DFDepressed FanDepressed Fan

All  

Sixers

, all the time

Foot, Meet Bullet

user-pic
Mike P. on Apr 11 at 9:56
+/-

I am sad now.

user-pic
please not ed davis on Apr 11 at 10:32
+/-

just curious, i believe iverson is still under contract and technically on this team, so is there any way that the sixers could bring him back for fan appreciation night (since he screwed up his last one).
I dont see a downside. He gets to finish his career with some dignity, going out on a basketball court, and the sixers get to sell out one more game. It just seems like it would be the right thing to do at this point for a franchise altering player. iverson doesn't deserve what they did to him here, so that can at least try to make it right by giving him one more night of glory.
these games are irrelevant, and iverson going out with a bang and trying to put up 30 could help with possible taking.

AI is going through some serious personal stuff right now. I don't think he is available. But I'm sure they will bring him back at some point to retire #3.

user-pic
Jason reply to tk76 on Apr 11 at 10:59
+/-

That, and he's probably very out of NBA shape lol.

Hey guys, with all the lottery talk, I got to reading about how the NBA lottery is conducted. Each lottery "entry" is a set of 4 numbers, each number ranging from 1 to 14, and the ordering of the numbers doesn't matter (so 13-12-10-8 is the same as 8-12-13-10, for example). There are 1001 possibilities (= [14 choose 10] = 14! / [10!*4!]), and one possibility is discarded to leave 1000 possibilities. Each lottery team is assigned a number of entries (out of the 1000) based on its standings, as detailed here before. The actually lottery is conducted by selecting 4 ping pong balls out of 14 numbered balls placed in the lottery machine, and this is done 3 times for the first 3 picks.

Based on this description, the NBA lottery is much like a simplified version of Powerball. What I can't believe, after reading this, is that they don't televise the selection of the ping pong balls. They could publish the list of numbers belonging to each team, and then all the fans could check the numbers as each ping pong ball comes up (much like Powerball players do). Don't you think that would be more interesting (and transparent) than what they actually do, which is to do the lottery in secret ahead of time, then order the envelopes and reveal them one at a time? There is some suspense in the current method, but hopes are dashed in an instant for most teams.

(I guess the problem with televising the "Powerball" part is that the team that wins #1 might still have its combination selected #2 -- which they would have to re-do, so they probably don't want to televise the duplicate selections.)

Okay, back to basketball -- where would you rank John Wall as a lottery "prize" relative to other #1 selections since the current system got implemented in 1994? Based on what I've read, he's definitely below Duncan, LeBron, and Dwight Howard and definitely above GRobinson, JSmith, Olowokandi (ouch), Brand, Kenyon Martin, Kwame (ouch), and Bargnani; maybe on the same level as Yao basketball-wise (Yao a bigger prize commercially); with the jury still out on Bogut, Oden, Rose, and Griffin. So it's a pretty "big" prize this year, it seems. Is Wall a better prospect for 10-11 than Rose was for 08-09?

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to Statman on Apr 11 at 13:32
+/-

If they televised it how could they fix it so lebron ends up in cleveland or new york ends up with ewing when they're floundering?

But seriously folks, 7 was pretty much the most likely outcome a couple weeks ago, got our hopes up but 7 was where they were ending up...though not all hope is lost because teams 'as low' as 9 have won the lottery

user-pic
paul reply to Statman on Apr 11 at 16:31
+/-

Personally, I'd rather see the Sixers get the second pick and draft Evan Turner than get the first and draft John Wall. Considering his progression this year as the youngest player in the NBA and playing the most difficult position, I'm OK with Jrue continuing as the starter.

But, if the Sixers get only the 7th pick they still have a good chance of getting a player who will help them significantly. This franchise has used its first pick pretty well in recent years considering that #9 was the highest number they have received in this century.

Maybe it's also time to give some credit to Stefanski for the very minor deal he made a short time ago. From what Meeks has shown since he's had playing time, maybe Stefanski was right that he was better than what the team was likely to draft on the second round this year.

You know, after having watched Wall, I don't entirely get the hype... I can see that he'll score quite a lot, and that he's a pretty good point guard, but he's not Chris Paul-good, is he? Or Wade-good, is he? Isn't he more like Tyreke Evans plus?

He's much more Chris Paul than Tyreke Evans.

Chris Paul wasn't Chris Paul his freshman year at Wake.

This is true.

user-pic
AaronMcKie4MVP reply to Tray on Apr 11 at 16:34
+/-

good luck with that opinion on this board.

i said that about wall and turner. neither impresses me like a 1 or 2 pick. i can easily see turner being the next calbert cheany. i think wall will be good but a disappointment overall as a top pick. but plenty of 1's have disappointed. he is pretty quick the ball (not like iverson though) and penetrates well. prob why everyone has a hard-on for him.

user-pic
deepsixersuede reply to AaronMcKie4MVP on Apr 11 at 16:42
+/-

I want Favors, even with the #1 pick. Give Jrue and Iggy a running mate and get a s.g. with our young resources [Lou, Thad and Marreese]. If Gold. St. gets new ownership by the end of the summer they may decide to go conventional and Thad for Morrow or, worst case Azuibuke, would fill our s.g. hole. Favors and Morrow is my "best case" summer outcome.

Turner also penetrates very well as he is very quick with a great handle. He is an outstanding rebounder for his size and he is very good at creating his own shot. He isn't an outstanding perimeter shooter, but he isn't bad and can score inside and outside so he is less reliant on the outside shot than many guards.

I don't know how much you've watched him but I live in the Big Ten area and have seen him enough to be very impressed with him. This may not be the greatest draft of the past decade, but if the projected #1 and #2 aren't the top two players, I don't know who is.

What does Calbert Cheaney have to do with Turner. they are completely different players. Just becasue they are the same height and both went to the same conference does not make them comparable. They are about as comparable as Tim Duncan was to Eric Montross.

Chaeney was a gifted off the ball scorer without great range. he was neither a slasher, creator or long range shooter. Chaeney was a great mid range scorer whop benefited from a great system for him at Indiana. Sort of like how Montross was a good energy rebounder and opportunity scorer who benefited from playing on a great NC team.

Turner, on the other hand, nearly led his conference in scoring, rebounding, assists and steals while shooting 52%. he carried his team to a top 5 ranking and was not the beneficiary of being on a great team. He is a complete, multidimensional player who is dominant on both ends of the floor. Chaeney is an incredibly weak comparison.

Looking back at Chaeney, he had half the assists, half the steals, 1/3 less rebounds than Turner. He was drafted 6th in a horrible draft.

That 1993 draft did not have more than one decent starter pst pick #4. I sure hope this year does not turn out the same way. Look at this list of bums:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/draft/NBA_1993.html

It is flat out amazing that there was only one good player picked after #4 out of the remaining 50 players taken that year.

"What does Calbert Cheaney have to do with Turner. they are completely different players. Just becasue they are the same height and both went to the same conference does not make them comparable"

Honestly, I think some people just enjoy taking contrarian points of view.

Yeah. Just like Dwayne Wade turned out to be the next Harold Minor.

I mean, look how they each are the same size, put up big numbers and were drafted in the lottery by the Heat. Except Minor put up bigger numbers at a bigger name school... and had a far superior nickname.

user-pic
AaronMcKie4MVP reply to tk76 on Apr 11 at 18:49
+/-

i can play the stat game too - cheaney was one of the best players in the country and IU was top 5 in his last 2 seasons. cheaney dominated the big ten. he won player of the year too.

i compare them because they are both overrated SGs. yes they are the same height and yes they played in the big ten, and yes they are black. none of those are why i compare them. i like a little dominating factor in my scouting and dont see him as that. college accolades dont really do it for me - look at heisman trophy in fball. the guy looks mediocre to me the few times i see him. thats more important to me than any stats.

what does it matter if the draft after a certain point was weak (in hinddsight)? he went 6 and all the guys ahead were huge prospects at the time, cheaney was a huge prospect. . in 93, no one viewed the draft as weak -

The 1993 draft comment was not directed at you. It just was an incredibly weak draft, which may help explain how he was drafted so high and did well in college.

As I said, I hope this year does not prove to be so weak after the first few picks. Because the Sixers were burned that year drafting Bradley, and really the draft was pretty much garbage after CWebb.

My point still is that a high scoring wing player is completely different than a player who is high scoring and has a complete game like Turner. Where was Chaeney in his league when it came to assists, steals and rebounds? He was a nice scorer off the ball and not much else... and people knew it. It is not like he was hyped up and picked before a number of future stars.

user-pic
AaronMcKie4MVP reply to Derek Bodner on Apr 11 at 18:55
+/-

why is so bad to go against consensus? being the 'projected #2 pick' only means a bunch of scouts think a player is the 2nd best player. ok, they presumably evaluate for a living and should be more accurate than an average person, but they are wrong all the time. i think the law of diminishing returns takes over after a couple games. watching games 11-20 doesnt really give someone that much more value over 1-10. and thats all the scouts have done at this point in the process. ive seen turners big games, not blown away. yes this includes the 1/2 court chuck to win the big10 tourney.

"why is so bad to go against consensus?"

Going against the consensus isn't bad. Going against the consensus because it is the consensus is. And, frankly, that's the only reason I can come up with to compare Turner to Cheaney.

To be fair, I don't think AaronMcKie4MVP is just trying to be contrarian. I'm sure Turner did not knowck his socks off in the games he watched.

I just look at Turner's skill set and body of work and see a can't miss good player and possible great one. It's not like he has a huge whole in his game or that he has to physically mature.

He is not a deadly shooter from range. But since that will never be his game, and he has the skill to score in other ways I can't see him failing to be a very good NBA player.

Ignore typos...

TRying to think of a similar player entering the NBA. Penny Hardaway was similar- although more flashy and maybe more of a PG? Roy also was similar, but put up lesser numbers... but with a better jumper.

user-pic
Old School SixerFan reply to tk76 on Apr 11 at 20:13
+/-

How is Turner's skill set different from Iguodala's?

I'm not an expert, but from what I've seen, Turner is a bit more under control when he drives and has a MUCH better in between game and crafty scoring 5-10 feet from the basket. When he drives he works to get very high percentage shots without having to get all of the way to the rim.

Iguodala is the superior athlete and more explosive at the rim. But Iguodala lacks any in between game. Iguodala wither shoots a somewhat low percentage fade away or gets all of the way to the rim. he is not crafty. Iguodala also goes more for the risky, highlight reel pass.

Your criticism reminds me a lot of how some people were down on Tim Duncan before he was drafted. He was another completely dominant, smart player without overwhelming explosive athleticism but great size and skills for his position.

He was a 4 year player, too. Didn't have much "upside", according to some who disregard any players above the age of 19.

user-pic
AaronMcKie4MVP reply to Derek Bodner on Apr 11 at 20:46
+/-

all i remember is he was considered a cant miss star. i could be wrong, i didnt follow the analysis that closely.

user-pic
AaronMcKie4MVP reply to tk76 on Apr 11 at 20:43
+/-

people were down on Tim Duncan?

Not so much over him going #1. More over whether he would just be a solid big or a star in the league.

user-pic
johnrosz on Apr 11 at 18:40
+/-

i can't wait to see Jordans Rutgers teams giving up 105 ppg next year

All I'm going to say about the Wall/Turner debate at this point is that I hope we get a chance to have it. If choosing between those guys is seriously an issue, then something unbelievable happened.

I haven't even watched Turner but for some reason I buy the Roy comparisons. Wall, though, I don't know. Suppose he averages, say, 25 and 8 in the league and does so on pretty efficient shooting. That's great. But I don't think he's quite as dominant a scorer as Wade and I don't think he's the second coming of Paul, who should already have an MVP, or Stockton (or Nash or Kidd). So essentially you have a better version of Derrick Rose, and that does not scream centerpiece of a champion to me. More like perennial conference finalist. Now if he ends up on the Nets and LeBron goes there, with Lopez they could win umpteen rings together. Otherwise though he's just a pretty sure-fire five-time All-Star, which makes me think that if a team is set at point it may not be so crazy to pass him up for Turner.

Again, my non-expert opinion:

Rose is a more passive player than Wall. Wall is much more agressive and yet is also the better instinctive PG.

Superstars are either talented elite athletes or shooters. Wall has that level of athleticism combined with great PG and defensive instincts and is always on attack mode. he has that will to dominate that can separate very good (Roy, Rose) from great (AI, MJ, KG.)

