Allen Iverson's 2001 playoff run is so overrated [Archive] - Message Board Basketball Forum

D.J.

09-01-2011, 01:20 AM

First, we'll start with his scoring numbers:

1st round vs Indiana
Game 1(loss)- 16/7/5 on 7/19 shooting
Game 2(win)- 45/9/3 on 15/27 shooting
Game 3(win)- 32/7/6 on 11/28 shooting
Game 4(win)- 33/4/1 on 10/31 shooting

4 game average- 31.5 PPG(26.3 FGA) on 40.9% shooting

2nd round vs Toronto
Game 1(loss)- 36/8/4/7 on 11/34 shooting
Game 2(win)- 54/5/4 on 21/39 shooting
Game 3(loss)- 23/8/4/4 on 7/22 shooting
Game 4(win)- 30/5/4/4 on 10/30 shooting
Game 5(win)- 52/7/2/4 on 21/32 shooting
Game 6(loss)- 20/4/4 on 6/24 shooting
Game 7(win)- 21/16/4/2 on 8/27 shooting

7 game average- 33.7 PPG(29.7 FGA) on 40.9% shooting

3rd round vs Milwaukee
Game 1(win)- 34/6/4 on 13/35 shooting
Game 2(loss)- 16/9/3/3 on 5/26 shooting
Game 4(win)- 28/8/5/2 on 10/32 shooting
Game 5(win)- 15/9/8/4 on 5/27 shooting
Game 6(loss)- 46/3/2 on 14/33 shooting
Game 7(win)- 44/7/6/2 on 17/33 shooting

6 game average- 30.5 PPG(31 FGA) on 34.4% shooting

Finals vs Los Angeles
Game 1(win)- 48/6/5/5 on 18/41 shooting
Game 2(loss)- 23/4/3 on 10/29 shooting
Game 3(loss)- 35/12/4 on 12/30 shooting
Game 4(loss)- 35/4/4 on 12/30 shooting
Game 5(loss)- 37/3/2/2 on 14/32 shooting

5 game average- 35.6 PPG(32.4 FGA) on 40.7% shooting
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now let's look at the factor(s) in each series:

Indiana- Mutombo(14.8 RPG and 4.5 BPG), McKie(17.3 PPG/4.5 APG/4 RPG/1.3 SPG), Hill(7 RPG), Snow(11.8 PPG/5.8 RPG/5.0 APG/1.0 SPG)

Toronto- Mutombo(12.4 RPG and 3.4 BPG), McKie(16.1 PPG/3.7 APG/5.6 RPG), Hill(7 RPG/1 SPG), Lynch(2 SPG)

Milwaukee- Mutombo(15.6 RPG and 2.7 BPG), McKie(16.3 PPG/6.7 APG/5.3 RPG/2.4 SPG), Hill(8.3 RPG)

Los Angeles- Mutombo(12.2 RPG and 2.2 BPG)

Basically, a lot of people look at Iverson's statline and think he was this god like player on the 2001 76ers. What the casual fan doesn't realize, is how 1)Iverson jacked up shots like it was going out of style, 2)Was so inconsistent, 3)Actually hurt his team with his poor shooting and poor decisions with the ball, and 4)Had teammates that put up solid numbers as well as intangibles.

In 22 games, these are some facts:

-Shot sub 40% from the field, 13 times
-Shot sub 30% from the field, 4 times
-Scored less than 30 points, 8 times
-Scored less than 20 points, 3 times
-The 76ers were 4-0 in games Iverson shot 50%+ from the field
-The 76ers were 7-11 in games Iverson shot under 50% from the field
-The 76ers were 7-6 in games Iveson shot under 40% from the field
-The 76ers were 2-2 in games Iverson shot under 30% from the field

Even if Iverson was scoring over 30 a night, he hurt his team by taking so many shots, shooting low percentages, and making poor decisions with the basketball. The real reason the 76ers succeeded was their defense, the surrounding cast providing intangibles, and the surrounding cast making SMART plays at the defensive end.

One more point; the surrounding cast wasn't nearly as bad on offense as some make them out to be. The 76ers still averaged over 96 PPG during the playoffs.

Sampsonsimpson

09-01-2011, 01:27 AM

Idc what anyone says he carried that team. You cant look at FG% all you wan and overanalyze every little thing but you had to watch the games to see it. He was the main scorer and facilitator on that team and he came up big in the clutch. When your 2nd option is Aaron Mckie (Who was a solid player) your going to have to take a lot of shots. And the only time the Lakers lost in those whole 2001 playoffs was the game Iverson had 48.

Kblaze8855

09-01-2011, 01:30 AM

Even if Iverson was scoring over 30 a night, he hurt his team by taking so many shots, shooting low percentages, and making poor decisions with the basketball.

People who think shooting worse than teammates who cant create a shot and pass to you in every situation they can....means you hurt the team...

Really...its just...

You cant watch the 01 76ers and conclude that Iverson made them worse...

Its just impossible to defend.

Its the kind of thing that shows that a person cares more about numbers than....common sense.

Not a person alive watching those games thinks AI made them worse than they would be without him....but 10 years later numbers say he hurt the team? The game he went 8 of 27 in game 7 and had 16 assists..people were gushing with praise over it. coaches, teammates, commentators, and fans. But now...because of shooting percentage he was hurting his team?

Yesterday a guy was saying he didnt see what was impressive about Tmac in Orlando because he took so many shots and his true shooting percentage was...whatever.

This shit has gone way too far.

ThaSwagg3r

09-01-2011, 01:31 AM

Well Allen Iverson has always been overrated so I don't know why it is a surprise to see his 2001 playoff run become overrated. Iverson has never won and accomplished big things in the post-season other than that season. Allen Iverson has never made the conference finals other than that 2001 season and he has only made the 2nd round four times in his career (counting the 2001 run).

That 2001 Sixers team was pretty much like the Cavs that LeBron James played with in 2009 and 2010.....except a lot better.

Iverson had the 6th man of the year that season in Aaron McKie, he had the Defensive Player of the Year that season with Dikembe Mutombo, and he had the coach of the year with Larry Brown on his team. People love to act like Iverson was nothing more than a one man army on that team and that he had no help what so ever when that is the furthest thing from the truth.

I guess you could say he was a one man army as far as the team's offense is concerned, but it's not like he won games single handily and everybody on his team was a liability like most people suggest.

People who think shooting worse than teammates who cant create a shot and pass to you in every situation they can....means you hurt the team...

Funny, because isn't that what LeBron did in the 2011 NBA finals? But I do agree and that is pretty much the reason why I say Dwyane Wade played better in the ECF than LeBron did in the NBA Finals, yeah I'm looking at you PowerGlove.

D.J.

09-01-2011, 01:39 AM

Kblaze8855

09-01-2011, 01:42 AM

Iverson had the 6th man of the year that season in Aaron McKie

Award is 28 years old. Name a worse player to win it than Mckie.

he had the Defensive Player of the Year that season with Dikembe Mutombo

They had a better record before mutombo was traded there. They traded for him because Brown loved his performance in the ASG. the game Brown was coaching because they had the best record in the east(perhaps the NBA).

and he had the coach of the year with Larry Brown on his team.

He had the coach of the year because they won so many games. Thats...usually how that works. Teams without much talent wins many games..hes the coach of the year. Larry and his defense played a major role but lets not act like he was on the court.

When you have to mention the worst 6th man winner ever...who was out of the league in like 3 years, a guy the team had a better record without(not to say he was irrelevant...but its just the truth), then go right t othe coach to avoid mentioning a gang of role players most of them not even being...at their lowly peaks?

That team played well. chemistry. defense. But they won because of AI far more than anyone else. Keep the D and lose AI...that team isnt mentioned again ever. That team minus AI..would have gone into the ASG with an injured theo Ratliff as its best player.

People love to act like Iverson was nothing more than a one man army on that team and that he had no help what so ever when that is the furthest thing from the truth.

Its the closest thing to the truth that can be said of anyone to do what he did. Wasnt a one man army by lottery tea mstandards.

Its a one man army by the standards of teams to do what they did.

magnax1

09-01-2011, 01:47 AM

I think he's up there with guys like Rick Barry and Hakeem in terms of having to carry a massive % of the teams offensive load to get to the finals. He did have a great D, but he was the offense. As in basically all of it.

Sampsonsimpson

09-01-2011, 01:48 AM

And people compare Iverson to guys like LeBron, Wade, Kobe, and McGrady. LeBron and Wade put up 30 PPG or near it, and 50% from the field or near it. Kobe and McGrady, even if they weren't as efficient as LeBron and Wade, were still in the mid 40s. Iverson struggled to crack 40%. He had more than one season shooting under 40%.

Having to take 25-30 shots a night does not excuse him from shooting 40% from the field when other players had equally bad supporting casts, and still managed to shoot at least 45%.

People love to hate on AI man. Who was the best player AI played with prior to his trade to the Nuggets? An over the hill Chris Webber?

Then Iverson gets traded to Denver, a solid team with a good group of players and magically his FG% goes from low 40s suddenly to 45-46 range. Comparable to Tmac and Kobe.

Kblaze8855

09-01-2011, 01:53 AM

Having to take 25-30 shots a night does not excuse him from shooting 40% from the field when other players had equally bad supporting casts, and still managed to shoot at least 45%.

He only needs a excuse to people on the internet complaining. Like 14 people cared at the time. Its only a real issue to the few people who come online to complain using numbers the rest of the sports world doesnt care about and are largely unaware of.

He wasnt a 3-4 time all nba first teamer, 11-12 time all star, and MVP off people caring about him shooting poorly. He has coaches heaping on praise and legends showing love.....

People like you think he needs an excuse. Most people see him for what he was. One of the greatest players of all time.

