Iverson vs. Rose

[24SecondRule]

Who would you sign for 10 years (KNOWING that they would be healthy): Allen Iverson or Derrick Rose?

[KembaWalker]

If you lack ambition you take Rose as he is probably the safer outcome and easier to deal with. If you are shooting for the moon, you take Iverson as he was significantly more talented than Rose, and hope you can do better for his development and surrounding cast than Philly (which shouldn’t be too hard)

Assuming this is like a take and develop thing and not that you just get the player as they were, the presented question is a bit lacking

[tsherkin]

In what era?

[One_and_Done]

Even the overrated Rose is better than Iverson in his prime. Iverson is among the most overrated players of the last 30 years.

[SlimShady83]

AI

[TheGOATRises007]

If you lack ambition you take Rose as he is probably the safer outcome and easier to deal with. If you are shooting for the moon, you take Iverson as he was significantly more talented than Rose, and hope you can do better for his development and surrounding cast than Philly (which shouldn’t be too hard)

Assuming this is like a take and develop thing and not that you just get the player as they were, the presented question is a bit lacking

Wild hyperbole.

[KembaWalker]

If you lack ambition you take Rose as he is probably the safer outcome and easier to deal with. If you are shooting for the moon, you take Iverson as he was significantly more talented than Rose, and hope you can do better for his development and surrounding cast than Philly (which shouldn’t be too hard)

Assuming this is like a take and develop thing and not that you just get the player as they were, the presented question is a bit lacking

Wild hyperbole.

Not really at all. Iverson was a 1 lock in an all time great draft, Rose didn’t have it like that

[TheGOATRises007]

If you lack ambition you take Rose as he is probably the safer outcome and easier to deal with. If you are shooting for the moon, you take Iverson as he was significantly more talented than Rose, and hope you can do better for his development and surrounding cast than Philly (which shouldn’t be too hard)

Assuming this is like a take and develop thing and not that you just get the player as they were, the presented question is a bit lacking

Wild hyperbole.

Not really at all. Iverson was a 1 lock in an all time great draft, Rose didn’t have it like that

There is no shot you're referencing Barkley picking him in that draft when he thought it was for an AS game

Be serious man. Do better than that.

[KembaWalker]

Wild hyperbole.

Not really at all. Iverson was a 1 lock in an all time great draft, Rose didn’t have it like that

There is no shot you're referencing Barkley picking him in that draft when he thought it was for an AS game

Be serious man. Do better than that.

I’m taking about Iverson going 1 in 96 while Rose wasn’t even a consensus over Mike Beasley. Wall was a better prospect than Rose

[TheGOATRises007]

Not really at all. Iverson was a 1 lock in an all time great draft, Rose didn’t have it like that

There is no shot you're referencing Barkley picking him in that draft when he thought it was for an AS game

Be serious man. Do better than that.

I’m taking about Iverson going 1 in 96 while Rose wasn’t even a consensus over Mike Beasley. Wall was a better prospect than Rose

That is completely irrelevant.

Like beyond irrelevant.

[KembaWalker]

There is no shot you're referencing Barkley picking him in that draft when he thought it was for an AS game

Be serious man. Do better than that.

I’m taking about Iverson going 1 in 96 while Rose wasn’t even a consensus over Mike Beasley. Wall was a better prospect than Rose

That is completely irrelevant.

Like beyond irrelevant.

I mean, he was also a better player in the NBA. I’m just saying he was also a better raw prospect as well. It’s not my whole argument or anything and you disagreeing doesn’t matter at all lol

[GeorgeMarcus]

Even the overrated Rose is better than Iverson in his prime. Iverson is among the most overrated players of the last 30 years.

He WAS overrated and probably still is among casual fans but he's become massively underrated on basketball forums like this. I've made the lengthy argument before but prime Iverson had the worst floor spacing of any supporting cast probably ever. I'm not being hyperbolic. That's brutal for a guy whose bread and butter was dribble penetration. It's very misleading if you analyze AI's raw scoring efficiency without taking in context. Look at what happened to post-prime Iverson in DEN when he averaged 26.4ppg on 56.7 TS% (firmly above league average at the time). That wasn't a coincidence- he actually had guys around him who could score and space the floor. His impact metrics were significantly more impressive than Melo's that year, who was in his early prime.

The reason AI was overrated by the general public at first was an over emphasis on counting stats, and probably also his authentic style/killer mentality. He was an absolute spectacle on the court despite being one of the only sub 6' players. "Pound for pound" the most athletic player in the league. It's hard not to think of the day he slayed Shaq and Kobe's Lakers, who had gone 12-0 leading up to that series, dropping 48pts/5rbs/6asts/5 stls in LA. Ty Lue certainly remembers.

