PDA

View Full Version : What type of Backcourt Player do you need with Iverson?



JordansBulls
10-11-2009, 05:07 PM
What type of Backcourt Player do you need to work with Iverson in his prime?


I think the ideal player to work with Iverson is someone like Penny Hardaway who would be perfect obviously because he plays PG and can defend the SG while Iverson can be the SG defending the PG's.



In the league nowadays who could work with a prime Iverson in the backcourt?

Would Derrick Rose be able to work with him? Dwyane Wade? Kobe Bryant? Brandon Roy? I also think someone like Kirk Hinrich would be a good player to that would work well with Iverson in the backcourt.

what54!?
10-11-2009, 05:14 PM
kirk hinrich is the first person to come to my mind. Can run the point and guard any 1-3. Billups could too.

mrblisterdundee
10-11-2009, 05:16 PM
Iverson is a combo guard. He needs another shooting guard that can distribute the ball and defend the larger guys.

marvILLous
10-11-2009, 05:20 PM
i don't see how penny and ai would work together.. it would work defensively.. but on offense they both need the ball to go to work

Carey
10-11-2009, 05:20 PM
Ideally a spot up shooter who can also defend, at least 6'4'', can distribute, and is unselfish, the problem is they arent a whole lot of guys like that and the ones that are, are not available

SeoulBeatz
10-11-2009, 05:21 PM
if Iverson were back in Philly, Andre Iguodala would come to mind.

a good point forward who can defend and distribute. makes sense to me.

what54!?
10-11-2009, 05:23 PM
BTW is that penny hardaway before the injuries or what?

Durant is hype
10-11-2009, 05:31 PM
Kirk Hinirich

JermanJaysFan
10-11-2009, 05:48 PM
Hinrich is a good call. A Roger Mason type could work out well, too.

bahama0811
10-11-2009, 05:49 PM
Someone who doesn't need the ball to be effective. AI will have the ball most of the time.

-Kobe24-TJ19-
10-11-2009, 06:12 PM
Starbury

JNA17
10-11-2009, 06:22 PM
PG: Allen Iverson
SG: Kirk Hinrich
SF: Shawn Marion
PF: Marcus Camby
C: Kendrick Perkins

I think this kind of team might suit him best.

Toenail Clipper
10-11-2009, 06:25 PM
He should go back to the Pistons, that way they ruin his career even more. >_>

iggypop123
10-11-2009, 07:05 PM
just be on a team that doesnt want to win a title. it can be anyone

nbaguy123
10-11-2009, 07:06 PM
jason kidd

Wilson
10-11-2009, 07:21 PM
What type of Backcourt Player do you need to work with Iverson in his prime?


I think the ideal player to work with Iverson is someone like Penny Hardaway who would be perfect obviously because he plays PG and can defend the SG while Iverson can be the SG defending the PG's.



In the league nowadays who could work with a prime Iverson in the backcourt?

Would Derrick Rose be able to work with him? Dwyane Wade? Kobe Bryant? Brandon Roy? I also think someone like Kirk Hinrich would be a good player to that would work well with Iverson in the backcourt.

That would be a pretty good fit. Mike Miller would work as well.

Basically anyone who can spot up, and defend bigger guards.

Boston-Born
10-11-2009, 07:23 PM
Steve Blake or Jose Calderon

Wilson
10-11-2009, 07:23 PM
PG: Allen Iverson
SG: Kirk Hinrich
SF: Shawn Marion
PF: Marcus Camby
C: Kendrick Perkins

I think this kind of team might suit him best.

I'd replace Shawn Marion with Shane Battier, and Camby with any offensively talented power forward.

Raph12
10-11-2009, 07:31 PM
What type of Backcourt Player do you need to work with Iverson in his prime?


I think the ideal player to work with Iverson is someone like Penny Hardaway who would be perfect obviously because he plays PG and can defend the SG while Iverson can be the SG defending the PG's.



In the league nowadays who could work with a prime Iverson in the backcourt?

Would Derrick Rose be able to work with him? Dwyane Wade? Kobe Bryant? Brandon Roy? I also think someone like Kirk Hinrich would be a good player to that would work well with Iverson in the backcourt.

AI could play with all the guys you listed, but he would thrive with a guy like Penny or Hinrich; defensive-minded pass-first PGs who could run the point, but still guard SGs.

LeonFSU
10-11-2009, 07:52 PM
Deron Williams. But Williams could work with just about anyone.

topdog
10-11-2009, 08:08 PM
What type of Backcourt Player do you need with Iverson?

One who doesn't plan on shooting.

TheShock45
10-11-2009, 08:26 PM
What type of Backcourt Player do you need to work with Iverson in his prime?


I think the ideal player to work with Iverson is someone like Penny Hardaway who would be perfect obviously because he plays PG and can defend the SG while Iverson can be the SG defending the PG's.



In the league nowadays who could work with a prime Iverson in the backcourt?

Would Derrick Rose be able to work with him? Dwyane Wade? Kobe Bryant? Brandon Roy? I also think someone like Kirk Hinrich would be a good player to that would work well with Iverson in the backcourt.

only one person has EVER been able to work well with him and i think only two more could. Eric Snow has been the only PG ever to work well with AI. I also believe Andre Miller and Steve Nash would work well two with him.
Any true point guard who passes first and plays good defense i think is the only way to work with him.

TheKing23
10-11-2009, 08:28 PM
Mike James

Mavrix
10-11-2009, 08:38 PM
jason kidd
This

I like you
10-11-2009, 08:38 PM
tyreke evans

Raph12
10-11-2009, 09:13 PM
only one person has EVER been able to work well with him and i think only two more could. Eric Snow has been the only PG ever to work well with AI. I also believe Andre Miller and Steve Nash would work well two with him.
Any true point guard who passes first and plays good defense i think is the only way to work with him.

Wait you just said "plays good defense" and "Steve Nash would work" how did you put that together?

Wilson
10-11-2009, 09:17 PM
People have mentioned guys like Jason Kidd and Steve Nash. I really don't like the thought of those guys in the backfield with Allen Iverson. Yeah, they're both unselfish, but they both handle the ball and create opportunities for others. Allen Iverson doesn't need that, he can create his own opportunities.

I mentioned Kirk Hinrich and Mike Miller because they're both spot up shooters on offense, which fits with Iverson since he creates so much defensive attention. Defensively, they can both guard bigger guys who would push Iverson around.

GREATNESS ONE
10-11-2009, 10:23 PM
shaq

Raps08-09 Champ
10-11-2009, 10:28 PM
Defensive stopper who doesn't need the ball a lot to be effective because AI would be hogging the ball.

Raja Bell or Shane Battier works.

Chronz
10-11-2009, 10:48 PM
One that can keep the ball away from him

Sports Illustrator
10-11-2009, 11:32 PM
I'd have to say someone like Raja Bell. It has to be a guy who wouldn't demand the ball from him because Allen Iverson needs to have the ball in his hands all the time. Not even a guy like Jason Kidd would work because Jason Kidd is also a PG and a play-maker. If you take the ball away from Kidd, then what is he going to do?

B.JenningsMVP
10-11-2009, 11:34 PM
Eric Snow

Gators123
10-11-2009, 11:36 PM
I think Iverson needs to be on a team with 4 forwards and him as the only guard. That would work out best for him. :D

-Kobe24-TJ19-
10-11-2009, 11:59 PM
One that can keep the ball away from him

haha, lol, you mean another ballhog

BkOriginalOne
10-12-2009, 12:06 AM
It has to be a tall point guard who can defend, pass and shoot the 3.
Chauncey Billups.

JayW_1023
10-12-2009, 12:40 AM
A Kirk Hinrich...a guy who can pass, defend 2 guards and isn't worried about touches.

Eric Snow was the perfect partner back in Philly.

Lakersho
10-12-2009, 01:07 AM
Starbury

that would work, nothing else they would mma each other for the ball...:facepalm:

BenFrank
10-12-2009, 01:22 AM
jason kidd

Agreed..

JordansBulls
10-12-2009, 08:38 AM
I think someone like T-mac could work well with Iverson as well.

Jamiecballer
10-12-2009, 09:11 AM
Eric Snow but taller. Anybody who excels off the ball and doesn't mind spending a lot of time watching...

Ace33Bone
10-12-2009, 09:19 AM
I just think that he needs to play along side of a big PG such as Penny like you stated in your original message that has Jason Kidd type qualities and is a pure distributor and is also big enough to guard the opponents SG so that Iverson can play the PG... If Penny was still around in his Magic days that would be the ideal situation for Iverson

RicoSteel
10-12-2009, 09:25 AM
Someone who won't complain if they never touch the ball.

PhillySixer
10-12-2009, 09:48 AM
Eric Snow :D

MackSnackWrap
10-12-2009, 11:47 AM
Kirk Hinrich

JordansBulls
10-12-2009, 12:55 PM
Someone who won't complain if they never touch the ball.

He worked well with Melo and they both were scorers.

Tom81
10-12-2009, 12:59 PM
magic

lakerboy
10-12-2009, 01:02 PM
PG - Kirk Hinrich
SG - Allen Iverson
SF - Trevor Ariza
PF - Shawn Marion
CC - Dwight Howard

Raph12
10-12-2009, 01:24 PM
AI's perfect team
PG - Kirk Hinrich - A pass-first PG, great shooter, great defender and can work without the ball
SG - Allen Iverson
SF - Trevor Ariza - A good spot-up shooter, good team defender with the ability to slash when needed
PF - Pau Gasol - Someone to defer to in the low post who won't complain about lack of touches
C - Dwight Howard - A guy to dish to for easy jams/layups, great shotblocker for when AI gambles on steals, great on the offensive boards (much needed for how many shots AI chucks) and defensive boards

NYKnicks4511
10-12-2009, 01:39 PM
A guy like e.g. Wilson Chandler, point forward, plays pretty good Defense, doesn't get beat often, and is a great spot up shooter/good Mid Range Game.

(aka a guy who doesn't need the ball in his hands 24/7 to be effective)

SteveNash
10-12-2009, 04:51 PM
I tried to do this before. Hinrich certainly isn't the answer. It would have to be a player that far exceeds Iverson's abilities, leaving the coach the opportunity to bench Iverson.

JordansBulls
10-12-2009, 08:19 PM
I tried to do this before. Hinrich certainly isn't the answer. It would have to be a player that far exceeds Iverson's abilities, leaving the coach the opportunity to bench Iverson.

:mad:

SteveNash
10-12-2009, 08:47 PM
:mad:

?

I had a topic nearly the same as this a month or two again. It got deleted or moved I think. It was about building a team around AI. And it was just an impossibility because as not only does AI play like a SG, but he eats up a lot of the shot clock trying to break down his man ruining a PGs responsibility to run a teams offense anyway.

Allen needed to do one of three things to be successful in the NBA. Accept a bench scoring role like Ginobili. Develop real PG skills and not care so much about shots. Or change his offensive game to be more of a slasher and shooter instead of a player that just wants to iso and ruin his teams offense all the time.

Wilson
10-12-2009, 09:13 PM
AI's perfect team
PG - Kirk Hinrich - A pass-first PG, great shooter, great defender and can work without the ball
SG - Allen Iverson
SF - Trevor Ariza - A good spot-up shooter, good team defender with the ability to slash when needed
PF - Pau Gasol - Someone to defer to in the low post who won't complain about lack of touches
C - Dwight Howard - A guy to dish to for easy jams/layups, great shotblocker for when AI gambles on steals, great on the offensive boards (much needed for how many shots AI chucks) and defensive boards

That looks pretty good, except I'd replace Trevor Ariza with someone like Shane Battier or James Posey. I love Trevor, but he's more a play the passing lanes guy than a put a body on someone guy.

Guys like Battier and Posey would play pretty solid man-to-man defense, whilst allowing Iverson to roam more and play the passing lanes.

JordansBulls
10-12-2009, 10:33 PM
?

I had a topic nearly the same as this a month or two again. It got deleted or moved I think. It was about building a team around AI. And it was just an impossibility because as not only does AI play like a SG, but he eats up a lot of the shot clock trying to break down his man ruining a PGs responsibility to run a teams offense anyway.

Allen needed to do one of three things to be successful in the NBA. Accept a bench scoring role like Ginobili. Develop real PG skills and not care so much about shots. Or change his offensive game to be more of a slasher and shooter instead of a player that just wants to iso and ruin his teams offense all the time.

I think Iverson would work well with someone like Kobe or Roy as the SG because they can run PG if need be.

SteveNash
10-12-2009, 10:41 PM
I think Iverson would work well with someone like Kobe or Roy as the SG because they can run PG if need be.

Kobe and AI would fight over the ball.

AI and Allen would get along better offensively but be terrible defensively. Actually, they probably wouldn't even work on offense since Allen was complaining about Rondo not getting him the ball.

EDIT: I read that as Ray.

Roy would be good if AI was established and Roy was coming in as a rookie. But I wouldn't expect it to last long as Roy finds out he's clearly the better player and AI unwilling to give up his role as star of the team.

Wilson
10-12-2009, 10:41 PM
I think Iverson would work well with someone like Kobe or Roy as the SG because they can run PG if need be.

I wouldn't want one of those guys in the back court with Iverson.

I mean look at Kobe, all of his success has come with Derek Fisher in the back-court with him, and Shaq or Pau near the basket.

All Iverson has ever needed is a guy who can spot up, and a scoring threat inside to open the court up a bit. Iverson's different to Kobe in that he's so much smaller, so a taller back-court partner would be very helpful.

That's really the only reason he hasn't been on championship teams though, in my opinion, the lack of an inside scoring presence.

dee279
10-12-2009, 10:50 PM
A guy with great defense, good shooter, and does not have a big ego. Cant pick a player right now.

JordansBulls
10-13-2009, 04:21 PM
Kobe and AI would fight over the ball.

AI and Allen would get along better offensively but be terrible defensively. Actually, they probably wouldn't even work on offense since Allen was complaining about Rondo not getting him the ball.

EDIT: I read that as Ray.

Roy would be good if AI was established and Roy was coming in as a rookie. But I wouldn't expect it to last long as Roy finds out he's clearly the better player and AI unwilling to give up his role as star of the team.

But how long would it take for Roy to get better than Iverson?

JWO35
10-13-2009, 04:27 PM
PG: Can't Shoot/Always pass it to Iverson/And makes up for Iverson's lack of Defense
SG: Allen Iverson
SF: Can't Shoot
PF: Can't Shoot
C: Can't Shoot

SteveNash
10-13-2009, 04:31 PM
But how long would it take for Roy to get better than Iverson?

Roy as a rookie is better than Iverson but I see Roy and the coaching staff accepting the secondary role for 1 maybe 2 years.

DerekRE_3
10-13-2009, 04:35 PM
I just don't think you can pair anyone with Allen Iverson and be successful, at least the present Iverson. We saw what happened when he was with a bunch of defensive minded role players, they got to the Finals, but that was the best that he could do. I honestly cannot think of a single player that I would want to pair Allen Iverson with in the backcourt....Aaron McKie isn't in the NBA anymore.

Mendozer17
10-13-2009, 04:38 PM
you need the type of player who has good hands, can cut to the basket, and who can shoot well from the three.....all without having to handle the ball.....he would also need to be a good defender....so idk thats the type of player i think iverson would need

Jamiecballer
10-13-2009, 04:45 PM
I think someone like T-mac could work well with Iverson as well.

did you just say t-mac? my only question there would be which player would shut down first because they weren't happy with their touches.

assuming you are trying to build a good team around iverson as well as one that would be functional it's got to be:

-a bigger guard
-one who can stick the open j
-one who defends
-and one who is unselfish

alvin williams?
doug christie?

Chronz
10-13-2009, 05:38 PM
Doug Christie is a name I havent heard in awhile, definitely him

Hawkeye15
10-13-2009, 07:14 PM
Aaron McKie wasn't too bad. I think a Raja Bell would have been good as well.

Clutch6
10-13-2009, 07:25 PM
Grant hill!
Scottie pippen!
Penny!
Roy!
Kirk!

jmeeks42
10-13-2009, 07:43 PM
Eric Snow

akesh99
10-13-2009, 07:43 PM
Anthony Parker. Great shooter, can take it to the hole when needed, good defense, great team player who wont complain about a lack of touches. He seems like a very good complement to AI's game.

DerekRE_3
10-13-2009, 08:11 PM
Doug Christie is a name I havent heard in awhile, definitely him

That's the first name I've heard that makes a ton of sense. Christie did wonders for Mike Bibby and Peja Stojakovic (especially Peja). He was a good ball handler, passer, and great defender in his prime.

zambo4president
10-13-2009, 08:17 PM
Imagine Iverson and Ben Gordon. Or Iverson and Larry Hughes.

Ebbs
10-13-2009, 08:18 PM
What type of Backcourt Player do you need to work with Iverson in his prime?


I think the ideal player to work with Iverson is someone like Penny Hardaway who would be perfect obviously because he plays PG and can defend the SG while Iverson can be the SG defending the PG's.



In the league nowadays who could work with a prime Iverson in the backcourt?

Would Derrick Rose be able to work with him? Dwyane Wade? Kobe Bryant? Brandon Roy? I also think someone like Kirk Hinrich would be a good player to that would work well with Iverson in the backcourt.

I think Steve Nash or Jason Kidd would be great with him an older veteran who can dish him the bal thats not worried about his own stats.

loki34
10-13-2009, 08:22 PM
name any pass first, lock down defending point________.
that's who

Wilson
10-13-2009, 08:34 PM
I think Steve Nash or Jason Kidd would be great with him an older veteran who can dish him the bal thats not worried about his own stats.

But they're guys who control the ball and break down the defense to get shots for their team-mates. Iverson doesn't need that, he can break down the defense himself. All he needs is a guy who can defend the bigger guards and can spot up.

I think people are forgetting that Iverson's has averaged six assists per game through his career, and he's had a season averaging about eight per game. The problem isn't that Iverson can't run an offense, it's that he's never had a big guy who can score inside and create space.

I'm going to use Kobe Bryant as an example again. In the years where he's had a threat inside, he's gone to the Finals six times and won four championships. In the years where he didn't, he was in the same place Iverson has been throughout his career: taking a ton of shots, carrying the offense, getting the team to a low play-off seed and an early play-off exit.

If Iverson had a back-court partner who could spot up and defend the bigger guards, and a big guy who can score consistently inside, I think people would view his career much differently.

KayNti
10-14-2009, 09:34 AM
The Cavs should have signed Iverson, Lebron would'veworked well with him and Shaq would have kicked his *** whenever he talk ish...

HouRealCoach
10-14-2009, 09:38 AM
Hinrich and Billups are the best choices

Wilson
10-14-2009, 10:05 AM
The Cavs should have signed Iverson, Lebron would'veworked well with him and Shaq would have kicked his *** whenever he talk ish...

:eyebrow: Since when has Shaq been one to stay away from the media?

Iverson and LeBron wouldn't work well together, they both need the ball in their hands a lot.

skoobiesnax69
10-14-2009, 10:11 AM
defensive oriented big guard that can hit a spot up perimeter shot. aka. willie green or raja bell....see 2001 philly 76ers.

SteveNash
10-14-2009, 03:25 PM
But they're guys who control the ball and break down the defense to get shots for their team-mates. Iverson doesn't need that, he can break down the defense himself. All he needs is a guy who can defend the bigger guards and can spot up.

I think people are forgetting that Iverson's has averaged six assists per game through his career, and he's had a season averaging about eight per game. The problem isn't that Iverson can't run an offense, it's that he's never had a big guy who can score inside and create space.

I'm going to use Kobe Bryant as an example again. In the years where he's had a threat inside, he's gone to the Finals six times and won four championships. In the years where he didn't, he was in the same place Iverson has been throughout his career: taking a ton of shots, carrying the offense, getting the team to a low play-off seed and an early play-off exit.

If Iverson had a back-court partner who could spot up and defend the bigger guards, and a big guy who can score consistently inside, I think people would view his career much differently.

Assist numbers are pretty meaningless for AI.

He basically hogs the ball and if he can't get his own shot he'll pass to a teammate with the shot clock running down and force them to make shots. Then get made when they don't make the shot taking away Iverson's "assist".

Wilson
10-14-2009, 03:31 PM
Assist numbers are pretty meaningless for AI.

He basically hogs the ball and if he can't get his own shot he'll pass to a teammate with the shot clock running down and force them to make shots. Then get made when they don't make the shot taking away Iverson's "assist".

Well then how has he managed to average six assists in his career?

Allen Iverson is a scorer, his mentality is to score the ball, but he does pass the ball as well. There have been plenty of guys throughout history with that mentality, the difference is Iverson has never had the right role players next to him on the perimeter, or the big guy to attract attention in the middle.

TheShock45
10-14-2009, 04:04 PM
Wait you just said "plays good defense" and "Steve Nash would work" how did you put that together?

stevenash runs a good offense thats all, theres not many who just play the point position

SteveNash
10-14-2009, 05:34 PM
Well then how has he managed to average six assists in his career?

Allen Iverson is a scorer, his mentality is to score the ball, but he does pass the ball as well. There have been plenty of guys throughout history with that mentality, the difference is Iverson has never had the right role players next to him on the perimeter, or the big guy to attract attention in the middle.

He's the biggest ball hog in NBA history. He doesn't pass the ball well at all. He constantly has his teammates watching him trying to break down his man in isolation situations, when he can't beat his man, then he'll pass.

He is not a good passer period, it's not even up for debate.

SpaceCadet
10-14-2009, 05:41 PM
eric snow

Wilson
10-14-2009, 05:46 PM
He's the biggest ball hog in NBA history. He doesn't pass the ball well at all. He constantly has his teammates watching him trying to break down his man in isolation situations, when he can't beat his man, then he'll pass.

He is not a good passer period, it's not even up for debate.

If he's such a ball hog, then how were the Denver Nuggets the second highest scoring team in basketball when Iverson was there? The only time he's played with another offensive threat, his team was second in the league in scoring.

Detroit was a terrible match for Iverson. He couldn't break down the defense with the dribble because so much of the offense was based around Rip Hamilton coming off of screens. Iverson doesn't work in a backcourt with Rip Hamilton or Rodney Stuckey, who also demands the ball.

If Allen Iverson had a post threat at any point in his career, people would view him much differently.

SteveNash
10-14-2009, 08:24 PM
If he's such a ball hog, then how were the Denver Nuggets the second highest scoring team in basketball when Iverson was there? The only time he's played with another offensive threat, his team was second in the league in scoring.

Detroit was a terrible match for Iverson. He couldn't break down the defense with the dribble because so much of the offense was based around Rip Hamilton coming off of screens. Iverson doesn't work in a backcourt with Rip Hamilton or Rodney Stuckey, who also demands the ball.

If Allen Iverson had a post threat at any point in his career, people would view him much differently.

If Iverson is so good, why couldn't he get Denver out of the first round? Why couldn't he win more than 1 game in the playoffs with Denver?

He's team was the second highest team in terms of PPG because they played at a fast pace that is all.

JordansBulls
10-14-2009, 10:16 PM
If Iverson is so good, why couldn't he get Denver out of the first round? Why couldn't he win more than 1 game in the playoffs with Denver?

He's team was the second highest team in terms of PPG because they played at a fast pace that is all.

Maybe because he was always playing teams that won it all or were in the finals.

It's not like he had HCA for the series or anything.

Chronz
10-14-2009, 10:30 PM
Maybe because he was always playing teams that won it all or were in the finals.

It's not like he had HCA for the series or anything.

Theres a reason he didnt have HCA

MrFastBreak
10-14-2009, 10:55 PM
Iverson needs to share a backcourt with a guard that passes first and that plays defense, somebody like Kirk Hinrich.

SteveNash
10-14-2009, 11:41 PM
Maybe because he was always playing teams that won it all or were in the finals.

It's not like he had HCA for the series or anything.

And besides his one win in Denver, his teams were outscored by 89 points over 8 games, putting up a very weak effort.

How many 50 win teams get swept in the first round of the playoffs anyway?

Wilson
10-15-2009, 08:06 AM
If Iverson is so good, why couldn't he get Denver out of the first round? Why couldn't he win more than 1 game in the playoffs with Denver?

He's team was the second highest team in terms of PPG because they played at a fast pace that is all.

Where was the post presence on that team? Where was the defense?

Chauncey Billups was the perfect player for Denver, he gave them the leadership and defensive mentality they needed, and is much better suited to setting up the offense for Carmelo, and being a second option. That's not a knock on Iverson.

Iverson's Denver team was also one without Nene and Chris Andersen, a front court much weaker than Billups' front court.

I'm still using Kobe Bryant as an example. In the three years he played in this decade without a post presence, the Lakers missed the play-offs, and lost in the first round twice. Then he gets Pau Gasol, and everything changes.

The Lakers starting line-up had two changes:

'06-'07
Smush Parker
Kobe Bryant
Luke Walton
Lamar Odom
Kwame Brown

Lost in the first round - 4-1

'07-'08
Derek Fisher - Spot up shooter
Kobe Bryant
Luke Walton
Lamar Odom
Andrew Bynum/Pau Gasol - Inside scoring presence

Lost in the NBA Finals - 4-2

Kobe has just as much of a scorers mentality as Iverson, and as soon as he got a good spot up shooter and a scoring presence inside, the Lakers went from first round losers to a Finals appearance. Coincidence?

Allen Iverson is a competitor, and he competes through scoring. That's no different than Kobe Bryant, Dwyane Wade, LeBron James, Carmelo Anthony or a handful of other wing players. That doesn't mean they never ever pass the ball, but the fact is they all need the right team-mates to succeed.

When the Nuggets got some sort of front court presence (the trio of Nene, Andersen and Martin), and a team-mate that fits 'Melo's game better (Billups, a PG who can control the ball, or work off the ball and spot up), they went to the Western Conference Finals.

When the Miami Heat acquired Shaquille O'Neal, they went to the Eastern Conference Finals, then to the NBA Finals the next year. When they lost Shaq (he was injured, then was traded to Phoenix), they missed the play-offs.

The year Iverson had an inside presence (Dikembe Mutombu, who won defensive player of the year), his Sixers went to the NBA Finals.

Allen Iverson is a scorer, he's just one who hasn't had the right players around him for the majority of his career. If he had guys that worked as well with his game, like the guys I mentioned above have, there's no reason he wouldn't have had similar success.

phillyeaglesman
10-15-2009, 08:33 AM
What type of Backcourt Player do you need to work with Iverson in his prime?


I think the ideal player to work with Iverson is someone like Penny Hardaway who would be perfect obviously because he plays PG and can defend the SG while Iverson can be the SG defending the PG's.



In the league nowadays who could work with a prime Iverson in the backcourt?

Would Derrick Rose be able to work with him? Dwyane Wade? Kobe Bryant? Brandon Roy? I also think someone like Kirk Hinrich would be a good player to that would work well with Iverson in the backcourt.

gotta be someone that don't mind never gettin the ball. so probably like a bench player somewhere....

JordansBulls
10-15-2009, 10:13 AM
And besides his one win in Denver, his teams were outscored by 89 points over 8 games, putting up a very weak effort.

How many 50 win teams get swept in the first round of the playoffs anyway?

Each of the teams he lost to had an allstar big man and star in the backcourt.

How many 60 win teams have gotten swept? 1996 Magic, 1998 Lakers and 1975 Bullets (IIRC)

JordansBulls
10-15-2009, 10:16 AM
Theres a reason he didnt have HCA

Yeah, they werent' as good.

He is 4-0 in series with HCA and did get the #1 seed before. If we compare this with T-mac he 0-2 with HCA and never has had a higher seed than 4.

SteveNash
10-15-2009, 02:58 PM
Where was the post presence on that team? Where was the defense?

Chauncey Billups was the perfect player for Denver, he gave them the leadership and defensive mentality they needed, and is much better suited to setting up the offense for Carmelo, and being a second option. That's not a knock on Iverson.

Iverson's Denver team was also one without Nene and Chris Andersen, a front court much weaker than Billups' front court.

I'm still using Kobe Bryant as an example. In the three years he played in this decade without a post presence, the Lakers missed the play-offs, and lost in the first round twice. Then he gets Pau Gasol, and everything changes.

The Lakers starting line-up had two changes:

'06-'07
Smush Parker
Kobe Bryant
Luke Walton
Lamar Odom
Kwame Brown

Lost in the first round - 4-1

'07-'08
Derek Fisher - Spot up shooter
Kobe Bryant
Luke Walton
Lamar Odom
Andrew Bynum/Pau Gasol - Inside scoring presence

Lost in the NBA Finals - 4-2

Kobe has just as much of a scorers mentality as Iverson, and as soon as he got a good spot up shooter and a scoring presence inside, the Lakers went from first round losers to a Finals appearance. Coincidence?

Allen Iverson is a competitor, and he competes through scoring. That's no different than Kobe Bryant, Dwyane Wade, LeBron James, Carmelo Anthony or a handful of other wing players. That doesn't mean they never ever pass the ball, but the fact is they all need the right team-mates to succeed.

When the Nuggets got some sort of front court presence (the trio of Nene, Andersen and Martin), and a team-mate that fits 'Melo's game better (Billups, a PG who can control the ball, or work off the ball and spot up), they went to the Western Conference Finals.

When the Miami Heat acquired Shaquille O'Neal, they went to the Eastern Conference Finals, then to the NBA Finals the next year. When they lost Shaq (he was injured, then was traded to Phoenix), they missed the play-offs.

