Someone explain what makes Iverson a cancer?

[ShaqAttack3234]

He came to a 76ers team that had won just 18 games the year before and hadn't won more than 26 games since Charles Barkley left in '93. By his 2nd year they had won 31 games and by his 3rd year they finished 28-22 in the strike shortened season and they made it to the 2nd round. The following year Philly won 49 games and again made it to the second round. Then Philly wins 56 games, gets the number 1 seed and advances all the way to the finals. They became the only team to beat the 2001 Lakers in the playoffs thanks to Iverson's 48 point game 1. Although they'd lose in 5 games that was still a hell of a season.

The following season Philly fell to 43 wins and lost in the first round, but Iverson did miss 22 games and played through an injury he probably shouldn't have in the playoffs. The team was 36-24 with Iverson in the lineup, on pace for 49/50 wins. The following season with Iverson back in the lineup for 82 games they won 48 games and made it to the second round again. Iverson's 2004 season was plagued by injuries that forced him to miss 34 games and Philly won just 33 games that season. Iverson was healthy the following year and Philly won 43 games again and they made it to the playoffs. Philly would have a losing season in 2006 and Iverson would be traded in December of the following year. But for the most part, Philly was a good team during Iverson's career there.

Some refer to his tenure as a Nugget as a reason why he's a cancer, but I don't see that either. They had to adjust midseason and Iverson sacrificed his game. Here are Iverson's stats after Carmelo returned.

23.7 ppg, 3.2 rpg, 7 apg, 1.7 spg, 45.4 FG%, 18 FGA

Iverson was taking just 18 shots instead of the 25+ he often took on Philly and his FG% rose to over 45% instead of his usual 42% and under. He averaged under 24 ppg instead of 30+. Iverson sacrificed his game after the trade more than Carmelo did. Many people mention Carmelo's stats dropping, but he was still scoring the majority of the points after he returned. Here are his numbers.

27.8 ppg, 6.5 rpg, 3.7 apg, 1.0 spg, 46 FG%, 21.5 FGA

The biggest difference from his stats prior to the suspension was his FGA.

31.2 ppg, 5.2 rpg, 4.1 apg, 1.5 spg, 50.3 FG%, 24 FGA

So unless you want to blame Iverson for Carmelo taking 21.5 shots instead of 24 then I don't see any reason to fault Iverson here. They did go just 25-20 after Anthony returned, but Iverson missed 8 games during that time making it even harder to get used to playing with eachother. They were just developing some chemistry in April as they went 10-1 to end the regular season and then beat the Spurs in game 1 of the playoffs. Unfortunately, the eventual champion Spurs were too much for Denver. There was a difference in their playoff performances, though.

Anthony- 26.8 ppg, 8.6 rpg, 1.2 apg, 1 spg, 48 FG%, 19.6 FGA
Iverson- 22.8 ppg, 0.6 rpg, 5.8 apg, 1.4 spg, 36.8 FG%, 22.8 FGA

Regardless, nobody expected them to beat the Spurs.

In their second season together Iverson stepped up from the number 2 option and they were more of a 1A/1B duo.

Allen Iverson- 26.4 ppg, 3 rpg, 7.1 apg, 2 spg, 45.8 FG%, 19 FGA
Carmelo Anthony- 25.7 ppg, 7.4 rpg, 3.4 apg, 1.3 spg, 49.2 FG%, 19.2 FGA

They won 50 games and still just finished with the 8th seed. It's kind of hard to fault him much for that. This time it was Anthony who had the worse playoff series vs the eventual Western Conference champion Lakers.

Anthony- 22.5 ppg, 9.5 rpg, 2 apg, 0.5 spg, 36.4 FG%, 22 FGA
Iverson- 24.5 ppg, 3 rpg, 4.5 apg, 1 spg, 43.4 FG%, 20.8 FGA

Then people love to cite the Detroit/Denver situation as a reason why Iverson is a cancer. But it's not as simple as some make it out to be.

Denver got Nene back for a full season and he gave them 15/8 with more than a steal and block per game on 60% shooting. They also added Chris Anderson and George Karl made a point of focusing more on defense heading into the season. Billups is more suited for that because he's bigger at 6'3" and easily 200 pounds and he's more of a point guard. Dahntay Jones also helped the defense. If anything, why don't more people point out why Denver lost the supposed defensive player of the year and their defense got much better? The team also went 9-7 without Carmelo Anthony in the lineup. They only won just 4 more games than the previous year. They were just lucky not to face the Lakers in the first round. They'd lose to basically that same Lakers team in the Western Conference Finals.

As far as Detroit, well we have to factor in their rookie coach who got fired after the season, the declining play of Rasheed Wallace and the fact that they just didn't have a system that fit Iverson's style of play. Iverson is also 33/34 years old.

So what exactly makes Iverson a cancer? He won 48 games or more 3 times in PHilly and he won 6 playoff series there. He won 50 games in Denver and sacrificed his game when he got there. Did you expect them to beat the Spurs or Lakers? I guess one bad season in Detroit ruins his career for some. :rolleyes:

[Richie2k6]

People call Iverson a cancer because:

1. They aren't educated enough on him to know why he isn't one
2. They look at his FGA and FG% and immediately jump to conclusions
3. They see a 6 foot 30 ppg scorer and immediately label him a chucking ballhog
4. People love to hate

I've made post after post defending AI but I'm really getting tired of it. People don't know how to fold up the agenda and put it in their pocket and have a logical discussion. If there were people on here who actually have legitimate reasons as to why they think AI hurts teams I'd be willing and able to argue against that but people like that are damn hard to find. It's really not worth arguing - AI will always be hated on ISH.

[Abraham Lincoln]

People call Iverson a cancer because:

1. They aren't educated enough on him to know why he isn't one
2. They look at his FGA and FG% and immediately jump to conclusions
3. They see a 6 foot 30 ppg scorer and immediately label him a chucking ballhog
4. People love to hate

I've made post after post defending AI but I'm really getting tired of it. People don't know how to fold up the agenda and put it in their pocket and have a logical discussion. If there were people on here who actually have legitimate reasons as to why they think AI hurts teams I'd be willing and able to argue against that but people like that are damn hard to find. It's really not worth arguing - AI will always be hated on ISH.
:cheers:

[QuebecBaller]

He had a bad season with the Pistons

[Bigsmoke]

I wouldnt label A.I. a franchise destroyer but he didnt make the Nuggets as good as people thought they'll be and Pistons didnt improve at all.

[tedloc]

because he's a "me first" player
always takes the shot,

because of his issues with past coaches.

because of his famous "practice" rant.


that being said he's a helluva player and doesn't get the credit nowadays that he has earned over his career. but i certainly see why people believe him to be a cancer

[goldenryan]

good thing overrated is banned. :lol

[doinitbig06]

He came to a 76ers team that had won just 18 games the year before and hadn't won more than 26 games since Charles Barkley left in '93. By his 2nd year they had won 31 games and by his 3rd year they finished 28-22 in the strike shortened season and they made it to the 2nd round. The following year Philly won 49 games and again made it to the second round. Then Philly wins 56 games, gets the number 1 seed and advances all the way to the finals. They became the only team to beat the 2001 Lakers in the playoffs thanks to Iverson's 48 point game 1. Although they'd lose in 5 games that was still a hell of a season.

The following season Philly fell to 43 wins and lost in the first round, but Iverson did miss 22 games and played through an injury he probably shouldn't have in the playoffs. The team was 36-24 with Iverson in the lineup, on pace for 49/50 wins. The following season with Iverson back in the lineup for 82 games they won 48 games and made it to the second round again. Iverson's 2004 season was plagued by injuries that forced him to miss 34 games and Philly won just 33 games that season. Iverson was healthy the following year and Philly won 43 games again and they made it to the playoffs. Philly would have a losing season in 2006 and Iverson would be traded in December of the following year. But for the most part, Philly was a good team during Iverson's career there.

Some refer to his tenure as a Nugget as a reason why he's a cancer, but I don't see that either. They had to adjust midseason and Iverson sacrificed his game. Here are Iverson's stats after Carmelo returned.

23.7 ppg, 3.2 rpg, 7 apg, 1.7 spg, 45.4 FG%, 18 FGA

Iverson was taking just 18 shots instead of the 25+ he often took on Philly and his FG% rose to over 45% instead of his usual 42% and under. He averaged under 24 ppg instead of 30+. Iverson sacrificed his game after the trade more than Carmelo did. Many people mention Carmelo's stats dropping, but he was still scoring the majority of the points after he returned. Here are his numbers.

27.8 ppg, 6.5 rpg, 3.7 apg, 1.0 spg, 46 FG%, 21.5 FGA

The biggest difference from his stats prior to the suspension was his FGA.

31.2 ppg, 5.2 rpg, 4.1 apg, 1.5 spg, 50.3 FG%, 24 FGA

So unless you want to blame Iverson for Carmelo taking 21.5 shots instead of 24 then I don't see any reason to fault Iverson here. They did go just 25-20 after Anthony returned, but Iverson missed 8 games during that time making it even harder to get used to playing with eachother. They were just developing some chemistry in April as they went 10-1 to end the regular season and then beat the Spurs in game 1 of the playoffs. Unfortunately, the eventual champion Spurs were too much for Denver. There was a difference in their playoff performances, though.

Anthony- 26.8 ppg, 8.6 rpg, 1.2 apg, 1 spg, 48 FG%, 19.6 FGA
Iverson- 22.8 ppg, 0.6 rpg, 5.8 apg, 1.4 spg, 36.8 FG%, 22.8 FGA

Regardless, nobody expected them to beat the Spurs.

In their second season together Iverson stepped up from the number 2 option and they were more of a 1A/1B duo.

Allen Iverson- 26.4 ppg, 3 rpg, 7.1 apg, 2 spg, 45.8 FG%, 19 FGA
Carmelo Anthony- 25.7 ppg, 7.4 rpg, 3.4 apg, 1.3 spg, 49.2 FG%, 19.2 FGA

They won 50 games and still just finished with the 8th seed. It's kind of hard to fault him much for that. This time it was Anthony who had the worse playoff series vs the eventual Western Conference champion Lakers.

Anthony- 22.5 ppg, 9.5 rpg, 2 apg, 0.5 spg, 36.4 FG%, 22 FGA
Iverson- 24.5 ppg, 3 rpg, 4.5 apg, 1 spg, 43.4 FG%, 20.8 FGA

Then people love to cite the Detroit/Denver situation as a reason why Iverson is a cancer. But it's not as simple as some make it out to be.

Denver got Nene back for a full season and he gave them 15/8 with more than a steal and block per game on 60% shooting. They also added Chris Anderson and George Karl made a point of focusing more on defense heading into the season. Billups is more suited for that because he's bigger at 6'3" and easily 200 pounds and he's more of a point guard. Dahntay Jones also helped the defense. If anything, why don't more people point out why Denver lost the supposed defensive player of the year and their defense got much better? The team also went 9-7 without Carmelo Anthony in the lineup. They only won just 4 more games than the previous year. They were just lucky not to face the Lakers in the first round. They'd lose to basically that same Lakers team in the Western Conference Finals.

