EPTIf Iverson had a team like most of those guys he would probably have gotten a ring. Also there are very few guards I'd pick over Iverson because I'd know exactly what I'm looking for - a scoring guard that can handle the ball and wreck havoc on the lane. Get him a decent back court mate and that's all. You don't even understand that he's taking many shots because he has to. AI isn't overrated - you just can't grasp the situation he was in. He's going to the Hall of Fame for a reason.
NBA 09-10: The Roundball Rock - Page 21
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
If Iverson had a team like most of those guys he would probably have gotten a ring. Also there are very few guards I'd pick over Iverson because I'd know exactly what I'm looking for - a scoring guard that can handle the ball and wreck havoc on the lane. Get him a decent back court mate and that's all. You don't even understand that he's taking many shots because he has to. AI isn't overrated - you just can't grasp the situation he was in. He's going to the Hall of Fame for a reason. | ||
|
A3iL3r0n
United States2196 Posts
On November 10 2009 10:58 Ace wrote: He's going to the Hall of Fame for a reason. Yeah, because he's overrated. | ||
|
unknown.sam
Philippines2701 Posts
On November 10 2009 10:06 A3iL3r0n wrote: That's not a bad shooting percentage for a guard, but when you see how many shots a game he took, and to be fair on some of those Sixer teams he was supposed to shoot a lot, you'd rather have a higher percentage shooter taking those shots instead. Sure, he was a spectacular player, but that doesn't win a lot of games. It wins some, but I'd rather have Rondo than even a young AI. Iverson is just a shooting guard in a point guard type body, not something that is all that attractive to have. Think of how good Allen Iverson could have been if he approached the game like Chris Paul. Instead, he relied on his insane athleticism, never developed a jump shot or really ran an offense. Plus, he's a bitch who thinks he's bigger than the game. i don't think i'd go as far as picking rondo over AI (to be in philly anyway). AI was a superstar, he was a huge reason for success in philly. rondo might possibly never reach superstardom. both are different players, so you would obviously choose one over the other depending on the situation. shooting 0.425 isn't so bad considering the type of shots iverson took. | ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
| ||
|
A3iL3r0n
United States2196 Posts
| ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
| ||
|
igotmyown
United States4291 Posts
His biggest problem is some people suspected he didn't make his team much better, and when he went to denver, denver didn't get much better as you might expect from a great championship caliber hall of fame player. That was the referendum on his career because the whole nobody else can score no longer applied. Same in detroit. | ||
|
HonestTea
5007 Posts
I don't think stats tell the whole story of Allen Iverson. Seriously, he was on some absolutely unworthy teams. He could have easily had really elite assist stats if only his teammates could make buckets. Meanwhile, he was peerless in his ability to disrupt defenses and create offensive opportunities. He was a fearless player who was much more than his height, or his supposed statistical ineffeciency. I get it - possessions should be effecient, and we want our players to score 20 points in 13 shots, not 26. But look at this roster: http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/PHI/2001.html Who, pray tell, is supposed to help score? Who on this list do you want taking shots other than AI? | ||
|
unknown.sam
Philippines2701 Posts
| ||
|
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
Considering how amazing he was to watch in his prime, I definitely agree with HT that it's sad he never got to play on a true contender. Seriously, watching him carry philly in that playoffs is one of the sickest and most memorable experiences you'll ever have watching a basketball player. Watching him left an impression in your mind. He was truly a one man force. I don't know what kind of numbers he could put up right now anymore, as I haven't watched his recent play. But I don't see how looking back on his past you can say he's anything but one of the best players. I'm not saying he doesn't have shortcomings, but I think it's really hard to argue with his past. | ||
|
HonestTea
5007 Posts
On November 10 2009 12:13 unknown.sam wrote: to have ratliff as the 2nd leading scorer on your team is just mind blowing O_O he did have the 2nd most minutes/game behind AI but cmon...ratliff?! Indeed. In fact, one could make the argument that Iverson made his teammates better, in his own way. Besides, 31 points off of 25 FGA isn't horrible effeciency. It's not great by any means, but it's not criminal either, and that kind of play was a necessity for Iverson's Philly teams. | ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
| ||
|
DoctorHelvetica
United States15034 Posts
| ||
XaI)CyRiC
United States4471 Posts
People really have to take a look at the circumstances a player is in before making any sort of informed decision. Stats and stature do not tell the whole story. Very few players could have accomplished as much as AI did with as little help as he had. The numbers don't show just how good AI was at finding ways to score against much bigger players, often through double or triple teams. While he was never a pure PG, he was, and is, still a much better passer and playmaker than a lot of PGs you'll see, and definitely elite amongst combo-guards or SGs. Pointing to his FG% and TO averages without considering their context is ignoring the complete picture. As others have said, you have to look at the offensive deficiency of the rosters he's played with and his ridiculous usage rate, which was necessary in light of how little scoring help he had throughout his prime. | ||
|
city42
1656 Posts
edit: to balance it out with one indefensible flaw of AI's game, he continued to gun incredible amounts of 3s his entire career despite the arc being completely out of his reliable range. | ||
GTR
51586 Posts
| ||
|
igotmyown
United States4291 Posts
| ||
|
GTR
51586 Posts
i just watched year of the yao (documentary on his rookie season) which caused me to ask why. | ||
|
tiffany
3664 Posts
it is scientific fact that very tall people have a shorter life expectancy | ||
|
Roffles
Pitcairn19291 Posts
| ||
| ||
