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

[PhilasFinest]

I see the analogy of AI and Barkley in that they were both unusual players for their size/position that you needed to work hard to build around. They were not the type that you could easily plug into any roster. They also had unique personalities that certainly effected their teams- sometimes for better and sometimes for worse.

This may be the case for every star, but Barkley and AI were extremes. While Erving was more of a prototypical wing for his era.

They may have been unusual, but they were star talents and capable of winning. The GM's failed to build a good enough team around them that was able to compete against the juggernaut Bulls/Lakers headlined by 2 all time greats.

You can't blame Iverson for never winning a title. The dude took a team of literally nobodies (sans Mutumbo) to the Finals on his back. Had he be given a legitimate 2nd option (Paul Pierce) things could have been drastically different.

[Ericb5]

I see the analogy of AI and Barkley in that they were both unusual players for their size/position that you needed to work hard to build around. They were not the type that you could easily plug into any roster. They also had unique personalities that certainly effected their teams- sometimes for better and sometimes for worse.

This may be the case for every star, but Barkley and AI were extremes. While Erving was more of a prototypical wing for his era.

The case against it is that they were undersized players that had something to prove in order to make it in this league.

Simmons is a 6'11 point guard (that can't shoot) and plays like he knows he's an anomaly, so he coasts at times.

You are over thinking this.

Iverson and Barkley were HOF talents, and well worth every negative thing that you could say about them in comparison to NOT having them.

Both Iverson and Barkely could have won titles with better teammates in their primes.

If Simmons turns into one of them then that is a huge win for us.

Embiid is the bigger difference maker here anyway. If Barkley or Iverson in their primes played with Hakeem in his prime they would have won multiple titles.

Embiid can be that here with a little luck.

This can work, and pay off on a huge way.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Negrodamus]

I see the analogy of AI and Barkley in that they were both unusual players for their size/position that you needed to work hard to build around. They were not the type that you could easily plug into any roster. They also had unique personalities that certainly effected their teams- sometimes for better and sometimes for worse.

This may be the case for every star, but Barkley and AI were extremes. While Erving was more of a prototypical wing for his era.

The case against it is that they were undersized players that had something to prove in order to make it in this league.

Simmons is a 6'11 point guard (that can't shoot) and plays like he knows he's an anomaly, so he coasts at times.

You are over thinking this.

Iverson and Barkley were HOF talents, and well worth every negative thing that you could say about them in comparison to NOT having them.

Both Iverson and Barkely could have won titles with better teammates in their primes.

If Simmons turns into one of them then that is a huge win for us.

Embiid is the bigger difference maker here anyway. If Barkley or Iverson in their primes played with Hakeem in his prime they would have won multiple titles.

Embiid can be that here with a little luck.

This can work, and pay off on a huge way.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't think I'm overthinking this. I'm not comparing Simmons to a Barkley or Iverson type player. I think Simmons could win multiple NBA championships like Lamar Odom did.

Simmons doesn't have the attitude that Barkley and Iverson did.

[Arsenal]

We'd be lucky if Simmons is as good as Iverson and/or Barkley. Both those guys would have won titles if not for INCOMPETENT management never surrounding them with great talent.

Thanks again to Harold Katz, Billy King, and Larry Brown.

[cksdayoff]

wally svklwjrewjrllbiak and chauncey billups are team ingram

[Agnostifarian]

wally svklwjrewjrllbiak and chauncey billups are team ingram

Obviously, they are idiots.

[PhilasFinest]

wally svklwjrewjrllbiak and chauncey billups are team ingram

NO WAY! THIS CHANGES......... EVERYTHING!!!!

[Unbreakable99]

wally svklwjrewjrllbiak and chauncey billups are team ingram

Again it's easier to say you like Ingram from afar and not suffer the consequences if you pass on him. No GM is going to pass on Simmons for Ingram. Simmons is also the better player so it's not trying to please the fan base. If eh were GM they would not take Ingram over Simmons. I'm so certain of that.

[Arsenal]

It doesn't matter what every Tom, Dick, and Harry thinks.

We are taking BEN SIMMONS.

[Ericb5]

The case against it is that they were undersized players that had something to prove in order to make it in this league.

Simmons is a 6'11 point guard (that can't shoot) and plays like he knows he's an anomaly, so he coasts at times.

You are over thinking this.

Iverson and Barkley were HOF talents, and well worth every negative thing that you could say about them in comparison to NOT having them.

Both Iverson and Barkely could have won titles with better teammates in their primes.

If Simmons turns into one of them then that is a huge win for us.

Embiid is the bigger difference maker here anyway. If Barkley or Iverson in their primes played with Hakeem in his prime they would have won multiple titles.

Embiid can be that here with a little luck.

