It's just a popular vote though. Realistically he hasn't made the impact needed for an MVP. Those nobodies played some great defense allowing Iverson to do what he does best. Also the East was very weak that year as proven by getting beat in the finals by 5 games. Shaq and Kobe are both more deserved of that MVP than Iverson.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Serge @ May 13 2007, 02:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Are you kidding me as bad as the Sixers with out Nash? ROFL They got 2 all stars Amare, and Marion try again man. They probably even make the playoffs in the hard West with out Nash. HAHA and if they were in the East Amare/Marion would be a lock to make the finals from the East LOL</div>Combined All Star appearances for Marion and Amare without Nash: 0Combined All Star appearances for Marion and Amare with Nash: 5
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Something-To-Say @ May 13 2007, 08:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Combined All Star appearances for Marion and Amare without Nash: 0Combined All Star appearances for Marion and Amare with Nash: 5</div>That doesn't prove too much. Amare was injured quite a bit in the first half of his 2nd year (the 2nd half he averaged 24PPG). Marion has always put up pretty much the same stats year after year, but like Brand, team success put him in the all star game.But, Sixers without AI were well above .500. Sixers with AI were on a huge downfall. Not saying that the Sixers would have been better off all those years, but I don't think he made as much of a difference as Nash made with the Suns.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mavsfan1000 @ May 13 2007, 12:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It's just a popular vote though. Realistically he hasn't made the impact needed for an MVP. Those nobodies played some great defense allowing Iverson to do what he does best. Also the East was very weak that year as proven by getting beat in the finals by 5 games. Shaq and Kobe are both more deserved of that MVP than Iverson.</div>In 2001? Hell no!That argument makes absolutely no sense! The East wasn't much weaker than it is currently. There were some decent teams that year in the East (mainly Milwaukee). But saying that the Sixers getting beat in 5 in the Finals by the Lakers proves that the East was weak is retarded, considering that the Sixers were the only team to beat the Lakers in a game that entire postseason. Since the Lakers were 11-0 against the West in the playoffs that year, does that mean the West was weak too? No...Iverson deserved MVP that year, bottom line. He missed a lot of games down the stretch, I believe, and we struggled like crazy. The only person who even was close to MVP consideration that year other than Iverson was Shaq... not Kobe.But yes, I agree that the MVP is basically a popularity contest. It's pretty much given to the media darling of the season. Last two years that was Nash, this year it was Dirk by default (best player on the best team). I think the NBA really needs to change their voting structure... stop letting media people vote... or at least allow coaches to vote or something. I'd like to see something like the Heisman trophy balloting too, where previous winners get a vote or whatever.
[quote name='mavsfan1000' post='355276' date='May 13 2007, 01:08 PM']It's just a popular vote though. Realistically he hasn't made the impact needed for an MVP. Those nobodies played some great defense allowing Iverson to do what he does best. Also the East was very weak that year as proven by getting beat in the finals by 5 games. Shaq and Kobe are both more deserved of that MVP than Iverson.[/quote]haha Yeah right I am sure people would rather have voted for AI then Shaq/Kobe. More like he got it cause he deserved it. And Lakers had a far better team Lakers should have sweeped them Sixers had 1 guy and bench guys if that no reason Sixers should have even had that 1 game no one gave Sixers a chance for a reason.[quote name='Something-To-Say' post='355608' date='May 13 2007, 09:04 PM']Combined All Star appearances for Marion and Amare without Nash: 0Combined All Star appearances for Marion and Amare with Nash: 5[/quote]Keep thinking that so were was the Mavs title with 2 MVP's in Dirk, and Nash when Nash was there? [quote name='Nitro1118' post='355620' date='May 13 2007, 09:14 PM']That doesn't prove too much. Amare was injured quite a bit in the first half of his 2nd year (the 2nd half he averaged 24PPG). Marion has always put up pretty much the same stats year after year, but like Brand, team success put him in the all star game.But, Sixers without AI were well above .500. Sixers with AI were on a huge downfall. Not saying that the Sixers would have been better off all those years, but I don't think he made as much of a difference as Nash made with the Suns.[/quote]Dude that is the worse comment ever Sixers were on a high like you got something to proov when AI left that sh*t wore down now you will see next season. Sixers are nothing with out AI. They will not win a title for 10 years now unless they get a franchise guy like a Oden/Durant this year, or top 3 pick next year cause enxt draft should be great also. With out Nash Amare+Marion in the East would be a finals lock. And in the West in the playoffs as a 7th or 8th seat still.