PDA

View Full Version : Is Nash a Loser for saying this?



Chronz
09-21-2009, 02:34 AM
"Players shouldnt be judged by titles"

KobeIs
09-21-2009, 02:39 AM
no i don't think so. looks at karl malone, john stockton, charles barkley, etc. all without titles but their reputation as basketball greats isn't tarnished.

but having the titles only help

Draco
09-21-2009, 02:41 AM
That's not what Nash said. "Players shouldnt be judged by titles" is just Real GMs title for their article which they based on something that came from yahoo.com.

Here's more of Nash's quote for context.


“I’m not one of those people that feel if you don’t win a title everything was for naught,” Nash said. “Only one team wins it and a lot of times there is luck involved.

“I don’t think it’s something you should judge yourself on. If you’re lucky enough to be on a team that wins it, you should celebrate that. I had one [college] scholarship offer, so for me to experience the things I experienced, for me to travel the world and provide for my family and to play with the amount of teammates that I’ve enjoyed playing with, there is no way I can look at it at all negatively if I don’t win a championship.”
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=mc-sunsnash091809&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

faridk89
09-21-2009, 03:16 AM
"there is no way I can look at it at all negatively if I don’t win a championship.” very intelligent outlook on the situation, at the end of the day he is living the life like he says, a championship is great, but there are a lot of great players in the league that will not be able to win, and you cant knock a guy for not winning it all

smith&wesson
09-21-2009, 03:16 AM
nash....

if you cant win a title with amare, marion, bell, diaw, barbosa, shaq, j rishardson

guess what.... you dont have a chance in hell. suround those type of players around iverson in his prime and my guess is ring!!! no question!!!

but mr nash gets glorified for good stats and only good stats... D wade had a better point per game afverage and also beat nash in ever category almost accept the win colum and he doesnt get mvp .. but nash gets it two years in a row ???

hmmmm iverson gets blazed because he hasnt won a ring. he gets called selfish, disfuntional, a bad team mate... nash hasnt acomplished too much more then iverson has and he doesnt get looked at in the same light but he hasnt even been able to take a talented suns team to the finals yet and yet he doesnt get any heat. last i remember iverson has taken one of his teams to the finals but no one mentions that. nash on the other hand gets two MVP's... though every play offs the suns team chokes. no matter how much talent, how good of a coach, or how many mvp's nash gets the suns always always always fail to reach the finals yet nash gets all this credit... but iverson gets dogged ??? this is what i dont understand.

next person who actually reads this please please please do me a favour dog, answer me this, would you rather have a prime iverson on your team or a prime nash. im dieing to know truethfully.

i dont care what your answer is ,,, just be truethfull... simpe iverson or nash in his prime. neither have won titles. nash has 2 mvps iverson has a finals aperance amonst a whole **** load of other trophies and acomplishments.... who gets your vote.

heres my vote and any one who says it aint soo is really just a hater.

I think iverson would have won at least one ring with the surounding cast of some of these players
amare, marion, bell, diaw, barbosa, shaq, j rishardson, hill,

if you dont think soo thats fine, but tell me why because im actually interested in your point of view.

my point of view is, if iversons a loser because he cant acomplish the utlimate goal, then yes nash is also a loser becuase he hanst acomplished it either, amongst barkley, stockton, malone, miller, ect.

because in this leauge if you dont have a ring, forget about it... you never got it done. mj was in the leauge when bird, magic, isiah, dumars was still winning rings, i really dont think theres any excuse .. if you cant beat the beast... you are not the best. simple as that.

i play some dude in a 100 games of street ball and he beats be by one point in every game almost... that means i put in a good efort but came short every time. obvioulsy the other guys the victor. the winner... hence me being a loser in that scenerio.. thats just the way i look at it.

ZebraCity916
09-21-2009, 03:18 AM
No. I agree.

stawka
09-21-2009, 03:34 AM
They shouldn't be judged by titles, but it does help. Either way, Nash is a liability on the defensive end and no matter where he ranks as an All-Time great, his name will always be written in italics because of that.

As good of a player he is on the Offensive end, he is the complete opposite on D - that's what hurts him, his legacy, his team and his title hopes

knickfan4life
09-21-2009, 03:57 AM
not a loser for saying that hes a loser cuz he never played any defense... what would u expect though playing for mike dantoni and don nelson ur whole career well the prime of it anyways lol

DCLAFAN
09-21-2009, 04:04 AM
Na you gotta remember winning championships is a team effort and ones career shouldnt soley be based on that.

smith&wesson
09-21-2009, 04:21 AM
not a loser for saying that hes a loser cuz he never played any defense... what would u expect though playing for mike dantoni and don nelson ur whole career well the prime of it anyways lol


:cool:very true, i never looked at it that way...

LAKERMANIA
09-21-2009, 05:14 AM
Well Nash shouldnt say that because Championships are important to know who was better in their careers. If someone had the same stats as Nash but had a championship under his belt with an NBA Finals MVP, obviously the other play would be looked at as better.

The only problem I have is that championships seem like they hold too much weight in deciding who is better than the other. But overall I think he is wrong. If he were to say Championships hold too much weight I would have agreed.

rabzouz 96
09-21-2009, 05:51 AM
no he is totally right. teams win ships,not players.

DenButsu
09-21-2009, 06:01 AM
That's not what Nash said. "Players shouldnt be judged by titles" is just Real GMs title for their article which they based on something that came from yahoo.com.

Here's more of Nash's quote for context.


ďIím not one of those people that feel if you donít win a title everything was for naught,Ē Nash said. ďOnly one team wins it and a lot of times there is luck involved.

ďI donít think itís something you should judge yourself on. If youíre lucky enough to be on a team that wins it, you should celebrate that. I had one [college] scholarship offer, so for me to experience the things I experienced, for me to travel the world and provide for my family and to play with the amount of teammates that Iíve enjoyed playing with, there is no way I can look at it at all negatively if I donít win a championship.Ē


http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=mc-sunsnash091809&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

If he's speaking as a human being and not just a basketball player, then I think that's a very healthy perspective, and a lot of other NBA players would do well to take a page from his book and appreciate their gift and its rewards instead of taking them for granted. A big ego is somewhat of a necessity in the NBA - just to have the confidence to be comfortable being the guy with the ball. But I respect and appreciate it when dudes have the good sense to balance that out with some humility.

That said, I do think there's something to be said, if he's speaking purely from the perspective of an NBA player and limiting the scope of the conversation to basketball, for the notion of never being completely satisfied with anything less than a championship. I think it takes that kind of blood lust for some guys to get over the hump and make winning it all happen. Eye of the tiger and whatnot.

azkarraga
09-21-2009, 06:45 AM
Well, it defenitively doesn't make him a winner

MackSnackWrap
09-21-2009, 07:36 AM
No way

HiphopRelated
09-21-2009, 07:44 AM
They shouldn't be judged by MVPs either

Raps18-19 Champ
09-21-2009, 07:46 AM
He's not a loser for saying that.

Sure a title helps you look good but it doesn't make him a loser that he doesn't have one.

kevvvo247
09-21-2009, 07:57 AM
yep, these comments do make nash into a loser. why? i guess because if i was nash's teammate, and i hear him saying that "titles aren't everything", there's no way that guy could lead me anywhere from that point on. what's interesting about nash is he's not known for greed or douchebaggery BUT i think this deserves a closer look: nash was playing hard ball w/ phoenix because he wanted kerr to return the roster to winning form. however, after kerr gave nash his extension, he calmed down his demands. so, nash basically traded winning for $$$. he's a loser.....

Raps18-19 Champ
09-21-2009, 07:57 AM
Pus, you can't really blame a guy for not winning when his team doesn't do as much.

xxxplicit69
09-21-2009, 08:01 AM
"Players shouldnt be judged by titles"

For a basic sports fan and the overall outlook on sports yes, but technically no. I understand we he is coming from. when i think of karl malone, charles barkely, reggie miller, patrick ewing, john stockton, allen iverson, jason kidd, steve nash, vince carter, dirk, etc, i dont look at those players as loosers or failures cuz they didnt win championships. these guys were victims of the jordan bulls era, kobe shaq lakers era, tim duncan parker spurs era. but those players were or are just as talented as some of the franchise players on championship teams, the difference was they did play for teams that gave them opportunities to win it every year. in football yes joe montana won more rings or rings period but that doesnt mean he's a better qb than dan marino, the 49ers organization gave montana a team to win where the dolphins didnt quite have that in the 80s or 90s which is not marinos fault. to me he was the better qb. in basketball, malone and barkley in their prime were more dangerous than tim duncan, dont think do your research. the difference was timing and the organizations. barkley and malone didnt have the timing of the era or the organizations to win. if you have the phoenix suns that barkley played on or malone's jazz in todays era, they probably could have won some rings. same goes for patrick. reggie miller is as clutch a shooter as anyone that ever won a ring, if not more clutch. he is probably more clutch than horry and fisher. miller time was no joke. nash for a couple of years was the best PG in the league before paul emerged and even paul wasnt a 2 almost 3 time (in a row) mvp. it wasnt nash fault that phoenix could d up and their style of played could win championships. jason kidd carried the nets and iverson carried the 76ers to the championship and they played well in the finals, but do me a favor and name the starting 5 on both teams........if you can do that you would realize they didnt stand a chance against the shaq and kobe lakers, who had very good role players too. its not iverson or kidds fault they didnt get the ring against l.a. but if those guys had championship caliber teams, they (iverson, kidd) could win it.

WhiteSoxGod
09-21-2009, 08:38 AM
nash....

if you cant win a title with amare, marion, bell, diaw, barbosa, shaq, j rishardson

guess what.... you dont have a chance in hell. suround those type of players around iverson in his prime and my guess is ring!!! no question!!!

but mr nash gets glorified for good stats and only good stats... D wade had a better point per game afverage and also beat nash in ever category almost accept the win colum and he doesnt get mvp .. but nash gets it two years in a row ???

hmmmm iverson gets blazed because he hasnt won a ring. he gets called selfish, disfuntional, a bad team mate... nash hasnt acomplished too much more then iverson has and he doesnt get looked at in the same light but he hasnt even been able to take a talented suns team to the finals yet and yet he doesnt get any heat. last i remember iverson has taken one of his teams to the finals but no one mentions that. nash on the other hand gets two MVP's... though every play offs the suns team chokes. no matter how much talent, how good of a coach, or how many mvp's nash gets the suns always always always fail to reach the finals yet nash gets all this credit... but iverson gets dogged ??? this is what i dont understand.

next person who actually reads this please please please do me a favour dog, answer me this, would you rather have a prime iverson on your team or a prime nash. im dieing to know truethfully.

i dont care what your answer is ,,, just be truethfull... simpe iverson or nash in his prime. neither have won titles. nash has 2 mvps iverson has a finals aperance amonst a whole **** load of other trophies and acomplishments.... who gets your vote.

heres my vote and any one who says it aint soo is really just a hater.

