DFDepressed FanDepressed Fan

All  

Sixers

, all the time

MLE For A PG?

user-pic
Real and Speightacular on Jun 17 at 7:18
+/-

Good argument, Brian. I love Sessions and I like Felton but I guess those guys are better fits for more traditional offenses where it's not a major priority for the point guard to be a great jump shooter; the emphasis is on distributing the ball smartly w/o turning it over a jillion times, drive and kick and that sort of thing. I'm no Princeton guru, I barely get the gist of it, but is that system predicated on the point guard having a good jump shot or having some jump shooters on the floor. I thought it was more about guys running around and moving the ball around until an opening/mismatch is found.

I don't know if the problem is the point guard per se but that none of the other four guys can do it well either (Brand, Iggy, Thad, Sam). But, yes, since the point would be the new one, I guess he might as well be the designated shooter. Unless they intend to mix in Kapono more often somehow.

Side note: check out their list of how conference picks do once in the NBA. ACC rulez, Southern (Curry's conference), apparently, drewlz.

Brian, good argument for not acquiring any of those guys with exception of Kidd. I go back to the suggestion of signing AMILL and if possible, sending him to Portland for Blake(last year of contract), plus. If not, then let AMILL walk. How about Jarret jack? Isn't he out there? He'd probably fit better than any of those others.

user-pic
bebopdeluxe on Jun 17 at 8:03
+/-

If we are going to stay at 17 and draft the best PG available, it makes ZERO sense to then take the full MLE to draft a PG like Sessions who 1) can only play the point, 2) is young enough and good enough to expect to be the starting PG for the next 5 years and 3) a guy who is a WORSE outside shooter than Miller...

(think about that last point again...and again...)

This team needs outside shooting. This team need better low-post play. We simply cannot waste BOTH of our major bullets this summer (say, Maynor and Sessions) on the same position - unless one of these guys can shoot the rock.

(I would make an exception for a 2-year deal for Kidd)

If we are going to take Maynor or Lawson, better to use the MLE on a shooter (Parker) or a big (Gortat), and then use the biannual exemption to get the best stop-gap PG available. I would even rather do a S&T of Miller with Portland to get Blake as a one-year stop-gap than make a 5-year committment with our MLE for a pure PG...at least somebody like Jack can eventually slide over and take Green's place in the rotation.

user-pic
Real and Speightacular reply to bebopdeluxe on Jun 17 at 8:40
+/-

Agreed. Discussing this w/o the context of the overall strategy is going to tie us up in knots. The assumption is then, as Brian already stated, that they're not going to draft a point guard.

How about using LWill in a trade up for Gerald Henderson. Or maybe they're going for Terrence Williams as a lock-down defender, facilitator and (eventually, cuz he's not really there now) occasional 3pt shooter? Or maybe it's Chase Budinger, a decent all-rounder.

Head is spinning regarding Detroit rumors out there(signing BGordon). Wacky thought. Sign $ trade of AMILL(might need more salary) for Richard Hamilton(last year of deal). Still would need a veteran point guard.

user-pic
deepsixersuede on Jun 17 at 8:29
+/-

Who has more experience with the ball in their hands,Sessions or L.Will.?Who is quicker? Who is the better shooter?In two years who is the better player? Everytime we talk about p.g.!s I compare them to the guy already here.At #17 I like Lawson but don!t know if Maynor, a scoring p.g., is better than L.Will.Our coach says we need a combo guy,not a pure p.g. and that description fits who? I would rather start L.Will.,draft a young p.g.,and use the m.l.e. on another spot than pay it on a p.g. also,as bebopdeluxe says.A trio of L.Will.,Lawson and either Watson [shooter] or a defeensive vet[A.Johnson?] works for me.

user-pic
deepsixersuede on Jun 17 at 8:42
+/-

Per 36 min.#;
Felton;4o%,32%,79%,14pts.,7ass.,3turn.
sessions;44%,22%,79%,15pts,8ass.,3turn.
williams;42%,32%77%,18 pts,5ass.,3 turn

user-pic
deepsixersuede on Jun 17 at 8:55
+/-

On Hoopshype rumors,4th paragraph down, interesting story,sounds like Lawson won!t be there at #17.

That's a good article. Very interesting draft. I suspect the players with "potential" but questionable track records in college or Europe will drop abit.

So now we believe agents do we?

For those who can't get tired of looking at various numbers and 'rankings' of prospects

http://www.draftexpress.com/article/Just-By-the-Numbers-This-Years-Point-Guard-Crop-3262/

More interesting stuff! Can't wait for this draft!

http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?story_id=12972

user-pic
Sean reply to sfw on Jun 17 at 10:59
+/-

Looking at that article, one thing jumped out to me: Minnesota "selling" or trading #18. Could the Sixers get back to back picks? Are we talking a UNC reunion of Lawson & Ellington? I wish.

IMO, the only PG they might go after would be Kidd. I do believe they will draft a PG, either Lawson or Maynor(possibly Flynn). They also seem okay with starting Lou at one guard spot. IMO, I think that if they use the MLE money at all, it will be for another shooter(i.e. Parker or Carney) not a point or a big.

As far as this whole Dala, Thad Brand Frontcourt, I think that is the plan because they do not trust any of their other bigs as being "deserving" of starting, especially since they seem to be gung-ho about dumping Sam. I guess the question to everyone is does anybody think that Speights or Smith could play well enough in training camp to force Jordan into a starting spot next to Brand, therefore sliding Dala and Thad back to their proper places?

Both need to get much stronger and improve defensively. Hopefully they do.

user-pic
john reply to Sean on Jun 17 at 10:59
+/-

They also seem okay with starting Lou at one guard spot.

Then they should both be fired immediately

That's the impression I've gotten as well. They're looking to fill out one guard position, with Lou playing the other. I guess we'll have to see what happens in the draft, free agency and training camp, but I believe if the season started today, the starting five would Lou, Kapono, Iguodala, Thad and Brand.

user-pic
john reply to Brian on Jun 17 at 11:06
+/-

Oh my god - seriously - i didn't think i could see a starting five I liked worse than the one with sam and willie in it - but there you go you proved me wrong...again - starting 2 bench players and 2 guys out of position.

Woo hoo - mediocrity here we come.

Sigh

user-pic
Sean reply to Brian on Jun 17 at 11:12
+/-

You are probably right. I think that Sam sealed his doom with that Hedo-Kiss in game 6. So if you eliminate Sam as an option, without knowing who you can get back(vlad/Nazr?), the really sad thing is that the 5 you suggest would be the most trustworthy option right now. Speights is a question mark, so is Smith. And Kapono is better then Green. Who else is left?

Fortunately, the Season doesn't start now, isn't it?

user-pic
john reply to Sean on Jun 17 at 11:18
+/-

You are probably right. I think that Sam sealed his doom with that Hedo-Kiss in game 6

If this has anything to do with it then the lunatics really are running the asylum.

Sam sealed his doom by whining, not getting better, and the sixers hiring a coach whose offensive system he sinks faster than an iceberg on a cruise ship...his hedo kiss should have NOTHING to do with it - if it does it really is a franchise I'll give up on and root for the Cilippers, or Hawks, or Warriors, cause those would be better run teams.

And Kapono is better then Green. Who else is left?

At shooting the three - what else is he better than Green at?

user-pic
Sean reply to john on Jun 17 at 11:40
+/-

Hence, why I said "sealed it." Or, if you prefer, the straw that broke the camel's back. I think that Game 6 was the culmination of years of frustration with Sam that pretty much crystalized who Sam is as a Sixer. He got majorly outplayed by the opponents back-up, and embarrasses himself and the organization by flinging elbows then kissing guys like being eliminated was one big joke. Especially when the crowd booed loudly when the PA announcer corrected his earlier misstatement that Sam had been ejected and was allowed to stay in. I think that was the moment when they said "enough's enough." There is no getting through.

RE: Kapono v Green,

He is a better fit with the proposed lineup because he can shoot. He might not be an outright better player, but he is a better fit as a starter in that unit. That is what I meant. Green is a better fit off the bench.

user-pic
john reply to Sean on Jun 17 at 11:43
+/-

I prefer that it have ABSOLUTELY NO IMPACT on the franchise - id on't care if it bothers fans - i care if the franchise thinks it matters - if the folk running the franchise think it matters ONE IOTA - even if it's a 'straw' - it's ridiculous.

user-pic
Sean reply to john on Jun 17 at 12:02
+/-

Why would it have no impact? It actually reinforces every negative about Sam in one little capsule: His lack of maturity and discipline as well as his lack of toughness. Was it illuminating? No, not in the slightest. But I think that Game 6 was a real watershed moment for him, culminating in that moment.

user-pic
john reply to Sean on Jun 17 at 12:06
+/-

And I think fans and the media tend to blow things like this out of proportion - constantly - because it offends 'them' - it didn't offend me - it's insignificant to me - irrelevant to me - it shouldn't mean anything to the franchise either - if they were unsure and then suddenly 'oh yeah let's trad ehim now'...that's like the suns saying 'well shaq is a fat idiot who thinks people care about his twitter' so now we REALLY should trade him.


user-pic
Sean reply to john on Jun 17 at 12:17
+/-

Not quite,

I would say that this year has seemed to be about marginalizing Sam because they do not trust him. I would say that Game 6 reinforces that point. Not saying that it suddenly changed their minds about him(considering they tried to trade him a couple of months before), but saying it increased their desire to move him.

user-pic
john reply to Sean on Jun 17 at 12:24
+/-

And I get that - i don't think why you don't.

All I'm saying is that it should have no impact on the franchises desire to move him because it's irrelevant.

You keep thinking I don't get what you're saying, I get it, I just think it's a ludicrous assertion.

user-pic
Sean reply to john on Jun 17 at 11:07
+/-

Well, here is the thing: If Good Lou shows up and he only has to share the point duties with Iguodala, then I am fine with it. This offense does not require him to be Chris Paul. If Lou proves himself unworthy, yank him.

Given that trading up will require disposable assets we don't have to acquire players that are not absolutely better then those available at 17, then I cannot really see anybody coming in from the draft and displacing him. Now, if Lawson or Maynor surprises us, so be it.

user-pic
john reply to Sean on Jun 17 at 11:12
+/-

If the sixers expect Lou Williams has point guard skills - well then I'm sad

user-pic
Sean reply to john on Jun 17 at 11:16
+/-

I think he has some developing PG skills(handling, ability to drive and dish, can run the Screen/roll okay), but the Princeton(especially with Iguodala next to him) should not require him to be a floor general. Since his decision making is the flaw right now, just don't let him handle that part of it until he proves ready. I like the fact that Jordan is an ex-PG himself, so that Lou might get reined in somewhat.

user-pic
john reply to Sean on Jun 17 at 11:20
+/-

I disagree - I watched him the past two seasons when the sixers tried to get him to play the point - he doesn't have the natural skills, court vision, or mental approach to the game...he's never been asked to be a point - and he's shown the last two years that he isn't good at it - he excels at scoring - and that's about it - he's a bench player, so's willie, so's kapono, sam, these are not folk who should ever start in the NBA excpet for franchises mired in their own muck

user-pic
Sean reply to john on Jun 17 at 11:52
+/-

Well, I guess we can agree to disagree. I think Lou was learning how to play the point during the 06-07 & 07-08 seasons, especially because Mo started with him on a short leash. He played more under control while still making mistakes. Is he still more of a combo? Sure. I remember there was one game during 07-08 that Miller had gotten dinged up, and Lou played fine for the rest of the game, sharing the duties with Iguodala.

Do I think he regressed majorly this past season? Yes, without a doubt. But I also think his regression started when the team started asking him to be "instant offense" off the bench when they traded Kyle, especially when they surrounded him with non-options in the process. When Lou was being asked to run sets to get Kyle shots first and look for his shot second, he was much better, more restrained and under control, while playing in a one-guard front offense. That instant offense role gave him permission to play wild without any accountability, which led to his regression into his poor-man's AI impression.

I think that playing in the 2-guard front style PO will help him immensely. Just like not being the primary(only) scoring option on the floor could & should make him play more controlled/

Now, that is what I remember from watching every game over the past 3 years, plus several summer league games. As I said, we can agree to disagree.

user-pic
john reply to Sean on Jun 17 at 11:56
+/-

I discard lous 06/07 season - he didn't play much - so i don't take it into account.

My primary issue is that Lou does not have point guard tendencies, traits, or court vision of a point gurad, and I don't think you can 'learn' those things - you either have em and can refine them or you don't.

Andre Iguodala has more inherent point guard skills than Lou Williams in my opinion

user-pic
Sean reply to john on Jun 17 at 12:09
+/-

I don't think they are inherent. There are numerous examples of players at multiple levels learning the skill sets needed to play different positions. Billups is the recent shining example of a guy who did not learn how to play the position until he was a few years into his NBA career. Kobe Bryant was a superior high school scoring guard who was the primary facilitator during the Lakers three-peat(especially the 1st 2) in an offense that bears a strong similarity to the PO.

Back to Lou, I think those things can be taught, if the pupil is willing to learn them. Yes, I also agree that Iguodala is more naturally inclined to play point, which is also why I like the idea of them as a tandem. A Point-Forward at one spot with a scoring combo at the other, they balance each other out.

It's funny, I wrote something about Korver's departure hurting Lou a couple of weeks after it happened. Check it out.

user-pic
Sean reply to Brian on Jun 17 at 12:13
+/-

Good article,

I agree wholeheartedly. That is why I am interested to see Lou playing the majority of his minutes with the starters, where he can be an x-factor but not the only weapon. We could see the permanent return of Good Lou

user-pic
deepsixersuede on Jun 17 at 11:18
+/-

Sean, we talked about moving Spieghts to get Curry,what if he gets you #18 and #28? #17]Lawson #18]Hansbrough #28][Ellington,Thornton,J.Taylor,D.Green].Hansbrough next to Jason makes more sense off the bench and if Mullens slips to #17 you get him.With Jordan going the route of dissing Sam from the start,could he also be trying to get in L.Will.!s head by saying,"we have to replace A.Miller with an experienced p.g.".Because everything else we hear from him is about not needing a pure p.g.

This is something you want to try to avoid leading into the draft. This is a weak, weak draft. Guys are starting to look better or worse relative to the other guys in the draft class, but not relative to the guys who actually play in the NBA. Where the Sixers are drafting, they'll be lucky to get a rotational player. It would be a minor miracle to draft a guy who could be a legit starter. It's almost impossible to expect them to draft a guy who could be a star. Trading someone for two more picks in this area of the draft is ludicrous, in my opinion, at best, you'd probably wind up with one useful player out of the three. The other two would be more likely to turn in Herbert Hill or Derrick Byars.

If you can't move up to get a guy who has a MUCH better shot at being a starter or a star, you stand pat at #17 and maybe buy a pick in the second to take a flier on guy. I'm not trading a valuable chip for any number of picks later in the draft.

user-pic
john reply to Brian on Jun 17 at 12:11
+/-

Thank you

Not to mention that trading for two more picks later in the first round would mean two more guaranteed contracts.

user-pic
bebopdeluxe reply to Brian on Jun 17 at 12:20
+/-

Agreed, Brian...which is why I want to pursue EVERY option to move up to get an impact player. I am also concerned that - in a weak draft - looking only at PG's at 17 may not be the best move...especially if there is a run on PG's - which certainly is possible. There are some mocks that have both Lawson and Maynor gone at 17...at that point, do we take the best PG left on the board? Do we (shudder) trade DOWN?

Right now I assume that ES/DiLeo/Witte are identifying every team that is above us that would be open to trading down or out of their slot, and have a matrix of what it would cost to move up and who we would move up for. I also hope that list is not focused solely on PG's...for example, if Henderson (who they may grade out higher than Lawson or Maynor) is available at 12 or 14 and we can move up to get him for a reasonable cost, that we do that...as opposed to sitting back and taking whoever falls to us.

The sixers have worked out more than just point guards.

The belief that the sixers are focused on just a point guard in the draft seems to be based on more speculation...I haven't read anything form the sixers that says 'oh we're only drafting a point guard' - the players projected to be available where the isxers pick are mostly point guards, cause it's a point guard heavy draft.

Bop:

Sixers are focusing on guards who can shoot it, no matter the spot. They want the Best Guard available who can shoot. That's why they've looked at Ellington, Taylor, Williams & Christmas

One of your points that I do agree with is that they are certainly sending Lou messages in their public commentary. Stefanski said that Lou has a habit of taking bad shots. The Eddies emphasis on getting a young PG in the draft could be similar to a quasi-"Kevin Kolb" type situation. Or, in another reference that might be more accurate, Cornelius Ingram for Brent Celek.

user-pic
deepsixersuede on Jun 17 at 11:28
+/-

John,"he!s never been asked to be a pt.";THAT is why I would like him to be given a shot.How can we say he is a bench player, does that me Marreese is only a bench guy,they are too young to pigeon hole yet,in my opinion.

What I meant to say is until the sixers asked last season and this past one - lou williams was never asked to be a point guard. The past two seasons the sixers seemed to ask him to run the point - to be a point - to create for others - to distribute - and I htink he's failed miserably- I think he got WORSE in year two than year one of the experiment - which doesn't bode well for 'growth' - he's not a point...he's a short shooting guard who scores and draws fouls - he's a bench player

that how i see him

I don't think they asked him to be a point this past year, at least not at the beginning. The message was clear that Lou was a "scorer." He said it and Cheeks said it. His role definitely changed after Korver left, prior to that, I thought he was progressing as a point. Now can he go back to that? I have my doubts.

user-pic
deepsixersuede on Jun 17 at 11:49
+/-

John, it seemed this organization was good at sending mixed signals under the past 2 coaches.Using Willie as an example they seemed to give him a green light when he was starting originally yet last year played more within himself.Is L.Will. capable of figuring that out?As you say we don!t know that yet.But I still believe if told that it is his job to lose,get his teammates involved and then look to score or you go back to the bench,he may embellish the oppurtunity.Question,when they gave him that contract,was it the "going rate" for a bench guy or do you guys think E.S. thought he could be a starting player.

user-pic
deepsixersuede on Jun 17 at 12:22
+/-

Brian, this is something that wouldn!t be done till pick #17 is selected and if they feel Ellington is a starting N.B.A. shooting guard or a player slips who they believe has as much upside as Marreese or their new coach tells E.S. he thinks a player left is a perfect fit for his system [Summers?].A lot of if!s but who knows.

brian:
would you consider thad coming off the bench in a lamar odom type role? if we do that, then it is not as necessary to have the point guard be a shooter because there's an open roster spot for a shooting sf.

Depends on who the shooting SF is. If you're talking about Kapono, and a starting lineup of maybe Sessions, Iguodala, Kapono, Brand and Dalembert...assuming they could get Sessions, then I don't know. I don't think that's where the team is at right now, though.

I don't really see Thad as an Odom type at this point. Odom can really rebound, and he can legitimately play the 4 in most situations. Thad's probably a better offensive player, or at least he will be, and he's definitely a better shooter, but he just doesn't board enough to hold down the four for me.

Honestly, I don't think I'm going to be happy unless Thad's the three and Iguodala's the two. At least for enough time to definitively say it does not work, then you make the adjustment.

user-pic
bebopdeluxe reply to Brian on Jun 17 at 13:04
+/-

Brian:

Wouldn't have it been nice for the GM and the HC/Player Personnel guy to have answered the "can Iggy play the 2?" question last season (so we would have a better sense of what todo this summer)?

Idiots.

That probably was the plan. I expect the injury to Elton Brand may have tweaked their plans a bit.

Who would you have started at the 4 when brand went down?

user-pic
bebopdeluxe reply to john on Jun 17 at 14:13
+/-

I would have bit the bullet and started Speights. While we all know that the guy had defensive shortcomings, if you go to 82games.com, his numbers when he played with the starters were DRAMATICALLY better than when he was out there with Lou, Ivey and Evans (what a surprise), and his "close and late" numbers (when I would think he was out there primarily with the starters) were off the charts.

In my view, Brand's injury was a "get out of jail free" card for this team to play the kids (Thad, Speights and Lou) a LOT...to play Iggy at the 2 and Thad at the 3...and if they didn't make the playoffs, no biggie - we got the kids a TON of experience and would be in a MUCH better position to make better decisions this summer (can Lou play the point? Is Iggy a 2?)...when our "player personnel" guy was made HC, I thought that was one of the goals - to give him some hands-on knowledge of the personnel for just those reasons. If we made the playoffs with that lineup, great! If we didn't, we still got the kids some great experience, answered some questions about the roster before Miller walked and the draft, and we would have had a higher draft slot to boot.

Who knew that DiLeo wanted to win an NBA championship?

To me, that was "strike 1" of Stefanski's risk-aversion/CMA with the Roberts boys outlook on things...better to finish in the playoffs (and lose in the 1st round in front of 12,000 people) than to use Brand's injury as an opportunity to play the kids and figure out what we needed to do this summer (and, IMO, I think that had they started Speights at the 4, they might have actually been OK...but we;ll never know, will we?). "Strike 2" was this sham of a coaching search - with the "open checkbook" - before we took the $2 million from the Wiz to hire a coach who seems to be less than the best fit for the team's personnel and problems/shortcomings (unless - hope of hopes - Stefanski is actually GOING to turn-over this roster more than I thnk he will to fix our problems and get Jordan the players he needs).

One strike left, Eddie - better choke up on that bat.

Starting speights that early in the season wasn't a realistic option - he was barely getting minutes as it was - he was also very foul prone - and you have to win some games - they did the best with what they had (or so they thought) - again their goal was probably to make the playoffs - not a goal I agree with but a goal they wwent with. Pushing Speights into the starting line up long before he was ready would have been a horrible mistake I'm glad they didn't make.


user-pic
Real and Speightacular reply to john on Jun 17 at 14:31
+/-

And yet, as bebop noted, he seemed to play fine with the starters. If you take a rook and give him proper guidance, take the pressure off him, he can make progress w/o wilting. I think early on most of us were really surprised at his moxie in fourth quarter minutes, he didn't seem to be a shrinking violet with a fragile ego.

You can't declare it would've been a bad idea w/o giving it a decent run, can you? It sounds like you've made up your mind beforehand that you can't give a mid-first-round pick extended minutes as an emergency starter because... well, you didn't say what was for sure going to happen.

Yes - we get it - you think speights is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Speights was foul prone, most of the season, and a defensive sieve, most of the season.

Contrary to your belief - i believe the team knows better than you do whether or not he's ready to start - and i personally believe it would have been a bad idea.

And just because you are a big fan of him and tell me I'm wrong won't make me wrong.

He was bad defensively all season. And maybe there's a reason they didn't trust him to start

user-pic
Real and Speightacular reply to john on Jun 17 at 15:03
+/-

hee! john you funee! when brand went down, speights was playing pretty well. pretty well with the starters, pretty well in crunch time minutes. well enough to see his minutes increase from the start of the season (remember all the talk was this guy was slated to be mostly pinned to the bench his first season) and certainly well enough to deserve more of evans' burn. if you want to harp on his short-comings, it doesn't bother me as i know just about every player has at least a couple. tell me your favourite player and i will point out his flaws and ignore his pluses. oh, wait, you don't do that sort of thing: put your neck out.

it's interesting when you choose to trust the brain trust and when you don't. we get it: you trust em when it's something you agree with (oh speights for sure would've been a serious mistake as a starter -- as if you know for sure it was about his overall ability) and don't trust em when they appear to disagree with your line of reasoning (hinting lou as point, etc., etc). i'll try to keep this in mind going forward.

"And just because you are a big fan of him and tell me I'm wrong won't make me wrong."

I didn't say you were wrong. Read again, mate. I asked you to explain why for sure it would've been a bad idea, what calamity was going to befall them. I was ready to listen before all the pouting. Sheesh.

What you just wrote is a lot of your opinion - speights was foul prone all season, and a defensive sieve...have you contradicted that premise yet? I haven't seen it.

He's bad defensively - and he was foul prone -his best use last season was off the bench so they could CONTROL what minutes he got - picking up 2 fouls in 3 minutes of the first quarter would just make him useless for the other 21 minutes of the first quarter.

He showed nothing to me that said he was ready to start - and claiming he was ain't gonna do it for me.

user-pic
Real and Speightacular reply to john on Jun 17 at 15:14
+/-

One more for the comedy show then I gotta run. John, you look at his overall impact on the floor and tell me he wasn't more often a net positive than a net negative. Do you know of any rookie big man that doesn't have trouble with fouls? That's pretty normal. Of the guys that were left, and this was bebop's point, he was the best option. Not the preferred way to bring him in, but it was (from an outsider's view) worth a shot. It's not an unreasonable opinion no matter how hard you try to browbeat your "opposition."

Tell me your favourite player on the Sixers and I'll try and see if I might possibly be able to find a significant flaw. If you're going to say it's all about the flaws and not the net effect, we can just agree to disagree right now.

Let the hilarity continue...

"favourite player"

Second instance of British spelling, 3 = 1 week ban.

