Better career - Iverson or Kidd?

[Scola]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 le 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 compe ive 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 compe ion 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 at ude 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Findog]

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

Chauncey Billups

[monosylab1k]

Michael Doleac > Dirk

[sonic21]

Chauncey Billups

1 ring got?

[JamStone]

Chauncey Billups

Interesting.

Do you think players, coaches, GMs agree?

Billups a Hall of Famer?

[Scola]

[Findog]

Really???

Best player on a le 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 le on the 04 Pistons.

[Findog]

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]

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]

Of course, the Mavs ownership situation was a mess at the time and they didn't have a ing 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.

[Findog]

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 of a lot of credit for that 2004 championship. It erases a lot of negatives.

[JamStone]

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]

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]

I think you are giving him way too much credit for what was probably the best team effort on a le 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 le to G7 of the Finals, as well as lifting a good Nuggets team to the conference finals.