<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BALLAHOLLIC @ Apr 3 2006, 01:28 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I agree here. I just wanted to point out 2 things.2. Big mo is hands down one of the most underrated posters here.</div>Amen.That or he just watches many Philly games :biggrin:
I agree to both your points but you always take this to another way of thinking about it. You mix my words into something that I never said. Answer to these 2 questions.1. Does Nash run a team better at the point guard position?2. Does putting Nash in instead of Iverson make the sixers a worse defensive team?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mavsfan1000 @ Apr 3 2006, 01:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I agree to both your points but you always take this to another way of thinking about it. You mix my words into something that I never said. Answer to these 2 questions.1. Does Nash run a team better at the point guard position?2. Does putting Nash in instead of Iverson make the sixers a worse defensive team?</div>How do I twist your words? Is providing details to refute your assertations now considered "twisting your words"?Now, my answer to both of your questions is yes.You agreed with both my points... by doing so, you just agreed that Nash does not make the Sixers a better team, and pretty much lost the debate. How? Take a look...Here are the statements again:1. In order to become a better team, the Sixers need to improve defensively.And2. Nash does not make the Sixers a better defensive team.Therefore, if the Sixers need to improve defensively to become a better team, and Nash does not improve the Sixers defensively, he does not make the Sixers a better team.You just conceded defeat. It was fun while it lasted...
No I never conceded and my answers were1. Yes. Nash will give more good looks to his teammates. When Iverson takes a lot of shots there are less shots for his teammates to take. You want a balance on the offense and Nash is the perfect offensive point guard. 2. No. Iverson likes to gamble on steals too much and is small and weak. Nash just doesn't have the tools to be a good defensive player or just doesn't have the energy. So we can agree to disagree on this.1. Nash makes the Sixers a better offensive team2. Nash doesn't make the defense of the sixers any worse.Btw longest argument I've ever had is this.
I still don't get how adding Nash will make the Sixers any better.Both have there defenses laps and thats the problem with the Sixers anyway.Now you say Nash will give more good looks to his teamates,no?Iverson also gives looks to his teamates,it's not his fault they don't want to take the scoring load off of him.Now your second arguement is it doesn't make the Sixers worst,I can agree with that but basically if you throw Nash into the Sixers they would win 3-5 games more since they still have all there problems,all they did was added more offense.And In order for the Sixers to be better,Nash has to put amazing numbers every night.So to end this,does Nash make the Sixers better?Yes.By alot?No.Will the Sixers be a threat in the playoffs with Nash?No.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mavsfan1000 @ Apr 3 2006, 02:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>No I never conceded and my answers were1. Yes. Nash will give more good looks to his teammates. When Iverson takes a lot of shots there are less shots for his teammates to take. You want a balance on the offense and Nash is the perfect offensive point guard. 2. No. Iverson likes to gamble on steals too much and is small and weak. Nash just doesn't have the tools to be a good defensive player or just doesn't have the energy. So we can agree to disagree on this.1. Nash makes the Sixers a better offensive team2. Nash doesn't make the defense of the sixers any worse.Btw longest argument I've ever had is this.</div>Wait just a minute here... why are you changing your answers now that I proved you have no argument? So, you didn't say this:<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mavsfan1000 @ Apr 3 2006, 01:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I agree to both your points but you always take this to another way of thinking about it. You mix my words into something that I never said. Answer to these 2 questions.1. Does Nash run a team better at the point guard position?2. Does putting Nash in instead of Iverson make the sixers a worse defensive team?</div>Hm... sounds like somebody realized they conceded defeat, and quickly changed their answer.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (HeatBasketball @ Apr 3 2006, 06:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I still don't get how adding Nash will make the Sixers any better.Both have there defenses laps and thats the problem with the Sixers anyway.Now you say Nash will give more good looks to his teamates,no?Iverson also gives looks to his teamates,it's not his fault they don't want to take the scoring load off of him.Now your second arguement is it doesn't make the Sixers worst,I can agree with that but basically if you throw Nash into the Sixers they would win 3-5 games more since they still have all there problems,all they did was added more offense.And In order for the Sixers to be better,Nash has to put amazing numbers every night.So to end this,does Nash make the Sixers better?Yes.By alot?No.Will the Sixers be a threat in the playoffs with Nash?No.