Thread Tools

Display Modes

tremaine · 03-19-2008, 01:52 PM

Hi folks, a Nuggets fan and sportswriter here and I have a question for 76'ers fans.
Most big basketball fans know that Allen Iverson was moved from point guard to shooting guard when Larry Brown took over as Coach of the 76'ers for the 1997-98 season. What we are wondering about in Nuggets land is whether he was returned to the point guard position after Larry Brown left.

So which position did Allen Iverson start at and mostly play at during these years, which are the years after Larry Brown left, but while Iverson was still on your team? Was it mostly Point Guard or mostly Shooting Guard for Iverson in these years?

2003-04 Chris Ford and Randy Ayers were the coaches
2004-05 Jim O'Brien was the coach
2005-06 Maurice Cheeks was the coach
2006-07 Maurice Cheeks was the coach

By the way, good luck in tonight's game, you will probably win it.

**Sliccat** · 03-19-2008, 02:19 PM

2003-04 Chris Ford and Randy Ayers were the coaches - SG
2004-05 Jim O'Brien was the coach - PG
2005-06 Maurice Cheeks was the coach - Mostly PG, some SG
2006-07 Maurice Cheeks was the coach - A split.

tremaine · 03-19-2008, 02:51 PM

Thanks so much, my friend. We are thinking in Nuggets land that Iverson never should have been moved away from the PG position, which was done mostly by Brown.

Once again, good luck in tonight's Nuggets-76'ers game. You will most likely win it and one reason for that is that, in effect, the Nuggets are largely relying on Iverson to play both guard positions well at the same time in order to win a game like this. Since Iverson is not a machine, it doesn't work often enough to make that sensible.

Since you obviously know the facts about this, could you also confirm that Iverson was the PG most of the time in 1996-97, his rookie year, with Coach Johnny Davis?

I am 90% certain he was, but I'd like to get a confirmation.

Also, I think it is common knowledge that Iverson was the 2-guard in all the Brown years, but if that is not actually true, please correct me on that.

**Sliccat** · 03-19-2008, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tremaine

Thanks so much, my friend. We are thinking in Nuggets land that Iverson never should have been moved away from the PG position, which was done mostly by Brown.

Once again, good luck in tonight's Nuggets-76'ers game. You will most likely win it and one reason for that is that, in effect, the Nuggets are largely relying on Iverson to play both guard positions well at the same time in order to win a game like this. Since Iverson is not a machine, it doesn't work often enough to make that sensible.

Since you obviously know the facts about this, could you also confirm that Iverson was the PG most of the time in 1996-97, his rookie year, with Coach Johnny Davis?

I am 90% certain he was, but I'd like to get a confirmation.

Also, I think it is common knowledge that Iverson was the 2-guard in all the Brown years, but if that is not actually true, please correct me on that.

yes, he was (mostly a pg in his rookie year, he was moved to sg when they traded for Eric Snow. Even in his rookie year, though, they got that he was a scoring guard.

However, you're wrong about Iverson. He's not a good PG because it stalls the offense. when you begin the play with somebody who dominates the ball as much as he does, it really stagnates the movement. It inflates his numbers, but offenses run smoother with him at sg. The combo guard role suits him.

tremaine · 03-21-2008, 04:08 PM

Thanks for the valuable information, it's appreciated greatly because we in Nuggets Land are trying to determine why the Nuggets have failed.

Well, I don't think Iverson is a perfect PG, and he is obviously a much more aggressive scorer than most PGs, but I think it is going too far to say he is a poor PG. Just a few quick reasons off the top of my head:

1. Iverson was the PG in his 2 years at Georgetown University and heavily dominated in assists for his team.
2. As you confirm, Iverson was the PG in his rookie of the year first year in the NBA.
3. As you confirm, Iverson returned mostly to the PG position after Larry Brown was gone. It turns out that although Iverson has played more years at SG than at PG, more coaches have preferred Iverson at PG over SG.
4. The NBA front office has always considered Iverson to be a PG at least as much as a SG, since his position at the all-star games has been PG, not SG.
5. Everyone agrees that Iverson can play either position, and he frequently plays both positions at once at the same time. So if he were truly a poor PG, wouldn't he have evolved over the years to limit himself to the SG role, with or without having to be told to do that by coaches? In other words, if he is much better in the SG role than in the PG role, than why can he still be seen today often running the point, and why is he 7th in the NBA in assists per game, ahead of most of the actual point guards?
6. The Nuggets, once Chucky Atkins went out for most of the season, were left with the choice of playing Iverson at the point or playing Anthony Carter at the point. Carter is someone who never averaged more than 23.5 minutes per game and 4.8 assists per game before he was befriended by George Karl, who likes his personality and conservative playmaking style. So even a good number of those who don't think Iverson is all that great a point guard would have to agree that the Nuggets should have played him at the position in the emergency they found themselves in when Atkins was lost for most of the season. In other words, Karl made a mistake regardless of exactly how great a PG Iverson really is.

**Sliccat** · 03-21-2008, 05:27 PM

Quote:

3. As you confirm, Iverson returned mostly to the PG position after Larry Brown was gone. It turns out that although Iverson has played more years at SG than at PG, more coaches have preferred Iverson at PG over SG.
4. The NBA front office has always considered Iverson to be a PG at least as much as a SG, since his position at the all-star games has been PG, not SG.

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.

The same is true in the all-star game. He gets point by virtue of being shorter.

Quote:

5. Everyone agrees that Iverson can play either position, and he frequently plays both positions at once at the same time. So if he were truly a poor PG, wouldn't he have evolved over the years to limit himself to the SG role, with or without having to be told to do that by coaches? In other words, if he is much better in the SG role than in the PG role, than why can he still be seen today often running the point, and why is he 7th in the NBA in assists per game, ahead of most of the actual point guards?

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.

Quote:

6. The Nuggets, once Chucky Atkins went out for most of the season, were left with the choice of playing Iverson at the point or playing Anthony Carter at the point. Carter is someone who never averaged more than 23.5 minutes per game and 4.8 assists per game before he was befriended by George Karl, who likes his personality and conservative playmaking style. So even a good number of those who don't think Iverson is all that great a point guard would have to agree that the Nuggets should have played him at the position in the emergency they found themselves in when Atkins was lost for most of the season. In other words, Karl made a mistake regardless of exactly how great a PG Iverson really is.

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.

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.

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.

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.

tremaine · 03-21-2008, 07:17 PM

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.

**Sliccat** · 03-21-2008, 09:20 PM

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.

tremaine · 03-22-2008, 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sliccat

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

.

I know your position exactly. You are using how Iverson plays when he is the designated SG to support your idea that he is a poor PG. And you are ignoring the long history of Allen Iverson playing the point well, although much of that history, but certainly not most of that history, due to Brown and Karl, is in the relatively distant past now.

Ultimately, you and everyone else who believes the Iverson myths, which were created and supported by Larry Brown, are just more victims of Brown's and Karl’s coaching errors, just like Team USA was the victim of Brown’s coaching errors in the 2004 Olympics, and just like the Denver Nuggets are the victim right now of George Karl's very same errors. David Stern was just as upset with Larry Brown over the Olympics as I am over his mismanagement of Allen Iverson.

But I guess you are welcome to continue believing that Allen Iverson is a poor PG, because the way things are, unless the Nuggets trade Smith for a SG that Karl is not afraid of, or unless Iverson realizes he is in almost exactly the same situation in Denver that he was in in Philadelphia, and moves to another team, it looks like that Iverson will never again be responsible for that position in his lifetime.

captainobvious · 03-23-2008, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tremaine

Thanks for the valuable information, it's appreciated greatly because we in Nuggets Land are trying to determine why the Nuggets have failed.

