As Rookies... Iverson/Ray Allen

RelativeZdot · Post #1 » by **RelativeZdot** » Thu May 1, 2008 4:55 am

Who would you take to build your team around or have as a building block.???? Allen is the more efficent of the two and actually had playoff success against quality teams. Seems like years ago but he took the very medicore talent wise Sonics to the second round and then pushed the eventual champ spurs to 6 games. If Rashard Lewis didnt go down we might have a completely different view of the guy.

Cammo101 · Post #2 » by **Cammo101** » Thu May 1, 2008 5:24 am

You have to go AI here. He is tougher to build around, but he is the better player.

Post #3 » by **penbeast0** » Thu May 1, 2008 4:28 pm

Easily Ray Allen. He is much the better complimentary player and Iverson isn't good enough to be the star on a contender, the 2001 season was built around great defense and Ray Allen probably could have taken it to the finals that year too with equivalent breaks.

magicfan4life05 · Post #4 » by **magicfan4life05** » Thu May 1, 2008 4:39 pm

This one is tough imo, as a franchise player, i think iverson is a better choice money wise b/c he will sell more jerseys and stuff and is a bigger "star" than allen. But basketball wise, i would probably choose allen because his skills are more easily to build around.

That Nicka · Post #5 » by **That Nicka** » Thu May 1, 2008 7:13 pm

Didnt Iverson have like 5 straight 40 point games as a rookie?

big123 · Post #6 » by **big123** » Thu May 1, 2008 7:25 pm

This is pretty easy. Iverson is hard to build a team around and Allen shouldn't even be mentioned to build a team around.

MagicNolesFSU · Post #7 » by **MagicNolesFSU** » Thu May 1, 2008 9:19 pm

Iverson, and its not even close. You gotta be a damn good GM to build a team around AI though.

ITK9 · Post #8 » by **ITK9** » Thu May 1, 2008 9:33 pm

this is an insult to iverson

youngcrev · Post #9 » by **youngcrev** » Fri May 2, 2008 2:27 pm

penbeast0 wrote:Easily Ray Allen. He is much the better complimentary player and Iverson isn't good enough to be the star on a contender, the 2001 season was built around great defense and Ray Allen probably could have taken it to the finals that year too with equivalent breaks.

RoyceDa59 · Post #10 » by **RoyceDa59** » Fri May 2, 2008 3:52 pm

penbeast0 wrote:Easily Ray Allen. He is much the better complimentary player and Iverson isn't good enough to be the star on a contender, the 2001 season was built around great defense and Ray Allen probably could have taken it to the finals that year too with equivalent breaks.

Please. Iverson walked through Ray Allen and the Milwaukee Bucks on the way to the finals that year.

That being said, I agree that Ray Allen is a more attractive piece for a championship team because I think he has a perfect skill set to compliment a superstar and I really dont feel Iverson is good enough as a superstar himself to win the title (and he simply isn't a good complimentary guy).

ITK9 · Post #11 » by **ITK9** » Fri May 2, 2008 4:30 pm

iverson is a player hard to build around, ray allen is NOT a player to build around.

Post #12 » by **penbeast0** » Fri May 2, 2008 6:06 pm

mmm, the comment about Ray Allen going to the finals was if you put him in Iverson's place in Philly with DPOY Mutumbo, SMOY Aaron McKie, COY Larry Brown's schemes, and solid roleplayers like Hill, Snow, etc. then gave him the same luck, breaks, and competition on his way to the finals (with Iverson taking Allen's place in Milwaukee if you wish).

sp6r=underrated · Post #13 » by **sp6r=underrated** » Fri May 2, 2008 10:30 pm

Allen is the clear choice for me.

Neither Allen or Iverson are capable of being the best player on a championship team. That means I'm looking at who would make the better second option on a championship team, and that's easily Allen.

Penbeast already covered the 2001 sixers, but the two biggest factors in that team success were playing in an extremely weak conference and a great defense

Cammo101 · Post #14 » by **Cammo101** » Fri May 2, 2008 11:08 pm

ITK9 wrote:iverson is a player hard to build around, ray allen is NOT a player to build around.

This is exactly what I think. Great post.

tmac4real · Post #15 » by **tmac4real** » Sat May 3, 2008 2:33 am

ITK9 wrote:iverson is a player hard to build around, ray allen is NOT a player to build around.

/thread

GoBobcats · Post #16 » by **GoBobcats** » Sat May 3, 2008 4:19 pm

ITK9 wrote:this is an insult to iverson

big123 · Post #17 » by **big123** » Sat May 3, 2008 11:18 pm

sp6r=underrated wrote:Allen is the clear choice for me.

Neither Allen or Iverson are capable of being the best player on a championship team. That means I'm looking at who would make the better second option on a championship team, and that's easily Allen.

Penbeast already covered the 2001 sixers, but the two biggest factors in that team success were playing in an extremely weak conference and a great defense

OK.

ak06ma · Post #18 » by **ak06ma** » Sat May 3, 2008 11:29 pm

big123 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

OK.

Reks · Post #19 » by **Reks** » Sun May 4, 2008 8:34 am

Are we talking about Ray Allen?
At least say a better person like, Ryan Bowen or something

yunggunz · Post #20 » by **yunggunz** » Sun May 4, 2008 7:51 pm

penbeast0 wrote:mmm, the comment about Ray Allen going to the finals was if you put him in Iverson's place in Philly with DPOY Mutumbo, SMOY Aaron McKie, COY Larry Brown's schemes, and solid roleplayers like Hill, Snow, etc. then gave him the same luck, breaks, and competition on his way to the finals (with Iverson taking Allen's place in Milwaukee if you wish).

Iverson AVERAGED 33 ppg in those playoffs. Ray Allen has only touched 33 point three times in the playoffs. They would whave been out in the first round with Ray in place of Iverson.