Kobe simply on the team makes the players shoot more efficiently. I just proved it. There are a couple of other players who simply playing makes his teamates shoot better.
thats totally true, because why guard smush heavier when kobe is such a bigger threat?Thats why I dont see passers make tammates better then shooters do, because you can just guard the other players - the passer doesnt pose much of a scoring threat. the shooter does, and he will attract the d more than the passer will. you need to have a good team to have a good passer. You need a good shooter to make a good team.sorry if that makes no sense, im really sllepy. actually i'm outtttttt... later.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mavsfan1000 @ Mar 31 2006, 09:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>That's because it is either them or a scrub shooting guard behind them. Every star in the league has +/- in favor of them if they don't have a decent backup. Like if you replace Iverson with any of the other star point guards except Baron Davis, Marbury, and Francis the team would play better. That is just my theory. Take it or leave it.</div>I don't think there is a point guard out there that would make the Sixers a better team if he replaced Allen Iverson. Not even Steve Nash. Honestly, replace Iverson and that team has a worse record than they do now. If you've watched the Sixers on a consistent basis, you'd know that offense is not their problem, nor is it ball movement or anything else related to the offensive end. Their problem is defense and rebounding.Like others have said, there are a lot of ways to make your teammates better than by passing them the ball. Just by being on the court, guys like AI and Kobe open things up for their teammates, thus making the game easier for them.I'm tired of people calling AI a ballhog. The man is averaging 7.5 assists per game, and he's still a ballhog? Hell, he'd be averaging 9 or 10 assists per game if Samuel Dalembert could catch a basketball.And just to throw this out, there is no reason that Marbury should be considered a "star point guard." :no1:
Nash would defintely make the sixers better. The sixers have a lot of talent now around Iverson. Korver's outside shooting, Iguodala's finishes, Webber's mid range shot and Dalembert around the basket. Yes defense is their weakness but Nash just makes the game seem much easier. Iverson makes the game look hard. When you shoot 30 shots a game than getting 7.5 assist a game is not that great.
How would Nash make the Sixers a better team? They would not be able to run the same way the run in PHX. Why? Because Webber can't run the break consistently, and Dalembert would fumble the ball every time it was passed to him. The only players who would benefit from Nash are Iguodala and Korver. However, Iguodala's main problem is that he isn't aggressive enough; he passes up a lot of shots because he defers to Webber and Iverson. Nobody else on the Sixers squad is suitable to play an up-tempo style, nor would they benefit from his play in the half-court. If anything, they will play worse because more of the scoring burden will be on them, and they cannot go out there and score the majority of the points for the team.You're talking like AI and Kobe are horrible teammates, when that is not true at all. The fact of the matter is that they have to play the way they play in order for their team to win. Everybody questioned whether Iverson could co-exist with Webber, and they have more than done that. They are the highest scoring duo in the NBA, which goes to show that if he has players who can score around him, he'll pass up the ball. He looks for Korver all the time, but teams shadow Korver most of the time.If you watch the Sixers on a consistent basis you'd know that Iverson does less of the one-on-one stuff than he used to do. A lot of his shots come off the two-man game with Webber, and a few of his shot attempts are because his teammates need to be bailed out and give him the ball with the shot clock winding down, forcing him to take a bad shot.I guarantee you that if Iverson played with the kind of supporting cast Dirk has around him, he'd pass the ball a hell of a lot more than he already does now. The stereotype of him being a ballhog is getting old, and nothing the man does gets rid of it. If he went out and led the league in assists, he'd still be called a "ballhog."
The term: "Making your teammates better" isn't so much used to describe you actually making your teammates better, but making them look better. I've heard people call John Paxson and Steve Kerr good players, when in reality they were simply spot-up shooters. Michael Jordan made them look better. I don't see LeBron as making his teammates better, or even look better. Is he a great passer? Heck yes, he might eventually rival Larry Bird as a passer, but he doesn't make his teammates look better. Take Kenyon Martin for an example, the man is averaging comparable numbers to when he was in New Jersey, more impressive considering he doesn't get the ball much, but he simply doesn't look as good because he doesn't have Jason Kidd to get the ball to him on the fastbreak.So really, while you don't have to make your teammates better to be a great passer, you need to make them better in order to be one of the best passers. Only a few in NBA history have been able to do that, examples being Jason Kidd, John Stockton, and Magic Johnson
Nash scores 20 points a game and is a much better shooter than Iverson. You act like Nash is only a passer. Nash does both and therefore would make the sixers better. Webber would get more open mid range shots, Dalembert more dunks, Korver more open 3's, and more dunks for Iguodala. Nash is just as effective in the half court if you watch suns games as in the full court. Allen Iverson is turnover prone and his defense is bad. I credit him for playing with a lot of heart but he is overhyped.
