That is the question two readers, Sixerzguy and Bski, brought up in a few comments on the blog. I think it is a good one and worth a post all its own. I will get things started with some of my thoughts then we can use this post as the place for open discussion on this topic.
First things first, who exactly are the Sixers’ core players?
Obviously this can be debated, but let’s give it a try.
Core: the central, innermost, or most essential part of anything. – Dictionary.com
I focus on the last part of that definition “most essential part of anything” to choose who the 76ers’ core guys are. In no particular order:
- Andre Iguodala
- Samuel Dalembert
- Andre Miller
Those have been (past tense) the most important players on the team in my opinion. I would then add:
- Thaddeus Young
With the thinking that Young has the greatest potential impact on this team in the near future. Therefore in the long-term view makes him a core player and nearly untouchable right now as we try to determine his ceiling.
That’s it!
“Whoa, whoa, whoa, what about Lou Williams?” you might say. Sure, in terms of chemistry I would agree whole-heartedly that Sweet Lou would be a core chemistry player. But I am attempting to stay within the finite definition of “most essential part of anything,” and in my opinion Lou Williams as an under-sized tweener is both expendable and as hard as it is to say, pretty easy to replace.
So how good do I think the core 4 is?
Good, with the potential to be very good but not great. We have:
- A top 10 point guard
- A top 10 center in terms of defense and rebounding
- One of only 8 players in the entire NBA who averages more than 19ppg, 5rpg and 4apg. When you factor in Iguodala’s 2spg he now becomes one of two players in the game who accomplished those numbers last season.
- Among NBA rookies we had a guy with the 2nd best PER (17.60), best field goal percentage, 2nd in steals, 11th in scoring while playing 3-minutes less than the top ten and 11th in rebounding playing out of position.
That should be enough to get the discussion started. Oh and spread the word so we get as much diverse conversation on this topic as possible – GO.
Loading ...
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 39 comments… read them below or add one }
DANNIE: Thanks for the mention. You’ve kept it short and sweet and very open. To start thing off, two things jump out at me.
1) Having Andre Miller as a core player, which I agree with, is very problematic for the Sixers. I feel the team’s development has been accelerated by his presence. Also, their level of play is much higher than it would be without him. No question in my mind they regress without him. The problem, of course, is that he is only under contract for next season. I think the Sixers appreciate the importance of keeping Miller but, even if the they decide to offer him several years and a good chunk of money, it sounds like he may very well decline.
2) You list Lou Will as a core chemistry player. I can understand your reasoning. My concern is this: how important is chemistry and what is it worth? Obviously we need a group that plays well together. Nobody makes a title run without a strong bench. We have several young guys who haven’t reached their peak, at least I hope they haven’t. Wouldn’t we be better served by keeping them around a bit? Are you saying that in an effort to upgrade the roster it is ok to move any and all of these guys. I am all for getting better. I do have concerns about this route, though. Unless it is a clear improvement, I don’t want to move these young guys so they can have their best years with other teams. We’ve spent a couple years getting to this point. If we do a major roster overhaul, how long will it take for it to come together? I’m not saying we should keep all the young guys or that I’m against change. I’m just a bit more cautious.
ReclinerGM, I think your sense of the 76ers core is almost spot on. Though he is not yet equipped to be a top-flight scorer, Iggy’s essentials are too great to lose. Andre Miller is an immediate member of the core and a teacher for Lou Will, which is why I would add Lou to the mix. I’ve read that folks want Jose Calderon and would settle for the likes of Kyle Lowry. Maybe its me, but I don’t see what these guys provide that Lou, who is only 21, can’t/doesn’t. I don’t know if this is such a quick fix project – we drafted Lou knowing it would take some time for him to learn the pro game. He proved he could score and supply quality minutes as a back-up for your top 10 PG. His weakness will be defense. If and when Miller moves on, I think Iggy and Lou could conceivably share PG responsibilities – as far as bringing the ball up court goes. I have confidence that could work.