</div>I don't even buy the argument that Nash makes the Sixers a better offensive team. Why? I'm tired of explaining it. Think about it this way... Iverson accounts for atleast 47 points of the Sixers offense on a nightly basis because of his scoring output and his assists. Actually, it would be 50 because half of his assists are usually to Korver for three's. Now, for Nash to make the Sixers a better team offensively, he would need to exceed that output by any combination of scoring and assists. If he keeps his scoring at where it is right now (19.5 points, but we'll round up to 20), he'd have to average 14 assists per game just to equal Iverson's combined output of scoring and assists. If he keeps his assists at where they are right now (10), he'd have to average 27 points a night.Will Nash be able to score 27 points a night while dishing out 10 assists? No he won't.Will Nash be able to dish out 14 assists per game on the Sixers while keeping his scoring average where it is right now? Nope, he won't. I've already explained why in all my previous posts, but for some reason mavsfan does not think we should take into account the players' skills of which Nash will be playing with. He's thinking that because Nash made the Suns the offensive powerhouse they are now, he can turn any team into an offensive powerhouse... but that isn't the case. He needs the right personnel. In Phoenix, they have the right mix of outside shooters, athletic wingmen and big men who can run the floor, and that is why Nash is successful in making that such an explosive offense.The Sixers, on the other hand, have one outside shooter, one athletic wingman, and two athletic big men. The Suns also have a solid bench filled with players who fit the same mold as their starters... the Sixers bench gives them a very little offensive punch, and would not be able to play the uptempo style that make's Nash so successful.Point guards can only set their teammates up in great situations, which both Nash and Iverson do (obviously Nash does it a little better), but they cannot make the shot for their teammates. You have to look at the skill set of the Sixers players around Iverson, and see if they would be able to excel in a system in which Nash excels in... and they don't.I'm not saying that the offense with Nash is going to be horrible... I'm saying it will at best be the same it is at right now with Iverson, not better.You can add all the offensive punch you want to the Sixers, but until they fix their defensive problems, they will be a mediocre team. They have lost 10-15 games this season because of defensive lapses in the final few minutes of the game. They could score at will, but they couldn't get stops, and that is what cost them the game, and in most of these losses they had big leads in the final quarter. So, if they had won 10 of these 15 games, they would have a 44-28 record right now. If they had fixed their defensive problems, the Sixers would have 43-49 victories right now, and this conversation would not have even happened.The bottom line is that mavsfan has yet to prove to me why Nash would make the Sixers a better offensive team. All he says is "look what he did for [insert name here], why can't he do the same for [insert name here]?" He's not looking at the individual skills of the Sixers players, and how they would mesh with Nash's preferred and most successful playing style: an up-tempo system.Quite frankly, this discussion is over because 1) I have repeatedly proved you wrong and you have not been able to prove your argument right... and 2) mavsfan already said he agreed with both my points, and therefore agreed that Nash does not make the Sixers a better team. So then why is he continuing this discussion?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BigMo763 @ Apr 3 2006, 04:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Wait just a minute here... why are you changing your answers now that I proved you have no argument? So, you didn't say this:Hm... sounds like somebody realized they conceded defeat, and quickly changed their answer.I don't even buy the argument that Nash makes the Sixers a better offensive team. Why? I'm tired of explaining it. Think about it this way... Iverson accounts for atleast 47 points of the Sixers offense on a nightly basis because of his scoring output and his assists.</div>Here is the part you don't understand. Not everything can be simply answered by the equation (assist*2)+points or just by the sixers team. Efficiency makes a big deal. Iverson's offensive efficiency isn't close to Nash's. If Nash accounts for 40 points for the sixers offense while doing it in a more efficient manner, his teammates would run the offense slightly more (Webber or Salmons). Since Nash shoots 10% higher from the field and scores 20% of their points, divide that by 5 teammates and the team will shoot 2% higher if they stay at the same percentage. I would actually think his teammates would shoot a little higher with Nash so it could be more than that. Also the whole point I keep repeating is the sixers would be more efficient and therefore score more points. That's what makes Nash's teams such an offensive juggernaut.