Suns finish in the top 4 seeding.

[cly2tw]

Too funny! Your posts remind me of the Kevin Bacon game, only you've converted it to "The Six Degrees of Steve Nash." No matter what the topic, no matter what the criticism--or which other player(s) it may involve, no matter what the comment or how far removed it is from relating to Nash, you find a way to get back to the same old mantra and some little dig. If we lose, even if everybody else played like crap, it's his fault. Now his dribbling lost us the title. The one I really loved--most of Amare's TOs are Nash's fault too.....
I keep waiting for someone to stump you, but there's no way it will happen. You're good. Terminally predictable, but good!

Have you ever understood my point? I believe not. Did you even watch the games and could offer your explanation based on what you saw to refute my point? Other than implying Nash is God and it's blasphemy to ask for cutting down his ball dominance on HIS team? If anything is terminally predictable, that's your blind worshipping of Nash.

Just for the record, where did I say most of Amare's TOs were Nash's fault? I said I'd rather Amare has 5 TOs than Nash has them, because Nash's always lead to fastbreak pts for the other team due to atrocious transition defense.

 

[elindholm]

Did you even watch the games and could offer your explanation based on what you saw to refute my point?

The beauty of conspiracy theories is that they cannot be disproved. So, by its very construction, your point cannot be refuted. Of course, it would be equally valid to claim that Nash's decision to wear #13 is responsible for all of the Suns' ills. After all, we've seen what happens when he wears it, right?

 

[msdundee]

Have you ever understood my point? I believe not. Did you even watch the games and could offer your explanation based on what you saw to refute my point? Other than implying Nash is God and it's blasphemy to ask for cutting down his ball dominance on HIS team? If anything is terminally predictable, that's your blind worshipping of Nash.

Just for the record, where did I say most of Amare's TOs were Nash's fault? I said I'd rather Amare has 5 TOs than Nash has them, because Nash's always lead to fastbreak pts for the other team due to atrocious transition defense.

Of course I understand your point, it would be rather difficult not to understand it.
Yes, I watch the games but in case you haven't noticed, not many on this board even bother to "refute" your posts which often end with "the rest is history" or "simple as that," which implies there is no other plausible view than your own anyway.
I do not think Nash is God--I think he's a great player with some obvious shortcomings. I have never argued he shouldn't handle the ball less (although you should keep in mind he IS the point guard and on most teams the PG is the primary ball handler, mainly because that's their job). However, neither do I think Amare is God and can be excused for almost everything, while Nash is some kind of control freak who dictates to the FO and loses us titles.
I'm not motivated to go back and find the post, but one game where Amare had a bunch of turnovers you quickly claimed that many of them were due to bad passes from Nash, and that's a perfect example of what I'm saying.
Another recent example: The topic concerned possibly bringing Raja back to the Suns. Your comment (paraphrased) was that we needed Raja back here so he could verbalize Nash's opinions. Hard to 'refute' such thinking.

This is nothing new, it's been going on for years. We all get the message, really we do, and others have commented as well on your silliness. It's just that the relentless good-Amare, bad-Nash bias (not to mention the bazillion reiterations of the Nash-Stockton thing) gets very old very fast when it's the only song you sing.

 

[cly2tw]

Of course I understand your point, it would be rather difficult not to understand it.
Yes, I watch the games but in case you haven't noticed, not many on this board even bother to "refute" your posts which often end with "the rest is history" or "simple as that," which implies there is no other plausible view than your own anyway.
I do not think Nash is God--I think he's a great player with some obvious shortcomings. I have never argued he shouldn't handle the ball less (although you should keep in mind he IS the point guard and on most teams the PG is the primary ball handler, mainly because that's their job). However, neither do I think Amare is God and can be excused for almost everything, while Nash is some kind of control freak who dictates to the FO and loses us titles.
I'm not motivated to go back and find the post, but one game where Amare had a bunch of turnovers you quickly claimed that many of them were due to bad passes from Nash, and that's a perfect example of what I'm saying.
Another recent example: The topic concerned possibly bringing Raja back to the Suns. Your comment (paraphrased) was that we needed Raja back here so he could verbalize Nash's opinions. Hard to 'refute' such thinking.

This is nothing new, it's been going on for years. We all get the message, really we do, and others have commented as well on your silliness. It's just that the relentless good-Amare, bad-Nash bias (not to mention the bazillion reiterations of the Nash-Stockton thing) gets very old very fast when it's the only song you sing.

In ONE game, it was true that Nash's passes did cause a couple Amare's TOs. Yet, this is the only thing that stuck with you? And you would generalize to claiming that I always blame Amare's TOs on Nash? Speaking of biased perception and selective memory! And I knew you guys and girls would interpret my comparison of Nash with Stockton as "Bad-Nash" blasphemy, and my anti-fashion observation of Amare's being not as bad as you guys make him be as "Amare be God". Because you don't have any other way to make an argument.

