# Webber struggling to fit in, or is it impossible to put up good #s with Iverson?



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

Webber would have to shoot 80% if he ever wanted to come close to scoring 20ppg again.


----------



## Cambridgeshire (Jan 15, 2005)

Nicely masked jab at Iverson.


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

Cambridgeshire said:


> Nicely masked jab at Iverson.


It's a legitimate question.

p.s. i like iverson.


----------



## HEATLUNATIC (May 27, 2002)

I think its AI!

The dude isnt Jordan he needs alot of shots to get his overrated 30ppg!


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

I think it's partly AI, partly O'Brien, and partly oldness. O'Brien is just weird when it comes to substitutions. Forget about favoring Marc Jackson over Dalembert, how can you not give consistent minutes to Webber? But in reality even after Webber gets used to the "system" (for the lack of a better term), he still won't be a 20/10 player because he simply won't get enough touches. Iverson is a great scorer but he's a huge ball-hog too.


----------



## farhan007 (Jun 6, 2003)

HEATLUNATIC said:


> I think its AI!
> 
> The dude isnt Jordan he needs alot of shots to get his overrated 30ppg!


many nba players can score 30 a night if they shoot at 40%...


----------



## Ps!ence_Fiction (Aug 1, 2004)

HEATLUNATIC said:


> I think its AI!
> 
> The dude isnt Jordan he needs alot of shots to get his overrated 30ppg!


 He's shooting 42% on the year, that's only roughly 1% less then T-Mac and roughly the same as Kobe.

As for the question, I think it's neither, i think that it is mainly coach O'Brien's fault


----------



## farhan007 (Jun 6, 2003)

Ps!ence_Fiction said:


> He's shooting 42% on the year, that's only roughly 1% less then T-Mac and roughly the same as Kobe.
> 
> As for the question, I think it's neither, i think that it is mainly coach O'Brien's fault


your rounding up... t-mac then shoots 44%


----------



## Ps!ence_Fiction (Aug 1, 2004)

farhan007 said:


> many nba players can score 30 a night if they shoot at 40%...


McGrady is only shooting 43%, Kobe shoots 42%, Gilbert Arenas only shoots 43%, Ray Allen only shoots 43%, Vince Carter only shoots 43%.....while Iverson shoots 42%, not that big of a difference between some of the elite scorers, Iverson's bad shot percentage is overrated by many


----------



## Ps!ence_Fiction (Aug 1, 2004)

farhan007 said:


> your rounding up... t-mac then shoots 44%


No, McGrady's 43.4% doesn't round up to 44%, while Iverson's 41.7% does round up to 42%


----------



## farhan007 (Jun 6, 2003)

Ps!ence_Fiction said:


> McGrady is only shooting 43%, Kobe shoots 42%, Gilbert Arenas only shoots 43%, Ray Allen only shoots 43%, Vince Carter only shoots 43%.....while Iverson shoots 42%, not that big of a difference between some of the elite scorers, Iverson's bad shot percentage is overrated by many


 it is sad that this is a GOOD shooting year for Ivy... and a bad shooting year for t-mac since he always hovers around 45%. 
AI usually is around 40% and in some years he shoots in the 30s... YUK!


----------



## Ps!ence_Fiction (Aug 1, 2004)

farhan007 said:


> ivy shoots 41%
> 
> Plus... it is sad that this is a GOOD shooting year for Ivy... and a bad shooting year for t-mac since he always hovers around 45%.
> AI usually is around 40% and in some years he shoots in the 30s... YUK!


Once again, you overrate Iverson's bad shooting percentages, he is a career 41.7% shooter (which rounds up to 42%) and that is right on target with this years percentage, so how is this a good year? And for Iverson's years in the 30s, one year he shot 39.8% (very close to 40%) and last year he shot 38.7% (his only real year in the 30s, but he was injured all season) and that's it.


----------



## farhan007 (Jun 6, 2003)

Ps!ence_Fiction said:


> Once again, you overrate Iverson's bad shooting percentages, he is a career 41.7% shooter (which rounds up to 42%) and that is right on target with this years percentage, so how is this a good year? And for Iverson's years in the 30s, one year he shot 39.8% (very close to 40%) and last year he shot 38.7% (his only real year in the 30s, but he was injured all season) and that's it.


thats still absolutly horrible for a "superstar mvp candidate"


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

I thought the point in getting Webber was so that Iverson DIDN'T have to put up 30ppg every night. I guess Iverson took it as "hey their bringing in a guy who will take some defensive focus away from me and continue to allow me to get my 30ppg". Iversons gotta get Webber as involved as possible. 

