DFDepressed FanDepressed Fan

All  

Sixers

, all the time

Further Iverson Thoughts

If Jordan planes Jrue/Lou. Why not Jrue/AI?

Jordan DNPCD'd Jrue 6 times in the first 13 games. I don't believe for a second he ever had plans to play Jrue regularly, let alone start him, this season.

I want to see Jrue Holiday get alot of play time this year. With AI is signed, the Holidays will be very dark and dim.

This is suppose to be a young team building for the future. Signing AI does not make sense in building for the future. Please don't sign AI other than the 10 day goodbye and thank you for the memories. Let's leave us wanting more AI than being thankful AI is gone. Let's leave the great memories great memories!

"If you believe, as a decision-make for the Sixers, that you're headed in the right direction and you will compete in a couple of years, you're essentially trading 34 games of bumped up attendance for pushing that goal of being a contender and a top draw in the league back one season. It seems short-sighted to me."

I agree that bringing in Iverson is quitting on the season, but how does it push back the goal of being a contender? How does that follow? It's not as if we'd contend next year, but playing Iverson this year would stop us from contending next year. It would slow Holiday's development, and Thad's to a lesser extent (though I don't see why Thad would get frozen out, whereas you acknowledge that Iverson would pass the ball to Speights at least). But push us back a whole year? Only if you think we're really headed somewhere this year sans Iverson, which doesn't currently seem to be the case. I think you actually lay out a nice case for signing Iverson. Who else could simultaneously make us worse while exciting fan interest? Iverson will steal a game or two, but over the course of a season he'll make us defensively awful (an Iverson-Williams backcourt), a little worse on offense, drive everyone crazy, and probably ensure us a top 5 pick. Without him, we're liable to make a heroic late-season push and end up being the 7th-9th team in the East, which does no one any good. At the same time, there's no single move this team could make that could sell as many tickets; even trading for an actually good player like Monta Ellis wouldn't generate nearly as much excitement. Money to sign free agents and a big-time prospect in the draft, and the cost is putting a kid on ice who, one could reasonably argue, might be better served anyway by not being thrown into the starting rotation for a couple months. That, and possibly messing up our young impressionable players' heads. In that respect, it's risky, but otherwise I think it could be a clever (albeit sickeningly cynical) move for the long-term health of the franchise.

I'm not a tanking advocate, so I throw that reason out the window right away. I say it costs us a year for a couple of reasons:

(1) Jrue gets no burn, even playing alongside Iverson would be detrimental to him, in my opinion. He'd be off the ball on both sides most likely, because Iverson can't guard twos and Iverson needs the ball in his hands. I think he needs to be on the floor to develop, especially if the team isn't going anywhere.

(2) Add a ball hog to the offense and a guy who plays favorites and pretty much everyone but his favorites are going to suffer. He'll set up Kapono for threes, and Speights for whatever he can get. Lou, Iguodala and Thad aren't accomplished scorers in his eyes, I see each of them getting fewer looks. Brand is the wild card, he could thrive with AI.

(3) Adding him makes the team worse, but how much worse and how bad are they when healthy without him? What if adding Iverson drops them from the #16 pick down to #12, how much of a difference is that in the draft? Is that worth a year's development, even if it's not completely lost, you're throwing an unnecessary obstacle into the development process. Is it worth it? Again, best-case scenario you lose an astonishing number of games, ingrain more bad habits in every member of your young core and guess what, you wind up with the sixth best player in the draft because of an unlucky ping pong ball.

No thanks.

user-pic
Chris reply to Brian on Nov 29 at 3:18
+/-

I'd prefer to not have them sign AI other than for retirement purposes.

I think he might cause a chemistry problem a la Detroit. I think Iggy could play the role of Richard Hamilton and complain about AI as Iggy is the one who'd go from undisputed #1 option to #2. He (Iggy) has already shown he has a pretty healthy ego and can sulk. Allen doesn't like practice either and was having issues with practice (lateness, attendance) at Detroit and Memphis also. He can get away with it as he has supernatural skills (though I think he could have been better if he practiced as hard as Jordan or Kobe) but if that rubs off on others it could make things a lot worse. Speights, Jrue and (especially) Thad are really raw. If they were to get in the habit of slacking in practice then they'll never be any good.

On the tanking (in this case by getting AI), I don't like the idea in general at all, but tanking often does seem to help. The TrailBlazers and especially the Thunder seem to have really been helped by being awful and getting consistently high draft picks. Some that have been awful even though they tanked is mostly as they had bad draft picks for their position.

I think for the Sixers to really improve they'd need to vastly improve their defense. Which I don't think Eddie Jordan is the man for the job. This team would have been one that was good for Larry Brown in that it has some incredible athletes who lack fundamentals. That ship has sailed unfortunately.

user-pic
raro reply to Brian on Nov 29 at 13:10
+/-

I'd love to see Brand and Iverson play together, even if it happens to be 4 years too late. I can't help but think of Brand having his best year when Sam Cassel joined the Clippers. Not that I'm equating Iverson and Cassel, but there are similarities.

Right now it feels like sentimentality is winning the battle and I'm afraid that's where I'll be at the end of the day.

By the way, I absolutely see your logic here, I just don't like the odds on that gamble.

How many pro-Iverson sixers fans do you think want him back because he'd hurt the team?

user-pic
Tray reply to Brian on Nov 29 at 22:31
+/-

Probably just me. Others want him because they think he'll make him better, and a far greater number, I think, want him so they'll have a reason to watch again. Many of those would acknowledge that that reason isn't so much making the team better as it's just making them way more entertaining. Whatever you think of the idea, it would certainly be quite a spectacle. Even those who hate Iverson would feel compelled to watch.

"It would slow Holiday's development, and Thad's to a lesser extent (though I don't see why Thad would get frozen out, whereas you acknowledge that Iverson would pass the ball to Speights at least)"

Speights gets a lot of his offense in catch and shoot situations. The attention Iverson attracts helps Speights.

Young gets his points off isolations and post-up moves. Iverson's attention doesn't help him much, and his inability to hit a catch and shoot shot hurts.

I think it's a win-win in every possible way.Like I said before,I don't think Jrue has what it takes to be a superstar point-god.And Lou will be Jamaal Crawford in the best scenario possible.

So why not bring AI for a season ?
-He will sell lots of tickets and jerseys.
-If the team gets worse,at least it would be under AI, and we get ourselves a sweet lottery pick.(Any one knows if there's any really good prospects this year ?)
-If the team gets better,than what the hell can we complain about ?
-Iverson retiring as a Sixer.No,I'm not crying,there's just something in my eye I don't know what it is.

God do I hate it when Stephen A is right because he'll completely overshadow the hundreds of other times that he was wrong and way too quick to report something. My favorite Stephen A moment was when he reported that Tubby Smith had signed to be the Sixers head coach and couldn't have been more wrong. Well, I guess it's alright because he has no real national forum anymore.

I totally agree that Speights would would like to have AI around. Just think Webber of a few years ago while actually knocking down the jumpers on pick and pops. I mean we can't argue that we'd get worse defensively because Lou is about as bad as they come and Jrue isn't acclimated to team NBA defense yet. Kapono would like the open looks just like Korver did so that would be good. Sammy would get his lobs from AI like he did and didn't he play pretty well in AI's last year here to get that silly contract which is currently killing our team? AI9 (the 9 is real impt. now) would have a couple of positives and negatives. Negatively, his psyche would get worse because he's not the main guy and his defense/assists would go down. Still, his TO's (have been a problem recently) would go down and Iverson would be able to get him a few more high percentage shots and would just take more shots so that AI9 wouldn't have to force anything at the end of the shot-clock. I say his scoring drops 2 or 3 points with AI. Thad is the guy I see a real negative effect on, but I don't know who Thad is right now. Jrue would also be brought along slower.

I guess from a W/L standpoint, would he work with Brand is the big question. Here's my thing though, I think the team is better with Iverson for some reason (Maybe he's just my favorite player and I'm sentimental), so for the long-term our record would be worse and we would develop the young guys. It's interesting and there might be some positives, but I don't know if it's logical.

"Jordan DNPCD'd Jrue 6 times in the first 13 games. I don't believe for a second he ever had plans to play Jrue regularly, let alone start him, this season."

i hear alot of people saying starting iverson at the 1 will lessen Jrue's minutes and what not...but you've stated many times that Jordan doesn't play him ANYWAY...which i think is stupid but that's what is happening.

Well, signing AI right now would cost jrue roughly 1,000 minutes just in the time Lou is out with the injury. With Lou out he's forced to play him.

