DFDepressed FanDepressed Fan

All  

Sixers

, all the time

Turn Out The Lights

I mentioned befoer that this streaky play is nothing nw for the Sixers. Once you step away from the moment it becomes clear that these 30 games stretches of great/terrible play mean nothing. This franchise goes through dead eras between franchise starts. We mighty as well be debating if Spoon will ever be a star or if Willie Burton will tap into his potential.

I don't have numbers to back it up, but I think teams with a franchise player are less streaky than teams that play star by committe like the Sixers. Having a star does not guarantee you will even bee above average as a team- but it does mean you can rely on a certain degree of high level production night in and night out. That allows a coach and Front Office to know what they can rely on so they can know what type of peices bneed to be added.

They know Iguodala will bring a comsistemt glue game and consistently make his man play below par. But that is just not enough.

I am not really down on the Sixers individual players or Collins. For the most part they can be cogs on a great team. Iguodala can certainly be a top 3 player on a great team. But it is all sort of useless when the franchise is rudderless. Changing the cogs or the coach is wasted if you don't have your cornerstone palyer(s). And I think it is dillusional to expect any of the current Sixers to ascend to that level.

user-pic
Spencer for hire reply to tk76 on Apr 9 at 7:35
+/-

Tk, that star may not be gettable now but two cogs, as you put it, that if added could add 10 to 15 wins possibly are an interior defensive presence and a low post scorer.

Elton provides the defense every 3rd game or so and Vuce shows flashes of the offensive part. I, for one, would like to see these two added before giving up on our perimeter guys.

It starts with getting rid of Hawes, as Brian suggested and amnestying Elton. Find the young shotblocker [Udoh or L.Sanders type] and inquire about a big with some balls, whether it be Asik or an offensive guy [A.Jefferson?]

I don't know what the track record is for perimeter players as mediocre in their third and second years as Jrue and Turner are, but I'd guess it isn't too good. More generally, when you have the league's 19th offense, an offense that would have been 27th last year when teams were scoring at a normal clip, and are setting the league's record for poorest free throw rate of all time, I don't think you can just hope for things to get better or try to fix it just by adding a low post scorer, whoever that would even be.

user-pic
Hobbes reply to Tray on Apr 9 at 8:52
+/-

"I don't know what the track record is for perimeter players as mediocre in their third and second years as Jrue and Turner are, but I'd guess it isn't too good. More generally, when you have the league's 19th offense, an offense that would have been 27th last year when teams were scoring at a normal clip, and are setting the league's record for poorest free throw rate of all time, I don't think you can just hope for things to get better or try to fix it just by adding a low post scorer, whoever that would even be."

Better perimeter players also don't just grow on unowned trees, free for picking, though I completely and emphatically agree with you.

Bottom line, in my head at least, is that EVERYONE on this roster should be very available for trading purposes. This team is, as has been the case for a decade now, a years-long rehabilitation project. Best offers, and lots of them.....systematically dismantle and try again. I don't much care if ownership starts from the interior and moves out, or from the perimeter and moves inward. There's really nothing bright and shiny that's just too good to part with.


excellent post. agree entirely.

user-pic
tk76 reply to Derek Bodner on Apr 9 at 8:40
+/-

Except for all of the typos. Too lazy to proofread during an overnight shift.

I definitely appreciate the extra time bloggers and writers take proofreading. I know how distracting it can be to read a long post that is full of typos.

I don't have numbers to back it up, but I think teams with a franchise player are less streaky than teams that play star by committe like the Sixers.

I don't disagree with this statement per se, but the tricky part is how to define a franchise player. I remember last year you were lamenting after the Carmelo trade that the Sixers had fallen behind both the Knicks and Nets because the Knicks had two superstars and the Nets had one, while the Sixers had none. But are the Knicks or Nets any better off now than the Sixers? You could say in hindsight that Carmelo is not really a superstar (which is what I always believed) and Amare is no longer a superstar, but then that would be making the data fit with the theory.

Just curious, in your view, who are the franchise players in the NBA today? Off the top of my head: Durant, LeBron, Wade, Kobe, DRose, CPaul, DHoward, Dirk(?), Deron(?) -- anyone else? I would argue that the Spurs are a serious threat to win the West this year, without a superstar, though their top player (TParker) is better than anyone the Sixers have.

