You have one vote for the HOF, Nash or AI?

[23mcpizzle23]

Originally Posted by Stack Bundless

To easy, A.I. by a landslide

 

[seymore cake]

Another one of those why is this even being discussed. Allen Iverson easily.

Honestly that 05/06 season he shouldn't have gotten the award... It should've went to Dirk or Kobe but thats a story for another day.

bottomline Nash has always had a crew around him his entire professional career, and can be pointed at as being the liability for them not fulfilling theirpotential.

Originally Posted by CP1708

Now someone answer me what in the blue hell Nash woulda done with McKie, Hill, Deke, and Bell? What would wonderful Mr Nash do with that squad? Would he carry them to the finals?

Thought not.

A snowballs chance in hell they make it past the 1st round.

 

[youngcfromthad]

A.I.

 

[lil stevie728]

Steve Nash is a good player but his impact and effect on the game was nowhere near AI's. AI was a one-man team. He would put the Sixers on his back andevery night, they would have a chance to win against anybody, just because #3 was on the floor. Nash was great in D'antoni's system but he always had alot of help to make it look better too. Two All-Star caliber players in Amare and Marion as well as Barbosa, one of the best 6th men in the league year in andyear out.

I'm sorry but 20-30 years from now, when talking about the best players from this era, players who defined this generation of the NBA post-MJ then AllenIverson will always be one of the first to be named, along with Kobe, KG, Duncan and Shaq. Nash wouldn't even be on my radar in that discussion.

If Nash had gotten to the Suns/D'antoni earlier in his career and had some more success, then you could make an argument for him.

Like mentioned, surround prime AI and prime Nash with mediocre/average players. AI's team would do better, just because he was that good of a scorer andcould take over a game single-handed.

 

[swyftdahoe]

Yeah, without a doubt AI.. AI is without-a-doubt a 1st ballot HOF'er to me..
That said, Nash should make it by 2nd ballot..

 

[651akathepaul]

I just wanted to throw this in the mix. I said earlier I would take AI in this debate (or lack thereof), but with people saying Nash was surrounded by greatplayers and Iverson wasn't I think is not only a moot point, but not very well thought of.

Iverson, although it is the latter half of his career, has been surrounded by great talent, yet because of his style of play, the teams still aren't thatgreat. Iverson was only successful with Philly because no one else could score and that played right into Iverson's strengths. He is not a passer, and ifhe had more talent around him he most likely wouldn't have won anyway. He may have had a great name next to him as a sidekick, but the only impact I couldsee would be someone who puts up decent numbers, but really has no intangible value to the team.

 

[nycknicks105]

AI...and its not even close.

 

[CP1708]

651akathePaul wrote:

---

I just wanted to throw this in the mix. I said earlier I would take AI in this debate (or lack thereof), but with people saying Nash was surrounded by great players and Iverson wasn't I think is not only a moot point, but not very well thought of.

Iverson, although it is the latter half of his career, has been surrounded by great talent, yet because of his style of play, the teams still aren't that great. Iverson was only successful with Philly because no one else could score and that played right into Iverson's strengths. He is not a passer, and if he had more talent around him he most likely wouldn't have won anyway. He may have had a great name next to him as a sidekick, but the only impact I could see would be someone who puts up decent numbers, but really has no intangible value to the team.




Allow me.

6.8
7.9
7.4
7.2
7.1

Those are the assist numbers for AI who "isn't a passer" as you put it, while Super Nash gets from 10 to 11 as a "great passer" as issaid about him. AI gets his assists with scrubs, up until Melo came into his life, Nash has played with Dirk, Stat, Marion, and in Don Nelson andD'Antoni's style of offense his whole career.

4 assists less, yet he was also averaging 30 points a game while he was gettin 7.5 assists a game. Nash tops out at around 18 or so for a career high.

But, AI "isn't a passer" like Mr Wonderful.

Continue........

 

[phillypac]

AI

 

[hustleordie]

Originally Posted by CP1708

651akathePaul wrote:

---

I just wanted to throw this in the mix. I said earlier I would take AI in this debate (or lack thereof), but with people saying Nash was surrounded by great players and Iverson wasn't I think is not only a moot point, but not very well thought of.

Iverson, although it is the latter half of his career, has been surrounded by great talent, yet because of his style of play, the teams still aren't that great. Iverson was only successful with Philly because no one else could score and that played right into Iverson's strengths. He is not a passer, and if he had more talent around him he most likely wouldn't have won anyway. He may have had a great name next to him as a sidekick, but the only impact I could see would be someone who puts up decent numbers, but really has no intangible value to the team.

