DFDepressed FanDepressed Fan



, all the time

Pressing Advantages

Brian- against Boston what would you call a successful step in the right direction stat line for Turner?

If he is efficient with low turnovers and is getting to the line and is on the boards- is that enough? Or should we be looking for more a more aggressive shot selection to point towards increased confidence and Collins coaching him towards more of a scoring role? Ideally a combination of both...but what's the minimum you want to see out of him?

I think a gambling/pressure style defense needs a shot blocker defending the cup even more than a conventional defense. If you are pressing then the opponent will get chances to drive when the defense inevitably over-commits while applying pressure. And that drive is an automatic basket when there is no shot blocker.

But if you apply tight pressure and get blown by you still have a chance if there is a guy like Sam(or DH12) protecting the lane. The shot defensive big might deter the player from driving, allowing the defense to recover. Or if they do drive they will alter their shot, leading to a better chance you escape the possession.

If you want to minimize a team getting into the lane its more advisable to lay off and play a more passive, pack it in type defense. This dare opponents to shoot and concentrates defenders in the lane, cutting down both drives, entry passes and O-board chances. But I don't feel this is the best way to use the Sixers excellent perimeter defenders.

Moral of the story- you are hosed when you trade away your only interior defender and don't have a replacement anywhere in sight.

Yeah, I disagree here. Sagging off may help cover up a pitiful interior defense, but it's not going to solve that problem. I think the best philosophy is to pressure the hell out of the ball and make it harder to get into sets, harder to get the ball into the lane. They'd probably get torched off the dribble more often that way, but they need their perimeter guys to make plays on the defensive end, sagging is too passive for that.

To clarify that last point a bit: No matter what they do, I don't think they're going to be a good defensive team. With intense pressure they can at least be a bad defensive team that forces turnovers and initiates the offense w/ their defense, as opposed to a passive bad defense that plays poorly at a slow pace by packing it in.

I don't think we are disagreeing. The best way to use their good perimeter defenders is to have them be active. It's just a shame they lack a paint defender to help deter the inevitable drives that pressure defense leads to.

Rob_STC reply to Brian on Oct 12 at 13:53

I agree with this. Phoenix won 60 games with this type of approach and of course they had the magician point guard who could shoot the 3, Amare who is a skilled big man, Marion who was a pretty good defender-rbounder and could shoot the 3.Q Rich that one year tied Korver for the most made 3's, and Barbosa,who could also spread the floor. So to sum it up the Sixers 3 point shooting would have to improve dramatically and the number of 3's would go up. Unfortunately they don't have this type of skilled personnel offensively.

By the way, the game is also on NBA TV, so even those not in the Philly or Boston areas can see it.

Nice. My night is looking better already.

The Sixers simply don't have the shooters to make a system like that work against the Celtics tonight.

The sixers simply don't have the shooters to make a system like that work.

Against any team

Well, their "system" will work against sloppy/lazy teams that don't protect the ball and settle for long range jumpers. And this so called system was best utilized by Mo Cheeks in 2008-9.

Typically, however, the smaller, quicker team uses their athletic advantage to spread the floor, create creases and then hit open threes.

The system as Brian described (in italics) depends on players who can hit open threes.

Yeah, that definitely won't work. I was thinking more small ball with lots of drives off of isolation.

I still can't get yesterday's scrimmage results out of my head. It just shows how hard it is to win if you have no shooters. The starts had superior talent and superior defenders and almost every position- by a wide margin. Yet the bench team had better shooters at every position. So even through they should have been out manned, they were able to win by hitting shots.

You don't have to work so hard for easy looks if you have shooters.

bench........ starters
Quinn.....v Jrue
Meeks.....v Turner
Kapono....v Iguodala
Brackins..v Thad
Speights..v Brand

Man, if they played a straight up scrimmage and bench really won that's just sad.

It sounds like they played a full game based on the final score. And yes, its almost hard to believe. Would that bench team beat a good college squad?

Back to Collins original lineup, he had the bigs being the shooters and "spreading the floor" and being "ball friendly." But I don't see Thad or Brand as being particularly good shooters or ball friendly :)

The way this team is constructed, they need to outwork the opponent and play flawlessly to win. they can't just generate a good shot, since their starters can't hit shots consistently. They need to generate layups.

And on defense, they can just be solid- since they will give up a lot of o-boards and post scores. they need to create steals, both to limit the opponent's chances and jump start easy offense.

While if they had a few pure shooters and one top interior defender the game would be so much easier for them.

Tray reply to tk76 on Oct 12 at 12:43

That would be a pretty loaded college squad. Probably a Final 4 team. Certainly vulnerable against teams with quality size, but there are so few of those in college.

Jrue/Turner are the starting backcourt again.

As you predicted...

Personally I don't care who starts. As long as Turner gets enough minutes.

Turner's too talented, with too much invested, not to be starting. I would be very upset if he starts over Thad, and I'm a (relative) Thad fan. I hope they get rid of Noc so they can make Thad a 25-30 mpg sub at both forwards.

And that's just logic I don't buy.

I read it in a chat yesterday how some guys on the raps 'have' to get minutes. Why? They still get paid if they don't play.

Nocioni isnt part of the future of the sixers, he's an unfortunate byproduct of a silly trade that saved comcast some money. Pay him his money, inactivate him all season.

Then again, in a chat yesterday I saw someone compare a player on the raptors to a young reggie, and if he meant evans I was sad for said player.

Thad's minutes should be whatever they want them to be, regardless of if Nocioni is on the roster or not. He doesn't have to play.

Again, this isn't in the context of how I would distribute minutes, but how I think the coach will. I want Noc gone because I can see Collins giving the veteran minutes.

