TheHartBreakKid wrote:Firstly, this thread isn't meant to trash Sixers and/or Simmons, and I hope it leads to some productive discussion.
Like many others, I believe the NBA has been transitioning to a position-less league, and position labels are becoming more and more meaningless. However, I do wonder if the position labels could still be affecting how team's are approaching their roster building, whether consciously or subconsciously.
As an example, Let's just assume that Simmons was labeled a forward from the start of his career, and revisit some things that could have went differently from 2016 to the 2019 offseason.
Quick Note:
I didn't want to fully ignore the potential effect that position labels can have on player development. A PG being associated as the lead ball handler, in theory, could have contributed to Simmons' development from the very start. Obviously the player and his team deserves the blame for poor development, regardless of the label. But let's ignore that for this thread and pretend the same exact Simmons came in to the league and developed in the same way
So let's begin:
2016-17-Simmons still is out for the year. The first decision that might have gone differently would happen at the deadline with the Noel. Would Noel be traded without any guards incoming if Simmons was considered a front court player?
Possibly...but it's too early in the process and Noel had to moved either way, so let's move on to the next season.
2017-18- Sixers still trade up for Fultz. If they were so high on Fultz with Guard Simmons, they surely would do the same with Forward Simmons. In the the new timeline, Simmons would still be the de facto PG, playing the same exact role as he did on offense, as Fultz would still have his injury issues etc.
2018-19-The Sixers trade Mikal Bridges for Z.Smith and move down in the draft. Smith was another guard, so we could assume they simply thought it was a good value trade and were high on Smith. Do they pass on SGA though if they considered Simmons a forward, for a less ready product like Smith? But let's just say it was an asset management move, and that they were high on Smith (or low on SGA).
Sixers then trade for Jimmy Butler, something that they still obviously do.
Now, this is where things become interesting. In real-life, the Sixers next move on from Fultz and trade for Harris in the same deadline. With a loaded FC with Forward Simmons, do the 76ers still trade for Harris and head into a playoff run without any traditional point guards on the roster and minimal guard depth? I think here is the first instance that a case could be made for things going differently. But let's say the same still happens and move on to the next season.
2019 offseason- Jimmy still decides to leave, and the Sixers still do the S&T.
We now reach the most questionable move in the Forward Simmons scenario, which is Al the Horford signing. I know the move was questionable and had a lot of critics in real life regardless even with Guard Simmons. But that level of money and commitment, to a 4th front court player becomes way more questionable now.
Now I know what some might be thinking:
Maybe the 76ers never cared about the position label, and were actually operating in a purely position-less way from the start.
That's very likely, and 76ers seem to be a very forward thinking organization. My point isn't necessarily that the 76ers would have made different moves if Simmons had a different position label. Even with "Forward Simmons", it's possible that things could have gone exactly the same way.
I'm also trying to avoid revisionist history, and not ignore the butterfly effect. That's why I looked at each move at the specific time it was made. I'm also not trying to downplay the other factors that went into this, including questionable decision making from the FO, back luck, and poor development by Simmons. All those things had a clear contribution to the downfall, regardless of what position Simmons is labeled or how the Sixers approached their decision making.
Lastly, I'm not saying that the Sixers wouldn't have eventually figured it out with this core if Simmons didn't quit on the team regardless of position-label.
My main point is that a lot of those moves become more questionable at the time they were made, if Simmons was labeled differently, or if labels didn't exist in the first place.
I'm curious to hear your thoughts;
Do you think position labels can have a negative effect on roster building? If so, do you think played a negative part for the Simmons/Sixers during his time there?
I think you're not reading correctly what "positionless" means, in the modern game.
Teams still need to fill up some specific needs on offence and defense, just they are nomore stuck in the old five position categories to achieve that.
Now you have a number of archetypes and players who can cover more than one, on offense or defense.
For instance, you need primary ballhandling, shot creation, spacing, movement shooting, secondary creation, iso scoring, rolling, popping etc.
Of course, some of these are more easy to find in players of certain sizes hence if you have a bigger guy able to do some of these things he can have a lot of value in team construction.
The issue with Simmons is that his status as a worthy #1 pick, max player and the potential of being one of the best in the league depends on him being a 6-10 PRIMARY BALLHANDLER, able to create for himself and for others, and this is the most important skill in the modern game. Guys like LeBron or Luka are incredibly valuable because of this, they open you so many possibilities.
The issue is that people have been too long in denial about the fact Simmons is not able to do that in half court.
Once you accept that, suddenly he's no more one of the best players in the league but just a borderline max guy, maybe.
Call him a guard, a forward or a center, but if all he does on offense is staying on the dunker's spot he's just not generating enough value, and the Sixers have been very reluctant to accept that.
