Enough of the Iverson bashing.

by Chris Child's Fist on Nov 20, 2009 3:11 PM EST Comment 13 comments

The man may have a questionable reputation, but lets not overblow it. He has lasted 14 years in the league and has played his heart out every second. He is plenty undersized but that never stopped him from playing hard every night, through injuries that would bench most any other player. He went his own path and has never been dishonest with his feelings. He was a face of the NBA for a while, and has helped sell countless amounts of tickets.

I find it ridiculous that this is becoming his mantra. Just because the last two teams he played for have not worked out, doesn't mean he should take such a fall and harbor 100% of the blame. BOTH the Pistons and the Grizzlies said one thing to bring him in and did completely the opposite. Not saying Iverson was a saint about it, but neither situation was black and white. He has paid his dues, and still has gas in the tank to help a team.

Of course he is no longer at his peak, but he spent years being the only good thing in Philly and took a one-option team to the NBA Finals. He single-handedly kept that team in the playoffs for years.

On a team like the Knicks where we have players who SAY they want to be leaders, we had a chance to learn from a REAL on-court leader. He is undersized, but we have undersized players too. Do you think our undersized guys could benefit from seeing a prolific scoring machine drive hard through the lane?! Talk about off court issues all you want, but Allen Iverson never brought any of that stuff onto the court with him. We have a team trying to find its heart knowing they really have little to play for. Bringing in Iverson might have helped focus this team to overachieve even if just a little.

We have mentioned before about the similarities between Iverson and Marbury. Allow me to remind you of the DIFFERENCES between the two. Marbury's only accolades have been All NBA 3rd Team (twice) and NBA All-Star (twice). Iverson has a ROY, 10 time All-Star (7 starts), 2 All Star MVPs, 1 regular season MVP, multiple All-NBA 1st Team awards, 4 scoring titles, 3 steals titles and a gold medal. He is towards the end of a Hall of Fame career.

It is a bit insulting to dismiss him as a 'cancer' or a 'distraction'. Detroit had Hamilton in his spot, and who the hell knows what Memphis was thinking when they signed him (you can say tickets, but how many would you really sell if people knew Iverson would be riding the pine). Iverson has never been David Robinson, but he brings a lot to the table.

1 recs | Comment 13 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

well done

I don’t think the Knicks should sign AI or anything, but it wouldn’t be the dumbest move for this franchise in recent history…

AI might not be a good solution for the Knicks, but he deserves better. Great career. HOF, no doubt. And he was an “undersized, one-man show” for a long time in Philly.

by M. on Nov 20, 2009 3:24 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Great points

I hope I wasn’t conveying any of that in my posts. I really do love Iverson and don’t actually worry at all about how he’d affect the Knicks’ locker room. It was more about the unseemly gesture of such a meaningless, temporary move and the fact that it might hinder the youngsters’ development.

Posting and Toasting: DWTDD.

by Seth on Nov 20, 2009 3:37 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

nah, Seth, you are usually right on target

by Chris Child's Fist on Nov 20, 2009 4:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

true indeed

I at the very least thought Walsh should think about it, which he has done. But it irks me that alot of dudes wouldn’t even acknowledge the possibility that he could help based off nothing more than his being a “Cancer”. He is an accomplished winner who has been to the Finals and as a starter his effectiveness should not even be questioned.

I could see the move being lateral because I doubt Iverson would improve our playoff hopes but just by the possibility of Iverson coming to town, the team looks as if they’re playing with more urgency, not wanting to lose jobs, minutes, status, etc to him.

What did the 5 fingers say to the face?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7CBwX1891A
HaHaHaHa!

by Lord Smackington on Nov 21, 2009 4:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well said

I’ve been thinking about this quite a bit and I think Iverson’s a guy who speaks his mind, and sometimes those guys can be hard to deal with, but it beats someone who just broods and sulks like Marbury.

I think I went through a similar process as Walsh did – at first I was intrigued, and I really saw how it could be good. In the end, I think the Knicks just wanted to see what what Toney Douglas and N8 are made of this year.

by fuhry on Nov 20, 2009 4:47 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I just hope

…that they actually Do something with Toney and Nate and Gallo and Hill and Chandler (did i leave anybody out?). Right now, I see two different teams. The Contracts and the Youngins. And the Youngins are either wasting away on the bench, or not getting the ball on the court.

by Chris Child's Fist on Nov 20, 2009 4:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

that's the sad part

I agree with developing young talent but not at the expense of winning games in 2009. Just happens to be the young guns are looking sharper and hungrier yet coach won’t play em.

I don’t care who it is….if they are performing better they should play more.

