PDA

View Full Version : Is Allen Iverson a winner?



MoBASS
12-07-2008, 05:15 PM
First off I'll start by saying that I'm a big fan of Allen Iverson. I look at him as a true warrior and one of the most talented scorers in the league.

But I'm starting the wonder, is he really a winner?

After today's loss to the Knicks, the Pistons are under .500 with A.I. in the lineup. Now go ahead and look at someone like Chauncey Billups, who has turned his team around with leadership and defense, and how well Denver is playing.

Iverson's style of isolation offense (pass me the ball and get out of the way) has never won a championship. Think of all our recent champions: Boston, Detroit, San Antonio, the Lakers.. they were all about teamwork.

It looks to me like Iverson has to accept being just another piece of the puzzle, and that hasn't happened yet.

If he had, the Pistons wouldn't be under .500 with him in the lineup.

What's up with the Pistons?

Lakers4ItAll
12-07-2008, 05:19 PM
AI has Heart

MooseWithFleas
12-07-2008, 05:30 PM
AI is starting to finally lose a step (This is to all you critics who said he would slow down at 27 or 28 years old). Now he is 33 and he can't carry a team all by himself anymore. He needs to find his role with the Pistons and the Pistons need to be able to utilize him. From the game I saw vs the Sixers, there were many plays where he wasnt involved and just standing on the side. Both sides need to adapt and benefit from what both can provide each other. Iverson is STILL an explosive player who can get to the hoop any time he wants, but to think there wouldnt be growing pains with this new talent, is just silly.

Chronz
12-07-2008, 06:03 PM
Its really hard to build a winner around him but hes definitely a winner, the guy gives his all and his teammates always love him for it. That said he has been overrated throughout his career and his style of play was at times cancerous so I can understand the thread topic. The problem with AI is he keeps getting traded for TRUE Winners so when hes replaced people question his value. Any team that add AI is better for it, and not all of Detroits problems are his fault.

JayW_1023
12-07-2008, 06:17 PM
AI would be much more effective with the Pistons if he would accept a 6th man role and be a scorer off the bench.

Stuckey seems to be more fit for a balanced offense as starter to set the tone. If AI plays off the bench he can assert is role as a focal point of the offense better. Because that's how his game is best utilized throughout his career.

Iverson needs the ball in his hands to be effective...and if he becomes the sixth man he can do that matched up against the opponents second unit.

SteveNash
12-07-2008, 06:24 PM
AI is a loser, always has been always will be. He has to have a team built around him and can't accommodate players that don't fit his style.

He can't become a piece of the puzzle because his defense is horrible, his offense is terrible, and his attitude is dreadful.

Pistons should just waive the loser and be done with him. Let him ruin some other team.

pippsux
12-07-2008, 06:25 PM
He has heart and in my opinion, the greatest little man of all time.....but, his style of play is not a winning style. Going 1 and 5 never got it done and the one coach who got the best out of him and had the right players around him, Larry Brown, he was always battling with him.

He is a great player, HOF, but not a winner.

Hustla23
12-07-2008, 06:26 PM
AI would be much more effective with the Pistons if he would accept a 6th man role and be a scorer off the bench.

Stuckey seems to be more fit for a balanced offense as starter to set the tone. If AI plays off the bench he can assert is role as a focal point of the offense better. Because that's how his game is best utilized throughout his career.

Iverson needs the ball in his hands to be effective...and if he becomes the sixth man he can do that matched up against the opponents second unit.

Excellent post. I agree completely.


Looks like the only thing Detroit got out of this deal was cap space...

MooseWithFleas
12-07-2008, 06:26 PM
AI is a loser, always has been always will be. He has to have a team built around him and can't accommodate players that don't fit his style.

He can't become a piece of the puzzle because his defense is horrible, his offense is terrible, and his attitude is dreadful.

Pistons should just waive the loser and be done with him. Let him ruin some other team.

Credibility lost. Third leading scorer (by average) of all time.

SteveNash
12-07-2008, 06:36 PM
Credibility lost. Third leading scorer (by average) of all time.

He should drop out of the top 10 when his career is done. That's the problem with comparing active players to players whose careers are already done.

Besides that, who else in the top scorers list have shot as poorly has AI has?

COLH
12-07-2008, 06:43 PM
AI is starting to finally lose a step (This is to all you critics who said he would slow down at 27 or 28 years old). Now he is 33 and he can't carry a team all by himself anymore. He needs to find his role with the Pistons and the Pistons need to be able to utilize him. From the game I saw vs the Sixers, there were many plays where he wasnt involved and just standing on the side. Both sides need to adapt and benefit from what both can provide each other. Iverson is STILL an explosive player who can get to the hoop any time he wants, but to think there wouldnt be growing pains with this new talent, is just silly.

Yeah I agree wit you man. Incorporating AI's rare talent into Detroit's system will be tough at first but they'll figure it out. Pistons are historically better being the underdogs.

MooseWithFleas
12-07-2008, 06:45 PM
Well Havlichek is around him give or take 1 percent.
Bob Cousy got 17,000 points shooting 37.5% :laugh2:

Iverson is 18th leading scorer of ALL TIME and he will most likely get to top 10 by end of career. Even if he dropped to 11th scoring average leader of all time, that doesn't qualify his offense as great... surely it isnt terrible...

Who else on the scoring list is that small???? The smaller in size you are, you are naturally going to have a bit lower of a shooting %

The Answer3
12-07-2008, 06:45 PM
He should drop out of the top 10 when his career is done. That's the problem with comparing active players to players whose careers are already done.

Besides that, who else in the top scorers list have shot as poorly has AI has?


Elgin Baylor. Top 5 all-time in PPG averages 43%.

The Answer3
12-07-2008, 06:47 PM
He has heart and in my opinion, the greatest little man of all time.....but, his style of play is not a winning style. Going 1 and 5 never got it done and the one coach who got the best out of him and had the right players around him, Larry Brown, he was always battling with him.

He is a great player, HOF, but not a winner.

I agree. Iverson's game is really hard to build around. He needs to dominate the ball to be effective. The 01 Philly cast complimented his game in the best way possible. Great defensive players who didn't need the ball and could spot up and hit the J.

SeoulBeatz
12-07-2008, 07:09 PM
He should drop out of the top 10 when his career is done. That's the problem with comparing active players to players whose careers are already done.

Besides that, who else in the top scorers list have shot as poorly has AI has?

A.I's career shooting % is only 1.5 percent lower than Kobe Bryants.

Hes a scorer, he HAS to shoot alot.

do some research before u post dumb comments

Lakersfan2483
12-07-2008, 07:23 PM
The offense has to revolve around Iverson for him to be successful, he seems to struggle when it's not going through him. As far as him being a winner, he is in some regards, but I don't like his attitude regarding practice. He's also lost a step or two, he's definitely not the same Iverson of old. Iverson seems to flourish in a system similar to what he played under in Philadelphia.

Lakersfan2483
12-07-2008, 07:25 PM
I agree. Iverson's game is really hard to build around. He needs to dominate the ball to be effective. The 01 Philly cast complimented his game in the best way possible. Great defensive players who didn't need the ball and could spot up and hit the J.

Agree.

Daze9900
12-07-2008, 07:28 PM
I can't believe the stuff I'm reading. Allen Iverson is a winner period. He hasn't won an nba championship but that shouldn't define his career. He did carry that poor sixers team on his back to win the eastern conference title only to fall to the mighty lakers at the time. Scorers always get the blame when their teams don't do well. People like Allen Iverson, Tracy Mcgrady, Vince Carter are winners. I know there are scorers that dont really help teams win like Jamal Crawford [great guy though] but AI has heart he is a winner period.

07MVPPatBurrell
12-07-2008, 07:36 PM
AI is a loser, always has been always will be. He has to have a team built around him and can't accommodate players that don't fit his style.

He can't become a piece of the puzzle because his defense is horrible, his offense is terrible, and his attitude is dreadful.

Pistons should just waive the loser and be done with him. Let him ruin some other team.

what an idiot. i could have said the same about nash before he got to the suns at a similar age. except nash's offense and defense really did suck back then. iverson has single-handedly led a team to the championship game. and would have won it if he didn't have to play shaq/kobe

JJ81
12-07-2008, 07:50 PM
He's a cancer

SteveNash
12-07-2008, 08:09 PM
Well Havlichek is around him give or take 1 percent.
Bob Cousy got 17,000 points shooting 37.5% :laugh2:

Iverson is 18th leading scorer of ALL TIME and he will most likely get to top 10 by end of career. Even if he dropped to 11th scoring average leader of all time, that doesn't qualify his offense as great... surely it isnt terrible...

Who else on the scoring list is that small???? The smaller in size you are, you are naturally going to have a bit lower of a shooting %

His offense is terrible because he concerned with his own numbers instead of the teams numbers. And his own numbers are crap when you look at how inefficient he has been. I'm sure more players would be up there with Iverson if they wanted to play selfishly their entire career like AI has.

Who cares if he's small. If he's so small maybe he should stop taking so many bad shots. Isiah Thomas, Calvin Murphy, Nat Archibald all could have scored more if they wanted to, but they were more concerned with win then scoring.


Elgin Baylor. Top 5 all-time in PPG averages 43%.

Still above AI and Baylor was a loser too. LA goes on a huge winning streak destroying the previous record, breaks the most wins in a season record that ended up standing for 25 years and wins their first title in 2 decades.


A.I's career shooting % is only 1.5 percent lower than Kobe Bryants.

Hes a scorer, he HAS to shoot alot.

do some research before u post dumb comments

Kobe's career shooting % is 3 percentage points higher than AIs. And that's not taking into account Kobe being the more complete offensive player with a better team oriented game, better three point shooting and better FT shooting.


I can't believe the stuff I'm reading. Allen Iverson is a winner period. He hasn't won an nba championship but that shouldn't define his career. He did carry that poor sixers team on his back to win the eastern conference title only to fall to the mighty lakers at the time. Scorers always get the blame when their teams don't do well. People like Allen Iverson, Tracy Mcgrady, Vince Carter are winners. I know there are scorers that dont really help teams win like Jamal Crawford [great guy though] but AI has heart he is a winner period.


what an idiot. i could have said the same about nash before he got to the suns at a similar age. except nash's offense and defense really did suck back then. iverson has single-handedly led a team to the championship game. and would have won it if he didn't have to play shaq/kobe

I'll comment on both of these since they're both trying to defend Iverson's legacy while trashing the players AI played with.

AI "carried" a team in an extremely weak Eastern Conference.

AI was so horrible he could never defend his own man and had to have Eric Snow defend whoever AI was supposed to be guarding. AI being all of 6 feet should have learned some PG skills, however AI was more concerned about scoring instead of winning, so Snow had to run the point for AI aswell. AI was a terrible defender who cared only about his numbers and tried to go for steals far to often, gave up on defending far too often and had to rely on Dikembe to help nullify all of AIs mistakes on the defensive end.

AI had a great coach in Larry Brown but wasn't concerned with anything that would make the team better because practice isn't important to him as shown recently with Detroit.