Allow me.

6.8
7.9
7.4
7.2
7.1

Those are the assist numbers for AI who "isn't a passer" as you put it, while Super Nash gets from 10 to 11 as a "great passer" as is said about him. AI gets his assists with scrubs, up until Melo came into his life, Nash has played with Dirk, Stat, Marion, and in Don Nelson and D'Antoni's style of offense his whole career.

4 assists less, yet he was also averaging 30 points a game while he was gettin 7.5 assists a game. Nash tops out at around 18 or so for a career high.

But, AI "isn't a passer" like Mr Wonderful.

Continue........



If Eric Snow could hit a jumpshot...........

 

[supafly122]

Al, easily. and i think Nash did deserve his 1st Mvp he got, but his second one was for Kobe...no one else

 

[agentpd21]

AI

 

[size 15 please]

AI

 

[agthekid]

Originally Posted by Fede DPT

Wow. People think that Steve Nash is a legitimate HOFer? Seriously?

 

[bchimcuter]

Originally Posted by CP1708

651akathePaul wrote:

---

I just wanted to throw this in the mix. I said earlier I would take AI in this debate (or lack thereof), but with people saying Nash was surrounded by great players and Iverson wasn't I think is not only a moot point, but not very well thought of.

Iverson, although it is the latter half of his career, has been surrounded by great talent, yet because of his style of play, the teams still aren't that great. Iverson was only successful with Philly because no one else could score and that played right into Iverson's strengths. He is not a passer, and if he had more talent around him he most likely wouldn't have won anyway. He may have had a great name next to him as a sidekick, but the only impact I could see would be someone who puts up decent numbers, but really has no intangible value to the team.

Allow me.

6.8
7.9
7.4
7.2
7.1

Those are the assist numbers for AI who "isn't a passer" as you put it, while Super Nash gets from 10 to 11 as a "great passer" as is said about him. AI gets his assists with scrubs, up until Melo came into his life, Nash has played with Dirk, Stat, Marion, and in Don Nelson and D'Antoni's style of offense his whole career.

4 assists less, yet he was also averaging 30 points a game while he was gettin 7.5 assists a game. Nash tops out at around 18 or so for a career high.

But, AI "isn't a passer" like Mr Wonderful.

Continue........


might as well post his turnover numbers for those years as well:
4.4
4.6
3.4
4.1

his ast/to ratio is nothing special. so he may have racked up those assists but he was also racking up those turnovers as well. ai may have been a"passer" but he was an inefficient one, much like his scoring.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

My Final Argument


The thing that separates Nash and AI from players like Kobe, Duncan, and Nowitski. Is that for them to be effective they have to be in a specific kind ofoffense and that takes advantage of their own specialized skill sets. In the end I think AI's peek years you could say were statistically better butNash's added value to the other players on the suns made the gap much closer. In the end due to consistency I think that AI had a better career but to saywho was better I think it gets a little more complicated.

For AI to be effective he needs to be the only offensive threat on the team, having other good offensive players doesn't really help an AI centric teambecause their simply isn't enough shots to go around and they will regress and atrophy. Under Larry Brown, the entire offense is centred around getting AIin open space weather it be through screens or steals. While it's true tthe sixers were not very good and their offense would have been so much better ifthey had shooters. Aaron McKee was the only really good three point shooter and if they had more it would have given him far more room to operate. The oneargument I disagree with is that we should give Allen Iverson credit for making it through one of the weakest eastern conferences in history. Him"carrying" the sixers to the championship had more to do with the quality of his competition that the force of his will. Also I find it annoying thatpeople criticize Eric Snow when he was a necessary evil. People forget how much of a beast Snow was on D. Dude did not play and without him Iverson has no oneto run the offense and guard the other teams 2's.

Nash is the same way for him to be really effective you have to give him the keys to the car. Dantoni is a philosophy Nash is the "system" he was thefirst coach to really let Nash create and make every decision on the fly. They just ran a thousand cuts, screens, and picks and Nash picked where he wanted todrop the ball and how. It was like Nash wrote the music and Dantoni (the conductor) told them what tempo they would play it in. In my opinion I don't thinkDallas ever trusted him with that, I will defer to Nowitness because he probably watched them more but because of his status of kid Canada we get allot of hisgames and though I can't find games of his on youtube I feel pretty confident in my recollection of that Dallas offense. All of you should read thearticle on 82games.com on Nash's assisting http://www.82games.com/feeders.htm or http://www.82games.com/pelton15.htm It shows you that Marion, Staudomire were very dependent on him getting them theball. And the more and more I think about can anybody think of a got to offensive move that Amare has other than receiving a pass after rolling to the basket?If you isolated Amare gets an average NBA defender do you have that much faith he is going to score? I've gone back and watched some of Amare's bestgames and he is getting spoon fed the whole time.