DANNIE: I had to get off before I could finish my thoughts before. I do not want to hold on to all the young guys at the cost of going nowhere. I do not want to wait indefinitely for them to reach their peak either. I absolutely want us to become a championship caliber team. If there is a Garnett type deal to be had, I’m all for it. If we have a chance to remake our team a la the Celtics, I’m ok with moving any and all of the young guys.
That being said, there are a couple of reasons why I err on the cautious side. Zach Randolph’s name is being tossed around a lot. He is no Garnett. When I hear Randolph’s name and think about Mo Cheeks as our coach, my mind immediately goes to the Trail Blazers. A few years back, they assembled a pile of talent. They basically had two starting fives. Unfortunately they built a team of head cases and, although they made the playoffs a few times, went nowhere. I don’t want to see that happen here. We can’t just go after talent alone. I defend the young guys because the team seems solid to me. I get the sense that Mo has their respect. They seem to actually listen to him. He also has them believing in themselves. I don’t want to blow that up by moving several of them now and disturbing what we’ve built.
You know how a couple of top tier players can affect a team. They can raise everyone’s level of play, bench included. If we can do that, guys like Carney and Smith could really flourish in more targeted roles where they can utilize their specific skill sets better.
like you said, that core is good but not great.
BUT it might have the potential to be great in 2-3 seasons, if everybody goes on progressing at this pace and if the “glue” (Miller or another veteran player that could replace him, not necessarily at PG) continues to keep the young pieces together and make them grow
I always have in mind the 2004 Pistons as a model, that was a core of nice players that the addition of Wallace + a HOF coach took to the next level.
I find some similarities with our current situation, we have to keep this core, be patient for a year or two (maybe another 1st round exit, then a 2nd round etc) and then make a move (trade or FA signing) that could make us real contenders
Billups, Rip, Ben Wallace etc were “only” good/very good players before that trade, and I think the core of Iguodala, Dalembert, Thad, LW etc can do the same, wih Miller or without
BTW I would think about extending Miller, he’s 32 but he’s solid as a rock, and his game doesn’t rely much on athleticism, I think he will decline slower than most of people think, and with a good back up at PG his career will be still long
RICKY: I’m glad to see I’m not the only one who sees similarities between the Pistons and the Sixers. Miller=Billups, Thad=Prince, Smith=Mcdyess, Lou=Stuckey. If we can add a couple key pieces (SG, PF), we can follow in their steps. Look, Hamilton was their leading scorer at something like 19.2ppg. He was around 53rd in the league in scoring and his was the lowest ppg avg to lead any team. Iggy leads us with 19.9 ppg. I don’t see anything wrong with having one guy around 20 ppg and 5 others at 10-15 ppg. I’m hoping to build for an extended run of success like Detroit has had. Many feel that following the Detroit blueprint is not good enough because of their results. I don’t agree with that. Even though they’ve only won one championship, you can’t dismiss six straight EC finals as a failure.
Regarding the Andre Miller’s age issue, let us all not forget Derek Fisher is now 33-years old and turning 34 in August! And the Lakers seem to be doing just fine with him at the helm. You need a veteran point guard to take control in tough playoff games.
Many people have already mentioned having him be a positive influence on Lou Williams and groom whoever the point guard of the future is. I would also point out the fact that this guy has played 80+ games every season of his career, that is the model of durability.
Another thing most people overlook is the fact that Miller has only been in the league 9 years because he played all 4 years in college. That is much less NBA wear and tear on his body at 32 than say a 29-year old Kobe Bryant who has been in the league 12 seasons and has already shown frequent signs of physical deterioration.
When you also consider Miller style of play, as Ricky pointed out I see no reason not lock him up for another 3 seasons.
This is a solid core of guys. You have defensive minded players mixed with a veteran point guard.
Using NJ as a model of big Ed’s work, Kidd=Miller, Vince=Iggy, RJ=Thad?, am I the only guy seeing this? Whose our K-Mart?
DRE: You could be right with the NJ comparison. That doesn’t exactly thrill me to death however.
I sure hope that the Sixers core group has a better upside than that NJ crew .. that never won anything .. especially the Vince Carter years ..