And for the record, when Brand was first injured (missed 2 games w/ a quad problem I believe) Speights was inserted into the starting lineup. He struggled a little bit. Two games isn't a fair sample size, but Cheeks did try it out in Brand's absence.

Real:

Over on RealGM, there was a poster ("geiger" was his handle) who spent the majority of his time arguing with EVERYBODY...condescending attitude, not willing to give an INCH in discussions with other posters...specifically looking for posts to rip just to rip (for fun)...he eventually got banned because he was such an azzhole that he poisoned every thread he was in....

I haven't been here long, but it looks like you specifically get into these battles with "John" a lot - my advice to you is simply not post with him...because I have yet to see a thread between the two of you that doesn't devolve into a smack-fest....FWIW.

Yawn...thanks for the input kettle

user-pic
Real and Speightacular reply to bebopdeluxe on Jun 17 at 21:03
+/-

Thanks for the headsup bebop. I know "john" or at least his type, no need to analyze (

Brian, the anti-brit bit is kinda tired. Use whatever excuse to you need to nix folk who hold your feets to the fire. You picks your poisons/cancers an takes yer chances.

user-pic
Real and Speightacular reply to Real and Speightacular on Jun 17 at 21:06
+/-

repeated with full text:
Thanks for the headsup bebop. I know "john" or at least his type, no need to analyze (yeah, note spelling, b). In actual fact tho, we usually agree much more than disagree. Only of late has it gotten ornery. But if you read this thread, it's easy to see who's the knee-jerk aggressor. There's a tone of superiority that John enjoys radiating, deserved or not. The sputtering defensiveness I find mostly amusing now.

Brian, the anti-brit bit is kinda tired. Use whatever excuse to you need to nix folk who hold your feets to the fire. You picks your poisons/cancers an takes yer chances.

Does a total lack of comprehension of attempts at humor count?

user-pic
bebopdeluxe reply to john on Jun 17 at 14:52
+/-

Elton Brand got hurt on February 3rd - the 47th game of the season. In the 21 games prior to that injury, Marreese Speights was averaging 18.4 minutes a game, 9.6 ppg (shooting better than 55% from the field), 4 rbg and 1.2 bpg...and I would guess a decent chunk of those minutes were not with the starters. How much of a stretch would it have been to - after those 21 games, on February 5th - bump him up to, say, 25 minutes a game with the starters? He was already pretty productive with the 2nd team (leading all rookies in PER and in the top 20 overall) - I don't thnk that playing with better players would have hurt him...do you?

And just for grins...Thaddeus Young moved into the starting lineup in his rookie season against the Charlotte Bobcats on January 28, 2008.

Elton Brand played in 29 games the past season
If he got hurt on the 47th game - did the sixers just hole him out of 18 games?


Yes - let's compare apples and oranges (young going into the starting line up and speights are exactly the same thing) - let's also ignore his defensive inadequacies and just look at his counting stats.

That of course ignores the fact that elton brand only played 29 games last year or the fact that he had two, not one, injury that took him out of games.

I understand that you think you know how to run the sixers better than they do - but your argument is not persuasive if you want to use counting stats. Ignoring defense or impact on the floor

http://www.82games.com/0809/0809PHI.HTM

Thad did not move into the starting lineup permanently at all in his rookie season. Evans started at the four, with Thad getting spot starts every now and then due to injuries.

And Brand went down 22 games into the season, then he returned, in a role off the bench, before going down for the rest of the season. This is just a completely misleading comment on so many different levels. You can do a better job making your points than that.

user-pic
bebopdeluxe reply to Brian on Jun 17 at 16:47
+/-

Brian:

Elton Brand initially hurt his shoulder on December 17th, and at that time, there was still the thought that he would return to the lineup later in the season...which he did. I am certainly not suggesting that Speights was ready to go into the lineup then. I did, however, use December 17th as the starting point for my 21-game sample, as it was the period where he started getting more consistent minutes (as opposed to the games where he got significant burn because Sammy was in foul trouble, for example) Brand returned for six games...his last game was on February 3rd - in the Sixers 47th game of the season. It is at THAT point - after Speights had played an increasing amount of nightly minutes (and at a pretty high level for a rookie, if you have any respect for PER as a stat) and at the point where you knew that Brand was not coming back, that the decision to insert Speights in the starting lineup was a more plausible one IMO (an opinion that was shared by others as well...I was not coming to this website back then, but it is hard to imagine that the option of moving Speights into the starting lineup after February 3rd was not discussed at all here). He had been playing well. It would allow the Sixers to play Iggy at the 2 and Thad at the 3.

Was it because they were afraid of his defense? Perhaps - but I would argue (and the numbers at 82games.com strongly support) that he was a much more productive and better player when he was out there with the starters...and there is no reason to believe that wouldn't have continued. Was it because they wanted to win as many games as they could, and they thought that having Green at the 2, Iggy at the 3 and Thad at the 4 gave them the best shot? Well...I think they answered that question with their decision - but I don't think that ANY of us (including ES and DiLeo) can know definitively unless they did it. It certainly would have had the benefit of accelerating Speights' development (as the increased minutes accelerated Young's development - both last season and this season)...and it would have helped us answer the "Is Iggy a 2" question - a question that is still a huge one for this franchise, with multiple ramifications in the draft and FA this summer. Both you and I want Iggy at the 2. Inserting Speights at the 4 on February 5th (after a 21 game stretch where he got MORE playing time during that period than Thad got in a similar period of his development before his minutes were sharply increased starting in late January 2008) would have helped answer that question...

And it might have worked.

One last thing - Thad's increased PT last season was something that everybody focused on...thought it was great...people hought he was ready for it, and he - for the most part - produced. When that similar opportunity presented itself for Speights, people thought he wasn't ready...despite the fact that he had played more minutes before February 3rd than Thad did before a similar period the prior year...despite his leading all rookies in PER (and i the top 20 overll, I think)...and despite the fact that SPeights has TWO years in college - one of those years scrimagging every day with guys like Noah and Horford and guarding Oden in the NCAA title game.

I think it was a missed opportunity - and regardless of what some on this forum think - I am well within my rights as a partial season-ticket holder to say that.

I hpe that I have made my point clear.

Thanks.

And whether or not Thad moved into the starting lineup for good on January 28th of last season, after that game - in the remaining 37 games that he played in the regular season, he only played less than 20 minutes 4 times (10.8%), as opposed to the first 37 games, where he played less than 20 minutes 28 times (75.7%).

If hat isn't a sea-change in how he was used in the rotation, I don't know what is.

Fair points, but what you aren't taking into account is what the team was doing in Brand's absence, before he came back. When he came back the team had won 7 of 9 games, and the two losses came on a buzzer-beater by Dirk and a buzzer-beater by Tony Parker, in San Antonio. The team was absolutely clicking running with Thad at the 4 and they had climbed all the way back to .500.

That run of great basketball did three things. #1, it made the playoffs a legitimate goal, one I think they absolutely had to play for.
#2, it provided their new coach with a lineup/rotation he was comfortable with. No way he was going to fix something that wasn't broken.
#3, it probably stopped the Sixers from trading Andre Miller.

You can look at any of those things as failures by the team, but I seriously doubt there are many teams in the league who would throw away a shot at the playoffs.

You could've inserted Speights into the starting lineup, and I wish they would've at least made Iguodala at the two and Thad at the three part of their rotation, but I don't think it's logical to say they blew a golden opportunity to get Speights minutes, there were more important things going on and he didn't really earn them.

Thad was a different story the year before because he earned his minutes by playing defense and doing the little things (rebounding, etc). He wasn't just a jack up a bunch of shots guy. Ironically, he was much more of that type of player this year, once he earned his starting role.

user-pic
john reply to Brian on Jun 17 at 17:14
+/-

#3, it probably stopped the Sixers from trading Andre Miller.

So wait, if Speights had been in the starting line up they might have gotten some value for miller instead of letting him walk (probably) for nothing.

Crap, now you're changing my mind.


user-pic
nebopdeluxe reply to Brian on Jun 17 at 19:26
+/-

...and fair points by you.

My problem was that playing Thad at the 4 once Brand was initially injured was considered a stop-gap measure until he got back...there weren't any better options on December 17th...and the long-term goal was still Iggy at the 2, Thad at the 3 and EB at the 4...when Brand went out for the season, Speights had gotten significantly more playing time in those 21 games, and - in my mind at least - starting SPeights at the 4 was now a legitimate option...still allowing Iggy to play the 2 and Thad the 3 (there was - and still is - nothing to be gained by the team playing Green at the 2, other than as the 3rd-4th guard.

Good response to my post.

user-pic
deepsixersuede on Jun 17 at 13:01
+/-

If Thad became our 6th man, wouldn!t it be more because they want Iggy at the 3 and we get a s.g. that can start?

Either way, it would have to be a hellofa two or three.

user-pic
deepsixersuede on Jun 17 at 13:08
+/-

Considering who played where last year and what we have to work with this summer, WHICH position do you guys think can be improved the most.All this p.g. talk and it wasn!t our weakness last year.

Well it wasn't the biggest weakness - except that Miller is a year older, a year slower, and a crappy shooter, and a free agent and Lou is - well lou ain't a starter.

So right now - with this roster - it's the biggest weakness as I see it - you've got guys who can 'play' at the other positions better than lou can play the point (yes sam is a better center than lou is a point, but to me that's not saying much)

The position of greatest NEED right now is Point guard to me - yes they were 'ok' at point guard last season - but miller is gone

user-pic
deepsixersuede on Jun 17 at 13:19
+/-

If Iggy isn!t a s.g. in our coaches eyes than you can see their mindset, best guard available.What L.Will. is to them,or does it really matter,should weigh into how they pick.Kapono seems to be a s.g. as much as a s.f. to them.Would Kapono/Green/Iggy be their s.g. depth chart?

Well that's a different story - what they think and what I think - i think the greatest need at this moment with this roster is PG cause it's the 'hole' in the starting line up as I see it - right now

Unknown
Iguodala
Young
Brand
Dalembert

That's the starting five (four) of the roster as it currently exists. I don't know what the sixers are targeting - i try not to think about it - iguodala had a secret work out - young as i understand it wasn't really on the radar for the sixers according to pre draft beliefs - speights was one of 3 or 4 guys the sixers were still undecided on. There's a lot of smoke blown these days.

The sixers need a shooter, no doubt, but I trust them to draft - it's one of the few things I feel they do consistently well (aside from a complete ignoring of continents that aren't north america)

user-pic
deepsixersuede on Jun 17 at 13:37
+/-

I don!t agree with our new coaches view either.Enough with the "small ball".And E.S. had said repeatedly that Iggy was gonna be the s.g.

SI just did a mock draft and they have the Sixers taking (drum roll please), Austin Daye, a SF/PF?
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/ian_thomsen/06/16/mock.draft3.2/index.html

Do these guys actually research team's needs? Anyway, they also have Holiday and Jennings going lower than when I've seen elsewhere (not as low as the Sixers pick). Maybe we can move up in a minor deal and get one of those guys.

user-pic
Real and Speightacular reply to Chris on Jun 17 at 14:07
+/-

That dude is utterly clueless.

However, the dudes at nbadraft.net seem to have the same idea i had re budinger, so they must necessarily be geeniuses :) lol

"This is a weak, weak draft. Guys are starting to look better or worse relative to the other guys in the draft class, but not relative to the guys who actually play in the NBA."

couldn't agree with you more here, brian. this could be an epicly poor draft. but that said, it is inevitable there will be a couple all-star-worthy gems in the lower 1st half or early 2nd round. it's just that your odds of finding one are slim, slim. i don't think this is a year to be taking big chances (not when you have a decent blue-chip prospect in hand). no need to swing for the fences this year. get the system running well (at least for the main long-term cogs) and fit in solid pieces over this year and next... then... watchout eastern conf!

user-pic
deepsixersuede on Jun 17 at 13:57
+/-

If our management considers Iggy and Kapono our s.g.!s than Daye as a backup s.f. works. He may be in the top 5 shooters in the draft and though he is soft, a 6!11" small forward that is a good shotblocker [4 per 40 min.] couldn!t hurt against the Orlando long wings.

I agree. That is a brutal mock draft.

To anyone who wants Chase Budinger this comment from draft express should tell you what everyone whos ever seen him play would say. He's horrible.

“Chase Budinger was awful in my opinion. He just doesn’t play. All he wants to do is shoot jumpers. That’s not basketball. He didn’t want to be there. Didn’t want to compete. He couldn’t put it on the floor. You should have seen his face when he was switched onto Paul Harris. He definitely didn’t want anything to do with him. “

user-pic
john reply to Steve on Jun 17 at 17:54
+/-

I'm not a big budinger fan - too many red flags, not just ability but dedication and desire to play basketball

user-pic
Steve reply to john on Jun 17 at 17:59
+/-

I'm with you. If he's not showing effort and desire in what is pretty much a job interview what is he going to do when he has a couple million in guranteed money coming to him? He can shoot run and jump high but that doesn't mean he knows how to play basketball.

user-pic
john reply to Steve on Jun 17 at 18:15
+/-

I wrote this on another board - and it's something i have personal experience with - a lot.

Just because you are naturally good at something doesn't mean you'll going to do well at that - you have to love it and have a passion for it - the dedication to get better and work at it - natural ability will only take you so far. If you don't love it - well for one thing, ti sucks not to love what you're naturally good at (trust me) but you won't improve because you won't have the drive.

I think that's a problem with budinger - and a lot of prospects that bomb out in the nba - the work ethic - love of the game doesn't exist -and i think it's a flaw that if someone figures out how to 'scout' for it is going to do much better

Personal experience? Wait a minute, are you really Derrick Coleman?

user-pic
John reply to Brian on Jun 17 at 22:28
+/-

Now NOw - i didn't say basketball - i just said not passionate about something you're good at.

I'm 37 nd haven't found anything I'm passionate about in life (though cooking might be it - better late than never) - I spent 3 years in a PhD program before realizing i just happened to be 'good' at molecular biology but i didn't care about it...when a guys dedication or committment or love of the game is mentioned it raises HUGE red flags for me...and it should for any sixer fan as we're stuck with a guy who isn't passionate or in love with the game...that's the different between the good and the great - and love of what you're doing makes it so much easier to be dedicated.

user-pic
Real and Speightacular reply to Steve on Jun 17 at 21:13
+/-

Uh, before I get labelled as "the guy who wants Chase" let me say this is just in response to the initial premise that they're not going to draft a point so if they're going to get a guard who can shoot, Chase is a legit option. That it, I wasn't saying any more than that. He's no saviour, he's got his warts. Who knows what they'll do in the end.

http://dimemag.com/2009/06/nba-draft-promises-could-cost-you-the-next-paul-pierce/ This is pretty sad. Imagine if we had AI and Pierce all those years.

user-pic
Chris reply to Steve on Jun 17 at 21:17
+/-

That is sad.

It is the first time I ever heard Larry or BK admit to that. I wonder how common an occurance that is? Most of the time before the draft, no one ever owns up to a 'promise' to pick someone.

http://www.basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=412

Came across this a while ago. Gives cause to be wary of signing someone for the MLE just because the 76ers can.


Expand/Contract all comments

Leave a comment


back-to-story.gif