I agree with your point he is voerhyped. Is he the best small guard ever? Yes. Is he still a top 10 player? Yes. However, when watching Sixer games, it puzzles me that they are not doing better. They have two players who can hit jump shots off Iverson's penetration in the starting lineup alone. They have Chris Webber, who can initiate their offense. They have finishers and defenders. While they aren't a top tier team, it puzzles me how they are not atleast .500.Kobe would do more with that team. Steve Nash would do more with that team. TMac would do more with that team. Iverson is a great player, but it's obvious he isn't at a legendary level
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mavsfan1000 @ Apr 1 2006, 02:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Nash scores 20 points a game and is a much better shooter than Iverson. You act like Nash is only a passer. Nash does both and therefore would make the sixers better. Webber would get more open mid range shots, Dalembert more dunks, Korver more open 3's, and more dunks for Iguodala. Nash is just as effective in the half court if you watch suns games as in the full court. Allen Iverson is turnover prone and his defense is bad. I credit him for playing with a lot of heart but he is overhyped.</div>Why would they be more successful with Nash? Please explain it to me, because just by saying it continually and saying that certain players will get more shots doesn't explain why he makes them a better team.Webber gets enough open mid-range shots... he just doesn't make them on a consistent basis. He more than anybody else on the team benefits from Iverson's play on the court.Dalembert... ugh, the guy can't catch the ball! There are atleast 5 times in a game where he blows an open dunk or lay-up that either AI or Webber set him up for. If he could learn to catch the ball, stay out of foul trouble, and develop some kind of basketball skill, he'd be a top 3 center in this league.Iguodala just isn't aggressive enough. The only way he succeeds alongside Nash is if he is traded to PHX. He would be absolutely perfect on the perimeter in that system, but he just is not a half court player... that's his fault, not Iverson's. Iguodala gets open jumpers all the time, he just chooses to pass the ball up more often compared to how many times he decides to take those jumpers. Watch him the entire season, and then watch the first few games after the All-Star Break when he scored 20+ on a consistent basis. Everything is the same... the only thing that is different between the 10-12 ppg Iguodala and the 20+ ppg Iguodala is his own aggressiveness.In the half-court, I think Korver would get the same amount of three's with Nash as he does with Iverson... and the same could be said if you play an up-tempo game with him. Iverson looks for him as the trailer if there is nothing open ahead of him (usually the AI to AI alley-oops).Like I've said before... the Sixers would not be a better team offensively with Nash instead of Iverson. There is no way that would happen unless you have the pre-knee surgery Webber on the squad.KMart, I see what you're saying, but frankly I'd disagree with the thoughts that Kobe, Nash, T-Mac, etc. would do more with that team. They'd do the same with that team. Why? I've said it before and I'll say it again... offense is not their problem, DEFENSE and REBOUNDING is what is holding them back. Their starting squad is top-5 in the East on paper, but their bench is horrible. The Sixers can score at will, but their problem is that their opposition can score at will too. There are so many holes in that defense that I feel like throwing my remote at the TV every time they play defense. The reason for their defensive woes is a mix of personnel and lack of effort.That is one of the big reasons why I don't think Nash would make that team better. He's not capable of making that team a better defensive team... and neither is Iverson. Whether they adopt a up-tempo style with Nash, a slower paced tempo with Nash, or keep the tempo the same, they won't succeed because of their defensive problems. They don't have the personnel to play the up-tempo style PHX does where they can just go out and try to outscore their opponents.A lot of blame is placed on Iverson for this season, and that is unfair. Yes, he should be blamed, but a big part of the blame should be placed on Billy King. He is incapable of building a quality team, and he should be fired but he isn't fired because the Sixers' owner (Ed Snider) is more infatuated with the Flyers. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if Snider and King have a sexual relationship, because the guy just won't get rid of him.
