<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Sure, Larry Brown moved him to shooting guard his second season and insisted he was not a point guard. But the way he played last season upon his return to the playmaking role and carried the talent-challenged Philadelphia 76ers into the playoffs was reason enough to believe he'd be an even better player today had he stayed at that position. And when you consider he earned his fourth scoring title last season while recording a career-high 7.9 assists a game ? along with his requisite 2.4 steals ? the answer to the dilemma is simple.</div> http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/3900858 Compare Iverson and Nash and think of how they would do on each others teams...
Iverson is more talented than Nash, and if we're just talking skills on both ends of the floor, he's obviously the better player between the 2. Right now, I'd rank it: Kidd, Iverson, Nash as the Top 3 with Baron, Arenas and Marbury right behind.
Aboslutely not. AI is an outstanding scorer, and a creative playmaker. He is not, however, the best PG. I would rank Steve Nash, Jason Kidd, Mike Bibby, Chauncey Billups, Baron Davis and Tony Parker all ahead of Iverson. Are they as creative as Iverson? Maybe so, maybe not. But if you were asking me who I wanted running the point on my team, I'd take all of them before I'd take AI. Iverson, for all of his playmaking and scoring prowess, had an assist to turnover ratio of 1.7 last year, and that's just not good for a point guard with AI's talent. Comparatively, Nash averaged 3.5 ast/to, Bibby 2.7, Kidd 3.3, Billups 2.6, Parker 2.3 and Davis 2.8. Even Shaun Livingston, a rookie out of High School, averaged 2.0 assists for every turnover. While Iverson's vast array of other skills compensates in some part for his shaky turnover numbers, he must improve in that department in order for me to classify him a truly great point guard. He's an amazing player, an electric talent and a fearless leader, but he still has to work on his true point skills to be considered tops at that position.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting og15:</div><div class="quote_post">Iverson is more talented than Nash, and if we're just talking skills on both ends of the floor, he's obviously the better player between the 2. Right now, I'd rank it: Kidd, Iverson, Nash as the Top 3 with Baron, Arenas and Marbury right behind.</div> Iverson is anything BUT a PG. He's a shooting guard. Another thing, if you put AI on any team but the Sixers, he won't be as good, being that he can't shoot.
When u compare AI to someone u must also keep in mind that he nearly plays the whole game....so don't compare his ratio to Shaun Livingston....u make Shaun play as many minutes as AI with as much pressure and see how he does.... Also I wouldn't put Baron Davis ahead of AI....Baron is too slow for a PG not only that he has sporadic and erratic shooting.....he is like a toned down PG version of Antoine Walker..
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting DynastYWarrioR6:</div><div class="quote_post">When u compare AI to someone u must also keep in mind that he nearly plays the whole game....so don't compare his ratio to Shaun Livingston....u make Shaun play as many minutes as AI with as much pressure and see how he does.... </div> Ok, for guys who play a lot more minutes than Livingston, AI also had a worse ast/to ratio than Tracy McGrady, LeBron James, Eddie Jones, Vince Carter, Morris Peterson, Kevin Garnett, Tayshaun Prince and Larry Hughes-just to name a few-and none of them is even a point guard. I understand what you mean, that AI is burdened with the responsibilities of being his team's primary scorer and playmaker while also logging tons of minutes, but the fact remains that until he cuts down on the turnovers he cannot be considered one of the top point guards in the leauge. He'll just have to settle for being one of its best overall players
Their's no mention of ranking the Top 10 PURE PG's in the league or anything of that sort, it just says best PG. That's the best players playing at the PG spot. Iverson is a scorer that can pass, and a very good one indeed. As a player he's far supeirior to a guy like Tony Parker, and a better player than Baron, Bibby, and Billups.
