ISH All-time Top 25 Guards Project: #12 - Steve Nash vs. Clyde Drexler

[wally_world]

Steve Nash

Their primes are pretty close, but what puts Nash over the top is his peak. As great a player Clyde was, he was never really a MVP player.

[L.Kizzle]

Steve Nash

Their primes are pretty close, but what puts Nash over the top is his peak. As great a player Clyde was, he was never really a MVP player.

Well Iverson was and he's two spots back ... Nash 2 MVPs shouldput him in the top 5 right

[magnax1]

Nash dominates the ball. He runs the offense totally. Remove him for a game or two its a bunch of people playing outside their comfort zones. You arent combining prime Amare, Marion, and 05 JJ and having a terrible team no matter what their record was in individual games without him. Not when you really set the team up to play without him.

I just have to say, that's just not what would really happen. What happened to the individual players as they left Phoenix is proof enough that the team would not have been very good. The team was basically built around scoring efficiently, and nobody was that amazingly efficient without Nash. Amare this year dropped his TS% from 62 to 57. Marion when he left went from 59% to 52% the next season, 50% the same season he was traded, and only jumped back up to 54% with Jason Kidd. Raja Bell shot 53% in his best season in Utah. It immediately jumped up to 59% once joining Phoenix. Jared Dudley from 56, to 61, Frye from 53 (47 the year before he joined Phoenix) to 60, and the list goes on and on. I don't know why you'd expect a team built on being more efficient then their opponents to succeed without Nash, when he is plainly the reason they were so efficient. Even Amare hasn't been that great without Nash considering all he can do is scoring 25 points extremely efficiently. Now he scores 25 points moderately efficiently while blocking out his team mates with more turnovers and fewer rebounds.

[Maniak]

[EricForman]

I'm still having trouble adjusting to the fact that Nash bloomed so late. I mean really, if I had told you, as recently as 2004, that Nash would have a strong case for being above GP, Iverson, and Drexler, you guys woulda slapped me. Who the hell jumps a level like this AFTER 31?

What happened to Nash is equivalent to Raymond Felton suddenly making the next 7 all star teams and a few all NBA teams and one day end up in the same discussion with Deron Williams. Freaking uncanny.

[Story Up]

Amare & Marion are ideal players to have for an offensively minded point guard; they strive off transition offense. Big part to Nash's success over the years, IMO.

You guys shouldn't ignore Nash's inability to stay in the game for 40+ minutes either. Can he carry a team when they're struggling without getting his 12 minutes of rest?

[RRR3]

I'm still having trouble adjusting to the fact that Nash bloomed so late. I mean really, if I had told you, as recently as 2004, that Nash would have a strong case for being above GP, Iverson, and Drexler, you guys woulda slapped me. Who the hell jumps a level like this AFTER 31?

What happened to Nash is equivalent to Raymond Felton suddenly making the next 7 all star teams and a few all NBA teams and one day end up in the same discussion with Deron Williams. Freaking uncanny.

You mean he won't?

[Kblaze8855]

Have I ever said anything that would lead you to believe I care about Raja Bel or Jared dudleys true shooting or what Marion did in Toronto or miami as opposed to how good he was in 2005?

Joe Johnson, Marion, and Amare would not take much to be a good team. They sure as hell arent having a 25% winning percentage or whatever it was without Nash that year. They didnt even have a backup point guard at the time.

Unless you consider Barbosa a point. JJ was the closest thing to a second ballhandler.

That team with even a..Charlie Ward..or an..Earl Watson...could have done something. Given the time to gel and really gameplan...knowing they wouldnt have Nash?

Judging a team by a 3-4 game record without the guy they depend on totally to run its offense just doesnt make sense to me.

One game here and there in a totally different setup with guys playing outside normal roles doesnt show much of anything.

[EricForman]

Joe Johnson, Marion, and Amare would not take much to be a good team. They sure as hell arent having a 25% winning percentage or whatever it was without Nash that year. They didnt even have a backup point guard at the time.

Weren't the 2004 Suns, with Amare/Marion/JJ, pretty bad?

[G.O.A.T]

Weren't the 2004 Suns, with Amare/Marion/JJ, pretty bad?

When you consider that Amare missed 30 games and that he and JJ were both 21 and made a huge jump the next year that has continued even after they left Nash, you can see how that's not a valid example, can't you?

[EricForman]

When you consider that Amare missed 30 games and that he and JJ were both 21 and made a huge jump the next year that has continued even after they left Nash, you can see how that's not a valid example, can't you?

You have a point. To clarify, I'm not trying to say I completely disagree with Blaze's point and claim that JJ/Marion/Amare would stink in 05 had Nash not been there. But I also think they woulda been nowhere near 60 win good. I mean swap Nash with an average or solid PG and it's not improbable for them to win anywhere from 35 to 50 games. Long ways from 62.

I'm not arguing they would be/were nothing without Nash, I'm arguing they wouldn't be elite good, or even very good.

Nash has since had success without any of those three guys. As for Amare, let me know when he's the best player on a team that wins more than 45 games....which may never come really.

[magnax1]

Unless you consider Barbosa a point. JJ was the closest thing to a second ballhandler.

And that's exactly my point. I'm sorry to say that a team of 5 guys that were just finishers and shooters doesn't do very well without Nash. Amare, Marion and everyone is are not going to make a very good offense when they don't have Nash. I get that you're just saying that they aren't as bad as their record without Nash, but I don't think they are more then a 35-40 win team without him in 05. The 07 team might fair better though.
Like I said, for a team built around being more efficient on offense then their opponent, they just wouldn't be very good when everyone's efficiency drops dramatically without Nash.

[Kblaze8855]

The 04 Suns played if I remember correctly...15 players who didnt play onthe team in 05...they blew up the team for capspace after Amare got hurt....they played the young guys like 40 minutes a night(Barbosa and JJ mostly I think) and they had no real expectation of winning. By the end of the year they were just letting Amare, JJ, and Barbosa play to grow.

Besides they won like 30 games with Amare being hurt for about 30. They would have been decent if only by having him around.

And Joe was what? 21? 22?

Its been done a hundred times. The 04 Suns were not the 05 suns. They were as different as can be.

[L.Kizzle]

Weren't the 2004 Suns, with Amare/Marion/JJ, pretty bad?

They were a playoff team wth Marbury running the point 2 seasons prior.

[Kblaze8855]

And that's exactly my point. I'm sorry to say that a team of 5 guys that were just finishers and shooters doesn't do very well without Nash. Amare, Marion and everyone is are not going to make a very good offense when they don't have Nash.

When I said:

You arent combining prime Amare, Marion, and 05 JJ and having a terrible team no matter what their record was in individual games without him. Not when you really set the team up to play without him.

Did you think I meant that they would set up the team to play without him...and not decide that having a point on the roster would be nice?