So Rose may be equal in terms of raw tools (has superior strength and size) but Wall's style of play + tools + talent should make him an even better NBA player than he was a college player. If there was a guy made for the NBA... it was Wall.

user-pic
AaronMcKie4MVP reply to Tray on Apr 11 at 20:53
+/-

wow, those are serious expectations. certianly if he is a 25/8 guy w/ good defense you can build around him. you guys really think he is that good?

IIn his own way I think he can be as much of a star as CP3. But neither of those guys are Lebron.

user-pic
person reply to Tray on Apr 11 at 21:08
+/-

I have seen Turner play in person a few times this year, and have studied his every move because he could possibly be a sixer. these are a few things i've seen...
1. he isn't 6'7. Well see what he is measured at the combine, but I think he would be pushing it as a small forward in the league.
2. he really needs to work on his ball handling. He has a tendency to bring the ball up really high and gets it swiped a lot (hence his very high turnover rate) So I'm not sure he's really ready to be a point guard in the nba. So I wouldn't buy his supposed "versatility." I think he is a decent sized shooting guard in the nba.
3. people make a deal out of cousins for his attitude problem, well turner has one too. I've talked to people about this, and there is a reason his nickname is "the villain." Frankly, he is kind of a dick to his teammates sometimes. He does always try hard in games and practice, so the attitude isn't to big of a deal.
4. One skill I see translating very very well into the nba is his ability to get off that 5 foot jumper. He can get to his spots and put up a shot over anybody. It almost seems to easy for him to score in that short range. With the midrange game being a lost art, he is a master at it.
5. On the slight downside of that, he doesn't finish very powerfully at the rim, or shoot well from the outside. It isn't exactly a weakness at the rim, but he's definitely more effective pulling up then getting to the rim.
6. His rebounding will be way above average that the shooting guard position. Great technique and great length. He finds loose balls all the time.
7. Passing ability may be slightly overrated. He has high assists because the ball is in his hands 90% of the time, but his turnovers are a slight concern. His lack of great ball handling skills and tendency to force passes lead to a turnover rate that leaves something to be desired.


I haven't seen wall in person, but for a team with iggy (fairly similar skillset), I'd get wall. I think he's a way better nba prospect

I agree. Wall is more likely to be a superstar. I also do not think Iguodala and Turner are complementary players. Both need the ball in their hands to excel, and neither are PG's.

I think Turner will be a bit better pro than Iguodala, but not by a huge margin. But he will be good right away, and provide much better value the first 4 years while he is on his rookie contract- even though #2 picks are well paid.

user-pic
Old School SixerFan on Apr 11 at 20:15
+/-

Who is the best defensive center or PF in the draft?

why are the players even trying to win these games? i mean i get that they think it's wrong to lose on purpose but don't they know that winning these next games can seriously ruin this franchise for more years than it already is? i just hate that we see the importance of losing these games and it seems like the sixers don't. if it's for pride, you have already lost over 50 games this season, i don't think 2 more wins will change anyone's mind that you suck, so just lose.

I know why the players want to win. they are competeting for their future in the league.

Its the coach and GM who should know the score- but since they are both on the hot seat their motives and the team's are not aligned.

of course when this team hits 3's like that they are not going to lose to a wounded Grizz team.

user-pic
Old School SixerFan reply to Tyler on Apr 11 at 21:09
+/-

If the lose big enough and bring in a stud, he may take thier position on the team or in the rotation. They are playing for pride + their jobs. Tanking is up to management, notthe players. Last night Jordan played some really small lineups that normally would hve been victimized defensively. But those guys shot the lights out and won going away. The one true way to tank these final two weeks would have been to sit AI9 with his foot injury. They chose not to do that. Heck, they way things go with this team, they might have played Carney in AI9's place and he might have had a couple of 30 & 10' games.

If they lose big enough and bring in a stud, he may take their position on the team or in the rotation. They are playing for pride + their jobs.

Yeah, my point about this a couple weeks ago is that the players have no motivation to better the long-term prospects of the franchise, because they aren't guaranteed to be with the franchise even next year (well, except maybe Brand). With the limited number of jobs in the NBA, it's always in a player's best interest to play the best he can, so that he can ensure his own continued employment ...


Expand/Contract all comments

Leave a comment


back-to-story.gif