RealGM

At their peaks, who was the better player?

Knowing what you know now about both(taking injuries and off court into account) who would you build your franchise around?

Iverson because it's easier to build a team around him.

Give me a guy like Danny Green at SG, Iggy at SF, Zach Randolph at PF, and Tyson Chandler at C and they go to the ECF.

Tracy Mcgrady. He had a better peak overall and was closer to the best player in the league than AI was.

JordansBulls wrote:Tracy Mcgrady. He had a better peak overall and was closer to the best player in the league than AI was.

JordansBulls wrote:Tracy Mcgrady. He had a better peak overall and was closer to the best player in the league than AI was.

Huh? I don't think so. Allen Iverson was a superior player to Tmac .

eliasrapp98 wrote:Iverson because it's easier to build a team around him.

Give me a guy like Danny Green at SG, Iggy at SF, Zach Randolph at PF, and Tyson Chandler at C and they go to the ECF.

I disagree. I think it's much easier in principle to build around a 6'8" player who can do everything you require of him than a 5'11" combo guard who can't shoot 3s. I would also much rather allocate max contract money to a player at T-Mac's position than a player at Iverson's position.

eliasrapp98 wrote:Iverson because it's easier to build a team around him.

Give me a guy like Danny Green at SG, Iggy at SF, Zach Randolph at PF, and Tyson Chandler at C and they go to the ECF.

Easier to build a team around him? You need guys who won't mind cleaning up his mess and sacrificing virtually all of their offense. You'd need guys who don't mind AI taking a bunch of shots as they bust their humps on defense. There is a reason PHI had to unload guys like Stackhouse and Hughes, and why things didn't work out with Melo. If other guys are taking shots away from AI, it gets ugly. There is a reason PHI had to find the perfect storm of defensive role players in A. McKie, G. Lynch, Mutombo, E. Snow, etc. to find real success with Iverson. Because it was not easy to build around a guy like that.

At their peaks? T-Mac, no question in my mind. Peak T-Mac was an even better scorer. Excellent ball-handler for his size, could create off the dribble, very long and athletic, had a mid-range game, could post up when he wanted to, and when he was hot, he'd hit jumpers from anywhere, no matter how well contested. Was an even better passer than AI as well. Arguably the best passer/playmaker during the early 00s who wasn't a PG, his length could make him a factor on the boards and he was a very capable, and versatile defender when put forth the effort.

eliasrapp98 wrote:Iverson because it's easier to build a team around him.

Give me a guy like Danny Green at SG, Iggy at SF, Zach Randolph at PF, and Tyson Chandler at C and they go to the ECF.

Quite the opposite he was probably one of the hardest star players to build around. 5'11 undersized shooting guard who needed very specific kind on supporting cast to fulfill his needs vs great all around player like T-Mac ?

This is iverson no matter wat way you look at it...iverson was much easier to build around as he proved he could carry a bad offensive team, tracy had a prime ming yao and still couldnt go anywhere...this isnt even close boyz come on now.

ShaqAttack3234 wrote:At their peaks? T-Mac, no question in my mind. Peak T-Mac was an even better scorer. Excellent ball-handler for his size, could create off the dribble, very long and athletic, had a mid-range game, could post up when he wanted to, and when he was hot, he'd hit jumpers from anywhere, no matter how well contested. Was an even better passer than AI as well. Arguably the best passer/playmaker during the early 00s who wasn't a PG, his length could make him a factor on the boards and he was a very capable, and versatile defender when put forth the effort.

Iverson was the better playmaker an passer, hands down. Iverson was actually an elite passer/playmaker.

Hussien Fatal wrote:Iverson was the better playmaker an passer, hands down. Iverson was actually an elite passer/playmaker.

No, he wasn't. He was good, but T-Mac really was the best passer/playmaker I saw during that time among SG and SF. In addition to the passing skills and feel for the game, T-Mac had the superior court vision over AI.

As for your other comment, Iverson carried a bad offensive team, but he had an elite defensive team and elite rebounding team. Peak T-Mac's team sucked offensively, but were also terrible defensively and on the boards.

They are equal

Tracy McGrady without any hesitation. LMAO at the guy who thinks that Iverson was easier to build around.

T-Mac for both questions definitely.

I thought coming in you were going to compare who had a better career. That would be a real debate that Iverson could win.

Though AI had more playoff success in his career and was one of the greatest little guys ever, this has to be T-Mac. A lot easier to build around and better all around player.

How can anybody here say it was easier to build around tmac? We are talking about a player tht couldnt go past the first round vs a player that went to the finals as a main option, tmac proved in real life that he wasnt easy to build around, come on people.

Hussien Fatal wrote:How can anybody here say it was easier to build around tmac? We are talking about a player tht couldnt go past the first round vs a player that went to the finals as a main option, tmac proved in real life that he wasnt easy to build around, come on people.

Great, another Iverson fanboy taking one single year as proof for anything. How far did Iverson carry the Sixers when there were no Mutombo/Ratliff and several good role players playing great defense? So McGrady was losing in the first rounds. What does that prove when Iverson was losing as well in the first round several years (actually always outside of that five-year window with Larry Brown at the helm: With the Nuggets there were quick first-round exits, and with the Sixers in 2005) or missing the playoffs at all (Sixers 2004). He was still in his prime from 2003 to 2006. For once I really want an Iverson fan to tell me how it's possible that a guy is so good that he can carry a team to the Finals one year, but can't even get them into the playoffs when playing equally well in other years. What does that tell about his true impact?
Look at his 2006 stats - he was averaging more points per game on better shooting and even dishing out more assists than in his MVP year. Still the Sixers were worse than the hapless Magic in T-Mac's short true prime years.

Hussien Fatal wrote:How can anybody here say it was easier to build around tmac? We are talking about a player tht couldnt go past the first round vs a player that went to the finals as a main option, tmac proved in real life that he wasnt easy to build around, come on people.

Do you think the 01 76ers would of beaten the 07 Jazz?

JordansBulls wrote:Tracy Mcgrady. He had a better peak overall and was closer to the best player in the league than AI was.

Ai won Mvp and led his team to far more wins than Tmac ever did. He led his team to the Finals and Tmac never lead a team past the 1st round and Ai took a game from the 01 lakers.

I like how for my Cp3 VS Payton thread u bring up team accomplishments and Payton making the finals but in this thread u say Tmac was closer to being the best and ignore everything else u usually say lol. Cmon dude

GSP wrote:

JordansBulls wrote:Tracy Mcgrady. He had a better peak overall and was closer to the best player in the league than AI was.

Ai won Mvp and led his team to far more wins than Tmac ever did. He led his team to the Finals and Tmac never lead a team past the 1st round and Ai took a game from the 01 lakers.

I like how for my Cp3 VS Payton thread u bring up team accomplishments and Payton making the finals but in this thread u say Tmac was closer to being the best and ignore everything else u usually say lol. Cmon dude

The most wins AI led a team to was 56. While Tmac led a team to 55 wins. How is that far more? Also AI didn't even lead his team in win shares in the playoffs, it was Mutombo.