Author Topic: IVERSON.  (Read 5092 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: IVERSON.
« Reply #60 on: January 29, 2013, 06:56:38 PM »

Offline kg is king

  • Jeff Green
  • Posts: 506
  • Tommy Points: 37
  • KG IS THE KING
AI is better at this point and 37, he's better than 90% of guards in the league. If Nash, Hill, Stackhouse are in the league. Why not AI?
I think AI would be a great substitute for Rondo, Bradley,Terry and Lee, they aren't point guards, AI can to play 20-25 minutes easily and still he can to score 15 points and 5 assist, I'm sure.
Game and Nba need old schools and Allen Iverson.
Unless we're trying to make Boston the hot spot for early 2000s all stars, I am against bringing in AI. Unlike Nash, Hill, and Stackhouse, AI's game was heavily reliant on his blazing quickness/speed. Nash never had elite athleticism, rather, he knows the game inside and out and is a skillful player. AI's skills (getting by the defender, hitting acrobatic shots) went down the drain when he found out he could not get by anyone and finish over anyone at will. That's why he's out of the league since 2010. So if a 34 year old AI couldn't stay in the league, what makes you optimistic that he can at age 37?
"I'm from the bottom, I understand what it's like to have and to not have. My perception on giving is to put yourself in those people's shoes and go from there. So that's what I did. " - The One and Only KG

Re: IVERSON.
« Reply #61 on: January 29, 2013, 06:57:20 PM »

Offline Onslaught

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1538
  • Tommy Points: 136
AI is better at this point and 37, he's better than 90% of guards in the league. If Nash, Hill, Stackhouse are in the league. Why not AI?
I think AI would be a great substitute for Rondo, Bradley,Terry and Lee, they aren't point guards, AI can to play 20-25 minutes easily and still he can to score 15 points and 5 assist, I'm sure.
Game and Nba need old schools and Allen Iverson.
People age different. Just because one guy can do it at one age in no way means someone else can too. It's possible he could still do it. But if so then why are no teams looking at him? If you're a bad team with empty seats then why in the world wouldn't you even look at someone like him who could sell tickets?
My gut tells me that AI must be done or so close to done that people wouldn't want to deal with all the BS that surounds him.
Peace through Tyranny

Re: IVERSON.
« Reply #62 on: January 29, 2013, 06:59:06 PM »

Offline Onslaught

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1538
  • Tommy Points: 136
AI is better at this point and 37, he's better than 90% of guards in the league. If Nash, Hill, Stackhouse are in the league. Why not AI?
I think AI would be a great substitute for Rondo, Bradley,Terry and Lee, they aren't point guards, AI can to play 20-25 minutes easily and still he can to score 15 points and 5 assist, I'm sure.
Game and Nba need old schools and Allen Iverson.
Unless we're trying to make Boston the hot spot for early 2000s all stars, I am against bringing in AI. Unlike Nash, Hill, and Stackhouse, AI's game was heavily reliant on his blazing quickness/speed. Nash never had elite athleticism, rather, he knows the game inside and out and is a skillful player. AI's skills (getting by the defender, hitting acrobatic shots) went down the drain when he found out he could not get by anyone and finish over anyone at will. That's why he's out of the league since 2010. So if a 34 year old AI couldn't stay in the league, what makes you optimistic that he can at age 37?

This too. It's one of my fears about Rondo. So much of what he brings depends on his speed. So when that's gone one day he's not known for his shooting.
Peace through Tyranny

Re: IVERSON.
« Reply #63 on: January 29, 2013, 07:06:11 PM »

Offline GreenFaith1819

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11120
  • Tommy Points: 2168
The interesting thing with AI is that IF he came to BOS now, he'd be coming into perhaps his most complete team EVER.

He'd have a future HOF Big in KG and another future HOF Celtic in Pierce.

Rondo is another probable HOFer...he'd be on the sidelines, but ever present.

He'd have Doc and Danny - both winners as players AND Coaches/GMs.

He have talented and intelligent youth (Sullinger, Green, AB, Bass, Lee).

He'd have battle-tested vet leadership on the bench (Jet).

Has AI EVER had that much in DEN or PHI?
« Last Edit: January 29, 2013, 07:11:59 PM by GreenFaith1819 »

Re: IVERSON.
« Reply #64 on: January 29, 2013, 07:24:34 PM »

Offline GreenFaith1819

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11120
  • Tommy Points: 2168
I was naming players that I can't stand. Even have 100% pure sports hate for.
And AI is just about at the top of that list. I can't stand him so much that even
if he won us a ring I'm not sure I could watch.

Why the hate?

