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

[Sixerscan]

Regardless of what position Simmons is listed on the line-up card, he's going to be initiating half-court drives from beyond the arc along the perimeter. He's never going to be a Power Forward (in essence).

When the Sixers talk about him as a 4, they're essentially committing to playing a 4 perimeter player offense.

He'll be doing plenty of high post

[tk76]

Let's say that Embiid becomes a dominate force inside... the best center in the league (we can dream, right?)

Is the 4 out approach that SVG used with Dwight the best way to utilize a dominant center? And if so, does that imply you need to surround him with four 3pt shooters?

I'm not saying this as a reason to pass on Simmons, because I think Simmons-Embiid will work well. Embiid is the right kind of center in order to maximize Simmons. But I wonder if we ever get to a point where Embiid is so clearly the best player on the team that we are most focused around finding the best lineup to maximize him?

[Sixersftw]

Let's say that Embiid becomes a dominate force inside... the best center in the league (we can dream, right?)

Is the 4 out approach that SVG used with Dwight the best way to utilize a dominant center? And if so, does that imply you need to surround him with four 3pt shooters?

I'm not saying this as a reason to pass on Simmons, because I think Simmons-Embiid will work well. Embiid is the right kind of center in order to maximize Simmons. But I wonder if we ever get to a point where Embiid is so clearly the best player on the team that we are most focused around finding the best lineup to maximize him?

The difference is Embiid can shoot. In most situations Embiid is the fulcrum passing out to shooters but you can also run a jumbo sized pick and pop/roll with Biid-Simmons that just sounds unstoppable.

Also, Even if Embiid is clearly the best player next year you have to build to Simmons strength a bit more with the health questions, imo.

[Negrodamus]

You don't have to "completely shake up the roster." Just trade Okafor for a guard or two.

And it's not about "making Simmons work" he'll be a fine player regardless it's just that he's going to play power forward next year and it's dumb to have a talent like Okafor hanging out on your bench most of the game when your starting guards right now are Stauskas and McConnell.

But my question is why trade Okafor when he is just as good of a talent, if we're going by college advanced stats, when we can take someone (who I like better) that could work with Okafor?

[Kobblehead]

Let's say that Embiid becomes a dominate force inside... the best center in the league (we can dream, right?)

Is the 4 out approach that SVG used with Dwight the best way to utilize a dominant center? And if so, does that imply you need to surround him with four 3pt shooters?

I'm not saying this as a reason to pass on Simmons, because I think Simmons-Embiid will work well. Embiid is the right kind of center in order to maximize Simmons. But I wonder if we ever get to a point where Embiid is so clearly the best player on the team that we are most focused around finding the best lineup to maximize him?

The 4 and out around Dwight was to compensate for Dwight's uselessness outside of 10 feet.

Having just two shooters on the floor is sufficient. Having three is more than sufficient. Having four is an embarrassment of riches.

[PhilasFinest]

Im not making this selection based on their ability to "FIT" with Joel Embiid.

Kids a stud prospect, but after 2 surgeries to the same foot and 2 years out of the league the %'s of him recovering, maintaining a clean bill of health and also becoming a dominant HOF center are simply not something I'm banking on.

[Kobblehead]

But my question is why trade Okafor?

Positional requisites.

You can counter with Simmons not being able to shoot, but being a 2-way player that distributes at a high level is the ultimate trump card for perimeter players.

[PhilasFinest]

Let's say that Embiid becomes a dominate force inside... the best center in the league (we can dream, right?)

Is the 4 out approach that SVG used with Dwight the best way to utilize a dominant center? And if so, does that imply you need to surround him with four 3pt shooters?

I'm not saying this as a reason to pass on Simmons, because I think Simmons-Embiid will work well. Embiid is the right kind of center in order to maximize Simmons. But I wonder if we ever get to a point where Embiid is so clearly the best player on the team that we are most focused around finding the best lineup to maximize him?

The 4 and out around Dwight was to compensate for Dwight's uselessness outside of 10 feet.

Having just two shooters on the floor is sufficient. Having three is more than sufficient.

Yea that concept is great if your 1 player inside is essentially useless on offense outside of Dunks/1 move power post ups (See Dwight Howard/Andre Drummond)

If the center actually is skilled and can shoot/score in a variety of ways, its not necessary imo.

[Sixersftw]

You don't have to "completely shake up the roster." Just trade Okafor for a guard or two.

And it's not about "making Simmons work" he'll be a fine player regardless it's just that he's going to play power forward next year and it's dumb to have a talent like Okafor hanging out on your bench most of the game when your starting guards right now are Stauskas and McConnell.

But my question is why trade Okafor when he is just as good of a talent, if we're going by college advanced stats, when we can take someone (who I like better) that could work with Okafor?

Because he is a miserable defender at the most import position defensively? Okafor doesn't influence my thoughts about Ingram/Simmons (I'm split but get that Simmons is probably the pick) and I hope he doesn't influence BC's. Just take whoever you think is best.

[Sixerscan]

You don't have to "completely shake up the roster." Just trade Okafor for a guard or two.

