# Derrick Rose vs. Steve Nash



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

vs. 









since Rose is all but assured the MVP award at this point, who would you take (assuming Nash at MVP level)?

stats: 

*Steve Nash* 
04'-05: 15.5/3.3/11.4
05'-06: 18.8/4.2/10.5

*Derrick Rose* 
10'-11: 25.5/4.1/7.7


----------



## NK1990 (Mar 26, 2011)

I would say if we are looking at both point guards who are completely different types of point guards, then the answer would be an answer to another question. What kind of players are on the team? or what kind of style of basketball would you be playing?


I mean if you have say a Ray Allen on your team then I would say go for the more athletic point guard because a Ray Allen type shooting guard could shoot the lights out anyway. So go for the more athletic point guard for explosiveness, but then again if you have a shooting guard like a Demar Derozan who is extremely athletic but isn't much of a shooter than I would say go for Steve Nash.

It basically comes down to what type of players are on the team and what style of offense and defense you have. Then you could truly pick which MVP you would have.



Personally I loved Steve Nash during his MVP seasons, what a warrior, would still drill three's even when he had a busted nose. Just awesome.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Are we talking about now or Nash at this peak vs Rose?


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

I'd take Rose every time. There aren't too many like him to ever play the game.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Only way I'd take Rose is if he were playing the 2. I have said it many times before. He is not a good point guard. Nash is. Hell no matter what the Bulls fans try to tell you the defense is about even too.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

I agree w/ the notion that it depends who you have on your team. I think the MVP versions of both players are fairly equal on impact, but Rose will shine most w/ 3-pt snipers around him whereas Nash will shine w/ athletic finishers around him. 

It's funny how similar their respective teams are/were in the sense that each is one-dimensional, and that haunted them in the playoffs (Suns = best O in the league, D'Antoni's signature style, but sub-par D; Bulls = best D in the league, Thibodeau's signature style, but sub-par O). 



Diable said:


> Only way I'd take Rose is if he were playing the 2. I have said it many times before. He is not a good point guard. Nash is.


I'm not even sure what that means. Doesn't matter if Rose is playing the "1" or the "2", he will be playing the role of alpha guard who has the ball in his hands more than anyone on his team. Rose will not shine playing off the ball, if that's what you're getting at...and defensively he would do worse on bigger guards. 



> Hell no matter what the Bulls fans try to tell you the defense is about even too.


No, Nash is a far worse defender at his prime than Rose is even today. Rose has all the physical tools to boot...faster, bigger, stronger, longer. It's really not close, and saying "no matter what Bulls fans say" doesn't change that fact.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Nash was the best offensive player on a great offensive team. Rose was the worst defensive player on a great defensive team. That is not even close to being the same thing.

Guess who is responsible for his team's offense being good or bad?


----------



## Pump Bacon (Dec 11, 2010)

Nash is a superior pure-PG and shooter. Rose has more size, is an elite athlete, and is the better scorer. Both are fan favorites and need to work on their defense. I'd take Derrick Rose because he's only 22 years old and will likely improve.


I was also never a fan of the Suns uptempo system and Nash was a terrible defender. Career-wise, Nash also has had a young Dirk and Amar'e on his teams while Rose has been the no.1 guy and Boozer has been unreliable throughout the season due to injury. Time will tell but Rose has the potential to become greater imo.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Diable said:


> Only way I'd take Rose is if he were playing the 2. I have said it many times before. He is not a good point guard. Nash is. Hell no matter what the Bulls fans try to tell you *the defense is about even too.*


Give me a ****ing break. You have watched both of those guys play, right? And within the last year? 

And Derrick Rose better suited to playing the 2? I should have stopped reading right there.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Diable said:


> Nash was the best offensive player on a great offensive team. Rose was the worst defensive player on a great defensive team. That is not even close to being the same thing.
> 
> Guess who is responsible for his team's offense being good or bad?


Where do you get this stuff?

Nash played with tremendous offensive players. Amare and Marion filled it up, and they had various other talented offensive players during those MVP seasons in Joe Johnson, Diaw, Barbosa. Amare in particular has already proven he was not just a product of Nash. When you have that many great offensive players on a single team, they will usually be a great offensive team. 

Rose plays with a shallow and under talented offensive team. Instead, he plays with a cast of great defensive players. Sure they win with defense, but they wouldn't win without Rose's offense. Without Rose they'd be the Milwaukee Bucks. That is why he won the MVP. And for the love of all that is good, please stop saying Rose is the worst defensive player on the Bulls. He is nowhere near that. And why should the presence of many great defenders de-value the presence of Rose's offense?

You do NOT win basketball games playing just one side of the ball. You're acting like the Bulls D alone would win them 50+ games.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

If you don't want Rose to be held responsible for his team's offensive ineptitude quit calling him a great point guard and tell him to stop turning the ball over so much and start making the right play more often. You guys can try to blame everyone else all you like, but Rose is the guy dominating the ball to exclusion of all others. He is the guy going 9 for 24 or worse. What is his assist to turnover ratio lately? It is bad basketball and that is all there is to it. He is the one who is responsible for making sure his team scores efficiently and that is how it is.

There is plenty of offensive talent on that team, but no one is getting good fundamental opportunities to score. Put Boozer back in the pick and roll with a guard who can play it right and then try telling us all this BS about Rose having bad team mates.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Diable said:


> If you don't want Rose to be held responsible for his team's offensive ineptitude quit calling him a great point guard and tell him to stop turning the ball over so much and start making the right play more often. You guys can try to blame everyone else all you like, but Rose is the guy dominating the ball to exclusion of all others. He is the guy going 9 for 24 or worse. What is his assist to turnover ratio lately? It is bad basketball and that is all there is to it. He is the one who is responsible for making sure his team scores efficiently and that is how it is.
> 
> There is plenty of offensive talent on that team, but no one is getting good fundamental opportunities to score. Put Boozer back in the pick and roll with a guard who can play it right and then try telling us all this BS about Rose having bad team mates.


Please tell me where all this "offensive talent" on the Bulls is exactly? Boozer had a few months early on this season where he looked like that 2nd option the Bulls needs, but since all-star break he's been well below par. Luol Deng cannot create any offense himself; he is a decent spot up shooter and decent finisher, but depends heavily on his guards to set him up. Joakim Noah is a great rebounder and help defender who mostly scores off tip ins and the occasional baby hook. Nobody else is even capable of scoring double digits consistently.

And further, can you name any team in the history of the NBA that produced an elite offense on the back of a single player? It always has been, and always will be, a team effort that requires multiple offensive talents. 

To be clear, I know Rose is playing like garbage vs. Miami. And it is not unrelated to what I'm saying here. Miami is suffocating him with multiple players all the time and nobody else on the Bulls is making them pay enough. Are you watching these games, or just looking at the box score? It is pretty obvious the double teaming strategy being used the second Rose gets within 25-feet of the basket.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

I didn't know it worked like this in any other case? Is Rose a superstar? Is he not dominating the ball more than any other player in the NBA? Does he have some sort of dispensation from the Pope that shields him from being held to the same standard as any other player in the history of basketball who has played the way he does?


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Diable said:


> I didn't know it worked like this in any other case? Is Rose a superstar? Is he not dominating the ball more than any other player in the NBA? Does he have some sort of dispensation from the Pope that shields him from being held to the same standard as any other player in the history of basketball who has played the way he does?


It really isn't that complicated. You basically posed the question, why wasn't Rose able to produce an elite offense for the Bulls while Steve Nash could. The answer is that the Bulls do not have another credible threat or playmaker, while Nash had several. 

I don't get why Rose is being knocked for the Bulls' lack of offense when he is their only consistent source of offense. What would you have him do given the personnel around him? Shoot less and pass more? Then what, you end up with another 5 shot clock violations per game b/c nobody else can create something. Or Deng becomes the chucker who can't shoot above 40%. I just don't know what you want from him, you work with the personnel you've got. 

