Shanemansj13
Finger Poppin Dat Pussy
I would take Paul over Kidd. Not sure why I didnt when I had the chance.
I would take Paul over Kidd. Not sure why I didnt when I had the chance.
Here's the thing about Kidd, and I'm a Mavs fan, saw every game he played in Dallas...you are right, he was a good shooter at the end, but no where near the all around player he was when he was younger, and the thing is, you can't have him both ways, when he was great, he couldn't shoot a lick
Yeah, that's all I was saying. The Kidd that would play great with Mailman, playing D, boarding and running the court is the guy that would break backboards if MJ passed to him out of a double...the one who could shoot couldn't do those other things. If Kidd could have shot as well at the start of his career as he did at the end, he would be in the argument with Magic and Oscar for GOAT PGYeah that's definitely true. I would say his peak years as a player where he was best and most effective was with the Nets. His shooting really started to come into form the latter half of his tenure there. So I think it's not completely unreasonable to consider him at the very least a threat and not a non-shooter.
Here's a funny thing...AI was 10X better than Mark Price, but with your squad, who would have been the perfect fit....of course, you just kicked my ass, so what do I know?I knew I should have traded AI for a PG. That was my only fault IMO
You remember the other one?
i always say that about Bonds, but people still consider him a good defensive player...Here's the thing about Kidd, and I'm a Mavs fan, saw every game he played in Dallas...you are right, he was a good shooter at the end, but no where near the all around player he was when he was younger, and the thing is, you can't have him both ways, when he was great, he couldn't shoot a lick
Yeah, that's a good analogyi always say that about Bonds, but people still consider him a good defensive player...