Bryan Colangelo recap from 97.5 interview

[SparksFly87]

Simmons is point forward "3" /4 who can play point guard for spurts. Saric is a stretch 4 . The can definitely play together. I think Simmons will be our starting 3 in a lebron type role. I think Okafor/Embiid/ Noel are all better suited as centers and one or two will land us a a big time guard to compliment simmons .

Saric , Grant and Holmes are all ppower forwards adept to stepping out on perimeter . The suit simmons well at the 3 .

[SparksFly87]

Simmons is point forward "3" /4 who can play point guard for spurts. Saric is a stretch 4 . The can definitely play together. I think Simmons will be our starting 3 in a lebron type role. I think Okafor/Embiid/ Noel are all better suited as centers and one or two will land us a a big time guard to compliment simmons .

Saric , Grant and Holmes are all ppower forwards adept to stepping out on perimeter . They suit simmons well at the 3 .

[Ericb5]

Simmons also won't be able to drive like he did in college, because he won't have the type of strength advantage ge had. He won't refund like he did in college, either. And while he has quick feet and a good bounce, he just isn't a Lebron type athlete coming in. And the defense, coupled with the losses...

His feet, bounce and skill at 6'9/6'10 240 make him a top prospect. But the hype on him is really overblown. Reminds me of the hype around Beasley, or a way back before, Darius Miles... Didn't turn out so great for the drafting teams.

Simmons is the all potential Tyrus Thomas or Bargnani... Ingram is the safe, boring Aldridge pick. Sixers have real talent with Oak, maybe with Embiid, too. Have assets to add more. Can't afford a miss because they swung for the fences when the triple is right there.

All due respect but I think the exact opposite on most of this. With the spacing provided in the modern NBA Simmons is going to get into the paint just as easy as in college, and against a lot of 4's maybe even more easily.

Beasley in college wasn't close to Simmons as a facilitator, Simmons vision is one of his greatest strengths. And Miles was an all potential athlete who needed to develop skills while Simmons offensively lacks a jumper and what else? Aside from shooting and length what does Ingram do better? And that's a legit question as I'm more familiar with Simmons than Ingram as far as watching full games.

Yeah, he'll get a lot of space at the perimeter. That's the spacing he'll get.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvF_1fXJxJc[/youtube]

Watch how defenders defend him on halfcourt.

We are talking about prospects here, and not players that need to be scouted for a current game.

How players defended him in college is only based on how good he was in college.

Also, just reading the comments by the Ingram fans here it seems like there is a common theme of forgetting about Embiid.

If Embiid is healthy and what we think he is then he will be the primary focus on offense and defense. Simmons' primary job in the half court will be getting Embiid(and Okafor if we keep him) the ball.

[PhilasFinest]

LOL.

Did someone really try to compare Simmons to Bargnani and Tyrus Thomas (who are nothing alike) ?

Simmons has some legit skills, and a rare combo for someone of his size. He lacks freakish length and a jump shot.

How does Simmons compare to:

1.Bargnani:a big euro with a smooth jump shot out to 3, limited ball skills (handle/passing) and athleticism.

2.Tyrus Thomas:a raw athlete with high level measurements and limited basketball skills.

Also, I often see a lot of Beasley mentioned with Simmons.

Beasley never lacked talent. He lacks the IQ and desire to be a high level basketball player, and off the court issues plagued him.

If Beasley had his head on straight and devoted the necessary time/work early on, he would be a problem in the league. Despite not giving a rats ass about much, he can still to this day come in to a game and score 20.

[76ciology]

All due respect but I think the exact opposite on most of this. With the spacing provided in the modern NBA Simmons is going to get into the paint just as easy as in college, and against a lot of 4's maybe even more easily.

Beasley in college wasn't close to Simmons as a facilitator, Simmons vision is one of his greatest strengths. And Miles was an all potential athlete who needed to develop skills while Simmons offensively lacks a jumper and what else? Aside from shooting and length what does Ingram do better? And that's a legit question as I'm more familiar with Simmons than Ingram as far as watching full games.

Yeah, he'll get a lot of space at the perimeter. That's the spacing he'll get.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvF_1fXJxJc[/youtube]

Watch how defenders defend him on halfcourt.

We are talking about prospects here, and not players that need to be scouted for a current game.

How players defended him in college is only based on how good he was in college.

Also, just reading the comments by the Ingram fans here it seems like there is a common theme of forgetting about Embiid.

If Embiid is healthy and what we think he is then he will be the primary focus on offense and defense. Simmons' primary job in the half court will be getting Embiid(and Okafor if we keep him) the ball.

