<br> You've honestly gotta be kidding me. You tell him he failed... Ok, let's break this down nice and slowly: <br> 1. Your argument is flawed because the article you posted does not relate to Iverson in comparision to McGrady 2. Nowhere in the article does it prove your point. It does not combat the sentiment that AI is a ballhog, it only states that he is a good passer. 3. Just because AI makes his teammates better does not mean he is not a ballhog. 4. I could find you dozens of articles that say similar things about Mcgrady. Here, I'll even do a quick google search for you and we'll see what we get: http://www.nba.com/rockets/news/McGradyrsquos_unselfish_play-196353-34.html 5. Roslolian already pointed out the parts where Pete himself said that Iverson is a ballhog. How can you look at that statement and not see what he's saying. It's clear as day. Iverson is a great passer. He just doesn't want to pass. In essence, HE'S A BALLHOG. <br> <br> There's gotta be tons of articles out there that actually show that AI gets a bad rep for being a ballhog when he's not that bad. However, you chose an article that didn't really support your stance and we all found the flaws in it. You can choose to ignore the obvious, but your point was definitely refuted. <br> <br> I mean again, first hit on google right here: http://armchairgm.wikia.com/Allen_Iverson_the_Ball-Hog:_The_NBA's_Biggest_Myth Definitely does a lot better at proving that he isn't a ballhog compared to the article you pulled up.
I mean in the sense that Sheed doesn't move the ball anymore and just chucks quick 3 pointers whenever he gets the ball in his hands.
1. The argument is not flawed... It is not meant to be the end all to who is less of a ballhog between McGrady and Iverson. You will never find complete evidence to make that definitive point either way. That IS the point. I thought it kind of went without saying. Obviously Pete Carril is not going to come out and say that AI is less of a ballhog than McGrady... 2. One of the greatest coaches of all time says AI is a great passer and makes his teammates better. That is about as close as you can get to a HOF coach saying "AI is not a ballhog at all"... 3. It is absurd to think that you can be a great passer throughout your career, while making your teammates better when you are on the court, and be considered a ballhog... Absurd... 4/5... You and Roslollygagger have missed the point 100%, and are ready to be served up. Let's see If you can follow... The article is about ALLEN IVERSON PLAYING POINT GUARD!!! Let that soak in... When Pete Carrill says ""I don't know if he wants to do it, but he's a great passer." IT IS VERY PLAIN THAT HE IS REFERRING TO ALLEN IVERSON PLAYING POINT GUARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! In other words, "I don't know if AI wants to play PG, like I propose in this article, to make the Sixers better, but he is a great passer, that makes his teammates better blah, blah, blah..." He is not saying that he doesn't know if AI wants to pass, He is saying that he does not know if AI wants to play the PG SPOT!!! Which is understandable, because AI is one of the best SG's of all-time, and that is what he has been comfortable with and best at for 15 years... Your reading comprehension= About a 5.9 out of 10... Keep working on it!
Oh boy... Am I really that dense? You really look like an ass now... I'll repeat it and hope it sticks, but I doubt it... "I don't know if he wants to do it, but AI is a great passer" He is talking about Allen playing the PG spot in the Princeton, as opposed to the SG spot that he has played his entire career. I am total disbelief that you guys really thought that he was saying, "I don't know If he wants to pass...but he is a great passer" Who in the heck would say that in the first place in a complimentary article? I thought that much seemed obvious. I overestimated you to the 10th... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mi7UUJ6cwLQ
Oh okay I thought you meant for his career I understand you now. I thought getting Sheed would really put Boston over the top, but With injuries and Sheed camping out at the 3 pt. line all the time I could be wrong.
Apparently. You are proving it in this thread. There is no question AI is a great passer. He is, however, an undisputed ballhog.
Perhaps early in his career. But there came a time when Jordan learned to trust his teammates enough (having better teammates helped a lot) to let them make championship winning plays.
Yeah, I feel the same way about Iverson. I don't think he would have jacked up 35 shots a game If he had Tim Duncan playing with him his whole career... I am not sure that he could make Eric Snow and Deke all that much better on offense...
Man, no offense meant, but is English your first language? Because your reading comphrehension is in serious need of work (which is ironic since you are the one telling us we're bad at it). Why will you be in total disbelief that he meant passing? OF COURSE "IT" IN THAT SENTENCE MEANT PASSING, ITS PRACTICALLY MENTIONED IN THE SAME SENTENCE Examine the sentence, dude: "I don't know If he wants to do it...but he is a great passer" Do you see anything else in that sentence that can be referred to as "do it" besides passing? Think about it for a second, why will a person use the phrase "do it" to refer to someone playing as a pointguard? If he meant AI playing as a point guard then his sentence would be something like "I don't know if he wants to play as a pointguard...but he is a great passer" If he really meant pointguard then he will use the term "play" instead of "do" because you play as a pointguard, but you don't "do" a pointguard. On the other hand, you "do" pass, because passing is an action, which is something you "do". Carrill makes comments like that because the point of his interview is that AI is a great passer, not that he is unselfish. If he really thought AI wasn't a ballhog then he would have mentioned it outright (ie "AI is very unselfish"), without making qualifying statements like "shooting was what he did and had to do, right or wrong". That interview you quoted isn't an AI fluff piece, its Carrill saying AI can fit into Philly's system because he's a good passer. No way does he refute AI being a ballhog in the article. My point isn't debating whether AI or Tmac is more of a ballhog or not. Its the fact that you are using as "evidence" an article in which is actually implying that although a great passer, AI is a ballhog.
Jordan is different because the ball in his hand results in a made basket more often than not. If the ball in Jordans hand results in a 55% chance of a made shot than why give it someone who'll only score 40% of the time? You go to Jordan on isolation every single freakin' time. On the other hand AI will have the lowest FG% out of all first ballot HOFs in history, and most probably of all time, taking 22 Field goals on average at 42% clip. Difference is night and day between Jordan and AI, so your comparison is wrong. For the record even T-Mac makes a higher percentage on far less attempts.
Hopeless... It is not the sentence, it is the article and the interview. He doesn't know if AI wants to play PG. Not If we wants to pass, which is idiotic... And btw, I disagree with the idea that Iverson was not an efficient scorer... In his situation, he was the most efficient option that particular team had. His FG% rose dramatically when he was traded to Denver...He was not being a ballhog... Ask Eric Snow...
we're talking about the sentence because the article and the interview are made up of sentences Carill made. You keep insisting that Carill meant AI playing as a pg, yet I have already given you more than substantiative proof that he meant passing instead, which means even he thought AI is a ballhog (i.e. didn't want to pass). Questioning AI's willingness to pass is not idiotic at all because he is indeed a notorious ballhog, which is probably why Carill made those statements because saying AI is unselfish would cost him his credibility, like apparently you have. Why do you keep insisting on something that's not there? LOL ask any poster here if they see the article the same way you do.
