..........Kobe brought nothing new. Duncan brought nothing new. Kareeem brought nothing new. Bill Russel brought nothing new. Are you that dumb? And let's not get into players who were just legitimately better, like Malone-Stockton, Bird, Dream (and arguing that Iverson > Dream on a Rockets forum deserves your ass getting thrown out), and Wilt. Well, like I said, fine. Allan Iverson is better than Rodney Stuckey. Why should we care, and what does he bring to us?
LOL what? How do you come to that conclusion from that? http://www.82games.com/0809/08DET3.HTM#onoff The Pistons were a full 2.3 points per 100 possessions worse when he was on the court and the guy he's replacing is not very good (Stuckey).
I do not want to see Iverson anywhere near this team as I feel he would hinder the development of too many of our young players. I'm not completely sold on Buddinger or Taylor based on a couple Summer League Games, but I'd rather go with them than bring in AI to be an undersized SG who would take far too many shots. If we use the MLE I'm hoping that it will go towards a servicable center or a shooting guard with experience, a better shot and a little more height.
Man, How do I decrease your reputation? I keep hitting the minus but only "add to reputation" comes up as an option. Adding someone who jacks it up 35 times per game and dominates the ball is not what we need if we are going to spend the next season developing our younger players. If we want to teach the kids to chuck it when you have it cuz you ain't gonna see it come back, then AI is our answer. If you want to see beautiful team basketball go out the window (just look at the consumate team play environment in Detroit when they added AI), then AI is your guy. I want to see basketball in Houston. If I want to see Hoggdaball, I'll go play pickup games at the Y!!!!!
Iverson would be lucky to make the top 25, let alone the top 5. The guy has a bad locker room and overall attitude. We'll already have enough primadonna from TMAC next season. We don't need to throw in AI and his "elite shot selection" to add to it.
what are you, like a 12 year old lunch table bully? Duncan never revolutionized the game, he perfected the blueprint for powerforward. Shaq revolutioned the game... his power was so great in the post they had to re-enforce standard hoops to prevent him from smashing the backboard everytime he dunked. No one had ever seen power that great in the post and it launched the NBA into the era of the power play where every team needed some kind of twin tower system, whether it be Duncan-Robinson, Dale Davis-Antonio Davis or Rasheed-Ben Wallace to try and match up to just ONE Shaq. Pete Maravich introduced creativity to the NBA. Before him the NBA was rigid, structured and organized. Maravich paved the way for people like Steve Nash to use creativity and chaos to win games rather than doing whats expected. Allen Iverson pretty much destroyed any notion that Power Ball was the only way to be dominant in the league and pretty much ushered in the new era. AI is the patron saint of all kids who use handles and quicks to beat players who were just born with an advantage and is pretty much the patron saint of street ball. No one has empowered ballers the way AI did... you think Shaq and MJ and Magic were idolized but AI was emulated. In these ways, the people I've mentioned have changed or revolutionized basketball. Players like Tim Duncan, John Stockton, Karl Malone, Larry Bird, whatever... fr the most part they stuck to a script and they did it better than anyone else... but I wouldnt say they changed the game in the way that AI did. Flame away.
About the stuckey bit. I posted that to show ppl that are saying that AI made detroit worse that its not true. They had a better win percentage when they played AI, so I dont understand what their confusion was. Like I said, I think it was internal politics that ultimately hurt EVERYONE'S production on that team. Its not that AI's departure made the team worse, I think its more fair to say that its the internal politics, bad feelings about billups leaving, and poor leadership from a rookie coach.
Lessee.... Detroit Pistons 2008 minus AI - Eastern Conference Finals, 2nd best record in Conference and league Detroit Pistons 2009 plus AI - Losing record, bounced out of first round. Denver Nuggets 2008 plus AI - 8th seed bounced out of the first round Denver Nuggets 2009 minus AI - Western Conference Finals, 2nd best record in Conference Hmmmm seems to be a pattern here.....
such a simplistic way to look at things. Pistons: rookie coach, internal politics, salty feelings after Billups left. 82 games show that Pistons actually had a better winning percentage when playing AI rather than not playing him. Denver Nuggets: Healthy Kenyon Martin, healthy and emerging NeNe, no longer doping and emerging Chris Andersen, emerging JR Smith, emerging Dahntay Jones. When AI first came to Denver they achieved tops of northwest division, best in 18 years. 07-08 season before they traded AI, they had 50 win season, 3rd best in entire franchise history. So how do you figure he made them WORSE...?
