YOU SAID
Quote:
These are because of his height. Iverson's height makes him a defensive liability at SG, and tall, effective points are a rarity.
Most of his coaches have preferred him at SG, I'll show you
PG: Davis, O'Brien, Thompson
SG: Brown, Ayers, Ford, Cheeks, Karl
Cheeks didn't have another point option, so he was forced to play AI there, but he hated it. He even played Iguadala there in the 06-07 season over Iverson.
|
I SAY
Cheeks can’t be counted as just SG, because it was both, so he should be 1/2 point for each. Ayers and Ford can only count as 1/2 each, because they coached in the same season, and it is even more rare for one of the best players in the NBA to have his position changed during the season than it would be to have his position changed from one year to the next. So it is really 3 1/2 coaches each. But I bet if I went back to high school, it would be PG again!
YOU SAID:
Quote:
|
The same is true in the all-star game. He gets point by virtue of being shorter.
|
I SAY
Well if he’s too short to play the SG position in the all-star game, then he is definitely too short to play the SG position in ordinary games. One or the other is wrong; either the NBA front office is wrong for listing him as a PG for all-star voting, or Larry Brown and George Karl are wrong for designating him as a SG.
YOU SAID:
Quote:
|
Assists do not equal being a good point guard. Iverson gets most of his assists as bail outs - last resorts after his scoring options are exhausted. He doesn't set up the offense, and he holds the ball for too long to be an effective point. When he runs it, the other players feel alienated from the game, and it leads to inconsistency from the team. His numbers will look great, but the overall offense becomes stagnant. It's why the Nuggets traded for Blake.
|
I SAY:
There is some truth in your observations, but you can’t use those observations to prove that Iverson is a poor PG, because the SG position has different priorities than the PG position does, and any player moved from PG to SG would have to change his game or be a failure at SG. In other words, there is a lack of logic in saying: “Look, there’s Iverson running another isolation dribble and fade away again. See, he would be a bad PG. But he’s doing what shooting guards are allowed and frequently encouraged to do, so it is an invalid observation.
It's not really much different from saying that Ray Allen, Rashad McCants, or Jason Richardson would not be good point guards based on how they are playing right now. It's true, but it isn't really a valid observation.
YOU SAID:
Quote:
|
The nuggets are visibly more energetic and better on offense with Carter in the game. He's not as explosive as Iverson, but he's solid and consistent, which denver really needs. Keeping blake would've done them better, but they didn't want to pay the luxury tax.
|
I SAY:
I think the Nuggets are more energetic and better on offense with the Iverson / J.R. Smith backcourt than they are with the Iverson / Carter offense. Adjusted for pace, and you have to adjust to get the real truth, the Nuggets are about the 5th best team in the NBA on defense, but only about the 15th best team in the NBA on offense.
YOU SAID:
Quote:
|
Playing carter has really helped the nuggets' turnovers, as Iverson turns the ball over way to much as a point, he's never had even a 2 to 1 assist to TO ratio while playing that position.
|
I SAY
The Nuggets are still a high turnover team. J.R. Smith offsets his turnovers with steals and explosive scoring, so the Iverson / J.R. Smith backcourt would not be worse than the Iverson / Carter backcourt In terms of net damage from turnovers. George Karl simply decided that he couldn’t stomach the number of turnovers you would get with the Iverson / Smith backcourt; he never made a reasonable estimation of costs and benefits.
YOU SAID:
Quote:
|
Don't get me wrong. I'm as big an Iverson fan as there is, and I've watch nearly every Nuggets game since he was traded. But I'd like to see him appreciated for what he is. Classifying him as a point exposes his weaknesses at that position. He's an incredibly versatile shooting guard who can fill in there when needed.
|
I SAY:
Well the Nuggets lost their starting PG for most of the season, so if AI wasn’t needed then at the position, then when would he be needed? Never, because Karl will go through all kinds of contortions to avoid playing AI at the point, because Karl buys into the myth that AI is a poor PG, or at least he thinks that AI has been spoiled as a PG by playing SG for so many years. Iverson briefly started at PG last year for the Nuggets,and did reasonably well. But ever since Karl grew to detest J.R. Smith about a year ago, starting AI at the point has been out of the question, because he would have to start J.R. Smith at 2-guard if he did that and he will not start J.R. Smith under any circumstances. Smith has been one of the best shooting guards in the NBA since 2008 began but all it has gotten him is about half a dozen more minutes per game; Karl still refuses to even consider starting him and would rather miss the playoffs than start J.R. Smith.
YOU SAID:
Quote:
By the way, the reason the Nuggets are struggling is inconsistent effort, especially on the defensive end, and a lack of ball movement. Combining two isolation players in Iverson and Anthony was never a good idea. They don't, and can't work off of each other, so they end up taking turns scoring, with one of them holding the ball 5-10 seconds on most possessions. It effectively limits both of their explosiveness.
And by not involving the players enough, it takes their heads out of the game, which leads to long stretches where they barely play any defense. Carmelo is the worst at that, but Iverson isn't much better, and his height hurts things.
|
I SAY:
Ok, you have done extremely well describing some of the big problems the Nuggets have with Iverson at SG, unaccountable for how many isolation plays he runs at that position. If Iverson is designated the PG and you tell him: “A.I., I want 10-12 assists per game and 18-20 points per game instead of 7 assists per game and 25 points per game, and as long as all the years he has played the wrong position for Brown and Karl have not made him unable to adjust, which I greatly doubt, you have gone a long way to solving the big problems that you described.