And it's not about "making Simmons work" he'll be a fine player regardless it's just that he's going to play power forward next year and it's dumb to have a talent like Okafor hanging out on your bench most of the game when your starting guards right now are Stauskas and McConnell.

But my question is why trade Okafor when he is just as good of a talent, if we're going by college advanced stats, when we can take someone (who I like better) that could work with Okafor?

Most statistical models that are more complicated than eyeballing a sports-reference page like Simmons a lot more than Okafor. For example Simmons is 2nd in his draft class in Pelton's models while Okafor was 17th in his.

Regardless, I think the more straightforward answer is that we aren't drafting guys solely based on college advanced stats.

[76ciology]

For me, people just are enamored with Jah's DRPM/DBPM without considering he was playing among the worst defenders in the league and played through a very deflating season that at one point made Noel looked bad on defense.

For me, both Jah and Simmons are elitely skilled players that have average size at their position. The key is how well they can slide down to a lower position. Both Jah and Simmons needs to have higher motor on D and improve perimeter shot to play PF and SF, respectively.

I appreciate your posts, but I think you kind of have blinders on for Okafor and that's the reason you have been so supportive of drafting Ingram (as Simmons and Okafor just won't fit together at all). Embrace the hate for Okafor and you will see the light

I think playing Simmons at SF eliminates his current strengths on offense and may hurt his confidence. Try him at SF when he shows improvement on his jumper and post game. Right now he's gotta play PF.

First, thanks for the kind words.

I believe in star players playing bigger than their size (that's why I'm pushing Jah at PF and Simmons at SF). Most of them have good height to wingspan ratio.If you look at the Spurs (even Larry Brown) and OKC, that's how they scout their guys. Even guys like Reggie Jackson, Jeremy Lamb or George Hill have these traits. Chauncey (Larry Brown player) and PJ Carlisimo (Spurs) also expressed their sentiment with Ingram over Simmons. If you have freakish overall length, shooting, attitude and good base skillset, it will be easy to mold into a high level two way player. Rawest of the raw, look at Khris Middleton and how easy for him to be the kind of player he is today. Thus, I opt for Ingram.

With Simmons, I just think he needs to play at SF, that's the position where he will play bigger than his size. Simmons at SF is a possible superstar wing IMO.

[Ericb5]

You don't have to "completely shake up the roster." Just trade Okafor for a guard or two.

And it's not about "making Simmons work" he'll be a fine player regardless it's just that he's going to play power forward next year and it's dumb to have a talent like Okafor hanging out on your bench most of the game when your starting guards right now are Stauskas and McConnell.

But my question is why trade Okafor when he is just as good of a talent, if we're going by college advanced stats, when we can take someone (who I like better) that could work with Okafor?

They are not the same level of talent, and college stats are irrelevant. They measure how well he produced in the games that he played, and not how talented his is.


Sent from my iPad using RealGM Forums

[cksdayoff]

the inside/outside game of Embiid/Ingram would be amazing

[Kobblehead]

We have Hollis Thompson, Robert Covington, and Nik Stauskas as release valves on the perimeter for post kickout passes. No use in wasting the #1 pick on one.

[Unbreakable99]

Passing the torch!!!

Love this. Where did you get this pic?

[Kobblehead]

He retweeted it. Klutch Sports Group.

[Negrodamus]

Regardless, I think the more straightforward answer is that we aren't drafting guys solely based on college advanced stats.

I need to use this quote more often on here.

[Negrodamus]

We have Hollis Thompson, Robert Covington, and Nik Stauskas as release valves on the perimeter for post kickout passes. No use in wasting the #1 pick on one.

You obviously don't see Ingram as a top flight talent, but to me, this would be like saying "we already have Dario Saric as our point forward. No use in wasing the #1 pick on one.

Simmons is a way better prospect than Saric.

Ingram is a way better prospect than Thomas Covington and Stauskas.

[Negrodamus]

You don't have to "completely shake up the roster." Just trade Okafor for a guard or two.

And it's not about "making Simmons work" he'll be a fine player regardless it's just that he's going to play power forward next year and it's dumb to have a talent like Okafor hanging out on your bench most of the game when your starting guards right now are Stauskas and McConnell.

But my question is why trade Okafor when he is just as good of a talent, if we're going by college advanced stats, when we can take someone (who I like better) that could work with Okafor?

They are not the same level of talent, and college stats are irrelevant. They measure how well he produced in the games that he played, and not how talented his is.


Sent from my iPad using RealGM Forums

If you don't mind me asking, how are we to measure talent?

[cksdayoff]

You don't have to "completely shake up the roster." Just trade Okafor for a guard or two.

And it's not about "making Simmons work" he'll be a fine player regardless it's just that he's going to play power forward next year and it's dumb to have a talent like Okafor hanging out on your bench most of the game when your starting guards right now are Stauskas and McConnell.

But my question is why trade Okafor when he is just as good of a talent, if we're going by college advanced stats, when we can take someone (who I like better) that could work with Okafor?

Because he is a miserable defender at the most import position defensively? Okafor doesn't influence my thoughts about Ingram/Simmons (I'm split but get that Simmons is probably the pick) and I hope he doesn't influence BC's. Just take whoever you think is best.

okafor is only 20. can't believe we don't want to give him a chance.