Allen Iverson Thread

[Abctest123]

With Mikeman's mentality, you might as well throw 5 random guys together plus a bench and have Larry Brown as coach and then have him force each guy to be like each member of the 2004 Pistons.

[MikeMan™]

There's a lot of time to bond . . .
You don't have to force them , their hunger will take care of the rest . . .

[shadowgrin]

Just like the Knicks?

[MikeMan™]

Just like the Knicks?

The Knicks were a dud .
The team's hunger is a big factor but team talent weighs higher .

[shadowgrin]

But Larry Brown's Knicks were talented.

[MikeMan™]

Which One !?

[shadowgrin]

He only spent one season with the Knicks, you figure it out which one. Don't pretend to be stupid or stop being stupid. I don't want to babysit you in this argument.

[Jackal]

I think he meant which players were talented.

Either that or he's way dumber than I anticipated.

[shadowgrin]

He can still look up that roster and easily see the players that are talented. (Before some of them went insane of course)

[Its_asdf]

Just like the Knicks?

The Knicks were a dud .
The team's hunger is a big factor but team talent weighs higher .

"Knicks", "weigh" and "hunger" in one post, but no Eddy Curry. I'm disappointed.

[shadowgrin]

Don't blame me. MikeMan made the post.

[MikeMan™]

Eddy Curry !?
An always sh*tty performance by Starbury !?
The only one that really caught my eye was Jamaal .

[shadowgrin]

Before Larry Brown, Starbury was putting up 21-8. Look it up, unless you're allergic again to stats.
Jalen also had some decent stats the year before.
I don't know the where you got the idea that Brown's Knicks weren't talented enough for your taste.

[MikeMan™]

weren't talented enough for your taste.

and no hunger for a title . . .

[shadowgrin]

But you said...

The Knicks were a dud .
The team's hunger is a big factor but team talent weighs higher .

Granted they don't have the "hunger" (like Eddy Curry, there asdf), they have talent, which according to you, weighs "higher" than "hunger". So what gives?

[MikeMan™]

7840 + Non-Sense Posts and Counting . . .

[shadowgrin]

I was asking about what you posted previously which is on-topic.
When I post on-topic you can't answer, are you brain dead that you can't justify your opinion or are you just plain stupid?

[MikeMan™]

Granted they don't have the "hunger" (like Eddy Curry, there asdf)

Hunger for a championship not for food . dumbass

they have talent, which according to you, weighs "higher" than "hunger". So what gives?

they have talent that's not enough for a Championship .
So even though you're so talented ( Like Memphis Grizzlies now ) but not hungry enough to get into the Finals or just get in the Playoffs . You're team's not going anywhere but bottom .

[benji]

Sorry, but hunger has little to do with it. Yes, hunger, drive, etc. can make a player more active in recognizing things he does that hurt his team (such as Walker reigning in his three point bombing, or Josh Smith his terrible jump shooting) but that's the last thing that comes before you become a champion. You acquire the talent, (talent to be good basketball players, not freaks of nature who happen to play basketball) and then they sacrifice for the team.

The first thing however is having players who do things that win. The Knicks of Brown's time, and the Grizzlies current problems are not "hunger" they're the fact that they don't have players who win games. Both teams have something in common, no defense at key positions and inefficient offense. Look at those Knicks, a bunch of high usage players who are inefficient and have very similar games. Shockingly, the Grizzlies are the same way. Look at the top two guys on both teams.

For the 2005-06 Knicks, it's Marbury and Crawford. Both around 22% usage, combined with 14.5% turnovers and less than 55% shooting. Not terrible, you can live with a backcourt like that if your team doesn't suck, until you factor in that neither one played anything resembling defense. (And that a good portion of the rest of the Knicks sucked.) For the Grizzlies this season, same story. Gay and Mayo were even higher at 25% usage, lower on the turnovers but also lower on the shooting which killed their offense.

Look at the top seven guys in minutes on those Knicks, Curry is the only one who puts on a great shooting performance and he turns it over and doesn't defend enough to where the shooting mattered. Basically every single player over 1200 minutes, either can't score efficiently (Taylor, Richardson, Robinson) or didn't defend enough (Crawford, Marbury, Curry). For the Grizzlies it's the same thing either not scoring efficiency (Mayo, Gay, Arthur, Ross) or not defending (Warrick, Conley). With most players combining this, along with Gasol and Frye's rookie seasons being standouts in a sea of crap. (And there's future stars farther down, like Lee and Darko.)

The defense especially kills them. Of the players listed above, name the only players who anyone would consider defensive stoppers. That's right, Ross and Darko. (Which is why the Grizzlies were nearly "top 20" on defense and the Knicks nowhere close)

Brown yanking someone the instant they make one mistake and not playing them for three weeks, along with his inability to ever settle on a rotation (he couldn't even do this during the Pistons title run, banishing players to the ether just to bring them back suddenly in clutch moments in the playoffs), didn't help that Knicks team. (Like it didn't help Charlotte this season.)

[shadowgrin]

Granted they don't have the "hunger" (like Eddy Curry, there asdf)

Hunger for a championship not for food . dumbass

I was referring to Its_asdf, not you dumbfuck.


So you now know how to use the quote button, good for you moron.

[Oskar]

Shadowgrin, you really need a hug or something.

[shadowgrin]

And you need a brain or something.

Sorry, that's the best insult I can come up with for now.

[Lamrock]

Thats a pretty obnoxious member title.

[shadowgrin]

My custom title says it pretty much on how you are feeling right now.

[Dramacydal]

Holy shit, I've been away for too long. This thread's hilarious. Everybody's coming with 100+ arguments and reasonable points and mikeman just keeps repeating the same moronic statements over and over again and even misunderstands the easiest points.