The year Iverson had an inside presence (Dikembe Mutombu, who won defensive player of the year), his Sixers went to the NBA Finals.

Allen Iverson is a scorer, he's just one who hasn't had the right players around him for the majority of his career. If he had guys that worked as well with his game, like the guys I mentioned above have, there's no reason he wouldn't have had similar success.

Why didn't Iverson provide leadership to a young team? Why hasn't Iverson ever learned how to play good defense? Why couldn't AI win with Nene and Camby?

The Kobe comparison is ridiculous. Look at the playoff rosters for both teams:

'07
Odom
Kwame
Walton
Farmar
Mo Evans
Shammond Williams
Smush Parker

'08
Pau
Odom
Fisher
Radmanovic
Vujacic
Farmar
Walton

Clearly two very distinct teams as Kobe's problem was a lack of talent, not a lack of a post presence.

Kobe may have the same scorers mentality as Iverson. The difference is that Iverson sucks at scoring and Kobe doesn't.

Kobe and Iverson are both competitors fine, wait scratch that, Iverson is no longer a competitor since he quit at the end of the season last year. He no longer has that right to be called a competitor. No, Iverson is a delusional basketball player that thinks only about stats and will never sacrifice stats for team success.

The year Iverson had an inside presence (Marcus Camby, who won defensive player of the year), his Nuggets went 4-1 in the first round.

Allen Iverson is an inefficient scorer, he's a player who is too selfish and too ineffective, too small, and too much of a team cancer to build around. If he had learned to be an unselfish point guard instead of the 6ft version of Antoine walker, there's no reason he wouldn't have had similar success.


Each of the teams he lost to had an allstar big man and star in the backcourt.

How many 60 win teams have gotten swept? 1996 Magic, 1998 Lakers and 1975 Bullets (IIRC)

And your point? Iverson put up a weak effort. Maybe if he didn't play like crap they could of actually put up an effort.

Chronz
10-15-2009, 03:35 PM
Yeah, they werent' as good.
Because of him, it was his weaknesses that prevented them from being that good.


He is 4-0 in series with HCA and did get the #1 seed before. If we compare this with T-mac he 0-2 with HCA and never has had a higher seed than 4.

Zero relevancy due to zero context

Raph12
10-15-2009, 03:50 PM
Iverson>>>>>McGrady, on any team

Chronz
10-15-2009, 03:51 PM
Yea sure, this isnt about Tmac, please stay on topic

Raph12
10-15-2009, 04:01 PM
Yea sure, this isnt about Tmac, please stay on topic

Oh I just came in and saw JB comparing Tmac's playoff performances to AI's and I figured that's what the arguement is about. Proceed with your discussions while I locate the basis of the arguement.

SteveNash
10-15-2009, 04:02 PM
Iverson>>>>>McGrady, on any team

Really? I'd say injured McGrady>>>>>>>>Iverson.

8kobe24
10-15-2009, 04:08 PM
Iverson needs a back court running mate that does not shoot too much. lol.

JordansBulls
10-15-2009, 04:29 PM
Really? I'd say injured McGrady>>>>>>>>Iverson.

:pity:

Wilson
10-15-2009, 07:55 PM
Why didn't Iverson provide leadership to a young team? Why hasn't Iverson ever learned how to play good defense? Why couldn't AI win with Nene and Camby?

I'll give you defense, Iverson really never showed anything beyond stealing ability, which meant lots of risk taking.

Nene can hardly be used as a reason Iverson should have won, since he played in a total of 64 games in the '06-'07 season, and 16 in '07-'08. Camby, whilst an effective blocker, wasn't necessarily a great man-on-man defender, and certainly no match for the front-courts those Nuggets faced in the play-offs.


The Kobe comparison is ridiculous. Look at the playoff rosters for both teams:

'07
Odom
Kwame
Walton
Farmar
Mo Evans
Shammond Williams
Smush Parker

'08
Pau
Odom
Fisher
Radmanovic
Vujacic
Farmar
Walton

Clearly two very distinct teams as Kobe's problem was a lack of talent, not a lack of a post presence.

The main play-off rotations were:

'06-'07
Smush Parker/Jordan Farmar
Kobe Bryant/Sasha Vujacic
Luke Walton/Maurice Evans
Lamar Odom/Brian Cook
Kwame Brown/Andrew Bynum

'07-'08
Derek Fisher/Jordan Farmar
Kobe Bryant/Sasha Vujacic
Vladimir Radmanovic/Luke Walton
Lamar Odom/Ronny Turiaf
Pau Gasol/Ronny Turiaf

The only change to the starting line-up, besides the ones I mentioned earlier, is Vladimir Radmanovic - another spot up shooter. If anything, this is further evidence of what I said about offensive minded wings needing spot up shooters.

The bench did perform that year, with Jordan Farmar having a good year and Ronny Turiaf playing well. But notice that of the four main bench guys, three were on the team the previous year. The team didn't gain much more than the post presence and spot up shooting.


Kobe may have the same scorers mentality as Iverson. The difference is that Iverson sucks at scoring and Kobe doesn't.

That statement is way off, being that Allen Iverson is second all time in points per game, and thirty-seventh in total points.

I'm not going to argue that Iverson is the second most talented scorer ever, but he is actually quite adept at scoring the ball.


Kobe and Iverson are both competitors fine, wait scratch that, Iverson is no longer a competitor since he quit at the end of the season last year. He no longer has that right to be called a competitor. No, Iverson is a delusional basketball player that thinks only about stats and will never sacrifice stats for team success.

The Detroit situation was ugly, there's no denying that. However, it's not like he came out and said "I will not do this, I don't want to", rather "I can't do this, I'm not able":


"I'm in a position now that I've never been in my whole life," Iverson said. "It's harder than I thought it would be. With the back injury, I have to sit out at the start, then go in, then sit again. It's tough to really get going. I take my hat off to the guys who can come off the bench and be effective. It's tough for me. I'm struggling with it."

"I'd rather retire before I do this again," Iverson said. "I can't be effective playing this way. I'm not used to it. It's tough for me both mentally and physically. If I'm able to go out there, I should be able to get it done and I can't right now. It's my fault. I have to be able to overcome the adversity and do what I have to do. I just have to find a way to get it done. Not being 100 percent makes it harder and you can see that I'm not 100 percent."

From ESPN.com (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4035415)

Again, I'm not saying Iverson was completely innocent in all of this, but taken in context, the retire quote isn't as bad as it appears.

There's also the fact that he was traded to a team which did not complement his game at all. Playing in a back-court with Rip Hamilton, you need to be able to play the 20+ ft game, concentrating on spreading the ball around and hitting deep jump shots. Iverson's game is driving to the hoop and either scoring or passing back out to the perimeter.

His game didn't mesh with Rodney Stuckey's either, since they're both drive and shoot/pass guys.


The year Iverson had an inside presence (Marcus Camby, who won defensive player of the year), his Nuggets went 4-1 in the first round.

Camby is hardly a great post presence. Like I said before, he'll get some blocks and rebounds, but that's about it.

Again, when Iverson did have a good post presence, Dikembe Mutumbo, his Sixers went to the NBA Finals. In those play-offs, before the Finals, Iverson averaged 30 & 6.


Allen Iverson is an inefficient scorer, he's a player who is too selfish and too ineffective, too small, and too much of a team cancer to build around. If he had learned to be an unselfish point guard instead of the 6ft version of Antoine walker, there's no reason he wouldn't have had similar success.

Whilst he's not the most efficient scorer, he's not the most inefficient either. There's also the fact of how much a players' team-mates can affect his effeciency. It's much harder for one player to be efficient if the other four players on his team aren't being efficient.

He's not selfish, not more so than any other of the prominent wing scorers in the league. There is no way you can say that Iverson has been on teams with players that complement his game like the others though.


And your point? Iverson put up a weak effort. Maybe if he didn't play like crap they could of actually put up an effort.

It's not just about effort. Again, one player can try harder than ever, if his team-mates aren't there, his team isn't going to win anything. This isn't opinion, this is fact (see the examples I mentioned earlier with Kobe and Wade).

nipo10847
10-15-2009, 08:29 PM
only one person has EVER been able to work well with him and i think only two more could. Eric Snow has been the only PG ever to work well with AI. I also believe Andre Miller and Steve Nash would work well two with him.
Any true point guard who passes first and plays good defense i think is the only way to work with him.

Are you on drug??? Steve Nash plays defense??

Chronz
10-15-2009, 09:17 PM
:pity:
I thought you were a PER guy, how do you explain their PER differences?

dodie53
10-16-2009, 01:26 AM
shane battier

Lost Art
10-16-2009, 02:08 AM
I think Iverson would be most comfortable if the Grizz employed a ball rack as the starting PG.

Lakersfan2483
10-16-2009, 02:28 AM
What type of Backcourt Player do you need to work with Iverson in his prime?


I think the ideal player to work with Iverson is someone like Penny Hardaway who would be perfect obviously because he plays PG and can defend the SG while Iverson can be the SG defending the PG's.



In the league nowadays who could work with a prime Iverson in the backcourt?

Would Derrick Rose be able to work with him? Dwyane Wade? Kobe Bryant? Brandon Roy? I also think someone like Kirk Hinrich would be a good player to that would work well with Iverson in the backcourt.

Eddie Jones, Doug Christie

Raph12
10-16-2009, 02:34 AM
I think Iverson would be most comfortable if the Grizz employed a ball rack as the starting PG.

:clap: that would make Mayo, Gay and Zbo happy as well, Gasol needs to get out of Memphis, before they destroy him... better yet, let them destroy him, then an elite team will pick him up cheap and tear other frontcourts apart... just imagine :drool:

Magic - Nelson/Carter/Lewis/Gasol/Howard
Cavs - Williams/West/James/Gasol/Shaq
Spurs - Parker/Ginobli/Jefferson/Duncan/Gasol
Celts - Rondo/Allen/Pierce/Garnett/Gasol

Now those are frontcourts that could compete with the Lakers' Bynum/Gasol/Artest or Gasol/Odom/Artest frontcourt, the beauty of the Gasol brothers is that they can play both C and PF.

LakeShowRaider
10-16-2009, 02:41 AM
PASS first, KNOCKDOWN 3 Pt. shooter.

oballers
10-16-2009, 02:57 PM
This is a team built for AI.


Kirk Hinrich PG
A.I PG/SG
Mike Miller SG/SF
Tim Duncan PF
Andris Biedrins C


You need a guy that can distribute and doesn't demand the ball like KH. You need guys that can hit the spot up jumper and make you pay if left open (KH & MM). You need a dominant big with a good inside out game (TD). You need a guy that lives off of cleaning up slop on the boards (AB)

Round off the bench with Doug Christie or Eddie Jones, Steve Blake or Luke Ridnaur, Kurt Thomas and Jeff Foster. Oh yeah we can't forget Aaron Mckie!!!

There you have it a team that could easily be a champion with Iverson. The most important thing is that NO one else can demand the the spotlight or the ball.

That is why this cast is perfect!

JayAllDay
10-16-2009, 03:24 PM
Chris Duhon

somebody who is willing to give up the ball, (not even necessarily pass first), that can knock down open shots, play hard defense, but just not be that good to have a bigger head than Allen Iverson.

SteveNash
10-16-2009, 05:19 PM
Nene can hardly be used as a reason Iverson should have won, since he played in a total of 64 games in the '06-'07 season, and 16 in '07-'08. Camby, whilst an effective blocker, wasn't necessarily a great man-on-man defender, and certainly no match for the front-courts those Nuggets faced in the play-offs.

Nene played well against the Spurs, definitely outplayed Iverson during AI's first season in the playoffs. And there was the DPOY of the year in Camby, someone who's better than the Birdman.


The only change to the starting line-up, besides the ones I mentioned earlier, is Vladimir Radmanovic - another spot up shooter. If anything, this is further evidence of what I said about offensive minded wings needing spot up shooters.

So three new starters, and a different bench and it's all due to Gasol? Not to mention that that the players replace weren't even serviceable, they were garbage. Lakers needed a talent upgrade and again, AI could win with shooters Steve Blake, JR Smith and Linas Klieza. Couldn't win with post players Nene, Camby, and KMart. Couldn't win with another all star in Carmelo.


The bench did perform that year, with Jordan Farmar having a good year and Ronny Turiaf playing well. But notice that of the four main bench guys, three were on the team the previous year. The team didn't gain much more than the post presence and spot up shooting.

Ever heard of young players improving?


That statement is way off, being that Allen Iverson is second all time in points per game, and thirty-seventh in total points.

I'm not going to argue that Iverson is the second most talented scorer ever, but he is actually quite adept at scoring the ball.

And of the players above him, Iverson is dead last in FG%.


The Detroit situation was ugly, there's no denying that. However, it's not like he came out and said "I will not do this, I don't want to", rather "I can't do this, I'm not able":

From ESPN.com (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4035415)

Again, I'm not saying Iverson was completely innocent in all of this, but taken in context, the retire quote isn't as bad as it appears.

Iverson also said he'd do everything possible to win a championship in Detroit. He came off the bench a few times and pouted. The back injury was just made up. All AI was saying was I need my minutes, start me, play me 40 minutes or else my back will tighten up and I'll suck even more.


There's also the fact that he was traded to a team which did not complement his game at all. Playing in a back-court with Rip Hamilton, you need to be able to play the 20+ ft game, concentrating on spreading the ball around and hitting deep jump shots. Iverson's game is driving to the hoop and either scoring or passing back out to the perimeter.

His game didn't mesh with Rodney Stuckey's either, since they're both drive and shoot/pass guys.

Will Bynum is a similar, superior player to Iverson, he meshed well with Detroit. Why couldn't Iverson succeed? Because he was being outplayed by Will Bynum and couldn't handle it.


Camby is hardly a great post presence. Like I said before, he'll get some blocks and rebounds, but that's about it.

Again, when Iverson did have a good post presence, Dikembe Mutumbo, his Sixers went to the NBA Finals. In those play-offs, before the Finals, Iverson averaged 30 & 6.

Please explain to me how Dikembe was great and Camby was garbage.


Whilst he's not the most efficient scorer, he's not the most inefficient either. There's also the fact of how much a players' team-mates can affect his effeciency. It's much harder for one player to be efficient if the other four players on his team aren't being efficient.

It's harder for the other four players on the court to be efficient when one player is hogging the ball the entire time.


He's not selfish, not more so than any other of the prominent wing scorers in the league. There is no way you can say that Iverson has been on teams with players that complement his game like the others though.
He is selfish, and I'm not making the case that he's been on teams to complement him. The point is, that it's impossible for teams to complement him as he's such a bad player.


It's not just about effort. Again, one player can try harder than ever, if his team-mates aren't there, his team isn't going to win anything. This isn't opinion, this is fact (see the examples I mentioned earlier with Kobe and Wade).

Put Kobe or Wade on Iverson's teams and they win multiple championships.

vito don tito
10-16-2009, 05:24 PM
He should go back to the Pistons, that way they ruin his career even more. >_>

Man He killed Detroit season with selfish play and "Globetrotter" passes, thats not the way Detroit plays basketball, Allen Iverson is gunna BOMB OUT the rest of his career. dUd DuD dUd. He is washed up. Have fun with your high expectations.

vito don tito
10-16-2009, 05:26 PM
[QUOTE=SteveNash;11105928]



Will Bynum is a similar, superior player to Iverson, he meshed well with Detroit. Why couldn't Iverson succeed? Because he was being outplayed by Will Bynum and couldn't handle it.



QUOTE]

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

NiTEFuRY
10-16-2009, 05:37 PM
Iverson needs a dish (only) PG who can give him the rock.
One that won't give in his way but clear out the way for him.

But as you see, I'm from Detroit (where we play team ball)
so you probably already knew how I felt about him...

Tribe
10-17-2009, 03:10 AM
Definatey an unselfish one...probably in the mold of andre miller or a deron williams type of player...someone who could score when he wants but values the assist just as much

JordansBulls
10-17-2009, 04:38 PM
Eddie Jones, Doug Christie

Eddie Jones seems more ideal. He can defend and score as well.

Chronz
10-17-2009, 11:02 PM
Eddie Jones seems more ideal. He can defend and score as well.

Can he run the O? Doug Christie was one of the best combo guards of his era who could defend 1-3. Jones could defend 2's and how is he going to score with AI hogging the ball? Whos going to look to set them up?

JordansBulls
10-18-2009, 03:09 PM
Can he run the O? Doug Christie was one of the best combo guards of his era who could defend 1-3. Jones could defend 2's and how is he going to score with AI hogging the ball? Whos going to look to set them up?

Yes Eddie can.

Wilson
10-18-2009, 07:17 PM
Nene played well against the Spurs, definitely outplayed Iverson during AI's first season in the playoffs. And there was the DPOY of the year in Camby, someone who's better than the Birdman.

Nene did play well against the Spurs, but who was the offensive threat under the basket in that series?

Nene's a good role player, but he isn't a post presence on the level of Pau Gasol, Shaquille O'Neal, Tim Duncan or Kevin Garnett. He also wasn't there when the Nuggets were swept by the Lakers.



So three new starters, and a different bench and it's all due to Gasol? Not to mention that that the players replace weren't even serviceable, they were garbage. Lakers needed a talent upgrade and again, AI could win with shooters Steve Blake, JR Smith and Linas Klieza. Couldn't win with post players Nene, Camby, and KMart. Couldn't win with another all star in Carmelo.

I've said a number of times that the difference for the Lakers was spot up shooting and the post presence, which is exactly what those players were:

Derek Fisher - spot up shooting
Vladimir Radmanovic - spot up shooting
Pau Gasol - post presence

When has Iverson been with players that complement him as well as that group of players did Kobe?


Ever heard of young players improving?

Yes I have. Consider this though: When Pau and those shooters arrived, it created a lot of extra room for Kobe Bryant, which in turn opened the game up for everyone else.


And of the players above him, Iverson is dead last in FG%.

Note: I looked at the play-off stats on that last post by accident. In regular season scoring, Iverson is 16th all time and you're right, they all have a better FG% than Iverson. However, nine were Cs/PFs. That means only seven wing players have ever scored more points than Allen Iverson - that's impressive.


Iverson also said he'd do everything possible to win a championship in Detroit. He came off the bench a few times and pouted. The back injury was just made up. All AI was saying was I need my minutes, start me, play me 40 minutes or else my back will tighten up and I'll suck even more.

Not really. He never said that he refused to come off the bench last season. He said that if he has to come of the bench in the '09-'10 season, he'd rather retire.

It's also interesting that after Iverson threw his body around for so many years, and so many people said "this is the year it takes a toll on his body", the one time he says he's injured and can't play, people call him out for faking it.


Will Bynum is a similar, superior player to Iverson, he meshed well with Detroit. Why couldn't Iverson succeed? Because he was being outplayed by Will Bynum and couldn't handle it.

Iverson had just come into a completely new situation, whereas Bynum knew his role. It was never clear what the Pistons wanted out of Iverson.


Please explain to me how Dikembe was great and Camby was garbage.

I never said Camby was garbage, I said Deke was better. Camby could block shots and rebound, but did little else. Mutumbo played real defense, rather than just leaving his man wide open for blocks...


It's harder for the other four players on the court to be efficient when one player is hogging the ball the entire time.

Before being traded to Denver, what players has Iverson ever had to pass to?

Also don't forget that having two perimeter guys who need the ball in their hands rarely works. I've already explained why I think Iverson didn't work out in Detroit.


He is selfish, and I'm not making the case that he's been on teams to complement him. The point is, that it's impossible for teams to complement him as he's such a bad player.

No it's not. I don't like to repeat myself, but look at Kobe Bryant and Dwyane Wade. When they've had a post presence, and complementing players on the wing, they've won championships. When they haven't, they've not done much in the play-offs.


Put Kobe or Wade on Iverson's teams and they win multiple championships.

No they don't. Besides the Michael Jordan led Bulls, what team has ever won multiple championships without a dominating presence inside?

DerekRE_3
10-18-2009, 07:26 PM
Eddie Jones seems more ideal. He can defend and score as well.

You'd have AI for scoring. Christie was a better playmaker than Jones was and I'd argue that he was a better defender than Jones as well. When Christie was with the Kings, we had him paired with a scoring PG in Mike Bibby and it worked perfect. He took so much pressure off of Bibby since he didn't have to worry as much about being the floor leader and he could focus on what he did best...scoring.

JordansBulls
10-18-2009, 09:44 PM
You'd have AI for scoring. Christie was a better playmaker than Jones was and I'd argue that he was a better defender than Jones as well. When Christie was with the Kings, we had him paired with a scoring PG in Mike Bibby and it worked perfect. He took so much pressure off of Bibby since he didn't have to worry as much about being the floor leader and he could focus on what he did best...scoring.

But you don't want him to be the only scorer if he is inefficient because you don't want him taking 30+ shots a game. 20 shots a game is about what you want AI to take.

DerekRE_3
10-19-2009, 12:00 AM
But you don't want him to be the only scorer if he is inefficient because you don't want him taking 30+ shots a game. 20 shots a game is about what you want AI to take.

Right, that's why you'd probably have a SF, PF, and C on the team. It's not gonna be just AI and Christie or Eddie Jones against the other team. You can't play 2 on 5.

If it were up to me...Allen Iverson wouldn't be on my team at all, so this question wouldn't have to answered.

Chronz
10-19-2009, 01:17 AM
Yes Eddie can.

What makes you think he could run the O with AI on the team? Has he ever extensively handled the PG duties for his squad, Christie did this in Toronto and often for the Kings.


Right, that's why you'd probably have a SF, PF, and C on the team. It's not gonna be just AI and Christie or Eddie Jones against the other team. You can't play 2 on 5.

If it were up to me...Allen Iverson wouldn't be on my team at all, so this question wouldn't have to answered.

Yea that was my thinking as well, as far as BACKCOURT mates go I think Christie compliments his game much more, because somebody on the team is going to have to look to pass, and its much easier to find a 3-man who can fill the scoring void(that EJ brings), than a 3-man who can defend and run the O(Like DC).

There is no doubt Eddie Jones was the better player, but alongside AI I think his potential would be limited, whereas AI plays to Christies strengths as a help defender, and a lockdown guy on his own.

DerekRE_3
10-19-2009, 03:14 AM
What makes you think he could run the O with AI on the team? Has he ever extensively handled the PG duties for his squad, Christie did this in Toronto and often for the Kings.



Yea that was my thinking as well, as far as BACKCOURT mates go I think Christie compliments his game much more, because somebody on the team is going to have to look to pass, and its much easier to find a 3-man who can fill the scoring void(that EJ brings), than a 3-man who can defend and run the O(Like DC).

There is no doubt Eddie Jones was the better player, but alongside AI I think his potential would be limited, whereas AI plays to Christies strengths as a help defender, and a lockdown guy on his own.

Exactly, scoring wings are dime a dozen.

SteveNash
10-19-2009, 06:17 PM
Nene did play well against the Spurs, but who was the offensive threat under the basket in that series?

Nene's a good role player, but he isn't a post presence on the level of Pau Gasol, Shaquille O'Neal, Tim Duncan or Kevin Garnett. He also wasn't there when the Nuggets were swept by the Lakers.

I believe it was you that said "Iverson's Denver team was also one without Nene and Chris Andersen, a front court much weaker than Billups' front court." So AI having Nene and Camby is so much weaker?


I've said a number of times that the difference for the Lakers was spot up shooting and the post presence, which is exactly what those players were:

Derek Fisher - spot up shooting
Vladimir Radmanovic - spot up shooting
Pau Gasol - post presence

AI couldn't win with shooters Steve Blake, JR Smith and Linas Klieza. Couldn't win with post players Nene, Camby, and KMart. Couldn't win with another all star in Carmelo.


When has Iverson been with players that complement him as well as that group of players did Kobe?

It's impossible to complement Iverson as his style of play is always detrimental to team play.


Yes I have. Consider this though: When Pau and those shooters arrived, it created a lot of extra room for Kobe Bryant, which in turn opened the game up for everyone else.

It was the improvement of talent overall that increased wins. Kobe did better with Ariza than Radmanovic.


Note: I looked at the play-off stats on that last post by accident. In regular season scoring, Iverson is 16th all time and you're right, they all have a better FG% than Iverson. However, nine were Cs/PFs. That means only seven wing players have ever scored more points than Allen Iverson - that's impressive.

It's not all that impressive considering the NBA shifted to guard play in the 80s/90s. AI will be surpassed by dozens of wings 20 years from now.


Not really. He never said that he refused to come off the bench last season. He said that if he has to come of the bench in the '09-'10 season, he'd rather retire.

It's also interesting that after Iverson threw his body around for so many years, and so many people said "this is the year it takes a toll on his body", the one time he says he's injured and can't play, people call him out for faking it.

"Eighteen minutes, c'mon, man. I can play 18 minutes with my eyes closed, with a 100-pound truck on my back. That's a bad feeling."

Not to mention Detroit's trainers could never figure out what was wrong with him.


Iverson had just come into a completely new situation, whereas Bynum knew his role. It was never clear what the Pistons wanted out of Iverson.

I think it was pretty clear what the Pistons wanted out of him. To be a scorer who could break down defenses in the half court, something Rip couldn't really do. After realizing AI was not effective at all, they wanted to bring him off the bench where he could focus on scoring. That's when he pouted and quit.


I never said Camby was garbage, I said Deke was better. Camby could block shots and rebound, but did little else. Mutumbo played real defense, rather than just leaving his man wide open for blocks...

All you listed about Mutumbo was his DPOY, same as Camby winning DPOY. Both were better help defenders than man defenders.


Before being traded to Denver, what players has Iverson ever had to pass to?

Also don't forget that having two perimeter guys who need the ball in their hands rarely works. I've already explained why I think Iverson didn't work out in Detroit.

Larry Brown knew he'd have to win on the defensive end with veteran players which is why Iverson didn't have any great offensive players as they all had to cover for AI. Even then he had the chance to play with players better than him (Stackhouse, Hughes). After Brown left, he had the opportunity to play with guys such as Andre Igoudala, Chris Webber, Kyle Korver.


No it's not. I don't like to repeat myself, but look at Kobe Bryant and Dwyane Wade. When they've had a post presence, and complementing players on the wing, they've won championships. When they haven't, they've not done much in the play-offs.

When Iverson has post players and complementing players on the wing, he gets first round exits.


No they don't. Besides the Michael Jordan led Bulls, what team has ever won multiple championships without a dominating presence inside?
Kobe won with Pau, Wade won with a terrible Shaq in the Finals.

Ray_R
10-19-2009, 06:41 PM
an empty one


he probaly work good with hinrich he has superior defense

Wilson
10-19-2009, 07:59 PM
I believe it was you that said "Iverson's Denver team was also one without Nene and Chris Andersen, a front court much weaker than Billups' front court." So AI having Nene and Camby is so much weaker?

Well they were without Nene when they were swept by the Lakers, and yes, Nene and Camby were weaker. Like I said, Camby is just a blind-side blocker, whereas Nene is an all around solid defender.

Also don't forget that Kenyon Martin was injured when the Spurs knocked out the Nuggets. Of the two times Iverson's Nuggets lost, they had injuries to key front court guys.


AI couldn't win with shooters Steve Blake, JR Smith and Linas Klieza. Couldn't win with post players Nene, Camby, and KMart. Couldn't win with another all star in Carmelo.

It's impossible to complement Iverson as his style of play is always detrimental to team play.

Like I mentioned above, Iverson's front courts with the Nuggets were never fully healthy.

He didn't really work with Carmelo because they're so similar, offensively: they both need the ball in their hands. If you ask one to focus on being a facilitator and spot up shooter (which the Nuggets never did), you're not playing to their strengths. Those two players were not a good fit.

Shooters are important, but they're not all you need. Again, like I mentioned earlier, you need shooters and a solid post-up player.


It was the improvement of talent overall that increased wins. Kobe did better with Ariza than Radmanovic.

Trevor Ariza never became the starter until he started hitting his threes...when the Lakers could use him as a spot up shooter for Kobe...

It was the jigsaw pieces that helped the Lakers. There obviously was an improvement in talent, but the key was that the talent came in areas which fit perfectly with Kobe's and Lamar's game.


It's not all that impressive considering the NBA shifted to guard play in the 80s/90s. AI will be surpassed by dozens of wings 20 years from now.

Well what other perimeter player, besides Michael Jordan, has scored more points than Iverson from the late 80s 'til now? Reggie Miller is the only one.

Also, you say it's a guard's league, but four of the guys ahead of Iverson on the scoring list are Shaquille O'Neal, Hakeem Olajuwon, Karl Malone and Patrick Ewing.

It most certainly is still a big mans league. You need big men to win games, and this isn't more evident than when you look at the Finals match-ups from 1990 until now:

1990: Detroit Pistons vs. Portland Trail Blazers - Detroit wins 4-1 - Terrific front court

1991: Chicago Bulls vs. Los Angeles Lakers - Chicago wins 4-1 - Arguably the two greatest guards to ever play basketball lead their teams to the Finals

1992: Chicago Bulls vs. Portland Trail Blazers - Chicago wins 4-2 - Michael Jordan/Scottie Pippen/Phil Jackson

1993: Chicago Bulls vs. Phoenix Suns - Chicago wins 4-2 - Michael/Scottie/Phil; Phoenix is led by Charles Barkley

1994: Houston Rockets vs. New York Knicks - Houston wins 4-3 - Houston are led by Hakeem Olajuwon, also have solid PF/C Otis Thorpe and one of the most clutch shooters ever in Robert Horry; the Knicks have Patrick Ewing and Charles Oakley in the front court.