You often pose these great questions that can't be answered quickly.

I see a franchise player as a star who consistently alters a game through dominant play that cannot be taken away. like I said, having a franchise player does NOT always translate into wins. But it does give you a reliable weapon that you can work to build around.

So by this loose definition there are diffrent types of franchise players;

1. Pure scorers (wings and non-physical bigs) guys who "get theirs" and no defense can take their production away. AI is the classic example, but Melo and Dirk fits and probably Amare when healthy. Monta is not quite good enough or consistent enough, but in the same mold. You can build a winner around these guys following the AI 2001 strategy, although it is awkward. A variation being the pure shooter/scorer like Reggie Miller and Ray Allen.

2. Interior dominant defender. Rebounds and intimidates. Dwight is the current gold standard (Bill Russell the historic one), but Ben Wallace in his prime qualifies (although he never got enough credit because of his flaws.) KG in his prime brought enough other skills to qualify. While pure rebounders like Love and Rodman lack the ability to close down the lane, so that rebounding in itself is not enough to qualify (but Love brings other things.) Likewise, being a great perimeter defender (Iggy) is not enough, but coupled with another dominant trait (Kidd's defense + PG skills in prime) and you qualify.

3. Interior unstoppable scorers: Shaq, Wilt and more athletic types like Barkley(prime) and eventually Griffin. Give you tons of points at a high percentage. The physical traits sometimes translate into defense/rebounding/intimidation. Guys just below the cut are more "dunkers" like current Griffin and Kemp.

4. Dominant athletes with all-around games: Not pure scorers but put up a ton of points. Also rebound, assists etc. MJ, Drexler, Dr J, Lebron, DWade etc. Iggy would be there if he had the offensive game. Pippen was so good all around that it made up for his "merely good" scoring ability and lack of desire to score (but look what he did without MJ.)

5: Dominant playmakers: Pretty rare breed of franchise player. Most also have some other dominant characteristic like Magic(size/versatile), Stockton(shooting%, steals), Deron(offensive game), Nash(shooting), prime Kidd(defense). Pure PG's alone (Rondo) don't quite cut it.

-------------

Obviously many stars cross categories. And the truly great ones fit multiple categories. But to be a cornerstone player you have to at least qualify in one area. Again, the point is you bring something consistently that a team can rely upon for an edge that allows you to build your roster around.

For example, even a "weak/flawed" star like AI or Melo gives you automatic scoring- even if it is only at average effeciency. That gives you the luxury of being able to field multiple other specialists becasue Melo/AI will mask the specialists lack of scoring ability. That at least gives you a chance to build a contender, even if it a lot harder task than with a more all around star.


"Just curious, in your view, who are the franchise players in the NBA today? Off the top of my head: Durant, LeBron, Wade, Kobe, DRose, CPaul, DHoward, Dirk(?), Deron(?) -- anyone else? I would argue that the Spurs are a serious threat to win the West this year, without a superstar, though their top player (TParker) is better than anyone the Sixers have."

I agree with those 9. The league is in a bit of transition right now. A few of the franchise players are holding on despite age: Dirk and Kobe are still at the highest level. While Duncan and KG can turn back the clock on certain nights and can sometimes make up for their lost ability with moxie.

Guys in their prime: Lebron, Wade, Paul, Deron and Dwight. I'd have put Melo there prior to his 2-3 years of dysfunctionality,.. His career arc is reminding me of a lesser AI, since they can kill you without the right mix of coach/teammates.

There are a bunch of young guys coming up, but only Durant and Rose qualify. But I'm guessing 3 or 4 step up to replace the aging stars. Probably Westbrook and Griffen and some others will step up.

So that makes 9 on 8 teams. And potentially 11 on 8 teams if you assume Griffin and Westbrook make the leap. And maybe 11 on 7 teams if Dwight teams up with Deron at some point.

But there are another 12+ second level guys... anchoring second level teams. Iggy, Love, LMA, Monta, PP/KG, Horford, Nash, Duncan, Parker, Pau, Bynum, Noah, Amare are all a notch below at thiss stage of their careers. Probably a few others. Of these, maybe Love can make the leap to the next level?

