Steve Nash or Allen Iverson

Who Do You Rank Higher All-Time


  • Total voters
    60
If I needed a pg Nash
If I needed a sg AI

Overall I'll take Iverson and it's not even close. Prime AI never had the opportunity to play with another mvp level player like Nash did with Amare. Prime AI took a bunch of roll players to the finals and even won a game against the Shaq and Tobe Lakers when they had just swept their way through the west.

Phoenix went from winning 30 games without Nash, to like 60 with him. And Amare was out for the season, they still won 60. But yeah, who I would choose would depend on a number of factors, eg what other players are on the team, who's coaching, what kind of system running, etc.
 
Phoenix went from winning 30 games without Nash, to like 60 with him the following year. And the following year after that when Amare was out for the season, they still won 60. Amare was never MVP-caliber.
But yeah, who I would choose would depend on a number of factors, eg what other players are on the team, who's coaching, what kind of system running, etc.
 
If I needed a great point guard I'd get Nash.

If I needed a great scorer I'd get A.I.

I'm leaning towards Nash on this one. He raised everyone's level of play. Iverson's team mates sometimes just watched the "Iverson" show.
 
AI is an underrated passer. It was pretty common to see AI dish out a beautiful pass and watch his teammates pass up the shot opting instead to pass it around the court back to AI.
 
It really depends on what the rest of the team looks like. If I have a team full of talented role players and a good coach then I'd go with Nash. If it was a team full of scrubs like the 2001 76ers...then I'm taking AI. At the end of the day you can just give him the ball, step back, and find yourself in the playoffs.
 
2 very different types of point guards. A.I. would be my pick because he could carry any team but Nash would be a better role player if you already had scorers.
AI is all scorer with great quickness for steals and is a ball of speed, unafraid of any man regardless of size nor strength. With that said, stick a guy like Nash on any team as the PG and you it will work. AI is a SG in a PG body and he needs a specific team around him to make it work.

As much as I love AI, Steve Nash is the better all around player and when building a team, Nash is the much easier guy to build around not to mention his personality tops AIs as well.
 
It really depends on what the rest of the team looks like. If I have a team full of talented role players and a good coach then I'd go with Nash. If it was a team full of scrubs like the 2001 76ers...then I'm taking AI. At the end of the day you can just give him the ball, step back, and find yourself in the playoffs.

AI was basically the NBA version of "Give the ball to Will."
 
What about Isiah? where does he fit in the top 5

1. Magic - 5 titles, 3 MVPs, 2 fmvps
2. Oscar - 1 title, 1 MVP, crazy stats
3. Isiah - 2 titles, 1 fmvp
4. Stockton - 2 conf titles, All time assist leader
5. Cousy - 6 titles, 1 mvp
 
AI is all scorer with great quickness for steals and is a ball of speed, unafraid of any man regardless of size nor strength. With that said, stick a guy like Nash on any team as the PG and you it will work. AI is a SG in a PG body and he needs a specific team around him to make it work.

As much as I love AI, Steve Nash is the better all around player and when building a team, Nash is the much easier guy to build around not to mention his personality tops AIs as well.

Nash never even heard of defense.

What is the rationale that he is the better all around player? He never won a title, never made it to the finals, and had a better supporting cast.
 
nash was arguably the worst defending star player in NBA history....that's not hyperbole

his overwhelming offensive contribs, especially his world class shooting ability (essentially put up 50/40/90 for a career) while being quite high, aren't enough to overlook that

i'll put it this way, they're two different players, but no way in hell Nash leads that Sixers team to the Finals nor steals a game from the Lakes....that is one of the greatest achievements in NBA history, he didn't fold and get lebroomed on gross stats like Lebron vs the Spurs the first time w/ the Cavs
 
Nash never even heard of defense.

What is the rationale that he is the better all around player? He never won a title, never made it to the finals, and had a better supporting cast.


Was talking to someone else about Titles meaning Better. It was between who was better Rodman or Sir Charles and they said rings matter and since Charles never got one, he cant compare to Rodman. Do u agree? Rings mean Better
 
Can mod add a poll. Seems like its getting close
 

Who do I rank higher all-time, Iverson. He carried probably brutal teams basically by himself (one two the Finals). He is one of the best scorers you will see at the guard position. Got to the basket at will sland finished despite being 6 feet and a buck 60.

Nash is a two time MVP (although he didn't deserve one of them), unreal passer and shooter with one of the best basketball IQ's ever seen. That said, his teams were loaded with talent and the furthest they got on was the WCC (although they got fucked against the Spurs).

Neither guy could play D at but you couldn't name anyone worse then Nash.

Thing is though, it really depends on what team you are building
 
If I needed a pg Nash
If I needed a sg AI

Overall I'll take Iverson and it's not even close. Prime AI never had the opportunity to play with another mvp level player like Nash did with Amare. Prime AI took a bunch of roll players to the finals and even won a game against the Shaq and Tobe Lakers when they had just swept their way through the west.
There's a reason for that, AI wouldn't be able to play with someone else. All AI wants is to shoot the ball and that's all he did and he missed alot too shooting at just 42% for his career.

Basketball is a team game, you need a solid team and AI has never truly been about team. He's about winning and as tough as he was, and imo he was as tough and as gutsy as any player ever to step onto the hardwood, he wasn't the leader necessary to win. He wasn't a willing mentor, wasn't willing to put time in the tape room, wasn't willing to put time in before or after games the same way other greats did. For me, a no go. It's much easier to start a team with Nash because you don't have to worry about egos and drafting or selecting other players to help the team would be a cinch.

Nash never even heard of defense.

What is the rationale that he is the better all around player? He never won a title, never made it to the finals, and had a better supporting cast.
Hey, I love AI but if I was in charge of a team, I wouldn't have AI ahead of Nash.

You talking about never winning a title, never making it to the Finals and having a better supporting cast? I think you seem to be forgetting a few key facts. Nash played his career in the Western Conference and not the EASY, ahem Eastern, Conference. Only in the Eastern Conference in the 2000s could a team winning less than 50 games make it to the NBA Finals.

Objectivity and evaluating the differences between the two conferences clearly will highlight that fact. From 1999-2011, 10 of the 13 possible Championships were won the the Western Conferences. Be real, if Nash had played in the Eastern Conferences, the chances of him making it to the Finals was AT LEAST as likely as J Kidd making it with the Nets, twice.
 
Last edited:
Steve Nash! No matter how bad a player you are Steve could make you look like a big dollar player night after night because of his assist skills. A guy that literally made everyone around him look better than they really are.

Also he's the only player to shoot 90-50-40 four times. Statistically he's the greatest shooter the NBA has had.
 
If I'm building a team right now, I'd pick Nash. His style of ball fits very well in 2016
 
Back
Top