1995: Houston Rockets vs. Orlando Magic - Houston wins 4-0 - Houston again led by Hakeem; Orlando ride potent C/G combo Shaquille O'Neal and Afernee Hardaway to the Finals.

1996: Chicago Bulls vs. Seattle Supersonics - Chicago wins 4-2 - Michael/Scottie/Phil; awesome G/F combo for the Sonics in Gary Payton and Shawn Kemp

1997: Chicago Bulls vs. Utah Jazz - Chicago wins 4-2 - Michael/Scottie/Phil; John Stockton and Karl Malone (guard and forward combo) take Utah to the Finals.

1998: Chicago Bulls vs. Utah Jazz - Chicago wins 4-2 - see above

1999: San Antonio Spurs vs. New York Knicks - San Antonio wins 4-1 - Tim Duncan and David Robinson anchor the front court

2000: Los Angeles Lakers vs. Indiana Pacers - Los Angeles wins 4-2 - Kobe Bryant, Shaquille O'Neal & Phil Jackson

2001: Los Angeles Lakers vs. Philadelphia 76ers - Los Angeles wins 4-1 - Kobe, Shaq and Phil; Sixers led by Iverson and Dekembe Mutumbo

2002: Los Angeles Lakers vs. New Jersey Nets - Los Angeles wins 4-0 - Kobe, Shaq & Phil; Great PG for New Jersey but overmatched front court

2003: San Antonio Spurs vs. New Jersey Nets - San Antonio wins 4-2 - Tim Duncan, David Robinson and Greg Popovich; same story for the Nets, overmatched front court

2004: Detroit Pistons vs. Los Angeles Lakers - Detroit wins 4-1 - Similar team to 1990 Pistons, solid all around and hard working; Lakers out-hustled

2005: San Antonio Spurs vs. Detroit Pistons - San Antonio wins 4-3 - Very good guard/forward combo for the Spurs in Tony Parker/Manu Ginobili and Tim Duncan

2006: Miami Heat vs. Dallas Mavericks - Miami wins 4-2 - Miami's guard/center combo (Wade and Shaq) beats Dallas' guard/forward (Terry, Howard and Dirk)

2007: San Antonio Spurs vs. Cleveland Cavaliers - San Antonio wins 4-0 - guard/forward combo for San Antonio; nothing but wing presence for Cleveland

2008: Boston Celtics vs. Los Angeles Lakers - Boston wins 4-2 - Celtics front court out-muscles Lakers'

2009: Los Angeles Lakers vs. Orlando Magic - Los Angleles wins 4-1 - Lakers get to the Finals on strength of the Kobe/Pau combo; Dwight Howard is great inside presence for Orlando

All those champions have great post presences, with the exception of the Bulls. Most of the losers have a very good post presence as well. Lot's of good coaches there as well (besides Larry Brown, who has Iverson had?)



"Eighteen minutes, c'mon, man. I can play 18 minutes with my eyes closed, with a 100-pound truck on my back. That's a bad feeling."

Not to mention Detroit's trainers could never figure out what was wrong with him.

Iverson wasn't benched until he came back from his injury, it's pretty obvious Detroit knew something was still wrong with him.


I think it was pretty clear what the Pistons wanted out of him. To be a scorer who could break down defenses in the half court, something Rip couldn't really do. After realizing AI was not effective at all, they wanted to bring him off the bench where he could focus on scoring. That's when he pouted and quit.

So they asked him to break down defenses off the dribble to help Rip Hamilton, after he's played his entire stint in Detroit coming off of screens for mid-range Js?

The Pistons should have known that it wouldn't work, they know their personell. They also replaced Iverson with Stuckey, who plays a nearly identical game to Iverson.

That's not a clear role: they ask you to do something, then bench you for doing it, replacing you with a guy who does the same thing.


All you listed about Mutumbo was his DPOY, same as Camby winning DPOY. Both were better help defenders than man defenders.

However, Camby wasn't a very good man defender, whilst Deke was. That's the difference - Camby did one thing well, Deke did several.


Larry Brown knew he'd have to win on the defensive end with veteran players which is why Iverson didn't have any great offensive players as they all had to cover for AI. Even then he had the chance to play with players better than him (Stackhouse, Hughes). After Brown left, he had the opportunity to play with guys such as Andre Igoudala, Chris Webber, Kyle Korver.

Andre Iguodala wasn't nearly as developed when he was with Iverson as he is now.

Chris Webber was well past his prime, and left Philly to become a role player - he wasn't the star post threat I've said Iverson hasn't had.

Kyle Korver is one spot up shooter. Again, you need shooters and post guys.


When Iverson has post players and complementing players on the wing, he gets first round exits.

Healthy Nene and Camby, and Kenyon Martin and Camby are far from the post players those teams listed above had. He's had some shooters, but you need more than just shooters to make a deep run in the play-offs.


Kobe won with Pau, Wade won with a terrible Shaq in the Finals.

Exactly, Kobe won with Pau! Pau is an awesome offensive player, and works hard defensively (despite not being particularly strong on that end).

Shaq struggled in the '06 Finals, but he wasn't terrible that year (far from it). In the regular season he averaged 20 PPG (.600 FG%), 9 RPG and 2 BPG. In the play-offs he averaged 18 PPG (.612 FG%) and 10 RPG. That team also had Udonis Haslem who played great defense on Dirk Nowitzki, and James Posey who helped with Dirk, and is a very good spot up shooter.

One last note about those two teams: they were coached by Phil Jackson and Pat Riley.

COLH
10-19-2009, 08:17 PM
Well they were without Nene when they were swept by the Lakers, and yes, Nene and Camby were weaker. Like I said, Camby is just a blind-side blocker, whereas Nene is an all around solid defender.

Also don't forget that Kenyon Martin was injured when the Spurs knocked out the Nuggets. Of the two times Iverson's Nuggets lost, they had injuries to key front court guys.



Like I mentioned above, Iverson's front courts with the Nuggets were never fully healthy.

He didn't really work with Carmelo because they're so similar, offensively: they both need the ball in their hands. If you ask one to focus on being a facilitator and spot up shooter (which the Nuggets never did), you're not playing to their strengths. Those two players were not a good fit.

Shooters are important, but they're not all you need. Again, like I mentioned earlier, you need shooters and a solid post-up player.



Trevor Ariza never became the starter until he started hitting his threes...when the Lakers could use him as a spot up shooter for Kobe...

It was the jigsaw pieces that helped the Lakers. There obviously was an improvement in talent, but the key was that the talent came in areas which fit perfectly with Kobe's and Lamar's game.



Well what other perimeter player, besides Michael Jordan, has scored more points than Iverson from the late 80s 'til now? Reggie Miller is the only one.

Also, you say it's a guard's league, but four of the guys ahead of Iverson on the scoring list are Shaquille O'Neal, Hakeem Olajuwon, Karl Malone and Patrick Ewing.

It most certainly is still a big mans league. You need big men to win games, and this isn't more evident than when you look at the Finals match-ups from 1990 until now:

1990: Detroit Pistons vs. Portland Trail Blazers - Detroit wins 4-1 - Terrific front court

1991: Chicago Bulls vs. Los Angeles Lakers - Chicago wins 4-1 - Arguably the two greatest guards to ever play basketball lead their teams to the Finals

1992: Chicago Bulls vs. Portland Trail Blazers - Chicago wins 4-2 - Michael Jordan/Scottie Pippen/Phil Jackson

1993: Chicago Bulls vs. Phoenix Suns - Chicago wins 4-2 - Michael/Scottie/Phil; Phoenix is led by Charles Barkley

1994: Houston Rockets vs. New York Knicks - Houston wins 4-3 - Houston are led by Hakeem Olajuwon, also have solid PF/C Otis Thorpe and one of the most clutch shooters ever in Robert Horry; the Knicks have Patrick Ewing and Charles Oakley in the front court.

1995: Houston Rockets vs. Orlando Magic - Houston wins 4-0 - Houston again led by Hakeem; Orlando ride potent C/G combo Shaquille O'Neal and Afernee Hardaway to the Finals.

1996: Chicago Bulls vs. Seattle Supersonics - Chicago wins 4-2 - Michael/Scottie/Phil; awesome G/F combo for the Sonics in Gary Payton and Shawn Kemp

1997: Chicago Bulls vs. Utah Jazz - Chicago wins 4-2 - Michael/Scottie/Phil; John Stockton and Karl Malone (guard and forward combo) take Utah to the Finals.

1998: Chicago Bulls vs. Utah Jazz - Chicago wins 4-2 - see above

1999: San Antonio Spurs vs. New York Knicks - San Antonio wins 4-1 - Tim Duncan and David Robinson anchor the front court

2000: Los Angeles Lakers vs. Indiana Pacers - Los Angeles wins 4-2 - Kobe Bryant, Shaquille O'Neal & Phil Jackson

2001: Los Angeles Lakers vs. Philadelphia 76ers - Los Angeles wins 4-1 - Kobe, Shaq and Phil; Sixers led by Iverson and Dekembe Mutumbo

2002: Los Angeles Lakers vs. New Jersey Nets - Los Angeles wins 4-0 - Kobe, Shaq & Phil; Great PG for New Jersey but overmatched front court

2003: San Antonio Spurs vs. New Jersey Nets - San Antonio wins 4-2 - Tim Duncan, David Robinson and Greg Popovich; same story for the Nets, overmatched front court

2004: Detroit Pistons vs. Los Angeles Lakers - Detroit wins 4-1 - Similar team to 1990 Pistons, solid all around and hard working; Lakers out-hustled

2005: San Antonio Spurs vs. Detroit Pistons - San Antonio wins 4-3 - Very good guard/forward combo for the Spurs in Tony Parker/Manu Ginobili and Tim Duncan

2006: Miami Heat vs. Dallas Mavericks - Miami wins 4-2 - Miami's guard/center combo (Wade and Shaq) beats Dallas' guard/forward (Terry, Howard and Dirk)

2007: San Antonio Spurs vs. Cleveland Cavaliers - San Antonio wins 4-0 - guard/forward combo for San Antonio; nothing but wing presence for Cleveland

2008: Boston Celtics vs. Los Angeles Lakers - Boston wins 4-2 - Celtics front court out-muscles Lakers'

2009: Los Angeles Lakers vs. Orlando Magic - Los Angleles wins 4-1 - Lakers get to the Finals on strength of the Kobe/Pau combo; Dwight Howard is great inside presence for Orlando

All those champions have great post presences, with the exception of the Bulls. Most of the losers have a very good post presence as well. Lot's of good coaches there as well (besides Larry Brown, who has Iverson had?)




Iverson wasn't benched until he came back from his injury, it's pretty obvious Detroit knew something was still wrong with him.



So they asked him to break down defenses off the dribble to help Rip Hamilton, after he's played his entire stint in Detroit coming off of screens for mid-range Js?

The Pistons should have known that it wouldn't work, they know their personell. They also replaced Iverson with Stuckey, who plays a nearly identical game to Iverson.

That's not a clear role: they ask you to do something, then bench you for doing it, replacing you with a guy who does the same thing.



However, Camby wasn't a very good man defender, whilst Deke was. That's the difference - Camby did one thing well, Deke did several.



Andre Iguodala wasn't nearly as developed when he was with Iverson as he is now.

Chris Webber was well past his prime, and left Philly to become a role player - he wasn't the star post threat I've said Iverson hasn't had.

Kyle Korver is one spot up shooter. Again, you need shooters and post guys.



Healthy Nene and Camby, and Kenyon Martin and Camby are far from the post players those teams listed above had. He's had some shooters, but you need more than just shooters to make a deep run in the play-offs.



Exactly, Kobe won with Pau! Pau is an awesome offensive player, and works hard defensively (despite not being particularly strong on that end).

Shaq struggled in the '06 Finals, but he wasn't terrible that year (far from it). In the regular season he averaged 20 PPG (.600 FG%), 9 RPG and 2 BPG. In the play-offs he averaged 18 PPG (.612 FG%) and 10 RPG. That team also had Udonis Haslem who played great defense on Dirk Nowitzki, and James Posey who helped with Dirk, and is a very good spot up shooter.

One last note about those two teams: they were coached by Phil Jackson and Pat Riley.

exactly.well said.

Gators123
10-19-2009, 08:38 PM
Iverson screwed up, not Detroit. Here are a few things to think about.

READ BELOW

http://www.detroitbadboys.com/archives/2009-09-15/iversons-sour-grapes/


In 54 games, Iverson averaged a career-low 17.4 points on 41.6 percent shooting, 4.9 assists and 3.1 rebounds.


According to Moore, Iverson had been told that he would be the leader of the team when he arrived, and that was not what played out. The players were upset that the front office had traded away Chauncey Billups, Moore said. Iverson was persona non grata before he even showed up.


Can a 13-year vet really be so oblivious that respect is earned, not promised? That leadership is recognized, not assumed?


Even so, Iverson can hardly fault the front office for not having his back — Dumars shocked everybody by presenting Iverson with the No. 1 jersey the day he was introduced, a decision that a lot of people — not only fans, but also Palace employees — considered needlessly disrespectful to the six years Chauncey Billups gave the organization.

Besides taking Billups’ jersey number, Iverson also took his spot in the locker room, prime real estate in the corner of the room that afforded Iverson three stalls — two more than anyone else on the team — to sprawl out.


And while most players awkwardly answer post-game questions in various stages of undress in front of their locker, Iverson was the only player on the team to address the media down the hall at the same podium as Michael Curry. If he didn’t feel like he was a part of the team, it’s because he physically maintained the distance.


I remain convinced that Iverson lost any chance at earning complete acceptance by his teammates the moment he decided to skip practice on Thanksgiving Day, a practice necessitated solely because the team remained out of sync following his arrival. His credibility was shot; his selfish reputation confirmed.


Curry continued to bend over backwards to appease Iverson (often at the expense of long-time Pistons) the rest of the season, trying ridiculous lineups that featured tooth-pick thin Tayshaun Prince at power forward and Rip Hamilton at the three — and when that didn’t work, shoving Hamilton, the team’s leading scorer from the day he arrived in 2002, to the bench. When Iverson was eventually moved to the bench, the team never called him out when he had a hissy fit and sat out the rest of the season, never questioned the severity of his “back injury,” even as he ignored the advice of the team’s own medical staff, renowned as one of the best in the league.

And Iverson is the one who felt cheated? How about the rest of the team, who watched the front office position Iverson into the spotlight while showing little regard for those who came before? How about the fans who bought into the hype early in the season, picking up ticket packages with the expectation they’d see a Hall of Fame talent put everything on the line in pursuit of a championship?

Wilson
10-19-2009, 08:43 PM
Iverson screwed up, not Detroit. Here are a few things to think about.

READ BELOW

http://www.detroitbadboys.com/archives/2009-09-15/iversons-sour-grapes/

I completely forgot about the leadership thing in Detroit. I never liked that. The whole Detroit thing was brutal and whilst I don't think Iverson was completely, 100% guilty, he definately could (and should) have handled it better.

I stand by what I said about the rest of his career though.

SteveNash
10-19-2009, 10:37 PM
Well they were without Nene when they were swept by the Lakers, and yes, Nene and Camby were weaker. Like I said, Camby is just a blind-side blocker, whereas Nene is an all around solid defender.

Also don't forget that Kenyon Martin was injured when the Spurs knocked out the Nuggets. Of the two times Iverson's Nuggets lost, they had injuries to key front court guys.

What is Birdman? Just a blind side blocker. Denver had a decent to slightly above average PF/C rotation, they have a decent to slightly above average PF/C rotation now. Don't try to spin it just because Billups was far more successful than AI was last year.


Like I mentioned above, Iverson's front courts with the Nuggets were never fully healthy.

He didn't really work with Carmelo because they're so similar, offensively: they both need the ball in their hands. If you ask one to focus on being a facilitator and spot up shooter (which the Nuggets never did), you're not playing to their strengths. Those two players were not a good fit.

Shooters are important, but they're not all you need. Again, like I mentioned earlier, you need shooters and a solid post-up player.

Carmelo is a good post up player, one that exhibited his skill once Billups took over and actually ran a team. No Carmeo and AI are not the same, one is an effective offensive player, the other is not. AI taking shots was bad overall for Denver and that's why they got rid of him.


Trevor Ariza never became the starter until he started hitting his threes...when the Lakers could use him as a spot up shooter for Kobe...

It was the jigsaw pieces that helped the Lakers. There obviously was an improvement in talent, but the key was that the talent came in areas which fit perfectly with Kobe's and Lamar's game.

Trevor Ariza hit less than 1 3 a game at under 32%. If that's a spot up shooter, then Iverson has been surrounded by spot up shooters his whole life. The fact is, you can surround AI with the best teams, as long as AI is the main offensive player taking the most shots, he'll never be successful.


Well what other perimeter player, besides Michael Jordan, has scored more points than Iverson from the late 80s 'til now? Reggie Miller is the only one.

The transition wasn't immediate. You see players, today, there's no question they'll surpass Iverson in the future.


Also, you say it's a guard's league, but four of the guys ahead of Iverson on the scoring list are Shaquille O'Neal, Hakeem Olajuwon, Karl Malone and Patrick Ewing.

And?


It most certainly is still a big mans league. You need big men to win games, and this isn't more evident than when you look at the Finals match-ups from 1990 until now:

I was talking about scoring. Of the 19 teams you listed only what 6 or 7 had great scoring big men.


All those champions have great post presences, with the exception of the Bulls. Most of the losers have a very good post presence as well. Lot's of good coaches there as well (besides Larry Brown, who has Iverson had?)

As I said, it's hard to build around Iverson. Anyone he's ever had has ran away or had the team realize he's useless and to get rid of him. He's a bad influence and a terrible basketball player. Iverson never did anything period, one Finals appearance is weak, I'm not even saying he had to win multiple titles or even one title. Just win more than he has. He's shown he can't lead a team and that's why it's useless to build around him.


Iverson wasn't benched until he came back from his injury, it's pretty obvious Detroit knew something was still wrong with him.

That's why the Pistons trainers questioned what was wrong with him?


So they asked him to break down defenses off the dribble to help Rip Hamilton, after he's played his entire stint in Detroit coming off of screens for mid-range Js?

The Pistons should have known that it wouldn't work, they know their personell. They also replaced Iverson with Stuckey, who plays a nearly identical game to Iverson.

That's not a clear role: they ask you to do something, then bench you for doing it, replacing you with a guy who does the same thing.

Detroit wanted someone who could beat his man off the dribble and get to the line when their offense bogged down. It wasn't to help Rip, it was trying to play to the best of Iverson's abilities. What Dumans didn't take into account was the fact that AI was old and washed up and could know longer do that.

They replace Iverson with Stuckey, because Stuckey is a better player than Iverson, Stuckey runs the PG position better than Iverson, Stuckey doesn't have to be hidden on defense, and that Stuckey has more heart than Iverson. Their games are not the same.


However, Camby wasn't a very good man defender, whilst Deke was. That's the difference - Camby did one thing well, Deke did several.

Deke was not a very good man defender when he was with AI try again.


Andre Iguodala wasn't nearly as developed when he was with Iverson as he is now.

Chris Webber was well past his prime, and left Philly to become a role player - he wasn't the star post threat I've said Iverson hasn't had.

Kyle Korver is one spot up shooter. Again, you need shooters and post guys.

AI had everything in place, Phily knew they had a good core, and that's why they shipped him out, knowing that Andre Miller is a better player than AI.



Healthy Nene and Camby, and Kenyon Martin and Camby are far from the post players those teams listed above had. He's had some shooters, but you need more than just shooters to make a deep run in the play-offs.
AI keeps needing more because he's not a good player, he'll always need more.


Exactly, Kobe won with Pau! Pau is an awesome offensive player, and works hard defensively (despite not being particularly strong on that end).

Shaq struggled in the '06 Finals, but he wasn't terrible that year (far from it). In the regular season he averaged 20 PPG (.600 FG%), 9 RPG and 2 BPG. In the play-offs he averaged 18 PPG (.612 FG%) and 10 RPG. That team also had Udonis Haslem who played great defense on Dirk Nowitzki, and James Posey who helped with Dirk, and is a very good spot up shooter.

One last note about those two teams: they were coached by Phil Jackson and Pat Riley.

Pau is not great, neither was Shaq during the Finals. James Posey? Haslem? Please.

Chronz
10-19-2009, 10:54 PM
exactly.well said.

Not really it just long, just wait for Nash's response, that will be well said

JLynn943
10-19-2009, 11:26 PM
without quoting all of Nash's post,

It's clear you just don't like Iverson, don't bother denying it. You're just letting your bias get the best of you. You honestly think Stuckey is a better player than Iverson and runs the point better? I'm sorry but you lose all credibility right there. Have you ever even watched Stuckey play? It certainly doesn't seem like it. And Pau isn't a great player? :laugh2:

Detroit played MUCH better with Iverson on the court last season. With Iverson and Rip, they would go on a scoring run and take the lead, just to have Iverson pulled for Stuckey. Then Detroit blows the lead and loses. Not to mention how completely useless Tayshaun Prince was last season. Every time I saw a Pistons game he was lethargic on both ends of the court and ineffective with or without the ball. Also, Iverson was a much more effective passer, as opposed to Stuckey who hardly passed. You cannot possibly tell me you watched a single Pistons game last season.

Iverson was never even meant to be Billups replacement, Stuckey was. Detroits failures last year fall on him more than anyone else. Iverson was brought in for money and a distraction while Dumars threw away a season preparing for the future.

Wilson
10-19-2009, 11:39 PM
What is Birdman? Just a blind side blocker. Denver had a decent to slightly above average PF/C rotation, they have a decent to slightly above average PF/C rotation now. Don't try to spin it just because Billups was far more successful than AI was last year.

Let me rephrase: Would you rather have Camby and K-Mart (a blindside blocker and an alright defender), Camby and Nene (blindside blocker and good all around defender), or Nene, K-Mart and Andersen (good all around defender, alright defender, plus a blindside blocker spelling them off the bench).


Carmelo is a good post up player, one that exhibited his skill once Billups took over and actually ran a team. No Carmeo and AI are not the same, one is an effective offensive player, the other is not. AI taking shots was bad overall for Denver and that's why they got rid of him.

Well what were they expecting him to do when they traded for him? Denver obviously thought they could win with two perimeter players taking all the shots, and they were wrong.

That's not Iverson's fault, that's just him being on a team that doesn't fit his abilities. The same goes for Carmelo. Neither one of those guys had the right guys around them.


Trevor Ariza hit less than 1 3 a game at under 32%. If that's a spot up shooter, then Iverson has been surrounded by spot up shooters his whole life. The fact is, you can surround AI with the best teams, as long as AI is the main offensive player taking the most shots, he'll never be successful.

That average is the cumulitive one for the year. Take a look at his month-by-month average:

October - .800 (he took only five threes in the month though)
November - .200
Decenmer - .276
January - .349
Febuary - .344
March - .348
April - .188 (from a total of 8 three point shots)
Play-Offs - .476

Also, take a look at the difference in his 3 point percentage in Laker wins and losses, for the whole season:

Wins - .331
Losses - .286

Trevor's spot up shooting had an awful lot to do with the Lakers' offensive success last season.


The transition wasn't immediate. You see players, today, there's no question they'll surpass Iverson in the future.

Then what about all the guys that were drafted around the same time as Iverson? If Iverson is so bad, why aren't any of them above him in scoring?


And?

...and of the six guys who played in the NBA from 1990-present who have scored more points than Allen Iverson, four of them were post up guys. That, combined with the list of Finals teams led by bigmen in that time span, goes a long way to suggest that your statement about it being a guard's league is false.


I was talking about scoring. Of the 19 teams you listed only what 6 or 7 had great scoring big men.

I wasn't. A great big man is a great big man, and in most circumstances you need a great big man to win championships.


As I said, it's hard to build around Iverson. Anyone he's ever had has ran away or had the team realize he's useless and to get rid of him. He's a bad influence and a terrible basketball player. Iverson never did anything period, one Finals appearance is weak, I'm not even saying he had to win multiple titles or even one title. Just win more than he has. He's shown he can't lead a team and that's why it's useless to build around him.

You're not winning a championship by building around one player. The Spurs dynasty started built around Duncan and Robinson, and continued with Duncan and Tony Parker/Manu Ginobili. The Lakers championship teams were built around Kobe and Shaq, then Kobe and Pau. The Bulls had Jordan and Pippen.

When has Iverson had a team-mate, much less a well fitting team-mate, as good as any of those guys?


That's why the Pistons trainers questioned what was wrong with him?

So what's your point then? I thought you were saying that Detroit's trainers were suggesting that there was nothing wrong with him, now it seems as though you're saying it's obvious he was injured, which contradicts the thinking that he just quit on the Pistons.

Maybe I'm just mis-understanding you here...:p


Detroit wanted someone who could beat his man off the dribble and get to the line when their offense bogged down. It wasn't to help Rip, it was trying to play to the best of Iverson's abilities. What Dumans didn't take into account was the fact that AI was old and washed up and could know longer do that.

So what was Iverson supposed to do then? There was never going to be enough room for him to drive and kick/score/get fouled because so much room is taken up with Rip Hamilton coming off of all those screens. Why was Iverson scrutinised for not changing his game if the coaching staff never looked to alter their strategies so Iverson could do what they wanted him to do?


They replace Iverson with Stuckey, because Stuckey is a better player than Iverson, Stuckey runs the PG position better than Iverson, Stuckey doesn't have to be hidden on defense, and that Stuckey has more heart than Iverson. Their games are not the same.

Their games are very similar. They both drive to the basket hard, they both look to score, and neither is particularly good defensively.

Iverson has heart, how long was he throwing his body around in Philly with a subpar supporting cast? Surely if he had no heart, he just would have quit...


Deke was not a very good man defender when he was with AI try again.

In the '00-'01 season, Dekembe Mutombo averaged 14.1 rebounds in Atlanta before being traded to Philadelphia, where he averaged 12.4. In Camby's two years with Iverson, he averaged 11.6 and 13.1. Slight edge to Camby.

However, Deke's total rebound percentage was 20.8 with the Sixers. In Iverson's two years with Denver, Camby's TR% was 19.4 and 20.3. In other words, Deke got nearly as many rebounds despite there being less rebounds available.

Deke was the more effecient player as well, with a 19.6 PER, compared to Camby's 19.1 and 17.2.

Dekembe Mutombo was a better player than Marcus Camby.


AI had everything in place, Phily knew they had a good core, and that's why they shipped him out, knowing that Andre Miller is a better player than AI.

Andre Miller is not better than Iverson, but he was a better fit than Iverson. Miller is a passer, Iverson is a scorer. The Sixers wanted a passer, and at that time the Nuggets wanted a scorer.


AI keeps needing more because he's not a good player, he'll always need more.

I'm still waiting to see what great players Iverson has played with, that are actually suited to his game. First and foremost, has he ever played with a real inside threat, besides Deke? No, he hasn't.

Carmelo Anthony is not suited to Iverson's game. Neither is Rip Hamilton or Rodney Stuckey. Iverson needs to be with a good big man, and spot up shooters/defenders. None of those guys are any of those things.


Pau is not great, neither was Shaq during the Finals. James Posey? Haslem? Please.

Pau is one of the most offensively talented PFs in the NBA, what are you talking about?

Again, Shaq wasn't great during the Finals, but he was during the season and the play-offs before the Finals. Dwyane Wade had a great inside presence that year, that can't be denied.

You don't think Udonis Haslem and James Posey are good players? Have you ever, in the history of organised professional basketball, seen a team win a championship without good role players? Haslem and Posey played very good defense on Dirk Nowitzki in that series, which was huge.

JLynn943
10-19-2009, 11:59 PM
Let me rephrase: Would you rather have Camby and K-Mart (a blindside blocker and an alright defender), Camby and Nene (blindside blocker and good all around defender), or Nene, K-Mart and Andersen (good all around defender, alright defender, plus a blindside blocker spelling them off the bench).



Well what were they expecting him to do when they traded for him? Denver obviously thought they could win with two perimeter players taking all the shots, and they were wrong.

That's not Iverson's fault, that's just him being on a team that doesn't fit his abilities. The same goes for Carmelo. Neither one of those guys had the right guys around them.



That average is the cumulitive one for the year. Take a look at his month-by-month average:

October - .800 (he took only five threes in the month though)
November - .200
Decenmer - .276
January - .349
Febuary - .344
March - .348
April - .188 (from a total of 8 three point shots)
Play-Offs - .476

Also, take a look at the difference in his 3 point percentage in Laker wins and losses, for the whole season:

Wins - .331
Losses - .286

Trevor's spot up shooting had an awful lot to do with the Lakers' offensive success last season.



Then what about all the guys that were drafted around the same time as Iverson? If Iverson is so bad, why aren't any of them above him in scoring?



...and of the six guys who played in the NBA from 1990-present who have scored more points than Allen Iverson, four of them were post up guys. That, combined with the list of Finals teams led by bigmen in that time span, goes a long way to suggest that your statement about it being a guard's league is false.



I wasn't. A great big man is a great big man, and in most circumstances you need a great big man to win championships.