Some of these writers don't actually watch these guys play; they just watch their stats. I've never been a fan of Iverson's style of play. He's turnover prone (4.6 tpg is ridiculous), often selfish, and a horrible shooter. Statistically, he had a better year than Jason Kidd, but considering the fact that Kidd's first month or so back was an adjustment period where he didn't get a lot of playing time and had to regain his feel for the game, Jason Kidd's statistics on the year as a whole shouldn't be looked at. It's easy for a lot of people to look at his statistics for the year and say "He'll never be the Jason Kidd that he used to be. He's old now and has bad knees." However, he was perfectly healthy and was playing some of the best basketball of his life in the last few months of the season. In March, he averaged 19.2 ppg, 9.3 rpg, 9.7 apg, and 2.5 spg, including a couple of triple doubles; leading New Jersey to an 8-2 record for the month and giving them the edge over the Cavaliers for the 8th seed. Does that sound like an injured, old washedup player? Believe me, Kidd still has it in him, and he's still the best Point Guard in the NBA. I just can't see anyone taking that title from him until he retires. He's in a whole nother league. I'd put Jason Kidd first, Steve Nash second, and if you consider Allen Iverson a Point Guard, then I'd put him third. The rest of the list is pretty agreeable. The only other change I'd make would be putting Kirk Hinrinch on the list over Andre Miller.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting og15:</div><div class="quote_post">Their's no mention of ranking the Top 10 PURE PG's in the league or anything of that sort, it just says best PG. That's the best players playing at the PG spot. Iverson is a scorer that can pass, and a very good one indeed. As a player he's far supeirior to a guy like Tony Parker, and a better player than Baron, Bibby, and Billups.</div>a point guards job is to be a pure point guard. Its called basketball, thats how they play it. A "scorer who can pass" is not the description of a good point guard. thats what the two and three spots are for ~ scorers who can pass.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting tiny dancer:</div><div class="quote_post">a point guards job is to be a pure point guard. Its called basketball, thats how they play it. A "scorer who can pass" is not the description of a good point guard. thats what the two and three spots are for ~ scorers who can pass.</div> Very well said.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">a point guards job is to be a pure point guard. Its called basketball, thats how they play it. A "scorer who can pass" is not the description of a good point guard. thats what the two and three spots are for ~ scorers who can pass.</div> Couldn't have said it better. I put Jason Kidd and Steve Nash at the very top. Jason Kidd might have a slight edge because of his defense.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting tiny dancer:</div><div class="quote_post">a point guards job is to be a pure point guard. Its called basketball, thats how they play it. A "scorer who can pass" is not the description of a good point guard. thats what the two and three spots are for ~ scorers who can pass.</div> Good point, but let's also remember the reason why AI had the numbers he had: he IS the Sixers' system. He doesn't play in a system that intends on getting other players the ball and the buckets, he plays in a system designed strictly for him. Those 7.9 assists (just like with Marbury, Arenas, et al.) come from taking the ball to the hoop, running into two or three defenders and dishing as an out. He passes out of necessity, not out of design. He is not a creative passer, and does what he has to do only when confronted by disaster. The greatest point guards in the game played intense defense, and knew how to run an offense in a system. The Cousys, Stocktons, Wests, even DJs, were all in that mold, and all made the rest of their team better. Not so with AI, or Marbury, or B-Diddy, or a host of others. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking that the 1 is now reserved for quick paced passers who know how to run an offense. The league is trying to regain an image of offense, and unfortunately going about it the wrong way. They are breaking down barriers and we've seen numbers start to shift over to other positions. The four used to be for dirty work, and that was it. The Paul Arizins, the Wes Unselds, those guys used to be around strictly for rebounding, vicious fouls, and especially solid defense. That has changed to, and when it began to (the 80's), the game was better for it. Unfortunately, the league has moved in the direction of flash (in the pan?) and now point guards are scoring guards and scoring guards are point guards. They hope the result will be more points and more spectacular play, but anyone can see, that's not necessarily the case. Isiah Thomas was the prototype for this shift, and, as usual, he has let the league down and bastardized a formerly respectable position into near unrecognizability (the CBA, anyone?). Now, due to the mismatches, as well as the newfound difficulty in making offensives sets work, FG%'s are down league-wide, turnovers are up, and the game has gotten sloppy. With any luck, GM's will begin to notice this trend, and more pass-happy (albeit still scoring options), athletic, fast breakers will begin to run offenses again.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting tiny dancer:</div><div class="quote_post">a point guards job is to be a pure point guard. Its called basketball, thats how they play it. A "scorer who can pass" is not the description of a good point guard. thats what the two and three spots are for ~ scorers who can pass.