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ELiiiTE @ Apr 3 2006, 07:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Hold on... Nash WON'T give better looks to his teammates?That's the only thing I don't agree with.</div>I didn't say that if your refering to me.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mavsfan1000 @ Apr 3 2006, 01:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Here is the part you don't understand. Not everything can be simply answered by the equation (assist*2)+points or just by the sixers team. Efficiency makes a big deal. Iverson's offensive efficiency isn't close to Nash's. If Nash accounts for 40 points for the sixers offense while doing it in a more efficient manner, his teammates would run the offense slightly more (Webber or Salmons). Since Nash shoots 10% higher from the field and scores 20% of their points, divide that by 5 teammates and the team will shoot 2% higher if they stay at the same percentage. I would actually think his teammates would shoot a little higher with Nash so it could be more than that. Also the whole point I keep repeating is the sixers would be more efficient and therefore score more points. That's what makes Nash's teams such an offensive juggernaut.</div>I understand that you can't figure everything out by forumlas, and what I posted wasn't an exact science, but it gets the point across. What you are not understanding is that you are not taking into account the skills of the players that will be around Nash if he were in a Sixers uniform.The Sixers role players are not capable of putting up a lot of points, regardless of whether or not Nash would make the offense more efficient. You're looking solely at Nash, and that is ridiculous. The players around Iverson (aside from Webber) aren't capable of scoring the majority of the teams' points, if they were, Iverson and Webber would not have as big of a scoring burden on them as they already do... but then again, you wouldn't know that because you don't watch the Sixers play. The Sixers only problem on offense is that they don't have a consistent third-option behind Iverson and Webber... and that is the fault of the role-players. They're getting the shots they need to be effective, but they are either not taking the shots due to lack of offensive aggressivenes (Iguodala) or they are not making the shots (Dalembert and sometimes Korver). So, if Nash does indeed get them more looks, does more looks necessarily equal more makes? No, it doesn't. "Efficient" does not define the pace the team would play at, now does it? You can be efficient in any type of offense, but the Sixers won't be a better team with Nash at either a slow-paced game or a high-paced game... why? The answer is the same as I've been saying the entire debate: <u>DEFENSE.</u> Oh, wait, I forgot... you don't like talking about defense.You've already said that the Sixers need to be a better defensive team to become a better team, right? Then you also said that Nash does not make the Sixers a better defensive team, so essentiallly you're saying that Nash does not make the Sixers a better team. Then why are you continuing this pathetic argument about Nash's effect on the offensive end of the floor? Is a better offense going to help the Sixers if their defense stays the same or gets worse?Currently, the Sixers score 99.9 points per game, and give up 101.6 points per game to their opposition. You have said that Nash would increase their scoring output by 2 points at best... so, that would make their offensive output at 101.9 points per game. 101.9 - 101.6 = 0.3, which is the differential in the averages. Phoenix, on the other hand, scores 108.3 points per game, and allows 102.6 points per game, which is a differential of 5.7 points per game... and THAT is the reason why they can afford to not play defense.I have proven that Nash does not improve the Sixers offense as much as you think. You are just taking into account Nash's stats and game, you are not taking into account the personnel that Philadelphia has, their strengths, their weaknesses, and what kind of an effect Nash's presence and style of play will have on these players. I don't know how many times I have to say that, but it apparently doesn't get into that peanut-sized brain of yours.At the end of the day, whatever "improvement" Nash makes for the Sixers offensively, it is negated by their poor defense. Until you can show me that Nash makes the Sixers a better team defensively, you have no case to support your assertion that Nash makes the Sixers a better team.Hell, you yourself even said he doesn't by agreeing to my two statements... I know you want to save face because you would look like a big fool for agreeing to the exact opposite assertation than you yourself made, but the fact of the matter is that by continuing to provide ill-conceived, poorly explained arguments to support your case despite already agreeing that your assertation was false, you are making yourself look like an even bigger fool in the eyes of everybody else.Keep it coming... it's your reputation crumbling right in front of your eyes, not mine.
