PG: Back to .500 (5-5)
Moderators: HiJiNX, 7 Footer, DG88, niQ, Duffman100, tsherkin, Reeko, Morris_Shatford, lebron stopper
Re: PG: Back to .500 (5-5)
-
nikster
- RealGM
- Posts: 14,604
- And1: 13,066
- Joined: Sep 08, 2013
Re: PG: Back to .500 (5-5)
Hard to be upset at this loss. Back to back without Poeltl, and when Embiid is playing well Philly is one of the best teams in the league.
Nice to see Quick score well. And were getting good bench contribution from CMB, Mamu and Shead. If one of Gradey, Ochai or Walter figure things out we will have some real depth
Nice to see Quick score well. And were getting good bench contribution from CMB, Mamu and Shead. If one of Gradey, Ochai or Walter figure things out we will have some real depth
Re: PG: Back to .500 (5-5)
-
Yallbecrazy
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 5,906
- And1: 5,579
- Joined: Nov 25, 2013
-
Re: PG: Back to .500 (5-5)
Shakril wrote:dballislife wrote:getting crushed on glass and on d...and yet cmb only plays 22 minutes...we lacked size and he was playing great and grabbed 7 boards
He is still a rookie and he plays out of position. You need to be cautious not to burn him out.
No one is saying to play him 38 minutes, but I'm sure he could have handled 30ish. When he came out for a breather he should have gone right back in when Embiid did, was playing so well. Game was lost between Embiid entering and 90 secs later when CMB did. Think Philly scored easy baskets at the rim or on putbacks all 4 times in that timespan.
Re: PG: Back to .500
-
YogurtProducer
- RealGM
- Posts: 30,895
- And1: 33,601
- Joined: Jul 22, 2013
- Location: Saskatchewan
-
Re: PG: Back to .500
WaltFrazier wrote:Childs wrote:
I caught this incident on TV but didn't know what led to it. What was he upset about?
Is BI a possible bad attitude, or a fiery competitor that you like to see
Got hurt (came back, so just a tweak), **** around so long on the floor he got us a tech, then came off and did this.
I understand the frustration and even the water bottle throw because you don’t expect it to explode like that.
But to sit there and say nothing after you nailed a water boy and watch 10 other people clean up your mess? That’s **** you expect from a teenager not a grown man supposed to be leading by example.
Some of the comments I’ve seen from lakers / pelicans fans also painted him in a more negative light than I remember seeing. That being said - when clips like this come out it does go into open season mode so take it all with a grain of salt
Re: PG: Back to .500 (5-5)
-
YogurtProducer
- RealGM
- Posts: 30,895
- And1: 33,601
- Joined: Jul 22, 2013
- Location: Saskatchewan
-
Re: PG: Back to .500 (5-5)
LoveMyRaps wrote:junot111 wrote:YogurtProducer wrote:One thing through 10 games.... I hope we move on from Ingram in a consolidation trade ASAP - hopefully this summer for a real star. His defensive ability is just insanely bad and A LOT of our teams deficiencies are fixed if you can get a 2-way player in his place.
His game is fun to watch offensively, but your ceiling is severely capped when he is such a defensive liability.
It'd be easier to tolerate if we had more plus defenders in the SL besides Scottie, but yeah it's hard to watch. He's like DeMar level bad on defense.
He's actually been decent on defense this year. Was horrendous tonight though.
We watching the same guy?
He’s easily been our worst defender
Re: PG: Back to .500 (5-5)
- Duffman100
- Forum Mod - Raptors

