# Iverson at the point...



## Ras (Jul 25, 2005)

If Iverson hadn't been moved to the off-guard by Larry Brown, and played the point guard position his entire career, do you think his career would've been much different? If yes, how so, if no, why?


----------



## lilrip133 (Dec 25, 2005)

i think it would've been better. despite how underrated eric snow was, his ability to shoot the ball was truly seen to be a whole lot better than it really was. with iverson being at the off guard, this meant the sixers had one less scorer available on the court because someone had to play the point. this = less assists. also, with the ball in iverson's hands nonstop when he's at the point, this lets him create and get other players easier buckets which eventually opens up easier points for him, so he probably would've had a boost in points and assists. his steals may have dropped a little, because most of them come in the passing lanes, and him being on the primary ballhandler could take away some of those opportunities


----------



## Fray (Dec 19, 2005)

i don't think it would change his career much, he might average another assist or two but thats all


----------



## Skeet Skeet Skita (Dec 11, 2005)

Lol @ all those ignorant fools, who think Iverson plays as a real PG...

Iverson is no Point Guard and has never been a Point Guard.


----------



## GTA Addict (Jun 27, 2005)

Iverson starts at PG now and runs the Sixers offense. That's a PG. Just because he leads the league in scoring doesn't make him any less of a PG. Stop thinking in terms of traditional textbook positions. This is the modern era!


----------



## Skeet Skeet Skita (Dec 11, 2005)

GTA Addict said:


> Iverson starts at PG now and runs the Sixers offense. That's a PG. Just because he leads the league in scoring doesn't make him any less of a PG. Stop thinking in terms of traditional textbook positions. This is the modern era!


What is T-Mac then ?


----------



## Spriggan (Mar 23, 2004)

Skeet Skeet Skita said:


> What is T-Mac then ?


McGrady plays small forward, so he's a small forward. Iverson plays point guard, so he's a point guard.


----------



## Sixerfanforlife (Jun 23, 2005)

Skeet Skeet Skita said:


> Lol @ all those ignorant fools, who think Iverson plays as a real PG...
> 
> Iverson is no Point Guard and has never been a Point Guard.



These last 2 years has been a testiment to Allen Iverson's career at the Point Guard position, Under JOB's system, he averaged 30.7 points pulled down 3.7 rebounds and 7.4 assists (Which I believe he's averaging in just 24 games into the season under MO!) Say what you will, but Allen Iverson's scoring has been consistant, which is a RARE in point guards, his 7.4 assists also speaks for his play-making ability, as I can't recall the last time a 'championship' Point guard, had such an all-around game. Clearly Magic Johnson had it in him, but he was a pass 1st shoot 2nd guy, Clearly Isiah Thomas had it in him, but he was a bit more tougher defensively, that's why it didn't happen. The Legendary PG's are the ones with all-around play.


----------



## Skeet Skeet Skita (Dec 11, 2005)

Spriggan said:


> McGrady plays small forward, so he's a small forward. Iverson plays point guard, so he's a point guard.


Well, if the definiton of PG is bringing the ball up and running the offense, then I would not be so sure that T-Mac is actually a SF.


----------



## Banjoriddim (Aug 14, 2004)

Skeet Skeet Skita said:


> Well, if the definiton of PG is bringing the ball up and running the offense, then I would not be so sure that T-Mac is actually a SF.


Don't be shy, seek for help!


----------



## Coatesvillain (Jul 17, 2002)

lilrip133 said:


> i think it would've been better. despite how underrated eric snow was, his ability to shoot the ball was truly seen to be a whole lot better than it really was.


So it being known league wide that Eric Snow couldn't shoot was saying it was a whole lot better than it was? I mean no one said Eric Snow could shoot outside of the beginning of the 2000-01 season and that was a short stretch before he broke his foot. Eric Snow helped Iverson a lot, and I believe Iverson's career is better for not playing PG those years.

I mean it's nice to see him playing so well right now at the position and think he'd be playing this way all along, but he wasn't ready at that point in his career.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

GTA Addict said:


> Iverson starts at PG now and runs the Sixers offense. That's a PG. Just because he leads the league in scoring doesn't make him any less of a PG. Stop thinking in terms of traditional textbook positions. This is the modern era!


Yes, in a manner of speaking, it does. You're ignorant if you accept that Iverson is simply a PG right now.

YOUR DEFENSE:
1. Iverson is listed on the scorecards as a Point Guard.
2. The Offense runs through his hands every possession.

MY DEFENSE:
1. Since "switching" his shots per game have maintained 23+
2. Since "switching" most of his stats are basically the same.

The past two years Iverson's assists were the only thing that changed. They rose. Sharply. Just because someone handles the ball more and experiences a sharp jump in assists, he becomes a point guard?

I'll pose a question: In his final two seasons with the Detroit Pistons Jerry Stackhouse handled the ball much more and averaged career highs in assists (by two), maintained his turnover level, and basically his speed and tempo controlled the offense. The team went as he went. Does this mean that he was a point guard? No. Of course not. I say no because, well, he wasn't. He was playing a role of off-guard with the offense run through his hands. Officially he was on the scorecards as a SG.

Now we move to Allen Iverson, doing the same thing, but because he is on the scorecards as a PG... makes him a point guard? No way. 

