The NBA Finals start tomorrow, and you are the general manager/coach in this fantasy series.

In an excruciating turn of events, you lost your point guard in yesterday's massive media session. He got his leg caught in the mass of wires from television cameras and fell in the throng of media members as he was coming down off the podium in the corner of the gym (if you've ever seen this mess, you'd understand how this could happen). The consequence was a torn knee ligament in his knee.

Everyone is irate and the NBA humiliated.

Consequently, you get your choice of point guards for the series from all the non-competitors.

Two future Hall of Fame vets - Jason Kidd or Steve Nash; or two stars on the rise, Chris Paul and Deron Williams are on the list. Granted, Williams and Paul are only in their third season, but both are on the brink of greatness, and both Kidd (35 in March) and Nash (34 next month) are close but not quite on that slippery slope.

It's tough to justify Paul (22) or Williams (23) due to their lack of experience, but both are so explosive and do so many things well, it's worthy of discussion. Paul is smaller, slicker and quicker with his hands and the ball for the Hornets - similar to Nash - averaging 21.1 pts., shooting almost 49 percent from the field, 36 percent from long-range and .884 from the line, plus 10.4 assists and 2.4 steals. Meanwhile, Williams is bigger and stronger like Kidd, with a better long-range stroke than anybody but Nash - averaging 19.3 points, 9.2 assists, while shooting .517 from the field, .396 from 3-point range and .782 from the line.

It's a tossup between the two youngsters in a lot of ways because it's so early and they've yet to establish substantial playoff profiles. Would you pick one of them instead of the vets?

There's plenty to think about in the case of both Kidd and Nash. Kidd has played in 100 playoff games, including the 2002 and 2003 NBA Finals with the Nets. Nash has played in 97 postseason games, but has yet to make it to the NBA Finals has been to the conference finals with the Suns twice.

They are still the premiere passing point guards in the game today, making passing the ball on the break not a skill but an art form with either hand.

But they reach those moments from divergent angles and skill sets. Kidd is the triple-double king of this era with his ability to clean the boards, find his teammates and score when necessary. And while he has hit 3-pointers at a tolerable .333 pace, he has barely been a 40 percent field goal shooter in his career. What makes him special is his defense - strength and hands - better than any other point guard of the era with the exception of his childhood mentor Gary Payton.

Nash won back-to-back MVP awards in 2005 and 2006, taking the run-and-gun Suns to a new level of play and really creating an accelerated style the NBA hadn't seen in years. He is not only a spectacular passer, but one of the best shooting point guards in NBA history - shooting better than 50 percent from the field the past four seasons, nearly 47 percent from 3-point range and 90 percent from the free throw line. And while Kidd's Achilles' heel is his shooting and his knees, Nash is a sieve on defense with a reluctant back and shoulder issues. Oh, he has great hands, but his feel for the game is built for scoring, not preventing it.

My first reaction is to take Paul, having the best year of any point guard and leading the surprising Hornets to first place in the Southwest Division.

Or I could take Kidd because of his extraordinary ability to get the ball in so many different ways, and then make things easy for his teammates to score. The problem is what happens when he has to shoot it.

Or there's Nash ... if he can't get the ball to a teammate for an easy score, he can do it himself.

That leaves the ultimate question -- do you go with offense or defense? In most cases I'd go with defense, but in this one, at this moment, I'll take Paul. He has no playoff experience, but he has to start somewhere.