2011 CB Historical Draft - Draft Thread

[33-00-32]

. . . but isn't it fair to say his reaction to coming off the bench for a team of all time greats would be different than coming off the bench for a team of all time greats?

It's hard to say.  What if AI believed he was better than those all-time greats?  Or what if he thought the ball would be better in his hands, versus Frazier's or Chauncey's or whoever's?

I think it's something legit to take into account.  It's one of the things I was musing about earlier.  Are we to assume that players with these talents all grew up in the same era and formed a league together?  In that case, AI might accept coming off the bench.  However, if it's a situation where the guys were put into a time machine, then I don't think there's any way that AI embraces anything other than a starter's role.

I just don't like judging on something so completely open to interpretation. There's too many directions you could take it.

I agree with this but I don't think anyone can say how ALL of these superstar players are going to react in a reduced role. Also I think AI in the year I chose would have a lot less of an issue than AI at 34 yrs old. I know how most of the panelists feel about AI so for me he will sit the bench the majority of his time.

[StartOrien]

. . . but isn't it fair to say his reaction to coming off the bench for a team of all time greats would be different than coming off the bench for a team of all time greats?

It's hard to say.  What if AI believed he was better than those all-time greats?  Or what if he thought the ball would be better in his hands, versus Frazier's or Chauncey's or whoever's?

I think it's something legit to take into account.  It's one of the things I was musing about earlier.  Are we to assume that players with these talents all grew up in the same era and formed a league together?  In that case, AI might accept coming off the bench.  However, if it's a situation where the guys were put into a time machine, then I don't think there's any way that AI embraces anything other than a starter's role.

I just don't like judging on something so completely open-ended to interpretation.

Then why are you playing this game? I'm being completely serious, this is no more subjective than any other part of this game.

We're hypothetically shoving a ton of great players who for the most part all were the dominate player on their teams who all played big minutes all on a small number of teams. Its very open to interpretation on how well people would succeed in reduced roles.

Boredom at work?

I think when you judge on skill-set and on court chemistry, you're judging something that is open for some interpretation but you could come to a logical conclusion. On court, the pro's and con's of what Allen Iverson could bring to the game are pretty clear. So when you interpret it that way you can come to a logical conclusion.

When you're looking at the mental makeup of a player, I just think there's too many ways to look at it.

-Iverson gets angry and plays bad
-Iverson gets angry and plays good
-Iverson is just honored to be elected as an all time great
-Iverson is so angry that he has to play off the bench he refuses to show up

All of these are legitimate options, and I don't think there's a way that you could give a strong case for either of these options over the other.

Wouldn't you agree that judging players who played in 1960 (smaller, weaker, less efficient, faster paced, no three pointer, different rules, etc.) versus those who played in 2011 is equally open to interpretation, though?

Personally, I do not think so.

[indeedproceed]

. . . but isn't it fair to say his reaction to coming off the bench for a team of all time greats would be different than coming off the bench for a team of all time greats?

It's hard to say.  What if AI believed he was better than those all-time greats?  Or what if he thought the ball would be better in his hands, versus Frazier's or Chauncey's or whoever's?

I think it's something legit to take into account.  It's one of the things I was musing about earlier.  Are we to assume that players with these talents all grew up in the same era and formed a league together?  In that case, AI might accept coming off the bench.  However, if it's a situation where the guys were put into a time machine, then I don't think there's any way that AI embraces anything other than a starter's role.

I just don't like judging on something so completely open to interpretation. There's too many directions you could take it.

I agree with this but I don't think anyone can say how ALL of these superstar players are going to react in a reduced role. Also I think AI in the year I chose would have a lot less of an issue than AI at 34 yrs old. I know how most of the panelists feel about AI so for me he will sit the bench the majority of his time.

What year did you pick?

[indeedproceed]

When you're looking at the mental makeup of a player, I just think there's too many ways to look at it.

-Iverson gets angry and plays bad
-Iverson gets angry and plays good
-Iverson is just honored to be elected as an all time great
-Iverson is so angry that he has to play off the bench he refuses to show up

All of these are legitimate options, and I don't think there's a way that you could give a strong case for either of these options over the other.

When has Allen Iverson ever come off the bench and played better in his life?

[StartOrien]

When you're looking at the mental makeup of a player, I just think there's too many ways to look at it.

-Iverson gets angry and plays bad
-Iverson gets angry and plays good
-Iverson is just honored to be elected as an all time great
-Iverson is so angry that he has to play off the bench he refuses to show up

All of these are legitimate options, and I don't think there's a way that you could give a strong case for either of these options over the other.

When has Allen Iverson ever come off the bench and played better in his life?

I'd ask the same question about 90% of the players in this league.

[wdleehi]

I don't like to bring the element of locker room chemistry into this game, its impossible to judge.

I think as long as you have a pattern of behavior to judge on its a valid concern. This isn't Vietnam, Donnie. There are rules.

You're out of your element, IP.

You're looking for a mental precedent in an unprecedented league. I know there's more to Iverson's character flaws than just one instance, but isn't it fair to say his reaction to coming off the bench for a team of all time greats would be different than coming off the bench for a team of all time greats?

I don't think one could possibly gage how a player would mentally react to this league. So personally, I don't like to see the argument.

Doesn't AI believe he is the greatest of all time?  


Why would he come off the bench?


Heck, why would he worry about getting the other guys touches.  If they are all time greats, they can go out and get their own baskets.



I remember AI talking about playing with Webber after the 1st (and one of the very few) both got 20 points.

Paraphrasing.

"See, it will work.  I got my 20 and he got his 20."

[indeedproceed]

When you're looking at the mental makeup of a player, I just think there's too many ways to look at it.

-Iverson gets angry and plays bad
-Iverson gets angry and plays good
-Iverson is just honored to be elected as an all time great
-Iverson is so angry that he has to play off the bench he refuses to show up

All of these are legitimate options, and I don't think there's a way that you could give a strong case for either of these options over the other.

When has Allen Iverson ever come off the bench and played better in his life?

I'd ask the same question about 90% of the players in this league.

Which you'd than follow up with "How many of those other players also basically talked their way out of a job because they refused to accept a reduced role?"

[Kwhit10]

Some questions:

Memphis:  Do you think choosing Pierce from 01-02 where he was in a mindset of that he is the main guy and more a offensive "hog" (shot 6 3's that year while at a good % albeit) will be a detriment to the team?  Will his effectiveness be limited by playing next to LeBron.  Pierce was a different player then than compared to 2008 where he knew how to play with other greats.

Atlanta:  There are a lot of teams in these exercise that have very good fontlines. Do you see your front court holding your team back at all?

Chicago:  You have a deep team with good ball movement.  Who will be the "go-to-guy" and what type of offense are you planing on playing?  Also are you concerned with the players you've taken and there 3pt shooting or lack there of. (Durant excluded, and Petrovic but I doubt he'll be playing the minutes to get that many shots).

Seattle:  I like your teams diversity and wing players, do you think playing small ball with Pippen at the 4 will be effective against teams with historically great bigs?

Miami: What do you think people are looking and what is your teams greatest strength that gives you advantages over some of the other teams? (I also feel you're underrated  )

Portland: I like the make up of your team, I think you have a good mesh.  How do you see Yao fairing against other bigs? As a lot of them are more agile and athletic than he is.

Dallas:  I love your top players and they can really dominate a game.  However, I think your bench may be one of the weaker ones.  Do you think mixing up some of your top players to play with the bench will be successful? I can't see Shaq, Gervin, and Baylor getting there shots if all on the court at the same time, your thoughts on this?

Los Angeles:  You have a very strong and deep front court.  However, while you have a good defensive back court do how do you think the offensive production from your guards will stack up against this league.

Philly:  Why decide to play Jordan only 34 minutes per game? How do you see Dirk on the defensive end and how to combat his inefficiencies there? What are your thoughts on Dwights production now in a league where the Center position is historically weak facing all time greats who have done what he has done and more and a more comptetive era from a positional stand point?

Indiana: What are your thoughts on Steve Nash's defensive liability coupled with the size advantage many teams will have over Barkley?

Denver: Your team has some high flying wings that I can see flying down the court.  But what are your thoughts on your teams 3pt shooting outside of Cassell and Rip which I don't think you'll be playing that much.

Boston: You chose a lot of bench players that had high scoring averages.  They obviously all won't be able to match the averages from the years you've chosen, how do you see them gelling? Do you ever think to limit the bench play a bit more and increase the minutes of your top players (wings mostly) a little more?

[StartOrien]

When you're looking at the mental makeup of a player, I just think there's too many ways to look at it.

-Iverson gets angry and plays bad
-Iverson gets angry and plays good
-Iverson is just honored to be elected as an all time great
-Iverson is so angry that he has to play off the bench he refuses to show up

All of these are legitimate options, and I don't think there's a way that you could give a strong case for either of these options over the other.

When has Allen Iverson ever come off the bench and played better in his life?

I'd ask the same question about 90% of the players in this league.

Which you'd than follow up with "How many of those other players also basically talked their way out of a job because they refused to accept a reduced role?"

Allen Iverson is not an NBA talent anymore.

As a player who really isn't talented enough to be in the league anymore, he talked his way out of the league, yes.

[indeedproceed]

When you're looking at the mental makeup of a player, I just think there's too many ways to look at it.

-Iverson gets angry and plays bad
-Iverson gets angry and plays good
-Iverson is just honored to be elected as an all time great
-Iverson is so angry that he has to play off the bench he refuses to show up

All of these are legitimate options, and I don't think there's a way that you could give a strong case for either of these options over the other.

When has Allen Iverson ever come off the bench and played better in his life?

I'd ask the same question about 90% of the players in this league.

Which you'd than follow up with "How many of those other players also basically talked their way out of a job because they refused to accept a reduced role?"

Allen Iverson is not an NBA talent anymore

Just answer the question Senator. My point about Iverson (and I'm not making this stink about many other players) is that there is a clear pattern of him putting his own boxscore ahead of or at least on par with the basketball team's success in terms of priorities. Iverson is not a team-first guy, and because of that, and the fact that he's shown he is unwilling to come off the bench even when his game clearly dictated he do so, I think considering the 'chemistry' is a very valid concern.

[StartOrien]

Just answer the question Senator. My point about Iverson (and I'm not making this stink about many other players) is that there is a clear pattern of him putting his own boxscore ahead of or at least on par with the basketball team's success in terms of priorities. Iverson is not a team-first guy, and because of that, and the fact that he's shown he is unwilling to come off the bench even when his game clearly dictated he do so, I think considering the 'chemistry' is a very valid concern

Just so we're on the same page - You're asking me to answer the question I've debated for two pages should be merit-less?

[KCattheStripe]

Some questions:


Seattle:  I like your teams diversity and wing players, do you think playing small ball with Pippen at the 4 will be effective against teams with historically great bigs?

I think I said this already but Scottie's minuetes are in anticipation of small ball,  obviously if no one goes small on us, Scottie will only play the 3.

[indeedproceed]

Just answer the question Senator. My point about Iverson (and I'm not making this stink about many other players) is that there is a clear pattern of him putting his own boxscore ahead of or at least on par with the basketball team's success in terms of priorities. Iverson is not a team-first guy, and because of that, and the fact that he's shown he is unwilling to come off the bench even when his game clearly dictated he do so, I think considering the 'chemistry' is a very valid concern

Just so we're on the same page - You're asking me to answer the question I've debated for two pages should be merit-less?

Yes. Answer the question of based on the empirical data, Iverson's quotes, stories written about Iverson's ego and his own ideal of self, would MVP-era Iverson accept coming off the bench for anyone?

[StartOrien]

Just answer the question Senator. My point about Iverson (and I'm not making this stink about many other players) is that there is a clear pattern of him putting his own boxscore ahead of or at least on par with the basketball team's success in terms of priorities. Iverson is not a team-first guy, and because of that, and the fact that he's shown he is unwilling to come off the bench even when his game clearly dictated he do so, I think considering the 'chemistry' is a very valid concern

Just so we're on the same page - You're asking me to answer the question I've debated for two pages should be merit-less?

Yes. Answer the question of based on the empirical data, Iverson's quotes, stories written about Iverson's ego and his own ideal of self, would MVP-era Iverson accept coming off the bench for anyone?

Based off of all of this information I say he starts off angry, then has a GREAT talk with one of his team leaders and realizes he's been living his life all wrong. He then replaces Neil Young as a member of Crosby, Stills, Nash & Iverson.

On court, he remains an incredibly talented, yet often inefficient scorer who frequently holds the ball for too long. Because of this I think you plan to use him each night but as a coach are ready to give the quick leash. But he's totally cool with that because he's got his music now.

[33-00-32]

. . . but isn't it fair to say his reaction to coming off the bench for a team of all time greats would be different than coming off the bench for a team of all time greats?

It's hard to say.  What if AI believed he was better than those all-time greats?  Or what if he thought the ball would be better in his hands, versus Frazier's or Chauncey's or whoever's?

I think it's something legit to take into account.  It's one of the things I was musing about earlier.  Are we to assume that players with these talents all grew up in the same era and formed a league together?  In that case, AI might accept coming off the bench.  However, if it's a situation where the guys were put into a time machine, then I don't think there's any way that AI embraces anything other than a starter's role.

I just don't like judging on something so completely open to interpretation. There's too many directions you could take it.

I agree with this but I don't think anyone can say how ALL of these superstar players are going to react in a reduced role. Also I think AI in the year I chose would have a lot less of an issue than AI at 34 yrs old. I know how most of the panelists feel about AI so for me he will sit the bench the majority of his time.

What year did you pick?

00-01, he was MVP but it was only his 5th year.