You're not winning a championship by building around one player. The Spurs dynasty started built around Duncan and Robinson, and continued with Duncan and Tony Parker/Manu Ginobili. The Lakers championship teams were built around Kobe and Shaq, then Kobe and Pau. The Bulls had Jordan and Pippen.

When has Iverson had a team-mate, much less a well fitting team-mate, as good as any of those guys?



So what's your point then? I thought you were saying that Detroit's trainers were suggesting that there was nothing wrong with him, now it seems as though you're saying it's obvious he was injured, which contradicts the thinking that he just quit on the Pistons.

Maybe I'm just mis-understanding you here...:p



So what was Iverson supposed to do then? There was never going to be enough room for him to drive and kick/score/get fouled because so much room is taken up with Rip Hamilton coming off of all those screens. Why was Iverson scrutinised for not changing his game if the coaching staff never looked to alter their strategies so Iverson could do what they wanted him to do?



Their games are very similar. They both drive to the basket hard, they both look to score, and neither is particularly good defensively.

Iverson has heart, how long was he throwing his body around in Philly with a subpar supporting cast? Surely if he had no heart, he just would have quit...



In the '00-'01 season, Dekembe Mutombo averaged 14.1 rebounds in Atlanta before being traded to Philadelphia, where he averaged 12.4. In Camby's two years with Iverson, he averaged 11.6 and 13.1. Slight edge to Camby.

However, Deke's total rebound percentage was 20.8 with the Sixers. In Iverson's two years with Denver, Camby's TR% was 19.4 and 20.3. In other words, Deke got nearly as many rebounds despite there being less rebounds available.

Deke was the more effecient player as well, with a 19.6 PER, compared to Camby's 19.1 and 17.2.

Dekembe Mutombo was a better player than Marcus Camby.



Andre Miller is not better than Iverson, but he was a better fit than Iverson. Miller is a passer, Iverson is a scorer. The Sixers wanted a passer, and at that time the Nuggets wanted a scorer.



I'm still waiting to see what great players Iverson has played with, that are actually suited to his game. First and foremost, has he ever played with a real inside threat, besides Deke? No, he hasn't.

Carmelo Anthony is not suited to Iverson's game. Neither is Rip Hamilton or Rodney Stuckey. Iverson needs to be with a good big man, and spot up shooters/defenders. None of those guys are any of those things.



Pau is one of the most offensively talented PFs in the NBA, what are you talking about?

Again, Shaq wasn't great during the Finals, but he was during the season and the play-offs before the Finals. Dwyane Wade had a great inside presence that year, that can't be denied.

You don't think Udonis Haslem and James Posey are good players? Have you ever, in the history of organised professional basketball, seen a team win a championship without good role players? Haslem and Posey played very good defense on Dirk Nowitzki in that series, which was huge.

Thank you. I'm glad someone here can look at Iverson's game and career objectively. It won't matter though, you'll never change the mind of people who have no respect for him and his game. They'll never be able to see past the negatives.

Raph12
10-20-2009, 12:51 AM
I don't know why we keep having these AI arguements, it can't touch his impact on the Sixers franchise and the legacy he left behind. If you don't like him, tough; if you hate his personality, tough; if you think he's not as good as people say he is, tough; no matter what anyone thinks, he will make the HOF and live comfortably for the rest of his life. So debating how good/bad he is, is just a waste of your time, he is at the end of his career, why don't we get back to talking about current superstars and let this go already.

Chronz
10-20-2009, 12:27 PM
without quoting all of Nash's post,

It's clear you just don't like Iverson, don't bother denying it. You're just letting your bias get the best of you. You honestly think Stuckey is a better player than Iverson and runs the point better? I'm sorry but you lose all credibility right there. Have you ever even watched Stuckey play?
LOL I cant believe the irony, hell yes Stuckey is better at running the point than AI, hes not a pure point by any means, but atleast I wont have to worry about him taking every shot he wants.



Detroit played MUCH better with Iverson on the court last season.
Only in opposite land


With Iverson and Rip, they would go on a scoring run and take the lead, just to have Iverson pulled for Stuckey. Then Detroit blows the lead and loses. Not to mention how completely useless Tayshaun Prince was last season. Every time I saw a Pistons game he was lethargic on both ends of the court and ineffective with or without the ball. Also, Iverson was a much more effective passer, as opposed to Stuckey who hardly passed. You cannot possibly tell me you watched a single Pistons game last season.
Care to back any of this up with facts? If the Pistons were so good with AI on the court why did they lose so many games in which he participated? Why did the team score more effectively when he was sitting down?

Chronz
10-20-2009, 12:32 PM
I don't know why we keep having these AI arguements, it can't touch his impact on the Sixers franchise and the legacy he left behind. If you don't like him, tough; if you hate his personality, tough; if you think he's not as good as people say he is, tough; no matter what anyone thinks, he will make the HOF and live comfortably for the rest of his life. So debating how good/bad he is, is just a waste of your time, he is at the end of his career, why don't we get back to talking about current superstars and let this go already.

Because when you talk about current superstars people say why dont we wait until their careers are over.

eugene
10-20-2009, 01:10 PM
Chauncey Billups

SteveNash
10-20-2009, 03:03 PM
without quoting all of Nash's post,

It's clear you just don't like Iverson, don't bother denying it. You're just letting your bias get the best of you. You honestly think Stuckey is a better player than Iverson and runs the point better? I'm sorry but you lose all credibility right there. Have you ever even watched Stuckey play? It certainly doesn't seem like it. And Pau isn't a great player? :laugh2:

It's not that I hate Iverson the person. I'm just being critical of his poor play. Stuckey was better than Iverson last year. He did run the point better than Iverson. Have you watched Stuckey play? Let me guess, you look at AI's assists over the years and think he's better at running an offense better than Stuckey right? Pau being great is relative. Seeing as you're defending AI, I'm guessing you have low standards on who you consider to be great.


Detroit played MUCH better with Iverson on the court last season. With Iverson and Rip, they would go on a scoring run and take the lead, just to have Iverson pulled for Stuckey. Then Detroit blows the lead and loses. Not to mention how completely useless Tayshaun Prince was last season. Every time I saw a Pistons game he was lethargic on both ends of the court and ineffective with or without the ball. Also, Iverson was a much more effective passer, as opposed to Stuckey who hardly passed. You cannot possibly tell me you watched a single Pistons game last season.

Detroit certainly did not play much better with Iverson on the court. How many Pistons games did you actually watch because Detroit was terrible with the Hamilton/AI backcourt. That's what Curry tried to do when AI first arrived, trying to accommodate AI anyway he could even after AI proved he wasn't a good player. Tayshaun Prince was lethargic because AI couldn't run the point. So Stuckey had to play PG. forcing Tayshaun into the PF spot where he got abused. At least Tayshaun was a man about it and played through his real back injury instead of quitting like Iverson did.


Iverson was never even meant to be Billups replacement, Stuckey was. Detroits failures last year fall on him more than anyone else. Iverson was brought in for money and a distraction while Dumars threw away a season preparing for the future.

Iverson's move was to be both a short and long term move. Dumars thought AI was a good player and AI proved him wrong. He thought AI would give the Pistons a player they hadn't had since Grant Hill left. If AI didn't work out, he'd have the cap room to sign new players.


Let me rephrase: Would you rather have Camby and K-Mart (a blindside blocker and an alright defender), Camby and Nene (blindside blocker and good all around defender), or Nene, K-Mart and Andersen (good all around defender, alright defender, plus a blindside blocker spelling them off the bench).

I'd say they're all about even when you throw in Najera who was a good defender and a superior spot up shooter to Trevor Ariza.


Well what were they expecting him to do when they traded for him? Denver obviously thought they could win with two perimeter players taking all the shots, and they were wrong.

That's not Iverson's fault, that's just him being on a team that doesn't fit his abilities. The same goes for Carmelo. Neither one of those guys had the right guys around them.

They were naive and thought that AI could fit in. They found out, like I've said, that AI is impossible to build around. They thought that AI was being misused in Philly's slow half court offense and that AI could be a good player in Denver's uptempo system. After realizing their stupidity and losing constantly with AI (in part because Carmelo was suspended) they realized their mistake and traded Boykins for Steve Blake who could actually play the point guard position. With Steve Blake leading the Nuggets back into playoff contention.

AI will never have the right guys around him, it's impossible, the only way he'll have the right guys around him is when the team is good enough where they don't need to play him at all since he won't be coming off the bench. They could just put him in a Marbury situation with the Knicks, that's the only way to "build around" AI.


That average is the cumulitive one for the year. Take a look at his month-by-month average:

October - .800 (he took only five threes in the month though)
November - .200
Decenmer - .276
January - .349
Febuary - .344
March - .348
April - .188 (from a total of 8 three point shots)
Play-Offs - .476

Also, take a look at the difference in his 3 point percentage in Laker wins and losses, for the whole season:

Wins - .331
Losses - .286

Trevor's spot up shooting had an awful lot to do with the Lakers' offensive success last season.

People play and shoot better when the team is winning, wow amazing. Ariza's best shooting month is worse than Radmanovic's worse three point shooting month. Ariza did get hot during the playoffs, but it's because they were playing way off of him. Try to spin it into Ariza being a spot up shooter and providing Kobe space, it's just not true. No, it was Kobe mostly providing Ariza with space as the man defending Ariza would constantly leave him to help out on Bryant.


Then what about all the guys that were drafted around the same time as Iverson? If Iverson is so bad, why aren't any of them above him in scoring?

Kobe and Allen should surpass Iverson. Pierce and Carter. Other players as long as the continue on their path.


...and of the six guys who played in the NBA from 1990-present who have scored more points than Allen Iverson, four of them were post up guys. That, combined with the list of Finals teams led by bigmen in that time span, goes a long way to suggest that your statement about it being a guard's league is false.

I wasn't. A great big man is a great big man, and in most circumstances you need a great big man to win championships.

You said:"Note: I looked at the play-off stats on that last post by accident. In regular season scoring, Iverson is 16th all time and you're right, they all have a better FG% than Iverson. However, nine were Cs/PFs. That means only seven wing players have ever scored more points than Allen Iverson - that's impressive."

I said:"It's not all that impressive considering the NBA shifted to guard play in the 80s/90s. AI will be surpassed by dozens of wings 20 years from now."

We were clearly on the topic of scoring, not championships.

Just take the average scoring for wings and for PF/Cs and compare the leagues transition. Hell the only really scoring big these days is Dirk who is more like an oversized SF than a true PF.


You're not winning a championship by building around one player. The Spurs dynasty started built around Duncan and Robinson, and continued with Duncan and Tony Parker/Manu Ginobili. The Lakers championship teams were built around Kobe and Shaq, then Kobe and Pau. The Bulls had Jordan and Pippen.

When has Iverson had a team-mate, much less a well fitting team-mate, as good as any of those guys?

The Spurs most certainly built around Duncan. They certainly built around Shaq and then Kobe. Guys like Parker and Ginobili are players that compliment your franchise player that you build around. AI had Carmelo who was better or equal to Ginobili, Parker, Kobe during the first championship and Gasol. AI never had a well fitting teammate because no player fits well with him.


So what's your point then? I thought you were saying that Detroit's trainers were suggesting that there was nothing wrong with him, now it seems as though you're saying it's obvious he was injured, which contradicts the thinking that he just quit on the Pistons.

Maybe I'm just mis-understanding you here...

AI said he couldn't play. Trainers said he was fine and were questioning why he couldn't play.


So what was Iverson supposed to do then? There was never going to be enough room for him to drive and kick/score/get fouled because so much room is taken up with Rip Hamilton coming off of all those screens. Why was Iverson scrutinised for not changing his game if the coaching staff never looked to alter their strategies so Iverson could do what they wanted him to do?

Curry wasn't a great coach, but even he wasn't dumb enough to call an isolation play for Iverson while running Rip off screens. As I said, Iverson was supposed to be used when Rip and the rest of the Pistons weren't able to score, that's when they were supposed to just give up the ball to Iverson and get out of the way.


Their games are very similar. They both drive to the basket hard, they both look to score, and neither is particularly good defensively.

Iverson has heart, how long was he throwing his body around in Philly with a subpar supporting cast? Surely if he had no heart, he just would have quit...

Stuckey doesn't look to score at all costs. Stuckey is a much better defender than Iverson though he was forced into bad matchups trying to cover for AI like he'll have to do for Gordon this year. Iverson has heart to flop around trying to get the free throw line. The only semi efficient part of AI's game. He quit in Philly before they traded him.


In the '00-'01 season, Dekembe Mutombo averaged 14.1 rebounds in Atlanta before being traded to Philadelphia, where he averaged 12.4. In Camby's two years with Iverson, he averaged 11.6 and 13.1. Slight edge to Camby.

However, Deke's total rebound percentage was 20.8 with the Sixers. In Iverson's two years with Denver, Camby's TR% was 19.4 and 20.3. In other words, Deke got nearly as many rebounds despite there being less rebounds available.

Deke was the more effecient player as well, with a 19.6 PER, compared to Camby's 19.1 and 17.2.

Dekembe Mutombo was a better player than Marcus Camby.

So let me get this straight.

Camby averages slightly more boards.

Deke had a slightly higher rebounding percentage in 01 with Philly but drops off his second year meaning Camby actually had a higher rebounding percentage.

Deke had a slightly higher PER in 01 with Philly but dropped his second year making Camby actually have a higher PER with AI than Deke did.

And this means that Deke is a better player than Camby.

And that Deke is a better man defender...


Andre Miller is not better than Iverson, but he was a better fit than Iverson. Miller is a passer, Iverson is a scorer. The Sixers wanted a passer, and at that time the Nuggets wanted a scorer.

Until they realized that Iverson isn't a good scorer and got rid of him seeing as he fits nowhere.


I'm still waiting to see what great players Iverson has played with, that are actually suited to his game. First and foremost, has he ever played with a real inside threat, besides Deke? No, he hasn't.

Carmelo Anthony is not suited to Iverson's game. Neither is Rip Hamilton or Rodney Stuckey. Iverson needs to be with a good big man, and spot up shooters/defenders. None of those guys are any of those things.

You're asking to due the impossible. What was my first response to this thread? I said tt's not possible to build around Iverson. No one is a good fit for Iverson.


Pau is one of the most offensively talented PFs in the NBA, what are you talking about?

Again, Shaq wasn't great during the Finals, but he was during the season and the play-offs before the Finals. Dwyane Wade had a great inside presence that year, that can't be denied.

You don't think Udonis Haslem and James Posey are good players? Have you ever, in the history of organised professional basketball, seen a team win a championship without good role players? Haslem and Posey played very good defense on Dirk Nowitzki in that series, which was huge.

I believe your words were "dominating prescense" Haslem and Posey certainly don't qualify.

Gators123
10-20-2009, 06:05 PM
I'm Going to make this simple because some people don't understand.



Detroit traded Billups for cap space

to rebuild

Billups is from Denver

Joe D is a nice guy

and traded Chauncy to his home town

so Chauncy would be happy.

Get it? not because they thought Iverson was going to win them a championship.

R cool J
10-20-2009, 06:14 PM
Someone who likes to "PRACTICE".

Wilson
10-20-2009, 06:46 PM
I'd say they're all about even when you throw in Najera who was a good defender and a superior spot up shooter to Trevor Ariza.

I wouldn't say Najera's spot up shooting was better than Trevor's in the play-offs. In the '07 play-offs, he didn't hit a three. In '08, he hit two in four games.

Plus, having a blindside blocker, and two average defenders isn't as good as having one very good defender, an average defender and a blindside blocker.

There's also the fact that Chris Andersen fires up the home crowd unlike many other role-players in the league, which helps give the current Nuggets a huge home-court advantage.


They were naive and thought that AI could fit in. They found out, like I've said, that AI is impossible to build around. They thought that AI was being misused in Philly's slow half court offense and that AI could be a good player in Denver's uptempo system. After realizing their stupidity and losing constantly with AI (in part because Carmelo was suspended) they realized their mistake and traded Boykins for Steve Blake who could actually play the point guard position. With Steve Blake leading the Nuggets back into playoff contention.

AI will never have the right guys around him, it's impossible, the only way he'll have the right guys around him is when the team is good enough where they don't need to play him at all since he won't be coming off the bench. They could just put him in a Marbury situation with the Knicks, that's the only way to "build around" AI.

Yes, they were naive, but it's not like Iverson was in the wrong. They traded for him, and asked him and Carmelo to do the same thing. You don't win if both your star players play exactly the same way.


People play and shoot better when the team is winning, wow amazing. Ariza's best shooting month is worse than Radmanovic's worse three point shooting month. Ariza did get hot during the playoffs, but it's because they were playing way off of him. Try to spin it into Ariza being a spot up shooter and providing Kobe space, it's just not true. No, it was Kobe mostly providing Ariza with space as the man defending Ariza would constantly leave him to help out on Bryant.

Or how about, when players shoot better, teams win. It's not like the Lakers winning a game boosted Ariza's shooting percentage. His shooting percentage helped the Lakers win.

Of course it was Kobe providing Ariza with space, this is what I'm saying Iverson has missed: a guy that will punish the defense when they leave someone open for the sake of doubling Iverson. When he has had the shooters, he hasn't had the inside presence - you need both.


Kobe and Allen should surpass Iverson. Pierce and Carter. Other players as long as the continue on their path.

If Iverson is so bad, why haven't they already? Kobe Bryant and Ray Allen were both drafted in the same year as Iverson, yet Iverson has more points. If Iverson is so bad, why does he have more points than them? Especially Kobe, who is as much of a scorer as anybody...


You said:"Note: I looked at the play-off stats on that last post by accident. In regular season scoring, Iverson is 16th all time and you're right, they all have a better FG% than Iverson. However, nine were Cs/PFs. That means only seven wing players have ever scored more points than Allen Iverson - that's impressive."

I said:"It's not all that impressive considering the NBA shifted to guard play in the 80s/90s. AI will be surpassed by dozens of wings 20 years from now."

We were clearly on the topic of scoring, not championships.

Yes, and on the topic of scoring, few have been better than Iverson from 1990-2009. Of guys that played in the 90s, six guys have scored more points than Allen Iverson: Karl Malone Michael Jordan, Shaquille O'Neal, Hakeem Olajuwon, Reggier Miller, and Patrick Ewing.

And to reiterate, that four of those guys are big men goes a long way to suggest that your assertion that it's a guards game is wrong.


Just take the average scoring for wings and for PF/Cs and compare the leagues transition. Hell the only really scoring big these days is Dirk who is more like an oversized SF than a true PF.

Pau Gasol, Amare Stoudemire, Chris Bosh, David West, Tim Duncan and Shaquille O'Neal can all score the ball well. Even Dwight Howard, who has very little offensive game, averaged 20 points last season. There are a number of big men who score the ball today.


The Spurs most certainly built around Duncan. They certainly built around Shaq and then Kobe. Guys like Parker and Ginobili are players that compliment your franchise player that you build around. AI had Carmelo who was better or equal to Ginobili, Parker, Kobe during the first championship and Gasol. AI never had a well fitting teammate because no player fits well with him.

The Spurs' first two championships came with David Robinson and Tim Duncan in the front court, they weren't built solely around Tim Duncan.

Again, Iverson with Carmelo isn't a great combo, because they were both being asked to be number one scorers...


AI said he couldn't play. Trainers said he was fine and were questioning why he couldn't play.

Curry wasn't a great coach, but even he wasn't dumb enough to call an isolation play for Iverson while running Rip off screens. As I said, Iverson was supposed to be used when Rip and the rest of the Pistons weren't able to score, that's when they were supposed to just give up the ball to Iverson and get out of the way.

So Iverson was supposed to just stand around, and bail the team out if they couldn't score? And that he didn't do this well is a knock on him?


Stuckey doesn't look to score at all costs. Stuckey is a much better defender than Iverson though he was forced into bad matchups trying to cover for AI like he'll have to do for Gordon this year. Iverson has heart to flop around trying to get the free throw line. The only semi efficient part of AI's game. He quit in Philly before they traded him.

What about when Stuckey was playing with Rip? He wasn't a great defender then, either...

Iverson did not quit on Philly. That year, his scoring, assists, free throw attempts, free throw percentage and steals were up. It's worth noting that his scoring dropped by six points that first year in Denver, and his FG attempts per game dropped by five. He didn't go to Denver and just swallow the ball, he took a much less dominant role in the offense than he had in Philly.


So let me get this straight.

Camby averages slightly more boards.

Deke had a slightly higher rebounding percentage in 01 with Philly but drops off his second year meaning Camby actually had a higher rebounding percentage.

Deke had a slightly higher PER in 01 with Philly but dropped his second year making Camby actually have a higher PER with AI than Deke did.

And this means that Deke is a better player than Camby.

And that Deke is a better man defender...

I'm comparing the Sixers' finals run to the two play-off appearances Denver had with Iverson. My point is that when Iverson has a real inside presence, he can be succesful.

You arguing that Camby is better than Deke doesn't help your stance on Iverson. You're basically saying that Iverson took an inferior team to the NBA Finals.

That Finals appearance, when compared to the play-off appearances in Denver do a lot to prove what I'm saying about Iverson, which is he needs shooters on the wing with him (space to operate, and a weapon to punish the defense with when they double Iverson), and a big man inside to take care of the opposition's big man.

In 2001, he had a big man who could take care of the opposition's big man, he a very good spot up shooter (Aaron McKie was .422 on threes on those play-offs).

In '07, he didn't have the big man inside to cope with the Spurs' Tim Duncan, who averaged 20 points, 11 boards, 6 assists and 3 blocks (including two games with 5 blocks). The Spurs also had a strong supporting front court with Robert Horry, Francisco Elson and Fabricio Oberto.

Same story in '08, as Pau Gasol averaged 22 points, 9 boards, 5 assists and 3 blocks (including 3 in games one and two, and 4 in the decider). Pau was also supported by Lamar Odom, who played very well that year.

While there were some good players in the front court in Denver, they couldn't compete with those of the Spurs and Lakers.

When Iverson had a front court, his team went to the NBA Finals.

Also worth noting is that Iverson's Sixers were coached by Larry Brown. His Nuggets were coached by George Karl. Good coaching is also obviously a huge key in a team making a run, and it wasn't in Denver when Iverson was there (it still isn't, but Chauncey Billups is almost a coach on the floor, which helps to offset it).


Until they realized that Iverson isn't a good scorer and got rid of him seeing as he fits nowhere.

In year one with Denver, Iverson averaged 25 points (.454 from the field, .347 from three) and 7 assists. In year two, he averaged 26 points (.458 from the field, .345 from three) , 7 assists.

Iverson was a very good offensive player in those two years with Denver. They didn't trade him because he couldn't score, they traded him because they didn't want a scorer on the wing with Carmelo Anthony.


You're asking to due the impossible. What was my first response to this thread? I said tt's not possible to build around Iverson. No one is a good fit for Iverson.

It clearly is possible to build around Iverson. When he had a great inside presence, spot up shooting, and good defensive role players, he went to the Finals. When his team didn't have a guy inside to cope with the great inside players, and no defensive role players, his team didn't make noise in the play-offs.

Whilst it happens occasionally, you can't expect a perimeter guy to win consistently without a force inside that can deal with the other great forces, without consistent spot up shooting, and without consistent defensive role players around him.


I believe your words were "dominating prescense" Haslem and Posey certainly don't qualify.

Some of my words were "dominating presence", but some of my other words were "good role players". You need good role players (specifically, spot up shooting and defense) on a championship team, you can't win without them.

My main point through all of this is that whilst Iverson has had some pieces at different times, he's never had them all at once (apart from that one season). When I said to look at the other wings that have led their teams to championships, and listed all the championship teams from 1990-2009, they've all had great supporting casts - every single team had role players that spotted up, they all had role players that played defense, and they were all led by coaches.

The one team that didn't have a huge front court presence was Jordan's Bulls, and Iverson is hardly a loser for not being as good as Michael Jordan.

Iverson hasn't had all those factors on his team at the same time.

JLynn943
10-21-2009, 12:44 AM
LOL I cant believe the irony, hell yes Stuckey is better at running the point than AI, hes not a pure point by any means, but atleast I wont have to worry about him taking every shot he wants.

Seriously? Stuckey shoots at will, has limited passing skills, and has nowhere near Iverson's court vision. Stuckey is an awful point guard, much worse than Iverson. They would be better off with Bynum for sure.




Care to back any of this up with facts? If the Pistons were so good with AI on the court why did they lose so many games in which he participated? Why did the team score more effectively when he was sitting down?

They lost so many games he participated in because he was only in for 18 minutes. Simple. Worse players were in instead, so they lost the lead. And I'd like to see where they scored more effectively without him, thanks.

JLynn943
10-21-2009, 01:02 AM
It's not that I hate Iverson the person. I'm just being critical of his poor play. Stuckey was better than Iverson last year. He did run the point better than Iverson. Have you watched Stuckey play? Let me guess, you look at AI's assists over the years and think he's better at running an offense better than Stuckey right? Pau being great is relative. Seeing as you're defending AI, I'm guessing you have low standards on who you consider to be great.

No, Stuckey really was awful. I can't believe that anyone would even consider him a better PG than Iverson. Defensively, I guess, but not even close on offense. You obviously didn't watch him play.

And no, I do not just look at assists. I actually watch games Iverson plays in. In Detroit, he got the ball to Rip and Tayshaun with them having a good/open look, but they were off usually (especially Prince). However, Iverson's connection with the big men of that team, notably Maxiel and McDyess was great


Detroit certainly did not play much better with Iverson on the court. How many Pistons games did you actually watch because Detroit was terrible with the Hamilton/AI backcourt. That's what Curry tried to do when AI first arrived, trying to accommodate AI anyway he could even after AI proved he wasn't a good player. Tayshaun Prince was lethargic because AI couldn't run the point. So Stuckey had to play PG. forcing Tayshaun into the PF spot where he got abused. At least Tayshaun was a man about it and played through his real back injury instead of quitting like Iverson did.

Again, I don't know how to possibly argue with you when you claim that I must not have watched Pistons games when it's clear you're the one who didn't. The Hamilton/AI backcourt actually worked great the first few games. Iverson said he would give up his role as primary scorer in order to play a be PG and win, and he did. It was when Curry told Iverson to play like he always had that they had problems. But really, they were learning as they went. They had no time to learn to play with each other previously, so they had no chemistry. They did improve quite a bit as the season went on though.



Iverson's move was to be both a short and long term move. Dumars thought AI was a good player and AI proved him wrong. He thought AI would give the Pistons a player they hadn't had since Grant Hill left. If AI didn't work out, he'd have the cap room to sign new players.




Iverson did not "prove him wrong." He never had the chance. They told him to play how he always played, when really that wasn't what they wanted, and then punished him when he did by taking him out of games/the starting role.


Side note: I find it ironic how much you attack Iverson's faults given your (assuming by username) favorite player's

Chronz
10-21-2009, 01:05 AM
Seriously? Stuckey shoots at will, has limited passing skills, and has nowhere near Iverson's court vision. Stuckey is an awful point guard, much worse than Iverson. They would be better off with Bynum for sure.

OK so neither one is a real pg but I dont see where your getting this much worse stuff from. Its like someone brainwashed him into what a PG should play like. AI doesnt care what his play looks like, he'll play his way and wont be very good at it unless you let him dominate the ball.






They lost so many games he participated in because he was only in for 18 minutes. Simple. Worse players were in instead, so they lost the lead. And I'd like to see where they scored more effectively without him, thanks.
All of last year, on average the Pistons scored 105.3PTS per 100 possessions with AI on the floor, and 111 with him off it. Just saying, can you explain why its absurdly low for such a great difference maker?

Raph12
10-21-2009, 01:25 AM
OK so neither one is a real pg but I dont see where your getting this much worse stuff from. Its like someone brainwashed him into what a PG should play like. AI doesnt care what his play looks like, he'll play his way and wont be very good at it unless you let him dominate the ball.

All of last year, on average the Pistons scored 105.3PTS per 100 possessions with AI on the floor, and 111 with him off it. Just saying, can you explain why its absurdly low for such a great difference maker?

Here's a few fun facts for you Chronz:

1. The Piston's most successful 5-man unit was Stuckey-AI-Rip-Prince-Sheed

2. The Piston's were better with AI on the floor vs Stuckey on the floor.
Iverson: ON Court OFF Court Stuckey: ON Court OFF Court
Offense: 105.3 111.0 Offense: 107.2 109.7
Defense: 107.1 110.4 Defense: 109.4 107.7
Net: -1.8 +0.6 Net: -2.1 +2.1
If anyone is confused about what these numbers mean; not only were they losing by more with Stuckey in versus Iverson, but they were winning by more without Stuckey in the lineup.

3. Last season, AI statiscally was better than Stuckey in almost every way, even though it was AI's worst season ever.

Bottomline: AI is better than Stuckey in every aspect of the game aside from rebounding.

JLynn943
10-21-2009, 01:29 AM
All of last year, on average the Pistons scored 105.3PTS per 100 possessions with AI on the floor, and 111 with him off it. Just saying, can you explain why its absurdly low for such a great difference maker?

With Iverson off the floor, it isn't all that surprising that the rest of the team, who had played with one another through other seasons and the preseason worked better together. It's not like this could improve much either when Iverson played 18mpg and Rip was injured for a stretch.

Also, Iverson, as a bench player, played more with the second team, which consists of less talented players.

Admittedly, though, I am surprised at the numbers. Where are they from?

Edit: and thank you Raph. I really need to figure out where people pull these stats from.