In the end Philadelphia made one decent playoff runs barely getting by 3 mediocre teams to end up getting dominated by the one good team in the playoffs.

He couldn't even win a gold medal on a team full of all stars, just a disgrace to America. That just shows how selfish and how much of a loser he is.

MooseWithFleas
12-07-2008, 08:16 PM
His offense is terrible because he concerned with his own numbers instead of the teams numbers. And his own numbers are crap when you look at how inefficient he has been. I'm sure more players would be up there with Iverson if they wanted to play selfishly their entire career like AI has.

Who cares if he's small. If he's so small maybe he should stop taking so many bad shots. Isiah Thomas, Calvin Murphy, Nat Archibald all could have scored more if they wanted to, but they were more concerned with win then scoring.



Still above AI and Baylor was a loser too. LA goes on a huge winning streak destroying the previous record, breaks the most wins in a season record that ended up standing for 25 years and wins their first title in 2 decades.



Kobe's career shooting % is 3 percentage points higher than AIs. And that's not taking into account Kobe being the more complete offensive player with a better team oriented game, better three point shooting and better FT shooting.





I'll comment on both of these since they're both trying to defend Iverson's legacy while trashing the players AI played with.

AI "carried" a team in an extremely weak Eastern Conference.

AI was so horrible he could never defend his own man and had to have Eric Snow defend whoever AI was supposed to be guarding. AI being all of 6 feet should have learned some PG skills, however AI was more concerned about scoring instead of winning, so Snow had to run the point for AI aswell. AI was a terrible defender who cared only about his numbers and tried to go for steals far to often, gave up on defending far too often and had to rely on Dikembe to help nullify all of AIs mistakes on the defensive end.

AI had a great coach in Larry Brown but wasn't concerned with anything that would make the team better because practice isn't important to him as shown recently with Detroit.

In the end Philadelphia made one decent playoff runs(grammar) barely getting by 3 mediocre teams to end up getting dominated by the one good team in the playoffs.

He couldn't even win a gold medal on a team full of all stars, just a disgrace to America. That just shows how selfish and how much of a loser he is.

Everything I bolded is a lie.

Epic Fail.

pd7631
12-07-2008, 08:22 PM
If you want to know what kind of player AI is, then all you have to do is look back at how he was received by the fans in his first game back in Philly. Everything you need to know about the guy can be found in that moment.

SeoulBeatz
12-07-2008, 08:26 PM
Everything I bolded is a lie.

Epic Fail.

haha u know whats funny moose? this guy is bashing AI for being a "loser" but if u went by his standards, Steve Nash is a bigger loser than AI will ever be.

He's just an Iverson hater and there will always be tons of those.

people hate AI cus hes so called selfish, i mean, i wouldnt argue that, if he didnt average 6+ apg for his career, u have no argument there.


People find all sorts of reasons to hate on AI and its pretty amusing to me because they always use the same argument, "he's a poor shooter"

well he is shooting 42% for his career, and for a guy who played the 2 and went up against guards 6+ inches taller than him, yeah, maybe it would be a litttleeee bit harder to make shots dont you think?

He can make excuses all he wants but AI has taken his team to the finals all by himself, and he even took a game from the lakers and has led the sixers to numerous playoff runs over his career.

The Answer3
12-07-2008, 08:32 PM
He's a cancer


Nice post. :rolleyes:

Beno7500
12-07-2008, 08:43 PM
Not really. Look at Denver, they had a boost when he left and they still do.

Beno7500
12-07-2008, 08:43 PM
He's a cancer

Just Like Ron Artest.

The Answer3
12-07-2008, 08:48 PM
His offense is terrible because he concerned with his own numbers instead of the teams numbers. And his own numbers are crap when you look at how inefficient he has been. I'm sure more players would be up there with Iverson if they wanted to play selfishly their entire career like AI has.

Who cares if he's small. If he's so small maybe he should stop taking so many bad shots. Isiah Thomas, Calvin Murphy, Nat Archibald all could have scored more if they wanted to, but they were more concerned with win then scoring.



Still above AI and Baylor was a loser too. LA goes on a huge winning streak destroying the previous record, breaks the most wins in a season record that ended up standing for 25 years and wins their first title in 2 decades.



Kobe's career shooting % is 3 percentage points higher than AIs. And that's not taking into account Kobe being the more complete offensive player with a better team oriented game, better three point shooting and better FT shooting.





I'll comment on both of these since they're both trying to defend Iverson's legacy while trashing the players AI played with.

AI "carried" a team in an extremely weak Eastern Conference.

AI was so horrible he could never defend his own man and had to have Eric Snow defend whoever AI was supposed to be guarding. AI being all of 6 feet should have learned some PG skills, however AI was more concerned about scoring instead of winning, so Snow had to run the point for AI aswell. AI was a terrible defender who cared only about his numbers and tried to go for steals far to often, gave up on defending far too often and had to rely on Dikembe to help nullify all of AIs mistakes on the defensive end.

AI had a great coach in Larry Brown but wasn't concerned with anything that would make the team better because practice isn't important to him as shown recently with Detroit.

In the end Philadelphia made one decent playoff runs barely getting by 3 mediocre teams to end up getting dominated by the one good team in the playoffs.

He couldn't even win a gold medal on a team full of all stars, just a disgrace to America. That just shows how selfish and how much of a loser he is.


1. If AI was concerned about his numbers, he'd be taking 25 shots in Detroit. Dude's averaging 15. He has clearly stated he's willing to sacrifice his stats. Don't bring up Philly. He was always surrounded with garbage offensive players. He had to take all the shots. Their whole offense was generated around Iverson. He was the primary ball handler. Unless you think Eric Snow had the ability to drop 50 on 60%.

2. I agree. He takes bad shots. No argument there.

3. Baylor's exactly at 43. AI's at 42.6. You can round that to 43 so it's pretty much the same. And I find it amusing that you call Baylor a loser. Dude went to the finals 7 times and fell short to the Celtics dynasty.

4. No argument there.

5. Yes, he carried a garbage offensive team. With heavy emphasis on garbage. And I like how you say weak.They took a game from the almight Laker team that swept the WCF. Also, the Sixers would've had a better record if it wasn't for Dikembe. They were 41-14 without him. He's a poor defender because of his size. And it's not like he didn't try. Yes, he should have been a PG on a team that had no scorers. His role was too score. Comedy. Philly got to the finals. Unlike Nash, who had loads of talent on his team and failed.

6. Please, you're deluded if you blame AI for the Olympic failure. It was Larry Brown. He didn't play the rookies much and focused on defense when the team had no defensive strengths. He didn't tell them to dominate and be aggresive. I like how you call him a loser.

Sox Appeal
12-07-2008, 08:59 PM
I'm going to say no, Allen Iverson is NOT a winner. Even though I do believe Allen Iverson is one of the hardest working players in NBA history, I don't think he's a winner. Look at the teams he's been on. In Philli (I know, those teams where PATHETIC, but still..) he was only able to make one deep run with that team, and even then, he was only able to win 1 game in the Finals. And then when he gets traded to Denver and he's surrounded with some talent, he doesn't take advantage, and he never even makes it out of the First round. A winner, would have taken advantage of the talent he was surrounded with in Denver, AI didn't do that. Now, after Denver trades him, they look like a team that's capable of winning the West.

So AI isn't a winner in my book.

Hawkeye15
12-07-2008, 09:00 PM
Love Iverson. He is a winner. He plays as hard as he can every single minute. Name me a player who is 5'11", 160 lbs that is as tough as Mr AI

MooseWithFleas
12-07-2008, 09:20 PM
I'm going to say no, Allen Iverson is NOT a winner. Even though I do believe Allen Iverson is one of the hardest working players in NBA history, I don't think he's a winner. Look at the teams he's been on. In Philli (I know, those teams where PATHETIC, but still..) he was only able to make one deep run with that team, and even then, he was only able to win 1 game in the Finals. And then when he gets traded to Denver and he's surrounded with some talent, he doesn't take advantage, and he never even makes it out of the First round. A winner, would have taken advantage of the talent he was surrounded with in Denver, AI didn't do that. Now, after Denver trades him, they look like a team that's capable of winning the West.

So AI isn't a winner in my book.

That was with George Lynch (the teams best defender) out the entire series. With an Aaron McKie (The teams best shooter) not able to lift his arm above his chest without excrutiating pain (shoulder injury). With eric snow who had a hobbled leg, and Iverson himself who had numerous injuries. The team played 18 playoff games before reaching the Lakers (who had 11), and the injuries took a HUGE toll on them. So to win 1 game was amazing. They almost pulled off game 2 if it wasn't for Robert Horry. Going up 2-0 and headed back to Philly may have been a different story, but probably not because the team was just simply gassed. Too many injuries, too much pain and exhaustion through a tough road to the finals. Just like Rocky, went the distance, but couldn't overcome the overwhelming odds... :sigh: PHILS WORLD CHAMPS BABY!!! :D

JayW_1023
12-07-2008, 09:24 PM
^^^

I remember Snow playing on a broken foot that series. I wish players nowadays were that tough.

At this point in AI's career though I would really welcome that sixth man role off the bench...the Pistons have enough balance and firepower in their starting unit anyway.

COLH
12-07-2008, 10:41 PM
I'm going to say no, Allen Iverson is NOT a winner. Even though I do believe Allen Iverson is one of the hardest working players in NBA history, I don't think he's a winner. Look at the teams he's been on. In Philli (I know, those teams where PATHETIC, but still..) he was only able to make one deep run with that team, and even then, he was only able to win 1 game in the Finals. And then when he gets traded to Denver and he's surrounded with some talent, he doesn't take advantage, and he never even makes it out of the First round. A winner, would have taken advantage of the talent he was surrounded with in Denver, AI didn't do that. Now, after Denver trades him, they look like a team that's capable of winning the West.
So AI isn't a winner in my book.

Furthermore, in Denver they didnt have a true point guard, and AI really needs a true point guard to be effective. Moreover Denver played afwul defense (and dont be blaming it entirely on AI because they had poor overall team defense). And Finally AI didnt get to play much with Nene, in which he was injured/ill the majority of last season, and only played with AI half a season on the first season AI got there.

So you see, AI was never surrounded with a complete team, therefore it isn't his fault that he did not win in Philly or Denver.

SteveNash
12-07-2008, 11:12 PM
haha u know whats funny moose? this guy is bashing AI for being a "loser" but if u went by his standards, Steve Nash is a bigger loser than AI will ever be.

He's just an Iverson hater and there will always be tons of those.

people hate AI cus hes so called selfish, i mean, i wouldnt argue that, if he didnt average 6+ apg for his career, u have no argument there.


People find all sorts of reasons to hate on AI and its pretty amusing to me because they always use the same argument, "he's a poor shooter"

well he is shooting 42% for his career, and for a guy who played the 2 and went up against guards 6+ inches taller than him, yeah, maybe it would be a litttleeee bit harder to make shots dont you think?