I think iverson would have won at least one ring with the surounding cast of some of these players
amare, marion, bell, diaw, barbosa, shaq, j rishardson, hill,

if you dont think soo thats fine, but tell me why because im actually interested in your point of view.

my point of view is, if iversons a loser because he cant acomplish the utlimate goal, then yes nash is also a loser becuase he hanst acomplished it either, amongst barkley, stockton, malone, miller, ect.

because in this leauge if you dont have a ring, forget about it... you never got it done. mj was in the leauge when bird, magic, isiah, dumars was still winning rings, i really dont think theres any excuse .. if you cant beat the beast... you are not the best. simple as that.

i play some dude in a 100 games of street ball and he beats be by one point in every game almost... that means i put in a good efort but came short every time. obvioulsy the other guys the victor. the winner... hence me being a loser in that scenerio.. thats just the way i look at it.

I guess I'm a hater because I'd rather have Nash. At least he is a team player, will practice (what we talking practice? we talking bout practice? Yes you dumb ***** we're talking about practice something every player should do regardless of skill level) just look at his team chemistry with every team he has been on. Iverson is very skilled but very immature and destroyed Detroit's team chemistry. He would have destroyed Phoenix's team chemistry and been a locker room cancer. With the way that offense was ran that is very important. And i agree with Nash titles do not necessarily tarnish the player because basketball is of course a team sport.

Ace33Bone
09-21-2009, 08:44 AM
Nash is a class A competitor and like people have already noted in this post he just has not had the team to win a championship... I never was because of his lack of effort... He himself is definitely a winner but he has not been able to accomplish winning the big one and I do not think that he can be considered a loser for making the statement

GAWDtv
09-21-2009, 09:43 AM
nash....

if you cant win a title with amare, marion, bell, diaw, barbosa, shaq, j rishardson

guess what.... you dont have a chance in hell. suround those type of players around iverson in his prime and my guess is ring!!! no question!!!

but mr nash gets glorified for good stats and only good stats... D wade had a better point per game afverage and also beat nash in ever category almost accept the win colum and he doesnt get mvp .. but nash gets it two years in a row ???

hmmmm iverson gets blazed because he hasnt won a ring. he gets called selfish, disfuntional, a bad team mate... nash hasnt acomplished too much more then iverson has and he doesnt get looked at in the same light but he hasnt even been able to take a talented suns team to the finals yet and yet he doesnt get any heat. last i remember iverson has taken one of his teams to the finals but no one mentions that. nash on the other hand gets two MVP's... though every play offs the suns team chokes. no matter how much talent, how good of a coach, or how many mvp's nash gets the suns always always always fail to reach the finals yet nash gets all this credit... but iverson gets dogged ??? this is what i dont understand.

next person who actually reads this please please please do me a favour dog, answer me this, would you rather have a prime iverson on your team or a prime nash. im dieing to know truethfully.

i dont care what your answer is ,,, just be truethfull... simpe iverson or nash in his prime. neither have won titles. nash has 2 mvps iverson has a finals aperance amonst a whole **** load of other trophies and acomplishments.... who gets your vote.

heres my vote and any one who says it aint soo is really just a hater.

I think iverson would have won at least one ring with the surounding cast of some of these players
amare, marion, bell, diaw, barbosa, shaq, j rishardson, hill,

if you dont think soo thats fine, but tell me why because im actually interested in your point of view.

my point of view is, if iversons a loser because he cant acomplish the utlimate goal, then yes nash is also a loser becuase he hanst acomplished it either, amongst barkley, stockton, malone, miller, ect.

because in this leauge if you dont have a ring, forget about it... you never got it done. mj was in the leauge when bird, magic, isiah, dumars was still winning rings, i really dont think theres any excuse .. if you cant beat the beast... you are not the best. simple as that.

i play some dude in a 100 games of street ball and he beats be by one point in every game almost... that means i put in a good efort but came short every time. obvioulsy the other guys the victor. the winner... hence me being a loser in that scenerio.. thats just the way i look at it.

wow A THINKER, YOU CAN SEE PAST THE MEDIA'S DEMONIZATION OF A BLACK MAN and GLORIFICATION OF A WHITEMAN. This is a great comparison. The sheep will say Nash as AI is too black, too strong...

ManRam
09-21-2009, 10:15 AM
Only 1 team out of 30 wins every year. It is very hard. Players are often stuck on terrible teams. Only one or two guys (LeBron definitely is one of them) can carry a team of scrubs far into the playoffs. Everyone else needs a team. Nash has had some good teams, for sure...but still, winning a title is so hard.

He is one of the 50 best players ever. A two time MVP. Not many people can say that at all. Winning a title matters, but it isn't everything. It takes a team, not an individual to win a title.

I certainly don't blame Steve for Phoenix's short comings. He is by far the hardest competitor and most consistent player on that team, and has been for a long time.

arkanian215
09-21-2009, 10:32 AM
cuz ppg isnt everything.


hmmmm iverson gets blazed because he hasnt won a ring. he gets called selfish, disfuntional, a bad team mate... nash hasnt acomplished too much more then iverson has and he doesnt get looked at in the same light but he hasnt even been able to take a talented suns team to the finals yet and yet he doesnt get any heat. last i remember iverson has taken one of his teams to the finals but no one mentions that. nash on the other hand gets two MVP's... though every play offs the suns team chokes. no matter how much talent, how good of a coach, or how many mvp's nash gets the suns always always always fail to reach the finals yet nash gets all this credit... but iverson gets dogged ??? this is what i dont understand.

i dont think AI makes a team better honestly. he's ball dominant and shot pretty poorly for the number of shots he took. something like half his seasons resulted in fg%'s less than .420. "practice?" that kind of mentality makes a lot of fans not like him. practice has been proven to improve one's game.

arkanian215
09-21-2009, 10:33 AM
haha

Pierzynski4Prez
09-21-2009, 10:38 AM
I agree with Nash. Every year, there are atleast 3-5 scrubs on the championship team. Sometimes, those guys win multiple championships, while maybe averaging 5 minutes a game throughout the season and playoffs. So do you judge their careers as better as a 2 time MVP (Fluke MVP's, but MVP's nonetheless)?

Championships are a personal reflection of ones career, and if that player is happy with his career without winning a title, so be it. Shouldn't affect how we view them as a player. Winning titles are tough to do, and so many great, HOF players never will get one, purely based on chance of era's, team's financial status, other teams moves, etc.

KnicksorBust
09-21-2009, 10:56 AM
That's not what Nash said. "Players shouldnt be judged by titles" is just Real GMs title for their article which they based on something that came from yahoo.com.

Here's more of Nash's quote for context.


http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=mc-sunsnash091809&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

Thanks for the whole comment. I think it just boils down to the fact that the all-time greats take their game to a whole different level when the game is on the line and Nash is not like that. He doesn't have that killer instinct. He's one of the most highly efficient players ever but I don't see him as an all-time great.

thephoenixson28
09-21-2009, 11:10 AM
So I guess robert horry is better than jordan you can't base people on about how many championship or else horry is one of the G.O.A.T

KnicksorBust
09-21-2009, 11:16 AM
So I guess robert horry is better than jordan you can't base people on about how many championship or else horry is one of the G.O.A.T

:laugh: I HATE when people do this.

Nexus
09-21-2009, 11:39 AM
The ironic part is how much of a winner Nash is (or should be). He's clutch as hell and can do whatever the team needs of him on the offensive end.

thephoenixson28
09-21-2009, 11:59 AM
:laugh: I HATE when people do this. Its true horry won a bunch of rings so does that make him better than barkely or malone heck no. It sucks when your legacy is based on just a ring. A guy could average 35 ppg 12rpg 10 apg 3 bpg 3 spg for his whole career and all people have to say is "oh yeah but he didn't win a ring" what kind of shhh is that. So winning a ring doesn't make you a better player.

sdweston757
09-21-2009, 12:18 PM
the funny thing about this is nash would already have a ring if not for incredibly bad luck

1. the cut over his eye that wont stop bleeding in crunch time of 4th quarter
2. joe johnson hurting his eye in the playoffs and missing most of the WCF
3. amare and diaw getting suspended for leaving the bench..
4. awful refering (tim donahey) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvkKdXLwt0U

WhiteSoxGod
09-21-2009, 12:21 PM
cuz ppg isnt everything.



i dont think AI makes a team better honestly. he's ball dominant and shot pretty poorly for the number of shots he took. something like half his seasons resulted in fg%'s less than .420. "practice?" that kind of mentality makes a lot of fans not like him. practice has been proven to improve one's game.

:clap::clap::clap: and bingo was that mutha****ers name-o

Bodhidogma
09-21-2009, 12:23 PM
wow A THINKER, YOU CAN SEE PAST THE MEDIA'S DEMONIZATION OF A BLACK MAN and GLORIFICATION OF A WHITEMAN. This is a great comparison. The sheep will say Nash as AI is too black, too strong...

:facepalm:

dude, you are embarrassing yourself. AI is demonized because of his selfish demeanour, not because he is "too black". the media sure as hell didn't demonize jordan, and they sure as hell don't demonize lebron either.

ask any player in the NBA who they would rather play with, and they would say Nash. no doubt. quit playin the race card.

thephoenixson28
09-21-2009, 12:45 PM
the funny thing about this is nash would already have a ring if not for incredibly bad luck

1. the cut over his eye that wont stop bleeding in crunch time of 4th quarter
2. joe johnson hurting his eye in the playoffs and missing most of the WCF
3. amare and diaw getting suspended for leaving the bench..
4. awful refering (tim donahey) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvkKdXLwt0U Thank you :clap: I hate when people say nash couldn't win the the team that had all these all star players when everytime some bad luck came up.

lexworld2009
09-21-2009, 12:47 PM
nash....

if you cant win a title with amare, marion, bell, diaw, barbosa, shaq, j rishardson

guess what.... you dont have a chance in hell. suround those type of players around iverson in his prime and my guess is ring!!! no question!!!

but mr nash gets glorified for good stats and only good stats... D wade had a better point per game afverage and also beat nash in ever category almost accept the win colum and he doesnt get mvp .. but nash gets it two years in a row ???

hmmmm iverson gets blazed because he hasnt won a ring. he gets called selfish, disfuntional, a bad team mate... nash hasnt acomplished too much more then iverson has and he doesnt get looked at in the same light but he hasnt even been able to take a talented suns team to the finals yet and yet he doesnt get any heat. last i remember iverson has taken one of his teams to the finals but no one mentions that. nash on the other hand gets two MVP's... though every play offs the suns team chokes. no matter how much talent, how good of a coach, or how many mvp's nash gets the suns always always always fail to reach the finals yet nash gets all this credit... but iverson gets dogged ??? this is what i dont understand.

next person who actually reads this please please please do me a favour dog, answer me this, would you rather have a prime iverson on your team or a prime nash. im dieing to know truethfully.

i dont care what your answer is ,,, just be truethfull... simpe iverson or nash in his prime. neither have won titles. nash has 2 mvps iverson has a finals aperance amonst a whole **** load of other trophies and acomplishments.... who gets your vote.

heres my vote and any one who says it aint soo is really just a hater.