Collie

09-01-2011, 01:53 AM

I find it sad that kids will look at AI's career years from now and see only stuff like FG%, and not realize that the guy was the toughest player of his era, averaged 40+ mpg despite playing injured majority of the time he was on court, and willed that offensively challenged Sixers teams to fair amounts of success.

What do you think happens if he didn't have to take those shots? Who would have put up the points in his place? McKee? Snow? For all his "great" play, Aaron McKee was shooting 41% during the playoffs, pretty much the same as AI.

Take a look at this roster: http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/PHI/2001.html

Do you truthfully think that a team of Eric Snow, Aaron McKee, Tyrone Hill, Mutombo and George Lynch would have won a game in the playoffs? They probably wouldn't have won 30 games.

Kblaze8855

09-01-2011, 01:58 AM

Then Iverson gets traded to Denver, a solid team with a good group of players and magically his FG% goes from low 40s suddenly to 45-46 range. Comparable to Tmac and Kobe.

AI had a season in denver doing over 26 a game on .458 shooting. Better than Kobes career number or what he has shot in the last 2 years, better than Tmac ever shot, better than Piercei n all but one pre Big 3 season...

And people still hated. It was never his shooting percentage really getting him hated on.

I remember in like 02 on here saying if he shot 45 or 46% people wouldnt actually consider him better...even if they were saying they would. Then he does it...and hes ranked even lower than before....

NugzHeat3

09-01-2011, 02:03 AM

That playoff run only borders on extremes.

It's underrated if you think Iverson was an inefficient, ball dominant chucker. That team had poor spacing for a guy that relied a lot on dribble penetration so it's not like they were perfectly built. They also ran Iverson off-ball so it's not like he was pounding the ball on every possession. They were a terrible offensive team forced to rely heavily on AI.

Iverson also had a bunch of nagging injuries in those playoffs which I am sure impacted his performance and shooting percent.

However, it's overrated once you act like it's up there as one of the great playoff runs ever. The 76ers were the first seed and they benefitted from Zo and Hill's injuries which severely weakened the East. In that sense, AI didn't carry scrubs to the finals because you didn't need a lot of star power to get to the finals.

Iverson was also wildly inconsistent in those playoffs and it's probably the reason some of those series were really close and could have gone either way. Carter could have won it at the buzzer and so could Glenn Robinson in game 4 or 5.

When people act like other stars couldn't do what Iverson accomplished, it gets a little annoying. And they would definitely perform better individually than Iverson did. Once you get to a certain point, probably 25+ ppg for me, I'll take consistent scoring over explosive.

Even back then, I'd say you put Vince, TMac and Kobe on Iverson's team and they make the finals.

mr beast

09-01-2011, 02:05 AM

over rated ? maybe

but he did what had to be done which is score and jack up shots

who was their second option, Mutumbo? McKie?

still pretty amazing they got into finals

NugzHeat3

09-01-2011, 02:11 AM

over rated ? maybe

but he did what had to be done which is score and jack up shots

who was their second option, Mutumbo? McKie?

still pretty amazing they got into finals
This is the thing that I never understood. They were the best team in the East. I expected them to get there and even when they did, they barely made it.

The Bucks were probably more talented and had more firepower but they were a terrible defensive team. That series was pretty close too. Iverson had a huge 40 point game in game 7 to pull out. But Milwaukee could have probably sealed it with a Glenn Robinson jumpshot in game 5 and there was a lot of talk of that series being rigged. I think the Bucks complaining about fouls is stupid since they were a soft team while the Sixers drew a lot of fouls but there were some questionable techs in that series IIRC.

NuggetsFan

09-01-2011, 02:20 AM

This is a perfect example of somebody who's simply using numbers and nothing else. That entire offense was built around A.I. If you give him a capable 2nd offensive option and teams right of the bat can't use as much defensive attention with him. When a player is scoring 30+ points and shooting that many attempts it's going to make the game ALOT easier for your teammates.

His volume alone was pretty wild that run. 76ers won with defense + Iverson being a wrecking ball. Similar to this year's Bulls with less talent on the offensive end.

ShaqAttack3234

09-01-2011, 02:39 AM

I don't fully agree with either side of the argument. I'm somewhere in the middle on this.

He definitely didn't have a very good cast offensively, but surrounding him with scorers isn't the way to go either. Just that he would benefited more from having at least 1 guy who was more of a second option and better 3 point shooters.

Which isn't to say that those guys were complete bums offensively. McKie and Snow were good passers, and while Snow couldn't do much other than hit wide open mid-range jumpers, McKie was a pretty good scorer.

Mutombo was an above average offensive center and so was Ratliff before him.

With that being said, that's very mediocre, but no, Iverson wasn't a complete one man army. Offensively, he was, but Philadelphia was an excellent rebounding team(maybe the best in the league) and one of the best defensive teams in the league due to them having an elite shot blocker with Ratliff in the first half and then Mutombo replacing him in the second half and the playoffs. Excellent perimeter defenders such as Snow, McKie, Bell and Lynch, and also their rebounding ability(which is a part of defense).

They probably wouldn't have made the playoffs without him, but due to their defense and rebounding, they would have probably been competitive.

They did start the season 12-2 with Iverson averaging just 22/5/5 on 38% shooting in those games which shows that they didn't need him to dominate all the time to win.

They were 6-5 without him, but only 2 of those wins were against playoff teams(Utah and Indiana). Regardless, when you rebound and play defense that well and have a coach as good as Larry brown, you're going to beat some bad teams and occasionally some good ones. McKie was actually regularly dropping 20+ with good assist numbers in Iverson's absence as well.

As far as his FG% in Denver? Shooting 46% on a run and gun team in 2008 while taking 19 shots per game is much different than shooting 42% in 2001 taking 26 shots per game on a slow paced team. I'm not sure the biggest difference was who he had around him, but the volume of shots and facing weaker defenses.

EricForman

09-01-2011, 03:03 AM

I'll agree that Iverson, as a whole, is overrated on ISH (ISH has a thing for "hard" players like Sheed and AI, they get defended to death and can never do no wrong)

BUT not the 01 run. The 01 run was magical. Game 1 vs the Lakers remains my all time favorite basketball memory. I lived in LA at the time, and trust me, that was the summer when every car in LA had a Laker flag and the bandwagon was at an all time high. People were saying they were the greatest team ever and that Sixers would get murdered. For AI to come out, to LA, and basically rip the Lakers defense apart was the ultimate underdog/Rocky/David vs Goliath moment.

Now back to the overrating of Iverson part. This 01 run is really Iverson's ONLY playoff run. Other than this year, every other year he's been on a average team that didn't really mattered and was never a serious threat to make it past the second round. YET Iverson fans on ISH will defend him to the death and use that single run to put him above, say, Nash, or, sh*t with the hate going on right now, probably LeBron too.

I loved AI. Tons of heart, invented "swagger" for this generation. But he was an undersized, inefficient shooting guard and you can never win that way.

EricForman

09-01-2011, 03:12 AM

Its the closest thing to the truth that can be said of anyone to do what he did. Wasnt a one man army by lottery tea mstandards.

Its a one man army by the standards of teams to do what they did.

Not entirely true. I guess judging by normal basketball analysis, that 76ers cast was severely lacking in firepower or "guys who could explode for 25 points on any given night".

BUT, they were put together that way BECAUSE IVERSON'S GAME DEMANDED A CAST LIKE THAT. The Sixers tried to give Iverson more firepower, or guys who could create his own offense (Larry Hughes, Stackhouse, Big Dog, Webber, etc), but Iverson's game either clashed, or at best, "merely co-existed" with those guys.

In order to maximize both Iverson and the team's ceiling, YOU HAD TO build a team of rugged, tough, role players who will play D, crash boards, and NOT CARE about going entire possessions without touching the ball. In a sense, you MUST find "offensively-challenged" guys to play with Iverson, because anyone else would be a bit peeved about touching the ball for maybe 10 seconds in 8 straight possessions.

Meaning, it's not like Iverson was cursed with that cast of non-scorers, it's more like... management/coaching knew that's the only way to have a good team with Iverson.

Iverson's game isn't friendly to other offensive stars. Iverson would probably win more games if paired with prime Ben Wallace and Bruce Bowen than with Amare Stoudemire and Melo.

PowerGlove

09-01-2011, 03:13 AM

Eric Forman is calling me out.:oldlol:

Kblaze8855

09-01-2011, 03:16 AM

I loved AI. Tons of heart, invented "swagger" for this generation. But he was an undersized, inefficient shooting guard and you can never win that way.

One thing ive always wondered...

Like 30 people have won anything AI didnt. But hes pointed out as the type of player you cant win with...

The tens of thousands of people who were bigger and shot better and did less....

what was their problem? Dozens of star guards...superstars even...shoot well...do nothing. Remove 01 even...dozens of hall of famers couldnt do any more than AI did with teams that mostly had more talent.

So why does it come back to AI being a type you cant win with?

One Iverson didnt win it all...but approached it...3 dozen star guards shot pretty well....and didnt win it all...most didnt even approach.

So why is AI called out as a guy you cant win with?

Oscar robertson can be given Jerry Lucas in his prime all nba first team level...and 2 additional all stars and go sub .500 and then 500 and miss the playoffs both years.

AI gets old Glenn Robinson before he does nothing on the spurs...and only half a season of that...then Eric snow, Kenny Thomas, and 36 year old Derrick Coleman...

Or old no hops left Webber and just entering the league Iggy...

Doesnt win. And people wil lsay its because you cant win with AI.

What about the dozens of guys nothing like AI who didnt do shit either?

Why is it him you cant win with...and not just...praise the guys who do win?

Too wide a variety of people fail to win to just say you cant win with AI. Polar opposites didnt win with a lot more than he has....and they wont be called out for it.