As far as Detroit, well we have to factor in their rookie coach who got fired after the season, the declining play of Rasheed Wallace and the fact that they just didn't have a system that fit Iverson's style of play. Iverson is also 33/34 years old.

So what exactly makes Iverson a cancer? He won 48 games or more 3 times in PHilly and he won 6 playoff series there. He won 50 games in Denver and sacrificed his game when he got there. Did you expect them to beat the Spurs or Lakers? I guess one bad season in Detroit ruins his career for some. :rolleyes:


Allen Iverson - top 10 POINT GUARD of ALL TIME </kanye>

[darius15]

ShaqAttack, great post, repped.

But there's no point trying to convince the retards of ISH about Allen Iverson, they're too dense. No matter what evidence you throw at them, they all say the same thing (Detroit, ballhog, chucker, attitude) without bringing up any substantive facts.

[Quata]

The truth is that only a few people think he is a cancer, then all the other superstar nut hugging recent fans who are completely uneducated on the matter jump onto the bandwagon.

[Penny37]

Because he commands the ball.
He needs the ball to be effective and when he doesn't have the ball there' snot much else he can do to help the team. Other than go for steals which puts the rest of his team in a bad place.

That being said, he's a great player.
Just not one that can carry his own team to a championship.

[magnax1]

Option 1- The person is only five, so they never had a chance to watch Iverson before this year
Option 2- The person knows nothing about basketball
Option 3- The person has a bias against iverson, or is the type of person who only think Kobe or Lebron can be good players.

[FinalCountdown]

Cancer is a stretch, but he doesn't help teams as much as a star should.

[Richie2k6]

Notice how nobody was able to breakdown the OP's post and argue against it.

[shadow]

After the detroit/denver trade this whole cancer thing started coming up and suddenly it was a universal truth that spans the guys whole career. Power of media for you right there.

He had a bad run in Detroit, part of it was his own fault, but mostly Dumar's who knew/should have known what kind of player AI is and that it was a bad fit. That alone should not label a guy's entire career as a cancer. Dumar was either really smart or he was just lucky that he got AI as a scapegoat . Without AI he would have had to eventually face the heat for the Pistons's decline.

[highwhey]

Notice how nobody was able to breakdown the OP's post and argue against it.
ISH=unintelligent basketball discussion (mostly)

[ShaqAttack3234]

And why doesn't Carmelo get some of the blame for the Nuggets underachieving a bit? Denver was supposed to be great because of them as a duo so they both deserve the blame.

And how much can you blame them? They didn't have much time to develop chemistry and when they were starting to at the end of the year(10-1 in April) they ran into the Spurs on their way to 3 titles in 5 years. Then they have the misfortune of winning 50 games when the West was at it's toughest and running into the Lakers in the first round who would win back to back WCF titles and eventually the title in '09. Hell it's an accomplishment just to win 50 games with so many great teams in a conference. A 48 win team missed the playoffs. 1 game seperated them from the 7 seed and just 7 games seperated them from the number 1 seed.

Iverson didn't just go to Denver jacking up shots. His FGA and ppg dropped more than Melo's the first year and he became more efficient. He made an effort to fit in and it's not like they were a lottery team, they won 50 games...their highest in total since 1988!

Unfortunately Memphis doesn't seem like a good fit either, particularly with 3 other potential 20 ppg scorers who need the ball a lot including one who has been nicknamed the Blackhole. Iverson will get blamed of course and it will convince morons even more that he's a cancer because they can't view situations in the proper context. And for some reason Iverson will be judged by his team success from age 33-35 unlike just about any other player. Most players careers are judged in their primes(20's through early 30's), not mid 30's.

[rosonviyavong]

Pretty much because of the bad season he had with the Pistons

[dyna]

I think people feel that way only because the situation he had with Detroit.

For me Iverson is still a scoring threats and play the game with a great passion every game including in Detroit.
But for people is easier to remember the bad things.

Remember that Iverson had great years in Philadelphia,
and for only one bad year in Detroit now he is a cancer???

:no:

[phoenix18]

Shaq attack, I spent most of today beating my friends down in NBA 2K9 with Iverson and I log on ish and see your post. As ISH's numero uno Iverson fan, it makes me cry tears of joy. As you can tell, I am too lazy and even if I tried to, I would be able to make such a great hate-stopping post as yours. Your post is so good, I am going to do the individual post thing and favorite it, so that anytime someone here says AI is a cancer, I can just quote you. I love you man.

[Penny37]

I think people feel that way only because the situation he had with Detroit.

For me Iverson is still a scoring threats and play the game with a great passion every game including in Detroit.
But for people is easier to remember the bad things.

Remember that Iverson had great years in Philadelphia,
and for only one bad year in Detroit now he is a cancer???

:no:
No team can ever win a title with a 6'0 shooting guard hoisting up 25-30 shots per game.

He's a great player, but again, just not one that can carry his own team to a Championship. He also cannot be a solid role player because he commands the ball to be effective. He can't play off the ball.

[phoenix18]

No team can ever win a title with a 6'0 shooting guard hoisting up 25-30 shots per game.

He's a great player, but again, just not one that can carry his own team to a Championship. He also cannot be a solid role player because he commands the ball to be effective. He can't play off the ball.
:roll: You havent watched him play at all have you?

[Penny37]

:roll: You havent watched him play at all have you?
I have. And he can't play off the ball.

[phoenix18]

I have. And he can't play off the ball.
:oldlol: Just stop. What was he doing all those times that Anthony Carter and Eric Snow brought up the ball? Just chilling? I have seen him play off the ball before and he's not bad. And I honestly dont know what that has to do with being a cancer. Does steve nash or Chris Paul have a good off the ball game?

[Penny37]

:oldlol: Just stop. What was he doing all those times that Anthony Carter and Eric Snow brought up the ball? Just chilling? I have seen him play off the ball before and he's not bad. And I honestly dont know what that has to do with being a cancer. Does steve nash or Chris Paul have a good off the ball game?
First off, I never said he was a cancer. I merely stated that I don't think any team can win with a 6'0 shooting guard hoisting up 30 shots per game.

Secondly, just because he's not the point guard and doesn't bring the ball up doesn't mean he can play off the ball. They have nothing to do with each other.

Thirdly, Nash and Paul are point guards who have pass first mentalities.

The bottom line is that he needs the ball in his hands to be effective. Not unlike many other superstars in the NBA, only difference is he's just not as good as the other superstars in the League.

[dj ys]

Penny37, I grew up in Philly watching almost every Sixers game in the last 10 years. After 99 till about 04, a major part of Iverson's game was coming off double picks from one wing to the other for the jumper or then taking it to the hole. He wasn't the most efficient but he certainly could and DID play off the ball alot.

Does everyone think he wen't iso 30 times a game to get his buckets lol?

[sick_brah07]

iverson isn't a cancer, he just dribles the ball too much simple as that

[King Baron]

He came to a 76ers team that had won just 18 games the year before and hadn't won more than 26 games since Charles Barkley left in '93. By his 2nd year they had won 31 games and by his 3rd year they finished 28-22 in the strike shortened season and they made it to the 2nd round. The following year Philly won 49 games and again made it to the second round. Then Philly wins 56 games, gets the number 1 seed and advances all the way to the finals. They became the only team to beat the 2001 Lakers in the playoffs thanks to Iverson's 48 point game 1. Although they'd lose in 5 games that was still a hell of a season.

The following season Philly fell to 43 wins and lost in the first round, but Iverson did miss 22 games and played through an injury he probably shouldn't have in the playoffs. The team was 36-24 with Iverson in the lineup, on pace for 49/50 wins. The following season with Iverson back in the lineup for 82 games they won 48 games and made it to the second round again. Iverson's 2004 season was plagued by injuries that forced him to miss 34 games and Philly won just 33 games that season. Iverson was healthy the following year and Philly won 43 games again and they made it to the playoffs. Philly would have a losing season in 2006 and Iverson would be traded in December of the following year. But for the most part, Philly was a good team during Iverson's career there.

Some refer to his tenure as a Nugget as a reason why he's a cancer, but I don't see that either. They had to adjust midseason and Iverson sacrificed his game. Here are Iverson's stats after Carmelo returned.

23.7 ppg, 3.2 rpg, 7 apg, 1.7 spg, 45.4 FG%, 18 FGA

Iverson was taking just 18 shots instead of the 25+ he often took on Philly and his FG% rose to over 45% instead of his usual 42% and under. He averaged under 24 ppg instead of 30+. Iverson sacrificed his game after the trade more than Carmelo did. Many people mention Carmelo's stats dropping, but he was still scoring the majority of the points after he returned. Here are his numbers.

27.8 ppg, 6.5 rpg, 3.7 apg, 1.0 spg, 46 FG%, 21.5 FGA

The biggest difference from his stats prior to the suspension was his FGA.

31.2 ppg, 5.2 rpg, 4.1 apg, 1.5 spg, 50.3 FG%, 24 FGA

So unless you want to blame Iverson for Carmelo taking 21.5 shots instead of 24 then I don't see any reason to fault Iverson here. They did go just 25-20 after Anthony returned, but Iverson missed 8 games during that time making it even harder to get used to playing with eachother. They were just developing some chemistry in April as they went 10-1 to end the regular season and then beat the Spurs in game 1 of the playoffs. Unfortunately, the eventual champion Spurs were too much for Denver. There was a difference in their playoff performances, though.

Anthony- 26.8 ppg, 8.6 rpg, 1.2 apg, 1 spg, 48 FG%, 19.6 FGA
Iverson- 22.8 ppg, 0.6 rpg, 5.8 apg, 1.4 spg, 36.8 FG%, 22.8 FGA

Regardless, nobody expected them to beat the Spurs.

In their second season together Iverson stepped up from the number 2 option and they were more of a 1A/1B duo.

Allen Iverson- 26.4 ppg, 3 rpg, 7.1 apg, 2 spg, 45.8 FG%, 19 FGA
Carmelo Anthony- 25.7 ppg, 7.4 rpg, 3.4 apg, 1.3 spg, 49.2 FG%, 19.2 FGA

They won 50 games and still just finished with the 8th seed. It's kind of hard to fault him much for that. This time it was Anthony who had the worse playoff series vs the eventual Western Conference champion Lakers.

Anthony- 22.5 ppg, 9.5 rpg, 2 apg, 0.5 spg, 36.4 FG%, 22 FGA
Iverson- 24.5 ppg, 3 rpg, 4.5 apg, 1 spg, 43.4 FG%, 20.8 FGA

Then people love to cite the Detroit/Denver situation as a reason why Iverson is a cancer. But it's not as simple as some make it out to be.

Denver got Nene back for a full season and he gave them 15/8 with more than a steal and block per game on 60% shooting. They also added Chris Anderson and George Karl made a point of focusing more on defense heading into the season. Billups is more suited for that because he's bigger at 6'3" and easily 200 pounds and he's more of a point guard. Dahntay Jones also helped the defense. If anything, why don't more people point out why Denver lost the supposed defensive player of the year and their defense got much better? The team also went 9-7 without Carmelo Anthony in the lineup. They only won just 4 more games than the previous year. They were just lucky not to face the Lakers in the first round. They'd lose to basically that same Lakers team in the Western Conference Finals.

