Jason Kidd was really good

Especially for another guy who couldn't shoot at all coming into the league.

But did you guys know this?

Kidd finished his career with more assists than Magic or Oscar, more rebs than Mourning, more steals than MJ or Payton & more 3’s than Bird.
And of course a solid 2nd in ast's and steals behind Stockton.

Thats freaking good.

Mutangclan wrote:

Especially for another guy who couldn't shoot at all coming into the league.

But did you guys know this?

Kidd finished his career with more assists than Magic or Oscar, more rebs than Mourning, more steals than MJ or Payton & more 3’s than Bird.
And of course a solid 2nd in ast's and steals behind Stockton.

Thats freaking good.

For real man, First ballot Hall-of-Famer.

Another really good player just retired, Grant Hill. Most people don't remember how sneaky good he was...

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/59013/our-favorite-grant-hill-stats

I was recently thinking about how the "Top 50" list might be revised, given over a decade of performances by contemporary NBA players, and Jason Kidd came to mind as a candidate. Do you guys think he is top 50 all-time? Him, Duncan, Kobe, LeBron, Nowitzski, Nash are the additions I'd make, with Iverson, Garnett, Ray Allen and Tony Parker borderline.

thejazzkickazz wrote:

I was recently thinking about how the "Top 50" list might be revised, given over a decade of performances by contemporary NBA players, and Jason Kidd came to mind as a candidate. Do you guys think he is top 50 all-time? Him, Duncan, Kobe, LeBron, Nowitzski, Nash are the additions I'd make, with Iverson, Garnett, Ray Allen and Tony Parker borderline.

I'd actually stop at Duncan, Kobe, Lebron and Kidd. Throw in Garnett probably. 50 all time greatest is pretty elite. And I believe most of the elite 50 did it at both ends unlike Nash, Nowitzki, Ray Allen and Iverson.

Mutangclan wrote:

thejazzkickazz wrote:

I was recently thinking about how the "Top 50" list might be revised, given over a decade of performances by contemporary NBA players, and Jason Kidd came to mind as a candidate. Do you guys think he is top 50 all-time? Him, Duncan, Kobe, LeBron, Nowitzski, Nash are the additions I'd make, with Iverson, Garnett, Ray Allen and Tony Parker borderline.

I'd actually stop at Duncan, Kobe, Lebron and Kidd. Throw in Garnett probably. 50 all time greatest is pretty elite. And I believe most of the elite 50 did it at both ends unlike Nash, Nowitzki, Ray Allen and Iverson.

I'm not going to argue that Iverson should be in there, especially with his paltry career assists number, but he could play decent defense for a little guy, if he felt like making the effort.

Hey, what about Paul Pierce?

thejazzkickazz wrote:

Mutangclan wrote:

thejazzkickazz wrote:

I was recently thinking about how the "Top 50" list might be revised, given over a decade of performances by contemporary NBA players, and Jason Kidd came to mind as a candidate. Do you guys think he is top 50 all-time? Him, Duncan, Kobe, LeBron, Nowitzski, Nash are the additions I'd make, with Iverson, Garnett, Ray Allen and Tony Parker borderline.

I'd actually stop at Duncan, Kobe, Lebron and Kidd. Throw in Garnett probably. 50 all time greatest is pretty elite. And I believe most of the elite 50 did it at both ends unlike Nash, Nowitzki, Ray Allen and Iverson.

I'm not going to argue that Iverson should be in there, especially with his paltry career assists number, but he could play decent defense for a little guy, if he felt like making the effort.

Hey, what about Paul Pierce?

I think Iverson had quick hands, and made alot of steals, but as far as actual man on man defense, he was a no show.

Imo, Paul Pierce would make a top 100, but on the cusp of top 50.

thejazzkickazz wrote:

Mutangclan wrote:

thejazzkickazz wrote:

I was recently thinking about how the "Top 50" list might be revised, given over a decade of performances by contemporary NBA players, and Jason Kidd came to mind as a candidate. Do you guys think he is top 50 all-time? Him, Duncan, Kobe, LeBron, Nowitzski, Nash are the additions I'd make, with Iverson, Garnett, Ray Allen and Tony Parker borderline.

