Is the notion

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mavsfan1000 @ Apr 2 2006, 05:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>When you talk about point totals of Iverson and Nash that shows the little intelligence you have. Other players will be GETTING MORE SHOTS so they will get more points because Nash is much more willing to give the ball up. The offense revolves around Nash. I shouldn't even be trying to explain this but when Nash penetrates, other teams double team and someone will always be open. I think with the idea of that I'm sure his teammates can get the job done with the open shot opportunities. Did I mention Iverson isn't as good of a passer as Nash? Iverson plays 40+ Minutes and gets 7.5 assist while Nash plays 35 minutes and gets 10+ assist. As I said before the offense would be up probably 2 points per game which is small but it will add 5-10 wins a year on that if the defense stays the same. I'm sick of this argument of Iverson doesn't get enough help. He should be the one helping others score. Iguodala is explosive enough that he should be scoring more from the interior.</div><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Nash might set other players up more often, but because of their limitations more of the scoring load will be placed on Nash, and he isn't the kind of player who can go out and give you 30 points a night for an entire season.</div>

 

Well limitations of getting the shot they want? I'm sure Nash won't expect Amare to shoot 3's or Bell to be an interior prescence. Nash will have the players where they will be the most effective. Iguodala will get a lot of dunks.

 

If you throw Nash into the Sixers it would basically be the 04-05 Mavs,Since they couldn't guard anyone they just decided to outscore them,and that didn't work to well.

 

If you throw Nash on any team he is going to create a high scoring offense. He is just naturally good at making teammates better WHEN HE RUNS. He is so quick and he can get down the floor and throw that no look pass. He can pass it inside to say Diaw and then draw the defenders in so Diaw can get an easy assist on a 3 pt shot. He dissects defenses with his running ability.

 

You all keep saying Nash can score and run and so on,but what Mo was trying to get to you is that improving phillies offense isn't going to do much for them.We already know that Nash can score,shoot,and run,that has been proven already.

 

Yeah Iguodala would look like Diaw with Nash running the point.

 

