PDA

View Full Version : Replace Iverson with Stockton or Nash, do the 76ers still make the finals?



IKnowHoops
02-01-2016, 02:12 AM
I always here how Nash and Stockton are better than Allen Iverson.

Simple question...

Could they have taken that team as far as he did?

I'll even go a step farther. I think Ivo takes there teams farther than both Stockton and Nash were able to.

More-Than-Most
02-01-2016, 02:45 AM
Stock maybe because of the defense but neither of their games would help that 76ers team out as much... Iverson was a scorer who got a ton of calls and shot 10000 times a game... Nash/Stock wouldnt get the benefit of the little guy syndrome.

Both players are are far above Iverson IMO... Iverson seems to get a pass for his lack of defense/lack of 3 point shot and overall fg and 3pfg percentage and his high volume of turnovers from time to time.

Phantom Dreamer
02-01-2016, 04:42 AM
I always here how Nash and Stockton are better than Allen Iverson.

Simple question...

Could they have taken that team as far as he did?

I'll even go a step farther. I think Ivo takes there teams farther than both Stockton and Nash were able to.Hear and their.
Are you talking about 2001 Stockton and Nash? If yes, no.

JLynn943
02-01-2016, 05:43 AM
Not even close imo. The team Iverson took to the finals needed a player who could shoulder the load on offense like he did. No one else on that team was capable of scoring much. Pass-first point guards wouldn't have helped. Those players' games were probably benefiting more from all the defensive attention going to Iverson than they would benefit from Nash or Stockton.

ewing
02-01-2016, 06:38 AM
No but the replace John with AI and the Jazz don't make it to two finals so he wins. Nash never got to a finals so i guess he's irrelevant. good topic

NYKalltheway
02-01-2016, 07:02 AM
Both are better, all three are different. The 76ers needed someone like Iverson to do what they did. At the same time, the 76ers needed someone like Iverson that displayed more teamwork and mental ability in order to win.

I'd say that a better question would be including Kevin Johnson or Tim Hardaway. Or maybe Ron Harper. From current players it'd be Derrick Rose probably.

A penetrating guard that could score and wasn't a hole defensively, despite the whole team being solid on that aspect.

PhillyFaninLA
02-01-2016, 07:05 AM
Iverson was the shooting guard so you are putting Stockton or Nash with Eric Snow


I don't understand why so many people don't know Iverson position for most of his career

KnicksorBust
02-01-2016, 08:33 AM
Iverson was the shooting guard so you are putting Stockton or Nash with Eric Snow


I don't understand why so many people don't know Iverson position for most of his career

To answer your question it is his size and his usage. What would you call a 6'0 player who handled the ball all the time? Labels are tricky like that. LeBron is a great example. A PF in Miami who handled the ball more than any guard.

NYKalltheway
02-01-2016, 08:42 AM
Iverson was the shooting guard so you are putting Stockton or Nash with Eric Snow


I don't understand why so many people don't know Iverson position for most of his career


In all fairness, that 76ers team didn't really use a SG, there were two PGs. Though I also consider AI to be a SG, his role was that of a PG. Offensive PG and defensive PG. Both could play both PG and SG. And both can be playmakers. It's an advantage when you can cover the defensive end and I've seen many teams use this system. But the reason it won't work with Nash or Stockton is that Stockton can't guard 2s while Nash can't guard anyone. At least Iverson was a pest despite having bad man defensive abilities. And he'd score 1 on 1, while the others need teammates who can convert. AI didn't really have many of those in Philly.

IndyRealist
02-01-2016, 10:02 AM
You can't just plug and play players, this isn't NBA2K. That team was built entirely to cover Iverson's deficiencies and let him operate on offense however he wanted.

Put Iverson on the 90's Jazz, how long until Karl Malone flattens him?

valade16
02-01-2016, 10:08 AM
As has already been said, the 76ers don't get as far but likewise neither the Suns nor Jazz do either.

Cal827
02-01-2016, 10:32 AM
:laugh2: They would have had problems with the Pacers, and they definitely wouldn't have gotten by the Raptors with either of those two.... worse with Nash though, cause at Least Stockton was very good defensively and would give them a legitimate shot.

