Old School vs New School:Ai v Chef Curry

[Consumed]

AI was far more dangerous on the court than Curry was. And that's no disrespect to Curry, but AI was a one man wrecking crew. The only player more dominant in the 00s was Shaq.

Even AI at his best would give a top notch Kobe that work

Wait, you really think AI was a top ten talent (previous post) and he was the 2nd most dominant player in the 2000's?

 

[Ace2306]

If Steph's team is swept and never makes the finals again are we still having the same convo?

 

[filial_piety]

Wait, you really think AI was a top ten talent (previous post) and he was the 2nd most dominant player in the 2000's?

Yup

 

[Consumed]

If Steph's team is swept and never makes the finals again are we still having the same convo?

Yeah. Regardless of what happens in the finals Steph's been a better, more impactful player this season than AI at any point of his career. I think '06 Nash was better than Iverson and he's never made the Finals. Same with '96 Penny who got swept in the Finals and never got back

Yup

Oh. I don't think he was a more dominant player than the likes of Wade, Bryant, Duncan, Nowitzki and Garnett. Peak wise I'd take McGrady and Arenas over him too

Talent wise if we're talking from an all time perspective I'd take Wilt, Shaq, Nowitzki, Olajuwon, Cap, James, Nash, Barkley, Jordan, Oscar and several others ahead of him

 

[KingMalik]

AI wasn't a chucker.

He didn't have no teammates worth passing to.

He averaged 46% when he played with Jerry Stackhouse.
He averaged 47% when he played with Carmelo Anthony.

 

[KingMalik]

Jordan respected Iverson....his opinion >>>> a bunch of white boys on the internet who got cut from freshmen basketball.

 

[FaTaL]

if ai could only shoot

 

[filial_piety]

Oh. I don't think he was a more dominant player than thelikes of Wade, Bryant, Duncan, Nowitzki and Garnett. Peak wise I'd take McGrady and Arenas over him too

Talent wise if we're talking from an all time perspective I'd take Wilt, Shaq, Nowitzki, Olajuwon, Cap, James, Nash, Barkley, Jordan, Oscar and several others ahead of him

IMO, there is no way that Wade, Nowitzski, McGrady, Arenas and Garnett were more dominant. On paper, they are more the ideal players considering their height coupled with their abilities, but performance wise? No way. Although when comparing personal achievements, Garnett is comparable. But I think even they would disagree with you.

Talent wise, there is noway I'd take Barkley, Nash or Cap over him. It's hard to compare centers to guards considering guards tend to have more versatility, but I'd take AI over Olajuwan. And I might choose Shaq or Wilt simply based on the pure dominance of their positions. Jordan obviously was more talented all around, and Oscar I'm not so sure of considering I've never actually watched him play. But there really is no doubt in my mind that AI would seriously put some work on him. But I'd still stand by my statement that he is a top 10 talent...the chances of us ever seeing a player like AI again are slim to nil.

I've watched him since day 1, AI is unbelievably quick and agile with a killer stop on the dime shot and he can kill you in around the paint and he can also drive on you in the paint. It's pure insanity that he is capable of being that dominant at 6'0.

I respect Steph to the fullest. But he has a LONG way to go to compare himself to AI. A VERY long way to go. AI was in the running for the league MVP for basically 8 years in a row.

 

[filial_piety]

GreatestLaker negged you for your post in the thread Old School vs New School:Ai v Chef Curry. With the following comment: troll

this child.

 

[TenChambers]

It absolutely amazes me how people literally try to shyt on A.I.'s career. That dude was an absolute monster. We talking about Allen fukking Iverson not Stephon Marbury or Steve Francis. From MJ down to Kobe down to LeBron all respect this nikka and say he was one of the best ever. D.Wade & Chris Paul wear #3 because of him. LeBron's run to the Finals this year is almost identical to Iverson's statwise in '01 & ESPN/people actually think that's a negative.
So let me get this straight....getting a team with pretty much no 2nd offensive option or post game to the NBA Finals is a bad thing. I swear nikkas so focused with the process they forget about the fukkin result. It's basketball not a math exam.
Plus this dude had Billy King as a GM, Ed Snider as an owner & Larry Brown passed on Paul Pierce in the '98 Draft because they "promised" Larry Hughes they'd draft him.

