Mcgrady vs Iverson, New Franchise

JordansBulls · Post #1 » by **JordansBulls** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 4:24 pm

Who would you rather have if starting a franchise?

RoyceDa59 · Post #2 » by **RoyceDa59** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 5:18 pm

As rookies? Iverson no question. He won 4 scoring titles and is easily the 2nd best scorer of this decade after Kobe Bryant. For his size, he also remarkably durable, whereas McGrady had a solid 3-4 year stretch before breaking down entirely. People tend to forget just how good Iverson was in his prime, and how long he was atop the league in scoring. Also, with the knowledge I have now, I know the type of team that needs to be built around him, which can only be done if starting from scratch. With T-Mac, by the time you built a solid supporting cast around him he would be broken down.

I'll take Iverson on this one fairly easily.

Ticket_Stub · Post #3 » by **Ticket_Stub** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 5:27 pm

A Cancer who will half-show up almost every game or a guy who will fully show up before, during, and after game time in a suit? I'll take T-Mac. At least he doesn't destroy locker rooms. If they were rookies I'd choose Iverson, but if it's now I take T-Mac. These are two pretty horrible options.

JordansBulls · Post #4 » by **JordansBulls** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 7:06 pm

2 opinions both totally different and for the other guy.
:lol:

Malinhion · Post #5 » by **Malinhion** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 9:22 pm

Iverson. By the time you have a contender around McGrady you're looking at max one year of contention.

canguy20m · Post #6 » by **canguy20m** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 9:29 pm

McGrady in his prime was better he also took much longer to develop, and seemed like someone destined to leave any team that drafted him to go to Florida. Iverson would be the safest choice.

JordansBulls · Post #7 » by **JordansBulls** » Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:08 pm

Malinhion wrote:Iverson. By the time you have a contender around McGrady you're looking at max one year of contention.

Why do you say that? Rockets were contenders since 2005.

Storm Surge · Post #8 » by **Storm Surge** » Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:23 pm

Would t-mac be coming in at 18 yrs old? If so I choose him because he would then be apart of a young core which I would draft and sign thanks to our high draft picks. By the time T-Mac is 22 I'd be looking at a lethal team and go for it all.

NYKnick87 · Post #9 » by **NYKnick87** » Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:24 pm

T-mac. Even when he declined he was still able to play within the team concept.

ponder276 · Post #10 » by **ponder276** » Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:33 pm

Prime TMac was clearly better than prime Iverson, BUT you have to deal with the injury issues/shorter prime. However, TMac was playing at a very high level for 7 years (his 4 seasons with Orlando + his first 3 seasons with Houston), which is IMO long enough to take him over the more durable, but not as good Iverson, especially since Iverson has the immaturity/clashing with coaches issue, and the lack of a position that makes him difficult to build around.

JordansBulls · Post #11 » by **JordansBulls** » Sat Jul 11, 2009 9:16 pm

NYKnick87 wrote:T-mac. Even when he declined he was still able to play within the team concept.

Iverson in 2001.

shawngoat23 · Post #12 » by **shawngoat23** » Sat Jul 11, 2009 10:22 pm

McGrady. More talented and easier to build around.

The only reason to take Iverson would be because he's more durable.