Is this year's Sixers team the worst NBA squad ever?

[snively]

And Okafor is an offensive roleplayer at a position that puts a premium on D.

In other words, Enes Kanter.

I think this is a fair description of him right now, and I'm not arguing that he hasn't been bad on the Sixers, but I disagree wholeheartedly with the notion that he's sure to be that in the future.

Put him on a good team with quality role players, good coaching, and an actual intent to win, and I think he could be awesome.

Like I said, I'd be thrilled to have him in Boston.  If they're stupid enough to trade him in favor of a seven footer with a career FG% of 45.3% on almost entirely face-up attempts in the paint, then by all means, I say we take advantage.


You don't build around Theo Ratliff.  Or Tyson Chandler, frankly.

I really, truly don't understand the notion that Noel can be "one of the great players of his generation."  He doesn't look like that type of talent to me, at all.  A nice player.  I'd be happy to have him on the Celts, too.  But I'll be surprised if he ever makes an All-Star squad, and I think he'll always be tricky to fit into an offense because of his lack of range and poor finishing ability. 

His finishing ability is fine - he's more than capable of finishing above the rim and with a little work he can improve his roll game beyond just catching lobs.

I don't think he's the ideal guy to build around, but he's certainly easier as a starting piece than Okafor.  You'll find more Chandlers and Ben Wallaces and Dennis Rodmans as top 3 guys on title contenders than Big Als and Brook Lopezes.

It's relatively easy to work around lack of shooting range from a center  - much harder to work around defensive softness and inability. Indeed, given the offensive pre-eminence of perimeter play thanks to the 3-point line and greater ease in generating FTs on rolls and drives, building a strong offense around a finesse post guy can be even harder than hiding a mostly unskilled dunker like Noel.

[PhoSita]

You'll certainly find more title contenders with defensive specialists at center than centers who score a lot in the paint but can't play defense.

I guess that's the thing for me -- do you believe Okafor is simply going to be an Enes Kanter type big man?  If that's the case, by all means trade him while you can.  Utah was very smart to go with Gobert over Kanter.

On the other hand, do you believe that in the right situation Okafor can be an adequate positional defender on a team that plays good defense, while providing a dangerous interior presence that forces opponents to keep at least one big guy on the floor?


I tend to believe the latter, which is why I'd much prefer to have Okafor.  Personally, I like Noel, but I don't see him the way Who does, for sure.  I don't think he'll even ever be as good as Rudy Gobert, to be honest.

[jdz101]

Do you guys re-assess my question if its an 0-25 start?

[PhoSita]

Do you guys re-assess my question if its an 0-25 start?

The odds against that happening are just too high.  It'll be incredible if they manage to lose 25 straight.

[celticsclay]

Do you guys re-assess my question if its an 0-25 start?

The odds against that happening are just too high.  It'll be incredible if they manage to lose 25 straight.

I am not saying this is going to happen, but you understand that their losses at this point are banked. So it is no longer going 0-25 it is going 0-13. They will be significant underdogs in their remaining games this month, with their best opportunities for a win being a home game against the Lakers December 1st, a home game against Denver, and a road game against Brooklyn. It also is not like they are being competitive in their games like the Nets have recently with shots rimming out at the buzzer. They have one loss all season by less than 5 points.

[slamtheking]

Do you guys re-assess my question if its an 0-25 start?

The odds against that happening are just too high.  It'll be incredible if they manage to lose 25 straight.

Hinkie and the pro-tanking brigade will be shedding tears of joy if they can "achieve" that record.

[MBunge]

Do you guys re-assess my question if its an 0-25 start?

The odds against that happening are just too high.  It'll be incredible if they manage to lose 25 straight.

The one factor that might lower those odds is that the East, miraculously, no longer seems to suck.  The Bucks and the Celts made the leap last year, Detroit, New York and Orlando look like they're doing it this year, Charlotte has been hovering on the edge of non-horribleness for the last couple seasons and Indy and Miami are healthy.  There are only three teams in the East below .500 so far, and one of them is the Bucks and they'll probably be around 41 wins or better by the end of the year.  And Brooklyn, at least on paper and when healthy, has the potential to be a 30 win team.

You can make an argument that Philly is the only truly awful team in the East and if you think the Hornets have to play better at some point, they may be one of only two truly awful teams in the entire league.

Mike

[PhoSita]

Do you guys re-assess my question if its an 0-25 start?

The odds against that happening are just too high.  It'll be incredible if they manage to lose 25 straight.

The one factor that might lower those odds is that the East, miraculously, no longer seems to suck.  The Bucks and the Celts made the leap last year, Detroit, New York and Orlando look like they're doing it this year, Charlotte has been hovering on the edge of non-horribleness for the last couple seasons and Indy and Miami are healthy.  There are only three teams in the East below .500 so far, and one of them is the Bucks and they'll probably be around 41 wins or better by the end of the year.  And Brooklyn, at least on paper and when healthy, has the potential to be a 30 win team.

You can make an argument that Philly is the only truly awful team in the East and if you think the Hornets have to play better at some point, they may be one of only two truly awful teams in the entire league.

Mike

It's true, for all of the hand-wringing about tanking the last few years, the Lakers and the Sixers are the only blatant tank jobs I can think of in the league, and even the Lakers seem like they might have deluded themselves into thinking they could be quasi-competitive with Kobe.

The Sixers might be having the opposite effect to what people thought would happen.  Nobody seems particularly eager to copy Hinkie's methods.

[celticsclay]

Do you guys re-assess my question if its an 0-25 start?

The odds against that happening are just too high.  It'll be incredible if they manage to lose 25 straight.

The one factor that might lower those odds is that the East, miraculously, no longer seems to suck.  The Bucks and the Celts made the leap last year, Detroit, New York and Orlando look like they're doing it this year, Charlotte has been hovering on the edge of non-horribleness for the last couple seasons and Indy and Miami are healthy.  There are only three teams in the East below .500 so far, and one of them is the Bucks and they'll probably be around 41 wins or better by the end of the year.  And Brooklyn, at least on paper and when healthy, has the potential to be a 30 win team.

You can make an argument that Philly is the only truly awful team in the East and if you think the Hornets have to play better at some point, they may be one of only two truly awful teams in the entire league.

Mike

It's true, for all of the hand-wringing about tanking the last few years, the Lakers and the Sixers are the only blatant tank jobs I can think of in the league, and even the Lakers seem like they might have deluded themselves into thinking they could be quasi-competitive with Kobe.

The Sixers might be having the opposite effect to what people thought would happen.  Nobody seems particularly eager to copy Hinkie's methods.

Considering one of their years of tanking netted them a guy that may never play in the NBA (Embiid), another year they missed out on a superstar (Towns) and got a consolation prize that has some warts on his game, and they haven't gotten the number 1 pick yet, can you blame them?

[Csfan1984]

The whole sixers situation makes a guy think if you are tanking and not getting the best player in the draft it's probably not worth it. Philly can only do this 2 more years or the NBA will shut them down.

[PhoSita]

Considering one of their years of tanking netted them a guy that may never play in the NBA (Embiid), another year they missed out on a superstar (Towns) and got a consolation prize that has some warts on his game, and they haven't gotten the number 1 pick yet, can you blame them?

I think it's hard to argue that the Sixers methods haven't netted them a really awesome pile of assets.  Okafor looks really good, Noel is pretty good, Saric is still fairly well regarded, and they've got a boatload of picks in addition to their own picks.

Embiid might even still have some value in the future, if say he finally makes his debut next year and looks pretty good.  He could be a part of a trade package, at least.

The thing that I think the Sixers have overlooked is the human factor.  They've screwed with agents, with players, with the league as a whole.  That's got to affect their dealings, either now or in the future.  And at some point, you've got to actually build a team.  How do you even evaluate the way the players on that team perform?  On some level, hasn't every game over the last three years been a pre-season exhibition for the teams involved?

The Sixers aren't setting up their prospects, their coach, their free agent signings -- really anybody involved in the organization -- for success.  It's hard to say what any of these guys is learning about NBA basketball, let alone winning NBA games.  All of that has to account for something.