- Posts: 48,347
- And1: 73,192
- Joined: Jun 27, 2002
-
Re: PG: Back to .500 (5-5)
Man I wish Ware had fallen to us.
Re: PG: Back to .500 (5-5)
- WaltFrazier
- RealGM
- Posts: 34,194
- And1: 31,680
- Joined: Jan 21, 2006
- Location: Ontario Canada
-
Re: PG: Back to .500 (5-5)
Tor_Raps wrote:_MidNight_ wrote:Who did we give up a Tribble double to? Lol
I wonder how long they'll go without giving us a true backup center. My bet is on all season.
This will be our 6th year without a real one so...
With Gradey, Agbaji, Walter and Battle being redundant with a lot of overlap, couldn't one or two of them be traded for a solid back-up C?
Six years, amazing how little Masai and Bobby valued centers. I still don't know why Drew Eubanks was waived after the Thad Young trade. A journeyman yes but could have been a serviceable backup all these years, as he is as Sabonis' backup now
There goes my hero. Watch him as he goes.
Re: PG: Back to .500 (5-5)
-
YogurtProducer
- RealGM
- Posts: 30,895
- And1: 33,601
- Joined: Jul 22, 2013
- Location: Saskatchewan
-
Re: PG: Back to .500 (5-5)
WaltFrazier wrote:Tor_Raps wrote:_MidNight_ wrote:Who did we give up a Tribble double to? Lol
I wonder how long they'll go without giving us a true backup center. My bet is on all season.
This will be our 6th year without a real one so...
With Gradey, Agbaji, Walter and Battle being redundant with a lot of overlap, couldn't one or two of them be traded for a solid back-up C?
Six years, amazing how little Masai and Bobby valued centers. I still don't know why Drew Eubanks was waived after the Thad Young trade. A journeyman yes but could have been a serviceable backup all these years, as he is as Sabonis' backup now
There’s a reason Eubanks has been on 5 teams in 30 months since we waived him.
Guys like Eubanks are big, but they are slow and suck that they might help rebounding wise but then you get murdered in pick n roll sets.
It’s definitely a trade off, but I’d take Mamu over Eubanks. That being said, I’d rather have Mamu + a bigger big as well. Our Mamu minutes haven’t really been the issue this year.
Howecer, my guess is one of those 5 wings we got get swapped this year.
Re: PG: Back to .500 (5-5)
- Backcountry
- Sixth Man
- Posts: 1,708
- And1: 2,033
- Joined: Feb 22, 2021
- Location: North of We The North
-
Re: PG: Back to .500 (5-5)
Just watched the replay finally. Good game, some frustrating second chances for the Sixers cost us a lot of points. We were a Jakob Poeltl away from being able to pull this off. Great 3-point shooting from the boys, though! Maxey is a problem when he's allowed to operate.
'Cos it's easier to try
Than to prove it can't be done
Than to prove it can't be done
Re: PG: Back to .500 (5-5)
-
PushDaRock
- RealGM
- Posts: 15,585
- And1: 11,636
- Joined: Jun 22, 2011
Re: PG: Back to .500 (5-5)
YogurtProducer wrote:WaltFrazier wrote:Tor_Raps wrote:
This will be our 6th year without a real one so...
With Gradey, Agbaji, Walter and Battle being redundant with a lot of overlap, couldn't one or two of them be traded for a solid back-up C?
Six years, amazing how little Masai and Bobby valued centers. I still don't know why Drew Eubanks was waived after the Thad Young trade. A journeyman yes but could have been a serviceable backup all these years, as he is as Sabonis' backup now
There’s a reason Eubanks has been on 5 teams in 30 months since we waived him.
Guys like Eubanks are big, but they are slow and suck that they might help rebounding wise but then you get murdered in pick n roll sets.
It’s definitely a trade off, but I’d take Mamu over Eubanks. That being said, I’d rather have Mamu + a bigger big as well. Our Mamu minutes haven’t really been the issue this year.
Howecer, my guess is one of those 5 wings we got get swapped this year.
It's very likely a consolidation trade happens with one of our young wings. But, which one do they trade? I don't think they know yet because this is the first year they're trying to win which is probably the reason for this evaluation period where they're trying to see what they have in each of them and who can contribute in a winning situation.
Ideally, we would have had a Koloko type on our roster as that emergency 3rd string big. Someone cheap that's worth developing and could play some spot mins here and there.
Before this last game, the team also had a 98.6 DRTG with Mamu on the court. D has not been an issue with him out there.
Re: PG: Back to .500 (5-5)
- HiJiNX
- Forum Mod - Raptors

