STEVE NASH LEGEND or just a crazy fast, good shooting, passing guy?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (J-Crew @ Apr 6 2007, 06:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Ok and AI brought his team to the championship with pretty much no help...making him forever a Legend...if Nash was a good enough leader Suns would have a championship by now</div>
AI has never won a ring...

A ring is a factor in determining how great of a player someone is however there have been many great players who have never gotten a ring. Guys like Patrick Ewing and Charles Barkley are widely known as legendary NBA players but neither have ever won a ring. It does matter but it isn't the most important factor to determining a legend. Also, with the Suns, Nash could very well get a ring.

 

AI never won a ring and getting to the Finals in a very weak conference and getting beat up on in the Finals is no more impressive than Nash going to the WCF 3 times in a much stronger conference and losing to teams that AI's team would've lost to also.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ASUFan22 @ Apr 6 2007, 05:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>AI never won a ring and getting to the Finals in a very weak conference and getting beat up on in the Finals is no more impressive than Nash going to the WCF 3 times in a much stronger conference and losing to teams that AI's team would've lost to also.</div>Sixers came the closest that season to trumping the Lakers (outside of the lone loss in the Finals to AI's Sixers, Lakers were undefeated in that post season).

 

Also, I'm interested in how you think that AI had no help on that squad. He had Dikembe Mutombo a center who still completely dominates the post on defense. Eric Snow in his prime which made a great backcourt of AI/Snow. A great defensive stopper in Raja Bell and not to mention veterans Tyrone Hill/George Lynch.

Not to mention a great head coach in Larry Brown. It was far from a one man show.

 

He had no help offensively, but defensively that team was built perfectly for him. He was able to roam the passing lanes because he had Mutombo in the back, and excellent help defenders around him.But offensively, yes, it was definitely a one-man show.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BigMo763 @ Apr 6 2007, 07:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>He had no help offensively, but defensively that team was built perfectly for him. He was able to roam the passing lanes because he had Mutombo in the back, and excellent help defenders around him.

But offensively, yes, it was definitely a one-man show.</div>
The lineup was stacked with role players, sure AI was the main go to guy and he was relied on to score tons but it's not like he had a horrible team that couldn't keep the offense going without him. Mutombo helps alot for AI's talent to cut off the passing lanes and the squad was, I agree a defensive machine. I disagree with the fact that you say they couldn't support AI offensively.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GArenas @ Apr 6 2007, 08:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The lineup was stacked with role players, sure AI was the main go to guy and he was relied on to score tons but it's not like he had a horrible team that couldn't keep the offense going without him. Mutombo helps alot for AI's talent to cut off the passing lanes and the squad was, I agree a defensive machine. I disagree with the fact that you say they couldn't support AI offensively.</div>Well, they simply couldn't. They all relied on Iverson to score and to set them up... absolutely nobody on that team could consistently create a shot for themselves, aside from possibly Mutombo, but he got most of his points on offensive boards and easy dunks off AI's penetration. That whole offense revolved around Iverson... both scoring and creating for his teammates.Like you said though, the defensive end is where everybody else made their impact and allowed him to play the passing lanes without a care in the world, and that is where Larry Brown had his biggest impact as coach: defense and hustle.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BigMo763 @ Apr 6 2007, 09:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Well, they simply couldn't. They all relied on Iverson to score and to set them up... absolutely nobody on that team could consistently create a shot for themselves, aside from possibly Mutombo, but he got most of his points on offensive boards and easy dunks off AI's penetration. That whole offense revolved around Iverson... both scoring and creating for his teammates.</div>
I never said that Iverson wasn't a pivotal role to the offense of the 2000-2001 Sixers. Of course that offense would collapse without Iverson, however Iverson wasn't forced to do every single last bit of the scoring. That's not even possible, the offense could run. It wasn't the greatest team offense in the NBA but they weren't the worst either. Eric Snow was a pivotal part of the offense as well, AI was forced to do the scoring but a prime Snow was doing a great job setting people up. He played a big part in that offense as well. The rest were role-players, not neccesaraly the best scorers but still could function in Larry Brown's offense.

 

Snow definitely was great for us, but his job was mostly looking for AI to run off screens and get him the ball and let him create. But, whatever, we're both saying pretty much the same thing.

 

Steve Nash is a legend. I'm tired of people shooting down his accomplishments. The 2 MVP trophies and soon to be 3rd say everything. I don't care how he got them. They alone say everything. Give the dude his respect and quit shooting down his career with these ridiculous statements.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Nitro1118 @ Apr 6 2007, 01:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The triangle wasn't truly being ran until the end of the season (and in the Suns series). The triangle is all about ball movement, and at the beginning of the year there was NONE. You know as well as I do that the triangle takes a long time for new players to learn, so in the meantime Kobe did his thing to keep team afloat. He was averaging 35PPG at beginning of the season, and averaged like 40PPG in December.</div>Now your throwing things out there that have no merit, don't know if you got it from 82 games.com, if so they are wrong on alot of their stats. Go look at espn stats as you know their always right, and then look at the month of December. He averaged 32 points per game in the month of December. He averaged 34 in the month of March, and that rose to 41 points per game in the eight April games he had. He didn't have one game where he scored under 31 points in those 8 April games. http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/teams/schedu...amp;season=2006There is the link, which gives you a game by game view of what he did. As you can see, he averaged more points in the last half of the season compared to the front half. If you don't believe me, just start adding each game in a month, then divide by the number of games in that month, and you have your points per game for that month. Since you like to play the stat game, your stats are just a little off.So that Doesn't seem like alot of ball movement late in the season, considering he was putting up more points late in the season than he did earlier in the season.As for it being all about ball movement, theoretically that is true, but it is also about spacing the floor so that the attacking guard has more of a chance to get put into a one on one situation with his man. Jordan got this alot, and now Kobe gets it alot to. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Umm, the Mavs were all about the run and gun offense. Magic was more versatile as both a scorer and playmaker than Nash, and due to his size, would have caused many mismatch problems. I doubt he wouldn't have had 1 season over 9APG like Nash, nor do I think he would have been kept in the 13PPG range.</div>The Mavericks did like to run and gun more than everyone else at their time, but they never got out and ran like this Suns teams does, nor do they even get close to running like that Laker team did. Magic got the pleasure of playing in a running offense his entire career, one that ran alot more than that Mavericks team did. He also played when other teams wanted to run also. That Mavericks team played when other teams tried to slow the game down into a half court game, which would further take away from Nash's stats at that time compared to now days. Nash had to play for a team that had a group of people that scored on their own without having to be set up alot.As for the more versatile as a scorer, I don't see that at all, Johnson didn't have the three point shot that Nash had, Nash can score in just as many ways as Johnsons can.As far as passing goes, at 6'9 your right he's gonna be able to make some passes that are hard for Nash to make, because he towered over most other point guards. But in this day and age, taller players have a harder time at the point guard spot. I doubt he would be playing point guard, and I doubt he would be averaging 9 assists per game in this day and age.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>He had the likes of Dirk, Antwan Jamison, Antoine Walker, among other very good players in Dallas. The fact of the matter is that while Steve Nash is hotwired to be the perfect PG to the Suns system, he also has 6 other players that are also absolutely perfect for the system. Judging by what Nash did pre-Suns, and now with the Suns, it is fair to say that the teammates and system have helped make him an MVP caliber player. For people to question Nash due to what he did pre-Suns and then with the Suns, I think it is a fair arguement.</div>Antoine Walker and Jamison are not the type of players that you set up with shots. Walker doesn't come off the ball and catch and shoot well, and he doesn't move around without the ball in his hands very much so it's hard to get assists there. Nowitzki moves without the ball, but he sets up his own jump shots alot more than anyone else on the Mavericks really set up his jump shots. Juwan Howard another one of his great scorers was much the same way in the fact that he didn't move without the ball much and help to get open to give someone to pass to. So not only did he not have a good team that made it hard for him to get assists numbers like he does now, he also had a team that demanded their shots. Then you add in that there was less shots for the entire team in those days for the Mavericks than Johnson had for the Lakers, and it's hard for him or anyone else to get great stats on that team he was on. Johnson would not have been able to put up great stats with that Mavericks team.Here in Phoenix he has players that he is able to set up for, because they move without the ball, much the way the Lakers players moved without the ball and he has more balance on the court with Amare down low much like Magic had with Kareem down low. For what is happening with the Suns takes a special type of player to run that point. I doubt many others in league history would be able to run that team the same way, because of the special blend of passing, shooting, and scoring it takes to run that offense.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (valo35 @ Apr 7 2007, 11:55 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Now your throwing things out there that have no merit, don't know if you got it from 82 games.com, if so they are wrong on alot of their stats. Go look at espn stats as you know their always right, and then look at the month of December. He averaged 32 points per game in the month of December. He averaged 34 in the month of March, and that rose to 41 points per game in the eight April games he had. He didn't have one game where he scored under 31 points in those 8 April games. http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/teams/schedu...amp;season=2006There is the link, which gives you a game by game view of what he did. As you can see, he averaged more points in the last half of the season compared to the front half. If you don't believe me, just start adding each game in a month, then divide by the number of games in that month, and you have your points per game for that month. Since you like to play the stat game, your stats are just a little off.So that Doesn't seem like alot of ball movement late in the season, considering he was putting up more points late in the season than he did earlier in the season.As for it being all about ball movement, theoretically that is true, but it is also about spacing the floor so that the attacking guard has more of a chance to get put into a one on one situation with his man. Jordan got this alot, and now Kobe gets it alot to</div>First half of the season he was right around where he was in the 2nd half of the season in terms of PPG. As great as he finished off the season, he scored even more PPG in the months of January (43PPG!). The Lakers scored 96PPG through the first 2 months, and around 105PPG in the last 2 months. They averaged more than 2APG more in the last 2 months compared to first 2 months. Aside from the stats, ask any person who watched the Lakers a lot last season. The offense was stagnant and was basically the Kobe show at the beginning of the year. By the end of the year, after the players (specifically Odom) learned the triangle thoroughly, the offense had much more ball movement and flowed much better. Kobe still got his, but it was in the flow of the offense. The Suns series and beginning of this year is the best examples of this. My original point being (and the 04-05 season will also show) that Kobe is the best scorer in the league no matter the offense. The triangle makes things a tad bit easier for Kobe, but it is more awarding to his teammates than himself. You can definately question Nash being the best PG in the league if you take him out of the offense he is in. Unlike the Jordan Bulls, the Lakers didn't have the role players nor the playmaker to get Kobe into proper scoring position in a one on one situation. Kobe rarely got the kind of position MJ got (even now this is true). MJ got the postup 10-15ft out, where Kobe often gets the ball about 20ft out while being double teamed due to lack of help offensively. Kobe also, moreso than MJ, gets ball with shot clock winding down at a very bad position on the court. By the end of last season and earlier this season, with the emergence of Odom and way more ball movement, Kobe got a bit more freedom, and his FG % and APG went up. Without some of these players, they started to lose by playing the way they ended last season and started this season, so they went back to the 'Kobe offense' (as Laker fans put it). But all of this is doesn't matter as my point is that Kobe is the top score rin the league no matter what. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>The Mavericks did like to run and gun more than everyone else at their time, but they never got out and ran like this Suns teams does, nor do they even get close to running like that Laker team did. Magic got the pleasure of playing in a running offense his entire career, one that ran alot more than that Mavericks team did. He also played when other teams wanted to run also. That Mavericks team played when other teams tried to slow the game down into a half court game, which would further take away from Nash's stats at that time compared to now days. Nash had to play for a team that had a group of people that scored on their own without having to be set up alot.As for the more versatile as a scorer, I don't see that at all, Johnson didn't have the three point shot that Nash had, Nash can score in just as many ways as Johnsons can.As far as passing goes, at 6'9 your right he's gonna be able to make some passes that are hard for Nash to make, because he towered over most other point guards. But in this day and age, taller players have a harder time at the point guard spot. I doubt he would be playing point guard, and I doubt he would be averaging 9 assists per game in this day and age.</div>They got out and ran just as much as this Suns team does. The main difference is that Nash didn't have the likes of Marion/Barbosa to finish off layups/dunks, or Bell/Jones/Rochardson/Johnson to hit the transition 3 (which is the main reason this Suns team scores as much as they do, compared to the Showtime Lakers who truly were a run and gun team). But he still had a lot of help to take pressure off him as a scorer and passer.Near the end of his career, after the 3pt shot started to become popular, Magic was hitting around 1.5 per game. Due to Magic's size, he could post up, shoot over just about anyone, and more effective at driving to the rim. He was also just as good of a FT shooter as Nash. I'd say he is more versatile as a scorer than Nash.If anything, him being a taller player would be very enticing in this day and age. He would force the opposing team to put a player who is naturally a SF on him. If that is the case, it would force the other team to play big, which would play right into the Suns game. Magic's rebounding would also make the Suns that much better. As I said, his size made him extremely versatile.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Antoine Walker and Jamison are not the type of players that you set up with shots. Walker doesn't come off the ball and catch and shoot well, and he doesn't move around without the ball in his hands very much so it's hard to get assists there. Nowitzki moves without the ball, but he sets up his own jump shots alot more than anyone else on the Mavericks really set up his jump shots. Juwan Howard another one of his great scorers was much the same way in the fact that he didn't move without the ball much and help to get open to give someone to pass to. So not only did he not have a good team that made it hard for him to get assists numbers like he does now, he also had a team that demanded their shots. Then you add in that there was less shots for the entire team in those days for the Mavericks than Johnson had for the Lakers, and it's hard for him or anyone else to get great stats on that team he was on. Johnson would not have been able to put up great stats with that Mavericks team.Here in Phoenix he has players that he is able to set up for, because they move without the ball, much the way the Lakers players moved without the ball and he has more balance on the court with Amare down low much like Magic had with Kareem down low. For what is happening with the Suns takes a special type of player to run that point. I doubt many others in league history would be able to run that team the same way, because of the special blend of passing, shooting, and scoring it takes to run that offense.</div>Walker makes a living off spot up 3's. I honestly cannot recall Juwan's game when he was with the Mavs, but with Houston all he does is the spot up midrange jumper off of T-Mac's passes. I agree about Jamison, but again, he can spot up for the jumper and finish at the rim. With Dirk, it wasn't until after Nash left that he became an unstoppable 1 on 1 player. When Nash was around, it gave Dirk a lot of transition 3's and spot up jumpers. Again, as I said in my previous posts, I doubt any other player in the league right at this moment can run the Suns as well as Nash (although I feel CP and Deron Williams hcould blossom into players that are capable of it, and Kidd of a few years ago could have done the job). But, Nash's versatility is questionable. You can say what you want about Magic, but due to his size it made him one of the most versatile PG's of all time. Even in a slowed down offense without the likes of Scott, Kareem, and Worthy, I feel he could be very effective (averaging similar numbers to Kidd, but with more PPG and better FG %). Nash was not a superstar with the Mavs. He was not able to get into lane without any help defense that he can get now. He didn't get as many open 3's due to amazing ball movement that the Suns display (not to mention another versatile PG-like player in Diaw, and this year Barbosa handling the ball more). Because of this, he wasn't near as dangerous of a scorer as he is now, and without the perfect offensive team built around him, never was the kind of threat he is now. You can say, "Well, he didn't have a lot of pure spot up shooters", yet look at what Kidd is doing right now with a player who handles the ball more than the PG in VC, another isolation player in RJ, and when he was around, a postup player in Krstic. At 34, in that kind of stagnant offense with all of these isolation players, he is averaging 13/9/8. With a more uptempo team (although a FAR cry from the Suns, and even the mavs), he was averaging 15/10/8. On other teams that scored only in the mid-'90's he was putting up 15-17PPG and over 10APG. Nash is perfect for the system, but if he is an MVP caliber player or could be nearly as dangerous outside of the offense he is currently in is still in question. Unfortunately we will never know for sure with Magic as he never played on another team, but with his size and versatility, I am sure he would have still been one of, if not THE, best PG in the NBA no matter what offense he was in. Jason Kidd can do it in any offense. While Stockton had Malone virtually every game since becoming a starter, he never had much else, and averaged 15-18PPG on 50%+ shooting/12-15APG (him and Kidd also greatly affected the game outside of just points and assists). With Nash, it is questionable if he could be an all time great in any system, and due to him barely being all star level with the Mavs, it is a much bigger question than with magic or Stockton who were in the situations they were in their whole careers. Fair or not, that is the way many people look at it. PERSONALLY, I feel Nash is definately a top 10 PG of all time, but without any rings and the fact that for the most part of his career he was barely an all star, it is hard for me to put him over the Magic's, Stockton's, Kidd, Cousy's, Thomas', etc...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Legacy @ Apr 7 2007, 11:10 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Steve Nash is a legend. I'm tired of people shooting down his accomplishments. The 2 MVP trophies and soon to be 3rd say everything. I don't care how he got them. They alone say everything. Give the dude his respect and quit shooting down his career with these ridiculous statements.</div>
What do you mean, there are questions about how good Nash really is. It's not just as simple as saying he got 2 MVP's so he's a legend. Steve Nash has really only succeeded in run-the-floor type offenses. There are debates about what classic players are legends every day everywhere, you can't just label a legend simply becuase of his 2 MVP's. There is no doubt that Nash is a great player, amazing court vision, and knows when to take over a game. We've only seen him have large success on the fast break offense however. This is the main problem I have with labeling Nash a legend right now, Karl Malone never got a ring yet he is known as a legend so I don't really hold Nash being ringless against him due to it having most do with the team rather than an individual player.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>As for the Michael Jordan thing, he was a 37 point per game scorer, but he never won a championship until Phil Jackson put the triangle offense into place. Without that offense he was never able to win a championship.</div>And do you really think that he wouldn't have won a ring without Phil? I'm not sure if he'd have still won six but he'd have probably won a couple. He probably also wouldn't have retired to play baseball sans the three peat

