RealGM

Allen Iverson vs Steve Nash, who would you rather build around?


My initial thoughts was to say to take Iverson. Afterall when on a good team he took them to the finals. However when I think about it now, well he has a good team in Denver as well and while it is only his 2nd season they seem to be struggling to make the playoffs. Nash has always had good players around him, the difference is that the team was not successful without him in Phoenix. They were 29-53 the year before Nash got their and they were 62-20 the year he got their. So all in all I think Nash makes his team better.

Who do I take, well if I need a game or so to win or if I need someone in the playoffs I would take AI, however if I need someone build around I think Nash is the better choice.

If i have defenders on the team, i take Iverson. If i have a run & gun team, full of finishers, you take Nash.

It depends on your teams philosophy.

Derekman wrote:If i have defenders on the team, i take Iverson. If i have a run & gun team, full of finishers, you take Nash.

It depends on your teams philosophy.

I agree. Nash wasn't as useful with his game in Dallas before he came into the Suns system. The Suns system fits perfect with his skill set and the team It was a match made in heaven. Also, Nash is an even worst defender than AI, if that's even possible

Nash easily

Look at what Nash hoes done for Phoenix vs. what AI has done for Denver.

Seems pretty clear.

jrhester wrote:Look at what Nash hoes done for Phoenix vs. what AI has done for Denver.

Seems pretty clear.

The Suns didn't build a team around Nash, they had a team already that Nash could excel in and was the missing piece.

Iverson wasn't so lucky.

big123 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



The Suns didn't build a team around Nash, they had a team already that Nash could excel in and was the missing piece.

Iverson wasn't so lucky.

What would be the perfect team built around AI?

jrhester wrote:Look at what Nash hoes done for Phoenix vs. what AI has done for Denver.

Seems pretty clear.

iverson lead his team to the finals

Derekman wrote:If i have defenders on the team, i take Iverson. If i have a run & gun team, full of finishers, you take Nash.

It depends on your teams philosophy.

the trick about building around a player is you choose the players

That Nicka wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



What would be the perfect team built around AI?

I think a perfect Team to build around Iverson would be a team full of defensive Juggernauts, and good offensive rebounders that can also knock down open shots when needed.

Hussien Fatal wrote:-= original quote snipped =-




I think a perfect Team to build around Iverson would be a team full of defensive Juggernauts, and good offensive rebounders that can also knock down open shots when needed.

I was thinking a team with a big SG that can play defense, slash, and hit open jumpers (Iguoudala), a SF that can spread the floor and hit open 3s (Korver), a PF that can hit the open jumper and rebound (Webber) and a C that can defend and rebound (Dalembert)

The 76ers were built around AI just fine imo, he's just not as good as Nash... Granted Webber and Korver werent the greatest defenders, but they still should have been able to make something happen in the east

That Nicka wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



I was thinking a team with a big SG that can play defense, slash, and hit open jumpers (Iguoudala), a SF that can spread the floor and hit open 3s (Korver), a PF that can hit the open jumper and rebound (Webber) and a C that can defend and rebound (Dalembert)

The 76ers were built around AI just fine imo, he's just not as good as Nash... Granted Webber and Korver werent the greatest defenders, but they still should have been able to make something happen in the east

I think it would be better if AI has a big point guard alongside with him that's capable of defending 2 guards (Payton, Kidd, Hinrich).

Choker wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



I think it would be better if AI has a big point guard alongside with him that's capable of defending 2 guards (Payton, Kidd, Hinrich).

I agree but there are only a handful of those in the league and other teams arent necessarily looking to give a player like that up... imo, unless you have a player that fits into the category that you just mentioned, you have to play Iverson at PG... he is too much of a liability trying to defend Kobe, Manu, Wade, TMAC, Redd, Carter, Richardson, JJ etc etc etc

I feel the same way about Terry, Barbosa, Gordon, Ellis etc... imo they have to either adapt and play PG, or come off the bench

Nash without thinking twice about it.

I'll take the guy who makes his teammates better over "it's just practice" anyday.

Iverson.

1. Nash is useless unless he's surrounded by all-star finishers, so its pointless to build around him.

2. Iverson will generate more jersey sales and ticket revenue.

3. A bad/new franchise will fare better with a scorer who can carry them to victories than a pass-first guy who rarely ever takes over a game.

That Nicka wrote:What would be the perfect team built around AI?

Kirk Hinrich - catch'n'shoot on offense, big enough to cover both guard spots on D, solid three-ball, can also bring the ball up the court enabling the team to run more, which maximizes Iverson's potential. He probably also doesn't eat that much cap room.
Other Options: Raja Bell, Kevin Martin

Shawn Marion - fast-paced intangibles guy who can lock down the opponent's best guy on a night-in, night-out basis. Need someone here that can stuff the stat box, but there is a variety of options IMO...
Other Options: Josh Howard, Tayshaun Prince, Caron Butler, Richard Jefferson, Josh Smith

Amare Stoudemire - around-the-basket finisher who can run the floor with AI, his skillset should supplement the center spot
Other Options: David West, LaMarcus Aldridge

Marcus Camby - DPoY calibre defender who focuses on rebounding but has a dynamic game in general, also has a decent j from 15-22.
Other Options: Rasheed Wallace, Tyson Chandler

There's is a difference between a perfect team and a practical team. For cap reasons I'd probably skimp on the more expensive forward options. I think the other guard spot and the center position are most important for AI.

My team would probably wind up looking something like this:

G: Iverson (absurd contract)
G: Hinrich (making $11M on a declining scale to $8M in 2012)
F: Butler ($8.5M this season, signed through 2011 for $10.5M)
F: Aldridge (making just over $4M on rookie scale, QO in 2011)
C: Camby (making $8M/per for three seasons)

And I'd fill out the bench with guys like Kapono, who can drill the trey all season, and sparkplugs for when the offense stalls. Otherwise the defense in my starting 5 should hold its own.

Great players make those around them better, and maybe no one has done a better job of that than Steve Nash.

AI on the other hand seems to make those around him worse.

jrhester wrote:Great players make those around them better, and maybe no one has done a better job of that than Steve Nash.

AI on the other hand seems to make those around him worse.

Yeah, AI sure made those superstars Eric Snow, George Lynch and Tyrone Hill look like crap.

yeah wtf all this "AI doesn't make ppl better" stuff is BS. Don't shooters benefit from when he drives? Thought so.

I would take Iverson. Nash is great but it's easier to find the defensive role players to put around AI than it is to put superstar highflyers around Nash

Malinhion wrote:Iverson.

1. Nash is useless unless he's surrounded by all-star finishers, so its pointless to build around him.

nash took a team which was missing amare all the year and had boris diaw as its starting center to the third seed in the west. nash is clearly better than iverson at "making everyone around him better."

also, don't forget the fact that iguodala broke out just after iverson left the sixers and amare broke out just after steve nash joined the suns. that's a big indicator imo.