It's sad that history will remember Nash as a better player than Iverson

[RaininTwos]

LOL at this f.aggot with a Justin Bieber avatar calling me an "idiot". Its revisionist history to act like Iverson carried that team. He scored the most points but he was ineffecient the whole playoffs and got some help from Mutombo, especially closing out Milwaukee. You made yourself look like a drooling retard already by saying Nash doesn't make players better. Why don't you go put on your And 1 shirt and watch some streetball, clown.

I love And 1, but havent watched streetball in a while actually. Even if I did, I don't know why you keep referring it.

Iverson did carry that team. Just because other players had moments where did some lifting offensively, doesn't make my statement invalid.

In fact, Iverson scored 2207 of the teams 7763 points. He scored (2207/7763) 28.4% of the teams points. That's an extremely high amount of your offense coming from one player. That's the very definition of carrying.

Nash doesn't make players better in the sense that everyone here tends to think. He isn't a life form that parasites feed off of, it's a symbiotic relationship. Nash elevates the level of play of others, but others do the same for him as well. Anyone who has ever played basketball knows that great players play better when they are surrounded with great talent when the pieces fit and they certainly did in Phoenix. JJ,Marion,Amare,Barbosa,Kurt Thomas,etc...all brought a tools or skills to the table that made Nash a better player(as in more effective) as well.

AI also made players better as well. Another point that people in here are missing apparently. The 01 team was a defensive juggernaut in part because of AI's ballhawking skills. Lazy passes around the perimeter would be picked off and loose handles would be exploited due to his quickness defensively. His teammates allowed him to become better at that by hustling and playing tremendous defense. See? It works both ways. His ball-hawking makes them better defenders as well, within reason. Sometimes his gambles were a little mindless to be honest.

I was wrong to say that Nash doesn't make players better because its quite clear that he does but its also clear that half of you don't know what the hell you are talking about either.

He's had some awesome, all time great supporting casts over the years and couldn't break through his own conference, falling short multiple times. A better player, like AI, would have taken them through to the Finals. I couldn't imagine AI on a team with JJ,Marion,Amare,etc...it would be ridiculous. That kind of talent is something that he NEVER had, yet he still made a huge impact in the league.

[onhcetum]

I admire both of these guys. Both put teams on their backs and carried them the way guys like Kobe could never. It's a shame they never joined playoff success and at least win a title. AI's 2001 run will go down as one the greatest runs in history.

[DatAsh]

Nash was a better player than Iverson Peak play is about equal with A.I. perhaps having a slight edge, but Nash's 5 year prime is better than Iverson's 5 year prime, and longevity isn't even a contest.

I would hope Nash goes down as a better player all time.

[Linspired]

nash is the smartest PG ever. AI just doesn't have the basketball IQ of nash.

[RaininTwos]

Nash was a better player than Iverson Peak play is about equal with A.I. perhaps having a slight edge, but Nash's 5 year prime is better than Iverson's 5 year prime, and longevity isn't even a contest.

I would hope Nash goes down as a better player all time.

Nash will be ranked as a greater player, due to longevity and his MVP's.

That is different than saying who's the better player.

[DatAsh]

Iverson did carry that team. Just because other players had moments where did some lifting offensively, doesn't make my statement invalid.

Nash doesn't make players better in the sense that everyone here tends to think.

There are maybe 5-7 players in the history of the game that improve the play of their teammates as much or more than Nash. What game do you watch?

[DatAsh]

Nash will be ranked as a greater player, due to longevity and his MVP's.

That is different than saying who's the better player.

Not to me it isn't. To me the better player is the one who gives you the best chance at winning the most championships over the course of their career, and that player is clearly Nash.

[RaininTwos]

Not to me it isn't. To me the better player is the one who gives you the best chance at winning the most championships over the course of their career, and that player is clearly Nash.

Nash hasn't even made the finals.

[Droid101]

Nash is better than Iverson in just about every way.

[DatAsh]

Nash hasn't even made the finals.

Your point?

[Smoke117]

He was a better player by a significant margin.

[BlackVVaves]

Nash has had some of the best supporting casts I've ever seen minus the last couple years.

Explain, describe, and point out the pieces of "one of the best supporting casts" you've "ever seen."

And, in response to your second post, how Nash didn't make his teammates better.

[get these NETS]

Your point?

how can YOUR definition stand when Nash has NEVER led his team to the finals?

[get these NETS]

in the late 90s..there was a shortlist of NBA mvps who had never won a ring

Barkley, Mailman, Admiral


thanks to tim duncan..admiral is off that list


new list is of mvps who have never taken teams to finals

shortlist

Nash and D. Rose

[RaininTwos]

Explain, describe, and point out the pieces of "one of the best supporting casts" you've "ever seen."

And, in response to your second post, how Nash didn't make his teammates better.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/PHO/2005.html

I admitted I was wrong about the second part. I had a lot of thoughts in my head and said something stupid.