Jim Jackson played great for the Suns...You are talking out of your ass. In the first game, he had to play 41 minutes, but he went 8/16 from the field with 4 threes, for a total of 20 points, and not to mention that he had 8 rebounds.Yeah your right, Joe Johnson was out for the entire series...O wait a second! He missed 2 games and the Suns still lost 2-1 in the next 3. They practically did just as good with him as they did without him. And if you put a PG like Jason Kidd on that team, they would be just as good. His passing ability would be brought to a new level, and even though he wouldnt score as much as Nash, he is a much better defender, rebounder, and IMO, just as good of a passer. Kidd would average at the very least 10 assists on that team. Hell, I believe he could average just as many as Nash. You put any really good pass first PG in Nash' situation and they are going to flourish.
I don't think anyone thought the Suns would beat the Spurs that year...at least no one I knew did. The Spurs were definitely the better team that year. I even thought they would win in 6, and I was more of a homer than I am now. Johnson was a big loss. We were 3 deep in that series pretty much and he would have helped in those first two, close games.We wont be as good trust me. You go ask a board of knowledgable Suns fans, older fellas, who saw both players plenty of times and they would laugh at you and destroy you in a debate about that. Want me to provide a forum to ask that question on? I've tried to convince you, but if you're so sure about your opinion on that maybe you can go argue with people who know more than me and don't have such a challenge typing what they want to say like I do sometimes. Nash is perfect for this team. No one would do a better job leading the Suns than him. How many Western Conference teams has Kidd beaten in his playoff career, much less "proven" ones?
That is why I said the Suns were better personel wise...The Spurs were playing great that year. I will give you that.Nobody would change my opinion....Its my opinion for a reason. lol Kidd is a great passer (his skills would be brought out even more if he played for the Suns), he can rebound the basketball very well (best in recent history for a guard), and he is a MUCH better defender than Nash. You wouldnt see guys like Tony Parker do anything they want against the Suns like you see now. Nash is a perfect fit for the Suns, I just feel even though Kidd is a little less offensivley talented, his defense and rebounding would help out alot as well.And as for you questioning Kidd's credibility in the playoffs, its pretty sad. Kidd hasnt had half the talent that Nash has had, and also, he has lost to the same teams as the Suns pretty much. Give Kidd all of that talent and it might be a different story.
Give Nash healthy talent and it would be a different story also. And the Suns wouldn't be near the offensive team without Nash. They might be close record wise, but those clutch, great wins that they had in the playoffs wouldn't happen with Kidd's bricks. They'd lose in the 2nd round each year instead of making the WCF.If you are so sure about yourself, give it a shot. I double dog dare you. http://www.arizonasportsfans.com/vb/index.php
What do you mean they wouldnt be near the offensive team. Look at how Kidd does with far less talent surrounding him. Do you think that he wouldnt get at least 13 and 10 on this team? If you dont, your nuts. And like I told you, Nash is a better offensive player, but Kidd is one of the best defensive PG's in the league. That is enough for me right there...EDIT: Im pretty sure that Kidd could lead his team past the Clippers and whoever they beat the prior year...Its not like the Suns have beaten anybody great...Its not like they are beating the Spurs and Mavs everyear.
Nash wins us games with his shooting. Kidd always lost us games with his shooting. Like I said if you're so sure, give it a shot. I said everything I've needed to say over the last month.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ballerman2112 @ Apr 12 2007, 09:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>What do you mean they wouldnt be near the offensive team. Look at how Kidd does with far less talent surrounding him. Do you think that he wouldnt get at least 13 and 10 on this team? If you dont, your nuts. And like I told you, Nash is a better offensive player, but Kidd is one of the best defensive PG's in the league. That is enough for me right there...EDIT: Im pretty sure that Kidd could lead his team past the Clippers and whoever they beat the prior year...Its not like the Suns have beaten anybody great...Its not like they are beating the Spurs and Mavs everyear.</div>Without Nash to come up in the clutch and score like he has we wouldn't win those close series, the Clipps or Lakers would have beaten us. We wouldn't win Game 6 against the Mavs 2 years ago if Kidd replaced Nash.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>What do you mean they wouldnt be near the offensive team. Look at how Kidd does with far less talent surrounding him.</div>Kid's got VC and richard jefferson and Nenad Kristic. His supporting cast isn't great, but it's good and should be enough to win at least 50 games if he's as valuable as Nash. Amare and Marion are the only suns who have ever been able to do anything without Nash, Nash doesn't just get 18-11, he also is responsible for making other players improve (even beyond his assists). Diaw, Bell, Jim Jackson, etc are Steve Nash creations
Nash is about a 8-11% better shooter in everything almost in his whole career combined, so they aren't as close offensively as you say. We have good individual defensive players, but our overall D is just average...Kidd's defense wouldn't make as much of a difference as Nash's shooting and clutch play does for us. And Nash usually isn't bad on defense either. He's just not fast, but Kidd isn't either, especially after the knee surgeries and his age. He wouldn't do much better against guys like Parker. We don't lose games because of his defense. We did lose games with Kidd because of his shooting.