This is not a new problem BTW, we've had many threads on the Bulls board going back to the summer about trying to land OJ Mayo, JR Smith, Jamal Crawford...just someone who can drop a regular 15-20 ppg from the wing and make things happen to make opponents regret trying to double/triple Rose.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

Don't know how to compare those 2. Nash is better at making his teammates better while Rose is a better scorer. You wouldn't compare the 2 of them just like you wouldn't compare Rose to Shaq. They do different things on the court and it's hard to say which player is better in terms of winning.


----------



## l0st1 (Jul 2, 2010)

I, too, agree that it would depend on the make up of the team. But as a Suns fan, I would go with Rose. Nash is an amazing player, despite his defensive short comings. He is clutch and really doesn't get the recognition for this facet of his game that he should. He is one of the best passers in NBA history. He shoots incredible percentages. Rose is obviously younger, but if we are talking 1 year during Nash's peak vs Rose this year, that might be a little closer. But Rose is the superior athlete, rebounder, and defender. He obviously isn't the shooter Nash is, and never will be, but if he can become reliable then he will be scary good.

Oh and everyone saying Rose is the better scorer is only half true. He scores more but that's only because Nash doesn't shoot. I guarantee that if Nash took the amount of Shots Rose did he would average the same points, and shoot better percentages. A lot of the time, Nash literally refuses to shoot the ball.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

l0st1 said:


> I, too, agree that it would depend on the make up of the team. But as a Suns fan, I would go with Rose. Nash is an amazing player, despite his defensive short comings. He is clutch and really doesn't get the recognition for this facet of his game that he should. He is one of the best passers in NBA history. He shoots incredible percentages. Rose is obviously younger, but if we are talking 1 year during Nash's peak vs Rose this year, that might be a little closer. But Rose is the superior athlete, rebounder, and defender. He obviously isn't the shooter Nash is, and never will be, but if he can become reliable then he will be scary good.
> 
> Oh and everyone saying Rose is the better scorer is only half true. He scores more but that's only because Nash doesn't shoot. I guarantee that if Nash took the amount of Shots Rose did he would average the same points, and shoot better percentages. A lot of the time, Nash literally refuses to shoot the ball.


Good post. On the latter point however, I would argue that Nash doesn't shoot as much because he doesn't have the athletic ability to create separation and/or shoot over guys. It's alot harder than people realize to simply "shoot more" without looking like an absolute train wreck, you can't just shoot with a defender right there or just shoot fadeaways contested, there is a ton of skill needed to get a credible shot off. Rose definitely needs to keep improving his shooting though. He made a ton of progress this year but reminded us in the playoffs that he still needs to more consistent/reliable with his long J.


----------



## l0st1 (Jul 2, 2010)

yodurk said:


> Good post. On the latter point however, I would argue that Nash doesn't shoot as much because he doesn't have the athletic ability to create separation and/or shoot over guys. It's alot harder than people realize to simply "shoot more" without looking like an absolute train wreck, you can't just shoot with a defender right there or just shoot fadeaways contested, there is a ton of skill needed to get a credible shot off. Rose definitely needs to keep improving his shooting though. He made a ton of progress this year but reminded us in the playoffs that he still needs to more consistent/reliable with his long J.


Though I agree that it doesn't exactly shots don't exactly means points. But have you watched Nash with any consistency? The guy has an arsenal that rivals Dirk's. He shoots off either foot, with either hand, sideways, fade away, runners, leaners, literally every type of shot. He has made some of the more ridiculous shots I've seen.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

yodurk said:


> Please tell me where all this "offensive talent" on the Bulls is exactly? Boozer had a few months early on this season where he looked like that 2nd option the Bulls needs, but since all-star break he's been well below par. Luol Deng cannot create any offense himself; he is a decent spot up shooter and decent finisher, but depends heavily on his guards to set him up. Joakim Noah is a great rebounder and help defender who mostly scores off tip ins and the occasional baby hook. Nobody else is even capable of scoring double digits consistently.
> 
> And further, can you name any team in the history of the NBA that produced an elite offense on the back of a single player? It always has been, and always will be, a team effort that requires multiple offensive talents.
> 
> To be clear, I know Rose is playing like garbage vs. Miami. And it is not unrelated to what I'm saying here. Miami is suffocating him with multiple players all the time and nobody else on the Bulls is making them pay enough. Are you watching these games, or just looking at the box score? It is pretty obvious the double teaming strategy being used the second Rose gets within 25-feet of the basket.


let's compare the suns this year and the bulls this year. Nash had what exactly to work with offensively? If you're going to tell me that the Suns players are more talented than the Bulls then you are on drugs.


----------



## farezhL (Jun 4, 2011)

Nash still is better for me.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Nobody on here can say that a 2011 Nash > a 2011 Rose with a straight face. That's just a stupid thing to say, Stevie is in the twilight of his career at this point.

That being said, a peak Nash was absolutely the better point guard, and in terms of passing, shooting, and running an offense he was miles ahead. The only point guard I have seen run an offense that pretty since Magic would probably be Kidd. Talk about his defense all you want, the dude produced at an incredibly high level and did everything that you want a point guard to do. (But he didn't deserve either of those MVPs)

Rose makes up ground in areas that point guards typically don't excel. He's a much better shot creater (and therefore a more prolific scorer) and plays better defense. He is an underrated passer and floor general, but even so he's not close to Nash in that regard.

I'd take a peak Nash.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

That was a fair and objective assessment... I had to double check the address bar to make sure I was still at bbf.com...


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

Nash is better than Rose on offense. Rose is better than Nash on defense, but is not that great. He got the mvp for the same reason as Nash.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

it would depend on the team, outside of D'antoni's SSOL nash had topped out as a 3rd team all nba pg...if you magically transplanted them on an average to good team ....its obviously rose , he is a better player , but not as good a point guard though. if you have a dominant wing or post player and want them to make decisions alot of the time nash's game will be far diminished. 

if you need a guy to make a crap team better its nash , as long as you are willing to let him dominate the ball he clearly has the ability to make guys around him more efficient, like chris paul does now for the pile of dung known as the hornets.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

Da Grinch said:


> it would depend on the team, outside of D'antoni's SSOL nash had topped out as a 3rd team all nba pg...if you magically transplanted them on an average to good team ....its obviously rose , he is a better player , but not as good a point guard though. if you have a dominant wing or post player and want them to make decisions alot of the time nash's game will be far diminished.
> 
> if you need a guy to make a crap team better its nash , as long as you are willing to let him dominate the ball he clearly has the ability to make guys around him more efficient, like chris paul does now for the pile of dung known as the hornets.


There isn't a dominant wing or post player out there I would want making decisions over Steve Nash. No idea what kind of point you're trying to make there. I would also say that Nash's shooting ability makes him a valuable off the ball at times kind of player, though Rose would obviously be better at making cuts and finishing around the rim.

As far as your comment near the end, "as long as you are willing to let him dominate the ball", are you insinuating that Rose doesn't dominate the ball? I mean honestly, would you ever really want to play a prolific PG _off_ the ball regularly?


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Hyperion said:


> let's compare the suns this year and the bulls this year. Nash had what exactly to work with offensively? If you're going to tell me that the Suns players are more talented than the Bulls then you are on drugs.


