DFDepressed FanDepressed Fan

All  

Sixers

, all the time

Where To Start?

PG Steve Nash
SG Kobe Bryant
SF Lebron James
PF Time Duncan
C Shaquille O' Neal
6th Dwayne Wade
7th Kevin Garnett
8th Allen Iverson
9th Blake Griffin
10th Jason Kidd
11th Dwight Howard
12th Derrick Rose
13th Chris Webber
14th Amare Stoudemire
15th Carmelo Anthony

user-pic
Court_visioN on Dec 24 at 1:36
+/-

1. Shaq. His strength and agility during his prime are unparalleled.

2. Shaq.

3. Kobe. A complete player on the offensive end, with a killer instinct to finish the game off, and is a tough defender when he wants to be. Has a huge ego though, haha.

4. Kidd. Very good defender, and can carry the offense simply by setting up marginal players. Would have liked to see him develop his 3-pt shot sooner but he's just a complete player who's a genius on the court.

5. Kobe and Shaq. Sucked that their egos were too big to handle each other, they were actually really good complements on the court. Shaq starts by wearing down the defense and Kobe finished them off.

Brian, I agree with your picks. But I'm really on the fence between Kidd and CP3. Starting from scratch I'd go with Kidd. But if I already had Shaq I'd go with CP3, since a big PG is less important if you have Shaq in the paint, and CP3's penetration + Shaq would be unstoppable.

So I posted that horrible stat about the team going 2-10 when Turner plays 24+ minutes... well I just realized those 2 wins were when Iguodala was hurt. So the team has yet to win when Turner and Iguodala play regular minutes.

This goes beyond Turner's struggles or peoples hate of Iguodala. I think this team really struggles when they regularly have two non-shooters on the wings for long stretches. Struggles as in never wins.

Collins knows this. That is why he has thrown Kapono, Nocioni and now Meeks out there. Is he just biding his time until Iguodala is traded? Because I don't think Collins believes they can succeed with two wings who can't shoot.

This was brought up the day Turner was drafted. Jrue can fit with probably any wing. Iguodala can fit on most teams. And probably you will eventually say the same for Turner. But Iguodala will never be an effective jump shooter. And I doubt Turner will be one for many years (if ever.)

You don't draft at #2 for fit. But do you think Collins or Stefanski decided they would trade Iguodala once they drafted Turner? Or did they think a team with 2 wings who can't shoot would somehow work? Do you think it can work?

user-pic
tk76 reply to tk76 on Dec 24 at 3:21
+/-

So if Fagan is right and Iguodala is moved it won't be Turner's fault... But it might be Stefanski's by setting the wheels in motion when he committed the team to two wing players who don't exactly complement each other. And we all know that the team will chose the #2 pick on the rookie scale over Iguodala.

And some of us know how we'll have regrets after Iguodala finds success on a winner that can properly utilize his talents. I just hope they don't trade him to another terrible fit like the Cavs.

This goes beyond Turner's struggles or peoples hate of Iguodala. I think this team really struggles when they regularly have two non-shooters on the wings for long stretches. Struggles as in never wins.

Your original stats were interesting, but I think a closer look shows you are reaching too strong of a conclusion. Turner and Iguodala have both played 25 minutes in exactly 5 games this year (0-5). Three of those games were in the first 4 games of the year, when the team hadn't established its rotation or identity. The most recent of the games (and the only one since Nov. 12) was the Bulls blowout, which had very little to do with Turner and Iguodala playing together.

The team is also 2-5 in the other 7 games where Turner has played 24 minutes and Iguodala has not. In the 12 games where he's played 24+ minutes, he's shot 50% or better 4 times (not coincidentally, two of those times were the two wins). With these small sample sizes, the simpler conclusion wins out for me (Occam's Razor): when you give heavy minutes to a player who isn't playing well, your chances of losing are higher. In other words, it doesn't "go beyond Turner's struggles" for me.

Because I don't think Collins believes they can succeed with two wings who can't shoot. But do you think Collins or Stefanski decided they would trade Iguodala once they drafted Turner? Or did they think a team with 2 wings who can't shoot would somehow work? Do you think it can work?

The Sixers' own recent history argues against this. Who was the shooter on the 08-09 team, which started Iguodala, Thad, Dalembert, Miller, and Green? As a team, they shot 32% from 3-point range, but the lack of a 3-point threat didn't prevent Iguodala, Miller, and Thad from having very good years offensively. And, coming into this season, most people would have thought that Turner was an upgrade over Green, so substituting a "theoretically good" Turner for Green on that team might have elevated it from 41 to 48 wins. I say "theoretically good" because Turner's play hasn't even been Green-level so far.

So can it work, having two wings who aren't great jumpshooters? I think it can, provided two things happen: (1) Turner needs to play better and (2) Jrue needs to do a better job of running the halfcourt offense consistently, the way Miller did.

user-pic
tk76 reply to Statman on Dec 24 at 14:57
+/-

A lot of us at the time complained that Miller and Iguodala were ill filled because of their lack of shooting. But I guess in hindsight they fit better than we realized.

At the time I think most of us over-estimated the teams talent level by thinking the addition of Brand to an over-achieving young team (that went 40-41) would elevate them to near contender status.

Well, I mean, logically a relatively healthy brand would've put that team up to 45-50 wins, at least. I mean, the Brand we're seeing right now would've probably added that many wins if they had a coach who could've figured out how to use him.

user-pic
tk76 reply to Brian on Dec 24 at 15:28
+/-

Oops- my response ended up below. I'll copy it here:

I certainly thought so at the time.

Looking back, the question is how much was the 40 win team a product of overachieving through youth, hustle and a ragged style of play. And how much of that carries over when you add a healthy brand to that particular equation. And how close does that get you to being a contender.

At the time I thought it could lead them to being an "Atlanta level" team. A team lacking the high end superstars or talent to be considered a top 4 contender- but a team that is just a half a step below who maybe could catch lightning in a bottle if everything went their way.

And at the time that was not such a bad prospect given where the team had been. And then the hope was that someone like Thad might emerge as a superstar in a few years as Brand and Miller got older... At least that was what Stefanski was selling. And it seemed reasonable at the time.

But again, I think we saw some of our young players through rose colored glasses because the overachieved. When you win though talent and execution the sky is the limit. But when you are playing that type of ragged, energy game, there is only so far it can take you once the playoffs come around. At you can't go higher than giving "110%" every night, while a star driven or system driven team can up their game in the crunch.

1. my choice is Shaq, no dubt!

2. Shaq.

3. Melo Anthony

4. Steve Nash.

5. Shaq and my two picks are Chris Webber and Steve Nash

user-pic
deepsixersuede on Dec 24 at 7:41
+/-

I will go new school and start with B.Griffin, followed by A.Bogut, because of how he defends, and Deron Williams. That big 3 would be fun to watch.

1. Has to be Shaq.
2. Shaq.
3. Kobe. The guy who wants to win the most, and arguably the most skilled wing since 1990.
4. Chris Paul. He's special.
5. Kobe and Duncan. Their personalities would mesh the way Shaq and Kobe's never did. Shaq and Kobe should have been a non-stop championship machine- Duncan and Kobe would be the next best duo, just with better chemistry and staying power.

1. Shaq
2. Shaq
3. Kobe
4. CP3
5. Nowitzki and Lebron

Michael Olowokandi
Eric Piatkowski
Jeff McInnis
Keyon Dooling and Darius Miles

I'm too lazy to play today, but mildly surprised by all the Shaq love. I'm wondering if anyone would like to fill in their case for Shaq with advanced stats. Specifically, I'm looking for a little color on how many years his great period lasted for, and what he brought to the other side of the ball. With some of the top level Laker teams, one could get a good, legitimate debate going about whether the overall team strength actually helped or limited Shaq's offensive output.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/o/onealsh01.html

97-2003?

I hate that fat tub of goo but when he came into the league he was a dominant beast for a long while, sure he didn't work on getting better, but he didn't really have to either.

I'd actually say he was not dominant with Orlando (e.g. Brown's Pacers shut him down in one playoff series) but by the time he entered his prime with the Lakers he had added some moves and diversified his short range game. What I'm really thinking about though is, let's say we are comparing Shaq and Duncan. At his best, Shaq was certainly more offensively dominant. But Duncan was good for more years, subjectively better on defense, and didn't have the same FT% weakness. So what are the stats and criteria that make Shaq better?

I think I'd have to take Duncan. (And LeBron for wings, of course.) Duncan was so much more of a defensive force than Shaq and was much more durable in his prime than Shaq, who routinely missed 15 games a season. Better passer too, and he's aging better than Shaq. The win shares bear my choice out.

Also, LeBron has contraction plans for the league, wants to make every team like Miami:

“Hopefully the league can figure out one day how it can go back to the situation like it was in the ‘80s,” James said. “… The league was great. It wasn’t as watered down as it is. You had more [star] players on a team, which made almost every game anticipated -- not just a Christmas Day game, not just a Halloween game. I don’t ever think it’s bad for the league when guys decide that they want to do some greatness for the better of what we call a team sport.

“I’m a player," James said, "but that’s why the league was so great. You can just imagine if you could take Kevin Love off Minnesota and add him to another team and you shrink the guys … I’m just looking at some of the teams that are not that great. You take Brook Lopez or you take Devin Harris off teams that are not that good right now and add them to a team that could be really good. I’m not saying let’s take New Jersey, let’s take Minnesota out of the league. But hey, you guys are not stupid. I’m not stupid, but I know what would be great for the league.”

But duncan isn't a center he's a power forward, remember :)

user-pic
Tray reply to GoSixers on Dec 24 at 13:37
+/-

Well either way, he's my answer to #1.

I certainly thought so at the time.

Looking back, the question is how much was the 40 win team a product of overachieving through youth, hustle and a ragged style of play. And how much of that carries over when you add a healthy brand to that particular equation. And how close does that get you to being a contender.

At the time I thought it could lead them to being an "Atlanta level" team. A team lacking the high end superstars or talent to be considered a top 4 contender- but a team that is just a half a step below who maybe could catch lightning in a bottle if everything went their way.

And at the time that was not such a bad prospect given where the team had been. And then the hope was that someone like Thad might emerge as a superstar in a few years as Brand and Miller got older... At least that was what Stefanski was selling. And it seemed reasonable at the time.

But again, I think we saw some of our young players through rose colored glasses because the overachieved. When you win though talent and execution the sky is the limit. But when you are playing that type of ragged, energy game, there is only so far it can take you once the playoffs come around. At you can't go higher than giving "110%" every night, while a star driven or system driven team can up their game in the crunch.

user-pic
tk76 reply to tk76 on Dec 24 at 15:28
+/-

Sorry, duplicate post. Meant to be a response to Brian.

1 duncan
2 n/a
3 lebron
4 nash
5 shaq & ray allen

The goal is to win rings correct? Those 5 would complement each other perfectly

More Turner discussion (maybe I need to give it a rest...)

In a way his early struggles sort of reminds me of Salmons- who played a similar do everything role in college (but not at Turners high level.) Salmons was annoying his first few years because he would make terrible mistakes and loved to dribble. But eventually he found his game and developed into a solid pro.

I hope Turner ends up a lot better pro than Salmons, but I can see a similar progression. And Salmons entered the league with a decent jumper, so its going to be even harder for Turner to make his way early in his career.

user-pic
johnrosz reply to tk76 on Dec 24 at 17:17
+/-

I was in awe of how flat his jumper was when I saw him play in person a few weeks back. Makes Andre Millers j look like a rainbow. I don't know how correctable something like that is, but I think any improvement might start there.

1) Shaq
2) Shaq
3) Kobe
4) CP3
5) Duncan and Kobe


The reason 1 and 2 are different than 5 DEC 24
is because it's extremely hard to get that second star. So, if I have no guarantee of getting that second star and I'm in the situation of trying to ride an individual to a championship, Shaq's my guy. However, if I have the advanced knowledge of having another top 5 player on my team, I think Duncan's game could have actually fit better than Shaq's.

user-pic
Tom Moore on Dec 24 at 23:19
+/-

Happy Holidays!

Was on 610 WIP Thursday morning and may be on again next week with Big Daddy Graham talking Sixers.

Hope everyone is having a Merry Christmas- or at least a nice day off!

Q of the Day:

What players who a languishing on bad teams would be stars or tremendous role players on good teams?

