Official #1 pick thread: Simmons or Ingram? Merging topics and a Poll

[Jojothewhale]

I do find it a bit worrisome that a kid thats supposedly going to be a superstar in the NBA and franchise changing player, couldn't do enough to even squeak his NCAA team into the tournament.

You really don't see a lot of these negatives in elite star players, especially early on against much inferior competition

I'm not even a big Simmons fan relative to others, but some of these criticisms are crossing over into the absurd.

Question the effort or the shot, absolutely. As far as the defense goes, he was terrible in their 2-3, for sure, but when put into more common NBA situations like manning up or guard a pick and roll, he looked much more passable -- and that's all you need if he can be as efficient as he has the potential to be on the other end.

As far as making the tournament, we really do have to keep in mind that he was a freshman (and therefore only had one chance) on a team that in no way fit his strengths, especially after Hornsby went down. It's not as if he joined a juggernaut either, as they were a 9' seed who lost 2 of their 3 best players. While we don't have recent examples of #1 overalls missing the tourney, we do have true stars who never played a tourney game. Let's look at these #1s and see if we're comparing apples to apples.

I'll use the last 9 years because that eliminates Bogut and Bargnani, which just gets messy. 3 went to Kentucky, 1 each to Kansas and Duke -- each of those guys could have missed the year and their teams still would have made the cut. Rose had a very solid Memphis team with a first team All-American CD-R, some solid NCAA level vet bigs, and an all-universe coach in Calipari. Oden had Conley, Daequan Cook, and a good Senior in Ron Lewis. I think we can all agree to ignore Anthony Bennett ever happened, since no one has ever mistaken him for an elite prospect.

Basically it comes down to Blake Griffin if you want to make the team success argument, but I would take Willie Warren over Hornsby as a college player and you add a pretty damn solid NCAA big in Longar if you include Griffin's freshman year. I would argue Griffin's skill set was much more conducive to carrying substandard talent than Simmons, while the latter is almost designed to scale more exponentially as you improve the team around him.

The lack of team success is not a positive, but I don't see how it's a death knell at all.

Why ignore Bennett? He at least took his mediocre UNLV team to the tourney.

Because Bennet has not ever been considered an elite prospect.

I think the better criticism is to go back and add guys that were considered potential stars but did not go 1st like Parker, Embiid, and Beasley to see where that gets you.

[Negrodamus]

I'm not even a big Simmons fan relative to others, but some of these criticisms are crossing over into the absurd.

Question the effort or the shot, absolutely. As far as the defense goes, he was terrible in their 2-3, for sure, but when put into more common NBA situations like manning up or guard a pick and roll, he looked much more passable -- and that's all you need if he can be as efficient as he has the potential to be on the other end.

As far as making the tournament, we really do have to keep in mind that he was a freshman (and therefore only had one chance) on a team that in no way fit his strengths, especially after Hornsby went down. It's not as if he joined a juggernaut either, as they were a 9' seed who lost 2 of their 3 best players. While we don't have recent examples of #1 overalls missing the tourney, we do have true stars who never played a tourney game. Let's look at these #1s and see if we're comparing apples to apples.

I'll use the last 9 years because that eliminates Bogut and Bargnani, which just gets messy. 3 went to Kentucky, 1 each to Kansas and Duke -- each of those guys could have missed the year and their teams still would have made the cut. Rose had a very solid Memphis team with a first team All-American CD-R, some solid NCAA level vet bigs, and an all-universe coach in Calipari. Oden had Conley, Daequan Cook, and a good Senior in Ron Lewis. I think we can all agree to ignore Anthony Bennett ever happened, since no one has ever mistaken him for an elite prospect.

Basically it comes down to Blake Griffin if you want to make the team success argument, but I would take Willie Warren over Hornsby as a college player and you add a pretty damn solid NCAA big in Longar if you include Griffin's freshman year. I would argue Griffin's skill set was much more conducive to carrying substandard talent than Simmons, while the latter is almost designed to scale more exponentially as you improve the team around him.

The lack of team success is not a positive, but I don't see how it's a death knell at all.

Why ignore Bennett? He at least took his mediocre UNLV team to the tourney.

Because Bennet has not ever been considered an elite prospect.

I think the better criticism is to go back and add guys that were considered potential stars but did not go 1st like Parker, Embiid, and Beasley to see where that gets you.

But which of these mentioned players didn't make the tourney? That's what I thought we were talking about here.

I don't even dislike Simmons. He's the second best prospect in my mind. But you can argue that missing the tourney means everything about him as a prospect or that it means nothing. One thing is for sure: it's not a good mark on Simmons's resume.

[Agnostifarian]

Not that it really matters but Simmons has signed up with LeBron's posse and he is about to go to Cleveland or LA to work out. Actually, that does matter -- to me.

Simmons is Rajon Rondo w/o the defense. You know Simmons won't show up for the combine. He will release his measurements via Twitter. His pre-draft workout video should be interesting since he can't hit a jump shot. Maybe they will have him shooting foul shots in his cool sneakers…

[Jojothewhale]

Why ignore Bennett? He at least took his mediocre UNLV team to the tourney.

Because Bennet has not ever been considered an elite prospect.

I think the better criticism is to go back and add guys that were considered potential stars but did not go 1st like Parker, Embiid, and Beasley to see where that gets you.

But which of these mentioned players didn't make the tourney? That's what I thought we were talking about here.

I don't even dislike Simmons. He's the second best prospect in my mind. But you can argue that missing the tourney means everything about him as a prospect or that it means nothing. One thing is for sure: it's not a good mark on Simmons's resume.

I don't have Simmons 1 either, I just see him compared to "other elite prospects" without accounting for any sort of context. The point is that LSU's record in particular needs the context to be put in perspective. LSU has not been good, but they were in tournament contention when the one quality support player that meshed well with Simmons' skill set went down. Any of the guys mentioned, minus arguably Griffin, did not prove they could drag a team like this year's LSU to the tournament, yet they're transitively given credit for being able to do so.

These guys are not drafted on what they actuslly do in college, right? We're talking about skills that can translate to the pro game. That's why it's not a huge negative to me. Absolutely agreed you cannot spin it into a positive in any way.

[Negrodamus]

Because Bennet has not ever been considered an elite prospect.

I think the better criticism is to go back and add guys that were considered potential stars but did not go 1st like Parker, Embiid, and Beasley to see where that gets you.

But which of these mentioned players didn't make the tourney? That's what I thought we were talking about here.

I don't even dislike Simmons. He's the second best prospect in my mind. But you can argue that missing the tourney means everything about him as a prospect or that it means nothing. One thing is for sure: it's not a good mark on Simmons's resume.

I don't have Simmons 1 either, I just see him compared to "other elite prospects" without accounting for any sort of context. The point is that LSU's record in particular needs the context to be put in perspective. LSU has not been good, but they were in tournament contention when the one quality support player that meshed well with Simmons' skill set went down. Any of the guys mentioned, minus arguably Griffin, did not prove they could drag a team like this year's LSU to the tournament, yet they're transitively given credit for being able to do so.

These guys are not drafted on what they actuslly do in college, right? We're talking about skills that can translate to the pro game. That's why it's not a huge negative to me. Absolutely agreed you cannot spin it into a positive in any way.

I think, and in a weak SEC no less, that Quarterman and Blakeney are definitely enough of a supporting cast to get to the tourney. Hell, Quarterman beat UK when Simmons was having a pedestrian game.

Missing the tourney is not a skill, or lack thereof, but it does say something about his leadership. We are trying to breed a culture of winning here. Would Simmons phone the rest of this current Sixers season in because it arguably means nothing?

[PhilasFinest]

Because Bennet has not ever been considered an elite prospect.

I think the better criticism is to go back and add guys that were considered potential stars but did not go 1st like Parker, Embiid, and Beasley to see where that gets you.

But which of these mentioned players didn't make the tourney? That's what I thought we were talking about here.

I don't even dislike Simmons. He's the second best prospect in my mind. But you can argue that missing the tourney means everything about him as a prospect or that it means nothing. One thing is for sure: it's not a good mark on Simmons's resume.

I don't have Simmons 1 either, I just see him compared to "other elite prospects" without accounting for any sort of context. The point is that LSU's record in particular needs the context to be put in perspective. LSU has not been good, but they were in tournament contention when the one quality support player that meshed well with Simmons' skill set went down. Any of the guys mentioned, minus arguably Griffin, did not prove they could drag a team like this year's LSU to the tournament, yet they're transitively given credit for being able to do so.

These guys are not drafted on what they actuslly do in college, right? We're talking about skills that can translate to the pro game. That's why it's not a huge negative to me. Absolutely agreed you cannot spin it into a positive in any way.

While its somewhat true that players aren't drafted off of what they did in college and more on potential, what they DONT do in college can be a negative as well. An alleged #1 overall pick is supposed to be a franchise changing player. If you can't impact a Div 1 NCAA team enough to drag them into the tournament, its gotta raise an eyebrow on if they will be able to impact a bad NBA team enough to elevate them into relevancy. Id say the latter is much more difficult to accomplish than the 1st.

Lack of Defense, a Jump shot, competitive edge, lack of focus in a bad situation, etc.


Simmons is a great prospect, no doubt and Id still be excited if the Sixers landed him. But when you start checking boxes, there are certainly some warts that you have to take notice too.

We aren't knocking him here for not leading his team to a NCAA championship or even a final 4, but the fact that such a far superior talent couldn't lead a team to a field of 68 NCAA teams has got to count against him in some shape or form.

He very well could have taken the year off knowing his sights are set on the NBA.....but I certainly think there are some question marks that are gonna have to be answered if he is in fact going to be a franchise saving superstar.

[76ciology]

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/why-ben-simmons-isn-t-the-top-prospect-in-the-2016-nba-draft-190023711.html

[agiaco]

lol Simmons getting compared to ET on wiretap article

[kingofthecourt67]

Already knocked him down a notch because of his complete inability to shoot, but I am more worried about his lack of effort on multiple occasions. I can see how the grind of an NBA season can wear on you, but college basketball is 30+ games in this environment of camaraderie between your brothers and school pride. If you can't get amped up to give effort to make it to the NCAA tournament then I don't know how that's going to get better in the NBA.

Moreover, I don't like LeBron being his "big brother." I feel like that's going to lead to a false sense of entitlement given how great of a teammate LeBron "twitter fingers" James has been. Plus, that's some shady business, legal or not legal, with Simmons' sister getting a job at Klutch Sports over the last year.

I want Ingram.

[51X3RF4N]

I am on board the Ingram train. After careful deliberation, I have decided Ingram is a better fit for the Sixers.

[Ericb5]

This is all just dumb hand wringing.

You use this kind of stuff as tie breakers between two similar level prospects. Ingram and Simmons are not similar level prospects.

Here is an extreme analogy, but if people had red flags in the character of Cam Newton and compared him to Tim Tebow it would make it seem as if he shouldn't be drafted.

I agree that these characteristics are not positives about him, but that doesn't change the fact that he is a generational talent. Players of his talent level are only obtainable at the top of the draft.

I mean let's not forget Lebron's mom was driving around in an Escalade or some other obnoxious display of wealth car, and wearing fur coats when he was in high school. Lebron very much has the star mentality too.

Let's not forget that Kevin Garnett was not able to academically qualify for college.

You still take kids like that number 1, and then work on the other stuff.

The only red flags that would make me pass him up for Ingram would be an injury concern like what happened to Embiid, or some sort of mental problem or substance abuse problem where he was beating up girlfriends, and getting busted for drugs.

If he is just immature and selfish then I'll live with that while he grows up. He is too good to pass up, and should be drafted by the Sixers number 1, and given the ball at the 3 from day 1. Then we figure it all out in the coming years.

[Negrodamus]

lol Simmons getting compared to ET on wiretap article

Damn, I nailed it with the "not crazy" better version of Royce White comparison.

I'd love a taller Rondo... as long as he plays Rondo defense.

[Duke4life831]

Wow the tide sure has turned on this from the beginning of this thread

[Duke4life831]

lol Simmons getting compared to ET on wiretap article

Damn, I nailed it with the "not crazy" better version of Royce White comparison.

I'd love a taller Rondo... as long as he plays Rondo defense.

That's the thing though, he doesn't, especially if you think he's going to guard NBA perimeter players. He's a bad defender

[Negrodamus]

Wow the tide sure has turned on this from the beginning of this thread

For sure. And I'll admit that I have changed over to the Ingram side. Take out all of his aforementioned intangibles (poor performance in school, poor leadership) and the glaring issue I have with Simmons is him foregoing a wide open elbow jumper for a drive in the lane and passing it off. If he's hesitant to shoot not just 3pters, but mid range shots too, then we have a problem.

I'd much rather risk our pick on a 6'9 with a 7'3 wingspan shooting guard. The moment that completely sold me on Ingram was him guarding lightning fast Cat Barber on a switch and completely shutting him down. I know that won't happen every time, but it was a glimpse at what he can do.

Take Ingram out of school, put him in a constant strength and conditioning program, which I'm sure the Sixers have an elite program, and Ingram becomes a stronger, faster, better version of himself.

[PhilasFinest]

This is all just dumb hand wringing.

You use this kind of stuff as tie breakers between two similar level prospects. Ingram and Simmons are not similar level prospects.

Here is an extreme analogy, but if people had red flags in the character of Cam Newton and compared him to Tim Tebow it would make it seem as if he shouldn't be drafted.

I agree that these characteristics are not positives about him, but that doesn't change the fact that he is a generational talent. Players of his talent level are only obtainable at the top of the draft.

I mean let's not forget Lebron's mom was driving around in an Escalade or some other obnoxious display of wealth car, and wearing fur coats when he was in high school. Lebron very much has the star mentality too.

Let's not forget that Kevin Garnett was not able to academically qualify for college.

You still take kids like that number 1, and then work on the other stuff.

The only red flags that would make me pass him up for Ingram would be an injury concern like what happened to Embiid, or some sort of mental problem or substance abuse problem where he was beating up girlfriends, and getting busted for drugs.

If he is just immature and selfish then I'll live with that while he grows up. He is too good to pass up, and should be drafted by the Sixers number 1, and given the ball at the 3 from day 1. Then we figure it all out in the coming years.

What makes Simmons head and shoulders ahead of Ingram as a prospect?

A "Generational Talent" comes along, yet can't carry his team to the best 68 in the country?

What does LeBron's mom driving an Escalade have to do with winning and producing on the floor? Id bet LeBron would be in the NCAA Tournament as a freshman.

KG wasn't smart enough to qualify for college. SO what? Id bet he would be playing in the tournament too. You can question KG's brains, but pretty sure nobody ever questioned his heart on the court.

[FlightBrothers]

I think Philly yearns for the big time scorer going back to the Iverson days. I would be happy with either. I may lean more towards Ingram strictly because we would not have to rush to trade a big, but Simmons is a heck of a prospect.

Bottom line is we need to get a top 2 pick, the drop-off after #2 is enormous IMO

[akhan786]

Lets get Ingram on the same beefing program as Embiid...

[Ericb5]

This is all just dumb hand wringing.

You use this kind of stuff as tie breakers between two similar level prospects. Ingram and Simmons are not similar level prospects.

Here is an extreme analogy, but if people had red flags in the character of Cam Newton and compared him to Tim Tebow it would make it seem as if he shouldn't be drafted.

I agree that these characteristics are not positives about him, but that doesn't change the fact that he is a generational talent. Players of his talent level are only obtainable at the top of the draft.

I mean let's not forget Lebron's mom was driving around in an Escalade or some other obnoxious display of wealth car, and wearing fur coats when he was in high school. Lebron very much has the star mentality too.

Let's not forget that Kevin Garnett was not able to academically qualify for college.

You still take kids like that number 1, and then work on the other stuff.

The only red flags that would make me pass him up for Ingram would be an injury concern like what happened to Embiid, or some sort of mental problem or substance abuse problem where he was beating up girlfriends, and getting busted for drugs.

If he is just immature and selfish then I'll live with that while he grows up. He is too good to pass up, and should be drafted by the Sixers number 1, and given the ball at the 3 from day 1. Then we figure it all out in the coming years.

What makes Simmons head and shoulders ahead of Ingram as a prospect?

A "Generational Talent" comes along, yet can't carry his team to the best 68 in the country?

What does LeBron's mom driving an Escalade have to do with winning and producing on the floor? Id bet LeBron would be in the NCAA Tournament as a freshman.

KG wasn't smart enough to qualify for college. SO what? Id bet he would be playing in the tournament too. You can question KG's brains, but pretty sure nobody ever questioned his heart on the court.

If you are only concerned with the success of his college team then that is one thing, but other people are complaining about his academic performance or potential character issues, and I am saying that those are not big enough red flags to pass on him. Lebron had the character issues too as evidenced by accepting money under the table, and Garnett was even worse scholastically than Simmons. My point is that Garnett, and Lebron both turned into HOF players, that also had a lot of team success in the NBA, and that is because talent trumps everything, other than extreme character red flags like a Lawrence Phillips, or Johnny Manziel.

The difference between Ingram and Simmons comes down the feel for the game, and vision. I love Ingram btw, I'm not knocking him as a prospect. I just think that Ingram is your typical uber talented wing prospect, and Simmons is a born superstar. Is Ingram any better than Wiggins or Gay? Time will tell. Simmons is more like Lebron or Magic imo.

Iverson's scoring ability was not simply quantifiable by saying that he was quick, played hard, and had a soft touch. He was genuinely gifted, and could do things that you could never have coached him into doing.

Nobody can coach someone into having Okafor's touch on the block. He was born with it.

Simmons was born with elite vision, and feel for the game.

Hey, I'm all for getting the second pick and scooping up Simmons if someone passes on him, but I don't see any chance of Hinkie passing on him at 1.

[Ericb5]

I think Philly yearns for the big time scorer going back to the Iverson days. I would be happy with either. I may lean more towards Ingram strictly because we would not have to rush to trade a big, but Simmons is a heck of a prospect.

Bottom line is we need to get a top 2 pick, the drop-off after #2 is enormous IMO

Despite Ingram being a better fit, we STILL probably will have to Noel or Okafor. If Simmons ends up needing to play the 4, then maybe we have to trade them both, but if that happens, then so what?

Trades are easy to make generally. Where they get hard to make are when you are trying to trade a collection of lesser talents for a greater talent or vice versa. Trading a talented young player for other talented young players shouldn't be that hard.