</div> The roles of PG's through the years has switched from them being just set up players, to many being able to put up points themselves. Their has been an infulx of many talented players at the PG position, and players coming to the league haven't been given the same roles in the prep years as they would've before. Many guys come out are so good that throughout their highschool and college career's, they were their teams best players, and scorers. Thank's for tell me what the sport is called, I thought this was football all this time, and PG's were RB's, wow, I've been enlightened.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Schaddy:</div><div class="quote_post">Aboslutely not. AI is an outstanding scorer, and a creative playmaker. He is not, however, the best PG. I would rank Steve Nash, Jason Kidd, Mike Bibby, Chauncey Billups, Baron Davis and Tony Parker all ahead of Iverson. Are they as creative as Iverson? Maybe so, maybe not. But if you were asking me who I wanted running the point on my team, I'd take all of them before I'd take AI. Iverson, for all of his playmaking and scoring prowess, had an assist to turnover ratio of 1.7 last year, and that's just not good for a point guard with AI's talent. Comparatively, Nash averaged 3.5 ast/to, Bibby 2.7, Kidd 3.3, Billups 2.6, Parker 2.3 and Davis 2.8. Even Shaun Livingston, a rookie out of High School, averaged 2.0 assists for every turnover. While Iverson's vast array of other skills compensates in some part for his shaky turnover numbers, he must improve in that department in order for me to classify him a truly great point guard. He's an amazing player, an electric talent and a fearless leader, but he still has to work on his true point skills to be considered tops at that position.</div> I agree. I happen to have heard a quote that could help.. "Iverson is a 2 guard stuck in a PG's body." While he is a dynamic player of his size, I don't think Nash is better than AI. True, he is 'purer' in the sense he passes first, but he has his problems too. My list would look like Kidd, Bibby, Iverson, Nash..then on to star players like Francis, Davis, Marbury.. I put Nash so far down because I see him as replaceable. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting tiny dancer:</div><div class="quote_post">a point guards job is to be a pure point guard. Its called basketball, thats how they play it. A "scorer who can pass" is not the description of a good point guard. thats what the two and three spots are for ~ scorers who can pass.</div> Well said, but I happen to disagree. The roles of the positions on the court have been changing, especially in the last 15 years or so, with more athletic and versatile athlete you're seeing players of one position taking on some responsibilities of others. So I ask you: if AI were to sacrifice his game and play a more Nash/Kidd style of basketball who would fill in that large scoring gap? I think that if AI were traded to a contending team he would be mature enough to sacrifice his game into more of a finer edged player(like Shaq did, and Wilt did way back) for a championship..that's just my opinion.
It's funny. Me and my boy were just arguing about this the other day. First off, while he is a good player, to me AI is one of the most overrated players EVER. Most AI fans are attached to his heart, and the fact that he came in as a rebel. That's fine. But let's be honest. He's been in the league for close to ten years, and he's just now learning how to pass (and still ain't that good at it). In order for him to be effective, he has to take over 20 shots a game, in which he'll only hit about 35% of them. His defense has always been suspect, and his team is NEVER going to be mentioned as a contender with him on it. So basically he's not as good as some think he is. The Sixers have to put ALL role players around him so AI can get up his 25-30 shots a game without anybody complainin about getting the ball. That's sad
If I had to choose any point guard in the league, I'd choose J-Kidd...I like his size, and of course his passing ability...not to mention, he's one of the better defenders at the position...he makes his teammates better...period...
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">It's funny. Me and my boy were just arguing about this the other day. First off, while he is a good player, to me AI is one of the most overrated players EVER. Most AI fans are attached to his heart, and the fact that he came in as a rebel. That's fine. But let's be honest. He's been in the league for close to ten years, and he's just now learning how to pass (and still ain't that good at it). In order for him to be effective, he has to take over 20 shots a game, in which he'll only hit about 35% of them. His defense has always been suspect, and his team is NEVER going to be mentioned as a contender with him on it. So basically he's not as good as some think he is. The Sixers have to put ALL role players around him so AI can get up his 25-30 shots a game without anybody complainin about getting the ball. That's sad.</div> <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">a point guards job is to be a pure point guard. Its called basketball, thats how they play it. A "scorer who can pass" is not the description of a good point guard. thats what the two and three spots are for ~ scorers who can pass.