Conclusion

Do you honestly believe that if you put AI on any of those Dallas or Phoenix teams they are better? No way, they would have to restructure their entire systemaround getting AI as many shots as possible making just about 25% of their skill set. And you would have to find some one who can play point guard and guard2's as well. Viceverca? Same thing you have completely strip down your offense and give Nash full control and no matter how much more they produce underNash was that worth it when you can have Iverson take those extra shots that Eric Snow is getting.


Finally I believe players like Duncan, Kobe, and Nowitski would be effective no matter would situation you are in, but we are quickly finding out that for AIand Nash to be effective they have to be in very specialized situations for it to fit them to produce hall of fame numbers.

 

[kidskillz858]

AI

Without a doubt or second thought .

 

[osh kosh bosh]

No way un getting that bumped off the page


My Final Argument


The thing that separates Nash and AI from players like Kobe, Duncan, and Nowitski. Is that for them to be effective they have to be in a specific kind ofoffense and that takes advantage of their own specialized skill sets. In the end I think AI's peek years you could say were statistically better butNash's added value to the other players on the suns made the gap much closer. In the end due to consistency I think that AI had a better career but to saywho was better I think it gets a little more complicated.

For AI to be effective he needs to be the only offensive threat on the team, having other good offensive players doesn't really help an AI centric teambecause their simply isn't enough shots to go around and they will regress and atrophy. Under Larry Brown, the entire offense is centred around getting AIin open space weather it be through screens or steals. While it's true tthe sixers were not very good and their offense would have been so much better ifthey had shooters. Aaron McKee was the only really good three point shooter and if they had more it would have given him far more room to operate. The oneargument I disagree with is that we should give Allen Iverson credit for making it through one of the weakest eastern conferences in history. Him"carrying" the sixers to the championship had more to do with the quality of his competition that the force of his will. Also I find it annoying thatpeople criticize Eric Snow when he was a necessary evil. People forget how much of a beast Snow was on D. Dude did not play and without him Iverson has no oneto run the offense and guard the other teams 2's.

Nash is the same way for him to be really effective you have to give him the keys to the car. Dantoni is a philosophy Nash is the "system" he was thefirst coach to really let Nash create and make every decision on the fly. They just ran a thousand cuts, screens, and picks and Nash picked where he wanted todrop the ball and how. It was like Nash wrote the music and Dantoni (the conductor) told them what tempo they would play it in. In my opinion I don't thinkDallas ever trusted him with that, I will defer to Nowitness because he probably watched them more but because of his status of kid Canada we get allot of hisgames and though I can't find games of his on youtube I feel pretty confident in my recollection of that Dallas offense. All of you should read the articleon 82games.com on Nash's assisting http://www.82games.com/feeders.htm or http://www.82games.com/pelton15.htm It shows you that Marion, Staudomire were very dependent on him getting them theball. And the more and more I think about can anybody think of a got to offensive move that Amare has other than receiving a pass after rolling to the basket?If you isolated Amare gets an average NBA defender do you have that much faith he is going to score? I've gone back and watched some of Amare's bestgames and he is getting spoon fed the whole time.

Conclusion

Do you honestly believe that if you put AI on any of those Dallas or Phoenix teams they are better? No way, they would have to restructure their entire systemaround getting AI as many shots as possible making just about 25% of their skill set. And you would have to find some one who can play point guard and guard2's as well. Viceverca? Same thing you have completely strip down your offense and give Nash full control and no matter how much more they produce underNash was that worth it when you can have Iverson take those extra shots that Eric Snow is getting.


Finally I believe players like Duncan, Kobe, and Nowitski would be effective no matter would situation you are in, but we are quickly finding out that for AIand Nash to be effective they have to be in very specialized situations for it to fit them to produce hall of fame numbers.

 

[eight2one]

AI!! he did it for much longer, and much better.

 

[blowdawhistle]

Originally Posted by Osh Kosh Bosh

No way un getting that bumped off the page


My Final Argument


The thing that separates Nash and AI from players like Kobe, Duncan, and Nowitski. Is that for them to be effective they have to be in a specific kind of offense and that takes advantage of their own specialized skill sets. In the end I think AI's peek years you could say were statistically better but Nash's added value to the other players on the suns made the gap much closer. In the end due to consistency I think that AI had a better career but to say who was better I think it gets a little more complicated.

