Steve Nash vs Chris Paul

[donald_trump]

Gtfoh.


They don't even let Nash guard Rose when the Bulls play the Suns because they know Rose would own him.

yeah, how embarrassing for nash. he cant guard one of the best players in the league... what was the point of that statement? a lot of starting point guards dont guard rose.

[donald_trump]

You might want to ice your obliques after that extreme reach.

Nash doesn't stick good defense....he's pretty bad. Stats and emotional statements won't change that.

umm its not a reach lol. there are advanced statistical sites that show it.

[Go Getter]

umm its not a reach lol. there are advanced statistical sites that show it.

It's a reach to add charges to steals and surmise that's he's an adroit defender.

And again, my point was and still is that the best players at their positions can GUARD their position.

[bdreason]

CP3 was a better player at his peak. Nash has obviously had the better career.

[brisbaneman]

Nash is obviously better. You cannot win with Chris Paul. Real NBA aficionados know the reason why.

[brisbaneman]

CP3 was a better player at his peak. Nash has obviously had the better career.

Of course, [insert name of black player] always has a greater peak than [white player]

[Go Getter]

Nash is obviously better. You cannot win with Chris Paul. Real NBA aficionados know the reason why.

Which is why Nash has one exactly 0 titles in his career?

And get out of here playing the race card. You could put Bird up against most any player and I'm choosing Bird.

[brisbaneman]

Which is why Nash has one exactly 0 titles in his career?

And get out of here playing the race card. You could put Bird up against most any player and I'm choosing Bird.

You can't win with Paul because you compromise your offense too much with him. He puts too much strain on his own team. You can't have some guy running around 50 high screens and holding the ball for 20 seconds every possession and not expect to get freezed out when the games start to count.

[Go Getter]

You can't win with Paul because you compromise your offense too much with him. He puts too much strain on his own team. You can't have some guy running around 50 high screens and holding the ball for 20 seconds every possession and not expect to get freezed out when the games start to count.

Nash does the same thing....runs around until he finds an open cutter....and if Paul puts too much stress on the offense, Nash puts to much stress on the defense.

I think a team could win with Paul and/or Nash with the right pieces around them....they are two of the best natural points in the league now.

[brisbaneman]

Nash does the same thing....runs around until he finds an open cutter....and if Paul puts too much stress on the offense, Nash puts to much stress on the defense.

I think a team could win with Paul and/or Nash with the right pieces around them....they are two of the best natural points in the league now.

Yeah but Nash is the better shooter, much better shooter. I don't think you can win with either of them as your best player. History has shown that teams built around point guards do not win championships.

[Go Getter]

Yeah but Nash is the better shooter, much better shooter. I don't think you can win with either of them as your best player. History has shown that teams built around point guards do not win championships.

Being the best shooter doesn't cover up the glaring hole in his game. Chris' game has less holes than Nash.

And Zeke/Magic/Billups say otherwise.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Peaks are pretty close, but I'll take Paul. However, Nash sustained that level longer, it's actually hard to determine his peak between '05-'07, was playing close to that level before the Shaq trade in '08 and had a season not that far off in '10. Paul on the other hand only challenged his peak '08 season in '09 and his been a clear step below every other season. They were actually not that far apart last season as amazing as it sounds considering Nash is 37, he just didn't have a good team at all.

Nash is and was a significantly better shooter and a better passer. Nash is an underrated scorer, but Paul was probably the better overall scorer and a significantly better defender as well as a superior rebounder. Rebounding is not a huge factor for me here, though.

And Zeke/Magic/Billups say otherwise.

The 2004 Pistons certainly weren't built around Billups. They dominated with defense, and if they were built around anyone, it was their defensive anchor and best player, Ben Wallace. Billups did have an argument for the Pistons best player when they got back to the finals in '05.

[Go Getter]

Peaks are pretty close, but I'll take Paul. However, Nash sustained that level longer, it's actually hard to determine his peak between '05-'07, was playing close to that level before the Shaq trade in '08 and had a season not that far off in '10. Paul on the other hand only challenged his peak '08 season in '09 and his been a clear step below every other season. They were actually not that far apart last season as amazing as it sounds considering Nash is 37, he just didn't have a good team at all.

Nash is and was a significantly better shooter and a better passer. Nash is an underrated scorer, but Paul was probably the better overall scorer and a significantly better defender as well as a superior rebounder. Rebounding is not a huge factor for me here, though.



The 2004 Pistons certainly weren't built around Billups. They dominated with defense, and if they were built around anyone, it was their defensive anchor and best player, Ben Wallace. Billups did have an argument for the Pistons best player when they got back to the finals in '05.

Billups was their best player during their runs....not Rip, not Ben, not Tay.

That was my point.

But I agree, the best teams are built around d.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Billups was their best player during their runs....not Rip, not Ben, not Tay.

That was my point.

But I agree, the best teams are built around d.

Billups definitely wasn't the best during the 2004 run. He was their best player in the finals, but not during the previous 3 rounds or the regular season. That was Big Ben. Rip was arguably better than Billups through the first 3 rounds in '04 and Sheed's impact on that team was very big. It's hard to determine who the second best player was on the '04 team, but the best player was clearly Big Ben.

[Go Getter]

Billups definitely wasn't the best during the 2004 run. He was their best player in the finals, but not during the previous 3 rounds or the regular season. That was Big Ben. Rip was arguably better than Billups through the first 3 rounds in '04 and Sheed's impact on that team was very big. It's hard to determine who the second best player was on the '04 team, but the best player was clearly Big Ben.

I'll take Chauncey all-around....other than defense/rebounding and putting fans in the seats I think Ben was slightly overrated (but for what he has as far as talent he over-achieved--loved his style of play).