Sorry, I didn't mean you thought that way, I know you don't, but I was just kind of commenting my disdain for the idea and you mentioned it :)

It's ridiculous that a team such as this will give minutes to a guy like nocioni (or kapono really, who only has value as an expiring contract) in an attempt to win games that in the long run don't help this team win a title.

I had hoped that Collins would look at the roster and understand the buliding required, not to continue with the Billy King/Stefanski, oh we can lose in the first round if we get one more piece crazy spiral.

Same frontcourt as vs the Nets as well (Holiday, Turner, Iguodala, Young, Brand starting lineup)

Water under bridge, but would Amare Stoudemire have helped Sixers cause? Or Shamrocq O'Neal? They were two available legit bigs this summer. A season with present lack of frontline muscle/skill/attitude is a sorry prospect. That said, I don't rue the "loss" of Sam Dalembert ... prefer this new shortage.

And how would the sixers have signed either of them?

They probably should have signed Josh Smith instead of Elton Brand

Agree that the problem is not Sam being gone. he was a goner regardless. But they knew that for years, and yet the only bigs added over the last few years have been "offensive."

How? Make a bolder-than-usual trade. Pile required roster accesories into Phoenix delivery of Iguodala for Amare.

And Shaq signed for veteran's minimum of $1.4. It's called stepping it up, a foreign concept to Team Hooked On Swing Men. (Of course Boston, with winning heritage and slew of big-timers with whom to compete, had serious edge in luring/motivating him, even if the Sixers cared to get in the game.)

They probably could've traded Iguodala and Jrue or Iguodala and Turner to get Amare, but I'm not sure how that makes you a better team than you are right now. As for slaq, he has to want to sign with you and there was no way he was coming here. He's not an impact player at this point in his career anyway.

If you think signing for the minimum in boston and signing for the minimum in Philadelphia is the same thing, then there's very little leeft to say. Shaq doesn't help the sixers develop

As for your idea of trading for Amare, you'd have to trade away key pieces to get Amare and StILL be capped out, so what's the point except you add an older player with a bad injury history who doesn't really like to defend.

Read the post and you'll know I don't think that.

Am not into watching a 2-4 yr developmental camp. This is the NBA, including price of product. Win now, or at least try harder in the attempt.

"Key pieces"... to a dream. Just 'pieces' from my perspective. I prioritize strong interior play. Ya don't win without it. Ask Jerry West and Elgin Baylor.

Am not into watching a 2-4 yr developmental camp.

You'd much rather watch a team that gets a low seed and has no shot in the first round of the playoffs every year then huh?
Players need time to develop, in all sports

Rob_STC reply to jjg on Oct 12 at 14:43

I am in the JJG camp. The price of my tix are still thew same I have been watching development camp for years already. I would think this is why Rod Thorn is here. He is 70 years old. Don't think he wants to wait another 5 years for this team to turn around.

You sure he's not here to bring about another 12-70 special?

Just kidding- but I'm not sure what this team can do other than try an build over the next 3 years. They have Brand's contract- and that limits what they can do because of the cap.

At best they cam swap out all of the youth for some disgruntled vets Bobcat or Memphis style. But I think that would be an even worse option.

There are no 'immediate' turn arounds in the NBA unless you got lottery lucky or can screw over a team in a trade, neither of which the sixers did. They got lucky with Turner, but I'm talking Lebron James lucky

Shaq picked the Celtics, they didn't pick him.

Specifically for the Celtics game, Turner brings us a guy who will try to chase Allen around, which used to be Iggys job. If Turner can do that, PP won't be able to have a field day because Iggy will guard him.

tk76 reply to Rich on Oct 12 at 14:25

Even with the Sixers going small, defensively the Sxiers match-up O.K. Mostly because I don't see Shaq or KG taking advantage of smaller defenders at this stage of their careers. And, as you mentioned, J/T/I match up pretty well defensively with Rondo/Ray/PP.

The problem will be securing D-boards and doing anything on the offensive end.

Either way, glad to see a game on TV (in my case only sort of :)

Rich reply to tk76 on Oct 12 at 14:54

For those who are watching NBA TV, will we be getting Tommy Heinsohn? I'm afraid that will be the case.

I didn't see the last game against Boston, but Jrue had a couple of turnovers where he looked like he was out of control trying to push the ball. Rondo's probably the last guy you want to be guilty of doing that against. One of my favorite things that Jrue does is the quick 50 foot pass ahead, which inevitably handed up in the hands of Willie for a 20 foot jumper. Hopefully Turner can be the beneficiary of that more this season.

Useless thought of the day:

Sometimes you have Kobe and Shaq... and sometimes its more like Kebu (Stewart) and Shacklefod.

Interesting post on overrated players from detroitbadboys via BDL:

"X - The Top Three Picks in the 2010 NBA Draft

I can't just pick one. This draft class was so over-hyped, the best player was picked fifth for some reason, and there are so many reasons why each of these guys has failed to impress me.

John Wall did nothing in college that would make one think he's going to be a superstar, and couldn't get easy baskets playing alongside DeMarcus Cousins. Evan Turner was awful in summer league, which is a very ominous sign, though I still think he'll be the best of the three. Derrick Favors is a project, and the success rate of "projects" is not at all good. Prediction: DeMarcus Cousins makes more all-star teams than these three combined."


I saw that a while back. I guess they can't all be Darkos, can they.

Tray reply to Brian on Oct 12 at 18:30

I think Wall will make many an All-Star team, Cousins will make... 2-3, Turner will make 0, and Favors could either make none or a bunch. I'll say his average expected All-Star team makes is 1.

Expand/Contract all comments

Leave a comment