I would really argue that AI have a very high bball IQ. Just that his selfishness is his problem. Unlike the other two mentioned, I feel that AI has a better understanding of the game.
AI has a very high basketball IQ. Attitude is his problem. But certainly Marbury & SF both had low basketball IQs. Talent-wise, I never thought SF was that talented. He was athletic and never developed his game beyond that. Either he didn't work hard enough or just wasn't smart enough. Marbury was more talented than SF but he was dumber. That's too bad because he could have been a special player IMO. AI was incredibly talented and did stuff nobody else at his size ever did.
You had me until you said he brought it every game on the defensive end. Getting a lot of steals is not the same as putting in the effort to be a good defender. How many layups did Iverson give up because he didn't get the steal he was going for?
Iverson had arguably the best statistical season of his career just two years ago (26 PPG, 7APG, 46% shooting). And he put those numbers up on a team that was in the playoffs. That's not exactly obsolete.
I agree completely. Francis just had a low bball IQ. Marbury was a very selfish player and apparently was a cancer in the locker room.
They made it to the finals years before he left the team. Iverson's last full season in Philly, they missed the playoffs. And they got off to a horrible start the following season, before turning things around a little after trading AI.
During the 2001-02 (39.8%) and 2003-04 (38.7%) he shot less than 40%. He also averaged over 4 turnovers per game each of those seasons.
A 6th seed playoffs team and a first round exit. He played alongside a big time scorer and that team still couldn't do much. Iverson's problem is the lack of a team concept. While the playing styles of the three players mentioned are quite different, the lack of team concept is the common element why they never had much team success. (I know the Iverson defenders would point out the Finals appearance. But that Eastern conference was a joke. That Philly team would have been a 7th or 8th seed and a first round swept exit in the West.)
the nuggets got better because chauncey fits better, if the nuggets were without AI and didn't have anyone else to fill his role they would be worse, so stop your yapping about teams becoming better when one player leaves, teams get better when a player is replaced by someone that fits in more.
He played more efficiently than he did in 2001 and put up comparable overall numbers. Plus his team was a lot better, even though they didn't make it out of the first round. The 2008 Nuggets played in a great western conference, the 2001 Sixers played in a horrible eastern conference. I would argue that if Iverson was relevant in 2001, he was still relevant in 2008.
IF those numbers really help winning, why AI had so much time getting his next contract? [ QUOTE=Steve_Francis_rules]Iverson had arguably the best statistical season of his career just two years ago (26 PPG, 7APG, 46% shooting). And he put those numbers up on a team that was in the playoffs. That's not exactly obsolete.[/QUOTE]
Bigno. I love Stevie, but he really didnt have an incredible amount of basketball talent. Obviously one can't get to the NBA without any practice, but his athleticism far and away outweighed his actual basketball talent. Even as a ballhandler, he left a lot to be desired. He was great at breaking down his man in 1-on-1 situations but not great at dribbling in traffic or against traps/double teams.
jennings is actually a much better playmaker than any of those guys were at any point in there career.
AI was praised as the first of the new school hip-hop meets basketball phenoms. His crossing over and J over Michael Jordan was symbolic to some as the new era of "hip-hop basketball". That is probably why some people hold him up so high, even though he was somewhat similar to Francis and Marbury in terms of style of play. To be fair, he had a bit more basketball ability... quickness and ability to create shots, etc. I still think Marbury is a very much maligned player. He became the scapegoat when the isolation/ And1 guard style of play fell out of favor. Marbury was deadly when he was on the Nets. I remember watching games and thinking his ability to dominate and score was quite impressive.
Do you have any evidence of this? As far as I can see, AI doesn't know how to run an offense as well (see Eddie Jordan's comments on him). He gambles way too much on D, and he has tunnel vision syndrome like Starbury and Francis.
What? Roy and wade dont iso on the wing for 20 seconds dribbling in one spot trying to break someones ankles then either raise up for a bad jumper or turn the ball over. Did you ever watch the steve francis-led rockets? Rudy let francis, mooch, mobley, barkley, or anyone else iso all day long
