RealGM

Still think I would go with Chris Paul if both were coming out of school at the same time ...

http://www.hoopsvine.com/index.php?opti ... &Itemid=40

Chris Paul, He

Chris Paul without hesitation. It's almost impossible to put together a championship caliber team alongside Iverson. It takes a bunch of truly great defensive players who suck so bad on offense that they don't even want the ball. And it takes a coach who can get the teammates to work hard with no glory.

It's MUCH easier to build around Paul. I also think Paul is a better player, but that's not something I want to argue about right now.

which one of the two is a dirty player? That's the one I would NOT take.

Its close but Id take iverson. Knowing what we know now, it would be easy to build a contender around a.i.

Step 1: Get Defenders

Step 2: Dont hire Randy Ayers, Jim Obrian, Chris Ford or George Karl

It is nearly impossible to build a championship team around AI. AI is one of the most overrated players of our time.

I would go with paul,especially if you like you team to be a great contender..He makes people around him better and is a great leader on the floor.

chris paul is becoming one of the most overrated players of our time.

TooNice00 wrote:chris paul is becoming one of the most overrated players of our time.

Why don't you explain why is he is overrated?

Two extraordinary talents with somewhat similar physical gifts, but whose style of play are almost polar opposites, and because of the latter I'd take Paul in a microsecond.

AI was, for most of his career, among the most difficult players to adapt to a team concept. Larry Brown did the best possible by virtue of essentially surrounding him with players whose roles were defined by the expectation that Iverson would dominate the ball and take the vast majority of the shots. I think that was about as good as you could do with AI, unless you put him alongside another superstar, in which case I do think he had it in him to want to be more of a playmaker, less of a dominator. Short of that, he didn't really make his teammates better...he just afforded people an opportunity to excel in a role as long as the starting point was AI takes the shot.

Whereas Paul makes teammates better. He makes plays for others, be they stars or scrubs or anything in between. He probably could score on an AI level if that's all he looked to do, but he isn't that kind of player, and his team is the better for it.

In short, for his career, I think AI was about as difficult a legit star to win with as any guy going, whereas Paul is possibly the guy who makes winning happen more than any other individual star. Similar talents, opposite players.

sp6r=underrated wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
Why don't you explain why is he is overrated?

because he's yet to play a PO game, for all we know he could pull a Vince Carter disappoint badly in the first round.
He's having a really great RS, but please don't get too far.

sp6r=underrated wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Why don't you explain why is he is overrated?

Ummmm he hasn't done anything and people already think he is the next Isiah thomas or magic johnson. He is a great player. However, lets at least see how he performs in his first playoff series. People doubt the ability to build around iverson but at the same time championship teams are rarely built around a point guard as the center piece, especially a 6 foot point guard.

Patterns wrote:It is nearly impossible to build a championship team around AI. AI is one of the most overrated players of our time.

Yeah a guy who actually led his team to the finals as the undisputed best player on his team is overrated?

i am not a big iverson fan but the dude gets no respect.

Patterns wrote: AI is one of the most underrated players of our time.

fixed

TooNice00 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Ummmm he hasn't done anything and people already think he is the next Isiah thomas or magic johnson. He is a great player. However, lets at least see how he performs in his first playoff series. People doubt the ability to build around iverson but at the same time championship teams are rarely built around a point guard as the center piece, especially a 6 foot point guard.

Thank you. People have blinders on right now if they think paul will have a better career than a.i. I understand people being high on him because of the great season he is having but you gota come down from that cloud cause you people are taking it WAY 2 far. Is he one of the best pgs this season? of coarse but iverson was one of the best guards in the league for 10 years. Will paul ever be as dominant or as consistent as iverson? I doubt it. Lets see how he performs when it counts before we go overboard. A great pg is nice to have, but even Nash and Kidd cant bring you a title on their own without some talent to pass to. Iverson carried a team on his back to the NBA finals, even if Paul gets there, it will be because he has a terrific team behind him. Peja + Tyson + David West = 10 times the support iverson ever had as a sixer. Its pretty sad that this far into his career people still have misconceptions about iverson. He is the most ferocious competitor of our time.

TooNice00 wrote:i am not a big iverson fan but the dude gets no respect.

Yeah he doesn't, on this board anyway. I don't think you can really admire or respect him until you go see him play live up close and personal. What he's able to do with his stature is beyond belief. Dude is no taller than 5'11 and under 160 pounds. He's a stub in between trees out on the court.

To the original question, I would pick Iverson if both were coming out of college and so would everyone else that's not retarted. He's the more gifted, athletic and talented player.

Paul is a PG and a hell of a playmaker that can score as well, while Iverson is a SG and a pure scorer that has some playmaking ability. They are different players and not really fair to compare.

New Orleans has done a great job with Paul. Paul is probably easier to coach and easier to teach, but that doesn't mean I would pick him just because of it and disregard AI's freakish speed, atleticism and abilities. I do think it's probably easier to build around Paul, but I think Philly did a bad job, excluding 2001, to be honest.

It really comes down to what you need. If you need a PG, you take Paul, if you need a prolific scorer you take AI.

It's really not a fair comparison to begin with. But there is no doubt in my mind that AI would have more potential and a higher ceiling at the time, but be a little more work.

At this present time I would take Paul though, but I would take Paul right now over just about everyone right now.

You have to go back and look at this in the perspective of a team with the #1 pick.

If you had a team that had relatively little talent, you have to take Iverson. He is a one man wrecking crew, he will win your team 35-45 games a season, and when he was young he could single handedly take your team to the finals.

Paul has had some great seasons, but by no means were his teams all that successful until the rest of his team got healthy this year.

It's Iverson to me.

Harry Palmer wrote:Two extraordinary talents with somewhat similar physical gifts, but whose style of play are almost polar opposites, and because of the latter I'd take Paul in a microsecond.

AI was, for most of his career, among the most difficult players to adapt to a team concept. Larry Brown did the best possible by virtue of essentially surrounding him with players whose roles were defined by the expectation that Iverson would dominate the ball and take the vast majority of the shots. I think that was about as good as you could do with AI, unless you put him alongside another superstar, in which case I do think he had it in him to want to be more of a playmaker, less of a dominator. Short of that, he didn't really make his teammates better...he just afforded people an opportunity to excel in a role as long as the starting point was AI takes the shot.

Whereas Paul makes teammates better. He makes plays for others, be they stars or scrubs or anything in between. He probably could score on an AI level if that's all he looked to do, but he isn't that kind of player, and his team is the better for it.

In short, for his career, I think AI was about as difficult a legit star to win with as any guy going, whereas Paul is possibly the guy who makes winning happen more than any other individual star. Similar talents, opposite players.

Well one is a PG and one is a SG.

Name me 1 SG who has won a championship as the #1 option without a dominate big man since MJ? Maybe Wade if you consider Shaq washed up at the time.

Kobe...No (without Shaq)
Iverson...No
T-Mac...No
Carter....No

The Rest...No

Iverson was the closest...

Name he 1 PG who has lead a team to a championship since Magic?

Stockton...No
Kidd...No
Nash...No

Harry Palmer wrote:Two extraordinary talents with somewhat similar physical gifts, but whose style of play are almost polar opposites, and because of the latter I'd take Paul in a microsecond.

AI was, for most of his career, among the most difficult players to adapt to a team concept. Larry Brown did the best possible by virtue of essentially surrounding him with players whose roles were defined by the expectation that Iverson would dominate the ball and take the vast majority of the shots. I think that was about as good as you could do with AI, unless you put him alongside another superstar, in which case I do think he had it in him to want to be more of a playmaker, less of a dominator. Short of that, he didn't really make his teammates better...he just afforded people an opportunity to excel in a role as long as the starting point was AI takes the shot.

Whereas Paul makes teammates better. He makes plays for others, be they stars or scrubs or anything in between. He probably could score on an AI level if that's all he looked to do, but he isn't that kind of player, and his team is the better for it.

In short, for his career, I think AI was about as difficult a legit star to win with as any guy going, whereas Paul is possibly the guy who makes winning happen more than any other individual star. Similar talents, opposite players.

I don't agree with you about similiar talent. I think AI has more raw talent pretty easily IMO.