Why was Iverson drafted 1st?

[Sixersftw]

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.

Like Mik, I hate talking about Iverson but I'll bite. He was victimized by Billy King. Once he was at the helm, BK failed to put a passable roster around A.I. and had a propensity to waste every single dollar of cap space on sub-par acquisitions. The only year A.I. had any semblance of a decent roster around him he did very well. Obviously, there are flaws to A.I.'s game and character but his biggest, most insurmountable obstacle was an inept underqualified GM.

The idea that a.i. would be worse in an era w/o hand checking and that values surrounding your stars w/ 3pt shooting seems absurd.

[theonlyclutch]

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

That's probably reason enough not to pick him 1st

[HeartBreakKid]

Saying Iverson took a team full of nobodies to the finals is jokes, in what world is Mutumbo a nobody?

Vince Carter had nobodies, and he took Iverson to 7 games that year.

Kidd had nobodies, and he did exactly what Iverson did, except twice in a row.

Iverson had arguably the best defensive team in the entire league and the best rebounding team. Considering he was facing off against terrible teams in the East, his team was not bad at all. Mutumbo was having like 20/15 games in the playoffs. Don't insult Dikembe by calling him a nobody, if anything he was a more impactful player than Iverson when he was in his prime.

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.

I think GMs were more scared about Bryant not wanting to play for their teams than him coming out of HS.

[Pointgod]

It's not even a question. Based on what they become the only person you take over Iverson is Kobe. Ray Allen found success as a third option and role player. Steve Nash was simply the product of an innovative system. If you're drafting number one you're a lottery team and Iverson is the player you want to build around.

[Mik317]

Mutumbo was done by the time he got here. That was a common theme. The best help Iverson ever had where often at the tail end of their careers. Aaron Mckee was in the process of failing apart in the playoffs and was never worth a damn after that. That left Eric Frickkin Snow as virtually the second or third best player on the team.

and if you are going to count Mutumbo based off of his legacy...then he also was on those Net teams...alongside Richard Jefferson, Kenyon Martin and Kerry Kittles in their primes.

We had top notch defensive players that did assist Iverson on that end yes...but we had **** all offensively. That is where Iverson had nobody stuff often stems from...no one else to help carry the load offensively. And yet he carried that to the finals

[Leslie Forman]

I think GMs were more scared about Bryant not wanting to play for their teams than him coming out of HS.

They would call his bluff this time around. Teams have done it since with other players and nobody's actually been dumb enough to refuse to play a whole season.

[HeartBreakKid]

Mutumbo was done by the time he got here. That was a common theme. The best help Iverson ever had where often at the tail end of their careers. Aaron Mckee was in the process of failing apart in the playoffs and was never worth a damn after that. That left Eric Frickkin Snow as virtually the second or third best player on the team.

and if you are going to count Mutumbo based off of his legacy...then he also was on those Net teams...alongside Richard Jefferson, Kenyon Martin and Kerry Kittles in their primes.

We had top notch defensive players that did assist Iverson on that end yes...but we had **** all offensively. That is where Iverson had nobody stuff often stems from...no one else to help carry the load offensively. And yet he carried that to the finals

The common theme was blatantly wrong. Mutumbo wasn't done, he was still one of the best centers in the league and was one of the best defenders as well.

None of those players you mentioned on those Nets teams were even half as good as Mutumbo.

There's nothing miraculous about what Iverson did, a lot of players in the East had worse supporting cast. McGrady, Carter, Pierce, Kidd. You can't say he carried a team full of nobodies, that makes no sense - he had the best defense in the entire league, that's enough to beat the sub .500 teams in the East.

[Mik317]

I watched that team. Religiously. Mutumbo was done...again I'll give credit to the defense. Larry Brown had them dudes locking up..but offensively no one BUT Iverson scored. It was miraculous to watch a 6ft guy take a beating every night and still score despite being the only guy you had to worry about. Did Pierce really have a worse cast when he had fellow All Star Antoine Walker next to him..and if he did..then why didn't he carry his team to a finals before getting two HOFs? Same for Vince? Because it is pretty **** hard to do when you are the only scoring option. MVP Rose found that out the hard way and he also had a world class defense helping him out. Bron also found out how difficult it is to do and he is hella better than AI. Kobe did **** scoring 81 pts and **** until he got Pau Gasol, Odom and Bynum.

Did Iverson get covered defensively? Hell yeah. It allowed him to gamble a lot more and get fastbreak attempts. That doesn't take away from what he did to get that team to the finals.

This is why I hate talking about Iverson. People seem to refuse to ever give him his due. I don't mind people think Ray or Nash is better than him..that is their opinion and I respect it and agree with aspects of it. But people seem to want to act liek Iverson wasn't good at all and I can't stand for that.