PowerGlove

09-01-2011, 03:19 AM

Not entirely true. I guess judging by normal basketball analysis, that 76ers cast was severely lacking in firepower or "guys who could explode for 25 points on any given night".

BUT, they were put together that way BECAUSE IVERSON'S GAME DEMANDED A CAST LIKE THAT. The Sixers tried to give Iverson more firepower, or guys who could create his own offense (Larry Hughes, Stackhouse, Big Dog, Webber, etc), but Iverson's game either clashed, or at best, "merely co-existed" with those guys.

In order to maximize both Iverson and the team's ceiling, YOU HAD TO build a team of rugged, tough, role players who will play D, crash boards, and NOT CARE about going entire possessions without touching the ball. In a sense, you MUST find "offensively-challenged" guys to play with Iverson, because anyone else would be a bit peeved about touching the ball for maybe 10 seconds in 8 straight possessions.

Meaning, it's not like Iverson was cursed with that cast of non-scorers, it's more like... management/coaching knew that's the only way to have a good team with Iverson.

Iverson's game isn't friendly to other offensive stars. Iverson would probably win more games if paired with prime Ben Wallace and Bruce Bowen than with Amare Stoudemire and Melo.

This nonsense, stop exaggerating how much AI dominates the ball and he coexisted with Melo just fine.

I hate when people try to say that the sixers made the team inept and one dimensional offensively ON PURPOSE. Why in the hell would they do that intentionally? They didnt even have good three point shooters on that 01 team. No one to spread the floor since that Snow and Mckie primarily shoot from 16-22 foot range. Just disgusting. The 01 had Dikembe/AI/Mckie/Snow and bunch of scrappy defenders and you are saying that they did because that's the best for AI??

Really?

Give him a stretch 4 a la rashard lewis, some shooters and they might have beaten the lakers lol.

EricForman

09-01-2011, 03:25 AM

One thing ive always wondered...

Like 30 people have won anything AI didnt. But hes pointed out as the type of player you cant win with...

The tens of thousands of people who were bigger and shot better and did less....

what was their problem? Dozens of star guards...superstars even...shoot well...do nothing. Remove 01 even...dozens of hall of famers couldnt do any more than AI did with teams that mostly had more talent.

So why does it come back to AI being a type you cant win with?

One Iverson didnt win it all...but approached it...3 dozen star guards shot pretty well....and didnt win it all...most didnt even approach.

So why is AI called out as a guy you cant win with?

Oscar robertson can be given Jerry Lucas in his prime all nba first team level...and 2 additional all stars and go sub .500 and then 500 and miss the playoffs both years.

AI gets old Glenn Robinson before he does nothing on the spurs...and only half a season of that...then Eric snow, Kenny Thomas, and 36 year old Derrick Coleman...

Or old no hops left Webber and just entering the league Iggy...

Doesnt win. And people wil lsay its because you cant win with AI.

What about the dozens of guys nothing like AI who didnt do shit either?

Why is it him you cant win with...and not just...praise the guys who do win?

Too wide a variety of people fail to win to just say you cant win with AI. Polar opposites didnt win with a lot more than he has....and they wont be called out for it.

This was a topic I've argued with former ISHers (and Iverson defenders) like GOBB and Phila back from 06-08 ish.

I think it's overblown that "Iverson never had the help". I think he's had some talent but his game specifically is hard to build around.

Sixers and Nuggets both got better after trading AI for Andre Miller and Chauncey Billups. Lesser players than AI on a talent/star level, for sure. But those guys had games that geled with talent easier.

I'm not calling out AI specifically, calling him a loser, etc. I'm just saying his type of game is probably the hardest to build a winning team around. AI fans should love him for who he is, a flawed basketball player with attitude and HEART, and not overrate him by putting him on the same level as Kobe, nor should they trash his entire supporting cast, throughout his entire career.

And it's not just "Iverson didn't win a championship". It's that he was on average teams EVERY YEAR OF HIS CAREER except 2001. 2001 was like an anomaly. Every other year, his teams were not a threat to make it pass second round. Hell, they were teams you'd pick to lose in the first round.

immatell

09-01-2011, 03:26 AM

*Everything said by Kblaze8855

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

PowerGlove

09-01-2011, 03:28 AM

This was a topic I've argued with former ISHers (and Iverson defenders) like GOBB and Phila back from 06-08 ish.

I think it's overblown that "Iverson never had the help". I think he's had some talent but his game specifically is hard to build around.

Sixers and Nuggets both got better after trading AI for Andre Miller and Chauncey Billups. Lesser players than AI on a talent/star level, for sure. But those guys had games that geled with talent easier.

The Billups thing is so overrated. They ended up losing to the same damn team as the previous year but he made them so much better. It couldnt have been their improved bench and front court that made them a better team.

EricForman

09-01-2011, 03:29 AM

This nonsense, stop exaggerating how much AI dominates the ball and he coexisted with Melo just fine.

I hate when people try to say that the sixers made the team inept and one dimensional offensively ON PURPOSE. Why in the hell would they do that intentionally? They didnt even have good three point shooters on that 01 team. No one to spread the floor since that Snow and Mckie primarily shoot from 16-22 foot range. Just disgusting. The 01 had Dikembe/AI/Mckie/Snow and bunch of scrappy defenders and you are saying that they did because that's the best for AI??

Really?

Give him a stretch 4 a la rashard lewis and they might have beaten the lakers lol.

1: AI and Melo merely "coexisted". As soon as they swapped him for Chauncey that team took a leap. And just so you know, the Sixers didn't get any worse after swapping AI for Dre Miller too. Iggy played better the season after, that's for damned sure.

2: So you dispute my theory that putting rugged role players around AI instead of "stars" is the best way to maximize potential. Let me ask you this, do you agree with me when I say that AI would probably win more games with Bruce Bowen and Ben Wallace than with Melo and Amare? I truly believe that.

3: The Sixers, if they had RASHARD LEWIS, would have beaten the 2001 LAKERS, with PRIME SHAQ and Kobe (pre diva mode) ???????????????????????????????????

Oh hell no.

ShaqAttack3234

09-01-2011, 03:32 AM

Give him a stretch 4 a la rashard lewis, some shooters and they might have beaten the lakers lol.

But then their defense and rebounding becomes considerably worse so it's hard to say if they'd actually be better.

What he did was definitely impressive, but the conference also has to be taken into consideration as well(same thing with Kidd's 2002 and 2003 finals runs and Lebron's 2007 finals run). And I'd rank 2001 Iverson above 2002 Kidd(unsure about 2003 Kidd) and 2007 Lebron. 2001 East wasn't as bad as those other years, but it was the year that the East really fell off and the top teams between the 2 conferences became more magnified.

But to put things in perspective, Vince Carter was 1 shot away from leading a worse cast past Iverson's Sixers(though Carter was really good that year as well). You didn't need as much to win in the East as you typically would.

EricForman

09-01-2011, 03:35 AM

The Billups thing is so overrated. They ended up losing to the same damn team as the previous year but he made them so much better. It couldnt have been their improved bench and front court that made them a better team.

um, they lost Marcus Camby the year Billups went there. improved front court?

they went from being swept and embarassed in the first round to playing them tough in the WCF. And the 09 Lakers were definitely better than the 08 Lakers too.

this is what I'm pointing at when I referred to the ISH Iverson defenders. There are always excuses.

I mean really, he takes like 30 shot per game at a 40% clip. If you were a semi-talented NBA player capable of scoring 15-20 per night, YOU WOULD WANT TO PLAY with a solid/steady PG like Billups or Miller over AI. You'd play better and you'd win more too. And you know this.

To be honest, that Sixers team from 04-06 had talent to work with. Webber, Iggy, Sam Dalembert, Kyle Korver. That's a skilled 4, an athletic wing, a three point shooter, and a shot blocking center. I'd bet my life savings that if you swap Nash for Iverson, those Sixers team win 50+ and get to at least game 6 of the second round, if not the ECF.

NuggetsFan

09-01-2011, 03:36 AM

Nuggets both got better after trading AI for Andre Miller and Chauncey Billups.

Denver got better because Billups was a better shooter. Spaced the floor better for Melo. Denver also faced the Hornets that year instead of L.A and when they eventually did run into L.A they got eliminated again.

Just sayin'. Think people sometimes forget Iverson|Melo did win 50 games but because the West was crazy they were the 8th seed and ran into L.A.

NuggetsFan

09-01-2011, 03:40 AM

To be honest, that Sixers team from 04-06 had talent to work with. Webber, Iggy, Sam Dalembert, Kyle Korver. That's a skilled 4, an athletic wing, a three point shooter, and a shot blocking center. I'd bet my life savings that if you swap Nash for Iverson, those Sixers team win 50+ and get to at least game 6 of the second round, if not the ECF.

Webber on his last legs, Iggy just coming into the league and Kyle Korver who's never played the minutes he did with Philly with another team. Insane to compare that with the talent Nash has had over the years.

PowerGlove

09-01-2011, 03:43 AM

1: AI and Melo merely "coexisted". As soon as they swapped him for Chauncey that team took a leap. And just so you know, the Sixers didn't get any worse after swapping AI for Dre Miller too. Iggy played better the season after, that's for damned sure.

Chauncy is still getting the jesus treatment? I guess Nene,Birdman and Dahntay had nothing to do with the 09 season.

2: So you dispute my theory that putting rugged role players around AI instead of "stars" is the best way to maximize potential. Let me ask you this, do you agree with me when I say that AI would probably win more games with Bruce Bowen and Ben Wallace than with Melo and Amare? I truly believe that.[/QUOTE]
Why does it have to be all defense or all offense? Obviously AI would win more with Bowen and Wallace. *insert any all time great perimeter player* would win more with those two instead of melo and amare. Those aren't rugged role players though. Those are all time great defenders.

Jordan would win more with those two over amare and melo

Kobe would too.

My point is that the sixers were a team of many flaws. They had like a seven man rotation of AI/Mckie/Deke/Snow/Tyrone/jones and lynch.

You cant tell me that's the best supporting cast for AI with a straight face.

3: The Sixers, if they had RASHARD LEWIS, would have beaten the 2001 LAKERS, with PRIME SHAQ and Kobe (pre diva mode) ???????????????????????????????????

Oh hell no.
I wasnt serious, but that series was closer than it looks in retrospect. Good perimeter shooters on the Sixers would have really done damage.

Kblaze8855

09-01-2011, 04:05 AM

And it's not just "Iverson didn't win a championship". It's that he was on average teams EVERY YEAR OF HIS CAREER except 2001. 2001 was like an anomaly. Every other year, his teams were not a threat to make it pass second round. Hell, they were teams you'd pick to lose in the first round.

Again I have to ask...

When all these others who are nothing like him do the same things or less...often with more to work with...

Why isnt it said you cant win with them? Cant build around them?

Nique played till he was like 39. He went past the second round once. Alex english played like 15 years much of it with 2 or 3 all stars...past the second round once. As of 37 Kidd had been past the second round twice. In back to back years. The 13 other years? "Eh" status. Dantley...never till the Pistons. Bernard King once in 14 years. Webber once in 15 years. Tmac has never been to the second round. Mark Price once in 12 years. Kg once before the Celtics. Barkley once as a teams best player.

But its assumed...AI was the problem. hard to build around...hard t owin with.

But the dozens of great players...MVP level players(winners or not) who had little more succes..or no more...or less..

Its not said they are just hard to build around or keep you from winning.

But with AI...it is said. Its said as if...people are unaware that all guys tend to get is one or two shots...and when he got his he had to go for it with less than most get. At a glance...over 3 dozen elite(as in...all nba first team) players never even took their teams as far as he did as the best player. Most had more to work with than he did.

But its not said that you cant build around them.

Its said its hard to build around AI. What makes him special? 40+ all nba first team types fail to do any better in full long careers...

But its not just hard to build a great team. Its hard to build a team around AI.

Why single him out as often as it happens?

EricForman

09-01-2011, 06:25 AM

Again I have to ask...

When all these others who are nothing like him do the same things or less...often with more to work with...

Why isnt it said you cant win with them? Cant build around them?

Nique played till he was like 39. He went past the second round once. Alex english played like 15 years much of it with 2 or 3 all stars...past the second round once. As of 37 Kidd had been past the second round twice. In back to back years. The 13 other years? "Eh" status. Dantley...never till the Pistons. Bernard King once in 14 years. Webber once in 15 years. Tmac has never been to the second round. Mark Price once in 12 years. Kg once before the Celtics. Barkley once as a teams best player.

But its assumed...AI was the problem. hard to build around...hard t owin with.

But the dozens of great players...MVP level players(winners or not) who had little more succes..or no more...or less..

Its not said they are just hard to build around or keep you from winning.

But with AI...it is said. Its said as if...people are unaware that all guys tend to get is one or two shots...and when he got his he had to go for it with less than most get. At a glance...over 3 dozen elite(as in...all nba first team) players never even took their teams as far as he did as the best player. Most had more to work with than he did.

But its not said that you cant build around them.

Its said its hard to build around AI. What makes him special? 40+ all nba first team types fail to do any better in full long careers...

But its not just hard to build a great team. Its hard to build a team around AI.

Why single him out as often as it happens?

I single Iverson out here because this thread is about the overrating of Iverson's 01 run.

As for why I keep saying "it's hard to build a great team around AI", it's not JUST AI, it's the entire "undersized slashers who dominate the ball" group I believe to be the hardest to build around.

Traditionally guys like that have been career losers (Marbury, Francis, Monte Ellis, etc), but Iverson's toughness and tremendous heart allowed him to buck the trend, slightly.

I believe that, based on what history has shown and my basic understanding of basketball.

Tall scorers (the Jordans, Kobes, Tmacs) can develop a post game and play solid D, and when their physical explosiveness goes, they can still be a solid player based on the height and other abilities (like how Tmac is still a solid player now even though his body is old and battered. I don't believe Iverson could be an average player in the league right because his body is old and battered).

Short guards are usually either great shooters or guys who can run an offense and make teammates better.

Iverson is neither. He can't do the things Jordan or Kobe or even Tmac can do at old age. That's not his fault, blame genes for not making him 5 inches taller. Iverson also isn't much of a point guard nor does he make anyone better (I don't wanna get into that "he averaged 8 dimes!!!" dispute, I trust that you understand the difference between the Marbury/Iverson types of dimes vs the Nash and CP type of dimes) and he isn't a good shooter. That's his fault.

I guess my shtick on ISH (and in real life) is I pride myself in being able to PROPERLY EVALUATE players in an all time, historical context. This is why I go into Kobe threads and go after BOTH the Kobe stans and the Kobe haters (because both sides are too extreme and wrong on their Kobe stance).

I am an Iverson fan. Really, I am. I consider him to be a top 50 or 60 player all time but I'd take Kobe/Shaq/Duncan/Dirk/KG/Nash/Lebron/Wade/Durant/Chris Paul/Deron Williams over him if I'm building a team from scratch.

cteach111

09-01-2011, 10:34 AM

its tough to judge AI. Ultimately, people will always have their opinions about the guy because he never had the chance to be on a great team. That'll always be the excuse for any player.

It is a good excuse though I guess.. the east was extremely weak during that period. Anyone who came out the East was presumed to be the runner-up in the Finals for the most part. The teams in the East just weren't as well-built as teams in the West.

IMO, I don't think his style of play raises a team's level overall that much though. So I find him to be overrated..

JohnnySic

09-01-2011, 10:45 AM

What's shocks me most about those finals was the extent to which Shaq dominated. The Sixers had the best defensive center in Mutombo, the large Matt Geiger backing him up, and also Todd McCulloch who was a strong player as well. And they couldn't even slow Shaq down. Not even a little bit.

guy

09-01-2011, 11:27 AM

Iverson had the 6th man of the year that season in Aaron McKie

I think its pretty funny how people bring up him having the 6MOY that year like it really means something. Unless its Ginobili or McHale, a 6MOY is usually a top 30-50 player in the league. Thats not impressive. Was McKie better then someone like Glen Robinson who didn't win any awards that year?

MiseryCityTexas

09-01-2011, 11:29 AM

cteach111

09-01-2011, 11:49 AM

most of iverson's teammates became nobodies in their late 20s and early 30s years after that 2001 finals team disbanded. iverson single handedly took a bunch of scrubs in eric snow, aaron mckie, jumaine jones, matt geiger, and todd mmcouloch to the finals on the offensive end. that is far from overrated.

i think this is a really tired argument. Even if its true, it doesn't give you the full picture of whatever star player we're discussing. All we know about AI is that he's a reasonably good player in this style of offense.

It's a nice accomplishment, but its nothing out of the ordinary (for star players that is).

LBJFTW

09-01-2011, 11:58 AM

Heh, using stats to call AI's playoff run overrated. All that matters is that the opposition couldn't stop a 6'1 165 lb player from dropping 40+, and he was the ONLY guy they had to worry about and they STILL got shitted on.

guy

09-01-2011, 12:09 PM

Again I have to ask...

When all these others who are nothing like him do the same things or less...often with more to work with...

Why isnt it said you cant win with them? Cant build around them?

Nique played till he was like 39. He went past the second round once. Alex english played like 15 years much of it with 2 or 3 all stars...past the second round once. As of 37 Kidd had been past the second round twice. In back to back years. The 13 other years? "Eh" status. Dantley...never till the Pistons. Bernard King once in 14 years. Webber once in 15 years. Tmac has never been to the second round. Mark Price once in 12 years. Kg once before the Celtics. Barkley once as a teams best player.

But its assumed...AI was the problem. hard to build around...hard t owin with.

But the dozens of great players...MVP level players(winners or not) who had little more succes..or no more...or less..

Its not said they are just hard to build around or keep you from winning.

But with AI...it is said. Its said as if...people are unaware that all guys tend to get is one or two shots...and when he got his he had to go for it with less than most get. At a glance...over 3 dozen elite(as in...all nba first team) players never even took their teams as far as he did as the best player. Most had more to work with than he did.

But its not said that you cant build around them.

Its said its hard to build around AI. What makes him special? 40+ all nba first team types fail to do any better in full long careers...

But its not just hard to build a great team. Its hard to build a team around AI.

Why single him out as often as it happens?

Great post. Another thing, despite it becoming a perimeter player's game post-Jordan era, its not like any other perimeter player has done any better then AI when they didn't have great big men around them. Since the Jordan era, only Kobe, Billups, Hamilton, Wade, Ginobili, Parker, Pierce, and Allen have won a title, and by no coincidence all those teams had either Shaq, Duncan, KG, or a slew of great big men like Gasol/Bynum/Odom and Big Ben/Sheed. Kobe couldn't get out the first round in other years. Wade couldn't get out of the first round again until he got Lebron and Bosh on his team. Pierce and Allen both only made 1 ECF before they teamed up with each other and KG. Even Vince's only ECF came when he was on the decline and played with an elite big man. Then T-Mac couldn't even get out of the first round. Melo hasn't done anything but get to the WCF once. And sorry, but having Dikembe Mutombo for half a season and the playoffs, or having a broken down Chris Webber, or having a careless Rasheed Wallace at the end of his career, does not equate to any of that.

NuggetsFan

09-01-2011, 12:09 PM

What's up with this not making teammates better? He's not a true PG or isn't truly elite at getting others involved but just because he was ball dominant doesn't mean he didn't make guy's better. The constant pressure he faced helped out his teammates.

