Steve Nash really should have won multiple championships.

[JustBuzzin]

Kings have the Thunder and the Suns have the Clippers tonight, after Mavs win this game if either of those teams lose they clinch a top 6 seed.

Wrong thread

[VanWest82]

Oh care for your explanation?

Besides Lillard, Nash is the worst defensive player I’ve seen for a star player and it’s not close.

They really can’t even defend an average person I’m serious. They are awful.

Yeah, this is hyperbole to a ridiculous extent. The NBA is littered with guys who either didn't try or were just too plain stupid to get defensive concepts. Nash was neither. He was at a disadvantage physically and it showed up against guys like Baron Davis and Tony Parker, but he always knew where to be and he always competed on that end. Unless you're talking about his first couple years in Phoenix in which case, yeah he was an actual bad defender. That wasn't the case in Dallas or Phoenix rd2.

No Nash was straight out a bad defender. Couldn’t keep anyone in front, not physical enough to defend individually or team help.

I don’t care for trying when you are straight up bad. Face fact

That’s a weak excuse actually frankly it’s not even excuse. Everyone competes lol

Dude was a 2x MVP he has to held a defined standard which personally he isn’t because it’s taken a back seat to his offence.

It is bad when you are playing minus 1 at the front especially in half court settings.

Lots of misinformation here.

Nash was a solid team defender. He wasn't always physically up to the challenge but he almost always rotated early allowing Suns to maintain their scheme integrity. Also, Marion was often the guy who defended POA so it played into Nash's strengths as a help defender.

Nash actually did a decent job of keeping guys in front. His issue was getting backed down.

You seem to have zero understanding of his strengths and weaknesses. Are you just parroting nonsense to back up your pre-conceived notions? Seems like it.

[One Last Shot]

Bad era. He had to overlap with the end of Shaq, prime of Duncan, Kobe, start of Lebron, Wade and then his own issues with injuries. One true bad break were the suspensions in 2005.

Agreed with everything but LeBron/Wade. They never interfere with his championship chances.

Duncan's Spurs was the main reason Nash never won a ring. They eliminated his team in the Playoffs 7 times out of 12 Playoffs appearances. Kings did it twice while the Lakers, Mavs and Sonics eliminated his team once.

[jkvonny]

JustBuzzin must have partakin in some of these threads (threads 31-60), in this forum/message board back in the '80s lol

https://groups.google.com/g/net.sport.hoops

[SweaterBae]

Just looking back at some of the teams he played for dude had Amare Stoudemire/Joe Johnson/Shawn Marion. That team should have won a championship.

Why, because YOU say so? FOH.

[JustBuzzin]

Just looking back at some of the teams he played for dude had Amare Stoudemire/Joe Johnson/Shawn Marion. That team should have won a championship.

Why, because YOU say so? FOH.

Take a chill pill.

[SearsTower]

Steve Nash is one of the few former players I actually, truly miss watching play.

[Edrees]

Those suns were the epitome of defense wins championships

[schnakenpopanz]

ah here it is, the monthly meeting of the nash haters.
thought it would not be that far away by now.
he deserved every mvp and if not for tim donaghy and the suspensions he would have 2 championships.

[cupcakesnake]

Im fine with people answers.

It's perfectly fine to disagree with me. It's the people who defending Nash that act like im in the wrong. You got people in this very thread calling him overrated. My problem is more about holding players accountable. I have seen previous MVP players get criticism for not winning a championship. Nash is no different imo.

#Accountability

Ok so, the reason people are acting like you're "in the wrong" is because you're using false generalizations (or stereotypes) to explain something complicated. You list big teammate names (without mentioning their dramatic injury history or front office blunders). You also use some junk points like bringing up the Lakers (when Nash was just old and too injured to play). That causes people to react and feel like they need to correct you.

Like you say, there are plenty of people who are calling him overrated, so it's hard to reconcile that with your argument that Nash needs to be held accountable (whatever that means). Nash is a player who has his own legions of haters. He's a divisive figure because of those MVPs already, so you coming in here to hold him accountable isn't something new. There's been fierce Nash debate ever since he won MVP. You're not really correcting an imbalance with your accountability act, you're just repeating the same stuff people have said about him for almost 20 years.

