Well, he shot 42% from the floor for his career, so I don't think he did even that well.
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.
You're forgetting something - we missed Kidd's prime and only got the bookends of his career. His best years were spent elsewhere.
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.
I got to agree with you about this.
similar to Steve Nash ... can't blame anyone for wanting to get out of Dallas.
Nets pre-Kidd 26 wins...With Kidd 52 and 50 wins two NBA finals.
76ers stayed the same after AI left
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.I got to agree with you about this.
Nobody in this thread gives a about his cornrows or tats and has criticized his game, not what happened off the court. This is seriously embarrassing the posts you're making.
Hey, Dallas is a lovely city and won't be underwater in 50 years.
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?
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.What is your criteria for "better career?"
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'm just saying it's not just about Iverson's shooting percentage.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.
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 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.
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?
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.He was also a triple-double machine that was a of a defender in his prime.
Yes.But by your own criteria, the East was even weaker the next two years, even with the Nets in the picture.
If that's the case, a guy like Rasheed Wallace is better than Kevin Garnett because Rasheed has won a le and been to two NBA Finals as arguably the best player of his team while KG has won one le but only been to the NBA Finals once as arguably the best player of his team.I think two Finals trips is more impressive than one, especially since there would be no sneaking up on teams the second time around.
You have to look at all factors, like teammates and compe ion. 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 ing McKie. That's the impressive part.
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.
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
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.
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.
you can't win anything with iverson on your team, even the Olympics (with a stacked team).
like you can win anything with Kidd?
and you think iverson>kidd simply because kidd is half white and you're a biased racist
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.
No, it's not. Sheed has always been a good #2 player. Dirk has been a good #1 player.
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.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.
in points per game, sureIn my opinion, Iverson has more impressive statistics,
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.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.
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.
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.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?
no son I look at STATS and the stats don't lie ...
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.
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.
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"
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 compe ion 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 at ude" 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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote