Quote:
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.
|
Don't be dense.
This is the whole point. Iverson plays like a shooting guard. No matter what position he plays. He plays like a SG even when he plays point.
Point guards shouldn't play like shooting guards. Iverson does. Therefore, Iverson is a bad point guard.
Everything else is irrelevent in context to this one point.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Lol, EVERY coach Iverson has ever played under has tried to get him to do this. INCLUDING Brown and Karl. Karl played Iverson at point with Boykins at SG. It took him 11 games to realize it wasn't going to work. Iverson has never changed the way he plays, it's just part of him. He tried when he came to the nuggets, and at the beginning of this year. He just struggles at it.
Quote:
|
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.
|
And as much as Karl "hates" JR, he'll play smith at point and Iverson at two, like he did at the beginning of this year. Iverson does not posesses any more ability to run an offense than Smith does. He'll even have Camby run the offense, he's better at it than both of them, and he's awful.
Quote:
|
The Nuggets are still a high turnover team.
|
No, they're in the better half of the league in turnovers per possessions.
Quote:
|
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.
|
At this point, I've realized you're not reading what I write, so never mind.