Sixers' players parents heckling/criticizing organization

[LarBrd33]

Nik is just playing in his second year, being the 8th pick in last years draft. As of right now he has his ups and downs, as is to be expected of any young player, but the potential is still there to be an effective scorer in this league. Just look at the type of production he had during the clippers game: http://espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?id=400828392
Its clearly evident that Nik has a great future in the NBA, and Kendall at best is a second or third option the arguably worst team in NBA history.

I don't think it's clearly evident that a guy whose calling card is shooting but has career percentages of .359/.311/.796 has any kind of future in the NBA.

Did you intentionally add the "calling card is shooting" bit to shelter you from the rebuttal that Marcus Smart is shooting 34%/22%/70%?

This is kind of pathetic. Stauskas averages 1.2 turnovers and 1.7 assists. His defense has repeatedly been blasted by Brown

http://articles.philly.com/2015-12-16/sports/69065473_1_brett-brown-nik-stauskas-nerlens-noel
http://articles.philly.com/2015-11-18/sports/68356892_1_brett-brown-nik-stauskas-raft

He is possibly the worst rotation player in the NBA this season. He is supposed to decent at one thing and he hasn't been able to do that. You use that as a segway to bring in Marcus Smart's shooting percentages? Again, absolutely pathetic.

He is 302nd out of 324 qualified players for PER rating at 7.68

And he's coming off a game with 18 points, 4 rebounds and 3 assists with 6-8 shooting from three.

So it will be interesting to see if he finds a rhythm.

You have to know more about basketball based on how much you post here than you have exhibited in your last couple of posts...

What do you know about basketball?   In the past 5 games, Stauskas has shot 39% from three...  coinciding with Philly adding a point guard (Ish Smith has averaged 7.6 assists).   It's not like Ish Smith is a franchise player or anything.  Dude is barely a starter.  But seems to me, having some familiarity with the game of basketball, shooters tend to do better when surrounded with other talent.  No? 

 

[fairweatherfan]

Nik is just playing in his second year, being the 8th pick in last years draft. As of right now he has his ups and downs, as is to be expected of any young player, but the potential is still there to be an effective scorer in this league. Just look at the type of production he had during the clippers game: http://espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?id=400828392
Its clearly evident that Nik has a great future in the NBA, and Kendall at best is a second or third option the arguably worst team in NBA history.

I don't think it's clearly evident that a guy whose calling card is shooting but has career percentages of .359/.311/.796 has any kind of future in the NBA.

Did you intentionally add the "calling card is shooting" bit to shelter you from the rebuttal that Marcus Smart is shooting 34%/22%/70%?

No, because the topic's about the Sixers.  Plenty of other threads to argue about Marcus Smart.  Though, of course, it's very fair to note that unlike Stauskas Smart isn't a 1-dimensional player who sucks at that dimension, he sucks at a dimension he was supposed to struggle with. 

I also used career stats, where Smart's numbers are the slightly better but still lousy .362/.318/.659.  So despite it being the worst part of his game he's still a slightly better shooter so far than the guy whose only real NBA skill is supposed to be shooting.

[MBunge]

Nik is just playing in his second year, being the 8th pick in last years draft. As of right now he has his ups and downs, as is to be expected of any young player, but the potential is still there to be an effective scorer in this league. Just look at the type of production he had during the clippers game: http://espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?id=400828392
Its clearly evident that Nik has a great future in the NBA, and Kendall at best is a second or third option the arguably worst team in NBA history.

I don't think it's clearly evident that a guy whose calling card is shooting but has career percentages of .359/.311/.796 has any kind of future in the NBA.

Did you intentionally add the "calling card is shooting" bit to shelter you from the rebuttal that Marcus Smart is shooting 34%/22%/70%?

This is kind of pathetic. Stauskas averages 1.2 turnovers and 1.7 assists. His defense has repeatedly been blasted by Brown

http://articles.philly.com/2015-12-16/sports/69065473_1_brett-brown-nik-stauskas-nerlens-noel
http://articles.philly.com/2015-11-18/sports/68356892_1_brett-brown-nik-stauskas-raft

He is possibly the worst rotation player in the NBA this season. He is supposed to decent at one thing and he hasn't been able to do that. You use that as a segway to bring in Marcus Smart's shooting percentages? Again, absolutely pathetic.