Like I said he wasn't Chris Paul or one of the greats at running an offense but an Iverson drive and kick? His ability to penetrate? keep telling yourself that it didn't make his teammates 10x better. I agree the assist statistic is skewed but to completely throw it out all together? Pure stupidity. Even when you do it with guy's like Marbury .. they don't come up COMPLETELY empty in the category of getting others involved. Like seriously Allen Iverson's ability to break down a defense and than swing the ball? Wasn't Steve Nash like but he's a far cry away from being Kevin Durant or anything.

GS1905

09-01-2011, 01:03 PM

I know I usually troll around but this time I'm gonna be serious since I truly believe that some people in this thread are plain retarded.

First of all, some of you sound like you didn't even watch Iverson's playoff run that year. Are you judging him just based on stats? Because it looks like that. Go watch it and come back here again. You'll see how he single-handedly carried that 76ers team in the playoffs. Then you'll realize that McKie's or Snow's stats don't really mean anything.

Snow could only hit open jumpers. He rarely attacked the rim. How did he get open looks? Well, the other teams would usually double or triple team Iverson and that's how he got open looks. Same thing goes for McKie. He was just a good role player, that's all.

Aaron Legend McKie had 4 games where he scored less than 10 points during the Nba finals that year. That's legendary. Maybe Sixers would've won more games against the Lakers if he actually stepped up. What'ya think?

What about Snow? In ECF he had 6 games where he scored 6 or less points. Maybe 76ers wouldn't struggle that much against the Bucks if he actually stepped up?

Wow man. These are the 2nd and 3rd best players of that 76ers team. It's funny how some of you are arguing that they're not scrubs.

Someone said that they were expected to be in the finals that year. Don't make up stupid stuff because that's not true. In 99-00 they made a little jump and finished with 45-37. Nobody expected them to make another jump in 00-01 because some of their important players like Tyrone Hill, Matt Geiger, and George Lynch were getting older. They also lost Larry Hughes that year who was giving them good performance off the bench. Their expected Win that year was around 48-54 depending on where you looked at it.

Then they finished 1st in East but still nobody believed they were gonna get past the Pacers. I remember how some people were saying 76ers gonna get swept by the Pacers after they lost that 1st game at home. We're talking about a team who had Miller, Rose, young Jermaine and some good role players here.

Anyways 76ers beat them 3-1 and now it was time for the Raptors. Back then Carter was Nba's golden kid. Everyone was rooting for the Raptors and Iverson was pretty muched seemed as the villain. The series was pretty much between Iverson and Carter. One game Iverson dropped 50+ other game Carter. Also what's with this if Carter had made that lost shot shit. Basketball is not about what ifs. He didn't make the shot and they lost. End of story. This team had Davis, Williams, Oakley who played pretty decent alongside Carter and some of you're saying Carter had a worse supporting cast than Iverson. ****ING LOL!

To be continued.

Kblaze8855

09-01-2011, 01:29 PM

I single Iverson out here because this thread is about the overrating of Iverson's 01 run.

Ai has been singled out for 10 years while all hes done is win as much as all time great usually do...or a little buit more. People just dont look into it or choose to disregard it and act like he is especially prone to leading teams that dont do much. And act like its his style of play responsible...when hes done as much or more than people you cant apply any of the critisisms about him to....most of them having better teams.

As for why I keep saying "it's hard to build a great team around AI", it's not JUST AI, it's the entire "undersized slashers who dominate the ball" group I believe to be the hardest to build around.

But even being poorly built around...seems he has as much or more success than most all nba first team types even. Why do you think that is?

Traditionally guys like that have been career losers (Marbury, Francis, Monte Ellis, etc), but Iverson's toughness and tremendous heart allowed him to buck the trend, slightly.

There is Marbury, francis and Monta(not sure why hes being called a loser...hes a little too young for that to me and never had a team that should do more than it did). And there is Nate Archibald, AI, Earl Monroe, Bob Cousy(letsn ot pretend he wasnt something of a gunner...at one point he was taking 22 shots to score like 20 points and shooting 35%) and guys like Jerry West who were smaller than Steve Francis and shot more than most. 31/5 on 24 shots a game and 44.5 shooting. Being short and prone to shoot doesnt make one difficult to win with so much as...people short and prone to shoot...and arent good at basketball...are hard to build around.

Im not saying I dont understand the concept of what you are saying. It might be harder to build around AI than a similar level player who is better. Its just that...I dont see too much evidence of it in practice. Guys like AI have not actually done less than guys like Nique, Alex english, Dantley, and...Pierce(pre big 3), and Melo, Gervin, King, and Tmac. Guys who play on their level tend to win about what they should with the talent they have. Give AI garbage he wins 40-41 games and might go out first round. give him...a little to work with...he might win a series(as he did in 4 or 5 years). But there is little evidence that guys who play a game with few of the issue people bring up to hate on AI about are just more prone to success. Nobody but superstar bigmen have ever really been prone to success. Im not sure AI is any more hard to win with than most top flight scorers. Really...what have most of them done?

I believe that, based on what history has shown and my basic understanding of basketball.

Tall scorers (the Jordans, Kobes, Tmacs) can develop a post game and play solid D, and when their physical explosiveness goes, they can still be a solid player based on the height and other abilities (like how Tmac is still a solid player now even though his body is old and battered. I don't believe Iverson could be an average player in the league right because his body is old and battered).

AI was putting up 26/7 on 46% shooting on a 50 win team when he was a year older than Tmac is now. Think we ever see tmac play even at the level Ai did the first year on the Pistons? I dont.

Short guards are usually either great shooters or guys who can run an offense and make teammates better.

Iverson is neither. He can't do the things Jordan or Kobe or even Tmac can do at old age. That's not his fault, blame genes for not making him 5 inches taller. Iverson also isn't much of a point guard nor does he make anyone better (I don't wanna get into that "he averaged 8 dimes!!!" dispute, I trust that you understand the difference between the Marbury/Iverson types of dimes vs the Nash and CP type of dimes) and he isn't a good shooter. That's his fault.

I guess my shtick on ISH (and in real life) is I pride myself in being able to PROPERLY EVALUATE players in an all time, historical context. This is why I go into Kobe threads and go after BOTH the Kobe stans and the Kobe haters (because both sides are too extreme and wrong on their Kobe stance).

I am an Iverson fan. Really, I am. I consider him to be a top 50 or 60 player all time but I'd take Kobe/Shaq/Duncan/Dirk/KG/Nash/Lebron/Wade/Durant/Chris Paul/Deron Williams over him if I'm building a team from scratch.

As is your right to do. I just find it interesting that despite them being more likely to help a team 8 or 9 of them did nothing AI didnt do as well or better when they had the kind of teams he had to work with. the only times in his career Kobe had AI talent to work with he missed the playoffs or lost in the first round. KG had AI like teams to work with and got AI like results. Lebron had his 01 76ers moment in 07 and then lost with Wade and Bosh. Tmac missed the playoffs or lost inthe first round with garbage in Orlando and pretty good teams in Houston. Nash goes out before the finals and he had Amare, JJ, Marion, and so on at one point and Amare, Jrich, Shaq, and Grant Hill...And I think still Barbosa at another. AI never had that. Durant has yet to do anything. And Westbrook this year had a season better than arguably any AI teammate ever did before Melo. And lets not act like his teammates did a lot after leaving him or right before coming. some did yeeeeeeeeears earlier but really...

Westbrook this year...better than Hughes ever was, better than Glenn Robinson was on the Hawks before AI or the spurs after, better than Webber post injuries and a lot better than he was on the Pistons, better than Iggy has been with or without AI, better than Coleman outside his early Nets days and Mutombo instantly turned to a role player when he left Philly and was a few years into the Hawks turning back int othe hawks after a brief run with Steve Smith before he was traded to Philly. Stackhouse? What he do after AI? Scored a lot one year?

Most of these guys have had more to work with than AI did. His best teammate he had in his 30s and it lasted a year and change...and while the guy they traded him for helped them make the WCF...its not like they turned into some powerhouse.

When they have AI like teams they almost to a man...got AI like results. I dont think that is by chance.

GOBB

09-01-2011, 01:54 PM

:oldlol: @pointing out AI had the COY Larry Brown. Here is a Did Yu Know. Ready? Larry Brown is the one who instructed Allen Iverson to keep shooting and not worry about his %. Why? The team was good rebounding the ball and most importantly bringing Mutombo onboard who grabbed what 22 rbs in the AS game made Larry Brown have a serious boner. I wish I had the clip where someone is shooting FTs and AI is near the sidelines. Brown runs over to him and yells "Keep shooting, keep shooting dont stop!".

Idiots years later want to d!ck around with stats and think they can form a valid conclusion with them. Larry Brown has instructed AI to take more shots than he should have. And another variable people overlook? His teammates, the ones people say werent offensively challenged as they were made out to be? They DEFERRED to Allen Iverson. Why dont you pay Kblaze or some internet video finder/creator some money on the Sixers 01 playoffs. Then highlight the instances where Aaron Mckie gets the ball as it was swung around only he decides not to shoot it but kick it back to Allen Iverson. Why didnt Mckie take that shot?

Now is Larry Brown telling AI to keep shooting and AI teammates deferring to him the sole reasons for his FG%? Of course not and knowing idiots on ISH you will read my post to be JUST that. AI did have questionable shot selection. The point is there are a number of reasons why his FG% is not up to YOUR standards. But you ignore the reasons and focus just on that isolated stat and conclude he mustve hurt the team.

Yet like I said if you find a video maker who can give you the 01 Sixers playoff games and watch them? You cant walk away and say he hurt the team. And you'll look at these stats you wasted your time feeding us sideways.