I'd actually stop at Duncan, Kobe, Lebron and Kidd. Throw in Garnett probably. 50 all time greatest is pretty elite. And I believe most of the elite 50 did it at both ends unlike Nash, Nowitzki, Ray Allen and Iverson.

I'm not going to argue that Iverson should be in there, especially with his paltry career assists number, but he could play decent defense for a little guy, if he felt like making the effort.

Hey, what about Paul Pierce?

Pierce should definitely be with that second tier, as should Ray Allen, Dirk, and Nash. Iverson definitely not. But I agree with Mu, I think the 5 he listed (I'd definitely include Garnett) are really the only guys who could realistically make the list.

The second tier guys are each great in their own way, they just aren't ALL-TIME great overall. Dirk is the greatest shooting big man ever to play the game. Ray Allen is the greatest 3pt shooter in history (#1 in 3pt attempts and makes, 40% career shooter). Steve Nash is one of the greatest (if not the greatest) shooters period in the history of the NBA (averaged 49/43/90 for his CAREER). Pierce is top 50 all time in almost every major statistical category except assists (#77) and Blocks.

But in every one of their cases, I put them well behind the 5 top tier players. Some of that is entirely subjective, and if I was a Celtics fan or a Mavericks fan I'd probably feel differently, but after I go through all the effort of figuring out who get bumped to make room for the 5 above I just can't imagine finding a couple more that deserve the boot to make room for those guys.

Okay, another hypothetical (and if you haven't chimed in, please continue the discussion of my first query): If you were constructing a team, and you had to choose between Nash and Kidd in their prime, which would be your starting point guard? I'd be tempted with Nash, because he's such a great, reliable shooter, and he knows how to get his teammates involved, but Kidd was such a good all-around player, and he has size on his side. I'd probably go with Kidd, even though he didn't learn how to shoot threes until he was past his prime.

thejazzkickazz wrote:

Okay, another hypothetical (and if you haven't chimed in, please continue the discussion of my first query): If you were constructing a team, and you had to choose between Nash and Kidd in their prime, which would be your starting point guard? I'd be tempted with Nash, because he's such a great, reliable shooter, and he knows how to get his teammates involved, but Kidd was such a good all-around player, and he has size on his side. I'd probably go with Kidd, even though he didn't learn how to shoot threes until he was past his prime.

I think I would go with Kidd. Don't forget he led NJ to the finals twice with not so great Kenyon Martin and Richard Jefferson being the other part of his big three. Loved Kidd's knack to get key rebounds too. Nash is definitely great too, and I think he was probably robbed from a likely championship the year both Stoudamire and Diaw were suspended in the middle of a Phoenix series against the Spurs. As you probably recall, the suspensions came for leaving the bench after Robert Horry had put an intentional dirty hit on Nash.

Crunchtime1 wrote:

thejazzkickazz wrote:

Okay, another hypothetical (and if you haven't chimed in, please continue the discussion of my first query): If you were constructing a team, and you had to choose between Nash and Kidd in their prime, which would be your starting point guard? I'd be tempted with Nash, because he's such a great, reliable shooter, and he knows how to get his teammates involved, but Kidd was such a good all-around player, and he has size on his side. I'd probably go with Kidd, even though he didn't learn how to shoot threes until he was past his prime.

I think I would go with Kidd. Don't forget he led NJ to the finals twice with not so great Kenyon Martin and Richard Jefferson being the other part of his big three. Loved Kidd's knack to get key rebounds too. Nash is definitely great too, and I think he was probably robbed from a likely championship the year both Stoudamire and Diaw were suspended in the middle of a Phoenix series against the Spurs. As you probably recall, the suspensions came for leaving the bench after Robert Horry had put an intentional dirty hit on Nash.

Yea, this is a tough one, and Nash had it in his sights until that series screwed them......I'd probably go with Kidd too, though it's close. Richard Jefferson alone would be my reason. I mean, he made that guy and all star didn't he??? All on his own, CRAZY.

thejazzkickazz wrote:

Okay, another hypothetical (and if you haven't chimed in, please continue the discussion of my first query): If you were constructing a team, and you had to choose between Nash and Kidd in their prime, which would be your starting point guard? I'd be tempted with Nash, because he's such a great, reliable shooter, and he knows how to get his teammates involved, but Kidd was such a good all-around player, and he has size on his side. I'd probably go with Kidd, even though he didn't learn how to shoot threes until he was past his prime.

Solid question, because I see those two as pretty much polar opposite players in their prime. At first I was going to say Kidd without giving it too much thought, but I really had to remind myself of the greatness that was Steve Nash in his prime.

Kidd was never a very good scoring option, not only shooting but finnishing around the rim, it was just never his strong suit. But he did litterally everything else, and his leadership and court presence were second to none.

Nash, on the other hand, was probably the most effecient scorer and shooter ever to play the PG position, but he was a lousy defender.

But after giving it some thought, I'm going with Nash. He's a two time league MVP who in his prime was an offensive force of nature. And I'll see your Richard Jefferson (who never was an all-star), and raise you 4-time All-Star Shawn Marion.

Both guys have some asterisks that need to be accounted for...

Kidd's playoff success with a turly mediocre team came in a truly awful Eastern conference.

Nash's MVP numbers came in a system that was tailor made for him and inflated numbers.

Neither of them led a team to a championship, though Kidd finaly won a championship two years ago.

Overall though, I've got to go against my first instinct, and pick Nash.

Kidd vs. Nash ?

Both were great in their own way (although I think Nash is a bit overrated). I think the answer depends 100% on the other players on the team.
Got a team full of shooters? Give me Kidd.
Got a team with athletic, slasher-types, that aren't really shooters? Hook me up with Nash.
Is your primary SG smallish? Kidd is the man.
Do you have a handfull of defensive minded players on board? Nash is the better compliment.

Ya'know .... the more I think about it... the more I lean towards choosing John Stockton. Oh wait, he wasn't an option.

zero24gravity wrote:

Kidd vs. Nash ?

Both were great in their own way (although I think Nash is a bit overrated). I think the answer depends 100% on the other players on the team.
Got a team full of shooters? Give me Kidd.
Got a team with athletic, slasher-types, that aren't really shooters? Hook me up with Nash.
Is your primary SG smallish? Kidd is the man.
Do you have a handfull of defensive minded players on board? Nash is the better compliment.

Ya'know .... the more I think about it... the more I lean towards choosing John Stockton. Oh wait, he wasn't an option.

I think you are missing the concept here, you don't have a team, you are building one, around one of these guys.

For example, here's how I think I would go about building a contender in todays NBA.

I believe that good D starts on the inside. 1st, I need an elite defensive Center that can run the pick-and-roll, clean the glass, and finish around the rim but doesn't necessarily need to be a great offensive player (Dwight Howard, Tyson Chandler, etc.). I want versatile PF's that can score in a variety of ways, space the floor, and play good team D (Millsap, West, AK, Josh Smith, etc.). I'd want one starting wing that was an elite 3+D guy who could guard either wing position (Battier, Tony Allen, Kawhi Leonard, Jimmy Butler, etc.) and one that was a more dynamic scorer and lights out shooter but still a good defender (Gordon Hayward, Wes Matthews, Klay Thompson, etc.).

Fill the roster out with the necessary role players and I love that team. Balanced. Great on both ends of the floor. Matches up well and causes matchup problems. And I feel like what Nash adds from an offensive standoint is more valuable to that team than what Kidd adds with his defense and rebounding.

For what it's worth, I think this is kind of the path the Jazz are on. I think Hayward, Kanter, and Favors are all legit NBA starters and fill the roles I talked about above. Hayward is going to be a 20pts a game scorer. Favors is an elite interior defender, Kanter is going to be a dynamic post scorer. I think the Jazz need to add a starting quality 3+D guy (don't say Demarre, cause he's not that guy), and I think they need to add a dynamic PG that can hang with the other starting NBA PG's on both ends of the court.

TheMagnus wrote:

I think you are missing the concept here, you don't have a team, you are building one, around one of these guys.

Fine, I don't want to play then!