I think iverson would have won at least one ring with the surounding cast of some of these players
amare, marion, bell, diaw, barbosa, shaq, j rishardson, hill,

if you dont think soo thats fine, but tell me why because im actually interested in your point of view.

my point of view is, if iversons a loser because he cant acomplish the utlimate goal, then yes nash is also a loser becuase he hanst acomplished it either, amongst barkley, stockton, malone, miller, ect.

because in this leauge if you dont have a ring, forget about it... you never got it done. mj was in the leauge when bird, magic, isiah, dumars was still winning rings, i really dont think theres any excuse .. if you cant beat the beast... you are not the best. simple as that.

i play some dude in a 100 games of street ball and he beats be by one point in every game almost... that means i put in a good efort but came short every time. obvioulsy the other guys the victor. the winner... hence me being a loser in that scenerio.. thats just the way i look at it.




I'm with u on this I'm a huge lakers fan but I'd rather have a prime AI than a Prime nash, AI comands respect by the opposing team defensively Nash even in his prime was to me at least a defensive worry .....he had the talent and he had it all handed to him but yet he fails and gets glorified by everyone I hate it but hey that the nba we have today.....what else u expect from them....

JayW_1023
09-21-2009, 01:06 PM
wow A THINKER, YOU CAN SEE PAST THE MEDIA'S DEMONIZATION OF A BLACK MAN and GLORIFICATION OF A WHITEMAN. This is a great comparison. The sheep will say Nash as AI is too black, too strong...

This is BS. If the subject was about Billups instead of Nash...YOU wouldn't have anything to say.

By the way...even on defense I rather have Nash than AI. AI puts pressure on his frontline by gambling for steals excessively. Nash may not be a great on the ball defender...he is underrated as a team defender.

smith&wesson
09-21-2009, 01:18 PM
I guess I'm a hater because I'd rather have Nash. At least he is a team player, will practice (what we talking practice? we talking bout practice? Yes you dumb ***** we're talking about practice something every player should do regardless of skill level) just look at his team chemistry with every team he has been on. Iverson is very skilled but very immature and destroyed Detroit's team chemistry. He would have destroyed Phoenix's team chemistry and been a locker room cancer. With the way that offense was ran that is very important. And i agree with Nash titles do not necessarily tarnish the player because basketball is of course a team sport.

no that doesnt make you a hater, but you do have to admit that iverson did take a much less talented 76ers team to the finals, whre nash had an all star team at the time and failed to get then finals.

smith&wesson
09-21-2009, 01:22 PM
This is BS. If the subject was about Billups instead of Nash...YOU wouldn't have anything to say.

By the way...even on defense I rather have Nash than AI. AI puts pressure on his frontline by gambling for steals excessively. Nash may not be a great on the ball defender...he is underrated as a team defender.

billups has a ring, and has been to the finals more then nash has been in the second round of the play offs probably ... so i dont know what your getting at there.

and with all due respect your wrong about nash's D its non existant along with iversons D they are both terrible defenders.

king4day
09-21-2009, 01:32 PM
nash....

if you cant win a title with amare, marion, bell, diaw, barbosa, shaq, j rishardson

guess what.... you dont have a chance in hell. suround those type of players around iverson in his prime and my guess is ring!!! no question!!!

but mr nash gets glorified for good stats and only good stats... D wade had a better point per game afverage and also beat nash in ever category almost accept the win colum and he doesnt get mvp .. but nash gets it two years in a row ???

hmmmm iverson gets blazed because he hasnt won a ring. he gets called selfish, disfuntional, a bad team mate... nash hasnt acomplished too much more then iverson has and he doesnt get looked at in the same light but he hasnt even been able to take a talented suns team to the finals yet and yet he doesnt get any heat. last i remember iverson has taken one of his teams to the finals but no one mentions that. nash on the other hand gets two MVP's... though every play offs the suns team chokes. no matter how much talent, how good of a coach, or how many mvp's nash gets the suns always always always fail to reach the finals yet nash gets all this credit... but iverson gets dogged ??? this is what i dont understand.

next person who actually reads this please please please do me a favour dog, answer me this, would you rather have a prime iverson on your team or a prime nash. im dieing to know truethfully.

i dont care what your answer is ,,, just be truethfull... simpe iverson or nash in his prime. neither have won titles. nash has 2 mvps iverson has a finals aperance amonst a whole **** load of other trophies and acomplishments.... who gets your vote.

heres my vote and any one who says it aint soo is really just a hater.

I think iverson would have won at least one ring with the surounding cast of some of these players
amare, marion, bell, diaw, barbosa, shaq, j rishardson, hill,

if you dont think soo thats fine, but tell me why because im actually interested in your point of view.

my point of view is, if iversons a loser because he cant acomplish the utlimate goal, then yes nash is also a loser becuase he hanst acomplished it either, amongst barkley, stockton, malone, miller, ect.

because in this leauge if you dont have a ring, forget about it... you never got it done. mj was in the leauge when bird, magic, isiah, dumars was still winning rings, i really dont think theres any excuse .. if you cant beat the beast... you are not the best. simple as that.

i play some dude in a 100 games of street ball and he beats be by one point in every game almost... that means i put in a good efort but came short every time. obvioulsy the other guys the victor. the winner... hence me being a loser in that scenerio.. thats just the way i look at it.

I didn't bother read it all, as my eyes began to burn from all the hatred.
The topic is asking, "is Nash a loser in life". Not a loser at basketball. Obviously anyone who hasn't won a ring is a loser.

Also, you're asking to put AI on a team with 3 other scorers who must have the ball to be effective. Could they have won a ring last year? no. When they were all in their prime? possible. I could see a lot of chemistry issues there though.

smith&wesson
09-21-2009, 01:37 PM
I'm with u on this I'm a huge lakers fan but I'd rather have a prime AI than a Prime nash, AI comands respect by the opposing team defensively Nash even in his prime was to me at least a defensive worry .....he had the talent and he had it all handed to him but yet he fails and gets glorified by everyone I hate it but hey that the nba we have today.....what else u expect from them....

my point exactly...

if you asked me who would win in a series, nash, amare, marion, joe johnson, barbosa, bell, diaw

or tim dunca, parker, finley, ginobley, horry,

I would have betted on the suns... but i would have lost that bet wouldnt I lol

nash had soo much talent put around him in pheonix and even in dallas but always came short. never even made it to finals once. and failed to reach the wcf's multiple times. to me thats falling short. nash has done great things in his career but overall he came short.

Super.
09-21-2009, 01:37 PM
Maybe a LITTLE bit of a sore loser, but i do think he's right. Players shouldnt be judged on Title winning alone.

If so Nash is a loser, your telling me that James Posey with 2 rings is better than someone like Patrick Ewing? or Chris Bosh? Or LeBron?

smith&wesson
09-21-2009, 01:48 PM
I didn't bother read it all, as my eyes began to burn from all the hatred.
The topic is asking, "is Nash a loser in life". Not a loser at basketball. Obviously anyone who hasn't won a ring is a loser.

Also, you're asking to put AI on a team with 3 other scorers who must have the ball to be effective. Could they have won a ring last year? no. When they were all in their prime? possible. I could see a lot of chemistry issues there though.


hatred ? where do you get hatred from ?? im actually a nash fan. I love kid canada. My question was why does iverson get thrown under a buss when he has taken a less talented team to the finals then the teams nash had in dallas and in pheonix and he failed to get to the finals even one time.

thats not hating, thats a simple observation. and i know what the question of the thread is. obviously your not a loser in life if you made it to the nba had an all star career and won two mvp's, he is that last thing from being a loser in life.

but nash said "teams win champinships" and i agree but dont you think he has has had teams worthy of winning a ring and came short ? playing alonside the likes of joe johnson, amare, shaq, barbosa, marion, j richardson, hill, diaw, bell, dirk, finley, jamison,

thats a long list of talent that other nba players would die to play with.

HiphopRelated
09-21-2009, 01:49 PM
Only 1 team out of 30 wins every year. It is very hard. Players are often stuck on terrible teams. Only one or two guys (LeBron definitely is one of them) can carry a team of scrubs far into the playoffs. Everyone else needs a team. Nash has had some good teams, for sure...but still, winning a title is so hard.

He is one of the 50 best players ever. A two time MVP. Not many people can say that at all. Winning a title matters, but it isn't everything. It takes a team, not an individual to win a title.



That's as much of a team accomplishment as a 'ship

king4day
09-21-2009, 01:52 PM
Thanks for the whole comment. I think it just boils down to the fact that the all-time greats take their game to a whole different level when the game is on the line and Nash is not like that. He doesn't have that killer instinct. He's one of the most highly efficient players ever but I don't see him as an all-time great.

How many Suns games have you watched?
He's always been clutch and puts his body on the line all the time, even if it's against a scrubby team. What does he need to do? Get in kobe's face when he makes a big bucket?

smith&wesson
09-21-2009, 01:55 PM
Thank you :clap: I hate when people say nash couldn't win the the team that had all these all star players when everytime some bad luck came up.

bad luck, kobe played with a broken finger, iverson has played through multiple injuries through out his career, excuses were never made.

bad reffing happends almost in every game now a days. there are no excuses. because when you say things like "bad luck" your making excuses.

winning a ring means you overcame every obstacle that tests your teams will. playing through bad reffing, playing through injuries, showing that heart to do whatever it takes, thats what wins you a ring not good luck.

king4day
09-21-2009, 02:07 PM
hatred ? where do you get hatred from ?? im actually a nash fan. I love kid canada. My question was why does iverson get thrown under a buss when he has taken a less talented team to the finals then the teams nash had in dallas and in pheonix and he failed to get to the finals even one time.

thats not hating, thats a simple observation. and i know what the question of the thread is. obviously your not a loser in life if you made it to the nba had an all star career and won two mvp's, he is that last thing from being a loser in life.

but nash said "teams win champinships" and i agree but dont you think he has has had teams worthy of winning a ring and came short ? playing alonside the likes of joe johnson, amare, shaq, barbosa, marion, j richardson, hill, diaw, bell, dirk, finley, jamison,

thats a long list of talent that other nba players would die to play with.


