My opinion on Amare and Nash

[SteveJoke]

Nash is no doubt an excellent creator, however, his defence is the weakest in NBA, and he needs the other 4 guys in the lineup to fit him, that's why we should suffer the guys who can't play any defence like Channing Frye, we can get a big body inside if we get rid of Nash, that will definitly help us to solid the inside defence.

Amare is not only an excellent finisher, he is also an excellent creator. Amare beats Nene one-on-one recently which proves that the Nash-feeding is not necessary for him.

Nash doesn't have any chance to win a championship as the team's first option, however, Amare does have a good chance to win a championship as a team's first or second option. Why not we just send Nash and import one of the talent palyers like LBJ, Wade, Iggy or Joe Johnson? We don't need to select the player to fit Nash any more. Nash is definitly overestimated as a two-times-MVP.

 

[cly2tw]

Nash when he has energy left from getting the team's offense going is not a bad defender for his limited athletic ability. He could potentially defend as well as Stockton used to.

By historical data, Nash indeed failed as the first option (best player) to lead a team to championship or into the finals. Not sure Amare can do that, but by nature of time, he still has the chance to prove it. His biggest enemy shall be the injury concern.

 

[Sunburn]

i dont believe amare has the character to lead a team to a championship. Now, if you could "import" a player to go along with him like lbj, wade. . . but that's never going to happen here.

 

[Sunburn]

And btw I will always believe Steve Nash is one of the best to ever play the point guard position. It is no fault of his that he does not have a ring. This team has had many warts that had nothing to do with Nash. If he is not one of the greatest to play pg, then Charles Barkley was not one of the greatest to play pf.

 

[cly2tw]

i dont believe amare has the character to lead a team to a championship. Now, if you could "import" a player to go along with him like lbj, wade. . . but that's never going to happen here.

Well, you don't really need a Kobe or LBJ to win championships as Celtics and Pistons showed us. Say Amare, Pierce, Nash, if they use Nash correctly as in the recent win streak, make up a great core to win a title with Amare as the best player.

 

[jpg143ak]

To say in word excellent excellent and excellent

 

[SteveJoke]

Nash can't be a good defender because of his poor athletic ability, even in offence, he needs the teammates to make space for him, that's why he can't live together with the big defencive center who can't make the inside empty. Nash just doesn't have the absolute ability to score because of his poor athletic ability.

 

[SteveJoke]

Nash can make a team great, but he can never make a team the best.

 

[SactownSunsFan]

 

[Covert Rain]

Well, you don't really need a Kobe or LBJ to win championships as Celtics and Pistons showed us. Say Amare, Pierce, Nash, if they use Nash correctly as in the recent win streak, make up a great core to win a title with Amare as the best player.

The Celtics didn't need a Kobe or LJB because they had a KG. One of the best big man defenders in the NBA. The Pistons didn't need a Kobe or LBJ because they were hands down the best defending team during that stretch in the NBA.

So...unless you have a KG or the best defense in the NBA, you actually do need a Kobe or LBJ to even stand a chance. Nash, Amare and Pierce would not be enough defense to get it done.

 

[cly2tw]

The Celtics didn't need a Kobe or LJB because they had a KG. One of the best big man defenders in the NBA. The Pistons didn't need a Kobe or LBJ because they were hands down the best defending team during that stretch in the NBA.

So...unless you have a KG or the best defense in the NBA, you actually do need a Kobe or LBJ to even stand a chance. Nash, Amare and Pierce would not be enough defense to get it done.

Well, Malone/Stockton almost did it, if not for MJ pushing off Russell on that infamous winning shot.

 

[SirStefan32]

Well, Malone/Stockton almost did it, if not for MJ pushing off Russell on that infamous winning shot.

With all due respect, Nash/Stoudemire do not come close to Stockton/Malone.

 

[cly2tw]

With all due respect, Nash/Stoudemire do not come close to Stockton/Malone.

It isn't yet, because Nash never tried to play like Stockton. In the win streak, Amare looked like Malone with more athletic gift. They need to consistently work on it. Well, they might not have the chance to it as Malone is not worth the max.

 

[devilalum]

With all due respect, Nash/Stoudemire do not come close to Stockton/Malone.

Stockton's overrated. I swear that guy got 5,000 of his assists by just flipping it to Malone in the low post.

 

[SteveJoke]

Malone/Stockton can have Greg Ostertag, Nash/Stoudemire can NOT.

 

[Mainstreet]

With all due respect, Nash/Stoudemire do not come close to Stockton/Malone.

I agree as stated.

However, if Nash had played with Malone type player, it might have been a different story. There is no doubt Stockton was a great player but Nash never had a Malone upfront. Malone could play defense, rebound, and hit the medium range jumpshot. Also his elbows left opposing players bruised and battered.

 

[mojorizen7]

I agree as stated.

However, if Nash had played with Malone type player, it might have been a different story. There is no doubt Stockton was a great player but Nash never had a Malone upfront. Malone could play defense, rebound, and hit the medium range jumpshot. Also his elbows left opposing players bruised and battered.

I'm not buying this comparison. I think maybe some of you had better revisit the Stockton/Malone game films.

