that's my main beef with curry. great shooter, occasional dimes, no D, not really a floor general type at all.
and proving that he's WAY too fragile to build around and too inconsistent to rely on to close out games.
i'm in the trade curry/keep ellis camp, but you all probably knew that already.
if you're trying to build a competitive team now, you keep the better player, which ellis is.
if you're making a bet that curry's ankle (7 times in a season and a half! three sprains alone after the "corrective" surgery) holds up and you want to be competitive three years down the line, trade ellis and draft (although you better get some picks in that trade, because you blew your amnesty on a 4mil dude when you knew the clippers would match leaving you no cap space and you have no picks since you traded them all away with JRich and the Lee acquisition. (No picks til 2016!!!!)
as for the one on one stuff-- i see that as the teammates fault. NOBODY moves when ellis clears out. you have to be open for someone to drive and kick. when everyone just parks outside the perimeter and makes zero movement without the ball, they're covered and ellis has to shoot.
Yeah. I agree.
I think Ellis would be fine as the lead combo guard if they had a two that could distribute. Or a Chauncy Billups type alonside him.
I have to really check the league in seeing who they could trade for that would keep them from looking at some college prospect to develop in three years.
Tyreke Evens is a decent sized combo guard that can distribute and score and has committed to defense this year. He erratic as hell but sp,eone like him is what i see as a better option.
Ive stated before that i really like Dorell Wright. But he really needs to be fed.
They need to look at Raja Bell who is looking beyond Utah. Vet two guard who is decent on the defensive end still at his age and could provide some veteran presence.
you should be able to beat the knicks but you did play last night.
yeah we looked tired and sloppy. 6 games in 8 nights related?
maybe. our new poster child for success, spencer hawes, was out tonight, depleting our thin frontcourt.
all in all, i think the sixers are better than the knicks. we'll see in march.
its fun that both teams are semi-relevant again...been a while
awesome game.
i was about to get on here and make sure you saw that yuichi-- chris paul ran that entire game.
miami was playing very physical defense against griffin in the second half. pretty much took him out of the game, but paul, jordan and especially caron butler were huge.
Can that "formula" be challenged during the Playoffs and u dont have a superstar to go to?
Or will the more reliable player/players rise to the top by May/June.
My Pacers dont have a "Superstar" either and were alright so far.
yeah thats all that people are talking over here. i think its a little premature. besides it being the first couple weeks, neither the sixers or the pacers are going to be contending for the title, so i think its more about building on things incrementally and figuring out what the last puzzle pieces are.
sixers need some size. a husky pf would do nicely. one whos going to rodman the hell out the glass. but i dont know, they are young, skilled and deep. what do you need the superstar for? someone who will take a clutch shot at the end or when the team is struggling? i dont buy it. if you have good d, one or two shutdown defenders who can at least contain opposing superstars (ig didnt do that bad on melo the other night) and an offensive scheme that gets open shots...why shouldnt be enough? if the system works long enough, maybe the young boys develop into star status?
Can that "formula" be challenged during the Playoffs and u dont have a superstar to go to?
Or will the more reliable player/players rise to the top by May/June.
My Pacers dont have a "Superstar" either and were alright so far.
yeah thats all that people are talking over here. i think its a little premature. besides it being the first couple weeks, neither the sixers or the pacers are going to be contending for the title, so i think its more about building on things incrementally and figuring out what the last puzzle pieces are.
sixers need some size. a husky pf would do nicely. one whos going to rodman the hell out the glass. but i dont know, they are young, skilled and deep. what do you need the superstar for? someone who will take a clutch shot at the end or when the team is struggling? i dont buy it. if you have good d, one or two shutdown defenders who can at least contain opposing superstars (ig didnt do that bad on melo the other night) and an offensive scheme that gets open shots...why shouldnt be enough? if the system works long enough, maybe the young boys develop into star status?
Name a team in the last 30 years that won w/out a superstar?
Can that "formula" be challenged during the Playoffs and u dont have a superstar to go to?
Or will the more reliable player/players rise to the top by May/June.
