RealGM

tihsad wrote:Hard to call, but I'll go no. 07' Nash wasn't dealing with the type of defenses 98' Stockton was, and I'm not sure there is much debate to have there. I'll take that version of Nash over Stockton, but still not enough to get by the Bulls. I'd gander the Jazz score more, but the lack of D (in a very defensive series) isn't doing the Jazz any favors. I'd say pushes to 7 instead of 6 games, but no, not a series changer.

AdagioPace wrote:

tihsad wrote:Hard to call, but I'll go no. 07' Nash wasn't dealing with the type of defenses 98' Stockton was, and I'm not sure there is much debate to have there. I'll take that version of Nash over Stockton, but still not enough to get by the Bulls. I'd gander the Jazz score more, but the lack of D (in a very defensive series) isn't doing the Jazz any favors. I'd say pushes to 7 instead of 6 games, but no, not a series changer.

lol such a bad argument (typical from 90 lovers). Nash was just dealing with the second greatest defensive dinasty year in year out

tihsad wrote:

AdagioPace wrote:

tihsad wrote:Hard to call, but I'll go no. 07' Nash wasn't dealing with the type of defenses 98' Stockton was, and I'm not sure there is much debate to have there. I'll take that version of Nash over Stockton, but still not enough to get by the Bulls. I'd gander the Jazz score more, but the lack of D (in a very defensive series) isn't doing the Jazz any favors. I'd say pushes to 7 instead of 6 games, but no, not a series changer.

lol such a bad argument (typical from 90 lovers). Nash was just dealing with the second greatest defensive dinasty year in year out

I always hope to hear "lol, bad argument" in any forum I participate in. Outside of the constructive criticism you adroitly provide, I agree, Steve Nash was facing a great defensive "dinasty" in the mid 2000s Spurs. He was also playing under a new rule set post 2004 that greatly provided an advantage to his style of play. An exceptional player, a precursor to the current game, and someone that would have suffered in a series in 1997-1998. No, the Jazz with peak Nash go 7 at best and still lose to the Bulls (and I'm listening OK Computer as I type this, cuz...90s). I enjoy a number of your posts, but please make more of an effort in these regards.

ShotCreator wrote:No chance they lose in 98. Stockton was finished being a dominant player after the knee injury. Even if high level in low minutes.

Nash was at the peak of his powers. Chicago didn’t have a defense quite built to deal with Nash’s strengths. Slow bigs, lack of elite foot speed. Makes Stocktons performance that much more disappointing. And a clear signal to the drop-off from 97. Chicago was even better in 97.

By the end of the 98 series they would’ve butchered Chicago in all those screen sets.

Sloan would’ve used Nash more like D’Antoni did than Donnie. And they really wouldn’t have had a choice.

tihsad wrote:

ShotCreator wrote:No chance they lose in 98. Stockton was finished being a dominant player after the knee injury. Even if high level in low minutes.

Nash was at the peak of his powers. Chicago didn’t have a defense quite built to deal with Nash’s strengths. Slow bigs, lack of elite foot speed. Makes Stocktons performance that much more disappointing. And a clear signal to the drop-off from 97. Chicago was even better in 97.

By the end of the 98 series they would’ve butchered Chicago in all those screen sets.

Sloan would’ve used Nash more like D’Antoni did than Donnie. And they really wouldn’t have had a choice.

As I mentioned previously, I certainly agree that 07' Nash was superior to 98' Stockton, but I'm not sure I agree with Chicago being ill-equipped to handle the former. You don't think that even older Pippen, Jordan, Harper had the skill set to defend Nash? That they lacked elite foot speed? I didn't include Rodman as he longer could guard 1s and 2s, but certainly could manage screens. The Bulls struggled with small, high speed guards, but I don't think 07' Nash was amazingly fast - rather he had incredible endurance, handles, shooting, and BB IQ. And while the 98' Bulls weren't Riley Knicks physical, Nash certainly was going to take a beating that would have been impossible post the 04' rule changes. I think Nash was plenty tough enough to take it (Robert Horry), but it would slow him down. As for Sloan changing his system? I'm not seeing any chance of that. Utah played in a much faster system prior to Jerry becoming head coach, afterwards what you saw is what you were going to get regardless of if it's Nash, Stockton, or Deron Williams. I'll agree that 07' Nash certainly gives Utah a better shot, but it's by no means a beat down of the Bulls.

HeartBreakKid wrote:

tihsad wrote:

ShotCreator wrote:No chance they lose in 98. Stockton was finished being a dominant player after the knee injury. Even if high level in low minutes.

Nash was at the peak of his powers. Chicago didn’t have a defense quite built to deal with Nash’s strengths. Slow bigs, lack of elite foot speed. Makes Stocktons performance that much more disappointing. And a clear signal to the drop-off from 97. Chicago was even better in 97.

By the end of the 98 series they would’ve butchered Chicago in all those screen sets.

Sloan would’ve used Nash more like D’Antoni did than Donnie. And they really wouldn’t have had a choice.