Like MJ, Nash had a wall he couldn't lead his team through in Tim Duncan. Whether it was injury, or bad breaks, it always stopped there.
I don't need to go through the amount of superstars that MJ single handedly prevented from getting rings in their careers.

This thread talks about Nash and yet you bring in AI for comparisons. Despite having reached the finals, AI is no less a loser than Nash in terms of basketball success. I can't remember a year when AI made his teammates better around him. They're 2 basketball players who's games are worlds different.

Lakergirl24
09-21-2009, 02:10 PM
Thanks for the whole comment. I think it just boils down to the fact that the all-time greats take their game to a whole different level when the game is on the line and Nash is not like that. He doesn't have that killer instinct. He's one of the most highly efficient players ever but I don't see him as an all-time great.

Then Lebron doesnt have a killer instinct either. All he does is time and time again miss free throws in the clutch (ie. Orlando series when he missed 5 free throws in the 4th).

king4day
09-21-2009, 02:12 PM
bad luck, kobe played with a broken finger, iverson has played through multiple injuries through out his career, excuses were never made.

bad reffing happends almost in every game now a days. there are no excuses. because when you say things like "bad luck" your making excuses.

winning a ring means you overcame every obstacle that tests your teams will. playing through bad reffing, playing through injuries, showing that heart to do whatever it takes, thats what wins you a ring not good luck.

Kobe had that injury dating 2 years back. You can't even consider it an injury since he hasn't missed time because of it and hasn't gotten surgery.

When you lose your best player for a full year, or your best slasher/scorer breaks his face, will doesn't always cut it.
When Amar'e and Diaw were suspended, tha team showed more will than I had seen in a long time. The Suns played their best game of that series but were burnt out in the end.
Will doesn't win you games, it's personel and strategy.

Missing56&33
09-21-2009, 02:49 PM
he's not a loser for saying it but he's being unrealistic because we all know that they are judged by championships. Stockton and Malone are the best NBA duo to not win a championship in NBA history. That is how you remember them. If he don't win one that is how we will remember him.....MVP point guard that lead the league in assist several times but never won a title.

Missing56&33
09-21-2009, 02:51 PM
Then Lebron doesnt have a killer instinct either. All he does is time and time again miss free throws in the clutch (ie. Orlando series when he missed 5 free throws in the 4th).

Stop right there...your losing it. :pity:

SteveNash
09-21-2009, 02:53 PM
He's a loser for not winning a title, not because he says you can't be judged by titles.

KnicksorBust
09-21-2009, 03:01 PM
Its true horry won a bunch of rings so does that make him better than barkely or malone heck no. It sucks when your legacy is based on just a ring. A guy could average 35 ppg 12rpg 10 apg 3 bpg 3 spg for his whole career and all people have to say is "oh yeah but he didn't win a ring" what kind of shhh is that. So winning a ring doesn't make you a better player.

First of all, it definately does. Second of all, so you go by stats? Third of all, obviously your status on that team impacts how important you winning was. I've never heard anyone say that Robert Horry is better than Karl Malone because he has more rings. That's why it's ridiculous, because you are making an argument against a non-existant point. I do believe that if a players are essentially equal in talent and production, then rings is certainly a good way to settle it in my opinion and if you are the franchise player then of course your place in history becomes more substantial. No doubt about that.


How many Suns games have you watched?
He's always been clutch and puts his body on the line all the time, even if it's against a scrubby team. What does he need to do? Get in kobe's face when he makes a big bucket?

If he had that Bird/Magic/MJ/Kobe level then the Suns would have been in a finals by now. Excuses be damned. That's my opinion.


Then Lebron doesnt have a killer instinct either. All he does is time and time again miss free throws in the clutch (ie. Orlando series when he missed 5 free throws in the 4th).

Okay?? If you say so. :laugh: What does Lebron have to do with anything?

sdweston757
09-21-2009, 03:15 PM
bad luck, kobe played with a broken finger, iverson has played through multiple injuries through out his career, excuses were never made.

bad reffing happends almost in every game now a days. there are no excuses. because when you say things like "bad luck" your making excuses.

winning a ring means you overcame every obstacle that tests your teams will. playing through bad reffing, playing through injuries, showing that heart to do whatever it takes, thats what wins you a ring not good luck.

this is just wrong..

are u trying to say that nash doesnt have a ring because he isnt willing to do whatever it takes? im sure he would be the first to tell that that he IS willing to do whatever he thinks is best for the team to win a ring (slowing down the fast break, getting a more defensive coach, getting shaq, letting marion go). if u think nash doensnt have what it takes then ur wrong

Carey
09-21-2009, 03:17 PM
He's right, but at the same time this isnt something i want to hear from my veteran leader if im the owner of the Suns.

WhiteSoxGod
09-21-2009, 03:18 PM
no that doesnt make you a hater, but you do have to admit that iverson did take a much less talented 76ers team to the finals, whre nash had an all star team at the time and failed to get then finals.

But you're talking about a less talented team in the east. AND they had some good defensive stoppers. Nash has always been on WEST team. He had more talented competition and almost NO defensive stoppers. Can't win in the playoffs without defense. Defense can carry a team ask the Rockets. Nash isn't as big of a defensive liability as it seems everyone is making out. It just seems that way when you have no backside help.

lowdown32
09-21-2009, 03:32 PM
Nash is loser that cant play D

urnuttynut
09-21-2009, 03:32 PM
nash....

if you cant win a title with amare, marion, bell, diaw, barbosa, shaq, j rishardson

guess what.... you dont have a chance in hell. suround those type of players around iverson in his prime and my guess is ring!!! no question!!!



You're an idiot... only reason people know marion, bell, diaw, barbosa are CAUSE of nash. Marion and bell left, when was the last time you heard of them?
Iverson was one of the worst teammates ever... he would've kept shooting the ball at his very low percentage... people say every team got better after marbury left... guess what, same goes for The Answer... the answer to the problem is trading the guy... specatular abilities, but 5 on 5, i dont want him on the team. I want guys like nash, chris paul, J Kidd.

HiphopRelated
09-21-2009, 03:43 PM
You're an idiot... only reason people know marion, bell, diaw, barbosa are CAUSE of nash. Marion and bell left, when was the last time you heard of them?
Iverson was one of the worst teammates ever... he would've kept shooting the ball at his very low percentage... people say every team got better after marbury left... guess what, same goes for The Answer... the answer to the problem is trading the guy... specatular abilities, but 5 on 5, i dont want him on the team. I want guys like nash, chris paul, J Kidd.
correction:

The only reason you cared about any of them was 'Antoni.(no d)

Who cared about Nash last year?

heyman321
09-21-2009, 03:49 PM
No. Nash is one of the greatest athletes of this generation.

dtmagnet
09-21-2009, 04:27 PM
I agree with what Nash says.

Chronz
09-21-2009, 05:07 PM
nash....

if you cant win a title with amare, marion, bell, diaw, barbosa, shaq, j rishardson

guess what.... you dont have a chance in hell. suround those type of players around iverson in his prime and my guess is ring!!! no question!!!

but mr nash gets glorified for good stats and only good stats... D wade had a better point per game afverage and also beat nash in ever category almost accept the win colum and he doesnt get mvp .. but nash gets it two years in a row ???

hmmmm iverson gets blazed because he hasnt won a ring. he gets called selfish, disfuntional, a bad team mate... nash hasnt acomplished too much more then iverson has and he doesnt get looked at in the same light but he hasnt even been able to take a talented suns team to the finals yet and yet he doesnt get any heat. last i remember iverson has taken one of his teams to the finals but no one mentions that. nash on the other hand gets two MVP's... though every play offs the suns team chokes. no matter how much talent, how good of a coach, or how many mvp's nash gets the suns always always always fail to reach the finals yet nash gets all this credit... but iverson gets dogged ??? this is what i dont understand.

next person who actually reads this please please please do me a favour dog, answer me this, would you rather have a prime iverson on your team or a prime nash. im dieing to know truethfully.

i dont care what your answer is ,,, just be truethfull... simpe iverson or nash in his prime. neither have won titles. nash has 2 mvps iverson has a finals aperance amonst a whole **** load of other trophies and acomplishments.... who gets your vote.

heres my vote and any one who says it aint soo is really just a hater.

I think iverson would have won at least one ring with the surounding cast of some of these players
amare, marion, bell, diaw, barbosa, shaq, j rishardson, hill,

if you dont think soo thats fine, but tell me why because im actually interested in your point of view.

my point of view is, if iversons a loser because he cant acomplish the utlimate goal, then yes nash is also a loser becuase he hanst acomplished it either, amongst barkley, stockton, malone, miller, ect.

because in this leauge if you dont have a ring, forget about it... you never got it done. mj was in the leauge when bird, magic, isiah, dumars was still winning rings, i really dont think theres any excuse .. if you cant beat the beast... you are not the best. simple as that.

i play some dude in a 100 games of street ball and he beats be by one point in every game almost... that means i put in a good efort but came short every time. obvioulsy the other guys the victor. the winner... hence me being a loser in that scenerio.. thats just the way i look at it.

lol your a funny guy, but you dont have to take your joke that far

dudeonthemoon
09-21-2009, 05:30 PM
YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME nash

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMk5sMHj58I

Pensx3
09-21-2009, 05:45 PM
Canadiens dont win NBA titles, I am not a Steve Nash fan. He has had some great talent around him, but still never won. Unless he pulls a Garnett and signs with a contender, he will retire with no titles. He should take a 80% pay cut and play for the Lakers, thats the only way he will win a title. The NBA is unlike the NHL, MLB and the NFL, 1 person can really make or break it for a team. He is not a great player, he is good...

dudeonthemoon
09-21-2009, 05:49 PM
Canadiens dont win NBA titles, I am not a Steve Nash fan. He has had some great talent around him, but still never won. Unless he pulls a Garnett and signs with a contender, he will retire with no titles. He should take a 80% pay cut and play for the Lakers, thats the only way he will win a title. The NBA is unlike the NHL, MLB and the NFL, 1 person can really make or break it for a team. He is not a great player, he is good...

dats cold

smith&wesson
09-21-2009, 06:04 PM
lol your a funny guy, but you dont have to take your joke that far


lol too far you think ?? im not downing nash, i like the guy and what he has done for canadian basket ball, i just think that he could have done more with the talent that was put around him.

smith&wesson
09-21-2009, 06:14 PM
Like MJ, Nash had a wall he couldn't lead his team through in Tim Duncan. Whether it was injury, or bad breaks, it always stopped there.
I don't need to go through the amount of superstars that MJ single handedly prevented from getting rings in their careers.

