So how about Joel Embiid

[Snotbubbles]

This post was directed at the three specific people who said it was 'revisionist history' to give Hinkie any credit because Embiid was the clear, no-second-thoughts, worldwide-agreement #3 pick. There's simply no argument to support that--it's just factually and demonstrably wrong, the fact that almost all mocks had Embiid at 5 or lower indicates beyond reasonable doubt there was at the very last a lack of general consensus that Embiid was a surefire #3 pick.

I don't have the time to go back and look at the realgm draft boards, but I'll say that a) I recall clearly that there was a ton of people who were certain that drafting Embiid was a debacle waiting to happen (even if his upside was super seductive) and b) that most casual fans on these boards (me included) generally prefer the high upside pick, and generally don't know a durn thing about injuries or hardcore sports medicine. I was all for Embiid at #3 but I know full well that cooler heads were making very reasonable argument against him.

"GM says "You can't use a top 5 pick" on Joel Embiid: http://uproxx.com/dimemag/gm-says-you-cant-use-top-five-pick-on-joel-embiid/

"For the Cleveland Cavaliers and Milwaukee Bucks, their draft day decisions have become much easier. But for the Philadelphia 76ers, Orlando Magic and Utah Jazz, the same cannot be said.": http://www.basketballinsiders.com/joel-embiid-many-questions-no-answers/

I can dig up article after article. Embiid at 3 was no slam dunk. The navicular bone injury is a devastating injury for a big man to have.

Look at that great quality reporting. Got to love the good old "A GM" stuff and D level sites playing devils advocate to get the click count up.

Sigh. Is this good enough?

NJ.com (local Philly news site): "The news that Embiid will require surgery was a particularity big blow to the Sixers, who saw a three-prospect draft suddenly turn into a two-horse race. Now, unless a team talks itself into Dante Exum of Australia, the Sixers will be on the outside looking in on the duo of Kansas forward Andrew Wiggins and Duke forward Jabari Parker." Projected Embiid 6th to Boston.

http://www.nj.com/sixers/index.ssf/2014/06/2014_nba_mock_draft_predicting_the_top-10_picks_after_joel_embiid_injury.html

USA Today: "It's hard to take Embiid," Milwaukee Bucks owner Marc Lasry, whose team has the No. 2 overall pick, told news reporters. "We want somebody who is going to help us on Day One."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba/draft/2014/06/23/joel-embiid-slide-board-kansas-bill-self/11267089/

Fox Sports: "The Milwaukee Bucks pick second and the Philadelphia 76ers are third while the Orlando Magic, who have promising young center Nikola Vucevic, pick fourth. If the Utah Jazz, who have Enes Kanter and Derrick Favors as part of a young frontcourt, pass on Embiid with the fifth pick, it would be hard to imagine him getting by Boston at No. 6 or the Los Angeles Lakers at No. 7."

http://www.foxsports.com/nba/story/joel-embiid-broken-foot-nba-draft-cleveland-cavaliers-kansas-jayhawks-061914

SI.com: "The news that Kansas center Joel Embiid has a stress fracture in the navicular bone in his right foot will have a significant impact on next week's NBA draft. Embiid, the projected No. 1 pick in SI.com's latest mock draft, is expected to slip several spots, maybe more.

"With that type of injury," said a Western Conference executive, "I wouldn't take him in the top-ten.""

http://www.si.com/nba/2014/06/19/

[HartfordWhalers]

Here was the Philly boards take on what to do at 3 after the Embiid injury happened and before the draft:

If Wiggins/Parker are gone, who do you want?

Exum 24 44%
Embiid 19 35%
Vonleh 8 15%
Smart 0 No votes
Randle 0 No votes
Gordon 0 No votes
Other 0 No votes
I will be too busy crying to care 3 6%
Total votes: 54

http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=1328591&start=20#start_here

And here was the take on where Embiid would drop:

3 7 21%
#4 4 12%
#5 3 9%
#6 9 26%
#7 3 9%
#8 0 No votes
#9 0 No votes
#10 8 24%

http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=1328532&start=20#start_here

Which matched the mocks at the time (someone did a nice post on all of them above).

Embiid was viewed as an incredibly risky (but possibly rewarding) roll of the dice, and still has his detractors in this thread arguing about how high that risk is.

If you want to go off the nba draft board on realgm, here is a thread asking who will go 3rd and 4th after Embiid's injury -- http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1328437#start_here Embiid clearly is not a consensus no brainer and Exum was drawing a lot of comments.

And a general nba draft board thread on where will Embiid fall thread is here -- http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1328653#start_here That one seems to have more people considering 3, but it still is far from unanimous or no brainer at all..

Finally, the general board thread on it is here -- http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1328658#start_here

Altogether, the idea that Embiid stayed a lock for #3 is just no where in any of the threads. Instead, a lot of people projected that he would drop to Boston at 6 or so.

[madmaxmedia]

I think the consensus on the pick was already mixed at the time it was made, before getting much worse after the foot issues.

There were absolutely ZERO questions about his talent, but plenty about his health. I am rooting for him, but who knows he could break his foot tomorrow night, and then all the haters would flock back and criticize picking an injury-prone player so high.

[E-Balla]

This post was directed at the three specific people who said it was 'revisionist history' to give Hinkie any credit because Embiid was the clear, no-second-thoughts, worldwide-agreement #3 pick. There's simply no argument to support that--it's just factually and demonstrably wrong, the fact that almost all mocks had Embiid at 5 or lower indicates beyond reasonable doubt there was at the very last a lack of general consensus that Embiid was a surefire #3 pick.

I don't have the time to go back and look at the realgm draft boards, but I'll say that a) I recall clearly that there was a ton of people who were certain that drafting Embiid was a debacle waiting to happen (even if his upside was super seductive) and b) that most casual fans on these boards (me included) generally prefer the high upside pick, and generally don't know a durn thing about injuries or hardcore sports medicine. I was all for Embiid at #3 but I know full well that cooler heads were making very reasonable argument against him.

Here's a thread if you want to see the consensus on Embiid:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1382412&p=43273986&hilit=2014+Embiid#p43273986

Nothing revisionist about it.

Thats a thread started almost a year after the draft -- Sun Apr 12, 2015. That entire thread is after the fact (and done at a time when Embiid was supposed to be pretty much healed).

If you want to argue something is not revisionist after the fact analysis, you need something from the time pre draft (and post injury) of Embiid's draft. Otherwise it is revisionist after the fact.

Its still after he missed a season and its about him at the time of the draft before he ever hit the court. I'm sorry its hard to find posts from the 2 day period in between him getting diagnosed with a foot injury and the draft. Still on realgm the consensus on Embiid has always been overwhelmingly positive and among most fans I'd say the same. Hinkie wasn't stretching to take Embiid because mock drafters thought his injury would matter to them.

[HartfordWhalers]

Here's a thread if you want to see the consensus on Embiid:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1382412&p=43273986&hilit=2014+Embiid#p43273986

Nothing revisionist about it.

Thats a thread started almost a year after the draft -- Sun Apr 12, 2015. That entire thread is after the fact (and done at a time when Embiid was supposed to be pretty much healed).

If you want to argue something is not revisionist after the fact analysis, you need something from the time pre draft (and post injury) of Embiid's draft. Otherwise it is revisionist after the fact.

Its still after he missed a season and its about him at the time of the draft before he ever hit the court. I'm sorry its hard to find posts from the 2 day period in between him getting diagnosed with a foot injury and the draft. Still on realgm the consensus on Embiid has always been overwhelmingly positive and among most fans I'd say the same. Hinkie wasn't stretching to take Embiid because mock drafters thought his injury would matter to them.

No, it is really not that hard and your comment isn't accurate because either you didn't try to find that time period or ignored it:

Here was the Philly boards take on what to do at 3 after the Embiid injury happened and before the draft:

If Wiggins/Parker are gone, who do you want?

Exum 24 44%
Embiid 19 35%
Vonleh 8 15%
Smart 0 No votes
Randle 0 No votes
Gordon 0 No votes
Other 0 No votes
I will be too busy crying to care 3 6%
Total votes: 54

http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=1328591&start=20#start_here

And here was the take on where Embiid would drop:

3 7 21%
#4 4 12%
#5 3 9%
#6 9 26%
#7 3 9%
#8 0 No votes
#9 0 No votes
#10 8 24%

http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=1328532&start=20#start_here

Which matched the mocks at the time (someone did a nice post on all of them above).

Embiid was viewed as an incredibly risky (but possibly rewarding) roll of the dice, and still has his detractors in this thread arguing about how high that risk is.

If you want to go off the nba draft board on realgm, here is a thread asking who will go 3rd and 4th after Embiid's injury -- http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1328437#start_here Embiid clearly is not a consensus no brainer and Exum was drawing a lot of comments.

And a general nba draft board thread on where will Embiid fall thread is here -- http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1328653#start_here That one seems to have more people considering 3, but it still is far from unanimous or no brainer at all..

Finally, the general board thread on it is here -- http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1328658#start_here

Altogether, the idea that Embiid stayed a lock for #3 is just no where in any of the threads. Instead, a lot of people projected that he would drop to Boston at 6 or so.

[E-Balla]

Thats a thread started almost a year after the draft -- Sun Apr 12, 2015. That entire thread is after the fact (and done at a time when Embiid was supposed to be pretty much healed).

If you want to argue something is not revisionist after the fact analysis, you need something from the time pre draft (and post injury) of Embiid's draft. Otherwise it is revisionist after the fact.

Its still after he missed a season and its about him at the time of the draft before he ever hit the court. I'm sorry its hard to find posts from the 2 day period in between him getting diagnosed with a foot injury and the draft. Still on realgm the consensus on Embiid has always been overwhelmingly positive and among most fans I'd say the same. Hinkie wasn't stretching to take Embiid because mock drafters thought his injury would matter to them.

No, it is really not that hard and your comment isn't accurate because either you didn't try to find that time period or ignored it:

Here was the Philly boards take on what to do at 3 after the Embiid injury happened and before the draft:

If Wiggins/Parker are gone, who do you want?

Exum 24 44%
Embiid 19 35%
Vonleh 8 15%
Smart 0 No votes
Randle 0 No votes
Gordon 0 No votes
Other 0 No votes
I will be too busy crying to care 3 6%
Total votes: 54

http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=1328591&start=20#start_here

And here was the take on where Embiid would drop:

3 7 21%
#4 4 12%
#5 3 9%
#6 9 26%
#7 3 9%
#8 0 No votes
#9 0 No votes
#10 8 24%

http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=1328532&start=20#start_here

Which matched the mocks at the time (someone did a nice post on all of them above).

Embiid was viewed as an incredibly risky (but possibly rewarding) roll of the dice, and still has his detractors in this thread arguing about how high that risk is.

If you want to go off the nba draft board on realgm, here is a thread asking who will go 3rd and 4th after Embiid's injury -- http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1328437#start_here Embiid clearly is not a consensus no brainer and Exum was drawing a lot of comments.

And a general nba draft board thread on where will Embiid fall thread is here -- http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1328653#start_here That one seems to have more people considering 3, but it still is far from unanimous or no brainer at all..

Finally, the general board thread on it is here -- http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1328658#start_here

Altogether, the idea that Embiid stayed a lock for #3 is just no where in any of the threads. Instead, a lot of people projected that he would drop to Boston at 6 or so.

My bad Embiid was the 2nd most liked prospect by the board that also loves Hinkie and loved Chip Kelly.

Thinking he'd fall to six and thinking he's the 6th best player aren't the same thing.