I don't think we use no.1 pick for that.

How he was defended in college, is under the presumption that he won't be a better shooter. That is under the argument that he will still be very good even without the jumper. If we disregard that hypothesis, then can we now agree that Ben Simmons will be a limited player if his shooting doesn't improve?

[76ciology]

For now, the two obvious red flags I see with Simmons are..

1.) Length issue
- Height to wingspan ratio, even if 7' wingspan is right. At 6'10, needs to be around 7'2" wingspan to be considered very good.

Great wingspan measurements comes from players of all heights. An elite wingspan is considered as a measurement that is 6.5% greater than the player’s height. Great height does not necessarily equate elite wingspan. Take for instance Yao Ming, who stood an impressive 7’6, but his wingspan was actually smaller than his height at 7’5 inches. Then you have a player like Dwyane Wade who is 6’5, but has a wingspan of 6’10. That is 6.5% greater than his height. The following top 15 will look at the most impressive wingspans in NBA history.

- 8'7" standing reach is major red flag (2015 hoops summit where Ingram was measured 7'3 wingspan and 9'2" reach)

PLEASE CHECK THIS LINK
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-freakish-advantage-of-nba-all-stars-1455224954


2.) Shooting
- It's a touch issue where he's shooting with the wrong hand. And I do think that's more problematic than just tweaking shooting mechanics.
http://www.sbnation.com/college-basketball/2016/2/16/10966798/ben-simmons-nba-draft-scouting-report-jump-shot
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wyz_CnJL_xQ[/youtube]
Video taken a year ago. It's for you to decide whether he has improve in college or not. Numbers says not.

Conclusion:
You won't be able to dominate the paint as a big if you lack length. You won't be able to be a dominant scorer as a perimeter player without shooting. Shooting is a premium that is non-negotiable.

[Sixerscan]

- 8'7" standing reach is major red flag (2015 hoops summit where Ingram was measured 7'3 wingspan and 9'2" reach)

That standing reach measurement should have everyone's BS meters going off. There's no way his reach is only an inch longer than Stauskas. Either he sandbagged it to pump up his vertical or someone measured him wrong.

[Mik317]

I am starting to think 76ciology is related to Ingram...or getting paid by his team.

You are putting in work trying to discredit Simmons lol.

Or perhaps, he is apart of the Simmons to LA conspiracy.

hmmm..I'm watching you, Buddy.

(jk. All the info is great to read into. Keep up the good work)

[sixers23]

Bryan Colangelo being so set on his pick, this early in the game, makes me very concerned about his capability as our GM. I've always leaned toward Ingram in this debate, but if Simmons was able to show something special in his interview and workout, I wouldn't be opposed to picking him. However, it seems that our GM has tunnel vision on a significant decision for our franchise. Put both men through the ringer and then make a final choice based on what you saw.

if you dont have a preference between 2 guys at this point than you just arent watching enough. a workout shouldnt ever be a major factor

That doesn't make any sense. You collect data until the very end, then make the best decision. If we had a workout with Ingram and he showed tremendous improvement, I wouldn't write off taking him. At the same time, if Simmons has a superior workout that may solidify his spot at #1. It's very tempting to become intoxicated by our good fortune and make lazy choices as a result. We need to approach this draft with the discipline of an open mind.

In terms of trading Jah for picks, we also need to consider that we will have great picks in the coming years which are potentially deeper drafts.

Having a preference isn't the same as having made the choice already

[MGB8]

LOL.

Did someone really try to compare Simmons to Bargnani and Tyrus Thomas (who are nothing alike) ?

Simmons has some legit skills, and a rare combo for someone of his size. He lacks freakish length and a jump shot.

How does Simmons compare to:

1.Bargnani:a big euro with a smooth jump shot out to 3, limited ball skills (handle/passing) and athleticism.

2.Tyrus Thomas:a raw athlete with high level measurements and limited basketball skills.

Also, I often see a lot of Beasley mentioned with Simmons.

Beasley never lacked talent. He lacks the IQ and desire to be a high level basketball player, and off the court issues plagued him.

If Beasley had his head on straight and devoted the necessary time/work early on, he would be a problem in the league. Despite not giving a rats ass about much, he can still to this day come in to a game and score 20.

You completely missed the point on the comparisons. It wasn't about skillset. It was about projecting superstardom based on flash and athleticism and projction, rather than taking the guy who already has an NBA level skillset, a track record of winning, and NBA length, but maybe not quite the explosion that you want.