This thread talks about Nash and yet you bring in AI for comparisons. Despite having reached the finals, AI is no less a loser than Nash in terms of basketball success. I can't remember a year when AI made his teammates better around him. They're 2 basketball players who's games are worlds different.

the comparison was simply quriosity, ive already agknoledged the question of which the thread is asking and ill state it again, no nash is not a loser for making his statment about teams winning rings not individual players. but i find it interesting that he says that yet has failed to even reach the finals, or even the wcf's multiple times. he has had stacked teams. my question is how come he doesnt get the same heat as iverson when iverson took a way less talented team to the finals.. its a legitamate question im not hating or anything...

heattiltheend94
09-21-2009, 06:14 PM
post the whole thing

smith&wesson
09-21-2009, 06:16 PM
Canadiens dont win NBA titles, I am not a Steve Nash fan. He has had some great talent around him, but still never won. Unless he pulls a Garnett and signs with a contender, he will retire with no titles. He should take a 80% pay cut and play for the Lakers, thats the only way he will win a title. The NBA is unlike the NHL, MLB and the NFL, 1 person can really make or break it for a team. He is not a great player, he is good...

although i agree with the rest of your post, i think the bolded line is just uncalled for and has no relevance to anything.

please be respectfull of other peoples back rounds and ethnicity no matter where they are from.

BkOriginalOne
09-21-2009, 06:38 PM
He's right, though.

Shady66
09-21-2009, 06:54 PM
just because you dont win it all, doesnt make you a loser.

Chronz
09-21-2009, 06:58 PM
In what years do you guys think Nash shouldve won the title? I really dont see your guys argument, hes always lost to superior teams, and most of the time to superior players themselves many of whom havent even won rings either.

mikantsass
09-21-2009, 07:32 PM
Teams win championships. Players win individual awards. Yes championships are important, but there are many great players without rings.

smith&wesson
09-21-2009, 07:57 PM
In what years do you guys think Nash shouldve won the title? I really dont see your guys argument, hes always lost to superior teams, and most of the time to superior players themselves many of whom havent even won rings either.

2004/05 when they won a division title, quinton richardson won the three point contest, nash won the skills compitition, marion won the shooting stars. amare was in the dunk off. and they had joe johnson. thats 3 all stars and joe johnson was basically a 4th all star. and at the time q rich was the best 3 point shooter in the league. they had 62 wins and nash won mvp, dantoni won coach of the year. they had first seed. and they lost to San An 4-1 in the wcf's.

2005/06 they had nash, amare, marion, bell, diaw, ( who was named most improved),barbosa, and kurt thomas

and again won theyre divison title. nash got mvp

they were eleminated by the mav's and done so by 25 points in game 6 loseing the series 4-2.


those were not far superior teams. at the time phoenix had more talent then both teams or at least had an = amount of talent with a back to back mvp in nash leading them but they couldnt get to the finals.

Shady66
09-21-2009, 08:00 PM
2004/05 when they won a division title, quinton richardson won the three point contest, nash won the skills compitition, marion won the shooting stars. amare was in the dunk off. and they had joe johnson. thats 3 all stars and joe johnson was basically a 4th all star. and at the time q rich was the best 3 point shooter in the league. they had 62 wins and nash won mvp, dantoni won coach of the year. they had first seed. and they lost to San An 4-1 in the wcf's.

2005/06 they had nash, amare, marion, bell, diaw, ( who was named most improved),barbosa, and kurt thomas

and again won theyre divison title. nash got mvp

they were eleminated by the mav's and done so by 25 points in game 6 loseing the series 4-2.


those were not far superior teams. at the time phoenix had more talent then both teams or at least had an = amount of talent with a back to back mvp in nash leading them but they couldnt get to the finals.

Its called freak injuries, and Awful reffing

MrFastBreak
09-21-2009, 08:14 PM
In a way, he's right. There were alotta great players who retired without rings.
But if he was compared to a player with similiar stats, they prolly would be considered better.
That is the only downfall of not winning a ring.

smith&wesson
09-21-2009, 08:22 PM
Its called freak injuries, and Awful reffing

SO even with injuries and and bad reffing they were able to win division titles, win mvp trophies, make all star games, make the play offs, but as soon as they lose a series its because of injuries and bad reffing, as far as im concerned every team in the league faces those obstacles.

tland22
09-21-2009, 08:35 PM
"Players shouldnt be judged by titles"

Nah I agree with Nash. Basketball is sucha team sport. Like football.... unlike baseball really. Unlike Golf and tennis, where players should be judged by titles because its essentially a one man sport. In baseball the pitchers are by far and away the most important players on a team....etc anyways.... I dont feel like rambling on but Basketball should be seen as a ridiculously difficult sport to judge individuals within it....because of its team like natrure. Titles matter though, but they shouldnt weigh as much as peopleand the media put weight onto them.

PHX2daDEATH
09-21-2009, 08:49 PM
nash....

if you cant win a title with amare, marion, bell, diaw, barbosa, shaq, j rishardson

guess what.... you dont have a chance in hell. suround those type of players around iverson in his prime and my guess is ring!!! no question!!!

but mr nash gets glorified for good stats and only good stats... D wade had a better point per game afverage and also beat nash in ever category almost accept the win colum and he doesnt get mvp .. but nash gets it two years in a row ???

hmmmm iverson gets blazed because he hasnt won a ring. he gets called selfish, disfuntional, a bad team mate... nash hasnt acomplished too much more then iverson has and he doesnt get looked at in the same light but he hasnt even been able to take a talented suns team to the finals yet and yet he doesnt get any heat. last i remember iverson has taken one of his teams to the finals but no one mentions that. nash on the other hand gets two MVP's... though every play offs the suns team chokes. no matter how much talent, how good of a coach, or how many mvp's nash gets the suns always always always fail to reach the finals yet nash gets all this credit... but iverson gets dogged ??? this is what i dont understand.

next person who actually reads this please please please do me a favour dog, answer me this, would you rather have a prime iverson on your team or a prime nash. im dieing to know truethfully.

i dont care what your answer is ,,, just be truethfull... simpe iverson or nash in his prime. neither have won titles. nash has 2 mvps iverson has a finals aperance amonst a whole **** load of other trophies and acomplishments.... who gets your vote.

heres my vote and any one who says it aint soo is really just a hater.

I think iverson would have won at least one ring with the surounding cast of some of these players
amare, marion, bell, diaw, barbosa, shaq, j rishardson, hill,

if you dont think soo thats fine, but tell me why because im actually interested in your point of view.

my point of view is, if iversons a loser because he cant acomplish the utlimate goal, then yes nash is also a loser becuase he hanst acomplished it either, amongst barkley, stockton, malone, miller, ect.

because in this leauge if you dont have a ring, forget about it... you never got it done. mj was in the leauge when bird, magic, isiah, dumars was still winning rings, i really dont think theres any excuse .. if you cant beat the beast... you are not the best. simple as that.

i play some dude in a 100 games of street ball and he beats be by one point in every game almost... that means i put in a good efort but came short every time. obvioulsy the other guys the victor. the winner... hence me being a loser in that scenerio.. thats just the way i look at it.

I don't know why Iverson and Nash are always getting thrown into the same conversation.. they are two different players.

Nash is all about the team, he's a pass first, shoot second point guard..
Iverson through out his career is a shoot first and shoot often shooting guard.

If you put Iverson on any of the Sun's teams the last 4 or 5 years, they wouldn't even make the playoffs as often, Im betting.. they would be a 40-45win team. The fact of the matter is Nash makes players around him better..See Tim Thomas, See Quentin Richardson, See Raja Bell..See Shawn Marion (I'll exclude Diaw since he did tear it up the last half w Charlotte)
If you put Allen Iverson on the Suns..it just defeats the purpose of the system..he's a shoot first shooting guard! The Pistons wanted to play up-tempo and Iverson couldnt even change his game to do that so I'm sure he would not defer earlier in his career to a fast breaking system. He's an Iso player, do you think AI and Amare could run the pick n roll better than Nash and Amare? no way..no way.. no way. You can't blame Nash for the Suns not winning a title..The Suns got some untimely injuries and suspensions the last 4 years

Iverson 42 % shooter
Nash 48 % shooter

Nash 8 assists a game
Iverson 4-5 assist a game

thephoenixson28
09-21-2009, 08:50 PM
SO even with injuries and and bad reffing they were able to win division titles, win mvp trophies, make all star games, make the play offs, but as soon as they lose a series its because of injuries and bad reffing, as far as im concerned every team in the league faces those obstacles. When kevin garnett got injured do you think boston would make it, if kobe got injured would the lakers make it. When somebody is not on the court it can determine a game and a series. When somebody else determines the outcome of the game (donaghy) you have a higher percentage to lose. By not have players such as joe johnson, amare the whole season, amare and diaw, and donaghy. I admit people face them obstacles but when it happens it turns out negative so you can't say it didn't have an effect on the team.

smith&wesson
09-21-2009, 10:40 PM
When kevin garnett got injured do you think boston would make it, if kobe got injured would the lakers make it. When somebody is not on the court it can determine a game and a series. When somebody else determines the outcome of the game (donaghy) you have a higher percentage to lose. By not have players such as joe johnson, amare the whole season, amare and diaw, and donaghy. I admit people face them obstacles but when it happens it turns out negative so you can't say it didn't have an effect on the team.

agreed, injuries effect every team. but 04/05 when they were the most talented team in the league with the best record and had an injury free season, whats the excuse then ? they were just out played is all.

and while you say if kobe gets injured you have to keep in mind that kobe plays through injuries for example a broken pinky finger. nash was healthy in the 05/06 and 06/07 seasons with an all star cast around him and they still came short.

smith&wesson
09-21-2009, 10:50 PM
I don't know why Iverson and Nash are always getting thrown into the same conversation.. they are two different players.

Nash is all about the team, he's a pass first, shoot second point guard..
Iverson through out his career is a shoot first and shoot often shooting guard.