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tHe_pEsTiLeNcE @ Apr 7 2007, 11:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>And do you really think that he wouldn't have won a ring without Phil? I'm not sure if he'd have still won six but he'd have probably won a couple. He probably also wouldn't have retired to play baseball sans the three peat</div>
I hope you realize that before Scottie Pippen came into the leauge Jordan was never on an above .500 team, however he still made the playoffs ever year. Actually, I believe in his sophomore year he had a 30 win season. They never got past the first round until Pippen came into the league and then the Bulsl became succesful. Phil Jackson, Scottie Pippen, Dennis Rodman and all those great role palyers played a huge role over-time to Jordan's rings. Jordan may have won 1 ring without Phil's triangle offense and coaching mastermind.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GArenas @ Apr 7 2007, 10:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I hope you realize that before Scottie Pippen came into the leauge Jordan was never on an above .500 team, however he still made the playoffs ever year. Actually, I believe in his sophomore year he had a 30 win season. They never got past the first round until Pippen came into the league and then the Bulsl became succesful. Phil Jackson, Scottie Pippen, Dennis Rodman and all those great role palyers played a huge role over-time to Jordan's rings. Jordan may have won 1 ring without Phil's triangle offense and coaching mastermind.</div>MJ was out most of his 2nd year. Success, no matter how great of a player you are, is dependent on the team, not just one individual. MJ could have won championships in other systems with other role players as long as they were adequete enough and built properly around MJ and his skills. That goes for any great player wanting to win a ring.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Nitro1118 @ Apr 7 2007, 11:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>MJ was out most of his 2nd year.