Everynow and then I see some smart Nash criticism. No one thinks he's perfect (mostly due to the defense and early career reluctance to ramp up scoring volume). But listing his best teammates and saying "wHy nO rInGz" isn't clever accountability. It's just more of the same low-level discourse. I've seen a lot of people go deep on Steve Nash with you, and you tend to just say you disagree and then cite the generalizations again.

I understand your point of view trust me I do.

Now look at it from my point of view...

I see Nash as an all-time great pg who happened to play with some of the better players during his prime. Those rosters Nash had compared to a guy like say CP3/Kidd and these guys have led much less to a Finals and even won a championship. I'm just saying Nash should have a ring because he had the talent to win a championship. People in this thread calling him the best offensive pg's of all-time. I expected at least 1 championship from Nash.

Is that really hating that I think Nash should have a championship?

Yes he had some good rosters with lots of offensive fire power. Had those rosters been healthier/luckier in the playoffs, Nash would have won a championship.

Specifically he could have won in:
- 2003, but Dirk got injured in the Western Conference Finals and they lost to the Spurs.
- 2005, but Joe Johnson broke his face in the Western Conference Finals and they lost to the Spurs
- 2007, but the refs suspended Diaw and Amar'e for leaving the bench
(Nash also came pretty close to a title in 2006 and 2010, but that was with rosters that had no business being there.)

Also, Duncan/Manu/Parker was simply a better, more talented team than any of those Suns teams. Duncan is a top 5-10 all-time player with Manu and Parker being somewhere in the top 100. Nash is a top 20-30 all-time player, Marion is somewhere in the top 100, and Amar'e is somewhere outside the top 100. On top of the Spurs being a better team, they also got the lucky breaks in terms of injuries and shenanigans.

Do you have any counter points to this or reasons why you feel these points aren't correct?

[canada_dry]

He consistently over achieved with those suns teams when considering the context. Outside of when shaq was on the team. That killed it.

Sent from my SM-G960W using RealGM mobile app

[JustBuzzin]

Ok so, the reason people are acting like you're "in the wrong" is because you're using false generalizations (or stereotypes) to explain something complicated. You list big teammate names (without mentioning their dramatic injury history or front office blunders). You also use some junk points like bringing up the Lakers (when Nash was just old and too injured to play). That causes people to react and feel like they need to correct you.

Like you say, there are plenty of people who are calling him overrated, so it's hard to reconcile that with your argument that Nash needs to be held accountable (whatever that means). Nash is a player who has his own legions of haters. He's a divisive figure because of those MVPs already, so you coming in here to hold him accountable isn't something new. There's been fierce Nash debate ever since he won MVP. You're not really correcting an imbalance with your accountability act, you're just repeating the same stuff people have said about him for almost 20 years.

Everynow and then I see some smart Nash criticism. No one thinks he's perfect (mostly due to the defense and early career reluctance to ramp up scoring volume). But listing his best teammates and saying "wHy nO rInGz" isn't clever accountability. It's just more of the same low-level discourse. I've seen a lot of people go deep on Steve Nash with you, and you tend to just say you disagree and then cite the generalizations again.

I understand your point of view trust me I do.

Now look at it from my point of view...

I see Nash as an all-time great pg who happened to play with some of the better players during his prime. Those rosters Nash had compared to a guy like say CP3/Kidd and these guys have led much less to a Finals and even won a championship. I'm just saying Nash should have a ring because he had the talent to win a championship. People in this thread calling him the best offensive pg's of all-time. I expected at least 1 championship from Nash.

Is that really hating that I think Nash should have a championship?

Yes he had some good rosters with lots of offensive fire power. Had those rosters been healthier/luckier in the playoffs, Nash would have won a championship.

Specifically he could have won in:
- 2003, but Dirk got injured in the Western Conference Finals and they lost to the Spurs.
- 2005, but Joe Johnson broke his face in the Western Conference Finals and they lost to the Spurs
- 2007, but the refs suspended Diaw and Amar'e for leaving the bench
(Nash also came pretty close to a title in 2006 and 2010, but that was with rosters that had no business being there.)

Also, Duncan/Manu/Parker was simply a better, more talented team than any of those Suns teams. Duncan is a top 5-10 all-time player with Manu and Parker being somewhere in the top 100. Nash is a top 20-30 all-time player, Marion is somewhere in the top 100, and Amar'e is somewhere outside the top 100. On top of the Spurs being a better team, they also got the lucky breaks in terms of injuries and shenanigans.

Do you have any counter points to this or reasons why you feel these points aren't correct?

