Why was Iverson drafted 1st?

[BarbaGrizz]

I think you mean 1 of the most Entertaining Players. He was probably ended up as the 4th Best Player from his Draft Class.

-Iverson also went 1st since it was back in an era where the importance of efficiency was less well understood and things like PPG!!!!! mattered more.

AI is the #2 in this class only behing Kobe, stop with the non sense.

Almost any team in the NBA today would choose Allen over AI if they could add 1 to their team. A 6-5 3 Point Sniper is much easier to add to a team than a 5'11 super high usage PG. For example, let us look at the top teams in the Playoffs and which 1 they would rather add to team:

GS- Obviously Allen. They aren't going to let AI dominate the ball instead of Curry
CLE- Obviously Allen. They aren't going to let AI dominate the ball instead of Lebron (and Kyrie)
LAC- Obviously Allen. They aren't going to let AI dominate the ball instead of CP3.
Spurs- Obviously Allen. AI's super high usage % and lack of efficiency goes entirely against Spurs System
ATL- Obviously Allen. AI's super high usage % and lack of efficiency goes entirely against Spurs/ATL System
MEM- Allen. Allen provides desperately needed 3 Point Shooting and spacing.

etc

Out of All 16 Playoff teams this year, only maybe MIL would rather have AI since they have nobody to reliably break down Defense. BKN might go AI also. At minimum 14/16 of Playoff teams would prefer Allen over AI.

-------

The real debate is whether Nash or AI for 3rd in the Draft Class. Nash beats AI in MVPS 2-1, had far more longevity than AI, and made as many ALL NBA teams as AI. Nash leads in almost any metric if you compare their careers.

Dude...really...dude...watch the game, stop playing with numbers.

[MrPerfect1]

AI is the #2 in this class only behing Kobe, stop with the non sense.

Almost any team in the NBA today would choose Allen over AI if they could add 1 to their team. A 6-5 3 Point Sniper is much easier to add to a team than a 5'11 super high usage PG. For example, let us look at the top teams in the Playoffs and which 1 they would rather add to team:

GS- Obviously Allen. They aren't going to let AI dominate the ball instead of Curry
CLE- Obviously Allen. They aren't going to let AI dominate the ball instead of Lebron (and Kyrie)
LAC- Obviously Allen. They aren't going to let AI dominate the ball instead of CP3.
Spurs- Obviously Allen. AI's super high usage % and lack of efficiency goes entirely against Spurs System
ATL- Obviously Allen. AI's super high usage % and lack of efficiency goes entirely against Spurs/ATL System
MEM- Allen. Allen provides desperately needed 3 Point Shooting and spacing.

etc

Out of All 16 Playoff teams this year, only maybe MIL would rather have AI since they have nobody to reliably break down Defense. BKN might go AI also. At minimum 14/16 of Playoff teams would prefer Allen over AI.

-------

The real debate is whether Nash or AI for 3rd in the Draft Class. Nash beats AI in MVPS 2-1, had far more longevity than AI, and made as many ALL NBA teams as AI. Nash leads in almost any metric if you compare their careers.

Dude...really...dude...watch the game, stop playing with numbers.

I do watch the game, not just the highlights. That is 1 way of knowing that AI would be #4 in the Draft.

Do you think any of the Top playoff teams would take AI over Allen? ClE? GS? LAC? Spurs? ATL?

[HeartBreakKid]

Allen Iverson being better than Steve Nash is jokes. "dude...watch the game, stop playing with numbers" - that's really ironic, because really the only reason why people think Iverson is better than Nash is because of his statline. Watching the way the two play basketball, Nash was obviously a better player.


As for the question, he was a top tier athlete, and even though he was small he was very good at finishing. Considering he could create his shot at well with his blazing speed, if he had developed a consistent jumper then he could have been the "Next Jordan" that people were starting to yell about back then.

I do remember that a lot of people thought Maubary and Allen should have went #1 - there were some decent debates about who should go #1 overall that draft.

[UcanUwill]

Not sure if this is completely on topic, but for those who were around back then, what was the hype surrounding Iverson then that allowed him, as a (under) 6 foot shooting guard, to be drafted 1st? Looking at his stats, he was a big time scorer in college but never really demonstrated a great (or even good) perimeter shot, didn't really demonstrate a knack for assisting (avg. 5.6 assists (5.0 TOVs)/40 minutes). What made him so special?

Bonus question: Where might Iverson go in this draft, assuming we don't know how his career turned out?

So disrespectful to AI. He was seriously a basketball god in his prime . He was unbelievable one of the greatest players ever to play the game . He was a literally unstoppable scorer , fastest players ever, best crossover, clutch, elite mid range game and anticipated steals with the best of them. Only 5'11 and would go amongst the trees and finish like nothing. Once in a lifetime player. Respect my man Allen Iverson.

no one is saying AI wasnt a great player. Op asked completely different and legitimate question.

[BarbaGrizz]

Almost any team in the NBA today would choose Allen over AI if they could add 1 to their team. A 6-5 3 Point Sniper is much easier to add to a team than a 5'11 super high usage PG. For example, let us look at the top teams in the Playoffs and which 1 they would rather add to team:

GS- Obviously Allen. They aren't going to let AI dominate the ball instead of Curry
CLE- Obviously Allen. They aren't going to let AI dominate the ball instead of Lebron (and Kyrie)
LAC- Obviously Allen. They aren't going to let AI dominate the ball instead of CP3.
Spurs- Obviously Allen. AI's super high usage % and lack of efficiency goes entirely against Spurs System
ATL- Obviously Allen. AI's super high usage % and lack of efficiency goes entirely against Spurs/ATL System
MEM- Allen. Allen provides desperately needed 3 Point Shooting and spacing.

etc

Out of All 16 Playoff teams this year, only maybe MIL would rather have AI since they have nobody to reliably break down Defense. BKN might go AI also. At minimum 14/16 of Playoff teams would prefer Allen over AI.

-------

The real debate is whether Nash or AI for 3rd in the Draft Class. Nash beats AI in MVPS 2-1, had far more longevity than AI, and made as many ALL NBA teams as AI. Nash leads in almost any metric if you compare their careers.

Dude...really...dude...watch the game, stop playing with numbers.

I do watch the game, not just the highlights. That is 1 way of knowing that AI would be #4 in the Draft.

Do you think any of the Top playoff teams would take AI over Allen? ClE? GS? LAC? Spurs? ATL?

I answer your question with another question: would Ray Allen take a team of nobodies to the NBA Finals?

[Zeitgeister]

So disrespectful to AI. He was seriously a basketball god in his prime . He was unbelievable one of the greatest players ever to play the game . He was a literally unstoppable scorer , fastest players ever, best crossover, clutch, elite mid range game and anticipated steals with the best of them. Only 5'11 and would go amongst the trees and finish like nothing. Once in a lifetime player. Respect my man Allen Iverson.

I think you mean 1 of the most Entertaining Players. He was probably ended up as the 4th Best Player from his Draft Class.

-Iverson also went 1st since it was back in an era where the importance of efficiency was less well understood and things like PPG!!!!! mattered more.

AI is the #2 in this class only behing Kobe, stop with the non sense.

I'll take Steve Nash over AI any day of the week. Ray Allen is closer but I'd still favor Allen particularly when you factor in all the off the court baggage that came along with AI.

[Upperclass]

Minus Kobe, no GM is taking anyone from that draft over AI. To say otherwise is spouting ignorance. Ray Allen was a well known puss, who's team were consistently mediocre and couldnt beat Kobe and Shaq to save his life. Steve Nash is closer, but he didnt even began to thrive until you put him into a high octane, no defense system. Not only that, but would probably have average 40 and 9 in a similar system.