I'd say Love is there at this point, by your definition. Almost 27ppg at 57% TS plus the rebounding. That's basically the production of three players you can count on every night from one guy. Put a strictly defensive center next to him and you're fine.

user-pic
tk76 reply to Brian on Apr 9 at 16:07
+/-

Yeah, if his scoring status above 24 pts then he certainly qualifies. I want to see if he keeps up the scoring. Monta put up amazing numbers a few years back. You need to show that it was not a one year blip.

If we agree that there are nine franchise players right now, let's think about the youngest seven for a second (this would exclude Kobe and Dirk, who came into the league in the 90's). From the 2000 draft to the 2011 draft (12 drafts), seven franchise players came on the scene. Moreover, LeBron and Wade were in the same (2003) draft, as were Paul and Deron (2005). All seven were picked in the top five, five of the seven were picked in the top three, and all of them would be in the top three in a re-draft. Looking at the the top three picks in 2003-04-05-07-08, there were five franchise players correctly picked (LeBron, Dwight, Deron, Rose, Durant), five incorrect picks (Darko, Carmelo, Bogut, Marvin Williams, Oden), and five "no hope" picks (because the franchise player had already been taken: #2-3 in 2004, #3 in 2007, #2-3 in 2008).

So, let's define a perpetually tanking team as one that always finishes in the bottom three. Current NBA draft odds give such a team an average of 56% chance of landing a top-three pick. So, in five out of 12 drafts, a perpetually tanking team has a 56% chance of landing a top three pick and a 33% chance of getting the franchise player with that pick. If my assumptions and math are correct, then we're talking about an 8% chance, year to year, that a perpetually tanking team could land the elusive franchise player. And this is only for a perpetually tanking team; a team that gets slightly better would have lower odds of landing a top-three pick.

The question then becomes: if you're Adam Aron, could you afford to run the Sixers that way? Meaning, be horrible every year (bottom three is very poor basketball) for an 8 percent chance of landing a franchise player? And if you land a top pick and select a good but not franchise player, would you then consistently make bad moves to stay horrible?

I realize that you were making an observation about franchise players and not about tanking, but others on the blog have concluded that tanking is the only way to go. But I simply don't see the logic, given the odds.

Yeah, tanking stinks. For the most park you have to get insanely lucky to get a franchise player. But on the flip side, certain franchises always seem to get them. LA, Chi, Orl, Mia, SA and Dal. The funny thing is that prior to 5 years ago you would put Philly on that list.

So long Doug!

From Cooney :

Collins' quandary

Doug Collins is your typical "old-time basketball" person. Running through a wall wasn't questioned in his day. Now, he feels, the game and its players are different.

"Younger players are still carving their niche, finding out who they are," Collins said. "As a coach, piecing that together is a very delicate thing. The one thing about players today is that they're very sensitive and very fragile. They didn't grow up with tough coaches. I had my ass kicked since I was 6. It's a different time. I treat this team very much with kid gloves, I really do. And I'm still looked at as an ogre. It's terrible. I find myself during the games looking at a coach and saying, 'Was I all right during that timeout? Did I hurt anybody's feelings? Was I OK?' That's the sensitivity, and the younger the guys the more sensitive. That's what you're wrestling with.

"Teaching during practice is very unemotional. What happens is when you get into a game it is emotional and sometimes when you're teaching it comes across in a different way because the game's on the line. So that teaching setting has been lost this year and a lot of our players have really been hurt by that. We have a really young group of guys. And so what I think I do best, and I've always had very young teams, the one thing I've prided myself on is getting them better and getting guys better. We've missed that this year. It's been a real tough time and it's been a part of the job that I've really missed this year.

"Coaching games to me is one thing, but being on the floor and teaching, to me, is when I can really get my hands around these guys and teach them the game I love. And we haven't had much time to do that this year."

user-pic
Hobbes reply to tk76 on Apr 9 at 9:20
+/-

When several people are in a bad situation (ex. showing up with knives to a gunfight....that lasts several months and is televised), everybody gets frustrated.

I don't really blame Doug in any singular way. Phil Jackson ain't doing much different with this team. It's the whole situation. It won't allow for sustained and consistent success.