Wilson
10-21-2009, 10:14 AM
With Iverson off the floor, it isn't all that surprising that the rest of the team, who had played with one another through other seasons and the preseason worked better together. It's not like this could improve much either when Iverson played 18mpg and Rip was injured for a stretch.

Also, Iverson, as a bench player, played more with the second team, which consists of less talented players.

Admittedly, though, I am surprised at the numbers. Where are they from?

Edit: and thank you Raph. I really need to figure out where people pull these stats from.

I sometimes use the splits on ESPN.com (which there's a link to on every players page). I also use basketball-reference.com, which is a great site for looking up players' PER and stuff like that.

Chronz is a basketball robot, and has every single stat saved on his hard-drive. He calculates every single stat for every player and team with a 0.1% possibility of error.

JayW_1023
10-21-2009, 10:33 AM
If Iverson is so bad, why haven't they already? Kobe Bryant and Ray Allen were both drafted in the same year as Iverson, yet Iverson has more points. If Iverson is so bad, why does he have more points than them? Especially Kobe, who is as much of a scorer as anybody...

Because scoring is a relative thing. Sure Allen Iverson puts up points, but he doesn't do it as efficiently as Kobe or Allen. Therefor Allen and Kobe are better players...not just because they score the ball more efficiently, but also because they make better decisions with the basketball.

jfnyg23
10-21-2009, 10:55 AM
Anyone who loves defense and isn't concerned about personal stats on O.

They'd have to compensate for AI's lack of defense. He doesn't play defense, he merely tries to outscore his opponent(s).

Hinrich comes to mind...think many hit it right on the head.

Wilson
10-21-2009, 11:08 AM
Because scoring is a relative thing. Sure Allen Iverson puts up points, but he doesn't do it as efficiently as Kobe or Allen. Therefor Allen and Kobe are better players...not just because they score the ball more efficiently, but also because they make better decisions with the basketball.

Well Ray Allen and especially Kobe Bryant have had better team-mates than Iverson has, which helps their effeciency.

I mean, I'm not trying to say that Iverson is a better player than either one. His offensive game isn't as complete (he doesn't shoot from outside/mid-range as well as they do), and defensively they're way ahead of him. But they have been helped by much better team-mates along the way.

Raph12
10-21-2009, 11:49 AM
With Iverson off the floor, it isn't all that surprising that the rest of the team, who had played with one another through other seasons and the preseason worked better together. It's not like this could improve much either when Iverson played 18mpg and Rip was injured for a stretch.

Also, Iverson, as a bench player, played more with the second team, which consists of less talented players.

Admittedly, though, I am surprised at the numbers. Where are they from?

Edit: and thank you Raph. I really need to figure out where people pull these stats from.

Two websites where you can find more detailed stats:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/ (detailed stats from when the NBA began)
www.82games.com/ (on-court/off-court stats, miscillaneous stats)

DerekRE_3
10-21-2009, 01:18 PM
Well Ray Allen and especially Kobe Bryant have had better team-mates than Iverson has, which helps their effeciency.

I mean, I'm not trying to say that Iverson is a better player than either one. His offensive game isn't as complete (he doesn't shoot from outside/mid-range as well as they do), and defensively they're way ahead of him. But they have been helped by much better team-mates along the way.

They have definitely had better teammates, but Kobe Bryant also makes his teammates better. Iverson if anything, hurts his teammates and limits their potential.

Wilson
10-21-2009, 01:21 PM
They have definitely had better teammates, but Kobe Bryant also makes his teammates better. Iverson if anything, hurts his teammates and limits their potential.

People only started saying that when Derek Fisher came back, and when we traded for Trevor Ariza and Pau Gasol.

In the years in between Shaq and Pau in LA, Kobe's team-mates weren't too different from the ones Iverson had played with (although I don't know if Iverson ever played with someone quite as bad as Smush Parker, I don't know if anyone ever has...).

DerekRE_3
10-21-2009, 01:24 PM
People only started saying that when Derek Fisher came back, and when we traded for Trevor Ariza and Pau Gasol.

In the years in between Shaq and Pau in LA, Kobe's team-mates weren't too different from the ones Iverson had played with (although I don't know if Iverson ever played with someone quite as bad as Smush Parker, I don't know if anyone ever has...).

Iverson had some pretty good teammates in Denver and that didn't really work out. The Billups trade all but proved it. And yes, I was referring to the current Kobe Bryant. I think the biggest thing now is that he trusts his teammates more than he ever has.

Raph12
10-21-2009, 01:42 PM
Iverson had some pretty good teammates in Denver and that didn't really work out. The Billups trade all but proved it. And yes, I was referring to the current Kobe Bryant. I think the biggest thing now is that he trusts his teammates more than he ever has.

I wouldn't call losing to the NBA Champs (Spurs) in '07 and the NBA Finalists (Lakers) in '08 not working out, I'd call it a very strong conference. In the 2007-08 season, Iverson was 3rd and Anthony was 4th in scoring, while the team won 50 games in a very competitive Western conference, proving he can co-exist with another wing scorer. Billups played with a different team, Chris Anderson, Dahntay Jones, Nene healthy, etc... incomparable really. Whose to say if AI didn't stay they couldn't win 4 more games and beat an unhealthy Hornets team and a weak Mavs team.

Wilson
10-21-2009, 01:44 PM
Iverson had some pretty good teammates in Denver and that didn't really work out. The Billups trade all but proved it. And yes, I was referring to the current Kobe Bryant. I think the biggest thing now is that he trusts his teammates more than he ever has.

Definately. Part of that has come from Kobe maturing, but part of it is his team-mates just being better. Like I said before, Kobe has the perfect combination of spot up shooters, post presence, and defense around him now. I don't think Iverson has ever really had that.

He did have some good team-mates in Denver, but it wasn't a team that was constructed as well as the championship teams. Him and Carmelo Anthony were essentially asked to do the same thing - be perimeter scorers. That's never going to work, because they both want the ball all the time. And that Denver team never had the players good enough to deal with Tim Duncan and Pau Gasol.

I'm not trying to say that Iverson is the perfect player, but he needs the right team-mates around him, just like any other player.

DerekRE_3
10-21-2009, 01:58 PM
Definately. Part of that has come from Kobe maturing, but part of it is his team-mates just being better. Like I said before, Kobe has the perfect combination of spot up shooters, post presence, and defense around him now. I don't think Iverson has ever really had that.

He did have some good team-mates in Denver, but it wasn't a team that was constructed as well as the championship teams. Him and Carmelo Anthony were essentially asked to do the same thing - be perimeter scorers. That's never going to work, because they both want the ball all the time. And that Denver team never had the players good enough to deal with Tim Duncan and Pau Gasol.

I'm not trying to say that Iverson is the perfect player, but he needs the right team-mates around him, just like any other player.

Right, but with Iverson, I'd argue that it's a lot harder to build the perfect team around him. It just seems more difficult for Iverson to fit with a team, while a guy like Chauncey Billups could probably come to a lot of teams and make them better.

DerekRE_3
10-21-2009, 01:59 PM
I wouldn't call losing to the NBA Champs (Spurs) in '07 and the NBA Finalists (Lakers) in '08 not working out, I'd call it a very strong conference. In the 2007-08 season, Iverson was 3rd and Anthony was 4th in scoring, while the team won 50 games in a very competitive Western conference, proving he can co-exist with another wing scorer. Billups played with a different team, Chris Anderson, Dahntay Jones, Nene healthy, etc... incomparable really. Whose to say if AI didn't stay they couldn't win 4 more games and beat an unhealthy Hornets team and a weak Mavs team.

And with Chauncey Billups, the Nuggets went much farther than they ever did, losing to the eventual NBA Champs, but in the Western Conference Finals instead of the 1st round. The West may not have had the same top to bottom parity that it did in 07 and 08, but the Nuggets were clearly a better team with Billups instead of Iverson. They played as a team on offense and their defense got a lot better.

Have you read about what Iverson did to their locker room? He was a terrible influence on the impressionable JR Smith and Carmelo Anthony, who idolized Iverson. It's no coincidence that JR Smith is becoming a more mature and under control player with Chauncey Billups personally taking him under his wing. Carmelo Anthony has also become a much more complete player and is putting out more effort on defense than he ever has.

Wilson
10-21-2009, 02:04 PM
Right, but with Iverson, I'd argue that it's a lot harder to build the perfect team around him. It just seems more difficult for Iverson to fit with a team, while a guy like Chauncey Billups could probably come to a lot of teams and make them better.

Agreed about Chauncey, but that's not a totally fair assesment. I mean Chauncey is just as good at playing off the ball, spotting up and spreading the floor as he is at driving and going for the score or finding the open man.

Iverson can drive and score/pass, but he doesn't have the long-range game. There's no reason that a strong defensive PG who can shoot wouldn't work in the backcourt with Iverson (like Aaron McKie in the Sixers' finals run). And it's true that Iverson has never had a front court presence that can deal with the best in the game.

I'm going to use Toronto as an example

PG: Jose Calderon/Jarrett Jack
SG: Allen Iverson/DeMarr Derozan
SF: Hedo Turkoglu
PF: Chris Bosh
FC: Andrea Bargnani

That's a team where Iverson can just focus on driving and scoring. He has two scorers in the post with Bosh and Bargs, which helps to open the court up a bit. Then on the wing, he has two guys who can play off the ball and spot up. Pretty good fit, in my opinion.

That team would probably struggle defensively (especially in the front court), but offensively it's a great fit for a guy who loves to drive to the basket.

DerekRE_3
10-21-2009, 02:06 PM
Agreed about Chauncey, but that's not a totally fair assesment. I mean Chauncey is just as good at playing off the ball, spotting up and spreading the floor as he is at driving and going for the score or finding the open man.

Iverson can drive and score/pass, but he doesn't have the long-range game. There's no reason that a strong defensive PG who can shoot wouldn't work in the backcourt with Iverson (like Aaron McKie in the Sixers' finals run). And it's true that Iverson has never had a front court presence that can deal with the best in the game.

That's all true, but Billups also brings something else that Iverson just can't. And that's the intangibles. Billups completely turned the culture around in Denver, while the culture in Detroit crumbled with Iverson.

If I'm building a team around someone, Iverson wouldn't be my first choice by a long shot. There's just too much to account for when building a team around him.

Wilson
10-21-2009, 02:10 PM
That's all true, but Billups also brings something else that Iverson just can't. And that's the intangibles. Billups completely turned the culture around in Denver, while the culture in Detroit crumbled with Iverson.

Agreed but again, that's more a testament to Billups' abilities than a knock on Iverson. Say, for example, that Iverson had Tim Duncan in the front court. That's a guy who brings the same intangibles as Chauncey Billups: defensive mindset, leadership, leads by example, very high basketball IQ etc.

The example I mentioned in my last post (I edited as you were responding) also has a slight example of that with Jose Calderon, but obviously not on the same level as Chauncey.


If I'm building a team around someone, Iverson wouldn't be my first choice by a long shot. There's just too much to account for when building a team around him.

He wouldn't be mine either (I'd always start with a big guy), but if he's your second best player, and your main offensive wing player, you can have a lot of success with Iverson on your team, in my opinion.

DerekRE_3
10-21-2009, 02:13 PM
Agreed but again, that's more a testament to Billups' abilities than a knock on Iverson. Say, for example, that Iverson had Tim Duncan in the front court. That's a guy who brings the same intangibles as Chauncey Billups: defensive mindset, leadership, leads by example, very high basketball IQ etc.

The example I mentioned in my last post (I edited as you were responding) also has a slight example of that with Jose Calderon, but obviously not on the same level as Chauncey.

That team you built in your last post definitely is explosive offensively, but like you said...no defense. The perimeter defense would be pretty bad, and the interior defense would look even worse. That team wouldn't go anywhere.

Yes, it is a testament to Billups' abilities, but I'd also argue it's a knock on Iverson. It's no secret that he was a terrible influence on that locker room. He just isn't a team player, isn't a good teammate, and that's why I'd never want him on my team.

Also, I think you could pair a lot of scoring guards with Tim Duncan and be successful. Duncan would clearly be the best player on that team and my argument is that you can't win with Iverson being the best player on the team and the centerpiece.

Wilson
10-21-2009, 02:28 PM
That team you built in your last post definitely is explosive offensively, but like you said...no defense. The perimeter defense would be pretty bad, and the interior defense would look even worse. That team wouldn't go anywhere.

But the defense wouldn't be entirely Iverson's fault. That example was just to show how I think Iverson fits into a team offensively.


Also, I think you could pair a lot of scoring guards with Tim Duncan and be successful. Duncan would clearly be the best player on that team and my argument is that you can't win with Iverson being the best player on the team and the centerpiece.

It's a perfectly fair thing to say. Iverson just isn't good enough defensively to be the best player on a championship team. But, as long as there are good defensive players around him, good shooters and a top tier big man, you can win a championship with Iverson on the team.

That's where I'm saying Iverson has some similarities to Kobe, Wade, LeBron and others. When Kobe and Wade won championships, they had these factors:

Kobe Bryant - Shaquille O'Neal, Pau Gasol, Derek Fisher, Robert Horry, Trevor Ariza etc.

Dwyane Wade - Shaquille O'Neal, James Posey, Jason Williams, Udonis Haslem etc.

SteveNash
10-21-2009, 06:09 PM
I wouldn't say Najera's spot up shooting was better than Trevor's in the play-offs. In the '07 play-offs, he didn't hit a three. In '08, he hit two in four games.

Najera's still a better spot shooter than Ariza. If AI passed more, he'd have more 3 point opportunities. Ariza playing with Iverson would be terrible.


Plus, having a blindside blocker, and two average defenders isn't as good as having one very good defender, an average defender and a blindside blocker.

There's also the fact that Chris Andersen fires up the home crowd unlike many other role-players in the league, which helps give the current Nuggets a huge home-court advantage.

Whose this very good defender on the Nuggets? Did you not see what Dirk did to them?


Yes, they were naive, but it's not like Iverson was in the wrong. They traded for him, and asked him and Carmelo to do the same thing. You don't win if both your star players play exactly the same way.

Iverson was in the wrong when he said he'd do anything to bring a title to Detroit. Then a couple weeks later he's already skipping practice, a practice that was scheduled for him so the team could gel better.


Or how about, when players shoot better, teams win. It's not like the Lakers winning a game boosted Ariza's shooting percentage. His shooting percentage helped the Lakers win.

Ariza's splits between wins and losses as far as 3 point shooting is concerned is so minuscule that it's practically worthless over the course of the season.


Of course it was Kobe providing Ariza with space, this is what I'm saying Iverson has missed: a guy that will punish the defense when they leave someone open for the sake of doubling Iverson. When he has had the shooters, he hasn't had the inside presence - you need both.

Ariza shoots 30% on 3s for his career. Over his career he's made .2 a game. Iverson has had plenty of spot shooters that have FAR surpassed those numbers. And that's with AI's selfishness and unwillingness to pass the ball.


If Iverson is so bad, why haven't they already? Kobe Bryant and Ray Allen were both drafted in the same year as Iverson, yet Iverson has more points. If Iverson is so bad, why does he have more points than them? Especially Kobe, who is as much of a scorer as anybody...

They weren't as selfish as Iverson was. They'll surpass him because they still have game left, Iverson has no jumpshot and is shot. He's small can't defend, he has no value in the league.


Yes, and on the topic of scoring, few have been better than Iverson from 1990-2009. Of guys that played in the 90s, six guys have scored more points than Allen Iverson: Karl Malone Michael Jordan, Shaquille O'Neal, Hakeem Olajuwon, Reggier Miller, and Patrick Ewing.

And to reiterate, that four of those guys are big men goes a long way to suggest that your assertion that it's a guards game is wrong.

Where are the Karl Malones, Shaq's, Hakeems, and Ewing's off today? I said it shifted, I never said it was an immediate shift.


Pau Gasol, Amare Stoudemire, Chris Bosh, David West, Tim Duncan and Shaquille O'Neal can all score the ball well. Even Dwight Howard, who has very little offensive game, averaged 20 points last season. There are a number of big men who score the ball today.

So you think Davis West is going to surpass AI in career points?


The Spurs' first two championships came with David Robinson and Tim Duncan in the front court, they weren't built solely around Tim Duncan.

First one you could make a case. Second championship, Robinson was just along for Duncan carrying him.


Again, Iverson with Carmelo isn't a great combo, because they were both being asked to be number one scorers...

No they weren't. That's why George Karl came out and bashed AI immediately after the trade for being a poor player who ruined his offense.


So Iverson was supposed to just stand around, and bail the team out if they couldn't score? And that he didn't do this well is a knock on him?

Iverson almost always stands around when he doesn't have the ball. That's his fault that he lacks heart. Iverson was to fit in with the team, having the Pistons run their offense. The bailing out part was more towards the playoffs when they went up against better defensive teams. It's too bad Iverson lacked the heart to play the game and didn't even make it to the playoffs.


What about when Stuckey was playing with Rip? He wasn't a great defender then, either...

I never said he was a great defender. I said he was much better than AI. He still has a ways to go, but he's already vastly superior to AI.


Iverson did not quit on Philly. That year, his scoring, assists, free throw attempts, free throw percentage and steals were up. It's worth noting that his scoring dropped by six points that first year in Denver, and his FG attempts per game dropped by five. He didn't go to Denver and just swallow the ball, he took a much less dominant role in the offense than he had in Philly.

Asking to be traded is quitting on a team.

I'
m comparing the Sixers' finals run to the two play-off appearances Denver had with Iverson. My point is that when Iverson has a real inside presence, he can be succesful.

You arguing that Camby is better than Deke doesn't help your stance on Iverson. You're basically saying that Iverson took an inferior team to the NBA Finals.

That Finals appearance, when compared to the play-off appearances in Denver do a lot to prove what I'm saying about Iverson, which is he needs shooters on the wing with him (space to operate, and a weapon to punish the defense with when they double Iverson), and a big man inside to take care of the opposition's big man.

In 2001, he had a big man who could take care of the opposition's big man, he a very good spot up shooter (Aaron McKie was .422 on threes on those play-offs).

In '07, he didn't have the big man inside to cope with the Spurs' Tim Duncan, who averaged 20 points, 11 boards, 6 assists and 3 blocks (including two games with 5 blocks). The Spurs also had a strong supporting front court with Robert Horry, Francisco Elson and Fabricio Oberto.

Same story in '08, as Pau Gasol averaged 22 points, 9 boards, 5 assists and 3 blocks (including 3 in games one and two, and 4 in the decider). Pau was also supported by Lamar Odom, who played very well that year.

While there were some good players in the front court in Denver, they couldn't compete with those of the Spurs and Lakers.

When Iverson had a front court, his team went to the NBA Finals.

Also worth noting is that Iverson's Sixers were coached by Larry Brown. His Nuggets were coached by George Karl. Good coaching is also obviously a huge key in a team making a run, and it wasn't in Denver when Iverson was there (it still isn't, but Chauncey Billups is almost a coach on the floor, which helps to offset it).

Iverson doesn't do jack no matter who surrounds him. Only Iverson could have embarrassed the US in the Olympics. You can surround him with all the talent in the world and he'll still disappoint you. The only thing AI fans can cling to is 1 postseason. What has AI done the last 8 years? Jack. His one playoff run was nothing worthwhile. Having to go to 7 games against crap Raptors and Bucks team never to be seen or heard again.


In year one with Denver, Iverson averaged 25 points (.454 from the field, .347 from three) and 7 assists. In year two, he averaged 26 points (.458 from the field, .345 from three) , 7 assists.

Iverson was a very good offensive player in those two years with Denver. They didn't trade him because he couldn't score, they traded him because they didn't want a scorer on the wing with Carmelo Anthony.

Iverson was a bad scorer who ruined Denver as a team. It's not like Billups is a pass first guy averaging 18 with Denver. No it's the wasted possessions with AI that ruin Denver and make him a bad scorer. The same thing Karl complained about right after AI left. He hogs the ball and kills and offense looking for HIS shot and if he wants to do that, he needs to be putting up much better percentages for him to be able to do that.


It clearly is possible to build around Iverson. When he had a great inside presence, spot up shooting, and good defensive role players, he went to the Finals. When his team didn't have a guy inside to cope with the great inside players, and no defensive role players, his team didn't make noise in the play-offs.

Whilst it happens occasionally, you can't expect a perimeter guy to win consistently without a force inside that can deal with the other great forces, without consistent spot up shooting, and without consistent defensive role players around him.

AI needs a force so dominant, it would be building around the the front court player, not AI. Let's just say he had Shaq/Duncan in his prime. Would he be willing to get the ball to them? No, he's just too selfish ruining team chemistry and would probably be the only player in NBA history that couldn't win with a Shaq/Duncan frontcourt.


Some of my words were "dominating presence", but some of my other words were "good role players". You need good role players (specifically, spot up shooting and defense) on a championship team, you can't win without them.


My main point through all of this is that whilst Iverson has had some pieces at different times, he's never had them all at once (apart from that one season). When I said to look at the other wings that have led their teams to championships, and listed all the championship teams from 1990-2009, they've all had great supporting casts - every single team had role players that spotted up, they all had role players that played defense, and they were all led by coaches.

The one team that didn't have a huge front court presence was Jordan's Bulls, and Iverson is hardly a loser for not being as good as Michael Jordan.

Iverson hasn't had all those factors on his team at the same time.

Instead of asking for the impossible, you need to look at Iverson. All great players change over their careers. Iverson hasn't and that is why he hasn't had success.


Seriously? Stuckey shoots at will, has limited passing skills, and has nowhere near Iverson's court vision. Stuckey is an awful point guard, much worse than Iverson. They would be better off with Bynum for sure.

Stuckey shoots at will? No, his shots always come within the flow of the offense, having a much better shot selection than AI. And while he doesn't have great court vision and isn't great at running the point, he's still much better than the terrible Iverson.


They lost so many games he participated in because he was only in for 18 minutes. Simple. Worse players were in instead, so they lost the lead. And I'd like to see where they scored more effectively without him, thanks.

AI only played 18 minutes or less 3 times.


No, Stuckey really was awful. I can't believe that anyone would even consider him a better PG than Iverson. Defensively, I guess, but not even close on offense. You obviously didn't watch him play.

And no, I do not just look at assists. I actually watch games Iverson plays in. In Detroit, he got the ball to Rip and Tayshaun with them having a good/open look, but they were off usually (especially Prince). However, Iverson's connection with the big men of that team, notably Maxiel and McDyess was great

AI may have more talent, Stuckey was the better player. Far superior at running the point. How do you know what AI did? He only played PG a few games before Curry realized he was horrible and put Stuckey in place of him. Everyone on the Pistons hated AI and he didn't actually create many easy shots for any player.


Again, I don't know how to possibly argue with you when you claim that I must not have watched Pistons games when it's clear you're the one who didn't. The Hamilton/AI backcourt actually worked great the first few games. Iverson said he would give up his role as primary scorer in order to play a be PG and win, and he did. It was when Curry told Iverson to play like he always had that they had problems. But really, they were learning as they went. They had no time to learn to play with each other previously, so they had no chemistry. They did improve quite a bit as the season went on though.

And when Curry told AI to be like he always was, AI took it to heart and skipped out on practice. AI/Hamilton backcourt did not work at all.


Iverson did not "prove him wrong." He never had the chance. They told him to play how he always played, when really that wasn't what they wanted, and then punished him when he did by taking him out of games/the starting role.

Side note: I find it ironic how much you attack Iverson's faults given your (assuming by username) favorite player's

AI had multiple opportunities and blew them all. Detroit bent over backwards trying to accommodate AI. Even bringing AI off the bench was a move to try to help AI. AI proved that he sucked when he couldn't handle any role on the team.


Here's a few fun facts for you Chronz:

1. The Piston's most successful 5-man unit was Stuckey-AI-Rip-Prince-Sheed

Actually, the most successful unit was Stuckey-Hamilton-Prince-Johnson-Wallace. They played 50 minutes and were +27, Stuckey-AI-Rip-Prince-Sheed played 5 times as many minutes yet were only +53.


2. The Piston's were better with AI on the floor vs Stuckey on the floor.
Iverson: ON Court OFF Court Stuckey: ON Court OFF Court
Offense: 105.3 111.0 Offense: 107.2 109.7
Defense: 107.1 110.4 Defense: 109.4 107.7
Net: -1.8 +0.6 Net: -2.1 +2.1
If anyone is confused about what these numbers mean; not only were they losing by more with Stuckey in versus Iverson, but they were winning by more without Stuckey in the lineup.

Stuckey has a worse +/- because he actually accepted his bench role and played with inferior players. Look at adjusted +/- to see that the team was more successful with Stuckey than they were with Iverson.


3. Last season, AI statiscally was better than Stuckey in almost every way, even though it was AI's worst season ever.

Bottomline: AI is better than Stuckey in every aspect of the game aside from rebounding.

I'm looking at the stat that says they were 24-30 15-13 without him.

Wilson
10-21-2009, 08:30 PM
Najera's still a better spot shooter than Ariza. If AI passed more, he'd have more 3 point opportunities. Ariza playing with Iverson would be terrible.

Najera tooka total of three 3-pointers in the '07 play-offs, are you trying to say that Iverson only passed the ball three times? What about all the time Carmelo Anthony had the ball, where were Najera's shot opportunities then?

In '08 he shot five 3-pointers. Did Iverson only pass five times? Where were all his shot opportunities when Carmelo was on the ball?


Whose this very good defender on the Nuggets? Did you not see what Dirk did to them?

His name is Nene, and I said he was a very good post defender. I also said that alone, he isn't good enough to take care of the great post presences in the league by himself.

Lastly, you said yourself that Dirk plays more like a SF than a PF, so bringing him up in this argument doesn't really help your cause...


Iverson was in the wrong when he said he'd do anything to bring a title to Detroit. Then a couple weeks later he's already skipping practice, a practice that was scheduled for him so the team could gel better.

The way Iverson handled the Detroit situation was really bad. Like I've said, I really don't think he was put in a position where he could succeed, but I'm willing to admit that Iverson himself didn't handle the situation properly, like a professional. He definately shouldn't have skipped that practice.


Ariza's splits between wins and losses as far as 3 point shooting is concerned is so minuscule that it's practically worthless over the course of the season.

Miniscule? Out of 82 games last season, the Lakers won 65. In those 65 wins (79%, by the way), Trevor Ariza shot 33% from three point range, of the 17 they lost. The amount of games in which Ariza shot well is hardly miniscule.


Ariza shoots 30% on 3s for his career. Over his career he's made .2 a game. Iverson has had plenty of spot shooters that have FAR surpassed those numbers. And that's with AI's selfishness and unwillingness to pass the ball.

He's 30% over his entire career, but last season wasn't his entire career. As I showed you before, his outside shooting got better and better all season long, and culminated in a 48% 3-point shooting performance in the play-offs.

In his 23 play-off games, he attampted 84 3-pointers, and made 40 of them (per game: 1.7/3.6), so his 0.2 3s per game over his career isn't particurly important here either.

Trevor Ariza started working on his jump-shot in the summer of '08, after he recovered from his broken foot. He continued to work on it throughout the season - this is clearly reflected in his statistics that season.

And yes, Iverson has had shooters at different times but, once again, where has the post-presence been? You have to have both, it can't be one or the other. His front-courts in Denver, whilst good, weren't good enough to deal with Tim Duncan and Pau Gasol - this is also reflected in the statistics from those series as those guys experienced statistical increases in their match-ups against Denver:

Tim Duncan - '06-'07 R. Season - 20 PPG - 11 RPG - 3 APG - 2 BPG - Play-Offs - 20 PPG - 11 RPG - 6 APG - 3 BPG

Pau Gasol - '07-'08 R. Season (w/ Lakers) - 19 PPG - 8 RPG - 4 APG - 2 BPG - Play-Offs - 22 PPG - 9 RPG - 5 APG - 3 BPG


They weren't as selfish as Iverson was. They'll surpass him because they still have game left, Iverson has no jumpshot and is shot. He's small can't defend, he has no value in the league.

Is there any case that can be made which would suggest that Allen Iverson had better team-mates than Kobe Bryant and Ray Allen, from 1996-2009?

I won't say that Iverson's overall game is better than Kobe Bryant's or Ray Allen's, but through his career he has had to focus on scoring a lot more.


Where are the Karl Malones, Shaq's, Hakeems, and Ewing's off today? I said it shifted, I never said it was an immediate shift.

You said it began to shift during the 80s - that's 29 years for it to take effect. In the 19 years since the 90s began (when there had been 10 years for this change to happen), only two guards have scored more than Iverson.

The Karl Malones? We've had Tim Duncan.
The Shaqs? He's still a very strong player now. Whilst obviously not still in his prime, he's still a highly effectice post player.

The most evidence for it being a big mans game though, is the effect big men have had on championship teams. Spurs build around Tim Duncan and David Robinson - championships. Lakers add Pau Gasol - championship. Celtics add great shooter and great post presence to Paul Pierce - championship.


So you think Davis West is going to surpass AI in career points?

...no. But you said that there are no scoring big men besides Dirk. David West is an example of a big man who scores a good amount of points.


First one you could make a case. Second championship, Robinson was just along for Duncan carrying him.

But the Spurs had still been built around those two figures. After that, Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili came around which gave the Spurs a great inside/out presence.


No they weren't. That's why George Karl came out and bashed AI immediately after the trade for being a poor player who ruined his offense.

