^ wow you love kidd that much, i have no idea what you are talking about i don't think ive seen kidd get doubled teamed once
ya...i dont ever remember seeing kidd get double teamed. whos talking about CAREERS anyway? The article was about the current order of point gaurds in the NBA and there is no way that kidd is the best player out of all of them. Also, What difference does it make how they get the assists as long as they get them? Iverson, Arenas, and Marbury single handedly break down defences and get their teammates Wide open looks, becasue so much attention is drawn to them. And while Kidd may average about 4 more rebounds, and maybe 1 more assist than these players, They bring so much more to their teams. Imagine Kidd on a team without a dominant scorer like Vince carter or Richard Jefferson. he would be forced to carry more of the load for his team, much like iverson, arenas, etc. In a situation like that kidd would struggle, where as the rest of these gaurds still make up for alot of their teams output. Also...why is ONE players ability based upon the TEAMS success?
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Iverson, Arenas, and Marbury single handedly break down defences and get their teammates Wide open looks, becasue so much attention is drawn to them</div> Ok and they are scoring guards not pure point guards. They are basically shooting guards stuck in a point guards body. It doesn't matter anyway because other than Arenas, nor Marbury or Iverson are winning anything. Imagine the Sixers and the Knicks without proper point guards....oh wait they don't have them and that might be reason each of them are losing. They have talent but none share the ball around, like Kidd does. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">In a situation like that kidd would struggle, where as the rest of these gaurds still make up for alot of their teams output</div> Yet 2 of the 3 guards you mentioned aren't getting winning records or making the playoffs.
ok well which team do you think would be better: the nets with kidd or the nets with iverson/Arenas? with all the other players on the nets being the same as they are now. your arguement about who's team isgoing to be winning next season means nothing. If your arguement were true then you could say that Udonis Haslem is a better power forward than kevin Garnett because he won a championchip last year and Garnett didnt even make the playoffs.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">the nets with kidd or the nets with iverson/Arenas</div> So you would add another scorer to a team that doesn't need one, than a pass first guard. The Knicks did that and look where they are now. Not to mention Sixers haven't been contending much either.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Answer_AI03:</div><div class="quote_post">Also, What difference does it make how they get the assists as long as they get them?</div> That's exactly the point. Jason Kidd's assist ratio was 4th in the league, while Iverson's was 62nd and Arenas' was 66th. Kidd handles his point guard duties efficiently while still averaging double digits in scoring. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting Answer_AI03:</div><div class="quote_post">Imagine Kidd on a team without a dominant scorer like Vince carter or Richard Jefferson. he would be forced to carry more of the load for his team, much like iverson, arenas, etc. In a situation like that kidd would struggle, where as the rest of these gaurds still make up for alot of their teams output.</div> Let's take a look back at the 02-03 Nets. Kerry Kittles was a great role player, but not a dominant scorer. Jefferson was still young and was not a dominant scorer. Kenyon Martin was not a dominant scorer; the majority of his points came off of Kidd's passes on the break. And Jason Collins was certainly not a scorer. The team was successful without one. Jason Kidd fueled the offense, and he knew how to distribute the ball extremely well. He didn't need to carry the scoring load, and he certainly didn't struggle.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Let's take a look back at the 02-03 Nets. Kerry Kittles was a great role player, but not a dominant scorer. Jefferson was still young and was not a dominant scorer. Kenyon Martin was not a dominant scorer; the majority of his points came off of Kidd's passes on the break. And Jason Collins was certainly not a scorer. The team was successful without one. Jason Kidd fueled the offense, and he knew how to distribute the ball extremely well. He didn't need to carry the scoring load, and he certainly didn't struggle</div> Damn gifted, good post. I have no idea how I forgot about this.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Answer_AI03:</div><div class="quote_post">ok well which team do you think would be better: the nets with kidd or the nets with iverson/Arenas?</div> The Nets would do much better with Jason Kidd rather than Arenas/Iverson. Iverson or Arenas would want to be the first option and so would Vince. Then after that RJ wouldn't want to be the third option. They will all fight over what thier roles would be. With Kidd he's a playmaker and makes the scorers jobs much easier. AI or Arenas wouldn't be able to set up plays for Carter or Jefferson as good as Kidd does right now.