user-pic
deepsixersuede on Nov 29 at 8:38
+/-

There are 34 minutes available in our backcourt along with 12 to 15 shots since L.Will. went out.You need a big, defensive p.g.[Jrue] to play with A.I. so I think he still gets his minutes.Thad needs a bit of a wake up call to contribute in other ways that a move to the bench allows possibly.I disagree that he comes here and wants 20 to 25 shots a game, I think he just wants to start and play and for 2 months that would be a positive. Getting a similar player to the one out hurt for a minimum contract is a no brainer; that being said the issues start when L.Will. comes back.
Hypothetical conversation this week:
Jordan-A.I., we would like you to step in and fill L.Will.'s role for the next 2 months as an audition for a possible move to a contender. As you can see by the numbers, you will get 28 to 35 minutes a night and be asked to contribute, not carry,to the scoring load of this team.We want you off the ball so Jrue can develop as our future p.g. .You having a similar game as Lou will allow Jrue to get a feel for how he and Lou can coexist in the future.Are you in or out ?
A.I.-I want a shot at a title, and if this gets me that shot I will be very grateful. You will get my best.
Now how they handle it when Lou gets back would be something I will leave up to them, but I don!t think they figure him in their plans beyond that.And I don!t think he comes here as the old A.I., dominating the ball and taking 25 shots; this system doesn!t allow for that and his body won!t either.I was against this but for little money and time investment it makes sense to me.

I've been saying that he will be back this year for so long now, I want it to happen just to be right.

I think his return will do nothing but hinder everything in terms of the future, but realistically, my heart tells me that there are going to have to be major changes to this roster for it to be worth shit in a few years anyway. I think we have young players with promise to be pretty damn mediocre, aside from Speights and maybe Jrue and Jrue can play along side of him for now.

user-pic
deepsixersuede reply to Ryan F on Nov 29 at 9:09
+/-

It seems our coach is really lobbying for him ," Iggy can!t make plays off the dribble," and L.Will. was a major part of this offense in terms of responsibility. I only want this if E.S. expresses to Jordan that Holliday will get his minutes, otherwise ,no, I pass.

user-pic
eddies' heady's on Nov 29 at 10:54
+/-

Don't care to debate something like this if it hasn't actually happened, plus it seems to be a topic like politics and religion, you just can't state your stance without offending at least someone.

But really, sign the guy up already. If you can have less of Willie or Royal, then it can't be such a bad idea.

Sign. him.

user-pic
JohnMagee on Nov 29 at 11:47
+/-

Whem Memphis signed Allen Iverson they sold 1,000 more season tickets.

Memphis with or without Iverson was in the basement of attendance.

If there's any sort of Iverson attendance bump, I doubt it would be 3,000 per game and I doubt it would last more than 5-10 games, when the team still stinks and the record still stinks.

Iverson hasn't been an attendance draw for half a decade now...there's no evidence that he's an attendance draw any more...one memphis game isn't the same as every home game.

And anyone who doesn't see how his appearance on the roster is going to hurt the development of players wasn't paying attention when he was here and people kept wondering when Iguodala was going to show up.

I was a big Iverson fan but he's all about him, he's not about making a team better, he's about him and getting his points...he's not a leader, he's not a teacher, he's not a veteran guy willing to come off the bench.

He's the same guy everyone wanted out of town years ago, but it's been a few years and the sixers stink so people seem to be forgetting that he's the same player everyone wanted out of town years ago.

I firmly believe this is an idiotic move that will pay little to no long term dividends for comcasts bottom line or the sixers and feel if Stefanski thinks it's a good idea he's a worse GM than Billy King

"Whem Memphis signed Allen Iverson they sold 1,000 more season tickets.

Memphis with or without Iverson was in the basement of attendance."


I agree with you that attendance is going to be shortlived, but I wouldn't use memphis as reasoning. Memphis doesn't have the previous history with Iverson that Philadelphia has.

user-pic
JohnMagee reply to Derek Bodner on Nov 29 at 12:42
+/-

The attendance was on a downward spiral I believe (home and away) after 2001, as the sixers become more mediocre the fans stopped coming to watch Iverson.

I believe the 'gate draw' concept may be for a couple weeks or so but not long lived UNLESS they win as well...it's pretty well established that the sixers come 'fourth' in Philly - and unless they win the fans won't show up much for anyone...yes the memphis game had a high attendance but that was the 'one chance' to see Iverson this year...if fans have a chance every home game the 'novelty' wears off and then you have to notice how bad the sixers are...

I think on the court should be first and foremost thought when deciding who to sign, and I see no long term benefit on the court for the sixers signing Iverson...

It wasn't really a downward spiral so much, I think they were 2nd in the league in attendance the year after the trip to the finals, then 4th, 4th, 10th, then middle of the pack.

user-pic
JohnMagee reply to Brian on Nov 29 at 13:43
+/-

And yet iverson was still here, the worse the team got, the less likely to advance in the playoffs, it didn't matter that Iverson was or wasn't here, what mattered was whether the team won or lost, and after a week or so of 'euphoria', the same thing will happen, if the team doesn't win, people won't show up, especially in this economy

Yeah, I agree, they aren't going to be a top draw, but I do believe they'll draw better than they are right now. There's no doubt in my mind they'll draw better after I've seen the reaction to this rumor.

user-pic
JohnMagee reply to Brian on Nov 29 at 15:50
+/-

I think it'll be temporary personally...people have been calling for Iverson back to philly all summer - just search sixers or iverson on twitter, there's a portion of the fanbase that wants iverson back, i doubt they'll keep coming to games if the sixers continue to suck

If they play it right, they could sell out his first game back, that would be +11,000, give or take. I think an extra 3,000 is reasonable to expect. Not 3,000 season tickets sold, mostly single tickets, people who randomly hear about Iverson being back. It would help if he had a 40-point game early on, whether the Sixers win or not.

user-pic
Tray reply to Brian on Nov 29 at 22:38
+/-

I think it's unthinkable that they wouldn't sell out that first game. It'd just be such a huge story - Iverson back in Philly. It wouldn't even be about how he played, it would be about the return of the most compelling and divisive athlete this city has had in decades. If he was really awful, people would lose interest after some time, but I can't imagine that he'll be really awful, at least in the sense of no longer being a dynamic scorer. This isn't Jordan on the Wizards or something, the guy's still a very capable player, albeit one that probably doesn't help you win games.

First off, I want to establish that I am no way in favor of Iverson being back with the sixers.

Now that that has been established, I want to play devil's advocate...

You make points that Iverson would cause this team to fall into 30th place for defensive efficiency. However, the team is well aware of how back Iverson is defensively. When I look at the rest of the players (with a question mark under Thad) they are all capable of playing either decent or good defense. The problem is their consistency (blame it on maturity and leadership) and their cohesion (blame it on a crappy defensive system and rotations). But perhaps it's possible that they are well aware of Iverson's bad defense and the rest of the players thus collectively try to compensate for that by playing better defense.

Also, what if Jordan is completely dissatisfied with his roster. He doesn't think the players he currently has fit his system (they can't hit enough 20 foot jumpers with 18 seconds left on the shot clock). So they consider this a wasted year and look to trade players either this year or over the summer in hopes of getting a roster that could fit more to Jordan's desires. Acquiring Iverson could just be to have a guard who can score. Although in reality it really doesn't make much sense to me. I just really think we're going to see a roster change come next year while keeping most of the core intact (Speights, Lou, Iguodala).

Isn't a big problem right now that everyone tries to overcompensate for the poor on-the-ball defense? I don't see how they suddenly get better at over-helping when they have two guys who couldn't guard a crippling starting together in the back court.

And when they start trading away pieces to get guys to fit Jordan's system is when I start rooting for ping pong balls. Simple as that. This guy better not be here long enough for shit like that to start happening.

user-pic
Jeff reply to Brian on Nov 30 at 5:50
+/-

Concerning Jordan, my god I hope you are right. I don't really know how well Stefanski's relationship with this guy can affect issues like this, but you just never know. The sixers brass is either going to have confidence in his system and coaching abilities (probably with another 4-hour chalk and talk session) or we're going to see a coaching change next year ( I hope). I pray for the latter. I just can't make any sense of why they would want Iverson if it wasn't to piss away the year and look for future trades.

user-pic
Kenneth on Nov 30 at 4:34
+/-

You have some points but the point about AI making the team worse is ridiculous.

1) DEFENSE: You make it seem like AI is going to replace the reigning defensive player of the year or something. No, the 76ers are already 28th in the league in defense. That means, their current defenders are ALREADY BAD. Replacing a BAD DEFENDER with another BAD DEFENDER does not do very much to worsen the defense. You think Jrue Holiday, a rookie, is a great defender? How about Louis Williams? You think he's a great defender? Uh, they're TERRIBLE defenders. PG's like Tony Parker run circles around them -- hence, that's why the 76ers lost 6 in a row and are 28th in defense. You neglect to mention these points in your analysis.

2) OFFENSE: AI averaged 26 points per game on 45.8% FGs in his last full season at Denver 2 years ago. No, it's not 10 yrs ago, it was only TWO years ago (2007-2008 season). Any stat you try to point out which indicates AI will HURT you on OFFENSE is ridiculous. He's NOT washed out as evidenced by his stats 2 years ago and his offensive efficiency is OFF THE CHARTS. 45.8% FGs, 80.9% FTs, 3 REBs, 7.2 APG, 2 SPG...these are NOT low efficiency numbers by any comparison. His 7.2 assists per game would be welcome on any team.

If there's ANY drawback to adding Iverson to your team, it's that he's a drama king and spoiled by his fame. But if you want to talk numbers, whatever analysis you gave is completely bogus about how Iverson can hurt your team offensively. Ridiculous...a 6 time scoring champ, 1 time league NBA MVP, hurting your offensive output...are you nuts????


Expand/Contract all comments

Leave a comment


back-to-story.gif