He is 302nd out of 324 qualified players for PER rating at 7.68

And he's coming off a game with 18 points, 4 rebounds and 3 assists with 6-8 shooting from three.

So it will be interesting to see if he finds a rhythm.

You have to know more about basketball based on how much you post here than you have exhibited in your last couple of posts...

What do you know about basketball? 

Not a question that should ever be asked by someone who wrote an enthusiastic post about the amazing potential of Anthony Bennett.

Mike

[LarBrd33]

Nik is just playing in his second year, being the 8th pick in last years draft. As of right now he has his ups and downs, as is to be expected of any young player, but the potential is still there to be an effective scorer in this league. Just look at the type of production he had during the clippers game: http://espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?id=400828392
Its clearly evident that Nik has a great future in the NBA, and Kendall at best is a second or third option the arguably worst team in NBA history.

I don't think it's clearly evident that a guy whose calling card is shooting but has career percentages of .359/.311/.796 has any kind of future in the NBA.

Did you intentionally add the "calling card is shooting" bit to shelter you from the rebuttal that Marcus Smart is shooting 34%/22%/70%?

No, because the topic's about the Sixers.  Plenty of other threads to argue about Marcus Smart.  Though, of course, it's very fair to note that unlike Stauskas Smart isn't a 1-dimensional player who sucks at that dimension, he sucks at a dimension he was supposed to struggle with. 

I also used career stats, where Smart's numbers are the slightly better but still lousy .362/.318/.659.  So despite it being the worst part of his game he's still a slightly better shooter so far than the guy whose only real NBA skill is supposed to be shooting.

Still very possible that Stauskas amounts to nothing in this league.   There's occassional signs he'll find a shooting rhythm.  I suspect he'd do better with a defined role in a competent system surrounded by capable players.   LIke, if we were using him in RJ Hunter's role (Hunter is shooting 36% and 26% from three, btw), I don't think he'd look as bad as he does right now.   Last year after the all-star break he shot 42%/42%/86% in the final 23 games in 19.4mpg.   He was a shooter in College.   I still wouldn't be stunned to see him find a rhythm and start knocking down shots consistently.

[LarBrd33]

Nik is just playing in his second year, being the 8th pick in last years draft. As of right now he has his ups and downs, as is to be expected of any young player, but the potential is still there to be an effective scorer in this league. Just look at the type of production he had during the clippers game: http://espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?id=400828392
Its clearly evident that Nik has a great future in the NBA, and Kendall at best is a second or third option the arguably worst team in NBA history.

I don't think it's clearly evident that a guy whose calling card is shooting but has career percentages of .359/.311/.796 has any kind of future in the NBA.

Did you intentionally add the "calling card is shooting" bit to shelter you from the rebuttal that Marcus Smart is shooting 34%/22%/70%?

This is kind of pathetic. Stauskas averages 1.2 turnovers and 1.7 assists. His defense has repeatedly been blasted by Brown

http://articles.philly.com/2015-12-16/sports/69065473_1_brett-brown-nik-stauskas-nerlens-noel
http://articles.philly.com/2015-11-18/sports/68356892_1_brett-brown-nik-stauskas-raft

He is possibly the worst rotation player in the NBA this season. He is supposed to decent at one thing and he hasn't been able to do that. You use that as a segway to bring in Marcus Smart's shooting percentages? Again, absolutely pathetic.

He is 302nd out of 324 qualified players for PER rating at 7.68

And he's coming off a game with 18 points, 4 rebounds and 3 assists with 6-8 shooting from three.

So it will be interesting to see if he finds a rhythm.

You have to know more about basketball based on how much you post here than you have exhibited in your last couple of posts...

What do you know about basketball? 

Not a question that should ever be asked by someone who wrote an enthusiastic post about the amazing potential of Anthony Bennett.

