- 7,612
- 1,911
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2007
He could put up better offensive numbers, sure, but as I said, he handicapped his teams because it's impossible to have a top 5 defense with someone so weak at the point-of-attack. And you're not winning a ring with a defense outside of the top 10, and most likely outside of the top 5.
My point is when Kidd aged he had way more value as a role player because he could guard wings. Nash's value craters if the ball isn't in his hands. Kidd's last year on the Knicks, he was still our most important player at times because of his combination of defense, passing and shooting while once Nash lost some off the bounce juice, he was a huge liability in those Laker years.
People can prefer Nash, there is no right answer here, but I value defense way more than most people here which so Nash is kind of a hard sell for me because I find it hard to construct a championship roster that covered for his inefficiencies.
My point is when Kidd aged he had way more value as a role player because he could guard wings. Nash's value craters if the ball isn't in his hands. Kidd's last year on the Knicks, he was still our most important player at times because of his combination of defense, passing and shooting while once Nash lost some off the bounce juice, he was a huge liability in those Laker years.
People can prefer Nash, there is no right answer here, but I value defense way more than most people here which so Nash is kind of a hard sell for me because I find it hard to construct a championship roster that covered for his inefficiencies.