PDA

View Full Version : Is Steve Nash a Winner?



pd7631
12-09-2008, 10:51 AM
Don't get me wrong, Steve Nash is great player and all, but is he really a winner?

A lot of people will argue that he makes players around him better, but when you have Amare Stoudemire, Shawn Marion, Dirk Nowitzki, Joe Johnson, Grant Hill, etc.. around you how can you not look great?

Steve Nash was a pretty good player in Dallas but wasn't seen as great until he played in Mike D'Antoni's run and gun style of play. Just look at what Chris Duhon and the rest of the Knicks are doing under D'Antoni in New York this year. And now that D'Antoni's gone Nash's numbers are starting to fall off into his Dallas Days, hmmm...


So is Steve Nash really a winner, or is he a product of the great teams he's been on with players even better than himself?

pebloemer
12-09-2008, 11:14 AM
Don't get me wrong, Steve Nash is great player and all, but is he really a winner?

A lot of people will argue that he makes players around him better, but when you have Amare Stoudemire, Shawn Marion, Dirk Nowitzki, Joe Johnson, Grant Hill, etc.. around you how can you not look great?

Steve Nash was a pretty good player in Dallas but wasn't seen as great until he played in Mike D'Antoni's run and gun style of play. Just look at what Chris Duhon and the rest of the Knicks are doing under D'Antoni in New York this year. And now that D'Antoni's gone Nash's numbers are starting to fall off into his Dallas Days, hmmm...


So is Steve Nash really a winner, or is he a product of the great teams he's been on with players even better than himself?

I think it is a valid question. But I think you can ask the same question about whether Marion and Stoudemire are a product of a good coaching system. The Grant Hill that Nash is playing with is not the Grant Hill that will be remembered. The Nowitzki he was playing with is not the same player that won MVP and the Joe Johnson he played with is not the current leader of the Atlanta Hawks team. You make it sound like they all played with Nash in their prime. Although I do agree with the concept that Nash has been a beneficiary of good players around him and good coaching philosophy - just not to the extent that you seem to be assuming.

Chronz
12-09-2008, 04:13 PM
Nash has quarterbacked some of the best offensive teams of all-time, possibly the best if Im not mistaken, and yes hes had the fire power around him to do so, but it takes more than talent, its his ability to blend those talents and consistently provide them with great looks that made his teams great. Hes been doing this in Dallas as well so dont let the high per game averages fool you into thinking he was any less of a player then. He improved in PHX but he was the guy that made that system work.

Nash has ALWAYS done his part on a contending team, why isnt he a winner?


PS Im not getting the Duhon comparison, whats he have to do with anything?

superkegger
12-09-2008, 04:17 PM
I'll get into it more if I have to, but while Steve Nash is a great talent, and a great individual player, his teams have never achieved any great success other than regular season wins and a few playoff wins. That's all well and great, and I'm taking away nothing from his play, but IMO, to be labeled a winner, you have to won a championship. Nash has not even been to the finals. He plays a great team game, but he has failed to come out on top when it counted the most.

GspLAL
12-09-2008, 04:20 PM
He has the heart to be one but he hasn't really achieved much, he's always been on teams not suited for winning a championship.

ink
12-09-2008, 04:28 PM
In terms of winning championships, nope, he's not, and I've been a huge Nash fan for years. But because of the team game he plays, he'll have a bigger impact on the game long term than many of the scoring leaders who we talked about in another thread. He isn't quite Stockton's equal, but his contribution will be similar. Outstanding leader and playmaker who made the game extraordinary to watch. He showed how exciting a five man unit can be. Too bad he can't be cloned a few times and distributed around the league.

superkegger
12-09-2008, 04:34 PM
In terms of winning championships, nope, he's not, and I've been a huge Nash fan for years. But because of the team game he plays, he'll have a bigger impact on the game long term than many of the scoring leaders who we talked about in another thread. He isn't quite Stockton's equal, but his contribution will be similar. Outstanding leader and playmaker who made the game extraordinary to watch. He showed how exciting a five man unit can be. Too bad he can't be cloned a few times and distributed around the league.

