All-Time Rankings: Jason Kidd vs Allen Iverson

[RedZiggyZag]

Who was the better player of all-time to you? Career and Prime-wise, and who would you rather have on your team? They are usually the ones being debated for the All-Decade 1st team. Just curious on all your thoughts. :cheers:

[magnax1]

AI by alot in my book.

[BoNafidde]

I rather have Jason Kidd

[Richie2k6]

Aaaaaaand ISH to start going on about how AI is overrated and not in Kidd's league in 3... 2...

[Darkthug]

Kidd is the better player and it's not even close. A cancer like Iverson should never be compared to a player like Jason Kidd.

[Richie2k6]

Kidd is the better player and it's not even close. A cancer like Iverson should never be compared to a player like Jason Kidd.
There we have it folks! And /thread!

[magnax1]

There we have it folks! And /thread!
Lol anybody who didn't expect it doesn't know how much people under rated Iverson anymore.
:oldlol:

[L.Kizzle]

It's close, but I'd take Kidd slightly over AI. For example, if Kidd is number 36 All-Time, AI is number 42 or something like that.

[hayden695]

All depends on my team. But AI 9/10 for me.

[Darkthug]

AI by alot in my book.

If Iverson, the cancer, is the better player, then why haven't any teams signed him yet? :applause:

[magnax1]

If Iverson, the cancer, is the better player, then why haven't any teams signed him yet? :applause:
Maybe because he sucks anymore..... pretty obvious answer. Didn't the thing say in their primes or their overall careers?

[ShaqAttack3234]

I'll take Kidd in his prime and for his career. He was better at everything except scoring and he's one of the best of all time at making his teammates better. Just ask Richard Jefferson and Kenyon Martin. Great all around player who was the best rebounding point guard since Magic and one of the best rebounding guards ever, one of the all time great passers and playmakers, an excellent defender in his prime and while he didn't need to score to impact a game, he could score.

In his prime people forget that Jason was a crafty scorer who may have never been a pure scorer, but he could find a way to put the ball in the basket when his team needed him to, whether it be a floating shot in the lane, a layup on the fastbreak or a 3. He imposed his will on games and completely changed the identity of the Nets overnight.

The Nets traded Stephon Marbury, an all-star point guard who averaged 24 and 8 and got Kidd, and they double their win total from the previous year while making it to the finals. They went from being the 23rd ranked defense to the 1st ranked defense and it was because of Kidd.

Kidd averaged 15, 7 and 10 with over 2 steals, but in the playoffs he averaged almost 20 points, 8 rebounds and 9 assists while improving his shooting percentage from 39.1% to 41.5% and he led the team in scoring, rebounding, assists and steals. He was the reason why they made it to the finals. There's a reason why he was 2nd in MVP voting.

The next season he proved the Nets were no fluke by leading them in scoring with nearly 19 ppg and assists with about 9 per game game while averaging over 6 rebounds and a team leading 2.2 steals per game. Once again he stepped up his game in the playoffs averaging 20, 8 and 8 and making it back to the finals and actually giving the Spurs a competitive series. In fact if not for his injury the next season the Nets probably would have made it back to the finals.

Kidd is 3rd all time in triple doubles and assists. Plus he's 7th all time in steals and 4th among guards all time in rebounds.

[purple32gold]

career wise when we look back on it AI will look like the better player. prime wise I would go with jason because i enjoy players getting each other involved and that is what he did. if AI would have realized he would have made a much better PG than SG with his speed and quickness i think he would have a much greater legacy. but he is a true scoring PG/SG and he chose his path which has led him to the troubles he's in unfortunately...

[imdaman99]

If the great Jason Kidd was sooooo great, why did he get traded so many times? Even while he was at his peak? Don't get me wrong, what he did for RJeff and KMart was nice, but if I was in a foxhole, gimme Iverson in his prime.

[Darkthug]

Maybe because he sucks anymore..... pretty obvious answer. Didn't the thing say in their primes or their overall careers?

At least we can agree that he sucks right now then. :applause:

[ihatetimthomas]

As a point guard, I would go with Jason Kidd. He really made his players better and that's what you want from your point guard. Amazing dribble and court vision. He see's the court in a way only few can. Great defender in his prime. His shot was inconsistent his entire career but he found other ways to score. One of the best pg re bounders as well. He really got so many players big contracts over his career.

Allen Iverson is one of the most talented point guards to ever play the game. Amazing skill, speed handle. One of the best scorers of our generation and of all time. True heart of a warrior. He is one of the toughest players I have ever seen. When he stepped on the court, you knew you would see him give it his all. He was quite a spectacle to watch in his prime. Quickest first step and blew by anyone. There was really no answer for him in his prime, no pun intended.

Overall, I think AI is the better basketball player, but I think Jason Kidd is the better point guard, if that makes any sense. Jason Kidd played the point guard how it is fundamentally supposed to. AI was a unique combo player, but I would prefer a guy who I can trust to run the point and trust to play some defense. I have nothing against AI and give him all the credit for what he has accomplished in his career, but Kidd to me has proven he can make everyone better and lead his team to success. AI has always been one of the more difficult players to build around because he is not your prototypical pg. With Kidd, its easier to build a team bc he is a true pg

[Tha Catalyst]

I'll take Kidd in his prime and for his career. He was better at everything except scoring and he's one of the best of all time at making his teammates better. Just ask Richard Jefferson and Kenyon Martin. Great all around player who was the best rebounding point guard since Magic and one of the best rebounding guards ever, one of the all time great passers and playmakers, an excellent defender in his prime and while he didn't need to score to impact a game, he could score.

