Wednesday, November 4, 2009
The Iverson Dilemma: Logic Doesn't Live Here Anymore
Posted by Chris Herrington on Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 9:30 AM
- Larry Kuzniewski
- Allen Iverson: Butt getting sore.
Iverson's post-game public reaction to playing 18 minutes off the bench — “I had no problems (with the hamstring). I had a problem with my butt sitting on that bench for so long.” — was not a surprise, but was still preposterous.
Two specific reasons:
1. Even if his role were not in question and it were clearly established that he were going to be a starter, in his first game back from an injury after a dormant offseason and not a second of game experience with this team, Iverson was going to come off the bench and play limited minutes. It was inevitable that Iverson would complain about a bench role if the team tried to keep him there. But to complain about it after this game is an act of extreme self-absorption.
2. The comical "my butt hurts" quote has understandably gotten the attention. But I'm more bothered by this:
“If we’re winning games with me in that (reserve) role, I would be a (jerk) for fighting that,” Iverson said soon after pointing out: “I came off the bench and we still lost.”
Iverson cites this game as evidence that the team is better with him as a starter? Not only is this one game, but it's his first game back from injury, it's the second night of a back to back on the road, and the team lost in overtime. And this is somehow definitive proof of how he needs to be used and gives him license to be outwardly disruptive after the game?
___________________________
I've already said my piece about what Iverson's ideal role should be, so I don't want to fully re-legislate that here except to make a few additional points:
1. Through four games, a few clear team strengths and weaknesses have emerged: On the plus side, the team has been terrific on the boards and has gotten great offensive production from its starters. On the downside, the team has been terrible defensively and the lack of bench production has been an albatross. Adding Iverson is unlikely to impact the rebounding or defense much regardless of his role. Starting Iverson is more likely to negatively impact the currently strong starting-unit offense by taking shots away from higher-percentage shooters (in his first game, Iverson took 9 field-goal attempts in 18 minutes; Marc Gasol had 11 field-goal attempts in 50 minutes) while doing little to improve the bench production. The net impact could be to take shot attempts away from the other four starters while giving more shots to Mike Conley, probably not the impact fans screaming for Iverson and blasting Conley are looking for.
2. There's been another pattern to the season so far in terms of game flow. Routinely, the Grizzlies have been getting off to good starts, even in the opening-night blowout loss to Detroit. Through four games, here have been the scores at the time of the first Grizzlies' substitution — 12-14, 8-8, 28-21, 17-9. So, the Grizzlies are collectively +13 through four games with the current starting lineup in the first quarter, with the biggest deficit only 2 points. In the middle of games, the team has routinely lost ground as they start to work second-unit players into the rotation. And you could argue, based on the road trip, that the team has struggled to close out games. Clearly the Grizzlies don't need to start Iverson as they've done fine at the start of games, whereas Iverson's scoring ability could help the team from losing ground in the middle of games. And, as I've said before, Iverson not starting games doesn't preclude him from finishing them. Of course, I'm talking about what's best for the team here, not just what pleases Iverson or his fanboys.
3. By my count, from a cursory glance at recent box scores and factoring in short-term injuries, only about 4-6 teams in the league start their five best scorers. The vast majority of teams have one of their better scorers coming off the bench and a least one starter who can take a secondary offensive role and still help the team. This makes sense in a sport — unlike the college game, for instance — with an 82-game schedule, 48-minute lengths, and a 24-second shot clock. You have to balance production, to a degree, throughout the rotation. You could argue that if the Grizzlies want to keep one of their five best scorers in a bench role, it doesn't necessarily have to be Iverson. But who else would it be? Not Zach Randolph, obviously. A case might be made for Rudy Gay or Gasol, except their rookie backups are clearly not ready for starting roles. There has been some talk of bringing O.J. Mayo off the bench, but this leaves you with a too-small starting backcourt and, as your franchise cornerstone going forward, Mayo is the last player you want to put in a secondary role. Logic decrees Iverson is the best fit for this role, but logic doesn't live here anymore.
_______________________________
The problem with all of this, of course, is that it's predicated on a rational consideration of how good basketball teams function, but that isn't what the Iverson Experiment has ever been about. It's about a starstruck owner flexing his muscles and running roughshod over his own organization.
If Michael Heisley, Chris Wallace, and Lionel Hollins didn't directly broach the subject of a potential bench role with Iverson when they collectively met with him before the signing — and it appears that they didn't — then this is an act of negligence. And Iverson himself seems less like a person to be reasoned with than a bomb to be defused, a realization that detracts from the potential fun regardless of which direction things head. But we are where we are.
Iverson as sixth man, often closing out games, is the best role for the team, but it's probably better to accede to his demands to start than let this issue combust and tank a promising season. So, at this point, when he's physically ready for a big boost in minutes (and I'm not convinced that's as soon as tonight against Golden State), the team might as well let Iverson have his way. But letting him start opens up a couple of new questions:
1. Can he bend his game even a little bit into a team context? Iverson has always taken tons of shots, but he's older now, less physically explosive, and playing with the most talented cast of scorers he's ever been surrounded by. For this to work, his game needs to change a little. Is he willing to do that even if he starts? Against Sacramento, he had nine field-goal attempts and one assist. That ratio won't cut it if he's going to be on the floor with Mayo, Gay, Randolph, and Gasol for most of his minutes.
2. And where is the line drawn in terms of what Iverson is willing to accept? Is it okay to bring him out at the 5:00 mark in the first quarter or is that too soon? Playing him in shorter bursts, particularly early, will keep him fresh and help the team spread out the scoring options throughout the game. But would that kind of substitution pattern also draw Iverson's post-game ire?
_______________________
The One Good Thing: There is one good thing that will likely come out of starting Iverson, and that's putting the ball in Mayo's hands more. A Mayo/Iverson backcourt would likely function as a pair of combo guards, with each player taking turns bringing the ball up and initiating the offense, which will help the team get a better read on the best way to use Mayo going forward and thus the best kinds of backcourt partners for him. Of course, putting Mayo on the ball would likely be best paired with a strong, physical defender who's a good spot-up shooter, and Iverson is neither of these things.
Comments (66)
Showing 1-50 of 66
At some point you have to question whether the attacks on Iverson are more motivated by the fact that most sportswriters are scumsucking lowlifes or whether there is more nefarious racism at work. It seems like many of these sportswriters love it too much when a black athlete is pushed outside of the accepted arena and then they pound away at them like there is no tomorrow.
like
dislike
Yeah, this is clearly racist sportswriters taking a shot at Iverson. He doesn't bring any of this on himself. It's clearly just "the man trying to keep him down." Thanks Jackflash for pointing this out.
Jackflash, Almost everybody on the Grizzlies is black, including the coach trying to deal with the problems Iverson's outsized ego is manifesting. Any sportswriter who criticizes Iverson's actions is a scumsucking racist? Get real. Or at least as real as someone who anonymously posts on websites and calls people names can be.
@jackflash, I doubt anyone else is going to make a comment on what you said, because dropping the race card is as politically explosive as it gets in America right now, but, sincerely, the controversy surrounding Iverson's comments and his role on the team has nothing to do with "nefarious racism." That being said, hopefully further, healthy discussion can now be had on Iverson's comments and his role with the team going forward, starting tonight at Golden State.
Chris, I agree with everything you wrote, particularly that the needs of this team are defense and higher quality bench play, the former which Iverson clearly is not addressing and the other which Iverson might have been able to address with a better attitude. If Iverson had said after the game, "I should have been in the game, because I can shut down Kevin Martin or Benu Urich," that would be one thing. But that's not what he was saying, and definitely not what he was doing. Instead, he was essentially saying, "I should be in the game to take shots and score points for this team," which the starting five clearly does not need from him. I think those points are so clearly established that the real discussion now is what should be done with Iverson. You seem to think the team is going to acquiesce to his whining, but I think that's probably the worst thing that could happen for this team right now. What other options are there? Buy Iverson out? How long would the Grizzlies have to wait to do so? Finding anyone who would trade anything for Iverson has got to be out of the question at this point. His stock couldn't get any lower than it is right now.
Herrington, I sent the link in and now you've officially been Truehoop'd. (http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop) Noice!
Smart, insightful writing as always. More sportswriters should take a cue from you.
I think there is a third option other than giving AI his way or allowing him to pout his way through the rest of the season. If we had an owner who based his decisions on basketball and was willing to empower his employees, he would sit AI down and tell him that he can accept the role that Hollins gives him (whatever that may be) without complaining or he can enjoy his retirement. Such an owner would point out that AI has no leverage because no other team in the league wanted him. He can either embrace his only opportunity to have a role on an NBA team or he can go home, collect a paycheck for a year, and start thinking about life after the NBA.
But, as Chris has so clearly pointed out, Heisley just wants AI around for ticket sales and will almost certainly capitulate to AI and his fanboys as soon as possible.
well, at least we are getting that national media attention we so desperately wanted :)
here's the "Best-Worst" way to deal with this situation.
1. Start Allen Iverson
2. At the very first stoppage of play, take him out
3. Don't play him anymore the entire game
4. After the game ask him if he still would like to be a starter?
That should get some tempers flaring, and some more media coverage!
On serious note: none of this really makes any difference, we are only 4 games into the season!
After watching that game, it was obvious that Overson was not on top of his game. I specifically remember watching Iverson turn the ball over twice in 18 minutes on stupid plays. Conley had two in twice as many minutes. Forget the question of whether or not he should start long term. Focus on how he needs to shut his mouth and play productively in the time he is given. Stirring up trouble over playing time after your first game, with a new time, off of an injury, is ridiculous. Especially if you want to prove to possible future employers that you can play no matter what role you serve. On a completely separate note, did anyone else wonder why Zach did not kill Udrih on that layup to close out regulation play and make him earn it from the charity stripe? He didnt even leave his feet to defend it!
TimMurray You are an idiot if you can't see the racism in the Iverson piling on sh*t. TOwens,Marbury,Iverson,Randolf vs. Rose,Clemens,Myers
Notice anything. With the black sports stars who get pushed out of the mainstream, they get piled on and piled on like Herrington has done, whereas reporters either defend white stars like Rose and say he should be allowed into the hall of fame, or the stories go away and you hardly ever hear about them again (Clemens,Myers).
Until a black athlete is finally pushed beyond some metaphorical mainstream, they are kind of off limits (Obviously, Rush Limbaugh simply attacked Donovan McNabb before he had been pushed outside the mainstream), but then look out.
How come this poor excuse for a journalist, never questioned why Hollins played Iverson 2 minutes in the first half. Its not like Conley is ever going to be even an average point guard in the NBA.
Why not solve the problem by trading Conley to a team that needs a back-up point to play 15 min a game and throw in Gay and get what the Griz REALLYYYYY need...a small forward who can also play the the 2 guard. Look around the league, if you don't have someone who can go offensively and defensively at the 2 and 3, it is awfully hard to win. But hey, why should we ask this reporter to actually do his job and do some real analysis.
"jackflash" -- Hollins played Iverson more like 5 minutes in the first half, which happened to be his first game back after a pretty significant injury, an entire missed preseason, missing most of training camp, and not playing all summer. Any player in this situation would likely be integrated into an already established rotation gingerly.
It's always a drag dealing with over-emotional reactions based on liking or disliking individual players rather than caring about things in terms of the team, but we've seen a lot of that with the Grizzlies over the years.
Iverson is a great but imperfect player. He plays harder and more fearlessly than just about anyone who's ever played the game, a little 160 pounder throwing himself into the lane with guys who weigh twice what he does. The Sixers' playoff run that took them through the playoffs and put them up on the cusp of having the Lakers down 2-0 in the Finals represented one of the greatest examples ever of a player putting a mediocre team on this back and taking them places no one could have expected.
His passion and his fearlessness can sometimes be big weaknesses -- his hardheadness with coaches and his over-the-top comments to the media have on more than one occasion hurt his teams. But it's hard to separate the good from the bad with Iverson, they're all of a piece.
I have no doubt that race places a role in the way people react to Iverson, prompting some (but not all) people to magnify his faults and dismiss his strengths. I think about one of my favorite athletes, Brett Favre -- a great player, a risk taker, a gamer, a guy with a history of both brilliant and erratic play, a quarterback with a history of drug addiction (according to his own father), a veteran who retired, unretired, got into a verbal fisticuffs with his old team etc. etc. He has his critics, but he's generally been praised as a force of nature and good for the game. Imagine if he were black. I believe that the reactions to him among some (though not all) fans and sportswriters would be remarkably harsher, more like the reaction to Iverson.
The point is that great athletes aren't angels. They're flesh and blood human beings. They do great things, and they do stupid things. People want to remember the "good old days," a Golden Era when athletes were better, more humble and praiseworthy. Those days never existed. Hall of Famer Ty Cobb was a thug who went into the stands and brutally beat a disabled fan who'd heckled him. The now-sainted Ted Williams used to give the fans in Boston the finger -- literally. Babe Ruth caroused and boozed and had a giant ego, all of which caused him to miss games and hurt his team. The Babe and other legends of the past, however, thrived in a different media era, and now have the advantage of nostalgia-tinted memories.
I will be watching the Iverson Experiment with much interest. It could blow up in Memphis' face, or it could produce something memorable that will take a weak franchise to another level.
Since the two guards starting ahead of Iverson are both clearly black, racism is a non-issue. Jackflash, adjust your medication or something, okay? Herrington is right, some of the best players have been sixth men. Looks like Lamar Odom (black guy) is going to be sixth man for the Lakers and he is not crying. John Havlicek (white guy) was a sixth man most of his career and is in the HOF. Leandro Barbosa (Brazilian, right?) is usually the sixth man for the Suns but is one of their leading scorers in the world of D'Antoni and Gentry. A sixth man can be a big scorer and a star. Iverson would be a perfect sixth man and a bad starter for this team and it is obvious. We know from two months ago that ownership mentioned to AI that he would be a bench guy if he came over. Mayo and Iverson have the same agent for crying out loud!
If Memphis wants to be good and build a fan base they bring AI off the bench and promote him for Sixth Man of the Year.
Posted by Radar
I think this is a pretty fair article. However as a fan, I just want to win and win tonight at Golden State. Put the best mix of players on the court to help us achieve our objective. All of this other hoo-haa is just wasted energy on insignificant issues. Tonight is just game 5 out of 82. A win will make things look clearer.
Iverson gave an interview to scoop jackson on page 2 prior to the season on the issues in Detroit and him coming off the bench (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story…) . If anyone in the Grizzles took that time to read this, they would not be shocked by his outburst. Just wait for when he comes off the bench in a major NBA city like Miami, LA or Chicago. There will be some fantastic sound bites and I sure he will point out that he is a HOF and Mike Conloy is attempting to establish himself in the league.
Chris my question is what in the hell was discussed in those meetings with AI prior to the signing? It might have been the worst sports related interview ever! Up there with whoever interviewed Matt Millen for Detroit Lions
The only thing this situation has convinced me of is the ineptness of the Grizzlies as an organization. All summer you have national and local media and fans asking the question, "Will Iverson be comfortable being a sixth man?" You would think from that very public concern, those responsible for negotiating Iverson's arrival here would have gotten a clear and undeniable statement from him that he would accept that role. If starting was one of his demands and under no circumstances would he accept coming off the bench then you either promise him that right there or you absolutely do not sign him and wish him well with the non-existent NBA franchise that would start him.
I love Allen Iverson and wanted him here, but if this goes badly he's done in the NBA. If he wanted to go to a winner, he would have to be a 6th man. Any rebuilding team would be crazy to sign a guy that can't go a week without undermining his coach and teammates.
Chris Herrington- This is not about my over-reaction, but rather yours. I have many favorite players including Mayo and Gasol, this is simply about pointing out what sportswriters like you seem to enjoy doing. You take a special joy in going after Iverson, it seems to make you less objective and you simply forget the things you learned in journalism school (not sure if you went), about making sure you get the story right and making sure you are reporting in a fair unbiased manner. If Iverson were white, or a black player who had not been sufficiently villified by the press (hmm say Elton Brand), don't you think that reporters would be raising cane with why the Grizzlies and Hollins hadn't even named him a starter by now (even if he had to start the season coming off the bench due to injury).
Past the question of whether the attacks on Iverson by the press is race-based, there is the question of how in the world any intelligent person would want to start Conley over Iverson. Keeping in mind that when teams have had effective sixth men as one of their leading scorers and best players, they have not had as bad a starting five as the Grizzlies have. To not start Iverson, is to actually believe that Conley is a decent player and not remember that Iverson's 18 min last night were better than any 18 min that Conley has played in his NBA career.
Wow…a lot of comments. Lost in all of this is not what Iverson is saying but what Coach Hollins is saying. He seems to be level headed and calm about the whole thing. Also he is asserting his position as coach and the one who decides playing time, not AI or even Heisley. Let’s see if he can keep his cool for the remainder of the season.
jackflash -- Thoughtful people can disagree about the best role for Iverson, but it's not a question of pitting Iverson against Conley in a vacuum. Your question is answered pretty thoroughly in the article you've been commenting on all day. It's about what player rotation pattern makes the most sense for the team. Since the team has been getting out to good starts, the starting unit doesn't seem to be the problem. I think bringing Iverson off the bench but sometimes (maybe most of the time, depending on how things go) giving him "starter's minutes" and using him to close games is what's best for the team.
Anyone is free to disagree, but the reasoning is not a mystery.
You think Coach Hollins is being level-headed? Hmmm.. it seems more like Hollins understands that if Iverson starts the expectations for the team and for Hollins will go up...and unfortunately when it comes to job security, NBA coaches aren't much different then politicians, they know that the lower the 'EXPECTATIONS'...the better chance they will keep their job if things don't go well.
To Bruce VanWyngarden (you wrote-"including the coach trying to deal with the problems Iverson's outsized ego is manifesting")
Hmm. No need to be surprised at the lack of objectivity from your writers after reading your quite subjective view of Iverson. Hmm..You could have written, 'including the coach trying to deal with the possibilities Iverson's superstar talent presents to a team that has a history of losing.' Gosh what has happened to quality journalism in this country.
Five minutes in the first half?
There's no reason to even have the guy on the team if he isn't going to play.
Iverson kept his mouth shut way too long last year and got thrown under the bus. Clearly, he's learned that he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.
Give the guy his thirty minutes. If he flops, buy him out and shut the whole thing down.
Iverson is a 34 year old player coming off a torn hamstring who hadn't played a competitive basketball game since April 1st. No player should expect to play 30 minutes in that situation.
Chris Herrington- Anyone is free to disagree, but your preoccupation with Iverson coming off the bench comes off as being something more visceral and your logic about the team breaks down when you consider that Conley probably shouldn't be playing more than 15-18 minutes a game anyway. On what planet is a team successful when their startng POINT plays 18 min and is their worst starter. Point guards set the tone for a team and lead on the court. Unless you consider wimpy drives to the basket and the inability to score or gather assists as good qualities in your team leader and point guard, then the idea of Conley starting over Iverson is simply wrong. Are you sure your preoccupation with Iverson being the sixth man, isn't related to a desire to keep him in his place?
Jackflash. Pretty funny, you accusing others of not being objective. Check yourself, fool.
To some extent, jackflash is right. White sportswriters seem to take special joy in criticizing, ridiculing and harshly questioning anti-establishment black athletes who have had any trace of trouble or controversy in their lives. The key here is "anti-establishment." Allen Iverson is clearly anti-establishment. Ditto for Zach Randolph, which I think explains why Geoff Calkins, Chris Herrington, Chris Vernon, Dave Woloshin and George Lapides all seemed to vehemently oppose the Grizzlies signing Randolph to a contract. If memory serves, I think almost all of our esteemed white sports commentators publicly suggested that David Lee would be a much better option for the Grizzlies than Zach Randolph, which I think is absolutely ridiculous. (And clearly racist, in my opinion.)
Putting that aside, however, I tend to largely agree with Herrington's thoughts about the ideal role for Iverson on the Grizzlies roster this year. (Unless, of course, Conley is traded.)
But I think Herrington errs in minimizing or overlooking the lack of management and communications skills Coach Lionel Hollins has displayed thus far in his handling of Iverson. I can almost guarantee that Iverson's tone would have been at least a little softer after Monday's game if he knew that Hollins planned to limit his playing time to less than 20 minutes at the request of the training staff. Therefore, I can almost guarantee that Hollins didn't explain that to Iverson before the game. Why not?
BruceVanWyngarden- Geez it is really feeling surreal. Do I really have to point out to you that YOU are supposedly the editor of the Flyer (my objectivity allowed me to use this euphemism over some other possible metaphors) and as the Editor you should be objective instead of admittedly subjective. Well at least if you are attempting any journalistic ethics.
Straight Shooter: I appreciate your civil approach to the debate.
On the subject of Randolph and Lee: I opposed the Randolph acquisition based on both his off and ON-court track record, one that had led his three previous teams to essentially give him away, and also, frankly, on a conversation with an employee of one of those teams who answered "absolutely not" when asked if he'd be comfortable adding Randolph to a young team. But so far, I think he's been great, and he's been so good in part because he's playing differently than he did last season, as I've written about recently. His shot selection has transformed from highly questionable (two threes a game last season) to very good, and he's hitting the boards harder. If he keeps this up he will have proven me wrong, and I'll be very happy about that.
As for Lee, I did a post here:
http://www.memphisflyer.com/BeyondtheArc/a…
back in June ranking power forwards I wanted the Grizzlies to make a play for. Lee was 12th on that list, behind 10 "nonwhite" players, including a couple of arguably "antiestablishment" black players in Amare Stoudemire and Michael Beasley.
Once the options narrowed, I did like Lee better than Randolph, though that was contingent on the potential contract (I was never a proponent of an eight-figure average salary for Lee). I thought Lee would be a better team fit and for longer, assuming a four or five-year deal rather than Randolph's two-year deal. Lee was less dynamic offensively, but more efficient, and one of the league's best rebounders. I still like Lee. I like the Randolph we've seen early on better. And I hope it stays that way.
BruceVangarden- And if that is all you have then all I can say is 'pity da' foo'!
I agree this is a major blot on Grizzlies management for it getting to this point without clarification. Iverson's willingness to come of the bench should have been agreed upon by both parties before going forward with contract negotiations.
However, you know who else doesn't think Allen Iverson should be an NBA starter? Every other team in the NBA.
Also, please spare us the Allen Iverson or Zach Randolph as "anti-establishment" garbage. Etan Thomas was anti-establishment for not standing for the anthem to protest the Iraq War. Bill Walton was anti-establishment and took many unpopular stands while playing. I'll take Dennis Rodman as anti-establishment. Zach Randolph driving drunk and punching a teammates is not anti-establishment, it's anti-social. Allen Iverson famous "practice" rant, while amusing and great audio, is not anti-establishment, its immature.
Jackflash: You come on the Flyer site and accuse one of the best and fairest NBA writers in America of being a "scum-sucking lowlife nefarious racist." I'm objective when it comes to the news. Not so much when I'm dealing with anonymous jerks on a chatboard.
sankara, let's not forget that Bill Walton is not black. In the media, which is still very much white-controlled in this country, white "anti-establishment" figures are often celebrated as colorful and eccentric free-thinkers. On the other hand, outspoken black anti-establishment figures from troubled backgrounds are often permanently portrayed as thugs and low-lifes unless they largely disavow their past. We'll agree to disagree on that point.
Straight Shooter--what are talking about? Please, please explain to me how Zach Randolph is anti-establishment. I agree that the media and fans have struggled with the "thug" and "low-life" stereotypes of black athletes, but it's not because they are free-thinkers or anti-establishment. We can leave Bill Walton out of this if you wish. To call Randolph or Iverson anti-establishment is the diminish the countless black athletes who have used their position as athletes to challenge the actual establishment--entrenched poverty in inner cities, a perpetual war machine that wastes money and young lives, civil rights issues across the board. I could give you a list of 100 athletes who have taken more challenging professional stands against real power than Randolph or Iverson. Zach Randolph has not been railing against capitalism or the Bush adminstration or poverty in this country. He's not targeted because his says that things that are challenging. To conflate arguing about playing time or whatever Zach Randolph has said that you find "anti-establishment" with actual challenging protest of power is ridiculous.
If you want to keep making your point, pick another word.
There's a reason that the Grizzlies were the only team to offer AI a contract. We've seen it after only one game. He's not a "team" guy. He's a "me" guy. It sets a dangerous precedent to have a player of AI's caliber questioning authority (coaching) on a team full of 22 year old and 23 year old players. A player like AI could become a "cancer" in a locker room full of young impressionable players. We have a very young, promising and exciting team. Top ten in offense and rebounding already. I'd hate for one player to come in and mess up the Grizzlies bright future. Obviously the other NBA franchises felt the same way. Like I said, there's a reason that the Grizzlies were the only team to offer AI a contract.
The funniest thing I've ever read on a comment board comes from my main man BruceVanWyngarden when he tells Jackflash to "Check yourself, fool." Lol, funniest thing ever. Bruce you absolutely rock. I was uploading a picture of my son when I discovered a comment I posted about Allen Iverson on Chris's July 8th article on Allen Iverson. Man, was I right on the money about that or what. I just knew that this was going to happen. Straight Shooter brings up a great point in Hollins communication skills. But even with that, Iverson comments are inexcusable. He just has no respect for anybody at all. But that is from a lack of home training. I think his mother was like 14 when she had him, and if you've seen and heard her before, she is ghetto as hell.. He just has no respect for authority figures. Period... I wish I would disrespect my boss like he has and continues to do today. I just don't respect athletes like him. He is a much better player than Conley is, but you know what, that isn't the point. He has his own agendas. It is just tough to root for a man like that
Read all the replys, there is a lot of back and forth. All opinions, and everyone is entitiled to their own opinion. here's mine, I watched the game, and I know what I saw. Being a general manager myself, what I saw is a coach not using practical sense or judgement. Coaches want so badly to be the ones in control and to set the pace, that they will do whatever to try to keep the reignes on their players. Sometimes they make foolish decisions, just as Curry did last year. THERE IS NO LOGICAL REASON for starting Conley in front of Iverson. Or playing Mike 34+ minutes, and AI 15, (his final 2 were in overtime when the game was WAY out of reach, therefore I don't count them). AI is, and has been, a proven player for over a decade. Mike is still to this point a developing player. More importantly, and what NO ONE has commented on, is who finished the game, not started. When the game is tight going into the closing minutes, you want PROVEN closers on the floor, not untested rookies. Everyone keeps claiming AI is coming off an injury and should play limited minutes. AI was cleared by the medical staff to return to normal play, and we all know for AI thats 30+ minutes a game. He even agreed to stay out until the staff cleared him, or I'm sure he would not have missed the Detroit, nor the Denver games. And to you that can't figure it out???? The references to racism are about the journalist, not the players or coaching staff. Journalist seem to have XTRA pleasure in reporting any and everything negative about well known black atheletes they can find. AI, TO, Plexico, high profile black atheletes are routinely blasted by the media, seemingly just to get readers to read and reply to their articles. Where was all the press when the olympic swimmer was pictured smoking illegal drugs at a party? And I did say PICTURED, that was swept under the rug so fast it went unnoticed by most people. The media, just like news reporters, are responsible to report actual, factual news. I personally think they should be legally liable for all the personal attacks they do over and over against certain players. Taking someones words, and twisting them to sell an article is not good reporting.. Mike Conley will be a good baller, AI is a HOF, and legend, and should be treated as such. The public I hope will stop taking these slanderous sports report to heart and form their own judgement.. The Grizzlies are, a much stronger team than last year, give them a chance. And coach Hollins, commom sense goes a LONGGGG way, lets use some please..
Ceasarleo, there's more than one way to define "anti-establishment." I'll concede that your somewhat narrow definition (in my view) is perfectly valid. But I think it's also valid to say that the word applies to people who clearly don't conform to society's (or the "establishment's") view of generally accepted behavior in terms of dress, conduct, attitude, style, demeanor, etc.
With his cornrows, tattoos, baggy clothing and unapolegetic in-your-face attitude, Allen Iverson is very much "anti-establishment." That's the root of his tremendous appeal to some fans, especially in a city like Memphis.
Whether he takes public stances on political issues is irrelevant.
I like AI as a player and a great competitor but to start his soap opera on the first game back after an injury is ludicrous if not hilarious. He got 18 minutes. The medical staff told Hollins to not let him go over 20 minutes. Maybe no one in the coaching staff told AI this? You would think this would come up before a game. But again you would think that they would brought up being a 6th man during those contract negotiations too. Who knows. It may be just as Chris says that this is just a case of the owner doing what he wants without any regard to common sense.
Kevin Garnett and Gilbert Arenas missed almost the entire year last season, but started on their first games back, and KG is clearly not fully recovered. AI missed the preseason games, and the first 4 games of the season, but has been back to full contact practice with the team for almost a week. I'm sure he was good for more than 20 minutes...
Why cant anyone see that it is obviously the coaching....You cant possibly have AI on the bench with 2 mins left in the game. The thing that stood out to me the most was when there were 6 seconds left on the clock, and the coach left Randolph in to play defense. Really, I dont care for the Thabeet pick, but when you are ahead by 2 and you have 6 seconds left, you put in your #2 pick that you drafted for defensive purposes. Shot blocker or shot alterer, they left him sitting on the bench while the lane was left wide open knowing that Randolph would not have stepped up to try to stop him. I dont blame Randolph at all, it was the Coach. He should have put in Thabeet, or Haddadi to play defense with a 2 point lead and six seconds. Get real coach stop making yourself look like a fool when you try to convince everyone that you drafted Thabeet for defensive purposes. If you want the fans to be thrilled about Thabeet, then you put him in with 6 seconds left and you tell him to put the ball in the stands if anyone tries to drive to the basket.
THIS WEEK'S ISSUE