That Phil Jackson couldn't fix this present mess doesn't absolve Collins of his part in creating it. It's tough to relax and "let it flow" (applying Dr. J's/Grover Washington's lingo) when your coach's sideline mien resembles Norman Bates' motel host decorum in "Psycho."

user-pic
mchezo reply to tk76 on Apr 9 at 9:20
+/-

What I hear you saying is that collins is soft. Marc Jackson (sixers postgame) stated that each of the celtics four best players would are better than all of the sixers.

How is it possible to be competitive with a soft coach and inferior players?

user-pic
tk76 reply to mchezo on Apr 9 at 9:25
+/-

Im just quoting the Cooney article... which is quoting Collins.

The elderly Rabbi Collins talks too much. His words eventually become chicken soup for imaginary souls.

Team's fortunes have dipped since Doug ripped a page from his Illinois teen years diary and quietly passed it to an appreciative, warming-up Lou ("keep shootin' and don't let up; to thine own self be true").

user-pic
Stan reply to mchezo on Apr 9 at 11:58
+/-

I disagree with Mark Jackson. At this point of their careers I don't think that Pierce/Allen/Garnett are any better than Iguodala/Turner/Brand.

user-pic
matt reply to Stan on Apr 9 at 12:43
+/-

I disagreed with Marc Jackson as well, but only because you have to slide Iggy somewhere between Boston's three guys. I don't think there's any way you can argue that the three Sixers you listed are better than Boston's three, even now.

I'd go KG, Iggy, Brand, Pierce, Ray, Turner.

Boston also has the luxury of guys that are capable of playing together, and KG's not horribly undersized (though thin)at the 5 spot like Brand.

user-pic
MCT reply to tk76 on Apr 9 at 11:15
+/-

It would be nice if the guy would admit that he may be a little too hard on his players over mundane details. This happens everywhere Collins goes. I wonder what his excuses were in Chicago, Detroit, and Washington when his act started to wear his players down.

user-pic
eddies' heady's reply to tk76 on Apr 9 at 11:28
+/-

This is exactly what I was saying to MCT the other day, these players don't have the temperament, they're too wussified to receive proper coaching. You have to pretty much pamper today's athlete since they've been coddled their whole high school, AAU, and college careers. I had the same thought the other day and agree with Hobbes that Phil Jackson ain't getting anywhere with this bunch.

I don't know about that. Iguodala, Brand, Jrue, and Turner don't seem like the kind of players that are lazy and refuse to listen to their coach.

essentially this is what i was trying to say about the sociocultural divide between collins and his players-you identify with collins side of that divide, which is fine i guess-but the reality is tat you cant play the game without the players, so a coach who is fundamentally unable to identify with te players and constantly compares them unfavorably to a bygone ideal is a TERRIBLE COACH!his players despise him at this point. jusging from pressers/sideline demeanor, collins is a very unpleasant man at this point-he IS an ogre in this contex
I also agree with Stan that the Sixers core group seems like an above-averagely coachable group, not lazy or badattitudes or whatever -but because collins seems them as a reflection of lost ideals he isn't able to come at them from a posture of understanding/respect which would allow him to be constructively tough

plus i think collins has a temperament whic is very difficult to work with under high pressure-his career would certainly reflect that. sometimes at games i just watch him on the bench-he oozes hostility towards his players through body language and often he looks better suited to some form of institutionalized care than leading an nba team. at the very least he should be hooked up to a valium drip

sorry for littering my posts with typos...need a new keyboard, but it is lazy

user-pic
The Six reply to tk76 on Apr 9 at 11:29
+/-

I know Doug has done things this year that I really disagree with. Mainly a number of his rotations and the way he "quick-hooks" Jrue and Evan versus how Iggy and Spencer (and others) cab seemingly do whatever they want out on the court with impunity.

But to lose a team like this, I still find myself blaming the players. In all honestly, who the hell are these players to be running a coach out of town??? What have ANY of them done?

"Doug, I'll turn on my mic. Anything you want in print - go!"

One note about last night's game: Garnett and Bass combined to go 8-11 on long two's, with probably all of the made baskets on kick-outs from Rondo. For the season, both are shooting 48% on those shots, with over 90% of the baskets assisted. I would imagine that their percentage is even higher when the shots are open. So the Sixers' defensive philosophy can't work against the Celtics if the Celtics are hitting their shots. However, in the Sixers' previous 99-86 win vs. the Celtics, Garnett and Bass went 11-25 on long two's. I guess the real question is whether the better shooting was the result of good offense or poor defense, because the Sixers seem to have run into a lot of "hot" teams lately (and their lack of defense is at least partially to blame).