In his prime people forget that Jason was a crafty scorer who may have never been a pure scorer, but he could find a way to put the ball in the basket when his team needed him to, whether it be a floating shot in the lane, a layup on the fastbreak or a 3. He imposed his will on games and completely changed the identity of the Nets overnight.

The Nets traded Stephon Marbury, an all-star point guard who averaged 24 and 8 and got Kidd, and they double their win total from the previous year while making it to the finals. They went from being the 23rd ranked defense to the 1st ranked defense and it was because of Kidd.

Kidd averaged 15, 7 and 10 with over 2 steals, but in the playoffs he averaged almost 20 points, 8 rebounds and 9 assists while improving his shooting percentage from 39.1% to 41.5% and he led the team in scoring, rebounding, assists and steals. He was the reason why they made it to the finals. There's a reason why he was 2nd in MVP voting.

The next season he proved the Nets were no fluke by leading them in scoring with nearly 19 ppg and assists with about 9 per game game while averaging over 6 rebounds and a team leading 2.2 steals per game. Once again he stepped up his game in the playoffs averaging 20, 8 and 8 and making it back to the finals and actually giving the Spurs a competitive series. In fact if not for his injury the next season the Nets probably would have made it back to the finals.

Kidd is 3rd all time in triple doubles and assists. Plus he's 7th all time in steals and 4th among guards all time in rebounds.
Perfectly put, totally agree with everything you said. Its probably Kidds defensive side that gives him the real nod over AI.

[White Chocolate]

AI is the far better individual talent, but basketball is a team sport and Kidd had more of an impact on his teammates. I vote for Kidd.

[GP_20]

Prime? Kidd
Career? Kidd


At the end of the day, 9/10 teams, Kidd's team will beat AI's teams. I'm just talking 10 random teams. 9/10 times, Kidd will help them more. AI, is only when the team lacks scorers TOTALLY, and is tough defensively, for example, 01 76ers. Otherwise, Kidd will win you more games, so give me Kidd. That makes him a better player prime wise.


As far as career, both are great. But I think AI will be remembered as just a scorer, and Kidd as a great all-around legendary PG.

[chitownsfinest]

AI was the better individual player and if I need to win a big game, I take him no matter what. However, Kidd brings more team success. The was he turned around the Nets franchise from being a laughingstock to a perennial contender puts him over AI slightly.

[sirkeelma]

If i am starting a team.. I'd pick AI..

[Story Up]

If I want to win a championship, I'd take Kidd ten times out of ten.

[Meticode]

Kidd.

[Richie2k6]

ISH Fun Fact: When comparing two random players, the discussion is usually about skill, stats and accomplishments/accolades. When comparing two random players and one of them is named Allen Iverson, the discussion turns to simply who made their team better, thus setting up AI to be considered the worse player of the 2 time and time again. I get it now.

[goldenryan]

overall player- ai
point guard/leadership- kidd
hitting woman- tie, maybe a slight edge to kidd

[west]

A.i.....

[Story Up]

ISH Fun Fact: When comparing two random players, the discussion is usually about skill, stats and accomplishments/accolades. When comparing two random players and one of them is named Allen Iverson, the discussion turns to simply who made their team better, thus setting up AI to be considered the worse player of the 2 time and time again. I get it now.

Doesn't mean it's not the truth. Oh I get it you would rather have Iverson on your team from a pure entertainment aspect? Ok, I'd rather have a winner on my team.

[Richie2k6]

Doesn't mean it's not the truth. Oh I get it you would rather have Iverson on your team from a pure entertainment aspect? Ok, I'd rather have a winner on my team.
Usually all-time rankings have little to do with who makes their team better or who you would rather have, and more to do with who is better at playing the game of basketball. But when Iverson's name is mentioned, it's allllll about what they do for their teams and who is more likely to win. I just find it funny. You know, agendas and all.

[Story Up]

I just find it funny. You know, agendas and all.

How are they agendas? Iverson is significantly more talented then Billups; look at how much better Denver became once that trade was done. AI is one of the most talented players this league has ever seen but for various reasons the guy is not a winner in this league.

We can compare two players but when one of them has all the talent in the world but does not deliver for the benefit of team success; then we have this discussion.

[Story Up]

Usually all-time rankings have little to do with who makes their team better or who you would rather have, and more to do with who is better at playing the game of basketball. But when Iverson's name is mentioned, it's allllll about what they do for their teams and who is more likely to win. I just find it funny. You know, agendas and all.
:oldlol: Really? Last I checked Bill Russell is considered by some to be the greatest ever.

[Richie2k6]

:oldlol: Really? Last I checked Bill Russell is considered by some to be the greatest ever.


ISH Fun Fact: When comparing two random players, the discussion is usually about skill, stats and accomplishments/accolades. When comparing two random players and one of them is named Allen Iverson, the discussion turns to simply who made their team better, thus setting up AI to be considered the worse player of the 2 time and time again. I get it now.
That includes rings. I never said people don't usually consider how many championships a player has won. I said they usually don't consider who makes their teammates better or who contributes more to team success.

[Story Up]

That includes rings. I never said people don't usually consider how many championships a player has won. I said they usually don't consider who makes their teammates better or who contributes more to team success.

