No. Oh, Iverson i amongst the 10 most talented players. But you have to make him the centerpiece of a team that's entirely designed to complement him. You can't have another primary scorer. It's like, you need the precise team that the Sixers had when they got to the Finals. You need: (1) solid PG who doesn't need much of the ball but doesn't turn it over, and plays good enough defense to guard a 2, (2) a rebounding, shot-blocking badass at PF or C, (3) one athletic PF or C who can dunk it when Iverson drives and can't finish, (4) a couple of random 3 point shooters to benefit from Iverson's penetration, and (5) a couple of high-energy guys on the bench who can cause havoc. You have to have enough scoring so that Iverson doesn't have to score 40 every night...but no guys who will object when Iverson jacks up 35 shots. You have to have a couple of good big men...but nobody who wants to clog the lane and post up. A PG who can handle the ball...but not one who wants the ball. It's freaking hard to assemble that sort of team. And if Iverson goes down...or leaves...it's a terrible team. No, Iverson's great...and I love the ways he plays so hard...but he's a mixed blessing.
Sorry, anyone who thinks Iverson is not a top 10 player in the league is smoking something. With all his problems/shortfalls/character issues/etc., there is no doubt this guy has more heart than the entire league combined, and is tougher than any other player in the league, and has proven that he can carry a team of average players to the finals. The man is a WARRIOR, and you can spin it anyway you want, but this guy is in the class of the Barkleys, Malones, Ewings, etc. He likely will never win a championship much like those guys didn't, but that doesn't take way frmo his greatness. I am a huge Rocks fan, but I call things how I see 'em: AI is the best player in NBA history under 6-3 or so. The things he does at 6 ft tall are beyond rediculous. HE is the ONLY little man that every single player in the league fears going against. No one fears Francis, Marbury, or other PGs in the league, they only fear AI. So like him or not, whether he is the ideal player or not, he is an individual talent like no other at his size.
Except that it's impossible to define "individual talent" in a manner that generates unanimity. Are we thinking about pure skill? The ability to translate skill into a game? The ability to dominate a game (Shaq has crappy skills, but certainly does dominate)? What about the ability to make other players better? Or what about guys like Francis, who are fantastic players, but actually seem to make some teammates worse? Sorry, you just can't argue that Iverson meets every plausible definition of "individual talent" at the top 10 level. In too many ways, he's a liability.
Great article. It's nice to see some acknowledgment illustrating how significantly overrated Kobe Bryant is.
I though we were talking about the most tallented players in the game. Oustdie of guys like Shaq, Dumcan and T-Mac.....I find few other players in the NBA that I'd take over Iverson. Like I said, he isnt the ideal model of a Franchise player. But when its a playoff game and teams are going blow for blow in the final minutes....few can match Iverson for just taking over a game and playing 1 vs 5 basketball. No, its not idea for winning a title....but thats tallent.
I actually think he meant Paul Pierce, who he mentioned earlier in the article. However, if what he's actually talking about is combining Paul Pierce and Ricky Davis to make a super-Celtic, I'm failry certain he's right.