</div> Part of that I agree with but for the most part, that's complete B.S. Because what you're basically doing is knocking a player because he has the ability to do something outside of his role. That's like saying LeBron is not being a good SF because he's rebounding the ball or Jordan wasn't a great SG because he was passing the ball and was averaging 8 assists for some parts of his career. When you do something outside of what you're suppose to be doing and at the same time do the things your obligated to do that's just more ?kudos? to you. Jason Kidd wouldn't be the player he is today if he didn't step outside his role and do other things like rebound the ball and so on. And in terms of best pure PG, who cares? It's best that you look at in an overall matter, because if you look at just pure point guards you can rank Brevin Knight over Iverson. If you rank PF?s by talent you can put Chris Webber over Duncan. And at the end of the day would you really take Brevin Knight over Iverson or Webber over Duncan? I think not. And the thing is that people are making it seems as if A.I was not going to turnover the ball. Not only does he get the ball from the get go he is obligated to set others up he is also the one who has to score for them as the first option. So virtually in every 76ers possession Iverson is somehow involved in it. Another argument is that people say such great things about Steve Nash but according to some box scores in which I'm currently looking at as I type this post, Steve Nash averages 6 TPG when scoring 25-30+ and at the same time dishing out 8+ assists just like Iverson does for most of the season. So what?s that saying? When he can?t get others to score and he is the one that has to be the primary scorer for the team and still try to set up others guys(just like A.I) he averages even more turnovers. To be concise, Iverson is arguably the best PG in the NBA but Jason Kidd can easily be put over him. It's a very tough choice; some like Jason Kidd over A.I and others like A.I over Jason Kidd, but to players like Billups, Daivis, Nash and so on over him is ludicrous. Again in terms of best pure PG you could do that, but overall (which is what really matters) Iverson and Kidd are on the top.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Avery:</div><div class="quote_post"> Part of that I agree with but for the most part, that's complete B.S. Because what you're basically doing is knocking a player because he has the ability to do something outside of his role. That's like saying LeBron is not being a good SF because he's rebounding the ball or Jordan wasn't a great SG because he was passing the ball and was averaging 8 assists for some parts of his career. When you do something outside of what you're suppose to be doing and at the same time do the things your obligated to do that's just more ?kudos? to you. Jason Kidd wouldn't be the player he is today if he didn't step outside his role and do other things like rebound the ball and so on. And in terms of best pure PG, who cares? It's best that you look at in an overall matter, because if you look at just pure point guards you can rank Brevin Knight over Iverson. If you rank PF?s by talent you can put Chris Webber over Duncan. And at the end of the day would you really take Brevin Knight over Iverson or Webber over Duncan? I think not. And the thing is that people are making it seems as if A.I was not going to turnover the ball. Not only does he get the ball from the get go he is obligated to set others up he is also the one who has to score for them as the first option. So virtually in every 76ers possession Iverson is somehow involved in it. Another argument is that people say such great things about Steve Nash but according to some box scores in which I'm currently looking at as I type this post, Steve Nash averages 6 TPG when scoring 25-30+ and at the same time dishing out 8+ assists just like Iverson does for most of the season. So what?s that saying? When he can?t get others to score and he is the one that has to be the primary scorer for the team and still try to set up others guys(just like A.I) he averages even more turnovers. To be concise, Iverson is arguably the best PG in the NBA but Jason Kidd can easily be put over him. It's a very tough choice; some like Jason Kidd over A.I and others like A.I over Jason Kidd, but to players like Billups, Daivis, Nash and so on over him is ludicrous. Again in terms of best pure PG you could do that, but overall (which is what really matters) Iverson and Kidd are on the top.</div> It's simple my man.............. Iverson is one of the best scorers in the league, but that's pretty much it. While he did have decent assist numbers last year, he's in his 30's and just now learning how to PASS THE BALL. I understand that he doesn't have to be a "pure pg" to be a labeled a PG. But the problem is, the fact that Philly caters to his selfishness hurts the franchise. The fact that he has to jack up damn near 30 shots to score 30pts a game hurts his teammates. The fact the Sixers can't add another superstar to they're team because Iverson's ego won't allow it, set his team back 10 years. The Sixers WILL NEVER be a contender as long as Iverson's they're go to man. The league has changed to where you have to have a good TEAM, instead of one superstar and 14 other role players. Detroit, Miami, Houston, San Antonio, Dallas, Indiana all have good TEAMS around there best players. Philly can't do that because Iverson can't be effective unless he's controlling the ball. Stackhouse, Hughes, and Richard Hamilton all left Philly and became winners. All three couldn't coexist with Iverson more than 3 years. Webber won't be there too much longer either. What am I saying? AI is the best scorer. Not the best PG. Far from the best PG. Steve Nash, Jason Kidd, Chauncy Billups, Tony Parker, Baron Davis, Gilbert Arenas all are more efficient players than Iverson. Also they're teams are all better than Iverson's.