Mike

I liked Bennett's potential more than what was available at #16.   I'm still not sure Rozier has more potential than Anthony Bennett.  At best, it's a toss-up. 

I'd still probably trade Rozier for Stauskas.   Maybe that comment ends up looking stupid... i dunno...  Stauskas is coming off a game with 18 points, 4 rebounds, 3 assists with 6-8 shooting from three.   Rozier is coming off a game with 0 points, 0 rebounds, 1 assist with 0-1 shooting.   At gunpoint, I'm takin Sauce Castillo.  Sue me.

[celticsclay]

Nik is just playing in his second year, being the 8th pick in last years draft. As of right now he has his ups and downs, as is to be expected of any young player, but the potential is still there to be an effective scorer in this league. Just look at the type of production he had during the clippers game: http://espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?id=400828392
Its clearly evident that Nik has a great future in the NBA, and Kendall at best is a second or third option the arguably worst team in NBA history.

I don't think it's clearly evident that a guy whose calling card is shooting but has career percentages of .359/.311/.796 has any kind of future in the NBA.

Did you intentionally add the "calling card is shooting" bit to shelter you from the rebuttal that Marcus Smart is shooting 34%/22%/70%?

This is kind of pathetic. Stauskas averages 1.2 turnovers and 1.7 assists. His defense has repeatedly been blasted by Brown

http://articles.philly.com/2015-12-16/sports/69065473_1_brett-brown-nik-stauskas-nerlens-noel
http://articles.philly.com/2015-11-18/sports/68356892_1_brett-brown-nik-stauskas-raft

He is possibly the worst rotation player in the NBA this season. He is supposed to decent at one thing and he hasn't been able to do that. You use that as a segway to bring in Marcus Smart's shooting percentages? Again, absolutely pathetic.

He is 302nd out of 324 qualified players for PER rating at 7.68

And he's coming off a game with 18 points, 4 rebounds and 3 assists with 6-8 shooting from three.

So it will be interesting to see if he finds a rhythm.

You have to know more about basketball based on how much you post here than you have exhibited in your last couple of posts...

What do you know about basketball?   In the past 5 games, Stauskas has shot 39% from three...  coinciding with Philly adding a point guard (Ish Smith has averaged 7.6 assists).   It's not like Ish Smith is a franchise player or anything.  Dude is barely a starter.  But seems to me, having some familiarity with the game of basketball, shooters tend to do better when surrounded with other talent.  No?

You know that if a team has a 40 point lead the defense tends to loosen up right? You know hitting some threes in the the second half of a game like this isn't really impressive right? Do you remember allen ray having some explosions back in the day in garbage games?

You also know enough to about basic math to understand if you go 6-8 from 3 in one game in a 5 point stretch it is going to significantly impact your three point shooting for the stretch right?

So the previous 3 games from the field he was 3 of 22 from the field (1-14 from 3) and had 6 turnovers. Think about that for a minute. Over 3 games before this he had twice as many turnovers as field goals in roughly 75 minutes. That is about as bad as you will ever see in the in the NBA and you including this stretch as evidence of him turning the corner?

So over the last 5 games he has had 3 really horrendous ones and 2 good ones. You are somehow trying to twist this into a hot streak and turning the corner? Like I said, I have believed you to be somewhat knowledgable about basketball and statistics, but the way you are trying to twist things here is pathetic.

[Eddie20]

Nik is just playing in his second year, being the 8th pick in last years draft. As of right now he has his ups and downs, as is to be expected of any young player, but the potential is still there to be an effective scorer in this league. Just look at the type of production he had during the clippers game: http://espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?id=400828392
Its clearly evident that Nik has a great future in the NBA, and Kendall at best is a second or third option the arguably worst team in NBA history.

I don't think it's clearly evident that a guy whose calling card is shooting but has career percentages of .359/.311/.796 has any kind of future in the NBA.

Did you intentionally add the "calling card is shooting" bit to shelter you from the rebuttal that Marcus Smart is shooting 34%/22%/70%?

