Jahlil Okafor evaluation

[TTP]

I don't think the guy who made the Lemarcus Aldridge comparison, took any consideration for catch-&-shoot ability. I think he searched for the first 6'11 player he could find, who didn't rebound early in his career and said "see, this guy didn't rebound and he's a star, therefore Okafor will be a star". Its hilarious how it actually became a "thing" on the site for a few weeks.

The argument was never whether or not Okafor would become Aldridge. The argument was that if Aldridge could improve his rebounding why couldn't Okafor? The same thing with Marc Gasol. If Gasol could do it, why couldn't Okafor?

It's the people that think that a player that can't do something will never be able to do something that are going out on a limb. Players do improve in key weaknesses, and Aldridge improved his rebounding, and Gasol improved his defense.

Okafor has obviously done neither at this point, but you aren't representing the argument properly.

The argument was always about the future and not the present.

Great point Eric and lost on almost all Sixer fans. If Okafor were exactly like he was in his rookie year with all the same weaknesses 10 years in the league, then yeah, I see everyone point. But lets not decide what the guy is after he has literally played 55 games healthy IN HIS CAREER. For all the pride some fans take in understanding the process, and being smarter than the "average fan or national media member" this simple fact says the exact opposite. Not everyone is Embiid right off the bat. Guys take time.

Most people are rational enough to expect a young player with several weaknesses to improve over time and hopefully become a useful player. However, it's less reasonable to expect a player that is bad at nearly everything to improve to at enough things to be useful.

Also, the whole "X player was bad at Y and improved, so therefore Okafor could" argument is so weak. Rebounding doesn't tend to improve much over time. Using outliers for your argument highlights how improbable it is that he'll improve, which is problematic when it's only one of many useful skills he still needs to learn and improve upon.

Using a probabilistic approach, it just seems pretty unlikely he ever develops into a particularly good player.

[TTP]

-has he finally healed from his surgery and will his knee hold up, pain free, over the course of a season?
-will he maintain enthusiasm and energy?
-will he improve with a new coach, playing in a scheme designed with him in mind?

no one here or on the Brooklyn board knows. but we're all going to find out.

How was the scheme designed with him in mind? Their scheme was designed long before he joined the team. Their scheme honestly seems like a terrible fit given that they have the second highest pace in the league and the fifth most 3 points attempted per 100 possessions. Jah plays at a slow pace, isn't good in transition, and doesn't shoot 3s.

[gdog2004]

The argument was never whether or not Okafor would become Aldridge. The argument was that if Aldridge could improve his rebounding why couldn't Okafor? The same thing with Marc Gasol. If Gasol could do it, why couldn't Okafor?

It's the people that think that a player that can't do something will never be able to do something that are going out on a limb. Players do improve in key weaknesses, and Aldridge improved his rebounding, and Gasol improved his defense.

Okafor has obviously done neither at this point, but you aren't representing the argument properly.

The argument was always about the future and not the present.

Great point Eric and lost on almost all Sixer fans. If Okafor were exactly like he was in his rookie year with all the same weaknesses 10 years in the league, then yeah, I see everyone point. But lets not decide what the guy is after he has literally played 55 games healthy IN HIS CAREER. For all the pride some fans take in understanding the process, and being smarter than the "average fan or national media member" this simple fact says the exact opposite. Not everyone is Embiid right off the bat. Guys take time.

Most people are rational enough to expect a young player with several weaknesses to improve over time and hopefully become a useful player. However, it's less reasonable to expect a player that is bad at nearly everything to improve to at enough things to be useful.

Also, the whole "X player was bad at Y and improved, so therefore Okafor could" argument is so weak. Rebounding doesn't tend to improve much over time. Using outliers for your argument highlights how improbable it is that he'll improve, which is problematic when it's only one of many useful skills he still needs to learn and improve upon.

Using a probabilistic approach, it just seems pretty unlikely he ever develops into a particularly good player.

No, most people like to make snap judgments on young players when they don't immediately produce in relation to their draft spot. Its irrational and short sighted to think a player cant improve greatly with the proper training and coaching. To think you or anyone else knows this based on looking at some advanced stats is delusional.

[rzzzzz]

How was the scheme designed with him in mind?

actually, the same scheme they finally implemented for JoJo last night with 12 seconds left, down 2. kind of like the same scheme JoJo implemented his own self when he exploded those 2 games at Staples. when you got big beasty guys who are too strong for other teams frontlines to handle, you give them the ball down low in the paint. yeah, it's old school. if you don't like old school, don't draft big beasty guys. but if you can walk and chew gum at the same time, like Pops or Stevens, you adjust to your talent and shift gears throughout.