As far as Detroit, well we have to factor in their rookie coach who got fired after the season, the declining play of Rasheed Wallace and the fact that they just didn't have a system that fit Iverson's style of play. Iverson is also 33/34 years old.

So what exactly makes Iverson a cancer? He won 48 games or more 3 times in PHilly and he won 6 playoff series there. He won 50 games in Denver and sacrificed his game when he got there. Did you expect them to beat the Spurs or Lakers? I guess one bad season in Detroit ruins his career for some. :rolleyes:

Excellent post, repped

[dyna]

No team can ever win a title with a 6'0 shooting guard hoisting up 25-30 shots per game.

He's a great player, but again, just not one that can carry his own team to a Championship. He also cannot be a solid role player because he commands the ball to be effective. He can't play off the ball.

But what is your point??
Karl Malone, Ewing and alot of other great players had not been in championships team.

So are they cancer for that??

[momo]

I was going to joke "free radicals" but richie's post is too dam good to try and pull off the joke...


People call Iverson a cancer because:

1. They aren't educated enough on him to know why he isn't one
2. They look at his FGA and FG% and immediately jump to conclusions
3. They see a 6 foot 30 ppg scorer and immediately label him a chucking ballhog
4. People love to hate

I've made post after post defending AI but I'm really getting tired of it. People don't know how to fold up the agenda and put it in their pocket and have a logical discussion. If there were people on here who actually have legitimate reasons as to why they think AI hurts teams I'd be willing and able to argue against that but people like that are damn hard to find. It's really not worth arguing - AI will always be hated on ISH.

Reped.

[imlmf]

because no team can win a championship with him being a major part of the rotation, and he hasn't prove otherwise

[iamgine]

Back in Philly, his playoff record barring that 1 year going to the finals was 17-23. But I think he was still considered pretty good in Philly before traded to Denver.

In Denver, there was just such a huge expectation for him and he failed to deliver. He was supposed to be the team leader and facilitator ala Billups. Instead they only won 1 game out of 9 playoff matches, and out both seasons in first round. We blamed George Karl for all of this if anyone remember.

People were disappointed, but then he was traded to Detroit, for the same expectation, to lead the team. The term 'cancer' started to be voiced strongly here. When Billups arrived in Denver, they suddenly start winning and when Iverson arrived in Detroit, they suddenly start losing. To make matters worse, as soon as Iverson was injured, Detroit start winning again. And even after that, when asked to do a reduced role, he refused and appeared to act childishly.

The latest reason has been his move to Memphis instead of a contender. This further strengthen people's suspicion that he just care about himself and not the team to win the championship, so to speak.

I don't know if he really is a cancer or not or if any of the reports are true but it is understandable to call him that based on what is reported.

[Richie2k6]

First off he was never a cancer in Philly so I won't even bother going into that.

When he went to Denver, nobody knew what to expect. Half the fans and media thought it would be a complete failure and half the fans and media thought they would got o the WCF. The outcome ended up in between. Many things factored into this. Suspensions, injuries, and of course the fact that everybody had to get accustomed to a new player in AI. Not to mention both times the Nuggets lost in the playoffs, it was against the future winners of the championship. Iverson's shots went down, his points maintained high, his assists maintained high, his field goal percentage went up and they won 50 games.

The Nuggets have never matched up well against the Lakers so losing to them was sort of inevitable. Against the Spurs it was, like I said, suspensions and injuries that led to that team not forming a good chemistry. The team never got a chance to get into a rhythm. Throughout all of Iverson's time in the playoffs his numbers were fine except his FG% in his first playoff series with Denver. Iverson going to Denver was a gamble that didn't pay off. It was nobody's fault, it just wasn't meant to be. Iverson did just about everything he could have done but he just wasn't a good fit there. (And you're damn right George Karl factored into that, even if in a small way).

When he went to Detroit, that was pretty much a pointless thing to do. I'd like to get a few things straight here...

1. Nobody expected AI to come in and rejuvenate the dying Pistons and lead them to a title
2. Nobody expected AI to come in and average 10 assists
3. The team didn't get worse when Iverson arrived, they got worse when Billups LEFT.

I can't stress that last one though. Iverson didn't kill the Pistons, they were already on life support. Billups leaving was the final nail in the coffin that put the Pistons from ECF contenders year in and year out to barely playoff competitors. Bringing in AI was a "hey, maybe this guy can win us a couple more games and sell a few tickets, and if it doesn't work out, we get 20mil in our pockets" type of deal. The fact that AI was in the last year of his contract was an ENORMOUS factor as to why he even went there in the first place. The expectations were never sky high when AI went there, it was a "lets see what happens" situation. And what happened? The Pistons, who were already going down hill, added a player who simply doesn't fit into their style of play. That's not Iverson's fault, that's management's fault. If you don't want an Allen Iverson type of a player on your team, don't bring in Allen Iverson. And Michael Curry sucks, by the way.

On the other hand Billups was the perfect fit for Denver. AND they were getting much better regardless, unlike the Pistons who were doing the opposite. Young guys like Smith and Carmelo were only getting better while guys like Sheed and Rip were only getting worse. Chris Andersen and Nene came back strong while that was barely happening in Detroit. Add in the fact that the Nuggets got what they needed, a true veteran PG, and they were on the road to success.

People need to start realizing the point of a trade. You 1. LOSE a player, you 2. GAIN a player. The Pistons fell apart after number 1. Just because AI didn't put the Nuggets on the road to success like Chauncey, doesn't mean he held them back from it. Cancers kill teams. Iverson never killed teams, he just didn't be the saving grace that took teams to the top. There's a difference.

[magnax1]

No team can ever win a title with a 6'0 shooting guard hoisting up 25-30 shots per game.

He's a great player, but again, just not one that can carry his own team to a Championship. He also cannot be a solid role player because he commands the ball to be effective. He can't play off the ball.
He was actually pretty good playing off the ball in Philly, its just that some really stupid coaches try to play him at point to much and that generally is a horrible thing for the offense. AI at point guard is always a bad thing.

[gpfanz]

When he went to Detroit, that was pretty much a pointless thing to do. I'd like to get a few things straight here...

1. Nobody expected AI to come in and rejuvenate the dying Pistons and lead them to a title


I do not think Pistons brought him in to just make the Playoffs :no:

[iamgine]

First off he was never a cancer in Philly so I won't even bother going into that.

When he went to Denver, nobody knew what to expect. Half the fans and media thought it would be a complete failure and half the fans and media thought they would got o the WCF. The outcome ended up in between. Many things factored into this. Suspensions, injuries, and of course the fact that everybody had to get accustomed to a new player in AI. Not to mention both times the Nuggets lost in the playoffs, it was against the future winners of the championship. Iverson's shots went down, his points maintained high, his assists maintained high, his field goal percentage went up and they won 50 games.

The Nuggets have never matched up well against the Lakers so losing to them was sort of inevitable. Against the Spurs it was, like I said, suspensions and injuries that led to that team not forming a good chemistry. The team never got a chance to get into a rhythm. Throughout all of Iverson's time in the playoffs his numbers were fine except his FG% in his first playoff series with Denver. Iverson going to Denver was a gamble that didn't pay off. It was nobody's fault, it just wasn't meant to be. Iverson did just about everything he could have done but he just wasn't a good fit there. (And you're damn right George Karl factored into that, even if in a small way).

When he went to Detroit, that was pretty much a pointless thing to do. I'd like to get a few things straight here...

1. Nobody expected AI to come in and rejuvenate the dying Pistons and lead them to a title
2. Nobody expected AI to come in and average 10 assists
3. The team didn't get worse when Iverson arrived, they got worse when Billups LEFT.

I can't stress that last one though. Iverson didn't kill the Pistons, they were already on life support. Billups leaving was the final nail in the coffin that put the Pistons from ECF contenders year in and year out to barely playoff competitors. Bringing in AI was a "hey, maybe this guy can win us a couple more games and sell a few tickets, and if it doesn't work out, we get 20mil in our pockets" type of deal. The fact that AI was in the last year of his contract was an ENORMOUS factor as to why he even went there in the first place. The expectations were never sky high when AI went there, it was a "lets see what happens" situation. And what happened? The Pistons, who were already going down hill, added a player who simply doesn't fit into their style of play. That's not Iverson's fault, that's management's fault. If you don't want an Allen Iverson type of a player on your team, don't bring in Allen Iverson. And Michael Curry sucks, by the way.

On the other hand Billups was the perfect fit for Denver. AND they were getting much better regardless, unlike the Pistons who were doing the opposite. Young guys like Smith and Carmelo were only getting better while guys like Sheed and Rip were only getting worse. Chris Andersen and Nene came back strong while that was barely happening in Detroit. Add in the fact that the Nuggets got what they needed, a true veteran PG, and they were on the road to success.

People need to start realizing the point of a trade. You 1. LOSE a player, you 2. GAIN a player. The Pistons fell apart after number 1. Just because AI didn't put the Nuggets on the road to success like Chauncey, doesn't mean he held them back from it. Cancers kill teams. Iverson never killed teams, he just didn't be the saving grace that took teams to the top. There's a difference.
All that doesn't matter. What people see is what they interpret.

And what people see is:

1. Iverson went to Detroit who always make the finals and the franchise just suddenly died, Billups went to a mediocre Denver and they just flourished like crazy.
2. Detroit suddenly winning again when Iverson is out injured.
3. Iverson's childish antics to the already delicate situation.
4. His latest move to the non-contender Memphis.

Surely it's understandable if people say he's a cancer. It might not be true, but surely not too far reaching. By the way, the term 'cancer' is thrown pretty loosely, no player can kill team by themselves. There's always involvement from management.

[stephanieg]

Cancer? That's a bit melodramatic.

Iverson is a modern day Maravich.

He combines high usage with low efficiency and high turn overs. And bad defense. To the casual fan this doesn't matter because he scores a lot of points, is very entertaining while doing so, and carries himself with a lot of bravado. But he is not an MVP or all time caliber player when seriously analyzed.

At the same time we can appreciate his abilities while understanding the above, intellectually speaking. Like Maravich.

[Richie2k6]

All that doesn't matter.
How does that "not matter"?

What people see is what they interpret.
So because people judge a situation and not look at it deeper, what they judge is right? Okay then, that's a great philosophy to live by.

1. Iverson went to Detroit who always make the finals and the franchise just suddenly died, Billups went to a mediocre Denver and they just flourished like crazy.
Just addressed this in my post. I don't see why you try to simplify it in a way that makes Iverson look bad. I just explained the entire situation yet you're dwindling it down to a couple of sentences that summarize to Iverson being a cancer. That's not fair at all.

2. Detroit suddenly winning again when Iverson is out injured.
What are the numbers for this, I'm curious to know what exactly they are.

3. Iverson's childish antics to the already delicate situation.
I wouldn't say that a 25ppg 7apg player saying he deserves to start is childish. Saying he'd retire if he didn't start is a bit too much though.

4. His latest move to the non-contender Memphis.
This has nothing to do with him being a cancer, it's because there aren't many teams that want him. Doesn't mean he hurt teams, just means there's no team out there that is a fit for him.

