I here some people call him a franchise player, but I don't see it. He plays good d, but his offense is very VERY limited. He has a nice handle, but no jumpshot or a consistent one at that. He also don't appear to have a killer instinct. Once in a while he try to take over a game, but rarely does he succeed.
I thought after the A.I. trade, Iggy would break out, but this was his 4th year, he's 24 years old, and he just seems fine fitting in instead of establishing himself as a great player. Imo, he's in the Lamar Odom stage. Has the tools to be great, but not the mindset to be great. And that mindset doesn't just come along, you have it or you don't. I don't think Iggy has it.
I like Iggy, but do you think he's the franchise player or a great complementary player?
What are your thoughts on Iguodala?
Moderators: HartfordWhalers, BullyKing, Sixerscan, sixers hoops, Foshan
What are your thoughts on Iguodala?
-
Peanut
- Banned User
- Posts: 412
- And1: 0
- Joined: Apr 13, 2008
-
SendEm
- Banned User
- Posts: 2,285
- And1: 1
- Joined: Dec 13, 2007
In my honest opinion Andre Iguodala is Doug Christie. They are the same person and player but placed in completely different circumstances in their early NBA development prompting Iguodala to develop a tad bit more offensively. But those two players are the same exact player for a winning team with talent. This talk of Iggy being a 1,2, or even 3 is way off target. Iggy is a complementary starter like Doug Christie and that's it.
-
tk76
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 9,615
- And1: 734
- Joined: Jul 21, 2006
This has been discussed in every thread.
No one at this point sees him as a #1 type franchise player. Most see him as a good compentary player, and there is intense debate over whether he can be a #2 or #3 star on a contender (fill the role that Ginobili, Ray Allan, Josh Howard etc fit on championship caliber teams.)
Most have seen good progress in his game. He went from a 14ppg guy w/ AI to a 20/5/5 guy year 3 (but turnover prone and low FG%.) Year 4(last year) he showed improvement by lowering TO's dramatically the 2nd half of the season and improving is FG% and midrange jumper.
He is a great/intense worker who may continue to polish his game, but never will be a natural scorer. There is lots of debate about what type of salary would be fair and how well he fits next to Thaddeus Young- who is seen as an emerging star SF in few years. There is debate about whether he is well suited to play SG next to Young.
No one at this point sees him as a #1 type franchise player. Most see him as a good compentary player, and there is intense debate over whether he can be a #2 or #3 star on a contender (fill the role that Ginobili, Ray Allan, Josh Howard etc fit on championship caliber teams.)
Most have seen good progress in his game. He went from a 14ppg guy w/ AI to a 20/5/5 guy year 3 (but turnover prone and low FG%.) Year 4(last year) he showed improvement by lowering TO's dramatically the 2nd half of the season and improving is FG% and midrange jumper.
He is a great/intense worker who may continue to polish his game, but never will be a natural scorer. There is lots of debate about what type of salary would be fair and how well he fits next to Thaddeus Young- who is seen as an emerging star SF in few years. There is debate about whether he is well suited to play SG next to Young.
