<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">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.</div> First off, what are you talking about? The only winner out of those three has been Hamilton and he has never played for the 76ers! Besides Hughes and Stackhouse have not acomplished anything else that AI has both are ring-less so I don't really understand how they suddenly "became" winners. Stackhouse is a good friends of Allen's and Larry Hughes even said it wasn't really Allen Iverson's fault that made him want a trade form the Sixers. Besides, hasn't AI proved that he can make the 76ers a contending team? When the right team is built around him sure the 76ers can be contenders. I mean after all they were contenders only a few seasons back ago when they had the best record in the East, built around AI and role players. You have also helped prove the opposite point, all those other guards you listed have better teams then Iverson's meaning it is a lot easier for them to get assists. AI is obligated to turnovers because he handles the ball a lot, but you also can't forget he was third overall in assists this season. Allen?s ego won?t allow Philly to add another superstar? That?s the biggest load of BS I have ever read! Do you think at this point of his career, he likes being the guy who has to shoot all the shots, and score all the points? He was so excited when Billy King brought in a beyond mediocre player in Chris Webber because he wants to play with better players and other stars. The point is, AI wants a ring now, he doesn?t care how many shots he takes or points he scores he just wants to win, and he is going to do what it takes to win. So rant all you want about how many shots he takes and all that, but when it comes down to it he is still going to carry his team on his back and give it all he has so what more can you ask for?
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting B-22:</div><div class="quote_post">First off, what are you talking about? The only winner out of those three has been Hamilton and he has never played for the 76ers![quote name='B-22'] My bad.........But Stackhouse, and Hughes both played significant roles on they're team last year. Both had great playoff perfomances too. While Iverson didn't make the playoffs. [quote name='B-22']Besides, hasn't AI proved that he can make the 76ers a contending team? When the right team is built around him sure the 76ers can be contenders. I mean after all they were contenders only a few seasons back ago when they had the best record in the East, built around AI and role players.[quote name='B-22'] Yes, I remember that. That was back in the days when Larry Brown was begging Iverson to come to practice. They WERE a pretty good team, but without Larry Brown hounding Iverson to give the ball up, Iverson pretty much does whatever he wants to do. Leading to 3 different coaches in 3 years. [quote name='B-22'] Allen?s ego won?t allow Philly to add another superstar? That?s the biggest load of BS I have ever read! Do you think at this point of his career, he likes being the guy who has to shoot all the shots, and score all the points? He was so excited when Billy King brought in a beyond mediocre player in Chris Webber because he wants to play with better players and other stars. The point is, AI wants a ring now, he doesn?t care how many shots he takes or points he scores he just wants to win, and he is going to do what it takes to win. So rant all you want about how many shots he takes and all that, but when it comes down to it he is still going to carry his team on his back and give it all he has so what more can you ask for?</div> First off, he has no choice but to be the man that take all the shots, that's the only way he can be effective. Once a year he might hit 50% of his shots, but we all know that he has to take the majority of the shots, and miss the majority of the shots. Even Webber was accused of saying that Iverson takes too many shots. HE WASN'T LYING. Compared to the rest of the superstars in the NBA, Iverson shoots a TERRIBLE percentage. But that has never stopped him from taking the most shots in the league. That's why his team will NEVER win a championship with him. Because TEAMS like Detroit, and Miami have better teams. The only way Philly can be successful is for a disciplined coach to takeover and tell AI "you can't take that many shots". Which will NEVER happen. Philly is too in love with AI. He can say that he wants to win a championship, but he'll never sacrifice his shot attempts for the team. That's a given
Even I could have predicted this article would lead to a long and stupid thread like this. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting Rock4life:</div><div class="quote_post">First off, he has no choice but to be the man that take all the shots, that's the only way he can be effective. Once a year he might hit 50% of his shots, but we all know that he has to take the majority of the shots, and miss the majority of the shots. Even Webber was accused of saying that Iverson takes too many shots. HE WASN'T LYING. Compared to the rest of the superstars in the NBA, Iverson shoots a TERRIBLE percentage. But that has never stopped him from taking the most shots in the league. That's why his team will NEVER win a championship with him. Because TEAMS like Detroit, and Miami have better teams. The only way Philly can be successful is for a disciplined coach to takeover and tell AI "you can't take that many shots". Which will NEVER happen. Philly is too in love with AI. He can say that he wants to win a championship, but he'll never sacrifice his shot attempts for the team. That's a given</div> Sigh, I didn't want to get into this but apparently, I just can't resist. I went this over with Laker_Fan, so I'm probably going to have to repeat myself on this one. There's a reason why Iverson's percentage is so horrible. Teams envelope him with defense through double and even triple teams. Entire defensive systems are used to stop him, just check out what Larry Brown tried to do in the playoffs against Philadelphia. If Iverson defered the ball to everyone that much, there simply won't be an offense on the team. Neither Iguodala and Korver, the two wingmen, can create their shots that well. Dalembert isn't too much of an offensive threat and can't shoot a jumper to save his life. Meanwhile, Webber seemed out of sync for the majority of the time up till the playoffs when things started clicking. He'll never sacrifice his shot attempts? We'll see. Next year Philadelphia has a rehabbed Webber from his knee his injury with the other three young starters maturing and enhancing their game. The TEAMS you mentioned have many STAR players or even ELITE players at least. Miami had Shaq, Wade, and Eddie Jones last year. Detroit had Hamilton, Prince, Billups, and the Wallace brothers. For the majority of last year, Philadelphia had well, Iverson.
