Iverson was overrated. His team mateswwere underrated.

I watched that team in person. A lot. Replace AI with a league-average 2-guard and that team that went to the Finals with 56 wins probably would have struggled to win 35 games.

Eric Snow, George Lynch, Tyrone Hill and Dikembe all couldn't shoot. The latter two could barely dribble or pass. After the Mutombo trade, Jumaine Jones was basically the team's only viable bench option after McKie.

That supporting cast was asscheeks, and it's still remarkable what Iverson was able to accomplish with that set of teammates.

 

this thread is awful

 

They had less offensive talent than the Bulls without Rose last year

 

I agree with the overrated part, but I never really thought too much about his teammates being underrated, that is an interesting thought. I'd love to read an article about how their team stacks up when looked at through today's advanced stats. Maybe their are some unsung heroes that we aren't giving enough credit (the predecessors to no stats all star)?

 

Overrated and underrated are problematic ideas because they're relative. I understand the prevailing reputation of Iverson to be that he was an incredibly gifted player that was too headstrong to trust his coach or his teammates and played an inefficient game as a result. That's why his relationship with Larry Brown in that Finals run was such a big deal -- Brown was finally a coach who kinda got Iverson to start playing within a system. Outside of that one year, Iverson was an incredible basketball player that unfortunately didn't play smart.

Now, all the things you said about the inefficiency of his play or the talent of his supporting cast don't really conflict with that understanding. So, I guess I agree with you on Iverson. But, I don't really see how he was overrated, unless you're talking to a group of people who didn't see that he was always shooting himself in the foot. Maybe I just travel different circles.

 

I don't think everyone dismisses them, but they say he carried them because he was their entire offense.

That team was BUILT for Allen Iverson's talents and to hide his huge weakness (defense). It's the type of team that Melo needs around him for him to succeed.

4 Defensive first players, a few who can make the occasional 3 when needed, and will let AI control the offense. While on the defensive side they play 4 on 5 and still stop them. It was a well made team for the ****ty eastern conference.

 

AI was awesome, nowhere near overrated LOL

N for those who say crap about his FG%, check his FG% in Denver, when he wasnt the only focus of every defense.

 

Oh man, another one of these threads.....I agree and disagree with you. No one can do it alone but he was damn near close on the offensive end. At his size, there was no other player like him in our days. His size alone makes him unique. He was a ball hog but he had to be. I am curious what triggered this thread.

 

Stats and box scores do not tell the whole story but to completely dismiss them is foolish. Morey's quote on box scores is really corny and I cringe every time I see that one user who has it in their signature. Box scores are an effective, although imperfect, way of tracking a game and recording a players stats.

 

This is stupid. I wasn't even an Iverson fan but have to give the man his props. As some players have said "the greatest pound for pound".

 

I think when people talk about "overrating" Iverson they mean this part. Everyone assumes he was just this amazing scoring machine but that's not really true, Iverson had amazing bball talent but didn't have the actual IQ to utilize it properly, maybe because he was too hood and gangster to practice and watch tape (Practice? We talking about practice????).

Lots of players over the years have had to play with offensively limited teams, but they didn't have ballhog status attached to them and they weren't inefficient either. First one off my head would be Steve Nash, that guy played with Marion, post injury Amare, Barbosa and the offense turned out to be first class. Billups for the Pistons was another one, and Lebron on the Cavs was yet another so yeah, I don't buy the hype regarding Iverson.

Most of the "Iverson is amazing" comes from people who watched him play as a kid/teenager, so now that you are old and actually understand what is happening you remember him through rose-tinted glasses when compared to the "soft players of today's NBA"...aka good ol' times syndrome.

 

Somebody link the Iverson 5 foot hops for a put back and all kinds of things a guy his size isn't suppose to be able to do.

 

That's a poor comparison. Both Stoudemire and Marion averaged around 20 ppg BEFORE Nash joined the Suns.

That's another poor comparison. Rip Hamilton joined the Pistons in 2003. In 2002, he averaged 20 ppg with the Wizards. And Rasheed Wallace was a competent scorer for his entire career.

And Lebron is already a top 10 GOAT player. You can't hold Iverson to the same standard as Lebron.

 

He piggybacked a bit off a teammates shoulder to get that high. Still an amazing play no doubt.

 

So we're back to ppg? What is this, 1998? It doesn't matter how much they score, its HOW they score their points. Marion does indeed score 15-20 pts a game, but his fg% before Nash came was an abysmal 45%, meaning he sucks at scoring by himself and he really only shined when had someone feeding him oops and transition baskets. Something with Amare, dude had a lot of promise but after his injury he became strictly a finisher and needed someone to set him up. In fact if you look at it closely you'll see the burden on Nash is greater, because his team has no creators but only has scorers whereas with Iverson, guys like Mutombo more than make up for lacking offense with the best defense so if they had switched, Philly might have won the finals while Phoenix would've crashed and burned out of the gate.

This is the difference between someone like Nash vs someone like Iverson, Nash allows his offensively challenged mates to score easily, whereas with Iverson the players are left to struggle on their own because, well the dude is a two trick pony and can only crossover(albeit one of the best crossovers ever) and take low percentage midrange shots.

Yes Lebron and Iverson aren't in the same class but I brought him up to show you can play with offensively challenged guys and still not be a ball hog. Bill ups is more of a scorer too, but he knew how to set up his team because Prince and Ben Wallace are defensive guys, Sheed is a competent scorer but only scores 12-15 a game and Rip has to have screens run for him since he can't create on his own. In fact once Dumars traded Iverson for Bill ups the team went from somewhat competitive to utter garbage overnight, suddenly Prince and Rip are washed up, Wallace was traded and Sheed became a malcontent again.

Iverson is basically undersized Kobe, the reality is he only played the pg position because he was too short, and it hurt every team he was on because the dude can't create for others but he's the point guard. I think he's a good player, but the lack of desire to improve his game caused him to miss out on his potential. In an ideal scenario you'd have him play SG and surround him with shooters and defensive guys..kinda' like what they did in Philly. Maybe Iverson at the end of the day just wasn't good enough to be a centerpiece of the team.

 

If Iverson was gone you'd have cap space to spend on other players so youd have Mutombo, average sg and better overall players. To be honest I've never understood why they built around Iverson when they had Mutombo and Larry Brown together, if they went NY Knicks route and made Mutombo the centerpiece like Ewing maybe they could've had more success.

 

If I give you the following two players in the playoffs, tell me which one do you think is more impressive.

Player A
33ppg/6apg/2.4steals/.480TS%/mediocre to bad defender

Player B
14ppg/14rpg/3.1blocks/.584TS%/one of the best if not the best defender in the game

 

You're right! They went to the finals because of Aaron Mckey and Greg Buckner!

Get out!