I mean that's how you view it. You're entitled to have your own opinion. I'm not here to say you are wrong. I obviously have my own view.

[nikster]

I understand your point of view trust me I do.

Now look at it from my point of view...

I see Nash as an all-time great pg who happened to play with some of the better players during his prime. Those rosters Nash had compared to a guy like say CP3/Kidd and these guys have led much less to a Finals and even won a championship. I'm just saying Nash should have a ring because he had the talent to win a championship. People in this thread calling him the best offensive pg's of all-time. I expected at least 1 championship from Nash.

Is that really hating that I think Nash should have a championship?

Yes he had some good rosters with lots of offensive fire power. Had those rosters been healthier/luckier in the playoffs, Nash would have won a championship.

Specifically he could have won in:
- 2003, but Dirk got injured in the Western Conference Finals and they lost to the Spurs.
- 2005, but Joe Johnson broke his face in the Western Conference Finals and they lost to the Spurs
- 2007, but the refs suspended Diaw and Amar'e for leaving the bench
(Nash also came pretty close to a title in 2006 and 2010, but that was with rosters that had no business being there.)

Also, Duncan/Manu/Parker was simply a better, more talented team than any of those Suns teams. Duncan is a top 5-10 all-time player with Manu and Parker being somewhere in the top 100. Nash is a top 20-30 all-time player, Marion is somewhere in the top 100, and Amar'e is somewhere outside the top 100. On top of the Spurs being a better team, they also got the lucky breaks in terms of injuries and shenanigans.

Do you have any counter points to this or reasons why you feel these points aren't correct?

I mean that's how you view it. You're entitled to have your own opinion. I'm not here to say you are wrong. I obviously have my own view.

Why would you start this thread if you refuse to engage with arguments or provide any specifics of your own?

[canada_dry]

Im fine with people answers.

It's perfectly fine to disagree with me. It's the people who defending Nash that act like im in the wrong. You got people in this very thread calling him overrated. My problem is more about holding players accountable. I have seen previous MVP players get criticism for not winning a championship. Nash is no different imo.

#Accountability

Ok so, the reason people are acting like you're "in the wrong" is because you're using false generalizations (or stereotypes) to explain something complicated. You list big teammate names (without mentioning their dramatic injury history or front office blunders). You also use some junk points like bringing up the Lakers (when Nash was just old and too injured to play). That causes people to react and feel like they need to correct you.

Like you say, there are plenty of people who are calling him overrated, so it's hard to reconcile that with your argument that Nash needs to be held accountable (whatever that means). Nash is a player who has his own legions of haters. He's a divisive figure because of those MVPs already, so you coming in here to hold him accountable isn't something new. There's been fierce Nash debate ever since he won MVP. You're not really correcting an imbalance with your accountability act, you're just repeating the same stuff people have said about him for almost 20 years.

Everynow and then I see some smart Nash criticism. No one thinks he's perfect (mostly due to the defense and early career reluctance to ramp up scoring volume). But listing his best teammates and saying "wHy nO rInGz" isn't clever accountability. It's just more of the same low-level discourse. I've seen a lot of people go deep on Steve Nash with you, and you tend to just say you disagree and then cite the generalizations again.

I understand your point of view trust me I do.

Now look at it from my point of view...

I see Nash as an all-time great pg who happened to play with some of the better players during his prime. Those rosters Nash had compared to a guy like say CP3/Kidd and these guys have led much less to a Finals and even won a championship. I'm just saying Nash should have a ring because he had the talent to win a championship. People in this thread calling him the best offensive pg's of all-time. I expected at least 1 championship from Nash.

Is that really hating that I think Nash should have a championship?

Chris paul!

Blake, a top 3 mvp candidate at his peak, himself, deandre, reddick, DEPTH, something the suns always lacked, and couldn't get out the 1st round . Choke after choke. You should make a thread holding cp3 accountable of anything. Uext thats the example you want to use.

Edit: couldnt get out the 2nd round. Not 1st.


Sent from my SM-G960W using RealGM mobile app

[canada_dry]

Yes he had some good rosters with lots of offensive fire power. Had those rosters been healthier/luckier in the playoffs, Nash would have won a championship.

Specifically he could have won in:
- 2003, but Dirk got injured in the Western Conference Finals and they lost to the Spurs.
- 2005, but Joe Johnson broke his face in the Western Conference Finals and they lost to the Spurs
- 2007, but the refs suspended Diaw and Amar'e for leaving the bench
(Nash also came pretty close to a title in 2006 and 2010, but that was with rosters that had no business being there.)

