Obviously one is a rookie, and one is an all-star. But if you look at their stats they're similar.Paul: 16 ppg, 8 apg, 5 rpg, 2.2 spg, 2 turnovers per gameNash: 19 ppg, 10 apg, 4 rpg, .7 spg, 3.49 turnovers per gameWhich one would you rather have and why? And which one will end up having the better career, when they are both retired. When I first thought of this I kind of thought it was crazy that I could compare these two. Paul might have the slight edge even though he is a rook, he made David West, arguably one of the most improved players in the league. Nash did the same with a couple guys on his team. Nash had more options to pass to, and he's got a veteran team. Paul is a much better rebounder, and an elite defender. He is also quicker, and has a lower turnover average. What are your thoughts about the two?
Chris Paul is something special. I love to watch him play and I think when it's all said and done he'll be in the top 5 best PG's to ever play the game. I mean that's how good he is. Steve Nash is a great player don't get me wrong and will go down in the history books. But I see Chris Paul setting a new standard for point gaurds for years to come. He handles the ball well, he can score, he can defend and most importantly he gets his team involved and that's what the definition of a PG is. You can't worry about having big stats as long as you get your teamates involved. So when they come out with the 2012 Basketball Dictionary you will see a picture of Chris Paul and right next to it definition of a point gaurd.
Chris Paul because he's going to be a great point guard. He may not have the vision that Nash does, but he's the better scorer (or atleast will be), rebounder, defender, and is quicker. Paul's also younger and when it's all said and done I think he'll be a top 10 point guard ever.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (kingjamez @ May 15 2006, 11:49 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Obviously one is a rookie, and one is an all-star. But if you look at their stats they're similar.Paul: 16 ppg, 8 apg, 5 rpg, 2.2 spg, 2 turnovers per gameNash: 19 ppg, 10 apg, 4 rpg, .7 spg, 3.49 turnovers per gameWhich one would you rather have and why? And which one will end up having the better career, when they are both retired. When I first thought of this I kind of thought it was crazy that I could compare these two. Paul might have the slight edge even though he is a rook, he made David West, arguably one of the most improved players in the league. Nash did the same with a couple guys on his team. Nash had more options to pass to, and he's got a veteran team. Paul is a much better rebounder, and an elite defender. He is also quicker, and has a lower turnover average. What are your thoughts about the two?</div>He averages 1 more rebound,not that much better if you ask me.I personally don't like Nash and feel if you can just make him play both sides of the court you will take him down.If I had to choose one for the future I would obviously take Paul.Indeed he is a special player and the best part is he can actually play defense!I see him averaging 18/10/7
Chris Paul by far. Steve Nash has always been a good, maybe a top 10 PG for his career, but Chris Paul right now I feel is the third best PG in the league behind only Nash and Kidd, and maybe, MAYBE Parker.Chris Paul is a better defender, better scorer, penetrator and almost as great a distributor. When it's all said and done Chris Paul can become one of the best ever because he's so talented and has great basketball smarts. Steve Nash is also not fast enough to create open shots and he's been contained very well against the Clips.
I would rather have Chris Paul. He is being compared to Magic Johnson by NBA Experts and Analysts for a reason. He is that crazy triple double threat, who is ready to play right away. He scores effectively, he can shoot the three ball, he crashes the boards, AND he distributes the ball. It's not like a scoring point guard or a passing point guard, he's all around. Nash is young but you don't get younger over the years. Chris will definitely become an allstar soon if not next year and eventually in to a superstar if nothing drastic happens, which hopefully it wont.
Nash is, what, 33? He is not young. Chris Paul is the best rebounder at PG besides for Jason Kidd. He is a good rebounder, a great scorer and a good distributor and he can be a 20ppg, 8 apg, 6 rpg player...even more if he wanted..I can see him averaging a double double for a year...What really impresses me is the guy is just pushing 6'....whereas Nash is 6'3..he's a small guy doing great.
Sorry but this is a joke right now. Chris is going to be really good and all, yadda yadda yadda. Sorry but Nash is the better shooter, slasher and scorer all together. I believe he could average near 25 ppg if he wasnt so generous with the ball. He shoots well over .500 which is amazing for a pg.Nash sets himself apart from other point guards in the League with his court vision. He has the best court vision in the League right now. He can see the open guy and get him the ball quickly. He has acrobatic passes and can make his wing players better by getting them wide open 3 pointersI know Chris is going to be very good but he isnt in the same sentence as Nash YET.
25 ppg? Are you serious? I wouldnt say Nash is a much better shooter than Paul. Obviously Nash's game is polished since hes 33 years old, but the question was also, who will have the better career? Paul is quicker and imo, he is a better slasher than Nash. I dont care about the acrobatic passes and sh*t. I'd rather you just get the ball to the open guy. Both of them do that very well. And they are both elite pass-first point guards in the league.
I see where your coming from CB4.I think now Nash is the obvious better player.He is an amazing free throw shooter,has the best court vision in the league along with a great shot.I'm not sure Chris Paul can run a team at the same level as Nash.Even though his defense isn't the best he is far to good in running the floor,all the teams hes been in have lead the league in ppg.Bottom line Steve Nash is better now,Paul will be better down the road.Nash is still in his prime while Paul just got to the league.Nash also ranks second in total turnovers,not impressive on his side.
Should this even be up for debate??? Chris Paul was a rookie, but he put up very similar stats to Nash who is 33. Nash is going to get worse and Paul is going to get better. Chris Paul has the ability to be a 20 ppg, 10 apg, 6 rpg, and 2.5 spg type of player. The small amount of turnovers he gets are great also. It depends though what your asking. Who is better right now, or who will be better. nash is better right now, but cp3 will be better very soon and think he has a very good chance of having a better career.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (kingjamez @ May 15 2006, 05:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>25 ppg? Are you serious? I wouldnt say Nash is a much better shooter than Paul. Obviously Nash's game is polished since hes 33 years old, but the question was also, who will have the better career? Paul is quicker and imo, he is a better slasher than Nash. I dont care about the acrobatic passes and sh*t. I'd rather you just get the ball to the open guy. Both of them do that very well. And they are both elite pass-first point guards in the league.</div>Why the hell wouldnt I be serious? If he pulled a Gilbert Arenas and just decided to score all the time he could come to the late 20's in ppg average. He is so talented scoring wise. He is one of the best shooters in the NBA both 3 point range and mid range which means also from the stripe where he is a beast. He can attack the rim with ease because he is so quick and if they foul him he will get 2 either way. The point is that he is far from selfish. He shoots .512 percent from the field. If he shot more he could easily get 25 ppg, yeah.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CB4AllStar @ May 15 2006, 05:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Why the hell wouldnt I be serious? If he pulled a Gilbert Arenas and just decided to score all the time he could come to the late 20's in ppg average. He is so talented scoring wise. He is one of the best shooters in the NBA both 3 point range and mid range which means also from the stripe where he is a beast. He can attack the rim with ease because he is so quick and if they foul him he will get 2 either way. The point is that he is far from selfish. He shoots .512 percent from the field. If he shot more he could easily get 25 ppg, yeah.</div>I agree Nash could average 25 ppg if he wanted to. He is a great shooter. Whenever I watch him play hes always making a big percentage of his sots he just doesn't shoot much. I think hes an overated free throw shooter though. Sure he has a good free throw %, but he only had an average of 3.5 attempts per game. I mean what would his % be if he averaged like 8-10 attempts per game???
Nash is not quick, I don't know where you got that from. He's not in the same sentence as Chris Paul in quickness, Nash is by far a worse slasher, as Paul is probably along with A.I. the second best or third best penetrator in the game at PG.Nash is good at 3 and good at mid-range, but when he's open, he's not great at creating his own shots and how can you say he could go for 25 ppg because he's getting owned by the Clips, scoring 11 ppg and such. He gets alot of ppg because off his pass he gets himself open then shoots he doesn't get himself open with the ball.
The Suns style of play opens up alot of shots for everyone on their team. If Nash shot more, his shooting percentage would also be alot lower than it is. The shots he takes are wide open, thats the reason he shoots so high. And nykgiants your right, he isnt quick, and he is def. not the type of slasher Chris Paul is.
Nash is on the older side of his career, and Chris Paul is at the start and I'd still pick him over Nash.He will totally overhsadow Nash's name when he's done his career.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (nygiants4life @ May 16 2006, 01:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Nash is not quick, I don't know where you got that from.</div>I imagine from watching him play!Nash is quick, and could put up alot more points if that was his game. I would take Nash right now over Paul. Lets see how Paul does next season, I think he will become a superstar in this league but its still early. Damon Stoudamire put up some pretty great numbers in his rookie year too.
