DFDepressed FanDepressed Fan

All  

Sixers

, all the time

Eddie Jordan Is Fired

Stefanski on the qualities he's going to look for in his next head coach: "Manager, teacher and motivator."

user-pic
scott reply to Brian on Apr 15 at 11:11
+/-

What about DEFENSE?!?!

Im just glad Eddie Jordan is gone. FINALLY!!!

user-pic
sfw reply to Brian on Apr 15 at 11:19
+/-

What qualities did Eddie Jordan have? Why was he hired?

Manager- NOT! His worst quality. He couldn't manage his personnel or a game!

Teacher- Maybe, but couldn't make adjustments to his personnel AND couldn't teach defense!

Motivator - definitely NOT from the get go!

Ed S. is blaming a lot of Brand's performance on Eddie Jordan, not sure if that's completely fair.

user-pic
Rich reply to Brian on Apr 15 at 11:18
+/-

In the early season, maybe. Not now though, EB had an unacceptable effort late in the season. We'll talk about him later though.

Wow, that feels great just not having Jordan anymore. I can't even describe the relief just knowing that it has finally happened.

"You could argue that Sam (Dalembert) had the best season of any Sixer this year."

user-pic
JohnEMagee on Apr 15 at 11:20
+/-

Let's package the pick with a player and add a VETERAN awesome delusion

Did he say that? Or was he just talking about options?

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to Brian on Apr 15 at 11:23
+/-

He said that if they didn't get a 'high' enough pick they could package the pick and a player for a veteran - he specifically used the word veteran, which is awesome

Ugh.

user-pic
Rich reply to JohnEMagee on Apr 15 at 11:25
+/-

Mike Miller and Randy Foye got the 5 last year right? What in the world could he like for the 6th or 7th?

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to Rich on Apr 15 at 11:26
+/-

I bet you randy foy and mike miller are available :)

Here's a tough question. If you could get rid of Brand's contract but it would cost you the #3 pick, would you do it? How about the #6 or #7 pick, same question.

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to Brian on Apr 15 at 11:27
+/-

What do yo uget back?

A deal that expires after this season, probably not that useful of a player. Maybe a future pick also.

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to Brian on Apr 15 at 11:39
+/-

Not unless the sixers get a pick back this year

So dump Brand and move down in the first round, you'd be OK with that?

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to Brian on Apr 15 at 12:03
+/-

As long as they're still in the top 9 or so - yes - some GM will make a dumb pick and someone good will slip

user-pic
Rich reply to Brian on Apr 15 at 11:28
+/-

6 or 7, just to get rid of EB. I'd do that in a heartbeat.

3 is tough especially because you probably get Favors there. I'd think about it though.

No way I give up a top 3 pick.

I would not give up the pick if any of Wall/Turner/Favors/Cousins/Johnson are off the board. If all 5 of those are off when we pick, maybe. But I'm not going to give up a tremendous asset to get rid of 2 years of contract.

I agree. Not sure I'd even do it if those guys were off the board.

It's 3 years of salary, and one of the worst contracts in the league. That's fine, I probably wouldn't give up a Top 3 pick just for his contract off the books. EB is beyond useless at this point and has one of the worst contracts in the league. I don't think we can contend for anything big in that time anyway so it doesn't make much sense to give that high of a pick up.

Two years, because most likely you're going to get an expiring contract. So you're just getting out of 2011-2012 and 2012-2013.

IMO this team is 3 years from the playoffs anyway. Don't sacrifice too much of your future, becasue that shi[ has already sailed.

Eh. Three years from being as good as the Bulls were this year? I don't buy that at all.

You can get in the playoffs next year... but that should not be the way the rebuild.

Way too much is unknown right now. They can still get Wall, Turner or Favors and a good coach. That could very well put them in the playoffs next season and also on the right track toward contention down the line. Three years is a lifetime in the NBA, and honestly they could've made the playoffs this season with a halfway decent coach.

user-pic
Charlie Ace reply to Derek Bodner on Apr 15 at 12:02
+/-

Wes Johnson? Really? I talk to a friend who watches Syracuse very closely, and I saw them play a few times this year. Johnson can't put the ball on the floor, doesn't rebound and seems to disappear from time to time. Plus, he's very thin. He's not going to start for an NBA team next year and probably not the year after either. I'm no expert, but Favors, Wall, Turner and Cousins are on a higher level, and that 7-foot European dude we've been projected to take is probably a better choice.

Yeah, I've seen probably about 15-18 syracuse games, and I disagree. Johnson steps in and averages 15+ ppg as a starter on this team, IMO. Yes, his ballhandling's below average, but his shot, elevation, transition pay, midrange game, and post up game all translate. He's even got a good first step, so while he may never be an isolation, create for his teammates kind of scorer, he'll cause a lot of matchup problems.

He's going to be a very good pro.

user-pic
JohnEMagee on Apr 15 at 11:23
+/-

STOP LUMPING IGUODALA AND BRANDS CONTRACT IN THE SAME FRACKING SENTENCE

user-pic
JohnEMagee on Apr 15 at 11:24
+/-

Larry Brown will most likely be the next head caoch of the sixers...sigh

If I had to bet right now, I'd put it on Brown.

user-pic
JohnEMagee on Apr 15 at 11:25
+/-

Larry Brown will most likely be the next head caoch of the sixers...sigh

user-pic
JohnEMagee on Apr 15 at 11:26
+/-

Players are supposedly asking questions but my feed went to commercial

Mine too. Anyone still listening/watching?

btw, some PR flack has sent me a couple emails about Speights doing a guest bartending appearance tonight, I think.

user-pic
JohnEMagee on Apr 15 at 11:28
+/-

So the sr950 tools seems to think Stefanski seems 'iffy' about his job security in some of his answers - i didn't get that - did anyone else?

I got the feeling that he wasn't 100% confident in his position. He basically said as long as he's in charge, he's moving forward.

If LB comes back, he's gone. If JVG is the guy, he might be gone. Doug Collins? Who knows.

What about Byron Scott or Lawrence Frank?

Ugh.

I like Frank better than Scott, but I've had my fill of ex-Nets coaches.