Also worth noting: a weird narrative developed overtime that Iverson was a bad defender, which wasn't the case. He was a poor man defender but an excellent help defender. Overall I'd say AT LEAST neutral on that end which is fine for a player responsible for carrying the entire offense. Those Sixers defenses were consistently elite and Iverson never came off the floor, so if he was a bad defender then the league didn't do a good job of exploiting it...

[GeorgeMarcus]

Anyway I vote Iverson, even though it's hard to say what Rose might have become sans injuries. The best version of Rose we got to see was a tier below peak AI.

[Cavsfansince84]

I honestly don't want to build around either. More so because they eventually will demand max contracts.

[TheGOATRises007]

Anyway I vote Iverson, even though it's hard to say what Rose might have become sans injuries. The best version of Rose we got to see was a tier below peak AI.

You can think Peak AI was better than the best version of Rose, but a peak below doesn't compute.

There is no data whatsoever that supports that.

[SHAQ32]

Haven't studied the numbers, but based on memory Iverson was a better shooter and defensive player.

[rrravenred]

If we had 10 years of Rose to compare it would be an interesting comparison. Instead we have, what, 18 months of arguable preinjury Prime?

Does Rose diversify his game? Does he improve his ordinary playoff efficiency?

The answer to this question for people is (I think) really going to depend on how you personally extrapolate the graph on where Rose's prime/peak end up.

[Ron Swanson]

If you lack ambition you take Rose as he is probably the safer outcome and easier to deal with. If you are shooting for the moon, you take Iverson as he was significantly more talented than Rose, and hope you can do better for his development and surrounding cast than Philly (which shouldn’t be too hard)

Assuming this is like a take and develop thing and not that you just get the player as they were, the presented question is a bit lacking

Wild hyperbole.

This is not hyperbole at all coming from a neutral fan. Iverson may have been, pound-for-pound, the most talented/gifted NBA player ever given his size. Even if you're just coming at this from a pure "athleticism" standpoint, Iverson was a freak athlete in his own right. Rose had better size and shares the title of most explosive vertical athlete ever at the PG position along with Westbrook, but shooting, ball-handling, play-making, and defense (although neither was great) aren't really much of a debate here. Rose doesn't go #1 over Marcus Camby in 1996.

[LA Bird]

At age 21, Rose had a better mid range shooting season than Iverson ever had in his career:



At age 22, Rose shot 86% from the FT line. Iverson at the same age shot 73% and peaked at only 83% FT during his career.

Rose only had 3 full healthy seasons and in that little time still showed better shooting ability than Iverson ever did. But apparently Iverson is the better shooter and it's not a debate because ... what, he's short? Iverson threads are always the same because it inevitably becomes a P4P discussion when it is never relevant. There is not one example anyone can give where adding P4P in NBA is actually beneficial. For example, consider these two statements:

Iverson is more athletic than Andre Miller
Iverson is, P4P, more athletic than Derrick Rose

If Iverson was actually more athletic than Rose, why do people feel the need to add "P4P"? Because he is not actually more athletic and it is just an excuse. Adding P4P is an automatic admission the player is worse.

[One_and_Done]

Even the overrated Rose is better than Iverson in his prime. Iverson is among the most overrated players of the last 30 years.

He WAS overrated and probably still is among casual fans but he's become massively underrated on basketball forums like this. I've made the lengthy argument before but prime Iverson had the worst floor spacing of any supporting cast probably ever. I'm not being hyperbolic. That's brutal for a guy whose bread and butter was dribble penetration. It's very misleading if you analyze AI's raw scoring efficiency without taking in context. Look at what happened to post-prime Iverson in DEN when he averaged 26.4ppg on 56.7 TS% (firmly above league average at the time). That wasn't a coincidence- he actually had guys around him who could score and space the floor. His impact metrics were significantly more impressive than Melo's that year, who was in his early prime.

The reason AI was overrated by the general public at first was an over emphasis on counting stats, and probably also his authentic style/killer mentality. He was an absolute spectacle on the court despite being one of the only sub 6' players. "Pound for pound" the most athletic player in the league. It's hard not to think of the day he slayed Shaq and Kobe's Lakers, who had gone 12-0 leading up to that series, dropping 48pts/5rbs/6asts/5 stls in LA. Ty Lue certainly remembers.

Also worth noting: a weird narrative developed overtime that Iverson was a bad defender, which wasn't the case. He was a poor man defender but an excellent help defender. Overall I'd say AT LEAST neutral on that end which is fine for a player responsible for carrying the entire offense. Those Sixers defenses were consistently elite and Iverson never came off the floor, so if he was a bad defender then the league didn't do a good job of exploiting it...

Iverson would have been even worse today, for a host of reasons. Extra spacing is only helpful if you take advantage of it. Iverson was one of these Kobe type players who would have mostly played the same way. His poor attitude and D would have made him a major liability to a modern team, think a worse version of L.Ball.