yes I did indeed break it down. either youre blatantly ignoring it, or youre looking for some type of essay. and no, im not just basing it off of the playoff run in 2001. that's moreso just the icing on the cake.
im not into talking in circles dog.
and its pointless, because Iverson isn't even where we really differ. we differ in the fact that I just don't see wade in the same light that you do PERIOD. theres guards that we probably both would put Iverson over that I would still put over wade. you seem to keep ignoring this as well.
ai didnt have it in his dna to weave in and out through traffic like wade in his prime. wade was like barry sanders with a basketball. ai just had that left to right crossover and he never went right to left with it and a lot of quickness. wade could move through a whole team like a running back and work the post on top of that
ai has a better crossover but he doesnt have more handles than wade overall at all
Where we differ is how we judge players. I judge them based upon what they and they alone do on the court. I value impact, versatility, and efficiency. The light I view guys in is completely based on those things. You on the other hand judge guys on team accomplishments (when convenient of course ) and numbers (when convenient) and formulate impact in you mind rather than assessing actual impact on the court.
Anybody can be viewed in any light in my eyes based on what they actually do. Too bad you can't say the same.
I judge players based on team accomplishments now? how long have you seen me posting here?
and the team chit wasn't even my argument. Its just something that I chimed in on after people were already arguing about it.
this chit is getting ridiculous.
I cant get mad at anyone who chooses Wade over Iverson but doesn't longevity and how long you stay at the top of your game count for something too in these mythical all time rankings of players. I am a huge Wade fan but it isn't a good look that he has only played 10 years and was looking washed up for stretches the last couple seasons. Maybe it's the injuries or maybe he's just lost a step too. But having three rings will put him over Iverson when it's all said and done.
I hear dat but length of prime matters too. AI prime years could be considered from 97 to about 2008/2009 which is an incredibly long time for player of his stature. While Wade's prime would be like 2004 to 2010 which is much shorter and thus a reason I could see someone taking Chuck over him. And AI probably wouldn't be willing to do what Wade has done cuz at 30 and 31 he was still near the top of his game and probably wouldn't want to take a backseat to anyone.This is about them in their primes not their entire careers. That said I don't think that prime AI would have been willing/able to do what a hobbled Wade has done the last couple years.