For AI to be effective he needs to be the only offensive threat on the team, having other good offensive players doesn't really help an AI centric team because their simply isn't enough shots to go around and they will regress and atrophy. Under Larry Brown, the entire offense is centred around getting AI in open space weather it be through screens or steals. While it's true tthe sixers were not very good and their offense would have been so much better if they had shooters. Aaron McKee was the only really good three point shooter and if they had more it would have given him far more room to operate. The one argument I disagree with is that we should give Allen Iverson credit for making it through one of the weakest eastern conferences in history. Him "carrying" the sixers to the championship had more to do with the quality of his competition that the force of his will. Also I find it annoying that people criticize Eric Snow when he was a necessary evil. People forget how much of a beast Snow was on D. Dude did not play and without him Iverson has no one to run the offense and guard the other teams 2's.

Nash is the same way for him to be really effective you have to give him the keys to the car. Dantoni is a philosophy Nash is the "system" he was the first coach to really let Nash create and make every decision on the fly. They just ran a thousand cuts, screens, and picks and Nash picked where he wanted to drop the ball and how. It was like Nash wrote the music and Dantoni (the conductor) told them what tempo they would play it in. In my opinion I don't think Dallas ever trusted him with that, I will defer to Nowitness because he probably watched them more but because of his status of kid Canada we get allot of his games and though I can't find games of his on youtube I feel pretty confident in my recollection of that Dallas offense. All of you should read the article on 82games.com on Nash's assisting http://www.82games.com/feeders.htmhttp://www.82games.com/feeders.htm or http://www.82games.com/pelton15.htmhttp://www.82games.com/pelton15.htm It shows you that Marion, Staudomire were very dependent on him getting them the ball. And the more and more I think about can anybody think of a got to offensive move that Amare has other than receiving a pass after rolling to the basket? If you isolated Amare gets an average NBA defender do you have that much faith he is going to score? I've gone back and watched some of Amare's best games and he is getting spoon fed the whole time.

Conclusion

Do you honestly believe that if you put AI on any of those Dallas or Phoenix teams they are better? No way, they would have to restructure their entire system around getting AI as many shots as possible making just about 25% of their skill set. And you would have to find some one who can play point guard and guard 2's as well. Viceverca? Same thing you have completely strip down your offense and give Nash full control and no matter how much more they produce under Nash was that worth it when you can have Iverson take those extra shots that Eric Snow is getting.


Finally I believe players like Duncan, Kobe, and Nowitski would be effective no matter would situation you are in, but we are quickly finding out that for AI and Nash to be effective they have to be in very specialized situations for it to fit them to produce hall of fame numbers.

When has AI not been effective on offense before this season??... Every season up til this season he's top 5 iun scoring every year...if thatsnot being effective i dont know what is...and please don't say it's because he was shooting so much every year bla bla bla because you have to be agreat scorer to get 20+ shots a game...Last year with the Nuggets he averaged 27 pgg on 46% shooting (thats w/o the advantage of dunks like kobe, lebron,etc..)..and he was getting close to 8 assists...and check the Nuggets players shooting %'s from last year...almost all of them are worse this season...thatNuggets team last year was bad at times because of their horrible D...not because their offense wasn't effective with AI

The problem with AI has nothing to do with Offense...which you seem to be focused on...the problem is that its hard for an AI team to be effective on defenseunless he's surronded by all-league defenders (philly 01') because you he's 6'0 shooting guard...

Also its funny to me how everyone keeps talking about the Eastern conference the year the Sixers went to the finals like the East has been some huge powerhouseconference every year after..Take that same Sixer team and they would've gone to the finals both years the Nets went also...that season the Sixers till hadto be the Raptors with Vince Carter and A Davis arguably their primes...and the Bucks with Ray Allen, Glenn Robinson, and Sam Cassel...and by then Robinson andCassel were in their primes also...(allen probably not)..

 

[jepeh21]

its a tough call but if i had to vote 1 it would be AI

 

[clkru]

Nash... he's accomplished more individually with the 2 MVPs.

Iverson would get my vote against anyone else from his era, but Nash has the MVPs...

Its tough though, because both have brought their own unique non-quantifiable qualities to the game.

Both deserve it.

 

[phillypac]

Originally Posted by clkru

Nash... he's accomplished more individually with the 2 MVPs.

no

Nash did not deserve them 2 MVP's in the first place

this country was in the era of giving out awards or jobs to people that did not deserve it

 

[lesfamilia]

I would have to give it to AI. There was only one MVP I felt he won outright, and if you take that away from him and put him against AI, it's no contest.

 

[jaeger13]

AI
culture phenom