I don't think Iverson is a selfish player, but I DO think he's become so accustomed to taking 25 shots a game that he may never be able to give it up. He's basically had the greenlight to shoot whenever he wants since his rookie year, I wonder if he can change enough to run alot of the offense through a 20/10/5 player.


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

Great, now that we have the whole Iverson's shooting % worked out, let's talk about 1) why Chris Webber isn't fitting in, 2) If it's possible for AI to coexist with another scorer, 3) If he'll ever coexist with Webber.


----------



## Ps!ence_Fiction (Aug 1, 2004)

farhan007 said:


> thats still absolutly horrible for a "superstar mvp candidate"


and McGrady shooting 43% is just stupendous for a "superstar mvp candidate" now isn't it?


----------



## farhan007 (Jun 6, 2003)

Ps!ence_Fiction said:


> and McGrady shooting 43% is just stupendous for a "superstar mvp candidate" now isn't it?


close to 44%.... its not wonderful...
Mcgrady doesnt cough up the ball 4 times a game...


----------



## Ps!ence_Fiction (Aug 1, 2004)

farhan007 said:


> close to 44%.... its not wonderful...
> Mcgrady doesnt cough up the ball 4 times a game...


But McGrady isn't averaging 30 ppg and 7.7 apg. And since when is 43.4% (which doesn't round up to 44%) not wonderful, while 42% is absolutely horrendous?


----------



## LuckyAC (Aug 12, 2004)

It's silly to argue about FG% anyway; that is one of the most meaningless stats. To measure scoring efficiency, one has to take into account threes and FT's by using PPFGA.


----------



## farhan007 (Jun 6, 2003)

Ps!ence_Fiction said:


> But McGrady isn't averaging 30 ppg and 7.7 apg. And since when is 43.4% (which doesn't round up to 44%) not wonderful, while 42% is absolutely horrendous?


You win!!!

AI is leading his team to 3 game sunder .500
while T-mac is stinkin by only being 11 games above .500


----------



## #1BucksFan (Apr 14, 2003)

It isn't that good of a fit, Webber in Philly, as some thought because, in my opinion, Webber is a post player, while Iverson is a slasher. Once Iverson drives, opposing teams collapse into the middle, making it hard to hand it to Webber. However, this totally negates how Big Dog failed on the 76ers, seeing how Glen just hung outside the paint and nothing else. I don't know, I could be wrong, but so far the Kings got the better deal on the trade.

To be sucessful in Philly, it is proven that you must have 4 role players around Iverson. Another star player only gets phased out. If a star complementary player like Ben Wallace was on Philly, they'd be forerunners for the eastern conference championship.


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

farhan007 said:


> thats still absolutly horrible for a "superstar mvp candidate"


Remind me... What was T-Macs percentage when he was a one man show last year? Where he had to take all the shots, where he had to do what Iverson had been doing for ages? O yeah that's right, a career low .417% shooting... How can you critisize Iverson for his shooting woes and praise T-Mac, when, when T-Mac was in AI's position, he shot just as bad? In fact, remind me right quick, what was the Orlando Magics record last year with T-Mac being Iverson? It sure as hell wasn't 3 games below .500


----------



## farhan007 (Jun 6, 2003)

S-Star said:


> Remind me... What was T-Macs percentage when he was a one man show last year? Where he had to take all the shots, where he had to do what Iverson had been doing for ages? O yeah that's right, a career low .417% shooting... How can you critisize Iverson for his shooting woes and praise T-Mac, when, when T-Mac was in AI's position, he shot just as bad? In fact, remind me right quick, what was the Orlando Magics record last year with T-Mac being Iverson? It sure as hell wasn't 3 games below .500


did i ever say t-mac had a good season last year...


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

I'm putting the blame squarely on Webber. A superstar should be able to make the shots that he is missing. He just can't handle the pressure of playing in a city like Philly. Webber is and always has been incredibly sensitive.


----------



## Ps!ence_Fiction (Aug 1, 2004)

farhan007 said:


> did i ever say t-mac had a good season last year...


Maybe he didn't have a good season because he was put in a role he couldn't handle, a role Iverson has had for his entire career


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Ps!ence_Fiction said:


> Maybe he didn't have a good season because he was put in a role he couldn't handle, a role Iverson has had for his entire career


Except he did handle it. If you consider McGrady's season, last year, "not a good one," then Iverson has never had a good season. McGrady shot similarly to Iverson's career percentage, scored 30 ppg, and had his usual 5-6 assists per game and 5-6 rebounds per game.


