RealGM

Jason Kidd never got the respect he deserved...he brought the triple double back after magic left. Won a championship, took 2 horrible nets teams to the finals. great two way player.

His best seasons were better than any season Steve nash ever had. If he played w prime amare, Marion and Joe Johnson he would have won championships bc he can guard.

You overrate Kidd to huge degree. He would win nothing with Suns, considering how much worse he was as a shooter and creator he would never create offensive power like Nash did. And nothing impressive with this 2002 & 2003 finals, east was so bad then it's hard to imagine. Nash had 6-8 seasons better than Kidds best, they're not the same tier players even.

I tend to always rate these two pretty similarly. But ya Id choose Nash over Kidd. You can make the argument for Nash being top 3 all time when it comes to running an offense. Every offense Nash touched was an elite offense.

This is casual propaganda. You got this opinion straight from Twitter and Facebook. Your reasoning for why Kidd is better, is the same basic reasoning that all the other causals use.

“Defense!!!” “Back to back finals!!!”

Completely disregarding the fact that Kidd played in the weakest conference in league history and shot 39% from the field in his prime. There’s no way he would have turned D’antoni into a good defensive coach...a coach willing to run deep rotations...Or a coach capable of making adjustments over the course of a 7 game series against the Spurs...And he certainly wouldn’t have turned Amare into a great rebounder or good interior defender. Duncan still would’ve gotten whatever he wanted.

If we’re being honest, Kidd would’ve made those Suns teams a lot worse. His shooting wasn’t prolific enough to make those Suns the historically great team that they were offensively with Nash.

They would’ve been a 2nd round exit AT BEST with Kidd. And no he definitely wasn’t better than Nash at their very best. 2 MVPs > 0. Plus I don’t even think Kidd ever posted a PER over 20 LMFAO


Knock it off man

It's hard to respect a wife beater

https://www.espn.com/blog/new-york/brooklyn-nets/post/_/id/19596/history-of-jason-kidds-past-incidents

i think kidd was the much better talent but nash had the better attitude/approach, on and off the court.

Nash unless this is a wife beating contest.

In the modern era, where shooting and spacing is emphasized, Steve Nash is the obvious choice.

If we're talking 90's and early 2000's era, I'd take Kidd.

Jason Kidd was better and more impactful. I always respected his game. I'd take him all day over Nash, even in this era

Nash's had so many chances to win and always choked in the playoffs. I don't want to hear any excuses.

Yes Kidd played in a weaker conference, but the Suns teams Nash played on were stacked. They should have at least won a Championship let alone make an NBA Finals.

People also exaggerate how bad the East was. The Nets had to go a Pistons team that won the chip the next year in '03 and took the greatest Spurs team of all time to 6 games.

Kidd's second best player was who? Kenyon Martin?

Meanwhile Nash played with multiple all stars.

Swap Nash and Kidd and they're still not getting past SA in the playoffs imo. Career wise I would take Kidd but at their peaks Nash was the more impactful player overall. Defense is great from your PG but he a far, far superior shooter and scorer compared to Kidd and his offensive production outweighed Kidd's defense. Suns needed Nash to be able to score at high efficiency and pass against SA. They would have gotten reamed 10x harder if their PG wasn't much of a threat to score.

Hello Brooklyn wrote:Nash's had so many chances to win and always choked in the playoffs. I don't want to hear any excuses.

Yes Kidd played in a weaker conference, but the Suns teams Nash played on were stacked. They should have at least won a Championship let alone make an NBA Finals.

People also exaggerate how bad the East was. The Nets had to go a Pistons team that won the chip the next year in '03 and took the greatest Spurs team of all time to 6 games.

Kidd's second best player was who? Kenyon Martin?

Meanwhile Nash played with multiple all stars.

They won like 29 games in 2004 and 62 in 2005 with the main change being Nash. Amare and Marion weren't doing jack without a PG like him leading them. It's no coincidence they have been wallowing in complete irrelevance since the Nash days

I’m probably taking Kidd because he was more versatile and a better defender but I’ve never enjoyed watching basketball more than when Nash was in his prime. Those Suns teams were a joy to watch.

Hello Brooklyn wrote:People also exaggerate how bad the East was. The Nets had to go a Pistons team that won the chip the next year in '03 and took the greatest Spurs team of all time to 6 games.

Greatest Spurs what? and the 03 Pistons didn't have Rasheed.

Two great point guards w/ different strengths. I would rate them fairly similarly overall

I'm adding a poll. Also, no more domestic-abuse comments, please. That was a horrible situation, but this thread is about basketball.

For my money, Kidd > Nash. Defense is half the game, for those of y'all dismissing that point. Also, Kidd was a much better rebounder, which may not seem like a primary factor in evaluating PGs, but a PG who can rebound well without being caught out of position defensively is a huge asset. Nash was a better shooter and it's a shame his prime missed this era by about a decade, but I maintain that Kidd was the superior playmaker, and his body of work speaks for itself: he did more with considerably less, weak EC notwithstanding. He also turned himself into a pretty good shooter in the last third of his career.

I've long held that the fact that Nash has two MVPs and Kidd has none is a huge oversight (though it's not Kidd's fault that his best seasons overlapped with Duncan's MVP seasons, and my dude isn't giving either of them back).

I take Nash. I liked Kidd, he was a superb passer and a triple double waiting to happen. However, Nash on those Suns teams was unreal.

Nash was so smart and crafty; improved offensive output of his team significantly. Kidd was a great all around point guard but his shot was bad. Nash>Kidd

the numbers say nash but my heart says kidd. I just loved watching him play pretty much for a whole decade on yes network, he is the one guy you saw in the nba and wished you could play with. he would play so damm hard too. I wish those late 00s nets teams had better centers, they would have made another trip to the finals i think.

Crazy how Nash turned around the narrative with his time in Phoenix. You would have gotten laughed at for this debate during the first half of Nash's career. I do think it's a conversation but I'd take Kidd.

Kidd's defensive versatility vs Nash's shooting are the 2 key differentiators here. I just think Kidd has more other strengths such as rebounding, size/strength, finishing ability, post game, etc.