[BoomBap]

when is the next game against the nets?

[GeorgeMarcus]

Why didn't Jah play last night?

[gdog2004]

How was the scheme designed with him in mind?

actually, the same scheme they finally implemented for JoJo last night with 12 seconds left, down 2. kind of like the same scheme JoJo implemented his own self when he exploded those 2 games at Staples. when you got big beasty guys who are too strong for other teams frontlines to handle, you give them the ball down low in the paint. yeah, it's old school. if you don't like old school, don't draft big beasty guys. but if you can walk and chew gum at the same time, like Pops or Stevens, you adjust to your talent and shift gears throughout.

EXACTLY. For all this talk about "the new NBA" and how your big men need to be able to step out and hit 3's all the time (including your PF and Center) at the end of the day Embiid is most effective standing 2 feet from the basket, catching the entry pass and drawing fouls. Which is exactly what Jah could have done too.
Now of course Jah isn't the rebounder or defender Embiid is, but he certainly could have stepped into a 2nd string role doing that and getting the Sixers buckets.
Embiid CAN shoot 3's but he is far less valuable doing so.

[Ericb5]

The argument was never whether or not Okafor would become Aldridge. The argument was that if Aldridge could improve his rebounding why couldn't Okafor? The same thing with Marc Gasol. If Gasol could do it, why couldn't Okafor?

It's the people that think that a player that can't do something will never be able to do something that are going out on a limb. Players do improve in key weaknesses, and Aldridge improved his rebounding, and Gasol improved his defense.

Okafor has obviously done neither at this point, but you aren't representing the argument properly.

The argument was always about the future and not the present.

Great point Eric and lost on almost all Sixer fans. If Okafor were exactly like he was in his rookie year with all the same weaknesses 10 years in the league, then yeah, I see everyone point. But lets not decide what the guy is after he has literally played 55 games healthy IN HIS CAREER. For all the pride some fans take in understanding the process, and being smarter than the "average fan or national media member" this simple fact says the exact opposite. Not everyone is Embiid right off the bat. Guys take time.

Most people are rational enough to expect a young player with several weaknesses to improve over time and hopefully become a useful player. However, it's less reasonable to expect a player that is bad at nearly everything to improve to at enough things to be useful.

Also, the whole "X player was bad at Y and improved, so therefore Okafor could" argument is so weak. Rebounding doesn't tend to improve much over time. Using outliers for your argument highlights how improbable it is that he'll improve, which is problematic when it's only one of many useful skills he still needs to learn and improve upon.

Using a probabilistic approach, it just seems pretty unlikely he ever develops into a particularly good player.

The argument wasn't that Okafor would improve because Aldridge did. The argument was that it was possible, and there have been precedents. So many people are so absolutist about players and decide that they suck today and will always suck, and that is a ridiculous proposition.

Okafor has been a major disappointment. That is obvious. He is also young, talented, and has lost playing experience due to injury and being behind much better players. If the Nets can give him some rope for the rest of the year, and let him play 25 minutes a night without a short leash and just let him go, we will see if he can resurrect himself. It is simply stupid to just declare him a lost cause and move on. I mean a lost cause as an nba player, and not just a lost cause for us, because for us he WAS a lost cause.

For us, he had no role because he isn't suited for being a defensive center off the bench, and he can't play next to Embiid simply because he occupies the same space as Embiid. He could be good next to KP in NY though perhaps? Or some other stretch 4 type, whether starting( someday) or off the bench.

[Winejk]

Slightly off topic, but for all the belly aching about Okafor, look what has happened to Towns. During his rookie season he was considered the big man of the future in the NBA. Now he has all kinds of issues, and a lot of the same ones as Okafor -namely defensive issues. KAT does score more and in more varied ways than Okafor. He also rebounds a lot better than Okafor. However, his defense may be as bad or worse than Okafor's. Watching the game last night against Minny, Towns looked good on several possessions guarding Embiid, but was non existent in many more, especially late in the game when Simmons cut back door on him and Wiggins twice for dunks.

Maybe in a demented way we dodged a bullet with Okafor. Okafor didn't fit with Brett Brown's scheme that eventually he got traded. Okafor didn't defend or rebound enough to cover up for his offense. For KAT he's not defending and it shows on Minnesota, but he's good enough in other areas that Minny will likely keep out hope that he'll turn the corner and figure it out. They'll likely extend him to the max deal when his rookie contract expires, but will he ever improve on defense enough to merit that max contract and win ball games? With Wiggins also getting max, without massive improvement from both Wiggins and KAT, their future is extremely murky. Maybe it was a blessing to realize Okafor's deficiencies and cut bait with him than being in a situation with KAT where Minnesota might have to ride it out with KAT for better or for worse because they have no other option.

[Ericb5]

Slightly off topic, but for all the belly aching about Okafor, look what has happened to Towns. During his rookie season he was considered the big man of the future in the NBA. Now he has all kinds of issues, and a lot of the same ones as Okafor -namely defensive issues. KAT does score more and in more varied ways than Okafor. He also rebounds a lot better than Okafor. However, his defense may be as bad or worse than Okafor's. Watching the game last night against Minny, Towns looked good on several possessions guarding Embiid, but was non existent in many more, especially late in the game when Simmons cut back door on him and Wiggins twice for dunks.

Maybe in a demented way we dodged a bullet with Okafor. Okafor didn't fit with Brett Brown's scheme that eventually he got traded. Okafor didn't defend or rebound enough to cover up for his offense. For KAT he's not defending and it shows on Minnesota, but he's good enough in other areas that Minny will likely keep out hope that he'll turn the corner and figure it out. They'll likely extend him to the max deal when his rookie contract expires, but will he ever improve on defense enough to merit that max contract and win ball games? With Wiggins also getting max, without massive improvement from both Wiggins and KAT, their future is extremely murky. Maybe it was a blessing to realize Okafor's deficiencies and cut bait with him than being in a situation with KAT where Minnesota might have to ride it out with KAT for better or for worse because they have no other option.

KAT is a stud, but my argument has always been that he needs to play the 4. At least on defense he is definitely a 4. That would limit his responsibility to defend the rim.

He is a natural offensive talent, but isn’t a natural defensive talent. Embiid is a natural on both ends, and that’s the difference between them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TTP]

Great point Eric and lost on almost all Sixer fans. If Okafor were exactly like he was in his rookie year with all the same weaknesses 10 years in the league, then yeah, I see everyone point. But lets not decide what the guy is after he has literally played 55 games healthy IN HIS CAREER. For all the pride some fans take in understanding the process, and being smarter than the "average fan or national media member" this simple fact says the exact opposite. Not everyone is Embiid right off the bat. Guys take time.

Most people are rational enough to expect a young player with several weaknesses to improve over time and hopefully become a useful player. However, it's less reasonable to expect a player that is bad at nearly everything to improve to at enough things to be useful.

Also, the whole "X player was bad at Y and improved, so therefore Okafor could" argument is so weak. Rebounding doesn't tend to improve much over time. Using outliers for your argument highlights how improbable it is that he'll improve, which is problematic when it's only one of many useful skills he still needs to learn and improve upon.

Using a probabilistic approach, it just seems pretty unlikely he ever develops into a particularly good player.

The argument wasn't that Okafor would improve because Aldridge did. The argument was that it was possible, and there have been precedents. So many people are so absolutist about players and decide that they suck today and will always suck, and that is a ridiculous proposition.

Okafor has been a major disappointment. That is obvious. He is also young, talented, and has lost playing experience due to injury and being behind much better players. If the Nets can give him some rope for the rest of the year, and let him play 25 minutes a night without a short leash and just let him go, we will see if he can resurrect himself. It is simply stupid to just declare him a lost cause and move on. I mean a lost cause as an nba player, and not just a lost cause for us, because for us he WAS a lost cause.

For us, he had no role because he isn't suited for being a defensive center off the bench, and he can't play next to Embiid simply because he occupies the same space as Embiid. He could be good next to KP in NY though perhaps? Or some other stretch 4 type, whether starting( someday) or off the bench.

I said "could", not "would". I highlighted it in bold for you. It's still a weak argument to use an outlier to suggest that something COULD happen again because it's still an improbable event.

Nothing in my post was absolutist - I literally argued from a probabilistic perspective, not an absolute one. I said that the probability that he improves to an acceptable level is low.

I swear, it's like you didn't even read my post and just lumped me in with what you believe the opposition's argument to be.

