Author Topic: All Things Philadelphia 76ers (merged Sixers threads)  (Read 366959 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: All Things Philadelphia 76ers (merged Sixers threads)
« Reply #1485 on: December 09, 2018, 09:28:46 AM »

Offline Eddie20

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8497
  • Tommy Points: 975
Quote
LarBrd33 awesome quote #1 Most of the examples above would have looked differently had they been developed in Boston.  Our system seems to get the most out of people.  Okafor and Noel's careers would have looked a heck of a lot different had they ended up in Boston. 

Quote
LarBrd33 awesome quote #2 My argument all along was that "losing culture" didn't matter.

LarBrd, this has to be a new C's forum record on just how quickly one can contradict themselves. Quote 2 is the very paragraph after Quote 1, so great job in making history!

Anyways, in addressing the ridiculousness, that toxic culture made Porzingis not want to work out for them or provide them with his medicals. Those actions forced them go with Okafor a player that not only did not fit in today's a game, but was not well suited to play alongside their previous 2 1st rd picks, Noel and Embiid.

The Holiday for Noel, and what turned out to be Saric, deal turned out to be a bad move. Holiday, who is still only 28, is a rich man's version of what they hoped Fultz would be. Again, just another example of their tanking backfiring on them.

When is the last time any big time FA even visited the Sixers? You mentioned Redick taking your money. Sure, that's correct. However, that's akin to the Suns overpaying for Ariza this summer. Paying more than market value for a player is very different than a free agent taking less than market value to sign with a team that has a winning culture.

So instead of being able to land a top free agent AND keep/trade Saric and Covington for another piece, your team traded those guys away just to pay Butler 40M per year when he's 32-34 years old. Lucky them.

So that's the success story of "the process"? Being lucky that you got the #1 pick one year (Simmons) and had Embiid slide to you because of injury doesn't really mean you're successful when you've missed badly on Noel, Okafor, Fultz, and are about to overpay a player who's game doesn't mesh well with Embiid and Simmons. I guess you must have really low aspirations.

Re: All Things Philadelphia 76ers (merged Sixers threads)
« Reply #1486 on: December 09, 2018, 09:32:10 AM »

Offline cman88

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5153
  • Tommy Points: 359
With all the high picks the sixers have had, one would think they wouldve ended up with more than just Simmons/Embiid.

Noel, Okafor, Fultz...so far are all busts. You hit on one of those and the sixers would be a contender.

Right now, they are a top east team. but without 3 point shooting I see teams flooding the paint and forcing them to shoot.

Re: All Things Philadelphia 76ers (merged Sixers threads)
« Reply #1487 on: December 09, 2018, 10:07:14 AM »

Offline KG Living Legend

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8635
  • Tommy Points: 1136


- They tanked 3 years in a row and it net them Embiid, Okafor and Simmons.   The whole point of tanking multiple years was to get a crack at a superstar - Philly ended up with 2.  That's a success.




being the laughing stock of the league for 3-4 years is not a success



 Yes it is Einstein if it gets you a ring or even a sniff of a ring. Most teams simply never get there.

Re: All Things Philadelphia 76ers (merged Sixers threads)
« Reply #1488 on: December 09, 2018, 11:34:13 AM »

Offline ederson

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2896
  • Tommy Points: 279


- They tanked 3 years in a row and it net them Embiid, Okafor and Simmons.   The whole point of tanking multiple years was to get a crack at a superstar - Philly ended up with 2.  That's a success.




being the laughing stock of the league for 3-4 years is not a success



 Yes it is Einstein if it gets you a ring or even a sniff of a ring. Most teams simply never get there.

has it ??? NO

WHEN and IF it leads to a ring THEN call it success.

BTW keep the irony to yourself



Re: All Things Philadelphia 76ers (merged Sixers threads)
« Reply #1489 on: December 09, 2018, 11:49:43 AM »

Offline tazzmaniac

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8113
  • Tommy Points: 549


- They tanked 3 years in a row and it net them Embiid, Okafor and Simmons.   The whole point of tanking multiple years was to get a crack at a superstar - Philly ended up with 2.  That's a success.




being the laughing stock of the league for 3-4 years is not a success



 Yes it is Einstein if it gets you a ring or even a sniff of a ring. Most teams simply never get there.

has it ??? NO

WHEN and IF it leads to a ring THEN call it success.

BTW keep the irony to yourself
To define success only as winning a ring means that pretty much every team is a failure including us.  Success is being a top team that consistently is a championship contender. 

Re: All Things Philadelphia 76ers (merged Sixers threads)
« Reply #1490 on: December 09, 2018, 12:04:14 PM »

Offline ederson

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2896
  • Tommy Points: 279


- They tanked 3 years in a row and it net them Embiid, Okafor and Simmons.   The whole point of tanking multiple years was to get a crack at a superstar - Philly ended up with 2.  That's a success.




being the laughing stock of the league for 3-4 years is not a success



 Yes it is Einstein if it gets you a ring or even a sniff of a ring. Most teams simply never get there.

has it ??? NO

WHEN and IF it leads to a ring THEN call it success.

BTW keep the irony to yourself
To define success only as winning a ring means that pretty much every team is a failure including us.  Success is being a top team that consistently is a championship contender.

even by this metric (which is my definition of success too) it is too early to call it success.

And it should matter how you got there. Celtics are more successful without embarrassing themselves. The Bucks too.

We still talk about how difficult was to be a C's fan in 1995-2000 with just one 19w season. Phily won 19 ,18 and 10 games in consecutive! 47 wins in 3 seasons! That is not easy to swallow just by getting eliminated in the conference semifinal by a team missing the two most important players.   



Re: All Things Philadelphia 76ers (merged Sixers threads)
« Reply #1491 on: December 09, 2018, 12:53:00 PM »

Offline moiso

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7640
  • Tommy Points: 441
Okay, let's get this back on the subject of the 76ers and off the subject of individual poster's prominence at predictions or ability to promote their own selfish agendas. The blog is a better place without such crap.
TP.  Had been thinking the same thing for the past couple of days.

Re: All Things Philadelphia 76ers (merged Sixers threads)
« Reply #1492 on: December 09, 2018, 01:27:45 PM »

Offline hpantazo

  • Kevin McHale
  • ************************
  • Posts: 24883
  • Tommy Points: 2700
Okay, let's get this back on the subject of the 76ers and off the subject of individual poster's prominence at predictions or ability to promote their own selfish agendas. The blog is a better place without such crap.
TP.  Had been thinking the same thing for the past couple of days.

Thirded. Enough with the self promoting posts

Re: All Things Philadelphia 76ers (merged Sixers threads)
« Reply #1493 on: December 09, 2018, 02:13:28 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533


- They tanked 3 years in a row and it net them Embiid, Okafor and Simmons.   The whole point of tanking multiple years was to get a crack at a superstar - Philly ended up with 2.  That's a success.




being the laughing stock of the league for 3-4 years is not a success



 Yes it is Einstein if it gets you a ring or even a sniff of a ring. Most teams simply never get there.

has it ??? NO

WHEN and IF it leads to a ring THEN call it success.

BTW keep the irony to yourself
To define success only as winning a ring means that pretty much every team is a failure including us.  Success is being a top team that consistently is a championship contender.

even by this metric (which is my definition of success too) it is too early to call it success.

And it should matter how you got there. Celtics are more successful without embarrassing themselves. The Bucks too.