If you want to make the comparison to the 02 / 03 Finals Nets teams then you need to include KVH, K-Mart and KKittles .. I don’t think this Sixers group has that talent level just yet .. bearing in mind Kidd was an All NBA player in those years
Dannie, good point bringing up a still effective 34 y/o Derek Fisher, I also thought about him.
Remember Payton played until 39 y/o and won a ring at 38, Cassell is still playing at the same age, even if in reserve roles. I agree that we should extend Miller for at least 2 full seasons, maybe the 3rd being a team option or something
Bski, nice to see we agree. Actually it was the same Stefanski to indicate that 2004 Pistons team as a model for us, which made me really happy cuz it was one of my fav teams ever and gave me the biggest joy of my career as a hater (LOL) beating those full-of-shlt Lakers team with the four HOF-ers…
As for Pistons (supposed) shortcomings or underachievements, I think who says that is on crack. “Only” a ring? LOL !! For a ring I would gladly become the next Miami Heat (one winning year and many years of sucking after that), and please let’s not forget they made it to the Finals the year after, being beaten by the Spurs, one of the best teams ever
I also agree that the NJ Nets comparisons aren’t that attractive, lol
RICKY: I’m with you all the way regarding the Pistons. Many posters on Deep Sixer are not. Over there, whenever I post something about the Pistons being a model for us, the majority of responses are “Why would we want to be like them? What have they won?”.
I keep trying to point out that both the Pistons and the Spurs have assembled a core group of very good players. They both have built for the long term. They have both added pieces around that core on a yearly basis to maintain a high level of play. The only difference is in the “results”. The Spurs are winners and should be emulated while the Pistons….”Why would we want to be like them? What have they won?”. The Pistons did not plan on winning “only” one championship or “only” making it to the finals twice. That’s just the way it has worked out. Most of the Deep Sixer posters shrug off 6 straight EC finals….”That’s great, but big deal that’s as far as they get”.
I’d be willing to bet that if the Sixers were guaranteed of making the EC finals for the next 6 years, without knowing whether or not they would either make the finals or win a title, every poster on Deep Sixer would take it without hesitation. Look, all any organization can do is to keep building a better team, keep adding pieces to the puzzle and hope it all comes together.
The problem people have is they think when someone says the Sixers should follow the Detroit model for building a team that we mean the exact same results will happen. You always still have to play the games and our results could be better or worse.
We could say ok lets follow the early 2000 Lakers but that is impossible since we aren’t getting a Shaq or Kobe. Or follow the Spurs model that isn’t happening either because we aren’t getting a Tim Duncan – that is unless we get really really bad before we get good and land a top pick and even that isn’t a guarantee.
I think people forget winning championships takes some luck too. You have to be lucky to avoid major injuries. Be lucky, to land that top pick when you are one of the worst teams in the NBA, be lucky enough to have Memphis give you their best player who happens to be one of the 5 best centers/PF in the game etc.
The Detroit model is the easiest to follow because they did it through smart FA signings, trades and they also got lucky that Tayshaun Prince turned out to be as good as he is. The Sixers are hoping Thad will be that good or better as well with such an unheralded pick. Takes some luck to win championships. But if you put the right pieces in place and have the right ppl running the show luck seems to come easier.
Well said Dannie, I notice a lot of video/fantasy player type posters that think if Ed adds “big name player” we would be an instant contender.
You have to be lucky to win in the NBA. Now let’s luck-up into a beast-in-waiting PF and let the building begin.
…let the building continue…
The Sixers have a solid core but in order to compete with the top teams of the league, they still are lacking talent and the certain dimensions neeeded to be successful. The should be able to continue to defend well with their length and athleticism on the perimeter and Dalembert inside, but they lack a shooter, a post scorer and another creator on offense.
Without these key elements, the Sixers will continue to beat the weak teams of the East and then fall to the Pistons and Celtics of the league. Igoudala may very well be the 2nd best all-around player in the game (Kobe being the best, of course), but he’s not a number one scorer and may never be.