----------



## Ps!ence_Fiction (Aug 1, 2004)

Minstrel said:


> Except he did handle it. If you consider McGrady's season, last year, "not a good one," then Iverson has never had a good season. McGrady shot similarly to Iverson's career percentage, scored 30 ppg, and had his usual 5-6 assists per game and 5-6 rebounds per game.


But he did have that 19 game losing streak and had the worst record in the league


----------



## magic_bryant (Jan 11, 2004)

#1BucksFan said:


> It isn't that good of a fit, Webber in Philly, as some thought because, in my opinion, *Webber is a post player, while Iverson is a slasher. Once Iverson drives, opposing teams collapse into the middle, making it hard to hand it to Webber.* However, this totally negates how Big Dog failed on the 76ers, seeing how Glen just hung outside the paint and nothing else. I don't know, I could be wrong, but so far the Kings got the better deal on the trade.
> 
> To be sucessful in Philly, it is proven that you must have 4 role players around Iverson. Another star player only gets phased out. If a star complementary player like Ben Wallace was on Philly, they'd be forerunners for the eastern conference championship.


And what was all that talk about how exchange Iverson with Kobe and AI and Shaq still win titles? People underestimate how hard it was for Kobe to relinquish his "penetrate at all costs"-mentality to defer to The Diesel. The only other player that could be exchanged for Kobe was T-Mac in those years. Even then, I'm not sure if he has the fire needed to get pissed when Tony Parker is dismantling Fisher in 02' or switch on and off from the two headed PG monster of Bibby/B-Jax in 02'. 

People never understood how greatly Kobe and Shaq matched each others games. It was always Shaq does this and that for Kobe. You have to look back and admit that Kobe not penetrating at all costs was, in essence, making Shaq better.


----------



## halfbreed (Jan 7, 2003)

I think it's O'Brien. He's just not a good coach. You gotta coach to your player's strengths, and its pretty apparent he isn't very good at that. Couldn't find any time for Skinner? Totally wrecking Dalembert's confidence at the beginning of the season? Not knowing how to use Webber? They should fire him ASAP. He's living off of 1 good season with the Celtics in a very weak East.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Ps!ence_Fiction said:


> But he did have that 19 game losing streak and had the worst record in the league


True. But I thought you were talking about McGrady, not the Magic GM.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

> And what was all that talk about how exchange Iverson with Kobe and AI and Shaq still win titles? People underestimate how hard it was for Kobe to relinquish his "penetrate at all costs"-mentality to defer to The Diesel. The only other player that could be exchanged for Kobe was T-Mac in those years. Even then, I'm not sure if he has the fire needed to get pissed when Tony Parker is dismantling Fisher in 02' or switch on and off from the two headed PG monster of Bibby/B-Jax in 02'.
> 
> People never understood how greatly Kobe and Shaq matched each others games. It was always Shaq does this and that for Kobe. You have to look back and admit that Kobe not penetrating at all costs was, in essence, making Shaq better.


^Amazing Kobe finds his way into another thread again. 

I'll bite. An interesting point although you're theory doesn't seem to hold water with the avaibable empirical evidence. Wade is much more of slasher then Kobe (He basically doesn't shoot threes at all) and seems to be fitting very well with Shaq. So I'm not sure how you can hold on to the fact that Kobe was somehow prevented from doing his "penetrate aat all costs" routine

Also Webber and Shaq are two completely different players. Not even close really Webber is much more comfortable shooting jumpers then in the post. I can't remember the last time Shaq took a jump shot. While I tend to agree that finding a teammate to fit AI is difficult that does NOT mean he would not fit with Shaq. AI driving and dishing to Shaq would be very difficult to defend and the double teams on Shaq would clearly open up the lanes for AI. No one double teams Webber in the post anymore consistenly since Webber is much more effective with the ball in his hands at the high post. Again the point being Webber's skillset does not match what Shaq would bring to AI or any other perimeter players game.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

WTF?
You nerds. This thread is about Webber and Iverson, and somehow it's a T-mac, Kobe, Lebron thread.

STOP IT.

This is a prime opportunity to talk about how much of a choke job Webber is, and how he'll never be a champion--and you guys are BLOWING it.


----------



## Vermillion (Mar 23, 2004)

....Lebron?


----------



## jose (Dec 1, 2003)

#1BucksFan said:


> It isn't that good of a fit, Webber in Philly
> 
> To be sucessful in Philly, it is proven that you must have 4 role players around Iverson. Another star player only gets phased out. If a star complementary player like Ben Wallace was on Philly, they'd be forerunners for the eastern conference championship.


