C'mon...you really think his year was better than what LeBron posted? James would have won that year but that was his first year in Miami and everyone wanted nothing more than to hate him. They needed a hero to James' villain and Rose's team played well enough and he played well enough to make it a perfect story.
Wow...people have grossly underestimated Allen Iverson and his NBA career... No question that AI was a chucker...but the guy actually does play defense. And throughout his career...he destroyed one on one matchups. Curry definitely has a chance to be special, but Allen Iverson's body of work smashes anything that Curry has produced up to this point. The Answer was a warrior in the truest sense. He attack the paint relentlessly, was impossible to keep in front, and was clutch when the game was on the line. Curry couldve never survived the punishment players like AI took going into the paint...hence why he'd rather bomb away from distance.
I'm surprised this is even a debate as there's no doubt in my mind that AI would absolutely destroy Curry. While Curry is no doubt an excellent shooter, AI was often the toughest player on the floor any given night and could dominate just about anyone - which is even more amazing considering his size. I never liked AI, but he was an absolute force on the court. If you want to argue that Curry's Warriors are a better team than AI's 76rs, then I can see how one might pick Curry, but one-on-one Curry vs. AI, its AI all day and its not even close. I mean, can you imagine Iverson ever telling one of his teammates "Hold me back!" Spoiler ROFL
LOL ... I had forgot about Curry's mini-me tantrum! Thanks for sharing the pic, I needed some laughter before tonight's game! GO ROCKETS!!! ....... ....... .......
It's a lesser accomplishment because none of the teams in the East was considered a contender. It's like saying that this year's Raptors are a contender because they won the Atlantic Division. They may be a good team but winning that division is not much of an accomplishment because the whole division sucks.
Are the Hawks lesser of a contender this year than the Clippers, Rockets or Grizzlies? After all, they have the best record in a poor East (like the Sixers did), finished 2nd overall (like the Sixers did), and finished with a winning record against West teams (like the Sixers did). They even finished 6-2 agsint those top 4 teams in the West. I'll agree that the Warriors are more of a contender than the Hawks but Atlanta was a pretty convincing contender going into the playoffs.
Eh Curry hasn't really impressed me this much in the playoffs. WB and CP3 are still better at the PG position right now. So unfair to compare him to AI, who is a legend.
If rose or rondo would have never gotten hurt and continued into their primes lebron would have 0 rings. Just like if lebron didn't have players like Ray Allen on the ****ing bench to make last second amazing shots he would barely have 1. Nate Robinson was able to take 2 games, can you imagine what MVP rose would have done to him
Me and sealclubber were talking about MVPs...why are you bringing in championship talk? It has NOTHING to do with Rose's MVP or LeBron's MVPs. As for what an MVP Rose would have done to LeBron? I don't have to imagine that because LeBron knock Rose out in the ECF 4 games to 1.
There were at least 3 contenders in the West that year, Spurs, Lakers, and Kings. Dallas, Utah, and Phoenix were very good too. (BTW, the Lakers somehow peaked at the playoffs. Their dominance was quite surprising at that time. Based on the regular season performances, most people expected a hard fought path to get to the Finals from the West.) The Sixers, on the other hand, struggled to beat Indiana, Toronto, and Milwaukee, all mediocre teams. Yes, I understand that. My point is that the kind of team Iverson would thrive on are not championship caliber teams. I don't disagree that Iverson might be a better individual player than Curry (although I think it is debatable and not as clear cut as some people think). But my contention is, Curry is the kind of star who would bring a good team to win it all but Iverson could not. I submit that it is a speculative claim. But I think it is not unreasonable given his style of play and how he played in Denver (see below). I agree that he was slightly past his prime in Denver. But he still put up big numbers the first year he was there. I'd judge him the same way Drexler joined the Rockets, a slightly over the hill superstar who still had a lot of game left. I didn't say he didn't do much in Denver. He did get his numbers. I said that he didn't really make that team better. You put a Curry on that team, it would likely push them over the hump. The main point is, Iverson's game is suitable for a one-man-show kind of offense. When you put him on a team with another star, he would not make that team significantly better. The problem is, to win in the NBA, a one-man-show cannot get you too far. Let me reiterate. All these are speculative because Iverson never played with great offensive talent in his peak. But so is any argument comparing two players in different eras. Using "he led a bad team to the Finals" is just not a very strong argument IMO.
Good question. The Hawks looked like a legit contender two months ago. I actually argued with some posters here when they dismissed the Hawks, using your argument that they played well against western teams. Now the Hawks look like they are a notch below the Clippers, Spurs, Grizzlies, and the Rockets and I don't think they can beat any of these teams in a 7-games series. Cleveland looks like the only legit contender in the East now. I fact, I would say that Iverson's Sixers was comparable to this year's Wizards, not in style of play but in probability of winning a championship.
The NBA was a lot more physical when Iverson played. I'm not sure Curry could deal with that era. On the other hand, if Iverson played now, under the new defensive rules, like no hand checking, five second rule for defensive players in the paint, he would probably average 35 points a game.
It's weird to say but.. different eras. Curry would have been very good in that era and is great in this one. A.I. was insane in that era and would be Westrbook without the triple doubles in this one. Curry. The NBA is just deeper than it was back then. Insane he carried his team to the Finals but that just does not exist currently. Not possible even for a Lebron.
I don't really see why Iverson would be worse in the current era. There is not a single management team in today's NBA that's as bad as the 76ers management in early 2000s. Today Iverson would be surrounded with shooters, something he never had in his prime, and something that's absolutely frickin essential for a player like Iverson. Plus, no handchecks, which would also help. The only reason why I'd pick Curry is because Iverson had authority issues in most years, you need to get Popovich, Doc Rivers or someone like that for him, and even then it may or may not always work. With Curry you don't have to worry about that.