While I agree with what you say (well except about being a nash fan, I'm not a nash fan, I mean I respect his play, but I hate the suns as a Laker fan, anyway) and I respect what he does and how be plays, and I'd love to see more of it, when it comes down to it, he'll still (presumably anyway) be a great player who didn't win a ring. He'll be in the same category as, yep, Allen Iverson. They're styles couldn't really be more of polar opposites. What that doesn't change is that neither had the team around them that could get it done on the highest level, for whatever reasons. How and why you get somewhere does matter, but I think in the end this headline could be read and you wouldn't know who its for: "He had so many great seasons, put up spectacular numbers, held the MVP trophy, was a multiple time all star, but in the end he never won a ring." It's not a knock on him, but in the end, thats what it boils down to.

king4day
12-09-2008, 04:39 PM
He has the heart to be one but he hasn't really achieved much, he's always been on teams not suited for winning a championship.

The first 3 Suns teams he led we more than suited and capable to win a ring.

superkegger
12-09-2008, 04:50 PM
The first 3 Suns teams he led we more than suited and capable to win a ring.

So, that statement confuses me. As a suns fan I would think you would argue for him being a winner. But then saying those first 3 were suited and capable would point to Nash not being a winner since they didn't. I mean, sometimes you just run into better teams or unfortunate circumstances, but it is my opinion, at those times, that is when winners persevere.

king4day
12-09-2008, 05:31 PM
So, that statement confuses me. As a suns fan I would think you would argue for him being a winner. But then saying those first 3 were suited and capable would point to Nash not being a winner since they didn't. I mean, sometimes you just run into better teams or unfortunate circumstances, but it is my opinion, at those times, that is when winners persevere.

I wouldn't take anythingaway from the Spurs, Mavs and Spurs teams (the 3 teams that knocked us out of the playoffs).
But if anyone argues that the Suns we not cabable of defeating them, then that's what I contend. Even with suspensions and injuries we still contended.
We we beat by the better team, but we could have won any of those series just as much as we lost.

No one player can win by himself. Kobe, Pierce, Garnett and Alln is a good example. You need to surround them with some decent talent.

ink
12-09-2008, 05:40 PM
So, that statement confuses me. As a suns fan I would think you would argue for him being a winner. But then saying those first 3 were suited and capable would point to Nash not being a winner since they didn't. I mean, sometimes you just run into better teams or unfortunate circumstances, but it is my opinion, at those times, that is when winners persevere.

I don't think there's any doubt that Nash and the Suns have persevered.

oldenpolynice
12-09-2008, 05:41 PM
Good question. I argue in defense of Nash though. He's a competitive player who is able to hit big shots and create opportunities for his teammates in the clutch. He is tough, plays with fire and is composed down the stretch. He has all the qualities of a winner.

It's true that he's making more mistakes with the ball this season. But that's because he has to operate in a half-court offense where everyone knows who the ball is going to (Amar'e down low).

leftie5
12-09-2008, 05:42 PM
Yes he is a winner. He's been an underdog his whole life and is one of the hardest working players in the league. His offseason training program is ridiculous, but he has had to work his *** off because he's not physically gifted like a lot of players use to get by.

His teams have run into bad luck in the playoffs and as a Suns fan I admit we were not good enough, but if people base being a winner off championships then I guess you could say he isn't. However, there are a lot of players who have won multiple championships who I would not consider winners and vice versa. That is why it is a team game.

COLH
12-09-2008, 05:46 PM
The first 3 Suns teams he led we more than suited and capable to win a ring.

And the Dallas Mavericks team he was on. they were full of star players their, and were great during the season. Thus, Nash has been surrounded with great players during his career.

superkegger
12-09-2008, 06:04 PM
I don't think there's any doubt that Nash and the Suns have persevered.

Perhaps persevered is the wrong choice of word. Perhaps overcome or come out on top would be more pertinent ways to descrivbe it. No doubt nash is a great player, played a team game about as well as could be played. He exemplified everything you want out of a ball player. But when it came down to it, when it was all on the line, he came up with the short end of the stick. He came out of it on the losing end, not the winning.