[TTP]

How was the scheme designed with him in mind?

actually, the same scheme they finally implemented for JoJo last night with 12 seconds left, down 2. kind of like the same scheme JoJo implemented his own self when he exploded those 2 games at Staples. when you got big beasty guys who are too strong for other teams frontlines to handle, you give them the ball down low in the paint. yeah, it's old school. if you don't like old school, don't draft big beasty guys. but if you can walk and chew gum at the same time, like Pops or Stevens, you adjust to your talent and shift gears throughout.

EXACTLY. For all this talk about "the new NBA" and how your big men need to be able to step out and hit 3's all the time (including your PF and Center) at the end of the day Embiid is most effective standing 2 feet from the basket, catching the entry pass and drawing fouls. Which is exactly what Jah could have done too.
Now of course Jah isn't the rebounder or defender Embiid is, but he certainly could have stepped into a 2nd string role doing that and getting the Sixers buckets.
Embiid CAN shoot 3's but he is far less valuable doing so.

Who are you arguing against? People aren't arguing that Jah isn't useful because he's not hitting 3s. The bolded (that you seem to discount the importance of) is the key - he's not useful because he doesn't do either of those things while not being a positive on the offensive end either.

[Ericb5]

Most people are rational enough to expect a young player with several weaknesses to improve over time and hopefully become a useful player. However, it's less reasonable to expect a player that is bad at nearly everything to improve to at enough things to be useful.

Also, the whole "X player was bad at Y and improved, so therefore Okafor could" argument is so weak. Rebounding doesn't tend to improve much over time. Using outliers for your argument highlights how improbable it is that he'll improve, which is problematic when it's only one of many useful skills he still needs to learn and improve upon.

Using a probabilistic approach, it just seems pretty unlikely he ever develops into a particularly good player.

The argument wasn't that Okafor would improve because Aldridge did. The argument was that it was possible, and there have been precedents. So many people are so absolutist about players and decide that they suck today and will always suck, and that is a ridiculous proposition.

Okafor has been a major disappointment. That is obvious. He is also young, talented, and has lost playing experience due to injury and being behind much better players. If the Nets can give him some rope for the rest of the year, and let him play 25 minutes a night without a short leash and just let him go, we will see if he can resurrect himself. It is simply stupid to just declare him a lost cause and move on. I mean a lost cause as an nba player, and not just a lost cause for us, because for us he WAS a lost cause.

For us, he had no role because he isn't suited for being a defensive center off the bench, and he can't play next to Embiid simply because he occupies the same space as Embiid. He could be good next to KP in NY though perhaps? Or some other stretch 4 type, whether starting( someday) or off the bench.

I said "could", not "would". I highlighted it in bold for you. It's still a weak argument to use an outlier to suggest that something COULD happen again because it's still an improbable event.

Nothing in my post was absolutist - I literally argued from a probabilistic perspective, not an absolute one. I said that the probability that he improves to an acceptable level is low.

I swear, it's like you didn't even read my post and just lumped me in with what you believe the opposition's argument to be.

I’m not arguing with you personally. I’m arguing with the position that many people took. I wouldn’t have considered you an absolutist like Lloyd was for example.

Some times in logic you take an extreme position to point out the fallacy on the other side. When someone says that something can’t happen, and you can cite an example of it happening then it renders their argument incorrect. It isn’t the same thing as saying that the reason that he is going to do it is because some other outlier did it.

There was nothing precluding Okafor from improving as a rebounder or defender so if your position is that he can’t then you are wrong. If your position is that it is unlikely then you may be right, but the people who thought it unlikely aren’t who I was arguing with.

Btw, when you bold things it doesn’t show as bolded in tapatalk which is the way I read this site most of the time so I don’t see bolded text. Bolding only really works on the webpage.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rzzzzz]

“It’s my job as a coach and as a staff to help him fit into the system,” Atkinson said of merging Okafor’s ability with the Nets. “He’s a talented player, a very willing passer, we do play through the post, it’s part of our system and maybe you’ll see us playing through there a little more with him. It’s my job to figure out how to integrate him best and figure out how’s the best way he could help the team.”

[gdog2004]

actually, the same scheme they finally implemented for JoJo last night with 12 seconds left, down 2. kind of like the same scheme JoJo implemented his own self when he exploded those 2 games at Staples. when you got big beasty guys who are too strong for other teams frontlines to handle, you give them the ball down low in the paint. yeah, it's old school. if you don't like old school, don't draft big beasty guys. but if you can walk and chew gum at the same time, like Pops or Stevens, you adjust to your talent and shift gears throughout.

EXACTLY. For all this talk about "the new NBA" and how your big men need to be able to step out and hit 3's all the time (including your PF and Center) at the end of the day Embiid is most effective standing 2 feet from the basket, catching the entry pass and drawing fouls. Which is exactly what Jah could have done too.
Now of course Jah isn't the rebounder or defender Embiid is, but he certainly could have stepped into a 2nd string role doing that and getting the Sixers buckets.
Embiid CAN shoot 3's but he is far less valuable doing so.

Who are you arguing against? People aren't arguing that Jah isn't useful because he's not hitting 3s. The bolded (that you seem to discount the importance of) is the key - he's not useful because he doesn't do either of those things while not being a positive on the offensive end either.

Not you specifically. Just the general position many have taken with Okafor. RE: "can't fit into todays NBA", "Dinosaur", "ball stopper"...etc .

Your position is not absolutist, but when you say things like "he's not useful because" I think is very premature.
He's not ANYTHING yet except a young dude with promise. A lot more promise than many. He **may** never expand/improve his game, but he would be in the minority because most players improve over time. How much they improve is the key.

[cool93]

EXACTLY. For all this talk about "the new NBA" and how your big men need to be able to step out and hit 3's all the time (including your PF and Center) at the end of the day Embiid is most effective standing 2 feet from the basket, catching the entry pass and drawing fouls. Which is exactly what Jah could have done too.
Now of course Jah isn't the rebounder or defender Embiid is, but he certainly could have stepped into a 2nd string role doing that and getting the Sixers buckets.
Embiid CAN shoot 3's but he is far less valuable doing so.

Who are you arguing against? People aren't arguing that Jah isn't useful because he's not hitting 3s. The bolded (that you seem to discount the importance of) is the key - he's not useful because he doesn't do either of those things while not being a positive on the offensive end either.

Not you specifically. Just the general position many have taken with Okafor. RE: "can't fit into todays NBA", "Dinosaur", "ball stopper"...etc .

Your position is not absolutist, but when you say things like "he's not useful because" I think is very premature.
He's not ANYTHING yet except a young dude with promise. A lot more promise than many. He **may** never expand/improve his game, but he would be in the minority because most players improve over time. How much they improve is the key.

The problem is that he needs to drastically develop in EVERY aspect of the game, besides low post ISO scoring. Not that common if you think about it.

Sent from my [device_name] using [url]RealGM mobile app[/url]

[gdog2004]

Who are you arguing against? People aren't arguing that Jah isn't useful because he's not hitting 3s. The bolded (that you seem to discount the importance of) is the key - he's not useful because he doesn't do either of those things while not being a positive on the offensive end either.

Not you specifically. Just the general position many have taken with Okafor. RE: "can't fit into todays NBA", "Dinosaur", "ball stopper"...etc .

Your position is not absolutist, but when you say things like "he's not useful because" I think is very premature.
He's not ANYTHING yet except a young dude with promise. A lot more promise than many. He **may** never expand/improve his game, but he would be in the minority because most players improve over time. How much they improve is the key.

The problem is that he needs to drastically develop in EVERY aspect of the game, besides low post ISO scoring. Not that common if you think about it.

Sent from my [device_name] using [url]RealGM mobile app[/url]

Not exactly true. He has guard like handles, elite post moves, long arms, blocks a shot plus a game. People say hes an awful rebounder, but he did grab 7 plus a game. 3 a game would be awful. 7 is below average but its not AWFUL. That is a LOT to build on.

[Winejk]

Slightly off topic, but for all the belly aching about Okafor, look what has happened to Towns. During his rookie season he was considered the big man of the future in the NBA. Now he has all kinds of issues, and a lot of the same ones as Okafor -namely defensive issues. KAT does score more and in more varied ways than Okafor. He also rebounds a lot better than Okafor. However, his defense may be as bad or worse than Okafor's. Watching the game last night against Minny, Towns looked good on several possessions guarding Embiid, but was non existent in many more, especially late in the game when Simmons cut back door on him and Wiggins twice for dunks.

