The Official NBA Season Thread: Fries Discourse | Mavs vs Jazz

I know we'll all be bouncing our kids on our knees telling them about the time that....

Jason Kidd beat the 2003 Detroit Pistons and then got swept in the finals.
 
I know we'll all be bouncing our kids on our knees telling them about the time that....

Jason Kidd beat the 2003 Detroit Pistons and then got swept in the finals.

Lead his team to 2 finals, eventually won one with Dirk…

Meanwhile Nash never lead his teams anywhere
 
I know we'll all be bouncing our kids on our knees telling them about the time that....

Jason Kidd beat the 2003 Detroit Pistons and then got swept in the finals.
That was 02. They lost in 6 to SA in 03.

Not the strongest conference sure, but until Sheed was in the picture they took care of the pistons easily. And even with Sheed in 04 it was a 7 game battle. That same Piston team won it all, nets gave em the biggest challenge.
 
Only reason Nash didn’t make the finals was because Robert Horry.

 
Last edited:
77 Finals on NBA TV right now…Pace is crazy and Lionel Hollins was nice :lol:
The irony of saying pace and Lionel Hollins, when Memphis let him go for grit and grind, along for not listening to Hollinger and his analytics, and said the eye test was better than numbers.
 
Kidd over Nash because his offense is better than Nash's defense.

And sure, defense matters least at that position but you can see that its pretty much impossible to win a ring with weak point-of-attack defense. Kidd could guard 1-3 while Nash was a liability at every spot defensively.

And while sure, those Nets teams weren't very good and played in the weakest conference of my lifetime, Nash played with an amazing roster of players during his time in Phoneix. Marion, Joe Cool, Amare, Diaw, etc

Also, end of the day you saw it down the stretch of their careers. Kidd got a ring at the end as a starter cause he maintained his defensive value late into his career.
 
Kidd >> but I'm biased lol

It ain't Kidd's nor the Nets fault the eastern conference was "weak."
 
Kidd over Nash because his offense is better than Nash's defense.

And sure, defense matters least at that position but you can see that its pretty much impossible to win a ring with weak point-of-attack defense. Kidd could guard 1-3 while Nash was a liability at every spot defensively.

And while sure, those Nets teams weren't very good and played in the weakest conference of my lifetime, Nash played with an amazing roster of players during his time in Phoneix. Marion, Joe Cool, Amare, Diaw, etc

Also, end of the day you saw it down the stretch of their careers. Kidd got a ring at the end as a starter cause he maintained his defensive value late into his career.
Nash was 9th in MVP voting when he was the age Kidd was when he won with the Mavs. He was better than Kidd at that age. He just happened to be playing with Marcia Gortat as the team’s leading scorer instead of Dirk :lol:
 
He could put up better offensive numbers, sure, but as I said, he handicapped his teams because it's impossible to have a top 5 defense with someone so weak at the point-of-attack. And you're not winning a ring with a defense outside of the top 10, and most likely outside of the top 5.

My point is when Kidd aged he had way more value as a role player because he could guard wings. Nash's value craters if the ball isn't in his hands. Kidd's last year on the Knicks, he was still our most important player at times because of his combination of defense, passing and shooting while once Nash lost some off the bounce juice, he was a huge liability in those Laker years.

People can prefer Nash, there is no right answer here, but I value defense way more than most people here which so Nash is kind of a hard sell for me because I find it hard to construct a championship roster that covered for his inefficiencies.
 
Back
Top Bottom