Who is comparing this year's Suns to anything? We were talking about MVP Nash (2005/2006) vs. MVP Rose (2011). The 2005/2006 Suns had far, far better offensive talent across the board than the 2011 Bulls, that is why when they had Nash at the reigns they were the best O in the league.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

GregOden said:


> There isn't a dominant wing or post player out there I would want making decisions over Steve Nash. No idea what kind of point you're trying to make there. I would also say that Nash's shooting ability makes him a valuable off the ball at times kind of player, though Rose would obviously be better at making cuts and finishing around the rim.
> 
> As far as your comment near the end, "as long as you are willing to let him dominate the ball", are you insinuating that Rose doesn't dominate the ball? I mean honestly, would you ever really want to play a prolific PG _off_ the ball regularly?


i am watching the finals...and dirk is someone who i would rather run my offense through and he has proven more successful(its not like he is playing with more talent than nash in his 1st mvp year)

ditto for a couple of guys on the other team.

the proof is in the pudding nash running a team has never been to the finals while dirk has been there twice since they were teammates as have wade and james....nash's quarterbacking has pretty much proven it can only take you so far.

i really consider rose more of a guard more than a point guard I dont see much of a difference between 25 and 8 as a 1 or a 2, i think he can play either spot equally well...nash is an excellent shooter but rose playing off the ball could be unstoppable because he can attack before the defense is ready for him when he has the ball, without the ball , he would be that much harder when the ball is swung to him.


----------



## simply_amazing (Aug 23, 2009)

The comparison is awful. Setting aside the laughable MVP's for both, Rose is a superior athlete at the #1. Nash is one of those guys who is not a demonstrably superior player, but gets a lot of credit for supposedly "making his teammates better." It's a plausible inference, but I feel uncomfortable with such intangibles and "black box" thinking and voting.


----------



## Xeneise (Jul 5, 2010)

I'd take a 2005/2006 Nash over this years Rose, but Rose will be better as early as next year.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

yodurk said:


> Who is comparing this year's Suns to anything? We were talking about MVP Nash (2005/2006) vs. MVP Rose (2011). The 2005/2006 Suns had far, far better offensive talent across the board than the 2011 Bulls, that is why when they had Nash at the reigns they were the best O in the league.


I call BS on this one. In fact, I'd go the complete opposite way. The 2011 Bulls had slightly better offensive talent due mostly to their advantage at second banana.

The Suns best offensive player (other than Nash) was Marion. He shot 46% from the field in his career before Nash and 51% from the field with Nash. He averaged .481 points per minute before Nash and .493 PPM with him. In other words, Nash made him significantly better offensively than he would have otherwise been (and has since proven himself to be).

The Bulls best offensive player (other than Rose) was Boozer. He shot 54% from the field before Rose and 51% with him. He averaged .545 PPM before Rose and .548 PPM with him. In other words, Boozer was, is, and always will be a better offensive player than Marion. Also, Rose did not make him any better than he already was to begin with.

The rest of that Suns supporting cast was Diaw/Barbosa/Raja Bell/Kurt Thomas/James Jones and then towards the end of the year they added Tim Thomas.

The rest of the Bulls supporting cast was Deng/Noah/Korver/Bogans/Gibson/Watson/Brewer. 

Does that _really_ scream "far better offensive talent across the board" to you? Those look like very similar offensive teams. They both have defenders who can make an occassional shot (Noah, Bogans, Brewer, Bell, Thomas), hired guns (Korver, Watson, James Jones, Tim Thomas) and one multi-dimensional offensive player who can drive the ball when necessary (Diaw, Deng). Those teams look fairly equal offensively... yet somehow Nash made them the 2nd best offense in basketball while the Bulls were only the 11th best.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

RollWithEm said:


> I call BS on this one. In fact, I'd go the complete opposite way. The 2011 Bulls had slightly better offensive talent due mostly to their advantage at second banana.
> 
> The Suns best offensive player (other than Nash) was Marion. He shot 46% from the field in his career before Nash and 51% from the field with Nash. He averaged .481 points per minute before Nash and .493 PPM with him. In other words, Nash made him significantly better offensively than he would have otherwise been (and has since proven himself to be).
> 
> ...


Boozer was terrible most of the season. The guy is clearly declining and struggled with injuries. You can't attribute his decline to Rose; that is ridiculous. In the 20-something games Boozer was healthy, he and Rose were very productive. 

