I wonder if Iverson is going to pull a Gary Payton/Karl Malone and try to get himself on the roster of a legit Championship contender. It could work. Iverson is now regarded as an "instant offense" role player so if you are AI why not accept that and see if you can be the 6th man for San Antonio or Boston or LA?
My bad. Your right, I thought Iverson had one more year left. Just a really dumb comment by Iverson then considering he needs more teams looking at him, not away.
In a perfect world he'd be doing what Wafer does...and much likely way better. But he'd rather retire than come off the bench. Which is funny because i'm sure most of the playoff teams would sign him JUST FOR THAT. To lead their second unit. I don't see what the big deal is, if Iverson REALLY wants to win a ring he'd go to a good contending team and do as he is told.
Iverson is like Tmac or Marbury.. but with heart.. and heart takes you a long way.. but you also need a team to win it all.
In his defense he is saying that coming off the bench is mainly hard because he is not 100%. I don't see his comments as complaining about the Pistons not playing him but complaining about the fact that he is not that good right now and, as a result, is having to play as a limited role player - something he has never experienced. His comments about next year seem to further that - he does not want to be a role player, he wants to be Allen Iverson. He doesn't want to age, basically. So maybe instead of accepting what he has become he will stop altogether. Regardless of what people think of him as a player, it is amazing that he did what he did for as long as he did with his size and game. When he was a rookie people were saying he wouldn't last 5 years playing the way he did - he would destroy himself. Now, at age 33, he is finally showing those signs that were "guaranteed".
not really commenting on the subject, its amazing what he has done at his size. the durability is astounding. and regardless of the recent comments, he still seems to play at the same speed. he's a statistical anamoly, 13 years, 27 points, 6 assists
What are we talkin 'bout? Retirement? Retirement? We talkin 'bout retirement? Not real quitting. Not real quittin. We talkin 'bout retirement?
I might disagree with your overall point but I agree with this. Earlier in Iverson's career he had the ability to weave through double and triple teams to score. Of course, this was at a low percentage but it wasn't as much of an issue then because he had to take tough shots for his team to win. Now, the defense is much less geared towards him and he shoots the same low percentages. He's done, imo. Retirement seems like a good option at this point. Well, I think Lenny Wilkens and Bob Cousy had pretty low career fg%, they're HOF players that never see the same scrutiny that AI does. Even the guy who was brought in to replace AI in Denver has a lower career fg% and he seems to be doing well. I'm sure GM's wish picking the better player was as simple as one having a better fg% than the other but it isn't. Also, I thought it was odd to see that John Hollinger ranked AI as the 7th best SG of all time. If someone who places that much emphasis on stats/efficiency can recognize what AI has done in this league, he has to have done something right. So,IMO, since being in the finals it's obvious that AI has lost more than appeal.
That just wasn't the right move. We all know AI still can ba dominate but you can't really use him for 18 minutes. He is a 40 minute guy who will have the ball in his hands most of the time. Detroit syetem... it is probably the worst system for him. Those guys are unselfish, they never played with real superstar like AI. They had Billups, Rip and Sheed who were and probably are all on the same level. So with the player like Iverson, it is not gonna work. Btw, Pistons had their window which for me is closed right now. They won it in 2004 but now they are no longer a great team. Just like Mavs or Suns.
Look, here is the truth. Iverson is one of the best pure scorers in the history of basketball. The problem with him, especially later in his career, is that the only way his team can succeed is if it's built around him. His game doesn't equate into a "team" model. He needs to be surrounded by role players that defer to him at all times. Unfortunately, he's declined a bit and not able to take on a role like that. I think he realizes that as well.
isn't that a bit like david klingler or andre ware being considered great quarterbacks because they racked up a ton of passing yards in the run-and-shoot? obviously, the more shots you take the more points you'll score. to me, that's more of an argument that the guy isn't that great of player if he can't adjust to a situation that makes him and his team more efficient and effective. love his heart, but never liked his game.
Well AI did say he would walk away before he chased a ring. I think he had a nice career and will be in the Hall one day. Walking away now isn't that bad. He'll be 34 in June so maybe its about that time.
Sure he's overrated now, but let's not minimize the fact that he brought this starting lineup to the finals: E Snow G Lynch T Hill D Mutombo ...none of those guys could throw it in the ocean. I don't care who you are or what the era is, that is ******* impressive. And if you're going to criticize Iverson's A/TO, you should mention it's better than Kobe's.
I'm glad you brought this up. I was quizzing myself earlier to try to see if I could name you that pitiful and offensively-challenged starting line up he carried to the NBA Finals. Normally, this type of challenge is no problem for me. Hell, I could probably name you the starting line ups of a team like the Clippers for the past 10 years or so -- let alone an NBA Finals team!
Your title is misleading. Iverson said he would rather think about retiring if he has to go through what he is dealing with in Detroit again with another team. He said he wants to start not come off the bench.
I think the years leading up to the Hakeem-Jordan draft and the years immediately following the lockout season, both of which were dominated by "showtime" Laker teams, were the weakest periods in the modern era (when the league was competitive as a whole and it wasn't Wilt Chamberlain jumping over a bunch of pudgy white guys) of NBA basketball. And I'm not saying this as a Laker hater, I'm actually a Kobe fanboy. However, the Miami Heat team that beat the Dallas Mavericks in the NBA Finals were the weakest NBA champions of all time. That is undebateable. It actually helps Iverson out that they are offensively challenged, otherwise he wouldn't be able to dominate the ball the way he needs to be 'effective'. You look at a lineup of Eric Snow, George Lynch, Tyrone Hill and a real DPOY in Dikembe Mutombo coached by Larry Brown and you wonder how teams managed to put up any points on them at all. Again, this absolutely suited Iverson and allowed him to get away with wasting possessions and dribbling the air out of the ball. The team would have been WORSE off if you substituted an offensive player for one of these defensive stalwarts, it doesn't suit Iverson's style of play. Look how unsuccessful the Nuggets were in the Iverson Era despite him shooting a career high FG%, he wasn't surrounded by an elite defensive team that committed to each play.
Whhhoooooa there. I'm gonna go ahead and borrow from another post to answer this one: There were like 10 teams back then. There were very few teams that didn't have 4 or so really good players. Why don't we take '63-'64? 9 teams total. Pistons, Knicks, and Bullets weren't very good. Even the fourth-worst team (76ers) featured Hal Greer, Red Kerr, and Chet Walker (they finished 12 games under .500). The Lakers, with West, Baylor, and Barnett were an AVERAGE team (4 games over .500). And then there're the GOOD teams: Hawks (Pettit, Hagan, Guerin, Wilkins, Beaty) and Warriors (Wilt, Meschery, Thurmond, Rodgers, Attles); and the STUPIDLY good teams: Royals (Robertson, Lucas, Embry, Twyman) and Celtics (Russell, Havlicek, Heinsohn, Ramsey, Lovellete, Ramsey, Jones). Now, think about that. West, Baylor, and Barnett is basically a .500 team, and you don't think teams were stacked in the 60s? Sure there weren't as many good big men... but there were 9 teams. So the few good ones there were, Wilt saw rather a lot. That shouldn't minimize that it was still a great accomplishment. Let's put it this way: Rafer is a better scoring option than any of those four guys. By far. Think about that. That's how pitiful that team was on O. Admittedly without going through every single Finals team ever, I'm pretty sure no other team ever went to the Finals without having at least two semi-decent offensive options in their starting five. Iverson was their entire team on offense.
The knock on Iverson is that he can only succeed on that kind of team. So the prediction was that he would never win a championship as a leading player. I think we've got to balance both sides of the argument concerning what he accomplished in that final run. That team was obviously offensively challenged. And the Eastern Conference was a joke during those few years. Any of the playoff teams in the West that year could have beaten the Sixers handily. So going to the finals didn't mean that much. BUT, you've still got to give him (and them) credit for getting there. That team couldn't have sniffed the playoffs in either conference this year. So they did overachieve and Iverson was the main reason for that.