Take your stats and shove them.

kNIOKAS

09-01-2011, 01:55 PM

imo it's not, but I think Lebronzy's playoff run in what 07? Is unfairly underrated right now.

Kellogs4toniee

09-01-2011, 02:32 PM

I can't freaking stand the old argument that his field goal percentage is low, his shot count is high, so he is hurting his team. Have any of you run pick-ups before where your team-mates are straight up garbage? If you know your abilities are up to par, do you really want the kid who can't handle to try creating his own shot? Do you really want the ball in anybody's hands but yours? Try passing the ball to these kinds of team-mates, the offense becomes so disjointed and you go multiple possessions without scoring.

That's an extreme example of course, since we are talking about actual NBA players here. But it's a viable analogy when you consider the difference in the ability to create and produce offense between Iverson and there next best ball handler : Snow.

Someone has to take those shots, that's the way the team is run. Great defensive players, and one guy who has the elite ability to create and score. If he doesn't shoot, the offense is not RUNNING correctly, and it becomes stagnant or ugly. There's a reason why these kind of players ALWAYS have the backing of there coach to keep shooting.. shoot ... shoot ... shoot ... don't stop. Two heads appear on your shoulder. Left side is Larry Brown with his vast knowledge of basketball and urges you to keep shooting. Right side is some random ISH poster who says Iverson was a deteriment to his team during that 2001 playoff run because he shot too much at a low percentage. Who are you going to listen to? Yea that's what I thought.

That's the simple truth, and I question anybody who watches basketball's knowledge and analysis of the game if they think other-wise after watching that 20001 76er's team.

markymark

09-01-2011, 03:31 PM

markymark

09-01-2011, 03:37 PM

um, they lost Marcus Camby the year Billups went there. improved front court?

they went from being swept and embarassed in the first round to playing them tough in the WCF. And the 09 Lakers were definitely better than the 08 Lakers too.

this is what I'm pointing at when I referred to the ISH Iverson defenders. There are always excuses.

I mean really, he takes like 30 shot per game at a 40% clip. If you were a semi-talented NBA player capable of scoring 15-20 per night, YOU WOULD WANT TO PLAY with a solid/steady PG like Billups or Miller over AI. You'd play better and you'd win more too. And you know this.

To be honest, that Sixers team from 04-06 had talent to work with. Webber, Iggy, Sam Dalembert, Kyle Korver. That's a skilled 4, an athletic wing, a three point shooter, and a shot blocking center. I'd bet my life savings that if you swap Nash for Iverson, those Sixers team win 50+ and get to at least game 6 of the second round, if not the ECF.

Um, was that the same stat whore Marcus Camby who would take frequent 20 footers that clanged off the rim?

Not to mention Billups had Nene and Birdman. The diff in the frontcourt is just too glaring.

D.J.

09-01-2011, 03:40 PM

I can't freaking stand the old argument that his field goal percentage is low, his shot count is high, so he is hurting his team. Have any of you run pick-ups before where your team-mates are straight up garbage? If you know your abilities are up to par, do you really want the kid who can't handle to try creating his own shot? Do you really want the ball in anybody's hands but yours? Try passing the ball to these kinds of team-mates, the offense becomes so disjointed and you go multiple possessions without scoring.

T-Mac, Kobe, LeBron, and Wade all were on teams where their teammates were just as sh*tty. T-Mac had Darrell Armstrong, Jacque Vaughn, a young Mike Miller, Andrew DeClercq, rookie Drew Gooden, 300 pound Shawn Kemp, amongst others. Kobe had Smush Parker, Kwame Brown, Chris Mihm, Sasha Vujacic, amongst others. LeBron had Mo Williams, Anderson Varejao, Zydrunas Ilgauskas, Drew Gooden, washed up Shaq, amongst others. Wade had rookie Mario Chalmers, washed up Shawn Marion, washed up Jermaine O'Neal, rookie Michael Beasley, Joel Anthony, Udonis Haslem, amongst others. What seperates those guys from Iverson? No matter how sh*tty their teammates were, they were still way more efficient. They didn't throw up wild shots or struggle to shoot 40% from the field.

LeBron in '07 averaged 27.3 PPG on 20.8 FGA and shot 47.6% from the field, 30 PPG on 21.9 FGA and shot 48.4% from the field, 28.4 PPG on 19.9 FGA and shot 48.9% from the field, and 29.7 PPG on 20.1 FGA and shot 50.3% from the field.

Wade in '09 averaged 30.2 PPG on 22 FGA and shot 49.1% from the field.

T-Mac in '03 averaged 32.1 PPG on 24.2 FGA and shot 45.7% from the field.

Kobe in '06 averaged 35.4 PPG on 27.2 FGA and shot 45% from the field, and 31.6 PPG on 22.8 FGA and shot 46.3% from the field

Especially in the cases of Wade and Kobe in '06, their teammates were every bit as sh*tty as Iverson's teammates, yet they still shot respectable percentages. Kobe and T-Mac were just as much of perimeter players as Iverson and they still shot in the mid 40s. 45% is still a respectable percentage from a perimeter player that frequently attempts outside shots.

As for Iverson, the Sixers were a missed field goal or an Iverson turnover away from losing to the Raptors.

GS1905

09-01-2011, 03:44 PM

T-Mac, Kobe, LeBron, and Wade all were on teams where their teammates were just as sh*tty. T-Mac had Darrell Armstrong, Jacque Vaughn, a young Mike Miller, Andrew DeClercq, rookie Drew Gooden, 300 pound Shawn Kemp, amongst others. Kobe had Smush Parker, Kwame Brown, Chris Mihm, Sasha Vujacic, amongst others. LeBron had Mo Williams, Anderson Varejao, Zydrunas Ilgauskas, Drew Gooden, washed up Shaq, amongst others. Wade had rookie Mario Chalmers, washed up Shawn Marion, washed up Jermaine O'Neal, rookie Michael Beasley, Joel Anthony, Udonis Haslem, amongst others. What seperates those guys from Iverson? No matter how sh*tty their teammates were, they were still way more efficient. They didn't throw up wild shots or struggle to shoot 40% from the field.

LeBron in '07 averaged 27.3 PPG on 20.8 FGA and shot 47.6% from the field, 30 PPG on 21.9 FGA and shot 48.4% from the field, 28.4 PPG on 19.9 FGA and shot 48.9% from the field, and 29.7 PPG on 20.1 FGA and shot 50.3% from the field.

Wade in '09 averaged 30.2 PPG on 22 FGA and shot 49.1% from the field.

T-Mac in '03 averaged 32.1 PPG on 24.2 FGA and shot 45.7% from the field.

Kobe in '06 averaged 35.4 PPG on 27.2 FGA and shot 45% from the field, and 31.6 PPG on 22.8 FGA and shot 46.3% from the field

Especially in the cases of Wade and Kobe in '06, their teammates were every bit as sh*tty as Iverson's teammates, yet they still shot respectable percentages. Kobe and T-Mac were just as much of perimeter players as Iverson and they still shot in the mid 40s. 45% is still a respectable percentage from a perimeter player that frequently attempts outside shots.

As for Iverson, the Sixers were a missed field goal or an Iverson turnover away from losing to the Raptors.

Guess what? None of them lead their teams to the finals other than Lebron. Also lol @ Kobe and Wade having worse teammates.

BTW we all remember how Heat had the league's worst record with 15-67 in 07-08. :lol :lol :lol

D.J.

09-01-2011, 03:49 PM

Guess what? None of them lead their teams to the finals other than Lebron. Also lol @ Kobe and Wade having worse teammates.

Where did I say they were worse? I said they were equally sh*tty, and they were.

BTW we all remember how Heat had the league's worst record with 15-67 in 07-08. :lol :lol :lol

Absolutely no relevance, especially considering Shaq was traded mid-season and Wade only played in 51 games.

GS1905

09-01-2011, 03:53 PM

Where did I say they were worse? I said they were equally sh*tty, and they were.

Absolutely no relevance, especially considering Shaq was traded mid-season and Wade only played in 51 games.

I guess I misread it.

Iverson played 47 games in 03-04 but Philly ended up with 33-49 while Kenny Thomas was the 2nd best player.

Also, I liked the part where you didn't answer my main argument. LOL :lol

Kblaze8855

09-01-2011, 03:55 PM

They were 10 and 41 in the games wade played......

D.J.

09-01-2011, 03:55 PM

I guess I misread it.

Iverson played 47 games in 03-04 but Philly ended up with 33-49 while Kenny Thomas was the 2nd best player.

Also, I liked the part where you didn't answer my main argument. LOL :lol

Why should I answer your main argument when you're going to twist what I say?

GS1905

09-01-2011, 03:57 PM

Why should I answer your main argument when you're going to twist what I say?

Why would I twist it? You have nothing to say. I've watched those teams too.

When Kobe had shitty teammates he struggled to make the playoffs. When Wade had shitty teammates same thing even though his team is in the East which was easier. Again, 15-67.

On the other hand Iverson went to the finals with bunch of scrubs and you're calling that overrated based on FG% and FGA.

Well, sir, it's clear to me that you either didn't watch 00-01 playoffs or you're just hating.

PJR

09-01-2011, 04:02 PM

They were 10 and 41 in the games wade played......

They also started the season 0-8 without Wade and w/ Shaq. With Ricky Davis starting in place of Wade.

That team was just bad. Period. Can't use it against Wade in any form. And they had things going on behind the scenes that killed the season before it started(I.E Shaq feuding with Riley).

GS1905

09-01-2011, 04:06 PM

D.J.

09-01-2011, 04:08 PM

Why would I twist it? You have nothing to say. I've watched those teams too.

I had plenty to say. There's nothing you can say that I can't respond to.

When Kobe had shitty teammates he struggled to make the playoffs. When Wade had shitty teammates same thing even though his team is in the East which was easier. Again, 15-67.

15-67 is not relevant. :facepalm Wade missed over 30 games. Iverson didn't miss nearly that many.

On the other hand Iverson went to the finals with bunch of scrubs and you're calling that overrated based on FG% and FGA.

What scrubs? DPOY Mutombo? 6th Man of the Year Aaron McKie(who was also putting up 16/5/5 the first three rounds of the playoffs)? Eric Snow, one of the better perimeter defenders in the league? Tyrone Hill, an underrated post defender? Scrubs on the offensive end, yes. They were anything but on the defensive end. Their D covered up Iverson's lack of efficiency. You take away that D and they don't get past Toronto, a series Iverson nearly cost the Sixers because he shot 8/27 in game 7.

Well, sir, it's clear to me that you either didn't watch 00-01 playoffs or you're just hating.

I watched it very closely. I remember saying to myself, "If Iverson sas shooting evem just 45% from the field and wasn't making poor decisions with the basketball, this would have been a quick series". There was no reason for it to go 7 games.

GS1905

09-01-2011, 04:28 PM

"There's nothing you can say that I can't respond to."

IDK man.. it doesn't seem like that. You're just spitting some gibberish here.

Iverson missed 34 and Wade missed 31 games. In case you can't tell.. That means Iverson missed more games. So your statement "Wade missed over 30 games. Iverson didn't miss nearly that many." is complete BS.

Mutombo was already 34-35 years old at that time. Plus he joined the sixers late in the season. Sixers with Ratliff was as good as Sixers with Mutombo. Aaron Mckie - 6th man of year? Lol. Being the 6th man of the year is a good thing? :lol :lol Since there were 29 teams at the league that year and they all have 5 players in their starting five >> 29x5=145. Let's say McKie is better than 45 of them. Oh okay.. so he was top100. Good to know. What a legendary player.

I'll give you snow. He was a good defender but that's all. He couldn't create his own shots. He could only hit wide open jumpers.

LBJFTW

09-01-2011, 04:33 PM

I'll give you snow. He was a good defender but that's all. He couldn't create his own shots. He could only hit wide open jumpers.

By the time he got to Cleveland he couldn't even hit wide open jumpers. Possibly the worst offensive starter CLE has ever seen. Still a great guy who put a significant amount of time into many outreach and city programs for kids.

D.J.

09-01-2011, 04:34 PM

Iverson missed 34 and Wade missed 31 games. In case you can't tell.. That means Iverson missed more games. So your statement "Wade missed over 30 games. Iverson didn't miss nearly that many." is complete BS.

Iverson missed 11 games in 2001. My statement is correct. You just don't know how to read. I didn't discuss Iverson in any season outside of '01.

Mutombo was already 34-35 years old at that time. Plus he joined the sixers late in the season. Sixers with Ratliff was as good as Sixers with Mutombo. Aaron Mckie - 6th man of year? Lol. Being the 6th man of the year is a good thing? :lol :lol Since there were 29 teams at the league that year and they all have 5 players in their starting five >> 29x5=145. Let's say McKie is better than 45 of them. Oh okay.. so he was top100. Good to know. What a legendary player.

35 years old and still DPOY. Still averaged 12-13 RPG and 3 BPG in the playoffs prior to facing the Lakers. Unless you can list every player that was better than McKie, your statement is ludicrous. That same Aaron McKie was putting up about 16/5/5 the first three rounds. Real scrub, I know. :rolleyes:

I'll give you snow. He was a good defender but that's all. He couldn't create his own shots. He could only hit wide open jumpers.

His defense, along with the others covered up Iverson's weaknesses. They made Iverson look like a god.

Kellogs4toniee

09-01-2011, 04:46 PM

T-Mac, Kobe, LeBron, and Wade all were on teams where their teammates were just as sh*tty. T-Mac had Darrell Armstrong, Jacque Vaughn, a young Mike Miller, Andrew DeClercq, rookie Drew Gooden, 300 pound Shawn Kemp, amongst others. Kobe had Smush Parker, Kwame Brown, Chris Mihm, Sasha Vujacic, amongst others. LeBron had Mo Williams, Anderson Varejao, Zydrunas Ilgauskas, Drew Gooden, washed up Shaq, amongst others. Wade had rookie Mario Chalmers, washed up Shawn Marion, washed up Jermaine O'Neal, rookie Michael Beasley, Joel Anthony, Udonis Haslem, amongst others. What seperates those guys from Iverson? No matter how sh*tty their teammates were, they were still way more efficient. They didn't throw up wild shots or struggle to shoot 40% from the field.

LeBron in '07 averaged 27.3 PPG on 20.8 FGA and shot 47.6% from the field, 30 PPG on 21.9 FGA and shot 48.4% from the field, 28.4 PPG on 19.9 FGA and shot 48.9% from the field, and 29.7 PPG on 20.1 FGA and shot 50.3% from the field.

Wade in '09 averaged 30.2 PPG on 22 FGA and shot 49.1% from the field.

T-Mac in '03 averaged 32.1 PPG on 24.2 FGA and shot 45.7% from the field.

Kobe in '06 averaged 35.4 PPG on 27.2 FGA and shot 45% from the field, and 31.6 PPG on 22.8 FGA and shot 46.3% from the field

Especially in the cases of Wade and Kobe in '06, their teammates were every bit as sh*tty as Iverson's teammates, yet they still shot respectable percentages. Kobe and T-Mac were just as much of perimeter players as Iverson and they still shot in the mid 40s. 45% is still a respectable percentage from a perimeter player that frequently attempts outside shots.

As for Iverson, the Sixers were a missed field goal or an Iverson turnover away from losing to the Raptors.

I'm confused what are you trying to prove here? That T-Mac, Lebron, and Kobe have had shitty teams before? No duh. I have yet to hear one person here say Iverson is on Lebron, Kobe, and Wade's level.

Again you are talking way too much about numbers. What did Lebron, Kobe, Wade, and T-Mac do with there shitty teams? There prescense elevated there teams success greatly relative to how bad it would be without them. Is that not the definition of what Iverson did in 2001? Seriously, stop putting up numbers like he barely shot 40%, or blah blah blah. The end result is the same. Iverson's prescense on the team elevated the team to results that would not have been possible without a player like Iverson. That's it, no need to compare him to Lebron, Wade, Kobe, T-Mac etc. In that sense how the hell is his 2001 play-off run over-rated?

GS1905

09-01-2011, 04:46 PM

Haha give it up.

Why would we compare Iverson's 01 season and Wade's 08 season? Iverson took sixers to Nba finals that year. We're talking about his 03-04 season. Wade missed 31 games and the Heat ended up 15-67. They only won 10 games while Wade was playing. On the other hand Iverson missed 34 games and Sixers ended up with 33-49.

Who's the one twisting words here?:lol :lol :lol

I didn't say anything about Mutombo's defense. He was still a good defender but he was old and he couldn't keep up with the tempo. I remember him playing pretty bad during some of the games. Let's not pretend like he was beasting or anything.

"His defense, along with the others covered up Iverson's weaknesses. They made Iverson look like a god." Lol'd so hard at this.:lol :lol

His defense was good but what about his shooting, ball handling, creating plays for himself & others, etc. If he was a better ball handler maybe Brown would've let him handle the ball but since he sucked at what should've been his best attribute that didn't happen. Same goes for his otter attributes. He pretty much sucked offensively and only thing that kept him in that starting five was his defense. This pretty much goes for other players too. They were good at some things but all around they were shitty.

The funniest things is you CLAIM these players made Iverson look like God. :facepalm WOW just WOW:facepalm

I'm not gonna say Iverson looked like God because like every other player he had his flaws but he was unstoppable during those years with Shaq. Shaq and him were the only players that dominated pretty much every single game night in and night out. Now you claim Iverson dominated because of his teammates.. :facepalm

D.J.

09-01-2011, 04:55 PM

Why would we compare Iverson's 01 season and Wade's 08 season? Iverson took sixers to Nba finals that year. We're talking about his 03-04 season. Wade missed 31 games and the Heat ended up 15-67. They only won 10 games while Wade was playing. On the other hand Iverson missed 34 games and Sixers ended up with 33-49.

For starters, this thread is about Iverson's '01 season. And if you're going to compare, compare Iverson in '01 and Wade in '09.

Who's the one twisting words here?:lol :lol :lol

Still you.

I didn't say anything about Mutombo's defense. He was still a good defender but he was old and he couldn't keep up with the tempo. I remember him playing pretty bad during some of the games. Let's not pretend like he was beasting or anything.

The tempo didn't seem to bother him. Not beasting? 14-15 RPG and blocking 4 shots a game isn't beasting? 12-13 RPG and 3 BPG for the first three rounds isn't beasting? That's pretty much Ben Wallace from 2001-2003.

"His defense, along with the others covered up Iverson's weaknesses. They made Iverson look like a god." Lol'd so hard at this.:lol :lol

Keep lol'ing.

His defense was good but what about his shooting, ball handling, creating plays for himself & others, etc. If he was a better ball handler maybe Brown would've let him handle the ball but since he sucked at what should've been his best attribute that didn't happen. Same goes for his otter attributes. He pretty much sucked offensively and only thing that kept him in that starting five was his defense. This pretty much goes for other players too. They were good at some things but all around they were shitty.

If he could shoot well, handle the ball well, create plays for himself and others, then I guess having him and Iverson on the court at the same time would be kinda pointless. Don't ya think? You can't have two guys dominating the ball.

The funniest things is you CLAIM these players made Iverson look like God. :facepalm WOW just WOW:facepalm

Being that people praise the little man for being horribly inefficient and nearly costing them the Toronto series, then yes.