My Pacers dont have a "Superstar" either and were alright so far.
yeah thats all that people are talking over here. i think its a little premature. besides it being the first couple weeks, neither the sixers or the pacers are going to be contending for the title, so i think its more about building on things incrementally and figuring out what the last puzzle pieces are.
sixers need some size. a husky pf would do nicely. one whos going to rodman the hell out the glass. but i dont know, they are young, skilled and deep. what do you need the superstar for? someone who will take a clutch shot at the end or when the team is struggling? i dont buy it. if you have good d, one or two shutdown defenders who can at least contain opposing superstars (ig didnt do that bad on melo the other night) and an offensive scheme that gets open shots...why shouldnt be enough? if the system works long enough, maybe the young boys develop into star status?
Name a team in the last 30 years that won w/out a superstar?
2003-2004 Pistons? Great, well rounded team. Sheed, Hamilton, Billups, Prince, Wallace ??? all great players but I wouldn't classify any of them as superstars.
thats the one that keeps coming up
i mean of course we're familiar with the you need superstars to win paradigm. but why?
i can see a team that is stacked from top to bottom, with a superstar, being better than a team that has all its roles filled well. im not trying to big up the sixers more than necessary, cause they do have needs. but lets say they also had a solid, post playing, consistent 10/10 big man...the team would be ten deep and could give anyone a run for their money. no?
Can that "formula" be challenged during the Playoffs and u dont have a superstar to go to?
Or will the more reliable player/players rise to the top by May/June.
My Pacers dont have a "Superstar" either and were alright so far.
yeah thats all that people are talking over here. i think its a little premature. besides it being the first couple weeks, neither the sixers or the pacers are going to be contending for the title, so i think its more about building on things incrementally and figuring out what the last puzzle pieces are.
sixers need some size. a husky pf would do nicely. one whos going to rodman the hell out the glass. but i dont know, they are young, skilled and deep. what do you need the superstar for? someone who will take a clutch shot at the end or when the team is struggling? i dont buy it. if you have good d, one or two shutdown defenders who can at least contain opposing superstars (ig didnt do that bad on melo the other night) and an offensive scheme that gets open shots...why shouldnt be enough? if the system works long enough, maybe the young boys develop into star status?
Name a team in the last 30 years that won w/out a superstar?
2003-2004 Pistons? Great, well rounded team. Sheed, Hamilton, Billups, Prince, Wallace ??? all great players but I wouldn't classify any of them as superstars.
Ill agree to a degree.
Detroit was a very god team but when All Star Rasheed Wallace came over from Portland he brought the Playoff experience, rebounding, inside/outside game and incredible swagger to put that team over the top.
Who on Phillys team right now is that X-Factor w/ Playoff exp?
Brand hasnt been deep.
The formulas can be challenged with 20 games sliced off the sandwich, but i fail to see who become the anchor on philly when shit gets tight.
U gonna put your money on Lou Williams, Iguodala, Holiday, or Young in the EC Finals? They've never been there.
Dork got his ass kicked, learned the ways of the Force and came back to get over the hump.
i definitely dont think they're ready this year. but i dont think anyones trying to say all that. the question is can you build a contender without a superstar.
Lakers second worst in the league in 3pt percentage. Maybe they oughta keep Jason Kapono out there more often or something....Fisher ain't cutting it no more.
I had about 4 or 5 co-workers/friends get excited over that 48 point performance by Kobe. I let them know the reality that this will not work in the playoffs. We've seen it in years previous.
And does anyone else find D Wade annoying?! lol I think it might be that smirk.....Lebron may "choke" but at least he's more likeable.
i definitely dont think they're ready this year. but i dont think anyones trying to say all that. the question is can you build a contender without a superstar.
You won't win a title without a superstar at the pro level.....
The closest thing I know that resembles these Sixers were the '03-'04 Hubie Brown led Grizzlies, who also made a COMPLETE turnaround and went 50-32. They were way below 500 the previous season. Roster included: Pau Gasol, Shane Battier, Bonzi Wells, Jason Williams, James Posey, Lorenzen Wright. They were really fun to watch.
Nothing better to watch than a real tight squad with great team chemistry.
i definitely dont think they're ready this year. but i dont think anyones trying to say all that. the question is can you build a contender without a superstar.
You won't win a title without a superstar at the pro level.....
we've established that its rare. the question is why
(btw im not grasping at some straws about this sixrs season. bat brought up the question and so far no one has really triied to answer it. all were getting in conversations in philly is that you need a go to guy at the end. meh)
i definitely dont think they're ready this year. but i dont think anyones trying to say all that. the question is can you build a contender without a superstar.