We still talk about how difficult was to be a C's fan in 1995-2000 with just one 19w season. Phily won 19 ,18 and 10 games in consecutive! 47 wins in 3 seasons! That is not easy to swallow just by getting eliminated in the conference semifinal by a team missing the two most important players.   
The Bucks haven't won a playoff series since the 2001 playoffs (and 1989 was the season prior to that).  Philly won one last year after just 3 years of outright tanking and 2 other mediocre to poor seasons.  Now why is it better to have 20 years of no success vs. 3 seasons of tanking?
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: All Things Philadelphia 76ers (merged Sixers threads)
« Reply #1494 on: December 09, 2018, 03:43:05 PM »

Offline LarBrd33

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21238
  • Tommy Points: 2016


- They tanked 3 years in a row and it net them Embiid, Okafor and Simmons.   The whole point of tanking multiple years was to get a crack at a superstar - Philly ended up with 2.  That's a success.




being the laughing stock of the league for 3-4 years is not a success



 Yes it is Einstein if it gets you a ring or even a sniff of a ring. Most teams simply never get there.

has it ??? NO

WHEN and IF it leads to a ring THEN call it success.

BTW keep the irony to yourself
To define success only as winning a ring means that pretty much every team is a failure including us.  Success is being a top team that consistently is a championship contender.

even by this metric (which is my definition of success too) it is too early to call it success.

And it should matter how you got there. Celtics are more successful without embarrassing themselves. The Bucks too.

We still talk about how difficult was to be a C's fan in 1995-2000 with just one 19w season. Phily won 19 ,18 and 10 games in consecutive! 47 wins in 3 seasons! That is not easy to swallow just by getting eliminated in the conference semifinal by a team missing the two most important players.   
The Bucks haven't won a playoff series since the 2001 playoffs (and 1989 was the season prior to that).  Philly won one last year after just 3 years of outright tanking and 2 other mediocre to poor seasons.  Now why is it better to have 20 years of no success vs. 3 seasons of tanking?

Philly had one 50+ win season since 1989... it was the lone year they made the Finals thanks to Mutumbo's DPOY campaign and Iverson's success (a player they got winning 18 games and tanking for the #1 pick.   They were the epitome of perpetual mediocrity.  Had they stayed the course, they'd likely still be hovering around 30-40 wins.   

The plan was simple.   Gut the roster, bottom out multiple years in a row to set the franchise up to get a superstar.    In less than 5 years, they had put together a 52 win team built around two transcendent rookies. 

They look even better this season.  18-9 currently - on pace to win about 55 games which is something the franchise hasn't done since 1984.   

Thanks directly to the "process", they have two transcendent young stars (Embiid and Simmons) and utilized their assets (G-League signing and one of the picks they got in the Holiday trade) to convert it into another all-star.   They are set up to add a 4th star this Summer. 

The plan already worked.  The debate is over.  They are a relevant team.  As predicted, as soon as they had star talent, it outweighed the fact they had built a few years of losing basketball. 

Quote from: Eddie20
--REDACTED TO MAKE SPACE FOR MORE HOME DINGERS--

Touching briefly on the other stuff... Philly certainly broke some eggs while building that delicious basketball omelette.   They way they handled Okafor was pretty disastrous.  It reminds me a little of how a player like Jeff Green had his development stunted playing on a bad team in the shadow of Kevin Durant.  Eventually, it broke Green as a prospect and he never lived up to his full potential.  Okafor had some serious flaws in his game, but I think he would have benefited from being nurtured early on in a veteran system with competent coaches - as opposed to being left on the bench to rot in the shadow of Embiid.  I would have liked to see how his career would have turned out had Boston added him directly following his rookie season.  At this point, he's probably too broken to turn his career around. 

Likewise for Noel.  He had undeniable elite defensive abilities.  Even now, he's continuing to show signs of that.  Averaging 6 points, 5 rebounds, 1.4 blocks and 1 steal with 62% shooting in 14mpg for the Thunder.  PER of 24.06.  The idea was that if developed properly, he could have had a career like Clint Capela.  Robert Williams is a player in that mold and it will be interesting to see how Boston handles his development.  Probably similar to what we would have done with a young Noel.

The other player mentioned in this thread was Ben Mclemore - who wasn't a Sixer... so I'm not sure why his name came up.  I always liked Ben McLemore. He showed elite shooting potential.  It would have been interesting to see how we would have developed him around his strengths (athletic 36% 3-point shooter).  I'll comment on it just to explain the same point.  I think there are some prospects who benefit from having many reps on a bad team, but there are other prospects who benefit from being nurtured slowly in a quality environment.  Typically star picks like Durant, LeBron, Embiid, Davis, etc get their reps on garbage teams and turn the corner when their talent allows it.  On the flip side, you have a guy like Kawhi who probably exceeded his ceiling by being nurtured on the Spurs - or lesser guys like Avery Bradley who were developed into specific roles they flourished in.   I saw Ben as one of those kids that could have ended up a quality player had he ended up in the right system.  Instead, he spent his developmental years on arguably the worst franchise in the league (the Sacramento Kings).  I've said this before, but had Jaylen Brown been drafted by a team like the Kings, Hornets or Suns, I don't think he ever amounts to anything.  He's probably already playing on his 2nd or 3rd team by now (like Marquese Chriss)... but because Brown ended up in Boston, his ceiling was raised substantially by how he was developed.   That's why I often advocated for trading for young prospects who might flourish in our system - and why it misses the point entirely to say "see, he ended up a bad player!" when they don't end up in our system.  You know, Marcus Smart probably isn't in the league anymore had he ended up being drafted by a team like the Kings.  I have a lot of faith in this organization's ability to maximize strengths.

For example, I'd advocate for buying low on Josh Jackson right now.  I think there's a chance Brad could get something out of him and they could develop him into a nasty defensive energy guy.  If Jackson continues to toil away on the Suns and never amounts to anything, you'd be missing the point to say "lol, LarBrd33 thought Josh Jackson was going to be a superstar."   
« Last Edit: December 09, 2018, 03:52:53 PM by LarBrd33 »

Re: All Things Philadelphia 76ers (merged Sixers threads)
« Reply #1495 on: December 09, 2018, 04:19:33 PM »

Offline Eddie20

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8497
  • Tommy Points: 975
LB, that’s a really long winded response, but you failed to address your contradictory statements. Does culture matter or not?

First you said:
Most of the examples above would have looked differently had they been developed in Boston.  Our system seems to get the most out of people.  Okafor and Noel's careers would have looked a heck of a lot different had they ended up in Boston.

Then:
My argument all along was that "losing culture" didn't matter.

Now:
There are other prospects who benefit from being nurtured slowly in a quality environment.

Re: All Things Philadelphia 76ers (merged Sixers threads)
« Reply #1496 on: December 09, 2018, 05:53:33 PM »

Offline LarBrd33

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21238
  • Tommy Points: 2016
LB, that’s a really long winded response, but you failed to address your contradictory statements. Does culture matter or not?
Depends on what context you're asking.

Does Losing Culture Matter Long Term? - No.


For the majority of this forum, they assumed that Philly would perpetually be bad, because it was impossible for a bad team to suddenly be good.  That runs counter to decades of history to the contrary.  We've seen numerous teams flip a switch from "terrible" to "awesome".  One need only look at the career of LeBron James as proof.  Cavs are a 17 win team before they draft him.  In a few short years they are a 50-66 win team capable of making the Finals.   He leaves, they go back to a 19-24 win team for a few years.  He returns, they are back to a 50-57 win team making 4 straight Finals.  He leaves, they are a 6 win team right now.  Similarly, the Heat were team a few years removed from winning 15 games.  Bron jumps on board and they are 54-66 win team making 4 straight Finals.  He leaves, they are a 37 win team.  Talent cures all.

In our own history alone, we saw the Celtics go from a 29 win team to 61 win team with the arrival of Bird.  We saw 24 win team go to a 66 win team with the arrival of KG.  We saw a 25 win team go to a 50+ win team in 3 short years with the implementation of Brad's system.

From that respect - ya'll were wrong.  Most people here thought Philly would be a lotto team last season.  Nah.  With a finally healthy Embiid and Simmons off to a phenomenal rookie season they flipped a switch from 28 win team to 52 win team.  Superstar talent is the name of the game.

