PDA

View Full Version : Best of the Decade by David Aldridge



JordansBulls
12-21-2009, 09:16 PM
http://www.nba.com/2009/news/features/david_aldridge/12/21/morning.tip/index.html

Aldridge's takes:

•Spurs as team of the decade (and he uses the term decade correctly... amazing)
•Kobe as playor of the decade
•Phil as coach of the decade
•Nash over Kidd as PG of the decade
•and a lot more

All-Decade Team
G: Steve Nash, Suns
G: Kobe Bryant, Lakers
F: Tim Duncan, Spurs
F: Kevin Garnett, Celtics
C: Shaquille O'Neal, Cavaliers

Raps18-19 Champ
12-21-2009, 09:19 PM
Sounds about right.

Might change a thing here or there but seems good to me.

Bruno
12-21-2009, 10:24 PM
How is Fisher's '04, 0.4 buzzer beater over S.A. not the buzzer beater of the decade? It propelled the Lakers to a victory in the series.

kblo247
12-21-2009, 10:33 PM
Only beef is Nash as PG of the decade since he underachieved by never even winning his conference and went to a team that really wasn't bad in comparison to the NEts team that Kidd turned around.

In fact Kidd has been better than him for the majority of 00-09 and is the better overall player.

Raph12
12-21-2009, 10:50 PM
http://www.nba.com/2009/news/features/david_aldridge/12/21/morning.tip/index.html

Aldridge's takes:

•Spurs as team of the decade (and he uses the term decade correctly... amazing)
•Kobe as playor of the decade
•Phil as coach of the decade
•Nash over Kidd as PG of the decade
•and a lot more

All-Decade Team
G: Steve Nash, Suns
G: Kobe Bryant, Lakers
F: Tim Duncan, Spurs
F: Kevin Garnett, Celtics
C: Shaquille O'Neal, Cavaliers

Seems decent but I'd argue Kidd over Nash and AI over both

kblo247
12-21-2009, 10:55 PM
AI didn't win as much as Kidd this decade and his teams played worse than Kidd so why would he be over Kidd?

runforrestrunx9
12-21-2009, 10:58 PM
i would take AI over kidd and nash. I hate how every1 in the world underrates AI. If some1 has character issues it doesnt mean u can take away from them as a player. AI had a bigger effect on the sixers than any person could have on any team this decade, he single-handedly carried them 2 the playoffs year after year and played with more heart than any1 on the court every night. Nash has always had a great supporting cast and all i dont think he deserved all of his MVP's. He is a hell of a player, but i think he is overhyped. Kidd is the only one that i think u could make a case for but id take AI over him in a heartbeat.

Kakaroach
12-21-2009, 11:02 PM
Decent list but yeah I would take AI over both Kidd and Nash, even though you could make a case for all 3.

Raph12
12-21-2009, 11:38 PM
AI didn't win as much as Kidd this decade and his teams played worse than Kidd so why would he be over Kidd?

Because his teams had half the talent Kidd's teams did and he still had success in the playoffs despite their inferiority.

kblo247
12-21-2009, 11:56 PM
Because his teams had half the talent Kidd's teams did and he still had success in the playoffs despite their inferiority.

Nets were god awful before Kidd went there and won with Kittles, Harris, Rogers, a young raw Jefferson, a questionable Martin because of his legs, and centers in Collins/Williams/McCullough those final years.

He also won more depending on Josh Boone, Marcus Williams, Nachbar, and Mikki Moore.

He made the finals twice and the playoffs every year in New Jersey and never finished below 500.

AI's Sixers finished below 500, and his Nuggets team with more talent than those Nets teams did not even get out the first round.

Kidd rebounded nicely in Dallas last year while AI flamed out in Detroit.

Kidd has recorded multiple triple doubles and is the better winner despite not having a team go out year after year to try and fit pieces around him like AI.

AI was a great player but he has far from been a more consistent better player or winner than Jason Kidd for the past decade no matter how you slice it.

Raph12
12-22-2009, 12:13 AM
Nets were god awful before Kidd went there and won with Kittles, Harris, Rogers, a young raw Jefferson, a questionable Martin because of his legs, and centers in Collins/Williams/McCullough those final years.

He also won more depending on Josh Boone, Marcus Williams, Nachbar, and Mikki Moore.

He made the finals twice and the playoffs every year in New Jersey and never finished below 500.

