# Allen Iverson



## dynamiks (Aug 15, 2005)

It seems that Billy king is willing to trade him. Would u want him on the knicks if the price is right?


----------



## 0oh_S0o_FreSh!! (Jun 3, 2006)

Prolly but im not giving up more than marbury and a couple bench players, because AI is growing older every year, and we are a young team, but if u want veteran leadership hes the guy to go to.


----------



## KVIP112 (Oct 31, 2005)

he wont be able to show his leadership during practice though...


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

*No, No, No*

AI is a brilliant scorer with a lion's heart but he just needs the ball too much for a team to win consistently. Weber has said privately that AI is far more difficult to play with than he imagined. Not because he's bad or anything like that, but because he needs to dominate the ball to be effective and great teams need ball MOVEMENT.


----------



## Pain5155 (May 28, 2006)

*Re: No, No, No*

even with AI in the lineup............id rather not finish this


----------



## ChosenFEW (Jun 23, 2005)

*Re: No, No, No*

A.I=past his prime


----------



## EwingStarksOakley94 (May 13, 2003)

*Re: No, No, No*

of course, I'd take AI in a heart beat.

My heart would also probably stop beating if this happened due to the unlikelyhood of this happening.


----------



## Gotham2krazy (Nov 22, 2005)

*Re: No, No, No*



ChosenFEW said:


> A.I=past his prime


Is he showing any signs of decline? The '05-'06 season was arguably his best ever in his career stat-wise, even better than his '01-'02 MVP performance. Even though he's good, he wouldn't fit in our system of what we're trying to play into. Iverson's a star and what he needs to be surrounded by are defensive, non-egocentric people around him, who can shoot the ball. We could bring him onto the team, but I fear it will only do our young players no good. But I'd suppose playing with Iverson would be better than playing with Stephon.


----------



## ChosenFEW (Jun 23, 2005)

*Re: No, No, No*

iverson=stephon


only difference is 1 is groomed to be a pg the other is a undersized shooting guard

they both put up enormous numbers for their position yet marbury gets all the heat and iverson all the love....Sh1t is ridiculous


there are so many similarities between them that its not even funny....


----------



## Gotham2krazy (Nov 22, 2005)

*Re: No, No, No*



ChosenFEW said:


> iverson=stephon
> 
> 
> only difference is 1 is groomed to be a pg the other is a undersized shooting guard
> ...


Like what? Actually there are a lot of differences, Iverson plays to win, he has heart and compassion. Anyone that wants to get into the mind of Allen Iverson should read "Only the Strong Survive: The Oddyssey of Allen Iverson." Iverson doesn't score 40+ because he's a ball hog, Iverson scores 40+ because that's just what happens. Stephon Marbury drops 20 and 8 not because it happens, but because Stephon Marbury makes it happen. There's a difference, you see?


----------



## The Future7 (Feb 24, 2005)

*Re: No, No, No*

A.I and Marbury are very different. Marbury can never carry a team like A.I. If I had to choose between the 2 being on the Knicks right now, I would choose A.I.


----------



## ChosenFEW (Jun 23, 2005)

*Re: No, No, No*

wow....should i even respond to that?




i shouldnt even bother arguing this with you because i see you think 20 and 8 is nothing (something 3NBA players have done in their careers)....you also say iverson plays to win.....hahahhha......and marbury goes out there to lose right?...that was one of the stupidest comments you've ever made


regardless what i say you'll come and defend your knight in shining armor so ill just leave at this

iverson=past his prime


----------



## BEEZ (Jun 12, 2002)

*Re: No, No, No*



ChosenFEW said:


> wow....should i even respond to that?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Great post


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

*Neither guy makes their team winners....*

Both are extremely talented but each is much better individually than as a cog within the framework of a team. Neither have much interest in defense (AI's steals don't maker him a good defender, only a good ball thief) and both have to have the ball to be a good player. Both are nearly unstoppable one on one....the trouble is there are five guys on a team. AI has not really accomplished any more than Marbury...except the year they made it to the finals in a very, very watered down East. ...only to be hammered by the Lakers. I'll pass.


----------



## Gotham2krazy (Nov 22, 2005)

*Re: No, No, No*



ChosenFEW said:


> wow....should i even respond to that?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


WOW, should I even respond to this?

Read between the lines man. I'm not trying to say 20 and 8 is nothing. I'm saying Iverson has more fire than Marbury. I'm saying that Iverson scores 40 because he just does it, not that he plans on doing it. On the contrary to Marbury, Marbury is a stat whore, prior to last season did you ever see him get less than 6 assists or more than 9 assists a game? I don't say that he goes out there every night to lose, but when someone has their personal agendas put before the team, then nobody's bound to win. I may not be right about Iverson, but I sure as hell ain't ****ing wrong about Marbury. How are you still arguing that Iverson is past his prime? The definition of prime in sports is when a player is at his all time best. So the definition of "past his prime" would be when a player can no longere play at his all time best, i.e. Shaquille O' Neal, not Iverson.


