So I heard Kevin Durant say that in his opinion, Irving is better than Iverson. "Kyrie is better than [Allen Iverson] to me," Durant said of the Cleveland Cavaliers point guard while appearing on "The Bill Simmons Podcast." "I'm going from like skill for skill. His handle is better," Durant continued in praising Irving. Do people agree with Durant's take as well?
I think Iverson was probably better. I'm not sure Irving could drag the team Iverson did to the Finals and take a game off the Shaq/Kobe Lakers in the Finals. They're similar types of players, though--weak on defense, great ball-handlers, finishers, jump-shooters, solid passers.
Iverson because: Era with more contact Paint oriented game (less 3pt shooting = less spacing) Refs called carrying and more traveling Targetting by refs Did more with less
Old Iverson on the Nuggets was putting up 45-35 percentages. I think If he was born into this current efficiency era of the NBA, he would have been even more of a monster.
I don't think Irving could have done what Iverson did either. The question is, why not? Iverson was definitely the Iron Man of the two. Hardly ever injured, played 40+ minutes, and took a beating every game. I think he was clearly the better defender. League leader in steals and rarely abused despite his size. Iverson drew more fouls. He had the bigger presence on and off the court. He could match Irving in making tough shots. Both are limited as point guards, but Iverson showed a lot of improvement in Denver. Durant would not have wanted to see Iverson on the Cavs. They'd still be playing right now if that was the case.
Playing alongside Lebron has really helped Kyrie's legacy. Kyrie looks above average at best when Lebron takes games off in the regular season. He can't even carry the Cavs offense when Lebron goes to the bench. Kyrie is about as talented as any scorer at his height ever but he still has to learn how to play the point guard position. He still struggles running an offense. He can get his shot off anytime but he struggles with the concept of scoring while setting up others. Iverson simply has more evidence of him leading teams as a number 1 than kyrie.
Iverson dominated against giants when there were actual giants. Kyrie doesn't dominate sht and there aren't even centers anymore. KY is a Better shooter and probably more skilled with the handle but Iverson in this era roasts everyone. And I'm not even an AI fan really.
Yes, because he wouldn't chuck as much, just like he didn't in Denver when he was HIGHLY efficient. His ability to get top the line and shoot 35 percent from three would skyrocket his TS%, similar to JH.
He may very well be more skilled. Better handles, better finisher, and better shooting range and probably more clutch and he's obviously the more efficient player. The problem is how good would Iverson be as LeBron's teammate? Would his efficiency rise? He certainly saw his career best efficiency next to Melo in Denver. Now...how good would Kyrie be if he had the pressure to be the franchise guy with high usage? Would his efficiency take a hit? Of course. But would it translate to wins? You never know how good a player can be with usage and high volume. You can either get Dominique or you can end up with Jerry Stackhouse. You could end up with Latrell Sprewell or you could have Russell Westbrook. That's where Iverson more than made up for his high volume/low efficiency scoring. He did things Kyrie doesn't do. Iverson sacrificed his body and hustled harder than anyone for even the simplest loose ball. He had fire and passion and he was much more athletic than Kyrie. I don't want to talk about what Iverson carried to the Finals though. Different time and an even worse Eastern Conference. Iverson wouldn't lead that team to the playoffs today where you need to score and nearly all of those guys were horrible on offense.
Iverson was much better, more athletic, more intense in his peak. But he was injured a lot by the time he was 25+. He played with no care for his body in a more physical era and it caught up.
obviously. for one, nobody today would build a team that Billy King and Brown was allowed to build in early 2000s. Today Iverson would play with some shooters, and by some I mean he would have at least 2-3 players on the floor to stretch defenses for him at all times. In his MVP year he had... not a single reliable shooter on his team except maybe Kukoc for a little while, but he also wasn't that great of a shooter and they traded him at trade deadline. Same goes for almost all Iverson years on the 76ers. And he'd also have much more friendly rules for a player like him. There's a reason why Iverson was more efficient in mid 2000s than he was in his prime.
Iverson took an average Philly team to the Finals and stole a game from an excellent Lakers team. Irving has not done anything close.
Yeah, but I wasn't relating it to this era. I said I don't think Irving could lead that Sixers team to the Finals that year. Not this year. Nor do I think he'd lead an upset of the Shaq/Kobe Lakers in one game of that year's Finals. He gives the Cavaliers a guy who can create a high degree of difficulty shot for himself, when James needs to rest, and hit some of them. I don't think he'd make a good #1 option on a successful team.
The jury is still out. I think Kyrie could be a top 3 guard in this league if he had to. I watched a lot of Iverson and he shot a bunch to get his. Kyrie could be a similar player with that usage. I really can't say that Iverson had a better handle or was a better finisher. Defense is where AI may have an edge but I like the comparison.
i agree, that team had little business going that far even back then. Ray Allen + Cassell + Glen Robinson was a very talented team that they beat on their way, and Raptors were a nice team too -- not very talented, but it was well put together. And 76ers taking game 1 in the finals from the Lakers was - to me personally - more surprising than anything i saw in any playoffs. Also, lets not forget that until Ratliff's injury, that team looked like the best team in the league. Considering their level of talent and extreme makeup (a bunch of defensive midrange chucker roleplayers + Iverson), they were major overachievers. he might not lead THAT team to modern finals, im not so sure even LeBron could, but give him an average modern squad, and who knows what would happen.
Remember pre-LeBron, when 538 was on the fence about whether Irving deserved a max deal or not? I remember that. LeBron does a great job of covering up his teammates weaknesses.
Iverson is great, but if he played with LeBron or even another All Star like Ray Allen, he would've been Legendary by today's win-at-all costs standards. No one pays attention to grit anymore.