Tony_Starks
02-01-2016, 11:39 AM
Finals? They barely make the playoffs....

urban85disciple
02-01-2016, 11:43 AM
In all fairness, that 76ers team didn't really use a SG, there were two PGs. Though I also consider AI to be a SG, his role was that of a PG. Offensive PG and defensive PG. Both could play both PG and SG. And both can be playmakers. It's an advantage when you can cover the defensive end and I've seen many teams use this system. But the reason it won't work with Nash or Stockton is that Stockton can't guard 2s while Nash can't guard anyone. At least Iverson was a pest despite having bad man defensive abilities. And he'd score 1 on 1, while the others need teammates who can convert. AI didn't really have many of those in Philly.

Iverson was a SG in every sense of the term.

Had we drafted Pierce/Dirk, traded for/signed KG, and/or kept Mutumbo, he would most likely have a ring on his finger.

LOb0
02-01-2016, 11:49 AM
This is a stupid question.


No they couldn't because they weren't scorers. If you took nearly any legitimate first option scorer? they would. That was one of the best defensive teams in the league. Iverson just got the credit for being the offense when the defense was actually the reason for that team being good.

Sly Guy
02-01-2016, 11:49 AM
no, b/c it was a team built for AI. They needed him to jack up the shots he did, whereas the passing ability of stock or nash would be less of an asset there. The sixers needed his one-on-one skills there, and I don't think there's much argument that AI wasn't more skilled than nash or stock in that regard.

2-ONE-5
02-01-2016, 12:05 PM
not a chance

NYKalltheway
02-01-2016, 01:06 PM
Iverson was a SG in every sense of the term.


not really every sense. Unless you feel that Westbrook, Rose and all those type of PGs are actually SGs as well.

-Kobe24-TJ19-
02-01-2016, 01:14 PM
lol no.

They needed AI's scoring

Tony_Starks
02-01-2016, 02:23 PM
Iverson made that team contenders single handedly with his offense. They were the Baltimore Ravens on D with a guy that could literally go for 50 on any given night if need be. Go back and watch some of his playoff games that Finals run, it's absolutely ridiculous.

A distributing pg is completely wasted on that squad, who is he going to distribute to Aaron Mckie, George Lynch, and Matt Geiger?

YAALREADYKNO
02-01-2016, 06:05 PM
Nope

JAZZNC
02-02-2016, 12:47 AM
This is just an overall stupid question. That team was purposefully built around AI. Of course it wouldn't work with Stockton or Nash. But the teams that Stockton and Nash has would have been sooooo much worse with Iverson. Nash and especially Stockton were better players but nice try OP.

IKnowHoops
02-02-2016, 01:02 AM
This is just an overall stupid question. That team was purposefully built around AI. Of course it wouldn't work with Stockton or Nash. But the teams that Stockton and Nash has would have been sooooo much worse with Iverson. Nash and especially Stockton were better players but nice try OP.

I think your wrong. I think Iverson was never able to play with such talent, but if he would of he would adjust his game and be a force that wouldn't get double teamed much like Stockton and Nash. Iverson got just as far with far less talent, it doesn't make sense that with more talent his teams would be worse. And if you can't make a team better than another player at your same position, then you can't say your better than him.

IKnowHoops
02-02-2016, 01:07 AM
I think your wrong. I think Iverson was never able to play with such talent, but if he would of he would adjust his game and be a force that wouldn't get double teamed much like Stockton and Nash. Iverson got just as far with far less talent, it doesn't make sense that with more talent his teams would be worse. And if you can't make a team better than another player at your same position, then you can't say your better than him.

No matter how you build a team, David Robinson will make your team better than Alonzo Mourning will. CP3 will make your team better than Kyrie Irving, Jordan will make a better impact than Kobe. Doesn't matter what the team is, the player's ability is all that matters, and Iverson had more ability than either Nash or Stockton.

JLynn943
02-02-2016, 01:41 AM
People try to make the total lack of offensive talent and stocking of defensive ability into somehow building a team that made up for Iverson's deficiency, but it's an asinine argument. He was a more efficient player and had maybe his best season in Denver when he finally had scorers. It's not his fault that that team played in a ridiculously stacked West, was bad at defense pretty much all around, and had a very immature, lazy Melo. He did very well with that team, so I think making the argument that that Sixers team was built to fit Iverson is giving that team too much credit and not giving Iverson enough.

JasonJohnHorn
02-02-2016, 02:56 AM
In the east at that time? Of course.

