I think that having some grown ups in that lineup is more helpful than most are acknowledging. Ilyasova, Rodriquez, Henderson, and Covington are providing much needed experience and steady leadership.
Yeah, it's not the tanking that's paid dividends, other than Embiid, it's that they have some decent vets. McConnell has been much better than anyone anticipated.
Embiid has been the difference between the team having a warriors level net rating and the team playing at a 2015-16 Sixers net rating... (in 2017 that is)
It's not the vets, it's Embiid. Well that and Okafor not playing.
Certainly explains why they just won two in a row without Embiid, huh?
It's having actual vets on this team and not blatantly tanking that's played a large part in making this team not a laughingstock and a respectable team now. Embiid has certainly been fantastic, but he's not the sole reason they're playing better now, as evidenced by the two recent back-to-back wins without Embiid or Okafor.
And regarding Okafor. He's certainly terrible, but I don't think you can blame this on him just not playing. It's more about having actual GOOD fits on their roster rather than trying to play the "twin towers" lineup or force bad fits elsewhere, like Noel and Okafor. By having a good fit at the 4 next to Embiid and Noel, they actually have lineups that are functional both offensively and defensively. It's part of the reason why many assume there will be a drop-off in play a bit when Simmons comes back, because A) he's going to be on a major curve being his first NBA experience against NBA level competition, and B) he's not the same quality of fit at the 4 next to Embiid/Noel, especially Noel offensively, as Ily or Saric is.
I'm still not 100% confident that's a great fit long-term either. Having another big playmaker like that might take the ball out of Embiid's hands too frequently, which I don't think Philly wants.
So I'd say there's three main reasons they're a respectable ball team this year rather than a joke like the last few years:
1) Embiid's great play
2) Having actual vets on the roster
3) Having a good-fitting roster
I like how we're pretending this team never had vets on the roster before this year. It's not true, but why let facts get in the way? In a season
Ersan and Henderson have been good, but they're not making this team remotely competitive without Embiid.
As far as why they won two in a row? They played a depleted Clippers team on a B2B, and Milwaukee imploded for a close game.
They're not going to make the playoffs, they've been winning close games at a completely unsustainable rate and requiring Embiid to basically play like a DPOY to do so. But they're competitive because of their young guys, which is good.
Without Embiid they are probably post-MCW 2015 Sixers level good, which was about a 25 win pace. That mostly stems from no Okafor. Nothing about them winning two in a row is really all that unprecedented, especially when Okafor doesn't play and they have something resembling NBA PG play.