Miller could conceivably play at his current level for another 3 years….offensively. But defensively his advanced age will catch up to him playing against the younger, quicker guards of the league (ala Chris Paul destroying Jason Kidd in the playoffs). Plus when you figure in the rumored fact that he wants to go back West, we might have to ommit him as a core player all together.
Dalembert is the one Sixer player that I can truly call a core player without hesitation. Without him, the Sixers are on the bottom of the league defensively. He was the undisputed anchor of the defense. Why he isn’t mentioned among the best young centers of the league is beyond my understanding. A double-double and 2.3 blocks is really impressive. That being said, like all the other core players on the team, he’s good but not great.
Overall, the Sixers lack that element that could take them over the top. The Pistons have many ways to hurt you. Their team defense, Chauncey’s bigtime threes, running Rip off of screens, Sheed in the post or top of the key, the list goes on and on. In the end, someone has to be brought in to kncock all of the Sixers core players down a peg into their natural roles as complementary players. Only then will they be transformed from good to great.
You know, if most people out there don’t agree with comparing us to the Pistons, maybe we should just compare ourselves to us. What I mean is we don’t need to look too far back in Sixers history to find the last time we built a championship caliber team and to see how we did it.
We picked up several key players over a couple years(McKie, Snow, Ratliff, Hill, Lynch, Geiger), none of whom were all star level players. I mean really, who was running through the streets jumping up and down about any one of these guys, let alone all of them as a group, when we got them? A couple of them we knew were solid players, but there were more than a few question marks about what each one would be able to bring to the team and where that would take us. These guys were coached up and allowed to develop over a couple years before they made their run.
Wait a minute you say. We had Iverson. Yes we did. I realize he was a major factor BUT, for as much as he helped the other guys by drawing multiple defenders and being the go to guy, he also made it difficult for them. More often than not, the other four on the floor stood and watched while Iverson dominated the ball. Also, it was very common for Iverson to only pass the ball when he had nothing, usually with about 4 seconds left on the shot clock, leaving whoever got the ball in a bind. Remember that Iverson was a volume shooter. Yes he gave us 30 points a night but his typical line would be 10-30 fga, 2-7 3pt fga, 12-14 fta. He wasn’t terribly efficient. He also was consistently at the top of the league in steals. We know however that he got his steals by overplaying the passing lanes. There were many times he gambled and lost, leaving his teammates exposed behind him. I am not in any way bashing Iverson here. I’m just trying to illustrate that much of the good he did for us to make us a championship caliber team was negated by a lot of the negatives that hurt us. Nobody can deny that Iverson, like any player, had his negatives.
The point of all this is to show that we can rebuild and do it again in much the same way we did the last time. We can also win the same way they did. How did the ‘00-’01 Sixers win games? They almost always 1) got more rebounds (offensive and total) than their opponent, 2) made more hustle plays and got to more loose balls, 3) committed fewer turnovers, 4) MADE more free throws than the opponent ATTEMPTED. They were not a good shooting team by any means. By doing all the above things they would consistently take 12-15 more shots per game. Remember, if that team shot above 35% they would win.
My contention is we can do the same things and win the same way now with the group we have + a few key additions. Yes I realize we do not have nor will we get another Iverson, but I don’t think we need one(nor do I want one). We can win with one guy around 20ppg and 5 others at 10-15ppg. Remember, Iverson gave us 30ppg BUT between six guys, (Snow, Mckie, Ratliff, Lynch, Hill, Geiger) four of them (sometimes five and once in a while all six) would consistently give us 10-15ppg.
This is very doable people. We’ve done it before and we can certainly do it again without turning over 3/4 of the roster.
Bski – I think in your effort to prove this point you minimize Iverson’s impact way too much (not bash him) but simply not give him enough credit for his universal impact on that club.
For starters I don’t agree with this line at all “much of the good he did for us to make us a championship caliber team was negated by a lot of the negatives that hurt us” if that was really the case that team doesn’t come close to winning 56 games let alone get past Toronto in what was my favorite Sixers playoff series of my basketball lifetime.
