Picture will be up... asked him "whose the best pg you ever played with, Nash, Kidd or Marbury??" within a second he replied "J-Kidd" Do y'all agree? Is J-Kidd > Nash?
Kidd at his prime was a better rebounder and defender. His shooting improved as time went on.I think Kidd can play both rund and gun or half court equally well. Whereas I dont think Nash is effective in the half court sets as he would be in running a fast break. But Nash was the better scorer and more flashy player.
nash is great at what he does, if you put him in a fast paced free flowing offense, he can just create and break down defenses. Yet he is not as effective in any other environment. I think that is the reason some of the players who can do more(or feel they can do more misguidedly perhaps) don't want to play with him, where as I don't think anyone has not glowed after playing with kid. From Joe Johnson and Marion, to even Amare who has noted he wanted the ball more. They all did well with nash and Nash has the ability to create open shots for them. But if you play with Nash, you will be limited to being a spot up shooter or slashing finisher, you never get to create on your own. That is where Joe Johnson felt he could do more of rather than watching nash break it down and waiting for the shot which is what most of his teammates have to do to adjust to his style. All in all, nash can take players like raja bell, frye, that might not do well elsewhere, and can be the best for them, but ofr players who can do more, he might be limiting their games. On the other hand, Kidd seems to the PG that is not always about racking up assists, but he puts players in the situations they want to be in. That is why an assists statistic hardly covers the idea of "creating" for your teammates. It is said that kidd focuses on such intricacies as what area, angle, and even if you liked the ball to start your move in the chest or waste, so on. He puts his players in a position to succeed, knows when toe create or when to find the hot hand and build momentum. His decision making is why so many of the big shots say they just love playing with kidd. So they are both good at different things, but while Kidd they are both old now, Kidd was a more complete player, but nash was excellent in run n gun particularly
I think they're about the same, their value differs to different team composition. Can't go wrong with either. Put Nash in that Dallas team instead of J-Kidd and I'm sure they would still win a championship.
Defensively J-Kidd is superior, but offensively I'll go with Nash. Probably not, but that is the advantage of having Kidd on your team. For the same reason that Nash is better at creating his own shot than Kidd. Like I said, it's based on team composition. And a team like Dallas where they have great distribution on both offense and defense, I'd say Nash would compliment the team just as much as Kidd.
Current Nash > Current Kidd Prime Kidd and Prime Nash are quite close. I would take Kidd because he rebounds and plays great defense so whatever miniscule advantage Nash has offensively is mitigated.
Miniscule advantage offensively? Nash is the best shooter in NBA history. Prime Kidd was a horrible shooter.