- Posts: 16,641
- And1: 16,020
- Joined: Mar 19, 2004
- Location: T-Dot
Re: PG: Back to .500 (5-5)
PushDaRock wrote:This team just needs to figure out the D a bit to where they aren't either feast or famine. They're either playing elite or atrocious D each game, need to get a more consistent level so the lows aren't as low as they have been.
I think the consistent theme is we have struggled against big teams. We also struggle with teams that can attack closeouts. So we will beat average to bad teams and will lose to most of the good ones.
not strong, only aggresive cuz the power ain't directed/ that's why, we are subjected to the will of the oppressive
Re: PG: Back to .500 (5-5)
-
PushDaRock
- RealGM
- Posts: 15,585
- And1: 11,636
- Joined: Jun 22, 2011
Re: PG: Back to .500 (5-5)
HiJiNX wrote:PushDaRock wrote:This team just needs to figure out the D a bit to where they aren't either feast or famine. They're either playing elite or atrocious D each game, need to get a more consistent level so the lows aren't as low as they have been.
I think the consistent theme is we have struggled against big teams. We also struggle with teams that can attack closeouts. So we will beat average to bad teams and will lose to most of the good ones.
There's probably a middle ground at some point between teams dropping 130 on our heads and us shutting them down and keeping them at 100. Match-Ups alone don't explain that kind of difference.
Re: PG: Back to .500 (5-5)
- HiJiNX
- Forum Mod - Raptors

- Posts: 16,641
- And1: 16,020
- Joined: Mar 19, 2004
- Location: T-Dot
Re: PG: Back to .500 (5-5)
Childs wrote:
Our guards last night.
I’d be happy to bring back JV in a backup role.
not strong, only aggresive cuz the power ain't directed/ that's why, we are subjected to the will of the oppressive
Re: PG: Back to .500 (5-5)
- HiJiNX
- Forum Mod - Raptors

- Posts: 16,641
- And1: 16,020
- Joined: Mar 19, 2004
- Location: T-Dot
Re: PG: Back to .500 (5-5)
YogurtProducer wrote:LoveMyRaps wrote:bape_lovers wrote:Most likely tired, you can see his shots were front rimming. I still like BI, you need someone in the playoffs.
He’s drastically improved our half court offense. We need him.
It’s extremely difficult to acquire a player of his calibre.
It arguing that, just like for a time we needed Demar.
Once you are a serious team though, Ingram gotta go. Hes not elite enough offensively to make up for his defence.
I didn’t say give him away, I just hope he’s the main piece in a consolation trade if one ever were to arise
I absolutely agree with you. Ingram’s defence is so bad that he can’t start on a contender. He’s just too much of a liability there. And we can argue that we can coach him into better habits but ultimately he’s just slow.
not strong, only aggresive cuz the power ain't directed/ that's why, we are subjected to the will of the oppressive
Re: PG: Back to .500 (5-5)
- Madvillainy2004
- General Manager
- Posts: 9,665
- And1: 9,113
- Joined: Jul 03, 2019
-
Re: PG: Back to .500 (5-5)
Hope Ingram comes out to the media and apologizes for the water thing and gets the dude some Sixers tickets or something lol
I will say the "cant believe he did this Kyle/DeMar would never" crowd is kinda bugging me lmao kyle and demar threw plently of tantrums and have had multiple ejections lol kyle got charged for assaulting a female ref with a basketball during a summer game lol suffice to say nobody will remember this in a week and we do have a pretty easy stretch now I see 7 winnable games in our next 10.
I will say the "cant believe he did this Kyle/DeMar would never" crowd is kinda bugging me lmao kyle and demar threw plently of tantrums and have had multiple ejections lol kyle got charged for assaulting a female ref with a basketball during a summer game lol suffice to say nobody will remember this in a week and we do have a pretty easy stretch now I see 7 winnable games in our next 10.
Re: PG: Back to .500 (5-5)
- HiJiNX
- Forum Mod - Raptors