There are only 3 MVP Candidates. Dirk, Nash, and Duncan. Only on 5 occasions has a MVP gone to a player that is not the best on a top 3 team.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (LBJ @ Apr 12 2007, 09:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>There are only 3 MVP Candidates. Dirk, Nash, and Duncan. Only on 5 occasions has a MVP gone to a player that is not the best on a top 3 team.</div>exactly, but Kobe will probably get the third most votes anyway.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tHe_pEsTiLeNcE @ Apr 12 2007, 11:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Kid's got VC and richard jefferson and Nenad Kristic. His supporting cast isn't great, but it's good and should be enough to win at least 50 games if he's as valuable as Nash. Amare and Marion are the only suns who have ever been able to do anything without Nash, Nash doesn't just get 18-11, he also is responsible for making other players improve (even beyond his assists). <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Diaw, Bell, Jim Jackson, etc are Steve Nash creations.</div></div>I don't agree with that much at all, sure they have had their best years with Nash, but that this is also the years they have gotten to play the most. Anyone with playing time is going to get better than what they used to be. Raja Bell before he got to Phoenix never averaged over 30 minutes per game. In Utah the year before he got to Phoenix he averaged 12.4 points per game, on 45 percent shooting on 28 minutes per game. The next year in Phoenix he averaged 37 minutes per game, while scoring 14.7 points per game, at again 45 percent shooting. So an up in playing time can be attributed to his points per game going up, just as much as Nash being his teamate can. Boris Diaw was a 2nd year player the year before he got traded to Phoenix and only averaged 18 minutes per game. He was helped out alot by playing time, and the amount of time he got to touch the ball. Leandro Barbosa had only averaged at most 21 minutes per game before Nash got there, and it wasn't until Nash's second year there that Barbosa started playing 28 minutes per game, and then 32.8 this year. So once again, a rise in playing time is going to make a rise in figures and production.Now I do believe that Nash has helped them transition into this league, and helped them get better, but I would hardly say they are Nash creations. With playing time anywhere else, I think they could be producing almost the same way as they are now.
Well for those who care, these are the votes that I think both players have gotten so far. I think it's their actual vote and not just guesses because Thomsen, McCallum and Burns really did vote that way. :Votes for Nowitzki:Mark SteinStephen A. SmithGreg AnthonyCharles BarkleyKenny SmithIan ThomsenVotes for Nash:Tim LeglerScoop JacksonBill WaltonReggie MillerDoug Smith (Toronto Star)Marty BurnsJack McCallum
It's hard to vote against Nash for the fact that his super talented Suns teammates literally turn into scrubs without him. But, if Dirk doesn't win it this year, something is very very wrong.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Scoop Jackson</div>Scoop Jackson the racist Nash hater has finally turned over to his side?btw, John Hollinger is going to vote for Chuck Hayes, I mean Dirk...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tHe_pEsTiLeNcE @ Apr 14 2007, 01:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Scoop Jackson the racist Nash hater has finally turned over to his side?btw, John Hollinger is going to vote for Chuck Hayes, I mean Dirk...</div>Whoa, I guess he did. I was expecting him to have Dirk, then Kobe, then maybe LeBron or Nash. :-o
Even if you already wrote the article, some good 5th spot candidates could be: T-mac, Lebron, Bosh?...... maybe even Billups.Not real sure on the last one.