[quote name='BigMo763' post='355708' date='May 13 2007, 10:43 PM']In 2001? Hell no!That argument makes absolutely no sense! The East wasn't much weaker than it is currently. There were some decent teams that year in the East (mainly Milwaukee). But saying that the Sixers getting beat in 5 in the Finals by the Lakers proves that the East was weak is retarded, considering that the Sixers were the only team to beat the Lakers in a game that entire postseason. Since the Lakers were 11-0 against the West in the playoffs that year, does that mean the West was weak too? No...Iverson deserved MVP that year, bottom line. He missed a lot of games down the stretch, I believe, and we struggled like crazy. The only person who even was close to MVP consideration that year other than Iverson was Shaq... not Kobe.But yes, I agree that the MVP is basically a popularity contest. It's pretty much given to the media darling of the season. Last two years that was Nash, this year it was Dirk by default (best player on the best team). I think the NBA really needs to change their voting structure... stop letting media people vote... or at least allow coaches to vote or something. I'd like to see something like the Heisman trophy balloting too, where previous winners get a vote or whatever.[/quote]Exactly what BigMo said you fool learn some NBA. Yeah I agree again the voting needs to be diff.Cause last 2 years Nash should not have won it, and this year he should have. A lot of media hates on Kobe still, and Lebron I don't know why he did not finish above Nash last year I mean 30/7/7 is clear cut MVP even if you team had 23 wins. ROFL
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Serge @ May 13 2007, 08:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Keep thinking that so were was the Mavs title with 2 MVP's in Dirk, and Nash when Nash was there? </div>The point is that Dirk wasn't an MVP when he was with the Mavs. He and Nash complemented each other, and the team didn't rely on one in particular. Also, Dirk's become stronger when he's had to do things more himself without Nash. Players change over time, they develop.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Something-To-Say @ May 13 2007, 10:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The point is that Dirk wasn't an MVP when he was with the Mavs. He and Nash complemented each other, and the team didn't rely on one in particular. Also, Dirk's become stronger when he's had to do things more himself without Nash. Players change over time, they develop.</div>Exactly. Nash leaving for Phoenix allowed both Dirk's and Nash's games to grow because Nash had to do more in Phoenix and Dirk has a different role now in Dallas with both Nash and Finley gone. If Nash had never signed with Phoenix, I doubt either one of them would have won an MVP, or even garnered MVP consideration.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Heatfan32 @ May 11 2007, 05:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Just imagine naming the people who have won three straight MVPS: Russell, Bird, Chamberlain...Nash*...</div>corrected :happy0144:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KobeBryant_24 @ May 13 2007, 08:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Dirk was well deserving. It's the SEASON MVP, not POST-season.</div>I'm stealing this from someone else but it is funny that the same people who criticized Nash winning the MVP while failing to win a championship are now defending Dirk as the MVP when he lost in the 1st round
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Something-To-Say @ May 13 2007, 11:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The point is that Dirk wasn't an MVP when he was with the Mavs. He and Nash complemented each other, and the team didn't rely on one in particular. Also, Dirk's become stronger when he's had to do things more himself without Nash. Players change over time, they develop.</div>Yeah just like I will develop my "no game" into "nba game" :HAHAHA: More like Nash does not make us much a diff as people think he has a lot of help. Nash has been great over the last 3 seasons, but he only deserved MVP this season. And people need to see that he has 2 other all stars on his team. Unlike Lebron, Kobe last year.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Serge @ May 13 2007, 09:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Yeah just like I will develop my "no game" into "nba game" :HAHAHA: More like Nash does not make us much a diff as people think he has a lot of help. Nash has been great over the last 3 seasons, but he only deserved MVP this season. And people need to see that he has 2 other all stars on his team. Unlike Lebron, Kobe last year.</div>However, the Suns had Joe Johnson, Amare and Marion, a combined 50 or so PPG without Nash. When Nash was added to the system, the Suns kept those main players scoring, BUT added Nash's scoring, and a couple more players, they ADDED onto what they already had, and became the top offense in the NBA for 3 years in a row. Which in the end became the difference between winning 29 games and 62. 03/04 they didn't make the playoffs and looked like total garbage, then in 04/05 they went to the WCF. The Heat without Shaq still went to round 2, then the first year with him just went a step further before losing. It took a year with Shaq and Wade to win it all, and in 05/06 Nash didn't have the same chance because Amare went down, and the team was totally different. Iverson just wasn't MVP calibur. You don't give it to the guy that scores the most points per game, you give it to the guy who means the most.