Well if the sixers score 2 points more per game that means they are better. You wouldn't know how Nash would effect the sixers game either. Yes they need more defense and Nash wouldn't be the perfect fit for them but he is a better fit than Iverson. It is Nash vs. Iverson and not Nash vs. what is needed for the sixers. If Iverson was close to the shooter Nash was than you would have a point about Iverson taking more of the load of the offense as a positive. If he isn't shooting a high percentage and below average than it isn't. I understand the point that Webber and Salmons together would have to run the offense approx. 10 more possessions per game with Nash than Iverson and I think they can do it well enough to not be a liability. So to hopefully end this discussion, Nash isn't the answer for the sixers but a better option than Iverson.
[quote name='mavsfan1000' post='29978' date='Apr 3 2006, 03:14 PM']Well if the sixers score 2 points more per game that means they are better. You wouldn't know how Nash would effect the sixers game either. Yes they need more defense and Nash wouldn't be the perfect fit for them but he is a better fit than Iverson. It is Nash vs. Iverson and not Nash vs. what is needed for the sixers. [/quote]No, scoring 2 more points per game is not making them a better team. It might make them a better "offensive" team, but not a better team in general (and I don't even think he makes them a better offensive team). A .3 differential in PPGF and PPGA essentialy means that it is a toss-up of whether or not the Sixers would win the game, which is essentially what it is right now with Iverson. In order to make the Sixers a better team, Nash would have to have a profound impact on both sides of the floor, not just one... which is what you still don't understand.Second, it is not Nash vs. Iverson. It if it were Nash vs. Iverson, we would be comparing their skills. What we are comparing is who is a better fit for the team and whether Nash would make them a better team than what they are right now with Iverson, and he does not do that. The Sixers need to become a better defensively in order to become a better team, and Nash does not do that. If the offense is essentially the same with Nash as it is with Iverson, and the defense is either the same or worse with Nash, then does that make them a better team? No, it doesn't. That makes absolutely no sense. So, if he were shooting 50% from the floor, he should take more of the offensive load? Whatever. What you just said in the quote above contradicts your entire argument. You're basically saying that since Nash shoots better than Iverson, he should carry more of the offensive load, which means he shouldn't pass as much and he should shoot more.Iverson doesn't shoot a lot because he wants to, he shoots a lot because he has to in order for the Sixers to have a shot at winning. Again, you wouldn't know or understand that because you don't watch the Sixers consistently. And that came out of the blue. I didn't say that they cannot run the offense, I'm talking about the offensive limitations of the players. Is Webber going to hit more than 43% of his jumpers because Nash is passing him the ball rather than Iverson? Is Iguodala magically going to develop a consistent outside jumper because Nash is passing him the ball? Is Dalembert magically going to be able to develop soft hands, post moves, and learn not to travel because Nash is passing him the ball? Is Korver suddenly going to become athletic because Nash is passing him the ball? No, they aren't. You're acting as if Nash has magical powers and can magically make certain players do things they are otherwise not able to do. And why would the discussion end when you haven't proven that Nash is "a better option than Iverson" for the Sixers? I understand you want to get this discussion over with because I've exposed every single point you've made so far to be false, but come on, don't run away because of that.I also don't even understand why you keep trying to argue that Nash is a better option for the Sixers than Iverson is or that Nash makes the Sixers a better team than Iverson does when you already agreed that he doesn't.I can go on forever, because you haven't given one shred of believeable evidence to support your assertion. It is clear you're an Iverson hater, because you're using media stereotypes about him from three or four years ago, not your own conclusion based on what you've watched him do this season.