You guys are arguing semantics. Allen Iverson is the most talented player that plays point guard. That doesn't mean he's the best point guard in the league. I don't even think a shoot-first point guard should be considered for that title. It's not fundamentally sound to have your point guard looking for his shot all the time. It takes away from the potential that the entire offense has together, and it limits the rest of the team to wasting space on the offensive end. I think if I were to ask people which point guard they'd choose first if they were starting a team, most of them would say somebody other than Iverson. I think that's what these guys are trying to say.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> I think if I were to ask people which point guard they'd choose first if they were starting a team, most of them would say somebody other than Iverson. I think that's what these guys are trying to say.</div> Yeah, truthfully, I don't exactly call him a point guard. I simply dubb him as a "guard" since he doesn't have the qualities of a passer yet is undersized to play shooting guard. And at that, he's one of the best to play "guard" position.
I have to say I agree. Allen Iverson is overrated, but just a little, cause I admit he has his talents and has the fastest break of any player in the league. Also, his shot percentage is pretty good and will pass the ball at will. The reason that he has so many turnovers is because he is in control basically the whole game, so he gets all the turnovers. However, he can cut down on his turnovers. He takes so many shots, and if he would give his young teammates more of a chance, they could be a better team.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Rock4life:</div><div class="quote_post"> My bad.........But Stackhouse, and Hughes both played significant roles on they're team last year. Both had great playoff perfomances too. While Iverson didn't make the playoffs.</div> Your bad again, AI did make the playoffs... He got beat in the first round, but he still made the playoffs and averaged 30 and 10 assists I understand AI isn't really a point guard, we alll know that his game is not that of a passers he has been like that his whole career so there is no point in arguing about it now. What I am arguing for is the fact you call him overrated which is in no way, shape, or form, true.
AI will probably end up like another great pg oscar robertson, who was an amazing player and scorer but onle ended up winning a championship when he stoped becoming the main focus and latched on to another dominant player kareem.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Lamont:</div><div class="quote_post">AI will probably end up like another great pg oscar robertson, who was an amazing player and scorer but onle ended up winning a championship when he stoped becoming the main focus and latched on to another dominant player kareem.</div> I really don't mean to be a jerk, but can we never mention AI and the Big O in the same sentence again? That's a traveshamockery.
Ok, I'll admit it... I love AI, not because he's good or because just about everyone loves him... but because he's 5'11... 5'11... ask yourself that... Your telling me you rather have Steve Nash, or Jason Kidd running a team over AI? He can score on will, he can be a PASS FIRST player, I mean... there is absolutely NO point in AI being a pass first player seeing as how they have nobody on their team that's good enough to be a better scorer then him. Put Steve Nash in AI's place, then come back and tell me Nash is better then AI. You know what this reminds me of? In Madden or some other sports games... if you switch a players "POSITION" the overall comes down... What I mean is, AI is an OVERALL better player then NASH, anyway you look at it. So what if he can't run an offense like NASH, overall he's a better player... If he isn't the best point guard in the league... well good... atleast we all know as a PLAYER, ALLEN IVERSON is probably ranked top 3 in the league... and I'm not even frontin'... he's 5'11 and he can score on anyone in the NBA. Nash couldn't score or even have a better FG% if he had AI's height. Don't try to sit here and argue because there is no point, I understand how some people think NASH or KIDD are the better pointguards... but in the end it's all how EFFECTIVE they are for their teams.... Nash and Kidd are effective for their teams because what they have to do is PASS, AI has to SCORE... just because AI has to score and not pass that makes him a bad PG? Think about it, it's like you doing your job... except one day someone else comes along and does it DIFFERENTLY... but he's still making his company propser.