That was also one of the weakest years the eastern conference has ever had. Also, im not saying that kidd is a bad player or even mediocre by any means. He's still one of the best. Theres just better players than him RIGHT NOW. I think if Chris paul ups his assists and scoring a little he could overtake kidd too. I'll give you iverson and arenas do turn the ball over a little too much, but its tolerable becasue they do so much more. If iverson averages 33 points a game and also gets about 7.5 assists, then that accounts for almost 50 points a game from one player. i could live with a bad assist/turnover ratio as long as one player is accomplishing that. Its not like kidd had no help. That team was actually pretty good. All the players you mentioned from the 02-03 nets were still pretty good players. not dominant scorers, but pretty good players to say the least. That team started out with kieth van horn and todd macculloch, and later got mutumbo. so there success really wasnt all because of kidd. I would say the team defense that they had that year is what propelled them into the finals.
Iverson and Arenas are not really point guards. They are more of shooting guards. Kidd is a pure point guard. A pure point guard is someone who isn't thier team's first shooting option.
I totally agree that iverson and arenas are not pure point gaurds. They do more than just pass. They score a ton, they get steals, they hit big shots, and completely change the game. I've heard more than one coach say that the only other player besides shaq that forces them to make serious adjustments to their defense is allen iverson. I think kobe and arenas probably fit that catagory too now. But iverson and arenas are a couple of the best players for any position in the whole NBA. when i think of GREAT players, Kidd just isnt one of the ones that comes to mind.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I'll give you iverson and arenas do turn the ball over a little too much, but its tolerable becasue they do so much more. If iverson averages 33 points a game and also gets about 7.5 assists, then that accounts for almost 50 points a game from one player. i could live with a bad assist/turnover ratio as long as one player is </div> That's really great but is Iverson winning with that "50 pts"? From what I hear is that they have a scorer, but they need a passer. Pure Point Guards (no specific order) Steve Nash Jason Kidd Chris Paul Scoring Point Guards Tony Parker Gilbert Arenas Allen Iverson They are different kinds of players,yet they are being compared as if they are the same. You can compare Nash to Kidd but you can't really compare Iverson to Kidd. Can you compare Martin to Nash? No because they are different players, just like pure point guards and scoring guards.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Answer_AI03:</div><div class="quote_post">Imagine Kidd on a team without a dominant scorer like Vince carter or Richard Jefferson. he would be forced to carry more of the load for his team, much like iverson, arenas, etc. In a situation like that kidd would struggle, where as the rest of these gaurds still make up for alot of their teams output. Also...why is ONE players ability based upon the TEAMS success?</div> Oh really? So what about the team that won 2 straight East Titles? Carter wasn't there. Martin led the Nets in scoring in the regular season with 14.9ppg while Kidd averaged 14.7ppg and had 9.9 apg. Yeah Kidd struggled in that one, because he led the Nets in scoring in all of the playoff series, and oh. he also averaged 17.5 ppg, 10.2 apg and 11.2 rpg in the East Finals. He really choked that time huh? And another thing, your Marbury led the Nets the previous year to a whopping 26-56 record! And why is ONE players ability based upon the TEAMS success? DUH!? Doesn't deserve an answer.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Answer_AI03:</div><div class="quote_post">That was also one of the weakest years the eastern conference has ever had. </div> uh really? So what happend to the Sixers? Washington? New York?The great scorers that they had wasn't able to win in the east that you say was weak? Hmmm, but the less scoring Kidd led the Nets to 2 straight winning seasons.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Answer_AI03:</div><div class="quote_post">I totally agree that iverson and arenas are not pure point gaurds. </div> So what's there to argue about? The thread is about the best point guards not 2 guards.