Both of them were more efficient scorers than Iverson, and both made the players around them better. And Stockton at least was superior on defense.

The question is, how many more games would they have won?

IKnowHoops
02-02-2016, 03:04 AM
This is just an overall stupid question. That team was purposefully built around AI. Of course it wouldn't work with Stockton or Nash. But the teams that Stockton and Nash has would have been sooooo much worse with Iverson. Nash and especially Stockton were better players but nice try OP.

So here is what your telling me, seeing as how Mutumbo was Mark Eaton, had we added a prime Webber (Malone) and a prime Richard Hamilton (Hornacek) and a Prime Bruce Bowen (Brian Russell) to Allen Iverson 76ers to give mim close to equal talent that Stockton had, he would of not made the NBA finals? They probably beat the Lakers with Larry Brown coaching.

Jeffy25
02-02-2016, 03:53 AM
I feel like Nash would have without much of an issue. He was a better scorer, defender, and playmaker. But, the lack of an additional shooter on the roster would have severely limited his teams scoring, but would have scored and shot more often on a team like that 6ers.


Stockton was so pass first, that I don't know that it would happen. The only reason I lean toward Nash is because he could at least score with a good efficiency.

Stockton's defense on that team though....wow, that would arguably be a top 5 defensive lineup all-time. You have to think the Finals would be in reach with that defense alone.



Nash and Stockton as so far above Iverson all-time it's not even funny. But that 6ers team did need someone to score, and Stockton wouldn't have been able to create his own shots enough. I do feel like Nash could have and would have. I could see Nash averaging 25 per night on that 01 Sixers team.

Also, are we talking about prime of each player? Or how old they were in 01? Because Stockton was ancient and Nash was just starting to become the player he would be.



Also, quick question.

But why do I see so many people act like the East is a cake-walk for guys like LeBron, but Iverson it wasn't? I feel like I've seen that argument, and James made it to the Finals in the same league just 6 years later. Hasn't the West been dominating since Jordan left?

Jeffy25
02-02-2016, 03:55 AM
Both are better, all three are different. The 76ers needed someone like Iverson to do what they did. At the same time, the 76ers needed someone like Iverson that displayed more teamwork and mental ability in order to win.

I'd say that a better question would be including Kevin Johnson or Tim Hardaway. Or maybe Ron Harper. From current players it'd be Derrick Rose probably.

A penetrating guard that could score and wasn't a hole defensively, despite the whole team being solid on that aspect.

Westbrook would fit that team well too, same with Irving.

TheMightyHumph
02-02-2016, 05:15 AM
no, b/c it was a team built for AI. They needed him to jack up the shots he did, whereas the passing ability of stock or nash would be less of an asset there. The sixers needed his one-on-one skills there, and I don't think there's much argument that AI wasn't more skilled than nash or stock in that regard.

You don't think Nash could have scored more? He was one of the NBA best shooters ever.

TheMightyHumph
02-02-2016, 05:22 AM
People try to make the total lack of offensive talent and stocking of defensive ability into somehow building a team that made up for Iverson's deficiency, but it's an asinine argument. He was a more efficient player and had maybe his best season in Denver when he finally had scorers. It's not his fault that that team played in a ridiculously stacked West, was bad at defense pretty much all around, and had a very immature, lazy Melo. He did very well with that team, so I think making the argument that that Sixers team was built to fit Iverson is giving that team too much credit and not giving Iverson enough.

And yet, Denver traded him for Billups, a PG that could run a team, and Denver made it to WCF.

PhillyFaninLA
02-02-2016, 07:03 AM
I want people old enough to remember to think about just how good that Lakers team was that year, the fact they stole a game, and if they stole a second game who knows what happens in that series.

The fact the Sixers competed against that Lakers team when the west couldn't (not in those playoffs) is a testament to just how good Iverson was, Snow was a solid PG and the PG that was needed on that team and Aaron McKie's defense, as well as the other support, role players.

Anyone who calls Iverson a PG during that season doesn't know basketball history, doesn't know facts, and doesn't know that team. Personally I am disragarding anyone's comments on Iverson that compare or rank him along PG's.

NYKalltheway
02-02-2016, 07:39 AM
Westbrook would fit that team well too, same with Irving.

I agree on Kyrie. But not sold on Westbrook, he wasn't made for half-court. He'd be a killer on the fast break though.