Ugh, if you include 10-15 feet, Garnett and Bass shot 14/17. Those were pretty much all on those kick outs and mostly wide open looks with Hawes, Brand and Voose being lost on the play.

user-pic
matt reply to Brian on Apr 9 at 12:46
+/-

KG is to the point where he'll gladly take a spot up jumper 6 inches in front of the 3 pt. line. It'd drive me crazy as a Celtics fan, and it drives me crazy as a Sixers fan.

That being said, that's exactly what KG and Bass want to do. They don't want to have to deal with physicality in the post or shoot hooks. The Sixers should know that they're stretch, face-up bigs.

I don't always advocate for tanking, but at this point we are headed for a 1st round loss to either Miami or Chicago. That's an indication stagnation over the past 5 years.

The sad thing about this stretch is that we're only 5 games behind the number #3 seed and I think we're more talented than Boston or Atlanta.

This may be for the best. It exposes Spencer Hawes, it may help us get a top 10 pick in a deep draft, and it might bring about some change that the owners may have otherwise refused to do.

The sixers are 3 1/2 games 'out' of the 10th pick in the draft, and 9 out for the ninth pick. So it's not like there's many top 10 picks they can get, and they won't, if they miss the playoffs they'll probably be picking 12th or something

any super-soft big men projected to go around #12? I guess they could reach for a second rounder, again.

John Henson fron UNC is at 8 - he seems soft to me
Cody Zeller (if he declares) is at #9
Perry Jones has slid to #10 in the DX projections
Tyler Zeller at 11
Terrence Jones at 12

So yeah - seems like there might be some softness to pick

excellent. any of them really slow as well?

I can't say for certain, but those zeller boys seem slow afoot

It's be double awesome if the sixers drafted the less talented zeller brother, that's a strong philadlephia tradition

user-pic
The Six reply to GoSixers on Apr 9 at 12:31
+/-

Jeremy Giambi, Mark Leiter.....

user-pic
Stan reply to GoSixers on Apr 9 at 13:16
+/-

I'd rather have someone like Jon Henson or Terrance Jones than lose in the 1st round to Miami and settle for Royce White.

user-pic
Turtle Bay reply to GoSixers on Apr 9 at 16:31
+/-

Would love to get Henson. Wouldn't call him soft, and he's a very good defender.

user-pic
AJ reply to GoSixers on Apr 9 at 12:39
+/-

Jared Sullinger sliding down to #12, then becoming the overweight/undersized player everyone thought he would be...

Most of the guys who were high lottery picks (Sullinger, Jones from Baylor, Jones from Kentucky, even barnes has slid a little) has moved down. Common issue, the longer you stay in college, the more flaws they can find the one year of up side you have lost

Sullinger would be a perfect fit. If Turner is the beginning of a trend.

draft express's newest mock draft has the sixers taking austin rivers


http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-mock-draft/2012/

So I guess his dad comes in to coach once the Celtics rebuild.

Doc has said a few times he has no interest in coaching his son, it's a lose lose situation

Collins had a quote in the game yesterday that said if the team lost again he would make changes to the starting lineup. What do you think it will be? Meeks for Turner? Lou for Jrue? Young for Andre? I doubt it would be Spence for Vucevic.

I think Thad for Iguodala is the least likely. Either Meeks for Turner or Lou for Jrue would be my guess. If Turner in the starting lineup was shoved down his throat, then Lou for Jrue.

Man, lou for jrue would make me sad, but maybe improves lous off season prospects :)

user-pic
tk76 reply to GoSixers on Apr 9 at 13:30
+/-

Hah, Lou runs 40 plus minutes as a starter... drops 45 in an 95 sooner against the Raps... and the world is buzzing. That would be funny. Monta clone released.

user-pic
tk76 reply to tk76 on Apr 9 at 13:30
+/-

Should reader double overtime thriller

Show the world Lou can play starter's minutes. Let someone pay him $40M.

Give him the self (false) confidence to opt out and demand starters money from someone else.

BRILLIANT

I was thinking about possible lineup changes. What do you all think of the following: Iguodala, Thad, Brand, Jrue, Lou. Second team: some combination of Sam Young, Vucevic, Hawes, Turner, Meeks.