No, because the topic's about the Sixers.  Plenty of other threads to argue about Marcus Smart.  Though, of course, it's very fair to note that unlike Stauskas Smart isn't a 1-dimensional player who sucks at that dimension, he sucks at a dimension he was supposed to struggle with. 

I also used career stats, where Smart's numbers are the slightly better but still lousy .362/.318/.659.  So despite it being the worst part of his game he's still a slightly better shooter so far than the guy whose only real NBA skill is supposed to be shooting.

That's true. The topic is about the Sixers, yet he brings up Smart only to disparage him in order to take the focus of a player he likes (Stauskas).

LB, at least pretend you're a Cs fan. If not, just admit you don't care for them and like the Sixers a lot more.

[LarBrd33]

Nik is just playing in his second year, being the 8th pick in last years draft. As of right now he has his ups and downs, as is to be expected of any young player, but the potential is still there to be an effective scorer in this league. Just look at the type of production he had during the clippers game: http://espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?id=400828392
Its clearly evident that Nik has a great future in the NBA, and Kendall at best is a second or third option the arguably worst team in NBA history.

I don't think it's clearly evident that a guy whose calling card is shooting but has career percentages of .359/.311/.796 has any kind of future in the NBA.

Did you intentionally add the "calling card is shooting" bit to shelter you from the rebuttal that Marcus Smart is shooting 34%/22%/70%?

No, because the topic's about the Sixers.  Plenty of other threads to argue about Marcus Smart.  Though, of course, it's very fair to note that unlike Stauskas Smart isn't a 1-dimensional player who sucks at that dimension, he sucks at a dimension he was supposed to struggle with. 

I also used career stats, where Smart's numbers are the slightly better but still lousy .362/.318/.659.  So despite it being the worst part of his game he's still a slightly better shooter so far than the guy whose only real NBA skill is supposed to be shooting.

That's true. The topic is about the Sixers, yet he brings up Smart only to disparage him in order to take the focus of a player he likes (Stauskas).

LB, at least pretend you're a Cs fan. If not, just admit you don't care for them and like the Sixers a lot more.

To be clear, there's no way I'd trade Marcus Smart for Nik Stauskas.   But if we're dismissing Stauskas potential, let's also dismiss Smart's potential.   Gotta keep it real.

That said, I'd still trade Rozier for Stauskas if given the opportunity.   Luckily, I'm not runnin the Celts.

FYI, I supported the concept of moving #16 for Nik Stauskas well before Hinkie stole my idea and snatched up Nik for nothing... so let's not pretend like I'm being influenced by some Philly fandom. 

Also Eddie, I know you scribble quotes from me in your diary and forum signature, but I gave myself a convenient out on the "35-40 win" Brooklyn prediction.   "IF they remain healthy".  Injuries to stud PG Jarrett Jack and stud rookie Rondae Hollis-Jefferson give me a convenient out.  Goal posts moved.  *giggle*. 

[KeepRondo]

Nik is just playing in his second year, being the 8th pick in last years draft. As of right now he has his ups and downs, as is to be expected of any young player, but the potential is still there to be an effective scorer in this league. Just look at the type of production he had during the clippers game: http://espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?id=400828392
Its clearly evident that Nik has a great future in the NBA, and Kendall at best is a second or third option the arguably worst team in NBA history.

I don't think it's clearly evident that a guy whose calling card is shooting but has career percentages of .359/.311/.796 has any kind of future in the NBA.

Did you intentionally add the "calling card is shooting" bit to shelter you from the rebuttal that Marcus Smart is shooting 34%/22%/70%?

No, because the topic's about the Sixers.  Plenty of other threads to argue about Marcus Smart.  Though, of course, it's very fair to note that unlike Stauskas Smart isn't a 1-dimensional player who sucks at that dimension, he sucks at a dimension he was supposed to struggle with. 

I also used career stats, where Smart's numbers are the slightly better but still lousy .362/.318/.659.  So despite it being the worst part of his game he's still a slightly better shooter so far than the guy whose only real NBA skill is supposed to be shooting.

