I compare Iverson to Kobe in certain ways. Don't get me wrong, I respect Allen Iverson as probably the hardest guy in the L to defend, however, the way he dominates the ball it is hard to not fill up the stat sheet the way he does. Iverson is a shoot first PG that chooses when to share the ball. Philly does cater to his habits and I think if you traded Iverson with any other team's true PG, they would not be as successful. True, Iverson averages 7 assists a game but that doesn't dictate the negative effect he has on his teammates. A true PG makes his teammates better, I don't believe Iverson does that. I think Jason Kidd or Steve Nash are the best PG's in the league. They are examples of players that make their teammates better, they put up the same numbers as Iverson as far as assists go, but their effect is much greater. A great PG plays within the flow of the offense and scores when necessary, Iverson forces too much and doesn't trust his teammates. When he does, he'll be even greater. I heard a description of Mike Bibby that should describe every great PG: "You have a player with an ability to score, but not a need to." By the way, where is the love for Mike Bibby? This guy deserves an all star selection for the way he plays. Steady, clutch, great shooter... if only he was flashy he might get some respect.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting away_27:</div><div class="quote_post">Iverson is a shoot first PG that chooses when to share the ball. Philly does cater to his habits and I think if you traded Iverson with any other team's true PG, they would not be as successful.</div> I meant to say that if you traded Iverson with any other team's true PG, that team would not be as successful.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I meant to say that if you traded Iverson with any other team's true PG, that team would not be as successful.</div> Exactly. That's basically what I'm trying to say. The only exception MIGHT be Jason Kidd, but I can almost gurantee you that if you traded one of these true PG's such as Nash for A.I, Nash would not be able to do as good as A.I did with the team. Basically if you put Nash on a bummy team and A.I on one, A.I would do much better than Steve Nash. The thing that is so great about him is that he has the ability to do something out of nothing. You can put slow, fast, offensive, defense players around him and A.I would be able to work with it. But if you put an offensively challenged team around Nash or a team that plays a slow pace Nash would not be able to work with that. In order for him to be effective he needs players around him that can run & score. If not, he would not be able to set guys up.
That's not what I'm saying. I may have confused the situation by clarifying what I said in the first place! What I mean is if you take Allen Iverson and put him on the Suns or the Kings which are two successful teams, they would not do as well. Both teams are passing teams which Iverson would not work well with. At the same time, I think both Bibby and Nash are capable of making the Sixers at least as successful as Iverson has made them b/c they are both capable of scoring and I don't think Iverson helps show the true talent of the rest of the team. Don't get me wrong, I like Iverson a lot but I don't think he deserves the title of the BEST PG because the PG is the player that dictates the offense, which he does but in a wrong way.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">What I mean is if you take Allen Iverson and put him on the Suns or the Kings which are two successful teams, they would not do as well.</div> That's true. With whatever the Kings or Suns record would be(like 55-60 wins) Iverson would probably get like 50-54 wins with that team primarily because of that fact that you brought up that he is a shoot first player and all the talent that those teams have respectively wouldn't be fully exposed. In contrary if you put Steve Nash or Mike Bibby on a team which at one point had Josh Davis(Josh who?) as a starter along with Kenny Thomas, a rookie and a one dimensional player and top that off with a shallow bench Nash and Bibby would lead that team to the lottery. So basically Iverson would be able to at least make the Playoffs no matter the squad he has while Nash/Bibby would only have success with just one team that compliments them. Like I said in my post prior to this, the thing that makes A.I the best PG (Not the actual obligations of a PG, but under the label PG) is that he can do something out of nothing even though it may not be in the traditional PG fashion.
