Why Is Allen Iverson Considered To Be so Great? He was a chucker..

I agree with this.

I think Iverson is super talented, but a perfect team around him is the one he had in Philly, maybe sub some talent like Tyrone Hill for a better defensive player.

I also believe that is the perfect fit around Melo. Let Melo chuck and put a bunch of defensive specialist and role players around him. (Knick's obviously disagree with me and put more chuckers around him).

 

For those saying the East was weak, consider this... Philly was the ONLY team to win a game against that Lakers team (one of the most dominate teams ever).

 

I understand that you are a Philly home boy. So I get where you're coming from. You other points are all subjective fan feelings that have nothing to do with whether Iverson was a player who could win big on the highest level of basketball.

But your second point is just hypocritical to say the least. By the same logic, you should also hate the argument that "if Player X played with a better team, he would have won more." Well, he didn't play for a better team and he didn't win. So all the so-called greatness is just psychological on the fan's mind. And it's just a matter of taste at the end of the day because you can see that there are other people who don't like what he did to the game of basketball.

 

Um, Allen Iverson's rookie season was 1996.

According to nba.com:
http://www.nba.com/2009/news/features/david_aldridge/04/22/aldridge.defenses/

So, no. Allen Iverson did not live in the "hardcore" era where hand-checking was still allowed. His entire NBA career was spent dancing and prancing around soft perimeter defenses. To compare his offensive efficiency to Harden's is laughable. Sorry.

At his best, AI was not technically a combo guard as Eric Snow handled the PG duties. He was more of the Calvin Murphy type in size and shoot-first mentality (but without the sharp shooting ability). Murph wasn't much of a distributor either.

If we're talking true combo guards, then we'd have to look to long time legends like Nate "Tiny" Archibald, Oscar Robertson, Earl Monroe, Sidney Moncrief, Pete Maravich, Michael Jordan, and of course, Jerry West. These men were truly elite at playmaking, running complex offenses, controlling pace, passing and scoring at record-setting clips. What's more, they achieved tremendous success within the flow of their systems, and their teammates remained integral to their offensive execution. That's the mark of a true combo guard. I just don't see AI meeting those lofty standards -- never mind being a pioneer of anything resembling a combo guard. So yes, many elite combo guards did come before Iverson's arrival; each highly capable of guiding him.

Not a chance. Coach Pop would have shipped him out on the first Greyhound to anywhere. Tony Parker, as heady as he was, didn't mesh with Pop early in his career. What makes you think AI would have been about practice under Coach Pop? You do realize Greg Popovich served under Larry Brown as volunteer assistant at Kansas, and later FOUR years as Brown's top assistant coach for the Spurs (beginning in 1988)?

It's clear that you were being honest though. You aren't a big fan of AI. It's cool, I also misremember things about overrated players that are easily forgettable.

 

He was 160 pounds and 6 feet tall playing a game that is dominated bigger, stronger, and taller athletes...he may be the same height as you or I, but he dominated as a scorer in a league with much bigger, stronger and athletic men...this is why he is great...

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/dailydime?page=dime-GreatestSGs

 

Simply, AI was unguardable, period. At his peak, no one could keep him from getting to the rack without fouling. Took a terrible team to the finals. And you can apply the 25 shot per game crap to any of Jordan, Kobe and other high volume scorers. AI was an incredible talent and in his prime made EVERYONE on his team better, to the point that a bunch of journeyman and also-rans accompanied him to the Finals in Philly.

AI was amazing. Just didn't keep working and was left behind by the game.

 

Am I missing something? I DO hate that argument! Where is the hypocrisy?

Iverson got to the Finals, is that not good enough? I don't think winning a ring is a requirement for greatness. There are just too many greats without them.

The title of this thread is about greatness, and yes it is very subjective, but that's why it's fun. I made my case. Are you going to make a counter-argument?

Correct me if I am wrong, I don't want to misinterpret you. You don't think Iverson was great? If you don't, then why not?

I respect people's right to dislike A.I., but since this is a thread about Iverson, I would appreciate it if you actually talked about Iverson in your response.

 

Chucker or not. I would have love him to be on the Rox. Too bad rox never did make a trade for him. Still believe rox could offer a better package than Andre Miller, Joe Smith and 2 first round picks.

Rox sure could use him against the Jazz in the playoffs.

 

You have to be in right place in right time for achieve-ing ultimate goal , he is a true great . A basketball icon of last decade.

 

Defense is important but take Iverson out of that team and they are looking at striking it rich in the lottery, not going deep into the playoffs.

 

He got to the Finals in a ****ty Eastern Conference. It's not that meaningful.

Iverson is a Hall of Fame first ballot player, and one of the most meaningful players in a long time. But as an all-time great, I'm not a fan. He represented a terrible era of basketball, and to me, he's not a top 10 player of the 2000s.

 

You never watched Tim Hardaway?

 

Why is this overrating? Its all at least arguable to some degree (with one exception).

You can argue he was the most athletic due to his lack of size because he had to be - he was clearly among the absolute quickest players off the dribble of his era/ever.

He was the master of the crossover for his era.

His career player efficiency rating being higher than those other players is not arguable - its fact and greatly undercuts the original premise of the thread and illustrates the failure of the OP, where he more or less decides that efficiency = FG%.

It's not, Getting to the line (which Iverson excelled at), setting up your teammates, the ability to maintain decent efficiency despite high usage rates - those are all factors.

 

Tmac couldn't do it. VC couldn't do it. Ray Allen couldn't do it. That Philly Raptors series was pretty intense. Too many haters and people who never watch basketball on here.

 

:grin:

 

Several of those guys will be in the Hall of Fame, and he took his ragtag team farther than any of those guys took their ragtag teams...

 

The thread was started with an Iverson - DJ Augustin comparison. There's overrated and there's overrated.

 

Wow not top 10? Who's on your list then?

I got- 1. Duncan 2. Shaq 3. Kobe 4. Lebron 5. Garnett 6. Dirk 7. Kidd 8. Wade 9. AI 10. T-Mac

Hmm, now that I've listed it out, I could see how he wouldn't make it. I could easily give the final 2 spots to Nash, Pierce and a couple others.

I hear you on the terrible era thing too, it wasn't as good as the 80's, the Jordan era, or the current product. But what can I say? Iverson was my guy and it was the only time in my lifetime that the Sixers were relevant. Let's hope Hinkie can right that ship.

By the way, you Japanese man?

 

We'll never know how he'd mesh with different type of star, like Garnett or Duncan. I suspect very well.

Anyway, regardless, the Philly team was poorly built. A lot of guys with defensive value but also no spacing whatsoever. They not only needed Iverson to take a lot of shots, they also made it extra hard for him.

 

Why question greatness eddiewinslow. You aren't in the nba scrub