Don't be dense.
Quote:
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.
|
No, a study of the NBA record shows that Iverson has made many more assists when he was the designated point guard than when he was the designated shooting guard, both before and after Brown jerked his position to SG. Conversely, his scoring has been a little lower when he was the designated point guard. Once again, your arguments are circular and illogical. The only way you can prove that Iverson is a poor NBA point guard at the present time is to play him at point guard and see what happens. I say at the present time, because no one in his right mind could say that Iverson was a poor point guard in high school, college, and in his NBA rookie of the year season.
And if you in the present day told A.I. to be the point guard, and it turned out that he was a poor point guard, worse than Sebastian Telfair and Smush Parker for example, which I find almost impossible to imagine, you could then blame it on bad habits he picked up while playing the wrong position for many years under Brown and now under Karl.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Karl played Boykins at SG? No PG could possibly be successful with Boykins at SG. Next thing I know, you will be supporting Karl if he decides to play a 4 foot dwarf at SG. Lol, either that is wrong or Karl is even more of a jerk than I thought. I’ll have to verify this, but I do believe you are correct. These days, I never miss a chance to catch Karl doing something silly, but I started covering the Nuggets right about the time Boykins was playing SG I think, not to mention that I wasn't on the lookout for his mistakes as closely as I am now.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Once again, all this proves is that Karl doesn’t know what he is doing with respect to the PG position. I am one of J.R. Smith’s biggest fans, but even I would not want him at PG. It seems more and more clear that Karl simply doesn't understand the importance of having the best guard you have on the team who can play PG to start at the position, something which most other coaches treat as gospel.
The side which has been brainwashed by Brown and Karl’s playing A.I. at the SG position into thinking that Iverson can not play the point frequently uses this vague expression “ability to run an offense,” which is never defined. What exactly do you mean by that? I am afraid that it’s one of those flashy lines that doesn’t really have any meaning. Do you mean that Iverson doesn’t run an offense the way you think it should be run? I think that is it, but lord knows that for every point guard, from Eric Snow to Chris Paul, there is a way to run an offense, and you will be lucky if one PG in the NBA at any given time matches your idea of a point guard who knows how to run an offense the way you think they should know how to run an offense.
There are many ways to run an offense, and many types of point guards to run the numerous ways. Chris Paul is proving, as many high scoring PGs before him have proved, that it is irrational to think that a high scoring PG makes it impossible or even very difficult to have a well run offense. The Hornets are 7th in pace-adjusted offense, while the Nuggets are only 11th. By the way, the Nuggets were 15th a week ago, but after a week of Iverson playing both positions at once, and playing PG at least as much as Anthony Carter, they have moved up 4 notches. The more Iverson decides to play more like a PG and less like a SG, the better the Nuggets offense is.
What I am most disappointed about in this dialogue is that you seem to be reluctant to give your actual opinion of how well J.R. Smith plays the SG position, and your opinion of how well or how poor the Allen Iverson at PG and J.R. Smith at SG lineup would be, compared with the Carter at PG and Iverson at SG lineup. Any serious Nuggets fan has to consider that the Nuggets have failed far worse than anyone thought they would after the Iverson trade. Even many of those who believe the Iverson myths thought the Nuggets would be better off than they are. But if you think Carter / Iverson is better than Iverson / Smith, please say so.
Quote:
|
No, they're in the better half of the league in turnovers per possessions.
|
This is an interesting point, and you got me to some extent on this point, because it’s true that the Nuggets move from 25th in turnovers to about 10th in turnovers after you adjust for pace. But that is the rank; the actual number of pace-adjusted turnovers puts them exactly half way between the top and the bottom. But I’m sort of glad you motivated me to make that calculation, because it makes George Karl’s refusal to play J.R. Smith very much even more irrational than I thought.
Quote:
|
At this point, I've realized you're not reading what I write, so never mind
|
.