Memphis Grizzlies coach Lionel Hollins has made it clear that Allen Iverson is still coming off the bench, despite the player's complaints about being utilized as a reserve -- and his owner is backing him. Iverson was unhappy with his non-starting role earlier this week, saying Monday after the Grizzlies lost in Sacramento that he's "not a sixth man," according to The (Memphis) Commercial Appeal. Grizzlies owner Michael Heisley made it clear Wednesday, however, that Hollins will make that decision, the newspaper reported. "Lionel will handle it," Heisley said, according to the report. "This is a situation that'll be handled between Lionel and Allen. What Allen said was inappropriate, but I'm not going to make a big deal out of it. Allen expressed his frustration about not playing and I understand that." "It's up to the coach to handle these issues," Heisley added, according to the report. On Monday, Iverson, who missed the preseason and the start of the regular season because of a hamstring injury, played 18 minutes in a loss to the Kings and made headlines after the game when he complained about his diminished role. "I had no problems [with the hamstring]. I had a problem with my butt sitting on that bench for so long," Iverson said, according to the Commercial Appeal. I'm not a bench player. I'm not a sixth man," he continued. "Look at my résumé and that'll show I'm not a sixth man. I don't think it has anything to do with me being selfish. It's just who I am. I don't want to change what gave me all the success that I've had since I've been in this league. I'm not a sixth man. And that's that." In Wednesday's 113-105 loss at Golden State, Iverson was again in a reserve role but saw more time, playing 28 minutes. He scored 18 points and passed the 24,000-point mark for his career, becoming the 16th player in NBA history to do so. He scored six of his points in the first half during a 17-0 run that gave Memphis an early lead. Hollins said Wednesday that Iverson's minutes will increase from game to game, but cautioned that he's still fitting him into the backcourt rotation with Mike Conley and O.J. Mayo. Hollins did not say whether Iverson would start in the future, according to the Commercial Appeal. "There's no way we're making a change right now," Hollins said, according to the report. http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4625243 In Iverson's defense, he is head and shoulders above Conley. The only reason Conley is starting, the same reason Lowry was traded is because the Grizzlie's don't want to admit they made a mistake drafting him with the #4 pick back in 2007. Last night: Iverson: 28 minutes, 8-12 shooting, 18 points, 7 assist, 3 rebounds Conley: 30 minutes, 3-10 shooting, 8 points, 6 assist, 6 rebounds Their lineup should be Iverson Mayo Gay Randolph Gasol
I expect this controversy to completely destroy Conley in much the same way it did Rodney Stuckey last season. It's either Conley or AI and the Grizzlies have to make a decision, probably very soon. It sure didn't take long for the mess to get stirred up in Memphis. I hope they cut him just to see what happens.
AI is the far better player. If they want to win, it is a very easy decision. Win? Or develop young talent? It can't be both...
Ahhh, so starting AI is "the answer" to the Grizzlies' losing ways? Got it. I guess they wouldn't be 1-4 right now with him in the starting line up. Pure gold. And oh yeah: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=4837467&postcount=26
Chill out The Grizzlies were -17 last night with Conley who shot 3-10 while they were -1 with Iverson who shot 8-12 with 7 assist. None of us said he'd be the answer, I don't think were saying hell turn them into an elite contender but he certainly doesn't deserve to play behind Conley who's underachieved for the past three seasons.
Well, suggesting that starting AI will somehow transform that team into a winner is insanely ridiculous. Sure, he's a better player than Conley but the theory behind starting a true PG like Conley with the first unit makes sense. Mayo, Randolph, Gay and even Gasol are all gifted scorers. The idea of having a true PG and floor general out there to set the table for everybody is smart coaching -- at least in theory. I don't see how that works with AI out there expecting his 20 shots. I highly doubt the Grizzlies plan on keeping AI for more than a year. For that reason, there's little sense in throwing Conley underneath the bus just to appease AI's selfishness. Again, I bet AI really wonders why he's been reduced to playing for the fricken Grizzlies.