----------



## KVIP112 (Oct 31, 2005)

*Re: No, No, No*

at least marbury goes to practice. i think iverson set his personal agenda before him there. every player is supposed to go to practice but allen iverson didnt go to practice. what are we talking about practice? not a game, not a game, practice....


----------



## BEEZ (Jun 12, 2002)

*Re: No, No, No*



KVIP112 said:


> at least marbury goes to practice. i think iverson set his personal agenda before him there. every player is supposed to go to practice but allen iverson didnt go to practice. what are we talking about practice? not a game, not a game, practice....


 LOL, even though this happened 3 years ago and it hasnt been an issue since. Good going guys.


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

*The practice issue is moot....*

Even LB granted him a pass. Iverson is a very small player who plays unbelievably hard every minute. Because of this his body gets severely beaten up. You rather have him practice more and sit out more with injuries? Or play at less than full speed because of fatigue? I love to watch the guy play but really don't think he is the "answer" to a winning team. However, the practice thing is understandable.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: No, No, No*



Gotham2krazy said:


> WOW, should I even respond to this?
> 
> Read between the lines man. I'm not trying to say 20 and 8 is nothing. I'm saying Iverson has more fire than Marbury. I'm saying that Iverson scores 40 because he just does it, not that he plans on doing it. On the contrary to Marbury, Marbury is a stat whore, prior to last season did you ever see him get less than 6 assists or more than 9 assists a game? I don't say that he goes out there every night to lose, but when someone has their personal agendas put before the team, then nobody's bound to win. I may not be right about Iverson, but I sure as hell ain't ****ing wrong about Marbury. How are you still arguing that Iverson is past his prime? The definition of prime in sports is when a player is at his all time best. So the definition of "past his prime" would be when a player can no longere play at his all time best, i.e. Shaquille O' Neal, not Iverson.


Marbury isn't a stat whore or somehow a lesser player because his team's didn't win. You look at the situations he's been in and his predecessors have never done better. The Wolves? What have they done before or after he's left? The Suns? What did Jason Kidd do for them besides a series of first round playoffs exists? The Nets? They were not good since Dr.J was in town and in the ABA. The fact of the matter is that team's win and not individual players. Going back to Kidd, was he not one of the best point guards to play the game because his team did not experience alot of playoff success out West? I don't believe so because he was no more or less than the player he is or has been with the Nets. Marbury just needs to find a situation where he is surrounded by talented guys that compliment his game and can hold up there end of the burden. Just remember ", there is no 'I' in team," so let's not blame Marbury for everything especially since his situation's have been less than stable. 

As for adding Iverson, I might like the idea. I like the potential of Marbury and Francis in the back-court together and feel Iverson is an even better version of Francis in this situation. A.I. has shown the ability to play off the ball, has shown to be as good a scorer and shown to be a much better defender on and off the ball at the point than Francis. I'd move Francis to a team that's looking to add star players like the Wolves for Trenton Hassell, Eddie Griffin, cap filler to make the deal work and a first round draft pick in next year's draft. Then, look to deal both our expiring contracts in return for Iverson and maybe Webber to get him off there hands and then cut Webber. It's a bit drastic but it may be able to be done.


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

*Re: No, No, No*



TwinkieFoot said:


> Marbury isn't a stat whore or somehow a lesser player because his team's didn't win. You look at the situations he's been in and his predecessors have never done better. The Wolves? What have they done before or after he's left? The Suns? What did Jason Kidd do for them besides a series of first round playoffs exists? The Nets? They were not good since Dr.J was in town and in the ABA. The fact of the matter is that team's win and not individual players. Going back to Kidd, was he not one of the best point guards to play the game because his team did not experience alot of playoff success out West? I don't believe so because he was no more or less than the player he is or has been with the Nets. Marbury just needs to find a situation where he is surrounded by talented guys that compliment his game and can hold up there end of the burden. Just remember ", there is no 'I' in team," so let's not blame Marbury for everything especially since his situation's have been less than stable.


You got to be kidding? When Steph left those teams, with maybe the exception of the Wolves because it took a while to advance out the first round they were successful. There is this guy name Steve Nash he is pretty good, I think has two MVPs.


----------



## ChosenFEW (Jun 23, 2005)

*Re: No, No, No*

steph did take the suns to the deciding game in the playoffs against the spurs if im not mistaken.....back when the playoffs were in the best of 5 format


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: No, No, No*



Kitty said:


> You got to be kidding? When Steph left those teams, with maybe the exception of the Wolves because it took a while to advance out the first round they were successful. There is this guy name Steve Nash is pretty good, I think has two MVPs.


Again, it all depends on the personnel you have. Nash had guys that were cutters and as a PG with range and an ability to create his own shot, he's a better fit because he spaces for the floor them and give them more space to operate. Marbury is a guy that is excellent at getting to the rim so he spaces the floor for jump shots. Unfortunately, the league does not have many jump shooters anymore and none of them were ever on Marbury's team. It's all a matter of personnel. Steve Nash never became the 2nd coming until he went to the Suns and Jason Kidd never became the "winner" he was until he went to New Jersey. Marbury's no different. Don't give me that "his team's get better after he leaves." People forget at the same time that the Nets added not only a PG that fit the personnel better but a healthy Kerry Kittles, Keith Van Horn, and Kenyon Martin and added Richard Jefferson, Todd MacCulloch, Jason Collins, Rodney Rogers and more. The Suns in the process of trading Marbury recieved $30 million in cap space to rebuild there team. With that, they added Steve Nash and Quentin Richardson, not to mention that Amare Stoudemire and Joe Johnson got naturally better with experience.


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

*Re: No, No, No*

Seriously, some of you guys need to stop making up excuses as to why he isn't successful. As far as I'm concerned I'm a give him one more year which is the 2006-2007 and that's that. Brooklynite or not, I'm turning my back on him if I feel he can't be successful with the Knicks.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: No, No, No*



Kitty said:


> Seriously, some of you guys need to stop making up excuses as to why he isn't successful. As far as I'm concerned I'm a give him one more year which is the 2006-2007 and that's that. Brooklynite or not, I'm turning my back on him if I feel he can't be successful with the Knicks.


I guess teams bringing in more talent after he leaves is just us making excuses. After all, what could a person possibly do with more talent to work with and/or players that compliment there skill? Only every other major player in the league has them that has been successful has them.


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

*Re: No, No, No*



TwinkieFoot said:


> I guess teams bringing in more talent after he leaves is just us making excuses. After all, what could a person possibly do with more talent to work with and/or players that compliment there skill? Only every other major player in the league has them that has been successful has them.


So explain the Suns team? They had the big 3, Amare, Steph, and The Matrix. Steph leaves, they had Amare, Nasty Nash, and The Matrix. So what point are you trying to prove? That's not a coincidence, it's the truth.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

*Re: No, No, No*

If I were the Knicks, I would go after him, but not before getting rid of Franchise and Marbury first. _Maybe_ Marbury and AI can work together, but they'd be really small, and noone else would get shots. I know Francis and AI can't coexist, because both are too selfish. Marbury manages to score and find his teammates, AI does too, but Marbury is a better Point Guard by definition. Iverson would probably need either a point guard next to him, or an unselfish 2.

And I'd like to know what the excuse will be on the other side when Marbury actually gets on a good team. 

It will happen. He's pretty much pigeonholed into it now. No bad team is gonna want his contract, or him around their youngsters for fear of him being "selfish", so the next time he gets traded, it will probably be to a good team, and I guess _then_ it'll just be "about time" Marbury won, instead of taking back these types of comments


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

*Re: No, No, No*

Just in case you guys didn't know, let me explain it. Steph has a reputation among his teammates as not being one of the friendliest people to play with. Everyone has stated it on every team he has been with. I'm not saying for Steph to kiss his teammates ***, but you're not going to be successful if you are hard to deal with on the court. He likes to embarrass his teammates when they make a mistake. Until he changes his overall attitude which I think will probably happen this season under Isiah (well we can only hope) and stop being grumpy then maybe the chemistry will get better with his teammates. I don't care how many 20 and 8's he can average, if you're labeled as not being a team player then you will never be successful.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: No, No, No*



Kitty said:


> So explain the Suns team? They had the big 3, Amare, Steph, and The Matrix. Steph leaves, they had Amare, Nasty Nash, and The Matrix. So what point are you trying to prove? That's not a coincidence, it's the truth.


Yeah, forget they added a player that averaged 17ppg and 6rpg in Quentin Richardson. Forget the fact that Amare was just a rookie when he first played with Marbury and injuried much of the season his 2nd year. Never mind that when he got back, he naturally became a better player as most young players do with age. The same thing applies to Joe Johnson who had gotten the oppurtunity to be the undisputed swingman on the Suns as a starter with Hardaway gone and that he got naturally better. More importantly, D'Antoni had gotten a chance to impliment his system with these group of players where he didn't get to with Marbury there (if you remember I believe the guy's name was Frank Johnson who was coach). All of these things happening definately isn't a coincidence, it's the truth.


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

*Re: No, No, No*



TwinkieFoot said:


> Yeah, forget they added a player that averaged 17ppg and 6rpg in Quentin Richardson. Forget the fact that Amare was just a rookie when he first played with Marbury and injuried much of the season his 2nd year. Never mind that when he got back, he naturally became a better player as most young players do with age. The same thing applies to Joe Johnson who had gotten the oppurtunity to be the undisputed swingman on the Suns as a starter with Hardaway gone and that he got naturally better. More importantly, D'Antoni had gotten a chance to impliment his system with these group of players where he didn't get to with Marbury there (if you remember I believe the guy's name was Frank Johnson who was coach). All of these things happening definately isn't a coincidence, it's the truth.


Well if they didn't add this player Steph would have got out the 1st round, and if they didn't get this draft pick after trading Steph they would have won. Oh it's the system, they change the system after he gets traded after the 3rd time. This is what you called excuses.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: No, No, No*



Kitty said:


> Just in case you guys didn't know, let me explain it. Steph has a reputation among his teammates as not being one of the friendliest people to play with. Everyone has stated it on every team he has been with. I'm not saying for Steph to kiss his teammates ***, but you're not going to be successful if you are hard to deal with on the court. He likes to embarrass his teammates when they make a mistake. Until he changes his overall attitude which I think will probably happen this season under Isiah (well we can only hope) and stop being grumpy then maybe the chemistry will get better with his teammates. I don't care how many 20 and 8's he can average, if you're labeled as not being a team player then you will never be successful.


Guess what, this is sports. Most guys aren't friendly. Jordan once got into a fight with Steve Kerr in practice. Jordan once told the Bulls to throw bullet passes at Luc Longley's head in order to motivate him to become a better passer. That same kind of reputation followed him own his way to the Wizards where he purposely told Jahidi White to sit on Kwame Brown when he went after the ball. That kind of abuse was so bad that it made the boy cry in practice. But all that is okay right because it's disguised with a smile and a politically correct response right? As far as "Every" teammate of Steph talking about him being a poor teammate, that is far from the truth. A few guys that include Keith Van Horn, Tim Thomas and maybe Kurt Thomas have taken shots at Marbury in the past. Considering none of them have had elustrous careers without him, I wouldn't care to much about what they'd have to say. The fact of the matter is that one of the worst big meanie's in the locker room managed to win 6 championships, a guy that gets angry over loses isn't going to destroy a team.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

*Re: No, No, No*



Kitty said:


> Well if they didn't add this player Steph would have got out the 1st round, and if they didn't get this draft pick after trading Steph they would have won. Oh it's the system, they change the system after he gets traded after the 3rd time. This is what you called excuses.


 You're just plain hating if you call that an excuse. Not only was the future MVP brought in after he left, Quentin Richardson and a new coach was brought in. 

Which team was better:

Hobbled up Amare, Shawn Marion, Joe Johnson, and umm....

or Nash, the Amare as we know him, Marion, Joe Johnson, Q, all running?

If you're going to just blindly say the Suns got better because Marbury left, and not look at who they brought in, you're just being unbelievably irrational.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: No, No, No*



Kitty said:


> Well if they didn't add this player Steph would have got out the 1st round, and if they didn't get this draft pick after trading Steph they would have won. Oh it's the system, they change the system after he gets traded after the 3rd time. This is what you called excuses.


Your right, I totally forgot that wins don't come from having better players. Silly me. I forgot that one player can do everything by himself.


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

*Re: No, No, No*



_Dre_ said:


> You're just plain hating if you call that an excuse. Not only was the future MVP brought in after he left, Quentin Richardson and a new coach was brought in.
> 
> Which team was better:
> 
> ...


Hating? You just started posting on this board when today? You saying I'm hating on Steph? I love Steph, and everyone on this board knows that's my man. I'm making a *non-bias* opinion, something you can't seem to grasp. He isn't a team player, especially playing one of the most important positions in the league. When you're not a team player as a PG, you're gonna failed. There isn't any sugar coating that, and the fact remains the same. The Nets and Suns have increased the number of wins since his departure, and when he left his teammates didn't have anything positive to say about him. This is like beating a dead horse already, you either agree or don't, but don't sit here and tell someone they hating, it's called an opinion.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

*Re: No, No, No*



TwinkieFoot said:


> Guess what, this is sports. Most guys aren't friendly. Jordan once got into a fight with Steve Kerr in practice. Jordan once told the Bulls to throw bullet passes at Luc Longley's head in order to motivate him to become a better passer. That same kind of reputation followed him own his way to the Wizards where he purposely told Jahidi White to sit on Kwame Brown when he went after the ball. That kind of abuse was so bad that it made the boy cry in practice.


 
The difference between MJ doing it and other players is that Jordan had the unmatched skill on the court to back his behavior up. And he was winning. 

Notice when Jordan was winning titles, his motivational techniques were either a sidebar, or what made him the "willing to cut your throat for a win rolleyes" champion he is.

When he was making Brown cry, etc. in Washington, the team was going nowhere, and that became an overhyped anecdote that defined Jordan's failures in Washington. Winning hides everything.

The only thing I can think of is players feeling they don't have to respect Marbury. If MJ was doing half that stuff, the response would be "I gotta impress Michael and get back on track", on the team's Marbury's been on, they've felt like they didn't have to respect Marbury. 

Leaders aren't supposed to be fighting and pouting when their players underperform, I don't care what your status is. Jordan was just lucky enough to be Jordan, and Marbury isn't.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

*Re: No, No, No*



Kitty said:


> Hating? You just started posting on this board when today? You saying I'm hating on Steph? I love Steph, and everyone on this board knows that's my man. I'm making a *non-bias* opinion, something you can't seem to grasp.
> 
> He isn't a team player, especially playing one of the most important positions in the league. When you're not a team player as a PG, you're gonna failed. There isn't any sugar coating that, and the fact remains the same. The Nets and Suns have increased the number of wins since his departure, and when he left his teammates didn't have anything positive to say about him. This is like beating a dead horse already, you either agree or don't, but don't sit here and tell someone they hating because that's not my style but you wouldn't know that.


Maybe I came off too strong or whatever, and I probably like him just as much as you do. I wasted about an hour of my life a few years ago making this mammoth post about how unaccurately labeled he is, and it seems I'm always trying to defend him.

It's indeed a deadhorse, but I don't care. I'm going to continue to defend him, and continue to point out the other factors that led to the teams he left being better, as long as this "Marbury is a loser" crap persists. All I'm saying is it's unfair to your guy to simply say "well, everyone got better after he left, so it must be him" without truly analyzing the situation. Some people call that excuse making, but it's just the truth, the facts I've always used cannot be argued, or ignored in this (tired) discussion.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: No, No, No*



Kitty said:


> Hating? You just started posting on this board when today? You saying I'm hating on Steph? I love Steph, and everyone on this board knows that's my man. I'm making a *non-bias* opinion, something you can't seem to grasp. He isn't a team player, especially playing one of the most important positions in the league. When you're not a team player as a PG, you're gonna failed. There isn't any sugar coating that, and the fact remains the same. The Nets and Suns have increased the number of wins since his departure, and when he left his teammates didn't have anything positive to say about him. This is like beating a dead horse already, you either agree or don't, but don't sit here and tell someone they hating, it's called an opinion.


Again, it's all a matter of a system. Marbury operates by getting to the basket, drawing attention and then finding the open man. He does his job of working within the team but the problem is you need the right personnel for that to work. By the right personnel, I mean guys who can do something with that space and hit those jumpers consistently. At the same time, you need a team that knows how to move without the ball because then the team's best player loses his most valueable weapon in the process. In that kind of system, Marbury would become a perennial all-star and we've seen some of that to an extent when he first got here. We had several players that could spread the floor with their jumper including Allan Houston, Keith Van Horn, Michael Doleac, Kurt Thomas, etc. That is Marbury at his best unless we are seriously running the ball. Like I said earlier, Nash wasn't going to be a guy remembered in the next decade if he didn't play with guys who knew how to cut and Kidd would have never gotten the respect he deserved unless he played with an athletic team that knew how to cut as well. So, bash Marbury all you want but the fact of the matter is guys like Jason Terry and Jason Williams were labeled as selfish players or "losers" yet they somehow found themselves in the Finals as major components. Isn't it funny how they came from losing situations at one point as well?


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

*Re: No, No, No*



TwinkieFoot said:


> So, bash Marbury all you want but the fact of the matter is guys like Jason Terry and Jason Williams were labeled as selfish players or "losers" yet they somehow found themselves in the Finals as major components. Isn't it funny how they came from losing situations at one point as well?


What part of my post you don't understand? It had nothing to do with him being labeled as selfish, I said his teammates really didn't like him, thus making it harder to "win".


----------



## Gotham2krazy (Nov 22, 2005)

*Re: No, No, No*



_Dre_ said:


> You're just plain hating if you call that an excuse. Not only was the future MVP brought in after he left, Quentin Richardson and a new coach was brought in.
> 
> Which team was better:
> 
> ...


Kitty's not a hater, she's about the only poster here that would defend the man. Dude, are you ****ing demented? How was Amare hobbled when Stephon was playing with him? He was ROY his first year, and while playing with Steph, Marbury even mentioned that the best player that he's ever played with was Amare. Shawn 4 years ago was as good as he is today, Joe Johnson's an iffy, he didn't really elevate his play until Steve came along as did Q-Rich.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

*Re: No, No, No*



Gotham2krazy said:


> Dude, are you ****ing demented? How was Amare hobbled when Stephon was playing with him?


Chill, I'm not demented, I was talking about Amare's second year, the year Steph got traded to the Knicks.



