ESPN TOP 10 point guards of all time

[mjsaver]

Originally Posted by Osh Kosh Bosh

Originally Posted by MJsaver

If he didnt lead that team , then not many people EVER lead their team.

Teams get to championships, we have this habit of overrating the impact of one player. TEAMS win games, it's that simple.

EVERY TEAM HAS A LEADER, maybe even 2.

GP was the leader of that team Plain & Simple.

Did i say HE ''CARRIED'' THAT TEAM??? No i did not.

 

[vahustler]

stockton over Nash? no sir. I seen both play for many years and Nash is if not the best passer ever... at least top 3. Too many people judge by stats. Onlyedge stockton had was better defense....which is part of the reason why Gary Payton and J.kidd should beat out those two at pg spot.

 

[scottsauce88]

Originally Posted by VAHustler

stockton over Nash? no sir. I seen both play for many years and Nash is if not the best passer ever... at least top 3. Too many people judge by stats. Only edge stockton had was better defense....which is part of the reason why Gary Payton and J.kidd should beat out those two at pg spot.

so stockton isnt a great passer either???? I mean, if the only edge is defense, which is half the game and stockon was a much better defenderthan Nash, then I would say it is pretty safe to say Stockton was a better PG than Nash even if he wasnt as good on offense, which he was.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Originally Posted by MJsaver

Originally Posted by Osh Kosh Bosh

Originally Posted by MJsaver

If he didnt lead that team , then not many people EVER lead their team.

Teams get to championships, we have this habit of overrating the impact of one player. TEAMS win games, it's that simple.

EVERY TEAM HAS A LEADER, maybe even 2.

GP was the leader of that team Plain & Simple.

Did i say HE ''CARRIED'' THAT TEAM??? No i did not.

So why is your point relevant to this argument, GP was lucky enough to be on a team that went to the finals.

 

[vahustler]

Didn't say stockton wasn't a great passer. I know he was. I just believe Nash is better in that aspect. I also think Nash offense outweighs Stocktondefense. Nash is also more of a leader to his team (not saying Stockton wasn't a leader). Hence the MVP's

 

[mjsaver]

Originally Posted by Osh Kosh Bosh

Originally Posted by MJsaver

Originally Posted by Osh Kosh Bosh

Originally Posted by MJsaver

If he didnt lead that team , then not many people EVER lead their team.

Teams get to championships, we have this habit of overrating the impact of one player. TEAMS win games, it's that simple.

EVERY TEAM HAS A LEADER, maybe even 2.

GP was the leader of that team Plain & Simple.

Did i say HE ''CARRIED'' THAT TEAM??? No i did not.

So why is your point relevant to this argument, GP was lucky enough to be on a team that went to the finals.

I hope youre being sarcastic.

Do you think they wouldve made it w/o him.

While he didnt put the put the whole team on his back, he DEFINITELY played a HUGE role in that Finals run.

I was making that point because somebody said GP never '' led'' his team to the Finals.

Your qoute of me where u replied that teams win chips & not players is the one that wasnt relevant imo.

 

[Lizakers]

Originally Posted by Jdiddy931

has Nash ever even led his team to the Finals?

9. GP
10. Billups

Has the glove? No.
he was the All-Star PG on the team with the 64 wins. of course he led them to the Finals
he averaged 19 & 8 that season, he wasn't just some role player who's team made it to the finals
he led them there
but I get your point on Nash's stats, but I think not having even a conference championship hurts his legacy

 

[osh kosh bosh]

All I am saying is we are talking about an individual performance, ranking players based on how well there team performs or the championships they one does notmake a lot of sense to me.

 

[scottsauce88]

Originally Posted by VAHustler

Didn't say stockton wasn't a great passer. I know he was. I just believe Nash is better in that aspect. I also think Nash offense outweighs Stockton defense. Nash is also more of a leader to his team (not saying Stockton wasn't a leader). Hence the MVP's

hence never making it to the finals either

 

[mjsaver]

^^

OSH KOSK: we have to take chips and team success into acct as well.

