2016 NBA Draft/College Basketball Thread

[iMoreland]

2017 draft is loaded man

[76ciology]

The ESPN machine man. They pushed this kid down everyone's throats so hard that even Simmons bought in and seemed to just be going through the motions at the end of the season day dreaming of the green room and Adam Silvers shiny head.

I'm not sold on him but I still don't know if I'm passing on him if we have the first overall selection. He has the size, length, athleticism, play making, and court vision. Can our staff work with him to run an NBA offense? I'd like to hope yes.

That, and the fact thatin the 2000s a prospect like Simmons would've been one of the most obvious #1 picks of the decade, who was going to dominate the NBA from day 1. Thing is, the league has evolved and Simmons can only thrive in a system built around him. He needs to be surrounded by shooters and he needs the ball in his hands. How many teams are looking to add non-shooters who don't play center? Like two lol. Can he play PG like Giannis or become a defensive force like Draymond Green? Maybe.

If I'm Philly I trade down, unless you're willing to trade away 1 or 2 of Embiid, Okafor, or Noels to build a team around Simmons at PF... Or take Ingram.

All of this talk about the modern NBA and how the game has changed is all hogwash. What we have is a wave of new coaching styles that has ramped up the offense in the league.

Talent is still talent. Name me a single old style player that would have been a star 10 years ago that isn't a star now.

Simmons is a superstar, and will be a superstar in today's NBA or in the NBA of the 80's.

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

The game has changed. It's not saying talent is obsolete. It's just things that were valued more before isn't as valued as right now. And you want to funnel assets/talent on things that has heavy impact to how the game is currently played.

A good example of this is with the Bobcats, Kemba was midrange heavy, MKG can't shoot and Al J is post heavy. With MKG and Al J going down, the team (including Kemba who's averaging 2.2 3pt makes per game) shoots more 3 and is playing much better.

You want your offense's primary option at the perimeter because of 3 > 2 and it's less challenged because of the handcheck rule change. That kind of had a big ripple effect to the totality of the game.

I'd put it this way. I'd rather have a PF who can shoot/score (provides reliable tertiary option on offense) and can provide rim protection (defensive rotation) than a PF who has elite ball handling skills and is a poor rim protector like Simmons. And at SF? I'd rather have a guy who can shoot and not crowd the paint.

Altho, these guys are young and your bayes case change as these guys evolve.

[XtremeDunkz]

That, and the fact thatin the 2000s a prospect like Simmons would've been one of the most obvious #1 picks of the decade, who was going to dominate the NBA from day 1. Thing is, the league has evolved and Simmons can only thrive in a system built around him. He needs to be surrounded by shooters and he needs the ball in his hands. How many teams are looking to add non-shooters who don't play center? Like two lol. Can he play PG like Giannis or become a defensive force like Draymond Green? Maybe.

If I'm Philly I trade down, unless you're willing to trade away 1 or 2 of Embiid, Okafor, or Noels to build a team around Simmons at PF... Or take Ingram.

All of this talk about the modern NBA and how the game has changed is all hogwash. What we have is a wave of new coaching styles that has ramped up the offense in the league.

Talent is still talent. Name me a single old style player that would have been a star 10 years ago that isn't a star now.

Simmons is a superstar, and will be a superstar in today's NBA or in the NBA of the 80's.

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

The game has changed. It's not saying talent is obsolete. It's just things that were valued more before isn't as valued as right now. And you want to funnel assets/talent on things that has heavy impact to how the game is currently played.

A good example of this is with the Bobcats, Kemba was midrange heavy, MKG can't shoot and Al J is post heavy. With MKG and Al J going down, the team (including Kemba who's averaging 2.2 3pt makes per game) shoots more 3 and is playing much better.

You want your offense's primary option at the perimeter because of 3 > 2 and it's less challenged because of the handcheck rule change. That kind of had a big ripple effect to the totality of the game.

I'd put it this way. I'd rather have a PF who can shoot/score (provides reliable tertiary option on offense) and can provide rim protection (defensive rotation) than a PF who has elite ball handling skills and is a poor rim protector like Simmons. And at SF? I'd rather have a guy who can shoot and not crowd the paint.

Altho, these guys are young and your bayes case change as these guys evolve.

This is all true but it also is why my interest in the NBA as a whole is getting lower by the day. Every team in the league is starting to play the same. Run around the perimeter and try to get an open 3. It just isn't exciting to me like it is to others I guess. The game has lost its balance.

[76ciology]

All of this talk about the modern NBA and how the game has changed is all hogwash. What we have is a wave of new coaching styles that has ramped up the offense in the league.

Talent is still talent. Name me a single old style player that would have been a star 10 years ago that isn't a star now.

Simmons is a superstar, and will be a superstar in today's NBA or in the NBA of the 80's.

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

The game has changed. It's not saying talent is obsolete. It's just things that were valued more before isn't as valued as right now. And you want to funnel assets/talent on things that has heavy impact to how the game is currently played.

A good example of this is with the Bobcats, Kemba was midrange heavy, MKG can't shoot and Al J is post heavy. With MKG and Al J going down, the team (including Kemba who's averaging 2.2 3pt makes per game) shoots more 3 and is playing much better.

You want your offense's primary option at the perimeter because of 3 > 2 and it's less challenged because of the handcheck rule change. That kind of had a big ripple effect to the totality of the game.

I'd put it this way. I'd rather have a PF who can shoot/score (provides reliable tertiary option on offense) and can provide rim protection (defensive rotation) than a PF who has elite ball handling skills and is a poor rim protector like Simmons. And at SF? I'd rather have a guy who can shoot and not crowd the paint.

Altho, these guys are young and your bayes case change as these guys evolve.

This is all true but it also is why my interest in the NBA as a whole is getting lower by the day. Every team in the league is starting to play the same. Run around the perimeter and try to get an open 3. It just isn't exciting to me like it is to others I guess. The game has lost its balance.

Well, on my part, it has actually been more interesting. I usually look at stats and find patterns (admittedly not an expert but I'm learning) and watch games (mostly warriors, OKC, spurs and cavs) and see how teams counter the trend like big line-up vs small ball or defense vs offense. Then I'm also interested to see how repetitive betting on good odds (similar to playing in a poker game) will pay-off for us.

For instance, I'm seeing teams starting to value the once undervalued big PFs (specially the ones who are good offensive rebounders), because they are naturally/mostly better scorers than Cs and are more mobile (see Spurs&Cavs). Unpopular opinion, but I do think rim protector Cs value will decline (not saying they will be obsolete, just decline), with the defense being more of an collective effort and lethargic on offense but good rim protector C are dime a dozen. I also see Cavs and Spurs doing good counters against small ball. They have their ways in slowing the game down and taking advantage of smaller teams.

The game do evolve and it's kind of interesting to see how it unfolds.

[kriss73]

I just realized (via http://www.lotterybucket.com/) that the probability of Sixers picking no higher than #3 or the Lakers picking no higher than #4 (so basically that the Sixers have a pick in the range 3-5 at least) currently is about 77%.

So It makes a lot of sense to have interest or to workout guys like Dunn etc.

[Ericb5]

That, and the fact thatin the 2000s a prospect like Simmons would've been one of the most obvious #1 picks of the decade, who was going to dominate the NBA from day 1. Thing is, the league has evolved and Simmons can only thrive in a system built around him. He needs to be surrounded by shooters and he needs the ball in his hands. How many teams are looking to add non-shooters who don't play center? Like two lol. Can he play PG like Giannis or become a defensive force like Draymond Green? Maybe.

If I'm Philly I trade down, unless you're willing to trade away 1 or 2 of Embiid, Okafor, or Noels to build a team around Simmons at PF... Or take Ingram.

All of this talk about the modern NBA and how the game has changed is all hogwash. What we have is a wave of new coaching styles that has ramped up the offense in the league.

Talent is still talent. Name me a single old style player that would have been a star 10 years ago that isn't a star now.

Simmons is a superstar, and will be a superstar in today's NBA or in the NBA of the 80's.

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

The game has changed. It's not saying talent is obsolete. It's just things that were valued more before isn't as valued as right now. And you want to funnel assets/talent on things that has heavy impact to how the game is currently played.

A good example of this is with the Bobcats, Kemba was midrange heavy, MKG can't shoot and Al J is post heavy. With MKG and Al J going down, the team (including Kemba who's averaging 2.2 3pt makes per game) shoots more 3 and is playing much better.

You want your offense's primary option at the perimeter because of 3 > 2 and it's less challenged because of the handcheck rule change. That kind of had a big ripple effect to the totality of the game.

I'd put it this way. I'd rather have a PF who can shoot/score (provides reliable tertiary option on offense) and can provide rim protection (defensive rotation) than a PF who has elite ball handling skills and is a poor rim protector like Simmons. And at SF? I'd rather have a guy who can shoot and not crowd the paint.

Altho, these guys are young and your bayes case change as these guys evolve.

The game has changed, but that doesn't mean that it will be like this forever. I wouldn't be surprised if they change the rules at some point since this modern game is less exciting than it was. As Mark Cuban mentioned recently, the 3 point line could be moved back a bit which would lessen the impact of stretch 4's. Who knows what will happen in the coming years?

We shouldn't make draft decisions based on the style of play in the league. Talent still trumps everything else. The NBA is a player's league.

[ET Da Gawd]

Simmons is a SF, really dont know what the argument is about.

[eyeatoma]

http://espn.go.com/nba/lottery2016/mockdraft#

Bad news guys, just played this 4 times and didn't get in the top 2 any of those times.

Got the 4 & 5 twice in a row though.

I just ran it and we got the #! and #4 pick the first 2 tries...

[iMoreland]

Simmons is a SF, really dont know what the argument is about.

*Point Forward

[sixers23]

Simmons is a SF, really dont know what the argument is about.

the argument is that hes clearly not

[sixerswillrule]

Simmons is a SF, really dont know what the argument is about.

The argument is that his lack of shooting will be a big problem at SF unless he's got Al Horford and Kevin Love next to him, and that he'll be a lot more effective taking PFs off the dribble than SFs. The same exact reasons Odom, Josh Smith, Thad Young, Saric, etc all play PF and not SF.

[Mik317]

why are we acting like any of these guys are finished products?

like holy **** guys...everyone we draft will have to work on many things in order to reach their potential...thats kinda how it works. Simmons can't shoot at the moment. That sucks. But can we stop acting like he can't do ANYTHING well. You dudes are building teams down the line but are acting like guys will NEVER get any better at things they suck at.

Its made even more mindblowing that people are now doing this to dudes who played 1 year in college and ****. Hield may be the onyl guy in the discussion who we have enough evidence to prove that he is near his peak..and even then he got massively better over the last 3 years.

Players can get better. If we truly believe in our staff, then that is legit exactly what we are looking to happen, no?

Its frustrating as hell to see people go "oh he'll NEVER be this or that" about 19-20 year olds.... NBA training is some good ****.

Like I get it, we are afraid of dudes not being able to shoot. But Simmons has a gdlk first step (super important), gdlk touch, and good handles. And while he's not Alien level like Ingram in terms of length..he's still a big and fast guy who will not be an easy cover..no jumper or not because of his passing ability and the extra spacing the NBA games has...even with our ass tier shooters. Those Jerami Grant Yolo drives will be there for Simmons...difference is that he probably can finish them and if not know to pass the ball instead of just running through folks. This is how you have to approach this. We currently have guys in roles they can't match and even those scrubs occasionally get things done (the aforementioned Grant yolo drives for example, All the **** Ish does as well Dunn could probably replicate but be a better defender and better finisher) and if you replace them with better talents (which no matter what this draft has...even if by default) and suddenly **** changes.