What he did for that 2001 team was gdlk and if you actually watched the games instead of just go "well look at da stats,yo" you'd know that.

I'm done tho. If you think Mutumbo was the Real MVP then go right ahead.

[LofJ]

I watched every game of the Finals the year AI went up against the 12-0 Shaq/Kobe Lakers. What AI did during that series was remarkable. Shaq was an unstoppable monster on both ends of the floor and at his absolute peak, but AI didn't care. Shaq had over 100 lbs on Iverson but he still fearlessly took it right to him. He gave everything he had during that series, and has nothing to be ashamed of. I was never a huge fan of his overall game, but I respected him for the rest of his career after that series. He's one of the best to ever lace it up, especially when you consider his size. And yes he would have gone #1 overall in this year's class, he was that talented.

[BarbaGrizz]

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.

So let´s re-do the question. Would any team build around Ray Allen?

[Zeitgeister]

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.

So let´s re-do the question. Would any team build around Ray Allen?

Depends on what you mean by "build around" because it's debatable that a team should build around Allen Iverson either. Granted, they made the finals once in the very weak Eastern conference on the back of a very controversial Bucks/Sixers series. They had a great defense, offensively they were slightly above average. Iverson had some nice games, but he also had a lot of really terrible games on his road to the finals. He average 33 ppg in the playoffs but took 30 shots per game to get to that point. A .480 TS% is really, really inefficient.

[LofJ]

The Eastern Conference was not weaker than the west at that time. I specifically remember in 99 my Hornets missing the playoffs while a team in the West with a losing record made it.

[ReasonablySober]

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.

The year Iverson "won ****" was...when? You mean the year they lost to the Lakers? When they had to beat the Ray Allen lead Milwaukee in seven games in the Eastern Conference Finals to get there?

[Upperclass]

Mutombo was done the year they went to the finals. But he played his azz off, and literally left everything he had on the floor, as he knew defensively. .that team was special and had a chance to do great things with AI leading them.

The next year in NJ.. he average 5.8 and 6 rebounds.

Mutombo is also widely reported to be much older than is his listed age.. in 2001, he was listed as 35.

[PICKnPOP]

There's a documentary on showtime right now about Iverson and I think it's a must see. The guy was an athlete on the level of jordan, lebron, and shaq. He was playing in the NBA at 160 pounds! He was all state in high school football as a QB and a free safety. He won state championships in football and basketball in the same year as a junior smh...impressive.


Sent from my iPad using RealGM Forums

[King Ken]

A.I. is one of the greatest talents to grace the NBA. Anyone saying otherwise is a terrible person or a hater. No other way around it.

Atlanta would love to have prime Iverson. Hell we tried to sign Monta Ellis a couple of years ago with Bud and Ferry on board with it.

[Negrodamus]

Mutombo was done the year they went to the finals. But he played his azz off, and literally left everything he had on the floor, as he knew defensively. .that team was special and had a chance to do great things with AI leading them.

The next year in NJ.. he average 5.8 and 6 rebounds.

Mutombo is also widely reported to be much older than is his listed age.. in 2001, he was listed as 35.

Exactly. Everyone is screaming "Mutombo!" (or Mutumbo, which is incorrect), but he was on the backside of his career at that point. Additionally, they had NO ONE to help Iverson score. McKie? Please.

The fact of the matter is Philadelphia did arguably a worse job than the Cavs with LeBron (the first time around) putting talent around an MVP caliber player.

[thamadkant]

Iverson is an elite talent and future HOF... not the smartest player, but extremely skilled and talented.. you dont put up 31/8 by sheer ball chucking alone... he could score.

Had he been drafted and placed in a system where they didnt need him to try to carry most of the offense, I can see him being a 22-23ppg 8-10apg PG.... Tony Parker on steroids... or a better play making Kyrie Irving.

[aminiaturebuddha]

Getting back to the original question, it's certainly true that teams weren't as focused on efficiency back then as they are now.

Beyond that, Iverson was an incredible offensive player, and there were a lot of people who believed that he could become an NBA point guard in the scoring PG mold of Kevin Johnson or Tim Hardaway. He wasn't really drafted to be a SG, although it was obvious that he was a scorer.

But one thing people tend to forget is just how disruptive defensively Iverson was at Georgetown. He was all over the court, pressuring ball handlers, jumping passing lanes, basically making life difficult for opposing offences. He was named Big East Defensive Player of the Year both of his years in college (pretty impressive as a freshman and sophomore). He was never really able to transfer that defensive play to the NBA, maybe in part because he had to focus so much on offence, but that was another thing that made him so attractive as a prospect.

[TKainZero]

AI was something else to watch

Very few guys in nba history had the talent, explosiveness, and attitude that iverson had

And, he handed the lakers their only postseason loss that year. 15-1 in the playoffs. (that will never be matched, partly because you have to win 16 games now.)