If Iverson ruined his offense, how did they, in '06-'07 average 105 PPG? 46% FG? How, in '07-'08 (Iverson's first full season with the team) average 111 PPG on 47% FG?

The only thing holding that offense back was balance: everything came from the perimeter, which is easy for teams like the Spurs to stop, and teams like the Lakers to outscore.


Iverson almost always stands around when he doesn't have the ball. That's his fault that he lacks heart. Iverson was to fit in with the team, having the Pistons run their offense. The bailing out part was more towards the playoffs when they went up against better defensive teams. It's too bad Iverson lacked the heart to play the game and didn't even make it to the playoffs.

Iverson isn't a great shooter, or long-range/mid-range player but he's far from a guy who just stands around without the ball. He's a guy that works by breaking down the defense with the ball in his hands, and goes for the score or tries to find the open man. This is why Iverson didn't work with Detroit (and why I said it wasn't going to work the day the trade happened) - the Pistons need a PG who can make a living from 30 feet away, and Iverson isn't that type of player.


I never said he was a great defender. I said he was much better than AI. He still has a ways to go, but he's already vastly superior to AI.

They both suck defensively. Even if Stuckey is a bit better, that's like saying Nate Robinson isn't small because he isn't quite as small as Earl Boykins - it doesn't make him any bigger, and comparing Stuckey's defense to Iverson's doesn't make it any better.


Asking to be traded is quitting on a team.

Iverson didn't exactly demand a trade. The team banned him from playing, and he responded by saying "a change may be best for everyone". It's not like he hadn't given anything to Philadelphia and had to put up with bad supporting casts.

Plus, like I said before, Iverson was having his strongest season in years that season - when you quit on a team your performance doesn't improve.


Iverson doesn't do jack no matter who surrounds him. Only Iverson could have embarrassed the US in the Olympics. You can surround him with all the talent in the world and he'll still disappoint you. The only thing AI fans can cling to is 1 postseason. What has AI done the last 8 years? Jack. His one playoff run was nothing worthwhile. Having to go to 7 games against crap Raptors and Bucks team never to be seen or heard again.

What team-mates has Iverson played with the last 8 years? Any great big men? The only really good team-mate he had before the trade to Denver was Chris Webber, who was at the end of his career and becoming a role player.

In Denver he and Carmelo weren't championship material because they were both asked to do the same thing, and they didn't have the big man you need to win a championship.

The Bucks weren't a bad team that year - Ray Allen, Glenn Robinson and Sam Cassell all had great years. The Sixers also beat a decent Pacers team that year.

The Olympics weren't Iverson's fault. Those teams had two problems: They were constructed with on-ball scorers (no chemistry), and the rest of the world improved enough to take advantage of it.


Iverson was a bad scorer who ruined Denver as a team. It's not like Billups is a pass first guy averaging 18 with Denver. No it's the wasted possessions with AI that ruin Denver and make him a bad scorer. The same thing Karl complained about right after AI left. He hogs the ball and kills and offense looking for HIS shot and if he wants to do that, he needs to be putting up much better percentages for him to be able to do that.

Iverson was a good scorer who played well with Denver, and helped them score a ton of points. This is very evident in the player and team stats:

Allen Iverson - '06-'07 R. Season:
W/ Philadelphia - 31 PPG - 10.1/24.4 FGA/M per game - 41% FG
W/ Denver - 25 PPG - 18.6/18.9 FGA/M per game - 45% FG

Allen Iverson - '07-'08 R. Season
26 PPG - 8.7/19 FGA/M per game - 47% FG

He cut back on his shot attempts in Denver, and made a higher percentage of them. He didn't hog the ball.

Billups certainly is a pass first guy - he gets his points by playing off the ball and spotting up (although does have the talent to be able to control the ball if he has to). This is a much different skill-set than Allen Iverson's, and one which meshes with a guy like Carmelo Anthony much better than Iverson's.


AI needs a force so dominant, it would be building around the the front court player, not AI. Let's just say he had Shaq/Duncan in his prime. Would he be willing to get the ball to them? No, he's just too selfish ruining team chemistry and would probably be the only player in NBA history that couldn't win with a Shaq/Duncan frontcourt.

What exactly makes you think he wouldn't give them the ball? In 2001, when Dekembe Mutumbo (a guy with little offensive game) arrived in Philadelphia, his scoring average went from 9 PPG to 12 PPG. Coincidence?

In '04-'05, when Iverson had a big man who could score a bit (Chris Webber), a great spot up shooter (Kyle Korver) and a young Andre Iguodala, he averaged 8 assists per game. That year also saw Marc Jackson average the 2nd highest amount of points in his career, despite being 30 years old.

You seem to think that Iverson gets no assists - this is not true. Amongst currently active players Allen Iverson is fifth in total assists. He has 1110 more than Kobe Bryant, and 1966 more than Ray Allen.

His 7 APG is better than Kobe Bryant's 5 per game, Ray Allen's 4 per game, Tracy McGrady's 5 per game, Tony Parker's 6 per game, Vince Carter's 4 per game, Paul Pierce's 4 per game and Joe Johnson's 4 per game.

It is even with LeBron James' and Dwyane Wade's APG.

All these guys are scorers. Why is it that they all get credited for being scorers, whereas Iverson gets discredited and called a ball hog?

Allen Iverson's assists have risen, and his shot attempts have fallen when he's been on teams with other offensively talented players, why do people always claim he never passes the ball?


Instead of asking for the impossible, you need to look at Iverson. All great players change over their careers. Iverson hasn't and that is why he hasn't had success.

He has changed, as evidenced in the fall in shot attempts and rise in assists I mentioned just now.

J_M_B
10-21-2009, 08:39 PM
Someone who likes to distribute the ball and doesn't need the ball in his hands to be effective. The guard would have to be able to defend the taller player as well.

My choice: Kirk Hinrich

Jose Calderon could work also...

J_M_B
10-21-2009, 08:40 PM
Najera tooka total of three 3-pointers in the '07 play-offs, are you trying to say that Iverson only passed the ball three times? What about all the time Carmelo Anthony had the ball, where were Najera's shot opportunities then?

In '08 he shot five 3-pointers. Did Iverson only pass five times? Where were all his shot opportunities when Carmelo was on the ball?



His name is Nene, and I said he was a very good post defender. I also said that alone, he isn't good enough to take care of the great post presences in the league by himself.

Lastly, you said yourself that Dirk plays more like a SF than a PF, so bringing him up in this argument doesn't really help your cause...



The way Iverson handled the Detroit situation was really bad. Like I've said, I really don't think he was put in a position where he could succeed, but I'm willing to admit that Iverson himself didn't handle the situation properly, like a professional. He definately shouldn't have skipped that practice.



Miniscule? Out of 82 games last season, the Lakers won 65. In those 65 wins (79%, by the way), Trevor Ariza shot 33% from three point range, of the 17 they lost. The amount of games in which Ariza shot well is hardly miniscule.



He's 30% over his entire career, but last season wasn't his entire career. As I showed you before, his outside shooting got better and better all season long, and culminated in a 48% 3-point shooting performance in the play-offs.

In his 23 play-off games, he attampted 84 3-pointers, and made 40 of them (per game: 1.7/3.6), so his 0.2 3s per game over his career isn't particurly important here either.

Trevor Ariza started working on his jump-shot in the summer of '08, after he recovered from his broken foot. He continued to work on it throughout the season - this is clearly reflected in his statistics that season.

And yes, Iverson has had shooters at different times but, once again, where has the post-presence been? You have to have both, it can't be one or the other. His front-courts in Denver, whilst good, weren't good enough to deal with Tim Duncan and Pau Gasol - this is also reflected in the statistics from those series as those guys experienced statistical increases in their match-ups against Denver:

Tim Duncan - '06-'07 R. Season - 20 PPG - 11 RPG - 3 APG - 2 BPG - Play-Offs - 20 PPG - 11 RPG - 6 APG - 3 BPG

Pau Gasol - '07-'08 R. Season (w/ Lakers) - 19 PPG - 8 RPG - 4 APG - 2 BPG - Play-Offs - 22 PPG - 9 RPG - 5 APG - 3 BPG



Is there any case that can be made which would suggest that Allen Iverson had better team-mates than Kobe Bryant and Ray Allen, from 1996-2009?

I won't say that Iverson's overall game is better than Kobe Bryant's or Ray Allen's, but through his career he has had to focus on scoring a lot more.



You said it began to shift during the 80s - that's 29 years for it to take effect. In the 19 years since the 90s began (when there had been 10 years for this change to happen), only two guards have scored more than Iverson.

The Karl Malones? We've had Tim Duncan.
The Shaqs? He's still a very strong player now. Whilst obviously not still in his prime, he's still a highly effectice post player.

The most evidence for it being a big mans game though, is the effect big men have had on championship teams. Spurs build around Tim Duncan and David Robinson - championships. Lakers add Pau Gasol - championship. Celtics add great shooter and great post presence to Paul Pierce - championship.



...no. But you said that there are no scoring big men besides Dirk. David West is an example of a big man who scores a good amount of points.



But the Spurs had still been built around those two figures. After that, Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili came around which gave the Spurs a great inside/out presence.



If Iverson ruined his offense, how did they, in '06-'07 average 105 PPG? 46% FG? How, in '07-'08 (Iverson's first full season with the team) average 111 PPG on 47% FG?

The only thing holding that offense back was balance: everything came from the perimeter, which is easy for teams like the Spurs to stop, and teams like the Lakers to outscore.



Iverson isn't a great shooter, or long-range/mid-range player but he's far from a guy who just stands around without the ball. He's a guy that works by breaking down the defense with the ball in his hands, and goes for the score or tries to find the open man. This is why Iverson didn't work with Detroit (and why I said it wasn't going to work the day the trade happened) - the Pistons need a PG who can make a living from 30 feet away, and Iverson isn't that type of player.



They both suck defensively. Even if Stuckey is a bit better, that's like saying Nate Robinson isn't small because he isn't quite as small as Earl Boykins - it doesn't make him any bigger, and comparing Stuckey's defense to Iverson's doesn't make it any better.



Iverson didn't exactly demand a trade. The team banned him from playing, and he responded by saying "a change may be best for everyone". It's not like he hadn't given anything to Philadelphia and had to put up with bad supporting casts.

Plus, like I said before, Iverson was having his strongest season in years that season - when you quit on a team your performance doesn't improve.



What team-mates has Iverson played with the last 8 years? Any great big men? The only really good team-mate he had before the trade to Denver was Chris Webber, who was at the end of his career and becoming a role player.

In Denver he and Carmelo weren't championship material because they were both asked to do the same thing, and they didn't have the big man you need to win a championship.

The Bucks weren't a bad team that year - Ray Allen, Glenn Robinson and Sam Cassell all had great years. The Sixers also beat a decent Pacers team that year.

The Olympics weren't Iverson's fault. Those teams had two problems: They were constructed with on-ball scorers (no chemistry), and the rest of the world improved enough to take advantage of it.



Iverson was a good scorer who played well with Denver, and helped them score a ton of points. This is very evident in the player and team stats:

Allen Iverson - '06-'07 R. Season:
W/ Philadelphia - 31 PPG - 10.1/24.4 FGA/M per game - 41% FG
W/ Denver - 25 PPG - 18.6/18.9 FGA/M per game - 45% FG

Allen Iverson - '07-'08 R. Season
26 PPG - 8.7/19 FGA/M per game - 47% FG

He cut back on his shot attempts in Denver, and made a higher percentage of them. He didn't hog the ball.

Billups certainly is a pass first guy - he gets his points by playing off the ball and spotting up (although does have the talent to be able to control the ball if he has to). This is a much different skill-set than Allen Iverson's, and one which meshes with a guy like Carmelo Anthony much better than Iverson's.



What exactly makes you think he wouldn't give them the ball? In 2001, when Dekembe Mutumbo (a guy with little offensive game) arrived in Philadelphia, his scoring average went from 9 PPG to 12 PPG. Coincidence?

In '04-'05, when Iverson had a big man who could score a bit (Chris Webber), a great spot up shooter (Kyle Korver) and a young Andre Iguodala, he averaged 8 assists per game. That year also saw Marc Jackson average the 2nd highest amount of points in his career, despite being 30 years old.

You seem to think that Iverson gets no assists - this is not true. Amongst currently active players Allen Iverson is fifth in total assists. He has 1110 more than Kobe Bryant, and 1966 more than Ray Allen.

His 7 APG is better than Kobe Bryant's 5 per game, Ray Allen's 4 per game, Tracy McGrady's 5 per game, Tony Parker's 6 per game, Vince Carter's 4 per game, Paul Pierce's 4 per game and Joe Johnson's 4 per game.

It is even with LeBron James' and Dwyane Wade's APG.

All these guys are scorers. Why is it that they all get credited for being scorers, whereas Iverson gets discredited and called a ball hog?

Allen Iverson's assists have risen, and his shot attempts have fallen when he's been on teams with other offensively talented players, why do people always claim he never passes the ball?



He has changed, as evidenced in the fall in shot attempts and rise in assists I mentioned just now.

This has to be one of the longest posts I have ever read.

Wilson
10-21-2009, 08:58 PM
This has to be one of the longest posts I have ever read.

It is without a doubt the longest one I've ever written. In fact, I think it's bigger than a couple of essays I've written for my degree course - this is not good.

:p

SteveNash
10-22-2009, 12:39 AM
Najera tooka total of three 3-pointers in the '07 play-offs, are you trying to say that Iverson only passed the ball three times? What about all the time Carmelo Anthony had the ball, where were Najera's shot opportunities then?

In '08 he shot five 3-pointers. Did Iverson only pass five times? Where were all his shot opportunities when Carmelo was on the ball?

Small sample size. Najera showed it 08 that he was a better spot up shooter than Ariza in 09. Hitting threes at a faster rate and at a higher percentage. I would like to point out just so I'm clear, that I don't think Najera is a spot up shooter. Just that if Ariza qualifies as one than Najera does, and not only that but he's the superior spot up shooter as well in 08.


His name is Nene, and I said he was a very good post defender. I also said that alone, he isn't good enough to take care of the great post presences in the league by himself.

Nene isn't a very good post defender. He loses focus far too often and isn't able to block very many shots.


Lastly, you said yourself that Dirk plays more like a SF than a PF, so bringing him up in this argument doesn't really help your cause...

I didn't know who the hell you were talking about as Denver doesn't have any very good post defenders.


The way Iverson handled the Detroit situation was really bad. Like I've said, I really don't think he was put in a position where he could succeed, but I'm willing to admit that Iverson himself didn't handle the situation properly, like a professional. He definately shouldn't have skipped that practice.

So why continue with this discussion. Detroit did everything to try to accommodate while AI did nothing to accommodate the Pistons. Isn't that the definition of a selfish player who cares more about himself than about the team?


Miniscule? Out of 82 games last season, the Lakers won 65. In those 65 wins (79%, by the way), Trevor Ariza shot 33% from three point range, of the 17 they lost. The amount of games in which Ariza shot well is hardly miniscule.

The difference between Ariza's hot shooting in wins and cold shooting in losses is minuscule.

Ariza in Wins:
47 3PM 142 3PA 33.1 3P% 1590 MP

Ariza in losses:
14 3PM 49 3PA 28.6 3P% 408 MP

For the Lakers wins, assume Ariza shot as "poorly" as he did during the losses. He'd contribute 19 fewer points during their 65 games, less than .3 points a game. Now take Lakers losses assume he shot as "good" as he did in wins. He'd contribute 6.7 more during the 17 losser, less than .4 points a game.

.3/.4 points a game is minuscule (though not completely insignificant) over the course of a season.


He's 30% over his entire career, but last season wasn't his entire career. As I showed you before, his outside shooting got better and better all season long, and culminated in a 48% 3-point shooting performance in the play-offs.

In his 23 play-off games, he attampted 84 3-pointers, and made 40 of them (per game: 1.7/3.6), so his 0.2 3s per game over his career isn't particurly important here either.

Trevor Ariza started working on his jump-shot in the summer of '08, after he recovered from his broken foot. He continued to work on it throughout the season - this is clearly reflected in his statistics that season.

And yes, Iverson has had shooters at different times but, once again, where has the post-presence been? You have to have both, it can't be one or the other. His front-courts in Denver, whilst good, weren't good enough to deal with Tim Duncan and Pau Gasol - this is also reflected in the statistics from those series as those guys experienced statistical increases in their match-ups against Denver:

Tim Duncan - '06-'07 R. Season - 20 PPG - 11 RPG - 3 APG - 2 BPG - Play-Offs - 20 PPG - 11 RPG - 6 APG - 3 BPG

Pau Gasol - '07-'08 R. Season (w/ Lakers) - 19 PPG - 8 RPG - 4 APG - 2 BPG - Play-Offs - 22 PPG - 9 RPG - 5 APG - 3 BPG

Listen Trevor Ariza is not a great jump shooter. If he was such a dangerous threat from 3, tell me again why teams would leave him so often?

AI had the post presence and spot up jump shooters in 07 with Blake, Melo, and Camby. Why didn't AI do more?

Allen Iverson - '06-'07 R. Season - 26.3 PPG - 3.0 RPG - 7.2 APG - 44.2 FG% - Play-Offs - 22.8 PPG - 0.6 RPG - 5.8 APG - 36.8 FG%

Allen Iverson - '07-'08 R. Season - 26.4 PPG - 3.0 RPG - 7.1 APG - 45.8 FG% - Play-Offs - 24.5 PPG - 3.0 RPG - 4.5 APG - 43.4 FG%

Maybe if Iverson was able to register more assists than the opposing PF/C his teams might have been more competitive.


Is there any case that can be made which would suggest that Allen Iverson had better team-mates than Kobe Bryant and Ray Allen, from 1996-2009?

I won't say that Iverson's overall game is better than Kobe Bryant's or Ray Allen's, but through his career he has had to focus on scoring a lot more.

Doesn't matter, I'm not going to add it up, but I'm guessing the worse team in the league had better efficiency than Iverson more often than Iverson had better efficiency than the worse team in the league.


You said it began to shift during the 80s - that's 29 years for it to take effect. In the 19 years since the 90s began (when there had been 10 years for this change to happen), only two guards have scored more than Iverson.

The Karl Malones? We've had Tim Duncan.
The Shaqs? He's still a very strong player now. Whilst obviously not still in his prime, he's still a highly effectice post player.

As I said, it's not been immediate. I'm talking about when players are born not when they enter the league. Karl Malone scored 25 points or more 12 times. Duncan's done it once. Shaq is still very strong, but that proves my point. The Center position is very weak, so weak that a 37 year old Shaq can still be the best true offensive center in the game.


The most evidence for it being a big mans game though, is the effect big men have had on championship teams. Spurs build around Tim Duncan and David Robinson - championships. Lakers add Pau Gasol - championship. Celtics add great shooter and great post presence to Paul Pierce - championship.

Again we're talking about scoring, not championships.


...no. But you said that there are no scoring big men besides Dirk. David West is an example of a big man who scores a good amount of points.

We were talking about career point list and how the career point list will be in the future. How I said AI will be passed by wings 20 years from now. What relevancy does David West have in this career points discussion?


But the Spurs had still been built around those two figures. After that, Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili came around which gave the Spurs a great inside/out presence.

And they were still built around Duncan...


If Iverson ruined his offense, how did they, in '06-'07 average 105 PPG? 46% FG? How, in '07-'08 (Iverson's first full season with the team) average 111 PPG on 47% FG?

Because Denver was a fast paced team and AI had tons of talent around him. It took Billups to stabilize a team that was erratic when AI was around where he would lead them to early playoff exits.

What they lacked was a true Point Guard. You know the position most 6 footers play. Iverson was just too selfish and concerned with his own stats to ever run an offense.


The only thing holding that offense back was balance: everything came from the perimeter, which is easy for teams like the Spurs to stop, and teams like the Lakers to outscore.

The only thing holding Denver back was a backup for AI to come in when AI was busy choking.


Iverson isn't a great shooter, or long-range/mid-range player but he's far from a guy who just stands around without the ball. He's a guy that works by breaking down the defense with the ball in his hands, and goes for the score or tries to find the open man. This is why Iverson didn't work with Detroit (and why I said it wasn't going to work the day the trade happened) - the Pistons need a PG who can make a living from 30 feet away, and Iverson isn't that type of player.

So you just said:
"he's far from a guy who just stands around without the ball"

Then next sentence:
" He's a guy that works by breaking down the defense with the ball in his hands, and goes for the score or tries to find the open man. "

Are you arguing for me.


They both suck defensively. Even if Stuckey is a bit better, that's like saying Nate Robinson isn't small because he isn't quite as small as Earl Boykins - it doesn't make him any bigger, and comparing Stuckey's defense to Iverson's doesn't make it any better.

Stuckey is an above average defensive point guard. Iverson is one of if not the worse defensive SG in the league.


Iverson didn't exactly demand a trade. The team banned him from playing, and he responded by saying "a change may be best for everyone". It's not like he hadn't given anything to Philadelphia and had to put up with bad supporting casts.

No, he didn't publicly demand a trade. Even though there were inside Sixers sources that said he did. Just like he didn't publicly announce himself as a quitter last year even though everyone in and around organization knew what was up.


Plus, like I said before, Iverson was having his strongest season in years that season - when you quit on a team your performance doesn't improve.

Iverson still cared about stats. He didn't want his career too look even worse.


What team-mates has Iverson played with the last 8 years? Any great big men? The only really good team-mate he had before the trade to Denver was Chris Webber, who was at the end of his career and becoming a role player.

In Denver he and Carmelo weren't championship material because they were both asked to do the same thing, and they didn't have the big man you need to win a championship.

The Bucks weren't a bad team that year - Ray Allen, Glenn Robinson and Sam Cassell all had great years. The Sixers also beat a decent Pacers team that year.

The Olympics weren't Iverson's fault. Those teams had two problems: They were constructed with on-ball scorers (no chemistry), and the rest of the world improved enough to take advantage of it.

Iverson took a championship team, a team that had won 50 games 7 years in a row, a team that went to the ECF 6 years in a row, a team that won 59 games the previous year. I don't want to hear the typical AI excuses. Oh it was Curry's fault, Rasheed didn't care, Rip didn't care. You know what, that's when a great player needs to step up and lead a team, not skip out on practice, not quit at the end of the season. AI could have stepped up he didn't. He took the easy way out, the cowards way out. AI is 34 and it's time for him to start acting like a man.


Iverson was a good scorer who played well with Denver, and helped them score a ton of points. This is very evident in the player and team stats:

Allen Iverson - '06-'07 R. Season:
W/ Philadelphia - 31 PPG - 10.1/24.4 FGA/M per game - 41% FG
W/ Denver - 25 PPG - 18.6/18.9 FGA/M per game - 45% FG

Allen Iverson - '07-'08 R. Season
26 PPG - 8.7/19 FGA/M per game - 47% FG

He cut back on his shot attempts in Denver, and made a higher percentage of them. He didn't hog the ball.

Billups certainly is a pass first guy - he gets his points by playing off the ball and spotting up (although does have the talent to be able to control the ball if he has to). This is a much different skill-set than Allen Iverson's, and one which meshes with a guy like Carmelo Anthony much better than Iverson's.

Iverson cut back on his shot attempts, never denied that, but all he was doing was giving up the ball more often. He didn't change his style of play at all, just did more standing around watching the ball. His isolation style doesn't fit in any team that wants to win.


What exactly makes you think he wouldn't give them the ball? In 2001, when Dekembe Mutumbo (a guy with little offensive game) arrived in Philadelphia, his scoring average went from 9 PPG to 12 PPG. Coincidence?

That was because of Larry Brown who did the same thing with Ben Wallace when Brown arrived in Detroit. He wanted to give Deke and Ben some more touches so they can feel like part of the team instead of them solely focusing on defense.


In '04-'05, when Iverson had a big man who could score a bit (Chris Webber), a great spot up shooter (Kyle Korver) and a young Andre Iguodala, he averaged 8 assists per game. That year also saw Marc Jackson average the 2nd highest amount of points in his career, despite being 30 years old.

That's when O'Brien forced AI into the PG role full time while taking touches away from Webber forcing him into career lows. Of course Iverson spun all that talent into a losing season the following year missing the playoffs.


You seem to think that Iverson gets no assists - this is not true. Amongst currently active players Allen Iverson is fifth in total assists. He has 1110 more than Kobe Bryant, and 1966 more than Ray Allen.

His 7 APG is better than Kobe Bryant's 5 per game, Ray Allen's 4 per game, Tracy McGrady's 5 per game, Tony Parker's 6 per game, Vince Carter's 4 per game, Paul Pierce's 4 per game and Joe Johnson's 4 per game.

It is even with LeBron James' and Dwyane Wade's APG.

All these guys are scorers. Why is it that they all get credited for being scorers, whereas Iverson gets discredited and called a ball hog?

Allen Iverson's assists have risen, and his shot attempts have fallen when he's been on teams with other offensively talented players, why do people always claim he never passes the ball?

AI runs isolation plays that benefit himself. He doesn't do it to benefit others. He tries to break his man down. If he can't break down his man he'll put his teammates in bad position by passing it to them with the shot clock running down to get assists. That's why the assist statistic is so misleading. Furthermore, you just listed true SG/SFs. AI with his size should have forced himself to play like a real PG to run and control an offense instead of ruining it.


He has changed, as evidenced in the fall in shot attempts and rise in assists I mentioned just now.

But his miserable style of play is still the same.

Raph12
10-22-2009, 12:50 AM
Wilson you ain't gonna beat Steve Nash, he has nothing better to do than to just sit there all day trying to manipulate stats in his favor to use as an arguement.

We once got into the Dwight vs Yao arguement and he was arguing how Yao was a better defender than the reigning DPOY Dwight "Superman" Howard. We went long arguements back and forth for about 5-6 pages, but at some point, you just got to be the bigger man and back off...

IRUAM #21
10-22-2009, 12:51 AM
I'm rooting for Wilson tbh.

Raph12
10-22-2009, 01:00 AM
I'm rooting for Wilson tbh.

So am I, but I've argued with Steve Nash before, it wasn't pretty and some of his statements were just plain ignorant. 6 pages later, annoyed and frustrated by some of the silly arguements, I gave up. Let's see what you think; who's a better defender, Dwight (my choice) or Yao (his choice)?

JLynn943
10-22-2009, 01:11 AM
So am I, but I've argued with Steve Nash before, it wasn't pretty and some of his statements were just plain ignorant. 6 pages later, annoyed and frustrated by some of the silly arguements, I gave up. Let's see what you think; who's a better defender, Dwight (my choice) or Yao (his choice)?

it's difficult to argue with someone who is too stubborn to give up when really all they are doing is arguing their bias.

oh, and thanks for the stats sites

Raph12
10-22-2009, 01:26 AM
it's difficult to argue with someone who is too stubborn to give up when really all they are doing is arguing their bias.

oh, and thanks for the stats sites

Agreed and no problem mate.

IRUAM #21
10-22-2009, 01:29 AM
Wilson is viewing this thread :jumpy:

IRUAM #21
10-22-2009, 01:33 AM
And it's been like 2 minutes so expect a long azz response.

JLynn943
10-22-2009, 01:37 AM
And it's been like 2 minutes so expect a long azz response.

hahaha

IRUAM #21
10-22-2009, 01:37 AM
Damn, Wilson is gonna pwn so hard right now.

IRUAM #21
10-22-2009, 01:39 AM
Omg Wilson, you're gonna kill this guy !!!

JLynn943
10-22-2009, 01:42 AM
the suspense is killing me :ohno:

IRUAM #21
10-22-2009, 01:43 AM
the suspense is killing me :ohno:

Same here. Wilson's gonna unleash !!!! :speechless:

IRUAM #21
10-22-2009, 01:46 AM
He's been replying for like 30 minutes :faint:

IRUAM #21
10-22-2009, 01:48 AM
Wow, Wilson. I just lost all my respect for you :pity:. SteveNash wins.

JLynn943
10-22-2009, 01:48 AM
He's been replying for like 30 minutes :faint:

hahaha. I should be sleeping, but there's no way I can miss this :cheer:

JLynn943
10-22-2009, 01:50 AM
Wow, Wilson. I just lost all my respect for you :pity:. SteveNash wins.

surely something epic had to have happened, like lightning striking Wilson's computer right before he delivered the final blow

or maybe its taking so long to write it that he's timed out and the site thinks he's not even there anymore

IRUAM #21
10-22-2009, 01:51 AM
I seriously thought Wilson was gonna unleash extreme levels of pwnage. I was waiting for him to reply so i could go to sleep. I click on the thread and Wilson is no longer viewing it :confused:. I could have been sleeping :pity:

IRUAM #21
10-22-2009, 01:53 AM
Well hopefully now that Wilson has more time to think about it, he can pwn even harder.

JLynn943
10-22-2009, 01:54 AM
Well hopefully now that Wilson has more time to think about it, he can pwn even harder.

yeah, I'm expecting something major tomorrow when I wake up

Wilson
10-22-2009, 02:56 AM
I'm fighting for Raph and IRUAM now :box: :p


Small sample size. Najera showed it 08 that he was a better spot up shooter than Ariza in 09. Hitting threes at a faster rate and at a higher percentage. I would like to point out just so I'm clear, that I don't think Najera is a spot up shooter. Just that if Ariza qualifies as one than Najera does, and not only that but he's the superior spot up shooter as well in 08.