This can work, and pay off on a huge way.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't think I'm overthinking this. I'm not comparing Simmons to a Barkley or Iverson type player. I think Simmons could win multiple NBA championships like Lamar Odom did.

Simmons doesn't have the attitude that Barkley and Iverson did.

Fair enough. I just think he is better than that.

Regardless of what either of us think, I think he objectively carries the higher risk of NOT taking him.

He is VERY likely to be the pick.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tk76]

I see the analogy of AI and Barkley in that they were both unusual players for their size/position that you needed to work hard to build around. They were not the type that you could easily plug into any roster. They also had unique personalities that certainly effected their teams- sometimes for better and sometimes for worse.

This may be the case for every star, but Barkley and AI were extremes. While Erving was more of a prototypical wing for his era.

The case against it is that they were undersized players that had something to prove in order to make it in this league.

Simmons is a 6'11 point guard (that can't shoot) and plays like he knows he's an anomaly, so he coasts at times.

You are over thinking this.

Iverson and Barkley were HOF talents, and well worth every negative thing that you could say about them in comparison to NOT having them.

Both Iverson and Barkely could have won titles with better teammates in their primes.

If Simmons turns into one of them then that is a huge win for us.

Embiid is the bigger difference maker here anyway. If Barkley or Iverson in their primes played with Hakeem in his prime they would have won multiple titles.

Embiid can be that here with a little luck.

This can work, and pay off on a huge way.

Actually, I think you are under-thinking it and assuming that Simmons is a guaranteed superstar. If he is, then he's the right choice. But I'm not so sure he will end up that level of player.

My argument remains that you have to build around Simmons, regardless of how he ends up, where you can build with Ingram in almost any circumstance:

1. Simmons is an atypical type player who you will need to commit to building around (similar in that regard to AI and Barkley.)

2. If Simmons approaches his ceiling and is an AI/Barkley caliber player then he is totally worth building around.

3. If Simmons ends up closer to his floor (good but not a superstar) then the limitations he puts on your roster construction will make it harder to build a contender with him than Ingram, even if Ingram also only reached his floor. This is because Ingram won't limit your roster construction.

So in terms of ease in building a contender:

Ceiling Simmons > ceiling Ingram
Floor Ingram > floor Simmons... not in terms of player ability but in terms of ease of building a contender.

Simmons is the obvious choice if you think he will be a superstar. I really don't think that has been debated by anyone. But the real question is how confident are you that he ends up a superstar. Is he the guy you want to hitch your future to, because Simmons is the type of player that you have to commit to making the focal point of your offense.

Then again, if Embiid end up a healthy superstar, it gets even more complicated. A Simmons/Embiid P&R would be devastating.

[Ericb5]

The case against it is that they were undersized players that had something to prove in order to make it in this league.

Simmons is a 6'11 point guard (that can't shoot) and plays like he knows he's an anomaly, so he coasts at times.

You are over thinking this.

Iverson and Barkley were HOF talents, and well worth every negative thing that you could say about them in comparison to NOT having them.

Both Iverson and Barkely could have won titles with better teammates in their primes.

If Simmons turns into one of them then that is a huge win for us.

Embiid is the bigger difference maker here anyway. If Barkley or Iverson in their primes played with Hakeem in his prime they would have won multiple titles.

Embiid can be that here with a little luck.

This can work, and pay off on a huge way.

Actually, I think you are under-thinking it and assuming that Simmons is a guaranteed superstar. If he is, then he's the right choice. But I'm not so sure he will end up that level of player.

My argument remains that you have to build around Simmons, regardless of how he ends up, where you can build with Ingram in almost any circumstance:

1. Simmons is an atypical type player who you will need to commit to building around (similar in that regard to AI and Barkley.)

2. If Simmons approaches his ceiling and is an A/Barkley caliber player then he is totally worth building around.

3. If Simmons ends up closer to his floor (good but not a superstar) then the limitations he puts on your roster construction will make it harder to build a contender with him than Ingram, even if Ingram also only reached his floor. This is because Ingram won't limit your roster construction.

So in terms of ease in building a contender:

Ceiling Simmons > ceiling Ingram
Floor Ingram > floor Simmons... not in terms of player ability but in terms of ease of building a contender.

Simmons is the obvious choice if you think he will be a superstar. I really don't think that has been debated by anyone. But the real question is how confident are you that he ends up a superstar. Is he the guy you want to hitch your future to, because Simmons is the type of player that you have to commit to making the focal point of your offense.

I don't disagree with your calculus. The difference is that I AM convinced that Simmons is going to be a superstar.

I could be wrong, but I am going for the player that I think is an obvious star.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tk76]

I don't disagree with your calculus. The difference is that I AM convinced that Simmons is going to be a superstar.

I could be wrong, but I am going for the player that I think is an obvious star.

I will be very happy if you are right. Personally, I'm very skeptical every year at draft time of how players are either hyped or torn down. There are always certain prospects I like, but they rarely end up to be the exact caliber player I expect. For example, I was high on Paul George and Thad Young before they were drafted. They both turned out to be good picks at their spot, but George is a much bigger star than I expected, and Thad evolved into much more of a role player.

[PhilasFinest]

Yes you are committing to Simmons being the focal point of your offense if he's a superstar.
Guess what? Your doing the same thing with Ingram if he's a superstar.

But even if Simmons isn't a star, he is still an athletic,skilled 6'10" PF who rebounds at an elite rate, can handle and pass like a point guard and score the ball. Why is that such a hard piece to fit on a good team???

Star or not, he is still a very good, talented basketball player that can help win games and his skill set allows him to play in nearly any type of system. Even in a less then star level, it can be just as hard to find a diverse forward capable of a double/triple-double every night then it is a perimeter scoring SF.

Lamar Odom was a big with similar skills to Simmons to an extent. He never reached stardom, but still managed to FIT in with contending teams without being the focal point of the offense. Does Draymond Green need to be the focal point of the Warriors offense to be effective? If that is Simmons' floor, Ill take it with the upside that comes with him over someone who's floor is Trevor Ariza.

I understand the concept of if both guys fail to reach stardom that a good shooter can fill a role on nearly every team easier, but I fail to understand how an unselfish gifted talent like Simmons can't fit on nearly every team either. If anything, I can see Simmons' passing ability meshing with a "big 3" just as well as someone who can make shots from the outside.

[Ericb5]

I don't disagree with your calculus. The difference is that I AM convinced that Simmons is going to be a superstar.

I could be wrong, but I am going for the player that I think is an obvious star.

I will be very happy if you are right. Personally, I'm very skeptical every year at draft time of how players are either hyped or torn down. There are always certain prospects I like, but they rarely end up to be the exact caliber player I expect. For example, I was high on Paul George and Thad Young before they were drafted. They both turned out to be good picks at their spot, but George is a much bigger star than I expected, and that evolved into much more of a role player.

Using the word "Hype" in this way is misleading. Did Towns have "hype" being the consensus number 1 pick last year?

Sometimes the players thought to be the best players ARE in fact the best players.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Negrodamus]

I don't even think it's risky to take Simmons. We really don't need to base the offense around him. Like I said earlier, Durant and Westbrook are two players that need the ball in their hands and need to take a large volume of shots. They make it work.

Even if Simmons isn't that level of a star and becomes what I think he is, Lamar Odom, he's still able to live inside of any offense without making concessions. Additionally, if he's Lamar Odom, he's worthy of a top pick in this draft. It's a weaker draft and Odom had a hell of a career.

I think Ingram is a slightly bigger risk, but his payout could be huge.

[Negrodamus]

I will say that if we take Simmons, I hope we keep Okafor and make Simmons a three. Rebounding won't be an issue, we'll have a guaranteed 20 ppg scorer, and hopefully we'll grab some good back court shooters that can play a little defense. Our defense will probably blow, but whatever. I'm just hoping we don't turn into Lamar Odom's Clippers.

[Mik317]

I don't get this idea that a guy who can do a lot of stuff is difficult to build with. Every contender has had the swiss army knife guy in various forms (Bron, Odom, Diaw and Green).

i don't think its as hard as people are making it out to be.

again my main hang up with taking Ingram is that if we take Ingram and Simmons goes on to be that dude in LA, we will never live it down. Even if Ingram is Carmelo to Simmons' LeBron.... You tank for 3 years, finally get the top pick..and then pass on the best guy is some **** you never come back from. If Ingram is the best guy, we at least have the "well Simmons was the 1# prospect for most of the year" excuse to fall back on (similar to Kristaps IMO)....

It would keep me up at night yo.

[sixerswillrule]

I will say that if we take Simmons, I hope we keep Okafor and make Simmons a three. Rebounding won't be an issue, we'll have a guaranteed 20 ppg scorer, and hopefully we'll grab some good back court shooters that can play a little defense. Our defense will probably blow, but whatever. I'm just hoping we don't turn into Lamar Odom's Clippers.

I think Simmons at the 3 only works if the PF/C duo can shoot, like Millsap/Horford for example.

I think a PF/C duo including two of Okafor/Noel/Embiid only works if all three perimeter guys can shoot.

So basically I don't like the idea of Simmons at the 3 on this team. It would be a very talented frontcourt with diminished returns.

[05PhillyAI]

Brandon Ingram is the black Jimmy Chitwood. Ben Simmons is Lamar Odom without the crack pipe. I'm taking Chitwood..."I'll make it..."