This is getting old. Last year, Conley averaged: 30.6 MPG 10.9 PPG 4.3 APG 1.1 SPG 3.4 RPG 82% FT 41% 3P 44% FG Conley is good. He may not be elite like a CP3 or Deron, but he's a solid point guard who will be in the league for a good while. Oden is just now developing into a productive player, and he came out the same time as Conley. He's probably developed slower than some of the other picks around him, but he's still been a good PG stuck on the crappy Grizzlies.
Yeah, I like Conley. Sometimes he reminds me of a young Chauncey Billups, Sometimes, lol... All in all, Why did the Grizz sign Iverson? Doesn't make much sense. I think he would help them win more games than Conley would right now if he got the minutes, but is that what they want? They should be focusing on John Wall imo... Memphis=Fail... Make a decision...
The biggest irony is how many pro-AI posters there were on the board this past summer whenever those bogus AI-to-Houston rumors surfaced. What he's doing right now with Conley is precisely what he would be doing with Brooks. The headache would only get worse by the day and odds are we wouldn't be 3-2 right now him in the picture. That said, I don't like the comparison to T-Mac. Yeah, integrating him back into our offense is going to take some work but I definitely want to see what he has to offer -- the sooner the better. Say whatever you will about T-Mac, I don't think he's a walking cancer stick like AI. Last year aside, I think he genuinely cares about this team and winning.
It is not about being a cancer, it is about having to adjust their game, when he has had massive success in the NBA playing his way..... It is not easy to have the ball all the time, make all the decisions and suddenly go to being a role player, most guys can't make that transition. It is the same problem a lot of stars in college have going into the NBA but in reverse, where they need to go from star to role player. Tmac has been a star, I don't think it will be easy for him to give that up. Witness the "I am back" statements at training camp. I think in a contract year asking him to play a secondary role within a team oriented approach is playing with dynamite, and could blow up in the Rocket's face. DD
Well, judging by the way Adelman is using (err, misusing) Ariza by asking him to handle the rock, post up, fadeaway, etc -- it's obvious to me that Adelman wants another playmaking wing out there. Or should I say it's obvious that he likes having two playmakers on the floor at the same time (think Brooks/Lowry). Needless to say, adding T-Mac to the picture helps in that regard. He'll help make the life of everybody else easier once he shakes off the rust. I understand what you're saying but I don't think it applies to us as a healthy T-Mac is still probably our best player. Do I expect him to come out there and average 25 PPG? Hell no, but to suggest that he's going to be transformed into some role player I think is very unrealistic. We'll see what happens, though. I don't want to derail this thread.
We all saw what happened with Marbury and the Knicks last season. From the players perspective I understand why they would be livid about not being able to play during a contract year. Being an all star for many years and then having to back up some punk kid like Nate Robinson or Chris Duhon can be infuriating. The Knicks made a statement that the players don't have all the leverage, if you don't comply were going to let you rot on the bench, and if you don't show up well sue you for breach of contract. I like that the tables are turning, players are so used to getting their way and forcing trades. I'm glad Boozer didn't get his way either. I hope Utah under utilizes him so he'll have to settle for the MLE next off season. With that said I think Tracy has a lot to bring to the table still, one of his strengths is to actually passing and the ability to improve the flow of our offense and not clog it so much as Iverson or even Artest.
I agree, and I think that might be Budinger, Tmac would be perfect, but I just don't believe he will change into this off the ball back cutting monster when he has had major success on the ball. I just don't believe a leopard changes his spots. DD
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/u9iufAaOMUY&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/u9iufAaOMUY&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
I find it hard to believe that before signing him they didn't explicitly say "This is why we're bringing you in, and this is the role we expect you to play". Iverson's an idiot though, because the bench is terrible and he is uniquely suited to play the Ricky Pierce/ Vinny Johnson role. He'll probably end up getting the majority of the minutes anyway, what's the big deal whether he's the starter or not?