Well if you watch the games from the Lakers '08-'09 season, Trevor Ariza spotted up an awful lot (and got more and more effective as the year went on).

Eduardo Najera in '07 & '08 really wasn't more effective than Trevor Ariza in '09, especially not shooting wise. Here are those stats:

Najera: 8/31 FG, 25% FG - 2/8 3FG, 25% 3FG - 174 MP, 19.3 MPG
Ariza: 18/32 FG, 56% FG - 10/18 3FG, 55% 3FG - 152 MP, 30 MPG

So in five less game played, Ariza played only 22 minutes less. In that time, he took one more field goal, and hit ten more.

You also have to factor in Derek Fisher's presence for the Lakers, and the offensive post presence of Pau Gasol and Lamar Odom - these are two factors the Denver Nuggets did not have.


Nene isn't a very good post defender. He loses focus far too often and isn't able to block very many shots.

Earlier in this thread, when you claimed Iverson had good front courts in Denver, you claimed Nene was a good post defender and Iverson should have won with him.


I didn't know who the hell you were talking about as Denver doesn't have any very good post defenders.

Nene (very good), Kenyon Martin (solid) and Chris Andersen (blindside blocks and tons of hustle).


So why continue with this discussion. Detroit did everything to try to accommodate while AI did nothing to accommodate the Pistons. Isn't that the definition of a selfish player who cares more about himself than about the team?

Well that was the point I was making...I'm not defending Iverson's actions in Detroit. I'm not saying he was 100% wrong and they were 100% right, but Iverson didn't act like a professional in Detroit.


The difference between Ariza's hot shooting in wins and cold shooting in losses is minuscule.

Ariza in Wins:
47 3PM 142 3PA 33.1 3P% 1590 MP

Ariza in losses:
14 3PM 49 3PA 28.6 3P% 408 MP

For the Lakers wins, assume Ariza shot as "poorly" as he did during the losses. He'd contribute 19 fewer points during their 65 games, less than .3 points a game. Now take Lakers losses assume he shot as "good" as he did in wins. He'd contribute 6.7 more during the 17 losser, less than .4 points a game.

.3/.4 points a game is minuscule (though not completely insignificant) over the course of a season.

The bottom line is that in games which the Lakers won, Trevor Ariza was four percent better from long range than when they lost. His FG% in wins was eleven percent better than in losses. That means that as a shooter, he was getting the job done, and helping the team win.


Listen Trevor Ariza is not a great jump shooter. If he was such a dangerous threat from 3, tell me again why teams would leave him so often?

Because the choice they're left with is to keep a man on shooters Ariza and Fisher and leave Kobe one-on-one, or to put an extra guy on Kobe. Obviously teams put an extra man on Kobe, and our shooters make them pay.

If Ariza is not a jump shooter (or at least wasn't when the Lakers won the championship), how did he shoot 48% from three-point range in the play-offs? He took 84 shots as well, the 48% wasn't a one game fluke...


AI had the post presence and spot up jump shooters in 07 with Blake, Melo, and Camby. Why didn't AI do more?

Allen Iverson - '06-'07 R. Season - 26.3 PPG - 3.0 RPG - 7.2 APG - 44.2 FG% - Play-Offs - 22.8 PPG - 0.6 RPG - 5.8 APG - 36.8 FG%

Allen Iverson - '07-'08 R. Season - 26.4 PPG - 3.0 RPG - 7.1 APG - 45.8 FG% - Play-Offs - 24.5 PPG - 3.0 RPG - 4.5 APG - 43.4 FG%

Maybe if Iverson was able to register more assists than the opposing PF/C his teams might have been more competitive.

Camby was hardly a great inside presence, as indicated by Tim Duncans numbers in that series.

That brings me to point two: the Spurs could attack you from anywhere with Tim Duncan, Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili. The Nuggets could attack you from the perimeter with Iverson, or in the same way with Carmelo Anthony. Having only one way to score does not bode well when you play a team as strong defensively as that Spurs line-up was.

That is why Iverson's stats went down (and why 'Melo scored and assisted less)

That Nuggets team, all around, just was not as good as the Spurs team all around.


Doesn't matter, I'm not going to add it up, but I'm guessing the worse team in the league had better efficiency than Iverson more often than Iverson had better efficiency than the worse team in the league.

That's guessing at a stat, which doesn't help anything...


As I said, it's not been immediate. I'm talking about when players are born not when they enter the league. Karl Malone scored 25 points or more 12 times. Duncan's done it once. Shaq is still very strong, but that proves my point. The Center position is very weak, so weak that a 37 year old Shaq can still be the best true offensive center in the game.

Well how long does it take? You said that in the 80s, the game started to shift to being guard dominated. There is some evidence of that in regular season play, but none in the play-offs. It's 29 years later, and we're yet to see a championship team without a great front court, apart from Michael Jordan's Bulls.

Iverson has never had a front court presence as good as any of those championship teams.


Again we're talking about scoring, not championships.

OK then, scoring wise, which guards in that time-span have scored more points than Allen Iverson? Not many...


We were talking about career point list and how the career point list will be in the future. How I said AI will be passed by wings 20 years from now. What relevancy does David West have in this career points discussion?

You said that there are no scoring big men besides Dirk. I retorted with a list of big men that are quite adept at scoring the ball, and included David West in the list.

David West has no relevency in the career points discussion, but it was you who took him out of my list of effective big men and asked "so David West is going to score more points than Allen Iverson?"


And they were still built around Duncan...

:nod: But they had a great perimeter presence as well. It wasn't exactly Duncan carrying scrubs. They had an outside scorer on the court at all times (Parker starting, Manu off the bench), and great shooting. Plus, they had a great coach - these are all things I've said you need to win championships which Iverson has sparingly (if ever) had.


Because Denver was a fast paced team and AI had tons of talent around him. It took Billups to stabilize a team that was erratic when AI was around where he would lead them to early playoff exits.

What they lacked was a true Point Guard. You know the position most 6 footers play. Iverson was just too selfish and concerned with his own stats to ever run an offense.

So Iverson should play PG because of his hight range? Charles Barkley was 6'6", is this a reason he shouldn't have played PF?

The Nuggets didn't need a pure PG. They didn't need a Chris Paul or Deron Williams, who break down the defense with the dribble and find the open man. Carmelo can create offense just fine. What they needed was a guy who could play off the ball, shoot well from outside, and play defense. This is why the Iverson trade made absolutely no sense for them from the beginning.

Again, this is not Iverson's fault. Because the Denver Nuggets brought in the wrong guy does not mean that Allen Iverson sucks.


The only thing holding Denver back was a backup for AI to come in when AI was busy choking.

Was Iverson supposed to defend Tim Duncan and Pau Gasol?

The Nuggets, Spurs and Lakers all had fantastic perimeter play. The Spurs and Lakers had great front-court play, which vastly out-performed most other teams in their respective years. Is it Allen Iverson's fault that his front-court wasn't good enough to stop (or even slow down) the Spurs' and Lakers' front court?

Is it his fault that the Nuggets were so one-dimensional offensively, that the Spurs could stop them and the Lakers could out-score them?


Or was this, again, Denver bringing in the wrong guy?

So you just said:
"he's far from a guy who just stands around without the ball"

Then next sentence:
" He's a guy that works by breaking down the defense with the ball in his hands, and goes for the score or tries to find the open man. "

Are you arguing for me.

What are you saying?

Denver needed an off-the-ball guy, to complement their on-the-ball guy (Carmelo). They brought in an on-the-ball guy (who doesn't complement him at all). Result: no championship.


Stuckey is an above average defensive point guard. Iverson is one of if not the worse defensive SG in the league.

In this thread you've gone from saying Stuckey is a good defensive guard, to saying he's a bad one (but better than Iverson), then back to saying he's above average.


No, he didn't publicly demand a trade. Even though there were inside Sixers sources that said he did. Just like he didn't publicly announce himself as a quitter last year even though everyone in and around organization knew what was up.

Perhaps if those inside sources had gotten some sort of inside presence besides an old and fading Chris Webber, the Sixers would be winning games and no-one would be demanding trades...


Iverson still cared about stats. He didn't want his career too look even worse.

By putting the ball in the basket, and by setting his team-mates up with opportunities to put the ball in the basket, Iverson was trying to win games.


Iverson took a championship team, a team that had won 50 games 7 years in a row, a team that went to the ECF 6 years in a row, a team that won 59 games the previous year. I don't want to hear the typical AI excuses. Oh it was Curry's fault, Rasheed didn't care, Rip didn't care. You know what, that's when a great player needs to step up and lead a team, not skip out on practice, not quit at the end of the season. AI could have stepped up he didn't. He took the easy way out, the cowards way out. AI is 34 and it's time for him to start acting like a man.

Again, Iverson was unprofessional, no doubt. But there is no way to say that Iverson was the right player for Detroit. Their offense was their back-court, and their back-court was one guy running off of screens and playing the mid-range game to perfection whilst the other guy moved around from 20-30 feet and shot open long-range shots.

How was Iverson's drive and kick playing style supposed to fit with Rip and Stuckey?


Iverson cut back on his shot attempts, never denied that*, but all he was doing was giving up the ball more often. He didn't change his style of play at all, just did more standing around watching the ball. His isolation style doesn't fit in any team that wants to win.

*:-You never acknowledged it either.
**:-Precisely - he was doing the thing you said he never does.

Iverson wasn't just standing around watching. If he was, he wouldn't be getting easier shot attempts, thus his field goal percentage wouldn't have increased.


That was because of Larry Brown who did the same thing with Ben Wallace when Brown arrived in Detroit. He wanted to give Deke and Ben some more touches so they can feel like part of the team instead of them solely focusing on defense.

And Iverson gave Deke extra touches, as coach asked. When Iverson had a good coach, he performed better on the court. This just re-enforces what I've said about good teams having good coaches.


That's when O'Brien forced AI into the PG role full time while taking touches away from Webber forcing him into career lows. Of course Iverson spun all that talent into a losing season the following year missing the playoffs.

A coach asked Iverson to play a certain way - Iverson responded with increased performance. This helps my coaching point again.

In Philly Chris Webber played less minutes than in Sacramento, and grabbed less rebounds. Is this Iverson's fault?

The following year Chris Webber was back up to his career average of 20 PPG and 10 RBG. He was still playing with Allen Iverson. Iverson himself experienced a jump in PPG and FG%, and Andre Iguodala's PPG increased. Their three best players got better in '06-'07 - how does Iverson get none of the credit for this, but all the blame for missing the play-offs?

Could the missed play-offs not be a result of a coaching change?


AI runs isolation plays that benefit himself. He doesn't do it to benefit others. He tries to break his man down. If he can't break down his man he'll put his teammates in bad position by passing it to them with the shot clock running down to get assists. That's why the assist statistic is so misleading. Furthermore, you just listed true SG/SFs. AI with his size should have forced himself to play like a real PG to run and control an offense instead of ruining it.

If Iverson only passes when the shot clock is running down, how does he get assists? His team-mates aren't making a ton of field goals at the last second with guys in their face (no-one is). Your explanation for how Iverson gets assists really makes no sense.

It's hindered even more by how Iversons assists have jumped, and field goal attempts decreased when he's had offensively talented team-mates.

Again, why should Iverson force himself to play a different game just because of his size?


But his miserable style of play is still the same.

This, again, makes no sense. How could he improve with different, talented team-mates but his 'miserable' style of play be completely the same?

Wilson
10-22-2009, 02:59 AM
Damn, Wilson is gonna pwn so hard right now.


Omg Wilson, you're gonna kill this guy !!!


the suspense is killing me :ohno:


Same here. Wilson's gonna unleash !!!! :speechless:


He's been replying for like 30 minutes :faint:


Wow, Wilson. I just lost all my respect for you :pity:. SteveNash wins.


hahaha. I should be sleeping, but there's no way I can miss this :cheer:


surely something epic had to have happened, like lightning striking Wilson's computer right before he delivered the final blow

or maybe its taking so long to write it that he's timed out and the site thinks he's not even there anymore


I seriously thought Wilson was gonna unleash extreme levels of pwnage. I was waiting for him to reply so i could go to sleep. I click on the thread and Wilson is no longer viewing it :confused:. I could have been sleeping :pity:


Well hopefully now that Wilson has more time to think about it, he can pwn even harder.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Sorry guys...

I get distracted and take time over longer stuff like this...

I don't know if I pwned quite as hard as you would have liked me to :hide:

JordansBulls
10-22-2009, 08:01 AM
Wow, Wilson. I just lost all my respect for you :pity:. SteveNash wins.

:confused:

Wilson
10-22-2009, 10:20 AM
:confused:

Because I took so long replying :p

:pity: Wilson

IRUAM #21
10-22-2009, 11:44 AM
Naw it's cool, Wilson pwned.

Wilson
10-22-2009, 11:46 AM
:box:

JLynn943
10-22-2009, 12:19 PM
Naw it's cool, Wilson pwned.

Yep, I'm fully satisfied. Totally worth the wait :clap:

IRUAM #21
10-22-2009, 12:45 PM
Yep, I'm fully satisfied. Totally worth the wait :clap:

Agreed. Last night i was thinking about all the time. I was on my bed and i was like "Damn, when i wake up i'm gonna see some pwnage". So i woke up and i wasn't dissapointed.

SteveNash
10-22-2009, 07:57 PM
Well if you watch the games from the Lakers '08-'09 season, Trevor Ariza spotted up an awful lot (and got more and more effective as the year went on).

Eduardo Najera in '07 & '08 really wasn't more effective than Trevor Ariza in '09, especially not shooting wise. Here are those stats:

Najera: 8/31 FG, 25% FG - 2/8 3FG, 25% 3FG - 174 MP, 19.3 MPG
Ariza: 18/32 FG, 56% FG - 10/18 3FG, 55% 3FG - 152 MP, 30 MPG

So in five less game played, Ariza played only 22 minutes less. In that time, he took one more field goal, and hit ten more.

Sorry where did you get these stats?

Najera in 08: 53/147 3PA, 36.1 3P%, 1664 MP, 21.3 MPG, 47.3 FG%
Ariza in 09: 61/191, 31.9 3P%, 1998 MP, 24.4 MPG, 46.0 FG%

Najera shot threes at a higher rate, at a higher percentage.

I don't know where you got your numbers from, hopefully you didn't resort to making them up because you want to make AI look good. Lets not forget that AI had shooters


You also have to factor in Derek Fisher's presence for the Lakers, and the offensive post presence of Pau Gasol and Lamar Odom - these are two factors the Denver Nuggets did not have.

AI had Steve Blake/Anthony Carter to spot up and hit shots while always covering for AI on the defensive end. Odom is neither a spot up shooter or a real post presence which validates my claim for a need in talent. Carmelo was Denver's offensive post presence.


Earlier in this thread, when you claimed Iverson had good front courts in Denver, you claimed Nene was a good post defender and Iverson should have won with him.

There you go again making things up again. Find where I said earlier in this thread that Nene was good post defender. All I said was that Iverson had a good enough front court to succeed.


Nene (very good), Kenyon Martin (solid) and Chris Andersen (blindside blocks and tons of hustle).

So when Pau puts up 22/9/5 on 58% it's because Denver's frontcourt is crap an AI has no help. When Pau puts up 18/14/4 on 63% it's because Denver now has an awesome frontcourt that can contain him?


Well that was the point I was making...I'm not defending Iverson's actions in Detroit. I'm not saying he was 100% wrong and they were 100% right, but Iverson didn't act like a professional in Detroit.

What makes you think Iverson would fit anywhere else with anyone else then? Iverson took the second most stable team in the league and ruined it.


The bottom line is that in games which the Lakers won, Trevor Ariza was four percent better from long range than when they lost. His FG% in wins was eleven percent better than in losses. That means that as a shooter, he was getting the job done, and helping the team win.

Trevor Ariza shooting 48.3% from the floor in wins, 36.7% in losses is a lot more important. Ariza's 3 point shooting is minuscule in the grand scheme of things. It's like arguing Camby shooting 100% from 3s in wins. 0% in losses. Not all that important.


Because the choice they're left with is to keep a man on shooters Ariza and Fisher and leave Kobe one-on-one, or to put an extra guy on Kobe. Obviously teams put an extra man on Kobe, and our shooters make them pay.

AI was rarely double teamed in Denver so your point about needing teammates to create space is rather insignificant. Even sagging defenses on his drives wasn't much of an issue, why because he had the teammates.


If Ariza is not a jump shooter (or at least wasn't when the Lakers won the championship), how did he shoot 48% from three-point range in the play-offs? He took 84 shots as well, the 48% wasn't a one game fluke...

Isiah Thomas shot 47% on 68 threes in 20 games during the 1990 championship run yet never shot above 31% after that. Ariza's stats are certainly a fluke and he won't be matching 48% any time soon.


Camby was hardly a great inside presence, as indicated by Tim Duncans numbers in that series.

Nene/Birdman/Kmart are hardly a great inside presence as indicated by Pau Gasol numbers in their series against the Lakers.


That brings me to point two: the Spurs could attack you from anywhere with Tim Duncan, Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili. The Nuggets could attack you from the perimeter with Iverson, or in the same way with Carmelo Anthony. Having only one way to score does not bode well when you play a team as strong defensively as that Spurs line-up was.

That is why Iverson's stats went down (and why 'Melo scored and assisted less)

That Nuggets team, all around, just was not as good as the Spurs team all around.

That's why Iverson needed to start playing defense a long time ago. Just look at Billups' domination of Parker in the finals. The only game Billups played bad in was game 7 with Bruce Bowen on him.

Iverson needed to play better than 23/1/6 on 37%. He needed to limit Parker to less than 18/3/7 on 45%. Ginobili was the only played they actually somewhat limited by beating him up.

I never said they needed to beat the Spurs or beat the Lakers. They just needed to be far more competitive. Particularly the Lakers series where they just rolled over and died. Too much talent on that team to get slapped around like that.


OK then, scoring wise, which guards in that time-span have scored more points than Allen Iverson? Not many...

When did I say more guards scored more than Iverson right now? I was clearly talking about the future.


You said that there are no scoring big men besides Dirk. I retorted with a list of big men that are quite adept at scoring the ball, and included David West in the list.

David West has no relevency in the career points discussion, but it was you who took him out of my list of effective big men and asked "so David West is going to score more points than Allen Iverson?"

Picking out David West was the most obvious to prove my point.

To remove any confusion, I'll try to state my point more clearly.

AI is currently 16th in career points. I don't see his career lasting much longer.

I think Iverson will be passed on the career list by several players 20 years from now.

I believe this is due to the popularity Bird/Magic brought in the 80s, the continuation of Jordan in the 90s. Kobe making the jump as a guard and early success with the Lakers in the late 90s/early 00s. With LeBron now will lead to several players surpassing Iverson.


:nod: But they had a great perimeter presence as well. It wasn't exactly Duncan carrying scrubs. They had an outside scorer on the court at all times (Parker starting, Manu off the bench), and great shooting. Plus, they had a great coach - these are all things I've said you need to win championships which Iverson has sparingly (if ever) had.

Don't nod, you were trying to say they weren't built around Duncan. Do you just like to argue for the sake of arguing.

You said: "You're not winning a championship by building around one player. The Spurs dynasty started built around Duncan and Robinson, and continued with Duncan and Tony Parker/Manu Ginobili. The Lakers championship teams were built around Kobe and Shaq, then Kobe and Pau. The Bulls had Jordan and Pippen."


So Iverson should play PG because of his hight range? Charles Barkley was 6'6", is this a reason he shouldn't have played PF?

The Nuggets didn't need a pure PG. They didn't need a Chris Paul or Deron Williams, who break down the defense with the dribble and find the open man. Carmelo can create offense just fine. What they needed was a guy who could play off the ball, shoot well from outside, and play defense. This is why the Iverson trade made absolutely no sense for them from the beginning.

Again, this is not Iverson's fault. Because the Denver Nuggets brought in the wrong guy does not mean that Allen Iverson sucks.

Iverson had all the talent to be a very good point guard. He chose to play like a SG which hurt his teams in the long run. What you just said made your point exactly. Look at all the championship teams for the past 20 years how many players have won with a player that plays like Iverson has?


Was Iverson supposed to defend Tim Duncan and Pau Gasol?

The Nuggets, Spurs and Lakers all had fantastic perimeter play. The Spurs and Lakers had great front-court play, which vastly out-performed most other teams in their respective years. Is it Allen Iverson's fault that his front-court wasn't good enough to stop (or even slow down) the Spurs' and Lakers' front court?

Is it his fault that the Nuggets were so one-dimensional offensively, that the Spurs could stop them and the Lakers could out-score them?

If Iverson can't contribute defensively, then he needs to be much better offensively. A career playoff FG% of 40% does not cut it.


What are you saying?

Denver needed an off-the-ball guy, to complement their on-the-ball guy (Carmelo). They brought in an on-the-ball guy (who doesn't complement him at all). Result: no championship.

When Iverson doesn't have the ball. He just stands around helping the defense.

When Iverson has the ball he tries isolation plays to break his man down.

It sounds like we're in agreement, but I'm not sure.


In this thread you've gone from saying Stuckey is a good defensive guard, to saying he's a bad one (but better than Iverson), then back to saying he's above average.

Here's what I said about Stuckey defensively:

"They replaced Iverson with Stuckey, because Stuckey is a better player than Iverson, Stuckey runs the PG position better than Iverson, Stuckey doesn't have to be hidden on defense, and that Stuckey has more heart than Iverson. Their games are not the same."

"Stuckey doesn't look to score at all costs. Stuckey is a much better defender than Iverson though he was forced into bad matchups trying to cover for AI like he'll have to do for Gordon this year. Iverson has heart to flop around trying to get the free throw line. The only semi efficient part of AI's game. He quit in Philly before they traded him."

"I never said he [Stuckey} was a great defender. I said he was much better than AI. He still has a ways to go, but he's already vastly superior to AI."

"Stuckey is an above average defensive point guard. Iverson is one of if not the worse defensive SG in the league."

Where did I say he was a bad point guard again? Because I said he wasn't great but better than Iverson? Stop making things up.


By putting the ball in the basket, and by setting his team-mates up with opportunities to put the ball in the basket, Iverson was trying to win games.

In terms of putting the ball in the basket. Iverson has been one of the most inefficient high volume shooters in NBA history.


Again, Iverson was unprofessional, no doubt. But there is no way to say that Iverson was the right player for Detroit. Their offense was their back-court, and their back-court was one guy running off of screens and playing the mid-range game to perfection whilst the other guy moved around from 20-30 feet and shot open long-range shots.

How was Iverson's drive and kick playing style supposed to fit with Rip and Stuckey?

All I hear you saying is that everyone needs to bend for Iverson, Iverson bends for no one. How is that supposed to work for anyone. Tell me what team does Iverson fit in with? Memphis?


*:-You never acknowledged it either.
**:-Precisely - he was doing the thing you said he never does.

Iverson wasn't just standing around watching. If he was, he wouldn't be getting easier shot attempts, thus his field goal percentage wouldn't have increased.

What I'm saying is Iverson's style of play stayed the same, he didn't change his game much at all, his game needs to fundamentally change for him to be successful.


And Iverson gave Deke extra touches, as coach asked. When Iverson had a good coach, he performed better on the court. This just re-enforces what I've said about good teams having good coaches.

A coach asked Iverson to play a certain way - Iverson responded with increased performance. This helps my coaching point again.

It's time for Iverson to take off his diapers and start running his team. Look at Billups success in Denver, I don't think highly of Karl, but you saw Billups lead the team acting as a coach on the court. That's what AI needs to do.


In Philly Chris Webber played less minutes than in Sacramento, and grabbed less rebounds. Is this Iverson's fault?

The following year Chris Webber was back up to his career average of 20 PPG and 10 RBG. He was still playing with Allen Iverson. Iverson himself experienced a jump in PPG and FG%, and Andre Iguodala's PPG increased. Their three best players got better in '06-'07 - how does Iverson get none of the credit for this, but all the blame for missing the play-offs?

Could the missed play-offs not be a result of a coaching change?

Chris Webber was simply not getting enough touches with the offense running through him, AI used him mostly as a spot up mid range jump shooter that wasn't all that effective.

And was it not Iverson's (and Webber's) plot that got O'Brien fired? Wasn't it Iverson who begged for Cheeks? Wasn't it Iverson that quit on Cheeks?


If Iverson only passes when the shot clock is running down, how does he get assists? His team-mates aren't making a ton of field goals at the last second with guys in their face (no-one is). Your explanation for how Iverson gets assists really makes no sense.

It's hindered even more by how Iversons assists have jumped, and field goal attempts decreased when he's had offensively talented team-mates.

Again, why should Iverson force himself to play a different game just because of his size?

This, again, makes no sense. How could he improve with different, talented team-mates but his 'miserable' style of play be completely the same?


Again watch his game, it's all about breaking down his man, the only difference is when he's "being a team player" instead of forcing bad shots himself he'll force someone else to make a play. The only other instance I ever see Iverson making passing plays are on fast breaks.

He's proven over his career that his style of play doesn't work.

IRUAM #21
10-22-2009, 07:59 PM
Oh hell naw !!!!. SteveNash just said "You know what Wilson ? I'm not gonna back down. ya dig ? :clap:

Wilson
10-22-2009, 10:29 PM
Sorry where did you get these stats?

Najera in 08: 53/147 3PA, 36.1 3P%, 1664 MP, 21.3 MPG, 47.3 FG%
Ariza in 09: 61/191, 31.9 3P%, 1998 MP, 24.4 MPG, 46.0 FG%

Najera shot threes at a higher rate, at a higher percentage.

I don't know where you got your numbers from, hopefully you didn't resort to making them up because you want to make AI look good. Lets not forget that AI had shooters

In the regular season, Najera was an effective spot up shooter, and the Nuggets won 50 games. In the play-offs, he was not an effective spot up shooter. What possible way could you say he was an effective spot up shooter in the play-offs?

Also, like I showed you before, Ariza got better and better with his threes as the season went on. The stats on that where crystal clear. Then, in the play-offs, he shot 48%, and the Lakers won the championship.

I never said that Ariza has been a better career spot up shooter than Najera, I said that if you compare Najera in '07 and '08 to Ariza in '09, Ariza vastly out performs Najera. I compared nine play-off games played by Najera to five by Ariza, and Ariza was still more productive.

In the 2009 play-offs, Trevor Ariza shot 48% on threes - there's no way around this.


AI had Steve Blake/Anthony Carter to spot up and hit shots while always covering for AI on the defensive end. Odom is neither a spot up shooter or a real post presence which validates my claim for a need in talent. Carmelo was Denver's offensive post presence.

You can't really use Anthony Carter's shooting to bolster your argument. Carter played in one game in the '07 play-offs - not very helpful. In '08 he played in all four games, and didn't hit a three. His overall FG% was a blistering 29%. His defensive rating in the '08 series was 119 - again not very helpful.

Steve Blake wasn't with Denver in '08. In '07 he was, and offensively he was very effective. He shot threes at a very good clip (8/16 in five games). Again though, you need spot up shooting and a post presence. If you don't have the post presence, then you're still one dimensional, and if you're one dimensional a team like the Spurs will chew you up. Blake also struggled defensively in that series, with a defensive rating of 112.

For further evidence of this see the Phoenix Suns. They could only score running, and were stumped in the half-court game. They could only score one way and the Spurs beat them.

Lamar Odom had a fine performance against the Nuggets in '08. In four games he averaged 12 pts, 9 rbds and 5 asts. That, added onto Pau's great performance is evidence of how much the Lakers' front court outplayed the Nuggets' front court.


There you go again making things up again. Find where I said earlier in this thread that Nene was good post defender. All I said was that Iverson had a good enough front court to succeed.

Just go back and look, you said that Iverson should have been able to win with Nene, who isn't particularly a scorer. I took that to mean you considered him a good defender.

Plus, Iverson obviously didn't have a good enough front court, since his front courts got so thoroughly outplayed by the Spurs' and Lakers' front courts.



So when Pau puts up 22/9/5 on 58% it's because Denver's frontcourt is crap an AI has no help. When Pau puts up 18/14/4 on 63% it's because Denver now has an awesome frontcourt that can contain him?

I said the front court with Billups is better, I didn't say it was laced with the greatest defenders of all time.

Also don't forget that until the '08-'09 season, Nene has been constantly battling with injuries.


What makes you think Iverson would fit anywhere else with anyone else then? Iverson took the second most stable team in the league and ruined it.

It's not like they didn't lose anything! They lost their leader, of course they were going to struggle!

They lost their leader, and replaced him with a guy who absolutely does not complement the rest of the team. Two completely different styles of play.


Trevor Ariza shooting 48.3% from the floor in wins, 36.7% in losses is a lot more important. Ariza's 3 point shooting is minuscule in the grand scheme of things. It's like arguing Camby shooting 100% from 3s in wins. 0% in losses. Not all that important.

OK, but the point is still the same: the Lakers won more games when more players played well.

This point remains true in Denver, where the Nuggets won a lot of games when their players played well (Iverson and Carmelo had good seasons, and had good shooting performances from their role players like you pointed out, and a front court that played well in the season). Then, in the play-offs where the shooters not named Steve Blake stopped shooting the ball, and their front courts got shredded by Tim Duncan and Pau Gasol, they stopped winning.


AI was rarely double teamed in Denver so your point about needing teammates to create space is rather insignificant. Even sagging defenses on his drives wasn't much of an issue, why because he had the teammates.