You won't win a title without a superstar at the pro level.....
we've established that its rare. the question is why
(btw im not grasping at some straws about this sixrs season. bat brought up the question and so far no one has really triied to answer it. all were getting in conversations in philly is that you need a go to guy at the end. meh)
i definitely dont think they're ready this year. but i dont think anyones trying to say all that. the question is can you build a contender without a superstar.
You won't win a title without a superstar at the pro level.....
we've established that its rare. the question is why
Because even if a team starts off the season with no superstars, if they end up winning it all at least one person on the team will be elevated to superstar status in the process.
After all, it's not like there's a technical requirement to be a 'superstar' - it's just a matter of perception.
thats the one that keeps coming up
i mean of course we're familiar with the you need superstars to win paradigm. but why?
i can see a team that is stacked from top to bottom, with a superstar, being better than a team that has all its roles filled well. im not trying to big up the sixers more than necessary, cause they do have needs. but lets say they also had a solid, post playing, consistent 10/10 big man...the team would be ten deep and could give anyone a run for their money. no?
Giving anyone a run for their money is entertaining but is that all your after?
Thats what Phoenix was. In the Playoffs all the time but never able to get to the mountaintop even w/ an MVP.
There have been no teams in the last 40 years that I can recall to challenge the superstar formula.
We want to believe in a balanced team play should trump it all, but thats just not the case.
Colllins has gone with "whomever is hot" philosophy. Can this work in the Playoffs?
Giving anyone a run for their money is entertaining but is that all your after?
Thats what Phoenix was. In the Playoffs all the time but never able to get to the mountaintop even w/ an MVP.
There have been no teams in the last 40 years that I can recall to challenge the superstar formula.
We want to believe in a balanced team play should trump it all, but thats just not the case.
Colllins has gone with "whomever is hot" philosophy. Can this work in the Playoffs?
ach. i meant 'run for their money' as in 'decent shot of beating anyone'
ok, so phoenix disproves the superstar formula? they had nash and amare (when he wasnt hurt)
i just wanted thoughts on why the balanced team approach cant work.
superstars do tend to get benefit of the whistles!
of course a good team has potential mvp candidates and a deep roster. knicks have melo,amare,chandler and a roster of 2nd round draft picks...which do you put in place first depth or studs?
Can Philly go deep w/out a "Superstar"?
...they are young, skilled and deep. what do you need the superstar for? someone who will take a clutch shot at the end or when the team is struggling? i dont buy it. if you have good d, one or two shutdown defenders who can at least contain opposing superstars (ig didnt do that bad on melo the other night) and an offensive scheme that gets open shots...why shouldnt be enough? if the system works long enough, maybe the young boys develop into star status?
Word... I have this convo daily and I am thinking the same thing... and even if things dont work out, I am excited anyway... leet me be excited, damn.
Comments
Yeah. I agree.
I think Ellis would be fine as the lead combo guard if they had a two that could distribute. Or a Chauncy Billups type alonside him.
I have to really check the league in seeing who they could trade for that would keep them from looking at some college prospect to develop in three years.
Tyreke Evens is a decent sized combo guard that can distribute and score and has committed to defense this year. He erratic as hell but sp,eone like him is what i see as a better option.
Ive stated before that i really like Dorell Wright. But he really needs to be fed.
They need to look at Raja Bell who is looking beyond Utah. Vet two guard who is decent on the defensive end still at his age and could provide some veteran presence.
D'Andre Jordan is BEASTING. He's on some Manute Bol, Bill Bradley block party shit.
It seems Clips match up real well with the Heat.
yeah we looked tired and sloppy. 6 games in 8 nights related?
maybe. our new poster child for success, spencer hawes, was out tonight, depleting our thin frontcourt.
all in all, i think the sixers are better than the knicks. we'll see in march.
its fun that both teams are semi-relevant again...been a while
i was about to get on here and make sure you saw that yuichi-- chris paul ran that entire game.
miami was playing very physical defense against griffin in the second half. pretty much took him out of the game, but paul, jordan and especially caron butler were huge.
Sickening.
Can that "formula" be challenged during the Playoffs and u dont have a superstar to go to?
Or will the more reliable player/players rise to the top by May/June.
My Pacers dont have a "Superstar" either and were alright so far.
Wade took the Most Protected by the Refs status away from Kobe a couple years ago.
yeah thats all that people are talking over here. i think its a little premature. besides it being the first couple weeks, neither the sixers or the pacers are going to be contending for the title, so i think its more about building on things incrementally and figuring out what the last puzzle pieces are.
sixers need some size. a husky pf would do nicely. one whos going to rodman the hell out the glass. but i dont know, they are young, skilled and deep. what do you need the superstar for? someone who will take a clutch shot at the end or when the team is struggling? i dont buy it. if you have good d, one or two shutdown defenders who can at least contain opposing superstars (ig didnt do that bad on melo the other night) and an offensive scheme that gets open shots...why shouldnt be enough? if the system works long enough, maybe the young boys develop into star status?
Name a team in the last 30 years that won w/out a superstar?
2003-2004 Pistons? Great, well rounded team. Sheed, Hamilton, Billups, Prince, Wallace ??? all great players but I wouldn't classify any of them as superstars.
i mean of course we're familiar with the you need superstars to win paradigm. but why?
i can see a team that is stacked from top to bottom, with a superstar, being better than a team that has all its roles filled well. im not trying to big up the sixers more than necessary, cause they do have needs. but lets say they also had a solid, post playing, consistent 10/10 big man...the team would be ten deep and could give anyone a run for their money. no?
thats some funny shit. nothing shocking, but it just looks so odd that vince is sitting on the wrong side of them on the bench
Ill agree to a degree.
Detroit was a very god team but when All Star Rasheed Wallace came over from Portland he brought the Playoff experience, rebounding, inside/outside game and incredible swagger to put that team over the top.
Who on Phillys team right now is that X-Factor w/ Playoff exp?
Brand hasnt been deep.
The formulas can be challenged with 20 games sliced off the sandwich, but i fail to see who become the anchor on philly when shit gets tight.
U gonna put your money on Lou Williams, Iguodala, Holiday, or Young in the EC Finals? They've never been there.
Dork got his ass kicked, learned the ways of the Force and came back to get over the hump.
I had about 4 or 5 co-workers/friends get excited over that 48 point performance by Kobe. I let them know the reality that this will not work in the playoffs. We've seen it in years previous.
And does anyone else find D Wade annoying?! lol I think it might be that smirk.....Lebron may "choke" but at least he's more likeable.
You won't win a title without a superstar at the pro level.....
The closest thing I know that resembles these Sixers were the '03-'04 Hubie Brown led Grizzlies, who also made a COMPLETE turnaround and went 50-32. They were way below 500 the previous season. Roster included: Pau Gasol, Shane Battier, Bonzi Wells, Jason Williams, James Posey, Lorenzen Wright. They were really fun to watch.
Nothing better to watch than a real tight squad with great team chemistry.
we've established that its rare. the question is why
(btw im not grasping at some straws about this sixrs season. bat brought up the question and so far no one has really triied to answer it. all were getting in conversations in philly is that you need a go to guy at the end. meh)
we've established that its rare. the question is why
(btw im not grasping at some straws about this sixrs season. bat brought up the question and so far no one has really triied to answer it. all were getting in conversations in philly is that you need a go to guy at the end. meh)
Because even if a team starts off the season with no superstars, if they end up winning it all at least one person on the team will be elevated to superstar status in the process.
After all, it's not like there's a technical requirement to be a 'superstar' - it's just a matter of perception.
Giving anyone a run for their money is entertaining but is that all your after?
Thats what Phoenix was. In the Playoffs all the time but never able to get to the mountaintop even w/ an MVP.
There have been no teams in the last 40 years that I can recall to challenge the superstar formula.
We want to believe in a balanced team play should trump it all, but thats just not the case.
Colllins has gone with "whomever is hot" philosophy. Can this work in the Playoffs?
well as crazy as it is, last nights game clearly showed that we'll really miss Kwame.
IMO the only reason they missed him was because they ran out of players to Hack a Howard.
ach. i meant 'run for their money' as in 'decent shot of beating anyone'
ok, so phoenix disproves the superstar formula? they had nash and amare (when he wasnt hurt)
i just wanted thoughts on why the balanced team approach cant work.
superstars do tend to get benefit of the whistles!
of course a good team has potential mvp candidates and a deep roster. knicks have melo,amare,chandler and a roster of 2nd round draft picks...which do you put in place first depth or studs?