Will prime Iverson thrive in today's NBA?

[N8N]

I think it matters like og15 said, to look at who the Sixers beat to get to the finals. AI was one of my favorite players growing up but it is hard to defend his style of play as conducive to winning basketball. It is possible however to emphasize his good traits and accept his flaws. That to me is his appeal. Where he ranks and whether he will thrive today is immaterial. He was AI, who got up everytime he got banged up like his idol Mike, and to me, that is enough.

[OptionZero]

This guy was ungodly talented with the ball in his hands, from the midrange, finishing over/around bigs, and getting FT's. You ccouldn't question his heart, although maybe on some teams he wouldn't be the best fit in the locker room.

Would he be good today? If he played like the worst of the early 00's NBA offense, then nope. 1-4 flat every possession to isolate a guy without 3P range means an barrage of long 2's against overloaded defenses. That would get canned quick.

I look at CP3 - he's exceptional at using the space that is frequently conceded by most NBA' offenses playing "ice" against the pick and roll, either with a midrange 2 or to manipulating the defense to create something for someone else. Iverson in his prime was even more shifty. If he were properly coached and bought in, you could do a ton of damage with him. He could still draw free throws out of raw talent.

He HAVE to pass more. No matter how good his midrange and handle were, there's so much length and athleticism on the perimeter now that you have to make teams pay by reversing the ball.

So yeah, he COULD be awesome today, if he wanted to do the right things

[JonFromVA]

You're way oversimplifying it. Iverson played for Larry Brown. Probably the strictest enforcer of old guard basketball the likes of which goes against everything today's coaches strive to produce in an offense. Usage of entire shot clocks on every possession. Strict anti- three pointer policy. And for Larry, your last sentence was true to the extent where he wasn't the type of pg Larry wanted. But at SG he was lethal. Well by today's standards Iverson wouldve been just fine art PG. Coaches now love the scoring pg. And let's get something straight, Iverson was constantly in the 7 assist range so this idea that he didn't set people up is crazy considering pace and the level of offensive talent he had.

I'm not talking about winning games, I'm talking about winning championships. The Bulls would have won a ton of games with Jordan on the ball at the point, but Phil understood they were a better team getting the other guys involved early and setting MJ loose late.

Individual apg only tells one small part of the story.

Phil and Larry are the same in thier traditional thinking. And both are considered by most fans of modern basketball to be backwards in thier thinking as it relates to pace, usage of star players, spread offense. But that's the world Iverson grew up in. And in the time scoring pgs weren't desired and yes, like you said or implied. Bad for championship basketball.

Why do you think must Curry critics say he couldn't play in part eras. Some cite toughness or rules. That's actually bull cuz he's taller than most pgs. In reality its because in Iversons day must coaches could get past the idea that he was a scoring pg. He'd essentially become some teams backup undersized shooting guard. Or perhaps a starting SG but point is he wouldve ended up at SG and that's pretty much what happened with Iverson. And guess what? He embraced it and was a HOF'r at it, got to the finals. Im not saying the finals is the title but you make it there as a teams best player and nobody can say you didn't reach basketball highest levels.

But put Iverson in today's game and lime I said he would be a prototypical pg. Would he be scoring the same stats? No but I actually think he mightve become a better pg in this era than the last where he gotta look over his shoulder everytime he wants to score. I think people make assumptions about how he'd play based on how he played in a different era, in a different position with teams far less balanced from a scoring perspective. Alot of fans don't remember that the nba was far more speciallized. Even on more balanced teams. The Sixers were defense/ rebounding and Iverson. He benefited from that and suffered from that at the same time

The Warriors approach is influenced by Kerr who was influenced by Pops and Phil. He moved the Dubs away from the Mark Jackson's ISO heavy approach because he knew deep down that moving the ball and sharing the ball is much better for the team.

Iverson is not from a different era ... he played in this era under the same rules. Spreading the floor and going small aren't new concepts either. For instance, the Cavaliers knew they could exploit LeBron's talents by spreading the floor back when Iverson was still in the league, but they lacked enough two-way players to do that and defend at the same time. And like Phil feared it came at a cost ... Drew Gooden once spoke that playing with LeBron was easy, you went to your spot and did your thing and he'd get you the ball and you'd shoot. He found he didn't do as much because he didn't need to do as much. That's actually a good thing when you're talking about Drew Gooden, but for a player with some actual talent, you're not utilizing it by having him stand in a corner while LeBron or AI pound the ball.

Phil is still 100% right, but the devil is in the details. You simply can't do things the same way as the game evolves and the talent you're working with changes.

AI+Melo in Denver meant AI got his and Melo didn't - and they won 50 games and were swept out in the first round. It's a zero sum game when you've got multiple players who have to have the ball in their hands. Billups+Melo in Denver won 4 more games and made it to the conference finals. Larry Brown pulled off a minor miracle building a team that AI could lead to the NBA finals.

[OrangeBlueSkies]

PG's in today's league are generally much more scoring oriented than they were back 10-20 years ago, exposing his below average defense quite a bit more. He would probably not be quite as effective but still a great player today.

He played the 2.... i.e. james harden.

He would be a PG in today's league. He usually defended the smallest guard one the court as well. He was only a SG in name because he wasn't a pass first guy.

No he was the SG because he was the shooting guard. Shooting guard in a point guards body sure.