This doesn't make sense. He got doubled less in Denver, and his team-mates were better than they were in Philly. This resulted in a better statistical year for Iverson, and 50 wins for the Nuggets. Basically, I've argued that Iverson can do well with better team-mates, and you've just said that when that did happen, it was insignificant.

Yet when the whole team stops playing well in the play-offs, every single thing comes back to Iverson.


Isiah Thomas shot 47% on 68 threes in 20 games during the 1990 championship run yet never shot above 31% after that. Ariza's stats are certainly a fluke and he won't be matching 48% any time soon.

Again, you're not making sense. Even if Ariza does go on to shoot 20% for the rest of his career, this doesn't change a thing about his 2009 play-off performance.

The fact is, towards the end of the '08-'09 regular season, and in the '09 play-offs Trevor Ariza lit it up from three point range, and the Los Angeles Lakers won a championship.

So my assertion that part of what it necessary to win games is good outside shooting is very true.


Nene/Birdman/Kmart are hardly a great inside presence as indicated by Pau Gasol numbers in their series against the Lakers.

So how was Iverson supposed to win with them? Are they significantly worse than the Camby/K-Mart/Nene or Camby/K-Mart/Najera front courts that Iverson lost with?

Again, don't forget that in '08-'09 Nene had his first injury free year since the '03-'04 season.

Then there's Chris Andersen, who does what Camby did whilst injecting tons more energy into the crowd (this helps their home-court advantage an awful lot, and is an extra strength that the Nuggets didn't have in the '07-'08 play-offs).


That's why Iverson needed to start playing defense a long time ago. Just look at Billups' domination of Parker in the finals. The only game Billups played bad in was game 7 with Bruce Bowen on him.

Iverson needed to play better than 23/1/6 on 37%. He needed to limit Parker to less than 18/3/7 on 45%. Ginobili was the only played they actually somewhat limited by beating him up.

I've already said that Iverson isn't a good defender, you don't need to convice me of that.

I did say though that any good team needs good defensive role players, and no-one on that Denver team played good defense against the Spurs in the play-offs.

And Iverson's offense, yet again, was hindered because there was no scoring threat inside. No-one's having a good series against the Spurs without a balanced offensive game. No-one.


I never said they needed to beat the Spurs or beat the Lakers. They just needed to be far more competitive. Particularly the Lakers series where they just rolled over and died. Too much talent on that team to get slapped around like that.

Iverson wasn't the only reason they weren't competitive in those series. There was nothing that Iverson could have done about the front-court disparities. There was nothing Iverson could have done to get better shooting from Anthony Carter and Eduardo Najera. There was nothing he could have done with every player on the team getting outplayed.

There's no way you can say that Iverson sucks just because he didn't carry a team to success against one championship team and one Finals runner up.


When did I say more guards scored more than Iverson right now? I was clearly talking about the future.

People will in the future, but you've still not said how Iverson could have risen to 16th on the all-time scoring list, and fifth amongst active players in assists currently. If he's so bad at scoring, and never ever passes the ball, how did he achieve this?

Even if he does get overtaken in the future, the past 13 years were not a fluke. Iverson has still been competing against great players, and has put up some good numbers.


Picking out David West was the most obvious to prove my point.

Which was what? You said that there are no good scoring big men besides Dirk Nowitzki, which I countered with a list of good scoring big men. You then took one of these guys and challenged me with the fact that he's not going to over take Allen Iverson, scoring wise. You didn't make a point, and you took a part of my list and took it out of context.


To remove any confusion, I'll try to state my point more clearly.

AI is currently 16th in career points. I don't see his career lasting much longer.

I think Iverson will be passed on the career list by several players 20 years from now.

I believe this is due to the popularity Bird/Magic brought in the 80s, the continuation of Jordan in the 90s. Kobe making the jump as a guard and early success with the Lakers in the late 90s/early 00s. With LeBron now will lead to several players surpassing Iverson.

OK, but I want an explanation for the past 13 years. Are you saying that until now there hasn't ever been any good wing players?

Obviously there have been a lot of good wing players, so how is it that Iverson got to 16th in scoring if he sucked?


Don't nod, you were trying to say they weren't built around Duncan. Do you just like to argue for the sake of arguing.

You said: "You're not winning a championship by building around one player. The Spurs dynasty started built around Duncan and Robinson, and continued with Duncan and Tony Parker/Manu Ginobili. The Lakers championship teams were built around Kobe and Shaq, then Kobe and Pau. The Bulls had Jordan and Pippen."

Yes, I said the Spurs were built around Duncan and Robinson, followed by Duncan and Parker/Ginobili. This does not mean they weren't built around Duncan:

Get a dictionary and look up the word 'and'. When you write "Team Z was built around Player A and Player B", it means that the team was built in part around Player A. So, when I say "The Spurs were built around Duncan and Robinson", it means that they were partly built around Duncan.

So when you say that the Spurs were built around Tim Duncan, and I nod (in obvious agreement), and then qualify that nod with a reference to the perimeter presence (IE Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili), it means, again, that I'm saying that part of the Spurs' building process was about putting good players around Tim Duncan.

In all this talk of the English language, don't lose sight of the fact that the San Antonio Spurs had a great inside presence, they had a very good perimeter presence, they had role players that played very good defense, and they had role players that could spot up effectively, and they had a very good coach.

When Allen Iverson was with Denver, the Nuggets had a great perimeter presence (scoring wise), and they had players that could spot up effectively (although apart from one player they stopped shooting effectively in the play-offs).

So it breaks down like this:

San Antonio: Great post offense, great post defense, very good perimeter offense, great perimeter defense, good perimeter shooting, great coaching presence.

Denver: Average post offense, average post defense, very good perimeter offense, no perimeter defense, average perimeter shooting, below average coaching presence.

The Spurs strong points went up against Denver's weak points, meaning San Antonio had a great match-up, and Denver had a very poor one.

Unless you're expecting Iverson to score in the post, defend in the post, defend Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili, defend all the Spurs' shooters simultaneously and coach the team, you can't blame him for the Nuggets getting smashed.


Iverson had all the talent to be a very good point guard. He chose to play like a SG which hurt his teams in the long run. What you just said made your point exactly. Look at all the championship teams for the past 20 years how many players have won with a player that plays like Iverson has?

As soon as he was paired with a good offensive player, his assists went up. The next time he was paired with a great offensive player, his shot attempts went down and his field goal percentage went up.

I already have looked at the championship teams of the past 20 years. I found out that every team except the Bulls had a dominating post presence. In other words, 14 of the last 20 championship teams have had something Allen Iverson hasn't had on his team.


If Iverson can't contribute defensively, then he needs to be much better offensively. A career playoff FG% of 40% does not cut it.

To win and play effectively in the play-offs is all about the quality of players on your team. You can't beat great teams by being one dimensional, and since Iverson has sparingly had a good post presence that's just what his teams have been: one-dimensional.

Again, unless you're expecting Iverson to play PF, there's nothing he could have done about this.


When Iverson doesn't have the ball. He just stands around helping the defense.

When Iverson has the ball he tries isolation plays to break his man down.

It sounds like we're in agreement, but I'm not sure.

Where do you get that Iverson just stands around without the ball? The first time he ever had to play off the ball at all (in Denver), his 3P% went up to 35%, which isn't a bad percentage.


Here's what I said about Stuckey defensively:

"They replaced Iverson with Stuckey, because Stuckey is a better player than Iverson, Stuckey runs the PG position better than Iverson, Stuckey doesn't have to be hidden on defense, and that Stuckey has more heart than Iverson. Their games are not the same."

"Stuckey doesn't look to score at all costs. Stuckey is a much better defender than Iverson though he was forced into bad matchups trying to cover for AI like he'll have to do for Gordon this year. Iverson has heart to flop around trying to get the free throw line. The only semi efficient part of AI's game. He quit in Philly before they traded him."

"I never said he [Stuckey} was a great defender. I said he was much better than AI. He still has a ways to go, but he's already vastly superior to AI."

"Stuckey is an above average defensive point guard. Iverson is one of if not the worse defensive SG in the league."

Where did I say he was a bad point guard again? Because I said he wasn't great but better than Iverson? Stop making things up.

You said "he doesn't have to be hidden on defense", then you said "he still has a ways to go", then you said he's "an above average defensive point guard". None of this is consistent.


In terms of putting the ball in the basket. Iverson has been one of the most inefficient high volume shooters in NBA history.

He's also had some very ineffecient team-mates. When he's had better team-mates, Iverson's effeciency has risen. Thus, having better team-mates helps a players performance.


All I hear you saying is that everyone needs to bend for Iverson, Iverson bends for no one. How is that supposed to work for anyone. Tell me what team does Iverson fit in with? Memphis?

What I'm saying is Iverson's style of play stayed the same, he didn't change his game much at all, his game needs to fundamentally change for him to be successful.

Well then you're not reading what I'm writing. I quite clearly stated that when Iverson was teamed up with Chris Webber, Kyle Korver and Andre Iguodala, his assists went up.

Then, when he was paired with Carmelo Anthony his shot attempts and scoring went down, and his three point shooting improved. In other words, when he's been teamed with better team-mates, his play changes.

Iverson doesn't fit with Memphis well at all, but at least he has some sort of scoring presence up front there.

I said before that Iverson is the perfect guy for a team that has inside scoring but not outside scoring.


It's time for Iverson to take off his diapers and start running his team. Look at Billups success in Denver, I don't think highly of Karl, but you saw Billups lead the team acting as a coach on the court. That's what AI needs to do.

Billups has a higher basketball IQ than Iverson, that's no secret. But again, the numbers are clear evidence that when Iverson has had team-mates worth anything, his play has changed (and improved). This is evidence of him being a team-player, and trying to win.


Chris Webber was simply not getting enough touches with the offense running through him, AI used him mostly as a spot up mid range jump shooter that wasn't all that effective.

So Iverson's assists go up - this is a result of the coach telling him what to do.

Webber starts shooting mid-range Js - this is Iverson's fault.

Why didn't the coach help Webber's game as well?

Also, if Iverson is such a ball hog and a terrible team-mate to Webber, how did Webber go back to his career scoring average the very next season, his first full season with Iverson?


And was it not Iverson's (and Webber's) plot that got O'Brien fired? Wasn't it Iverson who begged for Cheeks? Wasn't it Iverson that quit on Cheeks?

Iverson said he liked Cheeks, but I don't think he begged for him to come to Philly...


Again watch his game, it's all about breaking down his man, the only difference is when he's "being a team player" instead of forcing bad shots himself he'll force someone else to make a play. The only other instance I ever see Iverson making passing plays are on fast breaks.

:eyebrow: So you say that he either doesn't pass the ball, or "forces his team-mate to make a play"? This is a really poor explanation for Iversons assists numbers, and doesn't have any factual basis.


He's proven over his career that his style of play doesn't work.

Driving to the hole has worked for a number of players throughout NBA history. The difference is this: Iverson has never had a post-presence!

Wilson
10-22-2009, 10:30 PM
By the way, IRUAM you're a legend.

Chronz
10-22-2009, 11:55 PM
Its Half time gents, you cant expect anyone to keep up with all that, I know Im not reading through any of that if its never ending. What does this all boil down to?

The tangents you guys have gone off to is so far removed from whats important. The whole you need a great frontcourt to win is as relevant as saying you need good defense to win. You need alot of things, including luck to win big.

Some bits about Deke not being better than Camby, I just read this tidbit;
You said "he doesn't have to be hidden on defense", then you said "he still has a ways to go", then you said he's "an above average defensive point guard". None of this is consistent.
Sounds pretty consistent to me man. Hes not an elite defender, but he doesnt have to be hidden because hes an above average defender at his position, mostly because hes really a 2, but I doubt he could ever be an elite defender.
When has AI ever displayed the ability to improve his team defensively, and score effectively enough to carry an offense?

Chronz
10-23-2009, 12:01 AM
OK I think I see where the whole relationship with his teammates tangent is going, strong points all around. And Webbers play with AI is an interesting chapter of AI's career. Just as important as the play of the teams he leaves behind.

JordansBulls
10-23-2009, 08:31 AM
Just watched game 7 of the Bucks and Sixers again in 2001. Iverson was too dominant in that game.

SteveNash
10-23-2009, 09:17 AM
In the regular season, Najera was an effective spot up shooter, and the Nuggets won 50 games. In the play-offs, he was not an effective spot up shooter. What possible way could you say he was an effective spot up shooter in the play-offs?

Also, like I showed you before, Ariza got better and better with his threes as the season went on. The stats on that where crystal clear. Then, in the play-offs, he shot 48%, and the Lakers won the championship.

I never said that Ariza has been a better career spot up shooter than Najera, I said that if you compare Najera in '07 and '08 to Ariza in '09, Ariza vastly out performs Najera. I compared nine play-off games played by Najera to five by Ariza, and Ariza was still more productive.

In the 2009 play-offs, Trevor Ariza shot 48% on threes - there's no way around this.

It was a 4 game sample size in 08, not enough to go on talk about the season as I said:

Najera in 08: 53/147 3PA, 36.1 3P%, 1664 MP, 21.3 MPG, 47.3 FG%
Ariza in 09: 61/191, 31.9 3P%, 1998 MP, 24.4 MPG, 46.0 FG%

Perhaps if Iverson could have taken them to the Finals Najera would have raised his threes.

As for Ariza, wasn't it you that said he shot his worse from 3 in April, the final month of the regular season? That's the problem with putting too much value into a guy that makes a 3 a game. To many variables to easy to have a hot or cold streak.


You can't really use Anthony Carter's shooting to bolster your argument. Carter played in one game in the '07 play-offs - not very helpful. In '08 he played in all four games, and didn't hit a three. His overall FG% was a blistering 29%. His defensive rating in the '08 series was 119 - again not very helpful.

Again small sample size. Anthony Carter would have hit a three and would have raised his FG% in all likely hood if the Nuggets made a run. Carter's 119 rating was brought in to help alleviate AI's 121 rating.


Steve Blake wasn't with Denver in '08. In '07 he was, and offensively he was very effective. He shot threes at a very good clip (8/16 in five games). Again though, you need spot up shooting and a post presence. If you don't have the post presence, then you're still one dimensional, and if you're one dimensional a team like the Spurs will chew you up. Blake also struggled defensively in that series, with a defensive rating of 112.

They had Nene/Camby a decent enough post presence. AI had two shooters, Blake 50% on 3s. Carmelo 50% on 3s. With a frontcourt of Carmelo/Nene/Camby. And why couldn't they win again? Does it have to do with AI's 37% shooting?


Lamar Odom had a fine performance against the Nuggets in '08. In four games he averaged 12 pts, 9 rbds and 5 asts. That, added onto Pau's great performance is evidence of how much the Lakers' front court outplayed the Nuggets' front court.

And what do you consider Carmelo's 27/9/1 & 23/10/2?


Just go back and look, you said that Iverson should have been able to win with Nene, who isn't particularly a scorer. I took that to mean you considered him a good defender.

Plus, Iverson obviously didn't have a good enough front court, since his front courts got so thoroughly outplayed by the Spurs' and Lakers' front courts.

Iverson's front court including bench players in 07:
736 MIN 265 PTS 192 REB 20 BLK 48% FG

Spurs' front court including bench players in 07:
778 MIN 292 PTS 154 REB 26 BLK 45% FG

As you can see, the front court wasn't the problem. It was the backcourt (with Iverson shooting 37%) that let them down.


I said the front court with Billups is better, I didn't say it was laced with the greatest defenders of all time.

Also don't forget that until the '08-'09 season, Nene has been constantly battling with injuries.

Part of your reasoning for why the frontcourt was garbage is because Duncan and Gasol had success against them. Gasol had great success against Orlando. Does that mean Orlando's frontcourt sucks? See the flaws in your argument?


It's not like they didn't lose anything! They lost their leader, of course they were going to struggle!

They lost their leader, and replaced him with a guy who absolutely does not complement the rest of the team. Two completely different styles of play.

Shouldn't your best player also be your leader, at least when the best player is as old as Iverson. And if Iverson isn't your best player, why would you waste time building around him when you have someone better to build around?


This doesn't make sense. He got doubled less in Denver, and his team-mates were better than they were in Philly. This resulted in a better statistical year for Iverson, and 50 wins for the Nuggets. Basically, I've argued that Iverson can do well with better team-mates, and you've just said that when that did happen, it was insignificant.

Yet when the whole team stops playing well in the play-offs, every single thing comes back to Iverson.

You said AI didn't have to luxury to operate freely because he didn't have the shooters/post presence in Denver. I'm saying he had plenty of space in Denver and still didn't accomplish anything.


Again, you're not making sense. Even if Ariza does go on to shoot 20% for the rest of his career, this doesn't change a thing about his 2009 play-off performance.

The fact is, towards the end of the '08-'09 regular season, and in the '09 play-offs Trevor Ariza lit it up from three point range, and the Los Angeles Lakers won a championship.

So my assertion that part of what it necessary to win games is good outside shooting is very true.

The last 12 games of the regular season he shot 17% from 3. So no, it wasn't a consistent increase as the season went on like you're claiming it is. Yep, he got hot during the playoffs but not as hot as Steve Blake. And even if Ariza misses all his 3 pointers, no way he loses 4-1/4-0 in the first round. They probably still win the championship if Ariza never hit a 3.


So how was Iverson supposed to win with them? Are they significantly worse than the Camby/K-Mart/Nene or Camby/K-Mart/Najera front courts that Iverson lost with?

Again, don't forget that in '08-'09 Nene had his first injury free year since the '03-'04 season.

Then there's Chris Andersen, who does what Camby did whilst injecting tons more energy into the crowd (this helps their home-court advantage an awful lot, and is an extra strength that the Nuggets didn't have in the '07-'08 play-offs).

How could Billups win with them? As said above, the frontcourt played well, stop trying to put all the blame on everyone but Iverson.

Chris Andersen is just not comparable to Camby. The two have clearly different games with the only thing linking them is the ability to block shots.


I've already said that Iverson isn't a good defender, you don't need to convice me of that.

I did say though that any good team needs good defensive role players, and no-one on that Denver team played good defense against the Spurs in the play-offs.

And Iverson's offense, yet again, was hindered because there was no scoring threat inside. No-one's having a good series against the Spurs without a balanced offensive game. No-one.

You admit Iverson's bad, but all you say is defensive role players, post presence, etc. Never Iverson is perfectly capable of playing at least decent defense if he ever tried.

Nene averaged 15 points in the paint. Carmelo averaged 27 posting up Bowen. Iverson had Steve Blake as a shooter and distributor and defender. People keep saying Kirk Hinrich, he's perfect, well no not really since Blake is basically a cheaper lighter version of Hinrich. But come up with more excuses, Iverson fans never seem to run out of them.


Iverson wasn't the only reason they weren't competitive in those series. There was nothing that Iverson could have done about the front-court disparities. There was nothing Iverson could have done to get better shooting from Anthony Carter and Eduardo Najera. There was nothing he could have done with every player on the team getting outplayed.

There's no way you can say that Iverson sucks just because he didn't carry a team to success against one championship team and one Finals runner up.

Iverson's front court including bench players in 07:
736 MIN 265 PTS 192 REB 20 BLK 48% FG

Spurs' front court including bench players in 07:
778 MIN 292 PTS 154 REB 26 BLK 45% FG


People will in the future, but you've still not said how Iverson could have risen to 16th on the all-time scoring list, and fifth amongst active players in assists currently. If he's so bad at scoring, and never ever passes the ball, how did he achieve this?

Even if he does get overtaken in the future, the past 13 years were not a fluke. Iverson has still been competing against great players, and has put up some good numbers.

Iverson is a volume shooter, not an efficient one. That's why he ranks near the bottom in %. The only player he beats is Kidd, who surpasses him in defense, rebounding, assits, turnovers, winning, leadership, practicing, etc.

Iverson's assist numbers? You're right, AI is in the top 5 active. It's just too bad about his turnovers. Again it's Kidd who has more turnovers than AI. Of course he also has nearly double the assists...


Yes, I said the Spurs were built around Duncan and Robinson, followed by Duncan and Parker/Ginobili. This does not mean they weren't built around Duncan:

Get a dictionary and look up the word 'and'. When you write "Team Z was built around Player A and Player B", it means that the team was built in part around Player A. So, when I say "The Spurs were built around Duncan and Robinson", it means that they were partly built around Duncan.

So when you say that the Spurs were built around Tim Duncan, and I nod (in obvious agreement), and then qualify that nod with a reference to the perimeter presence (IE Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili), it means, again, that I'm saying that part of the Spurs' building process was about putting good players around Tim Duncan.

In all this talk of the English language, don't lose sight of the fact that the San Antonio Spurs had a great inside presence, they had a very good perimeter presence, they had role players that played very good defense, and they had role players that could spot up effectively, and they had a very good coach.

Look up what built and around are in the dictionary. Duncan was the foundation. Ginobili and Parker were pieces BUILT AROUND Duncan to lead them to a championship.


When Allen Iverson was with Denver, the Nuggets had a great perimeter presence (scoring wise), and they had players that could spot up effectively (although apart from one player they stopped shooting effectively in the play-offs).

So it breaks down like this:

San Antonio: Great post offense, great post defense, very good perimeter offense, great perimeter defense, good perimeter shooting, great coaching presence.

Denver: Average post offense, average post defense, very good perimeter offense, no perimeter defense, average perimeter shooting, below average coaching presence.

The Spurs strong points went up against Denver's weak points, meaning San Antonio had a great match-up, and Denver had a very poor one.

Unless you're expecting Iverson to score in the post, defend in the post, defend Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili, defend all the Spurs' shooters simultaneously and coach the team, you can't blame him for the Nuggets getting smashed.

Well at least we can finally establish that Tim Duncan is the far superior player to Iverson, thanks for that.


As soon as he was paired with a good offensive player, his assists went up. The next time he was paired with a great offensive player, his shot attempts went down and his field goal percentage went up.

I already have looked at the championship teams of the past 20 years. I found out that every team except the Bulls had a dominating post presence. In other words, 14 of the last 20 championship teams have had something Allen Iverson hasn't had on his team.

I agree that having a great froncourt greatly increases your chances of winning a championship.

What I want to know, is if there's ever been an inefficient SG in a PG's body with a bad attitude, no leadership, and no defense to lead his team to a championship.


To win and play effectively in the play-offs is all about the quality of players on your team. You can't beat great teams by being one dimensional, and since Iverson has sparingly had a good post presence that's just what his teams have been: one-dimensional.

Again, unless you're expecting Iverson to play PF, there's nothing he could have done about this.

AI has had great players in the past, didn't win. Oh except that one time in the horrible East.


Where do you get that Iverson just stands around without the ball? The first time he ever had to play off the ball at all (in Denver), his 3P% went up to 35%, which isn't a bad percentage.

By watching him play? Try it sometime.


You said "he doesn't have to be hidden on defense", then you said "he still has a ways to go", then you said he's "an above average defensive point guard". None of this is consistent.

Stating he doesn't have to be hidden was just showing that he was better than AI, maybe that's stating the obvious, but I never can tell with AI fans. Stuckey does have a ways to go, to become a great defender. It isn't a small increment between above average and great defensively. Which is why I said he has a long way to go.


He's also had some very ineffecient team-mates. When he's had better team-mates, Iverson's effeciency has risen. Thus, having better team-mates helps a players performance.


Iverson makes them inefficient by hogging the ball, taking poor shots, and being a poor distributor in general.

Well then you're not reading what I'm writing. I quite clearly stated that when Iverson was teamed up with Chris Webber, Kyle Korver and Andre Iguodala, his assists went up.

Then, when he was paired with Carmelo Anthony his shot attempts and scoring went down, and his three point shooting improved. In other words, when he's been teamed with better team-mates, his play changes.

Iverson doesn't fit with Memphis well at all, but at least he has some sort of scoring presence up front there.

I said before that Iverson is the perfect guy for a team that has inside scoring but not outside scoring.

Just explain, who you would build around a prime Iverson that would actually win and why. Throw in the coach and play style, offensive and defensive philosophy. Because I think it's impossible.


Billups has a higher basketball IQ than Iverson, that's no secret. But again, the numbers are clear evidence that when Iverson has had team-mates worth anything, his play has changed (and improved). This is evidence of him being a team-player, and trying to win.

Look at Billups' career, he had the same mentality as Iverson trying to score the ball all the time not be a good teammate. Bouncing around 5 teams before finally settling in Detroit and growing up.


So Iverson's assists go up - this is a result of the coach telling him what to do.

Webber starts shooting mid-range Js - this is Iverson's fault.

Why didn't the coach help Webber's game as well?

Also, if Iverson is such a ball hog and a terrible team-mate to Webber, how did Webber go back to his career scoring average the very next season, his first full season with Iverson?

Iverson's coaches always struggled to control Iverson, he always made it clear that he was going to do it his way.


Iverson said he liked Cheeks, but I don't think he begged for him to come to Philly...

He said he wanted to kiss Cheeks on the mouth, I'd say he wanted him pretty bad.


:eyebrow: So you say that he either doesn't pass the ball, or "forces his team-mate to make a play"? This is a really poor explanation for Iversons assists numbers, and doesn't have any factual basis.

Iverson's assists come through him trying to score. While other 6 foot guards that want to succeed to make plays before scoring. Make sense. Look at Marbury, always averaged great assist numbers, always hated, always a loser. Assists are misleading in terms of how much a teamplayer a certain player is.


Driving to the hole has worked for a number of players throughout NBA history. The difference is this: Iverson has never had a post-presence!

Shooting bricks, making poor decisions, playing poor defense, showing no leadership, skipping practices, being self-centered, quitting, acting immature, off court distractions, throwing teammates/coaches under the bus, not accepting responsibility, being a bad influence on teammates and the public at large. That's what doesn't work.

Wilson
10-23-2009, 11:49 AM
Its Half time gents, you cant expect anyone to keep up with all that, I know Im not reading through any of that if its never ending. What does this all boil down to?

The tangents you guys have gone off to is so far removed from whats important. The whole you need a great frontcourt to win is as relevant as saying you need good defense to win. You need alot of things, including luck to win big.

Some bits about Deke not being better than Camby, I just read this tidbit;
You said "he doesn't have to be hidden on defense", then you said "he still has a ways to go", then you said he's "an above average defensive point guard". None of this is consistent.
Sounds pretty consistent to me man. Hes not an elite defender, but he doesnt have to be hidden because hes an above average defender at his position, mostly because hes really a 2, but I doubt he could ever be an elite defender.
When has AI ever displayed the ability to improve his team defensively, and score effectively enough to carry an offense?

My point with the post guys is that Iverson has never had them.

But I think you're right, this isn't going to end, and I'm starting to invest more time in this thread than the work I'm supposed to be doing :p

I'll finish with this: I'm not trying to claim that Iverson is right in every single thing that he does, I'm just making the case that he's not been totally, 100% wrong in everything either. I really don't believe that his front courts have been able to compete with the better teams in the league, which is a big reason (of course not the only reason) he lost.

I do agree that Iverson's defense is a huge knock against him, and this is what seperates him from a guy like Kobe Bryant. I also agree that he acted very unprofessional in Detroit.

I just think you should take the good with the bad. He's not perfect, but he's not the basketball anti-christ either.

Good game SteveNash :cheers:

SteveNash
10-24-2009, 07:44 PM
My point with the post guys is that Iverson has never had them.

But I think you're right, this isn't going to end, and I'm starting to invest more time in this thread than the work I'm supposed to be doing :p

I'll finish with this: I'm not trying to claim that Iverson is right in every single thing that he does, I'm just making the case that he's not been totally, 100% wrong in everything either. I really don't believe that his front courts have been able to compete with the better teams in the league, which is a big reason (of course not the only reason) he lost.

I do agree that Iverson's defense is a huge knock against him, and this is what seperates him from a guy like Kobe Bryant. I also agree that he acted very unprofessional in Detroit.

I just think you should take the good with the bad. He's not perfect, but he's not the basketball anti-christ either.

Good game SteveNash :cheers:

Well I still would like to know how exactly you'd win with AI. All your arguments have just been excuses for why AI hasn't won.

Wilson
10-24-2009, 07:50 PM
With good role players on the perimeter (spot up shooting, defense) and a real post presence. You don't think he's good enough to win with that, which is fine, fair enough.

That's all I'm saying, I can't be arsed going into all the details again because we were pretty much repeating ourselves and sending 1500 word essays to each other.

It's over, thanks for the debate and I'll see you around the forums...:cheers:

IRUAM #21
10-24-2009, 07:54 PM
Oh god.... SteveNash is gonna write like a 20 paragraph response now.

SteveNash
10-24-2009, 07:56 PM
With good role players on the perimeter (spot up shooting, defense) and a real post presence. You don't think he's good enough to win with that, which is fine, fair enough.

That's all I'm saying, I can't be arsed going into all the details again because we were pretty much repeating ourselves and sending 1500 word essays to each other.

It's over, thanks for the debate and I'll see you around the forums...:cheers:

So basically AI needs things he had in Denver?

How hard is it to compile a team of 12 players to build around Iverson? I mean if Iverson really is good, it should be fairly easy.

IRUAM #21
10-24-2009, 07:57 PM
:sigh:

Wilson
10-24-2009, 08:06 PM
Sorry to let you down IRUAM, I just didn't have the energy anymore :p

SteveNash you're very argumentative...