Does anybody know why the sixers lose? Because they cannot play defense and iverson is part of the problem. Kobe wouldn't be able to make the whole team play defense. Were being a little bit harsh on him.Also that lazy bum in Maurice cheeks doesn't know how to coach in late game situations.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Clutch_Melo_061 @ Apr 1 2006, 04:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Does anybody know why the sixers lose? Because they cannot play defense and iverson is part of the problem. Kobe wouldn't be able to make the whole team play defense. Were being a little bit harsh on him.Also that lazy bum in Maurice cheeks doesn't know how to coach in late game situations.</div>Thank you!Iverson is a part of their defensive problems... but his defensive liabilites are minor compared to those of his teammates. The only player on the Sixers that I feel confident in on the defensive end is Iguodala... and the kid can't guard everybody.
all these statements are not certain. we don't know how good the sixers would be without AI and with someone else. these are really just opinionated guesses. HOW do you know Kobe wouldnt make their D better? HOW do you know that the offence Nash brings would bring less need for D? you dont.ONLY I KNOW!
All I know is Nash sees the court better and better shot selection for the sixers would lead to less fastbreak points for the other team. Iverson jacking up shots leads to transition points for the other team. So in a way Nash's offense would help the Sixers defense. They both are equally bad on defense but Nash has a better shot selection.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ELiiiTE @ Apr 1 2006, 04:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>all these statements are not certain. we don't know how good the sixers would be without AI and with someone else. these are really just opinionated guesses. HOW do you know Kobe wouldnt make their D better? HOW do you know that the offence Nash brings would bring less need for D? you dont.ONLY I KNOW!</div>Anyways, the reason I know they won't make them a better defense team is because I watch the Sixers play. Now, unless Nash, Kobe, T-Mac, LeBron, etc., can go into Webber's body and make him give a damn on defense, go into Dalembert's head and make him learn the game, stop committing 100 goaltends a game, silly fouls, etc., and unless they can somehow go into each of their teammates bodies and make them understand how to play defense, defensive rotations, etc., they won't make the team better.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mavsfan1000 @ Apr 1 2006, 05:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>All I know is Nash sees the court better and better shot selection for the sixers would lead to less fastbreak points for the other team. Iverson jacking up shots leads to transition points for the other team. So in a way Nash's offense would help the Sixers defense. They both are equally bad on defense but Nash has a better shot selection.</div>Again, can you please watch Sixers games before resorting to steroetypes about Iverson's play? He does not jack up shots anymore... not as many as he used to. His shot selection has improved drastically from last year to this year, and that has led to the increase in his shooting percentage. He plays off of Webber's passing ability. Their defensive woes are in the half-court defensive sets, and that is their biggest problem.And can I please get a clear-cut reason as to why you'd think Nash would make the team better? You have not been able to refute any of the arguments I have made. Everytime you reply to my posts, your reasoning for why Nash would make the team better changes.First it is because Iverson doesn't pass the ball, then it is because other players would get more shots, then it is because Nash has a better shot selection, yet you haven't been able to show me how Nash's presence on the court would make the Sixers' a better defensive team than they are right now with Iverson. If you can clearly show me that, then I'll agree that Nash makes the Sixers a better team. Until then, I'm sticking to my belief that Nash wouldn't be able to make the Sixers a better team than they are right now. They might have the same record, but they won't have a better one.I think you guys are too focused on the names of the players, and aren't looking at the way the Sixers play, those players' games/talents/skill, and the reason for the Sixers' woes. Once you look at that, you'd easily see why no superstar in this league, aside from Ben Wallace, Kevin Garnett and Tim Duncan, would make the Sixers a better team if they replaced Iverson.
Ai plays good D in crunch time might i say, but everyone does. So that point is muted.And big mo, you don't need to write big paragraphs. Some people will never understand and will resort to calling you a homer.edit: If kobe was on that team i could see him jacking up 40 shots a game especially with cheeks coaching.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Clutch_Melo_061 @ Apr 1 2006, 05:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Ai plays good D in crunch time might i say, but everyone does. So that point is muted.And big mo, you don't need to write big paragraphs. Some people will never understand and will resort to calling you a homer.edit: If kobe was on that team i could see him jacking up 40 shots a game especially with cheeks coaching.</div>Yeah, AI does play good defense in crunch time, and a big reason for his "deficiencies" on the defensive end is because he usually tries to play the passing lanes instead of sticking with his man.About the big paragraphs... I just get carried away at times.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>And big mo, you don't need to write big paragraphs. Some people will never understand and will resort to calling you a homer.</div>Whats wrong with making good long posts?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BALLAHOLLIC @ Apr 1 2006, 05:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Whats wrong with making good long posts?</div>He didn't mean it like that...