NYMetros
12-09-2008, 06:07 PM
Interesting. I wouldn't call him a winner. He's never won a championship or made the finals. Until he does that, then he's not a winner.

superkegger
12-09-2008, 06:14 PM
I wouldn't take anythingaway from the Spurs, Mavs and Spurs teams (the 3 teams that knocked us out of the playoffs).
But if anyone argues that the Suns we not cabable of defeating them, then that's what I contend. Even with suspensions and injuries we still contended.
We we beat by the better team, but we could have won any of those series just as much as we lost.

No one player can win by himself. Kobe, Pierce, Garnett and Alln is a good example. You need to surround them with some decent talent.

I agree those series could have gone either way. But in pertinence to the question, I think that in all 3 that they didnt go the suns way points to him not being a winner, because well, he didn't win. Not that he couldn't, but he didnt.

thephoenixson28
12-09-2008, 06:35 PM
Good question. I argue in defense of Nash though. He's a competitive player who is able to hit big shots and create opportunities for his teammates in the clutch. He is tough, plays with fire and is composed down the stretch. He has all the qualities of a winner.

It's true that he's making more mistakes with the ball this season. But that's because he has to operate in a half-court offense where everyone knows who the ball is going to (Amar'e down low). agreed, you are only a product of the environment some people are made for half court basketball, some are made for the run n gun, and some are made for both. I think nash is a winner he delivers in the clutch everytime its just how you utilize him. You can't put shaq in the run n gun just as much as you can't put nash in the half court. But they are going to figure it out real soon and I think the rest of the nba better watch out cuz once they click on all cylinders I think they are going to be the team to beat.

superkegger
12-09-2008, 06:39 PM
agreed, you are only a product of the environment some people are made for half court basketball, some are made for the run n gun, and some are made for both. I think nash is a winner he delivers in the clutch everytime its just how you utilize him. You can't put shaq in the run n gun just as much as you can't put nash in the half court. But they are going to figure it out real soon and I think the rest of the nba better watch out cuz once they click on all cylinders I think they are going to be the team to beat.

For the suns sake I hope you're right. But I really have seen no signs of them getting it or figuring it out. If you've got evidence to the contrary to the opposite, I'd like to see it, because from what I've seen, they're not figuring it out.

MooseWithFleas
12-09-2008, 07:01 PM
nope! he's not

The Answer3
12-09-2008, 08:53 PM
Great thread. And the answer is no. He's a system player. Lets just leave it at that. Dude should give his 2 MVPs to D'Antoni.

JayW_1023
12-09-2008, 09:31 PM
^^^

yes, but Nash is what makes D'Antoni's offensive system work...kind of how KG's defense is what make Thibodeau's system go. Great player allow themselves to be coached. Nash is a great player.

Dirk for that matter is a winner too...he has led him team deep in the playoffs and has come up big so many times. People just like to emphasize failure over success...they like to always say 'Dirk choked in the finals, and against Golden State' to negate what he has actually accomplished.

hotpotato1092
12-09-2008, 09:39 PM
It depends how you define winner, true he hasn't won a title, but he consistently makes it deep into the playoffs and is a great leader, not to mention that nobody plays harder than him and he's an amazing teammate. If that's a winner to you (which it is to me) than he is definately a winner. If to you a winner is robert horry, someone who has simply rode better players to titles (not saying he hasn't contributed, but he did ride Kobe/Shaq/Hakeem/Duncan) than he isn't a winner. It's definately an interesting question, and maybe we'll find out in 2010 when he leaves Phoenix how good he really is. Just throwing this out there, who flinches first on this trade right now: Steve Nash for Rajon Rondo. Nash would virtually guarentee the celtics this year's title but Rondo could be an all star for years, thoughts?

MDD
12-09-2008, 10:08 PM
If people say that Ewing,Barkley,Wilkins and Malone are not winners because they did not win championships then ,Hell no Nash is not a winner. Nash should be way way below these players.