Stockton/Malone: light years better defensively,equally potent offensively,mentally and physically tougher, better disciplined.
They also had the advantage of playing in a better system(one that valued execution on offense and getting stops on defense),this of course is no fault to either party.

Having said that, Nash was the better shooter and game changer offensively over Stockton.....but JS had the entire package folks....leadership,shooting with range,scoring inside,steals,the assists and that special little intangible called "dirty."
Nash is a tremendous player, but I would give Stockton the edge in a 1 on 1 comparison.

Stoudemire couldn't hold a candle to the prowess of a Karl Malone except for maybe in the area of range on his shot. Pre-microfracture Amare was far more explosive around the basket than Malone but unfortunately Amare has lost that element.

 

[SirStefan32]

I agree as stated.

However, if Nash had played with Malone type player, it might have been a different story. There is no doubt Stockton was a great player but Nash never had a Malone upfront. Malone could play defense, rebound, and hit the medium range jumpshot. Also his elbows left opposing players bruised and battered.

But that's going into a hypothetical discussion. We aren't talking about what might have been. We are talking about what is. Nash/Stoudemire, as good as they are, are not anywhere near Stockton/Malone.

It isn't yet, because Nash never tried to play like Stockton. In the win streak, Amare looked like Malone with more athletic gift. They need to consistently work on it. Well, they might not have the chance to it as Malone is not worth the max.

I have to disagree. Amare, on his best night, is a Malone-light. Karl Malone was a very good defender, had some low post moves, and was probably one of the toughest players to ever play in the NBA. When you were playing against Malone, you could count on being bruised and in pain for a few days afterward. When you play against Amare, you MAY get slapped on a wrist a couple of times.
Amare has a very low basketball IQ while Karl Malone was one of the smartest basketball players that I have ever seen.
Frankly, comparing Amare to Malone is doing a great disservice to Karl Malone. Malone is one of the best PFs (if not the best) to ever play the game.

Stockton's overrated. I swear that guy got 5,000 of his assists by just flipping it to Malone in the low post.

I am hoping you are joking. If not, I would recommend watching some old Utah Jazz games. Stockton was an incredible player. Outside of Magic Johnson, I do not remember a better PG in the past 20-30 years.

 

[SirStefan32]

I'm not buying this comparison. I think maybe some of you had better revisit the Stockton/Malone game films.

Stockton/Malone: light years better defensively,equally potent offensively,mentally and physically tougher, better disciplined.
They also had the advantage of playing in a better system(one that valued execution on offense and getting stops on defense),this of course is no fault to either party.

Having said that, Nash was the better shooter and game changer offensively over Stockton.....but JS had the entire package folks....leadership,shooting with range,scoring inside,steals,the assists and that special little intangible called "dirty."
Nash is a tremendous player, but I would give Stockton the edge in a 1 on 1 comparison.

Stoudemire couldn't hold a candle to the prowess of a Karl Malone except for maybe in the area of range on his shot. Pre-microfracture Amare was far more explosive around the basket than Malone but unfortunately Amare has lost that element.

Exactly!

 

[Mainstreet]

I'm not buying this comparison. I think maybe some of you had better revisit the Stockton/Malone game films.

Stockton and Malone are as advertised. However, I'm not the least bit convinced that Stockton was a better player than Nash. As pointed out by an an earlier poster, all Stockton had to do to get an assist was get the ball into Malone whereas Nash virtually has to create the Suns offense especially inside. Also Malone had Stockton's backside on offense and defense. I have always liked the tandem of Stockton and Malone.

Stockton/Malone: light years better defensively,equally potent offensively,mentally and physically tougher, better disciplined.
They also had the advantage of playing in a better system(one that valued execution on offense and getting stops on defense),this of course is no fault to either party.

So you like Sloan's system better after after all these years? I understand this (because I like Sloan as a coach) but what about your criteria he should have won a championship (or maybe this only applied to DA). Sloan definitely should have won a championship especially with Malone and Stockton in his long stay in Utah. No excuses.

Having said that, Nash was the better shooter and game changer offensively over Stockton.....but JS had the entire package folks....leadership,shooting with range,scoring inside,steals,the assists and that special little intangible called "dirty."
Nash is a tremendous player, but I would give Stockton the edge in a 1 on 1 comparison.

I wouldn't. I remember Utah playing more of a team defense. Stockton had Malone covering his backside. Stockton was quick but not fast. Stockton could afford to take chances on defense. Maybe your right about Stockton using some "dirty" tactics. I just keep remembering Malone leading with his elbows to clear a path to the basket as Shaq did in his early years.

Stoudemire couldn't hold a candle to the prowess of a Karl Malone except for maybe in the area of range on his shot. Pre-microfracture Amare was far more explosive around the basket than Malone but unfortunately Amare has lost that element.

This is true. One can only dream how good Amare might have become if he had not suffered injury. However, we'll probably never know or if Amare had the dedication to get there... I don't think so. Malone was clearly the better player.