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to Brian on Apr 15 at 11:41
+/-

Here's something that came up on the LB thread about the press conference.

Hiring a 'big name' JVG, or Avery or Brown means a certain direction - it means tinkering to get better and trying to contend sooner than maybe works long term - a big name isn't going to come into a 'rebuilding' position.

I don't like that idea

Yeah, I've been talking about that for a while now. The coach hire is going to dictate the direction of the franchise. Big name = retool. Small name = chance of rebuild.

God, I can't listen to this shit anymore. How do people listen to talk radio in Philly? Actually, talk radio in general.

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to Brian on Apr 15 at 12:02
+/-

espn710.com - la sports radio - local shows- they aren't that terrible- and mostly talk about basketball - sure it's lakers - but still

Maybe the next time I tell someone I'm a Sixer's fan, they won't reply "Oh bless your little soul."

user-pic
Charlie Ace reply to Mar on Apr 15 at 12:09
+/-

Good question. There's a lot of air time to fill with rumors & piffle.

What do you think of Monte Williams? Our guy McKie? Mario Elie? One of these guys might be another Mike Woodson, a coach we never should have passed up.

The guy I'd love to see coach the Sixers is Scott Skiles. I can dream....

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to Charlie Ace on Apr 15 at 12:11
+/-

Um, why the love for scott skiles?
Vinny Del Negro seems to get more of the bulls than scott skiles could

Skiles is one of those guys who's very effective early, then wears on his teams. Skiles got more out of the Bulls than Del Negro, then they tuned him out. I don't see him being a longtime coach anywhere, but I do like the results he gets early on. Probably not a good fit for this team right now, though.

I hope that I never see career loser Jimmy Lynam on the bench again.

These callers are killing me.

"If they traded Brand and Dalembert for Caron Butler and Haywood."

WTF?

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to Brian on Apr 15 at 11:51
+/-

“Doesn’t make no sense to me”

The callers are worse than the hosts

Listening to Ed 'the band-aid" Stefanski ruined any good feeling I had from the EJ firing.

Lots of "turn this around quickly", trade pick for a vet, love our current young players BS.

Guy has a short leash to prove himself. Sounds like a recipe for disaster.

I think it's probably 60/40 that Stefanski is gone before the draft.

Yes, if Brown is available. But he will be bad in a similar way. LB will be more effective, but put them on the same road to a half assed fix that gets you 45 wins and no long term future.

Sorry to be negative, but Snider just does not get it. You don't "tinker" with NBA teams. its not the NHL.

You bring in a GM and have them do what is necessary to get you a superstar... then build a contender around him.

You don't go all McGuyver and try and build a contender around defense, hustle, some chewing gum (Andre Miller/Brand) and lots of glue.

The funniest thing is that the average Joe fan actually has it right. They are not interested in a quick fix and the 6th seed. they want a superstar and a shot at the Finals, and won't show up for games unless the team is headed in that direction.

Again, Snyder thinks this is the NHL.

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to tk76 on Apr 15 at 12:05
+/-

how many stanley cups have the flyers won while snider was the owner?

Again, if you follow the NHL model like snider seems to - Stefanski won't be fired - how many times did clarke survived when he shouldn't have

Snider does not believe in superstars. They take the attn from him. That's why they have never gone out and gotten a true stud goalie... and why they don't win Cups.

But in the NBA its even more of a problem.

I realize there are a ton of questions to be answered and key decisions left to be made, but today is a good day.

No matter what direction you think this team should be headed, the first step was getting rid of Eddie Jordan.

Actually, I think getting rid of Stefanski should be the first step. he is not as bad at his job... but much more important to the future.

I guess if you are right that ES is gone then the order of firings is irrelevant. But it will be a waste if they bring in a quick fixer type.

kate fagan had a nice timeline in the inky today showing some of the most frustrating statements and coaching moves (and non-moves) in "the eddie jordan era":

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/gallery/The_Eddie_Jordan_Era.html?view=graphic

I'm going to have to update my sponsorship message on this page I guess.

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to Brian on Apr 15 at 12:24
+/-

Offer it to these guys, cheap

http://www.onthebanks.com/

user-pic
stan reply to Brian on Apr 15 at 16:22
+/-

How much did it cost? I f you don't mind me asking

Best $10 I ever spent.

Been awhile since I visited this blog as I have become apathetic about the Sixers in general. Glad to see they fired Jordan. I would love to see Stefanski go too, but unless Larry Brown is available...who else is out there ? Too bad there isn't a way we could get Larry Brown to coach but have nothing to do with personnel decisions. Nice blog though Brian...looks like the Eagles one is dead.

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to Gdog on Apr 15 at 13:33
+/-

There are a lot of options out there better than brown (most of em actually)

user-pic
OldSchoolFan reply to JohnEMagee on Apr 15 at 17:38
+/-

There may be better options than Brown, but he is the only known championship-level coach that might come here. The only other way to get a championship-capable coach is to hire a first time coach who might become a great coach. The formula is superstar + championship level coach.

From Stefanski's presser:

On why the process will be different this time: "I am reviewing in my head and have been reviewing with all the paperwork we had and with the staff where we felt we did not go down the right line or didn’t ask the right questions. We asked a lot of questions, we had an exhaustive interview with all these guys. We will look at it again and see if there is anything else we can do."

He'll ask different questions????? He had WORKED with Jordan before -- how did he not know he was a terrible coach who couldn't manage players?

Stefanski's got to go.

So Easy Eddie Stefanski butchered his first coaching hire, correct?

So now we're going to put the same man in charge of the coaching search again? Just one year later?

Fire Stefanski. If he wasn't considered a "Philly guy," he would've been shown the door this morning, too. The Eddies could have shared a rental car.


I've been on the fence about whether they should fire stefanski too. There're things i like about ES: he's good at assessing strengths and weaknesses and he doesn't make stupid trades. His problem is that he relies on analysis and tends to miss the big picture. eg, we're weak at half court offense so let's hire Jordan, we need a low post scorer let's sign Brand, lacking a 3pt shooter we'll get kapono. he makes these moves which seem good from a narrow perspective but are failures from a holistic one. he also has a weakness for wishful thinking, such as believing Lou Williams could be a starting point guard when he never gave any indications ever that he was suited to that role. Because of these weaknesses the one job that ES is least capable of is the hiring of a coach. How could he not have known that EJ is basically insane? Stefanski apparently, like so many people, has difficulty distinguishing smug, narcissistic arrogance with competence.
Because of these things I now think stefanski should go, although good GMs are tough to find and he's an okay one.

user-pic
Tom Moore on Apr 15 at 13:41
+/-

Thaddeus Young on this season: "We kind of lost our edge. From the first two seasons I was here, we kind of defined our image, our status in the league as one of those teams that’s going to go out there and claw you to death, a team that’s going to defend and get up and down the court and run the mess out of you. In our third season, we lost our image. We didn’t do any of the things we did my first two seasons – we didn’t run, we weren’t a good defensive team."

user-pic
Tom Moore on Apr 15 at 13:56
+/-

Andre Iguodala: "We didn’t start off too well. We were 10-25. I kind of knew if we didn’t turn it around quickly, something would be done this year just because we expect more from ourselves and the fans deserve more. It’s not all his fault. Players have to take some sort of responsibility with that – certainly myself and Elton, the two main guys on this team. Everyone needs to look in the mirror. We all got to get better."

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to Tom Moore on Apr 15 at 14:11
+/-

Tom - did you get ANY sense from Stefanski, body language, tone of voice, ANYTHING, to indicate he has any concern about his job whatsoever?

user-pic
Tom Moore reply to JohnEMagee on Apr 15 at 14:38
+/-

Stefanski seemed to indicated that "as of now," he's in charge. I'm waiting to hear an answer from Peter Luukko about Stefanski's status.

user-pic
Statman reply to Tom Moore on Apr 15 at 14:14
+/-

Gee, that sounds awfully self-centered of Iguodala, calling himself a "main guy" and taking some of the blame for the season ;-)

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to Statman on Apr 15 at 14:15
+/-

Seriously though - nly some - i'm pretty sure it was all his fault

I guess one way to look at it is even if they do plan to get rid of Stefanski, they at least got out of eating crow on the Jordan hiring by keeping him around for this press conference.

user-pic
Tom Moore on Apr 15 at 14:43
+/-

Samuel Dalembert: "I just think a lot of guys were confused. We didn't know what would happen. It’s a combination of a lot of things out there. Guys would get upset (because) sometimes they would play and sometimes they wouldn’t play. Frustration was built up."

Andre Iguodala: " It’s not all his fault."
- Of course not! He doesn't play the game!

"Players have to take some sort of responsibility with that – certainly myself and Elton, the two main guys on this team."
- Some sort of responsibility? I guess so!

I think he could man up better than that.

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to sfw on Apr 15 at 15:47
+/-

And I think some people will just never appreciate ANYTHING iguodala does

user-pic
Tom Moore on Apr 15 at 15:20
+/-

Stefanski on hiring Jordan and the season: "What I thought would happen did not occur. The decision was not a right one. This year, we took a step back. It's unacceptable. We will rectify that."

Tom, Thanks for the insight!

Fagan on Stefanski:

"Second, I think some Sixers fans are frustrated because Stefanski made the same mistake, twice. The Sixers were excelling by scrapping, clawing, playing tough defense, getting steals, getting early dunks, running up and down, dunking over people. And then Stefanski signed Elton Brand with the logic that all of those aforementioned qualities would somehow, magically, be unaffected by Brand's more plodding, forceful, slow, halfcourt presence. He signed Brand under the logic that Brand would only add a different dimension -- the half-court game -- but somehow wouldn't affect the other dimension -- the up in your face defense and fastbreaking. It didn't work. Very quickly, it became clear that Brand's presence was slowing the team down. There were times his scoring in the halfcourt helped, but it was always like trading one for the other, never having that magical blending of both. It was oil and water. Stefanski's next big decision (the Andre Iguodala contract is overpriced, but people around the league are willing to take that contract; he's an asset) was hiring Jordan. Again, Stefanski employed the same logic: he said his team excelled in fastbreaking and defense, so he brought in a guru of a half-court offense, Jordan, and assumed that his team would somehow continue to excel at fastbreaking and defense despite spending 75 percent of its practice time learning an intricate half-court offense. Again, the Sixers sacrificed one dimension, a dimension in which they are talented, for the sake of improving another dimension.

Same mistake. Twice. In two years."

Excellent point, made quite succinctly too

Agree.

Other major mistake:

-Thinking he can win now with Brand/Miller/Sam while still building for the future.


Sounds reasonable at first glance... but whne you add the fact that there was no superstar in place, and the "win now" part hurt there cap and chance to get a star through the draft... and you can see how being greedy kills you twice as bad.

do what is needed to get a star to build a franchise around. then build around that star. Doing that plan backwards makes things much harder, if not impossible.

Especially if your "building for the future" plan requires teenagers to play major roles(Thad, Lou etc).

You don't bring in Elton Brand to play inside-out half-court hoops if the players don't actually make that fit. Brand was never a low-post beast anyway. The closest thing on the roster to that is Speights.

On another note, people often bring up the Brand vs Josh Smith choice, but what if the scenario was different? What if Brand kept his word and went back to the Clips, leaving the Sixers the chance to grab Marcus Camby at that fire sale price of a 2nd round pick? You would have had a better defense with an expiring contract this year to add another piece.

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to rswknight on Apr 15 at 15:58
+/-

Nothing against marcus camby - but

1. Is he that much better than Sam Dalembert
2. Could you play a front court of sam and marcus really?
3. He's pretty injury prone isn't he?

I would have done the Camby moves since it at least preserves some of your cap space for a short term, valuable player who can be flipped as an expiring the following year.

True, but the value comes in the fact that he is a very movable piece. You maintain flexibility while having a roster that should assure that at least one high-level shotblocker is always on the floor. That fact, coupled with the right defensive mindset, would lead to improved play.

I still don't buy that getting Brand kills the running game. If he did this year, which I don't think he did, it wasn't because he's a half-court player, it was because of his effort and effectiveness on the defensive end.

When Brand is defending, and the team is defending, this team has no problem getting out in the open floor.

But what the heck happened to Brand's ability to rebound? I never expected him to be worse at that this year as compared to last.

That's the great mystery. I can give you a handful of theories, but that's all they are.

user-pic
johnrosz reply to Brian on Apr 15 at 17:15
+/-

I remember reading an article that said Eltons repaired leg can only lift 40 percent of the weight he can with his good leg.

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to Brian on Apr 15 at 16:28
+/-

I don't buy it either - does shaq slow lebron james down once they have the ball

user-pic
Rich reply to JohnEMagee on Apr 15 at 16:39
+/-

Different set of circumstances. They run off steals and fast breaks like other teams, not off rebounds and as a general philosophy as the Sixers want to. LeBron has slowed it down in the playoffs every year before Shaq as well.

I think that there are a lot of excuses for Brand hurting the half-court though. I don't see how you can be an effective running team with him at the 4. Remember he thrived on a Clippers team that was half court.

user-pic
Rich reply to JohnEMagee on Apr 15 at 16:42
+/-

He does generally slow them down too, yes.

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to Rich on Apr 15 at 16:42
+/-

I don't see why any big man should slow down a team - you run the fast break - you either finish or pull back out and he catces up

user-pic
Rich reply to JohnEMagee on Apr 15 at 16:49
+/-

That sounds pretty good and in theory that works with one guy on the floor, a center. If you have a center who can get the board and outlet it, he can stay behind. I think that a team that wants to run like the Sixers do need 4 guys who run the floor though. Remember when Thad was playing the 4 how he could beat his man down the floor and finish? EB can't do that and he can't rebound at all for a 4, much less a center who is cleaning the glass. A 4 person fast break is more effective that 3 as well.

Shaq slows them down in the half court especially trying to play through them too. I don't think we should use them as an example, they play slow anyway.

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to Rich on Apr 15 at 16:56
+/-

Why doesn't it work with one guy on the flor - a power forward - who is slow...if the center (sam) can keep up?

My point is that on a fast break - ven with four guys - you can usually get the basket and if it's not there you have the benefit of the trailing 'big' man -

That's always how i saw it when brand was signed

user-pic
Rich reply to JohnEMagee on Apr 15 at 17:04
+/-

It doesn't work because Sam will have to be the guy doing the rebounding so it wouldn't matter if he was Usain Bolt. Sam has the ability keep up as well, but he gets winded and is lazy running the floor. Think about it, Sam should beat his guy down the floor more than he actually does with his athleticism. I just don't think it's a successful pattern with that combo.

user-pic
Mike P reply to JohnEMagee on Apr 15 at 16:54
+/-

Do we have Lebron James?

No.

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to Mike P on Apr 15 at 17:00
+/-

Yes because without lebron james no team can run a fast break.

Please see the entire forest

user-pic
Mike P reply to JohnEMagee on Apr 15 at 17:06
+/-

The Cavs barely run and they have the guy.

In other news, Elton Brand is old.

Not in theory, but the problem comes in the execution. Too much was made of working through Brand as the horse and not pushing the ball aggressively. They should've went to more of a "Seven Seconds or Shaq" type of philosophy. 1st ten seconds are about Early Offense, after that is Brand time.

I do agree, that Brand's issues on defense and on the glass are far more damning than his half-court play.

user-pic
Tom Moore on Apr 15 at 15:28
+/-

Question: Have you been assured you’ll see this search through from start to finish?

Stefanski: As I speak today, yes.

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to Tom Moore on Apr 15 at 15:51
+/-

It's those hedging answers I love.

I wonder if Snider/Lukko are too busy with NHL playoffs to focus on the sixers front office?

user-pic
Rich reply to JohnEMagee on Apr 15 at 16:26
+/-

Yeah, Luuko was at Flyers practice in Newark today.

The last 5 lottery winners:

2009: Clippers (2nd worst record)
2008: Bulls (9th worst record)
2007: Trail Blazers (6th worst record)
2006: Raptors (5th worst record)
2005: Bucks (6th worst record)

* The team with the 7th worst record has never won the lottery

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to steven on Apr 15 at 16:34
+/-

Good thing history has no actual impact on how the lottery actually runs.

So i turned on 97.5 too late to catch stefanski was out getting food and they were just about to start an interview by Mike Misanelli of Stephen A Smith - and I wept

user-pic
steven reply to JohnEMagee on Apr 15 at 16:39
+/-

1. true

ouch-annoying combination. Steven A. Smith is a guy who thinks the Sixers did a major injustice to Eddie Jordan and Missanelli is someone who thinks that the sixers have no talent including Igoudala. Sadly Missanelli is the more knowledgeable basketball guy.

Who let Stephen A. Smith back in Philly?

The Sixers are tied for the 6th-worst record :)

user-pic
Tom Moore on Apr 15 at 16:41
+/-

Stefanski: "I do not agree in the statement that these guys don’t play hard. I think one thing is they’re an extremely resilient group. I have never seen them not play hard. I will say that sometimes when you’re not executing properly, you look like you’re not playing hard. I thought there were times we did not execute properly and some people can say that."

Honestly, I could care less about how hard this group plays.

Stefanski needs to answer why they have not put themselves in a position to land a superstar. or was Brand and Iguodala supposed to be it? They certainly can't get one now through a trade given all of the big contracts they have.

There best shot now is the lottery, but unlike the Kings who traded away a vet and positioned themselves to win the lottery, the Sixers find themselves 1 win too many behind a tie for 4th worse record.

Of course I guess I can't argue with results. Look at their trajectory after that 5 game win streak...

http://www.philly.com/philly/gallery/The_Eddie_Jordan_Era.html?view=graphic

Is $20M in expiring contracts enough to trade for a superstar, should one become available?

Yes... if your ownership is willing to pay through the nose in taxes :)

No more also rans.

Larry Brown may be a carpet bagger, but at least he is a very good coach. I'll happily take him for his manditory 3 years if we can't get Thibodeau.

Stephanski needs to go too if Jordan is getting fired. You have a team that won the last two years with running and defense and was building an identity, so you make two big moves which are the complete opposite of that identity? You need to go because you are dumb.

I kinda feel like having Larry Brown teach Jrue how to play point would be worth his short tenure by itself. And I'd like to see what kinda moves he'd make as a GM too. (also any situation where both Ed and Ed go is totally worth it as well)

I knew if Jordan stayed on, we'd get a fairly high pick, which was why I was against dumping him at the ASB. He's an injury epidemic all to himself

If one were a conspiracy nut, the argument could be made that the Sixers will likely get a "boost" in the lottery. A major media market and flagship franchise operating at half-capacity or worse is bad for business.

The profile or "story" of the last several lottery winners is absolutely fascinating when looked at from this viewpoint. Especially during the years when there was a strong consensus number 1.

2009 - Clippers(major market of a team that needed a high profile star)
2008 Bulls(Same, bonus points for the #1 actually being from there(aka shades of LeBron))
2007 Blazers(Hoops Rabid Town with rich history damaged by Jail Blazers era whose geographical rival received the #2 during the most contentious Either/Or draft debate of the decade)
2006 Raptors(Only team in Canada located in a very cosmopolitan city gets the pick during a year with a high profile international getting mentioned as #1 worthy)
Bucks(Small Market team with rich history(especially involving bigs) that needed a splash badly)
Magic(Got the #1 pick during the draft with a player that resembles Shaq after the T-Mac era died)
Cavs(Need I say more?).

I keep wondering if this means that a "miracle" might happen on the 18th...

user-pic
Rich reply to rswknight on Apr 15 at 17:10
+/-

Huh? Milwaukee? Portland? The Clippers? Raptors? Wouldn't the Knicks have gotten a top pick by now? I think you can make a conspiracy argument for every team.

The Knicks sell fairly well regardless. Plus the team was in shambles from the top down for the last decade. Meanwhile, those small-markets help fortify the NBA's bottom line, especially in places like Portland, Orlando and Milwaukee.

Like I said, if I were a conspiracy nut, this is how I'd be inclined to see it.

I'm sorry, but saying the Sixers can't run with Brand is complete crap. Look at the results. The Sixers played horrible defense all season long, they played slow (23rd in the league in pace) and they were still second in fast break points per game.

What percentage of your offense are you expecting/hoping to get on the break? They were up around 20% this season, with Brand playing 2,300 minutes.

This team didn't get worse because they couldn't run with Brand. They got worse because they couldn't stop anyone on the defensive end and their offensive execution in the half court was completely dependent on 20-foot jumpers, when they didn't have anyone capable of shooting well enough.

user-pic
johnrosz reply to Brian on Apr 15 at 17:23
+/-

Brand was sold to us as a guy that would be a great asset on the fast break as a trailer. Would be able to spot up and knock down an easy J in transition. I'm pretty sure Stefanski had never actually watched EB play before he signed him.

user-pic
Mike P reply to Brian on Apr 15 at 17:24
+/-

I mean if you want to get technical, the sixers CAN run with Brand.

He just needs to be sitting on the bench.

And to counterpoint the "Why didn't NY get a pick", they had really high attendance even with the garbage teams they've had. They've also been talked about constantly regardless of their teams quality, so would they need a high pick?

I am actually kinda hoping for the No 2 pick and Favors. Then we get Larry Brown to come and teach them both D and the pick and roll and after he leaves we are set up with two young studs who have been educated and are ready to win.

I still kinda think Wall and Jrue could play together, like a bigger AI with better passing and the ultimate version of Eric Snow, but I am afraid the Sixers would get the number one and then be like "Okay, lets shop Jrue" instead of trying the Wall/Holiday backcourt.

I don't think they would shop Jrue right away. They would wait at least a year.

I think the Jrue/Wall Backcourt would be dynamic, especially if Jrue's jumper continues to improve. Wall, especially once he fills out, could be like DWade-type. DWade did play the point his 1st year in the L.

user-pic
Mike P reply to rswknight on Apr 15 at 17:43
+/-

Exactly, you'd have Jrue as the floor general leading the way with Wall as the slashing get to the basket super scorer. Jrue's three point shooting at the end of the year was especially nice to see regarding to this theory.

They are both pretty tall for PGs and could play some good D.

The only reason I could accept us getting the first pick and giving up Wall would be if Minnesota got retarded and took Brand along with the number 1 for their like number 3 and Kevin Love or something.

We all just need to cross our fingers as hard as possible for the Holiday/Wall combo platter. I'm sure the site would explode if that happened. Especially if we got a good young coach as well.

Exactly, I could see a Jrue/Wall combo shaping up just like that.

Funny that you mentioned Minn, that is a team I am keeping my eye on as a good trade target. There might be a chance they move their pick, especially for a dynamic swing player. As much as I hate to lose Iguodala, if the Sixers land Wall or Turner, I would consider moving him to Minny for their pick if possible. Three ball-dominant players don't work, especially when only one has a consistent jumper.

Kahn seems goofy enough to consider it.

user-pic
OldSchoolFan reply to Mike P on Apr 15 at 17:59
+/-

I like the Iguodala/Holiday backcourt because of defense. I'd prefer to draft favors or Johnson because they fill key needs. Yes, I understand the "Best Player Available" concept, but would prefer Thad or Johnson at the "3" compared to AI9

IMO, it is Wall, then Favors(though I am intrigued by Cousins too). Turner falls after those too, because if the talent is close, I lean toward Bigs

If Brand were the rebounding and defensive demon we were promised, I'd agree. This Brand though? Rebounds almost as bad as Thad? He does make the running game falter. Especially when most of their running used to come from the Andres & Thad as a 4 with Lou/Willie sometimes on a wing & Sam as the trailer, rarely on the wing himself.

They need to refine their fastbreak/early offense flow with Brand so that players know how they are expected to get out and go

I'm not sure Brand vs. Thad is as black and white as you say. Brand contributes about the same amount of steals, a ton more blocks and about the same d-board rate.