Dude dragged garbage to the NBA finals, and went up 1-0 on one of the best title teams of all team.

At one point in his career dude put up 33ppg & 7.5ast on 45% shooting. If he wasnt given free reign to do what he pleased by Larry Brown and was actually coached and taught the game. He wouldve went down as a top 5 player of all time, not just a top 5 talent.

You all are insane with this non-sense.

[Negrodamus]

Dude...really...dude...watch the game, stop playing with numbers.

I do watch the game, not just the highlights. That is 1 way of knowing that AI would be #4 in the Draft.

Do you think any of the Top playoff teams would take AI over Allen? ClE? GS? LAC? Spurs? ATL?

I answer your question with another question: would Ray Allen take a team of nobodies to the NBA Finals?

No, because he couldn't even beat AI with a team of nobodies in the ECF that year when he was on Milwaukee with Glenn Robinson and Sam Cassell. Then AI went on to beat the Lakers in game 1 of those finals. Might not mean much, but that was probably the best Lakers team of the three peat since that game 1 was their only loss of the entire playoffs.

AI was high usage, but he's one of the greatest high usage players of all time.

[theonlyclutch]

I do watch the game, not just the highlights. That is 1 way of knowing that AI would be #4 in the Draft.

Do you think any of the Top playoff teams would take AI over Allen? ClE? GS? LAC? Spurs? ATL?

I answer your question with another question: would Ray Allen take a team of nobodies to the NBA Finals?

No, because he couldn't even beat AI with a team of nobodies in the ECF that year when he was on Milwaukee with Glenn Robinson and Sam Cassell. Then AI went on to beat the Lakers in game 1 of those finals. Might not mean much, but that was probably the best Lakers team of the three peat since that game 1 was their only loss of the entire playoffs.

AI was high usage, but he's one of the greatest high usage players of all time.

A team of nobodies that just happens to include a 4-time DPOY and a 6MOY, were they an offensively talented cast, no. Were they a good defensive cast, yes, and that was the driving force behind the final run.

[NO-KG-AI]

AI had the talent to be a more explosive scoring version of Chris Paul. People saw shades of Isiah Thomas, and his big finals outbursts and such.

[MrPerfect1]

Dude...really...dude...watch the game, stop playing with numbers.

I do watch the game, not just the highlights. That is 1 way of knowing that AI would be #4 in the Draft.

Do you think any of the Top playoff teams would take AI over Allen? ClE? GS? LAC? Spurs? ATL?

I answer your question with another question: would Ray Allen take a team of nobodies to the NBA Finals?

It depends, does Allen also get the criminally biased refs that decided the MIL/PHI series?

[BoutPractice]

I believe it's one of those cases where modern methods of evaluation don't pain the full picture.

To watch AI is to be mesmerized - lightning quick, athletic, incredibly gifted ballhandler and scorer, a terror in the passing lanes, and a cold-blooded killer on the court. The scouts watched him, they were mesmerized, and so they picked him first.

And it's not like small players had never before been stars in the NBA. Tiny Archibald, Isiah Thomas... they thought (correctly as it turns out) he had the talent to eventually belong in that company.

Contemporary scouting places a lot of emphasis on size, particularly wingspan. In some ways this is evidence-based, but at the same time you shouldn't dismiss small players out of hand because of their height. In 2005, for example, Bogut and Marvin Williams had size, but Chris Paul was actually the better player. Knowing what we know now we would pick him first.

[SpeedyG]

Minus Kobe, no GM is taking anyone from that draft over AI. To say otherwise is spouting ignorance. Ray Allen was a well known puss, who's team were consistently mediocre and couldnt beat Kobe and Shaq to save his life. Steve Nash is closer, but he didnt even began to thrive until you put him into a high octane, no defense system. Not only that, but would probably have average 40 and 9 in a similar system.

Dude dragged garbage to the NBA finals, and went up 1-0 on one of the best title teams of all team.