> Shawn 4 years ago was as good as he is today, *Joe Johnson's an iffy, he didn't really elevate his play until Steve came along as did Q-Rich*.


Untrue, Johnson might have had the best stretch of his career in the last 20-25 games of that year Marbury was traded. It was just him and Marion, and he finally asserted himself as a number one option. In fact, the next year, people were kind of angry that things were so stuffed in Phoenix because of what Joe had shown the previous year. They felt he was being limited.


----------



## Gotham2krazy (Nov 22, 2005)

*Re: No, No, No*



_Dre_ said:


> Chill, I'm not demented, I was talking about Amare's second year, the year Steph got traded to the Knicks.


Okay okay, I'm sorry I overreacted, but you have to admit that Stephon can't elevate his teammates, lead them nontheless. Since he got traded to New York, he's done nothing but constantly butt heads with teammates like Kurt Thomas and Quentin Richardson.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

*Re: No, No, No*



> Okay okay, I'm sorry I overreacted, but you have to admit that Stephon can't elevate his teammates, lead them nontheless. Since he got traded to New York, he's done nothing but constantly butt heads with teammates like Kurt Thomas and Quentin Richardson.


Yeah, he's probably not good as a number one player, but without all the drama, I think he's a good player who can make his teammates better.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: No, No, No*



_Dre_ said:


> Yeah, he's probably not good as a number one player, but without all the drama, I think he's a good player who can make his teammates better.


I'm not sure whether that is too accurate. I think he could be the head of the team if he has a reliable supporting cast and an indentifiable no.2 guy. You look at most of the top tier teams in the league and there is usually a no.2 and even no.3 guys on the team that play at a relatively high level. Then again, there's no way to prove he's capable of this either way since we don't have that kind of evidence so what I'm saying is nothing more than opinion.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: No, No, No*



Kitty said:


> What part of my post you don't understand? It had nothing to do with him being labeled as selfish, I said his teammates really didn't like him, thus making it harder to "win".


Hey Shaq and Kobe hated each other and they won big 3 times. There were rumors about Kareem and Magic not being the best of guys which I believe Magic alluded to in an interview when discussing the Kobe and Shaq feud. Kareem and Magic got 5 rings with each other. Recently, we saw both Wade and Payton get into an on court heated argument that seemed to extend from much more than just a broken play. If you want to win, personnel relationships with people really don't mean anything. I haven't seen examples proving that it is "harder to win" with bad blood, personnel or as a fan.


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

*Re: No, No, No*



TwinkieFoot said:


> Hey Shaq and Kobe hated each other and they won big 3 times. There were rumors about Kareem and Magic not being the best of guys which I believe Magic alluded to in an interview when discussing the Kobe and Shaq feud. Kareem and Magic got 5 rings with each other. Recently, we saw both Wade and Payton get into an on court heated argument that seemed to extend from much more than just a broken play. If you want to win, personnel relationships with people really don't mean anything. I haven't seen examples proving that it is "harder to win" with bad blood, personnel or as a fan.


You're talking about 2 individual people not liking each other. I'm talking about an entire locker room on every team he has been on not getting along with Steph, so I fail to see that being equivalent. You also left out the fact that Steph shows up his teammates during a live game. It effects the overall mood of a player, who may not give 100 percent because they feel the PG is being an *******. Who wants to play with someone like that? Good try with that post, you get an E for effort but I'm not buying it.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*I got your back, Kitty*

To sum it up. Nash took his team to the Western finals with an absolutely butchered up team...pushing the Mavs hard. Compare that to what Superstarbury ever did. Please compare the rosters. 

As far as Marbury fitting best in a system that spreads the floor while he drives and dishes to open shooters......what the hell is Phoenix doing? He should have been a superstud in that system but instead turned most of the players against him so much they didn't bother to call him when he was traded.

Bottom line is that he is a product of being adored at an early age and never developed the people skills that he needs to lead a team. He is spoiled, treats defense like a disease, and he is out of excuses. If he fails to show that he is what he claims he is, this year, his career is dropping like a stone. The supporters need to shut up until he actually becomes what he says he is. The non supporters already have plenty of history to judge him on.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: No, No, No*



Kitty said:


> You're talking about 2 individual people not liking each other. I'm talking about an entire locker room on every team he has been on not getting along with Steph, so I fail to see that being equivalent. You also left out the fact that Steph shows up his teammates during a live game. It effects the overall mood of a player, who may not give 100 percent because they feel the PG is being an *******. Who wants to play with someone like that? Good try with that post, you get an E for effort but I'm not buying it.