Well I take that under consideration, no agendas here. These are two players I don't really care for; if I had a team I'd choose Kidd every time. An inferior leader in Billups already demonstrated why I would do that. My Russell example had nothing to do with championships; it had more to do with how a real leader who isn't necessarily talented can lead a team to success. Russell did it through hard work (practice), sharing the ball, knowing his role, being a role model on and off the court...none of the qualities that Iverson possesses.

Kidd is a better leader, playmaker, defender and rebounder. Iverson is a better scorer with very low efficiency. It really isn't all that tough. I'd take a player with much better leadership skills who is more well rounded then a prima donna who teams were hesitant to sign this off-season mostly because of his on the court (not coming to practice) and his off the court problems.

Really, if you want me to bury this argument for you I will write an entire thesis about why I'd pick Kidd. It's not even worth my time, I don't think highly of Iverson one bit. VERY talented player, horrible teammate, selfish player, poor leader and an even worse winner.

[gpfanz]

I do not need a ball hog :banghead:

[guy]

Usually all-time rankings have little to do with who makes their team better or who you would rather have, and more to do with who is better at playing the game of basketball.

Ummm, AI is my favorite player after Jordan, but really? Isn't the guy that makes a team better and who you would rather have considered BETTER at playing basketball?

I rank AI over Kidd because for most of their careers, I would rather have AI over Kidd cause I think he's the more dominant player. I would say Kidd had more help with those Net teams that made it to the Finals, but I still think AI would've led those 01 Sixers team over those Nets in a 7-game series.

[Chuck Thou NBA]

Why is there even a thread on this?
Kidd >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>....

[Nets fan 93]

I'll take Kidd in his prime and for his career. He was better at everything except scoring and he's one of the best of all time at making his teammates better. Just ask Richard Jefferson and Kenyon Martin. Great all around player who was the best rebounding point guard since Magic and one of the best rebounding guards ever, one of the all time great passers and playmakers, an excellent defender in his prime and while he didn't need to score to impact a game, he could score.

In his prime people forget that Jason was a crafty scorer who may have never been a pure scorer, but he could find a way to put the ball in the basket when his team needed him to, whether it be a floating shot in the lane, a layup on the fastbreak or a 3. He imposed his will on games and completely changed the identity of the Nets overnight.

The Nets traded Stephon Marbury, an all-star point guard who averaged 24 and 8 and got Kidd, and they double their win total from the previous year while making it to the finals. They went from being the 23rd ranked defense to the 1st ranked defense and it was because of Kidd.

Kidd averaged 15, 7 and 10 with over 2 steals, but in the playoffs he averaged almost 20 points, 8 rebounds and 9 assists while improving his shooting percentage from 39.1% to 41.5% and he led the team in scoring, rebounding, assists and steals. He was the reason why they made it to the finals. There's a reason why he was 2nd in MVP voting.

The next season he proved the Nets were no fluke by leading them in scoring with nearly 19 ppg and assists with about 9 per game game while averaging over 6 rebounds and a team leading 2.2 steals per game. Once again he stepped up his game in the playoffs averaging 20, 8 and 8 and making it back to the finals and actually giving the Spurs a competitive series. In fact if not for his injury the next season the Nets probably would have made it back to the finals.

Kidd is 3rd all time in triple doubles and assists. Plus he's 7th all time in steals and 4th among guards all time in rebounds.
Bascially sums it up for me.

[kingmob]

As easy as 1+1. Kidd by 2 miles.

[kshutts1]

My explanation is a tad different...

AI is the better player, better talent, etc.

However, if I had a choice between having one or the other on my team in some capacity (doesn't need to be PG) it would be Kidd.

On the other side of that, though, if I had to build around one of them I would build around Iverson. Basically, if I was forced to take Kidd or Iverson in the first round of an All-time NBA draft, I'd take Iverson.

But if I had to pick one or the other to add to a team.. it would almost always be Kidd. He was just able to fit in more. AI you had to specialize the team for his needs... however, if you're successful in building a quality team around Iverson, the league better watch out...

[Crystallas]

Jason Kidd shows up to practice, and it shows.

Kidd FTW

[RedZiggyZag]

I'll take Kidd in his prime and for his career. He was better at everything except scoring and he's one of the best of all time at making his teammates better. Just ask Richard Jefferson and Kenyon Martin. Great all around player who was the best rebounding point guard since Magic and one of the best rebounding guards ever, one of the all time great passers and playmakers, an excellent defender in his prime and while he didn't need to score to impact a game, he could score.

In his prime people forget that Jason was a crafty scorer who may have never been a pure scorer, but he could find a way to put the ball in the basket when his team needed him to, whether it be a floating shot in the lane, a layup on the fastbreak or a 3. He imposed his will on games and completely changed the identity of the Nets overnight.

The Nets traded Stephon Marbury, an all-star point guard who averaged 24 and 8 and got Kidd, and they double their win total from the previous year while making it to the finals. They went from being the 23rd ranked defense to the 1st ranked defense and it was because of Kidd.

Kidd averaged 15, 7 and 10 with over 2 steals, but in the playoffs he averaged almost 20 points, 8 rebounds and 9 assists while improving his shooting percentage from 39.1% to 41.5% and he led the team in scoring, rebounding, assists and steals. He was the reason why they made it to the finals. There's a reason why he was 2nd in MVP voting.

The next season he proved the Nets were no fluke by leading them in scoring with nearly 19 ppg and assists with about 9 per game game while averaging over 6 rebounds and a team leading 2.2 steals per game. Once again he stepped up his game in the playoffs averaging 20, 8 and 8 and making it back to the finals and actually giving the Spurs a competitive series. In fact if not for his injury the next season the Nets probably would have made it back to the finals.