At one point in his career dude put up 33ppg & 7.5ast on 45% shooting.

Keep in mind that all of the stats he put up when the NBA didn't have this wussified no-hand check rule that's allowing the "best PG era" in basketball.

Seriously. Defending AI without being able to put a hand on him? With the way the whistles are being called in today's game? He'd probably get 30 points just from the FT line alone.

[Johnny Firpo]

LOL at Iverson being better than Nash and Allen. What an absolutely joke.

[Mik317]

I hate debating things about Iverson. People aren't going to be swayed so it is a waste of time. People have made up their minds about him and thats that.

However, allow me to put up some counterpoints. You don't have to agree with them just allow me to say my piece.

1. Iverson coming out of college was a beast. Kobe was a HS who allegedly was trying to choose his team and even if not...was a HS in a era where that was super risky. Nash was a dude from a small school.. Ray Allen is probably the best case for going over Iverson or Starbury. Iverson out of college was an elite athlete, had long ass arms to make up for his lack of height (big hands too), and if you could harness that talent, he would be a gamechanger (he still was but I'd argue he just missed his ceiling..due to self inflicted wounds and poor team building and such). So yeah I could still see him going number one. Hindsight is 20/20.

2. I love Ray Allen but the simple fact is that he didn't win **** UNTIL he teamed up with TWO (potentially 3) other HOFs and again with 3 more HOFs. Outside of Melo and a Old ass **** Mutumbo...Iverson had???? Again some of it falls on AI's lap for being a jerk and tough to play with but Billy King did **** to surround him with talent. Yeah we had a 6moty and dptoty on that 2001 team, that was generally won due to Iverson carrying the team to the best record in the East...he was the ONLY scoring option. Outside of Kobe, I question if anyone else from that class could carry that team to the finals. And then after that year, everybody eroded and he was surrounded by corpses (KVH, Big Dog, Webber) until we drafted Iggy and by then it was too late. I love Nash and Ray. I'd draft them number one and I understand the argument...but neither did **** with better rosters than Iverson ever had and Ray only won once he teamed up with HOFs in their prime. Those Bucks teams were the Joe Johnson Hawks of that era in retrospec.so do you take Joe Johnson over Iverson too?

3.Yes both guys can fit into teams a lot better than Iverson, no doubt. But so does a guy like Danny Green. So do the Cavs take Danny Green over say Westbrook because they already have two great ballhandlers in Bron and Kyrie? Again the gap between AI and Nash/Ray are a lot closer obviously but that is still basically what you are arguing.

and at the end of the day, a lot of people are basing this off of what Iverson became, not what he was coming out of college. Iverson's career could have been a lot better (or worse) for sure but that does not change the type of talent dude had. He was a FREAK athlete and scorer...and again that was in a era where the rules were different. Iverson would feast at the line in today's NBA.

Again I hate debating over Iverson because it is a pointless endeavor due to how people feel about him. I just wanted to point out somethings. You can dissagree of course because there are some valid defenses against everything I just typed and you can make an argument for Ray or Nash (as much as I hate to admit it Kobe is a definite take over Iverson...**** Lower Merion tho). I just feel like some people don't remember the level of talent Iverson had tho.

[kbitboc]

I think you mean 1 of the most Entertaining Players. He was probably ended up as the 4th Best Player from his Draft Class.

-Iverson also went 1st since it was back in an era where the importance of efficiency was less well understood and things like PPG!!!!! mattered more.

AI is the #2 in this class only behing Kobe, stop with the non sense.

Almost any team in the NBA today would choose Allen over AI if they could add 1 to their team. A 6-5 3 Point Sniper is much easier to add to a team than a 5'11 super high usage PG. For example, let us look at the top teams in the Playoffs and which 1 they would rather add to team:

GS- Obviously Allen. They aren't going to let AI dominate the ball instead of Curry
CLE- Obviously Allen. They aren't going to let AI dominate the ball instead of Lebron (and Kyrie)
LAC- Obviously Allen. They aren't going to let AI dominate the ball instead of CP3.
Spurs- Obviously Allen. AI's super high usage % and lack of efficiency goes entirely against Spurs System
ATL- Obviously Allen. AI's super high usage % and lack of efficiency goes entirely against Spurs/ATL System
MEM- Allen. Allen provides desperately needed 3 Point Shooting and spacing.

etc

Out of All 16 Playoff teams this year, only maybe MIL would rather have AI since they have nobody to reliably break down Defense. BKN might go AI also. At minimum 14/16 of Playoff teams would prefer Allen over AI.

-------

The real debate is whether Nash or AI for 3rd in the Draft Class. Nash beats AI in MVPS 2-1, had far more longevity than AI, and made as many ALL NBA teams as AI. Nash leads in almost any metric if you compare their careers.

I think playoff teams with already a star player will choose Allen to be their complimentary player. Lottery teams who need a player to lead their team will choose AI.

[MrPerfect1]

Again I hate debating over Iverson because it is a pointless endeavor due to how people feel about him. I just wanted to point out somethings. You can dissagree of course because there are some valid defenses against everything I just typed and you can make an argument for Ray or Nash (as much as I hate to admit it Kobe is a definite take over Iverson...**** Lower Merion tho). I just feel like some people don't remember the level of talent Iverson had tho.

It isn't just a talent level thing. I think if Iverson could replay his career it would turn out similar. He wasn't victimized by bad luck and injuries like Walton and maybe Rose. Instead, he is much more of a JR Smith/Josh Smith supremely talented type with very questionable Basketball IQ. I think Iverson may be even worse in this era that highly values shooting and efficiency. Iverson was basically the Anti Duncan.

[NO-KG-AI]

No way, Iverson would be on a team with 3-4 other shooters on the floor, and no worry of anyone using their strength or body to keep him from driving. He would abuse this new system we have going on right now.

Even an older version of Iverson was very efficient under these rules. Better true shooting % at 30,31, and 32 than Russell Westbrook for instance.

[Leslie Forman]

No way, Iverson would be on a team with 3-4 other shooters on the floor, and no worry of anyone using their strength or body to keep him from driving. He would abuse this new system we have going on right now.

Even an older version of Iverson was very efficient under these rules. Better true shooting % at 30,31, and 32 than Russell Westbrook for instance.

This is true, however the Nuggets were no better with Iverson than they were with Andre Miller, and then they got even better with Chauncey Billups. His style of play, even when he had better efficiency, just wasn't as effective as his stats would suggest. He was still a good player - it's not like Andre Miller wasn't pretty good. But you'd expect a lot more impact from a 25PPG/7APG guy.

Denver Iverson was similar to Corey Maggette. Good stats, even the advanced ones, but you just didn't feel like you were really getting as much positive impact as you should from a guy putting up those numbers. Which, of course, is why they traded him for Billups.

That said, he would probably still go #1 as a prospect today, as everybody would still just assume that he would be a better all around point guard instead of the volume chucker he became. But then again maybe Kobe goes #1 if he's allowed to be in the same draft with GMs less scared of picking high school guys today than they were back then.

[jimmy keys]

Not sure if this is completely on topic, but for those who were around back then, what was the hype surrounding Iverson then that allowed him, as a (under) 6 foot shooting guard, to be drafted 1st? Looking at his stats, he was a big time scorer in college but never really demonstrated a great (or even good) perimeter shot, didn't really demonstrate a knack for assisting (avg. 5.6 assists (5.0 TOVs)/40 minutes). What made him so special strictly as a prospect (please nothing involving "pound-for-pound" stuff, the draft is not by weight class)?

Bonus question: Where might Iverson go in this draft, assuming we don't know how his career turned out?

If Charles Barkley was picking he'd go 1st overall....every year!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XixBwzJ4KTk

Yes Jordan was on his list hahahahaha