AI's Sixers finished below 500, and his Nuggets team with more talent than those Nets teams did not even get out the first round.

Kidd rebounded nicely in Dallas last year while AI flamed out in Detroit.

Kidd has recorded multiple triple doubles and is the better winner despite not having a team go out year after year to try and fit pieces around him like AI.

AI was a great player but he has far from been a more consistent better player or winner than Jason Kidd for the past decade no matter how you slice it.

A young Martin and Jefferson is already more talent than AI ever had around him in Philly. Now I agree that Kidd is still playing well to this day, but AI started the decade so well up until 2008-09, I'd still give him the nod over Kidd.

IversonIsKrazy
12-22-2009, 01:48 AM
Kidd over Nash, but AI can make the G spot, not Nash though, but pretty good list overall.

ARMIN12NBA
12-22-2009, 02:08 AM
How is Fisher's '04, 0.4 buzzer beater over S.A. not the buzzer beater of the decade? It propelled the Lakers to a victory in the series.

Cuz Lebronz iz so awesomez with hiz amazing shotz. we luvz lebronz.

ARMIN12NBA
12-22-2009, 02:09 AM
A decade doesn't start with Year One. After 12 months, you finish Year One. That means you don't finish 10 years, or a decade, until Year Ten is over. The Oughts Decade runs from 2001-2010, not 2000-2009. So all of these lists should be running in December, 2010.

Wrong. 2000-2009 is the decade.

By his stupid definition of a decade, 2000 belongs to the 90's. :laugh:

MoBASS
12-22-2009, 02:35 AM
Lakers: 4 championships.
Spurs: 3 championships.

End of story.

barreleffact
12-22-2009, 03:03 AM
Cuz Lebronz iz so awesomez with hiz amazing shotz. we luvz lebronz.

lol...exactly the mentality. i know you were joking but its horrible to have his shot which ultimately carried o weight above fishers .4 sec shot which helped them get to the finals.

outside that and not having kidd over nash, the list is pretty solid. maybe have the lakers over spurs because they did get to the finals six times, but watev.

Bashna
12-22-2009, 04:15 AM
being the better/better in the decade has nothing to do with how many rings you won... and last time i checked, Kidd didn't have 2 players ejected, have one break their face, and have a ref fix a game 3 vs SA.

Nash > Kidd...Good pick by David aldridge.

barreleffact
12-22-2009, 04:58 AM
^ but kidd DID get to the finals twice AND is a walking triple double. if only he had the shooting of nash...

Bashna
12-22-2009, 05:16 AM
^ but kidd DID get to the finals twice AND is a walking triple double. if only he had the shooting of nash...

I guess you missed the part where i added the MAIN reasons why nash never got to the finals...being some of the most insane, and unpredictable things that could happen to a team during a playoff run...Nash has proven to be the better point guard, and has 2mvp's to show for it...Whats kidd got? Finals appereances? pssh.

barreleffact
12-22-2009, 05:29 AM
I guess you missed the part where i added the MAIN reasons why nash never got to the finals...being some of the most insane, and unpredictable things that could happen to a team during a playoff run...Nash has proven to be the better point guard, and has 2mvp's to show for it...Whats kidd got? Finals appereances? pssh.

lmao kidd got there TWICE regardless of what happened w nash. not to mention leading ur team to the finals outweighs individual accomplishments...esp ones that are largly considered to be given or by default aka undeserving.

and btw nash has nvr proven to b the better PG which is why he ddnt start over kidd. he blossomed once he got to phx w an allstar caliber roster where as kidd flourished w anything around him.

bluefire7002
12-22-2009, 06:15 AM
lol...exactly the mentality. i know you were joking but its horrible to have his shot which ultimately carried o weight above fishers .4 sec shot which helped them get to the finals.

outside that and not having kidd over nash, the list is pretty solid. maybe have the lakers over spurs because they did get to the finals six times, but watev.

yea donno how he picked Lebrons shot.. yea it was a great shot but didnt mean much in the series and he still left off crying :cry:

bctgg27
12-22-2009, 06:59 AM
No way is Nash over Kidd in the decade. Yes, Nash had 2 MVP's, but some believe he should have only won one. And Kidd should have had the MVP trophy over Duncan. Kidd has been more consistent and played excellent throughout the decade. Nash came on later.

wallerstud06
12-22-2009, 11:55 AM
Yeah Kidd should be the point guard of the decade...Nash second, just because his 2nd MVP should have went to Kobe hands down.

magichatnumber9
12-22-2009, 12:12 PM
who ****ing cares Nash or Kidd are great point guards

bmill
12-22-2009, 12:58 PM
I'm being a homer as a Pistons fan but IMHO, the trade of the decade was Rasheed Wallace in 2004. Joe D gave up nothing for a guy that put them over the top for one of the greatest upsets in NBA history.

Lakersfan2483
12-22-2009, 03:04 PM
http://www.nba.com/2009/news/features/david_aldridge/12/21/morning.tip/index.html

Aldridge's takes:

•Spurs as team of the decade (and he uses the term decade correctly... amazing)
•Kobe as playor of the decade
•Phil as coach of the decade
•Nash over Kidd as PG of the decade
•and a lot more

All-Decade Team
G: Steve Nash, Suns
G: Kobe Bryant, Lakers
F: Tim Duncan, Spurs
F: Kevin Garnett, Celtics
C: Shaquille O'Neal, Cavaliers

Lakers are the team of the decade, 4 titles and 6 finals appearances. They also beat the Spurs more times when the two teams squared off in the playoffs. I also would take Kidd over Nash on my all decade 1st team. Kidd is a two way player meaning he actually plays defense and was an all league defender for a long time.

ARMIN12NBA
12-22-2009, 05:03 PM
Lakers are the team of the decade, 4 titles and 6 finals appearances. They also beat the Spurs more times when the two teams squared off in the playoffs. I also would take Kidd over Nash on my all decade 1st team. Kidd is a two way player meaning he actually plays defense and was an all league defender for a long time.


Lakers: 4 championships.
Spurs: 3 championships.

End of story.

David Aldridge changed the definition of a decade to fit his agenda though.

According to DA, the Lakers have 3 championships in the 2000's decade and apparently 1 championship in the 90's (which came in 2000; :confused:).

JordansBulls
12-22-2009, 05:20 PM
David Aldridge changed the definition of a decade to fit his agenda though.

According to DA, the Lakers have 3 championships in the 2000's decade and apparently 1 championship in the 90's (which came in 2000; :confused:).

I didn't even catch that he used 2001-2009 instead of 2000.

ARMIN12NBA
12-22-2009, 05:28 PM
I didn't even catch that he used 2001-2009 instead of 2000.

He is either a dumbass or he has a massive agenda. I'm going with the combination.

arlubas
12-22-2009, 05:37 PM
A young Martin and Jefferson is already more talent than AI ever had around him in Philly. Now I agree that Kidd is still playing well to this day, but AI started the decade so well up until 2008-09, I'd still give him the nod over Kidd.
AI had talented guys around him, he just chose to make the team trade them away because he wanted the ball all to himself. A prime Jerry Stackhouse and a young Larry Hughes that would thrive in Washington not so long after being traded from the sixers ain't guys that you call not talented.

Bashna
12-22-2009, 08:32 PM
Ai and kidd haven't done anything in the past 5-6 years. While nash was average the first 3 years of the 00's he has since then played like a beast, taking a team to the WCF, winning 2 MVP'S, leading the league in assists, etc etc etc. Nash is mr.consistent and has been so since 03.

mfb_lt1birdman
12-22-2009, 09:04 PM
Lets see here the Lakers won the most championships, appeared in the most finals, abused the closest competition in head to head playoff match-ups all but once, had 2 top 10 players of all time, raked in tons of money, and fans, but were a little less consistent in the regular season and missed the playoffs once because of an injury plagued year which makes the SA Spurs the team of the decade. Makes alot of since :rolleyes:

Bruno
12-23-2009, 05:43 PM
Cuz Lebronz iz so awesomez with hiz amazing shotz. we luvz lebronz.

I think its more so he had to pick LeBron for something, so he just gave him clutch shot at the buzzer.

Bruno
12-23-2009, 05:44 PM
David Aldridge changed the definition of a decade to fit his agenda though.

According to DA, the Lakers have 3 championships in the 2000's decade and apparently 1 championship in the 90's (which came in 2000; :confused:).

So by his own standards, he's an idiot for pushing out this list prematurely. He should have waited for the end of this season, for his own list to carry any real credibility.