I loved both Nash and Kidd.
Well, I hated them when they played the jazz.
Not sure who I would take I'd I was forced to pick just one.
Like someone else said....probably depends on the rest of your team, and what your offensive strategy is.

Having said that, if you are holding a gun to my head and making me pick...I'd take Kidd.
Why? Not because Kidd is the clear choice, but because you have a damn gun to my head and I have to say something....it was the first thing I thought of.

Looks like Kidd, fresh off retiring as a player, is interviewing to be the Nets head coach.

http://m.espn.go.com/general/story?storyId=9358941&city=newyork

Jason was a great player, but do you think it's too early? I'm sure he was a player-coach to some degree during his last couple years, but does that translate to jumping straight to an NBA head coaching job without a single second of coaching/assistant coaching on ANY level? Seems like it would be a major risk, but if anyone could do it..... maybe Jason can.

Mark Jackson successfully made that jump with no previous coaching experience, although he had quite a few years as a game TV color analyst before he was hired, and he had the help of tanking a season to get an additional top draft pick. Considering D-Will said Kidd was the PG that he most admired and wanted to emulate, it might be a pretty good fit. But the humongous Joe Johnson contract at Brooklyn, which runs for three more seasons and tops out at nearly 25 mill, is concerning.

Really unknown. Some of the greatest players were terrible coaches (Magic) and likewise great coaches (Bird). I think Kidd has the advantage of player/coaching the last few years anyway, and he was always a more cerebral player. I think he could be pretty good, and would lean more on the side that he'd be ready to go now. I still wouldn't do it, but Hornacek could certainly do worse than bringing him on in PHX, with Kidd having played so long and well there.

In the Kidd v Nash debate I have to go Nash since as far as we know Nash never beat on his wife. And yes, I would think that Kidd to PHX would make a lot of sense, given they are trying to start a "culture" similar to the Jazz where ex-players are involved in the organization.

zero24gravity wrote:

Looks like Kidd, fresh off retiring as a player, is interviewing to be the Nets head coach.

http://m.espn.go.com/general/story?storyId=9358941&city=newyork

Jason was a great player, but do you think it's too early? I'm sure he was a player-coach to some degree during his last couple years, but does that translate to jumping straight to an NBA head coaching job without a single second of coaching/assistant coaching on ANY level? Seems like it would be a major risk, but if anyone could do it..... maybe Jason can.

Kidd got the job.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/sports/56452024-77/nets-kidd-coach-nba.html.csp

TheMagnus wrote:

Mutangclan wrote:

Especially for another guy who couldn't shoot at all coming into the league.

But did you guys know this?

Kidd finished his career with more assists than Magic or Oscar, more rebs than Mourning, more steals than MJ or Payton & more 3’s than Bird.
And of course a solid 2nd in ast's and steals behind Stockton.

Thats freaking good.

For real man, First ballot Hall-of-Famer.

Another really good player just retired, Grant Hill.  Most people don't remember how sneaky good he was...

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/59013/our-favorite-grant-hill-stats

Yeah but 25-8-7 isn't sneaky...that's blow-your-mind All Star/MVP good.

As for freakin' Kidd...pretty amazing career, but the one thing that stands out is the f'ing REBOUNDING numbers! Holy crap! (That's the best rebounding from the guard spot since...this guy). And he got them based on anticipation/speed...he always looked like he was operating at a different speed than the rest of the people on the court. Great player.[/quote]

I wonder if there is any evidence that point guards make better coaches?  Guys that played that position at a high, productive level, especially as long as Kidd played it, must be very good at seeing the entire floor, recognizing various players strengths and weaknesses and seeing the big picture.  Off the top of my head though, I can think of great point guards Magic, Isiah and Cheeks who weren't very successful as coaches.  Of course coaching is so much more than x and os and seeing the entire floor; it is also communicating, managing egos, managing contracts/minutes/rotations and getting players to commit to what you are trying to do among other things.  

I heard Kidd interviewed on the radio yesterday and he didn't sound to me like he has outstanding communication skills.  I am judging from a very limited sample though and nonetheless have the feeling that Kidd will probably work out.