Still very possible that Stauskas amounts to nothing in this league.   There's occassional signs he'll find a shooting rhythm.  I suspect he'd do better with a defined role in a competent system surrounded by capable players.   LIke, if we were using him in RJ Hunter's role (Hunter is shooting 36% and 26% from three, btw), I don't think he'd look as bad as he does right now.   Last year after the all-star break he shot 42%/42%/86% in the final 23 games in 19.4mpg.   He was a shooter in College.   I still wouldn't be stunned to see him find a rhythm and start knocking down shots consistently.

I think stauskas also has some game. He probably needs to be on a better team where the attention is drawn away from him.

He does have a decent handle and nice shooting form. Just needs to be in a better situation.

[KeepRondo]

Nik is just playing in his second year, being the 8th pick in last years draft. As of right now he has his ups and downs, as is to be expected of any young player, but the potential is still there to be an effective scorer in this league. Just look at the type of production he had during the clippers game: http://espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?id=400828392
Its clearly evident that Nik has a great future in the NBA, and Kendall at best is a second or third option the arguably worst team in NBA history.

I don't think it's clearly evident that a guy whose calling card is shooting but has career percentages of .359/.311/.796 has any kind of future in the NBA.

Did you intentionally add the "calling card is shooting" bit to shelter you from the rebuttal that Marcus Smart is shooting 34%/22%/70%?

This is kind of pathetic. Stauskas averages 1.2 turnovers and 1.7 assists. His defense has repeatedly been blasted by Brown

http://articles.philly.com/2015-12-16/sports/69065473_1_brett-brown-nik-stauskas-nerlens-noel
http://articles.philly.com/2015-11-18/sports/68356892_1_brett-brown-nik-stauskas-raft

He is possibly the worst rotation player in the NBA this season. He is supposed to decent at one thing and he hasn't been able to do that. You use that as a segway to bring in Marcus Smart's shooting percentages? Again, absolutely pathetic.

He is 302nd out of 324 qualified players for PER rating at 7.68

And he's coming off a game with 18 points, 4 rebounds and 3 assists with 6-8 shooting from three.

So it will be interesting to see if he finds a rhythm.

You have to know more about basketball based on how much you post here than you have exhibited in your last couple of posts...

What do you know about basketball? 

Not a question that should ever be asked by someone who wrote an enthusiastic post about the amazing potential of Anthony Bennett.

Mike

I liked Bennett's potential more than what was available at #16.   I'm still not sure Rozier has more potential than Anthony Bennett.  At best, it's a toss-up. 

I'd still probably trade Rozier for Stauskas.   Maybe that comment ends up looking stupid... i dunno...  Stauskas is coming off a game with 18 points, 4 rebounds, 3 assists with 6-8 shooting from three.   Rozier is coming off a game with 0 points, 0 rebounds, 1 assist with 0-1 shooting.   At gunpoint, I'm takin Sauce Castillo.  Sue me.

Well so far you are probably right. Rozier has not shown much bball smarts which was the knock on Marcus Banks. But maybe it's just him being a rookie. I still want to see more from Rozier.

[MBunge]

Nik is just playing in his second year, being the 8th pick in last years draft. As of right now he has his ups and downs, as is to be expected of any young player, but the potential is still there to be an effective scorer in this league. Just look at the type of production he had during the clippers game: http://espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?id=400828392
Its clearly evident that Nik has a great future in the NBA, and Kendall at best is a second or third option the arguably worst team in NBA history.

I don't think it's clearly evident that a guy whose calling card is shooting but has career percentages of .359/.311/.796 has any kind of future in the NBA.

Did you intentionally add the "calling card is shooting" bit to shelter you from the rebuttal that Marcus Smart is shooting 34%/22%/70%?

This is kind of pathetic. Stauskas averages 1.2 turnovers and 1.7 assists. His defense has repeatedly been blasted by Brown

http://articles.philly.com/2015-12-16/sports/69065473_1_brett-brown-nik-stauskas-nerlens-noel
http://articles.philly.com/2015-11-18/sports/68356892_1_brett-brown-nik-stauskas-raft

He is possibly the worst rotation player in the NBA this season. He is supposed to decent at one thing and he hasn't been able to do that. You use that as a segway to bring in Marcus Smart's shooting percentages? Again, absolutely pathetic.