He can make excuses all he wants but AI has taken his team to the finals all by himself, and he even took a game from the lakers and has led the sixers to numerous playoff runs over his career.

And how is Nash a bigger loser than AI?

Iverson gets 6 assists because he hogs the ball, he'll try and try to score then give it up to someone else with the shot clock winding down. Or he'll find himself under the basket with nowhere to go and give it up then. Assists measuring a player as a poing guard is stupid.

And stop bringing up AI's size. If it was so difficult for him to get his shot off, maybe he should, you know stop taking so many shots? Maybe become a real point guard. No he's too stupid and selfish for that.


1. If AI was concerned about his numbers, he'd be taking 25 shots in Detroit. Dude's averaging 15. He has clearly stated he's willing to sacrifice his stats. Don't bring up Philly. He was always surrounded with garbage offensive players. He had to take all the shots. Their whole offense was generated around Iverson. He was the primary ball handler. Unless you think Eric Snow had the ability to drop 50 on 60%.

2. I agree. He takes bad shots. No argument there.

3. Baylor's exactly at 43. AI's at 42.6. You can round that to 43 so it's pretty much the same. And I find it amusing that you call Baylor a loser. Dude went to the finals 7 times and fell short to the Celtics dynasty.

4. No argument there.

5. Yes, he carried a garbage offensive team. With heavy emphasis on garbage. And I like how you say weak.They took a game from the almight Laker team that swept the WCF. Also, the Sixers would've had a better record if it wasn't for Dikembe. They were 41-14 without him. He's a poor defender because of his size. And it's not like he didn't try. Yes, he should have been a PG on a team that had no scorers. His role was too score. Comedy. Philly got to the finals. Unlike Nash, who had loads of talent on his team and failed.

6. Please, you're deluded if you blame AI for the Olympic failure. It was Larry Brown. He didn't play the rookies much and focused on defense when the team had no defensive strengths. He didn't tell them to dominate and be aggresive. I like how you call him a loser.

1. His problem is that he's never cared to win. He doesn't know how to play unselfishly. Taking 15 shots isn't an accomplishment for most players but I guess it's a huge step for AI. Even though he's playing terribly and his team is not only losing, but losing to horrible teams. You can argue that it will take some time to adjust to a new team, but then you look at Billups and realize AI is just set in his ways and is just too stupid to do anything right on the court.

3. Baylor was a loser, he played in the weaker conference, and he had Jerry West to make the clutch plays and win games.

5. They were garbage because AI wasn't a playmakers. You try standing around watching AI dribble the ball trying to make plays for himself, and if you're lucky you might get the ball 1 or 2 times in a quarter. See how good your offense is then. Teams Nash has beat that were better than the Bucks team Philadelphai beat to get to the Finals.:
'01 Jazz
'02 Timberwolves
'03 Blazers
'03 Kings
'05 Grizzlies
'05 Mavs
'06 Lakers
'06 Clippers
'07 Lakers

Just look at Jason Kidd. He's not a great offensive player in terms of FG% or PPG, but he can move to the East, make it to back to back Finals appearances with ****** teams, because he makes players around him better, unlike AI who makes players worse.

6. What rookies should he have played, Carmelo was terrible. I can't remember LeBron doing much. I know he did play Wade a lot for a rookie, probably because Wade was the smartest player of the 3 rookies at the time. I do remember AI getting killed by the likes of Carlos Arroyo. I remember AI shooting poorly and making bad decisions. I remember Stephon Marbury of all people having to bail the US against Spain. I remember yet another poor shooting night from AI when it mattered most against Argentina.


Furthermore, in Denver they didnt have a true point guard, and AI really needs a true point guard to be effective. Moreover Denver played afwul defense (and dont be blaming it entirely on AI because they had poor overall team defense). And Finally AI didnt get to play much with Nene, in which he was injured/ill the majority of last season, and only played with AI half a season on the first season AI got there.

So you see, AI was never surrounded with a complete team, therefore it isn't his fault that he did not win in Philly or Denver.

Oh I see, AI needs Nene and a real poing guard, even though he's 6 foot, been in the league 10 years and is still not smart enough to run the point. What AI needs to do to become a winner:

Lose the attitude
Stop taking so many bad shots
Get a jumpshot
Figure out how to run an offense
Learn how to play good defense, stop looking at the ball all the time trying to grab a steal
Give the ball up to players that are better than you (Rip, Tay, Amir, Sheed, Stuckey, Maxiell, Afflalo, Kwame)
Go to practice
Retire we're better off without you

ink
12-07-2008, 11:16 PM
Answer to the OP: no. If he was we would have seen it by now. He produces stats.

MooseWithFleas
12-07-2008, 11:21 PM
And how is Nash a bigger loser than AI?

Iverson gets 6 assists because he hogs the ball, he'll try and try to score then give it up to someone else with the shot clock winding down. Or he'll find himself under the basket with nowhere to go and give it up then. Assists measuring a player as a poing guard is stupid.

And stop bringing up AI's size. If it was so difficult for him to get his shot off, maybe he should, you know stop taking so many shots? Maybe become a real point guard. No he's too stupid and selfish for that.



1. His problem is that he's never cared to win. He doesn't know how to play unselfishly. Taking 15 shots isn't an accomplishment for most players but I guess it's a huge step for AI. Even though he's playing terribly and his team is not only losing, but losing to horrible teams. You can argue that it will take some time to adjust to a new team, but then you look at Billups and realize AI is just set in his ways and is just too stupid to do anything right on the court.

3. Baylor was a loser, he played in the weaker conference, and he had Jerry West to make the clutch plays and win games.

5. They were garbage because AI wasn't a playmakers. You try standing around watching AI dribble the ball trying to make plays for himself, and if you're lucky you might get the ball 1 or 2 times in a quarter. See how good your offense is then. Teams Nash has beat that were better than the Bucks team Philadelphai beat to get to the Finals.:
'01 Jazz
'02 Timberwolves
'03 Blazers
'03 Kings
'05 Grizzlies
'05 Mavs
'06 Lakers
'06 Clippers
'07 Lakers

Just look at Jason Kidd. He's not a great offensive player in terms of FG% or PPG, but he can move to the East, make it to back to back Finals appearances with ****** teams, because he makes players around him better, unlike AI who makes players worse.

6. What rookies should he have played, Carmelo was terrible. I can't remember LeBron doing much. I know he did play Wade a lot for a rookie, probably because Wade was the smartest player of the 3 rookies at the time. I do remember AI getting killed by the likes of Carlos Arroyo. I remember AI shooting poorly and making bad decisions. I remember Stephon Marbury of all people having to bail the US against Spain. I remember yet another poor shooting night from AI when it mattered most against Argentina.



Oh I see, AI needs Nene and a real poing guard, even though he's 6 foot, been in the league 10 years and is still not smart enough to run the point. What AI needs to do to become a winner:

Lose the attitude
Stop taking so many bad shots
Get a jumpshot
Figure out how to run an offense
Learn how to play good defense, stop looking at the ball all the time trying to grab a steal
Give the ball up to players that are better than you (Rip, Tay, Amir, Sheed, Stuckey, Maxiell, Afflalo, Kwame)
Go to practice
Retire we're better off without you

Man... all that for an... EPIC FAIL.

SeoulBeatz
12-07-2008, 11:39 PM
Man... all that for an... EPIC FAIL.

lol i know the guy is rediculous


STEVE NASH, i bolded this so u would read this particular bit.
A.I is a shooting guard, and was STELLAR at Georgetown for being a SG, thats why he went #1 in the 1996 draft to be a SHOOTING GUARD, and he was SOOO GOOD, because of his size.

Why the hell would he change to be a strictly pure passer when what he was good at is SCORING?

does that make any sense to u steve nash? should he have changed and ruined his game to please people like you?


What player in NBA history who was a #1 pick swithced up their style of play completely in the NBA for no apparent reason? i'll wait....

none

your just finding reasons to hate on AI with no logic behind them.


Jason Kidd is soo good because hes a great overall player and is good at what he does which is passing and ballhandling.


Your boy Steve Nash is a great passer and thats what he brings to a team, but if a team needed him to be a dominant scorer... well that wouldnt make any sense now would it because he is a passer! he grew up as a POINT GUARD, and thats what he is the NBA, and thats why he succeeds. he would never and SHOULD never switch to being a SHOOTING GUARD, because that doesnt suit his style of play and what makes him soo good.

u see what im getting at here STEVENASH?

why the **** would Iverson switch up his style. teams wouldnt want him to be a distributor because thats not his style of play. Hes a scorer, hes been a scorer his whole life, watch some mixtapes of when he was younger, hes beena scorer his whole god damn life, why would he switch?

ur point is just rediculous.
plain rediculous.


And dont say "Oh well... Iverson is small so he should play his position as a Point Guard, cus point guards are supposed to be small". Are you that narrowminded and old school? like 50's and 60's old school?

Um, ever heard of Charles Barkley? The dude was 6'6" and played PF, should he have switced to SG during his career because it better suited his height? No. He had the mindset of a power bigman and he played into that mind set, and thats why he was SUCH a great player before he got all ******** and ****.

Iverson is soo good because he is a great scorer who uses his speed and quickness as an advantage for him to meneuver and penetrate to the basket. And he hustles all 48 minutes no matter what the importance of the game... not a practice... but during THE GAMES, when it COUNTS, he gives his all.

so why the **** should he switch to being a point guard when he has a great skillset as a scorer?

god damn.

Mrphilly
12-08-2008, 12:06 AM
And how is Nash a bigger loser than AI?
Because Nash has never been as deep in the playoffs as Iverson.


Iverson gets 6 assists because he hogs the ball, he'll try and try to score then give it up to someone else with the shot clock winding down.

No matter which way you slice it, its still an assist. There is no such thing as a bad assist.




And stop bringing up AI's size. If it was so difficult for him to get his shot off, maybe he should, you know stop taking so many shots? Maybe become a real point guard. No he's too stupid and selfish for that.

So because its difficult to get a shot off, he should quit trying? Is that how you were raised? If so, you may be the loser.

You say he should become a real point guard. So He should stop doing what he does best. That is why you are not a coach. You would have your best scorer passing the ball to inferior players.

1.
His problem is that he's never cared to win. He doesn't know how to play unselfishly. Taking 15 shots isn't an accomplishment for most players but I guess it's a huge step for AI. Even though he's playing terribly and his team is not only losing, but losing to horrible teams. You can argue that it will take some time to adjust to a new team, but then you look at Billups and realize AI is just set in his ways and is just too stupid to do anything right on the court.

So why is he out there playing harder than everybody else, if its not win. I guess its his ADHD.


5.
They were garbage because AI wasn't a playmakers. You try standing around watching AI dribble the ball trying to make plays for himself, and if you're lucky you might get the ball 1 or 2 times in a quarter. See how good your offense is then. Teams Nash has beat that were better than the Bucks team Philadelphai beat to get to the Finals.:
'01 Jazz
'02 Timberwolves
'03 Blazers
'03 Kings
'05 Grizzlies
'05 Mavs
'06 Lakers
'06 Clippers
'07 Lakers
How many finals appearances came out of those win???? Ill wait...

J
ust look at Jason Kidd. He's not a great offensive player in terms of FG% or PPG, but he can move to the East, make it to back to back Finals appearances with ****** teams, because he makes players around him better, unlike AI who makes players worse.

So when AI makes it to the finals, its a weak conference, but when Kidd gets there its because he made his team better. You lips must be on your azz, because that is where these comments are coming from.

6.
What rookies should he have played, Carmelo was terrible. I can't remember LeBron doing much.
How do you know, if they didnt play???


Oh I see, AI needs Nene and a real poing guard, even though he's 6 foot, been in the league 10 years
You said stop bring up his height, but now you are saying because he is 6ft he should be a point guard. When we all know he is a scoring guard.



Learn how to play good defense, stop looking at the ball all the time trying to grab a steal

Give the ball up to players that are better than you (Rip, Tay, Amir, Sheed, Stuckey, Maxiell, Afflalo, Kwame)
Seriously????

Plz stop going back and forth with this loser. Until his namesake wins anything, he cant call anybody a loser. He obviously cant recognize a loser. How did Nash perform when he was in the finals? Ill wait...
You obviously dont have a clue, so there will be no more responses to your non-sense.

theuuord
12-08-2008, 12:36 AM
lol @ Iverson being inefficient

There are very few players who have the ability to be as efficient as Iverson while using as many possessions as he does.
He is definitely a talented offensive player.

ntat
12-08-2008, 12:37 AM
A.I's career shooting % is only 1.5 percent lower than Kobe Bryants.

Hes a scorer, he HAS to shoot alot.

do some research before u post dumb comments
Really, HAS too? Kevin Martin took like 12 shots a game last year and scored 25 per....

La11
12-08-2008, 01:09 AM
Iverson will never win a championship.. He is a hog and likes the spot light on him. He could play on a team that concentrate playing like a team not individually. Detriot clearly did the trade for the future in 2 years and iverson is just buying time for them. They didnt want to trade off bilups for trash. Allen Iverson should look at what Kobe is doing and he'll learn something that me me me attitude wouldnt make players around you any better or be able to win a championship. Feel bad for Prince and Rip..you could tell by there body language that they dont like playing with AI

SteveNash
12-08-2008, 01:16 AM
Man... all that for an... EPIC FAIL.

Yes, Allen Iverson's career as a winner is EPIC FAIL.


lol i know the guy is ridiculous


STEVE NASH, i bolded this so u would read this particular bit.
A.I is a shooting guard, and was STELLAR at Georgetown for being a SG, thats why he went #1 in the 1996 draft to be a SHOOTING GUARD, and he was SOOO GOOD, because of his size.

Why the hell would he change to be a strictly pure passer when what he was good at is SCORING?

does that make any sense to u steve nash? should he have changed and ruined his game to please people like you?


What player in NBA history who was a #1 pick swithced up their style of play completely in the NBA for no apparent reason? i'll wait....

none

your just finding reasons to hate on AI with no logic behind them.


Jason Kidd is soo good because hes a great overall player and is good at what he does which is passing and ballhandling.


Your boy Steve Nash is a great passer and thats what he brings to a team, but if a team needed him to be a dominant scorer... well that wouldnt make any sense now would it because he is a passer! he grew up as a POINT GUARD, and thats what he is the NBA, and thats why he succeeds. he would never and SHOULD never switch to being a SHOOTING GUARD, because that doesnt suit his style of play and what makes him soo good.

u see what im getting at here STEVENASH?

why the **** would Iverson switch up his style. teams wouldnt want him to be a distributor because thats not his style of play. Hes a scorer, hes been a scorer his whole life, watch some mixtapes of when he was younger, hes beena scorer his whole god damn life, why would he switch?

ur point is just rediculous.
plain rediculous.


And dont say "Oh well... Iverson is small so he should play his position as a Point Guard, cus point guards are supposed to be small". Are you that narrowminded and old school? like 50's and 60's old school?

Um, ever heard of Charles Barkley? The dude was 6'6" and played PF, should he have switced to SG during his career because it better suited his height? No. He had the mindset of a power bigman and he played into that mind set, and thats why he was SUCH a great player before he got all ******** and ****.

Iverson is soo good because he is a great scorer who uses his speed and quickness as an advantage for him to meneuver and penetrate to the basket. And he hustles all 48 minutes no matter what the importance of the game... not a practice... but during THE GAMES, when it COUNTS, he gives his all.

so why the **** should he switch to being a point guard when he has a great skillset as a scorer?

god damn.

AI was and always will be a SG. What he also is is 6 feet tall. You've given him excuses as to why he shot such a terrible FG% throughout his career, but you still can't admit that he'd be a better player if he learned how to be a good PG instead of continuing to be a poor shooting shooting guard.

He isn't that good at scoring when he has such a low FG%.

He should have changed his game to make his team better. He had limited abilities as a SG, if he was a PG and if he was dedicated to team winning, he could have been elite. He chose himself over the team and the stigma of him being a loser is going to stick with him the rest of his career.

What other 6 foot shooting guard has been drafted number 1? Ralph Sampson comes to mind in terms of players switching positions. He did it to help the team, to accomodate Hakeem and he did well at it until he ran into injuries. AI's teammate Rodney Stuckey was a big time scorer in college playing SG and he's doing a much better job running the point in his second year than AI can after 10. There have been plenty of combo guards that came into the league that have end up doing a much better job playing the point than AI has. This is an AI problem, and you have to say that AI didn't really care that much about winning.

Jason Kidd is/was good because he cares more about winning, AI cares more about numbers and that's the point.

AI was never a dominant scorer. He was a streaky scorer who shot a horrible percentage. Furthermore, the coaches had to hide him defensively because he'd nullify any positive thing he did on offense with poor defense.

You can score and still be a distributor. Chris Paul puts up 20 a night while being a lot more efficient than AI. Billups was a scoring point guard but was still a much better PG than AI. You can score and still run an offense. AI can't because he doesn't have the skills or the will and that is why he's a loser.

AI should have picked up some(any) point guard skills because being 6 foot would always have made him a liability on the defensive end. You'd have to pair him up with a bigger point guard to run the the offense and defend the man AI should have been guarding as a SG. If you ever wanted to get anywhere. Barkley had the same problem defending players however, Barkley did play a more traditional role of PF a widebody, undersized rebounder with some kind of outside shot. The game changed more today with KG, Dirk, Bosh, etc. but that's mostly because those players don't want to defend opposing centers getting banged around all the time.

Iverson is soo bad because he's shown that he can't win. Even when put on good teams. He can't win because he doesn't care about practice, you know what would happen to a team that never practiced they'd be horrible. Of course he gives it his all on the court, but his all is getting his numbers. Now that he's looking at his career in the mirror and seeing how much of a loser he is, he wants to win a championship. The problem is that he doesn't know how because he never put in the time or the effort to be a team oriented player.

When you're 26 shoot below 40% and score over 30 PPG. You can no longer say you have a great skillset as a scorer.


Because Nash has never been as deep in the playoffs as Iverson.

So Allen Iverson is a bigger loser than Tyronn Lue?


No matter which way you slice it, its still an assist. There is no such thing as a bad assist.

Even if you want to argue AI's assist numbers, you can't argue his poor assist to turnover ratio.


So because its difficult to get a shot off, he should quit trying? Is that how you were raised? If so, you may be the loser.

You say he should become a real point guard. So He should stop doing what he does best. That is why you are not a coach. You would have your best scorer passing the ball to inferior players.

1.

Because he can't make shots, because he hasn't made shots his entire career is why he should stop trying. What was AI's excuse, that he couldn't get his shot off or that he took bad shots? Whatever the case, his FG% is indefensible.


So why is he out there playing harder than everybody else, if its not win. I guess its his ADHD.


5.

Fame and fortune.


How many finals appearances came out of those win???? Ill wait...

If you want to talk about eventual NBA champions. AI has won 2 games against the eventual NBA champions. Nash has won 4 games. And again, Nash went up against much better teams. How many series have the Bucks won since losing to AI. Raptors?


So when AI makes it to the finals, its a weak conference, but when Kidd gets there its because he made his team better. You lips must be on your azz, because that is where these comments are coming from.

Kidd did it back 2 back which is more impressive. The point was the same argument you were trying to make against Nash could have been used against Kidd if we were having this conversation before Kidd was traded. Making your point useless.

MooseWithFleas
12-08-2008, 01:27 AM
:yawn: you done being wrong yet?

AIMelo=KillaDUO
12-08-2008, 01:31 AM
you post said nothing about him NOT being a winner... other than he hasnt won a ring. which is true.

superkegger
12-08-2008, 01:46 AM
This entire argument hinges on the definition of what a "winner" is. Which I haven't seen defined as part of the question. So my answer is maybe.

ink
12-08-2008, 02:00 AM
This entire argument hinges on the definition of what a "winner" is. Which I haven't seen defined as part of the question. So my answer is maybe.

The answer is self-evident isn't it?

If it's about "me" he's won ROY, two All Star MVP's and a league MVP.

If it's about winning a championship he has nada.

superkegger
12-08-2008, 02:06 AM
The answer is self-evident isn't it?

If it's about "me" he's won ROY, two All Star MVP's and a league MVP.

If it's about winning a championship he has nada.

The Answer is self-evident isn't he. :laugh: (terrible joke(hell not even a joke, just a not funny play on words)) And is it gramatically correct to put () isnide another set of ()?

Right, among other individual acolades, and hes been to the Finals. He's won a lot in his time. And while he has been labeled as a selish, when his teams have made it to where they did, it was because of him, and when they failed, it was because of him. That's how its always going to be with AI.

Thing is, if hes labeled as a "non winner" so to speak, here are some other guys we can label as "not a winner":

John Stockton
Karl Malone
Patrick Ewing
Charles Barkley

I really don't see how, if you're going to say Iverson isn't a winner, how you can distinguish him at all from those 4 guys.

ink
12-08-2008, 02:15 AM
I really don't see how, if you're going to say Iverson isn't a winner, how you can distinguish him at all from those 4 guys.

Good point. Truthfully it's because, unlike those others, he plays an individual game that just can't win in a team sport. Stockton and Malone were the consummate tandem. They just had to go up against perhaps the only player in history who could do it alone -- and even he knew how to work with his team. Rather like Kobe can now. AI has never learned the lesson Kobe did about team -- and I don't judge AI personally for it. It's just not within his grasp as a player.

rosesbulls
12-08-2008, 02:16 AM
The Answer is self-evident isn't he. :laugh: (terrible joke(hell not even a joke, just a not funny play on words)) And is it gramatically correct to put () isnide another set of ()?

Right, among other individual acolades, and hes been to the Finals. He's won a lot in his time. And while he has been labeled as a selish, when his teams have made it to where they did, it was because of him, and when they failed, it was because of him. That's how its always going to be with AI.

