Official #1 pick thread: Simmons or Ingram? Merging topics and a Poll

[tk76]

I'm not so focused on fit for this current roster. But I do think a big part of determining BPA is how well a player fits on a contending squad. You eventually need multiple stars, so you have to look at how well Ingram or Simmons fit alongside additional stars.

On one hand Ingram is easier to build with because he would fit well with any other star. But on the flip side, Simmons is probably the better complement to Embiid and/or Noel.

Tough choice. I'm still leaning Ingram. But if Simmons is clearly the superior player then that would trump the issue above. A lot depends on whether you think Simmons will ever develop a respectable jumper.

[Agnostifarian]

4th issue for Ben - attitude

[76ciology]

Not totally disagreeing with you, but doesn't Blake Griffin dominate the paint without "freak" length ?

Lengths, limits his deflection numbers. Shooting, limits his offensive numbers. If you look at his offensive numbers, one of the biggest reason that it is on the uptrend is because of the development of his shooting.

[76ciology]

All players have weaknesses and their bodies are not Lebron. Simmons could be great if he could be an offensive point guard (Magic) and a defensive two guard. At any other position , with his terrible shooting , his liabiliy will keep him from being excellent.

I seriously doubt Simmons is Magic.Just pick the need, Ingram, and start to put a properly balanced team together If Simmons turns out better, you have a logical rationale for not choosing him in the 2016 NBA draft.

Yes, all players have weakness. It's just you can't improve wingspan to height ratio. And Simmons is starting at a low base rate for his shooting. He's 20 next year, Kawhi is already shooting 37% from 3, LBJ @ 35%. He's still deciding which hand should be his shooting hand.

[ET Da Gawd]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUrweg1MLBw[/youtube]
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WjH6zDTVMI[/youtube]
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovWrlaq-ieI[/youtube]

[PhilasFinest]

Not totally disagreeing with you, but doesn't Blake Griffin dominate the paint without "freak" length ?

Lengths, limits his deflection numbers. Shooting, limits his offensive numbers. If you look at his offensive numbers, one of the biggest reason that it is on the uptrend is because of the development of his shooting.

So Simmons at 19 is a little longer than Griffin and is probably a better shooter than Griffin was at Oklahoma.

What's to say Simmons can't improve shooting to at least the level Griffin has, if not better?

Obviously he isn't the freakish leaper Griffin is, but he still manages to rebound extremely well, can finish inside and around the baske with both hands and is better with the ball in his hands.

Despite lack of freak length and a limited jumper...Griffin has essentially averaged 22-10-4 over his career.

[PhilasFinest]

All players have weaknesses and their bodies are not Lebron. Simmons could be great if he could be an offensive point guard (Magic) and a defensive two guard. At any other position , with his terrible shooting , his liabiliy will keep him from being excellent.

I seriously doubt Simmons is Magic.Just pick the need, Ingram, and start to put a properly balanced team together If Simmons turns out better, you have a logical rationale for not choosing him in the 2016 NBA draft.

Yes, all players have weakness. It's just you can't improve wingspan to height ratio. And Simmons is starting at a low base rate for his shooting. He's 20 next year, Kawhi is already shooting 37% from 3, LBJ @ 35%. He's still deciding which hand should be his shooting hand.

LeBron shot 35% from 3 when he was 20. He then regressed and didn't reach the 35+% Mark until he was 27.

[76ciology]

Not totally disagreeing with you, but doesn't Blake Griffin dominate the paint without "freak" length ?

Lengths, limits his deflection numbers. Shooting, limits his offensive numbers. If you look at his offensive numbers, one of the biggest reason that it is on the uptrend is because of the development of his shooting.

So Simmons at 19 is a little longer than Griffin and is probably a better shooter than Griffin was at Oklahoma.

What's to say Simmons can't improve shooting to at least the level Griffin has, if not better?

Obviously he isn't the freakish leaper Griffin is, but he still manages to rebound extremely well, can finish inside and around the baske with both hands and is better with the ball in his hands.

Despite lack of freak length and a limited jumper...Griffin has essentially averaged 22-10-4 over his career.

Because Griffin is worked the right hand. Ben is a natural right handed but he shoots with his left. Griffin is starting at a better base rate than Simmons.

Griffin's position at PF doesn't require that much shooting compared to the wings. So not being that good of a 3pt shooter is a non issue. While we whine about Wiggins and Derozan's lack of 3s and mid range heavy game at the wing position.