Just curious.
At 17 he was charged for hitting a woman in the head with a chair in a bowling alley fight. Classy
Didn't like his coach Chris Ford. So he missed practice, missed games for being "sick" without telling Ford and refused to come off the bench and wouldn't play.
He wanted to get into a VIP room at a club but someone was in there. So his bodyguard beat the ever loving stuffing out of the man. Sure, AI didn't do it himself. But he didn't stop his guy from doing it.
He was arrested for drugs and carrying a concealed weapon.
And lets not forget about "practice." If you can't work with your team and like Bird, Magic and MJ did even if you really don't need the practice yourself then you'll never be a champion. Oh, that's right....... he never was!

As great as AI was at putting a ball in a basket, as a person he was a scum bag from what I could see. And I'm not one to look past what people do off the court and like them just because they're good at basketball. Sure, I could find something bad about anyone including myself if I looked long and hard enough. But you don't have to look hard at all to see the problems with AI. He's known as a cancer for a reason. And current NBA teams don't want him for a reason too.



AI has had controversy surrounding him - no question about it.

But no one's perfect.

We ALL have Good AND Bad in us...it's sad that with AI he is often associated with the bad - and that is not fair.

If you look hard enough in most people - you will find good.

And bad.

What will we focus on?

Re: IVERSON.
« Reply #65 on: January 29, 2013, 07:33:47 PM »

Offline Onslaught

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1538
  • Tommy Points: 136
I said that if you look hard enough you can find bad about anyone. Some people you don't need to look hard at all. You just look right at them. To me AI is one of those people.
Peace through Tyranny

Re: IVERSON.
« Reply #66 on: January 29, 2013, 07:36:54 PM »

Offline GreenFaith1819

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11120
  • Tommy Points: 2168
I said that if you look hard enough you can find bad about anyone. Some people you don't need to look hard at all. You just look right at them. To me AI is one of those people.

So you chose to focus on the controversy, then.

That is your choice, and right.

For me, I choose to try to find some good in people.

If people would've focused on "my" bad, then I would've never made it in life.

Re: IVERSON.
« Reply #67 on: January 29, 2013, 07:42:17 PM »

Offline CelticConcourse

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6175
  • Tommy Points: 382
  • Jeff Green
If you guys don't like AI, you shouldn't like KG either. He's done some rough stuff too, to be honest. We're all biased.
Jeff Green - Top 5 SF

[Kevin Garnett]
"I've always said J. Green is going to be one of the best players to ever play this game"

Re: IVERSON.
« Reply #68 on: January 29, 2013, 07:54:46 PM »

Offline moiso

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • ****
  • Posts: 4330
  • Tommy Points: 125
If you guys don't like AI, you shouldn't like KG either. He's done some rough stuff too, to be honest. We're all biased.
At least KG has always played the game the right way in my opinion.  And he's always been a great teammate and a hard worker.  Iverson never played the game the right way in my opinion... unless jacking up 30 shots per game at a low percentage and playing zero defense is the right way.

Re: IVERSON.
« Reply #69 on: January 29, 2013, 07:56:19 PM »

Offline CelticConcourse

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6175
  • Tommy Points: 382
  • Jeff Green
If you guys don't like AI, you shouldn't like KG either. He's done some rough stuff too, to be honest. We're all biased.
At least KG has always played the game the right way in my opinion.  And he's always been a great teammate and a hard worker.  Iverson never played the game the right way in my opinion... unless jacking up 30 shots per game at a low percentage and playing zero defense is the right way.

And being named MVP.

And leading your terrible team to the Finals and singlehandedly beating the Lakers once and almost twice or thrice.
Jeff Green - Top 5 SF

[Kevin Garnett]
"I've always said J. Green is going to be one of the best players to ever play this game"

Re: IVERSON.
« Reply #70 on: January 29, 2013, 08:00:56 PM »

Offline anthony83

  • Brandon Bass
  • Posts: 442
  • Tommy Points: 36
AI is better at this point and 37, he's better than 90% of guards in the league. If Nash, Hill, Stackhouse are in the league. Why not AI?
I think AI would be a great substitute for Rondo, Bradley,Terry and Lee, they aren't point guards, AI can to play 20-25 minutes easily and still he can to score 15 points and 5 assist, I'm sure.
Game and Nba need old schools and Allen Iverson.
Unless we're trying to make Boston the hot spot for early 2000s all stars, I am against bringing in AI. Unlike Nash, Hill, and Stackhouse, AI's game was heavily reliant on his blazing quickness/speed. Nash never had elite athleticism, rather, he knows the game inside and out and is a skillful player. AI's skills (getting by the defender, hitting acrobatic shots) went down the drain when he found out he could not get by anyone and finish over anyone at will. That's why he's out of the league since 2010. So if a 34 year old AI couldn't stay in the league, what makes you optimistic that he can at age 37?
I disagree, when AI returned to Sixers in 2010; his game was different, I repeat you, if Nash is in the game, AI must to be, this is evident.

Re: IVERSON.
« Reply #71 on: January 29, 2013, 08:08:05 PM »

Offline Onslaught

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1538
  • Tommy Points: 136
If you guys don't like AI, you shouldn't like KG either. He's done some rough stuff too, to be honest. We're all biased.
You want to know the truth? I'm not the worlds biggest KG fan. Never have been. I'd take T. Duncan over him every time without a doubt. I like many of the things that KG brings to the court but you're correct, he's done some bad things. Most of them way in the past and he's grown out of them. Not so sure about AI yet on that one.

But I don't question KG's motivation in basketball. I don't question his desire to win and do what's best for the team. Or his work ethic or loyalty to his team. I do question AI with these things.
Peace through Tyranny

Re: IVERSON.
« Reply #72 on: January 29, 2013, 08:10:20 PM »

Offline Onslaught

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1538
  • Tommy Points: 136
If you guys don't like AI, you shouldn't like KG either. He's done some rough stuff too, to be honest. We're all biased.
At least KG has always played the game the right way in my opinion.  And he's always been a great teammate and a hard worker.  Iverson never played the game the right way in my opinion... unless jacking up 30 shots per game at a low percentage and playing zero defense is the right way.

And being named MVP.

And leading your terrible team to the Finals and singlehandedly beating the Lakers once and almost twice or thrice.
Leading a team out of the east wasn't so difficult back then. A team with Antoine Walker almost did it!
Peace through Tyranny

Re: IVERSON.
« Reply #73 on: January 29, 2013, 08:14:11 PM »

Offline Onslaught

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1538
  • Tommy Points: 136
AI is better at this point and 37, he's better than 90% of guards in the league. If Nash, Hill, Stackhouse are in the league. Why not AI?
I think AI would be a great substitute for Rondo, Bradley,Terry and Lee, they aren't point guards, AI can to play 20-25 minutes easily and still he can to score 15 points and 5 assist, I'm sure.
Game and Nba need old schools and Allen Iverson.
Unless we're trying to make Boston the hot spot for early 2000s all stars, I am against bringing in AI. Unlike Nash, Hill, and Stackhouse, AI's game was heavily reliant on his blazing quickness/speed. Nash never had elite athleticism, rather, he knows the game inside and out and is a skillful player. AI's skills (getting by the defender, hitting acrobatic shots) went down the drain when he found out he could not get by anyone and finish over anyone at will. That's why he's out of the league since 2010. So if a 34 year old AI couldn't stay in the league, what makes you optimistic that he can at age 37?
I disagree, when AI returned to Sixers in 2010; his game was different, I repeat you, if Nash is in the game, AI must to be, this is evident.
I don't see why. Nash and AI don't play the same way at all.
Peace through Tyranny

Re: IVERSON.
« Reply #74 on: January 29, 2013, 08:35:31 PM »

Online nickagneta

  • Paul Pierce
  • ***************************
  • Posts: 27124
  • Tommy Points: 2036
You guys were around in the late 90's and early 2000's right?

You remember Iverson jacking shots up regardless of whether a team mate was open and had a better shot right?

You remember Iverson not wanting to practice and making his now famous comments, right?

You remember him butting heads with just about every coach he had and disregarding plays the coaches wanted run so he could play his game, right?

You remember his Rondo like defense of playing the passing lanes, letting less talented and less athletically gifted players go right by him and only playing some defense when he felt like it right?

You remember the early in the shot clock three pointers, the ridiculous drives to the basket without dumping it down to an open big, the pull up shots in traffic while triple teamed, right?

You remember how he alienated so so many of his team mates and how after leaving Philly, just getting worse and worse but still expecting a 30 shot a night role, right?

You remember him giving up on Detroit because his coach wanted him playing a lesser role, right?

You remember him saying he would play off the bench in Memphis but then leaving the team when he didn't get his way right?

You remember his going back to Philly promising to be good after being a last chance and then blowing that by leaving them high and dry, right?

You remember the horrible example he set for younger players and how he never gelled with any other good to great player to produce a title competing club, right?

Basically, Iverson was all about AI and about the least "team" oriented player in maybe the history of the game. Why admire that? Why want that on your team? Why would any coach want someone like that on their team?

Stop remembering his toughness or the way he brought in the gangsta brand of basketball player, which was so popular amongst teens during his era. Start remembering all the extra stuff he brought that current day players, coaches and GMs just won't put up with.

Sorry there is exactly ZERO proof this man has changed his attitude. Why even think about risking losing your coach or players or locker room or risk his attitude effecting your younger players.

I want my youngsters exposed to the Pierces, Allens, and Garnetts of the world and I never want AI anywhere near a young player signed to my team.

 

Hello! Guest

Welcome to the CelticsBlog Forums.