[quote name='mavsfan1000' post='28921' date='Apr 2 2006, 02:35 AM']When you talk about point totals of Iverson and Nash that shows the little intelligence you have. Other players will be GETTING MORE SHOTS so they will get more points because Nash is much more willing to give the ball up. The offense revolves around Nash. I shouldn't even be trying to explain this but when Nash penetrates, other teams double team and someone will always be open. I think with the idea of that I'm sure his teammates can get the job done with the open shot opportunities. Did I mention Iverson isn't as good of a passer as Nash? Iverson plays 40+ Minutes and gets 7.5 assist while Nash plays 35 minutes and gets 10+ assist. As I said before the offense would be up probably 2 points per game which is small but it will add 5-10 wins a year on that if the defense stays the same. I'm sick of this argument of Iverson doesn't get enough help. He should be the one helping others score. Iguodala is explosive enough that he should be scoring more from the interior.[/quote]First of all, you still don't understand, do you? <u>OFFENSE IS NOT THEIR PROBLEM, DEFENSE IS!</u> Why are you saying that replacing Iverson with a player that would only make their offense better by 2 points at best (your thought, not mine) is going to make the Sixers a better team? If my strength as a basketball player is shooting, and I continue to practice shooting without addressing my weaknesses (let's say they are ballhandling and defense), am I going to be a better basketball player because I improve my shot? No... because as many points as I would score, I'd be giving up as many, or even more, because of my sorry defense. See what my point is? Apparently you don't understand this, and it makes me strongly doubt if you've ever played the game of basketball before. Arguing that Nash improves their offense, which he doesn't, does not make them a better team! If you have a team full of unathletic three-point shooters, are you going to go out and get more unathletic three-point shooters? No. You have to address the weaknesses of the team... not keep adding their strengths.OK, did you not read the other part of my post? I said that even if Nash's scoring stays the same (19.5 points per game), he'd have to average about 7 more assists per game in order to make up for the point differential between his and Iverson's scoring. Now, when you don't read through an entire post, it shows your limited intelligence.Now, I already agreed that Iverson is not a better passer than Nash, but Iverson is probably the only player in the league that could pull a Tiny Archibald... oh wait, I wouldn't expect you to know what that means. Now, the knock on Iverson a few years ago was that he wasn't a passer, just a 30-point scorer, right? And that was when he's averaging 5 assists a game. Now, he is averaging his career-high in points as well as dishing out 7.5 assists per game, and you still think he's a ballhog? Wow...Nash gets so many assists because PHX has the personnel around him to allow him to play the up-tempo style. He does not carry the scoring-burden because they have players who can shoot, score, everything. The only players that can score consistently on the Sxiers are Iverson, Webber, and Korver. Iguodala doesn't have an outside shot, and Dalembert plays solely off his athleticism because he has a brain the size of the peanut. And don't even get me started on their bench. Now, is Nash's presence on the team going to magically give Iguodala an outside shot? No. You say he'd get more dunks, right? How? They won't be playing an up-tempo game, and if you can't see why then you really need to go sit down and thing about the game of basketball.Nash might get the other players more looks, but they won't take advantage and CONVERT on those looks as much as you think (because you don't watch the Sixers, and are basing things off of the players' names rather than their skill set), and therefore more of the scoring burden will be placed on Nash. Can he score 30 points a night while dishing out 11 dimes a night? I don't think so...I haven't even argued "Iverson get's no help." All I've been bringing up is the weaknesses in his teammates games, and Nash's presencewon't magically make those weaknesses disappear. It's hilarious how you interpret that as saying Iverson get's no help. It's clear to me that you don't understand the fundamental principles of looking to see whether or not a player will help a certain team.[quote name='mavsfan1000' post='28933' date='Apr 2 2006, 02:45 AM']Well limitations of getting the shot they want? I'm sure Nash won't expect Amare to shoot 3's or Bell to be an interior prescence. Nash will have the players where they will be the most effective. Iguodala will get a lot of dunks.[/quote]Again, it shows how much you know about the Sixers. Iverson gets his teammates the looks they want. He's not forcing Iguodala to be an outside shooter. He's not forcing Korver to be an interior player, he's not forcing anybody to do anything they can't do. He's setting them up and getting them the ball where they want it... they don't convert. Is it Iverson's fault that after he sets Webber up with a wide-open elbow jumper, Webber misses it 57% of the time? Nope. Please, please, please WATCH the Sixers on a CONSISTENT BASIS before making idiotic statements based on preconceived notions in your head.[quote name='CB4AllStar' post='28938' date='Apr 2 2006, 03:05 AM']If you throw Nash on any team he is going to create a high scoring offense. He is just naturally good at making teammates better WHEN HE RUNS. He is so quick and he can get down the floor and throw that no look pass. He can pass it inside to say Diaw and then draw the defenders in so Diaw can get an easy assist on a 3 pt shot. He dissects defenses with his running ability.[/quote]See mavsfan1000, the key words in CB4's post are "WHEN HE RUNS"... and with the Sixers, he won't be able to run like he does in Phoenix.[quote name='HeatBasketball' post='28939' date='Apr 2 2006, 03:07 AM']You all keep saying Nash can score and run and so on,but what Mo was trying to get to you is that improving phillies offense isn't going to do much for them.We already know that Nash can score,shoot,and run,that has been proven already.[/quote]Bingo. That is #1 argument I have against the "Nash makes Philly better" argument, but mavsfan, for some odd reason, does not feel like addressing Nash's effect on Philadelphia's defense... rather, he feels like continually addressing him improving their offense... which I am trying to show him is false. Improving their offense by a few points isn't going to make them a better team.Now, mavsfan, I'll leave you with this little thing:The Sixers have lost 10-15 games this season because of their poor defense down the stretch... not because of their offense. If they play defense the right way, their record is anywhere between 43-28 and 48-23. Again, OFFENSE IS NOT THEIR PROBLEM.