I really think people are thinking too hard. Not sayign its Simmons over Ingram all day (its not) but geeze some are going out of their way to disparage dude to make their points lately.

[cksdayoff]

i want buddy hield on the sixers

[76ciology]

All of this talk about the modern NBA and how the game has changed is all hogwash. What we have is a wave of new coaching styles that has ramped up the offense in the league.

Talent is still talent. Name me a single old style player that would have been a star 10 years ago that isn't a star now.

Simmons is a superstar, and will be a superstar in today's NBA or in the NBA of the 80's.

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

The game has changed. It's not saying talent is obsolete. It's just things that were valued more before isn't as valued as right now. And you want to funnel assets/talent on things that has heavy impact to how the game is currently played.

A good example of this is with the Bobcats, Kemba was midrange heavy, MKG can't shoot and Al J is post heavy. With MKG and Al J going down, the team (including Kemba who's averaging 2.2 3pt makes per game) shoots more 3 and is playing much better.

You want your offense's primary option at the perimeter because of 3 > 2 and it's less challenged because of the handcheck rule change. That kind of had a big ripple effect to the totality of the game.

I'd put it this way. I'd rather have a PF who can shoot/score (provides reliable tertiary option on offense) and can provide rim protection (defensive rotation) than a PF who has elite ball handling skills and is a poor rim protector like Simmons. And at SF? I'd rather have a guy who can shoot and not crowd the paint.

Altho, these guys are young and your bayes case change as these guys evolve.

The game has changed, but that doesn't mean that it will be like this forever. I wouldn't be surprised if they change the rules at some point since this modern game is less exciting than it was. As Mark Cuban mentioned recently, the 3 point line could be moved back a bit which would lessen the impact of stretch 4's. Who knows what will happen in the coming years?

We shouldn't make draft decisions based on the style of play in the league. Talent still trumps everything else. The NBA is a player's league.

Depends on talent difference. For instance..

KP vs Jahlil vs WCS

You pick KP over Jah, because talent difference between Jah and KP is almost the same while KP's style fits the modern NBA. (Altho, Jah can adjust his game like most bigs and close the gap)

You pick jah over wcs, because Jah has superior talent than WCS that even WCS's game is far suited with the current "finish around the rim and rim
Protector or defense heavy game" model at C. (Altho, there's a possible situation where WCS = Jah since it's easier for him to provide positive impact than Jah since defense is a much more appreciated value at C than offense)

Between Ingram and Simmons, I see not much difference in talent while Ingram's game is far more suited with the way the game is played. Considering Simmons is a poor shooting, average at best rim protector and elite ball handler PF.

Well, this is subjective and that's how I look at it.

[Kolkmania]

The game has changed. It's not saying talent is obsolete. It's just things that were valued more before isn't as valued as right now. And you want to funnel assets/talent on things that has heavy impact to how the game is currently played.

A good example of this is with the Bobcats, Kemba was midrange heavy, MKG can't shoot and Al J is post heavy. With MKG and Al J going down, the team (including Kemba who's averaging 2.2 3pt makes per game) shoots more 3 and is playing much better.

You want your offense's primary option at the perimeter because of 3 > 2 and it's less challenged because of the handcheck rule change. That kind of had a big ripple effect to the totality of the game.

I'd put it this way. I'd rather have a PF who can shoot/score (provides reliable tertiary option on offense) and can provide rim protection (defensive rotation) than a PF who has elite ball handling skills and is a poor rim protector like Simmons. And at SF? I'd rather have a guy who can shoot and not crowd the paint.

Altho, these guys are young and your bayes case change as these guys evolve.

The game has changed, but that doesn't mean that it will be like this forever. I wouldn't be surprised if they change the rules at some point since this modern game is less exciting than it was. As Mark Cuban mentioned recently, the 3 point line could be moved back a bit which would lessen the impact of stretch 4's. Who knows what will happen in the coming years?

