Was Jason Kidd ever really a DOMINANT player?

[I'm Seriously]

Yes. People see the current Jason Kidd and don't see the hype, but if you watched him at his best, he was something else. He improved teams, as evidenced with the Nets. Dallas got better when they drafted him, Phoenix made the playoffs when Kidd played there and they were lottery bound when he left.

You take a team that has Kenyon Martin as one of your best players to the NBA finals, you're a pretty damn good player.

Nash is a good player, but he's not going to improve your team. He might make it more entertaining, but like I said, he's not going to make your team better.

I'm pretty sure having an elite offense makes you a better team.

[ThaSwagg3r]

Wow; I love how people see the current version and assume that's sort of what he was like in his prime. Kidd was a nightmare to defend.

Never averaging 20 ppg or more and shooting in the 35-40% range is definitely a nightmare to defend.

[get these NETS]

Never averaging 20 ppg or more and shooting in the 35-40% range is definitely a nightmare to defend.

who else could dominate a game and the FINAL score without scoring a single point?


besides Magic?



Jason Kidd turned his weaknesses into strengths..

ok....call him Ason Kidd, because he doesn't have a J?

He'll just fall back behind the arc and shoot(and make) timely threes...

sag off him on defense?

he'll just penetrate the paint and dish for an easier bucket or a dagger three


he was in attack mode so often and had such ball control and vision that he'd destroy your defense....time and time and time again....

[Crown&Coke]

Never averaging 20 ppg or more and shooting in the 35-40% range is definitely a nightmare to defend.

people who tried to check him thought so, because aint no body ever put Jason Kidd on lockdown

[KevinNYC]

Never averaging 20 ppg or more and shooting in the 35-40% range is definitely a nightmare to defend.

Sigh. It's a team game remember?
When Kidd was in his prime, he ran a fast-breaking team that as a whole was a nightmare to defend.

Put a great center on those Nets teams and they would remind people of the Showtime Lakers. Doesn't have to be Kareem either, but a guy who could run the court and defend.

The Nets took the Spurs to 6 games with Jason Collins as their center.

[XxSMSxX]

If a PG's defense is so important to winning a title how the hell did the Spurs win multiple championships with Tony Parker as there PG?

And how the hell did the Lakers win multiple titles with Fisher as there PG?

What team has ever won a title where there PG was there best defender?

But teams have won titles were there PG was there best offensive player.

PG offense> PG defense.

No one said the PG has to be the best defensive player on the team but when your PG is absolute ASS on defense that has a huge effect on team D

[TootsieRoll]

no way prime Kidd is quicker than current Rose

Your dumber than a homeless man. stupid retard. get off ish asshole

[I'm Seriously]

No one said the PG has to be the best defensive player on the team but when your PG is absolute ASS on defense that has a huge effect on team D

Then how did the Spurs and the Lakers when multiple titles last decade?

And btw when Nash had a good defensive big who could cover up his defense the Suns were a great defensive team. So clearly he's not costing them much defensively. But his oh so great owner thought it was a good idea to trade that player for cash.

[rodman91]

Kidd was much better defender, can playmaking from post,much better rebounder.Lack of shooting.

Nash is one of the best shooters of all time.Lack of defense.

I prefer nash as point guard because if you block passing lines he can still be effective with scoring.Also rebounding is quite overrated for guards when there are big guys.Nash's shooting ability is can open up the game.

Kidd was dominant player.Both on offense and defense.

[KevinNYC]

Also rebounding is quite overrated for guards when there are big guys.

With Kidd though, if he got a rebound, he was in attack mode, and your whole team is scrambling to get back.

I like Nash better in the half court than Kidd more dangerous off the pick and roll, but on defense and the transition from defense to offense I like Kidd.

Two of my all time favorite players though, because I like unselfish play, ball movement and fast break offense and guys with great court vision.

[Nets fan 93]

Kidd was much better defender, can playmaking from post,much better rebounder.Lack of shooting.

Nash is one of the best shooters of all time.Lack of defense.

I prefer nash as point guard because if you block passing lines he can still be effective with scoring.Also rebounding is quite overrated for guards when there are big guys.Nash's shooting ability is can open up the game.

Kidd was dominant player.Both on offense and defense.

Rebounding may seem overrated.. The amount kidd pulled down was very very impressive though. He was something else man. He has one of the best intangibles of all time. He was great coz of his IQ and court vision. Not to mention elite defense.

[KevinNYC]

Kidd with the rebound and the break

[miles berg]

Saw both Kidd & Nash extensively in Dallas and without a doubt Jason Kidd was a better player. Nash was a damn good player, no doubt, but Jason Kidd is one of the great's in the history of the game. He controlled the entire 94' of the basketball court whereas Nash controlled 47'. Pretty simple. People also underrate Kidd's ability to keep defense's honest through his three point shooting. The guy will go down top 5 in history in made 3 pointers.

He was better defensively than Nash, a better passer, a better rebounder, better at controlling an offense, while Nash was a better scorer in the halfcourt and a better shooter.

That is literally it. Nash was better at half court scoring and shooting whereas Kidd was equal to/better than Nash in every other aspect of the game.

Both are great players, no doubt, but Nash had the luxury of playing with Dirk Nowitzki & Amare Stoudemire. The best player prime Kidd played with was Antonio McDyess. Good player, no doubt, but not in the same universe as a Nowitzki or Amare.

[tpols]

Kidd was a dominant player in his prime.

Shit.. he was a better basketball player than nash.. he just never had the talent nash had in pheonix. Are we really going to compare kenyon martin, RJ, and kerry Kittles to Joe Johnson, Shawn Marion and Amare Stoudemire? Nash had a MASSIVE advantage in team strength and this easily makes up for any difference in opponent strength. Just look at the suns now that all of those guys have left.. they're not even in the playoffs anymore with nash still playing at a level close to what he played at in 06.

Kidd was a much, much better defender and rebounder than nash. And for those of you who think point guard defense and rebounding don't matter think about fast break play.. Kidd was a master of the fastbreak whether he jumpstarted it with a long rebound or a steal, he consistently got the nets running and his court vision and passing abilities in transition are the best in league history. He wasn't as good offensively in the half court as nash but he was better in transition, and overall a better passer where as nash was a better shooter and scorer.

Personally, I'd rather have a point guard who is a great on ball and help defender(especially since, in Kidd's case, he was a master at converting his defense into offense), and a point guard that is a great, great passer.. two areas kidd pretty much destroys nash in and the two categories that pretty much define a point guard. Nash may have been close to kidd as a player(although I still think kidd was better overall because his game was more balanced) but he sure as hell wasn't a better point guard.

[get these NETS]

Kidd could also defend 1,2,3s

so on switches, and pick rolls you're team isn't automatically at a disadvantage...


part of the reason why he made so many all defense teams...