He is 302nd out of 324 qualified players for PER rating at 7.68

And he's coming off a game with 18 points, 4 rebounds and 3 assists with 6-8 shooting from three.

So it will be interesting to see if he finds a rhythm.

You have to know more about basketball based on how much you post here than you have exhibited in your last couple of posts...

What do you know about basketball? 

Not a question that should ever be asked by someone who wrote an enthusiastic post about the amazing potential of Anthony Bennett.

Mike

I liked Bennett's potential more than what was available at #16.   I'm still not sure Rozier has more potential than Anthony Bennett.  At best, it's a toss-up. 

Here's who you actually compared Bennett to...

"I mean, who are we taking at #16?... Frank Kaminsky or something? (12th in Draftexpress's mock draft).   Frank Kaminsky and Anthony Bennett are a month apart in age.  Are you seriously more confident in the ceiling of someone like Kaminsky over Anthony Bennett?"

I'm not a big Kaminsky fan but, yes, I'd have a lot more confidence in the ceiling of the national player of the year in college vs. a guy who has actually played in the NBA and been a complete bust.

And right now, I'd say Rozier also has a higher ceiling than Bennett because multiple teams haven't already looked at him and decided he sucks.

Mike 

[celticsclay]

Nik is just playing in his second year, being the 8th pick in last years draft. As of right now he has his ups and downs, as is to be expected of any young player, but the potential is still there to be an effective scorer in this league. Just look at the type of production he had during the clippers game: http://espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?id=400828392
Its clearly evident that Nik has a great future in the NBA, and Kendall at best is a second or third option the arguably worst team in NBA history.

I don't think it's clearly evident that a guy whose calling card is shooting but has career percentages of .359/.311/.796 has any kind of future in the NBA.

Did you intentionally add the "calling card is shooting" bit to shelter you from the rebuttal that Marcus Smart is shooting 34%/22%/70%?

No, because the topic's about the Sixers.  Plenty of other threads to argue about Marcus Smart.  Though, of course, it's very fair to note that unlike Stauskas Smart isn't a 1-dimensional player who sucks at that dimension, he sucks at a dimension he was supposed to struggle with. 

I also used career stats, where Smart's numbers are the slightly better but still lousy .362/.318/.659.  So despite it being the worst part of his game he's still a slightly better shooter so far than the guy whose only real NBA skill is supposed to be shooting.

That's true. The topic is about the Sixers, yet he brings up Smart only to disparage him in order to take the focus of a player he likes (Stauskas).

LB, at least pretend you're a Cs fan. If not, just admit you don't care for them and like the Sixers a lot more.

To be clear, there's no way I'd trade Marcus Smart for Nik Stauskas.   But if we're dismissing Stauskas potential, let's also dismiss Smart's potential.   Gotta keep it real.

That said, I'd still trade Rozier for Stauskas if given the opportunity.   Luckily, I'm not runnin the Celts.

FYI, I supported the concept of moving #16 for Nik Stauskas well before Hinkie stole my idea and snatched up Nik for nothing... so let's not pretend like I'm being influenced by some Philly fandom. 

Also Eddie, I know you scribble quotes from me in your diary and forum signature, but I gave myself a convenient out on the "35-40 win" Brooklyn prediction.   "IF they remain healthy".  Injuries to stud PG Jarrett Jack and stud rookie Rondae Hollis-Jefferson give me a convenient out.  Goal posts moved.  *giggle*.

I guess you have moved on from your ridiculous 5 game stretch statistics. *giggle*

[LarBrd33]

Nik is just playing in his second year, being the 8th pick in last years draft. As of right now he has his ups and downs, as is to be expected of any young player, but the potential is still there to be an effective scorer in this league. Just look at the type of production he had during the clippers game: http://espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?id=400828392
Its clearly evident that Nik has a great future in the NBA, and Kendall at best is a second or third option the arguably worst team in NBA history.