Rationale: starters would have four plus defenders and Lou and would seem to have enough offense (and Lou would not dominate the ball); bench lineup would allow Turner to handle and Meeks to play off him, and Hawes wouldn't hurt the team so much vs. other teams' backups.

user-pic
eddies' heady's reply to Statman on Apr 9 at 20:48
+/-

Agree, I beat that drum for a week or two earlier in the year with that starting lineup. Was saying if you can hide Meeks on D then you could do the same and hide Lou and Lou can set others up better than anyone else.

wellllll at least they're not talking about bringing Iverson back again...yet...

I hate talking about the draft, but it's inevitable. I'd really like to move up and take someone like Brad Beal. I'd really give up a lot to just trade up and get him. If that's possible, it would be great. Jeremy Lamb is someone else I'm intrigued by, and if the Sixers fall out of the playoffs, he might be there at that pick.

Let's blow this up and start over.

user-pic
Anonymous on Apr 9 at 16:53
+/-

Most important thing imo is to not amnesty brand. He's a great leader, worth at least half his salary, and the contract only has a year left. Save the amnesty option for the next bad contract.

user-pic
Stan reply to Anonymous on Apr 9 at 16:56
+/-

Amnesty option is only available for contracts that were signed prior to the new CBA

user-pic
Anonymous reply to Stan on Apr 9 at 17:00
+/-

Ok I didnt know that. I still think Brand would be hard to replace and would like him to resign cheaper at the end of this contract.

See if you can convince him to opt out this summer and re-sign for half the money.

user-pic
Stan reply to Brian on Apr 9 at 19:50
+/-

It would probably cost more in the long run. Maybe 4 years and 28 million to get him to opt out.

Once you opt out can you opt back in?

user-pic
Anonymous reply to Stan on Apr 9 at 23:10
+/-

He was underrated this year. His play will inevitably decline as he ages but should still be worth close to 7m per year. Considering he's already set to make 18m, I'd say that's a great deal.

user-pic
Anonymous reply to Anonymous on Apr 9 at 16:58
+/-

Well, maybe not the most important thing, but this is one of my biggest concerns because so many people seem to think we should amnesty him.

First game of the season that i didn't watch. And i don't plan to, even though one of the youngsters Vucevic had a good game. I've been fairly optimistic in the past, even through the Jordan year, but the last few weeks are for me the worst part of the last decade. I am just looking towards the draft at this point and hoping Sullinger will somehow slip...

user-pic
Stan reply to Xsago on Apr 9 at 19:56
+/-

Decline options on Hawes and Brackins, let Lou walk in FA, use the 10 million in capspace to acquire Jeremy Lin.

Seriously Lin???

user-pic
Rich reply to Stan on Apr 10 at 1:52
+/-

No thank you.

Very interesting stuff from the front office of late. It seems like there will be some major changes during the offseason. Hopefully they will be of the long term kind, not just quick fixes.

user-pic
Spencer for hire on Apr 9 at 18:01
+/-

If Deron ends up in Dallas would Thorn go after J.Kidd? I just wonder if replacing Lou with J.Kidd would be good for Jrue and Evan, if this organization still believes they are part of the future here.

Jason Kidd is 39 years old. That's all I have to say

user-pic
Tom Moore on Apr 9 at 19:54
+/-

Turner is minus-60 over the last three games.

And check this out: Iguodala shooting 4-for-16 from the line this season in the final three minutes of games with 10-point differential or less.

He's 16 of 39 in the 4th quarter (11 of 33 aside from one 5/6 game vs. the Knicks), which is inexcusable in itself. But if you look at all the close games the Sixers have played (that is, the score was within 5 points sometime in the last 5 minutes), Iguodala missed free throws have only really cost them twice: 0/2 vs. Utah (with the Sixers down 1 with 2:10 left) and 1/2 vs. Denver (with the Sixers down 1 with 4 seconds left). That's two games too many in any case ...

Former Hibbing (MN) HS intramural standout Bobby Dylan recently quipped "ya don't need a weatherman to know which way Iggy's foul shooting blows... and considering the whole, he's got a lot of nerve to say he's the Sixers fans' friend."