Success, no matter how great of a player you are, is dependent on the team, not just one individual. MJ could have won championships in other systems with other role players as long as they were adequete enough and built properly around MJ and his skills. That goes for any great player wanting to win a ring.</div>
Still, even with Jordan playing all 82 games in his rookie and third year in the league the Bulls never eclipsed .500.

I was with you on this btw, Pestilicance said that Jordan would've won a ring even w/o jackson/squad and I disagreed with that. No one person can win a chip himself.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GArenas @ Apr 7 2007, 10:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Still, even with Jordan playing all 82 games in his rookie and third year in the league the Bulls never eclipsed .500.I was with you on this btw, Pestilicance said that Jordan would've won a ring even w/o jackson/squad and I disagreed with that. No one person can win a chip himself.</div>Yes, but look at the top teams of the league, and the squad Jordan had around him.I agree a bit with both of you. Nobody can win a ring by themselves, but Jordan didn't need Phil and Pippen to do it. As long as the team was adequete enough, Jordan could have won a ring without the triangle and without Pippen.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Nitro1118 @ Apr 7 2007, 11:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Yes, but look at the top teams of the league, and the squad Jordan had around him.

I agree a bit with both of you. Nobody can win a ring by themselves, but Jordan didn't need Phil and Pippen to do it. As long as the team was adequete enough, Jordan could have won a ring without the triangle and without Pippen.</div>
I was just making the point that it wasn't all Jordan who did the "chip winning".

Also, of course Jordan could have won a ring on another roster. However that roster would still need to be championship ready with solid veteran and young role players with a good coach. Jordan's squads when he became succesful were stacked. You could not put Jordan on one of today's mediocre but not completely dying franchises like Portland or New York and expect them to win a chip. He may not need that specific Bulls squad but he would need a succesful franchise.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I hope you realize that before Scottie Pippen came into the leauge Jordan was never on an above .500 team, however he still made the playoffs ever year. Actually, I believe in his sophomore year he had a 30 win season. They never got past the first round until Pippen came into the league and then the Bulsl became succesful. Phil Jackson, Scottie Pippen, Dennis Rodman and all those great role palyers played a huge role over-time to Jordan's rings. Jordan may have won 1 ring without Phil's triangle offense and coaching mastermind.</div>You made my point for me. It was pippen, rodman, even armstrong, kerr, paxon, longley, and all those role players, who won them their championships.