[RedZiggyZag]

Calling him a Cancer is overreacting and it's something your average fan that doesn't look inside the scenes enough to make a serious judgement. It's obviously reasonable to call him a cancer though.

I mean he hasn't won anything....Here reasons why people call him a cancer, I don't feel this way, but these reasons seem to be pretty reasonable.

1. He hasn't been relevant to winning since 2001.
2. 1996 - Allen Iverson + 4 wins, That's what happened after Iverson was drafted, and that doesn't look good if you compare him to other 1st overall pick rookies.
3. He failed to win the 2004 Gold Medal, despite having a pretty dominant team and that was the only time he was actually apart of the US Team
4. Carmelo Anthony's scoring went down when Iverson arrived, Melo was the scoring leader at that point before Iverson came.
5. Iverson missed the playoffs with the 76ers for the last 2 seasons with the 76ers, but one season after Iverson left, the 76ers made the playoffs
6. Pistons became irrelevant and the most inconsistent team in the league when Iverson arrived.

If you don't think it's reasonable, you might be too big of an AI fan, but Cancer or Not Cancer, it's certainly debatable.

[AmoebaD]

his mere presence eats teams from the inside out. the immune system of his teammates, and coaches and staff for that matter, have been shown to deteriorate the longer he is with his current host team. once he has been dispelled from the blood stream, he just moves on to the next victim.

he is more of a flesh eating virus or dustin hoffman outbreak kinda deal.

[G.O.A.T]

Allen Iverson is a special player, the smallest MVP ever and the smallest single superstar to lead a team to the finals.

He is not nor has he ever been a cancer as a team mate.

He has however reached a point of his career where his negative attributes could attract a lot more attention the his positive one if he's not careful.

He is a selfish person by nature, but not as a basketball player.

People are going to like and dislike AI for the following reasons:

1) We're talking about Practice...-That's pisses people off. they argue he makes millions of dollars for playing a game and he can't even show up when he is supposed to" Yes that's an endlessly flawed argument, but it's a popular feeling that casual fans of the game have and fuel for the fire for haters. fuel he provided.

2) Stats...-You can make an argument that he is a great passer or a ball hog based on stats, that he's a great scorer or a super chucker. If you watched him play at his best you'd now the truth, but when you haven't it's easy to make assumptions.

3) Detroit...-It was not his fault. Richie hit the nail on the head, the Pistons got worse and the Nuggets better because of Billups, not Iverson. Billups is not the player Iverson is skill wise but his strengths compliment a team much better then Iverson's. Iverson's mistake in Detroit was refusing to accept his role and quiting on the team. That will be unforgivable for a lot of people.

At this point of his career he is a bench player but his ego won't let him accept that. He's not a bench player because he's not good enough to start, but because that's where his skill set best fits within the construct of a good team.

He has broken down over the last two years as you'd expect from a player who gave everything he had all the time prior to that. He can't carry a team anymore and he knows no other way to play. He can however carry a second unit and give you a playmaker in the clutch and in the postseason.

In the 80's and 90's guys like Eddie Johnson, Ricky Pierce, Kevin McHale and many more great offensive players moved to the bench in the late stages of their career and became very vital parts of very good teams.

[Richie2k6]

4. Carmelo Anthony's scoring went down when Iverson arrived, Melo was the scoring leader at that point before Iverson came.
This is the most useless fact I've seen in this thread. It means absolutely nothing. Carmelo's FG% and 3PT% both went UP when Iverson arrived. Plus Iverson's FG% went up, and the Nuggets won 50 games. Nobody cares that Melo's PPG went down by 3. If you asked Melo I'm sure he'd gladly take 50 wins and 26 ppg over 45 wins and 29 ppg. This is like penalizing Pau Gasol for making Kobe's PPG go down when he arrived. It's completely irrelevant because it helped the team.

6. Pistons became irrelevant and the most inconsistent team in the league when Iverson arrived.
...Which they were going to be doing regardless.

[oh the horror]

Wasnt there a series of games where Hamilton went down, and Iverson was in, and the Pistons were also winning games then as well?

[G.O.A.T]

Wasnt there a series of games where Hamilton went down, and Iverson was in, and the Pistons were also winning games then as well?

Exactly.

They were at their best when either Hamilton or Iverson were inactive because both were unhappy off the bench or splitting minutes.

[iamgine]

Calling him a Cancer is overreacting and it's something your average fan that doesn't look inside the scenes enough to make a serious judgement. It's obviously reasonable to call him a cancer though.

I mean he hasn't won anything....Here reasons why people call him a cancer, I don't feel this way, but these reasons seem to be pretty reasonable.

1. He hasn't been relevant to winning since 2001.
2. 1996 - Allen Iverson + 4 wins, That's what happened after Iverson was drafted, and that doesn't look good if you compare him to other 1st overall pick rookies.
3. He failed to win the 2004 Gold Medal, despite having a pretty dominant team and that was the only time he was actually apart of the US Team
4. Carmelo Anthony's scoring went down when Iverson arrived, Melo was the scoring leader at that point before Iverson came.
5. Iverson missed the playoffs with the 76ers for the last 2 seasons with the 76ers, but one season after Iverson left, the 76ers made the playoffs
6. Pistons became irrelevant and the most inconsistent team in the league when Iverson arrived.

If you don't think it's reasonable, you might be too big of an AI fan, but Cancer or Not Cancer, it's certainly debatable.
+1

Like I said, what people see is what they interpret. It's really open to interpretation. There's no real 'right' one.

For example, people can interpret, "why wasn't Iverson willing to change the way he play to benefit the team as he get older. Or come from the bench for the team? What a selfish ass. Skipping practice, not willing to play defense, no wonder he get thrown around like a worthless scrub."

The evidence are kinda stacked against him. It's definitely reasonable.

[chocolatethunder]

First off he was never a cancer in Philly so I won't even bother going into that.


I guess you don't live in Philly. How about that great rookie season of his under Johnnie Davis? Him just hoisting up shots to get his stupid roookie record. You think his teammates liked that? They didn't. How about him being a constant NO SHOW to practice. Were you aware of that? I'm sure you were. I heard Billy King talking about it on 610 a few weeks ago. He said that he would cover for him constantly with Larry Brown, but I'm sure that you knew that. Did you know that none of his teammates liked him? I know someone that played with him in Philly and I know him well and he wasn't liked. Every year he would give the same press conference about doing whatever the team needed him to do, blah, blah, blah and then he would continue to miss practice. Do you think that Jordan, Bird and Magic skipped practice intentionally because they thought they were so much better than the rest of the team? I don't think so. So yeah, Iverson was quite a problem in Philadelphia. Did he have a great year during their finals run? Absolutely. Is he a franchise destroyer? No. But you nutriders that worship him here are smoking something for real.

Why do you think it was so difficult for him to get a job? Think about it. If he was so valuable why did Memphis sign him? Think off all the teams that could use a great player. Teams that need a push to get them over the top. If he's all of those things that you claim him to be, then surely one of those teams would have signed him. Don't give me that b u l l s h i t line that he wasn't the right fit. If Deron Williams was a free agent and could be had for 3mil New Orleans would sign him in a minute. Any team would because he's that good.

[Richie2k6]

I guess you don't live in Philly. How about that great rookie season of his under Johnnie Davis? Him just hoisting up shots to get his stupid roookie record. You think his teammates liked that? They didn't.
You do realize that there have been TONS of rookies that come into the league and score a lot and not win many games, right? That's part of being a rookie. It's a learning experience.

Did you know that none of his teammates liked him?
That's a pretty good exaggeration.

Why do you think it was so difficult for him to get a job? Think about it. If he was so valuable why did Memphis sign him? Think off all the teams that could use a great player. Teams that need a push to get them over the top. If he's all of those things that you claim him to be, then surely one of those teams would have signed him.
He's a hard player to build around and requires a certain type of team to be successful. It's really that simple. I never "claimed him to be" some spectacular player that 25 teams would want on their roster. I'm simply saying he's not a cancer.

If Deron Williams was a free agent and could be had for 3mil New Orleans would sign him in a minute. Any team would because he's that good.
Yes and because he's a mid-20 year old prototypical PG who is very easy to build around because of his style of play. That's just not Iverson. It's not hard to comprehend.

[ShaqAttack3234]

I'll bump this to defend Iverson's current situation. He goes to a bad team that is losing and he finds himself sitting on the bench behind Michael Conley.

Now that'd be fine if Conley was actually playing well and they were winning, but that was not the case. Conley for the year has averaged 8/5 on 37% shooting.

Iverson wasn't just out there chucking up bad shots either. In just 22 mpg in his 3 games with the Grizzlies he averaged 12/4 on 58% shooting. Is Iverson the only hall of fame player who would be bothered by this situation?

Memphis looked like a bad situation from the start. I predicted that it wouldn't end up well and Iverson would be blamed(look at my first post on the second page of this thread).

I really hope he ends up playing for Charlotte because I think he could be successful there. I would've liked to see him in NY as well, but that's not going to happen. A 6th man for the Celtics could also be a great role for him if he accepted it. They'd have a lot of options at the guard positions with Iverson. I could see him being a good fit in Houston as well if the Rockets don't play Tracy McGrady.

[BALLin01]

Damn I just realized Richie2k6 doesn't post anymore.

[Shih508]

3. He failed to win the 2004 Gold Medal, despite having a pretty dominant team and that was the only time he was actually apart of the US Team

If you don't think it's reasonable, you might be too big of an AI fan, but Cancer or Not Cancer, it's certainly debatable.

it just shows u know **** about basketball, 2004 dream team was the worst dream team ever.

prolly most of the team-first superstars in your opinion were the ones who ditched the team and not represented their country, like kobe, kidd, T-mac, ray allen, KG, and etc.

AI and Duncan were the only two who was not scared for going to Greece of terrorist threats and were on the originally roster, rest of team were made up with a bunch of scrubs and rookies.

get the fact straight, the 2004 bronze medal should be one of the stuff that AI should be proud of himself for his whole life cuz he just did so much more for his country comparing to those bandwagoner who only represented their country when olympic was host in the BEIJING

[Shih508]

2008 Redeem team is a joke , it's more like money-digger team. CHINESE MARKET who doesn't WANT IT

[itsGameTime]

"How the hell I'm gon make my teammates better by practicing?!":wtf:

[cotdt]

OJ Mayo is the now latest to say "Our team is better without Iverson" after winning 3 of the last 4 games and being 2-8 with Iverson.

[shaoyut]

Exactly.

They were at their best when either Hamilton or Iverson were inactive because both were unhappy off the bench or splitting minutes.

Michael Curry was stupid for starting Rodney Stuckey....
his FG % is 38.8% this year.

[L.A. Jazz]

I dont know why AI is or should be a cancer.

BUT why is there no team in the NBA that can use a veteran guard who can get around 20ppg? no-one wants him.

it's rediculous and a shame, but who is to blame? the GMs? the coaches? or AI? i dont know, but he should be out there playing.

[kumquat]

He dribbles at the top of the key for 22 second, then either throws up a horrible jumpshot or drives and flails into defenders. Then there's the bail out pass aka the Iverson assist. It's just awful to watch. If you had to play with a guy like Iverson on your team it would be the definition of frustrating

[kumquat]

I dont know why AI is or should be a cancer.

