Sam Hinkie was a genius. He's 100% right now.

[Sophomore]

He wasn’t a genius but he made some quality trades and Philly’s plan to bottom out over multiple years made it statistically probable they would end up with a star.   They hit home runs on 2 out of 3 picks and have found themselves with arguably their best season in nearly 20 years in their first year together.  It was absolutely a success.  They changed the lotto rules for a reason

Is it true that the Sixers planned to be at the bottom for several years? They got lucky/unlucky when Embiid suffered injuries that kept him out multiple years. I think they stayed at the bottom involuntarily. Suppose Embiid is healthy when he was picked. He might have dragged that team to the middle of the lottery ranks with a half-decent supporting cast, especially in the depleted East of a few years ago. That would mean no Simmons. And while Embiid is good, the "process" story can turn into a plan to capture multiple stars - including Simmons. I don't think they really planned it that way.

The Sixers are one of the most weirdly lucky/unlucky teams.

[LarBrd33]

He wasn’t a genius but he made some quality trades and Philly’s plan to bottom out over multiple years made it statistically probable they would end up with a star.   They hit home runs on 2 out of 3 picks and have found themselves with arguably their best season in nearly 20 years in their first year together.  It was absolutely a success.  They changed the lotto rules for a reason

Is it true that the Sixers planned to be at the bottom for several years? They got lucky/unlucky when Embiid suffered injuries that kept him out multiple years. I think they stayed at the bottom involuntarily. Suppose Embiid is healthy when he was picked. He might have dragged that team to the middle of the lottery ranks with a half-decent supporting cast, especially in the depleted East of a few years ago. That would mean no Simmons. And while Embiid is good, the "process" story can turn into a plan to capture multiple stars - including Simmons. I don't think they really planned it that way.

The Sixers are one of the most weirdly lucky/unlucky teams.

A little of both.  There were at least two seasons where they punted on the present with the explicit goal of maximizing their draft chances.   It started when they moved Jrue Holiday for future assets - which helped them bottom out for Embiid.  Then, they took Embiid despite the fact he was going to miss a full season.  Embiid missing the second season was a bit unexpected, but at that point they made the decision to avoid being competitive.  They did that by filling their roster with d-league talent and avoiding signing veterans.  That gave them 3 cracks at a star - Embiid, Okafor and Simmons.  They nailed 2 out of 3.

[Eddie20]

He wasn’t a genius but he made some quality trades and Philly’s plan to bottom out over multiple years made it statistically probable they would end up with a star.   They hit home runs on 2 out of 3 picks and have found themselves with arguably their best season in nearly 20 years in their first year together.  It was absolutely a success.  They changed the lotto rules for a reason

Is it true that the Sixers planned to be at the bottom for several years? They got lucky/unlucky when Embiid suffered injuries that kept him out multiple years. I think they stayed at the bottom involuntarily. Suppose Embiid is healthy when he was picked. He might have dragged that team to the middle of the lottery ranks with a half-decent supporting cast, especially in the depleted East of a few years ago. That would mean no Simmons. And while Embiid is good, the "process" story can turn into a plan to capture multiple stars - including Simmons. I don't think they really planned it that way.

The Sixers are one of the most weirdly lucky/unlucky teams.

A little of both.  There were at least two seasons where they punted on the present with the explicit goal of maximizing their draft chances.   It started when they moved Jrue Holiday for future assets - which helped them bottom out for Embiid.  Then, they took Embiid despite the fact he was going to miss a full season.  Embiid missing the second season was a bit unexpected, but at that point they made the decision to avoid being competitive.  They did that by filling their roster with d-league talent and avoiding signing veterans.  That gave them 3 cracks at a star - Embiid, Okafor and Simmons.  They nailed 2 out of 3.

Why is Simmons a star? Is it because he gets numbers? He is talented, athletic, and has the ball in his hands a large majority of the time, so getting numbers go with the territory. However, a large percentage of those are empty, he can't shoot a lick, and makes really bad decisions during crucial moments. Plus, he doesn't seem like he really "wants it". There's very little fight in him. Very reminiscent of Jeff Green when it comes to his lackadaisical on-court attitude.

[Csfan1984]

He wasn’t a genius but he made some quality trades and Philly’s plan to bottom out over multiple years made it statistically probable they would end up with a star.   They hit home runs on 2 out of 3 picks and have found themselves with arguably their best season in nearly 20 years in their first year together.  It was absolutely a success.  They changed the lotto rules for a reason

Is it true that the Sixers planned to be at the bottom for several years? They got lucky/unlucky when Embiid suffered injuries that kept him out multiple years. I think they stayed at the bottom involuntarily. Suppose Embiid is healthy when he was picked. He might have dragged that team to the middle of the lottery ranks with a half-decent supporting cast, especially in the depleted East of a few years ago. That would mean no Simmons. And while Embiid is good, the "process" story can turn into a plan to capture multiple stars - including Simmons. I don't think they really planned it that way.

The Sixers are one of the most weirdly lucky/unlucky teams.

A little of both.  There were at least two seasons where they punted on the present with the explicit goal of maximizing their draft chances.   It started when they moved Jrue Holiday for future assets - which helped them bottom out for Embiid.  Then, they took Embiid despite the fact he was going to miss a full season.  Embiid missing the second season was a bit unexpected, but at that point they made the decision to avoid being competitive.  They did that by filling their roster with d-league talent and avoiding signing veterans.  That gave them 3 cracks at a star - Embiid, Okafor and Simmons.  They nailed 2 out of 3.