Nash would not change his game drastically just because he is on the Sixers. You are underestimating Nash's passing ability compared to Iverson's. There isn't any magic power but Nash's passes are more in rhythm to that jump shooter in Phoenix than what Iverson's passing is to players on Philly. Iverson is forced to take the load of the offense shooting wise because passing isn't his best part of his game. You act like Iverson is the best offensive player for a point guard. Iverson plays like a 2 guard in a point guards body. Iverson just doesn't see the floor as well as Nash and nobody in the league does. That isn't hate but respect I have towards Nash's game. Also Nash is very good in the half court and is better kicking out to the open shooter than Iverson is. Wouldn't that help the other players? It wouldn't hurt their percentage to get in better rhythm on their shots. What I don't understand is that you bring up defense. There is no explanation to you bringing it up unless it is in Iverson's favor (which it isn't). If it's a tie than we go where there is a difference which is offense. Nash has always made teams an offensive juggernaut from even his Dallas days. Even with Dirk's improvement the mavs offense has gone down without Nash and that is with an efficient shooter called Jason Terry. I keep countering your attacks that don't make sense but for some reason you keep bringing up the same points that already got owned a page before.
[quote name='mavsfan1000' post='30043' date='Apr 3 2006, 04:16 PM']Nash would not change his game drastically just because he is on the Sixers. You are underestimating Nash's passing ability compared to Iverson's. There isn't any magic power but Nash's passes are more in rhythm to that jump shooter in Phoenix than what Iverson's passing is to players on Philly. Iverson is forced to take the load of the offense shooting wise because passing isn't his best part of his game. You act like Iverson is the best offensive player for a point guard. Iverson plays like a 2 guard in a point guards body. Iverson just doesn't see the floor as well as Nash and nobody in the league does. That isn't hate but respect I have towards Nash's game. [/quote]I am not underestimating Nash's passing ability, nor do I think Iverson is the best offensive point guard in the league. The fact of the matter is that you are vastly overestimating the impact of Nash's passes. So, because he passes a certain player the ball in the exact position that Iverson passes them the ball, the player would convert a higher percentage of those shots because it is Nash passing him the ball? Does Nash magically give players the ability to do things they otherwise could not? I am also not saying Nash would change his game... where the hell did that come up from? Again, it just sounds like you're making <Censored> excuses to counter arguments just to save face. I'm basing the Sixers lack of success with Nash on the fact that he will be passing the ball more than scoring... and that is where the other players' offensive limitations come in to play, but you obviously don't understand that. If Nash continues to set up the players on Philadelphia's team like he does in Phoenix, they won't be successful. Why? I've said it 1,000,000 times... they do not have the same skill set as the Phoenix players do. Nash is able to get so many assists because he has many outside shooters on that team in PHX, he has a lot of athletic wing men who can slash AND hit the outside shot, he has athletic big man who can run the floor and finish around the basket. In Philadelphia, he has only ONE outside shooter, only ONE athletic wing man (who by the way cannot hit the outside shot consistently), and two athletic big men who occassionally would be able to finish around the basket.Like I've said before, you have to look at what the other players on the Sixers roster do before you make assumptions about the offensive output with Nash in their instead of Iverson. Because of those limitations, Iverson is forced to shoot the ball more than pass, and the same goes for Webber. But see, you don't understand that because you don't watch the Sixers play, you don't know a thing about the offense they run, and it seems that you don't know much about the game of basketball in general, nor have you ever played it. Any person in their right mind would tell you that you have to look at what the other players can and cannot do in order to gauge the offensive "success" of the Sixers with Nash... everybody except for you, that is. Again, watch the Sixers play. The other players are getting their shots in rhythm, however they either 1) aren't making them (Dalembert around the basket, Webber's inconsistent jumper, Iguodala's inconsistent outside game) or 2) aren't taking them because of lack of offensive aggressiveness (Iguodala). Oh wait a second, I forgot, Nash has magical powers that fixes all that, right? What I don't understand is how you cannot see WHY I'm bringing up defense. I have spelled out why in every single one of my posts, and related it to your lackluster arguments, but it appears your lack of basketball knowledge and experience causes you to think that defense is not an integral part of the game of basketball. You yourself agreed that the Sixers need to