Allen Iverson's 2001 playoff run is so overrated

[ShaqAttack3234]

I don't fully agree with either side of the argument. I'm somewhere in the middle on this.

He definitely didn't have a very good cast offensively, but surrounding him with scorers isn't the way to go either. Just that he would benefited more from having at least 1 guy who was more of a second option and better 3 point shooters.

Which isn't to say that those guys were complete bums offensively. McKie and Snow were good passers, and while Snow couldn't do much other than hit wide open mid-range jumpers, McKie was a pretty good scorer.

Mutombo was an above average offensive center and so was Ratliff before him.

With that being said, that's very mediocre, but no, Iverson wasn't a complete one man army. Offensively, he was, but Philadelphia was an excellent rebounding team(maybe the best in the league) and one of the best defensive teams in the league due to them having an elite shot blocker with Ratliff in the first half and then Mutombo replacing him in the second half and the playoffs. Excellent perimeter defenders such as Snow, McKie, Bell and Lynch, and also their rebounding ability(which is a part of defense).

They probably wouldn't have made the playoffs without him, but due to their defense and rebounding, they would have probably been competitive.

They did start the season 12-2 with Iverson averaging just 22/5/5 on 38% shooting in those games which shows that they didn't need him to dominate all the time to win.

They were 6-5 without him, but only 2 of those wins were against playoff teams(Utah and Indiana). Regardless, when you rebound and play defense that well and have a coach as good as Larry brown, you're going to beat some bad teams and occasionally some good ones. McKie was actually regularly dropping 20+ with good assist numbers in Iverson's absence as well.

As far as his FG% in Denver? Shooting 46% on a run and gun team in 2008 while taking 19 shots per game is much different than shooting 42% in 2001 taking 26 shots per game on a slow paced team. I'm not sure the biggest difference was who he had around him, but the volume of shots and facing weaker defenses.

[EricForman]

I'll agree that Iverson, as a whole, is overrated on ISH (ISH has a thing for "hard" players like Sheed and AI, they get defended to death and can never do no wrong)

BUT not the 01 run. The 01 run was magical. Game 1 vs the Lakers remains my all time favorite basketball memory. I lived in LA at the time, and trust me, that was the summer when every car in LA had a Laker flag and the bandwagon was at an all time high. People were saying they were the greatest team ever and that Sixers would get murdered. For AI to come out, to LA, and basically rip the Lakers defense apart was the ultimate underdog/Rocky/David vs Goliath moment.

Now back to the overrating of Iverson part. This 01 run is really Iverson's ONLY playoff run. Other than this year, every other year he's been on a average team that didn't really mattered and was never a serious threat to make it past the second round. YET Iverson fans on ISH will defend him to the death and use that single run to put him above, say, Nash, or, sh*t with the hate going on right now, probably LeBron too.

I loved AI. Tons of heart, invented "swagger" for this generation. But he was an undersized, inefficient shooting guard and you can never win that way.

[EricForman]

Its the closest thing to the truth that can be said of anyone to do what he did. Wasnt a one man army by lottery tea mstandards.

Its a one man army by the standards of teams to do what they did.

Not entirely true. I guess judging by normal basketball analysis, that 76ers cast was severely lacking in firepower or "guys who could explode for 25 points on any given night".

BUT, they were put together that way BECAUSE IVERSON'S GAME DEMANDED A CAST LIKE THAT. The Sixers tried to give Iverson more firepower, or guys who could create his own offense (Larry Hughes, Stackhouse, Big Dog, Webber, etc), but Iverson's game either clashed, or at best, "merely co-existed" with those guys.

In order to maximize both Iverson and the team's ceiling, YOU HAD TO build a team of rugged, tough, role players who will play D, crash boards, and NOT CARE about going entire possessions without touching the ball. In a sense, you MUST find "offensively-challenged" guys to play with Iverson, because anyone else would be a bit peeved about touching the ball for maybe 10 seconds in 8 straight possessions.

Meaning, it's not like Iverson was cursed with that cast of non-scorers, it's more like... management/coaching knew that's the only way to have a good team with Iverson.

Iverson's game isn't friendly to other offensive stars. Iverson would probably win more games if paired with prime Ben Wallace and Bruce Bowen than with Amare Stoudemire and Melo.

[PowerGlove]

Eric Forman is calling me out.

[Kblaze8855]

I loved AI. Tons of heart, invented "swagger" for this generation. But he was an undersized, inefficient shooting guard and you can never win that way.

One thing ive always wondered...

Like 30 people have won anything AI didnt. But hes pointed out as the type of player you cant win with...

The tens of thousands of people who were bigger and shot better and did less....

what was their problem? Dozens of star guards...superstars even...shoot well...do nothing. Remove 01 even...dozens of hall of famers couldnt do any more than AI did with teams that mostly had more talent.

So why does it come back to AI being a type you cant win with?

One Iverson didnt win it all...but approached it...3 dozen star guards shot pretty well....and didnt win it all...most didnt even approach.

So why is AI called out as a guy you cant win with?

Oscar robertson can be given Jerry Lucas in his prime all nba first team level...and 2 additional all stars and go sub .500 and then 500 and miss the playoffs both years.

AI gets old Glenn Robinson before he does nothing on the spurs...and only half a season of that...then Eric snow, Kenny Thomas, and 36 year old Derrick Coleman...

Or old no hops left Webber and just entering the league Iggy...

Doesnt win. And people wil lsay its because you cant win with AI.

What about the dozens of guys nothing like AI who didnt do shit either?

Why is it him you cant win with...and not just...praise the guys who do win?

Too wide a variety of people fail to win to just say you cant win with AI. Polar opposites didnt win with a lot more than he has....and they wont be called out for it.

[PowerGlove]

Not entirely true. I guess judging by normal basketball analysis, that 76ers cast was severely lacking in firepower or "guys who could explode for 25 points on any given night".

BUT, they were put together that way BECAUSE IVERSON'S GAME DEMANDED A CAST LIKE THAT. The Sixers tried to give Iverson more firepower, or guys who could create his own offense (Larry Hughes, Stackhouse, Big Dog, Webber, etc), but Iverson's game either clashed, or at best, "merely co-existed" with those guys.

In order to maximize both Iverson and the team's ceiling, YOU HAD TO build a team of rugged, tough, role players who will play D, crash boards, and NOT CARE about going entire possessions without touching the ball. In a sense, you MUST find "offensively-challenged" guys to play with Iverson, because anyone else would be a bit peeved about touching the ball for maybe 10 seconds in 8 straight possessions.

Meaning, it's not like Iverson was cursed with that cast of non-scorers, it's more like... management/coaching knew that's the only way to have a good team with Iverson.

Iverson's game isn't friendly to other offensive stars. Iverson would probably win more games if paired with prime Ben Wallace and Bruce Bowen than with Amare Stoudemire and Melo.

This nonsense, stop exaggerating how much AI dominates the ball and he coexisted with Melo just fine.

I hate when people try to say that the sixers made the team inept and one dimensional offensively ON PURPOSE. Why in the hell would they do that intentionally? They didnt even have good three point shooters on that 01 team. No one to spread the floor since that Snow and Mckie primarily shoot from 16-22 foot range. Just disgusting. The 01 had Dikembe/AI/Mckie/Snow and bunch of scrappy defenders and you are saying that they did because that's the best for AI??

Really?

Give him a stretch 4 a la rashard lewis, some shooters and they might have beaten the lakers lol.

[EricForman]

One thing ive always wondered...

Like 30 people have won anything AI didnt. But hes pointed out as the type of player you cant win with...

The tens of thousands of people who were bigger and shot better and did less....

what was their problem? Dozens of star guards...superstars even...shoot well...do nothing. Remove 01 even...dozens of hall of famers couldnt do any more than AI did with teams that mostly had more talent.

So why does it come back to AI being a type you cant win with?

One Iverson didnt win it all...but approached it...3 dozen star guards shot pretty well....and didnt win it all...most didnt even approach.

So why is AI called out as a guy you cant win with?

Oscar robertson can be given Jerry Lucas in his prime all nba first team level...and 2 additional all stars and go sub .500 and then 500 and miss the playoffs both years.

AI gets old Glenn Robinson before he does nothing on the spurs...and only half a season of that...then Eric snow, Kenny Thomas, and 36 year old Derrick Coleman...

Or old no hops left Webber and just entering the league Iggy...

Doesnt win. And people wil lsay its because you cant win with AI.

What about the dozens of guys nothing like AI who didnt do shit either?

Why is it him you cant win with...and not just...praise the guys who do win?

Too wide a variety of people fail to win to just say you cant win with AI. Polar opposites didnt win with a lot more than he has....and they wont be called out for it.

This was a topic I've argued with former ISHers (and Iverson defenders) like GOBB and Phila back from 06-08 ish.

I think it's overblown that "Iverson never had the help". I think he's had some talent but his game specifically is hard to build around.

Sixers and Nuggets both got better after trading AI for Andre Miller and Chauncey Billups. Lesser players than AI on a talent/star level, for sure. But those guys had games that geled with talent easier.

I'm not calling out AI specifically, calling him a loser, etc. I'm just saying his type of game is probably the hardest to build a winning team around. AI fans should love him for who he is, a flawed basketball player with attitude and HEART, and not overrate him by putting him on the same level as Kobe, nor should they trash his entire supporting cast, throughout his entire career.

And it's not just "Iverson didn't win a championship". It's that he was on average teams EVERY YEAR OF HIS CAREER except 2001. 2001 was like an anomaly. Every other year, his teams were not a threat to make it pass second round. Hell, they were teams you'd pick to lose in the first round.

[immatell]

*Everything said by Kblaze8855

[PowerGlove]

This was a topic I've argued with former ISHers (and Iverson defenders) like GOBB and Phila back from 06-08 ish.

I think it's overblown that "Iverson never had the help". I think he's had some talent but his game specifically is hard to build around.

Sixers and Nuggets both got better after trading AI for Andre Miller and Chauncey Billups. Lesser players than AI on a talent/star level, for sure. But those guys had games that geled with talent easier.

The Billups thing is so overrated. They ended up losing to the same damn team as the previous year but he made them so much better. It couldnt have been their improved bench and front court that made them a better team.

[EricForman]

This nonsense, stop exaggerating how much AI dominates the ball and he coexisted with Melo just fine.

I hate when people try to say that the sixers made the team inept and one dimensional offensively ON PURPOSE. Why in the hell would they do that intentionally? They didnt even have good three point shooters on that 01 team. No one to spread the floor since that Snow and Mckie primarily shoot from 16-22 foot range. Just disgusting. The 01 had Dikembe/AI/Mckie/Snow and bunch of scrappy defenders and you are saying that they did because that's the best for AI??

Really?

Give him a stretch 4 a la rashard lewis and they might have beaten the lakers lol.

1: AI and Melo merely "coexisted". As soon as they swapped him for Chauncey that team took a leap. And just so you know, the Sixers didn't get any worse after swapping AI for Dre Miller too. Iggy played better the season after, that's for damned sure.

2: So you dispute my theory that putting rugged role players around AI instead of "stars" is the best way to maximize potential. Let me ask you this, do you agree with me when I say that AI would probably win more games with Bruce Bowen and Ben Wallace than with Melo and Amare? I truly believe that.

3: The Sixers, if they had RASHARD LEWIS, would have beaten the 2001 LAKERS, with PRIME SHAQ and Kobe (pre diva mode) ???????????????????????????????????

Oh hell no.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Give him a stretch 4 a la rashard lewis, some shooters and they might have beaten the lakers lol.

But then their defense and rebounding becomes considerably worse so it's hard to say if they'd actually be better.