I don't think it's clearly evident that a guy whose calling card is shooting but has career percentages of .359/.311/.796 has any kind of future in the NBA.

Did you intentionally add the "calling card is shooting" bit to shelter you from the rebuttal that Marcus Smart is shooting 34%/22%/70%?

This is kind of pathetic. Stauskas averages 1.2 turnovers and 1.7 assists. His defense has repeatedly been blasted by Brown

http://articles.philly.com/2015-12-16/sports/69065473_1_brett-brown-nik-stauskas-nerlens-noel
http://articles.philly.com/2015-11-18/sports/68356892_1_brett-brown-nik-stauskas-raft

He is possibly the worst rotation player in the NBA this season. He is supposed to decent at one thing and he hasn't been able to do that. You use that as a segway to bring in Marcus Smart's shooting percentages? Again, absolutely pathetic.

He is 302nd out of 324 qualified players for PER rating at 7.68

And he's coming off a game with 18 points, 4 rebounds and 3 assists with 6-8 shooting from three.

So it will be interesting to see if he finds a rhythm.

You have to know more about basketball based on how much you post here than you have exhibited in your last couple of posts...

What do you know about basketball? 

Not a question that should ever be asked by someone who wrote an enthusiastic post about the amazing potential of Anthony Bennett.

Mike

I liked Bennett's potential more than what was available at #16.   I'm still not sure Rozier has more potential than Anthony Bennett.  At best, it's a toss-up. 

Here's who you actually compared Bennett to...

"I mean, who are we taking at #16?... Frank Kaminsky or something? (12th in Draftexpress's mock draft).   Frank Kaminsky and Anthony Bennett are a month apart in age.  Are you seriously more confident in the ceiling of someone like Kaminsky over Anthony Bennett?"

I'm not a big Kaminsky fan but, yes, I'd have a lot more confidence in the ceiling of the national player of the year in college vs. a guy who has actually played in the NBA and been a complete bust.

And right now, I'd say Rozier also has a higher ceiling than Bennett because multiple teams haven't already looked at him and decided he sucks.

Mike

Kaminsky's name was picked at random. He went 9th.  You can't use hindsight in something like this.  We reached for rozier at 16.  Who's to say who will have a better career between him and Bennett. They both suck right now.

[fairweatherfan]

Nik is just playing in his second year, being the 8th pick in last years draft. As of right now he has his ups and downs, as is to be expected of any young player, but the potential is still there to be an effective scorer in this league. Just look at the type of production he had during the clippers game: http://espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?id=400828392
Its clearly evident that Nik has a great future in the NBA, and Kendall at best is a second or third option the arguably worst team in NBA history.

I don't think it's clearly evident that a guy whose calling card is shooting but has career percentages of .359/.311/.796 has any kind of future in the NBA.

Did you intentionally add the "calling card is shooting" bit to shelter you from the rebuttal that Marcus Smart is shooting 34%/22%/70%?

No, because the topic's about the Sixers.  Plenty of other threads to argue about Marcus Smart.  Though, of course, it's very fair to note that unlike Stauskas Smart isn't a 1-dimensional player who sucks at that dimension, he sucks at a dimension he was supposed to struggle with. 

I also used career stats, where Smart's numbers are the slightly better but still lousy .362/.318/.659.  So despite it being the worst part of his game he's still a slightly better shooter so far than the guy whose only real NBA skill is supposed to be shooting.

That's true. The topic is about the Sixers, yet he brings up Smart only to disparage him in order to take the focus of a player he likes (Stauskas).

LB, at least pretend you're a Cs fan. If not, just admit you don't care for them and like the Sixers a lot more.

To be clear, there's no way I'd trade Marcus Smart for Nik Stauskas.   But if we're dismissing Stauskas potential, let's also dismiss Smart's potential.   Gotta keep it real.

FYI, I wasn't dismissing Stauskas' potential.  The poster I replied to said it's "clearly evident he has a bright NBA future".  I said based on his performance it's not clearly evident he has any NBA future.  Doesn't mean he won't get it together; he still could, might need a better situation to do it.  It just means based on what he's actually done he's more likely to have no long-term future in the league than a bright one.

And again, to claim this argument equally cuts against Smart's potential you've gotta ignore that we're comparing Smart's worst quality to Stauskas' best one, and Smart is still slightly ahead over the course of their respective careers.

[LarBrd33]

Nik is just playing in his second year, being the 8th pick in last years draft. As of right now he has his ups and downs, as is to be expected of any young player, but the potential is still there to be an effective scorer in this league. Just look at the type of production he had during the clippers game: http://espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?id=400828392
Its clearly evident that Nik has a great future in the NBA, and Kendall at best is a second or third option the arguably worst team in NBA history.

I don't think it's clearly evident that a guy whose calling card is shooting but has career percentages of .359/.311/.796 has any kind of future in the NBA.

Did you intentionally add the "calling card is shooting" bit to shelter you from the rebuttal that Marcus Smart is shooting 34%/22%/70%?

This is kind of pathetic. Stauskas averages 1.2 turnovers and 1.7 assists. His defense has repeatedly been blasted by Brown

http://articles.philly.com/2015-12-16/sports/69065473_1_brett-brown-nik-stauskas-nerlens-noel
http://articles.philly.com/2015-11-18/sports/68356892_1_brett-brown-nik-stauskas-raft

He is possibly the worst rotation player in the NBA this season. He is supposed to decent at one thing and he hasn't been able to do that. You use that as a segway to bring in Marcus Smart's shooting percentages? Again, absolutely pathetic.

He is 302nd out of 324 qualified players for PER rating at 7.68

And he's coming off a game with 18 points, 4 rebounds and 3 assists with 6-8 shooting from three.

So it will be interesting to see if he finds a rhythm.

You have to know more about basketball based on how much you post here than you have exhibited in your last couple of posts...

What do you know about basketball? 

Not a question that should ever be asked by someone who wrote an enthusiastic post about the amazing potential of Anthony Bennett.

Mike

I liked Bennett's potential more than what was available at #16.   I'm still not sure Rozier has more potential than Anthony Bennett.  At best, it's a toss-up. 

Here's who you actually compared Bennett to...

"I mean, who are we taking at #16?... Frank Kaminsky or something? (12th in Draftexpress's mock draft).   Frank Kaminsky and Anthony Bennett are a month apart in age.  Are you seriously more confident in the ceiling of someone like Kaminsky over Anthony Bennett?"

I'm not a big Kaminsky fan but, yes, I'd have a lot more confidence in the ceiling of the national player of the year in college vs. a guy who has actually played in the NBA and been a complete bust.

And right now, I'd say Rozier also has a higher ceiling than Bennett because multiple teams haven't already looked at him and decided he sucks.

Mike

Kaminsky's name was picked at random. He went 9th.  You can't use hindsight in something like this.  We reached for rozier at 16.  Who's to say who will have a better career between him and Bennett. They both suck right now.

It's actually mildly hilarious that I randomly picked Kaminsky's name, because it highlights how true my point was... #16 was a crap shoot.  It was so much of a crapshoot that we attempted to give up #16 + #28 + a Brooklyn 1st + another future 1st + two 2nd rounders just to move up to #9, but the Hornets felt Kaminsky was worth more than all of that combined.    Tells you how valuable #16 was... and hopefully explains why I was willing to entertain the idea of trading it for someone like Nik Stauskas or even possibly Anthony Bennett.   We ended up with Terry Rozier ... and while he might have a future, he's currently averaging 1.7 points, 1 rebound, 0.6 assists, 0 blocks and 0 steals with 26% shooting and 18% from three.    Yeah, I'd still rather have Stauskas.  Rozier and Bennett are a toss-up, I guess... Bennett averaging 1.9 points, 1.7 rebounds, 0 assists, 0 blocks, 0.3 steals with 26% shooting and 18% from three.  Bout even.  Just depends on who you think has the best "tools" and who is more likely to eventually figure it out.