If they had got lucky in the '97 Draft instead of the #2 pick & had competence in '98 we could've witnessed an Allen Iverson, Paul Pierce, Tim Duncan big three.

 

[Reid2Achieve]

Prime Iverson with no hand checking and open lanes (because of shooting bigs) would have been an interesting sight

 

[Consumed]

AI wasn't a chucker.

He didn't have no teammates worth passing to.

He averaged 46% when he played with Jerry Stackhouse.
He averaged 47% when he played with Carmelo Anthony.

Stack only played 22 games in Philly before being traded though. And even before then he wasn't that great of a player for them. To me it seemed like the less AI shot the more efficient he was which is understandable, but that doesn't really excuse his general inefficiency since we've seen many high volume scorers be able to maintain good percentages regardless of supporting cast. One of those guys was in his same era, Kobe Bryant. 2006 & 2007 play with trash but still keep the shooting efficiency at an above average rate. Or 2003 Tracy McGrady, 2nd option is Mike Miller but does it matter? Nah he was just that dominant of a scorer. Nothing anyone did to stop him mattered, too great. Still was able to be efficient while jacking up 24 shots a night. Its doable but Iverson simply wasn't able to perform that way on a consistent basis and it is a knock against him when being compared to those type of players

IMO, there is no way that Wade, Nowitzski, McGrady, Arenas and Garnett were more dominant. On paper, they are more the ideal players considering their height coupled with their abilities, but performance wise? No way. Although when comparing personal achievements, Garnett is comparable. But I think even they would disagree with you.

Talent wise, there is noway I'd take Barkley, Nash or Cap over him. It's hard to compare centers to guards considering guards tend to have more versatility, but I'd take AI over Olajuwan. And I might choose Shaq or Wilt simply based on the pure dominance of their positions. Jordan obviously was more talented all around, and Oscar I'm not so sure of considering I've never actually watched him play. But there really is no doubt in my mind that AI would seriously put some work on him. But I'd still stand by my statement that he is a top 10 talent...the chances of us ever seeing a player like AI again are slim to nil.

How exactly are you measuring performance here? Because I've seen Ray Allen drastically outperform AI during his celebrated MVP season in the Eastern Conference Finals. Compared to those guys there's not a ton impressive about Iverson needing thirty shots to score thirty two points, can't just take his volume scoring and not take into account the inefficiency. Nowitzki, Wade, McGrady and Arenas were all flat out better offensive players than he was because of their ability to shoulder the burden of a primary high volume scorer without having their efficiency decline to putrid levels. You might not be taking into account postseason play either, but if you were to do so & look at the sheer dominance displayed by the likes of Dirk & Wade, two of the unquestionable GOAT playoff performers, it puts Iverson to shame & there isn't a comparison to be made. I have seen the man take more shots from the field than points scored in a playoff series. But I'm supposed to look at his ppg and consider that dominance? Garnett is one of the five best defensive players in NBA history, dominant on the glass and anchored teams offensively with his strong post passing, turnaround fades & great mid range game. His 2004 season is undoubtedly one of the best this game has ever seen. Iverson has never come close to matching that type of impact. No sane person would take AI over him to start a franchise unless he's your favorite player or something and you're thinking in 2K association terms.

Nash isn't anything to laugh at, shooting is a skill no? So is the ability to create your own shot & Nash combined those two at a level we've only seen recently matched by Stephen Curry. If you consider passing a skill then he's clearly one of the all time greats in that area & he was a very creative finisher with the ability to score with either hand & nail pinpoint floaters. Barkley was a big that had the skill of a wing. Larry Bird esque court vision, beast in transition maybe the best this game will ever see from a big with his ability to handle the rock & get up the court in a hurry, efficiency monster barely anyone had an answer for Chuck in the paint the man was nothing short of dominant down low and he had a solid mid range J. If not Oscar you're familiar with Penny Hardaway? He was more skilled, and just taking from todays game Kevin Durant is a more skilled player too. Chris Paul at his best is clearly more skilled.

I don't think the chances of seeing another Iverson are so slim if we're just comparing skill to his respective position. He had a legendary crossover, nearly unmatched quickness, strong finisher and a solid mid range J. Sounds like Derrick Rose to me. Personally I think a guy like Dirk is someone we won't see again

 

[TheNig]

 

[Poitier]

Negging anyone who picked Curry

 

[jeh]