And I stand to be proven wrong with my prediction that Suns could only succeed if Nash played more like Stockton. I certainly feel strongly vindicated with the Suns current win streak.

 

[mojorizen7]

Nash is some kind of control freak who dictates to the FO

I just wanted to take the oppourtunity to say that this statement(quoted out of context in fairness to Msdundee) is neither a conspiracy nor a theory IMO.
​

 

[Sunburn]

In ONE game, it was true that Nash's passes did cause a couple Amare's TOs. Yet, this is the only thing that stuck with you? And you would generalize to claiming that I always blame Amare's TOs on Nash? Speaking of biased perception and selective memory! And I knew you guys and girls would interpret my comparison of Nash with Stockton as "Bad-Nash" blasphemy, and my anti-fashion observation of Amare's being not as bad as you guys make him be as "Amare be God". Because you don't have any other way to make an argument.

And I stand to be proven wrong with my prediction that Suns could only succeed if Nash played more like Stockton. I certainly feel strongly vindicated with the Suns current win streak.

You think Nash has been playing more like Stockton during this win streak? Cuz he's had less turnovers? I guess Amare's been playing like Malone cuz he's gotten more rebounds.

 

[cly2tw]

The beauty of conspiracy theories is that they cannot be disproved. So, by its very construction, your point cannot be refuted. Of course, it would be equally valid to claim that Nash's decision to wear #13 is responsible for all of the Suns' ills. After all, we've seen what happens when he wears it, right?

Our win streak perfectly correlats with reduced Nash dribbling. That's refutable statement.

Marion was overpaid was a judgment I persistently stood for that was equally attacked persistently. That was equally a conspiricy theory in your eyes, right? But it didn't stop you getting on and off the "trade Marion bangwagon", did it?

 

[cly2tw]

You think Nash has been playing more like Stockton during this win streak? Cuz he's had less turnovers? I guess Amare's been playing like Malone cuz he's gotten more rebounds.

I didn't think that. I watched the games and confirmed it with my focused attention on this very aspect. In fact, at least in one stretch in a game when he reverted to over-dribbling involving on Amare, our offense went stagnate with 2 TOs each by him and Amare. Gentry timely called timeout to correct that and we came back with posting up Amare and rotating the passers on perimeter.

 

[elindholm]

Our win streak perfectly correlats with reduced Nash dribbling. That's refutable statement.

Have you actually counted Nash's dribbles per game? It's not my perception that he's dribbling any less.

Marion was overpaid was a judgment I persistently stood for that was equally attacked persistently. That was equally a conspiricy theory in your eyes, right?

No, of course not, obviously that's simply an opinion, not even hypothetically provable one way or another.

But it didn't stop you getting on and off the "trade Marion bangwagon", did it?

I'm not sure what you mean. I was one of the founders of the Trade Marion Bandwagon and never got off.

 

[cly2tw]

Have you actually counted Nash's dribbles per game? It's not my perception that he's dribbling any less.

I'm not sure what you mean. I was one of the founders of the Trade Marion Bandwagon and never got off.

No. But I noticed how much more other players were given the task to pass the ball, in addition to Amare getting it on the post, and how often Nash himself was running through screens etc without the ball. Nash dribbling less is a complementary conclusion from the above observation. It's about the share of total touches by other players, not the the absolute number of dribbles. Also, many more of his assists came from passing from the perimeter, instead of drive into the paint and pass. Also, Nash has been giving consistent effort on D over the streak, which was impossible had he dribble-penetrated and controlled the offense as "usual".

Now, as to Trade-Marion wagon, you surely abandoned it in my eyes as I was attacked without anybody to my aid for a long while, when everybody was paying homage to how well he defended PGs to save Nash and the system in 2006/7.

 

[elindholm]

No. But I noticed how much more other players were given the task to pass the ball, in addition to Amare getting it on the post, and how often Nash himself was running through screens etc without the ball. Nash dribbling less is a complementary conclusion from the above observation.

If you mean that the Suns, as a team, should show more general activity on offense so that Nash isn't reduced to one or two options in crunch time, then I agree with you -- but so would anyone with half a brain. That's a far cry from your usual "Nash is evil for dominating the ball" crusade.

Now, as to Trade-Marion wagon, you surely abandoned it in my eyes as I was attacked without anybody to my aid for a long while, when everybody was paying homage to how well he defended PGs to save Nash and the system in 2006/7.

I guarantee that I never sang the praises of Marion's so-called ability to defend PGs; in fact I argued exactly the opposite on many occasions. Expecting me to "come to your aid" explicitly is pretty silly. A better idea for you would be to pay some attention to what other people are writing -- you know, as if it were an actual exchange of ideas, instead of endless redundant presentations of your same soap-box whine.

But, for what it's worth, remember that I was thrown off of this board for a while, in the late summer of 2007. Maybe there was a particularly feisty exchange then that I was unable to participate in.

