Better career - Iverson or Kidd? [Archive]

Chieflion

11-26-2009, 12:09 PM

Allen Iverson had an MVP. Jason Kidd does not. Both currently have 0 rings. Lets break it down more in-depth. Both had rookie of the year awards.

Allen Iverson led the league in scoring in 4 seasons. He has a career average of 27.0 points. For his career, he had a field goal percentage of 42.5%, which is not a bad percentage for a volume scorer who is the only scorer on his team in Philly. He is also a 10 time all-star. He also led the league in steals for 3 seperate seasons. His career average for assists are 6.2. He is a 3 time all-nba first team member and another 3 times for the second team with a one time 3rd team.

Jason Kidd, on the other hand, is now the 2nd all time leader in assists behind Stockton. 3rd all time in regular season triple doubles. 2nd in triple doubles in the playoffs. Averaged a triple double in a playoff series. The stats do not favor Kidd as he had a career FG% lesser than Allen Iverson with 40.2 percent with a scoring average of 13.8. He averaged 9.2 assists per game. Kidd is also a multiple time all defensive team member with 4 times in the 1st team and 5 times in the 2nd team. He is also a 9 time all-star.

In conclusion, Jason Kidd still has his career going on and his game goes beyond the stats. People hate Iverson now but they will realise that the former MVP's legacy is unheard of and probably never happen again. Iverson will have the edge for now as a tribute of how great a player he is.

Findog

11-26-2009, 12:14 PM

Not a bad question. Obviously, different types of players.

I'd go Iverson and I think it's not even that hard of a decision. I think the main thing that would have people lean towards Kidd is how Iverson's last two seasons went. If you look at both of their respective careers, Iverson has been the more dominant player.

Not to say Kidd hasn't been great as well, because he has. Iverson had a better career.

See, I think it's easily Kidd, and I don't understand the logic behind Iverson at all. Yeah, he scored a lot of points on 9-26 shooting nights, and he was definitely a gamer who always left everything on the court and was a warrior. But he was never a winner, and the last two years have definitely proven it. Kidd may not have been a teddy bear off the court or in the locker room, but he made his teammates better and elevated a good but far from great Jersey team to two Finals appearances. You can't say that about Iverson. He didn't make his teammates better, and he never accepted sacrificing his touches or stats for better team play. The 01 Sixers team basically revolved around him taking all the shots and the other 4 guys on the court playing defense and chasing down all the misses. And when their skills began to wane, Kidd reinvented himself as a very good complementary player who could still help good teams win, while Iverson pouted himself out of the league.

Kidd elevated a New Jersey team by playing the right way, for lack of a better term. Sorry about the cliche. Iverson got a pass for years because he didn't have a lot of talent around him in Philly. Well, we saw what happened when he finally got a good collection of talent in Denver. They struggled to make the playoffs and got bounced as a 7th or 8th seed, while Chauncey Billups took that same cast to the conference finals. Then whereas Detroit had been in the upper echelon of the league for years, they cratered with Iverson taking Billup's place on the roster.

Kidd has always helped his teams win, and only got run out of town for things that had little to do with basketball (losing a power struggle to Jim Cleamons, beating his wife, not getting a contract extension). I agree that those things should count against him, and with both Kidd and Iverson we're talking about lofty expectations unfulfilled, but I would've rather had Kidd's career than Iverson. Easily.

Findog

11-26-2009, 12:16 PM

DUNCANownsKOBE2

11-26-2009, 12:18 PM

Kidd for sure, the defensive differences give him the edge.

Findog

11-26-2009, 12:23 PM

Kidd for sure, the defensive differences give him the edge.

Ask their contemporaries who they'd rather play with -- the guy who gets them the ball where they want it and makes them more effective and gets everybody involved...or the guy who shoots 9-26 from the floor while you get to stand around and watch.

As a fan, I probably would've bought a ticket to see Iverson over Kidd in their primes. Definitely the more exhilarating player to watch, but as a GM or coach, Kidd ten times out of ten. This isn't really a debate in my mind.

JamStone

11-26-2009, 12:24 PM

If Iverson was never a winner, than neither was Kidd. If you want to talk about the better teammate or the better leader, I'd likely concede that to Kidd. If you talk about better career, I give it to Iverson.

Kidd made two NBA Finals in very likely the two worst competition the Eastern Conference ever saw in the history of the NBA Eastern Conference. And, he had talent on his team with RJ, K-Mart, Van Horn, Kittles. Iverson put the Sixers on his back to get to the NBA Finals with their second best player being Aaron McKie. Come on now. And that season, the Heat and the Knicks were still decent teams.

I think it's "easily" Iverson because I feel he was the better player, I feel his numbers are better, he has a league MVP, and he carried his team more so than Kidd did any of his teams.

Detroit was a catastrophe and Iverson takes plenty of blame, but so does Dumars and Michael Curry for trying to make Iverson something he isn't. If you want to question Iverson's ability to play with other players, that's fair.

The question remains: who had the better career?

I think Iverson hate and how he is leaving the NBA based on his attitude and perception that he can play only one certain way gives people bias against him. He is probably the greatest 6 foot and under player the league has ever seen. He is in the same group as players like LeBron and Magic and KG in that their freakish athleticism, size, and abilities make you simply believe you're not seeing what you're seeing. How can that small a person lead the NBA in scoring, dominate players bigger than him, never get tired playing 42+ minutes a game. Iverson was and probably still is a "freak of nature" athlete. There are a lot of criticisms that are justified about him. But his career pretty much speaks for itself in terms of what he was able to do on the court.

JamStone

11-26-2009, 12:26 PM

Ask their contemporaries who they'd rather play with -- the guy who gets them the ball where they want it and makes them more effective and gets everybody involved...or the guy who shoots 9-26 from the floor while you get to stand around and watch.

As a fan, I probably would've bought a ticket to see Iverson over Kidd in their primes. Definitely the more exhilarating player to watch, but as a GM or coach, Kidd ten times out of ten. This isn't really a debate in my mind.

The question isn't who NBA players would rather play with or who GMs or coaches would want to lead their teams.

The question is, "who had a better career?"

You're letting your feelings dictate your answer, and you're not answering the question really. Better career.

Not better winner, better teammate, better leader. Better career.

DUNCANownsKOBE2

11-26-2009, 12:26 PM

Ask their contemporaries who they'd rather play with -- the guy who gets them the ball where they want it and makes them more effective and gets everybody involved...or the guy who shoots 9-26 from the floor while you get to stand around and watch.

As a fan, I probably would've bought a ticket to see Iverson over Kidd in their primes. Definitely the more exhilarating player to watch, but as a GM or coach, Kidd ten times out of ten. This isn't really a debate in my mind.

It's not just offensive, Kidd's impact on defense is so underrated.

The last season the Suns had Kidd, they were 2nd in the NBA for defensive rating. The following season, they were 12th.

The season before the Nets had Kidd, they were 23rd in defensive rating. Then, they got Kidd, and were 1st in NBA defensive rating.

DUNCANownsKOBE2

11-26-2009, 12:27 PM

Kidd made two NBA Finals in very likely the two worst competition the Eastern Conference ever saw in the history of the NBA Eastern Conference.

No weaker than the year A.I. made the finals.

Findog

11-26-2009, 12:32 PM

If Iverson was never a winner, than neither was Kidd. If you want to talk about the better teammate or the better leader, I'd likely concede that to Kidd. If you talk about better career, I give it to Iverson.

How is Kidd not a winner? He was the best player on two Finals runner-ups. He's not Shareef Abdur-Rahim. He made his teammates better. I don't think those kinds of things are mutually exclusive when you talk about who had the better career. I value a guy who won more and elevated his teammates. You can have the 9-26 shooting nights.

Kidd made two NBA Finals in very likely the two worst competition the Eastern Conference ever saw in the history of the NBA Eastern Conference. And, he had talent on his team with RJ, K-Mart, Van Horn, Kittles. Iverson put the Sixers on his back to get to the NBA Finals with their second best player being Aaron McKie. Come on now. And that season, the Heat and the Knicks were still decent teams.

Kidd went to Finals twice and had to get past a very good Pistons team to get there. If you want to make the Leastern Conference argument, Kidd did it twice, Iverson only did it once.

I think it's "easily" Iverson because I feel he was the better player, I feel his numbers are better, he has a league MVP, and he carried his team more so than Kidd did any of his teams.

Well, that explains a lot, when you point to an MVP award and say his numbers were better. I don't care about MVP awards. Shaq was the best player in the league in 2001, not Iverson. That carries no weight with me. Iverson "carried" his teams to what, a perennial second-round exit in the Least? Everybody who ever played with Kidd agrees he got the most out of his teammates.

Detroit was a catastrophe and Iverson takes plenty of blame, but so does Dumars and Michael Curry for trying to make Iverson something he isn't. If you want to question Iverson's ability to play with other players, that's fair.

Kidd has always been the alpha dog on his teams, and has easily accepted his role as a complementary player in Dallas. Why couldn't Iverson be a 6th man? His pride and hubris and lack of self-awareness got in the way. Kidd has had no problem coming to terms with the fact that it's not 2002 anymore.

The question remains: who had the better career?

Kidd

I think Iverson hate and how he is leaving the NBA based on his attitude and perception that he can play only one certain way gives people bias against him. He is probably the greatest 6 foot and under player the league has ever seen. He is in the same group as players like LeBron and Magic and KG in that their freakish athleticism, size, and abilities make you simply believe you're not seeing what you're seeing. How can that small a person lead the NBA in scoring, dominate players bigger than him, never get tired playing 42+ minutes a game. Iverson was and probably still is a "freak of nature" athlete. There are a lot of criticisms that are justified about him. But his career pretty much speaks for itself in terms of what he was able to do on the court.

All you're basically saying is that he was an incredible athlete. And I agree. And I also agree he got a bit of a bad rap based on irrelevant things like cornrows and tats. I respect his game and think he accomplished a lot. But based on the things that matter to me, winning, unselfishness and harnessing your talents to a team concept, Kidd was the better player and had the much better career.

Findog

11-26-2009, 12:34 PM

The question isn't who NBA players would rather play with or who GMs or coaches would want to lead their teams.

The question is, "who had a better career?"

You're letting your feelings dictate your answer, and you're not answering the question really. Better career.

Not better winner, better teammate, better leader. Better career.

Better career encompasses winning, accomplishments, and harnessing your talents within a team concept. What good is it if you can score 35 points on 35 shot attempts and have a couple of highlight reel plays on SportsCenter if that doesn't translate into success on the court? Kidd's skillset lent itself more to success in the NBA. Iverson would probably demolish him in a game on 1-on-1 in their primes. But I think Kidd is the better player for the reasons that I've enumerated. Better player, better career.

JamStone

11-26-2009, 12:38 PM

No weaker than the year A.I. made the finals.

Much weaker.

Miami and New York were good teams in 2000-01.

New Jersey's best competition was the pre-Rasheed Pistons in 2002-03 in their first year with Billups and Hamilton.

lefty

11-26-2009, 12:46 PM

Kidd

Close this fucking thread

JamStone

11-26-2009, 12:47 PM

Better career encompasses winning, accomplishments, and harnessing your talents within a team concept. What good is it if you can score 35 points on 35 shot attempts and have a couple of highlight reel plays on SportsCenter if that doesn't translate into success on the court? Kidd's skillset lent itself more to success in the NBA. Iverson would probably demolish him in a game on 1-on-1 in their primes. But I think Kidd is the better player for the reasons that I've enumerated. Better player, better career.

Why does "harnessing [his] talents" have to be "within a team concept" when evaluating a player's career? Seems like you're just making up stuff to skew things towards Kidd.

It can go back to the argument over who is a better player between Robert Horry and Karl Malone.

There's little debate that Kidd helped teams win in his way. Iverson did the same in his way. Team success does not lay on the shoulders of one player. Look at the players Kidd has played with from Mash and JJ to Marion and Penny to K-Mart and RJ and VC to Dirk. Kidd had better team success because throughout his career, he had better teams. Last year with the Pistons was a disaster for Iverson, but more things went wrong with that team than just Iverson. The 2007-08 New Jersey Nets season was a disaster as well when Kidd demanded a trade. It's not just one player.

Iverson had the more impressive career to me. And, I think it's pretty easy to come to that conclusion.

DUNCANownsKOBE2

11-26-2009, 12:51 PM

Much weaker.

Miami and New York were good teams in 2000-01.

New Jersey's best competition was the pre-Rasheed Pistons in 2002-03 in their first year with Billups and Hamilton.

The 76ers had to play the Pacers, Raptors and Bucks, that's not any stronger than New Jersey's road to the finals.

Findog

11-26-2009, 12:59 PM

Why does "harnessing [his] talents" have to be "within a team concept" when evaluating a player's career? Seems like you're just making up stuff to skew things towards Kidd.

It means Kidd's skillset made his teammates better (superior passing skills, court vision, basketball IQ, tenacious defense) which led to winning. I'll grant you that Iverson would be a better 1-on-1 player or would make more of a mark on the AndOne tour than Kidd.

There's little debate that Kidd helped teams win in his way. Iverson did the same in his way.

Iverson's skillset lent itself to eye-popping scoring numbers and highlights on SportsCenter. Both the 01 Sixers and 02-03 Nets were built in such a way that both teams would've been worse if Kidd and Iverson were swapped for each other. But the Nets would freefall more. Kidd's skillset is more desirable for building an NBA team. Better player, better career.

Team success does not lay on the shoulders of one player. Look at the players Kidd has played with from Mash and JJ to Marion and Penny to K-Mart and RJ and VC to Dirk. Kidd had better team success because throughout his career, he had better teams. Last year with the Pistons was a disaster for Iverson, but more things went wrong with that team than just Iverson. The 2007-08 New Jersey Nets season was a disaster as well when Kidd demanded a trade. It's not just one player.

Please, you make it sound like Kidd has been playing with the 86 Celtics and 96 Bulls his entire career. The Nets were awful before he arrived and in place of Starbury, they skyrocketed to the Finals twice. Kidd was not the same player in 2008 that he was in 2002. You could have a team built around Kidd in 2002, but not 2008. Iverson finally got the talented supporting cast in Denver and he couldn't do anything with it. I think he would demolish Billups in a game on 1-on-1 in their primes, but I'd much rather have Billups as my starting PG and I think Billups has had the better career and is the better player, even though Iverson is the superior talent. Same with Kidd. Any argument that Iverson gets a pass for not being able to win with lesser talent is invalidated by what happened in Denver. He still had to get his touches. He'd come down and shoot, then on the next possession it would be Carmelo's turn. You don't win that way. Now with Billups, they actually run an offense.

Iverson had the more impressive career to me. And, I think it's pretty easy to come to that conclusion.

Sure...if your criteria is scoring, stats and getting on SportsCenter.

JamStone

11-26-2009, 12:59 PM

The 76ers had to play the Pacers, Raptors and Bucks, that's not any stronger than New Jersey's road to the finals.

Pacers weren't very good.

That 2000-01 Raptors team was pretty good. That was probably Vince Carter's best season as a Raptor. Antonio Davis was also an all star that season. Considering who Iverson was working with on his team, that was pretty good competition.

That 2000-01 Bucks team was probably their best team in some time. Ray Allen, Glenn Robinson, and Sam Cassell all scoring about 20 ppg each and all still very much in their prime. By the time the Nets played the Bucks in the 2003 playoffs, they had already traded Allen for Payton and started to rebuild that team.

The 2001-03 Nets didn't face a team as good as either the 2000-01 Raptors or Bucks.

Findog

11-26-2009, 12:59 PM

The 76ers had to play the Pacers, Raptors and Bucks, that's not any stronger than New Jersey's road to the finals.

And Kidd did it twice, Iverson only did it once.

Findog

11-26-2009, 01:02 PM

Pacers weren't very good.

That 2000-01 Raptors team was pretty good. That was probably Vince Carter's best season as a Raptor. Antonio Davis was also an all star that season. Considering who Iverson was working with on his team, that was pretty good competition.

That 2000-01 Bucks team was probably their best team in some time. Ray Allen, Glenn Robinson, and Sam Cassell all scoring about 20 ppg each and all still very much in their prime. By the time the Nets played the Bucks in the 2003 playoffs, they had already traded Allen for Payton and started to rebuild that team.

The 2001-03 Nets didn't face a team as good as either the 2000-01 Raptors or Bucks.

It's very hard to win a playoff series. Kidd got to the Finals twice, Iverson once. Even if we accept your premise that the Least was slightly weaker in 02-03 than in 01, Kidd still got to the Finals twice. How come AI couldn't get back to the Finals over the next two years in that same watered-down Least, when by your own admission it should've been easier to do so?

DUNCANownsKOBE2

11-26-2009, 01:02 PM

Pacers weren't very good.

That 2000-01 Raptors team was pretty good. That was probably Vince Carter's best season as a Raptor. Antonio Davis was also an all star that season. Considering who Iverson was working with on his team, that was pretty good competition.

That 2000-01 Bucks team was probably their best team in some time. Ray Allen, Glenn Robinson, and Sam Cassell all scoring about 20 ppg each and all still very much in their prime. By the time the Nets played the Bucks in the 2003 playoffs, they had already traded Allen for Payton and started to rebuild that team.

The 2001-03 Nets didn't face a team as good as either the 2000-01 Raptors or Bucks.

I wasn't aware the 2001 Raptors and Bucks were such powerhouses.

da_suns_fan

11-26-2009, 01:02 PM

Give me a break. Kidd by a mile.

JMarkJohns

11-26-2009, 01:03 PM

It's not just offensive, Kidd's impact on defense is so underrated.

The last season the Suns had Kidd, they were 2nd in the NBA for defensive rating. The following season, they were 12th.

The season before the Nets had Kidd, they were 23rd in defensive rating. Then, they got Kidd, and were 1st in NBA defensive rating.

Hard to argue against Kidd as a defender, but... those team statistical rankings aren't representative of Kidd's contributions only.

First, Phoenix lost Cliff Robinson, one of the better low-post defenders in the League that same offseason they traded Kidd.

Second, New Jersey gained Kenyon Martin and Jefferson and got Kerry Kittles back from injury that same offseason they acquired Kidd. All three were plus defenders, with Martin and Kiddles being PlusPlus defenders.

Kidd was the biggest loss/gain for each example, but he wasn't the only loss/gain that factored in. Just sayin...

himat

11-26-2009, 01:03 PM

Findog

11-26-2009, 01:08 PM

Give me a break. Kidd by a mile.

:wow

I agree with DSF.

DUNCANownsKOBE2

11-26-2009, 01:08 PM

Allen Iverson. People can make an argument for Kidd right now just because Iverson's attitude has killed him the last 2 years, but even as a Detroit Pistons fan I will honestly tell you that AI was a problem last year but many other people in the organization had problems as well. Iverson was just the easiest target. In my opinion, the foolishness of Michael Curry killed us the most.

The Pistons were 4-0 before the A.I. trade. Curry was a bad coach but simply put A.I. can't play in a team oriented offense. The only offense A.I. can play in is one when he gets to dominate the ball.

Findog

11-26-2009, 01:08 PM

It's been fun, but I'm off to eat turkey at my grandparent's house. I'll catch you guys later. Happy Thanksgiving to everybody.

Bob Lanier

11-26-2009, 01:09 PM

Iverson by a slim margin.

JMarkJohns

11-26-2009, 01:10 PM

da_suns_fan

11-26-2009, 01:15 PM

This is so stupid.

Iverson had some nice years in Philly, but his performances and Denver, Detroit and Memphis put quite the blemish on his career. ESPECIALLY after the Billups/AI trade worked out so well for Denver.

Kidd, meanwhile, has respectable stops in Phoenix (All-NBA first team selections, All-Star starter, playoff victory) and Dallas (rookie of the year, playoff victory), and had a higher peak than Iverson when he took a franchise that was viewed as "basketball purgatory" and took them to the finals TWICE.

Allen Iverson? Mr "we talking about practice". Are you SERIOUS?

Kidd versus Nash would be a better argument.

JamStone

11-26-2009, 01:19 PM

I wasn't aware the 2001 Raptors and Bucks were such powerhouses.

They weren't. I didn't say they were.

The Eastern Conference as a whole in 2001-02 and 2002-03 was as bad as it had been probably ever.

Saying the Raptors and Bucks were better than the teams the Nets faced in 2002 and 2003 isn't saying much, and certainly isn't saying they're powerhouses.

JMarkJohns

11-26-2009, 01:22 PM

Kidd never led the Suns to a playoff series win. He played a handful of minutes in the clinching game vs. San Antonio in 2000, but he was out for 90% of the series. KJ came out of retirement and started as PG through that 90%. You can spot Kidd that series win if you want, but know full well he didn't earn it, so don't even bother arguing that he did.

Until last season vs. San Antonio, Kidd was 0-for as starting PG vs. the Western Conference in a playoff series.

I like Kidd a lot, love aspects of his game. He's an amazing leader, and maximizes talent around him much better than Iverson. His statistics are amazing for a player who couldn't consistently knock down a jumper until recently. So, I'm not here to bash Kidd. Iverson has plenty of faults. They've just been pointed out better than Kidd's thus far, hence the posts that may seem I'm Kidd bashing.

Also, I do love the diminishing hyperbole of Iverson having just "some nice years" in Philadelphia...

Pistons < Spurs

11-26-2009, 01:28 PM

20 years from now, we'll still be talking about AI. Kidd may get a mention here and there, but he hasn't had the same impact on the league like Iverson has. I think it's pretty close between them. Despite them playing the same position, their games were near polar opposites. I was far more impressed by AI's ability to take an absolutely terrible Sixers team to the Finals than I was by Kidd making it twice with Jefferson Kittles and Martin. Although I've always hated him, AI was an unstoppable force.

AI's suffering from all of his recent negatives. If this question was asked 2 years ago before he was traded away from Denver, no one would even think of choosing Kidd in this argument.

dirk4mvp

11-26-2009, 01:39 PM

Kidd.

One of the best teammates of all time vs. me me me me. Not a hard decision.

Basketballgirl25

11-26-2009, 02:14 PM

Kidd.

One of the best teammates of all time vs. me me me me. Not a hard decision.

if Kidd is one of the best teammates of all time, then why did he demand and a trade? A good teammate wouldn't demand a trade. Look at VC from the Nets last year, Nets did about as good as when they had Kidd and VC didn't demand a trade, now he is a good teammate.

no back on topic, I'd say Kidd is better, but Iverson is better to watch play. It really is hard they are both good players, better then anyone here who posts about which one is better

Findog

11-26-2009, 07:20 PM

In his six playoff series en route to the Finals, Kidd led his Nets teams past just one 50-win team, that being a 50-win Pistons team a season before they added the players necessary to win the Title the following season. The Eastern Conference those years were absolute jokes. I don't think you can compare two player so different, so I'm not adding this because I have an opinion. Only pointing out obvious issues with some arguments.

The 76ers in their one Finals trip defeated the same amount of 50-win teams as the Nets did in two Finals trips.

If the East was such a joke, and it was such a watered-down conference, how come the Sixers couldn't defend their conference title when it was so theoretically easy to do so? Why does AI's one conference title count as much as Kidd's two? Isn't Kidd going to the Finals those two years more impressive than the Sixers getting eliminated along the way?

Findog

11-26-2009, 07:22 PM

20 years from now, we'll still be talking about AI. Kidd may get a mention here and there, but he hasn't had the same impact on the league like Iverson has.

Maybe Iverson will be remembered more by the SportsCenter set for the style of his game, but I think the question is who had a better career? What matters in the NBA in my opinion is who maximized their talents and contributed to winning, and I think Kidd has Iverson beat by a mile. Coaches, players, scouts and front-office execs will conclude that Kidd had the better career.

AI's suffering from all of his recent negatives. If this question was asked 2 years ago before he was traded away from Denver, no one would even think of choosing Kidd in this argument

Iverson has made a career out of shooting 9-26 every night for mediocre Philly squads. Kidd will be remembered mostly for turning around a terrible franchise.

Findog

11-26-2009, 07:25 PM

I wasn't aware the 2001 Raptors and Bucks were such powerhouses.

If the East was such a joke in 2002 and 2003, how come the Sixers couldn't duplicate their 2001 success? Especially since AI should get credit for lifting a bunch of "scrubs" to the Finals in 2001? Since the East was weaker, why should we be more impressed by the Sixers going fishing early while the Nets were runner-ups both years?

BRHornet45

11-26-2009, 07:26 PM

EASILY Iverson. never a fan of his, but he is twice the player Jason Kidd ever was.

sonic21

11-26-2009, 07:29 PM

Kidd by far.

Iverson was one of my favourite player to watch, but his impact on his teams was nothing compared to Kidd's.

Findog

11-26-2009, 07:31 PM

EASILY Iverson. never a fan of his, but he is twice the player Jason Kidd ever was.

Eloquent, concise and logical.

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mKKKgua7wQk&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mKKKgua7wQk&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

sonic21

11-26-2009, 07:34 PM

career FG 42%

and he's basically a scorer

Findog

11-26-2009, 07:36 PM

career FG 42%

It seems people in this thread have a different criteria for "better career." More points, more "MVP" awards, more highlights on Sportscenter, more of a ticket draw...I guess you'd have to go with Iverson.

But building your team around, Kidd by far.

BRHornet45

11-26-2009, 07:39 PM

LOL sons Jason Kidd is going to finish his career with a field goal percentage under 40% LMAO

BRHornet45

11-26-2009, 07:40 PM

Eloquent, concise and logical.

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mKKKgua7wQk&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mKKKgua7wQk&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

son that reminds me ...

9NkoWIH8_wA

Findog

11-26-2009, 07:41 PM

LOL sons Jason Kidd is going to finish his career with a field goal percentage under 40% LMAO

Jason Kidd's bread and butter isn't shooting.

Findog

11-26-2009, 07:42 PM

son that reminds me ...

I'm not the one making the Iverson > Kidd arguments.

duhoh

11-26-2009, 07:42 PM

you have offense vs defense.

i agree that kidd vs nash is more appropriate. pound for pound, AI was the toughest little man to ever play, but kidd is far more valuable.

BRHornet45

11-26-2009, 07:46 PM

you have offense vs defense.

i agree that kidd vs nash is more appropriate. pound for pound, AI was the toughest little man to ever play, but kidd is far more valuable.

son even Nash blows Kidd out the water .... Jason Kidd is arguably the most overrated "star" player of all time. easily in the top 5 most overrated players out there.

JamStone

11-26-2009, 07:46 PM

Maybe Iverson will be remembered more by the SportsCenter set for the style of his game, but I think the question is who had a better career? What matters in the NBA in my opinion is who maximized their talents and contributed to winning, and I think Kidd has Iverson beat by a mile. Coaches, players, scouts and front-office execs will conclude that Kidd had the better career.

What matters in the NBA like in all pro sports is winning championships. Neither player did that. And, maximizing talents doesn't matter in the NBA. Jerome Williams maximized his talents more than Tracy McGrady. Did JYD have a better career than T-Mac?

Your opinion that Kidd beats Iverson by a mile is just that, an opinion. Just like my opinion differs from that. Kidd throughout his career was on better teams. One could easily argue Iverson did more with much less, for most of his career.

If you ask coaches, players, scouts, and front office execs, I believe most would conclude that Iverson had the better career. There will be some that would say Kidd, but I think most would say Iverson.

Iverson has made a career out of shooting 9-26 every night for mediocre Philly squads. Kidd will be remembered mostly for turning around a terrible franchise.

Bill Russell shot 44% from the field as a center. It's about winning, right? Iverson 42.5% as a 6 foot guard. Shooting 9-for-26 is what Iverson had to do on most of those Philly teams because his teammates couldn't help him out. He shot close to 46% from the field while at Denver when he had teammates who could also score. However, Detroit was admittedly an unmitigated disaster. It's not about his shooting. He was a 28 PPG performer throughout his career. Jason Kidd is a 40.2% FG shooter, you know. Allen shot a lot because that was required of him most of his career.

If the East was such a joke in 2002 and 2003, how come the Sixers couldn't duplicate their 2001 success? Especially since AI should get credit for lifting a bunch of "scrubs" to the Finals in 2001? Since the East was weaker, why should we be more impressed by the Sixers going fishing early while the Nets were runner-ups both years?

Because the Sixers weren't that good to begin with. Remember, their second best player was Aaron McKie. Kidd had Kenyon Martin and Richard Jefferson on those Finals Nets squads. The only reason the Sixers were ever even remotely a contender in the early 2000s was because of Iverson.

It was more impressive for Philly because that Philly team relied so much on Iverson, especially offensively. Jason Kidd was the best player on those Nets teams, but he did have much better help in K-Mart, Van Horn, RJ, and Kerry Kittles. If Kerry Kittles was the second best player on those Nets teams, then it would have been more impressive than Iverson carrying the Sixers to the Finals in 2001.

sonic21

11-26-2009, 07:49 PM

JamStone

11-26-2009, 07:53 PM

career FG 42%

and he's basically a scorer

He's a scorer who has a career 27 PPG, which is like 6th all time in the history of the league.

That's like remarking how Jason Kidd is one of the best play-making point guards of all time, but criticizing the fact that he is in the top 15 in NBA history in turnovers per game.

JamStone

11-26-2009, 07:54 PM

Jamstone, why do you think Iverson had the better career? He went far in the playoffs only 1 time. He scores a lot but for a guy who attacks the paint so much he should have a better FG%.

He's more talented but that's about it.

Better talent. In my opinion, better statistics. When he did go far in the playoffs, he took a team of scrubs. Kidd actually had good teammates and decent teams when he went to the NBA Finals. Iverson didn't. Iverson did more with less. He was the more dominant player, in my opinion.

That's why I believe he had the better career.

BRHornet45

11-26-2009, 07:58 PM

anyone with a brain who understands the game of basketball will tell you that Kidd is absolutely nowhere near as good as Iverson. Kidd is a God awful shooter and is barely averaging 13 points per game over his career. Kidd is not and never was a difference maker for a team. at one point in his career he was an EXCELLENT role player, but those days are LONG gone.

Kidd needs to be thankful this holiday season for all of the great scorers he has had around him to make him look better than he really is.

Findog

11-26-2009, 07:58 PM

What matters in the NBA like in all pro sports is winning championships. Neither player did that. And, maximizing talents doesn't matter in the NBA. Jerome Williams maximized his talents more than Tracy McGrady. Did JYD have a better career than T-Mac?

We're not comparing Jerome Williams to T-Mac, are we? Or any other role player to a superstar? We're talking about two guys that were franchise players (Nets and Sixers respectively), with their primes roughly coinciding, and I'm more impressed with Kidd's resume than Iverson's.

Kidd throughout his career was on better teams. One could easily argue Iverson did more with much less, for most of his career.

He also made his teammates better by his unselfishness and the way he got them the ball where they wanted. Iverson dominated the ball and played 1-on-5. You tell me what is more conducive to winning.

f you ask coaches, players, scouts, and front office execs, I believe most would conclude that Iverson had the better career. There will be some that would say Kidd, but I think most would say Iverson.

What is your criteria for "better career?"

Bill Russell shot 44% from the field as a center. It's about winning, right?

He's also arguably the greatest defensive player of all-time, and he shot 44% from the field in an era where that didn't stand out as a low fg %. Tell me what Iverson contributed on the defensive end of the floor.

He shot close to 46% from the field while at Denver when he had teammates who could also score.

And the Nuggets struggled to make the playoffs. With Billups in his place, they actually run an offense and made it to the conference finals. They put up a much better fight against the Lakers than they did with Iverson.

Jason Kidd is a 40.2% FG shooter, you know

He was also a triple-double machine that was a hell of a defender in his prime.

Because the Sixers weren't that good to begin with. Remember, their second best player was Aaron McKie. Kidd had Kenyon Martin and Richard Jefferson on those Finals Nets squads. The only reason the Sixers were ever even remotely a contender in the early 2000s was because of Iverson.

But by your own criteria, the East was even weaker the next two years, even with the Nets in the picture.

It was more impressive for Philly because that Philly team relied so much on Iverson, especially offensively. Jason Kidd was the best player on those Nets teams, but he did have much better help in K-Mart, Van Horn, RJ, and Kerry Kittles. If Kerry Kittles was the second best player on those Nets teams, then it would have been more impressive than Iverson carrying the Sixers to the Finals in 2001

I think two Finals trips is more impressive than one, especially since there would be no sneaking up on teams the second time around.

Findog

11-26-2009, 07:59 PM

He's a scorer who has a career 27 PPG, which is like 6th all time in the history of the league.

And how efficient was he at scoring? If a guy scores 40 points on 40 shot attempts, did he have a good game?

BRHornet45

11-26-2009, 08:02 PM

And how efficient was he at scoring? If a guy scores 40 points on 40 shot attempts, did he have a good game?

dude Iverson put up 14 more points per game over his career than Kidd has. Its even more impressive that Iverson still shot the ball better than Kidd did on 10 more shot attempts! (Iverson 425%, Kidd 400%)

Findog

11-26-2009, 08:02 PM

anyone with a brain who understands the game of basketball will tell you that Kidd is absolutely nowhere near as good as Iverson.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KjxzmaXAg9E&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KjxzmaXAg9E&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Kidd is a God awful shooter and is barely averaging 13 points per game over his career.

Way more to basketball than just scoring.

Kidd is not and never was a difference maker for a team.

:lol

Tell that to the Nets. They seemed to have a remarkable turnaround after getting an "excellent role player."

Findog

11-26-2009, 08:03 PM

dude Iverson put up 14 more points per game over his career than Kidd has. Its even more impressive that Iverson still shot the ball better than Kidd did on 10 more shot attempts! (Iverson 425%, Kidd 400%)

Kidd's job wasn't to go 9-26 from the floor while his teammates stood around and watched, then do nothing on defense except for recklessly play the passing lanes for steals and hope his teammates covered for him. Kidd's job was to run an offense by getting everybody involved and then check his man defensively on the other end.

BRHornet45

11-26-2009, 08:04 PM

Findog

11-26-2009, 08:06 PM

LOL idiot I'm not even a Republican. I just think Sarah Palin is sexy hence the sig ...

Your arguments make about as much sense are your typical Palinite teabagger.

oh and son you're right. there is a lot more to basketball than scoring, but Kidd absolutely sucks at scoring and he deserves to be criticized for it.

Of course he does. He never developed a mid-range game that would've taken his game to another level. But the question is was he a better player and did he have a better career than Iverson, and I think it's pretty clear cut that he did.

BRHornet45

11-26-2009, 08:11 PM

Your arguments make about as much sense are your typical Palinite teabagger.

Of course he does. He never developed a mid-range game that would've taken his game to another level. But the question is was he a better player and did he have a better career than Iverson, and I think it's pretty clear cut that he did.

LMAO!!! WOW, JUST WOW! ... son your shameless and downright ignorant favoritism towards Kidd is embarrassing. stop now for your own sake.

I GUARANTEE you if Allen Iverson was wearing a Maverick's uniform instead of Kidd, you would be singing a different tune.

Findog

11-26-2009, 08:12 PM

LMAO!!! WOW, JUST WOW! ... son your shameless and downright ignorant favoritism towards Kidd is embarrassing. stop now for your own sake.

Favoritism towards Kidd?

I GUARANTEE you if Allen Iverson was wearing a Maverick's uniform instead of Kidd, you would be singing a different tune

I'm glad he didn't, because Dirk would've never been able to develop into the player he is with Iverson hogging all the shots. And you'd be arguing Kidd > Iverson if you didn't have such a stick up your ass when it comes to all things Mavs and their fans.

BRHornet45

11-26-2009, 08:15 PM

Favoritism towards Kidd?

I'm glad he didn't, because Dirk would've never been able to develop into the player he is with Iverson hogging all the shots. And you'd be arguing Kidd > Iverson if you didn't have such a stick up your ass when it comes to all things Mavs and their fans.

son Dirk gets damn near half his points GIVEN to him from the free throw line so he would have been just fine.

Findog

11-26-2009, 08:16 PM

son Dirk gets damn near half his points GIVEN to him from the free throw line so he would have been just fine.

Do you have any good points to make? Jamstone is just as wrong as you are, but I can at least intellectually respect what he is trying to say.

BRHornet45

11-26-2009, 08:19 PM

Do you have any good points to make? Jamstone is just as wrong as you are, but I can at least intellectually respect what he is trying to say.

lol son you're too much of a homer to see past the FACTS. now bow down, you just got owned.

Findog

11-26-2009, 08:21 PM

lol son you're too much of a homer to see past the FACTS. now bow down, you just got owned.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vXKuDYvM6Wk&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vXKuDYvM6Wk&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

baseline bum

11-26-2009, 08:21 PM

Kidd easily. People forget how good he was before screwing his knee.

monosylab1k

11-26-2009, 08:22 PM

At the height of their primes, Iverson was a better talent and player than Kidd.

Over the course of their entire careers, however, I think you've gotta go with Kidd. Kidd is ending his career pretty gracefully, still being a very effective player. Iverson's career is ending about as well as the Titanic's.

mavs>spurs2

11-26-2009, 08:23 PM

Basketballgirl25

11-26-2009, 08:23 PM

son even Nash blows Kidd out the water .... Jason Kidd is arguably the most overrated "star" player of all time. easily in the top 5 most overrated players out there.

I agree I found Kidd overrated even when he was on the Nets, when he first went to them I didn't like him :lol

monosylab1k

11-26-2009, 08:25 PM

20 years from now, we'll still be talking about AI. Kidd may get a mention here and there, but he hasn't had the same impact on the league like Iverson has.

I agree that AI has had a bigger impact, but not on the basketball court. Absolutely not on the basketball court.

AI, fairly or not, will be remembered much more for ushering in the "tatted up thug" era of basketball than anything he did on the court.

mavs>spurs2

11-26-2009, 08:25 PM

Jason Kidd had a MAJOR impact on his teams overall during his prime years, in a way that didn't show up on ESPN's top 10 dunks highlights. That's why he's underappreciated by the dumbasses.

Findog

11-26-2009, 08:26 PM

Its not even close in my opinion. Iverson did one thing well, score. Kid was a walking triple double for years.

Well, he shot 42% from the floor for his career, so I don't think he did even that well.

BRHornet45

11-26-2009, 08:29 PM

Findog

11-26-2009, 08:30 PM

lol at these stupid ass Maverick fans ... like I said above, I GUARANTEE you that if Iverson and Kidd swapped teams all these years and it would have been Iverson in a Mavs uniform, they would be supporting him.

stop being so damn ignorant. deep down most of you know the truth, but have too much pride in your homerism to look past the FACTS.

This is embarrassing, you're not even attempting an argument anymore. There are grownups making good points on both sides and you're just screaming "homerism" at the top of your lungs.

Findog

11-26-2009, 08:32 PM

lol at these stupid ass Maverick fans ... like I said above, I GUARANTEE you that if Iverson and Kidd swapped teams all these years and it would have been Iverson in a Mavs uniform, they would be supporting him.

You're forgetting something - we missed Kidd's prime and only got the bookends of his career. His best years were spent elsewhere.

BRHornet45

11-26-2009, 08:33 PM

Of course you would feel that way, Jason Kidd is half white

son you bring up an excellent point. that is another reason why many of you are choosing Kidd over Iverson ....

Kidd has always been a media darling and therefor he has been TERRIBLY overrated. The dude is a joke of a scorer and barely averages 13 points per game for his career. HOWEVER, since he is a media darling, they make excuses for his lack of scoring and brag about his assist numbers. give me a break ... with all of the talented scorers that Kidd has been blessed to have over his career, ANYONE could put up 10 assist per game! its funny to me how people truly think Kidd is one of the best. good yea, but far from one of the best. VERY far.

Iverson has always been judged for the person that he is and what he does off the court, not on it. Many of you are judging Iverson for those reasons. The dude is clearly better in nearly EVERY way than Kidd.

Basketballgirl25

11-26-2009, 08:33 PM

lI GUARANTEE you that if Iverson and Kidd swapped teams all these years and it would have been Iverson in a Mavs uniform, they would be supporting him.

I got to agree with you about this.:toast

BRHornet45

11-26-2009, 08:33 PM

You're forgetting something - we missed Kidd's prime and only got the bookends of his career. His best years were spent elsewhere.

similar to Steve Nash ... can't blame anyone for wanting to get out of Dallas.

sonic21

11-26-2009, 08:35 PM

Nets pre-Kidd 26 wins...With Kidd 52 and 50 wins two NBA finals.

76ers stayed the same after AI left

BRHornet45

11-26-2009, 08:36 PM

I got to agree with you about this.:toast

son that's my main beef with these choking vagina's in blue fans .... I don't care if someone thinks Kidd is better than Iverson. everyone has their opinion ... but Maverick fans are so damn biased its not even funny. they have NO SHAME with their homerism. its embarrassing.

Findog

11-26-2009, 08:36 PM

Iverson has always been judged for the person that he is and what he does off the court, not on it. Many of you are judging Iverson for those reasons. The dude is clearly better in nearly EVERY way than Kidd.

Nobody in this thread gives a fuck about his cornrows or tats and has criticized his game, not what happened off the court. This is seriously embarrassing the shit posts you're making.

Findog

11-26-2009, 08:36 PM

similar to Steve Nash ... can't blame anyone for wanting to get out of Dallas.

Hey, Dallas is a lovely city and won't be underwater in 50 years.

JamStone

11-26-2009, 08:38 PM

We're not comparing Jerome Williams to T-Mac, are we? Or any other role player to a superstar? We're talking about two guys that were franchise players (Nets and Sixers respectively), with their primes roughly coinciding, and I'm more impressed with Kidd's resume than Iverson's.

He also made his teammates better by his unselfishness and the way he got them the ball where they wanted. Iverson dominated the ball and played 1-on-5. You tell me what is more conducive to winning.

Hard to find an exact comparison, but here's a better one.

The difference between Iverson and Kidd is similar to the difference between Dirk Nowitzki (comparable to Iverson) to Rasheed Wallace (comparable to Kidd).

Rasheed helped Portland to a couple deep playoff runs and then when he got to Detroit, he adapted himself by playing unselfishly and playing great defense, even though he was the best talent on the team.

Who do you think had a better career, Dirk or Rasheed? I'm a huge Rasheed fan, and I'd say Dirk has had a better career. It's a similar reasoning why I think Iverson had the better career.

Who do you think had a better career, Dirk or Rasheed?

What is your criteria for "better career?"

In my opinion, Iverson has more impressive statistics, he dominated the game more than Kidd did, even though they play different styles. I think he forced opposing teams to gameplan their entire defensive strategy around stopping him.

I take into consideration the teams and talent around them throughout their career, and I think Iverson had a lot less help throughout most of his career. Kidd did help turn around the Nets. And, Iverson helped turn around the Sixers. It took him longer, but again, he had less help.

He's also arguably the greatest defensive player of all-time, and he shot 44% from the field in an era where that didn't stand out as a low fg %. Tell me what Iverson contributed on the defensive end of the floor.

I'm just saying it's not just about Iverson's shooting percentage.

And the Nuggets struggled to make the playoffs. With Billups in his place, they actually run an offense and made it to the conference finals. They put up a much better fight against the Lakers than they did with Iverson.

If that's what you considered struggling to make the playoffs, well the Nets struggled to make the playoffs the same season... IN THE EASTERN CONFERENCE.

And in that same season, that Nuggets team dispatched Jason Kidd's Dallas Mavericks in 5 games, after Jason Kidd cried for a trade on a sinking Nets team. What's your point?

He was also a triple-double machine that was a hell of a defender in his prime.

And in Iverson's prime he was a 30+ PPG, 7+ APG player who was perhaps the greatest inch-for-inch scorer the league has ever seen, at a generously listed 6' height.

But by your own criteria, the East was even weaker the next two years, even with the Nets in the picture.

Yes.

I think two Finals trips is more impressive than one, especially since there would be no sneaking up on teams the second time around.

If that's the case, a guy like Rasheed Wallace is better than Kevin Garnett because Rasheed has won a title and been to two NBA Finals as arguably the best player of his team while KG has won one title but only been to the NBA Finals once as arguably the best player of his team.

You have to look at all factors, like teammates and competition. The Nets in 2001-02 and 2002-03 were a better overall team than the 2000-01 Philadelphia 76ers. That's why it's so impressive that the Sixers actually got to the NBA Finals basically on Iverson's back. The Nets had become good team that didn't rely only on Kidd. K-Mart often led in scoring and RJ by his second season had become a very good player and Kerry Kittles was a good role player. The Sixers were not a good team. It was all Iverson. I cannot emphasize enough that the second best player on that 2000-01 Sixers team was Aaron McKie. Aaron McKie. Aaron fucking McKie. That's the impressive part.

And how efficient was he at scoring? If a guy scores 40 points on 40 shot attempts, did he have a good game?

That's not what Iverson did. In his career, Iverson averaged 27 points per game on 22 field goal attempts. You exaggerate.

By the way, Michael Jordan averaged 30 points per game in his career on 23 field goal attempts. Iverson isn't that far behind in scoring efficiency.

Findog

11-26-2009, 08:38 PM

Nets pre-Kidd 26 wins...With Kidd 52 and 50 wins two NBA finals.

76ers stayed the same after AI left

Nuggets got bounced as an 8 seed Iverson's final year to the Lakers. Next year they went to the conference finals and played a better Lakers team much better.

"You don't like Iverson because he's black and tatted up."

/BR121-63

BRHornet45

11-26-2009, 08:38 PM

Nobody in this thread gives a fuck about his cornrows or tats and has criticized his game, not what happened off the court. This is seriously embarrassing the shit posts you're making.

no what's embarrassing is the ignorance, hatred, and racism you have shown today. dude earlier in another thread you made a joke about George Shinn having cancer. that is just flat out wrong and mean.

mavs>spurs2

11-26-2009, 08:40 PM

There's a reason that through the years, many guys have came forward and said how much they loved playing with Kidd and how much easier he makes their jobs. His NBA peers appreciate what he does so much that he was chosen to start for team USA as an old, rapidly declining, over the hill man. Kidd plays solid defense and puts the ball in the right place in almost any situation, sometimes even having to make an amazingly creative pass to get it there. Jason Kidd understands the game of basketball and maximizes the potential of those around him, he's the ultimate teammate.

sonic21

11-26-2009, 08:42 PM

you can't win anything with iverson on your team, even the Olympics (with a stacked team).

BRHornet45

11-26-2009, 08:43 PM

you can't win anything with iverson on your team, even the Olympics (with a stacked team).

like you can win anything with Kidd?

mavs>spurs2

11-26-2009, 08:44 PM

JamStone

11-26-2009, 08:45 PM

Kidd is a better leader and teammate than Iverson, no doubt. I would definitely agree.

Iverson is the better player and had the better career.

Findog

11-26-2009, 08:45 PM

Hard to find an exact comparison, but here's a better one.

The difference between Iverson and Kidd is similar to the difference between Dirk Nowitzki (comparable to Iverson) to Rasheed Wallace (comparable to Kidd).

No, it's not. Sheed has always been a good #2 player. Dirk has been a good #1 player.

Rasheed helped Portland to a couple deep playoff runs and then when he got to Detroit, he adapted himself by playing unselfishly and playing great defense, even though he was the best talent on the team.

Who do you think had a better career, Dirk or Rasheed? I'm a huge Rasheed fan, and I'd say Dirk has had a better career. It's a similar reasoning why I think Iverson had the better career.

Put Dirk in Sheed's place and the Pistons would've won by covering for his defensive shortcomings at that stage of his career. Put Sheed on the Mavs and they don't come close to matching what they did with Dirk.

In my opinion, Iverson has more impressive statistics,

in points per game, sure

he dominated the game more than Kidd did, even though they play different styles. I think he forced opposing teams to gameplan their entire defensive strategy around stopping him.

It's far easier to shut down one guy and let him get his than it is to gameplan for a team that can actually run an offense.

I take into consideration the teams and talent around them throughout their career, and I think Iverson had a lot less help throughout most of his career. Kidd did help turn around the Nets. And, Iverson helped turn around the Sixers. It took him longer, but again, he had less help.

I think two Finals runs > 1 Finals run. Especially when the second time around when you've got a target on your back. Even if you think the Least was watered-down and not that hard, I don't see how you can say 1 Finals appearance is more impressive than 2.

And in that same season, that Nuggets team dispatched Jason Kidd's Dallas Mavericks in 5 games, after Jason Kidd cried for a trade on a sinking Nets team. What's your point?

Well, Jason Kidd is 3 years older than Iverson for one thing, and he's a complementary player at this point in his career. All we know for sure know is that Kidd is still helping good teams win at 37, whereas Iverson pouted his way out of the league at 34. My point is that Iverson apologists pointed to his lack of a supporting cast in Philly. Well, he finally got one in Denver at the tail end of his prime, and he couldn't lift them to do anything that they hadn't already done without him. Soon as they got an actual PG, they took off.

BRHornet45

11-26-2009, 08:46 PM

and you think iverson>kidd simply because kidd is half white and you're a biased racist

no son I look at STATS and the stats don't lie ...

Findog

11-26-2009, 08:47 PM

no what's embarrassing is the ignorance, hatred, and racism you have shown today. dude earlier in another thread you made a joke about George Shinn having cancer. that is just flat out wrong and mean.

Where's the racism and hatred that I supposedly posted?

As for George Shinn, Mr. Sexual Harrassment and Team Mover can afford the best medical care that money can buy. I'm sure the good people of Charlotte wish him the best in a speedy recovery.

JamStone

11-26-2009, 08:48 PM

you can't win anything with iverson on your team, even the Olympics (with a stacked team).

Minus the best players in the league at the time, like Kobe, Garnett, T-Mac, among others? And with Larry Brown basically refusing to play LeBron, Wade, and Carmelo in favor of Shawn Marion, Lamar Odom, and Richard Jefferson?

Especially because Larry Brown didn't play those NBA "rookies," that 2004 Olympic squad was not stacked at all.

BRHornet45

11-26-2009, 08:50 PM

Where's the racism and hatred that I supposedly posted?

As for George Shinn, Mr. Sexual Harrassment and Team Mover can afford the best medical care that money can buy. I'm sure the good people of Charlotte wish him the best in a speedy recovery.

dude you are laughing and making jokes about someone who has cancer. that's not cool and nothing about that is funny. smack talk is all good, but you clearly crossed the line. in your exact words ....

"lol at George Shinn being poor and having cancer"

JMarkJohns

11-26-2009, 08:50 PM

If the East was such a joke, and it was such a watered-down conference, how come the Sixers couldn't defend their conference title when it was so theoretically easy to do so? Why does AI's one conference title count as much as Kidd's two? Isn't Kidd going to the Finals those two years more impressive than the Sixers getting eliminated along the way?

Sixers made some trades that didn't work as well with Iverson as their previous lineup had. Simple as that. They went from a defensive-oriented lineup with George Lynch and Tyrone Hill in their frontcourt to getting rid of both for Derrick Coleman. They added some depth on the wings with Harpring, but this 2001-02 unit never meshed and their seven-man rotation missed 130 games twixt them, so all the changes, lots of injury (20+ each from Iverson, Coleman, and McKey) and they just never competed. Iverson, for all his good, didn't mech with these specific players.

I think anyone saying that the East from 2000-01 through 2002-03 wasn't very, very poor, and, very top-heavy in their one quality team each season is fooling themselves. If you advance to a Finals series and haven't defeated a 50-win team to get there, your competition sucked.

For Iverson haters, I'd think it more of an accomplishment that Iverson, at the peak of his ballhogedness, could take that band of offensively challenged players to the Finals through a same path that Kidd, at the peak of his unselfishness, did, despite Kidd having superior talent at every single position.

I'm not saying it's better. I'm saying that the paths Kidd took was as impressive as the path Iverson took, since, each only defeated a single 50-win team along the way.

Again, the comparison is flawed because each is too different, yet enjoyed similar levels of success. You say "Two Finals" another says "MVP" ... You say "Sucked last two stops (three, really)" and another says "Kidd demanded traded from Dallas and New Jersey" ... You say "On-court attitude" and another says "Wife-beater/coach-killer" ...

Each is a HOFer for what he did. Kidd for passing, Iverson for scoring. Ultimately, each is found wanting in the wins department, despite some Finals trips amongst them. Neither could win against the best.

Scola

11-26-2009, 08:52 PM

Kidd by far, at least he made his teammates better. Yes Iverson has better numbers but he was a thug & a volume shooter who only cared about himself and his stats. Who cares if Iverson is averaging 30 points because his team won't be winning anything.

Findog

11-26-2009, 08:52 PM

dude you are laughing and making jokes about someone who has cancer. that's not cool and nothing about that is funny. smack talk is all good, but you clearly crossed the line. in your exact words ....

"lol at George Shinn being poor and having cancer"

I wish George Shinn a speedy recovery. I think the good people of Charlotte will join me in well wishes for such a swell guy.

Where is this "racism" I supposedly posted?

sonic21

11-26-2009, 08:55 PM

Minus the best players in the league at the time, like Kobe, Garnett, T-Mac, among others? And with Larry Brown basically refusing to play LeBron, Wade, and Carmelo in favor of Shawn Marion, Lamar Odom, and Richard Jefferson?

Especially because Larry Brown didn't play those NBA "rookies," that 2004 Olympic squad was not stacked at all.

Iverson was the 1st option, and the us team had the best roster of the tournament.

All i saw was Iverson and Marbury hogging the ball the all time. The team had only one good game where they looked like a team (against Spain in the QF).

JMarkJohns

11-26-2009, 08:55 PM

There's a reason that through the years...

McDyess loved it so much, after 2/3rds of a season with Kidd, he left for the team that traded him originally - the woeful Denver Nuggets - and for LESS money.

Marion had the opportunity to leave Phoenix for Jersey (Kidd discussed the possibility illegally upon his arrival in New Jersey), yet chose to play alongside the selfish and oop-challenged Marbury.

Martin could have re-upped with the Nets, but chose to look elsewhere.

For the list of players that openly said Kidd was their preferred PG, not too many of Kidd's favorite finishers ever stuck around to show such a preference.

JamStone

11-26-2009, 08:56 PM

No, it's not. Sheed has always been a good #2 player. Dirk has been a good #1 player.

Sheed was the #1 guy in Portland, and was as much the best player on the Pistons in their title run as Kidd was the best player on the Nets on their two trips to the Finals.

Put Dirk in Sheed's place and the Pistons would've won by covering for his defensive shortcomings at that stage of his career. Put Sheed on the Mavs and they don't come close to matching what they did with Dirk.

Put Kidd on that 2000-01 Philly team and they don't make it to the NBA Finals because that Sixers team needed Iverson's scoring. Put Iverson on those two Nets teams, they still make it to the NBA Finals because of how the rest of the East was in those seasons.

in points per game, sure

By a large margin. And, people don't give Iverson enough credit for his play-making. For a guy scoring in the high 20s and a few seasons in the 30+ PPG, he was still averaging 6-8 assists per game in many of those seasons.

It's far easier to shut down one guy and let him get his than it is to gameplan for a team that can actually run an offense.

Exactly why what Iverson did was more impressive. Teams focused their entire defense on him and he still made those horrible Sixers team competitive and even got them to the NBA Finals once. Harder to stop a running team yet they were stopped.

I think two Finals runs > 1 Finals run. Especially when the second time around when you've got a target on your back. Even if you think the Least was watered-down and not that hard, I don't see how you can say 1 Finals appearance is more impressive than 2.

How often do I have to repeat how much the East sucked in 2001-03. It's actually been talked about before on this messageboard. It was as bad as it ever was. Even in 2002-03, there wasn't competition for the Nets in the East. That was the very first season Billups and Hamilton played for the Pistons, pre-Rasheed, and it was Prince's rookie year. That was the best comp they faced in the East. The East sucked.

Well, Jason Kidd is 3 years older than Iverson for one thing, and he's a complementary player at this point in his career. All we know for sure know is that Kidd is still helping good teams win at 37, whereas Iverson pouted his way out of the league at 34. My point is that Iverson apologists pointed to his lack of a supporting cast in Philly. Well, he finally got one in Denver at the tail end of his prime, and he couldn't lift them to do anything that they hadn't already done without him. Soon as they got an actual PG, they took off.

I'm not one to defend Iverson's attitude or his ability to sacrifice or compromise to fit on a team. That's obviously a huge problem with his ego and his approach to the game. You want to say Kidd is more selfless, a better teammate. Again, I won't argue. You want to talk about who has had the better, more impressive career, it's still Iverson.

Findog

11-26-2009, 08:58 PM

McDyess loved it so much, after 2/3rds of a season with Kidd, he left for the team that traded him originally - the woeful Denver Nuggets - and for LESS money.

And he said he regretted the move.

Marion had the opportunity to leave Phoenix for Jersey (Kidd discussed the possibility illegally upon his arrival in New Jersey), yet chose to play alongside the selfish and oop-challenged Marbury.

Would that be because he got a $17 million/year offer from Phoenix?

Martin could have re-upped with the Nets, but chose to look elsewhere.

Would that be bc the Nuggets gave him $79 million or whatever it was? The team that outbids everybody else gets the player. That's just how it is.

BRHornet45

11-26-2009, 08:58 PM

Yes Iverson has better numbers but he was a thug

sons this is EXACTLY what I am talking about. Thank you Scola for proving my point.

White America has been molded over the years (mainly thanks to the media) into judging others by their appearance, not by their talent. The sad thing is that many of you would be singing a different tune about Iverson if he was a clean cut, good ole white boy like a Larry Bird, Peyton Manning, Brett Favre, John Stockton, etc., etc. ...

Hornets1

11-26-2009, 09:00 PM

I'm a bigger Iverson fan. Both are sure-fire HOFers. I'm going w/ Kidd. His game is more rounded out. Iverson needs his props though. People are just remembering the last couple years of his career now. He was my fav player for a while. Iverson is one of the toughest, most dynamic players to ever player the game. Hope he enjoys his retirement, and that people remember the REAL AI; not the old, declining AI.

JamStone

11-26-2009, 09:01 PM

Iverson was the 1st option, and the us team had the best roster of the tournament.

All i saw was Iverson and Marbury hogging the ball the all time. The team had only one good game where they looked like a team (against Spain in the QF).

If you replace Iverson with Kidd in 2004, does Team USA win the gold?

If you put Iverson on the 2000 and 2008 Olympic teams in place of Kidd, do they still win gold?

I say no to the first question and yes to the second.

I think the 2004 Olympics is a poor example to try to criticize Iverson.

Findog

11-26-2009, 09:02 PM

Put Kidd on that 2000-01 Philly team and they don't make it to the NBA Finals because that Sixers team needed Iverson's scoring. Put Iverson on those two Nets teams, they still make it to the NBA Finals because of how the rest of the East was in those seasons.

I think both teams are worse off - The Kidd Sixers because they couldn't score, the Iverson Nets because they would be worse defensively and their wing players would have to stand around and watch Iverson dominate the ball.

sabar

11-26-2009, 09:04 PM

I have to give the edge to Kidd. While Iverson dominated the game more and his impact on pro ball will be remembered for a long time, Kidd was just a better overall talent. Iverson only did one thing well, shooting the ball. Kidd has great court vision, good defense, and good rebounding. He just props the whole team up.

Also, Iverson being a egotistical weirdo is a mark against him, whether or not it impacts his game. Iverson did nothing to help Detroit or Memphis with his pouting. You can't just look at his prime, you gotta take the whole thing into account. Kidd would never drag a team down like Iverson did. Never be a distraction like Iverson. All these things just make Kidd's career better. Like it or not, Iverson's tantrums and antics are part of his career.

It's far easier to shut down one guy and let him get his than it is to gameplan for a team that can actually run an offense.

I hate to agree with Mavfans, but this is just spot-on.

Just look at the Spurs match-ups with Denver when they had AI. Our strategy was to defend AI and it was over. He had nights like 9/25, 7/20, 9/25 and 6/22. That is just terrible. The more he shot, the bigger our lead got.

Put that AI on the Mavs and they don't stomp us. He eats up shots and is easy to defend. Kidd can find the open man and kill your team for defensive lapses. Who do you want, someone that finds the open man or someone that goes 1 on 1 every play?

JamStone

11-26-2009, 09:11 PM

Findog, let me ask you this. Better career, Chauncey Billups or Jason Kidd?

Findog

11-26-2009, 09:12 PM

Findog, let me ask you this. Better career, Chauncey Billups or Jason Kidd?

Chauncey Billups

monosylab1k

11-26-2009, 09:14 PM

Michael Doleac > Dirk

sonic21

11-26-2009, 09:14 PM

Chauncey Billups

1 ring faggot?

JamStone

11-26-2009, 09:14 PM

Chauncey Billups

Interesting.

Do you think players, coaches, GMs agree?

Billups a Hall of Famer?

Scola

11-26-2009, 09:15 PM

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/2663/practiceiverson.jpg

Findog

11-26-2009, 09:16 PM

Really??? :wow

Best player on a title team and he could shoot, whereas Kidd couldn't. Of course, Chauncey was a late bloomer who bounced around and took a long time to learn how to play PG, but at their absolute primes, give me Billups, although Kidd could've won a title on the 04 Pistons.

Findog

11-26-2009, 09:17 PM

Interesting.

Do you think players, coaches, GMs agree?

Billups a Hall of Famer?

Billups won't make the HOF because he bounced around so much early in his career and was a late bloomer, but once he figured things out, would you take him over Jason Kidd?

Findog

11-26-2009, 09:20 PM

And keep in mind, two teams gave up on Kidd despite his talent, whereas numerous teams gave up on Billups because they didn't think he'd amount to much. If you want to argue that Billups being a non-star for so many years counts against him, so does Kidd being given up on by two franchises in a Kidd vs. Billups comparison.

Findog

11-26-2009, 09:20 PM

Findog

11-26-2009, 09:22 PM

I completely understand your point with Billups, and hitting big shots and all, but realistically, he's a horrible shooter, career 41%. Even during his best years in Detroit it was at 42%. He doesn't rebound, low assist, and his first five years in the league he was a castaway. Kidd has been the unquestioned leader, and driving force on every team he has every played on.

Those are good points too, and maybe it would be unquestioned Kidd's career > Billup's career if 2004 never happened, but it did. Nobody thought anything of Billups signing with Detroit. The T-Wolves weren't too concerned about letting him walk. So I have to give him a hell of a lot of credit for that 2004 championship. It erases a lot of negatives.

JamStone

11-26-2009, 09:27 PM

Billups won't make the HOF because he bounced around so much early in his career and was a late bloomer, but once he figured things out, would you take him over Jason Kidd?

Here's the thing, I didn't ask who you'd take over whom. I asked who has had a better career. I didn't ask who was better in their absolute primes. I asked who has had a better career.

I think it's pretty ridiculous to contend Billups has had a better career than Kidd, even though I like Billups more, mostly because of Pistons bias.

Findog

11-26-2009, 09:28 PM

Here's the thing, I didn't ask who you'd take over whom. I asked who has had a better career. I didn't ask who was better in their absolute primes. I asked who has had a better career.

I think it's pretty ridiculous to contend Billups has had a better career than Kidd, even though I like Billups more, mostly because of Pistons bias.

I think being the best player on a championship team counts for quite a bit on your resume, don't you? Who had the better career, Bill Walton or Rik Smits?

Findog

11-26-2009, 09:30 PM

I think you are giving him way too much credit for what was probably the best team effort on a title team since The Rockets. And you cant take one great year and trump an entire career.

I think that one great year has been followed up by keeping the Pistons in the upper echelon of the league for the next 4 years, including defending their title to G7 of the Finals, as well as lifting a good Nuggets team to the conference finals.

Galileo

11-26-2009, 09:54 PM

Kidd

JamStone

11-26-2009, 11:16 PM

I think being the best player on a championship team counts for quite a bit on your resume, don't you? Who had the better career, Bill Walton or Rik Smits?

Bad comparison. Bill Walton is a HOFer and Rik Smits isn't, but you're comparing Walton to Billups who isn't going to be a HOFer and Rik Smits to Kidd who is going to be a HOFer.

A better comparison would be between Cedric Maxwell and Dominique Wilkins. And, I would tell you that Dominique had a better career than Cedric Maxwell.

Billups has had a very good career from 2002-03 to present. Jason Kidd has been a perennial all star, all NBA performer since he was drafted. Billups has had more playoff success but had a better cast around him than Kidd did from 2004 through 2009. You even admit as much by suggesting Kidd could have won a title with the Pistons in 2004.

Those are the types of factors I too into consideration when comparing Iverson and Kidd.

Findog

11-26-2009, 11:31 PM

Bad comparison. Bill Walton is a HOFer and Rik Smits isn't, but you're comparing Walton to Billups who isn't going to be a HOFer and Rik Smits to Kidd who is going to be a HOFer.

A better comparison would be between Cedric Maxwell and Dominique Wilkins. And, I would tell you that Dominique had a better career than Cedric Maxwell.

Walton was the best player on a championship team and played a key role as a reserve on another championship team. In between he was on the shelf. Smits, on the other hand, was very good for a very long team for a very good team. Who had the better career?

And I can't believe you think Cedric Maxwell is a good comparison to Dominique. Maxwell was a role player, Dominique was an All-Star caliber player.

Billups has had a very good career from 2002-03 to present. Jason Kidd has been a perennial all star, all NBA performer since he was drafted. Billups has had more playoff success but had a better cast around him than Kidd did from 2004 through 2009. You even admit as much by suggesting Kidd could have won a title with the Pistons in 2004.

If Billups is going to be penalized for taking awhile to excel at NBA basketball before finally finding a home and excelling with the Pistons and Nuggets, then doesn't Kidd get penalized for having two teams give up on him early in his career and on the cusp of his prime? And while Kidd could have won a title as the starting PG for the 04 Pistons, we know for sure that Billups did. A championship counts for a lot with me. I'd rather have Walton's career than say Patrick Ewing's.

Findog

11-26-2009, 11:46 PM

I don't know what's better...my Mom's mashed potatoes or your Mom's mashed pa-TITTAYS.

Ghazi

11-26-2009, 11:50 PM

I don't know what's better...my Mom's mashed potatoes or your Mom's mashed pa-TITTAYS.

:lol

mookie2001

11-27-2009, 01:45 AM

kidd

dirk4mvp

11-27-2009, 01:50 AM

I see a lot of Spurs and Laker fans going with Kidd. Gee, there's that Maverick fan bias hard at work.

ElNono

11-27-2009, 02:07 AM

Clearly Baron Davis... clearly...

pauls931

11-27-2009, 08:06 AM

I'll take We over Me any day of the week.

LakeShow

11-27-2009, 08:56 AM

Kidd

Brazil

11-27-2009, 09:25 AM

difficult choice, I'd go with AI

DUNCANownsKOBE2

11-27-2009, 12:23 PM

Of course, the Mavs ownership situation was a mess at the time and they didn't have a fucking clue choosing Jim Cleamons over Kidd, whereas the Colangelos were very sensitive to PR concerns in making a wife beater the face of the franchise.

So they trade him for a guy who gets a DUI less than a month after his arrival to Phoenix. One of the worst trades in NBA history.

Culburn369

11-27-2009, 12:28 PM

Cleamons tried to fit 10lbs of absolute shit into a pristine 5lb bag via the triangle. Those numbnuts are still happy as pigs in shit & a course bereft of ringage.

Findog

11-28-2009, 12:22 AM

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/from-deep/iverson-played-for-one-person/article1378446/

Can’t say I’m buying into the posthumous lionizing of Allen Iverson in the wake of his apparent retirement. A brilliant talent who thrived only if enough role players could be assembled to buy into his me-first version of basketball, he was fun to watch at times and his voice – raspy, deep, and dramatic sounding – is one of my favourite things about him. But what he said didn’t matter. His real self was on display on the court and in my mind he was a minor NBA figure on that basis.

I suppose you can make the case that he deserves some respect for his determined individualism as the first NBA star to fully embrace tattoos, braids and what that symbolized. I have nothing against that, obviously. Freedom of expression is a good thing and if he forced the dominant culture to be more tolerant, aware or understanding of a certain strain of black culture that’s worth while. But it’s also worth noting that he was paid, not prosecuted, for his choices, which makes the trail-blazing attributes a bit hollow – we’re not talking Muhammad Ali here.

But in a basketball sense? Take away one magical year in Philly when an entire organization genuflected for his benefit and were rewarded with one Finals appearance thanks to a watered-down Eastern Conferece – Philly was the only team not to lose at least 30 games that year -- and what did he really accomplish?

He otherwise never made it out of the second round of the playoffs. When he left Denver the Nuggets made it to the Western Conference final; when he arrived in Detroit the Pistons got swept in the first round, missing the Eastern Conference final for the first time in six season; of course by then Iverson had already quit the team.
For the most part his teams suffered for his presence; he cost several good people jobs because he was largely uncoachable; he never really improved his game because as we all know, he wasn’t really into practice.

He played hard, I guess, but you know what they say: no one works harder than someone who works for themselves. Allen Iverson played for himself. The way he’s apparently leaving the NBA doesn’t tarnish his legacy, it simply confirms it.

Anyway.