If you put Iverson on any of the Sun's teams the last 4 or 5 years, they wouldn't even make the playoffs as often, Im betting.. they would be a 40-45win team. The fact of the matter is Nash makes players around him better..See Tim Thomas, See Quentin Richardson, See Raja Bell..See Shawn Marion (I'll exclude Diaw since he did tear it up the last half w Charlotte)
If you put Allen Iverson on the Suns..it just defeats the purpose of the system..he's a shoot first shooting guard! The Pistons wanted to play up-tempo and Iverson couldnt even change his game to do that so I'm sure he would not defer earlier in his career to a fast breaking system. He's an Iso player, do you think AI and Amare could run the pick n roll better than Nash and Amare? no way..no way.. no way. You can't blame Nash for the Suns not winning a title..The Suns got some untimely injuries and suspensions the last 4 years

Iverson 42 % shooter
Nash 48 % shooter

Nash 8 assists a game
Iverson 4-5 assist a game

prior to last year, iverson averaged 24.8 points per game 7.2 assists and 3 rpg for the nuggets. and while doing that he didnt take away from melo's shots as he averaged 28.9 points 6 rebounds
and he is more of a shooting gaurd then a point gaurd.

and im not blaming anything on nash, i think he is a great player i also beleive he could have done more with the talent he was surounded with. injuries plague every team. tmac and yao are injured every year almost i dont hear any one coming to theyre aid when they couldnt get out of the first round it wasnt blamed on the players injuries, instead theyre greatness was questioned.

TheBatchelor213
09-21-2009, 11:57 PM
i disagree with the Iverson comment, if Iverson had been surrounded by good players in his prime he would have messed that up. He always has Needed to be the man, he thrived in Philly because he was THE MAN in his Prime surrounded by players that were great defenders and didnt need the ball. If he would have had Rodman, maybe a Glen Rice/Kyle Korver type and I don't know, Bruce Bowen in his prime? Philly probably whens a title.



nash....

if you cant win a title with amare, marion, bell, diaw, barbosa, shaq, j rishardson

guess what.... you dont have a chance in hell. suround those type of players around iverson in his prime and my guess is ring!!! no question!!!

but mr nash gets glorified for good stats and only good stats... D wade had a better point per game afverage and also beat nash in ever category almost accept the win colum and he doesnt get mvp .. but nash gets it two years in a row ???

hmmmm iverson gets blazed because he hasnt won a ring. he gets called selfish, disfuntional, a bad team mate... nash hasnt acomplished too much more then iverson has and he doesnt get looked at in the same light but he hasnt even been able to take a talented suns team to the finals yet and yet he doesnt get any heat. last i remember iverson has taken one of his teams to the finals but no one mentions that. nash on the other hand gets two MVP's... though every play offs the suns team chokes. no matter how much talent, how good of a coach, or how many mvp's nash gets the suns always always always fail to reach the finals yet nash gets all this credit... but iverson gets dogged ??? this is what i dont understand.

next person who actually reads this please please please do me a favour dog, answer me this, would you rather have a prime iverson on your team or a prime nash. im dieing to know truethfully.

i dont care what your answer is ,,, just be truethfull... simpe iverson or nash in his prime. neither have won titles. nash has 2 mvps iverson has a finals aperance amonst a whole **** load of other trophies and acomplishments.... who gets your vote.

heres my vote and any one who says it aint soo is really just a hater.

I think iverson would have won at least one ring with the surounding cast of some of these players
amare, marion, bell, diaw, barbosa, shaq, j rishardson, hill,

if you dont think soo thats fine, but tell me why because im actually interested in your point of view.

my point of view is, if iversons a loser because he cant acomplish the utlimate goal, then yes nash is also a loser becuase he hanst acomplished it either, amongst barkley, stockton, malone, miller, ect.

because in this leauge if you dont have a ring, forget about it... you never got it done. mj was in the leauge when bird, magic, isiah, dumars was still winning rings, i really dont think theres any excuse .. if you cant beat the beast... you are not the best. simple as that.

i play some dude in a 100 games of street ball and he beats be by one point in every game almost... that means i put in a good efort but came short every time. obvioulsy the other guys the victor. the winner... hence me being a loser in that scenerio.. thats just the way i look at it.

ink
09-22-2009, 12:06 AM
"Players shouldnt be judged by titles"

No. He, like Kidd and Dirk just haven't won a title.

IDB Josh M
09-22-2009, 12:12 AM
"True beauty is on the inside." That's just something ugly people say.

wmudford
09-22-2009, 12:41 AM
nash....

if you cant win a title with amare, marion, bell, diaw, barbosa, shaq, j rishardson

guess what.... you dont have a chance in hell. suround those type of players around iverson in his prime and my guess is ring!!! no question!!!

but mr nash gets glorified for good stats and only good stats... D wade had a better point per game afverage and also beat nash in ever category almost accept the win colum and he doesnt get mvp .. but nash gets it two years in a row ???

hmmmm iverson gets blazed because he hasnt won a ring. he gets called selfish, disfuntional, a bad team mate... nash hasnt acomplished too much more then iverson has and he doesnt get looked at in the same light but he hasnt even been able to take a talented suns team to the finals yet and yet he doesnt get any heat. last i remember iverson has taken one of his teams to the finals but no one mentions that. nash on the other hand gets two MVP's... though every play offs the suns team chokes. no matter how much talent, how good of a coach, or how many mvp's nash gets the suns always always always fail to reach the finals yet nash gets all this credit... but iverson gets dogged ??? this is what i dont understand.

next person who actually reads this please please please do me a favour dog, answer me this, would you rather have a prime iverson on your team or a prime nash. im dieing to know truethfully.

i dont care what your answer is ,,, just be truethfull... simpe iverson or nash in his prime. neither have won titles. nash has 2 mvps iverson has a finals aperance amonst a whole **** load of other trophies and acomplishments.... who gets your vote.

heres my vote and any one who says it aint soo is really just a hater.

I think iverson would have won at least one ring with the surounding cast of some of these players
amare, marion, bell, diaw, barbosa, shaq, j rishardson, hill,

if you dont think soo thats fine, but tell me why because im actually interested in your point of view.

my point of view is, if iversons a loser because he cant acomplish the utlimate goal, then yes nash is also a loser becuase he hanst acomplished it either, amongst barkley, stockton, malone, miller, ect.

because in this leauge if you dont have a ring, forget about it... you never got it done. mj was in the leauge when bird, magic, isiah, dumars was still winning rings, i really dont think theres any excuse .. if you cant beat the beast... you are not the best. simple as that.

i play some dude in a 100 games of street ball and he beats be by one point in every game almost... that means i put in a good efort but came short every time. obvioulsy the other guys the victor. the winner... hence me being a loser in that scenerio.. thats just the way i look at it.

Is this guy on drugs?? First he didnt have all those guys at once genius. Did you even watch the 05-06 suns when his only above average teammate was marion and he carried them to the WCF !?! If you had any intellegence whatsoever you would see that iverson is terrible at having any kind of chemistry. Second there were 2 seasons where the second and third best players on the team were healthy.. jj injury, stoudemire injuries. Not to mention some very questionable suspensions. If the Suns had a stat in 05-06 i have no doubt they would have won the title. You cant freakin judge him on that because his TEAM ran in to some bad luck. And as for the mvp thing nash averaged more assists, better 3 pt%, fg%, ft%, fewer turnovers and made an otherwise average team in the 05-06 season into a contender. Go smoke some more bro :rolleyes:

LA_Raiders
09-22-2009, 01:38 AM
lol, no way

-Kobe24-TJ19-
09-22-2009, 03:11 AM
Nash has been always a loser:speechless:...so...mmm...YES

Matt-the-great
09-22-2009, 03:32 AM
"Players shouldnt be judged by titles"

do not put a statement in quotaions if it isn't actually an exact statement....come on man, thats sad.

KayNti
09-22-2009, 03:51 AM
no i don't think so. looks at karl malone, john stockton, charles barkley, etc. all without titles but their reputation as basketball greats isn't tarnished.

but having the titles only help

It does help yes, but how much does it help? If Karl Malone got a ring with a Lakers that year he got sent there, would that make a difference?

xHTOWN713x
09-22-2009, 04:10 AM
Since some of you idiots think its all about the rings, what about steve kerr? 5 championships. So he's better than kobe? Kobe only has 4 rings, if rings are what matters, he has to be right. I didn't think so. Nash is right on this one.

dumbbaseballfan
09-22-2009, 04:11 AM
..

abe_froman
09-22-2009, 04:32 AM
Since some of you idiots think its all about the rings, what about steve kerr? 5 championships. So he's better than kobe? Kobe only has 4 rings, if rings are what matters, he has to be right. I didn't think so. Nash is right on this one.

its weighted(kerr a role player who rode on the backs of others greatness to get those rings)

rings matter,especially in the nba(at least more so than the other major sports),as an individual(or same group like duo or trio)has a greater impact and importance in wins/championships than any other sport.now i've been pretty vocal that fans shouldnt put to much importance on ring count(and rightly so).but it still does matter to some extent

Fireworld
09-22-2009, 04:42 AM
I agree with him.

Raph12
09-22-2009, 09:26 AM
"Players shouldnt be judged by titles"

Only a player who has a legitimate reason for not winning a title can say that, Nash had a good thing in Dallas and a better thing in Phoenix. He has no excuses for not having a ring by now.

king4day
09-22-2009, 10:20 AM
2004/05 when they won a division title, quinton richardson won the three point contest, nash won the skills compitition, marion won the shooting stars. amare was in the dunk off. and they had joe johnson. thats 3 all stars and joe johnson was basically a 4th all star. and at the time q rich was the best 3 point shooter in the league. they had 62 wins and nash won mvp, dantoni won coach of the year. they had first seed. and they lost to San An 4-1 in the wcf's.

2005/06 they had nash, amare, marion, bell, diaw, ( who was named most improved),barbosa, and kurt thomas

and again won theyre divison title. nash got mvp

they were eleminated by the mav's and done so by 25 points in game 6 loseing the series 4-2.


those were not far superior teams. at the time phoenix had more talent then both teams or at least had an = amount of talent with a back to back mvp in nash leading them but they couldnt get to the finals.

Amar'e was out that season. Thus why Diaw was allowed to be most improved.

In 04/05 our bench was a raw Barbosa and Jim Jackson. No matter how good the starters were, there was always a severe dropoff when the time to rest came.
We didn't have JJ for the first couple of games of the WCF. It's not like we were dominated in that series. Each game was close till the end.

PHX2daDEATH
09-22-2009, 01:21 PM
Nash has been always a loser:speechless:...so...mmm...YES


yeah but since Nash came back to Phoenix he's eliminated Kobe and the Lakers not once but TWICE, from the playoffs..:clap:

PHX2daDEATH
09-22-2009, 01:30 PM
I'm just convinced that the Suns are cursed.. call it the Lew Alcindor Curse, I could go back to 93 and say that if we had Cedric Ceballos(injured in the finals), we would of taken the championship, you go down the line 04-05-No Joe Johnson.. 05-06 No Amare and then Raja gets hurt before we play dallas in the wcf, 06-07 David stern bends us over the same scorers table Horry checks nash into and rapes our two best fowards.. 07-08 we dont stand a chance playing a veteran spurs team when our chemistry couldnt be formed with Shaq after 30 something games..