We shouldn't make draft decisions based on the style of play in the league. Talent still trumps everything else. The NBA is a player's league.

Depends on talent difference. For instance..

KP vs Jahlil vs WCS

You pick KP over Jah, because talent difference between Jah and KP is almost the same while KP's style fits the modern NBA. (Altho, Jah can adjust his game like most bigs and close the gap)

You pick jah over wcs, because Jah has superior talent than WCS that even WCS's game is far suited with the current "finish around the rim and rim
Protector or defense heavy game" model at C. (Altho, there's a possible situation where WCS = Jah since it's easier for him to provide positive impact than Jah since defense is a much more appreciated value at C than offense)

Between Ingram and Simmons, I see not much difference in talent while Ingram's game is far more suited with the way the game is played. Considering Simmons is a poor shooting, average at best rim protector and elite ball handler PF.

Well, this is subjective and that's how I look at it.

I agree, but the main question should be: Is Ingram in the same tier as Simmons?

I'm not sure. Ingram gets compared to Durant a lot, but to me Durant was on a different level. Could work from the post, his stop and pop game was nearly impossible to defend due to his size and high release point and he was a better rebounder. I think Ingram will be having more difficulties to score in the NBA, his release is not as quick, release point not as high and not an incredible leaper. But off course he has great potential, especially on the defensive end with his gigantic wingspan.

Simmons is a star. Everything is silky smooth, his appearance, the handles, passing, etc. I'm actually quite sure he will add a decent jumper to his repertoire, we've all seen the high school highlights and the interviews where he admits working on it at a daily basis. I'm just not sure where he fits? He's a PF first and could be a SF with a stretch 4 who is able to switch to smaller players on the defensive end. A frontcourt with Okafor and Simmons is a disaster, his pairing with Noel would be better, but a Crowder like SF is necessary to make it work.

[Wilfried]

Simmons is a SF, really dont know what the argument is about.

the argument is that hes clearly not

Is Duncan a PF or center?
Curry a PG or SG?
LeBron a SF, PG or PF?
Wade a PG or SG?
Is Nowitzki a SF, PF or a C?
...

If you are a top player, maybe your position really doesn't matter?
It helps if you can be a mismatch at a lot of positions. That's the main question, can he be that, or will his lack of shooting and D prevent him from becoming that. If not, he's probably a future HOF'er.

[lotto29]

The game has changed, but that doesn't mean that it will be like this forever. I wouldn't be surprised if they change the rules at some point since this modern game is less exciting than it was. As Mark Cuban mentioned recently, the 3 point line could be moved back a bit which would lessen the impact of stretch 4's. Who knows what will happen in the coming years?

We shouldn't make draft decisions based on the style of play in the league. Talent still trumps everything else. The NBA is a player's league.

Depends on talent difference. For instance..

KP vs Jahlil vs WCS

You pick KP over Jah, because talent difference between Jah and KP is almost the same while KP's style fits the modern NBA. (Altho, Jah can adjust his game like most bigs and close the gap)

You pick jah over wcs, because Jah has superior talent than WCS that even WCS's game is far suited with the current "finish around the rim and rim
Protector or defense heavy game" model at C. (Altho, there's a possible situation where WCS = Jah since it's easier for him to provide positive impact than Jah since defense is a much more appreciated value at C than offense)

Between Ingram and Simmons, I see not much difference in talent while Ingram's game is far more suited with the way the game is played. Considering Simmons is a poor shooting, average at best rim protector and elite ball handler PF.

Well, this is subjective and that's how I look at it.

I agree, but the main question should be: Is Ingram in the same tier as Simmons?

I'm not sure. Ingram gets compared to Durant a lot, but to me Durant was on a different level. Could work from the post, his stop and pop game was nearly impossible to defend due to his size and high release point and he was a better rebounder. I think Ingram will be having more difficulties to score in the NBA, his release is not as quick, release point not as high and not an incredible leaper. But off course he has great potential, especially on the defensive end with his gigantic wingspan.