Douglas and hughes should be starting and getting more minutes period. Gallo is looking better than Chandler right now so he should get more PT as well. And Lee looks bad…I mean steph Curry threw his shot!

I wasn’t crazy about the Hill pick but it was for the best, but why pick him at 8 overall and not play him 5 more mis a nite when Lee is being manhandled by smallish guards with no history of decent interior defensive skills?

What did the 5 fingers say to the face?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7CBwX1891A
HaHaHaHa!

by Lord Smackington on Nov 21, 2009 4:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You say what Iverson WAS

…but not what he IS now.

Iverson’s a real leader? Since when? Since when is taking 30 shots a game a leader?

Yea..he’d probably fit right in with the Knicks…but not in a good way.

Hell yea he’s a cancer. How come the Nuggets got so much better with Billups over AI? Is Billups that much better than AI?

"It ain't over till its over"---

by FreeBradshaw on Nov 20, 2009 6:35 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Billiups right now

is prob better then AI.

I would take Billiups in a heartbeat on the knicks.

That doesnt negate the fact that AI would have been the best player on the knicks. Denver is a much better team right now.

It is annoying how AI (ai) and Al (aL) look the same when you type them.

by gbaked on Nov 21, 2009 3:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yea...

NOW we realize that Billups is better than Iverson…

but at the time, considering his ‘production’, people would tell you its an even trade, or that the Nuggets got an aging Billups and the Detroit got an old guy in Iverson who can still light it up and woud “solve their scoring problem”.

Of course Billips…or AI for that matter, would be the best player on the Knicks. They have a whole lineup of bench players (Gallo right now, on a good team should be a 2nd teamer…but I know that in the future he’s gonna be a very good player).

Its just what exactly is he gonna bring. Yea, he’d put up 20+ a game….but he’s a volume shooter, so that’s gonna take away points from other players.

Yea, consistent scoring like Iverson would bring, is still the Knicks problem. But I still can’t see how a small SG who only scores and basically does nothing else, was even gonna add to a few wins.

"It ain't over till its over"---

by FreeBradshaw on Nov 21, 2009 3:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Billups is different PG than Iverson

But just for the sake of numbers, Iverson averaged 18 shots a game with a .458 FG% (2over 25 ppg) and .346 3P%, to go with 7.2 assists per game in Denver over a span of 135 games. For all his “lost step” status, he still managed nearly 2 steals and 3 rebs a game.

He took a lot of shots over the years, but as he has gotten older, his selection has been better and more efficient. And 7 dimes a game tells me he can dish the ball if asked to play PG.

Billups has always been a more pure PG and since Denver had their scoring covered, they opted for him. Detroit wanted to increase their scoring load, so in essence, this trade seemed to be good for BOTH teams. Then Detroit opted to turn the team over to Stuckey and NOT play Hamilton/Iverson together, and understandably neither was interested in coming off the bench.

Is it so hard to believe that Iverson’s ‘volume’ shooting has been based on team need at the time? He doesn’t have to be Al Harrington and shoot every time he gets the ball. He can handle PG duties better than he gets credit for, it’s just that when dudes decide to stand around, Iverson can make shit happen.

by Chris Child's Fist on Nov 21, 2009 8:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

not only that

at the time the nuggets biggest problem was interior D. Which Iverson had no control over. Nene was not healthy and there was no chris “bird-man” anderson around.

The nuggets were a playoff team with Iverson and are still one without him, Billups is better than A.I. now but the biggest difference is that interior presence which have them now looking like champion contenders.

And I might add, I have not heard a single nugget player then or now refer to Iverson as a cancer during his tenure…that seems to conveniently apply only to teams that hit roadblocks and can’t figure out how to win. Not that Iverson doesn’t make it easy to be the scapegoat cause he really does.

What did the 5 fingers say to the face?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7CBwX1891A
HaHaHaHa!

by Lord Smackington on Nov 21, 2009 4:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

exaggerated stats

It’s funny how you point out how Iverson supporters are talking about what Iverson WAS. Then, in your post, you proceed to talk about Iverson taking 30 shots a game. How long ago was that? When he was with the Sixers? Even then, it wasn’t actually 30 shots but I know that sounds good. The reality is that his last year in Philly, he took about 23 shots, in Denver he took about 19 and in Detroit he took less than 15.

Why did Denver get better? Try the fact that Melo got a year older and wiser, Nene was healthy for the whole year, providing a down low presence, JR Smith was a year older and a little less dumb, Birdman Anderson, a healthier KMart. There are many more factors than simply the addition of Billups. Even with that, they won exactly FOUR more games!

by KeithA on Nov 24, 2009 2:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs