Reply With Quote
I agree with DSF.
Allen Iverson. People can make an argument for Kidd right now just because Iverson's at ude 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.
I agree with DSF.
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.
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.
Iverson by a slim margin.
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 le 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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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
If the East was such a joke, and it was such a watered-down conference, how come the Sixers couldn't defend their conference le when it was so theoretically easy to do so? Why does AI's one conference le 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?
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.
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.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
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?
EASILY Iverson. never a fan of his, but he is twice the player Jason Kidd ever was.
Kidd by far.
Iverson was one of my favourite player to watch, but his impact on his teams was nothing compared to Kidd's.
Eloquent, concise and logical.
career FG 42%
and he's basically a scorer
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.
LOL sons Jason Kidd is going to finish his career with a field goal percentage under 40% LMAO
son that reminds me ...
Jason Kidd's bread and butter isn't shooting.
I'm not the one making the Iverson > Kidd arguments.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
