Kidd, Iverson, Nash

I would say Kidd but Nash is very quickly catching up, may surpass Kidd soon

Yeah, great one.

The poll says "Best PG", so it's clearly Kidd, then Nash and then Iverson. As much as I love AI, he's more of a SG

yeah but no one talked about nash back then, only now when he had these 2 great seasons with the suns everyone is talking about him

Kidd was unbelievable when he had his legs.

yeah but no one talked about nash back then, only now when he had these 2 great seasons with the suns everyone is talking about him

notice it says "in their prime?"

i want to see how long nash can sustain this before i make any judgement, considering his prime may not yet be over.

For most teams people would take kidd, but that said, nash can run certain teams probably better than kidd. The only recent point guard comparable to nash on a pick and roll is stock.

that said based on what i know right now.... i'd pick kidd.

I would say Kidd but Nash is very quickly catching up, may surpass Kidd soon

Yeah, great one.

The poll says "Best PG", so it's clearly Kidd, then Nash and then Iverson. As much as I love AI, he's more of a SG

The current Kidd being compared to the current Nash is a completely inaccurate. Before his surgery, Kidd was simply monstrous and made a strong case for MVP in 2002 and 2003. Nash just appears to be a great point guard because he plays in a fast system that any point guard can thrive in.

The team was built around Iverson. He had scorers and they all wanted to leave.

Stackhouse, Hughes, Kukoc never asked to be traded. Isn't interesting how time diluets history.

And how many of them did it work out with? The 2001 team was the best team they could've had around him.

Iverson only started sharing the ball the last two years.

Soon people will say MJ won championships becuase he asked to win them.

Don't know what you're talking about. You can want to leave without asking for a trade.

No. He at least has a point. You haven't made one, other than trying to insult him. Go find out what an "ad hominem attack" is.

Don't make me spit my soda out in disgut. Wait wher'e the red font? Seriously, I didn't insult him. I used the example of how anyone can say anything, like Kidd is great at scoring in the halfcourt, but it doesnt mean its true does it?

I guess the movie making business will do that to you though .

LOL. And what is it you do for a living?

How can you say they wanted to leave when they never asked for a trade? Do you think your perception is worth more than their actions when coming to conclusions?

Kidd definatly

look at the triple doubles

How can you say they wanted to leave when they never asked for a trade? Do you think your perception is worth more than their actions when coming to conclusions?

Does it matter if they asked for a trade or not?

It's fact that no potential scoring guard (and even some small forwards) lasted more than two seasons with Iverson's Sixers:

Jerry Stackhouse - 2 seasons and 22 games - traded for Ratliff and McKie
Jim Jackson - 48 games - traded for Joe Smith and Brian Shaw
Larry Hughes - 1 season and 50 games - traded for Toni Kukoc
Speedy Claxton - 67 games - traded essentially for John Salmons

In my opinion playing small scorers with the need to have the ball in their hands with Iverson is pretty much useless. They won't get the ball.
Billy King tried some and failed.

on topic: Can a point guard be named one of the best of all time if he can only be successful in one special kind of team? A team with 4 great defenders who bring down the opponent's offense even more than Iverson does with the Sixers' own offense! I really don't understand all that hype for that little guy who doesn't know anything of playing good and successful team offense.

Just as Nash can only thrive in run&gun teams with good shooters. But his teams are fun to watch.

Does it matter if they asked for a trade or not?

Of course it matters if questions about the players in questioned wanted out or not.

on topic: Can a point guard be named one of the best of all time if he can only be successful in one special kind of team? A team with 4 great defenders who bring down the opponent's offense even more than Iverson does with the Sixers' own offense! I really don't understand all that hype for that little guy who doesn't know anything of playing good and successful team offense.

Successfull team? Interesting.. how many finals has Nash been to exactly?

Successfull team? Interesting.. how many finals has Nash been to exactly?

Two western conference finals. As the west was and is far stronger than the east it's more than Iverson achieved in my opinion. At least Nash could coexist with other good players.

So are you saying Iverson got to the finals with no good players? In Nash's final season with Dallas, he was alongside Finely, Jamison, Dirk and they were bounced in the first round of the playoffs. Coexisting and team success are two different things.

It's obvious Marbury is better than all these point guards combined

So are you saying Iverson got to the finals with no good players? In Nash's final season with Dallas, he was alongside Finely, Jamison, Dirk and they were bounced in the first round of the playoffs. Coexisting and team success are two different things.

No, Iverson got to the finals with excellent defensive players. But defense alone is not enough as the Lakers proved: They had no difficulties after the first game - in which Iverson was excellent (but I said that he will always have some good games to be followed by mediocre and even bad games) - they cruised to four clear victories, just as offense alone is not enough.

Yes, the Mavs were a disappointment in 2004 and they were beaten by the superior frontcourt of the Kings because they could not play any decent defense. That's why they invested in Dampier (although he is quite a disappointment himself) and let Nash go.

You get the idea why I prefer a player like Kidd to Nash and Iverson: He is a great playmaker to run a good offense and also is (was) a defensive stalwart who can shut down his opponent.
Maybe Iverson will become some kind of floor general like Nate Archibald became in the latter stages of his career but I doubt it. AI doesn't seem to be able to read a defense for other players than himself. So I don't see a very good offensive team where everybody gets involved and can play to his full strength with him controlling the ball.
Just take a look at all those seasons: 5 times the Sixers failed to reach the playoffs with Iverson at the helm and only once they managed to get beyond the second round. Even Team USA sucked with him (and Marbury). Coincidence? Bad Luck? I don't think so.

No, Iverson got to the finals with excellent defensive players.

"At least Nash could coexist with other good players."

But defense alone is not enough as the Lakers proved: They had no difficulties after the first game - in which Iverson was excellent (but I said that he will always have some good games to be followed by mediocre and even bad games) - they cruised to four clear victories, just as offense alone is not enough.

I think you are confused. Iverson played great the entire series, and Philly had opportunites to win game 2 and 3.

Iverson scored 23 in game 2, 35 in game 3, 35 in game 4 and 37 in game 5. The sixers had injuries to lynch out with injury, and snow and mckie were playing with fractured feet. The fact that they were even competitive is a testiment to how well iverson played.

Yes, the Mavs were a disappointment in 2004 and they were beaten by the superior frontcourt of the Kings because they could not play any decent defense. That's why they invested in Dampier (although he is quite a disappointment himself) and let Nash go.

So when the mavericks lost with nash to a kings team, it wasnt nash's fault. But when the sixers lost to the lakers, it was iversons?

I have no problems with people taking Kidd over nash, as long as its for the right reasons. When people say they'd take kidd over iverson becuase of his scoring in the half court, then I take issue to that becuase theres simply no comparison.

Your point about team usa is completely irrelivent. It's like saying "well iverson won rookie game mvp, and nash didnt, so iverson is better".

No, Iverson got to the finals with excellent defensive players.

"At least Nash could coexist with other good players."

"On offense" is what I meant.

I think you are confused.

Iverson scored 23 in game 2, 35 in game 3, 35 in game 4 and 37 in game 5. The sixers had injuries to lynch out with injury, and snow and mckie were playing with fractured feet. The fact that they were even competitive is a testiment to how well iverson played.

I don't think that I'm the one who is confused. You are the one who doesn't recognize inefficient offense.
23 on 29 shots in game 2, 35 on 30 shots in game 3, 35 on 30 shots in game 4, 37 on 32 shots in game 5. That's pathetic. I could name more than 25 NBA players who could do that. And 10 point guards who would have tried to run a more balanced offense even with these teammates.

So when the mavericks lost with nash to a kings team, it wasnt nash's fault. But when the sixers lost to the lakers, it was iversons?

See above.

I have no problems with people taking Kidd over nash, as long as its for the right reasons. When people say they'd take kidd over iverson becuase of his scoring in the half court, then I take issue to that becuase theres simply no comparison.

That was VanK's point. I did not say that but named other reasons.

Your point about team usa is completely irrelivent. It's like saying "well iverson won rookie game mvp, and nash didnt, so iverson is better".

It's not irrelevant. It shows that he even sucked with better teammates (they weren't the best for FIFA basketball to be honest, but not that bad). I must admit that most of the time Marbury was running the point but Iverson showed that he can neither get the ball to his teammates where they need it nor shoot it with high efficency.

For anyone who's actually seen Kidd in his prime, this shouldn't be debatable. For anyone who hasn't, don't vote.

I'm in agreement as far as the topic is concerned. It just seems like an extreme reason to stop posting at a Forum, an on-topic disagreement in one thread. It suggests you have other issues with the Forum and if that's the case then as the admin I'd be interested to hear them in case it's something I can resolve.

It's always frustrating when people won't offer feedback then out of the blue announce they're leaving due to certain issues and complain that the forum staff doesn't care, when those issues were never brought to our attention. So if you have other issues I'd like to hear them so maybe something can be done. There's already a thread over in NLSC Issues that's dedicated to that subject.

Many people say that Nash doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the Top 10 PG's of All-Time, but I think it will be what he does in his next couple of seasons that ultimately determines where people will consider him falling....if Nash has another few seasons like his last couple, then he no doubt is Top 10 PG of All-Time....if Nash does this & helps lead the Suns to NBA Finals' appearances & possibly a championship, then he might be considered better than the likes of Kidd & Payton because he won....is too early to determine his place....the only thing I know is he's not on the level of the Magic's, Oscar's & Isiah's....or Stockton's or Cousy's or Frazier's....at the moment, not at Kidd's level either....but it's not to say he won't get there....

"On offense" is what I meant

I can't read your mind. Post what your reffering to.

I don't think that I'm the one who is confused. You are the one who doesn't recognize inefficient offense.
23 on 29 shots in game 2, 35 on 30 shots in game 3, 35 on 30 shots in game 4, 37 on 32 shots in game 5. That's pathetic. I could name more than 25 NBA players who could do that. And 10 point guards who would have tried to run a more balanced offense even with these teammates.

Game 2 was a bad shooting performance. However when you consider his next best option was mutumbo for the entire series, you can easily see why he had to put this team on his back not just in the finals, but in earlier rounds of the playoffs.

But isnt it amazing: kobe gets chewed out for only taking 3 shots in one half of game 7. Iverson gets criticised for taking too many shots and trying to carry his team. Where is the consistancy? Its like "fans" of the game will look for faults in players in their own specific criteria of how someone should play the game.

See above.

So you are infact blaming iverson for the 2001 loss in the finals? Now thats pathetic. Once again, look at their roster. Where was the scoring going to come from? Mckie and snows (who arent even reliable options when healthy) were at 50%. Mutumbo has never been an offensive threat, and the fact Shaq was on him made him even less of an offensive factor. Tyronne Hill had a shocking series, and Jurmaine Jones and Raja Bell weren't even in the rotation untill deep into the playoffs.

That was VanK's point. I did not say that but named other reasons.

Yeah and they were incredibly vague: he can run a fast break and play defense.

It's not irrelevant. It shows that he even sucked with better teammates (they weren't the best for FIFA basketball to be honest, but not that bad). I must admit that most of the time Marbury was running the point but Iverson showed that he can neither get the ball to his teammates where they need it nor shoot it with high efficency.

It's a stupid point. Is duncan less of a player? How about lebron, wade and melo? They all played pretty bad. Iverson was the best player on that team, and yet he still gets criticism for it.

I have no problems with people taking Kidd over nash, as long as its for the right reasons. When people say they'd take kidd over iverson becuase of his scoring in the half court, then I take issue to that becuase theres simply no comparison.

That was VanK's point. I did not say that but named other reasons.

That was NOT my point. I was talking about his playmaking abilities, not his scoring. Iverson takes that crown anytime, as a PG or a SG. But primary duty of a PG is not scoring, is it? That is where Nash and Kidd always win, either running transition or halfcourt offense (although AI is pretty good in trasition).

Man I don't know, best player is easily Iverson. But best Point Guard...it's kinda tough because AI is clearly superior but if you only make your decision by who's doing the best job at the PG spot...I can't make up my mind.

Game 2 was a bad shooting performance. However when you consider his next best option was mutumbo for the entire series, you can easily see why he had to put this team on his back not just in the finals, but in earlier rounds of the playoffs.

Even that team could have played a more balanced offense. Do you really think that no other player than Iverson was able to shoot .400? With Nash or Kidd running the point each and every player will get 8 to 15 shots - in their comfort zones where they can do something with the ball. Iverson will dribble until he is surrounded by opponents so his passes are much riskier and his teammates don't neccessarily get the ball where they can need it.

But isnt it amazing: kobe gets chewed out for only taking 3 shots in one half of game 7. Iverson gets criticised for taking too many shots and trying to carry his team. Where is the consistancy? Its like "fans" of the game will look for faults in players in their own specific criteria of how someone should play the game.

Maybe he should have taken some more shots in the second half but even one of his own coaches doesn't see that as the reason why the Lakers lost. http://www.hoopshype.com/articles/winter_lazenby.htm
Neither do I: The Lakers lost three games with Kobe taking 30 shots per game in the regular season (they won the last one with him taking 28 shots but the Suns didn't play Nash and Bell) and won three of seven in the playoffs with Kobe taking 20 shots per game and involving his teammates - even stiffs like Kwame. Coincidence?