Thing is, if hes labeled as a "non winner" so to speak, here are some other guys we can label as "not a winner":

John Stockton
Karl Malone
Patrick Ewing
Charles Barkley

I really don't see how, if you're going to say Iverson isn't a winner, how you can distinguish him at all from those 4 guys.

No...

You can add Steve nash and Jason kidd to that list as well as numerous other stars.

I don't consider Gary Paytons ring his ring so you could add him to the list as well. There are probably tons of other people who you could label as none winners. He had great seasons led his team to great indivisional records and has had succes in the play offs just not won it all.

If people are defining winner as winning a championship then that is imo just not a fair way to do decide it circumstances happen and Iversons one real good chance was against a unbelievable Lakers team

Edit: Though Stockton and Malone were at the wrong end of the prime of Basketball talent. Birds celtics, Magics Lakers, Jordans Bulls, Towards the end of Stockton nd Malone Shaqs Magic. there was just to much to unbelievable players at the time and they were the ladder of the ability. Same can sort of go for all of those guys. the 80s and 90s just had to much talent and Dynastys in both the west and east. That if you weren't a top 10 player all time (which Malone might be) then you never had a chance.

ink
12-08-2008, 02:22 AM
No...

You can add Steve nash and Jason kidd to that list as well as numerous other stars.

I don't consider Gary Paytons ring his ring so you could add him to the list as well. There are probably tons of other people who you could label as none winners. He had great seasons led his team to great indivisional records and has had succes in the play offs just not won it all.

If people are defining winner as winning a championship then that is imo just not a fair way to do decide it circumstances happen and Iversons one real good chance was against a unbelievable Lakers team

I don't think the definition is simply that he hasn't won a championship. It's that he plays an individual game that couldn't win under almost any circumstances. In his career, the farther along he gets, the farther away from a championship he is. His style didn't win in PHI. The reason was always that he wasn't surrounded with enough talent. His style didn't win in DENVER. He had some extraordinary talent to play with there. Now he's with DET and he was supposed to be the missing offensive piece of a well-tooled machine. Hasn't worked out that way so far.

ink
12-08-2008, 02:25 AM
I'm going to say no, Allen Iverson is NOT a winner. Even though I do believe Allen Iverson is one of the hardest working players in NBA history, I don't think he's a winner. Look at the teams he's been on. In Philli (I know, those teams where PATHETIC, but still..) he was only able to make one deep run with that team, and even then, he was only able to win 1 game in the Finals. And then when he gets traded to Denver and he's surrounded with some talent, he doesn't take advantage, and he never even makes it out of the First round. A winner, would have taken advantage of the talent he was surrounded with in Denver, AI didn't do that. Now, after Denver trades him, they look like a team that's capable of winning the West.

So AI isn't a winner in my book.

Completely agree.

superkegger
12-08-2008, 02:26 AM
Good point. Truthfully it's because, unlike those others, he plays an individual game that just can't win in a team sport. Stockton and Malone were the consummate tandem. They just had to go up against perhaps the only player in history who could do it alone -- and even he knew how to work with his team. Rather like Kobe can now. AI has never learned the lesson Kobe did about team -- and I don't judge AI personally for it. It's just not within his grasp as a player.

Yeah, thats true, and I don't disagree with you, and I knew that. But take Malone and Barkley for example. Both Won MVP's, but great players, both went to the finals, and both never won a ring.

Now granted they ran up against MJ, but you can say the same thing about Iverson, he ran up against one of the greatest inside outside duos of all time in Kobe and Shaq. So I find it hard to distinguish, because you can make excuses all day one way or another. But regardless of style of play and circumstances, when it comes down to it, the question is did they win? and the answer remains the same in all their cases, no.

So while there are different reasons why, and different styles of play, and different obstacles, the fact is, is that the accomplishments are still so strikingly similar and the failures oh so parallel.


No...

You can add Steve nash and Jason kidd to that list as well as numerous other stars.

I don't consider Gary Paytons ring his ring so you could add him to the list as well. There are probably tons of other people who you could label as none winners. He had great seasons led his team to great indivisional records and has had succes in the play offs just not won it all.

If people are defining winner as winning a championship then that is imo just not a fair way to do decide it circumstances happen and Iversons one real good chance was against a unbelievable Lakers team

Yeah, I kinda just went with retired HOFers for emphasis, because they can't win a ring, kidd and nash both still could.

And thats the thing, is the term winning, when calling players winners or not has to be defined.

But to me, Iverson is in that same group as Malone, Ewing, Stockton, Barkley among others, because if hes not a winner for not having a ring, they they're not winners either. If he is a winner for leading his team to the finals and accomplishing all he did as an individual, then he still belongs right there with malone, barkley and co.

ink
12-08-2008, 02:31 AM
So while there are different reasons why, and different styles of play, and different obstacles, the fact is, is that the accomplishments are still so strikingly similar and the failures oh so parallel.


The difference is the difference between Stockton and Carter, or Malone and McGrady. It's not simply that they didn't win it all. Stockton and Malone were team players in a team game. Carter and McGrady (and Iverson) are scorers who just aren't dominant enough to win as scorers alone.

superkegger
12-08-2008, 02:34 AM
The difference is the difference between Stockton and Carter, or Malone and McGrady. It's not simply that they didn't win it all. Stockton and Malone were team players in a team game. Carter and McGrady (and Iverson) are scorers who just aren't dominant enough to win as scorers alone.

woah woah woah.

why are we bringing carter and tmac into this? They're not even in the discussion.

ink
12-08-2008, 02:41 AM
woah woah woah.

why are we bringing carter and tmac into this? They're not even in the discussion.

I was just reading through the thread and they were brought up earlier.

They belong in the discussion as part of a generation of MJ wannabees that includes AI. It will be good for the sport when all of them retire because none of them has a chance of replicating what Jordan did. They're just not good enough or dominant enough, any of them, to dominate to the degree that MJ did. Hopefully, then, the game will revert back to the team sport it was meant to be.

In a way, MJ was actually bad for the sport. A generation of players and fans got a seriously ****ed up idea of what a "winner" really is. I don't know how many times I've heard the worn out cliches of "he put the team on his back" or "he can carry the team" or "he's clutch" used. That's all post-MJ and it's really kind of pathetic to hear that crap about a team sport.

You won't hear that in other team sports, and it's mainly because one athlete -- Michael Jordan -- was a freak of nature and history. AI ain't no Jordan, and he needed to adapt to the team sport to be a true winner.

superkegger
12-08-2008, 02:57 AM
I was just reading through the thread and they were brought up earlier.

They belong in the discussion as part of a generation of MJ wannabees that includes AI. It will be good for the sport when all of them retire because none of them has a chance of replicating what Jordan did. They're just not good enough or dominant enough, any of them, to dominate to the degree that MJ did. Hopefully, then, the game will revert back to the team sport it was meant to be.

In a way, MJ was actually bad for the sport. A generation of players and fans got a seriously ****ed up idea of what a "winner" really is. I don't know how many times I've heard the worn out cliches of "he put the team on his back" or "he can carry the team" or "he's clutch" used. That's all post-MJ and it's really kind of pathetic to hear that crap about a team sport.

You won't hear that in other team sports, and it's mainly because one athlete -- Michael Jordan -- was a freak of nature and history. AI ain't no Jordan, and he needed to adapt to the team sport to be a true winner.

I completely agree with you on the whole Jordan thing. But thats a different discussion for a different time.

But to me, iverson is on another level than Tmac and vince (career wise anyhow). What iverson accomplished personally and where he lead his team, is far beyond what Tmac and vince have accomplished, even combined.

Now, while writing this, I really think I get what you're saying though. The whole, his style forces the team around him to be forged in such a way (like his philly finals team) that it doesn't allow for success because Iverson, as good as he is, is not a dominant enough player to make it work.

And I agree with that,if thats what you're trying to say. But what I'm saying, is that despite that, I'm not sure that means he not a winner. I feel that way because even while stockton and malone playerd the quintessential team game, they didn't play it well enough to win it all. And even if that's how basketball was meant to be played, I cannot blame iverson for seeing a brand of basketball being played (mj) and imitating what he saw to the best of his ability.

ink
12-08-2008, 03:04 AM
I completely agree with you on the whole Jordan thing. But thats a different discussion for a different time.

But to me, iverson is on another level than Tmac and vince (career wise anyhow). What iverson accomplished personally and where he lead his team, is far beyond what Tmac and vince have accomplished, even combined.

Now, while writing this, I really think I get what you're saying though. The whole, his style forces the team around him to be forged in such a way (like his philly finals team) that it doesn't allow for success because Iverson, as good as he is, is not a dominant enough player to make it work.

And I agree with that,if thats what you're trying to say. But what I'm saying, is that despite that, I'm not sure that means he not a winner. I feel that way because even while stockton and malone playerd the quintessential team game, they didn't play it well enough to win it all. And even if that's how basketball was meant to be played, I cannot blame iverson for seeing a brand of basketball being played (mj) and imitating what he saw to the best of his ability.

Good discussion. That's exactly what I was getting at. I'm hoping that the MJ legacy fades and we start to see a completely team oriented game again. I love that game. No more trite comments like "he can put the team on his back". If Iverson could learn to work WITHIN a system -- like Kobe -- I'd give major props to him. But he hasn't. That's why I don't see AI as a winner. I think he has ultimately failed, ironically despite all the gaudy stats and personal achievements. He has spent an entire NBA career without coming to the realization that he can't do it alone.

superkegger
12-08-2008, 03:16 AM
Good discussion. That's exactly what I was getting at. I'm hoping that the MJ legacy fades and we start to see a completely team oriented game again. I love that game. No more trite comments like "he can put the team on his back". If Iverson could learn to work WITHIN a system -- like Kobe -- I'd give major props to him. But he hasn't. That's why I don't see AI as a winner. I think he has ultimately failed, ironically despite all the gaudy stats and personal achievements. He has spent an entire NBA career without coming to the realization that he can't do it alone.

It's too bad he hasn't had that epiphany either. But the thing is, I find it hard to fault him for playing the brand of basketball he grew up watching. The fact that he has had as much success as he had also greatly inhibits his ability to play within a system.

But also I find it interesting the contrast you draw with Kobe. I love Kobe, obviously. But I think in his own mind, he still believes he can do it all, on his own. I think it's the brilliance of Phil Jackson that has gotten Kobe to at least play within the system, and not overruling the system.

And I also think thats part of what has lead to AI's "failure to be a winner", is that it takes a special coach to coach these incredible scorers into not just dominant scorers, but into winners, and no offense to George Karl, but he's not one of em.

I guess I do agree that AI is not a winner, however, I don't think I call charles barkley, or ewing, or malone and stockton winners either. It stems from different reasons, but in the end when you have to categorize them, they all end up getting lumped into the category of great players who didn't win.