Aaron Mckie was sixth man of the year because of Iverson, most of his shots (think corner three) came from Iverson penetration. In fact that team would have been completely inept on offense if not for Iverson’s overall contributions. Why do you think they got so many offense rebounds? Because AI drew two defenders every time he penetrated and left weak side boards open all day. No one shot better than 49.9% from the field on that entire team! This also goes for your FT attempt point because Iverson shot over 700 that season at a healthy 81% clip. He impacted every facet of that teams offense and that is 50% of the game right there.
Your AI stat line is way off he only attempted 25.5 shots, and 4.3 three-pointer in that particular season and only shot more in one other season in his career.
As for his gambling style. Sure he got beat sometimes, but that didn’t impact the overall defense as much as people are making out consider opponents only shot 42.9% from the field that year. And I would go as far to say his gambling nature was made up for in all the deflections that lead to steals by not only him (2.5) but his teammates that don’t show up in his own stats plus his overall hustle, no one got on the floor or dived after balls as much as AI.
Let me be clear on my opinion of that Sixers team, they went to the finals because of one dude the reason he was MVP. The other players on that team were there to simply play defense, rebound, catch the ball when AI passed it or get the hell out of the way. And it worked for one season. I wouldn’t want to duplicate that.
Our current team had 5 dudes (6 if you include Korver) who scored over 10ppg. This team is much better overall in terms of offensive talent than that team. They didn’t have to worry about offense because Iverson would get it done on his own or make it as easy as possible for others to score. This team doesn’t have nearly the defenders that team did. Why? Because that teams was deliberately filled with defensive specialist. I mean look at that roster, Mutombo, Lynch, Hill, Ratliff, Snow. These guys didn’t know what offense was half the time.
Our current team has guys that could be great defensively if that was all they did, but instead they are more multi-faceted players or are striving to be more multi-faceted with the weight on the offensive side of the ball.
And this team has no playoff star. No one who can step up and match Vince Carter’s performance in that season. Detroit has Billups who hits big shots, Hamilton who hits big shots. Our current team has no big shot player. You need that in the playoffs. So as you say we need a few key additions, I think is significantly harder to acquire the type of player this team needs. Role players we have, big shot players we do not and they don’t come around often.
DANNIE: You are right. I did get a bit carried away trying to convince myself we can become a championship caliber club without an Iverson type of player. I’m aware of what he did for us. It’s a funny thing, though. As you said, the team was deliberately filled with defensive specialists. After we made our finals run however, we went on what proved to a multi- year quest for an elusive second scorer, thereby breaking apart the successful defensive team that was built. I guess it goes back to what you said before about needing the right pieces, the right people running it, and luck.
It appears that I CAN be a bit inflammatory from time to time, since I got a quick, sharp response from you.
Now that’s how you coach, Dannie. Anytime the opportunity comes to teach or learn don’t let get by you.
Mo Cheeks found that out earlier this season and that knowledge will only help this core get to the point where they know each other so well that when new faces arrive, the transition is smooth and seamless. That’s what winning franchises have in common.
Wait a second. Iverson was a big shot player? Coulda fooled me.
When the game was on the line, I remember he would miss a lot more than make.
When the playoffs came around, the following things always happened…
His FG% dropped.
His D digressed.
His FTs attempted decreased.
His PPG went up.
His 3PA went up.
All those things add up to a much much worse output.
Oh and the East Iverson and the Sixers came out of was the worst East of at least the last 10 years. I wouldn’t be shocked if it was the worst of the last 30 or ever.
Iverson never made his teammates better. He never played D.
Steve Nash doesn’t have a chance to ever really contend for a championship, but at least he does one of those things. Ya know? AI doesn’t have a prayer to ever be on a contender, unless he learns to play basketball correctly.
Allen Iverson. I don’t miss you.
Andre Miller. I will miss you.
Dave T – I promised to be more contradictory, that’ll come, but I wanted to run this by you, I’m pretty impressed with your scouting reports:
Brandon Rush’s upside is the next Manu Ginobili, with better defense?
Joe – Can you please tell me, rather show me a player who was a volume clutch shooter that made more than he missed in those situations?
