Steve Nash is the Suns' Kurt Warner

[carrrnuttt]

I thought of this (not that any of you haven't) even more after reading this from ASUCHRIS:

...In case you hadn't noticed, this team without Nash is garbage, and a perennial lottery team.

Considering what has happened to the actual team the actual Kurt Warner left, how worried are you Suns fans?

To start off, Dragic seems to have a much better work ethic than Matt Leinart, and the Suns coach seems to have a better grasp of tailoring his gameplan to the players he has on hand. But, we saw what already happened when Nash was out not that long ago.

Discuss.

 

[slinslin]

The Suns were a perennial 50+ win team before Nash so no.

You could argue that they weren't even more succesful with Nash, yes they got to the WCF a couple of times but you can argue that the Kings and Lakers team that the Jason Kidd Suns for instance lost against were as good or better teams than the teams the Nash Suns lost to.

Meh the Suns should have build the team around Amare, not around Nash.

 

[AfroSuns]

Meh the Suns should have build the team around Amare, not around Nash.

 

[carrrnuttt]

The Suns were a perennial 50+ win team before Nash so no.

Another important thing also changed in the same time-period Nash has been here: the ownership.

Not sure if I am as confident as you are, when that's factored in.

 

[jagu]

Meh the Suns should have build the team around Amare, not around Nash.

Daniel san.. you must resist...

 

[Mainstreet]

Meh the Suns should have build the team around Amare, not around Nash.

The Suns should have won a championship already if one wants to go this direction. It takes a good big man to win a championship and Amare had a 2 time MVP at PG playing beside him in Nash. I do think the Suns were close.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the Suns have been to the WCFs three times with Nash. Two under DA and once under Gentry.

 

[nashman]

Smart teams don't build around 1 dimensional dumb players that loaf around and only do one thing well!

 

[Bufalay]

The Suns should have won a championship already if one wants to go this direction.

They sure were close.

 

[AzStevenCal]

Smart teams don't build around 1 dimensional dumb players that loaf around and only do one thing well!

I assume you're aiming that at Amare? How is being one of the greatest offensive weapons in the game one dimensional. To me, one dimensional can hardly be applied to a player that is CLEARLY one of the top players in the game. Calling Amare one dimensional wouldn't be much different than calling Nash one dimensional. And between the two of them, Amare is a much better defender.

Any team in the league would rather build around a Michael Jordan or a Tim Duncan but few teams are ever that lucky. You build around game changers and Amare is a game changer. BTW, Nash is one of the greatest PG's to ever play the game but without Amare he never wins an MVP (IMO), let alone two.

Steve

 

[elindholm]

BTW, Nash is one of the greatest PG's to ever play the game but without Amare he never wins an MVP (IMO), let alone two.

Didn't he win the second one in Stoudemire's microfracture year?

 

[Covert Rain]

I assume you're aiming that at Amare? How is being one of the greatest offensive weapons in the game one dimensional. To me, one dimensional can hardly be applied to a player that is CLEARLY one of the top players in the game. Calling Amare one dimensional wouldn't be much different than calling Nash one dimensional. And between the two of them, Amare is a much better defender.

Any team in the league would rather build around a Michael Jordan or a Tim Duncan but few teams are ever that lucky. You build around game changers and Amare is a game changer. BTW, Nash is one of the greatest PG's to ever play the game but without Amare he never wins an MVP (IMO), let alone two.

Steve

+1

 

[AzStevenCal]

Didn't he win the second one in Stoudemire's microfracture year?

Do you think he wins that second time if he hadn't had the year he'd just had? Nash and Amare each brought the other national exposure and respect. Without that respect, Nash comes nowhere near an MVP IMO.

Steve

 

[elindholm]

Do you think he wins that second time if he hadn't had the year he'd just had? Nash and Amare each brought the other national exposure and respect. Without that respect, Nash comes nowhere near an MVP IMO.

It's awfully difficult to argue something that is so immersed in hypotheticals. My interpretation is that Nash won the MVP because everyone was delighted with SSOL and it was obvious that he was the cog that made it all work. The fact that he could do it without Stoudemire in his second year makes me suspect that he could have done it without Stoudemire in his first year. But of course there's no way to know.

 

[Covert Rain]

My interpretation is that Nash won the MVP because everyone was delighted with SSOL and it was obvious that he was the cog that made it all work. The fact that he could do it without Stoudemire in his second year makes me suspect that he could have done it without Stoudemire in his first year. But of course there's no way to know.

You make a great point. However, we also got to see what happens when Nash doesn't have a legit finisher in the lineup with him at the start of this season. When Nash isn't in sync with at least one front court player things look completely different. We did have a FANTASTIC finisher in a guy named Marion that year to help fill the void.

 

[JCSunsfan]

You make a great point. However, we also got to see what happens when Nash doesn't have a legit finisher in the lineup with him at the start of this season. When Nash isn't in sync with at least one front court player things look completely different. We did have a FANTASTIC finisher in a guy named Marion that year to help fill the void.

