They've had their share of injuries. Sure they've been inconsistent, but there's no denying the talents there. Brand's one of the best bigmen in the league, Kaman's good for at least 8/8, normally better, and some blocks. Maggette's a terrific slasher, and Mobley's a nice complimentary shooter. With AI at the point, and Cassell, Ross, Singleton, and Thomas coming off the bench (not even including Livingston), you don't think they'd almost certainly (barring injuries) be above 50 wins?
No one player makes you a fifty win team. It's much like politics in that a president gets blamed or praised for the economy when much of it is out of his control. Right now the Mavericks are the best organization in the NBA when you factor in owner/coaches/scouts/facilities they set themselves up to win, and the Spurs are right there with them as an organization. I don't mean to take anything away from Dirk, but if you trade him for KG I don't think the Wolves win close to 50. (I'm not a KG fan, would take Dirk over him in fact).
Jerry Krause was a moron, but he was right when he said organizations win. I believe Jordan was at his absolute peak from late '87 to late '89, and his teams won 50 & 48 games. He wasn't any better in '92 when they won 67, actually he was already slowing in all areas, but he had another star, and key role guys.
Denver has been decimated by injury and can't stop anyone. I thought there would be more of a turnaround at this point, but realistically there hasn't been a consistent line-up in place and they have enormous holes to fill.
15 Carmelo Anthony SF 6-8 230 May 29, 1984 Syracuse
25 Steve Blake PG 6-3 172 Feb. 26, 1980 Maryland
23 Marcus Camby C 6-11 230 Mar. 22, 1974 Massachusetts
5 Yakhouba Diawara GF 6-7 225 Aug. 29, 1982 Pepperdine
30 Reggie Evans PF 6-8 245 May 18, 1980 Iowa
31 Nene Hilario FC 6-11 268 Sep. 13, 1982
3 Allen Iverson G 6-0 165 Jun. 7, 1975 Georgetown
8 DerMarr Johnson GF 6-9 210 May 5, 1980 Cincinnati
43 Linas Kleiza GF 6-8 235 Jan. 3, 1985 Missouri
6 Kenyon Martin PF 6-9 240 Dec. 30, 1977 Cincinnati
21 Eduardo Najera F 6-8 220 Jul. 11, 1976 Oklahoma
7 Jamal Sampson FC 6-11 235 May 15, 1983 California
1 J.R. Smith SG 6-6 220 Nov. 9, 1985
I see a team about 5-6 deep , Iverson makes this team better than what it was 2 months ago .... but I don't see a championship.
IMO Iverson is an awesome player , but I didn't like this trade.
If Martin comes back , who can run the floor with Carmelo and Iverson it might be a better mix.
There are only 2 of these "franchise changers" Shaq and Duncan, maybe KG.
The fact that the topic starter put Kobe on there, when he's not "contended" for a title since Shaq left is laughable.
No matter what player it is Shaq/Duncan or whomever, you've got to have a good supporting cast. The only reason they're so easy to place and start a strong team with is because on most teams there are atleast 1-2 really really good wing players on every team. I mean if you put Shaq/Kg/Duncan on the Hawks they can dominate the entire paint, and would have Joe Johnson and his 27pts on the wings. Any teams but Memphis/Indy/Clipperland/Charlotte have enough on the perimeter that if you put any of the top 6 (maybe more) post players, there would be a contender.
Anyways, back to AI, again he's only played with even the majority of the core of Denver less than 10 times. It is WAAAAAAAAAAAY TOOOOOOO EARLY TO JUDGE DENVER. AI is a huge insertion, and they've had other insertions from suspension and injury. AI and Carmelo can't just do it alone.
exactly - it would be nice if we got to play, oh i dont know - maybe 5 games with our real team. every single night (almost all season long) weve been without 2 starters, sometimes 3 or 4. that kind of makes it tough but i know people on this board love to go crazy with their nba analysis. if a team goes on a 2 game losing streak people here start calling them overrated and talk about how ****ty they are. the opposite is true too.
even once Denver gets its act together and plays together, I don't think they will get past the second...maybe even first round. Too sloppy D, actually, only way they get past the first is if they play Phoenix and even that's a stretch...
There are only 2 of these "franchise changers" Shaq and Duncan, maybe KG.
The fact that the topic starter put Kobe on there, when he's not "contended" for a title since Shaq left is laughable.
why is it laughable? the best player he's had since shaq left is lamar odom.
3rd best KWAME BROWN. and they DID contend last year. had lamar grabbed 1 important rebound, the lakers would have beaten the clips and been in WCF.
99% of nba players, coaches, and GMs would agree that kobe belongs in the same sentence as duncan, dirk, kg and especially a modern day shaq.
Re: Iverson: Franchise Changer?