JayW_1023
12-08-2008, 06:41 AM
I respect Iverson as an individual talent, but guys like Stockton, Malone, Ewing and Barkley could be counted on to lead their team to the postseason. And if not for some guy named Mj, they would have all had their coveted championship ring. As the focal point of the Sixers AI in his prime hardly ever was able to carry his Sixers to the postseason let alone Finals.

I respect his game alot more than, say Baron Davis, because of his competitive nature. But I do think his inablity to play in a team concept makes him really tough to build around.

SteveNash
12-08-2008, 10:39 AM
The Answer is self-evident isn't he. :laugh: (terrible joke(hell not even a joke, just a not funny play on words)) And is it gramatically correct to put () isnide another set of ()?

Right, among other individual acolades, and hes been to the Finals. He's won a lot in his time. And while he has been labeled as a selish, when his teams have made it to where they did, it was because of him, and when they failed, it was because of him. That's how its always going to be with AI.

Thing is, if hes labeled as a "non winner" so to speak, here are some other guys we can label as "not a winner":

John Stockton
Karl Malone
Patrick Ewing
Charles Barkley

I really don't see how, if you're going to say Iverson isn't a winner, how you can distinguish him at all from those 4 guys.

John Stockton 19 years, never missed the playoffs, 2 Finals Appearances.
Karl Malone 19 years, never missed the playoffs, 3 Finals Appearances.
Patrick Ewing 17 years, missed the playoffs 3 times, 2 Finals Appearances.
Charles Barkley 16 years, missed the playoffs 3 times, 1 Finals Appearance.

Allen Iverson 12 years, missed the playoffs 4 times, 1 Finals Appearance.

So in terms of ranking the "losers" AI is the worse.

The closest is Barkley and yeah he was a loser, but he was better as a loser than AI is. He lost to the eventual champs 4 times, he had a much better record in the playoffs, etc.

Plenty of things say AI was a loser. And you know if AI was so great, you'd think he'd do something else by now, AI fans have to cling to the 01 season where the Sixers were so great with AI as a winner they ended up going 12-11 in the playoffs? What has AI done since then? Even if you want to argue that AI was a great winner, should he you know win more than 1 year?

JordansBulls
12-08-2008, 10:56 AM
Iverson is a good player but really in order for someone like him to be successful he needs a dominant big man. He needs a prime Shaq or Duncan or even Garnett in order to win. I don't think he is good enough or efficient enough to win as the best player on the team, nor is he dedicated to defense enough to do so.

bartlett2266
12-08-2008, 11:07 AM
nope

JAZZNC
12-08-2008, 11:15 AM
AI isn't a winner, that's why throughout his career he's never won anything other than a few scoring championships. People always talk about his heart and how he plays hard, I just don't buy it. If he had real heart and a real desire to win and play hard there would have never been that tirade about practice. That to me showed what kind of player and person he is. He just doesn't give a **** about anything but himself. In my opinion he could have been one of the greatest PG's to ever play the game but he refused to do anything but shoot, shoot, shoot. Also, you ever notice how no young talent has ever developed around him? AI isn't a winner and that goes all the way back to college, his style of play and attitude doesn't facilitate W's.

ink
12-08-2008, 11:52 AM
Iverson is a good player but really in order for someone like him to be successful he needs a dominant big man. He needs a prime Shaq or Duncan or even Garnett in order to win. I don't think he is good enough or efficient enough to win as the best player on the team, nor is he dedicated to defense enough to do so.

True that a dominant big man would help. But that really isn't his problem. I agree more with your comment that he isn't good enough or efficient enough to win as the best player on the team, and considering he can't play WITH the team very well, he doesn't have much chance of truly succeeding. He will have to be content with piling up stats, which to me is definitely not the same as being a winner. As someone said above, people like Stockton and Malone could be counted on to lead their teams in the playoffs. AI just doesn't lead period.

cubulls
12-08-2008, 12:04 PM
He's nothing but a selfish loser. He will never win a championship.

MooseWithFleas
12-08-2008, 12:08 PM
Dear lord. Championships don't mean everything. Look I know its the pinnacle of sports success, but there are HUGE names that haven't won one (Malone, Stockton, Barkley, Ewing). During Iverson's time look who have won championships....

96-97: Bulls (Jordan
97-98: Bulls (Jordan)
98-99: Spurs (Duncan & Robinson)
99-00: Lakers (Shaq & Kobe)
00-01: Lakers (Shaq & Kobe)
01-02: Lakers (Shaq & Kobe)
02-03: Spurs (Duncan)
03-04: Pistons
04-05: Spurs (Duncan)
05-06: Heat (Shaq & Wade)
06-07: Spurs (Duncan)
07-08: Celtics (Garnett, Pierce, Allen)

So basically you need a dominating big man OR the best player of all time (Jordan) to win a championship. The one exception was the Pistons where they had one of the best defensive units of all time as well as a bunch of people who could shoot the rock from outside. If you take them out, the people who have won championships all involve Jordan, Shaq, Duncan, or this year Garnett. So you are talking about 4 people who are winners in the whole league?

Sport
12-08-2008, 12:18 PM
Allen Iverson and Randy Moss are identical.

Blue Tiger
12-08-2008, 12:50 PM
Iverson is just a cancer to the Pistons, the Pistons fvcl<ed up trading Chuancey Billups for Allen Iverson. Everytime Allen leaves a team that team manage to improve, like the 76ers they made it to the playoffs when Allen was traded, the Nuggets finaly became an elite team of the west and now he's fvcl<ing up the Pistons team and lost to the Knicks last night. I have never seen the Knicks beat the Pistons before and to me I thought I'll never see that in my life time. Allen Iverson truley aint $h1+ because when he played in the Olympics in 2004 he didn't win the gold and he didn't play in the 2008 Olympics that tells you Allen Iverson aint $h1+, never was and never has.

Blue Tiger
12-08-2008, 12:56 PM
AI isn't a winner, that's why throughout his career he's never won anything other than a few scoring championships. People always talk about his heart and how he plays hard, I just don't buy it. If he had real heart and a real desire to win and play hard there would have never been that tirade about practice. That to me showed what kind of player and person he is. He just doesn't give a **** about anything but himself. In my opinion he could have been one of the greatest PG's to ever play the game but he refused to do anything but shoot, shoot, shoot. Also, you ever notice how no young talent has ever developed around him? AI isn't a winner and that goes all the way back to college, his style of play and attitude doesn't facilitate W's.


He's nothing but a selfish loser. He will never win a championship.

I agree with both of you and you guys are right about Allen Iverson.

grantarchy
12-08-2008, 01:14 PM
I guess I do agree that AI is not a winner, however, I don't think I call charles barkley, or ewing, or malone and stockton winners either. It stems from different reasons, but in the end when you have to categorize them, they all end up getting lumped into the category of great players who didn't win.

I agree - if Iverson doesn't win a championship by the time he's done, this group is exactly where he'll fit.

cubulls - great post - when you break it apart like that, it's pretty amazing that there are only a few names that are really associated with championships over the past decade or so.

Finally as someone who watched AI with Denver (I'm a Nuggets fan) - I totally disagree with people who say that AI didn't *want* to win. You can call AI a lot of things, but one thing you absolutely cannot question is his desire to win. I think that when it all comes down to it, AI's biggest flaw is that he's not a leader. You look at all those guys that won championships, and they're leaders of men. AI is not. Billups is. That's why the Nuggets are turning it around. Has AI ever really played on a team that had a dominant leader on the team?

superkegger
12-08-2008, 03:22 PM
I respect Iverson as an individual talent, but guys like Stockton, Malone, Ewing and Barkley could be counted on to lead their team to the postseason. And if not for some guy named Mj, they would have all had their coveted championship ring. As the focal point of the Sixers AI in his prime hardly ever was able to carry his Sixers to the postseason let alone Finals.

I respect his game alot more than, say Baron Davis, because of his competitive nature. But I do think his inablity to play in a team concept makes him really tough to build around.

You can say that if not for jordan they would have won, but they didn't do it in the time he was retired. I know that was Hakeem's time, and he one of the all time greats, but the point is, they all had their opportunities, and the didn't get it done. And AI has missed the playoffs 4 times, not that many. A couple more than those other 4 I previously mentioned. But still only 4 times. And while it was just once, he did lead his team to a finals. That's not a feat many people can claim. And the team he faced in the finals was just as difficult a foe as malone and stockton and barkely and co faced.

My point is, you either win it all or you don't. Those guys haven't.


John Stockton 19 years, never missed the playoffs, 2 Finals Appearances.
Karl Malone 19 years, never missed the playoffs, 3 Finals Appearances.
Patrick Ewing 17 years, missed the playoffs 3 times, 2 Finals Appearances.
Charles Barkley 16 years, missed the playoffs 3 times, 1 Finals Appearance.

Allen Iverson 12 years, missed the playoffs 4 times, 1 Finals Appearance.

So in terms of ranking the "losers" AI is the worse.

The closest is Barkley and yeah he was a loser, but he was better as a loser than AI is. He lost to the eventual champs 4 times, he had a much better record in the playoffs, etc.

Plenty of things say AI was a loser. And you know if AI was so great, you'd think he'd do something else by now, AI fans have to cling to the 01 season where the Sixers were so great with AI as a winner they ended up going 12-11 in the playoffs? What has AI done since then? Even if you want to argue that AI was a great winner, should he you know win more than 1 year?

So AI has the worst track record among those non championship winners...but hes still in that same group. That's my point. I'm not saying AI is a winner, I'm saying that you have to classify those guys together.

JAZZNC
12-08-2008, 04:10 PM
Please, don't put AI in the same sentence at Stockton, Malone, Ewing, and Barkley.

Those guys actually worked hard and busted their ***** to get better every year and they found ways to make their teams better. AI didn't even want to practice, you'd never hear that come out of the mouths of the others mentioned. Also, those guys played D which is something that AI knows nothing about. They also played team ball which is something AI knows nothing about. But I guess we're all entitled to our opinions.

bartlett2266
12-08-2008, 04:21 PM
^^^ ya those guys u mentioned were good enough to do it but they were blocked by Jordan. Iverson got to the finals by walking through a weak Eastern conference and got dominated when got to the lakers

Frrrrank!!!
12-08-2008, 04:23 PM
Imo its very hard to win championships with a shoot first, shoot second, pass third point guard.

The Answer3
12-08-2008, 04:38 PM
The hate in this thread is ridiculous.

superkegger
12-08-2008, 04:40 PM
^^^ ya those guys u mentioned were good enough to do it but they were blocked by Jordan. Iverson got to the finals by walking through a weak Eastern conference and got dominated when got to the lakers

a lot of teams got dominated by the Lakers. Shaq was at his most dominant then, and is one of the best C's in the history of the game. Jordans teams and those Lakers teams are pretty comparable. Both had 2 top 50 of all time players and both coached by Phil. I dont think losing to Jordan is a better feat that losing to the Lakers 3peat.

Sport
12-08-2008, 04:45 PM
To me, he is a winner.

But I grew up idolizing Karl Malone and than Kevin Garnett, and as of recently, neiter one of them won Championships (Garnett did it this past season, obviously) and to me those guys are and were winners.