I already said that Kidd is a great player. I dont deny that one bit. But this year I will take iverson, or arenas, or nash, or even paul over kidd any day of the week. He's a great passer, but he doesnt keep the defence honost because he isnt an offensive threat. teams are able to double carter, or jefferson because kidd isnt going to consistantly knock down the open shot. I'm really getting sick of people talking about team accomplishments. If Kidd is better than any other point gaurd because he went to the finals twice, then Kevin Garnett is not one of the best Pfs of all time because he cant carry his team by himself, even though he is one of the most well rounded players to ever play basketball. Same with paul pierce, Lebron james never made the finals either and i dont think your gonna tell me kidd is better than him. If lebron played strictly point gaurd he would be the second or third best in the whole group if not the first. i dont think i would even put kidd in the top 30 players in the whole league.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">The thread is about the best point guards not 2 guards</div> The arguement is, Iverson and arenas DO play pointgaurd for their teams. though their talented enough to play more than one position.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">But this year I will take iverson, or arenas, or nash, or even paul over kidd any day of the week.</div> It all depends on what the team needs. If I need an undersized scorer I will take Iverson or Arenas over Nash,Paul and Kidd. If I need a passer I would take Nash,Paul or Kidd. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">He's a great passer, but he doesnt keep the defence honost because he isnt an offensive threat.</div> And Nash isn't a defensive threat, and yet you don't have a problem with that. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">teams are able to double carter, or jefferson because kidd isnt going to consistantly knock down the open shot.</div> They can't be double teamed at the same time. If Jeff is doubled, Carter is free and vice versa. The only reason Kidd only shoots open shots is because the offense doesn't run through him. If it did he would play like Nash and Paul. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">If Kidd is better than any other point gaurd because he went to the finals twice, then Kevin Garnett is not one of the best Pfs of all time because he cant carry his team by himself, even though he is one of the most well rounded players to ever play basketball.</div> Did you forget how many times Kidd put players on another level? From Dallas to PHX to NJ. That big paycheck that Martin got was pratically because of Kidd. We still haven't seen him live up to it without Kidd. KG is a well rounded player but he is a loser just like Marbury. I'm not trying to diss him but he has never won anything. Great player but can't seem to carry his team. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Same with paul pierce, Lebron james never made the finals either and i dont think your gonna tell me kidd is better than him. If lebron played strictly point gaurd he would be the second or third best in the whole group if not the first.</div> Lebron a point guard...are you serious? He's a scorer, not a passer. His job is to score and not to distribute the ball. BTW, he has been in the league for a short time so, he still has time to make it to the finals. And I can't say that Kidd is better than him. Why? Because they have different roles and jobs on the team. Are you going to say Lebron is a better playmaker than Kidd? No! Is he a way better scorer. Yes! <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">i dont think i would even put kidd in the top 30 players in the whole league.</div> Now that's just sad.
i understand where your coming fromand i do agree that kid is a great passer and he makes players better. but im just saying that there are better gaurds right now. these days the position is defined very loosely. Kidd has had an amazing career, possibly one of the best pgs ever. but there are plenty of players that are better than him right now. not better careers, but better PLAYERS right now.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Answer_AI03:</div><div class="quote_post">The arguement is, Iverson and arenas DO play pointgaurd for their teams. though their talented enough to play more than one position.</div> Please read the title of the thread dude, "best at the point", not 2 guards who can play the point. If this was a thread about the best guards generally and not "specifically" point guards then Iverson may have an edge over Kidd. But it's not... it's about the best "POINT" guard. It's like saying that Michael Jordan was the better point guard than Magic, because MJ who played point at times and is a better scorer than Magic. Of course not, Magic is the better player at the PG position than MJ. Man do I have to break it down for you? KEYWORD: POINT GUARD