Also Dirk liked to party too much with Nash. Splitting them up made them more focused on their game rather than having a good time. Nash has friends on his new team I'm sure but the relationship is different. As for Iverson, he did have a great year in that year but you can honestly say he is more deserving than Shaq or Kobe? Iverson's team was not loaded with all-stars but great role players like Snow, Mutombo, Mckie, Coleman, and etc. They probably aren't any better than the Nuggets were this year but they were able to get through because of a weak conference. The next year the Nets made it and got swept. The East has only come out with 2 strong teams since Jordan left the bulls. The Pistons and the Heat.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Diawsome @ May 13 2007, 11:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'm stealing this from someone else but it is funny that the same people who criticized Nash winning the MVP while failing to win a championship are now defending Dirk as the MVP when he lost in the 1st round </div>You stole that from me! But still, nobody answered that statement when I made it, and I doubt they will now... <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mavsfan1000 @ May 14 2007, 12:13 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Also Dirk liked to party too much with Nash. Splitting them up made them more focused on their game rather than having a good time. Nash has friends on his new team I'm sure but the relationship is different. As for Iverson, he did have a great year in that year but you can honestly say he is more deserving than Shaq or Kobe? Iverson's team was not loaded with all-stars but great role players like Snow, Mutombo, Mckie, Coleman, and etc. They probably aren't any better than the Nuggets were this year but they were able to get through because of a weak conference. The next year the Nets made it and got swept. The East has only come out with 2 strong teams since Jordan left the bulls. The Pistons and the Heat.</div> Yes, that year he was more deserving than Kobe and Shaq, but you can argue that Shaq should've one. The fact remains that Iverson carried that team offensively, but defensively that team was perfectly suited for him. The East was weak that year, but it still wasn't as weak as it is now, in my opinion. But whatever, it's the past, no sense in arguing about it.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Something-To-Say @ May 14 2007, 01:01 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>However, the Suns had Joe Johnson, Amare and Marion, a combined 50 or so PPG without Nash. When Nash was added to the system, the Suns kept those main players scoring, BUT added Nash's scoring, and a couple more players, they ADDED onto what they already had, and became the top offense in the NBA for 3 years in a row. Which in the end became the difference between winning 29 games and 62. 03/04 they didn't make the playoffs and looked like total garbage, then in 04/05 they went to the WCF. The Heat without Shaq still went to round 2, then the first year with him just went a step further before losing. It took a year with Shaq and Wade to win it all, and in 05/06 Nash didn't have the same chance because Amare went down, and the team was totally different. Iverson just wasn't MVP calibur. You don't give it to the guy that scores the most points per game, you give it to the guy who means the most.</div>They would win a lot more then 29 if Nash was not there and they had Amare, and Marion dude.Yeah took a year with Shaq and Wade to win it all. Seems a lot longer for Nash who still has not won it all. And has more then Shaq when you put together Amare, and Marion.Umm 2 years ago he was MVP calibur if he was no he would not end up 4th when his team is a freakin 7th seat. Only reason he did not win was cause his team was a 7th seed 2 years ago. And last year he had a MVP calibur season with 33/7.4 but last year there was to many player who had great seasons and there team finished a lot better unlike 2 years ago. Last year AI should not have been in MVP talks in top 5 even though he put up great #'s cause there were Lebron, Kobe, Nash, Dirk, ect..........But 2 years ago AI deff should have won it. And if not Shaq should have won it if you wanna bring in record of teams.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mavsfan1000 @ May 14 2007, 01:13 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Also Dirk liked to party too much with Nash. Splitting them up made them more focused on their game rather than having a good time. Nash has friends on his new team I'm sure but the relationship is different. As for Iverson, he did have a great year in that year but you can honestly say he is more deserving than Shaq or Kobe? Iverson's team was not loaded with all-stars but great role players like Snow, Mutombo, Mckie, Coleman, and etc. They probably aren't any better than the Nuggets were this year but they were able to get through because of a weak conference. The next year the Nets made it and got swept. The East has only come out with 2 strong teams since Jordan left the bulls. The Pistons and the Heat.</div>Your smoking something if you think 2001 Kobe/Shaq should have won MVP and not AI even BigMo who I don't agree with usually agrees.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BigMo763 @ May 14 2007, 02:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You stole that from me! But still, nobody answered that statement when I made it, and I doubt they will now... Yes, that year he was more deserving than Kobe and Shaq, but you can argue that Shaq should've one. The fact remains that Iverson carried that team offensively, but defensively that team was perfectly suited for him. The East was weak that year, but it still wasn't as weak as it is now, in my opinion. But whatever, it's the past, no sense in arguing about it.</div>I agree East was deff not close to as weak as now. And LA sweeped every team in the West yet lost game 1 to Sixers even though they should have won each game against Sixers by about 20 with how much more talented that team was then the Sixers.