The risk of a "losing culture" infesting a franchise and making it impossible for them to ever get out of it - is nonsense.  Once you have superstar talent, game over.  That's actually one of the reasons I was a little worried about the Kings this year - the risk of Fox and Hield taking a leap and their potential to draft a superstar level prospect like Doncic made me nervous they'd dig out of the bottom 5.  Granted, they thankfully messed up by not taking Doncic and they are still most likely going to miss the playoffs in the loaded West, but you can't be surprised by them playing above .500 basketball so far.  Even on arguably the worst managed team of the past decade, the Kings are not immune to star talent digging them out of the dumps.

So that's one context.  Big picture, "losing culture" doesn't make a lick of difference if the goal is acquiring Superstars.  Once you have that star talent, it will immediately change the culture.  Lakers have been toiling away winning 20ish games for the past 5 years.  Bron shows up and they are on pace to win 50+.   



The other topic is a different one and you're intentionally pretending like you're confused about the two to try to suggest there is a contradiction. 

Does Culture Influence Player Development?  - Depends on the player.

Some prospects are likely benefited by having low-pressure situations where they can get reps on a bad team.  It was probably in Durant's best interest to spend his rookie season on a 20 win team jacking up 21 shots per game while shooting 43% from the field and 28% from three... it gave him the necessary reps as "the man" before he was ready to be "the man".   

Other prospects are likely benefited by having strong role models and a quality developmental system around them.  I sincerely doubt Rondo ever develops into an all-star had he not ended up in Boston with 3 hall-of-famers to learn from, a GM who had been an all-star point guard, a coach who had been an all-star point guard, spending some of his early developmental time learning from Sam Cassell - etc.  Rondo's ceiling was raised by his surroundings.  Likely the same with Kawhi.  Likely the same with Jaylen Brown. 

So, you'd probably say, "Well obviously it's better for a young guy to spend his formative years in a winning environment"...  Well, not necessarily.  I'm sure there have been instances of players not reaching their ceiling, because they didn't get the required NBA reps they needed early on.  Had Darko spent his rookie season getting 35 minutes on a 19 win bottom-feeder, would he have had a better chance to figure things out than he did having his confidence shattered by receiving 4 minutes per game (in only 30 games) on a 54 win Pistons contender?   Is it possible that a guy like Yabusele would be having a solid career if he had spent last season getting significant minutes on a bad team?  What might James Young's career look like if he had been force-fed starter minutes on a lotto team as opposed to being buried in our G-League system?  Had Devin Booker been drafted by this Celtic team and instead of getting starter minutes right away he instead received the Terry Rozier treatment and spent the entire rookie season in G-League behind our numerous guards, does Booker look as good as he does today?  Possibly not.

In that respect, it's a case-by-case basis.  Robert Covington's development benefited by getting big minutes he wouldn't have gotten elsewhere.  It's fair to say that Noel and Okafor's careers might have looked differently if they had spent their early years surrounded by quality mentors. 

There's really no way to predict this stuff and it's kind of impossible to say one situation would be better than another.   Is it in Robert Williams' best interest to spend his rookie season getting spot minutes while he learns from vets like Horford - or would Williams be better off getting consistent minutes on a team like the Bulls?   

What I do know is that I credit our system for raising Jaylen Brown's ceiling.  I doubt I'd think much of his ceiling if he was on a crappy team like the Suns.   On the flip side, I was worried that our system might stunt Tatum's development.  Instead of getting the freedom to experiment with his immense skillset (and jack up 20+ shots per night as Durant did as a rookie), Tatum was forced to play a specific role his rookie season.  I worried that pigeonholing Tatum might hold him back and ruin his opportunity to become a Superstar during these formative years.  That's why I actually LOVE that the Celtics have spent this 2nd season giving Tatum the freedom to take contested mid-range shots, fadeaways and long-twos.  Let the kid experiment.  Let him get these reps taking tough shots so that it will pay dividends long term.  It's a tricky thing to manage, though - as evidence by all the backlash from fans who lose their minds when Tatum takes a contested shot and just want to see him take open looks.

Bottom line - Philly's "process" has already proven to be a massive success.  They are one of the best teams in the East now.  None of their players or fans are losing sleep over the few brief years they spent as a bottomfeeder.  Those days are gone.   They are relevant. 

Now, if you're asking how I would guess Avery Bradley's career would have gone if drafted by the Kings compared to how Ben McLemore's career would have gone if drafted by the Celtics - that's a different discussion.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2018, 06:04:32 PM by LarBrd33 »

Re: All Things Philadelphia 76ers (merged Sixers threads)
« Reply #1497 on: December 09, 2018, 06:55:12 PM »

Offline Vermont Green

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11226
  • Tommy Points: 860
So the argument is over whether the risk of creating a losing culture through tanking makes it unlikely that tanking will result in a team getting better?  I am really not sure who is arguing what but I think it is pretty clear that it doesn't matter.  If a team brings in some really good players through the draft (or otherwise) the team will get better.

My problem with Tanking is that the process of drafting itself is very risky.  It took Philly, what, 5 or 6 really high picks to get a couple of stars.  Now that they have those stars, they area better team.  But the point is that if you are banking on one pick or a couple of picks turning your team around, you better hope you are lucky in the draft (and that doesn't even take into account the lottery aspect of the draft).  There are very few sure bets in the draft when you are dealing with 18 and 19 year olds.  You cannot count on a high pick automatically getting you a star/impact player and it doesn't matter how well you think you can pick.

Re: All Things Philadelphia 76ers (merged Sixers threads)
« Reply #1498 on: December 09, 2018, 07:11:05 PM »

Offline LarBrd33

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21238
  • Tommy Points: 2016
So the argument is over whether the risk of creating a losing culture through tanking makes it unlikely that tanking will result in a team getting better?  I am really not sure who is arguing what but I think it is pretty clear that it doesn't matter.  If a team brings in some really good players through the draft (or otherwise) the team will get better.

My problem with Tanking is that the process of drafting itself is very risky.
It took Philly, what, 5 or 6 really high picks to get a couple of stars.
Technically the first time they shamelessly tanked they ended up with Joel Embiid. 

The second time, they whiffed and took Okafor.

Third time - Ben Simmons.

The point is to get the highest possible picks, because the very top of the draft is typically where superstar talent enters the league.  Still, it's possible for a team to get very unlucky.  The Kings have missed the playoffs for years.  They've whiffed it on numerous top 5 picks.  Still, a better GM could have taken those assets and turned it into a team.  It takes a special type of stupid to consistently fail that hard.   Philly tried to take it a step further by maximizing their chance at the #1 pick.  I liked that ownership had the balls to try it that shamelessly.  It worked.  Good for them.



Re: All Things Philadelphia 76ers (merged Sixers threads)
« Reply #1499 on: December 09, 2018, 07:19:36 PM »

Offline Eddie20

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8497
  • Tommy Points: 975
So the argument is over whether the risk of creating a losing culture through tanking makes it unlikely that tanking will result in a team getting better?  I am really not sure who is arguing what but I think it is pretty clear that it doesn't matter.  If a team brings in some really good players through the draft (or otherwise) the team will get better.

I agree. That said, it’s not about tanking to get high picks, it’s about picking correctly. The Sixers were fortunate that they hit on 2 guys, but when analyzed on the whole, they actually drafted very poorly. Even more so, when you analyze it I’m terms of fit. There was absolutely no thought process in team building/roster fit and as a result they selected big after big. It seems as though Hinkie had little understanding of real life basketball and treated it as if he were playing NBA2K. He ldid no better than 99% of the members here would have.

I do think that Hinkie should’ve surrounded their draft picks with a bunch of good locker room vets. Perhaps that could’ve helped out Okafor not act like an idiot, Noel to not eat hotdogs during a game, or Embiid to not voice his displeasure to the media.

Hinkie took that team into a toilet and it was an embarrassing spectacle. It was so bad that he lost his job for it and will probably never work in the NBA again. All for what? To lose in the ECSF last year to a team missing to its best 2 players? To lose again in the ECSF again this season? They’re on a fast track to becoming what they didn’t want to be. They’re about to be the 80s Bucks.