Kidd is 3rd all time in triple doubles and assists. Plus he's 7th all time in steals and 4th among guards all time in rebounds.
:applause: Repped, and I agree totally....Kidd can just influence the game in more ways than Iverson could ever dream of. As far as 1 on 1 basketball and in a talent standpoint, I think Iverson wins in that, as far as 5 on 5 Basketball and as far as winning is concerned, I'll roll with Kidd, neither have a ring, but Kidd has been more consistent in the playoffs than Iverson has been, Way more consistent.

[ppierce34]

but Kidd has been more consistent in the playoffs than Iverson has been, Way more consistent.

I have zero problem with someone taking Kidd over AI. But how did you come to the above conclusion?

[RedZiggyZag]

I have zero problem with someone taking Kidd over AI. But how did you come to the above conclusion?
Jason Kidd averaged a Triple-Double in the 2002 ECF.... I believe he also did it in 2007 against the Raptors in the 1st round as well, I really don't recall Allen Iverson ever being that dominant in the playoffs ever... He shoots 40% from the field in the playoffs which is honestly worse than his regular season career average. Allen Iverson always gets more credit than he deserves for that 2001 run, I've never seen any player get that much credit just becasue of one run that ended up failing in the end anyways, Not to mention people constantly act Iverson was playing with losers, when that is the biggest myth on the planet.

[bdreason]

I'm taking Kidd... but he's my favorite player ever... so I wouldn't put much stock in my opinion.

[ppierce34]

Jason Kidd averaged a Triple-Double in the 2002 ECF.... I believe he also did it in 2007 against the Raptors in the 1st round as well, I really don't recall Allen Iverson ever being that dominant in the playoffs ever... He shoots 40% from the field in the playoffs which is honestly worse than his regular season career average. Allen Iverson always gets more credit than he deserves for that 2001 run, I've never seen any player get that much credit just becasue of one run that ended up failing in the end anyways, Not to mention people constantly act Iverson was playing with losers, when that is the biggest myth on the planet.

That doesn't make sense. You say you've never seen a guy get so much credit for a run that failed in the end, then turn around give Kidd credit for playing great in a run that ended in the second round. Iverson was fantastic in that run to the Finals, do some exaggerate how poor his team was? Yes. Doesn't mean the guy wasn't dominant and amazing throughout that run. He also went for 32 and 7 in '03-04 before getting eliminated by champ Pistons, and the next year went for 31 and 10 against those same Pistons. He's second in PPG all time in the playoffs. Could you argue that Kidd has been better? Sure. But both have been great in the playoffs through their career and to imply that Kidd has been way better is silly.

[RedZiggyZag]

That doesn't make sense. You say you've never seen a guy get so much credit for a run that failed in the end, then turn around give Kidd credit for playing great in a run that ended in the second round. Iverson was fantastic in that run to the Finals, do some exaggerate how poor his team was? Yes. Doesn't mean the guy wasn't dominant and amazing throughout that run. He also went for 32 and 7 in '03-04 before getting eliminated by champ Pistons, and the next year went for 31 and 10 against those same Pistons. He's second in PPG all time in the playoffs. Could you argue that Kidd has been better? Sure. But both have been great in the playoffs through their career and to imply that Kidd has been way better is silly.
Outside of that ONE Final Run, what has Iverson done? 2nd in PPG of all-time? Yeah, that's something special too bad those points weren't good enough to give his team wins which is the most important stat of all-time. Kidd has led TWO teams to the Finals from the East, averaged a triple-double in the 2007 playoffs along with the 2002 ECF, It really isn't close. Iverson has only seen the 2nd round twice, 2001 and in 2003 and that's it....That's pathetic if you ask me, but that is better than none like Tracy McGrady. Either way, you get the point, Kidd has done more than just lead a team to the Finals once.

[ppierce34]

Outside of that ONE Final Run, what has Iverson done? 2nd in PPG of all-time? Yeah, that's something special too bad those points weren't good enough to give his team wins which is the most important stat of all-time. Kidd has led TWO teams to the Finals from the East, averaged a triple-double in the 2007 playoffs along with the 2002 ECF, It really isn't close. Iverson has only seen the 2nd round twice, 2001 and in 2003 and that's it....That's pathetic if you ask me, but that is better than none like Tracy McGrady. Either way, you get the point, Kidd has done more than just lead a team to the Finals once.

Iverson has been to the finals one, Kidd twice. Outside of that they've both been to the playoffs a number of times, both have been one and done and both have been to the second round before being eliminated. Kidd has had triple doubles and got knocked out, Iverson gave his team 31 and 10(think about those numbers)and got knocked out. You say you go to the end result(you obviously ignore numbers since both have great oens), so basically one more Finals appearance makes Kidd WAY better. I do get your point, it's just a stupid one.

[RedZiggyZag]

it's just a stupid one.
That's nice, too bad you have nothing to support your evidence besides points for Iverson, because he's nothing more than a volume scorer, It's funny that you have a Paul Pierce moniker to hide yourself from being an Iverson apologist though.


That includes rings. I never said people don't usually consider how many championships a player has won. I said they usually don't consider who makes their teammates better or who contributes more to team success.
I'm very positive that Kidd wins in that department by a landslide.

[ppierce34]

That's nice, too bad you have nothing to support your evidence besides points for Iverson, because he's nothing more than a volume scorer, It's funny that you have a Paul Pierce moniker to hide yourself from being an Iverson apologist though.