[HartfordWhalers]

My bad Embiid was the 2nd most liked prospect by the board that also loves Hinkie and loved Chip Kelly.

Thinking he'd fall to six and thinking he's the 6th best player aren't the same thing.

Oh, I think everyone was in agreement that he could be a top 3 player easily if healthy.

The question at the time was how much you discount the if healthy. And as all of the links show, the injury risks were enough taht he was being discounted out of 3rd.

By the next April (the time of the thread you found instead), Embiid was looking good in practices, shooting three pointers and dunking -- http://www.libertyballers.com/2015/4/24/8486249/sixers-stories-joel-embiids-pregame-workouts-nba-hinkie

So, at that point those previous injury risks looked a lot more one time. I'm willing to guess there was then a wave back in hindsight sentiment come July when it was discovered he had a setback and would be out a 2nd year.

But if we want to talk about the actual time of the draft, it clearly wasn't a consensus no brainer lock etc pick at all, and in general Embiid was viewed as a very high risk high reward gamble, and as a result a very dangerous selection at #3.

[E-Balla]

My bad Embiid was the 2nd most liked prospect by the board that also loves Hinkie and loved Chip Kelly.

Thinking he'd fall to six and thinking he's the 6th best player aren't the same thing.

Oh, I think everyone was in agreement that he could be a top 3 player easily if healthy.

The question at the time was how much you discount the if healthy. And as all of the links show, the injury risks were enough taht he was being discounted out of 3rd.

By the next April (the time of the thread you found instead), Embiid was looking good in practices, shooting three pointers and dunking -- http://www.libertyballers.com/2015/4/24/8486249/sixers-stories-joel-embiids-pregame-workouts-nba-hinkie

So, at that point those previous injury risks looked a lot more one time. I'm willing to guess there was then a wave back in hindsight sentiment come July when it was discovered he had a setback and would be out a 2nd year.

But if we want to talk about the actual time of the draft, it clearly wasn't a consensus no brainer lock etc pick at all, and in general Embiid was viewed as a very high risk high reward gamble, and as a result a very dangerous selection at #3.

No one called it a no brainer. I said he was generally seen as BPA and evidence says it was practically a toss up with Exum. Either way I'm not using the pick to prop up Hinkie just like I don't give Phil props for taking the consensus 5th best player at 4th.

[HartfordWhalers]

My bad Embiid was the 2nd most liked prospect by the board that also loves Hinkie and loved Chip Kelly.

Thinking he'd fall to six and thinking he's the 6th best player aren't the same thing.

Oh, I think everyone was in agreement that he could be a top 3 player easily if healthy.

The question at the time was how much you discount the if healthy. And as all of the links show, the injury risks were enough taht he was being discounted out of 3rd.

By the next April (the time of the thread you found instead), Embiid was looking good in practices, shooting three pointers and dunking -- http://www.libertyballers.com/2015/4/24/8486249/sixers-stories-joel-embiids-pregame-workouts-nba-hinkie

So, at that point those previous injury risks looked a lot more one time. I'm willing to guess there was then a wave back in hindsight sentiment come July when it was discovered he had a setback and would be out a 2nd year.

But if we want to talk about the actual time of the draft, it clearly wasn't a consensus no brainer lock etc pick at all, and in general Embiid was viewed as a very high risk high reward gamble, and as a result a very dangerous selection at #3.

No one called it a no brainer. I said he was generally seen as BPA and evidence says it was practically a toss up with Exum. Either way I'm not using the pick to prop up Hinkie just like I don't give Phil props for taking the consensus 5th best player at 4th.

Eh, I think that downplays just the amount of risk it required to take, and the possibility that Hinkie could be fired before Embiid ever even played for him even if it was the right pick.
But either way, let me just second the guy you originally quoted on exactly what he said:

This post was directed at the three specific people who said it was 'revisionist history' to give Hinkie any credit because Embiid was the clear, no-second-thoughts, worldwide-agreement #3 pick. There's simply no argument to support that--it's just factually and demonstrably wrong, the fact that almost all mocks had Embiid at 5 or lower indicates beyond reasonable doubt there was at the very last a lack of general consensus that Embiid was a surefire #3 pick.

Having gone through and providing links to 3 separate boards on here at the time (as well as the guy that did the mocks at the time), I don't think anyone should at all dispute the sentence: "there was at the very last a lack of general consensus that Embiid was a surefire #3 pick."

[E-Balla]

Oh, I think everyone was in agreement that he could be a top 3 player easily if healthy.

The question at the time was how much you discount the if healthy. And as all of the links show, the injury risks were enough taht he was being discounted out of 3rd.

By the next April (the time of the thread you found instead), Embiid was looking good in practices, shooting three pointers and dunking -- http://www.libertyballers.com/2015/4/24/8486249/sixers-stories-joel-embiids-pregame-workouts-nba-hinkie

So, at that point those previous injury risks looked a lot more one time. I'm willing to guess there was then a wave back in hindsight sentiment come July when it was discovered he had a setback and would be out a 2nd year.

But if we want to talk about the actual time of the draft, it clearly wasn't a consensus no brainer lock etc pick at all, and in general Embiid was viewed as a very high risk high reward gamble, and as a result a very dangerous selection at #3.

No one called it a no brainer. I said he was generally seen as BPA and evidence says it was practically a toss up with Exum. Either way I'm not using the pick to prop up Hinkie just like I don't give Phil props for taking the consensus 5th best player at 4th.

Eh, I think that downplays just the amount of risk it required to take, and the possibility that Hinkie could be fired before Embiid ever even played for him even if it was the right pick.
But either way, let me just second the guy you originally quoted on exactly what he said:

This post was directed at the three specific people who said it was 'revisionist history' to give Hinkie any credit because Embiid was the clear, no-second-thoughts, worldwide-agreement #3 pick. There's simply no argument to support that--it's just factually and demonstrably wrong, the fact that almost all mocks had Embiid at 5 or lower indicates beyond reasonable doubt there was at the very last a lack of general consensus that Embiid was a surefire #3 pick.

Having gone through and providing links to 3 separate boards on here at the time (as well as the guy that did the mocks at the time), I don't think anyone should at all dispute the sentence: "there was at the very last a lack of general consensus that Embiid was a surefire #3 pick."

Here's my original quote:

Its not hard to draft Joel Embiid (I mean everyone knew he would be amazing if he hit the court)

Nothing you've posted makes what I said less true. Actually you've done a good job of proving my point.

[sixerswillrule]

My bad Embiid was the 2nd most liked prospect by the board that also loves Hinkie and loved Chip Kelly.

Thinking he'd fall to six and thinking he's the 6th best player aren't the same thing.

But if we want to talk about the actual time of the draft, it clearly wasn't a consensus no brainer lock etc pick at all, and in general Embiid was viewed as a very high risk high reward gamble, and as a result a very dangerous selection at #3.

No one called it a no brainer.

Drafting Embiid at #3 after Wiggins/Parker was an absolute no brainer at the time.

Also what is that the 6th time you randomly referenced Chip Kelly in a conversation about the Sixers? Maybe the 7th time is the charm.

[HartfordWhalers]

No one called it a no brainer. I said he was generally seen as BPA and evidence says it was practically a toss up with Exum. Either way I'm not using the pick to prop up Hinkie just like I don't give Phil props for taking the consensus 5th best player at 4th.

Eh, I think that downplays just the amount of risk it required to take, and the possibility that Hinkie could be fired before Embiid ever even played for him even if it was the right pick.
But either way, let me just second the guy you originally quoted on exactly what he said:

This post was directed at the three specific people who said it was 'revisionist history' to give Hinkie any credit because Embiid was the clear, no-second-thoughts, worldwide-agreement #3 pick. There's simply no argument to support that--it's just factually and demonstrably wrong, the fact that almost all mocks had Embiid at 5 or lower indicates beyond reasonable doubt there was at the very last a lack of general consensus that Embiid was a surefire #3 pick.

Having gone through and providing links to 3 separate boards on here at the time (as well as the guy that did the mocks at the time), I don't think anyone should at all dispute the sentence: "there was at the very last a lack of general consensus that Embiid was a surefire #3 pick."

Here's my original quote:

Its not hard to draft Joel Embiid (I mean everyone knew he would be amazing if he hit the court)

Nothing you've posted makes what I said less true. Actually you've done a good job of proving my point.

Well, that is an interesting take I guess. I mean, if thats what you take out of everything, this post is probably more spitting into the wind.

However, as evidenced in all the threads, unlike you, a majority of people wouldn't have taken Embiid at #3 because of the health risks. So, to declare those health risks just don't matter and it wouldn't be hard to draft him seems intentionally blind to the very real risks. Then again, maybe it is easy to take risks like that when it won't be your franchise without a lotto pick for health reasons and won't be you fired. And with hindsight.

[Ballerhogger]

Not traveling with the team apparently anyone know why?

[eagereyez]

Not traveling with the team apparently anyone know why?

Spoiler:

He's being deported back to Africa.

In all seriousness he isn't playing their next game, so no point in him travelling with the team.

[Ballerhogger]

Not traveling with the team apparently anyone know why?

Spoiler:

He's being deported back to Africa.

In all seriousness he isn't playing their next game, so no point in him travelling with the team.

LOL why??

[punkmodafunk]

rest..

[E-Balla]

Eh, I think that downplays just the amount of risk it required to take, and the possibility that Hinkie could be fired before Embiid ever even played for him even if it was the right pick.
But either way, let me just second the guy you originally quoted on exactly what he said:


Having gone through and providing links to 3 separate boards on here at the time (as well as the guy that did the mocks at the time), I don't think anyone should at all dispute the sentence: "there was at the very last a lack of general consensus that Embiid was a surefire #3 pick."

Here's my original quote:

Its not hard to draft Joel Embiid (I mean everyone knew he would be amazing if he hit the court)

Nothing you've posted makes what I said less true. Actually you've done a good job of proving my point.

Well, that is an interesting take I guess. I mean, if thats what you take out of everything, this post is probably more spitting into the wind.

However, as evidenced in all the threads, unlike you, a majority of people wouldn't have taken Embiid at #3 because of the health risks. So, to declare those health risks just don't matter and it wouldn't be hard to draft him seems intentionally blind to the very real risks. Then again, maybe it is easy to take risks like that when it won't be your franchise without a lotto pick for health reasons and won't be you fired. And with hindsight.

Totally because you've proven without a doubt Embiid is proof Hinkie was good. I mean sure its hindsight when I pull up tons of people saying he was good because a little under 50% of people thought he should've been the pick.

Also what is that the 6th time you randomly referenced Chip Kelly in a conversation about the Sixers? Maybe the 7th time is the charm.

Because it shows its a pattern that's consistent with Hinkie.

[sixerswillrule]

Also what is that the 6th time you randomly referenced Chip Kelly in a conversation about the Sixers? Maybe the 7th time is the charm.

Because it shows its a pattern that's consistent with Hinkie.

It's still very strange that you continue to bring him up.

And

the board that also loves Hinkie and loved Chip Kelly

That's inconsistent with Hinkie.

[E-Balla]

Also what is that the 6th time you randomly referenced Chip Kelly in a conversation about the Sixers? Maybe the 7th time is the charm.

Because it shows its a pattern that's consistent with Hinkie.

It's still very strange that you continue to bring him up.

And

the board that also loves Hinkie and loved Chip Kelly

That's inconsistent with Hinkie.

Yeah Hinkie didn't get the chance to fail like he did. At 1-21 he was on his way I didn't think even the most avid supporter wouldn't want a 5 win season.

[76ciology]

Carried Sixers to first victory. 25 points in 26 minutes