if jennings was the next iverson?
- Thread starter ivan_fiba
- Start date
Big Cuz 15
All-Star
if another team was breaking the bank to get him in a trade w us.. then yes. i'm not a fan of the iverson pound the ball for 20 seconds of the shot clock then throw up a shot.
Last edited:
Widowmaker2k
Bench
If Jennings were the next Iverson? Then yes, I'd be all for getting him. AI is not my ideal type of superstar, but a superstar he is/was, and that's the one thing we need most of all. Also, if he was a surefire superstar, he'd be the #1 pick in the draft, and we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
If he were truly Iversonesque in ability? Then obviously you take him -- that's obviously best talent available. Then you figure out what to do afterwards.
But this Jennings as Iverson figure Chad Ford crap is probably just that -- crap. From what I've seen the kid LIKES to pass. He's a damn nifty passer. He's a PG. He's just likely an undisciplined and none too bright chuckmeister of a PG without the knowledge of how to guide a team. That's a different animal.
bajaden
Hall of Famer
If I could draft another Iverson with a different mind set, I would be all over it. And as much as I don't like the current Iverson model, I have to agree with Bricky that I would take him and figure it out later. I do think that Ford needs to get more sleep. He's starting to halucinate..
Vlade4GM
All-Star
I think the more tricky question is whether he's the next Marbury. With Iverson at least he can be an elite scorer, and as we saw, he can win with the right group of players around him (defensive oriented players who can spot up). Marbury is different however, you try to build an offense around him (which is the only way to do it since he sucks up the ball and the clock) and you end up with a pretty mediocre team because he's just not the elite scorer that Iverson is, nor is he much of a true facilitator. Regardless of how overrated I think Marbury was as a player, he still was highly thought of around the league and made a ton of money, so I might just draft him to trade him down the road.
Yeah, if Jennings really was the next Iverson he'd be the first pick in this draft, but I also don't see that comparison at all.
To me the best comparison I can think of is Kenny Anderson. Jennings shows better potential as a shooter and hasn't shown Anderson's ability to finish when there are bodies in the lane, but otherwise I think it's pretty apt. Both are slippery quick PGs with handles, good vision and slight frames. And like Anderson I think injuries have to be a real concern with a player like Jennings.
Again, my concern with Jennings isn't that he's a "scoring" guard and not a point guard - he has all the PG skills - it's that I'm not sure he "gets it" or ever will.
Vlade4GM
All-Star
What makes you say that?
Because even though his shot mechanics need a lot of work, he squares up well even off the dribble and has a talent for creating separation to get his shot off. I could see him coming into the league as a poor shooter but having his shot (especially his midrange game) become a real strength if he's committed to it. I also think out of self-preservation he'll learn to pull up to protect himself.
But as with all things related to Brandon Jennings I have no idea how committed he is to being a great PG.
kingsnation
All-Star
If he was Iverson with a pass first mentality and a team-first attitude who was willing to listen to his coaches and learn, then yeah I'd take him.
Of course, I guess if he was all those things, he wouldn't be the next Iverson at all, would he??
Of course, I guess if he was all those things, he wouldn't be the next Iverson at all, would he??
Vlade4GM
All-Star
Okay, but why better than Kenny Anderson? He shot 40% for 3 in his freshman season at GT, that sounds a lot more advanced than Jennings is at the same stage in their careers.
Telemachus
Starter
No. I have never been a fan of Iverson's game. I like that he leaves it all out on the floor every night, but don't like how he rarely gives his teammates a chance to do the same. Great players should make their teammates better in some way, and Iverson has always made them invisible.
That's a somewhat surprising stat to me. I watched Anderson in college but was just a kid at the time and don't remember it vividly. Of course, that was also the college rather than the NBA three point line but still.
What I remember on the NBA level was a guy with a wildly inconsistent outside shot and a pull up game that never developed like it should have, though he could hit 15-18 footers with regularity, especially after rubbing his man off a screen. Anderson got a lot of looks because guys feared him taking them off the dribble, giving him some room to shoot. Had he really worked on his shot (including at the FT line) he could have been a much better player. He also was a gifted passer but would go through ball hogging stretches similar to what I think you'll see from Jennings.
Anderson didn't truly understand how to be a PG on the NBA level until late in his career when he was already slowed by injuries.
C
Chigusa
Guest
Nighthawk1
Starter
If he were Iverson sure I'd draft him, then trade his *** in a couple years!
kennadog
Dog On It!
There you go, adding some realistic perspective.
Arby's Roast Beef
Starter
He has some real good playmaking skills, even extending back to his high school days (he averaged 12 assists/game one year) but further validated by his EuroLeague numbers. He really had struggles shooting the ball in Europe and scoring efficiently, but I think that was the byproduct of being in a new environment where he initially didn't receive much playing time--because if you saw this guy in his senior year of high school, he was a flat-out scorer (albeit by necessity)--he hit 13 threes and had 65 pts in one game. I think the up-tempo NBA game would cater to his waterbug scoring tendencies, but at the same time he's also a legitimate passer--I think he's like a chameleon who can operate as either pure PG or pure SG, or combo guard, when the situation calls for it, at full potential. I know there are questions about past maturity, but I thought he was level headed considering the circumstances at Europe, and I think he'll do well in this league. As for the next Iverson? Maybe a poor man's version. Iverson actually had court vision and could pass well along the flow of his points, and Jennings I can forsee him being of that mold. I don't think he'll quite gain Iverson's primacy at all, and I'm not sure if he even has Iverson's physical and mental toughness at this stage of the game.
Last edited:
upinsmoke
All-Star
You might just be right his game does resemble Stephon's more than anyone else in the way he attacks the basket. That being said Jennings does not look like he is a selfish player like Stephon is. In fact Jennings or Rubio might not be able to contribute right away but thats okay because both have a huge amount of potential to be great in their own way.
Last edited by a moderator:
Gary
All-Star
Ditto.. I wouldn't want Iverson even if they gave him to us. Iverson, after leaving the Nuggets, made them better.. So I figure he would make the team better by not being here.
Vlade4GM
All-Star
Iverson can be very effective when the offense is centered around him, that wasn't the case in Denver. Also, he's not the player he used to be. Do I take rookie Iverson over players available to us in this draft? Definitely. Do I plan on keeping him long term? Probably not.
Vlade4GM
All-Star
How so?
fxhsurjono
G-League
i think jennings is very iversonesque he has the dribble and speed has a shaky shot but i think he'll develop it. marbury needed spot up shooters to compliment his game, guys who can spread the floor liek tim thomas in ny and i think jennings is a better player in that he's more all around, he can pass, prolly his most underrated ability. the guy didnt get any playing time in euro so when you dont get consistent pt you wont get consisten stats. so i wouldnt grade jennings on his stats in euro. i think he's a better player than marbury and a more selfless player than iverson. he's right in the middle. and if rubio was off the board it would be a toss up between jennings, flynn, jrue and tyreke. but i think its a blessing in disguise that jennings didnt do well in euro, that means he'll drop down to 4 
but if he was availible i'd draft him. plus the fact that i love the trash talking type of dude who leaves it all on the floor. we need that type of swagger in sac-town.
but if he was availible i'd draft him. plus the fact that i love the trash talking type of dude who leaves it all on the floor. we need that type of swagger in sac-town.
Vlade4GM
All-Star
Flynn is more of a leave it all on the floor type of guy than Jennings is IMO. That's a real subjective and vague expression though.
How is trash talking ever a positive? It may not always be a big negative, but I fail to see how it proves something positive. Lots of players trash talk, doesn't mean they have swagger or some kind of star quality about them. Trash talk is more often a symptom of insecurity than anything else IMO. Players who are confident in their abilities don't need to brag or put other players down, especially the latter.
As far as straight up talent goes, Marbury had more than Jennings does. Marbury was much stronger, a better shooter, and better finisher. He was just as good of a passer ball handler than Jennings. The problem with Marbury is that the didn't know how to run an offense, he was a 1-on-1 player; which is the same concern with Jennings. I really don't see how someone can safely say at this point that he'll be any different than Marbury, except maybe Marbury with lesser talent. Jennings has not shown a higher mental accumen or propensity to get his teammates involved than Marbury did at the same stage in their careers. That's not to say he's damned to be a Marbury clone, but as far as him being different than Marbury as far as being a facilitator and decision maker, it's all projection rather than what he's shown so far, and there isn't much evidence to project from.
How is trash talking ever a positive? It may not always be a big negative, but I fail to see how it proves something positive. Lots of players trash talk, doesn't mean they have swagger or some kind of star quality about them. Trash talk is more often a symptom of insecurity than anything else IMO. Players who are confident in their abilities don't need to brag or put other players down, especially the latter.
As far as straight up talent goes, Marbury had more than Jennings does. Marbury was much stronger, a better shooter, and better finisher. He was just as good of a passer ball handler than Jennings. The problem with Marbury is that the didn't know how to run an offense, he was a 1-on-1 player; which is the same concern with Jennings. I really don't see how someone can safely say at this point that he'll be any different than Marbury, except maybe Marbury with lesser talent. Jennings has not shown a higher mental accumen or propensity to get his teammates involved than Marbury did at the same stage in their careers. That's not to say he's damned to be a Marbury clone, but as far as him being different than Marbury as far as being a facilitator and decision maker, it's all projection rather than what he's shown so far, and there isn't much evidence to project from.
Last edited:
I've seen a lot of players trash talk and it has nothing to do with them being insecure. Most players talk to get in opponents heads obviously. Most athletes view it as a challenge but tend to make poor decisions because they get angry.
Some of the best trash talkers: Michael Jordan, Ali, OchoCinco, TO, Gary Payton, Tyson, Deion Sanders, Charles Barkley, Mayweather JR, Larry Bird, and many others I probably don't know about.
Vlade4GM
All-Star
Yeah, most of the time it probably means nothing, but I don't think it's ever a sign of some great positive thing. Especially when the trash talking we're referring to with Jennings was done off the court.
Nighthawk1
Starter
Trash talkers, some are attention whores and some just do it in competition. The attention whores generally aren't all they're cracked up to be for winning championships. For one take out the boxers because they all trash talk but it's an individual competition. Now you're left with a list of good players, but only a few of them actually ever won or will win a championship. The ones that have won it usually leave it hanging on the court/field. Trash talking is fine, but when you become a distraction talking it and make it about you and not about the team it is a problem.
Last edited:
