But still, CeltsFan84 - they lost that series 4 - 1. To me, Steve Nash wouldn't have helped them much.
The reason they lost to OKC is that Perk and Serge neutralized LA's Twin towers - their strength.
Plus, I just don't see where Nash counters the fact that LA still has no answer for Harden, Durant, and Westbrook.
If anything, LA just got weaker on their perimeter. Their offense may run better, and they will still defeat the weaker teams out there, but once they meet a real team in a series (OKC or Spurs), I just don't see how adding Steve Nash past his prime helps them out.
I see where you are coming from, but I think you are severely undervaluing a past his prime Steve Nash. Here is one example of his impact on an offense. Here are the team leaders in FG% this season:
1. San Antonio, 2. Denver, 3. OKC, 4. Miami, 5. Boston, 6. Phoenix
Yes, his team finished 6th this year, despite an absolutely terrible supporting cast. You may remember teams 1, 3, 4, and 5 from this year's conference finals.
The solution is that you win in different ways. They may still have weak areas against teams like OKC. But every team does. Remember when they used to defend pick and rolls against Parker and Duncan with Fisher and Shaq? And they were awful at it? And they never fixed it? And they won three championships anyway. The HEAT didn't fix their inside play. They were domianted this year by Roy Hibbert and then by KG. They won in spite of it.
Because overwhelming talent wins out. Nash and Dwight would give them overwhelming talent. I'm not saying they'll win 82 games and sweep every round. But they are certainly a formidable contender. They've joined Miami, OKC, Chicago, San Antonio, and Boston in my view.
Topic: Steve Nash to Lakers (sources reporting) (Read 38760 times)