*Iverson is a shooting guard with a coach that trusts him enough to let the offense run through his hands. He is only a point guard because somebody needs to be listed on the scorecard as a point guard.*

Side note: Don't think I'm comparing the skill levels of AI and Stack... AI is on another level entirely, always has been... Their situations were merely similar enough to use Stack right there.

And by the way... the fact that all of his statistics are more "efficient" like a good point guard this year? Don't use that defense. He's simply playing the best ball of his career this year, he is taking smarter shots, making smarter moves all around... that means he's playing amazing, less a sign of a "position change" than of the fact that as everybody expects him to decline... he's only getting better.


-Chris.


----------



## cambyblockingyou (Nov 26, 2005)

same, he's practically the same now as before.


----------



## Diophantos (Nov 4, 2004)

The argument over whether Iverson is a "point guard" or not revolves around a more fundamental question: Do you believe that a team, at any time, has on the floor exactly 1 PG, 1 SG, 1 SF, 1 PF, and 1 C? Or can a team put out a lineup of 3 SG's and 2 PF's?

That is, if I gave you a lineup of Brad Miller, Dirk, KG, Shaq, and Yao, would you say Miller was playing the PG? Dirk was playing the SG? Shaq was playing the PF? Or would you just say I threw out a lineup of 5 PF/C's?

ChrisWoj is saying, well, Iverson plays like an SG, so he's an SG. That's it. The sixers simply start two SG's in Iverson and Iguodala. They have no official point guard in the starting lineup. (At least, I think that's what you're saying Chris--correct me if I misconstrue you).

What GTA Addict is saying is that, well, someone is playing the PG, because someone is bringing the ball up and initiating the offense, and that someone is Iverson. If you do that, you're the point, because there always has to be a point on the floor.

It's simply a difference in how people view the positions.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

I thought that Iverson demonstrated pretty conclusively that he could play the traditional role of a PG in Athens.If he were surrounded with a team that had lots of other scoring options I believe he'd be awfully good.That isn't the case with this Sixers squad,but I wonder if he may eventually be forced to play more like a textbook PG as he gets older.At some point you would think that his style of would catch up with his terrier frame,but it certainly has not yet.


----------



## GTA Addict (Jun 27, 2005)

ChrisWoj said:


> Now we move to Allen Iverson, doing the same thing, but because he is on the scorecards as a PG... makes him a point guard? No way.
> 
> *Iverson is a shooting guard with a coach that trusts him enough to let the offense run through his hands. He is only a point guard because somebody needs to be listed on the scorecard as a point guard.*


I see what you're saying. It's kind of like when Doug Colllins moved MJ to PG for the Bulls in 88-89. Obviously both AI and MJ were SGs for most of their careers, but were also asked to handle PG responsibilities. IMO, there are 3 different positions: PGs, swingmen, and big men. AI handles both PG and swingman responsibilities now as MJ did in 89, but I can see now why someone would say he's still a SG, since he still shoots the ball more than he distributes it. The reason I classified AI as a PG is because like Diophantos said, there has to be someone on the court to initiate the offense, and for the Sixers that someone is AI 99.9% of the time. But now I'll say he's still a SG who also handles PG responsibilities.


----------



## LX (Oct 14, 2004)

Does it really make that much of a difference? 

Iverson will have the ball in his hands a majority of the time either way, so I don't see the difference.


----------



## GTA Addict (Jun 27, 2005)

Lanteri said:


> Does it really make that much of a difference?
> 
> Iverson will have the ball in his hands a majority of the time either way, so I don't see the difference.


Position classifications come up in player comparison debates. Who are one's peers? Should AI be compared to and ranked against Nash, Billups, etc., or Kobe, Tmac, etc., or both positions? Was Jerry West a PG or SG? Is Duncan really a C who starts at PF? Those kinds of questions come up sometimes.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

Diable said:


> I thought that Iverson demonstrated pretty conclusively that he could play the traditional role of a PG in Athens.If he were surrounded with a team that had lots of other scoring options I believe he'd be awfully good.That isn't the case with this Sixers squad,but I wonder if he may eventually be forced to play more like a textbook PG as he gets older.At some point you would think that his style of would catch up with his terrier frame,but it certainly has not yet.


My argument isn't that he can't play a traditional point guard role. I fully advocate that he could. I'm merely stating that he does't play point guard in his present role in the Philly offense.

Side note: GTA's last post in response to me pretty much is the best argument against what I've said thus far. And Dio's last post got what I said, pretty much spot on.


-Chris.


----------



## Chalie Boy (Aug 26, 2002)

The main reason why AI is considered a SG and not a PG is because he leads the league in scoring. It doesn't matter that he is also near the top ranks in dimes as well until he averages like 20 ppg and 10apg he will not be considered a PG. Who does that anyway? What he is doing is amazing.


----------



## fobbie (Dec 26, 2005)

AI is still the same to me, only changes is now he has more weapon to pass the ball to.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

Chalie Boy said:


> The main reason why AI is considered a SG and not a PG is because he leads the league in scoring. It doesn't matter that he is also near the top ranks in dimes as well until he averages like 20 ppg and 10apg he will not be considered a PG. Who does that anyway? What he is doing is amazing.


7th in Assists per game.
1st in Field Goals per game.

Yeah, what you said doesn't really throw ANY of the arguments made for AI as a SG into question.


-Chris.


----------