Ironman5219
09-22-2009, 01:43 PM
Nothing wrong with Nash's statment

TheMicrowave
09-22-2009, 02:19 PM
"Players shouldnt be judged by titles"

He does have a point, but I don't agree with it. He will go down as one of the best PGs of all time, but he failed to get to the big one.

Chronz
09-22-2009, 02:34 PM
do not put a statement in quotaions if it isn't actually an exact statement....come on man, thats sad.

I was summarizing, it got the point across though

Chronz
09-22-2009, 02:38 PM
Only a player who has a legitimate reason for not winning a title can say that, Nash had a good thing in Dallas and a better thing in Phoenix. He has no excuses for not having a ring by now.
Yea so how do you compare those players without one to Nash? Does he rank lower than players who won less but had lesser players around him, how do you level the playing field?

smith&wesson
09-22-2009, 02:50 PM
Is this guy on drugs?? First he didnt have all those guys at once genius. Did you even watch the 05-06 suns when his only above average teammate was marion and he carried them to the WCF !?! If you had any intellegence whatsoever you would see that iverson is terrible at having any kind of chemistry. Second there were 2 seasons where the second and third best players on the team were healthy.. jj injury, stoudemire injuries. Not to mention some very questionable suspensions. If the Suns had a stat in 05-06 i have no doubt they would have won the title. You cant freakin judge him on that because his TEAM ran in to some bad luck. And as for the mvp thing nash averaged more assists, better 3 pt%, fg%, ft%, fewer turnovers and made an otherwise average team in the 05-06 season into a contender. Go smoke some more bro :rolleyes:

first of all why are you speaking to me in a condesending manner ? Are you incapable of getting your point across with out belittleing someone elses ??

I never once said they had all the players on the same team at onetime, so im not sure what your getting at there. I said he has had some great suporting casts and was never able to get to the finals. I also stated that im a fan of nash and that i dont beleive he is a loser. it was a simple question you could have just responded with your point of view which i respectfully said i would like to hear. you took that as let me roll my eyes at this guy like a girl, get all emotional and start taking jabs. Hell yeah i smoke trees, what kinda square are you any ways, if you cant just talk and have a normal discusion then dont respond to my posts, i dont like negative people who cant think out side the box and decide to insult any one else who does just because you dont agree. if i dont agree with your view points, ill have a debate with you, i wouldnt insult you because i dont project my insecurities in to others. now go smoke a blunt and chill out homie. your high strung.

Chronz
09-22-2009, 02:58 PM
I edited your post to only include the relevant matters, why would I care about skills challenges?


2004/05 when they won a division title

thats 3 all stars and joe johnson was basically a 4th all star.

and at the time q rich was the best 3 point shooter in the league.

they had 62 wins and nash won mvp, dantoni won coach of the year. they had first seed. and they lost to San An 4-1 in the wcf's.
Mostly true aside from the JJ being an All-Star thing but they did have alot of talent, I never disputed that. But they werent better than the Spurs. To understand why requires you to expand your mind beyond simple Win-Loss columns, and more with the context of those W and L's.

The Spurs never had to max out anyones minutes to win as many games as the Suns did. The Suns had all 5 of their starters playing +35MPG. The Spurs were able to play Manu under 30. Which means come playoff time their ability to crank up their best players minutes and shorten their rotation made them considerably more formidable than the W-L say. If you look at their expected winning % based on their efficiency on both ends the Spurs had the rating of a 63 win team. The Suns were 2nd in the league at 59. So basically the Spurs had the more impressive rating, and they tried less to accomplish this feet.




2005/06 they had nash, amare, marion, bell, diaw, ( who was named most improved),barbosa, and kurt thomas

and again won theyre divison title. nash got mvp

they were eleminated by the mav's and done so by 25 points in game 6 loseing the series 4-2.

Wrong, they didnt have Amare in 05-06, your thinking about 06-07 but Nash didnt win the MVP that year nor did they lose to Dallas, so which year are you talking about. In Nash's 2nd MVP year they werent better than Dallas, at all.



those were not far superior teams. at the time phoenix had more talent then both teams or at least had an = amount of talent with a back to back mvp in nash leading them but they couldnt get to the finals.
Nobody said anything about being far superior or the better talent, just that the teams were better because the players he lost to were in fact better themselves.

Chronz
09-22-2009, 02:59 PM
first of all why are you speaking to me in a condesending manner ? Are you incapable of getting your point across with out belittleing someone elses ??

I never once said they had all the players on the same team at onetime, so im not sure what your getting at there. I said he has had some great suporting casts and was never able to get to the finals. I also stated that im a fan of nash and that i dont beleive he is a loser. it was a simple question you could have just responded with your point of view which i respectfully said i would like to hear. you took that as let me roll my eyes at this guy like a girl, get all emotional and start taking jabs. Hell yeah i smoke trees, what kinda square are you any ways, if you cant just talk and have a normal discusion then dont respond to my posts, i dont like negative people who cant think out side the box and decide to insult any one else who does just because you dont agree. if i dont agree with your view points, ill have a debate with you, i wouldnt insult you because i dont project my insecurities in to others. now go smoke a blunt and chill out homie. your high strung.
Nah man its clear as day you got your seasons confused. You said specifically 05-06 and listed Amare as a teammate. Its ok to make mistakes, just man up to them.

Bigbadmoffo
09-22-2009, 03:01 PM
nash....

if you cant win a title with amare, marion, bell, diaw, barbosa, shaq, j rishardson

guess what.... you dont have a chance in hell. suround those type of players around iverson in his prime and my guess is ring!!! no question!!!

but mr nash gets glorified for good stats and only good stats... D wade had a better point per game afverage and also beat nash in ever category almost accept the win colum and he doesnt get mvp .. but nash gets it two years in a row ???

hmmmm iverson gets blazed because he hasnt won a ring. he gets called selfish, disfuntional, a bad team mate... nash hasnt acomplished too much more then iverson has and he doesnt get looked at in the same light but he hasnt even been able to take a talented suns team to the finals yet and yet he doesnt get any heat. last i remember iverson has taken one of his teams to the finals but no one mentions that. nash on the other hand gets two MVP's... though every play offs the suns team chokes. no matter how much talent, how good of a coach, or how many mvp's nash gets the suns always always always fail to reach the finals yet nash gets all this credit... but iverson gets dogged ??? this is what i dont understand.

next person who actually reads this please please please do me a favour dog, answer me this, would you rather have a prime iverson on your team or a prime nash. im dieing to know truethfully.

i dont care what your answer is ,,, just be truethfull... simpe iverson or nash in his prime. neither have won titles. nash has 2 mvps iverson has a finals aperance amonst a whole **** load of other trophies and acomplishments.... who gets your vote.

heres my vote and any one who says it aint soo is really just a hater.

I think iverson would have won at least one ring with the surounding cast of some of these players
amare, marion, bell, diaw, barbosa, shaq, j rishardson, hill,

if you dont think soo thats fine, but tell me why because im actually interested in your point of view.

my point of view is, if iversons a loser because he cant acomplish the utlimate goal, then yes nash is also a loser becuase he hanst acomplished it either, amongst barkley, stockton, malone, miller, ect.

because in this leauge if you dont have a ring, forget about it... you never got it done. mj was in the leauge when bird, magic, isiah, dumars was still winning rings, i really dont think theres any excuse .. if you cant beat the beast... you are not the best. simple as that.

i play some dude in a 100 games of street ball and he beats be by one point in every game almost... that means i put in a good efort but came short every time. obvioulsy the other guys the victor. the winner... hence me being a loser in that scenerio.. thats just the way i look at it.



Marion' performance has dropped and so has boris and bell since leaving Phoenix. Infact who knows how great Amare would be without the ppl he had in phoenix including Nash. My point is how many players did Wade help turn into stars and how many did Nash. You have to see beyond ppg game and all the other stats and see what a player can do for his team example Garnet makes a team better Iverson doesn't.

smith&wesson
09-22-2009, 03:05 PM
Yea so how do you compare those players without one to Nash? Does he rank lower than players who won less but had lesser players around him, how do you level the playing field?

thats actually a good question. Because my point all along has been that he hasnt even made it to the finals, never mind a ring.

but he is better FAR better then alot of players with rings, how do we judge them based on acheivments or just natural talent and the positives they bring to the game ?

because i can go on all day talking about his short comings but at the end of the day he is a phenominal player but to me other players who havent won a ring have gotten further with a less potent suporting cast, such as nowitsky or iverson like i mentioned. but nash makes his team mates better compared to those guys. so how would we judge who is the better player overall.

the guy that makes his team mates better, or the guy that takes his team the furthest or has a ring.

smith&wesson
09-22-2009, 03:12 PM
Marion' performance has dropped and so has boris and bell since leaving Phoenix. Infact who knows how great Amare would be without the ppl he had in phoenix including Nash. My point is how many players did Wade help turn into stars and how many did Nash. You have to see beyond ppg game and all the other stats and see what a player can do for his team example Garnet makes a team better Iverson doesn't.



Marions performance has dropped and so has diaws your right, after leaving pheonix they dont really seem like the same type of players. thats avery good point. i agree with that. nash does make his team mates better. i cant deny that.

smith&wesson
09-22-2009, 03:33 PM
Nah man its clear as day you got your seasons confused. You said specifically 05-06 and listed Amare as a teammate. Its ok to make mistakes, just man up to them.

i HAVE been . . why is every one out for blood on here yo lol shiet

if you read my posts you would know im just trying to have a convo. i dont really care to be right about anything. because im not for or against anything i had an opinion and followed it with a question which was simply why does one player get thrown under a bus and and another gets high praize but neither have gotten to the ultimate goal...

Ive gotten some good responces such as. he makes his team mates better. he is a team guy, has good chemistry and no attitude...

where iverson is a me first player, who needs alot of touches to be effective and doesnt have good chemistry with either team.

if i made a mistake ill admit it. in 05 amare was injured for the season and i didnt know that. so yeah ill admit to that. its all good. but for some dude to come here and start insulting me thats just messed up... i dont get it.. why cant we all share opinions and debate.. why does it have to get personal. I dont take shots at people even if they wrong, ill debate the points maybe even argue them, but to take direct shots thats a ***** move.

blazerman
09-22-2009, 04:01 PM
There are alot of guys that are in the Hall that didnt win a title. And a championship is won by a team not one player. Alot of players just didnt have as good a team but can still be a great player. A title does add to anybody's overall resume in the end of course and can help take a players status to another level but there are plenty of great players that didnt win a title.

lizard5781
09-22-2009, 04:11 PM
Loser? the guy's a hall of famer and the consumate professional. Not too many Steve Nash's in the NBA...He has his own opinion and frankly i agree with him. He will still be a hall of famer and people will always remember his game. Damn, he is still one of the better point guards in the league at 35. He's like the guy everyone likes because he has no attitude......and his Phoenix Suns got stiffed that year against the Spurs, they were such an awsome team, noooobodddy could run like that team, mabye the showtime Lakers of the 80's, lol.