Could there be a more paradoxical team and season? Here, Mr. Moore calls attention to a #2 draft pick who's -60 in his last 3 games. Is that a record!?

It at least SEEMS record-worthy that our all-star is shooting 20% from the free-throw line in the final minutes of close games.

Despite seeming records-worthy badness, it seems like yesterday when ESPNer Neil Payne was writing of our "historically good defense."

But, then again, I'd be shocked if we weren't setting records right now for fewest trips to the charity stripe.

Oh, yeah, and then there's today's ESPN front-pager from Hollinger about our "Epic collapse."

That's one weird chapter in NBA history.

This paragraph was my favorite

The Sixers take it a step further than most by running an almost laughably conservative half-court offense. The Sixers are on pace to set a league record for fewest turnovers, but they've stopped scoring because they are so focused on eliminating any risk that they give themselves virtually no chance at creating high-percentage shots.

That's all on doug

user-pic
eddies' heady's reply to GoSixers on Apr 9 at 21:44
+/-

Really? Disregarding the risk factors, how can you create a high percentage look with not one low post presence and mostly average penetrators that struggle to finish? And don't give me post a taller guy up as that well runs dry pretty fast.

I'd have to say the writer is off in his assessment somewhat, they can' t score because they can't shoot worth a hoot. They get looks, not always high percentage, they just don't make them.

"They get looks, not always high percentage, they just don't make them."

It's got to be at least a little more complicated than that, as they're middle-of-the-pack in shots made...........5th in league in shots attempted, 15th in FG%, but 25th in ppg. That's odd. Shoot a lot, make an average number of them, but inthe basement for points per game. Why? Well, league-worst in free throw attempts AND 22nd in FG %.

user-pic
Hobbes reply to Hobbes on Apr 9 at 22:02
+/-

Grrr, typo... Last stat is for FT % (22nd in league), not FG%.

You'll forgive me if I value his opinoin over yours. He's demonstrated some knowledge without having a motive or the need to have his ego stroked and point out how right he is all the time

user-pic
johnrosz reply to GoSixers on Apr 9 at 22:04
+/-

Whenever I watch upper echelon basketball teams in the NBA, they take risks in their halfcourt sets, but they just seem to have superior transition defense when they do turn the ball over. I can't count the number of times the Sixers have turned Miami over and somehow end up with a toughly contested shot off the break on the other end. Noticed it when they played San Antonio and Dallas this year too. I'm glad Doug identifies how important taking care of the ball is, I really do, but it sure seems like it's to a fault at this point...

Been to a fault for a while now

YES

Also from the article

For instance, think of one of the most common plays in the NBA -- a guard-big pick-and-roll in which the guard turns the corner into the paint, forces the defense to collapse, and hits a cutting big for a dunk or the corner for an uncontested 3-pointer.

It's a common sight all around the league, but it virtually never happens with the Sixers, even though Philly has two quick talented guards, Holiday and Lou Williams.

user-pic
eddies' heady's reply to GoSixers on Apr 9 at 21:52
+/-

Well, if they had any non jump-shooting bigs that could dunk and a shooter that could consistently make a three, yeah, that'd help with such a common play. Two capable guards is only a third of that common play equation. Without mentioning, they set the worst screens in the league (if you even call it setting a screen), and even if an adequate screen is set the guards fail to use it properly.

user-pic
Tom Moore on Apr 9 at 20:25
+/-
user-pic
eddies' heady's on Apr 9 at 21:09
+/-

It truly is laughable to me that these guys getting paid millions to play a friggin' game are too sensitive to heat-of-the-moment scolding and what I'd assume is constructive criticism from a guy that knows more about the game than they could probably ever absorb. And end up wilting like a tulip in the dry July heat and tucking their tails between their legs like a kid at the park that pouts and grabs his ball and goes home. Bunch of spoiled prima-donnas with the most any have ever won is AAU regional titles and college conference titles. Cotton-like pussies.

Doug asking after timeout huddles "Was I alright", "did I hurt anyone's feelings" tells you about all you need to know as a fan. Funny as hell to me coming up in the era I grew up and was coached in, yet really sad as hell all in the same light. Somewhat unreal, but not entirely unexpected.