 

This is funny.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ELiiiTE @ Apr 2 2006, 11:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>This is funny.</div>It most certainly is... :shifty2:

 

Damn your post are like a book. The big flaw in your thinking is that Iverson gives the ball to his team where they want it to be. That isn't true. Iverson actually takes away the flow in the sixers offense where as Nash will make the game look easy. He makes so called scrubs like Diaw look like a star. Why couldn't he do that with Iguodala? Korver will look like Joe Johnson. Btw did you check Joe Johnson's stats this year? The offense will be better. Trust me. Someone who shoots 53% from the field and over 40% from 3 Pt while at the same making his teammates better will get Philly over 105 ppg.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mavsfan1000 @ Apr 2 2006, 03:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Damn your post are like a book. The big flaw in your thinking is that Iverson gives the ball to his team where they want it to be. That isn't true. Iverson actually takes away the flow in the sixers offense where as Nash will make the game look easy. He makes so called scrubs like Diaw look like a star. Why couldn't he do that with Iguodala? Korver will look like Joe Johnson. Btw did you check Joe Johnson's stats this year? The offense will be better. Trust me. Someone who shoots 53% from the field and over 40% from 3 Pt while at the same making his teammates better will get Philly over 105 ppg.</div>I'm sorry, does your head hurts when you read my posts? Do you want me to pretend like I'm talking to a three-year-old and start using small words so that I don't confuse you? The fact of the matter is that I'm tired of writing the same thing over and over again when you obviously do not see the main point in my argument and the many flaws in your argument.Let me ask you a question. How many Sixers games do you watch in a year?Again you are just looking at statistics, and the game is much more than just statistics. Why can Nash make a "scrub" in Diaw look so good? Because they have the personnel to run-and-gun. Diaw wouldn't be as good in a half court game, and neither would half of the PHX squad. The only players on the Sixers (aside from Iverson) that can play in the PHX system are Iguodala and Dalembert. So, with that being said, how can the Sixers implement a run-and-gun system when only two of their players would excel in that system? Think about that one...And, you keep ignoring this: THE SIXERS PROBLEM IS DEFENSE, NOT OFFENSE. They won't be a better team if they had Tiny Archibald running the point because they need to solve their defensive problems. And until you can prove either 1) Nash makes the Sixers a better defensive team, or 2) that they can play an up-tempo style and be successful like they do in PHX, your assertion that "Nash makes the Sixers a better team than Iverson does" is completely and utterly false.Your biggest problem is that you're looking at statistics and the names of the players. You think that you can take a player who excels in a certain system and plug him on any squad and they would be able to run that system and excel. You have some serious flaws in your argument, and your knowledge about the game.At this point you are just repeating the same old tired argument over and over again without thinking about what you're talking about. It amazes me how you ignore certain aspects of the argument, and don't even try to refute the points I make with actual statements. All you do is say "Nash made [insert name here] so why can't he make [insert name here] better?" without even looking at the reasons as to why the Suns are successful, and why the Sixers are not.When you make points in your post, and then do not try to defend your arguments after I completely refute them, you are pretty much saying that I'm right and you don't even believe in your own argument. How are you going to make a solid case for anything with that kind of attitude?Now, unless you want to make some intelligent points, and back them up with arguments, you might as well drop it because with each and every post you make I make you look more and more like a fool. But hey, if you want me to keep making you look like a complete fool, you go right ahead and continue to make silly, pointless arguments which you do not wish to back up with evidence.I asked this question earlier in this post, but I'm sure you would "overlook" it, so I'll post it here at the end of my post again: How many Sixers games do you watch in a year? Two?

 

The defense is a non factor between Nash and Iverson. We shouldn't even be talking about the defense so forget that conversation since they are equally bad. You for some reason want to talk about the defense and <Censored> when it doesn't matter. It's the offense we're talking about since there is a difference.Funny how you say I'm only thinking about the stats when all you can think about is Iverson's 31 ppg. Not realizing how him shooting the ball a lot takes other people out of their rhythm. The more someone shoots good looks, the better they'll shoot. Korver is one of those that could go to the next level with Nash. Iguodala and Dalembert can run like you said and Korver would be a trailer. Webber can hit that mid range shot. I guess you didn't think of that huh. So they can run but just not as good as the Suns. Jump shooters need good passes and Nash is perfect for that. Webber's shooting would improve as well. I guess it is pointless since I disagree about Iverson's passing game because he plays a lot of minutes and has the ball all the time so of course he could get 7.5 assist.

 

I asked this question earlier in this post, but I'm sure you would "overlook" it, so I'll post it here at the end of my post again: How many Sixers games do you watch in a year? Two?And you overlooked it once again [talking to mavsfan]

 

I'll watch more games than and I'm pretty sure it will be the same Iverson. The one that plays out of control and has other people bail him out instead of clean passes like what Nash does.

 

[quote name='mavsfan1000' post='29324' date='Apr 2 2006, 05:05 PM']The defense is a non factor between Nash and Iverson. We shouldn't even be talking about the defense so forget that conversation since they are equally bad. You for some reason want to talk about the defense and <Censored> when it doesn't matter. It's the offense we're talking about since there is a difference.[/quote]Wow... just wow. It is mind-boggling that you still don't understand that I'm not comparing Iverson's defense to Nash's defense... I'm comparing the team defense with each individual on the team. Your argument was that "Nash makes the Sixers a better team than Iverson does," right? Well, last time I checked, team defense is a big part of the game. Basketball is not just about offense.For the 1,000,000th time, the Sixers problem is not offense, it is defense. If they fix their defensive problems, they would have 43-48 wins right now. You yourself said that Nash would improve the Sixers' offensive output by 2 points at best, but what would be the point of that? They are giving up the same amount of points. The reason Phoenix can run and not worry about defense is because the point differential between their offensive average and their defensive average is big. Before you try to act like you know what you're talking about, you should probably read my entire post and try to understand what I'm trying to say... otherwise, you should probably go back to your first grade english teacher and ask her to explain comprehension to you, and to teach you how to read and comprehend.

Wow, nice to see that you only focus on that. I only mentioned Iverson's scoring output twice in the entire argument... three times maximum. The rest deals with the limitations of the players around him, and why Nash's presence would not make the Sixers a better team because of the other player's limitations. They have only one spot up shooter, whereas PHX has countless shooters. They only have two athletic big men, one of whom cannot catch a pass... the Sixers only have one athletic wingman, the Suns have countless athletic wingmen. The Sixers have a power-forward with bad knees who excels in the half-court game... the Suns have Shawn Marion.Korver would not go to the next level with Nash. He has topped out at this point because his offensive reptoire is made up mainly of shooting the three. When he is in the game, everybody on the squad looks to get him a shot... Iverson more than anybody else.Now, do you see that first bolded statement in the quote above? You just proved my point for me. They cannot run as good as the Suns, therefore there offensive game will not be better with Nash. Why? Because if you would watch the Sixers play and actually know about the way they play, the ball is passed around, and the players give it back to Iverson when they don't have an open shot. Iverson looks to set up his teammates, but if they don't have a shot he'll take the shot. With Nash replacing Iverson, he would need to average 7 more assists per game (assuming his scoring output remains at 19.5 ppg) just to equal Iverson's offensive output, and I'm not even factoring in Iverson's assists in that. So, can Nash average 18 assists per game over the course of a season? No, he can't. Why? Because of the limitations of the players on the Sixers' roster. Now, because of that, more of the scoring load would be placed on Nash... and Nash would have to average around 28-33 points a night while dishing out 11+ assists in order for the Sixers just to be at the same level they are at right now. Will that happen? No. Therefore, Nash DOES NOT make the Sixers a better team offensively.Do you see the bolded Webber statement in the quote above? I laughed out loud when I read that. So, Webber is shooting 43% because Iverson is his point guard? Yeah, right. Is it Iverson's fault that Webber misses wide-open jumpers? What's next, you are going to blame Iverson for Webber shooting 75% from the line? It's pretty apparent you are an Iverson hater, and have not actually watched the man play on a consistent basis. He's not the perfect teammate, but he is one hell of a player and makes his teammates better.Seriously dude, this is why you should probably WATCH them play before making idiotic statements. You're acting as if Webber's game is deteriorating because he's playing with Iverson, which is not the case. Look at his stats... 20 and 10 WITH Iverson. Watch him play without Iverson, and you can easily see how much he needs Iverson to set him up.