And I'm not buying your side of the story either. Like I said, the entire locker room being up and arms because of Marbury is unfounded. Aside from a few isolated incidents with players like Tim Thomas, Kurt Thomas and Keith Van Horn taking shots at Marbury, you never really hear very many complaints from teammates. Once again, aside from Kurt Thomas (who only said it was nice to play with a real pg), Tim and Keith seem to be finding excuses of why they never became the players they should have or were suppose to have been. As for players showing up other players during live games, Payton did it to Wade just this year in the playoffs and they won a title. Michael Jordan during the 96 season I believe showed up Pete Myers, his own teammate on the court yet it didn't effect the Bulls winning several titles. Again, being the leader of a team doesn't mean your a nice guy. I know of this first hand but you sometimes need to tell people what they need to hear and not what they want to.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: I got your back, Kitty*



alphaorange said:


> To sum it up. Nash took his team to the Western finals with an absolutely butchered up team...pushing the Mavs hard. Compare that to what Superstarbury ever did. Please compare the rosters.
> 
> As far as Marbury fitting best in a system that spreads the floor while he drives and dishes to open shooters......what the hell is Phoenix doing? He should have been a superstud in that system but instead turned most of the players against him so much they didn't bother to call him when he was traded.
> 
> Bottom line is that he is a product of being adored at an early age and never developed the people skills that he needs to lead a team. He is spoiled, treats defense like a disease, and he is out of excuses. If he fails to show that he is what he claims he is, this year, his career is dropping like a stone. The supporters need to shut up until he actually becomes what he says he is. The non supporters already have plenty of history to judge him on.


Just because you don't play with stars doesn't mean that your team is butchered. There's this common misconception that Nash is some kind of wizards. That couldn't be farther from the truth if you actually looked at the roster. This is an excerpt from one of my friend's post who made excellent points and shares the same opinion as mine:

"I watch Cold Pizza and I keep hearing how Steve Nash is the MVP because six of his teammates are having career scoring years. Well, I am here to say that it is not because of Nash at all. Opportunity is the real MVP. Either opportunity or Mike D’Antoni. You choose. Now, I am not one to shoot down Canada’s Finest without some evidence. So, here goes. 

In Utah, Raja Bell played 28.4 MPG and averaged 12.3 PPG. Now, next to Nash, he averages 14.6 PPG, but he is playing 37.6 MPG. 

Leandro Barbosa played 17.3 MPG last season and averaged 7.0 PPG. This season he is playing 27.2 MPG. That is nearly 10 more minutes. His PPG reflects his increase in MPG with an average of 12.6 PPG. 

Boris Diaw averaged 18.2 MPG last season in Atlanta averaging 4.8 PPG while playing PG and SG. Apparently, despite his size, he is more comfortable playing PF and C. Factor in his 35.2 MPG, and it is obvious why he averages 13.2 PPG this season. As even more proof that it is not Nash, Diaw played great while running the team from center against San Antonio when Nash was injured. Diaw’s low Atlanta numbers are due to a restrictive coach that sticks players in positions based on size and skill set. Sure Diaw can handle and pass and is only 6’8”, but if the man plays better as a PF/C, then let him play PF/C. 

Eddie House averaged 4.7 PPG while playing 11 MPG in Sacramento. He averages 9.7 PPG while playing 17.5 MPG this season, and a lot of that is while he is subbing for Nash. 

James Jones was pretty much a chair in Indy. He only played last season because of the brawl. Then, he averaged 5.0 PPG in 17.7 MPG. Now, with the amazing Steve Nash, he is averaging a whopping 9.5 PPG in 23.7 MPG. 

Shawn Marion, the 3-time All-star, apparently is Nash’s greatest accomplishment. He averaged a puny 19.4 PPG in 38.8 MPG while sharing the offensive load with Stoudemire. Now, while playing without the team’s #1 option and playing 1.9 more MPG (40.7 MPG), Nash has boosted him to the outrageous scoring total of 21.4 PPG. That is unbelievable when you figure in just two minutes he averages a whole two points. FREAKIN’ AMAZIN’!!! STEVE NASH IS AWESOME!!! (Insert sarcasm here). 

Probably Nash’s most significant accomplish, and the one that I never hear mentioned is Dijon Thompson. Last season, he was in college. As a college ball player, his NBA scoring average was exactly zero PPG, but this season Nash has him scoring at the unheard of clip of 2.8 PPG in 4.3 MPG. I think he is the real reason why Nash is the MVP again. (Yet again, insert more sarcasm)."

That about sums it up and saves me alot of time typing up everything. Once again, Nash is the benefactor of his system.


Moving on, that little comment about Marbury and the Suns you made is off. First off, this is a dramatically different team from the one Marbury played on. Just to save time, here was the roster:

Stephon Marbury
Anfernee Hardaway
Shawn Marion
Amare Stoudemire
Jake Voshkul
Joe Johnson
Casey Jacobsen
Jake Tsakalidis
Tom Gugliotta
Bo Outlaw
Scott Williams
Dan Langhi
Randy Brown
Alton Ford

What about that lineup suggests to you that they could shoot? What about that lineup suggest yo you that it is as good as Nash's squad? Seriously, that Suns team was about 10-12 deep. With Marbury's squad, it would be hard to field a solid starting 5, let alone a decent team. As far as wanting to knock Marbury for his defense, what about your boy Nash? Last time I checked, he wasn't winning any all team defenses or for that matter, better than Marbury at that end of the floor. Knock his personality as well but he was a kind enough guy to buy each one of our former rookies suits to wear to games. I'm sure they wouldn't have anything negative to say about him especially since they recently took his side regarding former coach Brown. So, until the non-Marbury supporters come up with a half way decent response to shut me up, this Marbury support will keep talking. Patiently awaiting the next posts...


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

*Who cares what your friend says...*

and you need to watch more ball. Penny could shoot, Marion is still there, Joe Johnson can shoot, Gugs can shoot, Jacobson was drafted as a shooter but was too slow too make in the league,..the others I am not familiar with. How many shooters you need? If you think Diaw, Bell, and Barbosa are great players, you're nuts. Good, not great. Despite who did what when Nash was injured, the bottom line is that the team was simply not nearly as good. Take Nash away and the team struggles to make the playoffs. Dfend Marbury all you want by twisting numbers and maling alobies but history doesn't lie, and we all know that those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

PRIMIDONNA, DIVA....whatever you call it, its still MARBURY.


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

*Re: Who cares what your friend says...*



alphadog said:


> Defend Marbury all you want by twisting numbers and maling alobies but history doesn't lie, and we all know that those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
> 
> PRIMIDONNA, DIVA....whatever you call it, its still MARBURY.


This part of the post basically sums up the thread. I'm done and I know the facts and I'm actually a Steph fan so I'm done beating this dead horse, the results remain the same his attitude is his doom.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: Who cares what your friend says...*



alphadog said:


> and you need to watch more ball. Penny could shoot, Marion is still there, Joe Johnson can shoot, Gugs can shoot, Jacobson was drafted as a shooter but was too slow too make in the league,..the others I am not familiar with. How many shooters you need? If you think Diaw, Bell, and Barbosa are great players, you're nuts. Good, not great. Despite who did what when Nash was injured, the bottom line is that the team was simply not nearly as good. Take Nash away and the team struggles to make the playoffs. Dfend Marbury all you want by twisting numbers and maling alobies but history doesn't lie, and we all know that those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
> 
> PRIMIDONNA, DIVA....whatever you call it, its still MARBURY.


I guess it must take a basketball player to understand a basketball player but just because you could hit jump shots occassionally, doesn't make you a jump shooter. For instance, Johnson had range but at a young age, he was not nearly as good a jump shooter as he is today. That was evident by his .397 shooting percentage. Jacobsen not being in the league for very long might tell you just a little bit of the reason why it might be foolish to even include him in any relevant discussion. Besides, for as great a shooter as you may think him to be, he shot .373 from the field. Real accuracy there. Marion has or never been a jump shooter, just a scrapper that comes up with putbacks and layups. He does shoot the 3 but hardly the guy that could be classified as a jump shooter and nearly not good enough to offset the team's poor jump shooting ability. As for Tom Googs, yeah, he could shoot....in early 1990's. By the time he was a Sun, he was a broken down has been that was only capable of spot minutes evident by his 16.6mpg and then never being resigned after that. Somehow, I don't believe he effected the game very much especially from, the fact he wasn't even tendered an offer after his Suns gig. 

By the way, excellent defense there on me being "nuts" about my opinion's of Nash's supporting cast. Maybe we could actually get some reasoning out of that in the future since you know...it adds credibility to your opinion. Was it great? Obviously not and I never said it was but what it is is pretty damn good especially since it compliments his skill which goes unnoticed by the average fan. Take the time to reread my earlier post and you'll find out why.


P.S., I almost forgot to address your comment about why the Suns lose without Nash. Silly me, I always thought that kind of happens when you lose your best player but not only your best player, the most important player in the system you play. Remember, the whole running game was first invited to offset the lack of actual skill. Teams that either couldn't post up and/or shoot ran the ball because it increased their chances of scoring and wasn't that hard to run. You could lose a guy like Amare or Marion and be relatively alright because a less talented player could take their place and have a similar impact on the game offensively as long as they have something you could work with. Take Nash off and you lose the initiator of the break. Without him, the ball doesn't get up the court as well, it isn't distributed as well so that has a much more direct effect on the team, especially on a team that can score up until their 12th man. That's a noteworthy point as is my friend's words. His defense is pretty solid and I have yet to hear anything to damage it so you should care and learn from what he's saying.


----------

