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.

Racism??? Give me a break... You are a damn idiot.

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.

Love it, Herrington. Absolutely nailed it.

In what world do you start mike conley over ALLEN IVERSON "PERIOD"

@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.

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).

Great analysis.

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..

I think Jackflash is a racist

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.

That is absolutely correct Straight Shooter, and I agree 100 % ..

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.

ummmm good point BigGriz, but Thabeet had already fouled out, but definitely a good point, protect your finishers.. How about Memphis not getting a decent shot off in the final minutes while committing turnover after turnover.. Finishers coach, finishers...

@jackflash, All this lecturing on "nefarious racism," "journalistic ethics," "sportswriters" being "scumsucking lowlifes" and the state of the "black athlete" isn't just tired, it's actually doing damage to whatever racial awareness stance you think you're advocating. Allen Iverson made clearly incendiary remarks to the media in the lockerroom - remarks that would be incendiary, by their nature, in any professional, organizational structure, regardless of race, because of the controversy of the position he has taken, the explosiveness of the topic he broached and the pre-exisiting media interest in such topic, the disregard for authority inherent in his comments, and most importantly, because of the manner in which he chose to address the situation, by using the media as a public microphone for his anger and as a tool for accomplishing his desire to start, rather than having an internal discussion with his coach, his teammates, or even the executives of the Grizzlies organization. Your legitimate response to all this is to paint Iverson as a victim, and to pontificate on racism in sports and the state of sports journalism with a profanity-laced tired directed at one of the most respected journalists in Memphis just because he dares to opine that Iverson's best role, at this particular time, on this particular team, is as a high-volume scorer off the bench? If you think actually think you're advocating in a constructive way for some sort of racial reconciliation, racial understanding, or, even more unbelievably, for a higher standard of ethics, you most certainly are not accomplishing what you intend.

lol, I don't take "Jackflashes" comments as a lecture, but more him expressing his opinion, and I happen to think his comments are very on point. But then I did go to high school at Flint Northwestern, (coach Kirkland homeroom teacher), and lived in Detroit through all the "badboy" era, before moving to Chicago, DC, NYC and finally Atlanta. So I do consider myself well versed in basketball and agree with a lot of what "jackFlash" is expressing. But that's just my opinion...

Allen's outburst, though somewhat out of place and possibly reaching for purpose falsely by siting this one game as an example of why he should be starting or playing more is merely a frustrating outlash by a man who knows the truth . . . HE WAS A TOP SCORER LESS THAN A YEAR AND A HALF AGO.... AND ....WAIT WAIT ready? . . .he still is one of the most lethal scorers ...period. The fact that he has to do any "antics" for playing time is disgusting. The league, and admitedly some of Iverson's career choices and ethical choices, have failed him greatly. Nevertheless, he should be starting SOMEWHERE! 26.7 ppg 07-08! A vet's score doesnt drop 8-9 ppg in one season due to anything but injury and/or trade . . .and by golly let's take a look . . .yup, his last year stats 18.7 & 17.4 in let's see....57 games thru trade rumors, injury, etc. . . C'mon people, be real with yourselves, would you be able to sit quite, knowing less than 18 months ago you were a top scorer and you still could if you got minutes? ...Eloquent? keeping the issues where they ought to be? able to sway the masses with words? . . Allen is non of these . . .But we all know what he is TRYING to say. And he is right.

So someone comment on the game tonight at Golden State, more of that good ole coaching from Hollins and the Grizz lose another game they should have won. We're talking coaching people, COACHING..... I wonder if Kobe were traded to Memphis, and relegated to coming off the bench and only playing 15 to 20 minutes a game, and commented about it, would we still be getting all these biased comments. Or would everyone be asking for the coaches head. Think about it..

@GaryS, you, yourself, corrected someone for misapplying the original charge of "racism" to the coaches, when it was in fact meant to be applied to the "still very much white controlled media." (Not your comments, but the comments of someone with whom you agreed in the chain of his discussion in which he made such comments.) Your exact quote was, "The references to racism are about the journalist, not the players or coaching staff." The journalist in question, of course, is not an amorphous, general journalist, but is, in fact, Chris Herrington, the author of the blog on which you are posting. Just so we're clear, Chris Herrington was accused, in the very first comment under his post, of being a "nefarious rac[ist]" for what he wrote, and you made sure that everyone got that point exactly right. Further clarifying, you just corrected me on the usage of the word "lecture," stating that you believe the racial accuser was not "lecturing," but was "expressing his opinion," and that you agreed with his opinion ("I happen to think that his comments were very on point." "I agree with alot of what jackflash is saying.") As for accusations, you, yourself, called Herrington's blog post, "slanderous" and said that "the media" should be "legally liable for...personal attacks."

Well, there are laws governing what the media can and can't do. Generally, it's the law of defamation, and in relation to published media, it's slander and the public figure doctrine. Look it up and educate yourself. Moreover, tort law governs what lay people say, write, print or otherwise publish or communicate. It's the law of defamation in general. Generally, if you make a false statement about someone that does damage to them, usually their reputation, you're flirting with legal liability.

Chris Herrington has not defamed Allen Iverson. The quotes attributed to Iverson are true and verifiable. The discussion Herrington has presented concerning those remarks are not actionable as defamation. Allen Iverson is a public figure, and Chris Herrington is free to discuss him publicly as long as he is not knowingly making factually false statements about him.

However, there have been some unsubstantiated, cavalier accusations thrown around underneath his blog post.

@Herodotus, I think you were so preoccupied in trying to seem so supremely intellegent, that you lost yourself in all that unnecessary dribble, so if my comment was misunderstood, please let me clear it up.
My comment is NOT in reference to Mr. Herrington, nor his article. It is referencing sports journalism in america in general. Mr. Herrington has already through prior reports made it perfectly clear how he feels about Iverson's position in Memphis, and I have not commented on it because it's his opinion. And I also think I stated several times, that my comments were my opinions, which I am entitled to. So if you do, or do not agree with my comments, does not mean that much to me.
As far as my education level, that is none of your business, or concern, so please keep your personal sentiments about me to yourself. If I happen to agree with statements by others that have posted them, that to is my perrogative, and there is no rule here that say's, "You can't reply if you agree". It sure does not stop those who disagree from posting and I see you have to comment about that.
I have not personally attacked anyone here, and I won't . This is open forum. If there is some problem with the comments I have posted, I would think Mr. Herrington himself would let me know. My comments are to hopefully give readers a different perspective, no more, no less. If it strikes a bad chord with you, sorry, that's not the intent. But it has been said that sometimes the truth hurts...

@Herodutos, I also noticed that all of your comments posted here, are about what someone else has commented. You have no postings or thoughts about the actual flow of the games. I am a HUGH basketball fan, I love watching the games, and seeing them played the right way. The way Jordan played, at the highest level of passion and true competition. Without all these distractions and implications being thrown around. Blameing the players for the results of teams, and not those who are the true decision makers. So I'm wondering do you even watch the games at all, or just here to confront, and belittle others who post, you know, being messy...?

I didn't read the vast majority of the comments here, but I want to make a few points about this article.

Chris, you made some very valid points about how ridiculous it was for AI to complain after only one game back from an injury. In that situation there is no logical reason for him to complain the way he did to the press. I am sure the training staff told him they wanted to limit his minutes. Also, complaining to the press puts Hollins in a tough position. Even if he was planning to move AI to the starting spot in the near future, now if he does it TOO soon he looks like a weak coach to the fans and the team. This was the kind of complaint that AI should have brought to Hollins behind closed doors.

Now, having said all that... let's get to the real issue here. Should AI or Conley be starting? If he is healthy, then AI should play ahead of Conley. Period.

Let's lay out the facts:

AI is a hall of famer who has proven in the last two games that he still has plenty in the tank. All the talk about him being washed up is obvious BS at this point. He looks just like the same player he has always been. Blowing by defenders and creating his own shot at will.

On the other hand we have Mike Conley. Let me be 100% honest. Even if AI wasn't on this team right now, I would be strongly questioning whether or not Mike Conley should be the starting PG. He has been in the league for over two years now, and the coach is STILL having to remind him to be aggressive. Constantly. If left to his own decision-making, Conley still reverts to dribbling 15 seconds of the shot clock, and then desperately looking for someone to pass the ball to who can shoot.

So, you have two players. One is a hall-of-famer who still has all-star ability. The other has proven time and again that he is not a starting-caliber PG. And your argument is that the second of those two should be starting ahead of the hall-of-famer?

Let me ask this a different way Chris. Put aside the spin-doctoring about "every team needs a scorer off the bench" for a second. In fact, leave AI out of the equation. Here is my question: Why should Mike Conley still be starting for this team? Has he proven to be the point guard that this team envisioned when they drafted him 2 years ago? Is he the right player to play alongside OJ Mayo?

I argued that Conley should have been traded during the off-season. I still think that would have been best for this team. He is a nice kid, but his NBA career will be spent in one of two roles. He will either be the starting PG on bad teams, or a reserve on good teams. If the Grizz are hoping to be a good team, Conley cannot be the starting PG.

The Grizzlies need to find the right long-term backcourt partner for Mayo. That's clearly not going to be Iverson and it's probably not going to be Conley either. I was an advocate for drafting Ricky Rubio, Tyreke Evans, Stephen Curry, or even James Harden on draft day rather than Thabeet.

But my argument on this issue — and I may well be wrong about it — has nothing whatsoever to do with pitting Iverson against Conley. There are 96 backcourt minutes in a game and, unless a game slips away, they are all equally important. The question at hand is how those minutes should be distributed among the team's three guards, both in terms of amount of minutes and at what point in the game individual players get those minutes.

As I've pointed out, the Grizzlies have been doing fine at the start of games, but letting games slips away in the middle and struggling late. If Iverson can impact the team, and I think he can, that impact is most needed in the middle (where the bench is otherwise a wasteland) and late (where his experience, aggressiveness, and shot-creation is more valuable). Iverson entering the game midway through the first quarter doesn't in any way prevent him from playing more minutes and (obviously) taking more shots than Conley or from finishing games.

The focus on starting vs. not starting is more about perception and ego than basketball. But, like I also said in this post, if trying to use Iverson in that role (a role clearly envisioned by the organization dating to Michael Heisley's public statements from the summer) creates a huge distraction, it's not a battle worth fighting. Make him a starter and juggle your rotation in a way that keeps scorers on the floor without over-working all your starters.

Iverson has looked good so far, but I still have concerns about how his style of play will impact Mayo's touches and shots and the team's use of an inside game that is probably it's most effective and efficient way to score. We won't have a handle on that stuff until we have a bigger sample of games to look at, so let's see how it plays out.

Mike Conley is a secondary consideration in all of this and essentially a distraction from larger questions.

Well, who says Allen is still at the level of a starting point guard? Simply put, he is 34 years old and worn out. He is delusional if he thinks he still has the same abilities that he had a decade ago, and it's because he has always played all out.

This is NOT the Allen Iverson of 2001, and Heisley was foolish for signing him if AI thought he was going to come out and be a star here. Those days are over, and sadly, he seems to be the only one who fails to realize this. His heart may say so, but his body laughs at that.

Thanks for the reply Chris. I agree that AI may not be the perfect fit. And I was also a huge advocate of taking Rubio, Evans, etc in the draft. But it doesn't change the fact that in the first few games of this season, I have watched Conley do all the wrong things yet again.

AI may not be the best fit, but in both of the last two games the team went on it's biggest runs when the line-up was AI, OJ, Rudy, Zach, and Marc. Things came to a screeching hault when Conley was put back in. That may be a coincidence, but I don't think so. AI may not be the best back-court team-mate for OJ, but in my opinion he is a monumental upgrade over Conley.

I agree though that things will play out soon enough, and then we will have some real answers to our questions. (No pun intended) Hollins is going to be forced to start AI or give him huge minutes by the fans if no one else, and we will see what happens.

AS Iverson goes, so go the Grizzlies. If he flies into the frontcourt and passes to guys on the move before the defense has a chance to set up, there will be a ton of easy baskets for everyone, AI included. This was how it went in the 1st quarter last night. If he dominates the ball, guys start standing around, and if he does pass it to them, they are flat footed and forced to create from scratch. This results in wasted time, bad shots and general confusion, as evidenced in the second half last night. As the game progressed, the energy (enthusiasm) level got lower and lower until they were DOA in the fourth quarter. AI has tremendous skills, but he also has tremendous will and when he is on the court he dictates the tempo. He is not going to change, nor fit into any meeker role. If his teammates respond to Iverson's strengths, everyone will fluorish. If not, it will be a really long season.

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.
---
I would take the scoring talents of the Nuggetts and the Pistons over the Grizz....

There would be a story here if Mike Conley was Derrick Rose or even Ricky Rubio. But it's Mike Conley we're talking about. He's played 140 games as a pro, the Grizz have had a sub .400 record with him in the lineup and a 2-23 record vs. the Cavs, Magic, Lakers, Spurs and Nuggets, he's recorded a grand total of 4 double-doubles in his career, scored 20 or more points 9 times and shoots rarely but still poorly (43%). Quite frankly, if it was Tyronne Lue instead of AI Lue would have a legit beef about not starting over Conley. The Grizz have never won a playoff game, much less a playoff series. AI has been the best player on 8 playoff teams and lead those teams to 5 series wins and an eastern conference championship. Those 5 elite teams that Conley has a 2-23 career record against? Last year, in the worst year of his career, AI was the best player on the floor for the Pistons in wins at Lakers, at Spurs, at Denver and at home vs. the Cavs and Magic. This is the first great player the Grizz have ever had. He's got plenty left in the tank. If Hollins wants to have a job next year he'd better win more games than the 22, 24 and 22 Ws this team has had the past 3 seasons and the 1-4 record they have thus far this year, all of which goes on Conley's resume. If they want to win, they've got to play AI.

I've read all of the post and am confused??? I read Herrington's article three times and am still confused??? How did the post degrade to a conversation about race and anti-establishment??? I'm black and in no way detected a slant to put Iverson in his place. He plays on a team that is over 90% black with a coaching staff that is over 90% black with a couple white foreign players, a white asst coach and he happens to play for a white owner....THAT CALLED HIM!!!

I think the problem we as black people have is we get distracted by what we perceive as a personal afront to our color and outspokeness. This is my opinion and I'm sure those who are in favor of Iverson will disagree with me.

What A.I. did to his team, his coach and the organization was selfish and untimely. Let's take his ability off the table....he can play, PERIOD! But he used the media to voice his displeasure with his playing time. I can't think of a more selfish gesture than that. What was he looking to gain from voicing his frustration so publically? He's lucky the team didn't fine him and that the coach didn't suspend him! If I was the coach I would've done exactly that. No one player is bigger than this team game. If that was the case then Michael Jordon, Magic Johnson and Larry Bird would've won championships without the help of their teams. His comments told his team that he only cared about playing lots of minutes, not in helping them improve.

I think Chris' article very objectively pointed out the benefits of having him come off the bench and he even went so far as to point out to everyone who don't like Conley that yes A.I. is a better athlete...that's not in question. I believe if you asked the coach he would agree as well. But what no one is saying without getting off the subject (with the exception of the author of this article) is that Allen is a better fit as a sixth man. Why do people care if he starts or not??? For all those who feel he should be starting...answer that for me. I've watched basketball all of my life, played it and practically live it and for the life of me can't understand why people think he's being slighted by coming off the bench. So you're telling me that a guy who comes in a game and gets 40 minutes is less than the guy who starts and plays only 8 minutes??? It appears the coach doesn't need Conley to be a scoring threat as a 1st option. They have four other guys to do that...his job is to make sure they get the ball where they can do the most damage. As a 2nd option his job is to make opponents pay for not respecting his ability to score. Look at the final stats last year and you'll notice that Conley was far and away the most efficient from the 3pt line and his assist to turnover ratio. If Iverson is starting Hollins can't guarantee that the ball will be evenly distributed or that Allen will accept the role of playmaker. By my estimation it doesn't sound like most of you want him to be a playmaker either. I will agree with an earlier post that because A.I. has cornrows, tattoos and wears baggy jeans he could be considered anti-establishment...but I also agree with another post that because of those very qualities he's very appealing to a large portion of the Memphis fan base. There's nothing wrong with any of those things...guys around the entire league represent those same things, but the fact still remains that A.I. dissed his teammates and forced his coach to make a stand by speaking out without talking to them first. As someone whose played hoops and been the best player on the team, I would've been pissed if my teammate brought that kind of distraction and attention on top of the fact that the teammate is already getting negative attention as a malcontent. His teammates need to put him in check (not publically but behind closed doors). They need to let him know that he is not the "X" factor...he's one of many that can contribute. Hollins was wise not to get into a public debate or submit to Iverson's outburst. Imagine how this season might've played out if Iverson accepted his role, got meaningful playing time, proved the critics wrong, won the 6th man award and most important helped his team get better through leadership and mentoring??? I have to wonder out loud if he's providing Conley with any mentoring with words of encouragement or direction about how to attack the opponent. My guess is NO and the reason is because he's too worried about getting his. To end...many articles have been written about what his role on the Grizzlies would be and if he would be able to accept them. It has never been a secret that he wasn't going to start...the only secret was the dishonesty of his reply, which begs the question...why would he say no if he's spoken with 29 other teams and said no and then got passed on??? Of course he was going to say yes and that he'd do "whatever" it takes to help the team get better!

If I was coaching him I'd make it abundantly clear that he'd either accept the role given to him or that he should go home and watch the games on tv. That's not about a pissing contest between coach and player, it's about understanding that you are one part of a whole, not the whole. Hollins probably knew having A.I. on the team in a backup role would make him unpopular, but as a coach he has to stick to his plan no matter the chatter....kind of in the way our President has to deal with his critics. The biggest disgrace is, if he doesn't turn his attitude around, not only will he not get re-signed by the Grizzlies, but he'll surely have to retire or go to Europe to play....cuz no other team will touch him. Amazing the consequences of previous choices when they're made from emotion and not logic and big picture thinking...