Now, if you would actually watch the Sixers play, you would see that if Dalembert could catch the ball and would actually try to improve his knowledge of the game, Iverson would be right up there with Nash in assists. Also, you claim that Iverson is a gunner, right? So, if that is true, most of the time he has the ball he would be shooting or looking for his shot, right? Now, if that is true, for him to get 7.5 assists is remarkable because you think he never passes. You are actually complimenting his passing ability because he is getting 7.5 assists when he looks to shoot instead of getting his teammates involved. That is all based off of your opinion, not mine, so once again you make yourself look like a fool.[quote name='mavsfan1000' post='29372' date='Apr 2 2006, 05:32 PM']I'll watch more games than and I'm pretty sure it will be the same Iverson. The one that plays out of control and has other people bail him out instead of clean passes like what Nash does.[/quote]Iverson is out of control... and Nash isn't? You made a statement a few pages ago saying that Iverson was turnover prone, and that Nash wasn't. What you don't realize is that Iverson averages less turnovers per game and less turnovers per 48 minutes than Nash does. So, if Iverson is "out of control" and still has less turnovers than Nash, what does that say?You still have not answered the question, but it is obvious you don't watch the Sixers play more than 2-5 times a season. With that being said, where is your information and knowledge of the skill sets of the Sixers' players coming from? I'll tell you where... from the pre-conceived notions in your head from what you heard the media say about Iverson a few years ago. If that isn't true, then where is your information and knowledge of the skill sets of their players coming from? With the way you feel you know the Sixers players, strenghts, weaknesses, etc., you'd think you would have actually followed them for the entire season. But hey, I guess a Mavericks fan who doesn't watch the Sixers play knows more about a Sixers fan who has followed the Sixers for years, and watches 95% of their games... You still have not been able to back-up any claims you make, nor are you able to fully explain any of your assertations. At this point you are looking for absolutely anything in order to prove you are right, and my friend you are not right. You have come to the point where you are proving my argument correct with your own words.A'yo man, keep it coming... you're just making yourself look more and more like a complete idiot who has never played the game of basketball before in his life.

 

blah blah blah. I keep telling you the defense doesn't matter since they are equally bad. So how does that support your Iverson argument if he sucks at it? Anyways Webber still is effective at passing the ball. I watched todays game and see he is able to open up shots for other players. Also Salmon's can handle the ball so it's not like Nash will have to do everything. Nash passes more so his assist/turnover ratio is better than Iverson's. Anyways compare Iverson's FG% to the rest of the teams FG%. I'm sure the rest of the teams FG% will stay the same while Nash is in the game or possibly improve. There will still be the same amount of shots available. So if you combine Nash's FG% with the rest of the team over Iverson's FG% with the rest of team you'll see that part will improve. You really are a Iverson homer. Nash>Iverson on any team.

 

I think what mavsfan is saying is starting to sink in to my mind, I sort of understand...Basically wht he is saying, is that the Sixers would do better enough on offense, to erraticate their defensive problems. I think thats "what sup"?