Maybe in a demented way we dodged a bullet with Okafor. Okafor didn't fit with Brett Brown's scheme that eventually he got traded. Okafor didn't defend or rebound enough to cover up for his offense. For KAT he's not defending and it shows on Minnesota, but he's good enough in other areas that Minny will likely keep out hope that he'll turn the corner and figure it out. They'll likely extend him to the max deal when his rookie contract expires, but will he ever improve on defense enough to merit that max contract and win ball games? With Wiggins also getting max, without massive improvement from both Wiggins and KAT, their future is extremely murky. Maybe it was a blessing to realize Okafor's deficiencies and cut bait with him than being in a situation with KAT where Minnesota might have to ride it out with KAT for better or for worse because they have no other option.

KAT is a stud, but my argument has always been that he needs to play the 4. At least on defense he is definitely a 4. That would limit his responsibility to defend the rim.

He is a natural offensive talent, but isn’t a natural defensive talent. Embiid is a natural on both ends, and that’s the difference between them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think KAT's defensive problems at the moment are bigger than just moving him to the 4. He has a lot of the same problems as Okafor on defense. He doesn't hustle back on defense. He lacks court awareness and team defense concepts. He also tries to block everything and bites on a lot of pump fakes exposing the defense. I don't know if simply moving him to the 4 solves any of these problems.

He's young so he has time to figure it out, but it is a glaring weakness at this point. Jimmy Butler hasn't called him out by name yet, but he's alluded to lack of defensive discipline in at least one of his post game interviews. Check out KAT's defensive ratings. He's near the bottom for big men. At this point KAT is a glorified Okafor.

[Ericb5]

Slightly off topic, but for all the belly aching about Okafor, look what has happened to Towns. During his rookie season he was considered the big man of the future in the NBA. Now he has all kinds of issues, and a lot of the same ones as Okafor -namely defensive issues. KAT does score more and in more varied ways than Okafor. He also rebounds a lot better than Okafor. However, his defense may be as bad or worse than Okafor's. Watching the game last night against Minny, Towns looked good on several possessions guarding Embiid, but was non existent in many more, especially late in the game when Simmons cut back door on him and Wiggins twice for dunks.

Maybe in a demented way we dodged a bullet with Okafor. Okafor didn't fit with Brett Brown's scheme that eventually he got traded. Okafor didn't defend or rebound enough to cover up for his offense. For KAT he's not defending and it shows on Minnesota, but he's good enough in other areas that Minny will likely keep out hope that he'll turn the corner and figure it out. They'll likely extend him to the max deal when his rookie contract expires, but will he ever improve on defense enough to merit that max contract and win ball games? With Wiggins also getting max, without massive improvement from both Wiggins and KAT, their future is extremely murky. Maybe it was a blessing to realize Okafor's deficiencies and cut bait with him than being in a situation with KAT where Minnesota might have to ride it out with KAT for better or for worse because they have no other option.

KAT is a stud, but my argument has always been that he needs to play the 4. At least on defense he is definitely a 4. That would limit his responsibility to defend the rim.

He is a natural offensive talent, but isn’t a natural defensive talent. Embiid is a natural on both ends, and that’s the difference between them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think KAT's defensive problems at the moment are bigger than just moving him to the 4. He has a lot of the same problems as Okafor on defense. He doesn't hustle back on defense. He lacks court awareness and team defense concepts. He also tries to block everything and bites on a lot of pump fakes exposing the defense. I don't know if simply moving him to the 4 solves any of these problems.

He's young so he has time to figure it out, but it is a glaring weakness at this point. Jimmy Butler hasn't called him out by name yet, but he's alluded to lack of defensive discipline in at least one of his post game interviews. Check out KAT's defensive ratings. He's near the bottom for big men. At this point KAT is a glorified Okafor.

Moving him to the 4 doesn’t solve his problems, but it lessens the impact of those problems.

Okafor is basically a center. I thought that offensively he could play some 4, but he probably can’t.

KAT can do it all offensively, including shooting the 3, and defensively he has more foot speed than Okafor so I think that he would be more capable of defending the 4.

That doesn’t mean that he will be a good defender though. He seems like he just doesn’t have the instincts for it.

KAT is a superstar in his own right, but I think it is becoming obvious that Embiid is a better player.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rzzzzz]

OK4 and John Salley PETA video, no doubt will raise hackles around "PC", etc., but there are worse things to promote. probably shot in Philly just a short time ago, so this kind of wraps up things up for all but the hardcore.

https://www.si.com/eats/2017/12/15/jahlil-okafor-john-salley-vegan-diet-peta-video