we been waitin all year.can we go deep,i think we need three point shooters to go deep.if we fall behind,we cant fall behind, we have to play flawless.Do we have da talent?
DETROIT BASKETBALL!!!!!!!
Posts: 321 | Location: KCK | Registered: February 21, 2009
No; we really needed Iverson to run the point and be the closer late in games for us in order to have a serious chance at doing anything. Now we're just a vastly inferior version of last years team.
Posts: 1381 | Location: Detroit, MI | Registered: November 05, 2008
Originally posted by tetris: No; we really needed Iverson to run the point and be the closer late in games for us in order to have a serious chance at doing anything. Now we're just a vastly inferior version of last years team.
Iverson doesn't "run the point"... he just dribbles around and zigs and zags until he feels he's open enough to chuck up a shot, or gets caught in mid-air and throws a bad pass into the first row.
WITH Iverson we were "vastly inferior" to last year's team.
Without him, we're last year's team minus Billups. How far we can go will depend on how well the starters hold up and how well the bench players contribute.
Don't count us out just yet.
Posts: 610 | Location: hometown: Detroit | Registered: June 04, 2005
Originally posted by tetris: No; we really needed Iverson to run the point and be the closer late in games for us in order to have a serious chance at doing anything. Now we're just a vastly inferior version of last years team.
Iverson doesn't "run the point"... he just dribbles around and zigs and zags until he feels he's open enough to chuck up a shot, or gets caught in mid-air and throws a bad pass into the first row.
WITH Iverson we were "vastly inferior" to last year's team.
Without him, we're last year's team minus Billups. How far we can go will depend on how well the starters hold up and how well the bench players contribute.
Originally posted by tetris: No; we really needed Iverson to run the point and be the closer late in games for us in order to have a serious chance at doing anything. Now we're just a vastly inferior version of last years team.
Iverson doesn't "run the point"... he just dribbles around and zigs and zags until he feels he's open enough to chuck up a shot, or gets caught in mid-air and throws a bad pass into the first row.
WITH Iverson we were "vastly inferior" to last year's team.
Without him, we're last year's team minus Billups. How far we can go will depend on how well the starters hold up and how well the bench players contribute.
Don't count us out just yet.
When has AI done that this year?
In those games in which Stuckey was coming off the bench and Iverson and Rip were starting... AI was supposed to be "running the point" then but it didn't work, leading to "small ball" and the other starting lineup trials.
Iverson's a shoot-first guard... he rarely "runs the point" in a distributive manner.
Posts: 610 | Location: hometown: Detroit | Registered: June 04, 2005
Originally posted by tetris: No; we really needed Iverson to run the point and be the closer late in games for us in order to have a serious chance at doing anything. Now we're just a vastly inferior version of last years team.
Iverson doesn't "run the point"... he just dribbles around and zigs and zags until he feels he's open enough to chuck up a shot, or gets caught in mid-air and throws a bad pass into the first row.
WITH Iverson we were "vastly inferior" to last year's team.
Without him, we're last year's team minus Billups. How far we can go will depend on how well the starters hold up and how well the bench players contribute.
Don't count us out just yet.
Without Iverson trying to score every other possession we're a better team, I agree. He was a cancer when played like that. If he had came back and took on a more versatile role though, we could have serious been tittle contenders.
And I have no doubts Iverson could have ran the point though if someone had asked him to. I believe it was Joe and Curry that kept egging him on, telling him to be more aggressive offensively. Or maybe Iverson just wanted to play his way? idk. He's definitely would have made a better point guard than Stuckey for sure though imo. He has that court vision and experience Stuckey doesn't have, he's a better passer and more dynamic play maker than Stuckey is. It would have helped Stuckeys growth tredmouslsy as well. We'd have a nice and polished prolific scorer instead of a tentative point guard right about now if they had asked Iverson to run the team and let Stuckey handle the scoring. And once again, we lack that killer instinct guy. Somebody like LeBron or Kobe who can single handily take over a game in the fourth quarter.
All I'm saying is that we needed what Iverson could have potentially brought to the team.
Posts: 1381 | Location: Detroit, MI | Registered: November 05, 2008
Originally posted by tetris: No; we really needed Iverson to run the point and be the closer late in games for us in order to have a serious chance at doing anything. Now we're just a vastly inferior version of last years team.
Iverson doesn't "run the point"... he just dribbles around and zigs and zags until he feels he's open enough to chuck up a shot, or gets caught in mid-air and throws a bad pass into the first row.
WITH Iverson we were "vastly inferior" to last year's team.
Without him, we're last year's team minus Billups. How far we can go will depend on how well the starters hold up and how well the bench players contribute.
Don't count us out just yet.
Without Iverson trying to score every other possession we're a better team, I agree. He was a cancer when played like that. If he had came back and took on a more versatile role though, we could have serious been tittle contenders.
And I have no doubts Iverson could have ran the point though if someone had asked him to. I believe it was Joe and Curry that kept egging him on, telling him to be more aggressive offensively. Or maybe Iverson just wanted to play his way? idk. He's definitely would have made a better point guard than Stuckey for sure though imo. He has that court vision and experience Stuckey doesn't have, he's a better passer and more dynamic play maker than Stuckey is. It would have helped Stuckeys growth tredmouslsy as well. We'd have a nice and polished prolific scorer instead of a tentative point guard right about now if they had asked Iverson to run the team and let Stuckey handle the scoring. And once again, we lack that killer instinct guy. Somebody like LeBron or Kobe who can single handily take over a game in the fourth quarter.
All I'm saying is that we needed what Iverson could have potentially brought to the team.
One name. Bynum.
Posts: 217 | Location: Kalamazoo/Detroit | Registered: January 07, 2009
Here's a question. Is the combination of Stuckey and Bynum better than Billups?
Because Chauncey is having such a great year, people forget how he has disappeared in the playoffs recently. I have to think Stuckey/Bynum can't be much worse.
Billups was as responsible as anyone for the ECF's losses to Miami and Cleveland. He was dominated in those series by Jayson Williamns and Boobie Gibson. I love Billups, but he hadn't been Mr. Big Shot in Detroit for a while.
"Dwayne gets in the habit of falling when he doesn't need to."~Pat Riley
Posts: 446 | Location: Grand Rapids | Registered: December 13, 2005
Originally posted by ianprizatt: Billups was as responsible as anyone for the ECF's losses to Miami and Cleveland. He was dominated in those series by Jayson Williamns and Boobie Gibson. I love Billups, but he hadn't been Mr. Big Shot in Detroit for a while.
Originally posted by tetris: No; we really needed Iverson to run the point and be the closer late in games for us in order to have a serious chance at doing anything. Now we're just a vastly inferior version of last years team.
Iverson doesn't "run the point"... he just dribbles around and zigs and zags until he feels he's open enough to chuck up a shot, or gets caught in mid-air and throws a bad pass into the first row.
WITH Iverson we were "vastly inferior" to last year's team.
Without him, we're last year's team minus Billups. How far we can go will depend on how well the starters hold up and how well the bench players contribute.
Don't count us out just yet.
When has AI done that this year?
In those games in which Stuckey was coming off the bench and Iverson and Rip were starting... AI was supposed to be "running the point" then but it didn't work, leading to "small ball" and the other starting lineup trials.
Iverson's a shoot-first guard... he rarely "runs the point" in a distributive manner.
you watched the early games or not? A.I was passing a lot, RIP and Tay just weren't hitting their regular shots...
Originally posted by tetris: No; we really needed Iverson to run the point and be the closer late in games for us in order to have a serious chance at doing anything. Now we're just a vastly inferior version of last years team.
Iverson doesn't "run the point"... he just dribbles around and zigs and zags until he feels he's open enough to chuck up a shot, or gets caught in mid-air and throws a bad pass into the first row.
WITH Iverson we were "vastly inferior" to last year's team.
Without him, we're last year's team minus Billups. How far we can go will depend on how well the starters hold up and how well the bench players contribute.
Don't count us out just yet.
When has AI done that this year?
In those games in which Stuckey was coming off the bench and Iverson and Rip were starting... AI was supposed to be "running the point" then but it didn't work, leading to "small ball" and the other starting lineup trials.
Iverson's a shoot-first guard... he rarely "runs the point" in a distributive manner.
you watched the early games or not? A.I was passing a lot, RIP and Tay just weren't hitting their regular shots...
i really think A.I,is our best chance.because if we had a player that was able to take us to the next level,we wouldnt have gave up bigshot.b real,rip is good but he is no 23 or 24.the playoffs are here and you know what that means.win or go home.roll players know your roll,the reall superstars,its time to stand up.A.I,rip,prince,mcdizzle,and sheed.i know fans think A.i is a curse.but its up to the coach to know your players,to know what theyre strenghs and weaknesses are and use them.A.i has been treated like s..t every since he's been here.we went and got him,he didnt ask to come here.u cant fault a guy for bein himself.Detroit basketball!!!!!!!!
DETROIT BASKETBALL!!!!!!!
Posts: 321 | Location: KCK | Registered: February 21, 2009
The talent is not there. They need a starter to step up and become the perimeter shooter that Billups was. Billups took over games in the 4th with his shooting and clock management, and wanted to take the "big shot" to win or tie at the end.
Also, the first big man off the bench, Maxiell, is too short for many matchups. We were better when McDyess was coming off the bench.
Wallace has slowed down, and he and Dyess together cannot run the floor, or effectively defend perimeter shooters. We need a big man in the lineup who can run on both offense and defense, and can close on perimeter shooters. Also, Sheed is inconsistent offensively, having two bad games for every good one.
With both Sheed and Dyess starting, I also worry about what happens if both get into early foul trouble. That happened last year against Boston.
Dave B
Posts: 1141 | Location: Las Vegas | Registered: October 10, 2007
Copyright 2005 NBA Media Ventures, LLC. All rights reserved. No portion of NBA.com may be
duplicated, redistributed or manipulated in any form. By accessing any information beyond this page, you agree to abide by
the NBA.com Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. Employment
opportunities