BUT why is there no team in the NBA that can use a veteran guard who can get around 20ppg? no-one wants him.

it's rediculous and a shame, but who is to blame? the GMs? the coaches? or AI? i dont know, but he should be out there playing.


There's 30 teams out there and none of them want a thing to do with Iverson. It sums it up nicely.

How many teams would like to sign a guy like Jason Kidd for $3million......hell even the MLE? Pretty much all 30 teams.

Who's to blame........Iverson

[The GM]

It's easy because he wants to be a number 1 option and I don't see any team that he can play for and be that without disrupting team chemistry or hindering a talent young players development.

[cotdt]

It's easy because he wants to be a number 1 option and I don't see any team that he can play for and be that without disrupting team chemistry or hindering a talent young players development.

That's not true, Iverson said he would be a bench player if the starter in front of him was better than he.

[Younggrease]

because no team can win a championship with him being a major part of the rotation, and he hasn't prove otherwise

John Stockton has failed to prove otherwise as well. Wait there are a ton of guys who failed to prove otherwise

[hoopaddict08]

Michael Curry was stupid for starting Rodney Stuckey....
his FG % is 38.8% this year.

Stupid for starting Stuckey? Stuckey has been in a shooting slump this season. His rebounding and defense have both improved.

His career FG% is 42, it's going to impove.

Why don't you look up the percentage of points players put on Iverson before you start calling Curry stupid.

[The GM]

That's not true, Iverson said he would be a bench player if the starter in front of him was better than he.

he's shown he doesn't want to come off the bench and it's obvious he still thinks he's the A.I from 5-6 years ago when he isn't, why would you want a guy that think's he's better then he is and that want's to jack up 30 shots and wants to be the centerpiece of your team when most teams already have one.

[G.O.A.T]

Re-posting what I said two months ago, I feel like this has all been reinforced by this season for AI.

Allen Iverson is a special player, the smallest MVP ever and the smallest single superstar to lead a team to the finals.

He is not nor has he ever been a cancer as a team mate.

He has however reached a point of his career where his negative attributes could attract a lot more attention the his positive one if he's not careful.

He is a selfish person by nature, but not as a basketball player.

People are going to like and dislike AI for the following reasons:

1) We're talking about Practice...-That's pisses people off. they argue he makes millions of dollars for playing a game and he can't even show up when he is supposed to" Yes that's an endlessly flawed argument, but it's a popular feeling that casual fans of the game have and fuel for the fire for haters. fuel he provided.

2) Stats...-You can make an argument that he is a great passer or a ball hog based on stats, that he's a great scorer or a super chucker. If you watched him play at his best you'd now the truth, but when you haven't it's easy to make assumptions.

3) Detroit...-It was not his fault. Richie hit the nail on the head, the Pistons got worse and the Nuggets better because of Billups, not Iverson. Billups is not the player Iverson is skill wise but his strengths compliment a team much better then Iverson's. Iverson's mistake in Detroit was refusing to accept his role and quiting on the team. That will be unforgivable for a lot of people.

At this point of his career he is a bench player but his ego won't let him accept that. He's not a bench player because he's not good enough to start, but because that's where his skill set best fits within the construct of a good team.

He has broken down over the last two years as you'd expect from a player who gave everything he had all the time prior to that. He can't carry a team anymore and he knows no other way to play. He can however carry a second unit and give you a playmaker in the clutch and in the postseason.

In the 80's and 90's guys like Eddie Johnson, Ricky Pierce, Kevin McHale and many more great offensive players moved to the bench in the late stages of their career and became very vital parts of very good teams

[phoenix18]

OJ Mayo is the now latest to say "Our team is better without Iverson" after winning 3 of the last 4 games and being 2-8 with Iverson.
2-8 with Iverson? How is that even a legit stat?:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

He played three games. Three. How are they 2-8 with him when he only played three games. And who else had the opportunity to say that _____ is better after Iverson left? Not Denver. Not Philly. Not Detroit.

[ShaqAttack3234]

And everyone can't forget that Denver was not a 50 win team before Iverson got there. They didn't get worse with him.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

And everyone can't forget that Denver was not a 50 win team before Iverson got there. They didn't get worse with him.

He sacrificed his game, picking up 6-7 assists and shooting the ball with a good percentage for a guard his size (45-46% iirc). I still think he's capable of putting similar numbers if put into the right system man.

[BALLin01]

And everyone can't forget that Denver was not a 50 win team before Iverson got there. They didn't get worse with him.

Exactly, the man is NOT washed up. Even on Memphis, when he got the minutes he produced. One bad season shouldn't end one of the best of this decade.

[oh the horror]

Iverson wasnt on Memphis long enough to be even close to a "cancer"


A "cancer" of a teammate is someone literally with the team for a PERIOD of time, and over this period, they eat away at the team internally through a series of distracting off the court, on the court, and locker room occurrences.

AI was with the organization for what? A month? Maybe two? Sorry, but that just doesnt work that way. If you want to call him a "cancer"...at least try to form a legitimate argument about how that could be possible in the case of Memphis.

Memphis' problem is just that they flat out stunk.

[BALLin01]

Iverson wasnt on Memphis long enough to be even close to a "cancer"


A "cancer" of a teammate is someone literally with the team for a PERIOD of time, and over this period, they eat away at the team internally through a series of distracting off the court, on the court, and locker room occurrences.

AI was with the organization for what? A month? Maybe two? Sorry, but that just doesnt work that way. If you want to call him a "cancer"...at least try to form a legitimate argument about how that could be possible in the case of Memphis.

Memphis' problem is just that they flat out stunk.

Yup.
:lol @ people saying Iverson messed up the Grizzlies. They've always sucked.

[iggy>]

iverson is a cancer simply because he only cares about himself, which makes him a terrible leader.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Taking a team like the 2001 Sixers team (who were stagnant offensively) to the Finals obviously means he's the "canswer".

What a joke.

[oh the horror]

And legitimately, couldnt Coach Curry also be a cancer, as far as it went down with Detroit?


After the fact, we saw stories about how shady he was, and that the team didnt like him. Lets face it....Coach Curry was an AWFUL choice for that Detroit team. As well as moving Billups. Iverson was thrown into a situation where people expected WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYY too much. And Detroit even SUCKED when Iverson was out as well!

[BALLin01]

The Pistons won 8 straight with Iverson while Hamilton was injured. Does this make Hamilton a cancer as well?

[oh the horror]

The Pistons won 8 straight with Iverson while Hamilton was injured. Does this make Hamilton a cancer as well?



There was really no way to determine successfully if Iverson was some huge "cancer" in Detroit. That team was on a roller coaster all damn season.

One guy would be in, and they'd do well. Then he'd be out, and they'd do well with another, then they'd start losing, then he'd be out, and another would be in and they'd do well, and then they'd do bad.


It was an outrageous season altogether.

[BALLin01]

There was really no way to determine successfully if Iverson was some huge "cancer" in Detroit. That team was on a roller coaster all damn season.

One guy would be in, and they'd do well. Then he'd be out, and they'd do well with another, then they'd start losing, then he'd be out, and another would be in and they'd do well, and then they'd do bad.


It was an outrageous season altogether.

It came down to terrible coaching by Curry, unhappy stars in Hamilton,Iverson, and Wallace and the man that made this team great got traded.

[oh the horror]

It came down to terrible coaching by Curry, unhappy stars in Hamilton,Iverson, and Wallace and the man that made this team great got traded.


Yeah, I couldnt agree more. Yet, somehow AI....due to his past off the court issues, was blamed for damn near the entire meltdown over there.

[BALLin01]

Yeah, I couldnt agree more. Yet, somehow AI....due to his past off the court issues, was blamed for damn near the entire meltdown over there.

I think trading Billups was a terrible move by Joe Dumars. They picked up AI for cap space and all they got was a poor man's Iverson in Gordon and Villanueva.

[Ruslan`]

He isn't

[ShaqAttack3234]

Would love to see him in New York for a year because I'm not holding my breath on the Melo trade, just doesn't seem like it's going to happen this season. He excelled in an up tempo system in Denver and the Knicks could make the playoffs. If not, I keep saying, Iverson in Charlotte would be awesome. I hope he doesn't end up in China. I'll upload Iverson's 50+ game vs the Lakers from 07-08 soon.

[markymark]

Would love to see him in New York for a year because I'm not holding my breath on the Melo trade, just doesn't seem like it's going to happen this season. He excelled in an up tempo system in Denver and the Knicks could make the playoffs. If not, I keep saying, Iverson in Charlotte would be awesome. I hope he doesn't end up in China. I'll upload Iverson's 50+ game vs the Lakers from 07-08 soon.

He'd fit really well in a lot of teams actually.

Unfortunately, Stern and the media are making an extra effort to keep him outta the L.

[kabalcage]

1) He left Denver and they made it to the Conference Finals.
2) Detroit kicked him off the team.
3) Gave one of his teammates cancer.

[markymark]

1) He left Denver and they made it to the Conference Finals.
2) Detroit kicked him off the team.
3) Gave one of his teammates cancer.

I can see you're a very smart dude ;)

[PowerGlove]

Would love to see him in New York for a year because I'm not holding my breath on the Melo trade, just doesn't seem like it's going to happen this season. He excelled in an up tempo system in Denver and the Knicks could make the playoffs. If not, I keep saying, Iverson in Charlotte would be awesome. I hope he doesn't end up in China. I'll upload Iverson's 50+ game vs the Lakers from 07-08 soon.

HD?

PennyCCW already has it up.It's just AI scoring though, not the whole game. Does PennyCCW post here? That dude has the most AI footage on youtube.

[airchibundo507]

Stop looking at Iverson's statistics.

He has a cancerous style of play.

[Yung D-Will]

Stop looking at Iverson's statistics.

He has a cancerous style of play.

Stop talking.
:sleeping :sleeping

[PowerGlove]

Stop looking at Iverson's statistics.

He has a cancerous style of play.
http://typo.graphr.net/images/owl-trippin.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWyPDMrj39g

[airchibundo507]

I've got a class in 10 minutes, so I'll keep this short:

I watched Iverson almost every game when he played for the Nuggets. The guy creates major problems both offensively and defensively for his own team.

AI is an undersized SG. You can get away with playing him at SG in an undersized line-up, but regardless of the matchup he will always get exploited in the post. The best way for him to work at SG is to play him alongside a tall PG that can guard SGs. The Nuggets wasted a lot of time trying to find that kind of player, targeting guys like Kirk Hinrich and experimenting with Steve Blake.

Ultimately, we were forced to play AI at the point guard position, and the characteristics of a point guard don't come natural to him. He doesn't have great court vision or pin-point passing. He throws awkward alley-oops. He can not run a fukking P&R correctly (I mean that in the sense that he doesn't target his big man for an easy lay-up. He is always in score-mode and simply uses the screen to force up a shot or continue his crossover methodoloy. We tried to run the pick-and-roll with Melo and AI, and AI rarely looked to get Melo the ball after its execution.) On top of that, he isn't an ideal off-ball player. He is a streaky outside shooter. If, say Melo dew a double team and kicked it to a wide open AI, AI would refrain from taking the jumpshot a lot of the time, intent instead on dribbling. Don't get me started on this dude's dribbling. He could dribble out an entire shot clock. His entire scoring method is so unorthodox. He dribbled more than any other player in the league in his prime, just looking to cross his defender over and get to the basket.