AI could have had a much more successful career if it had not been for his negativity at times.

The Answer3
12-08-2008, 04:49 PM
Man... all that for an... EPIC FAIL.

I know eh. Don't even feel like arguing with the dude. People will keep saying "OMG LOLXXXX AI SUCKERZZZZ HE SHOT 38% LOLLLZ HEZ A TEAM CANCER"

SteveNash
12-08-2008, 07:00 PM
Dear lord. Championships don't mean everything. Look I know its the pinnacle of sports success, but there are HUGE names that haven't won one (Malone, Stockton, Barkley, Ewing). During Iverson's time look who have won championships....

96-97: Bulls (Jordan
97-98: Bulls (Jordan)
98-99: Spurs (Duncan & Robinson)
99-00: Lakers (Shaq & Kobe)
00-01: Lakers (Shaq & Kobe)
01-02: Lakers (Shaq & Kobe)
02-03: Spurs (Duncan)
03-04: Pistons
04-05: Spurs (Duncan)
05-06: Heat (Shaq & Wade)
06-07: Spurs (Duncan)
07-08: Celtics (Garnett, Pierce, Allen)

So basically you need a dominating big man OR the best player of all time (Jordan) to win a championship. The one exception was the Pistons where they had one of the best defensive units of all time as well as a bunch of people who could shoot the rock from outside. If you take them out, the people who have won championships all involve Jordan, Shaq, Duncan, or this year Garnett. So you are talking about 4 people who are winners in the whole league?

It's more than just about winning a championship the 2 more successful of the 4 were team players that did more for the team.

Barkley and Ewing were more selfish and cared more about themselves. They both just weren't anywhere near the level of selfishness AI has had his entire career.

You don't have to win a championship to be considered a winner.

But if you don't want to be considered a loser, you should make teams better instead of making teams worse, AI can't say he's made teams better, the only positive thing AI has done with his previous teams was to make idiot GMs think that they can win with him.


Finally as someone who watched AI with Denver (I'm a Nuggets fan) - I totally disagree with people who say that AI didn't *want* to win. You can call AI a lot of things, but one thing you absolutely cannot question is his desire to win. I think that when it all comes down to it, AI's biggest flaw is that he's not a leader. You look at all those guys that won championships, and they're leaders of men. AI is not. Billups is. That's why the Nuggets are turning it around. Has AI ever really played on a team that had a dominant leader on the team?

What makes you think he wanted to win? Because he wanted to play his 40 minutes a game so he can boost his stats? AI's biggest flaw is that he sucks but doesn't know it yet. Maybe he'll become better when he realizes that he's not as great as he thinks he is, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.


I know eh. Don't even feel like arguing with the dude. People will keep saying "OMG LOLXXXX AI SUCKERZZZZ HE SHOT 38% LOLLLZ HEZ A TEAM CANCER"

Do you really not know how terrible it is to shoot under 40% while averaging 25 PPG a season, Iverson has somehow managed to do it twice.

The Answer3
12-08-2008, 07:05 PM
Do you really not know how terrible it is to shoot under 40% while averaging 25 PPG a season, Iverson has somehow managed to do it twice.


No **** sherlock.

bagwell368
12-08-2008, 07:15 PM
AI is a punk and a loser.

MooseWithFleas
12-08-2008, 07:20 PM
Do you really not know how terrible it is to shoot under 40% while averaging 25 PPG a season, Iverson has somehow managed to do it twice.

Both years when he played injured the entire year. But I guess you will call playing through injury selfish rather then playing with heart :rolleyes:

SteveNash
12-08-2008, 08:14 PM
Both years when he played injured the entire year. But I guess you will call playing through injury selfish rather then playing with heart :rolleyes:

So you're injured, do you:

A. Say "Hey, I'll help my team out by playing defense and become a distributor since I know my shot isn't falling and I just care about making my team better."

B. Say "Hey, I'm the franchise player, I'm a warrior, I'll jack up more shots a game than any other season I've played. I'll cry about practice and I'll get bounced in the first round of the playoffs."

BTW, Iverson isn't the only player to ever play hurt.

MooseWithFleas
12-08-2008, 08:15 PM
Dude are you seriously done being wrong yet? I'll wait...

SteveNash
12-08-2008, 08:21 PM
Are you saying I make good posts at the same rate AI takes good shots?

La11
12-08-2008, 09:26 PM
First off I'll start by saying that I'm a big fan of Allen Iverson. I look at him as a true warrior and one of the most talented scorers in the league.

But I'm starting the wonder, is he really a winner?

After today's loss to the Knicks, the Pistons are under .500 with A.I. in the lineup. Now go ahead and look at someone like Chauncey Billups, who has turned his team around with leadership and defense, and how well Denver is playing.

Iverson's style of isolation offense (pass me the ball and get out of the way) has never won a championship. Think of all our recent champions: Boston, Detroit, San Antonio, the Lakers.. they were all about teamwork.

It looks to me like Iverson has to accept being just another piece of the puzzle, and that hasn't happened yet.

If he had, the Pistons wouldn't be under .500 with him in the lineup.

What's up with the Pistons?

yes a winner in stats but will never win a championship unless he plays with the spurs and rides the bench

La11
12-08-2008, 09:30 PM
The Answer is self-evident isn't he. :laugh: (terrible joke(hell not even a joke, just a not funny play on words)) And is it gramatically correct to put () isnide another set of ()?

Right, among other individual acolades, and hes been to the Finals. He's won a lot in his time. And while he has been labeled as a selish, when his teams have made it to where they did, it was because of him, and when they failed, it was because of him. That's how its always going to be with AI.

Thing is, if hes labeled as a "non winner" so to speak, here are some other guys we can label as "not a winner":

John Stockton
Karl Malone
Patrick Ewing
Charles Barkley

I really don't see how, if you're going to say Iverson isn't a winner, how you can distinguish him at all from those 4 guys.


HAHA the four guys you are saying here was in MICHAEL JORDAN ERA..Do you remember or you just started watching basketball after he retired? there is no dominating force like what MJ had in the 1990's. Enough said

mrblisterdundee
12-08-2008, 09:34 PM
I'm having doubts, but Allen has never been posted with an offensively and defensively dominant post player. In case you've forgotten, that's the only reason Kobe ever has or ever will win a championship. The Pistions as a whole are too old. Iverson, on the other hand, is still nimble enough to average almost 30 points and 7-8 assists per game in the right situation. When a team is starting Rasheed Wallace (34) and Antonio McDyess (34) in the front court, they don't have much left. Let's not blame Allen for some old guys and Kwame in the front court.

COLH
12-08-2008, 09:39 PM
I'm having doubts, but Allen has never been posted with an offensively and defensively dominant post player. In case you've forgotten, that's the only reason Kobe ever has or ever will win a championship. The Pistions as a whole are too old. Iverson, on the other hand, is still nimble enough to average almost 30 points and 7-8 assists per game in the right situation. When a team is starting Rasheed Wallace (34) and Antonio McDyess (34) in the front court, they don't have much left. Let's not blame Allen for some old guys and Kwame in the front court.

AI has yet to play with McDyess, because he was not eligible to sign yet. Hopefully Dice plays tomorrow against the Wizards.

pd7631
12-09-2008, 11:07 AM
I'm really getting sick of this. What does the guy have to do to prove he's a winner that he hasn't already proven? His "sidekicks" over the years have been: Larry Hughes(how did Lebron do with him) Toni Kukoc(6th man on a championship team, second fiddle on a Finals team led by AI) an old Dikembe Mutombo(who's useless on offense) Matt Harpring(C'mon.....Matt Harpring?) Keith Van Horn(sadly) an old broken down Glenn Robinson, no Knees left C-Webb....

Seriously, people complain about his attitude, well after 10+ years of having garbage put around him and constantly taking his team to the playoffs he just couldn't take not having some decent help on his team, but he never said anything publicly(Kobe).

The only reason he's not in Philly, is because he wanted to WIN so badly, he asked management to get him some help they said "no" because they want to rebuild and he got traded.

If you look at the careers of the players AI has had to play with after they went to another team they couldn't buy their way into the rotation. So i ask you, does AI really not make the players around him better? Most of these guys that he's had to play with would never be known if not for him carrying them to the playoffs and letting them gain some spotlight.

As a life long Sixers fan, I have NEVER felt that we would lose a game that AI played in, and that's the truth. Now, I don't know what to think, but you could get rid of the 5 best players on the Sixers now and replace them with ONE Allen Iverson and I would think that they would have a chance of winning any game. And I'd be willing to bet almost any Sixer Fan would say the same thing.

AND THAT IS WHY ALLEN IVERSON IS A WINNER!

/THREAD!

MTar786
12-09-2008, 08:43 PM
Furthermore, in Denver they didnt have a true point guard, and AI really needs a true point guard to be effective. Moreover Denver played afwul defense (and dont be blaming it entirely on AI because they had poor overall team defense). And Finally AI didnt get to play much with Nene, in which he was injured/ill the majority of last season, and only played with AI half a season on the first season AI got there.

So you see, AI was never surrounded with a complete team, therefore it isn't his fault that he did not win in Philly or Denver.

i dont believe that.. AI never having a complete team in 13+ years?!?!
well seems to me denver is a pretty complete team just by the swapping of ai and billups. dont get me wrong i think ai is the man and one of the best INDIVIDUAL scorers in history. his defense may be one of the worst ever too.. which is his downfall.. his height is too much of a problem agaisnt other sg. thats what makes him a cancer.. he's no winner.. i wish he was cuz he does deserve a title

BTW ai had camby last year who is better than nene IMO where as billups doesnt.. so i hope u dont argue with ur whole never had a full team story

JayW_1023
12-09-2008, 08:47 PM
Well now he has a complete team around him and SO FAR he has failed to make them better. If the inconsistencies continue it could hurt his legacy as a player.

The Answer3
12-09-2008, 08:50 PM
I'm really getting sick of this. What does the guy have to do to prove he's a winner that he hasn't already proven? His "sidekicks" over the years have been: Larry Hughes(how did Lebron do with him) Toni Kukoc(6th man on a championship team, second fiddle on a Finals team led by AI) an old Dikembe Mutombo(who's useless on offense) Matt Harpring(C'mon.....Matt Harpring?) Keith Van Horn(sadly) an old broken down Glenn Robinson, no Knees left C-Webb....

Seriously, people complain about his attitude, well after 10+ years of having garbage put around him and constantly taking his team to the playoffs he just couldn't take not having some decent help on his team, but he never said anything publicly(Kobe).

The only reason he's not in Philly, is because he wanted to WIN so badly, he asked management to get him some help they said "no" because they want to rebuild and he got traded.

If you look at the careers of the players AI has had to play with after they went to another team they couldn't buy their way into the rotation. So i ask you, does AI really not make the players around him better? Most of these guys that he's had to play with would never be known if not for him carrying them to the playoffs and letting them gain some spotlight.

