Charles Barkley (suns) or Steve Nash (suns)

[JordansBulls]

Charles Barkley. He lead the Suns to the Finals which is something Nash has never done during his tenure in Phoenix.

You're way too obsessed with that line of thinking. IIRC Barkley made it past the 2nd round once, Nash 3 times with some terrible luck. For me this question is a toss up, both were elite in Phoenix.

I believe Barkley was dominant though in his time in Phoenix. Nash was good but not dominant.

[Aeternus]

^^^ Not dominant? Creating half of the top 10 offenses of all time is not dominating? What was he supposed to more than that?

Career wise I'd take Nash. Even if you consider Barkley to be better, is he so much better to offset the fact that Nash has been a Sun 8 seasons (this year) to Barkley's 4?

[_Game7_]

Charles Barkley

[ahonui06]

Charles Barkley. He lead the Suns to the Finals which is something Nash has never done during his tenure in Phoenix.

You're way too obsessed with that line of thinking. IIRC Barkley made it past the 2nd round once, Nash 3 times with some terrible luck. For me this question is a toss up, both were elite in Phoenix.

I would also like to point out that Barkley never missed the playoffs as a member of the Phoenix Suns. The same can't be said for Steve Nash. Barkley carried those teams to the postseason because of his amazing offense.

[doctorfunk]

Charles Barkley. He lead the Suns to the Finals which is something Nash has never done during his tenure in Phoenix.

You're way too obsessed with that line of thinking. IIRC Barkley made it past the 2nd round once, Nash 3 times with some terrible luck. For me this question is a toss up, both were elite in Phoenix.

co-sign !

[RandomKnight]

Barkley's Suns teams were really well-rounded his first few years, and they never made it past the 2nd round after that anyway. The year before he joined the team they were a 53-win ball club, and that was without Majerle and Ainge.

Nash was kind of a victim of circumstances and I feel they would have made the Finals in 2007 had Amare and Diaw not gotten themselves suspended. I know it's a big what-if but that completely changed the series right there. Outside of that, he did get the Suns to the WCF 3 other times including 05-06 when he didn't have Amare.

I think I'd have to go with Nash. He's run some historically great offenses and had to go up against some really tough teams by comparison (Dirk's Mavs, Duncan's Spurs, and Kobe's Lakers). I seriously doubt Barkley would have had any success going up against the same level of competition year after year.

This.

I think Barkley is terribly underrated.

I think Nash is by far the most underrated player in any sport ever. In his case, what is perfectly obvious, takes more thinking than 90 percent of people are capable of, for them to see. It's not surprising, but it is kind of frustrating.

[RandomKnight]

Charles Barkley. He lead the Suns to the Finals which is something Nash has never done during his tenure in Phoenix.

You're way too obsessed with that line of thinking. IIRC Barkley made it past the 2nd round once, Nash 3 times with some terrible luck. For me this question is a toss up, both were elite in Phoenix.

I believe Barkley was dominant though in his time in Phoenix. Nash was good but not dominant.

Wow. Nash is arguably the highest impact player ever. I guess if a player doesn't volume score or do one or two other very simple, obvious box score things really well, he is not dominant.

[RandomKnight]

Barkley was a more dominant player than Nash. Every tool but defense, which of course Nash doesn't have either. Just totally took over games by himself, whereas by his very nature Nash normally needs a finisher to complete his own birlliance.

I remember Barkley's first game with the Suns, where he showed up, said hello, and proceeded to drop 37pts 21rebs and 8ast on the night. A few weeks later it was 44pts 17rebs. A few games after that 33pts 18rebs 8ast. That was all in his first November, and he never slowed. Later in that season he dropped 35pts 24rebs on the Wolves. His playoff numbers were gigantic, and I specifically remember him dropping a 30-10-10 type triple double on Jordan and the Bulls in the Finals. I've long said Barkley was the most talented PF of all time. Not the best mind you. But when his dander was up and he wanted to play and prove something, he was incredible. As good as Nash has been he very rarely has just singlehandedly destroyed teams like that.

No. Everything here about Barkley's greatness is perfectly true. But Nash is even higher impact and better.

[DaPerception]

First time Nash gets compared to someone to his caliber defensively.

Barkley's Suns teams were really well-rounded his first few years, and they never made it past the 2nd round after that anyway. The year before he joined the team they were a 53-win ball club, and that was without Majerle and Ainge.

Nash was kind of a victim of circumstances and I feel they would have made the Finals in 2007 had Amare and Diaw not gotten themselves suspended. I know it's a big what-if but that completely changed the series right there. Outside of that, he did get the Suns to the WCF 3 other times including 05-06 when he didn't have Amare.

I think I'd have to go with Nash. He's run some historically great offenses and had to go up against some really tough teams by comparison (Dirk's Mavs, Duncan's Spurs, and Kobe's Lakers). I seriously doubt Barkley would have had any success going up against the same level of competition year after year.

^^ I agree with this guy for the most part. I don't agree about the part where he said if Diaw and Amare weren't suspended they would have gotten past the Spurs though.

I feel like Nash and his Suns got screwed over by his coach more than anything. I honestly think that if Alvin Gentry was coaching from '04-'10, the Suns would have had a championship and maybe even multiple championships. I blame D'Antoni more than I blame anyone for the Suns failures, not Amare, not Marion (although he did tend to play below his standard in the post-season), and definitely not Nash.

[JordansBulls]

Barkley was a more dominant player than Nash. Every tool but defense, which of course Nash doesn't have either. Just totally took over games by himself, whereas by his very nature Nash normally needs a finisher to complete his own birlliance.

I remember Barkley's first game with the Suns, where he showed up, said hello, and proceeded to drop 37pts 21rebs and 8ast on the night. A few weeks later it was 44pts 17rebs. A few games after that 33pts 18rebs 8ast. That was all in his first November, and he never slowed. Later in that season he dropped 35pts 24rebs on the Wolves. His playoff numbers were gigantic, and I specifically remember him dropping a 30-10-10 type triple double on Jordan and the Bulls in the Finals. I've long said Barkley was the most talented PF of all time. Not the best mind you. But when his dander was up and he wanted to play and prove something, he was incredible. As good as Nash has been he very rarely has just singlehandedly destroyed teams like that.

No. Everything here about Barkley's greatness is perfectly true. But Nash is even higher impact and better.

How is Nash higher impact when he had guys on his own team outproduce him?

[Doctor MJ]

Who was the better and greater player while on the Suns only? Charles Barkley or Steve Nash

I might answer differently to the two questions.

The greater player is clearly Nash. Barkley simply didn't play in Phoenix for that long. I'd rank KJ ahead of Barkley to among the greatest Suns of all-time.

Had Barkley led the Suns to a title that might have changed things, but getting to the finals isn't really any bigger of a deal than losing to the eventual champ in your own conference if there's reason to think that you would have won the title if you could have gotten past that match up.

Best? Well, I'm certainly a believer in Sir Charles. I'd probably side with him.

[mattg]

Barkley was better than Nash, but Nash played more seasons with the Suns, so it really depends on how you look at the question as to who you pick. Nash has longevity on his side, but honestly, that's really the only reason I think you could have to choose him.