Marion in 05/06 was a true all-star, clearly better than anything the Bulls had this past season. He was also in his absolute prime; physically and skill wise. Dude put up nearly 22 ppg, 12 reb, on high efficiency. Nash certainly made his job easier, but I assure you that's not something Luol Deng could ever do, nor the current version of Carlos Boozer.

Diaw, Barbosa, and Bell at the time were all potent offensively in their own way. All three have aged drastically since then, but at the time they were studs. The Bulls today would kill for any one of those guys to improve their offense. They're starting Keith freaking Bogans at SG, one of the worst PER's in NBA history for a starting SG. If they had a younger Raja Bell in his place, they may have won the title, or at least taken Miami to 6 or 7 games.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

Yes, everyone "drastically" ages the year after they play with Nash.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Hyperion said:


> Yes, everyone "drastically" ages the year after they play with Nash.


Or just maybe, they hit the wrong side of 30? 

Or in Diaw's case, gets fat and unmotivated.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

yodurk said:


> Or just maybe, they hit the wrong side of 30?
> 
> Or in Diaw's case, gets fat and unmotivated.


.... :whatever:


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

or...maybe boris couldn't play off the ball.

he had his banner season because amare was hurt , when stat came back boris was a 3rd or 4th fiddle and he isn't so great as an off the ball guy.


----------



## NK1990 (Mar 26, 2011)

I'm sorry but I just couldn't bite my tongue anymore, I understand that everyone on here has their own opinions. But in my opinion there are two things that I just can't not reply on. 

1.) That Derrick Rose is obviously the superior athlete. (seriously you can say Nash is the superior athlete. What makes an athlete? its more than just jumping ability. There is hand-eye, there is running with the ball, running without the ball, cardiovascular endurance, strength, the list goes on and on. I would say that the only thing Derrick Rose has on Steve Nash without a doubt would be his jumping ability, his explosiveness, and maybe running without the ball. Steve Nash was extremely fast with the ball and still is. His Cardiovascular endurance is amazing. I'm sorry but I honestly believe Steve Nash could be the superior athlete.

and

2.) To say that Steve Nash didn't deserve EITHER MVP's is just mind boggling to me. Sure he didn't lead the league in scoring (probably did in assists that year) The way I look at MVP's is Most Valuable Player for the TEAM. The first MVP i would say Kobe deserved it more because of the talent he was playing with and without Kobe the lakers would of been arguably the worst team in the league. However the second season Amare Stoudamire missed the entire season with an injury (actually I think he played the first three games) and Steve Nash STILL lead his team to probably either the best record or 2nd best in the league, this without the second best player, losing Joe Johnson in the summer, and without Steve Nash on that team Tim Thomas wouldn't of been Tim Thomas, Boris Diaw wouldn't be Diaw, I mean lets be honest. Steve Nash made his teammates soooo good. That without him they may not of been a playoff team that year. So I say he does deserve the second MVP that year even over Kobe Bryant that year. Once again JUST my opinion, sorry but I HAD to reply.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

NK1990 said:


> I'm sorry but I just couldn't bite my tongue anymore, I understand that everyone on here has their own opinions. But in my opinion there are two things that I just can't not reply on.
> 
> 1.) That Derrick Rose is obviously the superior athlete. (seriously you can say Nash is the superior athlete. What makes an athlete? its more than just jumping ability. There is hand-eye, there is running with the ball, running without the ball, cardiovascular endurance, strength, the list goes on and on. I would say that the only thing Derrick Rose has on Steve Nash without a doubt would be his jumping ability, his explosiveness, and maybe running without the ball. Steve Nash was extremely fast with the ball and still is. His Cardiovascular endurance is amazing. I'm sorry but I honestly believe Steve Nash could be the superior athlete.
> 
> ...


Good post. Can't disagree with any of that. 

People have different meanings of athleticism I guess. Nash is certainly one helluva athlete with great change of direction, north/south speed, and his conditioning has always been off the charts. I'd honestly say Rose has a ways to go for his stamina to reach Nash levels. But there's no denying Rose is more explosive.

Nash is one of my favorites and I never had major gripes with his MVPs. Can't argue with the best record in the league; same reason why Rose won MVP.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

i dont know how people dispute certain things.

rose is the better athlete by light years , he's bigger, stronger, faster, quicker and he not nash has better endurance , he plays more minutes and plays a far more physical style...nash as a mav was actually known for wearing down as the season progressed, especially that last season with dallas he wore down pretty bad in the playoffs .

rose is 22 he can run all day ...he can play nash's up and down style especially if cut his minutes to nash's level...but nash couldn't play his especially with the minutes he plays.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

Da Grinch said:


> i dont know how people dispute certain things.
> 
> rose is the better athlete by light years , he's bigger, stronger, faster, quicker and he not nash has better endurance , he plays more minutes and plays a far more physical style...nash as a mav was actually known for wearing down as the season progressed, especially that last season with dallas he wore down pretty bad in the playoffs .
> 
> rose is 22 he can run all day ...he can play nash's up and down style especially if cut his minutes to nash's level...but nash couldn't play his especially with the minutes he plays.


went back a decade for Nash's back injuries. Kinda reaching aren't you? Nash played 33mpg as compared to Rose's 37mpg. If you were to assume every assist = 2pts, Nash was responsible for 37ppg to Rose's 40ppg but played 4 fewer minutes a game. Still better offensive production with lower usage. It'll come out in a few years that Rose is Marbury.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Marbury would have been great if he wasn't such an idiot. Rose isn't an idiot. He's not going to flame out like Starbury or Francis.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Hyperion said:


> went back a decade for Nash's back injuries. Kinda reaching aren't you? Nash played 33mpg as compared to Rose's 37mpg. If you were to assume every assist = 2pts, Nash was responsible for 37ppg to Rose's 40ppg but played 4 fewer minutes a game. Still better offensive production with lower usage. It'll come out in a few years that Rose is Marbury.


the thing is this rose is considered among the top physical specimens at his position , at no time in nash's career has he ever been considered that type of athlete .

i find it silly that the guy who plays the less physical style for less minutes could be considered the better conditioned athlete, back when nash was a maverick the nba allowed a more physical style to be played on its perimeter players and nash usually wore down , but now you cant touch him and he plays 33 minutes a game without a severe issue and he's an endurance warrior

the whole assist = 2 points argument is lame by that logic the season stockton set his career high for assists he was a better offensive player than magic (who won the mvp) and jordan who avg 33.6.


----------



## Pump Bacon (Dec 11, 2010)

A comparable Nash does not compare well to Rose athletically whether its minutes per game or just from watching them play. Nash relies on savvy and skill whereas Rose relentlessly bulldozes his way to the paint.

Nash's lack of overall strength and maybe lateral speed athletically are also some of the main reasons why he was and is a poor defender. Rose is far from a lockdown guy himself but its pretty hard to see Nash leading one of the best defenses in the NBA like the Thibs Bulls team.

That doesn't mean Nash doesn't have elite footwork and other great athletic traits; just overall does not compare well to Rose in that department. Nash's physical limitations arguably never allowed him to be as complete of a player as Jason Kidd.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

Da Grinch said:


> the thing is this rose is considered among the top physical specimens at his position , at no time in nash's career has he ever been considered that type of athlete .
> 
> i find it silly that the guy who plays the less physical style for less minutes could be considered the better conditioned athlete, back when nash was a maverick the nba allowed a more physical style to be played on its perimeter players and nash usually wore down , but now you cant touch him and he plays 33 minutes a game without a severe issue and he's an endurance warrior


So wait, you're penalizing Nash but giving props to Rose for the exact same thing? This has clearly turned in a homer competition. 



> the whole assist = 2 points argument is lame by that logic the season stockton set his career high for assists he was a better offensive player than magic (who won the mvp) and jordan who avg 33.6.


Jordan also had 6apg. No one can argue that Stockton was not one of the all time greatest PGs. I like how you scoff at 14.5apg like it doesn't effect the offense. Magic also averaged 11.5apg that season. The cumulative difference was less than a point a game between Magic, Stockton and Jordan for that year.


----------



## koganei (Jul 26, 2011)

STEVE NASH makes his team-mates better that is a fact if you review the stats of the phoenix SUNS players during their *RUN and GUN era from the year 2005 to 2009*. you will notice that the STATISTICS of these player are up. 

Diaw, Stoudamire, Marion, Barbossa, Bell. I am not underestimating or looking down on these players, But Steve Nash when he is sitting on the Bench the Tempo of the Phoenix SUNS changes, t*hey are a completely a different TEAM without NASH*. 


Statistics WISE DERRICK ROSE is FAR-FAR BETTER than Steve NASH. ROSE is FASTER more Athletic and better scorer
than NASH. 

BUT BECAUSE it was already said that the comparison of BOTH player are base when they win the MVP. *I say NASH is WAY BETTER as a Team LEADER than ROSE*, *MARION complains when things are not going his way. AMARE is a sucky defender and a rebounder plus these two players are very prone to injury. *
during the DIRK and NASH era of the mavericks NASH was always considered the LEADER of that team. 
from the 2000-2001 season to 2007-2008 season NASH's TEAMs was on the PLAYoffs not only that NASH's TEAMs are always at the TOP seed rank very consistent.

NASH IS A BETTER SCORER in the PLAYoffs. so the argument that he can't score is just DUMB. HE commits A lot of TURN-overs but did you all count the open shots that his team-mates miss form the passes that he delivered.

NOWITZKI- is a NIGHTMARE
AMARE- IS an offensive juggernaut
MARION- is THE MOST VESATILE FORWARD FROM THE LAST decade 

"all of these three players have gotten better with NASH statistics wise" well for the CASE of NOWITZKI their might be a strong argument against these statement but I know He was DEVASTED when NASh LEAVE fror the PHOEnix

NASH have the INNATE talent to control the game, he makes good decisions in offence, he can help a team-mate get off a shooting slump or to make a team-mate effective even if he is having a bad night like it is an easy thing to do.

I saw ROSE play he won the MVP I don't have problem with that, but as a POINT GUARD I will always get STEVE NASH
ahead OF ROSE. 

*
CARLOS BOOZER AND LOUL DENG when they perform under their season average during the PLAYOFFS that would not happen if they have a PRIME STEVE NASH AS A POINT GUARD*

*
NOTE: I am not a D-ROSE HATER I bought HIS ADI-ZERO, I HAVE A poster of him in my LOUNGE. IT's just I feel that STEVE NASH deserves the spot over D-ROSE AT least for nOW*


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Hyperion said:


> So wait, you're penalizing Nash but giving props to Rose for the exact same thing? This has clearly turned in a homer competition.
> 
> 
> Jordan also had 6apg. No one can argue that Stockton was not one of the all time greatest PGs. I like how you scoff at 14.5apg like it doesn't effect the offense. Magic also averaged 11.5apg that season. The cumulative difference was less than a point a game between Magic, Stockton and Jordan for that year.


you are mistaking what i meant .

rose plays more minutes and a more physical style .

when nash was younger and did the same he broke down and it greatly hampered his play, he played banged up alot of the time . i claim rose has better endurance because he could play physically and could handle it better , its not a coincidence they had to get rid of the hand checking and interpret the hard pick rules differently for nash's talent to truly shine.

if nash were truly the endurance champion people were claiming he would have been more durable with his level of play ...the mavs would have kept him but because his wearing down was a significant problem they went in another direction, they didn't think he would make it 5 years as a good player and Cuban has said it more than once.

rose basically is a matchup nightmare he is too strong and physical for the avg. pg if they allowed hand checking he'd be a defensive stopper too.

as for the assists there is no real comparison MJ scoring 30 points is more impactful than stockton getting 15 assists , also even with magic you have to know there is a differnce in the quality of the assists , just like there is a differnce in a guy who gets his points shooting 50% vs a guy who scores the same amount but shoots 42%.


----------