Running isn't just about how fast you are, it's about stops and making plays on the defensive end to spring transition opportunities.

user-pic
Rich reply to Brian on Apr 15 at 17:52
+/-

Yeah, their defensive rebounding rate has a very small difference though, especially for as bad a rebounder as Thad. They dropped from 3rd to 15th in forcing turnovers too. As bad as Jordan was (awful), a 4 who can't rebound or run is really dicey going forward.

I never said that was why they were bad this year either, that must be a little birdie in your head that other people represent. I don't think they can do it going forward. They played terrible defense this year, so who cares how much they scored in transition? Jordan played a lot of wacky lineups too, it's not like they were consistently running with Brand at the 4. Golden State was 1st in the league in fast break points, and they know nothing about stops and making plays on the end.

GSW is really a different kind of running game, though. As far as I can tell, the Sixers transition points were mostly scored off d-boards (mainly d-boards grabbed by AI9) and forced turnovers/blocks. GSW's points aren't really transition so much as just running down the floor after a make and jacking up a shot with 21 seconds left on the shot clock.

user-pic
Rich reply to Brian on Apr 15 at 18:02
+/-

Actually, Golden State forced the most turnovers in the league. It isn't all just Nellie Ball giving them points. It's terrible defense, but they do it a lot of the way the Sixers do. Play terrible D, but force TO's. You also have to factor in the Sixers jacking up open jumpers with 21 seconds left too. They did it a lot. How many Kapono/Willie threes in transition did we see this year? It wasn't nearly as much layups and high percentage looks as it was in past year.

True, but you also look at how and when those stops occur. Brand tends to get stops under the basket that, when coupled with the Sixers not looking to aggressively push non-stop, doesn't allow for as many breaks.

Thad, on the other hand, gets more perimeter deflections and/or long rebounds that more easily trigger transition chances, especially when combined with the fact that Thad, as a four, will outrun his man. As will Dre, at either wing spot. So much of the Sixers break opportunities over the last 2 seasons have been the result of their sheer athletic advantages, and not designed floor imbalances on defense that create opportunities with numbers

The Sixers have not really emphasized a formal controlled break consistently. On the Showtime Lakers, for instance, everybody knew their roles on the break. Magic was the Point with Worthy or Scott or Green as wings and Kareem was the trailer. The Early 90s Bulls were similar, with either Jordan or Pippen as the Point, with the other, plus Grant on the wings and Paxson/BJ trailing for a jumper.

Even LB's Sixers had fastbreak roles. AI was almost always the point on the break by designation, with everybody else filling the wings.

OTOH, The Sixers just go. The closest they have come to a guiding strategem is the whole "throw the ball ahead" thing, which is nice, but they could do more. The point man varies, as do the wings and sometimes they lose spacing, trip over one another and blow easy chances with unforced errors. If they want Brand to be a part of it(a better rebounding Brand) they need to work on where everybody will be. Who is going to run the point(I say Jrue then Dre), who will always fill the wings, etc. But all that comes with better coaching, obviously

Brian. here's a possible post idea for you. By percentage, how would you assign the blame for this team's lack of success?

I'd go with:

40% Jordan being a horrible excuse for a coach (8 losses)

20% Adjusting to a new coach/system (4 losses)

20% Going into new season without a PG and then starting a TO probe rookie (4 losses)

5% injuries (1 loss)

15% Players giving up (3 losses)
--------------------------------
Total of 20 losses. So zero injuries, good coach, good PG in place and motivated players their absolute ceiling was about 47 wins. Getting past their is up to the GM.

I'm not sure you can dole out blame like that accurately. I think it all started w/ the coach and the decision to start Lou at PG and snowballed from there.

Your overall assessment of 47 wins w/ a good coach and a league-average PG for the season is probably in line. So you're talking about squeezing 8 more wins above the ceiling this season to be a legit contender, right? Is the draft and development of the younger guys on the roster enough to do that, assuming you get a legit coach? I don't know.

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to tk76 on Apr 15 at 17:55
+/-

I'm not sure of breakdown but i think t best this team was 500

47 wins is the 5 seed in the east

user-pic
johnrosz on Apr 15 at 17:56
+/-

I want Van Gundy, thats my guy if I can have anyone. I doubt he's coming here, but I can dream

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to johnrosz on Apr 15 at 17:59
+/-

You're welcome to him - i'd welcome him back in the league as long as he isn't coaching the sixers

user-pic
Rich reply to JohnEMagee on Apr 15 at 18:05
+/-

Curious, who do you want then?

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to Rich on Apr 15 at 18:13
+/-

I don't paly the 'name that tune game' because we only know a handful of guys who would coach based on their past history's - i have no interest in brown or van gundy and have said so repeatedly...neither you nor I nor anyone here knows the resumes of the qualified assistants out there well enough.

user-pic
Rich reply to JohnEMagee on Apr 15 at 18:18
+/-

I'm aware I don't know who is qualified, but I don't know if there are that many off the radar guys. In other words, I'm scared there might be a reason why we don't know anyone. It doesn't really seem like college where there are a bunch of off the radar or young guys that can coach a team. I remember it seemed weird when a guy like Spolestra got that job. I hope there are a couple more options.

user-pic
Rich reply to Rich on Apr 15 at 18:22
+/-

Brian Shaw of the Lakers always intrigued me though, if he would dump the triangle to run a little though.

I always liked Shaw. Ex-Sixer too, if that matters

user-pic
johnrosz reply to rswknight on Apr 15 at 19:02
+/-

I can't stand Brian Shaw, he made some big shots in the 01 Finals. That bastard.

lol. Yep, he did. Smart player, rising asst type

user-pic
johnrosz reply to JohnEMagee on Apr 15 at 18:24
+/-

You'd really take an unproven assistant over JVG? I'm tired of switching coaches every 2 years, why take a chance on an assistant? This team needs to establish some form of an identity, I'm not willing to take another chance on a guy that MIGHT be a decent coach, Van Gundy would build a winner.

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to johnrosz on Apr 15 at 18:30
+/-

At one point

Phil Jackson
Gregg Poppovich
Even the great scott skile

Were assistants, unproven coaches, who no one thought could coach, and then they could.