On a positive note, he was a good scorer. He wasn't always efficient (speaking mainly of his pre-Nugget days), but he could get initiate contact and get to the line. He was explosive and could light up without warning. But in his prime and even for a for years after, he couldn't play on a team unless he was going to be the number one guy and have the ball in his hands all time. He doesn't know how to be a second option.

[airchibundo507]

Also, he couldn't play legitimate man defense. He would gamble for steals more than any fukking player I have ever seen in my life. It rubbed off on the other Nuggets to the point where our defense was utter sh*t. It so haphazard and chaotic---the worst I've ever seen. Our defense would literally get broken down on every possession. So many risky gambles and missed rotations. The opposition could expect to get an open jumpshot by simply passing the ball a few times. Camby was DPOY and racked up blocks because of how easy it was for the opposition to get to the basket.

(Go look up links of the 07-08 series against the Lakers. Jesus, an average team could look like great passers against us. The f*kking Lakers set up a passing clinic. I swear that they passed circles around the Nuggets' heads, looking like the fukking Globetrotters.)

It should have been no shock that a simple CB/AI swap added immediate structure to our defense. We played high-level, intense defense with CB for an entire year.

[airchibundo507]

And don't give me that bullsh*t that AI was a passer or could pass well because he averaged 7+ apg. Any perimeter player with that high of a usage rate should put up that many f*cking assists a game. The guy handled the ball nearly every possession and played 40+ minutes a game. He had to share the ball more in Denver, but he also played at a faster pace.

[LA KB24]

^ negged.

[markymark]

airchibundo, is it your period?

[airchibundo507]

^ negged.

Why? If you disagree, argue. Don't neg me just because our views differ.

[gts]

And don't give me that bullsh*t that AI was a passer or could pass well because he averaged 7+ apg. Any perimeter player with that high of a usage rate should put up that many f*cking assists a game. The guy handled the ball nearly every possession and played 40+ minutes a game. He had to share the ball more in Denver, but he also played at a faster pace.
his usage rate was lower than melos, yet his offensive rating was higher, he had the 5th lowest turnover percentage and he was also the only player to play all 82 games while leading the team in win shares yet he's the cancer... sounds more like a system problem that didn't take advantage of what they had

[ZenMaster]

his usage rate was lower than melos, yet his offensive rating was higher, he had the 5th lowest turnover percentage and he was also the only player to play all 82 games while leading the team in win shares yet he's the cancer... sounds more like a system problem that didn't take advantage of what they had

A guy making a rant about something (practice) which is the most important part of a teams success is horrible.

Seriously, "how the hell am I supposed to make my teammates better by practicing?" AI might have played at a very high level, but he's totally unaware when it comes to team ball, it's sad.

[LA KB24]

http://blog.pennlive.com/lvsports/2007/08/iverson.jpg

[PHILA]

Go look up links of the 07-08 series against the Lakers.

Perhaps if franchise player Anthony showed up in that series it may have been extended beyond 4 games. :facepalm

22.5 ppg, 9.5 rpg, 2.0 apg, 36% FG, 3 TO

[ShaqAttack3234]

HD?

PennyCCW already has it up.It's just AI scoring though, not the whole game. Does PennyCCW post here? That dude has the most AI footage on youtube.

Quality is good, not sure by what standards, though, I've never been too picky with that stuff.

I meant the whole game, too. Entertaining game in it's entirety with Denver's fast-paced style and Kobe in arguably his best year as well as the Iverson/Melo duo.


his usage rate was lower than melos, yet his offensive rating was higher, he had the 5th lowest turnover percentage and he was also the only player to play all 82 games while leading the team in win shares yet he's the cancer... sounds more like a system problem that didn't take advantage of what they had

Got pretty far in this thread without advanced stats, oh well.

[airchibundo507]

Perhaps if franchise player Anthony showed up in that series it may have been extended beyond 4 games. :facepalm

22.5 ppg, 9.5 rpg, 2.0 apg, 36% FG, 3 TO

The Nuggets shot 25% from behind the arc. The Lakers sent double/triple teams at him and their size smothered him in the paint.

[airchibundo507]

his usage rate was lower than melos, yet his offensive rating was higher, he had the 5th lowest turnover percentage and he was also the only player to play all 82 games while leading the team in win shares yet he's the cancer... sounds more like a system problem that didn't take advantage of what they had

I will agree that Denver has no system, and we still don't hitherto. It's just that AI and Melo cannot work together. They score in the same area and there's not optimal spacing for either to do their own things. Neither is a great outside shooter and neither is a great passer (for their respective positions).

[kizut1659]

Ironically, I think he was a cancer in Philly but not so much in Denver. It is simply unjustifiable for a player to attemp 24-25 shots per game when he is shooting 40-41%.

I personally think Iverson's 2001 MVP was a a bit of travesty, with Iverson shooting 42% on 25.5 shots and averaging only 5.6 assists. Yes, Philly won the East, but they had a good record in 12 games when Iverson did not even play. Also, if you look at their season closer, Iverson averaged only about 20-21 shots per game in the first two month of the season, when Philly won 10 straight and was like 20 and 4 overall. Then, Iverson gradually raised his shot attempts to high 20s/low 30s. Philly continued to win but at a lesser percentage than before. The bottom line is that Iverson deserves some of the credit of the 2001 run, but a lot of the team's success was due to Larry Brown, good defense, weaker Eastern conference, and the refs handing Philly the series against Milwakeee.

I guess my overall point is that as evidenced from Iverson's "best season," Iverson shot a lot not for the good of the team but because of who he is. Part of the reason Philly never had a good 2nd option during Iverson's tenure there is because Iverson did not want it - hence trades of Stackhouse and Hughes.

It really irritated me in the early 2000s how Kobe Bryant was the poster child for selfish-play when he average less attempts and shot a higher % than Iverson. Of course, Kobe WAS (and is) selfish but i think Iverson had him beat. Can you imagine Iverson coeexisting with Shaq at all - even for a season?

Ironically, i think in Denver Iverson played ok - there is nothing wrong with shooting 19-20 shots a game on 45%. . . .so i find it kind of funny that Iverson developed a selfishness reputation when he actually finally became less selfish than in his "glory" days in Philly.

[chips93]

Ironically, I think he was a cancer in Philly but not so much in Denver. It is simply unjustifiable for a player to attemp 24-25 shots per game when he is shooting 40-41%.

I personally think Iverson's 2001 MVP was a a bit of travesty, with Iverson shooting 42% on 25.5 shots and averaging only 5.6 assists. Yes, Philly won the East, but they had a good record in 12 games when Iverson did not even play. Also, if you look at their season closer, Iverson averaged only about 20-21 shots per game in the first two month of the season, when Philly won 10 straight and was like 20 and 4 overall. Then, Iverson gradually raised his shot attempts to high 20s/low 30s. Philly continued to win but at a lesser percentage than before. The bottom line is that Iverson deserves some of the credit of the 2001 run, but a lot of the team's success was due to Larry Brown, good defense, weaker Eastern conference, and the refs handing Philly the series against Milwakeee.


im not neccessarily arguing with you but, might it not be iverson thinking that his team isnt doing as well, so he needs to be more aggresive for his team to win,

what i am saying is he might be taking more shots because they arent playing as well, not neccesarily they arent playing as well because hes taking more shots,

chicken and egg i guess

[Sampsonsimpson]

People look at Iverson and think that all he does is throw the ball up and score but thats not the case. Iverson was a great all around player and at 6'0 thats saying a lot. Look at his 04-05 season

PPG APG RPG SPG FG% FT% 3P%
30.7 7.9 4.0 2.4 42% 83% 30%

30 a game with almost 8 assists and 4 rebounds, not to mention over 2 steals. People look at 42% fg and forget that he was 6 feet tall and had jack shit for teammates in Philly, its amazing that they even made the playoffs as many times as they did.

[kizut1659]

People look at Iverson and think that all he does is throw the ball up and score but thats not the case. Iverson was a great all around player and at 6'0 thats saying a lot. Look at his 04-05 season

PPG APG RPG SPG FG% FT% 3P%
30.7 7.9 4.0 2.4 42% 83% 30%

30 a game with almost 8 assists and 4 rebounds, not to mention over 2 steals. People look at 42% fg and forget that he was 6 feet tall and had jack shit for teammates in Philly, its amazing that they even made the playoffs as many times as they did.

Iverson wanted to have jack shit for teamates. I find it interesting how all other superstars playing on bad teams pressure the front office to make trades for other allstards, but Iverson never did - even though he certainly had no problems bitching publicly about other issues (such as practitice). That said, i think iverson in 2005 had a better season than in 2001, when he averaged only 4.6 assists.

[kizut1659]

im not neccessarily arguing with you but, might it not be iverson thinking that his team isnt doing as well, so he needs to be more aggresive for his team to win,

what i am saying is he might be taking more shots because they arent playing as well, not neccesarily they arent playing as well because hes taking more shots,

chicken and egg i guess

I looked at his log for the year and its hard to tell. Philly sometimes won when he shot 4 for 10 and lost when he shot 8 for 27. My theory is that he jacked up his shot attempts because: 1) untill the all-star break hat year, Kobe was leading the scoring race; and 2) Iverson figured that the team was good enough to win even if he shoots a ton and the more he shoots, the higher his scoring average would be, and the more credit he is going to get.

[chips93]

I looked at his log for the year and its hard to tell. Philly sometimes won when he shot 4 for 10 and lost when he shot 8 for 27. My theory is that he jacked up his shot attempts because: 1) untill the all-star break hat year, Kobe was leading the scoring race; and 2) Iverson figured that the team was good enough to win even if he shoots a ton and the more he shoots, the higher his scoring average would be, and the more credit he is going to get.

all very distinct possibilities, really nobody really understands what truly drives someone

personally i think iverson was a hyper competitive guy who either genuinely believed practicing wouldn't be beneficial, or he was just lazy and in denial of the fact that it would help

but to his shot attempts, i honestly think he just didnt trust anybody, he grew up dirt poor like couldnt pay bills, father in and out of jail kinda poor, so he grew tough and grew to not trust ppl, so he wouldn't trust someone else to take shots and determine the teams fate, and consequentially his fate so he took lots of shots, although i dont think he would admit it

in denver when he took less shots, he must have realised it was the only way to win was to trust melo

and then in detroit he felt like he didnt matter, his competitiveness kicks in and he needs to prove hes still a great player when really he isnt

all in all i think iverson was mostly trying to win, he just wasnt programmed to win team basketball

its a damn shame about how the last few years have gone for him

[ShaqAttack3234]

Iverson wanted to have jack shit for teamates. I find it interesting how all other superstars playing on bad teams pressure the front office to make trades for other allstards, but Iverson never did - even though he certainly had no problems bitching publicly about other issues (such as practitice). That said, i think iverson in 2005 had a better season than in 2001, when he averaged only 4.6 assists.

Based on what I saw watching the games, Iverson peaked in 2001.

But to shed some light on the stats, here are some reasons for the increase in assists.

1.In 2001, he played SG and played off the ball more, in 2005, he played PG and had the ball in his hands more. Part of this was due to the '01 Sixers having Eric Snow(7.4 apg) who could set up the offense and 6th man Aaron McKie(5 apg). The 2005 Sixers had no players like that.

2.The 2005 Sixers played at a faster pace with a pace factor of 94.9 while the 2001 Sixers had a pace factor of 90.6.

3.Despite being a better team, the 2001 Sixers didn't have a 3 point shooter like Kyle Korver who was one of the best 3 point shooters in '05 and in general, the '05 team was a much better 3 point shooting team.

4.You can't forget that he averaged 4.6 TO in '05 compared to 3.3 in '01.

5.I believe less contact was allowed on perimeter players in '05 compared to '01 and defenses were better in '01. The league average defensive rating in '01 was 103, while it was 106.1 in '05.

Edit: :roll: at some tool neg repping me and signing it practice.

[kizut1659]

Based on what I saw watching the games, Iverson peaked in 2001.

But to shed some light on the stats, here are some reasons for the increase in assists.

1.In 2001, he played SG and played off the ball more, in 2005, he played PG and had the ball in his hands more. Part of this was due to the '01 Sixers having Eric Snow(7.4 apg) who could set up the offense and 6th man Aaron McKie(5 apg). The 2005 Sixers had no players like that.

2.The 2005 Sixers played at a faster pace with a pace factor of 94.9 while the 2001 Sixers had a pace factor of 90.6.

3.Despite being a better team, the 2001 Sixers didn't have a 3 point shooter like Kyle Korver who was one of the best 3 point shooters in '05 and in general, the '05 team was a much better 3 point shooting team.

4.You can't forget that he averaged 4.6 TO in '05 compared to 3.3 in '01.

5.I believe less contact was allowed on perimeter players in '05 compared to '01 and defenses were better in '01. The league average defensive rating in '01 was 103, while it was 106.1 in '05.

Edit: :roll: at some tool neg repping me and signing it practice.

All good points, which if anything lower my opinion of Iverson since again, I personally disliked the way he played in 2001 season and based on superficial stats thought he played slightly more of the right way in 2005. For the life of me, i still don't understand why he got so much props for his 2000-2001 play, occasionally dynamic as it was.

[kizut1659]

all very distinct possibilities, really nobody really understands what truly drives someone

personally i think iverson was a hyper competitive guy who either genuinely believed practicing wouldn't be beneficial, or he was just lazy and in denial of the fact that it would help

but to his shot attempts, i honestly think he just didnt trust anybody, he grew up dirt poor like couldnt pay bills, father in and out of jail kinda poor, so he grew tough and grew to not trust ppl, so he wouldn't trust someone else to take shots and determine the teams fate, and consequentially his fate so he took lots of shots, although i dont think he would admit it

in denver when he took less shots, he must have realised it was the only way to win was to trust melo

and then in detroit he felt like he didnt matter, his competitiveness kicks in and he needs to prove hes still a great player when really he isnt

all in all i think iverson was mostly trying to win, he just wasnt programmed to win team basketball

its a damn shame about how the last few years have gone for him

Iverson never struck me as a stupid guy, so i wonder how he though a team can win with one guy shooting 25 fgs on 41% shooting and no other teamate averaging as much as 15 points . At the very least, he must have realized there is no way he is going to win like this by 2003, and yet he pretty much continued to play the same way untill his trade to Denver. thats why while i realize one can never truly know the other person's motiviations, i believe Iverson cared about indidual stats more than winning, even though obviously winning would be a nice bonus to him. Him growing up poor is not that much of an excuse since thats a story with a lot of NBA stars.

[sodapop]

Iverson is not a cancer to a team. He's a cancer to himself most of the time. AI haven't learn how to balance out his emotions and thoughts. He is very productive, highly determined and in most cases, too hard on himself. His high expectations fail every time. For example, just like a kid dreaming of a new bike for Christmas. Kid noticed a huge box under the Christmas tree with his name on it. Automatically the kid get his hopes up. Run out the door to brag and tell his friends about the bike he's getting for Christmas. To him, the deal is sealed. On Christmas day, the kid opened all the other presents and left the big gift for last. Since he was a good kid all year, he feels deep down inside he deserve a bike for Christmas - nothing more or less. Now it's time for the big gift! The kid ripped through the wrapping paper and got to the box. And the box is opened! What's inside? It's something else he requested for Christmas and not a bike.

Iverson isn't a cancer to a team. He puts too much of himself to a team and the team never match his high expectations.

[comerb]

People call Iverson a cancer because:

They look at his FGA and FG% and immediately

...


label him a chucking ballhog




Fixed it for ya. That's all he was, a chucking ballhog. He made bad teams better, and good teams worse.

Seriously, the dude had 2 seasons where he finished below 40%. That's pretty terrible for someone averaging 30 a game.

Not to take anything away from the effort he put into the game. He worked his ass off, but he was what he was.

[airchibundo507]

Okay, ShaqAttack. I got a little too emotional in my posts earlier. The truth is that Iverson has a cancerous effect because:

(1) He is very difficult to build around. He is an extremely undersized shooting guard that can't play as a point guard in a traditional offense. Forcing him to play as the point that he will force the ball more and get his teammates involved less.

(2) He doesn't play a lick of defense.

(3) He asserts himself as a first option scorer wherever he goes.

(4) His style of play isn't conducive to the development of the young talent around him. As in, he pounds to the ball and effectively forces his teammates into spot-up shooting after he draws the double.

[PowerGlove]

Okay, ShaqAttack. I got a little too emotional in my posts earlier. The truth is that Iverson has a cancerous effect because:

(1) He is very difficult to build around. He is an extremely undersized shooting guard that can't play as a point guard in a traditional offense. Forcing him to play as the point that he will force the ball more and get his teammates involved less.

(2) He doesn't play a lick of defense.

(3) He asserts himself as a first option scorer wherever he goes.

(4) His style of play isn't conducive to the development of the young talent around him. As in, he pounds to the ball and effectively forces his teammates into spot-up shooting after he draws the double.
:facepalm

1) Has no merit

2) is definitely an exaggeration

3)Wrong

4)You are saying that him passing to a wide open player for a jump shot is not good for their developement?

[BallsOut]

:facepalm

4)You are saying that him passing to a wide open player for a jump shot is not good for their developement?

If I played with a guy that dribbled the ball around the court for 20 seconds while I just stood around and watch him, I'd think that would be bad for my development too.

That's AI ball for ya. Little ball movement, lots of dribbling, and the result is either an AI layup, 2FTs, an assist to someone, or more often than not, a contested layup, a fallaway jumpshot or a rushed missed open shot to the player he kicks it to, because of the timing and pressure of the shot clock.

[PowerGlove]

If I played with a guy that dribbled the ball around the court for 20 seconds while I just stood around and watch him, I'd think that would be bad for my development too.

That's AI ball for ya. Little ball movement, lots of dribbling, and the result is either an AI layup, 2FTs, an assist to someone, or more often than not, a contested layup, a fallaway jumpshot or a rushed missed open shot to the player he kicks it to, because of the timing and pressure of the shot clock.

Meh, if you are that lazy, you aren't going to develop at all. Just because someone is dribbling doesnt mean your shoes are made of concrete. Move without the ball. It's pretty dumb to blame a player for dribbling for 20 seconds(which doesn't happen that often, I have no clue where he got that from) when his teammates just stand there like statues.

[seoerizer]

People always say that Allen Iverson is a "me first" player, but in my defense, have they ever looked at his assist statistics? He has averaged more than 7 assists for almost all his career.

[Ikill]

If I played with a guy that dribbled the ball around the court for 20 seconds while I just stood around and watch him, I'd think that would be bad for my development too.

That's AI ball for ya. Little ball movement, lots of dribbling, and the result is either an AI layup, 2FTs, an assist to someone, or more often than not, a contested layup, a fallaway jumpshot or a rushed missed open shot to the player he kicks it to, because of the timing and pressure of the shot clock.
doesn't lebron kind of do that

[Willkill24]

People always say that Allen Iverson is a "me first" player, but in my defense, have they ever looked at his assist statistics? He has averaged more than 7 assists for almost all his career.
Ball hogg

[airchibundo507]

:facepalm

1) Has no merit

2) is definitely an exaggeration

3)Wrong

4)You are saying that him passing to a wide open player for a jump shot is not good for their developement?

Jesus, this kid is on my balls.

No merit? Exaggeration? Wrong?

lol

[airchibundo507]

doesn't lebron kind of do that

LeBron doesn't hesitate to hit the open player (even in the clutch) and understands pick-and-roll execution.

[Mr Clutch Melo]

LeBron doesn't hesitate to hit the open player (even in the clutch) and understands pick-and-roll execution.

:facepalm :facepalm

[chips93]

doesn't lebron kind of do that

lebron doessnt have cornrows, and act like a thug

plus lebron generally got his teams futher

[ShaqAttack3234]

Here's part 1 of that 51 point game, the rest of the parts are on my channel. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LI9_4sM2Ql8

Archibundo, you're entitled to your opinion, but here's my 2 cents.

Defensively- Well, Iverson being a 6 ft guard who is more of a SG will cause problems defensively when you put him with other point guards like Anthony Carter and Chucky Atkins who are around his size. And it's very hard to have a good defensive team when you average around 100 possessions per 48 minutes, that's Warriors territory. And Magic Johnson had trouble guarding smaller, quick guards and he wasn't much of a defender in general either.

Offensively- Personally, I thought Iverson played well offensively. Despite playing in a faster paced system, his shot attempts immediately dropped from 25 or so per game to less than 20. And his assist to turnover ratio was problem the best of his career. I'd see Iverson throwing lobs to Camby and Melo and when he was looking to score, I didn't think he prevented his teammates from playing well. Look at the 50 point game I posted, Iverson got his 51 as well as 8 assists, and you can't blame him for shooting so much when he started off 17/21, he just couldn't miss, yet Melo still got his 23 shots, in fact, Iverson only took 27 shots that game. And considering Iverson played 42 mpg and Melo played 36, it's hard to blame Iverson for taking 19 shots, particularly when you consider that Melo also took 19 shots per game, despite playing fewer minutes.

I do think that Nuggets team underachieved, but it's not like they underachieved and Iverson was shooting as much as he did in Philly. He tried to tone down his offense. And when I watched Nuggets games, I didn't just see Iverson holding the ball and freezing everyone out.

And I just don't buy that Iverson was responsible for the Nuggets inability to be a good defensive team that year. It didn't help that the Nuggets didn't have a bigger PG to play with him, or that JR Smith was the other option next to him, despite his size, Smith has never heard the word defense, and he's a good example of a chucker. Atleast Iverson and Melo made things happen by getting to the basket. But, Melo wasn't a great defender either, he improved in 2008-2009, but almost nobody was playing D on that 2008 Nuggets team because it wasn't emphasized enough.

And as long as we're mentioning the Nuggets improvement, I have to mention these things.