HiphopRelated
09-22-2009, 04:17 PM
There are alot of guys that are in the Hall that didnt win a title. And a championship is won by a team not one player. Alot of players just didnt have as good a team but can still be a great player. A title does add to anybody's overall resume in the end of course and can help take a players status to another level but there are plenty of great players that didnt win a title.
why does this apply to a title and not MVP?

Certainly MVp is as much of a team award as anything these days...and one is earned on the court and the other is media voted.

STAT1
09-22-2009, 04:32 PM
nash....

if you cant win a title with amare, marion, bell, diaw, barbosa, shaq, j rishardson

guess what.... you dont have a chance in hell. suround those type of players around iverson in his prime and my guess is ring!!! no question!!!

but mr nash gets glorified for good stats and only good stats... D wade had a better point per game afverage and also beat nash in ever category almost accept the win colum and he doesnt get mvp .. but nash gets it two years in a row ???

hmmmm iverson gets blazed because he hasnt won a ring. he gets called selfish, disfuntional, a bad team mate... nash hasnt acomplished too much more then iverson has and he doesnt get looked at in the same light but he hasnt even been able to take a talented suns team to the finals yet and yet he doesnt get any heat. last i remember iverson has taken one of his teams to the finals but no one mentions that. nash on the other hand gets two MVP's... though every play offs the suns team chokes. no matter how much talent, how good of a coach, or how many mvp's nash gets the suns always always always fail to reach the finals yet nash gets all this credit... but iverson gets dogged ??? this is what i dont understand.

next person who actually reads this please please please do me a favour dog, answer me this, would you rather have a prime iverson on your team or a prime nash. im dieing to know truethfully.

i dont care what your answer is ,,, just be truethfull... simpe iverson or nash in his prime. neither have won titles. nash has 2 mvps iverson has a finals aperance amonst a whole **** load of other trophies and acomplishments.... who gets your vote.

heres my vote and any one who says it aint soo is really just a hater.

I think iverson would have won at least one ring with the surounding cast of some of these players
amare, marion, bell, diaw, barbosa, shaq, j rishardson, hill,

if you dont think soo thats fine, but tell me why because im actually interested in your point of view.

my point of view is, if iversons a loser because he cant acomplish the utlimate goal, then yes nash is also a loser becuase he hanst acomplished it either, amongst barkley, stockton, malone, miller, ect.

because in this leauge if you dont have a ring, forget about it... you never got it done. mj was in the leauge when bird, magic, isiah, dumars was still winning rings, i really dont think theres any excuse .. if you cant beat the beast... you are not the best. simple as that.

i play some dude in a 100 games of street ball and he beats be by one point in every game almost... that means i put in a good efort but came short every time. obvioulsy the other guys the victor. the winner... hence me being a loser in that scenerio.. thats just the way i look at it.



1st Nash never had all those players at the same time.
2nd It doesnt matter who Iverson in his prime had because hes not ganna pass to anyone.
3rd Nash was glorified becuase he was our floor general, maade everyone around him better, an led us to a top see in the playoffs for a few years straight.

and to answer your question hands down Nash in his MVP years than iverson in his ballhogging days.

Kobe2324
09-22-2009, 04:47 PM
certain players can be recodnized as one of the greatest to play and not have one a title but in nash's case im not sure he is one of those players. He's no stockton, malone or barkley thats for sure. And you look at his mvp's and you say yes that was impressive but was he even the best player those 2 seasons and the answer is flat out no. Kobe got robbed the year he averaged 35.4 and maybe the 2nd year he deserved it but he got lucky in my opinion. He will be judged for not winning a title because he hasn't accomplished enough.

smith&wesson
09-22-2009, 05:10 PM
1st Nash never had all those players at the same time.
2nd It doesnt matter who Iverson in his prime had because hes not ganna pass to anyone.
3rd Nash was glorified becuase he was our floor general, maade everyone around him better, an led us to a top see in the playoffs for a few years straight.

and to answer your question hands down Nash in his MVP years than iverson in his ballhogging days.




you have good points which are valid, thanks for the feed back.

Raph12
09-22-2009, 05:37 PM
Yea so how do you compare those players without one to Nash? Does he rank lower than players who won less but had lesser players around him, how do you level the playing field?

Different players had different accomplishments so it depends on what you qualities you value in a player. I value success, leadership and then stats, so a guy like Nash would still rank higher on my list than a guy like Tmac. But Nash does have no title on his resume so I'd rank someone like Wade way ahead of him.

smith&wesson
09-22-2009, 05:45 PM
I edited your post to only include the relevant matters, why would I care about skills challenges?


Mostly true aside from the JJ being an All-Star thing but they did have alot of talent, I never disputed that. But they werent better than the Spurs. To understand why requires you to expand your mind beyond simple Win-Loss columns, and more with the context of those W and L's.

The Spurs never had to max out anyones minutes to win as many games as the Suns did. The Suns had all 5 of their starters playing +35MPG. The Spurs were able to play Manu under 30. Which means come playoff time their ability to crank up their best players minutes and shorten their rotation made them considerably more formidable than the W-L say. If you look at their expected winning % based on their efficiency on both ends the Spurs had the rating of a 63 win team. The Suns were 2nd in the league at 59. So basically the Spurs had the more impressive rating, and they tried less to accomplish this feet.




Wrong, they didnt have Amare in 05-06, your thinking about 06-07 but Nash didnt win the MVP that year nor did they lose to Dallas, so which year are you talking about. In Nash's 2nd MVP year they werent better than Dallas, at all.



Nobody said anything about being far superior or the better talent, just that the teams were better because the players he lost to were in fact better themselves.

your right, i got the seasons mixed up , i meant 04-05 season when they won 62 games, and nash was mvp, marion, nash, amare all made the all star game
that was the year they lost to san antonie 4-1 in the wcf's

-never said JJ was an allstar i said he was almost like a 4th allstar, he was on a team full of all stars and still managed to put up 18.4 points per game in the 04-05 season.

and amare was injured 05-06 i was wrong about that and that was the year they lost to dallas in six games in the wcf's

but i see wher your saying. san anotonio was the better team. but the suns did have loads of talent,, i would have killed for my raptors to have that many great players on one team. it would be like a dream come true.

PHX2daDEATH
09-23-2009, 01:53 AM
I dont get why people are saying Diaw fell off after he left the Suns.. He BLOSSOMED with the bobcats, (re-search his stats after the trade) which is why i left him off my inclusion of players that Nash made better..

you want another example of why Nash deserves to be in the hall of fame? Look around the league with the exception of Golden St.. How many teams started playing up-tempo after watching the 04-05 Suns

PrettyBoyJ
09-23-2009, 02:22 AM
Which ever context Nash was talking in both ways he's right... Like Evry one said a lot of great players retired without championship.. and are in the hall of fame... Nash is getting in with or without a championship... But think about it.. Chauncey Billiups take away his ring and finals mvp.. does he get in the hall of fame... (Food For Thought)

dodie53
09-23-2009, 04:19 AM
hell no

JayW_1023
09-23-2009, 04:44 AM
You might as well call guys like Kidd or Stockton losers too.

HiphopRelated
09-23-2009, 06:59 AM
Which ever context Nash was talking in both ways he's right... Like Evry one said a lot of great players retired without championship.. and are in the hall of fame... Nash is getting in with or without a championship... But think about it.. Chauncey Billiups take away his ring and finals mvp.. does he get in the hall of fame... (Food For Thought)
take away Nash's VOTED MVPs, is he in the hof?

HiphopRelated
09-23-2009, 07:00 AM
You might as well call guys like Kidd or Stockton losers too.
no, they have the career production to stand on their own 2.

aNYer
09-23-2009, 12:33 PM
I think he is right. We are obsessed with titles. I think titles in soccer mean more because you have to win the season, here in the states you could be the best team all year and just lose to a team that gets on a hot streak. Look at the Cardinals in last years superbowl, I am not knocking them at all but even if you liked them and think they are good I don't think anyone believes they were the top team in the league and they were one Rothlisberger throw away from a title. I wouldn't change it just cause I like the playoffs and how it amps everything up but its true.
Then you factor in that titles are won by teams. I mean I like Kobe, I am not a Kobe hater but he has not won a ring with out players around him but if with his talent he should be able to win on his own, it just doesn't work that way.
I understand why we rank titles as so important and I think he wants to win one more then life itself but he is right.

sdweston757
09-23-2009, 01:08 PM
I think he is right. We are obsessed with titles. I think titles in soccer mean more because you have to win the season, here in the states you could be the best team all year and just lose to a team that gets on a hot streak.

your right. But the U.S. is so obsessed with the playoffs and this "one loss and ur done" attitude. March madness for example...Were the cardinals a top 2 football team in the NFL last year... HELL NO.

There is so much pressure from fans to win rings and win in the playoffs. I think everyone would agree that it takes a lot of momentum and a little luck to win a championship. As for nash, he is right, he doesnt have to win a championship to prove he is a great player.

sdweston757
09-23-2009, 01:12 PM
no, they have the career production to stand on their own 2.

and nash doesnt? his career numbers are just as good as kidds with 2 less seasons

GAWDtv
09-24-2009, 10:33 AM
cuz ppg isnt everything.



i dont think AI makes a team better honestly. he's ball dominant and shot pretty poorly for the number of shots he took. something like half his seasons resulted in fg%'s less than .420. "practice?" that kind of mentality makes a lot of fans not like him. practice has been proven to improve one's game.

As I said Sheep, you just heard the cut up. He did not say he does not like to practice, HE SAID HE DID NOT CARE TO TALK ABOUT PRACTICE IN AN INTERVIEW

AI lead a team of SCRUBS to the finals and BEAT LAL with Superman when they where UNBEATABLE. Kobe couldn't get out the 1st rd. with his scrubs.

HiphopRelated
09-24-2009, 03:19 PM
and nash doesnt? his career numbers are just as good as kidds with 2 less seasons
who the hell becomes an elite player @ 31?

He went into a gimmick system. Nash's numbers= inflated

theimortalone
09-24-2009, 03:52 PM
You seriously called Nash a loser? :pity: :facepalm: