RealGM

Who would most Suns fans rather have?

The 01-04 version of Marbury when he played for the Suns or the 04-09 + version of Nash?

Here are some variables for each

Marbury
-Better defender than Nash
-Has more swagger than Nash
-Younger than Nash
-A NYC street ball legend

Nash
-More of a pure PG?

Now a few questions and points...

-Nash averaged 8 assists per game in Dallas under Don Nelson while Marbury averaged 8 assists per game under Frank Johnson

-Would Marbury have thrived in SSOL, won two MVP's and brought the Suns deeper in the playoffs?

-Would Nash still be Nash if he played under Frank Johnson?

As you all know I vote for Marbury but who do you vote for and why?

Marbury = eats vasoline



Nash = 2x MVP

I think few would argue that Nash has more talent then Marbury, but when it comes down to it Nash is better in the most important way.

He is a winner and Marbury, frankly, is not.

. . . . .

I'd go with what The Moochinator said. One poster could argue why Marbury>>>Nash while another could argue why Nash>>>Marbury, there are reasons on both sides of the debate. But when it comes down to it, Nash is a winner. Nash is a leader. Nash has his head on straight. Nash has productive things going on in his life when he's not playing ball.

Yeah you could argue Starbury was a better defender than Nash during his prime and has more "swagger" (not even sure how that makes a player better) and that Starbury's stats would've been inflated just as Nash's did under SSOL. Would the Suns have won more games with Marbury under D'Antoni? Would the Suns have won more games with Nash under Johnson? I dunno.

All I know is that Nash is a 2x MVP, makes his team mates better, lead the team to 2 conference finals and was closer to the championship than Marbury ever took us.

Where's Marbury now?

NASH

the other guy is a crazy ****

MaryvalesFinest wrote:Who would most Suns fans rather have?

The 01-04 version of Marbury when he played for the Suns or the 04-09 + version of Nash?

Here are some variables for each

Marbury
-Better defender than Nash
-Has more swagger than Nash
-Younger than Nash
-A NYC street ball legend

Nash
-More of a pure PG?

- better passer
- better shooter
- better decision-maker
- has never had a losing record
- better leader
- more determination

C'mon man ... your bias just in that post is extraordinary. I thought Marbury was really good here and I'll never forget how much it meant to him to get into the play-offs (remember *that* pose) but comparing him to Nash is just plain ridiculous.

Wait, hasn't this topic already hijacked numerous other threads? And as if that wasn't enough, now it needs its own (redundant) thread?


This topic is like a virus, attaching itself to healthy host topics..

kj mentioned it, nash is a much better shooter than steph ever was. and the best thing nash is doing is to make his teamates better. just think of shawn marion. he was a beast besides nash and played not good in miami or toronto.

i would like to see steph as our shooting guard - this guy has nuts to take every clutch shot - i realy love his style of play, but he has not a real chance against nash.

MaryvalesFinest wrote:Nash
-More of a pure PG?

"I'm Ron Burgundy?"

"Damnit, who put the question mark in the teleprompter?"

This is a joke.. Everyone knows that Starbury is a much better talent wise than Nash.... The problem is that having a BBIQ will alway out weight talents and ability. For example, Rasheed Wallace in his prime had the tools to be one of the best power foward in the NBA. He could shoot, can defend, post up, rebound and was clutch. However, he never took his head out of his a**! Even Magic Johnson said that Rasheed was as good as Tim Duncan talent wise. But talents alone doesn't automatically make you great.


I will always respect Steve Nash for what he did with his ability. I know Maryvale, he cant dunk, he doesn't have swagger( what eve the hell that means), he can't defend his own shadow. But one think you can never deny is that Steve Nash is one of the smartest basketball player in the NBA. I would take Steve Nash over Starbury 11 out of 10..

If Marbury was better than Steve Nash, why didn't he excel in D'Antoni system like Nash did?? I know why, because his swagger got in his way....

ray ray wrote:Everyone knows that Starbury is a much better talent wise than Nash....

Not to take you out of context here, but just a slight course correction needed...

Marbury may have more physical tools, but I don't know about more talent necessarilly. I guess it's about how you define talent.

A couple of examples:

Being able to shoot 40% from beyond that arc without ever spotting up = talent.

Being able to regularly create assists from behind halfcourt in transition = talent.

Being able to manage massive egos while keeping your (2x MVP) ego in check = massive talent.

MaryV, stop with the Nash hate and making a million threads on it. GTFO man, seriously. This is getting sooooo old.

Anyone saying Marbury doesn't watch the game.

Nash >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Marbury ever was.


Marbury on those SSOL teams, we're in the lottery and he never gets considered for an MVP.

since everyone already talked about how Nash is better on the court... ill show off court why Nash is better...

Marbury http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2QEcadC_Rk
dear god

and Nash http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7Od4H9uIJ8

also i wanna know how you define swagger mary, cuz Marbury might have had swagger by himself but the way nash played and brought the run and gun our WHOLE team had swagger so technically nash not only has swagger he has so much that it rubbed of on the whole team

Is this a joke or something??

Marbury lacks leadership, plays selfish, inconsistent shooter, low basketball IQ.

The only thing he is better than Nash at is athletism and quickness.

Nash is better than Marbury in basketball IQ, leadership, passing, outside shooting, creating, ball handling, etc. etc....

For anyone to even compare the two is ridiculously biased. Nash is about 100 times better player than Marbury.

And I am not a Nash fan. I actually think Kevin Johnson was better than Nash.

I'm not a fan of Marbury but I must say that "talent-wise", Marbury >>> Steve Nash but Steve Nash turns out to be a "better" player.

OrangeNation wrote:I'm not a fan of Marbury but I must say that "talent-wise", Marbury >>> Steve Nash but Steve Nash turns out to be a "better" player.

How does Marbury have more talent? He is more physically gifted but thats NOT talent.
Are you going to tell me that Stromile Swift has more talent than Tim Duncan?

Buddy, that's a really really bad comparison. There's a reason Stromile is only making around 4 million (or less) all his career while Tim Duncan just signed a contract extension worths 20 million per in his 30's...A more probable comparison is Amare v.s. Tim Duncan.