As a life long Sixers fan, I have NEVER felt that we would lose a game that AI played in, and that's the truth. Now, I don't know what to think, but you could get rid of the 5 best players on the Sixers now and replace them with ONE Allen Iverson and I would think that they would have a chance of winning any game. And I'd be willing to bet almost any Sixer Fan would say the same thing.

AND THAT IS WHY ALLEN IVERSON IS A WINNER!

/THREAD!

This dude killed it. Straight up. Mad props. :clap:

NYMetros
12-09-2008, 08:52 PM
Without a doubt, AI is a winner. He single-handedly carried his team to the finals.

MTar786
12-09-2008, 08:57 PM
Well now he has a complete team around him and SO FAR he has failed to make them better. If the inconsistencies continue it could hurt his legacy as a player.

oh ya.. i forgot to mention he is also on a complete team now.. i believe denver was complete with him around as it is. its just that he isnt winner material

COLH
12-10-2008, 01:17 AM
i dont believe that.. AI never having a complete team in 13+ years?!?!
well seems to me denver is a pretty complete team just by the swapping of ai and billups. dont get me wrong i think ai is the man and one of the best INDIVIDUAL scorers in history. his defense may be one of the worst ever too.. which is his downfall.. his height is too much of a problem agaisnt other sg. thats what makes him a cancer.. he's no winner.. i wish he was cuz he does deserve a title

BTW ai had camby last year who is better than nene IMO where as billups doesnt.. so i hope u dont argue with ur whole never had a full team story

Dont get me wrong, Camby is a great player on anf off the court, but you can go ask on the Nuggets Forum who the real better one on one defender is, between Nene and Camby. In fact there is a video on youtube that justifies that Nene is a better one on one defender than Camby. Camby is good weak side defender.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjkRJ6DgKro

ntat
12-10-2008, 01:50 AM
AI is not a winner. That one year run he had in a weak East was nice, but not defining. And to compare him to malone, stockton, Nash, and say they didnt win it all does not compute, because their teams won a lot of games, for a long time. AI's teams consistently had losing records, or mediocre recs. The jazz lost twice in the finals to Jordan and the bulls, Nash is in a ridiculously strong wets, and had to deal with another dynasty in the spurs. Yes, AI has heart, wants to win, but his teams don't. We r even seeing the nuggets r better as soon as he leaves.

SteveNash
12-10-2008, 03:45 AM
I'm really getting sick of this. What does the guy have to do to prove he's a winner that he hasn't already proven? His "sidekicks" over the years have been: Larry Hughes(how did Lebron do with him)

LeBron took an injured Hughes to the second round and the finals. The Cavs going down 4-3 in the second round against Detroit and them beating Detroit 4-2 the next year is much more impressive then AI beating the Raptors, Bucks, and winning 1 game in the final.


Toni Kukoc(6th man on a championship team second fiddle on a Finals team led by AI)

6th man on a championship team with good players. 6th man on a losing team with iverson.


an old Dikembe Mutombo(who's useless on offense)

Who wasn't needed in Kidd's playoff run.


Matt Harpring(C'mon.....Matt Harpring?)

Who stopped sucking as soon as he left AI.


Keith Van Horn(sadly)

Who wasn't a bad player, just didn't live up to his rookie hype and went to the Finals the previous year with Jason Kidd.


an old broken down Glenn Robinson,

Who was still a better player than AI.


no Knees left C-Webb....

Who was still a better player than AI.


Seriously, people complain about his attitude, well after 10+ years of having garbage put around him and constantly taking his team to the playoffs he just couldn't take not having some decent help on his team, but he never said anything publicly(Kobe).

And when he's on a good team he still whines and complains.

I also like how you forgot to mention Philadephia getting better after losing AI. Denver getting better after getting rid of AI. I think there's now question that Miller and Billups are far superior players than AI will ever be in terms of winning ability. Doesn't matter whether he asked to be traded in public or not. He certainly wasn't committed to the team. And Kobe still showed up and played hard after the season started.


The only reason he's not in Philly, is because he wanted to WIN so badly, he asked management to get him some help they said "no" because they want to rebuild and he got traded.

A man that wants to win so badly practices. A man that wants to win so badly gets better as a team player instead of being concerned with himself. Tell me is AI incapable of winning because he's so selfish or is he just to stupid to figure out that his style of play doesn't help the team? Because there's certainly no other excuse for AI's loser mentality.


If you look at the careers of the players AI has had to play with after they went to another team they couldn't buy their way into the rotation. So i ask you, does AI really not make the players around him better? Most of these guys that he's had to play with would never be known if not for him carrying them to the playoffs and letting them gain some spotlight.


Allen Iverson has been surrounded by talent, he just doens't know how to utilitze them like Miller and Billups can.


As a life long Sixers fan, I have NEVER felt that we would lose a game that AI played in, and that's the truth. Now, I don't know what to think, but you could get rid of the 5 best players on the Sixers now and replace them with ONE Allen Iverson and I would think that they would have a chance of winning any game. And I'd be willing to bet almost any Sixer Fan would say the same thing.

I have faith that AI can lose in any game he plays. Surround AI with the 5 best players in the league and they would have a chance to lose any game. I bet almost any basketball fan would say the same thing.

AND THAT IS WHY ALLEN IVERSON IS A LOSER!

/THREAD!

SteveNash
12-10-2008, 03:51 AM
Dont get me wrong, Camby is a great player on anf off the court, but you can go ask on the Nuggets Forum who the real better one on one defender is, between Nene and Camby. In fact there is a video on youtube that justifies that Nene is a better one on one defender than Camby. Camby is good weak side defender.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjkRJ6DgKro

I agree that Camby has some pretty big deficiencies in his defensive game and that he shouldn't have won DPOY, but it's not like Nene is that great of a defender. And it's not like AI didn't play with Nene the year he arrived in Denver and at the end of last season.

MooseWithFleas
12-10-2008, 10:24 AM
Dude... you lost... get over it...

pd7631
12-10-2008, 12:18 PM
Dude... you lost... get over it...


There's obviously no point in arguing with this guy anymore, he said that Glenn Robinson was better than AI, he loses all credibility when he says that.

ink
12-10-2008, 12:27 PM
There's obviously no point in arguing with this guy anymore, he said that Glenn Robinson was better than AI, he loses all credibility when he says that.

Yeah that didn't help the credibility any but I wouldn't assume you've proven something that can't be proven. No matter how you slice it, AI hasn't accomplished much in his career except individual achievements. No excuses, no ifs, ands or buts.


Dude... you lost...

According to who? You definitely haven't persuaded me that Iverson is a winner.

toisdabest81
12-10-2008, 12:34 PM
AI is a loser, always has been always will be. He has to have a team built around him and can't accommodate players that don't fit his style.

He can't become a piece of the puzzle because his defense is horrible, his offense is terrible, and his attitude is dreadful.

Pistons should just waive the loser and be done with him. Let him ruin some other team.

Cause Nash has won so much, right? AI has gone to the finals with role players surrounding him.

MooseWithFleas
12-10-2008, 12:36 PM
Yeah that didn't help the credibility any but I wouldn't assume you've proven something that can't be proven. No matter how you slice it, AI hasn't accomplished much in his career except individual achievements. No excuses, no ifs, ands or buts.



According to who? You definitely haven't persuaded me that Iverson is a winner.

Then what superstar has besides Jordan, Duncan, Kobe, Shaq, Garnett?

ink
12-10-2008, 12:49 PM
Then what superstar has besides Jordan, Duncan, Kobe, Shaq, Garnett?

I don't buy the simple reasoning that he's not a winner because he hasn't won a championship. That's only one factor and I've already posted about this in the thread. My point is that you have no reason to be so smug that you've proven anything. ;) Iverson is a great player but hopefully his style of play will die off once the Jordan wannabee generation dies out.

JordansBulls
12-10-2008, 01:08 PM
I'm really getting sick of this. What does the guy have to do to prove he's a winner that he hasn't already proven? His "sidekicks" over the years have been: Larry Hughes(how did Lebron do with him) Toni Kukoc(6th man on a championship team, second fiddle on a Finals team led by AI) an old Dikembe Mutombo(who's useless on offense) Matt Harpring(C'mon.....Matt Harpring?) Keith Van Horn(sadly) an old broken down Glenn Robinson, no Knees left C-Webb....

Seriously, people complain about his attitude, well after 10+ years of having garbage put around him and constantly taking his team to the playoffs he just couldn't take not having some decent help on his team, but he never said anything publicly(Kobe).

The only reason he's not in Philly, is because he wanted to WIN so badly, he asked management to get him some help they said "no" because they want to rebuild and he got traded.

If you look at the careers of the players AI has had to play with after they went to another team they couldn't buy their way into the rotation. So i ask you, does AI really not make the players around him better? Most of these guys that he's had to play with would never be known if not for him carrying them to the playoffs and letting them gain some spotlight.

As a life long Sixers fan, I have NEVER felt that we would lose a game that AI played in, and that's the truth. Now, I don't know what to think, but you could get rid of the 5 best players on the Sixers now and replace them with ONE Allen Iverson and I would think that they would have a chance of winning any game. And I'd be willing to bet almost any Sixer Fan would say the same thing.

AND THAT IS WHY ALLEN IVERSON IS A WINNER!

/THREAD!

Good post.

ink
12-10-2008, 01:32 PM
Good post.

Only if a person is already an Iverson fan. A lot of that post is debatable: 1. Iverson has had good teams around him, 2. his attitude has been a detriment to his career (and to a degree to his teams), and 3. in Denver and so far in Detroit, he has not made the players around him better.

Look, people's minds are made up in this thread. There are two competing philosophies at work and they'll never agree about some of the MJ wannabees we've had since Jordan retired. A whole generation of players wanted to inherit the mantle and be as dominant as Mike. No one has been able to do it, not even Kobe. The smart ones (Kobe) have adjusted their games, learned to play within a system and excel. The others (Iverson, Carter, McGrady, Marbury) have stats to show the world but not a winner's legacy. A new generation of players has come along, seeing the failure of the scorers that came between them and MJ. Their play shows us that they're aware they need to be more than individual scoring threats.

JordansBulls
12-10-2008, 02:09 PM
Only if a person is already an Iverson fan. A lot of that post is debatable: 1. Iverson has had good teams around him, 2. his attitude has been a detriment to his career (and to a degree to his teams), and 3. in Denver and so far in Detroit, he has not made the players around him better.

Look, people's minds are made up in this thread. There are two competing philosophies at work and they'll never agree about some of the MJ wannabees we've had since Jordan retired. A whole generation of players wanted to inherit the mantle and be as dominant as Mike. No one has been able to do it, not even Kobe. The smart ones (Kobe) have adjusted their games, learned to play within a system and excel. The others (Iverson, Carter, McGrady, Marbury) have stats to show the world but not a winner's legacy. A new generation of players has come along, seeing the failure of the scorers that came between them and MJ. Their play shows us that they're aware they need to be more than individual scoring threats.

I think it was just someone defending Iverson, but it was a well thought out post on his behalf to do so.