If Simmons' upside is Blake Griffin, I'd select Ingram who's I'm assured got freakish length, good skillset and already is a great shooter.

The issue is not whether Simmons is a bad prospect or not. The issue is can you disregard these flaws about Simmons that you are willing to pick him over Ingram?

[tk76]

Matt Carrey at LB expressed it well:

When people talk about fit with Ingram, for me, the appeal isn't his ability to fit with this team as currently constructed, but rather the ability to fit with any team as constructed. If you pick Ingram, there's not really any limits to the type of players you can surround him with. You have a lot more margin for error.

With Simmons, you absolutely need certain types of players, and those players are above-average shooters at the 1-3 and a center who isn't a paint clogger. All of a sudden, every pick going forward you make has to be for fit because you can't pick guys who don't complement your star.

Now, if you think Simmons is more likely to be a top 5 player than Ingram by a significant margin, pick Simmons. You don't pass on a star because it might be tough to find a serviceable 2-guard some day. I think the margins are a lot closer than most, though. If you ask me today, I think I would pick Ingram because I think he's going to be great and as a bonus, he allows you to maximize the talent around him

On the flip side, Simmons fits well with Embiid, and that might trump the concerns above.

[76ciology]

Wingspan and Shooting.

That are premium in the NBA. Thus teams like the Spurs and OKC value these.

Wingspan allows you to be more dynamic on defense, wings can protect the paint and bigs can sag off a bit at perimeter and still challenge shots.

Shooting allows you to be more dynamic on offense because of the hand check rule. When defender gets close to you, below athletic guys like Diaw and Horford can do a drive and draw.

Watch the play-offs or the best teams in the league, it's basically a shooting contest on offense and rotation heavy on defense.

Ingram is elite with his wingspan and shooting.

[76ciology]

Matt Carrey at LB expressed it well:

When people talk about fit with Ingram, for me, the appeal isn't his ability to fit with this team as currently constructed, but rather the ability to fit with any team as constructed. If you pick Ingram, there's not really any limits to the type of players you can surround him with. You have a lot more margin for error.

With Simmons, you absolutely need certain types of players, and those players are above-average shooters at the 1-3 and a center who isn't a paint clogger. All of a sudden, every pick going forward you make has to be for fit because you can't pick guys who don't complement your star.

Now, if you think Simmons is more likely to be a top 5 player than Ingram by a significant margin, pick Simmons. You don't pass on a star because it might be tough to find a serviceable 2-guard some day. I think the margins are a lot closer than most, though. If you ask me today, I think I would pick Ingram because I think he's going to be great and as a bonus, he allows you to maximize the talent around him

On the flip side, Simmons fits well with Embiid, and that might trump the concerns above.

You'll need to build a specific team to hide Ingram's flaws and unconventional strengths.

FWIW, i have the same sentiment with LB's Carey on this. You just can't go wrong with Ingram. He is low risk and high upside.

[PhilasFinest]

Lengths, limits his deflection numbers. Shooting, limits his offensive numbers. If you look at his offensive numbers, one of the biggest reason that it is on the uptrend is because of the development of his shooting.

So Simmons at 19 is a little longer than Griffin and is probably a better shooter than Griffin was at Oklahoma.

What's to say Simmons can't improve shooting to at least the level Griffin has, if not better?

Obviously he isn't the freakish leaper Griffin is, but he still manages to rebound extremely well, can finish inside and around the baske with both hands and is better with the ball in his hands.

Despite lack of freak length and a limited jumper...Griffin has essentially averaged 22-10-4 over his career.

Because Griffin is worked the right hand. Ben is a natural right handed but he shoots with his left. Griffin is starting at a better base rate than Simmons.

Griffin's position at PF doesn't require that much shooting compared to the wings. So not being that good of a 3pt shooter is a non issue. While we whine about Wiggins and Derozan's lack of 3s and mid range heavy game at the wing position.

If Simmons' upside is Blake Griffin, I'd select Ingram who's I'm assured got freakish length, good skillset and already is a great shooter.

The issue is not whether Simmons is a bad prospect or not. The issue is can you disregard these flaws about Simmons that you are willing to pick him over Ingram?

Isn't Simmons projected to be a PF too?

I mean sure his skillset allows him to possibly play the 3, but I'd think early on he'd be best suited at the 4, where he's a bigger mismatch and the position doesn't require much shooting.