As I mentioned previously, I certainly agree that 07' Nash was superior to 98' Stockton, but I'm not sure I agree with Chicago being ill-equipped to handle the former. You don't think that even older Pippen, Jordan, Harper had the skill set to defend Nash? That they lacked elite foot speed? I didn't include Rodman as he longer could guard 1s and 2s, but certainly could manage screens. The Bulls struggled with small, high speed guards, but I don't think 07' Nash was amazingly fast - rather he had incredible endurance, handles, shooting, and BB IQ. And while the 98' Bulls weren't Riley Knicks physical, Nash certainly was going to take a beating that would have been impossible post the 04' rule changes. I think Nash was plenty tough enough to take it (Robert Horry), but it would slow him down. As for Sloan changing his system? I'm not seeing any chance of that. Utah played in a much faster system prior to Jerry becoming head coach, afterwards what you saw is what you were going to get regardless of if it's Nash, Stockton, or Deron Williams. I'll agree that 07' Nash certainly gives Utah a better shot, but it's by no means a beat down of the Bulls.

Handles and decision making will make a player seem more fast than just raw speed. Nash plays with more pace, and his shot selection with Stockton makes him a more aggressive guard in general. Sure - could they throw a bunch of guys at Nash and slow him down, - it's possible, though it's never been done in any meaningful capacity to Nash during his Suns years. But if they over dedicate to Nash, that frees up Hornacek and Malone.


We've seen Nash get roughed up before, never made a difference. Nash is not far behind the greatest offensive players of all time, you're not slowing him down unless you throw the kitchen sink at him.

HeartBreakKid wrote:

tihsad wrote:

ShotCreator wrote:No chance they lose in 98. Stockton was finished being a dominant player after the knee injury. Even if high level in low minutes.

Nash was at the peak of his powers. Chicago didn’t have a defense quite built to deal with Nash’s strengths. Slow bigs, lack of elite foot speed. Makes Stocktons performance that much more disappointing. And a clear signal to the drop-off from 97. Chicago was even better in 97.

By the end of the 98 series they would’ve butchered Chicago in all those screen sets.

Sloan would’ve used Nash more like D’Antoni did than Donnie. And they really wouldn’t have had a choice.

As I mentioned previously, I certainly agree that 07' Nash was superior to 98' Stockton, but I'm not sure I agree with Chicago being ill-equipped to handle the former. You don't think that even older Pippen, Jordan, Harper had the skill set to defend Nash? That they lacked elite foot speed? I didn't include Rodman as he longer could guard 1s and 2s, but certainly could manage screens. The Bulls struggled with small, high speed guards, but I don't think 07' Nash was amazingly fast - rather he had incredible endurance, handles, shooting, and BB IQ. And while the 98' Bulls weren't Riley Knicks physical, Nash certainly was going to take a beating that would have been impossible post the 04' rule changes. I think Nash was plenty tough enough to take it (Robert Horry), but it would slow him down. As for Sloan changing his system? I'm not seeing any chance of that. Utah played in a much faster system prior to Jerry becoming head coach, afterwards what you saw is what you were going to get regardless of if it's Nash, Stockton, or Deron Williams. I'll agree that 07' Nash certainly gives Utah a better shot, but it's by no means a beat down of the Bulls.

Handles and decision making will make a player seem more fast than just raw speed. Nash plays with more pace, and his shot selection with Stockton makes him a more aggressive guard in general. Sure - could they throw a bunch of guys at Nash and slow him down, - it's possible, though it's never been done in any meaningful capacity to Nash during his Suns years. But if they over dedicate to Nash, that frees up Hornacek and Malone.


We've seen Nash get roughed up before, never made a difference. Nash is not far behind the greatest offensive players of all time, you're not slowing him down unless you throw the kitchen sink at him.

LakerLegend wrote:

HeartBreakKid wrote:

tihsad wrote:
As I mentioned previously, I certainly agree that 07' Nash was superior to 98' Stockton, but I'm not sure I agree with Chicago being ill-equipped to handle the former. You don't think that even older Pippen, Jordan, Harper had the skill set to defend Nash? That they lacked elite foot speed? I didn't include Rodman as he longer could guard 1s and 2s, but certainly could manage screens. The Bulls struggled with small, high speed guards, but I don't think 07' Nash was amazingly fast - rather he had incredible endurance, handles, shooting, and BB IQ. And while the 98' Bulls weren't Riley Knicks physical, Nash certainly was going to take a beating that would have been impossible post the 04' rule changes. I think Nash was plenty tough enough to take it (Robert Horry), but it would slow him down. As for Sloan changing his system? I'm not seeing any chance of that. Utah played in a much faster system prior to Jerry becoming head coach, afterwards what you saw is what you were going to get regardless of if it's Nash, Stockton, or Deron Williams. I'll agree that 07' Nash certainly gives Utah a better shot, but it's by no means a beat down of the Bulls.

Handles and decision making will make a player seem more fast than just raw speed. Nash plays with more pace, and his shot selection with Stockton makes him a more aggressive guard in general. Sure - could they throw a bunch of guys at Nash and slow him down, - it's possible, though it's never been done in any meaningful capacity to Nash during his Suns years. But if they over dedicate to Nash, that frees up Hornacek and Malone.


We've seen Nash get roughed up before, never made a difference. Nash is not far behind the greatest offensive players of all time, you're not slowing him down unless you throw the kitchen sink at him.

Nash himself admitted that the rule changes softening up play and boosting offense greatly helped him.