 

[quote name='mavsfan1000' post='29484' date='Apr 2 2006, 07:43 PM']blah blah blah. I keep telling you the defense doesn't matter since they are equally bad. So how does that support your Iverson argument if he sucks at it? Anyways Webber still is effective at passing the ball. I watched todays game and see he is able to open up shots for other players. Also Salmon's can handle the ball so it's not like Nash will have to do everything. [/quote]So, you watch one game and you're an expert? Right...OK, you still don't understand that I'm not comparing Iverson's individual defense to Nash's individual defense... I'm comparing the team defense, and telling you that it won't change. Do you not understand that at all?So, if the offense with Iverson running it and with Nash running it is the same, and the defense is the same, how does that translate into the Sixers becoming a better team? Simply put, it doesn't.Also, the last two thoughts in that paragraph have nothing to do with what I argued. I know Webber can pass the ball, and I know Salmons can handle the ball... I never said they couldn't.

So, according to you, the rest of the guys on the team would have the same number of shots if Nash was to replace Iverson? Do you even know what that means? That means you're saying Nash shoots just as much as Iverson does... which isn't true.I'm not saying Iverson passes more than Nash, or that Iverson is a better passer than Nash... I have been saying that the reason Nash won't make the team a better offensive team is because of the rest of the players' games and talents. Re-read all my posts, and you'll see that that is what I'm clearly arguing and showing.

Have you really stooped to the level of calling me an Iverson homer? That's a good one! So, because I clearly showed that your reasoning is wrong, I'm an Iverson homer? Is that how you come back? That is truly pathetic.Yes, I am an Iverson fan, but I'm probably harder on him than any Sixer fan out there. In no way am I a homer. If I were a homer, I would be acting like Waqas and some Dallas fans... but I'm not. When somebody says this player does this better than Iverson, I'll agree if I believe it is true. If it isn't, I'll prove that it isn't. That's what I'm doing here, but you are clearly frustrated to the point where you must resort to calling me an Iverson homer because you have run out of bogus arguments to back up your assertion.Now, let me ask you this... would Nash make the Mavericks a better team if he replaced Dirk? Tell me why or why not, and then I'll show you exactly why your argument makes no sense. You can't see it right now because you are clearly an Iverson hater, but when I relate my argument to your Mavericks, you'll see what I'm saying.[quote name='KMart' post='29561' date='Apr 2 2006, 08:49 PM']I think what mavsfan is saying is starting to sink in to my mind, I sort of understand...Basically wht he is saying, is that the Sixers would do better enough on offense, to erraticate their defensive problems. I think thats "what sup"?[/quote]No, he isn't saying that. He doesn't even want to talk about defense. Even if he was saying that, I have clearly shown that that would not be the case because of the limitations in the games of the Sixers' players. However, mavsfan continues to think that it is Iverson's fault that Webber only hits 43% of his field goal attempts; that it's Iverson's fault Dalembert can't catch a pass; that it's Iverson's fault that Iguodala is not aggressive offensively; that it is Iverson's fault that somebody on the team misses a free throw, etc.Again, he has a hard time understanding that at this point in time, the Sixers offense is perfectly fine. All they really need on the offensive end is for Iguodala to be more aggressive (which mavsfan will try to blame on Iverson, but that is Iguodala's own fault) and for the Sixers' bench to contribute more offensively. Their bench scores the lowest ppg out of any bench in the league. Why are we going to try and fix something that isn't a problem?In order for any player to make the Sixers a better team, they would have to have a big impact on the defensive end of the floor, not the offensive end. Mavsfan doesn't realize that... I guess he's stuck in the Mavericks' "no defense" era, because he seems to not think that defense is part of the game of basketball.Again, to improve as a team, you have to address your team's weaknesses, not ignore them, and that is exactly what Mavsfan is doing here.

 

OK, I'm going to end this argument right here because mavsfan doesn't even believe his own arguments, nor does he have faith in what he's saying.So, mavsfan, just answer these two questions for me... just say "I agree" or "I disagree."1. In order to become a better team (no Nash/Iverson discussion here), the Sixers need to improve defensively.2. Nash does not make the Sixers a better defensive team.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Again, to improve as a team, you have to address your team's weaknesses, not ignore them, and that is exactly what Mavsfan is doing here.</div>I agree here. I just wanted to point out 2 things.1. This was a good debate2. Big mo is hands down one of the most underrated posters here.