Well, I don't think Iverson is a perfect PG, and he is obviously a much more aggressive scorer than most PGs, but I think it is going too far to say he is a poor PG. Just a few quick reasons off the top of my head:

1. Iverson was the PG in his 2 years at Georgetown University and heavily dominated in assists for his team.
2. As you confirm, Iverson was the PG in his rookie of the year first year in the NBA.
3. As you confirm, Iverson returned mostly to the PG position after Larry Brown was gone. It turns out that although Iverson has played more years at SG than at PG, more coaches have preferred Iverson at PG over SG.
4. The NBA front office has always considered Iverson to be a PG at least as much as a SG, since his position at the all-star games has been PG, not SG.
5. Everyone agrees that Iverson can play either position, and he frequently plays both positions at once at the same time. So if he were truly a poor PG, wouldn't he have evolved over the years to limit himself to the SG role, with or without having to be told to do that by coaches? In other words, if he is much better in the SG role than in the PG role, than why can he still be seen today often running the point, and why is he 7th in the NBA in assists per game, ahead of most of the actual point guards?
6. The Nuggets, once Chucky Atkins went out for most of the season, were left with the choice of playing Iverson at the point or playing Anthony Carter at the point. Carter is someone who never averaged more than 23.5 minutes per game and 4.8 assists per game before he was befriended by George Karl, who likes his personality and conservative playmaking style. So even a good number of those who don't think Iverson is all that great a point guard would have to agree that the Nuggets should have played him at the position in the emergency they found themselves in when Atkins was lost for most of the season. In other words, Karl made a mistake regardless of exactly how great a PG Iverson really is.

The only reason anyone would want Iverson at PG is size. He is not a PG...at all. He dribbles too much time off of the clock, and does not make intelligent passes. (ie he dribbles into the lane and hand the ball to someone)
He is an amazing scorer from the guard position, but PG's are not supposed to dominate the ball, they are supposed ot distribute it...and thats why he is a 2. Andre Miller is 10 times the passer of AI, plain and simple. I loved watching his heart and his tough play, but I was happy about the trade as it helped move the franchise forward.

tremaine · 03-23-2008, 05:01 PM

Quote:

The only reason anyone would want Iverson at PG is size. He is not a PG...at all. He dribbles too much time off of the clock, and does not make intelligent passes. (ie he dribbles into the lane and hand the ball to someone)
He is an amazing scorer from the guard position, but PG's are not supposed to dominate the ball, they are supposed ot distribute it...and thats why he is a 2. Andre Miller is 10 times the passer of AI, plain and simple. I loved watching his heart and his tough play, but I was happy about the trade as it helped move the franchise forward.

Well, at least you say that the trade was bad for Denver, which it was as long as AI's game is not modified a little by designating him the point guard. What really drives me up the wall is when Nuggets fans are dumb enough to say that AI can't play the point, yet at the same time they say the trade was a good trade for Denver. Now that is just plain dumb.

But keep in mind that anyone can look at any shooting guard's playing style at any time and say "That guy would not be a good PG playing the way he is playing." And during almost this whole season, AI has been the shooting guard, not the point guard. Is there even one shooting guard in the NBA right now who is playing the way a point guard should play? Why should Iverson be the only one judged on point guard skills by how he plays shooting guard?

**Sliccat** · 03-24-2008, 09:20 AM

Quote:

But keep in mind that anyone can look at any shooting guard's playing style at any time and say "That guy would not be a good PG playing the way he is playing." And during almost this whole season, AI has been the shooting guard, not the point guard. Is there even one shooting guard in the NBA right now who is playing the way a point guard should play? Why should Iverson be the only one judged on point guard skills by how he plays shooting guard?

What you don't realize is that we've all watched AI play for 11 years. We've seen him play point. We've seen him be told to be a distributor. He has NEVER done it on a consistent basis. We've seen him before he was told to be a SG, we've seen him play point for two and a half years after that. He scored MORE. AI will never turn into a real point guard, unless age forces him to.

We've all been at the place you are right now; wanting Iverson to get 20 and 10, as apposed to 30 and 7, or 27 and 7. We've all said he should be a point guard, and then we've all seen the results. It makes the team worse. It simply is not in his mindset.

Thread Tools Display Modes

Thread Tools

Display Modes