You're entire argument is based that Kidd put up a triple double in '07(got eliminated in second round), well Iverson put up 32 and 7 and got eliminated in the second round. Both had great runs and got knocked out fairly early. You then say Kidd went to the Finals twice, Iverson once. So Kidd must be way better because of ONE more finals appearance. You're argument is based around him having ONE more finals appearance and that's it. It's not numbers because both have great numbers. Karl Malone was WAY better in the playoffs then Barkley, because Malone has TWO finals appearances and Barkley only has ONE. That is the same logic you are using and it's asinine.

[Bigsmoke]

Kidd

[Richie2k6]

That includes rings. I never said people don't usually consider how many championships a player has won. I said they usually don't consider who makes their teammates better or who contributes more to team success.
And I'm very confident that you completely missed my point and don't get what I'm saying.

[GP_20]

ISH Fun Fact: When comparing two random players, the discussion is usually about skill, stats and accomplishments/accolades. When comparing two random players and one of them is named Allen Iverson, the discussion turns to simply who made their team better, thus setting up AI to be considered the worse player of the 2 time and time again. I get it now.

That's because Allen Iverson, is a rare superstar, who actually ends up hurting teams more than helping in some cases. When discussing Stephon Marbury, people don't talk about his skill, or his stats, they talk about his team success and impact. Iverson is in the same category. We have to make rare exceptions for players like this.

On the other side, we make positive exceptions, for players who didn't have great stats, but impacted teams in a postive way, players like Bill Russell, Duncan, etc.

So skills/stats is not always the way to go in discussions. Sometimes, you have to make "exceptions", because some skills/stats/talents are not needed for teams to get better and win.

[phoenix18]

Guess? AI. All Day everyday. Why? Why not?

[Story Up]

And I'm very confident that you completely missed my point and don't get what I'm saying.

I don't think you understand what you're saying.

[Yung D-Will]

Allen Iveron All Time

Jason Kidd right now

[Papaya Petee]

The way AI is being treated on this board is flat out horse ****.


Allen Iverson >>> Jason Kidd

[Lebron23]

Better Individual Player: Allen Iverson
Better Team Player: Jason Kidd

[White Chocolate]

Better Individual Player: Allen Iverson
Better Team Player: Jason Kidd


And that my friends, sums it up.

[Younggrease]

And that my friends, sums it up.

thats just the way kids end arguments...the argument is who ranks higher.

sorry for the harsh language but im too lazy to make it less brash

[MJ(Mean John)]

Jason was one of the best pg's of all time.

Allen iverson tho, was probably a better player.

Yes, Kidd did make teammates better.

Did Allen? Did he really get the right chance to?

I.E. Would kidd have been able to take the 01 sixers to the finals?

I doubt it.

Would Iverson be able to make noise with A HEALTHY YOUNG KMART and RJeff in IVERSONS prime?

You bet your ass. I'm taking the most dominant little man ever

[imdaman99]

Jason Kidd shows up to practice, and it shows.

Kidd FTW
Jason Kidd also beats his wife er ex-wife. Wait Iverson throws his woman out of the house naked :oldlol:

I guess they both lose on this lol

[Abraham Lincoln]

The way AI is being treated on this board is flat out horse ****.


Allen Iverson >>> Jason Kidd
:cheers:

[imdaman99]

AI has as many championships as JK. So don't give me that crap about team ball giving you a better chance to win :rolleyes:

It wasn't long ago that everyone had an AI jersey, where did it all go?

Are you there God? Its me Allen.

[MJ(Mean John)]

why does iverson look so skinny in this video?


or am i trippin?




http://www.nba.com/video/channels/nba_tv/2009/09/01/nba_20090901_iverson.nba/

[White Chocolate]

AI has as many championships as JK. So don't give me that crap about team ball giving you a better chance to win :rolleyes:

It wasn't long ago that everyone had an AI jersey, where did it all go?

Are you there God? Its me Allen.


Kidd made his teammates better. Todd MacCulloch was averaging almost 10 PPG with Kidd, K-Mart was on the receiving end of many alley oops, and Richard Jefferson was an efficient 20 PPG scorer. Players are held back because of AI. Kidd brings out the best in his teammates.

[G.O.A.T]

I'll take Kidd in his prime and for his career. He was better at everything except scoring and he's one of the best of all time at making his teammates better. Just ask Richard Jefferson and Kenyon Martin. Great all around player who was the best rebounding point guard since Magic and one of the best rebounding guards ever, one of the all time great passers and playmakers, an excellent defender in his prime and while he didn't need to score to impact a game, he could score.

In his prime people forget that Jason was a crafty scorer who may have never been a pure scorer, but he could find a way to put the ball in the basket when his team needed him to, whether it be a floating shot in the lane, a layup on the fastbreak or a 3. He imposed his will on games and completely changed the identity of the Nets overnight.

The Nets traded Stephon Marbury, an all-star point guard who averaged 24 and 8 and got Kidd, and they double their win total from the previous year while making it to the finals. They went from being the 23rd ranked defense to the 1st ranked defense and it was because of Kidd.

Kidd averaged 15, 7 and 10 with over 2 steals, but in the playoffs he averaged almost 20 points, 8 rebounds and 9 assists while improving his shooting percentage from 39.1% to 41.5% and he led the team in scoring, rebounding, assists and steals. He was the reason why they made it to the finals. There's a reason why he was 2nd in MVP voting.

The next season he proved the Nets were no fluke by leading them in scoring with nearly 19 ppg and assists with about 9 per game game while averaging over 6 rebounds and a team leading 2.2 steals per game. Once again he stepped up his game in the playoffs averaging 20, 8 and 8 and making it back to the finals and actually giving the Spurs a competitive series. In fact if not for his injury the next season the Nets probably would have made it back to the finals.

Kidd is 3rd all time in triple doubles and assists. Plus he's 7th all time in steals and 4th among guards all time in rebounds.

This is a great argument for Kidd over Iverson and to be honest when I was doing my research into personal accolades I was surprised to see just how well Kidd stacked up with the great point guards of all-time. One title in his prime and he'd probably a top 25 all-time on most peoples lists.

All that said my instincts tell me AI was a better player historically. To further complicate the matter I'd take J-Kidd way before AI if I was buidling a team.

[ChuckOakley]

I don't get what people mean by Iverson was the better player BUT....

NBA is not a 1 on 1 game and talent does not guarantee success. Using that logic VC is greater than either one since he could beat either in one on one, and has the most talent.

Truth is Kidd is and was the btter NBA player.

A far superior rebounder
A far superior passer
A far superior defender
Better court vision
Better leader
Makes his teammates better
Makes his team better

AI was the better scorer, but that last thing I want is my 5'11, ineffecient G shooting low percentage shots. I'd rather Kidd set someone else up for a higher percentage shot.

[White Chocolate]

I don't get what people mean by Iverson was the better player BUT....
NBA is not a 1 on 1 game and talent does not guarantee success. Using that logic VC is greater than either one since he could beat either in one on one, and has the most talent.

Truth is Kidd is and was the btter NBA player.

A far superior rebounder
A far superior passer
A far superior defender
Better court vision
Better leader
Makes his teammates better
Makes his team better

AI was the better scorer, but that last thing I want is my 5'11, ineffecient G shooting low percentage shots. I'd rather Kidd set someone else up for a higher percentage shot.


It means that AI was the better individual player. Better stats, more accolades, etc. But, it is a team game and Kidd is the perfect definition of a team player, something Iverson never was or ever will be.

[phoenix18]

I don't get what people mean by Iverson was the better player BUT....

NBA is not a 1 on 1 game and talent does not guarantee success. Using that logic VC is greater than either one since he could beat either in one on one, and has the most talent.

Truth is Kidd is and was the btter NBA player.

A far superior rebounder
A far superior passer
A far superior defender
Better court vision
Better leader
Makes his teammates better
Makes his team better

AI was the better scorer, but that last thing I want is my 5'11, ineffecient G shooting low percentage shots. I'd rather Kidd set someone else up for a higher percentage shot.
You make it seem that AI is just a garbage type of player. AI is great passer. AI has to have great court vision to attack the rim like he does. AI does make his teammates better, not as much as Jason Kidd but he obviously does. AI most definitely makes his team better. In most cases(Philly and Denver).

[White Chocolate]

You make it seem that AI is just a garbage type of player. AI is great passer. AI has to have great court vision to attack the rim like he does. AI does make his teammates better, not as much as Jason Kidd but he obviously does. AI most definitely makes his team better. In most cases(Philly and Denver).


Philly got better because they acquired defensive minded players and hired a defensive minded coach in Larry Brown. Denver was already a playoff team when he got there. They swapped him with Chauncey Billups, and all of a sudden, they're 2 wins from the Finals. Andre Iguodala was being held back because of Iverson. Iverson makes himself better. He doesn't make anyone else better.

[phoenix18]

Philly got better because they acquired defensive minded players and hired a defensive minded coach in Larry Brown. Denver was already a playoff team when he got there. They swapped him with Chauncey Billups, and all of a sudden, they're 2 wins from the Finals. Andre Iguodala was being held back because of Iverson. Iverson makes himself better. He doesn't make anyone else better.
I have decided not to argue because where you see improvement for Iggy is beyond me. Denver still lost to the same team. I dont know how you can discredit Iverson for the improvement in Philly. But believe what you do because no post is going to change your opinion of the "greatest scorer pound for pound".

[ppierce34]

Philly got better because they acquired defensive minded players and hired a defensive minded coach in Larry Brown. Denver was already a playoff team when he got there. They swapped him with Chauncey Billups, and all of a sudden, they're 2 wins from the Finals. Andre Iguodala was being held back because of Iverson. Iverson makes himself better. He doesn't make anyone else better.

You really think Iggy is that much better? I've seen progresssion in his game, but not due to Iverson leaving. He scored more after Iverson and Webber departing, but I don't know how you wouldn't expect that since you just took your two top scoring options out of the line-up. I like Iggy, but a lot of the problems he had when Iverson was there, like lack of a consistent jumper, indecisive, sloppy ball-handling, are all still present in his game still.

As for Denver, it's been said before. It wasn't simply AI for Chauncey and nothing else changed. You had a fully healthy Nene and we all saw the impact he had on the Nuggets, a great bench addition Anderson, swapping out Carter for Jones.

[phxsuns4life]

Good question, I'll take AI in his prime. While JKidd was and still is the superior passer and team-player, AI provided blistering scoring at the 2 position and just had the charisma to spur his team, despite his other faults (come on, we're talking about PRACTICE!!!).

Now, I'm not so sure, JKidd isn't that hot anymore either. If I wanted a scorer, AI please. If I need all the players on the team to get better looks then its gotta be JKidd.

Personally I prefer AI but at the end of the day, they will both be legends for what they achieved in their prime, and if either of them get a ring, and at the points they are at in the career, that's just an added bonus. Props to them.