become a better defensive team, right? OK, so, if you actually knew anything about the Sixers currently with Iverson, or watched more than two of their games, you would realize that their problem is not offense, their problem is defense. You can add all the offensive firepower you want with Nash... I don't care if he scores 50 points a night and dishes out 20 assists a night, the Sixers horrible defense is THE REASON WHY THEY LOSE GAMES. Understand? So, because their defense is so horrid, they need to improve that aspect of their game more than anything else, and when they do that they will become a better team. Nash can have all the offensive impact he wants to on that team, but the fact of the matter remains that unless he can somehow change their lackluster defensive performance, they will not be a better team regardless of what type of system they run. Yeah, right, whatever you say buddy! I would hardly call "Nash makes the offense better because he did it in Phoenix, so why couldn't he do it in Philly" or "What does defense have anything to do with it" countering my points, nor would I call that "owning" my "same points."You want to know why I keep making the same points? Because you have some sort of problem that does not allow your tiny brain to comprehend what I'm saying. The majority of other people who have read this thread would tell you that my arguments make more sense than yours do, regardless of whether they agree with me or not. I thought you were a pretty smart poster, but after this discussion, and reading a few of your other posts around the forums, it looks like you haven't played the game of basketball, nor do you understand the basic things about the game.Now, my suggestion to you is to go back through this entire thread, re-read every one of our posts, sit down and analyze the argument (hey, you can even ask other posters here to help you out with this), then go watch basketball for more than a year or two, maybe even read a few books about it, go out and play, talk to coaches, learn about the game, and then come back after all that. Then re-read everything again, and you'll see how foolish you and your argument look.Like I've said before, at this point it seems as if you are just posting the first thing that pops into your head in order to save face because you don't want to go through the embarrassment of saying that you were wrong after you have already taken this argument for 4 pages without proving a single thing.Come to think of it, you already agreed to my assertation that Nash does not make the Sixers a better team, so why in God's name are you continuing to drag this discussion onward? I mean, most people would shut up after they agreed that they were wrong and the other person was right. But no, not you... Honestly man, I'm trying to help you out here. How bad does it look that one of the admins has such low basketball knowledge and IQ? But hey, it's your reputation, not mine. If you want to keep being exposed as a fool and an idiot, then by all means keep posting the same old posts. Your ignorance and lack of intelligence truly amazes me.
I'm sorry. The sixers offense can't get passed 99.8 ppg. Your post are more a lecture of my posting ability over anything you understand. You are the one dragging out that Iverson has to shoot the ball. The sixers offense looks pretty good on paper. Webber can drain the midrange, Korver with the 3's, and the other 2 can get some fastbreak points if the point guard can get out a good outlet pass. You freakin don't understand the game because Shawn Marion was not a good 3 point shooter until he came with Nash. Iguodala won't get to become a great 3 point shooter but every player will shoot slightly better since Nash will find them more open shots. Oh yeah Iverson does that perfectly. You are full of it man. Nash being the best pure shooter in the game can't help the sixers offense? Guess what. You can win games without defense. Just look at the 03-04 mavs. They won 52 games. It didn't go far in the playoffs but in the regular season it can. I don't mind people being homerism but at least admit you are a little biased. I have watched Nash for a long time and he is amazing what he does and it wouldn't surprise me if Nash made the sixers an offenive juggernaut. The suns run a lot of plays through Barbosa and Diaw so Nash is capable of getting more stats but chooses to allow others to run the offense.Since Nash creates for others they don't have to work hard on getting their shot. For me at least if someone kept creating for me, I could catch on fire. It doesn't get any easier than that. Iverson does it sometimes but not enough for the other players to get in a rhythm. See I do know basketball and what it takes to get in a rhythm. It is repetition. So in reality the more shots they get the better they shoot as long as they are getting good looks.