What high profile players on bad teams would be exposed as guys who would hurt you on a good team?

Any current Sixers fit either profile?

user-pic
Jesse reply to tk76 on Dec 25 at 14:59
+/-

There's been a couple trade rumors involving Gerald Wallace. I'd say he's definitely a guy that could really help a good team.

user-pic
deepsixersuede reply to tk76 on Dec 25 at 15:15
+/-

I wonder if Montae Ellis is finally star material; His shooting percentages are up and a Turner/ Curry backcourt may work offensively along with being an improvement defensively, which their new coach would like.

Could a Jrue/Ellis/Iggy trio work?

user-pic
Turtle Bay reply to deepsixersuede on Dec 25 at 16:22
+/-

I like it. Fits Brian's gunner theory for the Sixers. Problem is, don't think Golden State would trade Ellis for Turner + garbage.

user-pic
Court_visioN reply to tk76 on Dec 25 at 17:54
+/-

Kevin Love is the first name that comes to mind as a good player stuck on a bad team. Chris Paul comes to mind as another, although the Hornets aren't nearly bad enough to really have him count. Andre Iguodala probably fits the bill here as well.

Michael Beasley is a guy I would say is doing well because he's on a bad team and would hurt a good team. Same goes for Andrea Bargnani and Andray Blatche.

Hope everyone (who celebrated) had a great holiday. I'll have a preview/game thread for Sunday's game in Denver later today.

Sunday column: Expect 2011 to be another interesting year in NBA:

http://ow.ly/3usV1

user-pic
Rob_STC reply to Tom Moore on Dec 26 at 10:30
+/-

You know Tom it is funny because I don't think it is far fetched at all that the Sixers would be trying to get Jason Thompson. He has had some injuries but just as we are laden with young wings the Kings have a couple young bigs and Jason seems to be the odd man out. I like his talent though and the Sixers kind of liked him in the draft a few years ago. Personally I would mind seeing Thompson in a Sixer uniform.

user-pic
deepsixersuede on Dec 26 at 10:29
+/-

I have been tinkering around with the trade machine and everytime I make a trade to win now [examples- St. Jackson and Mohammed or Varajoi and A.Parker] I feel kinda dirty. I hope they just get young pieces.

Does Turner have value league wide and would a return of a young shooter make sense. A C.Lee or M.Thornton plus type of deal. Where fit is considered more than best player. I wonder what our front office is thinking and will they be patient.

user-pic
Rob_STC reply to deepsixersuede on Dec 26 at 10:32
+/-

I know hindsight is 20-20 and I am playing armchair quarterback here but of course now I wished they drafted Favors.

user-pic
Old School Sixer Fan on Dec 26 at 12:17
+/-

I wanted them to draft Favors last year, but was OK with Turner. What I don't understand is why ET can't hit open mid-range jumpers he routinely hit in college. I could understand if he couldn't get open because of quicker stronger competition, but isn't a 15 foot jumper the same no matter where you are?

user-pic
eddies' heady's reply to Old School Sixer Fan on Dec 26 at 12:42
+/-

You would be correct in saying it is the same. But Turner's flawed shot mechanics don't help him out any here. His elbow appears to be too far out and the shot doesn't appear to have the proper amount of arc like his release point is too low or something. It comes off as just above flat-lining it seems.

user-pic
deepsixersuede reply to Old School Sixer Fan on Dec 26 at 12:59
+/-

I still have faith Turner will become a player but with Jrue's jumper still an unsure thing fit is more of a concern with me. On one hand Iggy makes more money but is defending his ass off, shooting the standstill 3 better and doing what the coaching staff wants and on the other hand Turner, once comfortable, will do a lot of things Iggy does but it seems Jrue and either Iggy or Turner will benefit from having a better version of Meeks between them.

If moving Iggy or Turner can get us a young big and shooter than that is my preference.

Turner and Spieghts for Mayo and Thabeet
Turner for Ellington and Pekovic
Turner for P.Patterson and C. Lee

user-pic
deepsixersuede reply to deepsixersuede on Dec 26 at 13:05
+/-

Eagles are cancelled so the Sixers get all tonight's attention.


Expand/Contract all comments

Leave a comment


back-to-story.gif