joeyAdaMan wrote:ClipsFanSince98 wrote:joeyAdaMan wrote:
my man...a Bucks fan too...people really forget just how AWFUL that 76ers team was offensively....good defenders and rebounders but no spectacular athletes...Mckie was the only shooter and he wasn't special at all...and AI was literally the only guy on the roster who could create....Mutombo was the only guy that wouldn't be replaced...the rest of that roster was very upgradable and far inferior to the team IT is playing on now....this Celtics team may be a team of 6th men/role player types outside of IT....but it's still far better than anything AI got to play with in his prime...
As others have already pointed out, who had a better supporting cast in the east? Bucks are only arguable one. Magic, Raptors, Pacers had far worse depth and supporting cast. Hell they had the DPOY and 6th man of the Year on that team. It's all relative to the competition. Bucks were more top heavy but the Sixers had literally 10+ guys with above average metrics that year.
I'm not sure how the East being weak as a whole that year has anything to do with how poor that 76ers cast was offensively? Also doesn't address how much better IT's cast is this year. Which it is. It's infinitely better and more versatile. Nobody touched the ball in that offense outside of AI because literally nobody else outside of McKie could even hit anything but a layup. A wide open layup at that. If you want to pick on AI for his shot selection and efficiency, fine. He was a flawed player and anybody who watched him play knows that. But, for the love of God, lets start acknowledging the fact that he had no firepower on that team throughout his prime. He was 30 by the time he had another viable scorer on his team. People pick apart Lebron's cast in Cleveland for his first 7 seasons and understandably so. But, at least he had rebounders, defenders, AND shooter's surrounding him.
Here's the thing. If you want to say only offensively they were limited, sure. But that does a huge discredit to the great defense, hustle and utility of that supporting cast. What you and others probably don't realize is that there is a REASON they didn't build an offensive minded supporting cast. You had a guy playing 40+ mpg and regularly taking 30-40 shots. There aren't a lot of shots left for other scorers to come in and score 20 ppg. So the idea that the team was "bad" or "weak" because they didn't have another high volume scorer and did it by committee is flawed.
As for Isaiah having a lot more offensive power, let's example that.
Sixers had 4 double digit scorers, Celtics have 5. One 20+ ppg scorer on each team (Themselves). The problem here is IT only attempts 19.5 shots, Iverson attempts 25.5. Iverson's usage was 36% to IT's 34%. 32% assist percentage for IT, 23% for Iverson. Iverson had more time on the ball, passed less of the time he had the ball, attempted literally 6 more shots per game. That may not sound like a lot, but it is when you consider that's about as much as the next 3 players combined (McKie, Ratliff, Snow). So the assumption that Iverson was negatively affected by not having more scorers is something I really question when I start digging a bit deeper. Many great writers have written about how volume scorers work and a couple have mentioned the Sixers being built perfectly around Iverson in terms of how well they compliment him.
If you think that other big time scorers would of helped Iverson, I'm not sure you know what's going on here. We know Iverson wasn't going to take a step back, as we saw later in his career even.
“This kid reminds me of a 6-6 Chris Paul. He wants to win everything.”
Olin Simplis- SGA’s trainer.
)-6'5" combo guards. 
