All Things Philadelphia 76ers (merged Sixers threads)

[MBunge]

Question for Process supporters: At what point will you be willing to say that it hasn't worked?  If they don't make the playoffs next year? In two years?  Or if the Process is about more than just making the playoffs, how far do they need to advance in the playoffs, and in what time frame?  And is it about sustainability?  Do they need to have multiple years of deep playoff runs?

I'm not trying to bait anyone.  From my perspective, it has failed already.  They've gone through a full-cycle of rookie contracts, have already had to jettison their first two lottery picks, and are still a bottom 5 team.  But for those who think it is still working, what is your benchmark?  There has to be something to say it was worth it, right?

Why? Philly has Embiid, Saric, Simmons, a top 5 pick this season and a Lakers pick that could still deliver a valuable player. If that core wins a championship 7 or 8 years from now, will you still think it was a failure?

First of all, eight year plans are ridiculous in any professional sport.  You obviously have to have some idea of where you are going in the future, like when considering the draft or freeing up salary cap space, but 8 years is almost twice the length of the average NBA career.

Secondly, if all the Hinkie plan gets you is one championship in 10 or 11 years, you might not consider it a failure but it is clearly inferior to most other successful plans pursued by NBA teams.  Ainge, for example, took over in 2003 and won a title in 2008.  That's half the time with about 1/4 the painful losing.

Mike

[saltlover]

Question for Process supporters: At what point will you be willing to say that it hasn't worked?  If they don't make the playoffs next year? In two years?  Or if the Process is about more than just making the playoffs, how far do they need to advance in the playoffs, and in what time frame?  And is it about sustainability?  Do they need to have multiple years of deep playoff runs?

I'm not trying to bait anyone.  From my perspective, it has failed already.  They've gone through a full-cycle of rookie contracts, have already had to jettison their first two lottery picks, and are still a bottom 5 team.  But for those who think it is still working, what is your benchmark?  There has to be something to say it was worth it, right?

Why? Philly has Embiid, Saric, Simmons, a top 5 pick this season and a Lakers pick that could still deliver a valuable player. If that core wins a championship 7 or 8 years from now, will you still think it was a failure?

First of all, eight year plans are ridiculous in any professional sport.  You obviously have to have some idea of where you are going in the future, like when considering the draft or freeing up salary cap space, but 8 years is almost twice the length of the average NBA career.

Secondly, if all the Hinkie plan gets you is one championship in 10 or 11 years, you might not consider it a failure but it is clearly inferior to most other successful plans pursued by NBA teams.  Ainge, for example, took over in 2003 and won a title in 2008.  That's half the time with about 1/4 the painful losing.

Mike

The Cubs 108-year rebuilding plan was a success!

[Big333223]

Question for Process supporters: At what point will you be willing to say that it hasn't worked?  If they don't make the playoffs next year? In two years?  Or if the Process is about more than just making the playoffs, how far do they need to advance in the playoffs, and in what time frame?  And is it about sustainability?  Do they need to have multiple years of deep playoff runs?

I'm not trying to bait anyone.  From my perspective, it has failed already.  They've gone through a full-cycle of rookie contracts, have already had to jettison their first two lottery picks, and are still a bottom 5 team.  But for those who think it is still working, what is your benchmark?  There has to be something to say it was worth it, right?

Why? Philly has Embiid, Saric, Simmons, a top 5 pick this season and a Lakers pick that could still deliver a valuable player. If that core wins a championship 7 or 8 years from now, will you still think it was a failure?

First of all, eight year plans are ridiculous in any professional sport.  You obviously have to have some idea of where you are going in the future, like when considering the draft or freeing up salary cap space, but 8 years is almost twice the length of the average NBA career.

Secondly, if all the Hinkie plan gets you is one championship in 10 or 11 years, you might not consider it a failure but it is clearly inferior to most other successful plans pursued by NBA teams.  Ainge, for example, took over in 2003 and won a title in 2008.  That's half the time with about 1/4 the painful losing.

Mike

This doesn't make any sense to me. You're saying winning one championship in 10 or 11 years isn't good but you use Ainge as an example of a good manager but Ainge has only won one championship in 14 years.

Confused logic aside, my point was: how can you judge The Process when the players it has garnered haven't shown what they can do yet?

[Big333223]

Question for Process supporters: At what point will you be willing to say that it hasn't worked?  If they don't make the playoffs next year? In two years?  Or if the Process is about more than just making the playoffs, how far do they need to advance in the playoffs, and in what time frame?  And is it about sustainability?  Do they need to have multiple years of deep playoff runs?

I'm not trying to bait anyone.  From my perspective, it has failed already.  They've gone through a full-cycle of rookie contracts, have already had to jettison their first two lottery picks, and are still a bottom 5 team.  But for those who think it is still working, what is your benchmark?  There has to be something to say it was worth it, right?

Why? Philly has Embiid, Saric, Simmons, a top 5 pick this season and a Lakers pick that could still deliver a valuable player. If that core wins a championship 7 or 8 years from now, will you still think it was a failure?

First of all, eight year plans are ridiculous in any professional sport.  You obviously have to have some idea of where you are going in the future, like when considering the draft or freeing up salary cap space, but 8 years is almost twice the length of the average NBA career.

Secondly, if all the Hinkie plan gets you is one championship in 10 or 11 years, you might not consider it a failure but it is clearly inferior to most other successful plans pursued by NBA teams.  Ainge, for example, took over in 2003 and won a title in 2008.  That's half the time with about 1/4 the painful losing.

Mike

The Cubs 108-year rebuilding plan was a success!

TP because that's funny.

But you didn't answer my question.

[saltlover]

Question for Process supporters: At what point will you be willing to say that it hasn't worked?  If they don't make the playoffs next year? In two years?  Or if the Process is about more than just making the playoffs, how far do they need to advance in the playoffs, and in what time frame?  And is it about sustainability?  Do they need to have multiple years of deep playoff runs?

I'm not trying to bait anyone.  From my perspective, it has failed already.  They've gone through a full-cycle of rookie contracts, have already had to jettison their first two lottery picks, and are still a bottom 5 team.  But for those who think it is still working, what is your benchmark?  There has to be something to say it was worth it, right?

Why? Philly has Embiid, Saric, Simmons, a top 5 pick this season and a Lakers pick that could still deliver a valuable player. If that core wins a championship 7 or 8 years from now, will you still think it was a failure?

First of all, eight year plans are ridiculous in any professional sport.  You obviously have to have some idea of where you are going in the future, like when considering the draft or freeing up salary cap space, but 8 years is almost twice the length of the average NBA career.

Secondly, if all the Hinkie plan gets you is one championship in 10 or 11 years, you might not consider it a failure but it is clearly inferior to most other successful plans pursued by NBA teams.  Ainge, for example, took over in 2003 and won a title in 2008.  That's half the time with about 1/4 the painful losing.

Mike

The Cubs 108-year rebuilding plan was a success!

TP because that's funny.

But you didn't answer my question.

I responded on the prior page of this thread.  And thanks for laughing at my joke.   

[celticsclay]

BTW for almost all of this season Okafor has looked liked one of the worst players in the NBA, last night he had a really good game against the Warriors though. Still think he is best as a big off the bench al a kanter, but more games like last night and he could be effective in that role.

[Moranis]

BTW for almost all of this season Okafor has looked liked one of the worst players in the NBA, last night he had a really good game against the Warriors though. Still think he is best as a big off the bench al a kanter, but more games like last night and he could be effective in that role.

It is more than just last night.  In Okafor's last 4 games he is averaging 18.8 p, 5.5 r, 2.0 a, 1.3 b, 1.5 s with 2.3 fouls and 3 turnovers in 25 minutes and shooting 56.9% from the field and 89.5% from the line (at 4.8 attempts a game).  He played even better against the Lakers the game before the Warriors. 

It appears Okafor's knee is finally healthy enough to allow him to use his offensive gifts again.  He has also been fairly active defensively with nice blocks and steals numbers (though he is still a poor defender overall). 

[moiso]

Question for Process supporters: At what point will you be willing to say that it hasn't worked?  If they don't make the playoffs next year? In two years?  Or if the Process is about more than just making the playoffs, how far do they need to advance in the playoffs, and in what time frame?  And is it about sustainability?  Do they need to have multiple years of deep playoff runs?

I'm not trying to bait anyone.  From my perspective, it has failed already.  They've gone through a full-cycle of rookie contracts, have already had to jettison their first two lottery picks, and are still a bottom 5 team.  But for those who think it is still working, what is your benchmark?  There has to be something to say it was worth it, right?

Why? Philly has Embiid, Saric, Simmons, a top 5 pick this season and a Lakers pick that could still deliver a valuable player. If that core wins a championship 7 or 8 years from now, will you still think it was a failure?

First of all, eight year plans are ridiculous in any professional sport.  You obviously have to have some idea of where you are going in the future, like when considering the draft or freeing up salary cap space, but 8 years is almost twice the length of the average NBA career.

Secondly, if all the Hinkie plan gets you is one championship in 10 or 11 years, you might not consider it a failure but it is clearly inferior to most other successful plans pursued by NBA teams.  Ainge, for example, took over in 2003 and won a title in 2008.  That's half the time with about 1/4 the painful losing.

Mike

This doesn't make any sense to me. You're saying winning one championship in 10 or 11 years isn't good but you use Ainge as an example of a good manager but Ainge has only won one championship in 14 years.

Confused logic aside, my point was: how can you judge The Process when the players it has garnered haven't shown what they can do yet?

Ainge has already rebuilt lottery teams to good teams twice in that timeframe.

[Moranis]

Question for Process supporters: At what point will you be willing to say that it hasn't worked?  If they don't make the playoffs next year? In two years?  Or if the Process is about more than just making the playoffs, how far do they need to advance in the playoffs, and in what time frame?  And is it about sustainability?  Do they need to have multiple years of deep playoff runs?

I'm not trying to bait anyone.  From my perspective, it has failed already.  They've gone through a full-cycle of rookie contracts, have already had to jettison their first two lottery picks, and are still a bottom 5 team.  But for those who think it is still working, what is your benchmark?  There has to be something to say it was worth it, right?

Why? Philly has Embiid, Saric, Simmons, a top 5 pick this season and a Lakers pick that could still deliver a valuable player. If that core wins a championship 7 or 8 years from now, will you still think it was a failure?

First of all, eight year plans are ridiculous in any professional sport.  You obviously have to have some idea of where you are going in the future, like when considering the draft or freeing up salary cap space, but 8 years is almost twice the length of the average NBA career.

Secondly, if all the Hinkie plan gets you is one championship in 10 or 11 years, you might not consider it a failure but it is clearly inferior to most other successful plans pursued by NBA teams.  Ainge, for example, took over in 2003 and won a title in 2008.  That's half the time with about 1/4 the painful losing.

Mike

This doesn't make any sense to me. You're saying winning one championship in 10 or 11 years isn't good but you use Ainge as an example of a good manager but Ainge has only won one championship in 14 years.

Confused logic aside, my point was: how can you judge The Process when the players it has garnered haven't shown what they can do yet?

Ainge has already rebuilt lottery teams to good teams twice in that timeframe.

Ainge also took over a playoff team that had basically all of its future draft picks and a hall of fame player in his prime on the team.  To compare the situation is just silly. 

[celticsclay]

BTW for almost all of this season Okafor has looked liked one of the worst players in the NBA, last night he had a really good game against the Warriors though. Still think he is best as a big off the bench al a kanter, but more games like last night and he could be effective in that role.

It is more than just last night.  In Okafor's last 4 games he is averaging 18.8 p, 5.5 r, 2.0 a, 1.3 b, 1.5 s with 2.3 fouls and 3 turnovers in 25 minutes and shooting 56.9% from the field and 89.5% from the line (at 4.8 attempts a game).  He played even better against the Lakers the game before the Warriors. 

It appears Okafor's knee is finally healthy enough to allow him to use his offensive gifts again.  He has also been fairly active defensively with nice blocks and steals numbers (though he is still a poor defender overall).

Well lets slow down the cart on that. Last night was actually against a good team and passable on both sides of the ball.

However, the Lakers game was not NBA basketball and I think posters on this board could have scored a few points in that one. Nobody is ever going to deny that Okafor can put up some good numbers in losses or these late season tanking exhibitions.

However, saying he played well in the Portland game (one of the last 4) would be a poor understanding of basketball. He is one of the main reasons Nurkic went for 28 pts, 20 rebounds, 6 blocks and 8 assists and completely dominated Okafor (in a loss).

[Moranis]

Nurkic had half of his boards and like 10 points with Okafor out of the game, of course I've never claimed Okafor was a good defender.  He is not, but Okafor still played fairly well in that Portland game (Okafor was -3 they lost by 6 and Nurkic was +9).  Okafor finished with 16/8 on 50% shooting.  That is a pretty good game.

[oldtype]

It's hardly surprising, no? He was already averaging 17.5 ppg when he got the playing time during his rookie season.

Dude is always going to get some buckets if you run your offense through him.  The bigger issue is that particular mode of offense is all but obsolete in the modern NBA and he offers you literally nothing else. 

[celticsclay]

Nurkic had half of his boards and like 10 points with Okafor out of the game, of course I've never claimed Okafor was a good defender.  He is not, but Okafor still played fairly well in that Portland game (Okafor was -3 they lost by 6 and Nurkic was +9).  Okafor finished with 16/8 on 50% shooting.  That is a pretty good game.

Did you watch this? I actually did. I also saw a decent amount of the Lakers game. On the west coast these are the only games on by the time I get out of work so I saw more of them (and would be scared/impressed by your dedication if you were staying up to the middle of the night to watch this kind of basketball). I have no problem admitting when Okafor played good (I proactively pointed it out to start this discussion). He did not look good in the Portland game and the Lakers game was an embarrassment to professional basketball that both teams had no interest in winning or playing defense).

[oldtype]

The problem with Okafor is that his absolute hard ceiling is Nikola Vucevic or Enes Kanter, and even that requires drastic improvements with his motor and rebounding. 

If your #3 overall pick comes in with a ceiling of "great first big off the bench", that's not ideal.

[The One]

Question for Process supporters: At what point will you be willing to say that it hasn't worked?  If they don't make the playoffs next year? In two years?  Or if the Process is about more than just making the playoffs, how far do they need to advance in the playoffs, and in what time frame?  And is it about sustainability?  Do they need to have multiple years of deep playoff runs?

I'm not trying to bait anyone.  From my perspective, it has failed already.  They've gone through a full-cycle of rookie contracts, have already had to jettison their first two lottery picks, and are still a bottom 5 team.  But for those who think it is still working, what is your benchmark?  There has to be something to say it was worth it, right?

Why? Philly has Embiid, Saric, Simmons, a top 5 pick this season and a Lakers pick that could still deliver a valuable player. If that core wins a championship 7 or 8 years from now, will you still think it was a failure?

First of all, eight year plans are ridiculous in any professional sport.  You obviously have to have some idea of where you are going in the future, like when considering the draft or freeing up salary cap space, but 8 years is almost twice the length of the average NBA career.

Secondly, if all the Hinkie plan gets you is one championship in 10 or 11 years, you might not consider it a failure but it is clearly inferior to most other successful plans pursued by NBA teams.  Ainge, for example, took over in 2003 and won a title in 2008.  That's half the time with about 1/4 the painful losing.

Mike

This doesn't make any sense to me. You're saying winning one championship in 10 or 11 years isn't good but you use Ainge as an example of a good manager but Ainge has only won one championship in 14 years.

Confused logic aside, my point was: how can you judge The Process when the players it has garnered haven't shown what they can do yet?

Ainge has already rebuilt lottery teams to good teams twice in that timeframe.

Love, love, love this point!

TP