Good grief, and Jordan had Pippen and some other pretty good players. Nash can make lots of players look alot better--even now. But comparing Nash and Amare is unfair because of where Nash is age wise.

They were a great tandem. Nash can team with others, and so can Amare.

Nash is one of those players that he is so good people don't notice so much anymore. At 36 he goes for 27 and 17 on 100% shooting and even his fans respond with "ho hums."

 

[AzStevenCal]

It's awfully difficult to argue something that is so immersed in hypotheticals. My interpretation is that Nash won the MVP because everyone was delighted with SSOL and it was obvious that he was the cog that made it all work. The fact that he could do it without Stoudemire in his second year makes me suspect that he could have done it without Stoudemire in his first year. But of course there's no way to know.

Obviously, it's impossible to prove this one way or the other. But, I think back to Kidd's last season with us and IMO he had just as good of a year with us as Nash had during his MVP years. Jason didn't really stand a chance but if he had won an MVP the year before I really believe he'd have won a second one with us. Getting on the radar for MVP is half the battle, IMO.

Steve

 

[Brian in Mesa]

Nash is one of those players that he is so good people don't notice so much anymore. At 36 he goes for 27 and 17 on 100% shooting and even his fans respond with "ho hums."

20 and 17.

Who didn't notice?

You must be registered for see images attach

He got press all over the web and media outlets for that performance...

 

[Chaplin]

20 and 17.

Who didn't notice?

He got press all over the web and media outlets for that performance...

He's obviously referring to this board, Brian.

 

[mojorizen7]

Smart teams don't build around 1 dimensional dumb players that loaf around and only do one thing well!

Nash is a smarter basketball player than Amare,and he was never a guy that would get lazy on ya....i'll give you that.

However.....

Whats your definition of a one dimensional basketball player?
One definition could be a guy that excells on one end of the floor and is a liability on the other end.

 

[Chaplin]

Nash is a smarter basketball player than Amare,and he was never a guy that would get lazy on ya....i'll give you that.

However.....

Whats your definition of a one dimensional basketball player?
One definition could be a guy that excells on one end of the floor and is a liability on the other end.

Good thing we're not rebuilding around Stephen Hunter or Tim Thomas!!

 

[jagu]

Good thing we're not rebuilding around Stephen Hunter or Tim Thomas!!

Stephen Hunter... sigh..... He would have been the cornerstone of the franchise and we let him go..

 

[AzStevenCal]

Nash is a smarter basketball player than Amare,and he was never a guy that would get lazy on ya....i'll give you that.

However.....

Whats your definition of a one dimensional basketball player?
One definition could be a guy that excells on one end of the floor and is a liability on the other end.

Nash is a smarter player than 99.99999999999999999999999993% of the players that have played in the NBA the past 20 years. A lot of people call Amare lazy and I have to scoff at them. I have no choice. A lazy person doesn't rehab back to the level Amare reached everytime he got injured.

Steve

 

[Chaplin]

Nash is a smarter player than 99.99999999999999999999999993% of the players that have played in the NBA the past 20 years. A lot of people call Amare lazy and I have to scoff at them. I have no choice. A lazy person doesn't rehab back to the level Amare reached everytime he got injured.

Steve

There's a difference between being lazy overall and being lazy defensively and there isn't much argument against Amare being lazy defensively. And up until the All-Star break last year, he was a lazy rebounder as well.

 

[AzStevenCal]

There's a difference between being lazy overall and being lazy defensively and there isn't much argument against Amare being lazy defensively. And up until the All-Star break last year, he was a lazy rebounder as well.

Surprise surprise, I disagree. I think Amare learned the wrong lessons about defense his first few years in the league. Nobody really taught him how to play D and clearly, nobody taught him how to work with the referees. He picked up a lot of really stupid fouls every time he tried to play defense and it taught him that defense = bench time.

He became convinced that he'd get the recognition he craved as long as he scored and he couldn't score from the bench. As for rebounding, he was a decent rebounder during his stay here but for the same reason as above he avoided the contested boards. Obviously, all of this is IMO; it wasn't laziness that prompted his invisible man approach to defense.

Steve

 

[Chaplin]

Surprise surprise, I disagree. I think Amare learned the wrong lessons about defense his first few years in the league. Nobody really taught him how to play D and clearly, nobody taught him how to work with the referees. He picked up a lot of really stupid fouls every time he tried to play defense and it taught him that defense = bench time.

He became convinced that he'd get the recognition he craved as long as he scored and he couldn't score from the bench. As for rebounding, he was a decent rebounder during his stay here but for the same reason as above he avoided the contested boards. Obviously, all of this is IMO; it wasn't laziness that prompted his invisible man approach to defense.

Steve

To me, that just sounds like making excuses. You're probably right that he wasn't taught defense early in his career, but he's not some young rookie. He's played against guys that are good defenders and can avoid fouls. He wanted to be a star, a star depends not only on his coaches but on his own intelligence to improve. Coaching is a big part of it, but it's not the only part of it.