I'm not gonna say Iverson looked like God because like every other player he had his flaws but he was unstoppable during those years with Shaq. Shaq and him were the only players that dominated pretty much every single game night in and night out. Now you claim Iverson dominated because of his teammates.. :facepalm

Well let's see. We're going to have everyone step up defensively and give him DPOY Mutombo. Coincedence that this was the only year he got past round 2? Looks like the brick wall behind him did make him look better.

GS1905

09-01-2011, 05:02 PM

D.J.

09-01-2011, 05:06 PM

Man hit me up when you grow up.. I pretty much killed every single argument you had and you're still coming back with the same arguments. Go back and read what I said. I can't keep repeating myself for your dumb ass.

You didn't kill any single argument I made. You're probably some loser living in his mom's basement. The only reason you repeat yourself is because you can't win an argument. Learn how to debate, then we'll talk. Until then:

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_legkjl8ruS1qdlkgg.gif

Kblaze8855

09-01-2011, 05:11 PM

They also started the season 0-8 without Wade and w/ Shaq. With Ricky Davis starting in place of Wade.

That team was just bad. Period. Can't use it against Wade in any form. And they had things going on behind the scenes that killed the season before it started(I.E Shaq feuding with Riley).

Oh so...with Wade we are keeping things in context and looking at reasons aside from him things went bad? I see. I assumed since this was a topic on Iverson such things would not be applied. I read what AI failed to do aside from 01. In 02 the teams top 4 scorers missed a total of 97 games. They were 36-24 in the games AI started...even with the rest of the offense being in and out.

In 2000 his second leading scorer played just 32 games and Hill, Ratliff, and Huges missed chunks of the season(hughes missed 32 games ratliff 24). AI himself 12. And he still got them 49 wins. Healthy I can see 55 or more. But they still won a series.

In 03 his second best player was a 2 years from retirement Keith Vanhorn. But he led them to 48 wins and a playoff series win.

In 04 he missed 34 games, Glenn Robinson(his newest "sidekick to take pressure off him") missed 40 games, and they changed coaches. Team did nothing.

Then hes got straight role players top to bottom plus 21 games of Webber.

The only year they should have probably been better than they were...in his entire Philly run...is 2006.

He goes to Denver...one year Nene misses a chunk of the season and Melo gets in the fight in NY so hes out for a while suspended. 15 games I wanna say. Next season Nene misses the whole season. They win 50 games anyway. He comes back healthy the next year and they also add Birdman as Camby left and they win 4 more games so they play the Hornets in the first round instead of the Kobe/Gasol Lakers or Spurs who won the title that they got to play with AI. Anyone think Melo minus the suspension or Nene playing at all might help them win 3-4 more games?

AI got a lot of bad breaks. But we sweep them under the rug. When someone else gets judged at face value of the season we look into why. With Ai not doing so well...people act like its him.

When its Wade, Kobe, or most anyone else....we gotta look deeper. Ai? Judge it by the cover.

Ikill

09-01-2011, 05:21 PM

T-Mac, Kobe, LeBron, and Wade all were on teams where their teammates were just as sh*tty. T-Mac had Darrell Armstrong, Jacque Vaughn, a young Mike Miller, Andrew DeClercq, rookie Drew Gooden, 300 pound Shawn Kemp, amongst others. Kobe had Smush Parker, Kwame Brown, Chris Mihm, Sasha Vujacic, amongst others. LeBron had Mo Williams, Anderson Varejao, Zydrunas Ilgauskas, Drew Gooden, washed up Shaq, amongst others. Wade had rookie Mario Chalmers, washed up Shawn Marion, washed up Jermaine O'Neal, rookie Michael Beasley, Joel Anthony, Udonis Haslem, amongst others. What seperates those guys from Iverson? No matter how sh*tty their teammates were, they were still way more efficient. They didn't throw up wild shots or struggle to shoot 40% from the field.

LeBron in '07 averaged 27.3 PPG on 20.8 FGA and shot 47.6% from the field, 30 PPG on 21.9 FGA and shot 48.4% from the field, 28.4 PPG on 19.9 FGA and shot 48.9% from the field, and 29.7 PPG on 20.1 FGA and shot 50.3% from the field.

Wade in '09 averaged 30.2 PPG on 22 FGA and shot 49.1% from the field.

T-Mac in '03 averaged 32.1 PPG on 24.2 FGA and shot 45.7% from the field.

Kobe in '06 averaged 35.4 PPG on 27.2 FGA and shot 45% from the field, and 31.6 PPG on 22.8 FGA and shot 46.3% from the field

Especially in the cases of Wade and Kobe in '06, their teammates were every bit as sh*tty as Iverson's teammates, yet they still shot respectable percentages. Kobe and T-Mac were just as much of perimeter players as Iverson and they still shot in the mid 40s. 45% is still a respectable percentage from a perimeter player that frequently attempts outside shots.

As for Iverson, the Sixers were a missed field goal or an Iverson turnover away from losing to the Raptors.
AI averaged 33 points on 45% in 06 with a pretty shit team and when Iverson was with Denver he averaged 26.4 points with 19 shot attempts which is pretty much the same as Wade and Lebron this year. Lebron averaged 26.7 points with 19 shot attempts and Wade averaged 25.5 points on 18 shot attempts

Ikill

09-01-2011, 05:29 PM

imo it's not, but I think Lebronzy's playoff run in what 07? Is unfairly underrated right now.
No its not its overrated he averaged 25 points on 41%. That Cavs team wasn't even that bad they were a top 5 defensive team and had a winning record in games without Lebron. Lebron played horrible in the first two games against the Pistons and the Cavs only lost by 3 points. The teams he beat were not that good they played a 41 win Wizards team without Gilbert Arenas and Caron Butler a 41 win Nets team and a 53 win Pistons team that was old and unmotivated like come on the Cavs won while Lebron played horrible in 4 out of 6 games.

GS1905

09-01-2011, 05:59 PM

You didn't kill any single argument I made. You're probably some loser living in his mom's basement. The only reason you repeat yourself is because you can't win an argument. Learn how to debate, then we'll talk. Until then:

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_legkjl8ruS1qdlkgg.gif

Shut your fukin mouth you idiot. You don't know anything about basketball and you're here arguing some worthless shit. Get the *** outta here and go watch some basketball so you can learn something about it.

3zazer1

09-01-2011, 07:38 PM

People love to hate on AI man. Who was the best player AI played with prior to his trade to the Nuggets? An over the hill Chris Webber?

Then Iverson gets traded to Denver, a solid team with a good group of players and magically his FG% goes from low 40s suddenly to 45-46 range. Comparable to Tmac and Kobe.

:applause: :applause:

Exactly my point. The hate on A.I. is insane. He's made very poor decisions in his life, but you can't disvalue what he did on the court night in and night out. There's no bigger Ironman than A.I. Playing with multiple injuries. Lets just stop it!!

Smoke117

09-01-2011, 07:40 PM

Iverson has always been a massively overrated chucker.

ShaqAttack3234

09-01-2011, 07:41 PM

This team had Davis, Williams, Oakley who played pretty decent alongside Carter and some of you're saying Carter had a worse supporting cast than Iverson. ****ING LOL!

His cast was clearly worse. Neither had much talent around them, but Iverson's team was much better defensively(Philly's defense was elite, Toronto's was average) and both had good rebounding teams, but Philly was significantly better.

D.J.

09-01-2011, 09:33 PM

Shut your fukin mouth you idiot. You don't know anything about basketball and you're here arguing some worthless shit. Get the *** outta here and go watch some basketball so you can learn something about it.

Thank you for proving my point. Lost a debate and instead of admitting you're wrong or simply shutting up, you resort to profanity. Word of advice: People that curse like that have limited vocabularies. That's why they curse like you just did. Go back to school and build that vocabulary, son.

EricForman

09-02-2011, 01:09 AM

Oh so...with Wade we are keeping things in context and looking at reasons aside from him things went bad? I see. I assumed since this was a topic on Iverson such things would not be applied. I read what AI failed to do aside from 01. In 02 the teams top 4 scorers missed a total of 97 games. They were 36-24 in the games AI started...even with the rest of the offense being in and out.

In 2000 his second leading scorer played just 32 games and Hill, Ratliff, and Huges missed chunks of the season(hughes missed 32 games ratliff 24). AI himself 12. And he still got them 49 wins. Healthy I can see 55 or more. But they still won a series.

In 03 his second best player was a 2 years from retirement Keith Vanhorn. But he led them to 48 wins and a playoff series win.

In 04 he missed 34 games, Glenn Robinson(his newest "sidekick to take pressure off him") missed 40 games, and they changed coaches. Team did nothing.

Then hes got straight role players top to bottom plus 21 games of Webber.

The only year they should have probably been better than they were...in his entire Philly run...is 2006.

He goes to Denver...one year Nene misses a chunk of the season and Melo gets in the fight in NY so hes out for a while suspended. 15 games I wanna say. Next season Nene misses the whole season. They win 50 games anyway. He comes back healthy the next year and they also add Birdman as Camby left and they win 4 more games so they play the Hornets in the first round instead of the Kobe/Gasol Lakers or Spurs who won the title that they got to play with AI. Anyone think Melo minus the suspension or Nene playing at all might help them win 3-4 more games?

AI got a lot of bad breaks. But we sweep them under the rug. When someone else gets judged at face value of the season we look into why. With Ai not doing so well...people act like its him.

When its Wade, Kobe, or most anyone else....we gotta look deeper. Ai? Judge it by the cover.

you're right, blaze. i mostly agree with what you wrote above. i'll have to reevaluate my earlier opinions.

good bball discussion. been a while since i've had one on ISH because i've been dealing mainly with posters with Kobe or Laker avatars. (Except All Net, he's like the only one with a Kobe/Laker avatar who's a legit poster)