Absolutely right. Provinding Philly keeps Iverson (have they ever thought how good is fresh air without such an ego?) the kind of stars could fit with his childish style of play is Ben Wallace and the like. Brad Miller would be another one. Brad is happy taken just 10 shots per game.

I don't think Iverson can adapt to other style (e.g. Olympics). He is clearly playing for keeping 30ppg not for playoffs. But of course it's not only Iverson's fault, it's O'Brien's fault and the people who hire these kind of coaches


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

futuristxen said:


> WTF?
> You nerds. This thread is about Webber and Iverson, and somehow it's a T-mac, Kobe, Lebron thread.
> 
> STOP IT.


Thank you.

This thread has nothing to do with Tracy McGrady or Kobe Bryant. Do not say their names in this thread again, please.


----------



## darknezx (Apr 13, 2004)

Somehow I think it's more of a Webber problem. Mentally he might still be affected by the King's decision to trade him, since he was almost their bona fide super-star during his stay in Sactown. He needs the ball in his hands, be it dishing it out for a back door pass, or just shooting (though his shooting leaves much to be desired, his shot is pretty bad this year), and Philly's system has always been about Iverson alone.


----------



## Bartholomew Hunt (Mar 4, 2003)

futuristxen said:


> WTF?
> You nerds. This thread is about Webber and Iverson, and somehow it's a T-mac, Kobe, Lebron thread.
> 
> STOP IT.
> ...


 hahkahahahahahaha


----------



## Bartholomew Hunt (Mar 4, 2003)

TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron TMac Kobe Lebron


----------



## magic_bryant (Jan 11, 2004)

I didn't say that Kobe was the only player that could work with Shaq. Not once. If it seemed to be implied, I correct myself. I just don't think Iverson could have done it. He's too selfish or not trusting enough of his teammates or just doesn't understand the game enough. One of those three things though. 

And Wade is having success because the Diesel is actually stepping outside and setting a pick for him. Also, the Heat have a team that's more suited for a running game, allowing DWade to get more transition offense. When Shaq was a Laker, Phil INSISTED that the ball be slowed down. And when Shaq wasn't in the game, Derek Fisher was still the PG. Yeah, he could a few threes, but he has no real running game to speak of. 

Didn't really mean to turn it into Kobe vs AI or the like.

But back to AI. He has to make a concious effort to make Webber get the ball where he NEEDS it, not where he wants it. Make him get down low in the post a bit more. Also, what AI really doesn't seem to "get" is the fact that if he just gave Webber the ball in the high post, it would create more opportunites for everyone, ESPECIALLY AI. AI, through either O'Brien's offensive philosophy or his own accord, continues to think he can play Point Guard and be a good team. FALSE!!! Just like Kobe earlier this year under Rudy THREE, AI and the sixers actually continue to believe that having one man rack up the bulk of the scoring and assists, that they can be sucessful. It has never happened in the NBA and never will. Unless you count MJ, but when he was playing the type of game AI is, and Kobe under Rudy THREE, he put up really nice stats and still lost. So, due to this obvious fact, I think the credit for having AI continue to play the point MUST fall on Doug Collins...err Rudy T...err...Jim O'Brien.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> This is a prime opportunity to talk about how much of a choke job Webber is, and how he'll never be a champion--and you guys are BLOWING it.


Blowing it...like Webber? You see, future, there are levels and levels. By talking about Tracy McGrady, Kobe Bryant and LeBron James and failing to stay on topic, we _are_ staying on topic, by depicting Webber's failures.

It's high performance art.

Think about it.

As far as Webber's Philadelphia struggles go, he's gone from perhaps the perfect system for him to one with much less ball movement. Instead of the ball moving around and through all the parts, it radiates out from _one_ part: Allen Iverson. That puts Webber in a position to have to break his man down off the dribble or catch-and-shoot or make some other individual play. That's not how he's been used to playing for the last five years or so, so he's struggling as he adapts.


----------



## tone wone (Jan 30, 2003)

I think there a lot of things that factor into Webbers struggles......The biggest being the offensive system...

Sacramento was the best offense for Webbers' skill set....especially after the knee injury..

...Webbers game since the injury is basically identical to Karl Malone in the mid to late 90s..just not as effencent.. 
.....getting the ball in the high post relying mainly on jumpers...play pick n roll with the guards on the team

there doesn't seem to be a lot of ball movment in philly...and ball movement is key for Webber to be effective.


----------