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mavsfan1000 @ Apr 3 2006, 09:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'm sorry. The sixers offense can't get passed 99.8 ppg. Your post are more a lecture of my posting ability over anything you understand. You are the one dragging out that Iverson has to shoot the ball. The sixers offense looks pretty good on paper. Webber can drain the midrange, Korver with the 3's, and the other 2 can get some fastbreak points if the point guard can get out a good outlet pass. You freakin don't understand the game because Shawn Marion was not a good 3 point shooter until he came with Nash. Iguodala won't get to become a great 3 point shooter but every player will shoot slightly better since Nash will find them more open shots. Oh yeah Iverson does that perfectly. You are full of it man.</div>Again, it amazes me how lackluster your comebacks are and it amazes me how you continue to think you know how each player on the Sixers performs even though you don't watch more than three or four Sixers games a year.Yes, I am saying that Iverson has to shoot the ball. If you would actually watch the Sixers play, you would understand why. I'm tired of explaining the limitations in the offensive games of the Sixers role players to you, because your too ignorant to even read them, let alone comrehend what I'm saying.You see that bolded statement? That proves one of my points. You are basing everything off of what they would look like "ideally" whereas I am basing my points on what they would look like realistically. Why? Because I actually watch them play, and know what each player can and cannot do.You said Webber can drain the mid-range jumper, right? I agree, but the way you are talking you are making it seem like he is a 50% shooter and Iverson's horrible passing ability is forcing Webber's shooting percentage down to 43%. Korver will pretty much stay the same, or slightly improve with Nash, there is no question about that. Iguodala won't be a 20+ ppg scorer with Nash either. He doesn't have the outside shot for it. He'll get his dunks, but everybody will tell you that in order to get to that next level, which happens to be the level the Sixers need him to be at, he'll need to develop his outside shot. I don't care if you have Bob Cousy or Magic Johnson passing Iguodala the ball, they won't be able to force him to make the shot. He has to do that on his own.Nash may find them more open shots, but like I've said before, more open shots does not necessarily mean more makes, now does it? So, because Webber will be getting "more shots" because of Nash, he will start shooting better than 43% or 45%? It is common sense that the more you shoot, the lower your percentage will be. Also, I never said Iverson was the perfect passer, nor did I say he was a better passer than Nash. What I'm saying is that he isn't as bad a passer as you are making him out to be. Again, you should probably watch more than a few Sixers games before making a judgement like that.One more thing, you said Marion wasn't a good three-point shooter until Nash came along? Maybe you should take a look at his three-point percentages. The first two years of his career his three-point shooting was indeed atrocious at 18.2% his rookie season and 25.6% his sophomore season. In his third season he shot 39.3% from downtown, which was the highest in his career. In the next two years he shot 38.7% and 34.0% from three-point range. Then, when Nash comes along, his perentage continues to fall to 33.4% last season and 32.2% this season. So, uh, where is Nash's magical ability there? And Iguodala is shooting 36.4% from three-point land this season, and he shot 33.1% last season... I guess Iverson's "horrible passes" are the reason why he is shooting better than Marion, who happens to have the best passer in the league, right?<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Nash being the best pure shooter in the game can't help the sixers offense? Guess what. You can win games without defense. Just look at the 03-04 mavs. They won 52 games. It didn't go far in the playoffs but in the regular season it can.</div>Now, I'm not trying to side-track here, but Nash is not the best "pure-shooter" in the game. If you truly believe that, you are kidding yourself. He might shoot a very high percentage, but he is not the "best pure-shooter" in the league.As for your comparison to the 03-04 Mavericks, let's take a look at their per game averages, shall we? Offensively they scored 105.2 points per game, and defensively they allowed 100.8 points per game, for a difference of 4.4 points per game. This is very similar to what I said in my earlier post about why the Suns can afford to not play defense: the difference between the points they score and the points they give up is wide enough. Compare the 5.7 point differential of Phoenix this year and the 4.4 differential of the 03-04 Mavs to the .3 differential of the Sixers if Nash was on the squad (we already discussed and agreed upon that figure).Now, once again, come back when you have a valid argument, and might I suggest actually thoroughly thinking through your arguments before you post them.
Well I know how Nash's game and I didn't realize Iguodala shot that well from 3 point range. Nevermind though since you won't quit. It is pointless on talking about what if's since you think the more you shoot the worse you get. Funny how when Dirk got a lot of scorers his field goal percentage dropped because he wasn't getting enough touches. Anyways I'll lock this thread because it obviously is painful for you to realize the truth. It is just pride of you not willing ot accept defeat at this point.