While that cant be the whole story, winning always determines greatness.

As we can see by most of the ALL-TIME greats having multiple chips.

Stats are important too , but it has to be a combo of #'s and wins.

 

[jdiddy931]

Originally Posted by Lizaker4Lizife

Originally Posted by Jdiddy931

has Nash ever even led his team to the Finals?




9. GP


10. Billups

Has the glove? No.

he was the All-Star PG on the team with the 64 wins. of course he led them to the Finals
he averaged 19 & 8 that season, he wasn't just some role player who's team made it to the finals
he led them there
but I get your point on Nash's stats, but I think not having even a conference championship hurts his legacy





Yo man my bad I thought you meant winning the finals.. I didn't know you meant leading them INTO the finals. You right. My Bad

 

[roll 22]

Originally Posted by Emmanuel Goldstein

top 7 is fine with me ... after that, ehhhh

 

[hampisaboss]

Originally Posted by Trelvis Tha Thrilla

I dont know if Nash belongs there. I just think he is way overrated and benefitted from a system.

 

[CP1708]

Osh has to underrate rings to defend Nash because if he doesn't, Nash would get excluded from each and every argument. I don't care what NBA player wetalk about, when it comes to greats, and greatness, rings are ALWAYS included. There isn't a whole in Ewing, Malone, Stockton, Barkley and Reggie'sresume for nothing. When you talk about Duncan vs Malone, why does Duncan win? Rings. Hakeem over Ewing? Rings. If you're talkin about Barkley vsMalone, ok then, rings don't matter cuz neither got one, but if one guy led his team to a title, or more, then they HAVE to get credit for that becausethat is what the true great ones play for. Tryna tell me Nash just plays for fun or something? He's tryin to win a ring right? And he's failed. Hecan't even get to the damn finals. GP got there. Billups did. Parker did. KJ did. That's what they play for. So it matters, and it matters a lot. I don't care who was on what team. Russell got like 8 other hall of famers on his teams, we discredit his rings? Hell no.

And GP would devestate Nash in their primes, anybody who don't think that is clueless. Payton wasn't called the glove because he hung out on MichaelJackson's hand. He was THEE defensive PG, and one of the best ever. Dude spent time defending MJ, lockin up Nash woulda been no prob compared to thatnoise.

 

[truthteller]

CP1708 wrote:
Payton wasn't called the glove because he hung out on Michael Jackson's hand. He was THEE defensive PG, and one of the best ever. Dude spent time defending MJ, lockin up Nash woulda been no prob compared to that noise.

 

[u ttocs]

I'd put Payton ahead of Kidd. Payton might be the greatest defensive point guard of all time. There was a time when him and Stockton were neck and neck fortop pg in the game.

 

[shoepacalypse]

Nash in a sense is stockton 2.0. Game play/team is pretty similar.The arguement about era of playing is kinda flawed.If you good simply put your good. Jordanwould have been an extrodinary player in todays game his era 60's 70's. A moment in time doesnt affect the way you play. The goal is still the sameheight etc. Nash is a better ball handler bar none. Passing is apples and oranges. To the whole rings mean things is also flawed. Duncan is better then malonecause well he is just a better player then malone. Hakeem is a better player the Ewing period with or without rings. Thats like saying dumars is better theniverson. Rings or not iverson is the better player. Stats do hold some merits but isnt a deciding factor. Sports is one of the few things in life where theresnot a scientific methology for choosing whose the better player.

 

[dland24]

Originally Posted by Xtapolapacetl

Originally Posted by Lizaker4Lizife

has Nash ever even led his team to the Finals?

9. GP
10. Billups

To be fair, his best shot at making the finals was ruined by a cheap shot flop:

Fixed

 

[jdiddy931]

By the way... game play wasn't as competitive as it is now. I was watching a game last night from the 03-04 season.. and i laughed how whack teams werefrom seasons back. You look at teams nowadays and you have stack teams with more competition. Some teams back then that had great records wouldn't lastwith the present.

I don't know where this coming from but I'm just letting out steam that bugs me.