You know what this reminds me of? In Madden or some other sports games... if you switch a players "POSITION" the overall comes down... What I mean is, AI is an OVERALL better player then NASH, anyway you look at it. So what if he can't run an offense like NASH, overall he's a better player... If he isn't the best point guard in the league... well good... atleast we all know as a PLAYER, ALLEN IVERSON is probably ranked top 3 in the league... and I'm not even frontin'... he's 5'11 and he can score on anyone in the NBA. Nash couldn't score or even have a better FG% if he had AI's height. Don't try to sit here and argue because there is no point, I understand how some people think NASH or KIDD are the better pointguards... but in the end it's all how EFFECTIVE they are for their teams.... Nash and Kidd are effective for their teams because what they have to do is PASS, AI has to SCORE... just because AI has to score and not pass that makes him a bad PG? Think about it, it's like you doing your job... except one day someone else comes along and does it DIFFERENTLY... but he's still making his company propser.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting I Run This:</div><div class="quote_post">Ok, I'll admit it... I love AI, not because he's good or because just about everyone loves him... but because he's 5'11... 5'11... ask yourself that... Your telling me you rather have Steve Nash, or Jason Kidd running a team over AI? He can score on will, he can be a PASS FIRST player, I mean... there is absolutely NO point in AI being a pass first player seeing as how they have nobody on their team that's good enough to be a better scorer then him. Put Steve Nash in AI's place, then come back and tell me Nash is better then AI.</div> I would love to have Steve Nash running a team over AI. I would also love to have Jason Kidd run a team over AI. If I had to choose one those "point" guards to build a team on, I would choose Kidd. If I had to choose two of those, I would choose Kidd and Nash. One, for exactly the reason you love AI so much, he's only 5'11". He plays no defense, although Nash doesn't either, and he hoists dumb shots all day, and everybody is shocked that this chucker wins another scoring title. If I took fifty shots a game, I'd win myself a scoring title too. The real reason I would build with those other two fellas is because you can do just that, build. AI becomes the centerpiece of whatever offense he's in, and as a result, doesn't share enough of that spotlight for everyone else to get their points. That doesn't mean I'm saying he's selfish, or an egomaniac, or anything like that, I just don't think his style of play fits a team first mentality. And according to recent history, that's just how you win in this league. The difference is, these other guys make their teams better. When Kidd took that team to the Finals against the Spurs what was it? Four years ago? Three? He didn't have much to work with, but he made that team better than it was, and the sum was greater than the parts, that's what makes a point guard a point guard. I don't like AI's game, but I like AI as a figure in the game. He has done things that players without his heart or ability would never do, and that's unique for a player to get so far, and earn so much respect, without a game that truly transcends the sport. He may be a chucker, but he's done it with a swagger and pomp that makes other players think twice when they must face him. Although, every time I see the guy shoot as soon as he hits the free throw line on his way up the floor, the subsequent defensive rebound may as well be a turnover. If you factor that one touch turnover number in, the guy probably turns the ball over 15 times a game. (Aside: so we're all clear, that last paragraph was a joke.)
I think what he meant about putting Nash and Kidd in AI's position wasn't about building a centerpiece, but by taking those guys and have them do what AI does on a team that has noone besides him (although now he has Webber)....can JKidd or Nash do what AI did...take a team to the playoffs seemingly every year all by themselves... I really don't know the answer to that...one of those see it to believe it things...I'm not here to argue a side just wanted to clarify
Allen Iverson is one hell of a player.. but his playing style does not match what is so called "point guard" I would pick Steve Nash over him anytime. Teams would just give him the points instead of letting him get assists.
He's a great scorer...........That's it. I gurantee if you put another SUPERSTAR on the Sixers, they'll either demand a trade or leave through free agency. Why? Because in order for Iverson to be effective, he has to have his 25 shots a game. He isn't as good as everybody makes him out to be. There are guards smaller than him, that shoot a better percentage. Defense's may be designed to stop him, but that doesn't stop him from getting his 25-30 shots a game. I blame the Sixers for catering to Iverson. Instead of tellin him to work on his shots, they've given him the green light to shoot whenever he feels like it. His inefficiency hurts the team, and they'll never be a contender until Iverson learns how to hit a jumpshot.
Allen Iverson might not be a "purer" point guard then some other guys, but that doesn't mean hes not as good. Look at guys like Luke Ridnour and Chris Duhon, they are pure point guards that don't shoot much, but would you take them over AI? I'd take AI over any point guard in the league. I wouldn't mind if my point guard took comand and shot the ball, as long as he still shares the ball, and moves it through the offense, which AI does.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting gocelts34:</div><div class="quote_post">Allen Iverson might not be a "purer" point guard then some other guys, but that doesn't mean hes not as good. Look at guys like Luke Ridnour and Chris Duhon, they are pure point guards that don't shoot much, but would you take them over AI? I'd take AI over any point guard in the league. I wouldn't mind if my point guard took comand and shot the ball, as long as he still shares the ball, and moves it through the offense, which AI does.</div> Take command? If you want to sugarcoat it, fine. He can take 45 shots a game, but the fact is he's only going to hit about 10 of those. If that's what you call "sharing the ball" then suit yourself. I do believe in effiency. If you shoot a terrible percentage, you shouldn't lead the league in shot attempts. Philly obviously doesn't believe in this theory, niether do you. I just wouldn't want my star player going 9 for 30 every night. I'm not a big fan of the "pure point guard" theory either. But there are plenty of guards better and WAY more efficient that AI. People mistake his heart for greatness. Iverson could NEVER be great.
Reading some of these posts some of you don't know what a Point Guard is or does. Just because they're listed as Point Guards in the stat sheet doesn't make them one. The only real PGs in the league are Nash, Kidd, J-Will, Baron Davis, Tony Parker, and Mike Bibby. If I forgot to mention any you can go ahead and add em for me.
^ I'm a huge fan of Baron, but he isn't a true PG, he's a scoring guard himself, though as a scoring guard he's very close to being a true PG. He can be one because he has great passing skills, and leadership ability, but he likes to shoot.
