RealGM

Volume 1: viewtopic.php?f=26&t=1456551
Volume 2: viewtopic.php?f=26&t=1528786#start_here

Anyone else ever find themselves just repeating the same stuff about prospects time after time? But I get like a strange fascination to continue to talk about the draft. I feel like this draft could really take our team to the next level

I like the discussion in here though

shawn_hemp wrote:Anyone else ever find themselves just repeating the same stuff about prospects time after time? But I get like a strange fascination to continue to talk about the draft. I feel like this draft could really take our team to the next level

I like the discussion in here though

Without any more games to watch there's no new information - a lot of the information we'll get from here on in will be basically from agents and from FO's with agendas. So it will be pretty hard to pick out the fake news from the real thing. Thus we'll just be left to regurgitate whatever opinions we had as the season wound down.

I saw a post on the previous thread about the holes in Ball's game - regurgitating myself here from months of discussion - I don't think he's a top 5 player from this draft, and in fact I'd have him lower than that, won't stop him going top 3 however.

This isn't the last year of the tank. The lotto will just determine if we will have one or two first round picks get hurt and out for the season. When our pick or picks get drafted we should have a wheelchair waiting for them on the stage lol.

I read somewhere on here that NBA rosters will be expanded next season - I guess in theory that makes our slew of 2nd round picks at least a little more valuable? In the NFL with the 53 man rosters successful franchises seem to always have a lot of picks from rounds 2 - 5 - obviously the NFL is not that applicable an example to the NBA but you'd think roster expansion would be favourable for teams with more picks to fill rosters.

PLO wrote:

shawn_hemp wrote:Anyone else ever find themselves just repeating the same stuff about prospects time after time? But I get like a strange fascination to continue to talk about the draft. I feel like this draft could really take our team to the next level

I like the discussion in here though

Without any more games to watch there's no new information - a lot of the information we'll get from here on in will be basically from agents and from FO's with agendas. So it will be pretty hard to pick out the fake news from the real thing. Thus we'll just be left to regurgitate whatever opinions we had as the season wound down.

I saw a post on the previous thread about the holes in Ball's game - regurgitating myself here from months of discussion - I don't think he's a top 5 player from this draft, and in fact I'd have him lower than that, won't stop him going top 3 however.

That was probably my post. I have flipped back and forth on him, but I'm simply no longer convinced. He's a great passer and will be a chucker to score in the next level. That's not going to cut it. It's like Okafor being a great post offensive player. Great, what else can you do?

Negrodamus wrote:

PLO wrote:

shawn_hemp wrote:Anyone else ever find themselves just repeating the same stuff about prospects time after time? But I get like a strange fascination to continue to talk about the draft. I feel like this draft could really take our team to the next level

I like the discussion in here though

Without any more games to watch there's no new information - a lot of the information we'll get from here on in will be basically from agents and from FO's with agendas. So it will be pretty hard to pick out the fake news from the real thing. Thus we'll just be left to regurgitate whatever opinions we had as the season wound down.

I saw a post on the previous thread about the holes in Ball's game - regurgitating myself here from months of discussion - I don't think he's a top 5 player from this draft, and in fact I'd have him lower than that, won't stop him going top 3 however.

That was probably my post. I have flipped back and forth on him, but I'm simply no longer convinced. He's a great passer and will be a chucker to score in the next level. That's not going to cut it. It's like Okafor being a great post offensive player. Great, what else can you do?

I made a pretty out there claim some weeks ago that if Ball wasn't at UCLA he would struggle to crack the top 15 in this draft which is probably a bit outrageous. I actually think he'd be OK for the 6ers as I reckon he's best playing off-ball in the NBA given his lack of PG skills but I really hope we are not in a position to draft him. I really don't want to have the 3rd pick, for example, and he's the "safe" pick much like what Okafor was in 2015. As a PG I would take at least DSJ, Fox, Frank N (though I don't see Frank N as a PG either at this stage) and obviously Fultz above him and I would prefer to pick another position in the first round instead of him and take a risk at getting one of the other good PG prospects in this draft in the 2nd round.

Lonzo Ball single-handily changed the entire offensive culture in U.C.L.A.

- 51st to 3rd in offensive efficiency.
- 73rd to 14th in pace.
- eliminated isolation concepts from Steve Alford's philosophy

The question is are we going for a point guard or a forward not sure what the sixers have in mind,while the whole
world thinks we should be going in the back court direction,and if we pick were we supposed to be picking number 4
the choices are fox and dennis smith at the point if forward is the flavor its Jayson Tatum or Jonathan Isaac i think
all of these players will be available to us at 4 but who knows we may get lucky and sneak into the top three and maybe
even get the lakers pick can't wait until may 16 draft lottery night.

^ ^ there's obviously quite a gap between how some of us in this sub-forum view Ball compared to others. I'm obviously in the negative camp and won't be talked around because, while I think its entirely plausible that Ball will have a good NBA career, there are other prospects (quite a number) who will be drafted after him who will have better careers. I just do not see this game-changing player you pro-Ball people see and think he's drastically deficient in a lot of areas he'll need to be at least proficient in to be successful in the NBA (and here I'm talking about playing the PG position).

Yes, he had a great season at UCLA and improved their standing but you can't divorce that from the fact he has some major flaws in his game (which most of the pro-Ball people basically gloss over or ignore), else drafting college prospects would be isolated to picking players from college teams with the best results, ie Ben Simmons and Markelle Fultz would be second rounders at best.

thenbaman wrote:The question is are we going for a point guard or a forward not sure what the sixers have in mind,while the whole
world thinks we should be going in the back court direction,and if we pick were we supposed to be picking number 4
the choices are fox and dennis smith at the point if forward is the flavor its Jayson Tatum or Jonathan Isaac i think
all of these players will be available to us at 4 but who knows we may get lucky and sneak into the top three and maybe
even get the lakers pick can't wait until may 16 draft lottery night.

I'd definitely prefer Jonathan Isaac over an inferior backcourt player, in that instance. Dangle Saric on the trade market to allow him to slide into the PF2 spot.

If it was 100% up to me, I'd take C Zach Collins. Forget about a logjam, Embiid has multiple lower body surgeries under his belt already and Richaun hasn't cemented himself on the glass to be a fulltime starting C.

Collins might be my 2nd best prospect behind Josh Jackson. He has it all. Rim protection, rebounding, athleticism and offensive skill.

PLO wrote:^ ^ there's obviously quite a gap between how some of us in this sub-forum view Ball compared to others. I'm obviously in the negative camp and won't be talked around because, while I think its entirely plausible that Ball will have a good NBA career, there are other prospects (quite a number) who will be drafted after him who will have better careers. I just do not see this game-changing player you pro-Ball people see and think he's drastically deficient in a lot of areas he'll need to be at least proficient in to be successful in the NBA (and here I'm talking about playing the PG position).

Yes, he had a great season at UCLA and improved their standing but you can't divorce that from the fact he has some major flaws in his game (which most of the pro-Ball people basically gloss over or ignore), else drafting college prospects would be isolated to picking players from college teams with the best results, ie Ben Simmons and Markelle Fultz would be second rounders at best.

I'm not in the pro-Ball camp nor anti-Ball camp, but perhaps I can shine a different light on him which will make you feel a bit better about him.

I think Ball is best suited as a wing in the NBA. Yes, a wing (or SG/SF as you wish). Forget the thought of him running the Sixers offense and inability to contain the opponents PG. He lacks dribble penetration to get defenses on their heels and he's not the quickest, laterally.
That said, he's a tremendous threat as an off-ball player. He's a lob target, is an excellent decision maker with the ball in his hands within a free flowing offense and spaces the floor.
Envision him with Simmons on the court with Brett Brown's offensive style. You don't need to be the PG in our system to have the ball in your hands. Let him attack off the catch, let him run around screens and mix it up with some Ball/Simmons P&R's. I can totally see that happen.

Plus the kid is a born winner, we need to collect as many of them as we can. Embiid has it, TJ has it, Saric has it and so does Ball.

Do I think that Ball is a generational talent or franchise player? No, I do not. Do I think that he'll lift our team to the next level? I think he can, he's possible the ultimate glue guy for our roster with Embiid and Simmons. He's probably the #4 on my personal Big Board, but he's my #2 after Fultz on my Sixers orientated board.

PLO wrote:^ ^ there's obviously quite a gap between how some of us in this sub-forum view Ball compared to others. I'm obviously in the negative camp and won't be talked around because, while I think its entirely plausible that Ball will have a good NBA career, there are other prospects (quite a number) who will be drafted after him who will have better careers. I just do not see this game-changing player you pro-Ball people see and think he's drastically deficient in a lot of areas he'll need to be at least proficient in to be successful in the NBA (and here I'm talking about playing the PG position).

Yes, he had a great season at UCLA and improved their standing but you can't divorce that from the fact he has some major flaws in his game (which most of the pro-Ball people basically gloss over or ignore), else drafting college prospects would be isolated to picking players from college teams with the best results, ie Ben Simmons and Markelle Fultz would be second rounders at best.

When you point out Ball's faults, the pro-Ball's generally resort to "he's too smart to fail in the NBA." Basically it's an appeal to faith and pretty frustrating.

Kolkmania wrote:

PLO wrote:^ ^ there's obviously quite a gap between how some of us in this sub-forum view Ball compared to others. I'm obviously in the negative camp and won't be talked around because, while I think its entirely plausible that Ball will have a good NBA career, there are other prospects (quite a number) who will be drafted after him who will have better careers. I just do not see this game-changing player you pro-Ball people see and think he's drastically deficient in a lot of areas he'll need to be at least proficient in to be successful in the NBA (and here I'm talking about playing the PG position).

Yes, he had a great season at UCLA and improved their standing but you can't divorce that from the fact he has some major flaws in his game (which most of the pro-Ball people basically gloss over or ignore), else drafting college prospects would be isolated to picking players from college teams with the best results, ie Ben Simmons and Markelle Fultz would be second rounders at best.

I'm not in the pro-Ball camp nor anti-Ball camp, but perhaps I can shine a different light on him which will make you feel a bit better about him.

I think Ball is best suited as a wing in the NBA. Yes, a wing (or SG/SF as you wish). Forget the thought of him running the Sixers offense and inability to contain the opponents PG. He lacks dribble penetration to get defenses on their heels and he's not the quickest, laterally.
That said, he's a tremendous threat as an off-ball player. He's a lob target, is an excellent decision maker with the ball in his hands within a free flowing offense and spaces the floor.
Envision him with Simmons on the court with Brett Brown's offensive style. You don't need to be the PG in our system to have the ball in your hands. Let him attack off the catch, let him run around screens and mix it up with some Ball/Simmons P&R's. I can totally see that happen.

Plus the kid is a born winner, we need to collect as many of them as we can. Embiid has it, TJ has it, Saric has it and so does Ball.

Do I think that Ball is a generational talent or franchise player? No, I do not. Do I think that he'll lift our team to the next level? I think he can, he's possible the ultimate glue guy for our roster with Embiid and Simmons. He's probably the #4 on my personal Big Board, but he's my #2 after Fultz on my Sixers orientated board.

I wonder how Ball would fare on a terrible team that asks him to do everything on his own. Take away the large number of assisted 3s, the alley oops, the off-ball movement, the ridiculous spacing. What do his numbers look like then? It's hard to predict.

I actually disagree with the people who argue that Fultz and Simmons should have went to better teams. You get to see more of their weaknesses when they're asked to carry a bunch of scrubs. I want to see how players react to adversity. Do they give 100% regardless of circumstance, or do they give up? Are they able to separate themselves from the crowd despite playing in a sub-optimal environment? How they handle the situation says a lot about their character. Its easy to look good on a great team.

Kolkmania wrote:

PLO wrote:^ ^ there's obviously quite a gap between how some of us in this sub-forum view Ball compared to others. I'm obviously in the negative camp and won't be talked around because, while I think its entirely plausible that Ball will have a good NBA career, there are other prospects (quite a number) who will be drafted after him who will have better careers. I just do not see this game-changing player you pro-Ball people see and think he's drastically deficient in a lot of areas he'll need to be at least proficient in to be successful in the NBA (and here I'm talking about playing the PG position).

Yes, he had a great season at UCLA and improved their standing but you can't divorce that from the fact he has some major flaws in his game (which most of the pro-Ball people basically gloss over or ignore), else drafting college prospects would be isolated to picking players from college teams with the best results, ie Ben Simmons and Markelle Fultz would be second rounders at best.

I'm not in the pro-Ball camp nor anti-Ball camp, but perhaps I can shine a different light on him which will make you feel a bit better about him.

I think Ball is best suited as a wing in the NBA. Yes, a wing (or SG/SF as you wish). Forget the thought of him running the Sixers offense and inability to contain the opponents PG. He lacks dribble penetration to get defenses on their heels and he's not the quickest, laterally.
That said, he's a tremendous threat as an off-ball player. He's a lob target, is an excellent decision maker with the ball in his hands within a free flowing offense and spaces the floor.
Envision him with Simmons on the court with Brett Brown's offensive style. You don't need to be the PG in our system to have the ball in your hands. Let him attack off the catch, let him run around screens and mix it up with some Ball/Simmons P&R's. I can totally see that happen.

Plus the kid is a born winner, we need to collect as many of them as we can. Embiid has it, TJ has it, Saric has it and so does Ball.

Do I think that Ball is a generational talent or franchise player? No, I do not. Do I think that he'll lift our team to the next level? I think he can, he's possible the ultimate glue guy for our roster with Embiid and Simmons. He's probably the #4 on my personal Big Board, but he's my #2 after Fultz on my Sixers orientated board.

Ball does everything Nik Stauskas does, just much better, except for free throw shooting.

Does this sound reasonable?

PG- Simmons 14ppg, 8rpg, 8apg
SG- Monk 16ppg, 2rpg, 2apg
SF- Fultz 18ppg, 5 rpg, 6apg
PF- Saric 12ppg, 7rpg, 4apg
C- Embiid 20ppg, 10rpg, 2bpg, 2apg

On defense, Fultz and Simmons swap positions.

If the draft actually hauled in both Fultz and Monk, do those stats look like reasonable expectations? Just curious.

I think Simmons averages over 18 ppg next year. If Saric is starting he's averaging at least 17

51X3RF4N wrote:Does this sound reasonable?

PG- Simmons 14ppg, 8rpg, 8apg
SG- Monk 16ppg, 2rpg, 2apg
SF- Fultz 18ppg, 5 rpg, 6apg
PF- Saric 12ppg, 7rpg, 4apg
C- Embiid 20ppg, 10rpg, 2bpg, 2apg

On defense, Fultz and Simmons swap positions.

If the draft actually hauled in both Fultz and Monk, do those stats look like reasonable expectations? Just curious.

That sounds like a **** lineup. We send one of the best perimeter defenders in the league to the bench to try to run a worse version of Portlands back court on defense? No thanks

JojoSlimbiid wrote:

51X3RF4N wrote:Does this sound reasonable?

PG- Simmons 14ppg, 8rpg, 8apg
SG- Monk 16ppg, 2rpg, 2apg
SF- Fultz 18ppg, 5 rpg, 6apg
PF- Saric 12ppg, 7rpg, 4apg
C- Embiid 20ppg, 10rpg, 2bpg, 2apg

On defense, Fultz and Simmons swap positions.

If the draft actually hauled in both Fultz and Monk, do those stats look like reasonable expectations? Just curious.

That sounds like a **** lineup. We send one of the best perimeter defenders in the league to the bench to try to run a worse version of Portlands back court on defense? No thanks

Agreed. That wing defense in that lineup is trash and would get destroyed. Covington starts.

Why not just have Simmons guard SF?