So you are infact blaming iverson for the 2001 loss in the finals? Now thats pathetic. Once again, look at their roster. Where was the scoring going to come from? Mckie and snows (who arent even reliable options when healthy) were at 50%. Mutumbo has never been an offensive threat, and the fact Shaq was on him made him even less of an offensive factor. Tyronne Hill had a shocking series, and Jurmaine Jones and Raja Bell weren't even in the rotation untill deep into the playoffs.

Yes, I'm blaming Iverson for the Sixers being a team where one player will always look for his own scoring chances and only for those of his teammates when he is shut down. There hasn't been a successful team playing that way in all history: Neither Chamberlain nor Jordan won anything until they got their teammates involved.
The Sixers had some chances to surround Iverson with more reliable offensive players than all those you have named but traded them away because Iverson didn't get them involved. He needed 8 seasons to change this style and even now he and Webber hog the ball too much.
You could maybe argue that there was no other option left than Iverson taking 30 shots per game (which is more likely 33 to 36 as field goal attempts don't count when you are fouled) because the other players weren't good. In my opinion 70 percent of the league's players are capable of scoring 8-20 points when they get involved in the right systems.
I blame Iverson for making the Sixers have to adjust to this system for so many years that was always doomed against teams that would play defense and a better balanced offense.

Yeah and they were incredibly vague: he can run a fast break and play defense.

Playing that way Kidd did not miss the playoffs since 1997. Playing his way Iverson missed the playoffs 4 times since 1997.

It's a stupid point. Is duncan less of a player? How about lebron, wade and melo? They all played pretty bad. Iverson was the best player on that team, and yet he still gets criticism for it.

Duncan was shut down in a zone defense because the opponents could stay with him watching Iverson jack up more shots than any other of Team USA. And he only hit .378 of them. That's very impressive for the 'best' player...
He made .366 of his threes. Mediocre as the line is nearer to the basket than in the NBA.
Yes, others were bad, too, but LeBron, Wade and Melo were Rookies. Iverson was labeled the greatest star besides Duncan and teamed up with Marbury in the worst olympic backcourt since NBA players play in the tournament. The one that you call the best player on that team was abused by opponent backcourts (Arroyo and Ayuso or Sarunas Jasikevicius). And as I already mentioned: He is such a erratic shooter that teams could play zone defenses par excellence against Team USA. Even Duncan can't do anything but drawing two or three defenders and hoping that the other 'star' will hit his shots. Which Iverson did not.

i voted for Kidd, and Nash comes second.

How can you say they wanted to leave when they never asked for a trade? Do you think your perception is worth more than their actions when coming to conclusions?

Um, can you tell if a player is pissed with the refs if he doesn't go to the press and get himself fined? Could you tell Derek Fisher was happy when he hit the .4 shot? Or did he need to sign a contract extension while still on the court?

Iverson's 2001 team was the ultimate team for him at the time because none of them could shoot and they'd just let him isolate and clean up his offensive rebounds.

LOL. And what is it you do for a living?

...

Come on, a guy who can't spell "successful" must have a great career lined up?

Does it matter if they asked for a trade or not?

It's fact that no potential scoring guard (and even some small forwards) lasted more than two seasons with Iverson's Sixers:

Jerry Stackhouse - 2 seasons and 22 games - traded for Ratliff and McKie
Jim Jackson - 48 games - traded for Joe Smith and Brian Shaw
Larry Hughes - 1 season and 50 games - traded for Toni Kukoc
Speedy Claxton - 67 games - traded essentially for John Salmons

In my opinion playing small scorers with the need to have the ball in their hands with Iverson is pretty much useless. They won't get the ball.
Billy King tried some and failed.

Don't forget Tim Thomas and Glenn Robinson, in the one year that Robinson could still play.

But isnt it amazing: kobe gets chewed out for only taking 3 shots in one half of game 7. Iverson gets criticised for taking too many shots and trying to carry his team. Where is the consistancy? Its like "fans" of the game will look for faults in players in their own specific criteria of how someone should play the game.

Do you know about Tex Winter and his "F" chart? Have you read Phil Jackson's book?

It's not how many shots you take, it's how many shots you force.

As I said, a team with bruising and unselfish players a little like Isiah Thomas' Pistons. Players who are tough defenders but capable scorers. With AI's style of play the Sixers wouldn't have the same kind of distribution but that might not matter. I think Iguodala could become the right kind of player to be AI's main complement offensively and he's not a shabby defender either. Find some "enforcer" type big men and shore up the bench a bit (particularly at point guard) and I believe the Sixers would be in much better shape.

You just described the 2001 Sixers, minus anyone who could shoot so that they could fit with Iverson's 'kind of distribution.'

You should ask Dikembe if he can spell "successful".