Allen Iverson's Position at Georgetown University

Do all PG have to be "pass-first" point guards to be great?

 

Don't the results speak for themselves? The Sixers sucked with AI at the point. They turned it around and even made it to the Finals with him as a shooting guard.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Mar 19 2008, 04:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Don't the results speak for themselves? The Sixers sucked with AI at the point. They turned it around and even made it to the Finals with him as a shooting guard.</div>

The Sixers sucked period in Iverson's rookie year. That's why they got Iverson, they had the first pick in the draft that year. They were going to get better in the next years whether Iverson's position was changed or not.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (o.iatlhawksfan @ Mar 19 2008, 04:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Do all PG have to be "pass-first" point guards to be great?</div>

No, they can be like CP3, or like AI would have been if he had kept the position and had been molded a little. There is no law against having a PG who is an aggressive scorer while getting his PG duties down at the same time.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tremaine @ Mar 19 2008, 05:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (o.iatlhawksfan @ Mar 19 2008, 04:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Do all PG have to be "pass-first" point guards to be great?</div>

No, they can be like CP3, or like AI would have been if he had kept the position and had been molded a little.
</div>

What??????????

Chris Paul is a pass first PG

Again fundamental flaw in your argument.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Mar 19 2008, 04:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tremaine @ Mar 19 2008, 05:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (o.iatlhawksfan @ Mar 19 2008, 04:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Do all PG have to be "pass-first" point guards to be great?</div>

No, they can be like CP3, or like AI would have been if he had kept the position and had been molded a little.
</div>

What??????????

Chris Paul is a pass first PG

Again fundamental flaw in your argument.
</div>

CP3 is a "Do whatever makes more sense in the situation PG, without tilting too far in either the scoring or the passing dimensions overall." That is what AI could have been to a large extent if work had gone into it. Instead, Brown waived the white flag with regard to molding AI at his position, and then tried to take the easy way out in the task of managing him. As we know, Brown, ironically, did not in the least escape problems and difficulties by doing it his way.

 

IMO Iverson is almost incomparable to any player in the league. Chris Paul is a VERY different player than AI. Chris Paul is a true pg who distributes and controls the ball better than any guard I've seen since in the NBA (except MAYBE Nash and Kidd). AI is a shooting guard in a pg's body, but is just so good that he can play either position and produce. No one can match his intensity level or his heart in his play, and that style is often a high risk, very high reward type of play. Therefore, is AI is playing pg and has the ball in his hands the whole game, he could go off for 44 pts, 15 assist, and 3 steals, and then have a game of 27 pts, 4 assists, 7 turnovers, on 35% shooting. AI is gonna get assists no matter what position he plays just because of the attention he draws from defenses. So, IMO AI is better fitted to play sg, because his responsibilities are basically limited to what he does best, scoring a ton, or driving and dishing.

Furthermore, i would like to point out that IMO the Denver Nuggets are not the best suited team for Allen Iverson. They are probably the most talented team in the NBA but aren't even in the playoffs. Iverson can be the very best player to build around for a championship team if done the right way, which it hasn't really been done yet. Iverson needs to be on a defensively dominant team that lacks a go to scorer, yet has 2-3 players that average between 11-17 ppg. His finals year in philly was the closest thing to that.

PG-Tall defensive leader, who is unselfish. (Eric Snow aka best compliment to AI yet, Billups would be perfect)
SG-AI scoring the ball
SF-Outside shooting threat, who also is a tough minded defender (aron Mckie, matt harpring were both good)
PF-low post scorer, who is diverse, and can play some D (aka-Derrick Coleman)
C-Rebounder/shotblocker that can anchor the D (Mutumbo, Tyrone Hill type player)


if you add a bench that can go about 4 deep then you have a championship team. Iverson doesn't and never did need another super star to play with. He just needs players that compliment him defensively and allow him to gamble and be a catalyst be creating chances on the defensive end, and also letting him do his thing on offense. One thing i loved about Larry Brown in philly was that he played AI off the ball more, and ran defenders ragged off screens, and had set plays. AI was almost like rip hamilton or reggie millier back then except much more dynamic.

In conclusion, AI can play either position, and be an allstar type player, but is more efficient as a sg. also, for him to win a championship, he needs to be traded to Detroit, San Antonio, or Houston or have denver get a taller pg who plays shutdown D, and have Anthony Play some Defense (which he does not do AT ALL)

 

So are you trying to say that because Iverson "lost his starting PG job" that he hasnt developed into the player he could have been?

Iverson dominates the ball no matter what, so why not have him run off screens to get open and give him the advantage over the defender as soon as he touches the ball? Why make him set up the offense, when everyone know he is the offense?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Answer_AI03 @ Mar 19 2008, 06:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>IMO Iverson is almost incomparable to any player in the league. Chris Paul is a VERY different player than AI. Chris Paul is a true pg who distributes and controls the ball better than any guard I've seen since in the NBA (except MAYBE Nash and Kidd). AI is a shooting guard in a pg's body, but is just so good that he can play either position and produce. No one can match his intensity level or his heart in his play, and that style is often a high risk, very high reward type of play. Therefore, is AI is playing pg and has the ball in his hands the whole game, he could go off for 44 pts, 15 assist, and 3 steals, and then have a game of 27 pts, 4 assists, 7 turnovers, on 35% shooting. AI is gonna get assists no matter what position he plays just because of the attention he draws from defenses. So, IMO AI is better fitted to play sg, because his responsibilities are basically limited to what he does best, scoring a ton, or driving and dishing.

Furthermore, i would like to point out that IMO the Denver Nuggets are not the best suited team for Allen Iverson. They are probably the most talented team in the NBA but aren't even in the playoffs. Iverson can be the very best player to build around for a championship team if done the right way, which it hasn't really been done yet. Iverson needs to be on a defensively dominant team that lacks a go to scorer, yet has 2-3 players that average between 11-17 ppg. His finals year in philly was the closest thing to that.

PG-Tall defensive leader, who is unselfish. (Eric Snow aka best compliment to AI yet, Billups would be perfect)
SG-AI scoring the ball
SF-Outside shooting threat, who also is a tough minded defender (aron Mckie, matt harpring were both good)
PF-low post scorer, who is diverse, and can play some D (aka-Derrick Coleman)
C-Rebounder/shotblocker that can anchor the D (Mutumbo, Tyrone Hill type player)


if you add a bench that can go about 4 deep then you have a championship team. Iverson doesn't and never did need another super star to play with. He just needs players that compliment him defensively and allow him to gamble and be a catalyst be creating chances on the defensive end, and also letting him do his thing on offense. One thing i loved about Larry Brown in philly was that he played AI off the ball more, and ran defenders ragged off screens, and had set plays. AI was almost like rip hamilton or reggie millier back then except much more dynamic.

In conclusion, AI can play either position, and be an allstar type player, but is more efficient as a sg. also, for him to win a championship, he needs to be traded to Detroit, San Antonio, or Houston or have denver get a taller pg who plays shutdown D, and have Anthony Play some Defense (which he does not do AT ALL)</div>

I agree with alot of what you are saying, your post is very well written too. Based on what actually happened over the years, of course AI became an excellent SG. What I am saying is that the PG position is usually the more important guard position and, if you go back to 1997 or earlier, AI was a PG, and could have and should have remained as one, because that would have maximized his value to his teams. He should have been molded into being one of the best 3-4 PGs in the League, which could have been done with the right effort. But was he one of the all time best SG guards ever the way history actually played out? Of course.

But history could have played out differently, and that would not have changed much how famous or great AI is considered to be, but most likely would have made his teams better. Ask yourself this: if only 4-man teams were allowed, and you could only have 1 guard on the floor at once, how many teams would choose their PG and how many teams would choose their SG? The great majority of teams would have to choose their PG, because that position, is the most fundamental position; you can't really play basketball and call it basketball without a PG, but you could in theory play basketball without a SG. If AI had stayed at PG, it would have been less exciting to watch him, but he would have been even more important and valuable to his teams than he was.

And you and I are completely on the same page regarding the Nuggets, especially that they are truly in grave danger of not even making the playoffs. This is not a drill, this is a real fire. I also agree that AI would be better off on certain other teams. I am saying that the situation that the Nuggets have fallen into with the AI at SG lineup is bad enough that I have concluded that playing AI at the point was a mandatory thing for the Nuggets to do and not an optional thing, despite the fact that AI has played SG (by mistake, in my opinion) for many years. I think the Nuggets have played their best offense in games when Iverson was obviously and extensively playing both guard positions at once.

Had the Nuggets played AI at PG all season long, I am convinced they would have made the playoffs without a lot of trouble. They would have won 4-6 additional games, and would have finished between 3rd and 5th in the West at the least. Whether it would have worked in the playoffs would have depended on who the Nuggets played, the matchups, whether they had home court, whether players stepped up, and so forth. It sure as heck would have been worth a try.

Oh, and playoff success would depend on Melo stepping up his defending, point taken.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tremaine @ Mar 19 2008, 05:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Mar 19 2008, 04:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tremaine @ Mar 19 2008, 05:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (o.iatlhawksfan @ Mar 19 2008, 04:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Do all PG have to be "pass-first" point guards to be great?</div>

No, they can be like CP3, or like AI would have been if he had kept the position and had been molded a little.
</div>

What??????????

Chris Paul is a pass first PG

Again fundamental flaw in your argument.
</div>

CP3 is a "Do whatever makes more sense in the situation PG, without tilting too far in either the scoring or the passing dimensions overall." That is what AI could have been to a large extent if work had gone into it. Instead, Brown waived the white flag with regard to molding AI at his position, and then tried to take the easy way out in the task of managing him. As we know, Brown, ironically, did not in the least escape problems and difficulties by doing it his way.
</div>


hahahaha co-sign on this.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TucsonClip @ Mar 19 2008, 06:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>So are you trying to say that because Iverson "lost his starting PG job" that he hasnt developed into the player he could have been?

Iverson dominates the ball no matter what, so why not have him run off screens to get open and give him the advantage over the defender as soon as he touches the ball? Why make him set up the offense, when everyone know he is the offense?</div>

Read my post I just made for my answer to this. In one sentence, it's because PG is the more important position and Iverson can help his team more and be molded to near perfection more easily at that position. Read my previous post for more detail.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tremaine @ Mar 19 2008, 08:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TucsonClip @ Mar 19 2008, 06:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>So are you trying to say that because Iverson "lost his starting PG job" that he hasnt developed into the player he could have been?

Iverson dominates the ball no matter what, so why not have him run off screens to get open and give him the advantage over the defender as soon as he touches the ball? Why make him set up the offense, when everyone know he is the offense?</div>

Read my post I just made for my answer to this. In one sentence, it's because PG is the more important position and Iverson can help his team more and be molded to near perfection more easily at that position. Read my previous post for more detail.
</div>

Based upon the logic you put forward MJ, Kobe and TMac all stunted their careers because they didn't play PG.

 

Yea, I don't buy that tremaine. Just because he had point guard ability does not mean he could have developed into as good PG as he did a SG. So much of that hypothetical and I'm waiting for some substantial proof that he had as much or more potential as a 1 than he had as a 2. In fact, the immediate history seems to suggest otherwise. The Sixers began to run a much more effective offense when they shipped out their primary scorers, gave that role to Iverson, and found someone else to distribute the ball in his place.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Mar 19 2008, 08:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tremaine @ Mar 19 2008, 08:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TucsonClip @ Mar 19 2008, 06:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>So are you trying to say that because Iverson "lost his starting PG job" that he hasnt developed into the player he could have been?

Iverson dominates the ball no matter what, so why not have him run off screens to get open and give him the advantage over the defender as soon as he touches the ball? Why make him set up the offense, when everyone know he is the offense?</div>

Read my post I just made for my answer to this. In one sentence, it's because PG is the more important position and Iverson can help his team more and be molded to near perfection more easily at that position. Read my previous post for more detail.
</div>

Based upon the logic you put forward MJ, Kobe and TMac all stunted their careers because they didn't play PG.
</div>

AI was going to be famous and have a great career whichever position he was designated to. I just said above: "But was he one of the all time best SG guards ever the way history actually played out? Of course. "

And those players you mentioned did not start out at PG, did they?

I'm still waiting for an example of a player even 2/3 as good as AI who played PG in college, failied at that as a starter in the NBA in his 1st or 2nd year, and played SG after that. Obviously that would be rare. My question is whether anyone knows of that ever happening. I never heard of it, but I am no basketball historian.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Mar 19 2008, 08:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Yea, I don't buy that tremaine. Just because he had point guard ability does not mean he could have developed into as good PG as he did a SG. So much of that hypothetical and I'm waiting for some substantial proof that he had as much or more potential as a 1 than he had as a 2. In fact, the immediate history seems to suggest otherwise. The Sixers began to run a much more effective offense when they shipped out their primary scorers, gave that role to Iverson, and found someone else to distribute the ball in his place.</div>

Yeah, the one thing that has been a constant throughout all the years is that AI is always asked to do too much. The 76'ers over relied on one player for scoring, and George Karl has repeated this strategy lock, stock, and barrel. But basketball is a team sport, Michael Jordan needed Scottie Pippen, and so on and so forth. Coaches have been saying througout the years, starting with John Thompson, "I'll make it easy on myself by letting AI do it." So he has been playing both guard positions interchangeably throughout the years and, of course, he often ends up playing both positions at once, which a good amount of the time is a net negative for the team.

If you and I could go through life twice, and in one life AI was the SG and in the other life AI was the PG, he would be one of the best at that position in either life. But as the PG, he would have been more valuable to his team under most circumstances. The current Nuggets circumstances are no exception to this.

Most of the teams that are ahead of the Nuggets right now are ahead largely or substantially because of their point guards: the Hornets, the Warriors, the Jazz. the Suns, arguably the Spurs. And what about all the drama about whether the Mavericks were going to get Jason Kidd or not? Would there have been all that drama if Kidd was a SG?
The shooting guards of all of those teams are less important than their point guards; those teams would not work without their great PGs.

Everyone dreams of getting a great PG for the Nuggets, but the Nuggets have already busted through the payroll limit already, so they should have made do with what was right under their nose.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Mar 19 2008, 09:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Norm Nixon, too.

Moved to SG so Magic could play the PG spot.</div>

Strictly speaking I'm looking for players who were moved because it was claimed that they were a failure at PG, because that is what most of the other side keeps claiming happened regarding A.I..

However, I am secondarily looking for a correlation assuming that the player moved was NOT considered to be a failure at the position. So if Wade was a PG in college and as a rookie in the NBA, that would be a direct correlation with AI, so then what happened to AI would at least not be unprecedented.

So now I'll have to find out if Wade was a PG in college.

It's nice to think I will be largely done with this investigation by about noon tomorrow.

Love the show "Boston Legal," by the way, it's one of a tiny number of shows I try to make time for.

 

Fortunately AI's gangsta was mostly an act, or else he would have ended up behind bars and I never would have been able to write about how he should have played the crucial PG position for the Nuggets.

He made a rap album once, but was forced to not release it.