You are riding in a sinking ship........quit posting while you are still afloat. Little men have been around forever and were very productive and in the hall of fame. Tiny archibald, Calvin Murphy. Just none were as big a ball hoggs as AI, that in itself is your "revolution". If he is "emulated" , it is by kids in the YMCA who manage to Jack up 20 plus shots in a game to 11.
How many MVPs have Calvin Murphy or Tiny Archibald won? Were they steals leader for 3 seasons or scoring champ for 4? You got the height comparison dead on but it takes 27ppg over your career to start having ppl emulate your game and to even begin to get the ball moving on any kind of revolution.
Emulation? You mean in the way that NBA teams have played more iso, jacking up shots, and have had less teamwork than before? That's something to emulate? And for someone who was so revolutionary, he didn't really produce anything much for such revolutionary efforts, where he went to the Finals once, in a pathetic Eastern Conference and got absolutely annihlated by Shaq (yeah, that quick ball did so well at shutting him down). Better win percentage compared to what? When they were using Rodney Stuckey instead? Yeah, that's an accomplishment.
Look, here's my theory. Allen Iverson really popularized the sport of basketball, many wholistic basketball fans like yourself and Mav-Hater want basketball to keep its fundamental roots. That's cool. But for whatever reason, people love the way AI plays. You can see that in his tremendous popularity globally - he's the second most popular player in Taiwan and China, all time, following only Michael Jordan. Whether you like his style or not, you have to admit there is a style and that its very popular. Iverson couldn't have achieved that kind of popularity without having achieved everything he has. He's shown time again that skill and heart can put you amongst the elite. The fact that he's small, only helps his popularity because it gives the average person some hope that if he works on his game, maybe he too can be a great player. David Stern likes the fact that people everywhere are watching and emulating basketball. We watch players like Allen Iverson, Chris Paul, and Stephen Curry hold there own against larger, stronger, more athletic players. It's professional basketball's every intention to keep the fans engage and emotionally invested so David Stern helps usher in a new era of basketball, where Power Basketball is being replaced by guards running around, without being hand checked, to display those skills. It even's the playing field, opens up the offense and gives fans something to cheer about. Alot of you are disgusted, because fans in the U.S. root themselves to a team. "Well, we were cheering for basketball 20 years ago!" Yeah, but the point is for basketball to become more popular, beyond your city limits, and out to Korea, Spain, Italy, wherever. Fans, nowadays, need more reason than loyalty to your city because fans are global. Its been that way for me, since I grew up in Guam. I always followed players. This is my long winded reason for why I think, at least to some of us, AI was very significant to basketball. In terms of influence to basketball, in my opinion he is top 5. I think he changed the game and I think he deserves some respect. For those that think he's been a cancer, maybe, maybe not. I choose to think that because he helped Denver reach two landmarks; best in Northwest Division - first in 18 years, and 50 wins - 3rd best record in franchise history; he actually made Denver better. This past season was an aberration in his career. Just a year and half ago he was more productive than ever and healthier than both of our superstars. I think given his track record for toughness and his willing competitiveness, that last year was a result of bad politics. We gambled on Artest, who shoots worse than McGrady and whose antics should make Iverson look like saint. Why all the fuss about adding Iverson? Iverson is the same deal... one year rental. You complain about our young players not getting minutes but all the relevant ones like Aaron Brooks and Trevor Ariza are starting anyway. No one can provide a shred of evidence anywhere proving that AI was indeed the one responsible for the declines of Detroit and this imaginary decline in Denver. While I, on the other hand have been showing stats and facts that prove that AI actually improves teams when he plays. Still, no one wants to give me or AI any kind of benefit of the doubt.
I dont want to see anymore old "used to be" good talents on the rockets anymore. They never seem to pan out well for us.
Lets live in an ideal world for a moment and imagine this starting roster re-arranged with Iverson: PG: Allen Iverson | Aaron Brooks | Kyle Lowry SG: Tracy McGrady | Chase Budinger | Jermaine Taylor SF: Trevor Ariza | Shane Battier | PF: Luis Scola | Carl Landry CN: Yao Ming | David Anderson | Joey Dorsey Pretty sick line-up (in an ideal world)