[RedZiggyZag]

I'm taking the most dominant little man ever
That is a serious insult to Isiah Thomas...... :no:



Did Allen? Did he really get the right chance to?
Did he make his teammates better for the 2009 Pistons? Nope, Did he make Melo better for the 2007 and 2008 Nuggets? Nope. He just doesn't make them better plain and simple, It's not his lack of teammates he just can't co-exist with another scorer, plain and simple. Kidd LITERALLY made Mikki Moore into an NBA player, if It weren't for Kidd, Moore would still be in the D-League or still be looking for a job. Along with that, Kidd's defense is FAR FAR FAR superior than what Allen Iverson has ever been and ever will be in his lifetime.


I have decided not to argue because where you see improvement for Iggy is beyond me. Denver still lost to the same team. I dont know how you can discredit Iverson for the improvement in Philly. But believe what you do because no post is going to change your opinion of the "greatest scorer pound for pound".
Course not, because you are nothing but an AI Apologist.

[phoenix18]

Course not, because you are nothing but an AI Apologist.
And you are a jackass. I am tired of people calling me names when I tell the truth. I admitted that Kidd is a better passer, rebounder and defender. So stop being an ******* just because you finally found an account that people arent as hostile against.

[ChuckOakley]

It means that AI was the better individual player. Better stats, more accolades, etc. But, it is a team game and Kidd is the perfect definition of a team player, something Iverson never was or ever will be.

The only thing AI has on Kidd is scoring and an MVP (Kidd should have won one)
Other than that Kidd is the better player.

Again, if you want to say someone like VC or T-Mac are better than 99% of the league because of their "talent", accolades or ability to beat others in 1 on 1, then I could see why you would say AI is better than Kidd.

But if you want to measure it on who IS the better NBA player, than it's Kidd.

If Kidd and AI were in the same draft as 21 y/o's tomorrow who do you think more GMs would pick? That should tell you who the better NBA player is.

[White Chocolate]

The only thing AI has on Kidd is scoring and an MVP (Kidd should have won one)
Other than that Kidd is the better player.

Again, if you want to say someone like VC or T-Mac are better than 99% of the league because of their "talent", accolades or ability to beat others in 1 on 1, then I could see why you would say AI is better than Kidd.

But if you want to measure it on who IS the better NBA player, than it's Kidd.

If Kidd and AI were in the same draft as 21 y/o's tomorrow who do you think more GMs would pick? That should tell you who the better NBA player is.


Not disagreeing. I truly believe Kidd is better. But, you have some knuckleheads that think AI was better at making his teammates better than Kidd when that clearly wasn't the case.

[ShaqAttack3234]

The only thing AI has on Kidd is scoring and an MVP (Kidd should have won one)


Nah, Duncan was a good choice for the 2002 MVP, but Iverson didn't deserve his MVP over Shaq and Duncan to begin with.

[ChuckOakley]

Nah, Duncan was a good choice for the 2002 MVP, but Iverson didn't deserve his MVP over Shaq and Duncan to begin with.

Ehh... Kidd led the Nets to an amazing turnaround.

He got mocked for predicting or hoping for 40 wins prior the season starting, let alone the finals they made it to.
Good article from before the season:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/nba/news/2001/07/11/nets_kidd_ap/

I don't doubt TD was the better player, but what Kidd did was even more impressive than what Nash did IMO. MVP is a very situational award and I really thought Kidd deserved and did everything in his power to earn it.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Ehh... Kidd led the Nets to an amazing turnaround.

He got mocked for predicting or hoping for 40 wins prior the season starting, let alone the finals they made it to.
Good article from before the season:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/nba/news/2001/07/11/nets_kidd_ap/

I don't doubt TD was the better player, but what Kidd did was even more impressive than what Nash did IMO. MVP is a very situational award and I really thought Kidd deserved and did everything in his power to earn it.

Kidd was unbelieveable and defintley better than Nash in Phoenix, but Duncan led a team with not much talent to 6 more wins in a much tougher conference.

The only 2 other double digit scorers on Duncan's team were 36 year old David Robinson who averaged 12 ppg and 32 year old Steve Smith who averaged 11.6 per game. Tony Parker was a rookie and had yet to breakout, Manu hadn't joined the team yet and Stephen Jackson barely played.

Duncan had to carry the load averaging 25.5 points per game(5th in the NBA), 12.7 rebounds(2nd in the NBA), 3.7 apg and 2.5 bpg(4th in the NBA) on 50.8% from the floor(9th in the NBA) and 79.9% from the foul line. He did that while anchoring the number 2 ranked defense in the NBA and dominating offensively more than anyone not named Shaquille O'Neal because of the double teams he drew, his versatility allowing him to step out to 15-18 feet, his unlimited low post aresenal, his great passing ability and his ability to hit free throws that season.

Kidd was great, but he had the misfortune of peaking at the same time that Tim Duncan did.

[ChuckOakley]

Kidd was unbelieveable and defintley better than Nash in Phoenix, but Duncan led a team with not much talent to 6 more wins in a much tougher conference.

The only 2 other double digit scorers on Duncan's team were 36 year old David Robinson who averaged 12 ppg and 32 year old Steve Smith who averaged 11.6 per game. Tony Parker was a rookie and had yet to breakout, Manu hadn't joined the team yet and Stephen Jackson barely played.