Also, Duncan/Manu/Parker was simply a better, more talented team than any of those Suns teams. Duncan is a top 5-10 all-time player with Manu and Parker being somewhere in the top 100. Nash is a top 20-30 all-time player, Marion is somewhere in the top 100, and Amar'e is somewhere outside the top 100. On top of the Spurs being a better team, they also got the lucky breaks in terms of injuries and shenanigans.

Do you have any counter points to this or reasons why you feel these points aren't correct?

I mean that's how you view it. You're entitled to have your own opinion. I'm not here to say you are wrong. I obviously have my own view.

Why would you start this thread if you refuse to engage with arguments or provide any specifics of your own?

Its big time clown energy. And he thinks hes reinventing the wheel with this accountability as if nash hasnt been hated on for 20 years now by a very loud minority/fanbase

Sent from my SM-G960W using RealGM mobile app

[canada_dry]

2005: way overachieved. Mvp

2006: way overachieved with no amare. Mvp. 2 games short of finals. Noone has lost their best teammate and gotten so far in the playoffs since then. Name em.

2007: full team. tough result. Nash Couldn't finish game 1 vs spurs. Later Suspensions. Ruined the real nba finals. Whoever won that series was gonna cruise. And did.

2008: shaq trade ruined the team. Were a 1 seed(again) at time of trading marion for shaq.

2009: see above. Terry porter wanted to make the suns a post heavy team ran through shaq.

2010: got rid of shaq way overachieved expectations once again.

You dislike context though.



Sent from my SM-G960W using RealGM mobile app

[canada_dry]

How about the context of having rhe worst owner of the era outside of sterling absolutely cheaping out when he had a legit contender? Very overlooked.

Sent from my SM-G960W using RealGM mobile app

[canada_dry]

He couldn’t defend Tony Parker and was a defensive liability overall. In none of his most important playoff series was he the best player on the court.

On top of that the Suns lit resources on fire to save money, selling valuable draft picks for petty cash so the team had less room for error.

I think he spent about 6-7 years on title caliber teams yet failed to make the finals.

2003 - would have beaten the Nets but lost in WCF to Spurs, had a mediocre series

2005 - lost to spurs, would have been favored vs Pistons

2006 - lost to Mavericks, may have been favored vs Heat. Struggled in series.

2007 - lost to Spurs in semis, would have be huge favorites vs Jazz and Cavs to win it all

2010 - lost to Lakers in WCF, would have been a toss up series vs Magic

That’s several years as strong contenders. He never had that ‘put the team in my back and carry’ series that title teams have

Absolutely zero context given to the series like injuries...suspensions...expectations... zero. Thats a dishonest and disingenuous breakdown of the year by year.

Sent from my SM-G960W using RealGM mobile app

[JustBuzzin]

Yes he had some good rosters with lots of offensive fire power. Had those rosters been healthier/luckier in the playoffs, Nash would have won a championship.

Specifically he could have won in:
- 2003, but Dirk got injured in the Western Conference Finals and they lost to the Spurs.
- 2005, but Joe Johnson broke his face in the Western Conference Finals and they lost to the Spurs
- 2007, but the refs suspended Diaw and Amar'e for leaving the bench
(Nash also came pretty close to a title in 2006 and 2010, but that was with rosters that had no business being there.)

Also, Duncan/Manu/Parker was simply a better, more talented team than any of those Suns teams. Duncan is a top 5-10 all-time player with Manu and Parker being somewhere in the top 100. Nash is a top 20-30 all-time player, Marion is somewhere in the top 100, and Amar'e is somewhere outside the top 100. On top of the Spurs being a better team, they also got the lucky breaks in terms of injuries and shenanigans.

Do you have any counter points to this or reasons why you feel these points aren't correct?

I mean that's how you view it. You're entitled to have your own opinion. I'm not here to say you are wrong. I obviously have my own view.

Why would you start this thread if you refuse to engage with arguments or provide any specifics of your own?

Check the title.

This is my opinion. If you disagree I will gladly listen. Even if I debated people will say you're not willing to listen to others opinions. Either way I can't win so I will just listen.

[Ambrose]

I've always thought how you view Nash was a good litmus test for basketball IQ. This thread hasn't disappointed.