 

[cly2tw]

If you mean that the Suns, as a team, should show more general activity on offense so that Nash isn't reduced to one or two options in crunch time, then I agree with you -- but so would anyone with half a brain. That's a far cry from your usual "Nash is evil for dominating the ball" crusade.

But, for what it's worth, remember that I was thrown off of this board for a while, in the late summer of 2007. Maybe there was a particularly feisty exchange then that I was unable to participate in.

Well, the 'crusade' was to compaign for a better way for the Suns to win, which necessarily implied reduced ball dominance as you acknowledged that (some) people wouldn't oppose to. Yet, when I explicitly point out where and why it should be so, it's immediately interpreted as 'crusade' or blasphemy against Nash personally. Well, where is to draw the line? Also, many fans actually love Nash exactly for his ball dominance and they whine about the departure of Marion that supposedly made it less effective in a nostagic way.

Yeah, I recall your long absence now. My bad.

 

[cly2tw]

Eric and itlnsunsfan,
here is the final proof that substantiates my observation.

http://www.azcentral.com/sports/suns/articles/2010/02/07/20100207suns-nash-better-than-ever.html

Gentry said he followed through on a recommendation from assistant coach Igor Kokoskov, who suggested that the Suns install plays that take the ball away from Nash but have the option to return it to him later in the possession.

The Suns struggled against switching defenses earlier. Gentry felt Nash's teammates were watching him too much and the offense had become stagnant. Nash has been more aggressive in attacking switches, and the new wrinkles take advantage of the slashing by wings Grant Hill and Jason Richardson.

"We felt like we were wearing Steve down," Gentry said. "He had the ball all the time, and he was making all the plays. We had to do something to relieve the pressure from Steve a little bit. One of the things we looked at was having more ball movement and more people movement but making sure he still had the ball at the end of the shot clock and still making plays . . . when he's fresh."

 

[Errntknght]

Now, cly, you were not entirely on your own though I didn't say much by the time you started talking about excising some of Nash's time handling the ball. By the end of Steve's first year back here I was faulting D'A for using an offense that only Steve could run - and that was when it was a relative success (in the regular season). I harped on that for several years, without a whole lot of takers...

 

[cly2tw]

Now, cly, you were not entirely on your own though I didn't say much by the time you started talking about excising some of Nash's time handling the ball. By the end of Steve's first year back here I was faulting D'A for using an offense that only Steve could run - and that was when it was a relative success (in the regular season). I harped on that for several years, without a whole lot of takers...

It seems we fault the same battle on separate occasions. A slight difference might be, with SSOL and trackmeet to run over people who were not prepared, Nash by himself was good enough for best regular season records back then. But indeed it comes down to similar issues in the end, more variety of offensive sets and less Nash ball-handling time.

 

[Sunburn]

Of course the offense is better when it's not stagnant. I did not argue that. At times, Nash's teammates have a way of just standing around and letting him pound the air out of the ball, waiting to be spoonfed. I actually complained of this. There have been many instances when this has occurred, most notably in third quarters. This is not Nash's fault though. It's coaching and teammates. He's working his tail off out there and his teammates are on a coffee break, the coach not addressing the issue. Now, hopefully the problem has been resolved, but I digress. Getting back to the main point, I simply questioned the parallel you were drawing between Nash and Stockton's playing style. I don't see the similarity other than they play the same position, were both pass first pg's, and have good stuff between the ears. Nash is a much more active and dynamic player on the offensive end, while Stockton was much more active on the defensive end. However, good article. I enjoyed reading it. Highlights what an extraordinary player Nash is and how lucky we are to have him on our team.

 

[cly2tw]

Of course the offense is better when it's not stagnant. I did not argue that. At times, Nash's teammates have a way of just standing around and letting him pound the air out of the ball, waiting to be spoonfed. I actually complained of this. There have been many instances when this has occurred, most notably in third quarters. This is not Nash's fault though. It's coaching and teammates. He's working his tail off out there and his teammates are on a coffee break, the coach not addressing the issue. Now, hopefully the problem has been resolved, but I digress. Getting back to the main point, I simply questioned the parallel you were drawing between Nash and Stockton's playing style. I don't see the similarity other than they play the same position, were both pass first pg's, and have good stuff between the ears. Nash is a much more active and dynamic player on the offensive end, while Stockton was much more active on the defensive end. However, good article. I enjoyed reading it. Highlights what an extraordinary player Nash is and how lucky we are to have him on our team.

Nash dribbling via a pick requires an open paint and everybody else mainly parked at 3pt. With current trend of switching defense, Nash had to play one-on-one vs. the switched big, resulting in everybody else standing and watching as Nash would have no angle to pass to an open teammate for good shots. So,
It's mainly the opponent's fault that our offense became stagnant.

It's testimony for Nash's legend that he would carry a team's offense by himself for so long, which Stockton never would do or be able to. But it seemed to have hit a limit and it's better for him to emulate Stockton's game
in the interest of the team. This, an unselfish person like Nash would bite the bullet and do without objections.