Joe you aren’t wrong here but lets add some context here so people don’t get mislead about the “severity” of his decline in certain areas (the first number is AI career stats in Philly the second is career playoff stats in Philly):
His FG% dropped – 42.1% to 40.2%
His D digressed – Matter of opinion and criteria
His FTs attempted decreased – 9.3 – 9.1
His PPG went up – 28.1 – 30.6
His 3PA went up – 4.1 – 5.6 (3pt% 30.9 – 33.3)
Lets also add turnovers – 3.7 – 3.2
FG attempts – 23.3 – 27.2
Assist were dead even at 6.1
Comments like this “Iverson never made his teammates better. He never played D.” Are what end sports conversations for me with people because, well they are ridiculous. Sports are not absolute in that way.
Finally – “Oh and the East Iverson and the Sixers came out of was the worst East of at least the last 10 years. I wouldn’t be shocked if it was the worst of the last 30 or ever.” This is debatable but here is some food for thought on it.
‘00-’01 East Playoffs had:
3 – 50-win clubs
7 of 8 teams were above .500 and the final team was exactly .500.
The Sixers had to play only one team that was at worst .500. And were the only team to even win against the Lakers and we all know who won that game right?
‘06-’07 East Playoffs had:
2 – 50-win teams
5 of 8 were above .500
2 of 8 were exactly .500 and one sub .500 team
The Cavs only had to play one + .500 team to get to the NBA finals
Got off topic – back to talking about the Sixers Core.
OK, let’s get back to the Sixers core. In my first post on this topic, I expressed concern over the fact that Andre Miller is a core player, yet he is only under contract for next season. I feel it is crucial for the Sixers to keep him for a few more years if we hope to continue improving. I read John Denton’s article in today’s Inquirer, “Sixers’ GM in Florida to see draft possibilities”. In it Stefanski is quoted as saying the Sixers “need a shooter, a center or power forward, and MAYBE DOWN THE LINE WE NEED A POINT GUARD, TOO.” That certainly sounds to me like Stefanski knows that Miller is going to be here for a while. Also, it kind of gives you an idea of how ES has prioritized our needs. Very interesting.
ES was also quoted as saying, “I don’t know if we’ll get a guy who could step in right away, but we feel comfortable that we’ll get a player to add to the team. With all of the young guys that we have, starting right away may be difficult.” So, it also sounds to me like ES plans on hanging on to the young guys and allowing them to develop.
One last quote. Es says, “Who really knows until three years later if the guy that you picked was the right pick?”
All of this tells me not to expect a major overhaul of the roster and that ES is going to be patient. I don’t foresee him moving several of the young guys before he knows what they’ve got.
00-01 not 01-02… just a typo
“here is some food for thought on it.
00-01* East Playoffs had:
3 – 50-win clubs
7 of 8 teams were above .500 and the final team was exactly .500.”
Lets take a closer look at what really matters though. What is the best way to compare the East and the West? I normally go with how they played against each other. So let us look at 00-01 and 06-07. I will admit I have never looked at 06-07 so this might be close… the East this year was far superior to that in 00-01 though just to say that.
In 00-01 the East went 566-664 and the west went 623-525. The total numbers disparity makes sense since the East had more teams. The East having more teams also accounts for having .500 or better teams across the board pretty much. East win% of 46.02.
In 06-07 the East went 583-647 and the west went 647-583. Same number now since 15 and 15 in both conferences. East win% of 47.40.
In 06-07, the inter-conference record was 193-257 for the East. The East won 42.89% against the West.
In 00-01, the inter-conference record was 161-259 for the East. The East won 38.33% against the West.
So this East is better and 4.5% is a pretty large difference.
The Sixers, with their record against the West, would have been on pace for the 7th best record, against the west, in the West. That is bad. The reality is the West was better than the East by a ton that year. The Sixers wouldn’t have made it out of the 1st round in the West almost surely. The best West of the past 10 years for sure.
When it comes to improving teammates, I think it is easy to see that Andre Miller makes his teammates better. Nash makes his teammates better.