Simmons is a star. Everything is silky smooth, his appearance, the handles, passing, etc. I'm actually quite sure he will add a decent jumper to his repertoire, we've all seen the high school highlights and the interviews where he admits working on it at a daily basis. I'm just not sure where he fits? He's a PF first and could be a SF with a stretch 4 who is able to switch to smaller players on the defensive end. A frontcourt with Okafor and Simmons is a disaster, his pairing with Noel would be better, but a Crowder like SF is necessary to make it work.

He isn't Durant. He is more like Paul George. Simmons is more like Blake. Who do you want? Paul George or Blake (ceiling)?

[freshie2]

Blake never had Simmons handle/passing, so I'm not sure that's his ceiling. Unless he bombs the interview, he's still the number 1 pick. When you have that pick, you draft for a star...Simmons has more of a star quality.

[76ciology]

Depends on talent difference. For instance..

KP vs Jahlil vs WCS

You pick KP over Jah, because talent difference between Jah and KP is almost the same while KP's style fits the modern NBA. (Altho, Jah can adjust his game like most bigs and close the gap)

You pick jah over wcs, because Jah has superior talent than WCS that even WCS's game is far suited with the current "finish around the rim and rim
Protector or defense heavy game" model at C. (Altho, there's a possible situation where WCS = Jah since it's easier for him to provide positive impact than Jah since defense is a much more appreciated value at C than offense)

Between Ingram and Simmons, I see not much difference in talent while Ingram's game is far more suited with the way the game is played. Considering Simmons is a poor shooting, average at best rim protector and elite ball handler PF.

Well, this is subjective and that's how I look at it.

I agree, but the main question should be: Is Ingram in the same tier as Simmons?

I'm not sure. Ingram gets compared to Durant a lot, but to me Durant was on a different level. Could work from the post, his stop and pop game was nearly impossible to defend due to his size and high release point and he was a better rebounder. I think Ingram will be having more difficulties to score in the NBA, his release is not as quick, release point not as high and not an incredible leaper. But off course he has great potential, especially on the defensive end with his gigantic wingspan.

Simmons is a star. Everything is silky smooth, his appearance, the handles, passing, etc. I'm actually quite sure he will add a decent jumper to his repertoire, we've all seen the high school highlights and the interviews where he admits working on it at a daily basis. I'm just not sure where he fits? He's a PF first and could be a SF with a stretch 4 who is able to switch to smaller players on the defensive end. A frontcourt with Okafor and Simmons is a disaster, his pairing with Noel would be better, but a Crowder like SF is necessary to make it work.

He isn't Durant. He is more like Paul George. Simmons is more like Blake. Who do you want? Paul George or Blake (ceiling)?

Paul George. Problem lies if he's the next Khris Middleton.

[lotto29]

I agree, but the main question should be: Is Ingram in the same tier as Simmons?

I'm not sure. Ingram gets compared to Durant a lot, but to me Durant was on a different level. Could work from the post, his stop and pop game was nearly impossible to defend due to his size and high release point and he was a better rebounder. I think Ingram will be having more difficulties to score in the NBA, his release is not as quick, release point not as high and not an incredible leaper. But off course he has great potential, especially on the defensive end with his gigantic wingspan.

Simmons is a star. Everything is silky smooth, his appearance, the handles, passing, etc. I'm actually quite sure he will add a decent jumper to his repertoire, we've all seen the high school highlights and the interviews where he admits working on it at a daily basis. I'm just not sure where he fits? He's a PF first and could be a SF with a stretch 4 who is able to switch to smaller players on the defensive end. A frontcourt with Okafor and Simmons is a disaster, his pairing with Noel would be better, but a Crowder like SF is necessary to make it work.

He isn't Durant. He is more like Paul George. Simmons is more like Blake. Who do you want? Paul George or Blake (ceiling)?

Paul George.

Me too buddy.