- Posts: 16,641
- And1: 16,020
- Joined: Mar 19, 2004
- Location: T-Dot
Re: PG: Back to .500 (5-5)
Son Goku 25 wrote:I don't think Ingram is the problem.
He provides more overall than - defenders we have on our team and the lack of size was too much as usual it's gonna put a heavy load on our PFs as season progresses so it's up to the FO to figure that out. Guys like Dick, Quickley, and Sandro having to defend the paint with small sgs out there isn't gonna help.
I think one of the consequences of our D that we aren’t talking about is that when Ingram, RJ, or IQ give up free paths to the rim it results in lots of fouls and forces unexpected rotations which makes it hard to rebound or close out on shooters. It’s a problem.
not strong, only aggresive cuz the power ain't directed/ that's why, we are subjected to the will of the oppressive
Re: PG: Back to .500 (5-5)
- MEDIC
- RealGM
- Posts: 20,661
- And1: 11,414
- Joined: Jul 25, 2006
Re: PG: Back to .500 (5-5)
Tor_Raps wrote:Ive said it before and will say it again... this franchise wont be serious until they fire Darko and Bobby realizes we need a competent 3rd C.
Then theres the whole Dick/Walter/Ochai playing ahead of Battle. Other than that, it was a good performance from everyone else.
Yeah. I feel bad for Battle. The guy shows up time and time again to prove that he is the best 3 point shooter on the team. Hard worker. Great size.
At this point it's almost disrespect.
He'll eventually move on because he was never taken seriously here & he will go on to help a contender win a ship as a useful bench shooter. I can totally see that happening.

* Props to the man, the myth, the legend......TZ.
Re: PG: Back to .500 (5-5)
- MEDIC
- RealGM
- Posts: 20,661
- And1: 11,414
- Joined: Jul 25, 2006
Re: PG: Back to .500 (5-5)
As far as losing this game goes.......back to back & they were outsize again. Scottie did as good a job as you could expect, but he fouled out because of it.
They need to fix the big man depth issue. Its got to be a priority.
They need to fix the big man depth issue. Its got to be a priority.

* Props to the man, the myth, the legend......TZ.
Re: PG: Back to .500 (5-5)
-
JCP11
- Pro Prospect
- Posts: 757
- And1: 531
- Joined: Apr 29, 2025
Re: PG: Back to .500 (5-5)
Shakril wrote:dballislife wrote:getting crushed on glass and on d...and yet cmb only plays 22 minutes...we lacked size and he was playing great and grabbed 7 boards
He is still a rookie and he plays out of position. You need to be cautious not to burn him out.
CMB is not playing out of position, I'd he wants to survive in this league he will have to play the 4 and the 5. He's too short to be a full time 5.
Re: PG: Back to .500 (5-5)
- MEDIC
- RealGM
- Posts: 20,661
- And1: 11,414
- Joined: Jul 25, 2006
Re: PG: Back to .500 (5-5)
HiJiNX wrote:Son Goku 25 wrote:I don't think Ingram is the problem.
He provides more overall than - defenders we have on our team and the lack of size was too much as usual it's gonna put a heavy load on our PFs as season progresses so it's up to the FO to figure that out. Guys like Dick, Quickley, and Sandro having to defend the paint with small sgs out there isn't gonna help.
I think one of the consequences of our D that we aren’t talking about is that when Ingram, RJ, or IQ give up free paths to the rim it results in lots of fouls and forces unexpected rotations which makes it hard to rebound or close out on shooters. It’s a problem.
In a perfect world, IQ would be our 6th man & we would have a legit 2 way starting PG.

* Props to the man, the myth, the legend......TZ.
Re: PG: Back to .500 (5-5)
-
JCP11
- Pro Prospect
- Posts: 757
- And1: 531
- Joined: Apr 29, 2025
Re: PG: Back to .500 (5-5)
That's exactly the problem, having Ingram is manageable but then having him with RJ and IQ on the floor with no rim protection is asking for trouble.HiJiNX wrote:Son Goku 25 wrote:I don't think Ingram is the problem.
He provides more overall than - defenders we have on our team and the lack of size was too much as usual it's gonna put a heavy load on our PFs as season progresses so it's up to the FO to figure that out. Guys like Dick, Quickley, and Sandro having to defend the paint with small sgs out there isn't gonna help.
I think one of the consequences of our D that we aren’t talking about is that when Ingram, RJ, or IQ give up free paths to the rim it results in lots of fouls and forces unexpected rotations which makes it hard to rebound or close out on shooters. It’s a problem.