I am a Bulls fan from my time in school (even though Philly area, and also with some Minnesota ties - more football, though). I remember the Tyrus Thomas pick well. Thomas had an NBA level skillset - great ball handling and rebounding for a guy at 6'9. A slightly smaller KG - a guy who actually had defensive intensity. And, of course, unreal athleticism. But he didn't have a jumpshot. People said - no biggie, his form isn't broken, it can be fixed. You can't teach that unreal athleticism at that size. And his mental makeup was questioned. But people said - no biggie, lots of people vouch for him.

Aldridge, meanwhile, had ideal size at the 4... but he "slow" - not slow for a 4, slow in terms of not being a "superstar." And he was skinny for a 4-5 (even though his build suggested he'd fill out). Yeah, he was the Freshman leader of a winning team, with good production, a great attitude, maturity for his age, work ethic, and a great physical profile - but he wasn't "transcendent."

So the Bulls blew it. Took flash over substance. I'm afraid the Sixers are going to do the same thing.

Simmons is an exceptional driver for his size... but that is going against college kids who he can bully, and it wasn't consistently effective once he played better teams (with bigger, stronger, faster defenders), who also knew they did't have to respect his shot.

His team kind of stunk, as opposed to teams led by transcendent guys like... Melo? Wade? Rose? Kemba? Ok, maybe not even that transcendent... Maybe just very good.

His defense was poor, despite good instincts.

People on the Simmons train are projecting from his footspeed and bounce at 6'10, 240, along with his ball handling (for a big) and passing (a lot of the flashier plays, though, which would lead to turnovers in the NBA). They are projecting based on hype and flash. Just like people did with Tyrus.

Ingram, on the other hand, makes good, but generally safe/smart/disciplined, passes. His skillset will translate, but isn't as sexy as driving into a defender and making a tough layup or dunk. He can dribble well for his size, but not as good as Simmons. He has a variety of moves already, but lacks the type of strength and explosion that lets him barrell into the lane like Derozan or Lebron did. Ingram is a finesse player with elite size for his position, and more than ok athleticism. His build suggests his strength will be fine. Just like Aldridge was.

Even if Embiid is nothing, and Okafor is the "center of the future," the Sixers have an all-star level talent at the 5. You pair that with an all-star level talent at the 3, a guy who may be unstoppable on the wing just due to his length (how many 6'10 SFs with actual SF speed are there? With the type of length to context a freak like Ingram's shot?).

You take Ingram. You find out if Embiid is for real and, if there is a question, keep Oak and move Noel for a PG like Schroeder (even if you have to overpay a bit). If the Sixers get a trio core of Schroeder-Ingram-Oak/Embiid, that is a group of young guys that you could make into a champioship contender.

You don't gamble on Simmons knowing that now you have to try to remake the team (like getting value for trades is easy / common, when people know you have some need to move parts...).

[Ericb5]

Yeah, he'll get a lot of space at the perimeter. That's the spacing he'll get.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvF_1fXJxJc[/youtube]

Watch how defenders defend him on halfcourt.

We are talking about prospects here, and not players that need to be scouted for a current game.

How players defended him in college is only based on how good he was in college.

Also, just reading the comments by the Ingram fans here it seems like there is a common theme of forgetting about Embiid.

If Embiid is healthy and what we think he is then he will be the primary focus on offense and defense. Simmons' primary job in the half court will be getting Embiid(and Okafor if we keep him) the ball.

I don't think we use no.1 pick for that.

How he was defended in college, is under the presumption that he won't be a better shooter. That is under the argument that he will still be very good even without the jumper. If we disregard that hypothesis, then can we now agree that Ben Simmons will be a limited player if his shooting doesn't improve?

We use the number 1 pick for the most talented player we can get. Whether it is Simmons or Ingram they will still be secondary to Embiid.

If Simmons doesn't improve his shooting then he will be hampered for sure, but I don't think he needs to improve his shooting beyond mediocre to be a future MVP candidate.

[76ers 2020]

We are talking about prospects here, and not players that need to be scouted for a current game.

How players defended him in college is only based on how good he was in college.

You don't think it matters that Justice Winslow had a higher 3 point percentage than Klay Thompson in college? Or Tim Tebow had a higher completion percentage in college than Peyton Manning?

[Ericb5]

- 8'7" standing reach is major red flag (2015 hoops summit where Ingram was measured 7'3 wingspan and 9'2" reach)

That standing reach measurement should have everyone's BS meters going off. There's no way his reach is only an inch longer than Stauskas. Either he sandbagged it to pump up his vertical or someone measured him wrong.

Also, I can't see Ingram actually having a 9'2 reach. Noel has a 9'2 reach and he is at least 2 inches taller with longer arms.

[Agnostifarian]

I do think Saric would ask BC and BB on who they are leaning to draft right now. I think he'd prefer a player who doesn't play his role (think okafor-noel situation). So if Saric decides to come over here, I'd take that as a slight sign that the team will draft Ingram.

I think you're onto something here. If Saric comes, we take Ingram. Saric doesn't fit with Simmons, especially on defense.

Ingram has every bit of upside that Simmons does and picking Ingram doesn't force you to trade most of your other lottery picks. Simmons just isn't that good. Now that JoJo looks healthy, he is the one we are building around, IMO.

[Sixerscan]

I think saric can be convinced fairly easily that he and Simmons can play together. He's a competitor and I'm sure he thinks that he can play some 3 and Simmons' passing would open stuff up for him.

[SparksFly87]

Ben simmons is quick and athletic enough to guard the 3. I don't get why people see him as just a 4. He is a 3/4 point forward who can play some point guard.

[76ciology]

We are talking about prospects here, and not players that need to be scouted for a current game.

How players defended him in college is only based on how good he was in college.

Also, just reading the comments by the Ingram fans here it seems like there is a common theme of forgetting about Embiid.

If Embiid is healthy and what we think he is then he will be the primary focus on offense and defense. Simmons' primary job in the half court will be getting Embiid(and Okafor if we keep him) the ball.

I don't think we use no.1 pick for that.

How he was defended in college, is under the presumption that he won't be a better shooter. That is under the argument that he will still be very good even without the jumper. If we disregard that hypothesis, then can we now agree that Ben Simmons will be a limited player if his shooting doesn't improve?

We use the number 1 pick for the most talented player we can get. Whether it is Simmons or Ingram they will still be secondary to Embiid.

If Simmons doesn't improve his shooting then he will be hampered for sure, but I don't think he needs to improve his shooting beyond mediocre to be a future MVP candidate.

Hmm.. I don't agree with this and maybe it's just a personal opinion. There's really a good correlation between shooting and star ability that is hard to deny. There are terribly few outliers.

[76ciology]

- 8'7" standing reach is major red flag (2015 hoops summit where Ingram was measured 7'3 wingspan and 9'2" reach)

That standing reach measurement should have everyone's BS meters going off. There's no way his reach is only an inch longer than Stauskas. Either he sandbagged it to pump up his vertical or someone measured him wrong.

Also, I can't see Ingram actually having a 9'2 reach. Noel has a 9'2 reach and he is at least 2 inches taller with longer arms.

I buy that Ingram measurement.

But I also don't think that standing reach by Simmons is credible. But it came from a reliable source compared to a likely more bias one from LSU.

[Sixerscan]

I don't think we use no.1 pick for that.

How he was defended in college, is under the presumption that he won't be a better shooter. That is under the argument that he will still be very good even without the jumper. If we disregard that hypothesis, then can we now agree that Ben Simmons will be a limited player if his shooting doesn't improve?

We use the number 1 pick for the most talented player we can get. Whether it is Simmons or Ingram they will still be secondary to Embiid.

If Simmons doesn't improve his shooting then he will be hampered for sure, but I don't think he needs to improve his shooting beyond mediocre to be a future MVP candidate.

Hmm.. I don't agree with this and maybe it's just a personal opinion. There's really a good correlation between shooting and star ability that is hard to deny. There are terribly few outliers.

Well there are terribly few mvp candidates generally but lebron Westbrook and Derozen were all top 10 scorers as perimeter players with mediocre at best outside shots. Kwahi certainly couldn't shoot like he can now as a 19 year old.

There's a correlation and it's an important skill to be sure but not having it isn't disqualifying, especially at this stage of his development. This isn't a 22 year old turner were talking about.

[Ericb5]

That standing reach measurement should have everyone's BS meters going off. There's no way his reach is only an inch longer than Stauskas. Either he sandbagged it to pump up his vertical or someone measured him wrong.

Also, I can't see Ingram actually having a 9'2 reach. Noel has a 9'2 reach and he is at least 2 inches taller with longer arms.

I buy that Ingram measurement.

But I also don't think that standing reach by Simmons is credible. But it came from a reliable source compared to a likely more bias one from LSU.

Well something is amiss because Noel should be at least 2 inches better than his. Davis is less than Ingram's too, and he is taller with longer arms also.

I would expect Ingram's reach to be around 9'0 if Noel's is accurate, which was done at the combine which has historically been the most accurate place for measurements imo.