[tk76]

Looking down the road, I can easily see a contender built around Embbid-Ingram and a top star through trade/FA like Westbrook (not him, but some ball dominant top 15 star.) They have the assets and cap space to add that type of player once Ingram and Embiid establish themselves as worthy.

I can also see the team building around Simmons-Embiid, but I have a harder time imagining easily slotting in a 3rd star. I guess someone like George would work, but I'm not sure many top 15 stars would want to join a Simmons-Embiid pairing knowing that they would have to fill a lesser role as a shooter. Bosh agreed to this on Miami, and it is what the Cavs want from Love. But overall it is much harder to find that 3rd star to fit with Simmons as opposed to one that goes with Ingram.

[76ciology]

Looking down the road, I can easily see a contender built around Embbid-Ingram and a top star through trade/FA like Westbrook (not him, but some ball dominant top 15 star.) They have the assets and cap space to add that type of player once Ingram and Embiid establish themselves as worthy.

I can also see the team building around Simmons-Embiid, but I have a harder time imagining easily slotting in a 3rd star. I guess someone like George would work, but I'm not sure many top 15 stars would want to join a Simmons-Embiid pairing knowing that they would have to fill a lesser role as a shooter. Bosh agreed to this on Miami, and it is what the Cavs want from Love. But overall it is much harder to find that 3rd star that one that goes with Ingram.

Personally, I think Ingram is best playing with the Heatles/current cavs build. That means with another star wing/guard (kyrie or wade) and a two way star stretch 4 (bosh/love)

[PhilasFinest]

There is risk with Ingram too.

There's risk that he doesn't develop his body.
There's risk that he can't beat guys off the bounce and create space to score at at elite level.
There's risk that he becomes simply a spot up wing that needs someone to create shots for him.

It's not like Ingram is a slam dunk, can miss prospect compared to Simmons.

[PhilasFinest]

Looking down the road, I can easily see a contender built around Embbid-Ingram and a top star through trade/FA like Westbrook (not him, but some ball dominant top 15 star.) They have the assets and cap space to add that type of player once Ingram and Embiid establish themselves as worthy.

I can also see the team building around Simmons-Embiid, but I have a harder time imagining easily slotting in a 3rd star. I guess someone like George would work, but I'm not sure many top 15 stars would want to join a Simmons-Embiid pairing knowing that they would have to fill a lesser role as a shooter. Bosh agreed to this on Miami, and it is what the Cavs want from Love. But overall it is much harder to find that 3rd star that one that goes with Ingram.

Personally, I think Ingram is best playing with the Heatles/current cavs build. That means with another star wing/guard (kyrie or wade) and a two way star stretch 4 (bosh/love)

That's pretty much the ideal build for any player though, including Simmons.

[tk76]

There is risk with Ingram too.
...

It's not like Ingram is a slam dunk, can miss prospect compared to Simmons.

True, but if that is the case for both players, a non-ceiling Ingram works better on a contender than a non-ceiling Simmons who can't shoot and must control the ball to be maximized. On a contender I'd take a rich man's Covington over Simmons if he never develops a jumper. That version of Ingram is still a starter on a contender.

[Jack Bauer]

Don't forget we have Dario Saric whom draft experts are calling Simmons-lite coming too.

The only plus he has over Simmons is that he's a much better mid range jump shooter but you can't call him a shooter per se. So having Saric and Simmons on the floor together is almost redundant. Ingram and Saric would fit way better (+1 to Matt Carey's point).

[tk76]

I actually think Saric will fit great in a rotation with either player- both sharing the floor and off the bench.

[PhilasFinest]

There is risk with Ingram too.
...

It's not like Ingram is a slam dunk, can miss prospect compared to Simmons.

True, but if that is the case for both players, a non-ceiling Ingram works better on a contender than a non-ceiling Simmons who can't shoot and must control the ball to be maximized. On a contender I'd take a rich man's Covington over Simmons if he never develops a jumper. That version of Ingram is still a starter on a contender.

This is the #1 pick. The opportunity rarely comes around. I'm not looking for someone who "works" on a contender or a rich man's Covington. I'm looking for a star player to build around.

I know I am coming off as pro Simmons which I am at the moment to an extent. I like Ingram too and honestly don't care who we take...but I just dislike the fact that people are tearing apart every little "flaw" Simmons has yet selling Ingram on his strengths and not looking at him in the same light.