What he did was definitely impressive, but the conference also has to be taken into consideration as well(same thing with Kidd's 2002 and 2003 finals runs and Lebron's 2007 finals run). And I'd rank 2001 Iverson above 2002 Kidd(unsure about 2003 Kidd) and 2007 Lebron. 2001 East wasn't as bad as those other years, but it was the year that the East really fell off and the top teams between the 2 conferences became more magnified.

But to put things in perspective, Vince Carter was 1 shot away from leading a worse cast past Iverson's Sixers(though Carter was really good that year as well). You didn't need as much to win in the East as you typically would.

[EricForman]

The Billups thing is so overrated. They ended up losing to the same damn team as the previous year but he made them so much better. It couldnt have been their improved bench and front court that made them a better team.

um, they lost Marcus Camby the year Billups went there. improved front court?

they went from being swept and embarassed in the first round to playing them tough in the WCF. And the 09 Lakers were definitely better than the 08 Lakers too.

this is what I'm pointing at when I referred to the ISH Iverson defenders. There are always excuses.

I mean really, he takes like 30 shot per game at a 40% clip. If you were a semi-talented NBA player capable of scoring 15-20 per night, YOU WOULD WANT TO PLAY with a solid/steady PG like Billups or Miller over AI. You'd play better and you'd win more too. And you know this.

To be honest, that Sixers team from 04-06 had talent to work with. Webber, Iggy, Sam Dalembert, Kyle Korver. That's a skilled 4, an athletic wing, a three point shooter, and a shot blocking center. I'd bet my life savings that if you swap Nash for Iverson, those Sixers team win 50+ and get to at least game 6 of the second round, if not the ECF.

[NuggetsFan]

Nuggets both got better after trading AI for Andre Miller and Chauncey Billups.

Denver got better because Billups was a better shooter. Spaced the floor better for Melo. Denver also faced the Hornets that year instead of L.A and when they eventually did run into L.A they got eliminated again.

Just sayin'. Think people sometimes forget Iverson|Melo did win 50 games but because the West was crazy they were the 8th seed and ran into L.A.

[NuggetsFan]

To be honest, that Sixers team from 04-06 had talent to work with. Webber, Iggy, Sam Dalembert, Kyle Korver. That's a skilled 4, an athletic wing, a three point shooter, and a shot blocking center. I'd bet my life savings that if you swap Nash for Iverson, those Sixers team win 50+ and get to at least game 6 of the second round, if not the ECF.

Webber on his last legs, Iggy just coming into the league and Kyle Korver who's never played the minutes he did with Philly with another team. Insane to compare that with the talent Nash has had over the years.

[PowerGlove]

1: AI and Melo merely "coexisted". As soon as they swapped him for Chauncey that team took a leap. And just so you know, the Sixers didn't get any worse after swapping AI for Dre Miller too. Iggy played better the season after, that's for damned sure.

Chauncy is still getting the jesus treatment? I guess Nene,Birdman and Dahntay had nothing to do with the 09 season.

2: So you dispute my theory that putting rugged role players around AI instead of "stars" is the best way to maximize potential. Let me ask you this, do you agree with me when I say that AI would probably win more games with Bruce Bowen and Ben Wallace than with Melo and Amare? I truly believe that.[/QUOTE]
Why does it have to be all defense or all offense? Obviously AI would win more with Bowen and Wallace. *insert any all time great perimeter player* would win more with those two instead of melo and amare. Those aren't rugged role players though. Those are all time great defenders.

Jordan would win more with those two over amare and melo

Kobe would too.

My point is that the sixers were a team of many flaws. They had like a seven man rotation of AI/Mckie/Deke/Snow/Tyrone/jones and lynch.

You cant tell me that's the best supporting cast for AI with a straight face.

3: The Sixers, if they had RASHARD LEWIS, would have beaten the 2001 LAKERS, with PRIME SHAQ and Kobe (pre diva mode) ???????????????????????????????????

Oh hell no.

I wasnt serious, but that series was closer than it looks in retrospect. Good perimeter shooters on the Sixers would have really done damage.