Man I hate when people sort to this kind of silly rhetoric.

i don't understand why you root for an nba team if you are so filled with contempt for nba players?

at least try and detach your emotions and admit that the opinion of today's young basketball players that you and doug share is unacceptable in a head coach

user-pic
eddies' heady's reply to mymanjrue on Apr 9 at 23:25
+/-

You either like, or were born into, mediocrity as a fan. Too bad you never witnessed late 70's, 80's, or early 90's players and the 'teams' they made up.

You seem to be a victim of this new school attitude that has permeated and infiltrated itself into most players of today and the game as a whole. It's all about coddling and babysitting and catering to; players running the asylums. Glad none of these fragile psyches ever played for my middle school coach, they would have weeped and ran straight home to mommy. Cause most of them act like spoiled momma's boys anyway.

If Doug's opinion of today's player is unacceptable as a head coach then we might as well just abolish coaches and just let the players coach themselves. I mean, they already know everything anyway and won't get hurt feelings that way, right?

the game peaked in the 80's,,,expansion and free agency and the infusion of ever more money have changed things for the worse...i understand

but if you are working as a head coach in the league, your job is to WORK WITHH these players and it is senseless to lament the changes wrought over time, and fatal not to adapt your style to the league as it is-failure to adapt creates mediocrity, not the calendar.

if you just wanna lament the passage of time you should probably reason your 7figure salaried job if you're doug collins and start posting on blogs

*resign, not reason, in that last sentence

user-pic
eddies' heady's reply to mymanjrue on Apr 10 at 10:02
+/-

Lack of talent, and to a lesser extent, flawed roster construction, creates mediocrity. Not a coach who sticks to his stern ways or bruises some sensitive wussy's feelings along the way. Or the calendar as that's not what I was implying by referencing those years.

I don't see why you're saying he hasn't adapted his ways, the guy readily admits he treats these guys with kid gloves. And he sure seems to be making a concerted effort to "work with" these guys if you lend any credence to published reports of Doug sending encouraging texts and hand-delivered notes.

user-pic
mymanjrue reply to eddies' heady's on Apr 10 at 16:52
+/-

you mean flooding players with so many texts after games that they shut off their phones?

"Glad none of these fragile psyches ever played for my middle school coach, they would have weeped and ran straight home to mommy. Cause most of them act like spoiled momma's boys anyway."

hey, can you start calling me meathead?it'd make me enjoy this even more

Well does Aaron McKie, teammate of Iverson for eight years and guy who was thrown into a trade purely to make the cap numbers work, know more about how to get through to this generation of players?

One thing you can say about our guys is that they are not knuckleheads they try their best to play through whatever issues they have. They went through dealing with eddie jordans crap without calling him out. Our players do not complain or whine, they just play ball. So I don't buy into the players being responsible for the way doug handles them. he is the coach, he needs to do his job.

user-pic
eddies' heady's reply to mchezo on Apr 9 at 23:34
+/-

You don't have to complain or whine when your play speaks for itself by way of piss-poor efforts and shitty play. Verbal assaults are far outweighed by on-court displays.

uhoh i just saw the new commercial for buying season tix for 2012-13 and the major highlights are...an ET dunk, a Lou layup, an alleyoop to AI9...and then the three guys they show at the end are Lou, Jrue and Collins...no 00, Brand or Thad in there, hmm...

ugh and apparently during that Celtics game that nobody watched, they first used their new sideline chick...Neil Hartman #fml

user-pic
johnrosz reply to das411 on Apr 10 at 0:54
+/-

Neil is pretty good at his job, I don't know, I've seen him at the A10 tourney a bunch of times just hanging out, big basketball fan. Wasn't really a fan of Meredith, heard she's a huge bitch from someone that works down there too

Wouldn't bank on that opinion. Meredith appeared as anything but as she executed her duties. Straight up delivery - no ham, courteous and articulate. Now, YES has replied to her person in the affirmative. So long former LaSalle Explorer, fare thee well.

Hartman, Comcast frat boy whose "insight" and opinions are canned at the factory. A "reach for the remote" must-never-see. I pass on his studio colleague Ron Burke too. Unctuous times 2. Where does the company get its helium?

In a world of truncated texts and tweets you stand guard as the last bastion of the lexicon.

yo, chi-town, thnx!

u r wlcm


Expand/Contract all comments

Leave a comment


back-to-story.gif