Duncan had to carry the load averaging 25.5 points per game(5th in the NBA), 12.7 rebounds(2nd in the NBA), 3.7 apg and 2.5 bpg(4th in the NBA) on 50.8% from the floor(9th in the NBA) and 79.9% from the foul line. He did that while anchoring the number 2 ranked defense in the NBA and dominating offensively more than anyone not named Shaquille O'Neal because of the double teams he drew, his versatility allowing him to step out to 15-18 feet, his unlimited low post aresenal, his great passing ability and his ability to hit free throws that season.

Kidd was great, but he had the misfortune of peaking at the same time that Tim Duncan did.

It's easy to be a top defensive team when you have TD and David Robinson on the floor. Kidd also had a top 5 defensive team in NJ, after years of NJ being an embarrassment on defense.

26 wins to 52 wins and the Finals is pretty impressive as well. More impressive than SA's turnaround after they added TD, because they also got D-Rob back from injury as well.

[RedZiggyZag]

Ehh... Kidd led the Nets to an amazing turnaround.

He got mocked for predicting or hoping for 40 wins prior the season starting, let alone the finals they made it to.
Good article from before the season:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/nba/news/2001/07/11/nets_kidd_ap/

I don't doubt TD was the better player, but what Kidd did was even more impressive than what Nash did IMO. MVP is a very situational award and I really thought Kidd deserved and did everything in his power to earn it.
I agree, Hands down Jason Kidd was the MVP in the 2002 NBA season, No disrespect to Mr. Tim Duncan, but that was Kidd's MVP that season, Duncan probably should have been runner up and was the hands down MVP the next season in 2003, but Oh well.


Nah, Duncan was a good choice for the 2002 MVP, but Iverson didn't deserve his MVP over Shaq and Duncan to begin with.
Shaq was the MVP that season, but you couldn't go wrong with Duncan or Iverson either.

All said and done, Kidd is superior than Allen Iverson if you ask me, just wanted a nice, netural and calm debate about this. Iverson was the better scorer, and that's it, It's not like Kidd was more efficient though, he was a great finisher around the rim especially on the fast break though, I would remember Kidd would rebound and then run down to the other end and get an easy layup. The main part of why I would take Kidd over Iverson is Defense, Although I do believe Kidd's defense was a bit overrated during his Prime, It was still on an absolute different universe than Allen Iverson's. Both were great at reading the passing lanes, but Kidd was way better at staying active and staying in front of his man than Iverson was, not to mention you couldn't shoot over Kidd like you could against Iverson.
It's easy to be a top defensive team when you have TD and David Robinson on the floor. Kidd also had a top 5 defensive team in NJ, after years of NJ being an embarrassment on defense.

26 wins to 52 wins and the Finals is pretty impressive as well. More impressive than SA's turnaround after they added TD, because they also got D-Rob back from injury as well.
Keep in mind that the MVP is a Regular season award not a post-season one. Otherwise Kobe should have been the MVP this season, but he wasn't because he didn't have the best regular season. And just to let you know, David Robinson was on his last legs during those days. I credit Kidd and just like you, I do feel Kidd was probably the MVP that season, but I don't think your points make the best sense.

[ShaqAttack3234]

It's easy to be a top defensive team when you have TD and David Robinson on the floor. Kidd also had a top 5 defensive team in NJ, after years of NJ being an embarrassment on defense.

26 wins to 52 wins and the Finals is pretty impressive as well. More impressive than SA's turnaround after they added TD, because they also got D-Rob back from injury as well.

I agree that New Jersey's turnaround was amazing, especially since they traded Stephon Marbury, an all-star point guard coming off a 24/8 season to get Kidd.

But look at Duncan's roster that season and look at Duncan's numbers compared to his teammates. He had to dominate in basically every area for that team, he was even second in assists trailing Parker by only 0.6 per game. Without Duncan's low post presence drawing double teams, his versatility allowing him to play high/low with Robinson and his defensive presence that Spurs team would have been terrible. Duncan, who often didn't have to carry his teams scoring load in later years averaged more than twice as many points as the Spurs second leading scorer.

You can't go wrong with either, but I think the voters got it right.

[MJ(Mean John)]

That is a serious insult to Isiah Thomas...... :no:


Did he make his teammates better for the 2009 Pistons? Nope, Did he make Melo better for the 2007 and 2008 Nuggets? Nope. He just doesn't make them better plain and simple, It's not his lack of teammates he just can't co-exist with another scorer, plain and simple. Kidd LITERALLY made Mikki Moore into an NBA player, if It weren't for Kidd, Moore would still be in the D-League or still be looking for a job. Along with that, Kidd's defense is FAR FAR FAR superior than what Allen Iverson has ever been and ever will be in his lifetime.


Course not, because you are nothing but an AI Apologist.


Good points.

Now understand that Iverson is not a lead guard. He is not a point, its not what he does. He can get ppl good looks but the man is a bonafide scorer. one of the best that this game has EVER seen. yes EVER. If allen iverson was 6'6 and played with great players the man would be right there with the kobe/jordan crap..

Iverson didnt make melo better? reall? who's fault is that? How much better can someone make carmelo? sh!t the guy has ALWAYS had problems getting at that level of LBJ and Wade. Now allen PAST HIS PRIME IS GOINg to make that happen? Be real mannn..

Allen on the pistons was the same crap!! they had NO LEAD GUARD! no one to run the team, and add a busted ass rookie coach?

Get out of here with that.. Put a prime AI with a prime kmart and young rj and the rest of guys they had and that team would have been nasty..

[Orlando Magic]

Allen Iverson.