Your rationale - which seems to be prevalent in the NBA - is why the same guys no matter how much crap they are - keep getting jobs - why a guy like eddie jordan will get another job - cause he's 'done it before'

"Unproven" assistants get jobs in the NFL all the time and there's no outcry - this is just yet another reason why the NBA is so fucked...an unproven assistant is unproven to you - to me - but he's not unproven in the league -why does everyone fucking slobber over tom thibodeau (who two years in a row couldn't convince anyone to hire him) yet all other asistsnats are dismissed by recycling the same also rans and has beens.

You want a big name coach - that's great - you know what happens - the same bull shit slip shod 'patch work' roster building - no big name coach is going to come in and take a rebuliding job - say good bye to youth - or any hope of building a solid contending tema - big names require quick fixes - no championships but at least making the playoffs.

If Jeff Van Gundy REALLY wanted to coach - why the fuck isn't he coaching - if you want to coach YOU COACH - van gundy's name is floated every off season and every off season he decides to stay behind the mic where he can make his 'expert' pronouncements and 'back seat driving' without any accountability to anyone - he can be a great coach (and seen as a great coach) without ever actually coaching - van gundy is seen as a better coach now - a few years out of the league - then he ever was as a coach - it's amazing how peoples memories fade.

The only thing worse would be hiring a tool like marc jackson who can't even be bothered to be an assistant coach before he decides he's good enough to be a head coach (i guess a little tv and an appearance in eddie with whoopie goldberg is enough)

user-pic
johnrosz reply to JohnEMagee on Apr 15 at 18:46
+/-

thats hysterical, you really just tried to compare Eddie Jordan to Van Gundy?

What has Van Gundy done, taking an 8th seed to the NBA finals isn't a big deal or anything...

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to johnrosz on Apr 15 at 18:47
+/-

And what has he done lately but turn down jobs every off season since he went to work with ABC

So how much does he really want to coach.

I pointed out that most fans only point to retreads or coaching nonsense that they already know and pointed out many guys who weren't good coaches until, you know, they were

Kind of like Van Gundy

user-pic
johnrosz reply to JohnEMagee on Apr 15 at 19:00
+/-

You can't argue with the guys record, 430-318, won 50 plus games 4 times in 9 full seasons, has only missed the playoffs once. I feel like its a lot more logical going with the proven track record than taking the remote chance you've found the next Phil Jackson in some unproven assistant.

You are mistaken if you try to lump Van Gundy in with the "retreads"

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to johnrosz on Apr 15 at 19:02
+/-

And you are mistaken since yo udidn't read what i wrote about what hiring a guy like van gundy means to the long term health and success of this team - they need to rebuild - this roster isn't talented enough to win with ANY coach - they're just not that fucking good - they're a 500 team at best - van gundy wants to coach a team with 500 level talent? No he wants them to make quick moves jettisoning the young and bringing in the 'proven veterans' so his wonderful winning percentage doesn't take a hit.

He's a retread pure and simple, and a retread WHO DOEST WANT TO COACH - which is another factor all the van gundy fellatiaters ignore.

user-pic
johnrosz reply to JohnEMagee on Apr 15 at 19:08
+/-

I can agree with you to an extent. He wouldn't come here unless the price was right obviously. I think he'd turn this into a playoff team right away though. If you're of the thinking that it has to get a whole lot worse before it gets better thats not something I disagree with. What about Aaron McKie?

user-pic
Tom Moore on Apr 15 at 18:03
+/-

I looked up my story from Jordan's hiring 10 1/2 months ago. Stefanski: "Eddie's system (Princeton offense) fits us perfectly with the talent and personnel we have."

So, I am wondering why no one in the Sixers organization seems to be interested in holding him accountable on that. He ducked that line of questioning in the press conference, but it is either Nepotism or Ineptness that caused him to miss the fact that Jordan was such a bad fit.

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to Tom Moore on Apr 15 at 18:14
+/-

Except that how could he posibly believe that when the 'creating open shot' thing doesn't work when you have no shooters...no agile big man in the middle to make the pass.

The more i read about the princeton offense the more obvious it became it would never work with this roster...stefanski should have known that if he knows basketball

maybe he just don't know basketball

user-pic
JohnEMagee on Apr 15 at 18:15
+/-

By the way

out of the ordinary coaching candidates from an unlikely source

http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/columns/story?id=5019885

Of that group, I like Turner & Casey the most. I put them on my list with Laimbeer & Thibodeau of candidates I would definitely interview.

user-pic
Mike P. reply to JohnEMagee on Apr 15 at 18:30
+/-

I'd be okay with Casey, and I'd really like Turner.

I really like Adelman as a coach. He is smart enough to work with the pieces he has instead of trying to shove a square shaped system into a round holed team.

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to Mike P. on Apr 15 at 18:32
+/-

Aldridge floated a couple rumors

1. That Casey was interviewed twice by the sixers last year but is also a major candidate for the clippers job.

2. If brown is hired by the sixers, stefanski is most likely fired, so as long as stefanski is in charge of the search, at least borwn won't be hired :)

user-pic
Mike P. reply to JohnEMagee on Apr 15 at 19:13
+/-

I just don't want someone like Doug Collins or Lawrence Frank.

Thibodeau, and now Turner would be very great. An assistant who has been Adelmans no 2 for a long time? Why shouldn't the Sixers hire him.

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to Mike P. on Apr 15 at 19:17
+/-

Why not Frank? I thik he got a raw deal in Jersey this year and is actualy quite a good coach and wouldn't put him in the same clase of ego mania as I would Collins

user-pic
Mike P. reply to JohnEMagee on Apr 15 at 19:22
+/-

You know I have no idea why I wouldn't like him aside from that he was a name of a coach who was recently fired that I remembered.

When I think about it, he did do a pretty good job with the few pieces he had.

I don't know why some people would be against hiring top assistants. Looke what Alvin Gentry did in Phx his year. Look what Scottie Brooks is doing in OKC.

The only real reason I'd want Larry Brown is to get rid of Ed S and have him teach Jrue. Other then that I'd really like to get a new assistant type of guy to coach the young Sixers. Guys like Turner and this Spurs assistant are very intriguing and I'd want them over brown. Of course I am not boss of the team.

Adelman wins wherever he goes. Not a hardcore systems type, just a smart quality coach. Turner gets a lot of credit from him as his chief deputy. But I've been on the Turner bandwagon since before Jordan was hired.

user-pic
Harold reply to JohnEMagee on Apr 15 at 18:52
+/-

What do you mean unlikely of sources. The Sixers are the Clippers East. Similar uniforms, similar apathic owner, and both overshadowed by other sports teams in their city-For Clippers its Lakers and Dodgers for Sixers its Eagles and Philies. Its not a coincidence that they fired their coach on the same day...

Check this out, they're both interested in Dwane Casey...

http://twitter.com/WojYahooNBA

WojYahooNBA

The Clippers fired interim Kim Hughes, team says. Dallas assistant Dwane Casey has emerged as top candidate for the job.

about 4 hours ago via web should it want to hire Casey
this time, because sources say he's moved to top of Clippers search. OKC almost hired Casey over PJ Carlesimo.

about 5 hours ago via web Ed Stefanski interviewed Dwane Casey twice last year and source close to Sixers GM says "He loved him." Philly may have to move fast....
about 5 hours ago via web

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to Harold on Apr 15 at 18:59
+/-

Except that the clippers fired their 'real' coach a few months ago - and the source of the article isn't the clippers - it's an espn.com blogger for basketball and mmostly they provide useless information and horribly written articles

The clippers have better ownership than the sixes as far as i'm concerned - sure he's a racist douche bag but he only answers to himself - not stock holders - and i'll take the rich owner versus the corporate owern any day of the week

Course, I also think he's an idiot - cause the clippers should move to anaheim

One candidate that should seriously be considered and better at least be interviewed is Mike Budenholzer, the head assistant to Pop in San Antonio for the past 12 years. He is only 38 years old, so he has to be very hungry to prove that he could step out from under Pops shadow.We need someone from a stable organization like the Spurs to bring some of that stability to our franchise.

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to Steve on Apr 15 at 19:08
+/-

the head assistant to Pop in San Antonio for the past 12 years. He is only 38 years old,

he got a top assistant job in the NBA at 26...ok so that's just interesting.

Here's the thing all you 'no assistant / first timer' people

EVERY coach in the NBA had a first job at some point

I'd love to strike gold with a first-timer, but my first choice is a proven winner with a solid defensive pedigree like Van Gundy. And saying you don't want him because he doesn't want to coach is ridiculous. If he takes the job, he wants to coach. If he doesn't, you can't get him anyway.

As far as the horrible sin of trying to make the team better in the short term, I'm also fine with that. They have a lottery pick this season, potentially a top-three pick. If the organization is willing to pony up the money to get Van Gundy, I'd have to believe they'd also open the wallet to improve the roster, including paying the luxury tax.

From a coach, the number one thing I want right now is the right guy for the next 4 years. That's the only reason I'm not crazy about bringing LB back, because he'd probably only be here for a couple of years.

They need to find the answer for more than just one season, they need a coach who's going to buy in and develop the young guys and form an identity. Of the "retreads" Van Gundy is the one guy that fits that mold to me. If he doesn't want to coach, then I start looking at top assistants who have learned under coaches I respect. Bill Laimbeer does not fit that mold. Maybe Evan Turner does, but I'm more interested in somebody who learned under Sloan or Pop.

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to Brian on Apr 15 at 19:30
+/-

He's had better opportunities than the sixers - supposedly - and passed on them - he could have had any job he really wanted based on all the 'fan and media' hype - yet he keeps passing on them - oh yeah - he admitted that rick adelman is a better coach with the same roster than he was...I don't trust his dedication to coaching - if he coaching was his blood he would have been back already.

Not to mention I think the point is moot cause no way I see the sixers ponying up real money for a real coach.

I know short term fixes make everyone happy - but this team isn't one or two players away from contending for a title unless those players names are Lebron James and some power forward who plays defense

I don't really see bringing in a really good coach as a short-term fix. LB you could spin that way, JVG, I don't think so.

And saying "I don't want him because we can't get him," isn't really a valid argument.

user-pic
Steve reply to Brian on Apr 15 at 20:39
+/-

Would you be interested at all in the candidate I brought up from San Antonio? Pop has given him a ringing endorsement. I doubt we can get Van Gundy and I think he would be a better choice than Doug Collins or Dwayne Casey or whoever else is out there honestly.

Yes, definitely. He really started there when he was 26?

user-pic
tk76 reply to Brian on Apr 15 at 21:13
+/-

Wow, player/coach as a 22 year old rookie? That might be asking a bit much.

But maybe he would be fine if his uncle Elston was his lead assistant.

user-pic
tk76 reply to tk76 on Apr 15 at 21:14
+/-

In response to your "maybe Evan Turner does" typo.

I should go back and change it to Elston just to make you second guess yourself, but I won't. :)

Evan Turner as player/coach would be infinitely better than Eddie Jordan for another year.

user-pic
teddy green on Apr 15 at 19:54
+/-

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/radio/archive?id=4554254

Since we're talking Clipper-Sixers paralles. Here's a
great podcast interview with just fired Clipper coach Kim Hughes.

Click on the 4/15 date. Kim Hughes says that coaches are overated and talent wins is what truely win games. The guy is such a straight shooter unlike spin meister Ed Stefanski...

user-pic
eddies' heady's reply to teddy green on Apr 16 at 0:36
+/-

And Kim Hughes is a very smart man if he, in fact, said that because it's true as hell. Not to mention it's an argument I've made on here the last month or so. :)

never mess with another man's offense scheme.

Somebody went and threw away a perfectly good nba coach.

user-pic
teddy green on Apr 16 at 23:22
+/-

http://www.redlasso.com/ClipPlayer.aspx?id=e38c5f42-e22a-4325-959c-09f3940404c4

You have to hear this 2009 WIP Kate Fagan interview. It is very revealing...

btw: Kate is incredibly cute. i have a major crush...


Expand/Contract all comments

Leave a comment


back-to-story.gif