 

[Chaplin]

Stockton was NOT a better player than Nash. I swear, some people just look really hard to slam the Suns. I've never seen fans of a team hate their team so much. It's unbelievable. I wish the days of just enjoying the game were still here. When the SUns play well, they are damn entertaining. And sure, people will say "good game" in one breath, but the next complain about how Nash can't stay in front of his man or Amare can't guard a rock. We all wish we could have a perfect player. Unfortunately, there are only 2 in the entire league. And we don't have either one.

Karl Malone was a great player and Amare is not close to that caliber player. But even though the Jazz came close a time or two, it can be argued the Suns with Nash and Amare came close a few times as well, if not for some suspensions and Joe Johnson breaking his face.

Stockton and Malone were a potent combo, but this crap about them being a lot better than Nash and Amare is ridiculous. Nash is a better player now than Stockton ever was. Stockton was better defensively than Nash, but he wasn't a defensive juggernaut. Nash is much better offensively than Stockton was. At worst, Nash and Stockton could be considered a wash.

 

[cly2tw]

I have to disagree. Amare, on his best night, is a Malone-light. Karl Malone was a very good defender, had some low post moves, and was probably one of the toughest players to ever play in the NBA. When you were playing against Malone, you could count on being bruised and in pain for a few days afterward. When you play against Amare, you MAY get slapped on a wrist a couple of times.
Amare has a very low basketball IQ while Karl Malone was one of the smartest basketball players that I have ever seen.
Frankly, comparing Amare to Malone is doing a great disservice to Karl Malone. Malone is one of the best PFs (if not the best) to ever play the game.

Malone's more of a face-up player on offense just like Amare. Malone had the sheer power, Amare the athletism even after multiple injuries. Malone didn't play good defense until rather late in his career. I started watching NBA around 1992/3 and via Barkley became Suns fan. I used to think Malone was overrated because his defense and rebounding was average at best. I thought he was having the stats mainly because of Stockton's play. And that's why I believe Amare could do as well as Malone.

 

[Chaplin]

I have to disagree. Amare, on his best night, is a Malone-light. Karl Malone was a very good defender, had some low post moves, and was probably one of the toughest players to ever play in the NBA. When you were playing against Malone, you could count on being bruised and in pain for a few days afterward. When you play against Amare, you MAY get slapped on a wrist a couple of times.
Amare has a very low basketball IQ while Karl Malone was one of the smartest basketball players that I have ever seen.

This is a ridiculous argument as well. Do you honestly believe in the years that Amare has been in the NBA that even if he had the skill, he could play like Karl Malone? Good lord, Malone would foul out of every game if he played in today's game.

Being tough in today's NBA is a hindrance, not an advantage. Even Shaq has had to alter his game to avoid running over people like he used to.

 

[cly2tw]

Stockton was NOT a better player than Nash. I swear, some people just look really hard to slam the Suns. I've never seen fans of a team hate their team so much. It's unbelievable. I wish the days of just enjoying the game were still here. When the SUns play well, they are damn entertaining. And sure, people will say "good game" in one breath, but the next complain about how Nash can't stay in front of his man or Amare can't guard a rock. We all wish we could have a perfect player. Unfortunately, there are only 2 in the entire league. And we don't have either one.

Karl Malone was a great player and Amare is not close to that caliber player. But even though the Jazz came close a time or two, it can be argued the Suns with Nash and Amare came close a few times as well, if not for some suspensions and Joe Johnson breaking his face.

Stockton and Malone were a potent combo, but this crap about them being a lot better than Nash and Amare is ridiculous. Nash is a better player now than Stockton ever was. Stockton was better defensively than Nash, but he wasn't a defensive juggernaut. Nash is much better offensively than Stockton was. At worst, Nash and Stockton could be considered a wash.

I agree that Nash is a better player than Stockton, all things considered. Our problem is, maybe because of that, we "overuse" Nash in our system, so that the total effect is not as good as Stockton's, at least for the last 2 seasons when teams have Nash figured out.

Stockton gave his effort on D alltime and smarter at offball moves, for the very same reason that he never over-dominated the ball as much or spent as much energy dribble through the shot clock to create everything for the team.Stockton in Sloan's system seemed to be more efficient.

But we are on the right track, now at least the coaching staff realized the bad of overusing Nash and are willing to play him more like Stockton.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Stockton and Malone were a potent combo, but this crap about them being a lot better than Nash and Amare is ridiculous.

I've got to disagree, mostly because Malone was SUCH a better player than Amare. He was a superior rebounder, much superior passer and an All-Defense player... all areas where Amare is poor to just plan bad. It's the discrepency between these two players which is what made that combo a lot better than ours IMO, because with Stockton and Nash, like you said, it's probably a wash, with Nash's offense being superior to Nash, but Stockton makes up for that with his incredibly stout D (5 time 2nd Team All-Defense) versus Nash's absolutely horrific D.

And therein lies the problem in comparing the two sets of superstars is our combo was really one-dimensional - ALL OFFENSE, while the Jazz two superstars were All-EVERYTHING. They could both pass, they could both play offense, they could both play defense and ultimately, they both propelled their team to at least an NBA Finals... or two, whereas our guys never even sniffed a Game 7 in the WCF.