They probably should have tanked longer and moved Okafor when he had value. Hink would have done what it took to secure a big three.

[LarBrd33]

He wasn’t a genius but he made some quality trades and Philly’s plan to bottom out over multiple years made it statistically probable they would end up with a star.   They hit home runs on 2 out of 3 picks and have found themselves with arguably their best season in nearly 20 years in their first year together.  It was absolutely a success.  They changed the lotto rules for a reason

Is it true that the Sixers planned to be at the bottom for several years? They got lucky/unlucky when Embiid suffered injuries that kept him out multiple years. I think they stayed at the bottom involuntarily. Suppose Embiid is healthy when he was picked. He might have dragged that team to the middle of the lottery ranks with a half-decent supporting cast, especially in the depleted East of a few years ago. That would mean no Simmons. And while Embiid is good, the "process" story can turn into a plan to capture multiple stars - including Simmons. I don't think they really planned it that way.

The Sixers are one of the most weirdly lucky/unlucky teams.

A little of both.  There were at least two seasons where they punted on the present with the explicit goal of maximizing their draft chances.   It started when they moved Jrue Holiday for future assets - which helped them bottom out for Embiid.  Then, they took Embiid despite the fact he was going to miss a full season.  Embiid missing the second season was a bit unexpected, but at that point they made the decision to avoid being competitive.  They did that by filling their roster with d-league talent and avoiding signing veterans.  That gave them 3 cracks at a star - Embiid, Okafor and Simmons.  They nailed 2 out of 3.

Why is Simmons a star? Is it because he gets numbers? He is talented, athletic, and has the ball in his hands a large majority of the time, so getting numbers go with the territory. However, a large percentage of those are empty, he can't shoot a lick, and makes really bad decisions during crucial moments. Plus, he doesn't seem like he really "wants it". There's very little fight in him. Very reminiscent of Jeff Green when it comes to his lackadaisical on-court attitude.

I think we're playing amazing basketball against the rookie and he's struggled big time against our defensive schemes.  Simmons has obvious flaws in his games, but he's also incredible.  He's played bad in this series.  No-doubt.  But he's also a kid who put up rookie stats on a par with Magic Johnson and averaged 18 points, 10.6 rebounds, 9 assists and 2.4 steals with 50% shooting in Round 1.   

I think in the effort to bash Philly we're underselling just how incredible Boston has been in Round 2.  Between Horford frustrating the heck out of Embiid, our defense (hot off having to deal with Giannis) limiting Simmons, and the otherworldly consistent offense from Rozier/Tatum, the big story of this series has been what Boston is doing. 

Something you and I never agreed on, Ed.  I believed it was possible for Philly's plan to be a success while at the same time falling short of what Boston accomplished.  You seem to measure Philly's success by whether or not they end up better than Boston. 

That was never my point.  My point was that Philly had been irrelevant for the better part of 30 years and I supported the drastic measures they were taking to change that.  When compared to other teams in the league, it's pretty clear this has been an amazing turn-around for them that would not have happened unless they took those drastic steps.  There's 6 teams with playoff droughts 5+ years.  Teams like Orlando who have hovered around 20-35 wins the past 6 years (total of 157 wins) didn't go all-in while a team like Philly who suffered through a few sub-20 win seasons over the past 6 years (total of 161 wins) are now one of the best team's in the East.  This has been their best season in nearly 20 years.  They are set up beautifully heading forward.  Both of those statements can be true while at the same time saying "Boston is even more incredible". 

Same reason I'm not going to consider Boston's season a failure if Golden State sweeps through the Finals. 

[Sophomore]

He wasn’t a genius but he made some quality trades and Philly’s plan to bottom out over multiple years made it statistically probable they would end up with a star.   They hit home runs on 2 out of 3 picks and have found themselves with arguably their best season in nearly 20 years in their first year together.  It was absolutely a success.  They changed the lotto rules for a reason

Is it true that the Sixers planned to be at the bottom for several years? They got lucky/unlucky when Embiid suffered injuries that kept him out multiple years. I think they stayed at the bottom involuntarily. Suppose Embiid is healthy when he was picked. He might have dragged that team to the middle of the lottery ranks with a half-decent supporting cast, especially in the depleted East of a few years ago. That would mean no Simmons. And while Embiid is good, the "process" story can turn into a plan to capture multiple stars - including Simmons. I don't think they really planned it that way.

The Sixers are one of the most weirdly lucky/unlucky teams.

A little of both.  There were at least two seasons where they punted on the present with the explicit goal of maximizing their draft chances.   It started when they moved Jrue Holiday for future assets - which helped them bottom out for Embiid.  Then, they took Embiid despite the fact he was going to miss a full season.  Embiid missing the second season was a bit unexpected, but at that point they made the decision to avoid being competitive.  They did that by filling their roster with d-league talent and avoiding signing veterans.  That gave them 3 cracks at a star - Embiid, Okafor and Simmons.  They nailed 2 out of 3.

TP. I remember playing against Jrue. He was a pest - gave the Celtics trouble. And you're right they knew Embiid was hurt when they drafted him.

[Sophomore]

He wasn’t a genius but he made some quality trades and Philly’s plan to bottom out over multiple years made it statistically probable they would end up with a star.   They hit home runs on 2 out of 3 picks and have found themselves with arguably their best season in nearly 20 years in their first year together.  It was absolutely a success.  They changed the lotto rules for a reason

Is it true that the Sixers planned to be at the bottom for several years? They got lucky/unlucky when Embiid suffered injuries that kept him out multiple years. I think they stayed at the bottom involuntarily. Suppose Embiid is healthy when he was picked. He might have dragged that team to the middle of the lottery ranks with a half-decent supporting cast, especially in the depleted East of a few years ago. That would mean no Simmons. And while Embiid is good, the "process" story can turn into a plan to capture multiple stars - including Simmons. I don't think they really planned it that way.

The Sixers are one of the most weirdly lucky/unlucky teams.

A little of both.  There were at least two seasons where they punted on the present with the explicit goal of maximizing their draft chances.   It started when they moved Jrue Holiday for future assets - which helped them bottom out for Embiid.  Then, they took Embiid despite the fact he was going to miss a full season.  Embiid missing the second season was a bit unexpected, but at that point they made the decision to avoid being competitive.  They did that by filling their roster with d-league talent and avoiding signing veterans.  That gave them 3 cracks at a star - Embiid, Okafor and Simmons.  They nailed 2 out of 3.

Why is Simmons a star? Is it because he gets numbers? He is talented, athletic, and has the ball in his hands a large majority of the time, so getting numbers go with the territory. However, a large percentage of those are empty, he can't shoot a lick, and makes really bad decisions during crucial moments. Plus, he doesn't seem like he really "wants it". There's very little fight in him. Very reminiscent of Jeff Green when it comes to his lackadaisical on-court attitude.

I think we're playing amazing basketball against the rookie and he's struggled big time against our defensive schemes.  Simmons has obvious flaws in his games, but he's also incredible.  He's played bad in this series.  No-doubt.  But he's also a kid who put up rookie stats on a par with Magic Johnson and averaged 18 points, 10.6 rebounds, 9 assists and 2.4 steals with 50% shooting in Round 1.   

I think in the effort to bash Philly we're underselling just how incredible Boston has been in Round 1.  Between Horford frustrating the heck out of Embiid, our defense (hot off having to deal with Giannis) limiting Simmons, and the otherworldly consistent offense from Rozier/Tatum, the big story of this series has been what Boston is doing.

Simmons is running into one of the best defenses in the NBA, which also has exactly the right personnel and scheme to jam up his game. Result is, he's having trouble. But he's done a lot of damage against other teams - ask Miami, like it says above.

[LarBrd33]

He wasn’t a genius but he made some quality trades and Philly’s plan to bottom out over multiple years made it statistically probable they would end up with a star.   They hit home runs on 2 out of 3 picks and have found themselves with arguably their best season in nearly 20 years in their first year together.  It was absolutely a success.  They changed the lotto rules for a reason

Is it true that the Sixers planned to be at the bottom for several years? They got lucky/unlucky when Embiid suffered injuries that kept him out multiple years. I think they stayed at the bottom involuntarily. Suppose Embiid is healthy when he was picked. He might have dragged that team to the middle of the lottery ranks with a half-decent supporting cast, especially in the depleted East of a few years ago. That would mean no Simmons. And while Embiid is good, the "process" story can turn into a plan to capture multiple stars - including Simmons. I don't think they really planned it that way.

The Sixers are one of the most weirdly lucky/unlucky teams.

A little of both.  There were at least two seasons where they punted on the present with the explicit goal of maximizing their draft chances.   It started when they moved Jrue Holiday for future assets - which helped them bottom out for Embiid.  Then, they took Embiid despite the fact he was going to miss a full season.  Embiid missing the second season was a bit unexpected, but at that point they made the decision to avoid being competitive.  They did that by filling their roster with d-league talent and avoiding signing veterans.  That gave them 3 cracks at a star - Embiid, Okafor and Simmons.  They nailed 2 out of 3.

Why is Simmons a star? Is it because he gets numbers? He is talented, athletic, and has the ball in his hands a large majority of the time, so getting numbers go with the territory. However, a large percentage of those are empty, he can't shoot a lick, and makes really bad decisions during crucial moments. Plus, he doesn't seem like he really "wants it". There's very little fight in him. Very reminiscent of Jeff Green when it comes to his lackadaisical on-court attitude.

I think we're playing amazing basketball against the rookie and he's struggled big time against our defensive schemes.  Simmons has obvious flaws in his games, but he's also incredible.  He's played bad in this series.  No-doubt.  But he's also a kid who put up rookie stats on a par with Magic Johnson and averaged 18 points, 10.6 rebounds, 9 assists and 2.4 steals with 50% shooting in Round 1.   

I think in the effort to bash Philly we're underselling just how incredible Boston has been in Round 2.  Between Horford frustrating the heck out of Embiid, our defense (hot off having to deal with Giannis) limiting Simmons, and the otherworldly consistent offense from Rozier/Tatum, the big story of this series has been what Boston is doing. 

Something you and I never agreed on, Ed.  I believed it was possible for Philly's plan to be a success while at the same time falling short of what Boston accomplished.  You seem to measure Philly's success by whether or not they end up better than Boston. 

That was never my point.  My point was that Philly had been irrelevant for the better part of 30 years and I supported the drastic measures they were taking to change that.  When compared to other teams in the league, it's pretty clear this has been an amazing turn-around for them that would not have happened unless they took those drastic steps.  There's 6 teams with playoff droughts 5+ years.  Teams like Orlando who have hovered around 20-35 wins the past 6 years (total of 157 wins) didn't go all-in while a team like Philly who suffered through a few sub-20 win seasons over the past 6 years (total of 161 wins) are now one of the best team's in the East.  This has been their best season in nearly 20 years.  They are set up beautifully heading forward.  Both of those statements can be true while at the same time saying "Boston is even more incredible". 

Same reason I'm not going to consider Boston's season a failure if Golden State sweeps through the Finals.

Simmons is running into one of the best defenses in the NBA, which also has exactly the right personnel and scheme to jam up his game. Result is, he's having trouble. But he's done a lot of damage against other teams - ask Miami, like it says above.

I admire what they've accomplished in such a short period of time.  You'd rather be a Philly fan right now than an Orlando fan, for instance.  Kings are going on 12+ seasons without a playoff appearance and rookie Ben Simmons just took Philly to the 2nd round.   That's impressive.

I can be impressed by that while being even more impressed by what Boston is doing.

There was something like 75/1 odds we swept Philly in this series.  That might actually happen.  I hope people put money on the Celts.  This has been pretty incredible.

For a team that was being predicted to win about 35 games this season, Philly has to take this season as a massive win.  The issues they are having against Boston will give the young guys things to work on.  Iverson only won 50+ games once in his entire career.  Simmons did it his rookie season.  That's something. 

[Eddie20]

He wasn’t a genius but he made some quality trades and Philly’s plan to bottom out over multiple years made it statistically probable they would end up with a star.   They hit home runs on 2 out of 3 picks and have found themselves with arguably their best season in nearly 20 years in their first year together.  It was absolutely a success.  They changed the lotto rules for a reason

Is it true that the Sixers planned to be at the bottom for several years? They got lucky/unlucky when Embiid suffered injuries that kept him out multiple years. I think they stayed at the bottom involuntarily. Suppose Embiid is healthy when he was picked. He might have dragged that team to the middle of the lottery ranks with a half-decent supporting cast, especially in the depleted East of a few years ago. That would mean no Simmons. And while Embiid is good, the "process" story can turn into a plan to capture multiple stars - including Simmons. I don't think they really planned it that way.

The Sixers are one of the most weirdly lucky/unlucky teams.

A little of both.  There were at least two seasons where they punted on the present with the explicit goal of maximizing their draft chances.   It started when they moved Jrue Holiday for future assets - which helped them bottom out for Embiid.  Then, they took Embiid despite the fact he was going to miss a full season.  Embiid missing the second season was a bit unexpected, but at that point they made the decision to avoid being competitive.  They did that by filling their roster with d-league talent and avoiding signing veterans.  That gave them 3 cracks at a star - Embiid, Okafor and Simmons.  They nailed 2 out of 3.

Why is Simmons a star? Is it because he gets numbers? He is talented, athletic, and has the ball in his hands a large majority of the time, so getting numbers go with the territory. However, a large percentage of those are empty, he can't shoot a lick, and makes really bad decisions during crucial moments. Plus, he doesn't seem like he really "wants it". There's very little fight in him. Very reminiscent of Jeff Green when it comes to his lackadaisical on-court attitude.

I think we're playing amazing basketball against the rookie and he's struggled big time against our defensive schemes.  Simmons has obvious flaws in his games, but he's also incredible.  He's played bad in this series.  No-doubt.  But he's also a kid who put up rookie stats on a par with Magic Johnson and averaged 18 points, 10.6 rebounds, 9 assists and 2.4 steals with 50% shooting in Round 1.   

I think in the effort to bash Philly we're underselling just how incredible Boston has been in Round 2.  Between Horford frustrating the heck out of Embiid, our defense (hot off having to deal with Giannis) limiting Simmons, and the otherworldly consistent offense from Rozier/Tatum, the big story of this series has been what Boston is doing. 

Something you and I never agreed on, Ed.  I believed it was possible for Philly's plan to be a success while at the same time falling short of what Boston accomplished.  You seem to measure Philly's success by whether or not they end up better than Boston. 

That was never my point.  My point was that Philly had been irrelevant for the better part of 30 years and I supported the drastic measures they were taking to change that.  When compared to other teams in the league, it's pretty clear this has been an amazing turn-around for them that would not have happened unless they took those drastic steps.  There's 6 teams with playoff droughts 5+ years.  Teams like Orlando who have hovered around 20-35 wins the past 6 years (total of 157 wins) didn't go all-in while a team like Philly who suffered through a few sub-20 win seasons over the past 6 years (total of 161 wins) are now one of the best team's in the East.  This has been their best season in nearly 20 years.  They are set up beautifully heading forward.  Both of those statements can be true while at the same time saying "Boston is even more incredible". 

Same reason I'm not going to consider Boston's season a failure if Golden State sweeps through the Finals.

The bolded part is definitely not true. I do think tanking teams could eventually find success by having great players fall in their lap. My main disagreement with you is that you thought EVERY player they ever drafted in the lottery (see Noel, Okafor, Saric, etc.) was that said great player. Clearly time has shown who's correct on those guys. 

We'll see what happens with Embiid, who is a generational type talent, but I still remain dubious that we've seen the last of his injury issues. One season of relatively good health (Walton 86) doesn't mean he won't have those same issues persist down the road. That's a big dude, carrying a lot of weight, on some feet that don't seem built to last.

[LarBrd33]

He wasn’t a genius but he made some quality trades and Philly’s plan to bottom out over multiple years made it statistically probable they would end up with a star.   They hit home runs on 2 out of 3 picks and have found themselves with arguably their best season in nearly 20 years in their first year together.  It was absolutely a success.  They changed the lotto rules for a reason

Is it true that the Sixers planned to be at the bottom for several years? They got lucky/unlucky when Embiid suffered injuries that kept him out multiple years. I think they stayed at the bottom involuntarily. Suppose Embiid is healthy when he was picked. He might have dragged that team to the middle of the lottery ranks with a half-decent supporting cast, especially in the depleted East of a few years ago. That would mean no Simmons. And while Embiid is good, the "process" story can turn into a plan to capture multiple stars - including Simmons. I don't think they really planned it that way.

The Sixers are one of the most weirdly lucky/unlucky teams.

A little of both.  There were at least two seasons where they punted on the present with the explicit goal of maximizing their draft chances.   It started when they moved Jrue Holiday for future assets - which helped them bottom out for Embiid.  Then, they took Embiid despite the fact he was going to miss a full season.  Embiid missing the second season was a bit unexpected, but at that point they made the decision to avoid being competitive.  They did that by filling their roster with d-league talent and avoiding signing veterans.  That gave them 3 cracks at a star - Embiid, Okafor and Simmons.  They nailed 2 out of 3.

Why is Simmons a star? Is it because he gets numbers? He is talented, athletic, and has the ball in his hands a large majority of the time, so getting numbers go with the territory. However, a large percentage of those are empty, he can't shoot a lick, and makes really bad decisions during crucial moments. Plus, he doesn't seem like he really "wants it". There's very little fight in him. Very reminiscent of Jeff Green when it comes to his lackadaisical on-court attitude.

I think we're playing amazing basketball against the rookie and he's struggled big time against our defensive schemes.  Simmons has obvious flaws in his games, but he's also incredible.  He's played bad in this series.  No-doubt.  But he's also a kid who put up rookie stats on a par with Magic Johnson and averaged 18 points, 10.6 rebounds, 9 assists and 2.4 steals with 50% shooting in Round 1.   

I think in the effort to bash Philly we're underselling just how incredible Boston has been in Round 2.  Between Horford frustrating the heck out of Embiid, our defense (hot off having to deal with Giannis) limiting Simmons, and the otherworldly consistent offense from Rozier/Tatum, the big story of this series has been what Boston is doing. 

Something you and I never agreed on, Ed.  I believed it was possible for Philly's plan to be a success while at the same time falling short of what Boston accomplished.  You seem to measure Philly's success by whether or not they end up better than Boston. 

That was never my point.  My point was that Philly had been irrelevant for the better part of 30 years and I supported the drastic measures they were taking to change that.  When compared to other teams in the league, it's pretty clear this has been an amazing turn-around for them that would not have happened unless they took those drastic steps.  There's 6 teams with playoff droughts 5+ years.  Teams like Orlando who have hovered around 20-35 wins the past 6 years (total of 157 wins) didn't go all-in while a team like Philly who suffered through a few sub-20 win seasons over the past 6 years (total of 161 wins) are now one of the best team's in the East.  This has been their best season in nearly 20 years.  They are set up beautifully heading forward.  Both of those statements can be true while at the same time saying "Boston is even more incredible". 

Same reason I'm not going to consider Boston's season a failure if Golden State sweeps through the Finals.

The bolded part is definitely not true. I do think tanking teams could eventually find success by having great players fall in their lap. My main disagreement with you is that you thought EVERY player they ever drafted in the lottery (see Noel, Okafor, Saric, etc.) was that said great player. Clearly time has shown who's correct on those guys. 

We'll see what happens with Embiid, who is a generational type talent, but I still remain dubious that we've seen the last of his injury issues. One season of relatively good health (Walton 86) doesn't mean he won't have those same issues persist down the road. That's a big dude, carrying a lot of weight, on some feet that don't seem built to last.

I try not to speculate on future injury concerns considering the two best players on my team played less games combined than Joel Embiid this season and neither of them are participating in the playoffs. 

The Flat Mamba has been injury prone for years and we have no idea if Granton Hillward will ever return value on his fat contract.

[Eddie20]

He wasn’t a genius but he made some quality trades and Philly’s plan to bottom out over multiple years made it statistically probable they would end up with a star.   They hit home runs on 2 out of 3 picks and have found themselves with arguably their best season in nearly 20 years in their first year together.  It was absolutely a success.  They changed the lotto rules for a reason

Is it true that the Sixers planned to be at the bottom for several years? They got lucky/unlucky when Embiid suffered injuries that kept him out multiple years. I think they stayed at the bottom involuntarily. Suppose Embiid is healthy when he was picked. He might have dragged that team to the middle of the lottery ranks with a half-decent supporting cast, especially in the depleted East of a few years ago. That would mean no Simmons. And while Embiid is good, the "process" story can turn into a plan to capture multiple stars - including Simmons. I don't think they really planned it that way.

The Sixers are one of the most weirdly lucky/unlucky teams.

A little of both.  There were at least two seasons where they punted on the present with the explicit goal of maximizing their draft chances.   It started when they moved Jrue Holiday for future assets - which helped them bottom out for Embiid.  Then, they took Embiid despite the fact he was going to miss a full season.  Embiid missing the second season was a bit unexpected, but at that point they made the decision to avoid being competitive.  They did that by filling their roster with d-league talent and avoiding signing veterans.  That gave them 3 cracks at a star - Embiid, Okafor and Simmons.  They nailed 2 out of 3.

Why is Simmons a star? Is it because he gets numbers? He is talented, athletic, and has the ball in his hands a large majority of the time, so getting numbers go with the territory. However, a large percentage of those are empty, he can't shoot a lick, and makes really bad decisions during crucial moments. Plus, he doesn't seem like he really "wants it". There's very little fight in him. Very reminiscent of Jeff Green when it comes to his lackadaisical on-court attitude.

I think we're playing amazing basketball against the rookie and he's struggled big time against our defensive schemes.  Simmons has obvious flaws in his games, but he's also incredible.  He's played bad in this series.  No-doubt.  But he's also a kid who put up rookie stats on a par with Magic Johnson and averaged 18 points, 10.6 rebounds, 9 assists and 2.4 steals with 50% shooting in Round 1.   

I think in the effort to bash Philly we're underselling just how incredible Boston has been in Round 2.  Between Horford frustrating the heck out of Embiid, our defense (hot off having to deal with Giannis) limiting Simmons, and the otherworldly consistent offense from Rozier/Tatum, the big story of this series has been what Boston is doing. 

Something you and I never agreed on, Ed.  I believed it was possible for Philly's plan to be a success while at the same time falling short of what Boston accomplished.  You seem to measure Philly's success by whether or not they end up better than Boston. 

That was never my point.  My point was that Philly had been irrelevant for the better part of 30 years and I supported the drastic measures they were taking to change that.  When compared to other teams in the league, it's pretty clear this has been an amazing turn-around for them that would not have happened unless they took those drastic steps.  There's 6 teams with playoff droughts 5+ years.  Teams like Orlando who have hovered around 20-35 wins the past 6 years (total of 157 wins) didn't go all-in while a team like Philly who suffered through a few sub-20 win seasons over the past 6 years (total of 161 wins) are now one of the best team's in the East.  This has been their best season in nearly 20 years.  They are set up beautifully heading forward.  Both of those statements can be true while at the same time saying "Boston is even more incredible". 

Same reason I'm not going to consider Boston's season a failure if Golden State sweeps through the Finals.

The bolded part is definitely not true. I do think tanking teams could eventually find success by having great players fall in their lap. My main disagreement with you is that you thought EVERY player they ever drafted in the lottery (see Noel, Okafor, Saric, etc.) was that said great player. Clearly time has shown who's correct on those guys. 

We'll see what happens with Embiid, who is a generational type talent, but I still remain dubious that we've seen the last of his injury issues. One season of relatively good health (Walton 86) doesn't mean he won't have those same issues persist down the road. That's a big dude, carrying a lot of weight, on some feet that don't seem built to last.

I try not to speculate on future injury concerns considering the two best players on my team played less games combined than Joel Embiid this season and neither of them are participating in the playoffs.

Right. Because a freak injury to Hayward, a player that has been a pillar of health, is similar to Embiid's injury history. You can make a case for some concerns with Irving's knee, but not at the same level you'd have for Embiid.

It's okay for you to admit that. It's pretty obvious.

It must be a scary thought for you to think that all of the Sixers hopes are pinned to Embiid's  body holding up. We could have Hayward not be the same, doubtful but let's say that's true, and what he turns into Joe Ingles? A smart player that can kill you deep, space the floor, and provide sound play on both ends of the floor. Again, scary stuff since we're beating you guys up without Irving or Hayward, while you have Embiid.

[nickagneta]

He wasn’t a genius but he made some quality trades and Philly’s plan to bottom out over multiple years made it statistically probable they would end up with a star.   They hit home runs on 2 out of 3 picks and have found themselves with arguably their best season in nearly 20 years in their first year together.  It was absolutely a success.  They changed the lotto rules for a reason

Is it true that the Sixers planned to be at the bottom for several years? They got lucky/unlucky when Embiid suffered injuries that kept him out multiple years. I think they stayed at the bottom involuntarily. Suppose Embiid is healthy when he was picked. He might have dragged that team to the middle of the lottery ranks with a half-decent supporting cast, especially in the depleted East of a few years ago. That would mean no Simmons. And while Embiid is good, the "process" story can turn into a plan to capture multiple stars - including Simmons. I don't think they really planned it that way.

The Sixers are one of the most weirdly lucky/unlucky teams.

A little of both.  There were at least two seasons where they punted on the present with the explicit goal of maximizing their draft chances.   It started when they moved Jrue Holiday for future assets - which helped them bottom out for Embiid.  Then, they took Embiid despite the fact he was going to miss a full season.  Embiid missing the second season was a bit unexpected, but at that point they made the decision to avoid being competitive.  They did that by filling their roster with d-league talent and avoiding signing veterans.  That gave them 3 cracks at a star - Embiid, Okafor and Simmons.  They nailed 2 out of 3.

Why is Simmons a star? Is it because he gets numbers? He is talented, athletic, and has the ball in his hands a large majority of the time, so getting numbers go with the territory. However, a large percentage of those are empty, he can't shoot a lick, and makes really bad decisions during crucial moments. Plus, he doesn't seem like he really "wants it". There's very little fight in him. Very reminiscent of Jeff Green when it comes to his lackadaisical on-court attitude.

I think we're playing amazing basketball against the rookie and he's struggled big time against our defensive schemes.  Simmons has obvious flaws in his games, but he's also incredible.  He's played bad in this series.  No-doubt.  But he's also a kid who put up rookie stats on a par with Magic Johnson and averaged 18 points, 10.6 rebounds, 9 assists and 2.4 steals with 50% shooting in Round 1.   

I think in the effort to bash Philly we're underselling just how incredible Boston has been in Round 2.  Between Horford frustrating the heck out of Embiid, our defense (hot off having to deal with Giannis) limiting Simmons, and the otherworldly consistent offense from Rozier/Tatum, the big story of this series has been what Boston is doing. 

Something you and I never agreed on, Ed.  I believed it was possible for Philly's plan to be a success while at the same time falling short of what Boston accomplished.  You seem to measure Philly's success by whether or not they end up better than Boston. 

That was never my point.  My point was that Philly had been irrelevant for the better part of 30 years and I supported the drastic measures they were taking to change that.  When compared to other teams in the league, it's pretty clear this has been an amazing turn-around for them that would not have happened unless they took those drastic steps.  There's 6 teams with playoff droughts 5+ years.  Teams like Orlando who have hovered around 20-35 wins the past 6 years (total of 157 wins) didn't go all-in while a team like Philly who suffered through a few sub-20 win seasons over the past 6 years (total of 161 wins) are now one of the best team's in the East.  This has been their best season in nearly 20 years.  They are set up beautifully heading forward.  Both of those statements can be true while at the same time saying "Boston is even more incredible". 

Same reason I'm not going to consider Boston's season a failure if Golden State sweeps through the Finals.

The bolded part is definitely not true. I do think tanking teams could eventually find success by having great players fall in their lap. My main disagreement with you is that you thought EVERY player they ever drafted in the lottery (see Noel, Okafor, Saric, etc.) was that said great player. Clearly time has shown who's correct on those guys. 

We'll see what happens with Embiid, who is a generational type talent, but I still remain dubious that we've seen the last of his injury issues. One season of relatively good health (Walton 86) doesn't mean he won't have those same issues persist down the road. That's a big dude, carrying a lot of weight, on some feet that don't seem built to last.

I try not to speculate on future injury concerns considering the two best players on my team played less games combined than Joel Embiid this season and neither of them are participating in the playoffs. 

The Flat Mamba has been injury prone for years and we have no idea if Granton Hillward will ever return value on his fat contract.

Your love for all things Celtics just oozes out of you when you use derogatory names for our 2 stars. Funny I don't remember you doing the same thing for any Sixer players.

[celticsclay]

For all further posts about Hinkie I'm just gonna link people to Ryan Bernardoni's great piece on the subject:

http://www.celticshub.com/2018/04/09/misplacing-trust-process/

I like this piece a lot Phosita. I particularly liked this discussion point:

"The supportive fans certainly feel like they’ve been vindicated and won, which maybe is all that matters in something as ethereal as sports fandom. They’ve leaned into tribalism and self-aggrandizement as much as any fan base in recent American sports memory. They make Deflategate-period Patriots fans look rational. As strong an argument can be made that they sacrificed years of enjoying their team to end up in the same place as their peers, though. Do Jazz fans wish that they had tanked away a four year span? Maybe the defiance from Process Trusters is as much a coping mechanism as true search for vindication."

I think that in a nutshell is why we see so many of these threads popping up. Even our fans that were invested in this process and debated it over the years now want to try and prove that they were very intelligent in their invested arguments over the year even though a team like the jazz or timberwolves is in a very similar spot from a completely different path. (When I was watching the wolves yesterday I couldn't help but they they would be favorites to win the east if they were in it)

To say the Jazz and the Sixers are in the same place is pretty silly.  This season they did end up around the same amount of wins (though the Sixers are a betting favorite for the ECF and the Jazz likely won't get out of the 1st round), but what do people think next year will look like, or the year after, or the year after, or the 5 to 10 years after that.

This certainly seems less silly by the day as both teams are now up 3-1 with the Jazz playing a superior opponent in the first round. Look for the Jazz to give Houston some trouble if they reach the second round as their defense is very legit. Gobert is a true difference maker.

No Clay, wrong, it’s silly to compare Philly and Utah.

Utah won a game in the second round on the road against the #1 seed without their point guard. Philly will be lucky to win a second round game at all while fully healthy and getting all the calls.

Right? And Mitchell has performed constistently across two rounds of the playoffs and Simmons has disappeared. Yet somehow Simmons is transcendent and Mitchell is meh? Then still waiting on response from the 20-9-4 saric crowd

[Bucketgetter]

He wasn’t a genius but he made some quality trades and Philly’s plan to bottom out over multiple years made it statistically probable they would end up with a star.   They hit home runs on 2 out of 3 picks and have found themselves with arguably their best season in nearly 20 years in their first year together.  It was absolutely a success.  They changed the lotto rules for a reason

Is it true that the Sixers planned to be at the bottom for several years? They got lucky/unlucky when Embiid suffered injuries that kept him out multiple years. I think they stayed at the bottom involuntarily. Suppose Embiid is healthy when he was picked. He might have dragged that team to the middle of the lottery ranks with a half-decent supporting cast, especially in the depleted East of a few years ago. That would mean no Simmons. And while Embiid is good, the "process" story can turn into a plan to capture multiple stars - including Simmons. I don't think they really planned it that way.

The Sixers are one of the most weirdly lucky/unlucky teams.

A little of both.  There were at least two seasons where they punted on the present with the explicit goal of maximizing their draft chances.   It started when they moved Jrue Holiday for future assets - which helped them bottom out for Embiid.  Then, they took Embiid despite the fact he was going to miss a full season.  Embiid missing the second season was a bit unexpected, but at that point they made the decision to avoid being competitive.  They did that by filling their roster with d-league talent and avoiding signing veterans.  That gave them 3 cracks at a star - Embiid, Okafor and Simmons.  They nailed 2 out of 3.

Why is Simmons a star? Is it because he gets numbers? He is talented, athletic, and has the ball in his hands a large majority of the time, so getting numbers go with the territory. However, a large percentage of those are empty, he can't shoot a lick, and makes really bad decisions during crucial moments. Plus, he doesn't seem like he really "wants it". There's very little fight in him. Very reminiscent of Jeff Green when it comes to his lackadaisical on-court attitude.

I think we're playing amazing basketball against the rookie and he's struggled big time against our defensive schemes.  Simmons has obvious flaws in his games, but he's also incredible.  He's played bad in this series.  No-doubt.  But he's also a kid who put up rookie stats on a par with Magic Johnson and averaged 18 points, 10.6 rebounds, 9 assists and 2.4 steals with 50% shooting in Round 1.   

I think in the effort to bash Philly we're underselling just how incredible Boston has been in Round 2.  Between Horford frustrating the heck out of Embiid, our defense (hot off having to deal with Giannis) limiting Simmons, and the otherworldly consistent offense from Rozier/Tatum, the big story of this series has been what Boston is doing. 

Something you and I never agreed on, Ed.  I believed it was possible for Philly's plan to be a success while at the same time falling short of what Boston accomplished.  You seem to measure Philly's success by whether or not they end up better than Boston. 

That was never my point.  My point was that Philly had been irrelevant for the better part of 30 years and I supported the drastic measures they were taking to change that.  When compared to other teams in the league, it's pretty clear this has been an amazing turn-around for them that would not have happened unless they took those drastic steps.  There's 6 teams with playoff droughts 5+ years.  Teams like Orlando who have hovered around 20-35 wins the past 6 years (total of 157 wins) didn't go all-in while a team like Philly who suffered through a few sub-20 win seasons over the past 6 years (total of 161 wins) are now one of the best team's in the East.  This has been their best season in nearly 20 years.  They are set up beautifully heading forward.  Both of those statements can be true while at the same time saying "Boston is even more incredible". 

Same reason I'm not going to consider Boston's season a failure if Golden State sweeps through the Finals.

The bolded part is definitely not true. I do think tanking teams could eventually find success by having great players fall in their lap. My main disagreement with you is that you thought EVERY player they ever drafted in the lottery (see Noel, Okafor, Saric, etc.) was that said great player. Clearly time has shown who's correct on those guys. 

We'll see what happens with Embiid, who is a generational type talent, but I still remain dubious that we've seen the last of his injury issues. One season of relatively good health (Walton 86) doesn't mean he won't have those same issues persist down the road. That's a big dude, carrying a lot of weight, on some feet that don't seem built to last.

I try not to speculate on future injury concerns considering the two best players on my team played less games combined than Joel Embiid this season and neither of them are participating in the playoffs. 

The Flat Mamba has been injury prone for years and we have no idea if Granton Hillward will ever return value on his fat contract.

Your love for all things Celtics just oozes out of you when you use derogatory names for our 2 stars. Funny I don't remember you doing the same thing for any Sixer players.

It's not really derogatory, he's just making lame jokes to rile Celtics fans up. The reason he is resulting to making fun of the injured guys is because he has nothing to say about the waxing we're giving his team on the court 

[Bucketgetter]

For all further posts about Hinkie I'm just gonna link people to Ryan Bernardoni's great piece on the subject:

http://www.celticshub.com/2018/04/09/misplacing-trust-process/

I like this piece a lot Phosita. I particularly liked this discussion point:

"The supportive fans certainly feel like they’ve been vindicated and won, which maybe is all that matters in something as ethereal as sports fandom. They’ve leaned into tribalism and self-aggrandizement as much as any fan base in recent American sports memory. They make Deflategate-period Patriots fans look rational. As strong an argument can be made that they sacrificed years of enjoying their team to end up in the same place as their peers, though. Do Jazz fans wish that they had tanked away a four year span? Maybe the defiance from Process Trusters is as much a coping mechanism as true search for vindication."

I think that in a nutshell is why we see so many of these threads popping up. Even our fans that were invested in this process and debated it over the years now want to try and prove that they were very intelligent in their invested arguments over the year even though a team like the jazz or timberwolves is in a very similar spot from a completely different path. (When I was watching the wolves yesterday I couldn't help but they they would be favorites to win the east if they were in it)

To say the Jazz and the Sixers are in the same place is pretty silly.  This season they did end up around the same amount of wins (though the Sixers are a betting favorite for the ECF and the Jazz likely won't get out of the 1st round), but what do people think next year will look like, or the year after, or the year after, or the 5 to 10 years after that.

This certainly seems less silly by the day as both teams are now up 3-1 with the Jazz playing a superior opponent in the first round. Look for the Jazz to give Houston some trouble if they reach the second round as their defense is very legit. Gobert is a true difference maker.

No Clay, wrong, it’s silly to compare Philly and Utah.

Utah won a game in the second round on the road against the #1 seed without their point guard. Philly will be lucky to win a second round game at all while fully healthy and getting all the calls.

Right? And Mitchell has performed constistently across two rounds of the playoffs and Simmons has disappeared. Yet somehow Simmons is transcendent and Mitchell is meh? Then still waiting on response from the 20-9-4 saric crowd

Yeah Mitchell really came through in game 3  Tatum has been by far the best and most consistent rookie in the playoffs.