[celticsclay]

Considering one of their years of tanking netted them a guy that may never play in the NBA (Embiid), another year they missed out on a superstar (Towns) and got a consolation prize that has some warts on his game, and they haven't gotten the number 1 pick yet, can you blame them?

I think it's hard to argue that the Sixers methods haven't netted them a really awesome pile of assets.  Okafor looks really good, Noel is pretty good, Saric is still fairly well regarded, and they've got a boatload of picks in addition to their own picks.

Embiid might even still have some value in the future, if say he finally makes his debut next year and looks pretty good.  He could be a part of a trade package, at least.

The thing that I think the Sixers have overlooked is the human factor.  They've screwed with agents, with players, with the league as a whole.  That's got to affect their dealings, either now or in the future.  And at some point, you've got to actually build a team.  How do you even evaluate the way the players on that team perform?  On some level, hasn't every game over the last three years been a pre-season exhibition for the teams involved?

The Sixers aren't setting up their prospects, their coach, their free agent signings -- really anybody involved in the organization -- for success.  It's hard to say what any of these guys is learning about NBA basketball, let alone winning NBA games.  All of that has to account for something.

If you consider that right now they could have Towns, Wiggins the Greek Freak and Zach Levine (pick after saric), their two active big men and a guy that missed his first two seasons is extremely underwelming. To be honest i think you are probably more impressed with their haul than they are. They have been both unlucky with the lottery, injuries, and teams conveying their picks.
 

[PhoSita]

The whole sixers situation makes a guy think if you are tanking and not getting the best player in the draft it's probably not worth it. Philly can only do this 2 more years or the NBA will shut them down.

I don't think you need to get THE BEST player in the draft necessarily, but after three years of blatant tanking I feel like you should have at least a few guys who are exciting and who seem like they could probably play together. 

Like, if the Sixers were sitting here today with CJ McCollum (2013 #5), Aaron Gordon (2014 #3), Zach Lavine (2014 #12), and Jahlil Okafor (2015 #3), wouldn't that be an exciting team?  Wouldn't we be looking at them a lot differently?

Obviously it's really easy to cherry pick this stuff in hindsight, but if they weren't so determined to just go with the highest ceiling asset in every situation with no care whatsoever for the current product on the floor or how the players will fit together, they might actually have a team people would be interested in watching by now.

[PhoSita]

To be honest i think you are probably more impressed with their haul than they are.

Assets, looked at individually in terms of probable current and future trade value, are very different than players, and how they perform together on the court.  See my post above.

[Moranis]

Considering one of their years of tanking netted them a guy that may never play in the NBA (Embiid), another year they missed out on a superstar (Towns) and got a consolation prize that has some warts on his game, and they haven't gotten the number 1 pick yet, can you blame them?

I think it's hard to argue that the Sixers methods haven't netted them a really awesome pile of assets.  Okafor looks really good, Noel is pretty good, Saric is still fairly well regarded, and they've got a boatload of picks in addition to their own picks.

Embiid might even still have some value in the future, if say he finally makes his debut next year and looks pretty good.  He could be a part of a trade package, at least.

The thing that I think the Sixers have overlooked is the human factor.  They've screwed with agents, with players, with the league as a whole.  That's got to affect their dealings, either now or in the future.  And at some point, you've got to actually build a team.  How do you even evaluate the way the players on that team perform?  On some level, hasn't every game over the last three years been a pre-season exhibition for the teams involved?

The Sixers aren't setting up their prospects, their coach, their free agent signings -- really anybody involved in the organization -- for success.  It's hard to say what any of these guys is learning about NBA basketball, let alone winning NBA games.  All of that has to account for something.

If you consider that right now they could have Towns, Wiggins the Greek Freak and Zach Levine (pick after saric), their two active big men and a guy that missed his first two seasons is extremely underwelming. To be honest i think you are probably more impressed with their haul than they are. They have been both unlucky with the lottery, injuries, and teams conveying their picks.

They actually had the 10th pick which was Payton and traded that for Saric and two 2nd's.