The West was clearly less competitive in '09 than '08. The Suns fell from 55 wins to missing the playoffs with 46 wins due to several factors. The Golden State Warriors fell from 48 wins to 29 due to Baron Davis' departure as well as injuries. The Hornets were a bit of a surprise team in 2008 with 56 wins and came back down to earth in 2009 with 49. San Antonio's record didn't drop that much, but they weren't as formidable of a team with Ginobili out or Duncan at maybe 75%, so they lost in the 1st round to Dallas. Utah also dealt with injuries, most notably to Carlos Boozer and they dropped from 54 wins to 48.

And in the end, the Nuggets lost to the same team that had beaten them the previous season.

[jrong]

Try as some might, there's no defense for Iverson's FG%, at least not in the context of how highly some are trying to rate him. The arguments have been hashed and rehashed, so there's no sense in re-rehashing them. If you can't grasp the fundamentally obvious importance of efficiency and possession use to winning then you never will.

Instead I'll address the "Iverson Problem" from the standpoint of the limited options his skillset presents to teams that feature him. Specificifically, what good is AI to your team if he's not playing devoid of structure and taking all of the shots?

You have to let him have that role. It's all he does. So then you have to hope for a situation like 2001 when you surround him with phenomenal defense and rebounding and one of the greatest coaches ever and hope to catch lightning in a bottle.

But, now take the fact your team's superstar is one-dimensional and add to it the fact that his intangibles are terrible, he has frequent offcourt issues, and he becomes disgruntled in any situation where he's not the center of a franchise's universe. I think you can see where the "cancer" label comes from.

AI was not a new type of player. Before Iverson, there was World B. Free. After him, there was Gilbert Arenas. And there have been others (Vernon Maxwell has similarities). Iverson was the best among them, and his talent alone may warrant his inclusion in the top 50.

But, his fans direly need to open themselves up the fact that there is a significant negative side to his ledger. And, for example, he never belongs on any kind of list of top 5 SGs...

[iamgine]

Fact or fiction, Iverson is/was:

1. a ball hog.
2. really bad defensively.
3. inefficient offensively.
4. lacks leadership quality.
6. needed very specific types of players around him to be successful, which makes him very hard to build around.
7. dribbled too much.
8. bad attitude.
9. made his teammates worse.

[airchibundo507]

Defensively- Well, Iverson being a 6 ft guard who is more of a SG will cause problems defensively when you put him with other point guards like Anthony Carter and Chucky Atkins who are around his size. And it's very hard to have a good defensive team when you average around 100 possessions per 48 minutes, that's Warriors territory. And Magic Johnson had trouble guarding smaller, quick guards and he wasn't much of a defender in general either.

The Nuggets didn't want Iverson to play as our point guard for obvious reasons. Instead, we experimented with somewhat versatile guys like Carter, running them as point guards on offense and then making them guard opposing SGs.


Offensively- Personally, I thought Iverson played well offensively. Despite playing in a faster paced system, his shot attempts immediately dropped from 25 or so per game to less than 20. And his assist to turnover ratio was problem the best of his career. I'd see Iverson throwing lobs to Camby and Melo and when he was looking to score, I didn't think he prevented his teammates from playing well. Look at the 50 point game I posted, Iverson got his 51 as well as 8 assists, and you can't blame him for shooting so much when he started off 17/21, he just couldn't miss, yet Melo still got his 23 shots, in fact, Iverson only took 27 shots that game. And considering Iverson played 42 mpg and Melo played 36, it's hard to blame Iverson for taking 19 shots, particularly when you consider that Melo also took 19 shots per game, despite playing fewer minutes.

Edit: As for your argument about shots taken in the game you provided in your link, Iverson had 27 shots AND 18 free throw attempts (compared to Melo's 23 shots and 7 free throws).

I wasn't specifically criticizing Iverson's days in Denver. He clearly changed up his style of play between Philly and Denver. However, when he was first brought to Denver, he openly claimed that he would average 10+ assist per game. Since he was actually surrounded by talent in Denver, that he would look to pass more than score for the betterment of the team. Fast forward a year in the future, he is our leading scorer. He doesn't understand how to play point guard and the Nuggets are forced to play the likes of Anthony Carter in order to generate ball movement and diversity to our offense.

Was he efficient as a scorer in Denver? Yes, definitely. But did you see the way Melo and JR were playing prior to AI's arrival? AI set both of them back years in development. Melo has since recovered; JR's regression is irrevocable.


I do think that Nuggets team underachieved, but it's not like they underachieved and Iverson was shooting as much as he did in Philly. He tried to tone down his offense. And when I watched Nuggets games, I didn't just see Iverson holding the ball and freezing everyone out.

They looked good on paper, and that's about it. There was no system. The Nuggets have no set plays. That favors isolation ball, which is Iverson's specialty.


And I just don't buy that Iverson was responsible for the Nuggets inability to be a good defensive team that year. It didn't help that the Nuggets didn't have a bigger PG to play with him, or that JR Smith was the other option next to him, despite his size, Smith has never heard the word defense, and he's a good example of a chucker. Atleast Iverson and Melo made things happen by getting to the basket. But, Melo wasn't a great defender either, he improved in 2008-2009, but almost nobody was playing D on that 2008 Nuggets team because it wasn't emphasized enough.

So why is it that the same squad with the exact same head coach became a vastly superior defensive squad the next year? JR and Melo became markedly better defensive players with CB's arrival. Iverson may not be completely to blame for our defensive woes, but as the leader, it's not like he did anything to help. He set a trend with his passive defense and excessive gambling.


And in the end, the Nuggets lost to the same team that had beaten them the previous season.

There are clear differences between the results of the two series. First of all, the West might have been weaker in 2009, but the Lakers were a stronger team. In 2008, the Nuggets didn't stand a damn chance. We were blown out and made a mockery out of in home games, nonetheless games at the staples center. In 2009, the Nuggets were competitive every step of the way until Melo's production fell off around games 5/6. Hell, the Nuggets took Game 1 and could have took Game 2 as well if not for a crucial last minute mistake. That 2009 team could have realistically won the NBA championship.

[kizut1659]

Here's part 1 of that 51 point game, the rest of the parts are on my channel. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LI9_4sM2Ql8

Archibundo, you're entitled to your opinion, but here's my 2 cents.

Defensively- Well, Iverson being a 6 ft guard who is more of a SG will cause problems defensively when you put him with other point guards like Anthony Carter and Chucky Atkins who are around his size. And it's very hard to have a good defensive team when you average around 100 possessions per 48 minutes, that's Warriors territory. And Magic Johnson had trouble guarding smaller, quick guards and he wasn't much of a defender in general either.

Offensively- Personally, I thought Iverson played well offensively. Despite playing in a faster paced system, his shot attempts immediately dropped from 25 or so per game to less than 20. And his assist to turnover ratio was problem the best of his career. I'd see Iverson throwing lobs to Camby and Melo and when he was looking to score, I didn't think he prevented his teammates from playing well. Look at the 50 point game I posted, Iverson got his 51 as well as 8 assists, and you can't blame him for shooting so much when he started off 17/21, he just couldn't miss, yet Melo still got his 23 shots, in fact, Iverson only took 27 shots that game. And considering Iverson played 42 mpg and Melo played 36, it's hard to blame Iverson for taking 19 shots, particularly when you consider that Melo also took 19 shots per game, despite playing fewer minutes.

I do think that Nuggets team underachieved, but it's not like they underachieved and Iverson was shooting as much as he did in Philly. He tried to tone down his offense. And when I watched Nuggets games, I didn't just see Iverson holding the ball and freezing everyone out.

And I just don't buy that Iverson was responsible for the Nuggets inability to be a good defensive team that year. It didn't help that the Nuggets didn't have a bigger PG to play with him, or that JR Smith was the other option next to him, despite his size, Smith has never heard the word defense, and he's a good example of a chucker. Atleast Iverson and Melo made things happen by getting to the basket. But, Melo wasn't a great defender either, he improved in 2008-2009, but almost nobody was playing D on that 2008 Nuggets team because it wasn't emphasized enough.

And as long as we're mentioning the Nuggets improvement, I have to mention these things.

The West was clearly less competitive in '09 than '08. The Suns fell from 55 wins to missing the playoffs with 46 wins due to several factors. The Golden State Warriors fell from 48 wins to 29 due to Baron Davis' departure as well as injuries. The Hornets were a bit of a surprise team in 2008 with 56 wins and came back down to earth in 2009 with 49. San Antonio's record didn't drop that much, but they weren't as formidable of a team with Ginobili out or Duncan at maybe 75%, so they lost in the 1st round to Dallas. Utah also dealt with injuries, most notably to Carlos Boozer and they dropped from 54 wins to 48.

And in the end, the Nuggets lost to the same team that had beaten them the previous season.

Agree with all of the above. I think its ironic that Iverson got a bad rep in Denver where in some ways he was playing more the right way and for the first time did not have a horrible shooting percentage. On the other hand, I think his Denver-experience shows how overrated Iverson was while he was in Philly, where he got undue credit just because he scored a lot and played in a weak eatern conference where his team could usually make the playoffs.

[PHILA]

So why is it that the same squad with the exact same head coach became a vastly superior defensive squad the next year? JR and Melo became markedly better defensive players with CB's arrival. Iverson may not be completely to blame for our defensive woes, but as the leader, it's not like he did anything to help. He set a trend with his passive defense and excessive gambling.
One would think a healthy Nene, Chris Andersen, & Dahntay Jones would have something to do with the improved defense. Never mind Anthony's maturity following his experience with the Olympic team as his poor playoff performances were beginning to add up. :facepalm



'Bottom line: Allen Iverson is not a popular player in some circles, so last season provided a great opportunity for a lot of people to blame Iverson for Detroit's demise while also heaping praise on Billups for "changing the culture" in Denver. Billups played well for Denver but the reality is that the Nuggets only won four more games in 2009 than they did in 2008 and their rise in the Western Conference standings had at least as much to do with the injury misfortunes suffered by their rivals as anything else. It is doubtful that the perfect storm of internal and external factors that carried the Nuggets to the Western Conference Finals in 2009 will happen again in 2010, so the Nuggets will not likely match their 2009 win total and thus slip back toward the bottom half of the playoff pool.'

[airchibundo507]

One would think a healthy Nene, Chris Andersen, & Dahntay Jones would have something to do with the improved defense. Never mind Anthony's maturity following his experience with the Olympic team as his poor playoff performances were beginning to add up. :facepalm

Chris Andersen replaced Camby; I suppose Nene's and DJ's individual contributions helped make our defense stronger. The point I was trying to make is that CB allowed a certain air of leadership and defensive intensity we didn't have under AI. He was even able to alter the mentality of our younger guys, Melo and JR. The summer prior to the 2008-2009 wasn't Melo's first Olympic experience. In years prior, he played solid defense in FIBA and reverted to half-hearted defense in the NBA, which is mainly because he had to earn his starting spot in FIBA.

[raptorfan_dr07]

Fact or fiction, Iverson is/was:

1. a ball hog.
2. really bad defensively.
3. inefficient offensively.
4. lacks leadership quality.
6. needed very specific types of players around him to be successful, which makes him very hard to build around.
7. dribbled too much.
8. bad attitude.
9. made his teammates worse.

Fiction.