somebody on the team missed a free throw?Now, one thing I haven't brought up with the offensive thing is that Iverson averages 33 points a game, whereas Nash averages 19.5 points a night. That's a 14 point difference per night. Nash might set other players up more often, but because of their limitations more of the scoring load will be placed on Nash, and he isn't the kind of player who can go out and give you 30 points a night for an entire season. And, in order to just equal the offensive output of Iverson, he'd have to average 7 more assists per game than he already does, assuming his points per game output does not change for better or for worse.Now, you seem like you're backing off from your argument. First you adamantly claim that Nash makes the team better than Iverson, but now it's just "he helps them slightly on offense." A slight difference in offense is not going to improve the Sixers overall... that's the bottom line.Everything you have said in this debate has been based on preconceived notions about Iverson's game which were true a few years ago, but are not true anymore. Again, you aren't looking at the teams weakness, and whether or not Nash would help fix the weaknesses of the team. You can interchange players all you want, but if the offensive output remains the same, and the defensive output remains the same, there will be no net change in the team's success.Until they fix their defensive problems, you can replace Iverson with Nate Archibald from 1973 and the Sixers would still have the same record. It's as simple as that.No offense, but with each and every one of your posts that I read, it surprises me how little basketball intelligence you have.
When you talk about point totals of Iverson and Nash that shows the little intelligence you have. Other players will be GETTING MORE SHOTS so they will get more points because Nash is much more willing to give the ball up. The offense revolves around Nash. I shouldn't even be trying to explain this but when Nash penetrates, other teams double team and someone will always be open. I think with the idea of that I'm sure his teammates can get the job done with the open shot opportunities. Did I mention Iverson isn't as good of a passer as Nash? Iverson plays 40+ Minutes and gets 7.5 assist while Nash plays 35 minutes and gets 10+ assist. As I said before the offense would be up probably 2 points per game which is small but it will add 5-10 wins a year on that if the defense stays the same. I'm sick of this argument of Iverson doesn't get enough help. He should be the one helping others score. Iguodala is explosive enough that he should be scoring more from the interior.