Iverson has to dominate the ball. Point guards have to dominate the ball. Iverson’s teams thus cannot have a point guard and thus struggle. Then the defensive side of the ball comes around. If a legit PG is on Iverson’s team and it worked offensively which I doubt, he must be big enough to defend 2s since Iverson can’t defend 1s let alone 2s, which creates perpetual mismatches if he isn’t tall enough. The PG would also have to take on the better guard thus forcing him to use a lot of energy even if he is a taller PG at 6-3 since he will likely he undersized greatly.
With regards to the core, one more year and a lot more will be clear. What is Jason Smith? I haven’t a clue yet.
LMAO at people saying “what have the Pistons won ?”
How about A TITLE ???? Something we are asking for over the last…25 years ?????????????
I don’t even care about the other Finals they made or the six consecutive ECF appearances, THEY WON A DAMN TITLE IN 2004 !!!!
I want to do the same and I could not care less about what will eventually happen before or after that, we could even win 15 games the following year, but I want a ring !!!
Joe,
Keith Van Horn, an aging Derrick Coleman, Chris Webber with one leg. What do these three players have in common? They are the best three offensive players Allen Iverson ever played with.
While I think anyone in Philly can agree that Iverson, during his first five years in the league, ball hogged it a bit, and could throw up some questionable shots…he also had to. Remember this was a guy surrounded by such “offensive juggernauts” as Aaron McKie, Eric Snow, Tyrone Hill, George Lynch, Matt Harpring, Theo Ratliff, Matt Geiger, Kenny Thomas, Corliss Williamson, Tim Thomas, Dikembe Mutumbo over the years…I mean, cmon, are you kidding me?
It drives me f–king nuts that people are obsessing about the “woes of Kobe Bryant” having to carry a Lakers team for two years without Shaq, with a not too great supporting cast. How about Iverson for A DECADE…that 00-01 team was quite possibly the single least talented offensive team, based on sheer offensive talent, that ever made it to the 2nd round, let alone the conference finals.
Did Iverson jack up too many ill advised threes and jumpshots? Sure he did. But he was thrust in the role of go to guy, 2nd option, and 3rd option given the ridiculous lack of another guy around him. Stack, T Thomas, Hughes, Kukoc, Joe Smith, Glenn Robinson, Webber…LB and King kept getting this guys with potential that never panned out, or aging over the hill vets that didn’t have enough left in the tank. This was NOT Iverson’s fault…in fact the best guy AI did haveto play with was in the 02-03 season, we had a healthy and still kinda in his prime KVH, with a still effective DC, and they worked great together, got 48 wins, made the 2nd round and played a great Pistons team very tough.
Also, while Iverson used to be immature, on and off the court, over time improved his game and grew up. Watch him play between 03-08 vs. his first six years in the league…it’s like watching a different player. He plays with veteran savvy, DOES make his teamates better, is a great leader, his assists have been in the 7 – 7.5 range for four years running now, and he actively looks to share the ball in Denver. (I think Melo is the reason for the Nuggets downfall…I cannot stand Carmelo). This along with the fact that he played great during any type of national Olympic games, made his teamates better, and every single All-NBA player loved playing with the guy.
Iverson is one of the most underrated “athletics coming to full maturity” stories in sports…unfortunately, as it tends to go…Iverson faded from the limelight the better the player and person he became, because he was caught on mediocre teams, and the media tends to obsess over winners and/or lightning rod, controversial personalities.
And as far as the NBA playoffs in 00-01…I don’t care what the landscape was, lets concentrate on who the Sixers played:
-Pacers: we had gotten smacked around by the veteran Reggie + Davis brothers team two years in a row in the 2nd round…we lost game one then pretty much closed these vets down in round 1, effectively ending their era and forcing them to go younger towards developing J Oneal as their man. This was a huge hurdle for that Sixers team to jump.
-Toronto: I’d say, not in personnel, but “up and coming”…this team was very similar to this year’s Orlando Magic. They had a then mega star Vince Carter on the rise and taking the league by storm…a brutal veteran front court with Antonio Davis, Oakley, Kevin Willis and Keon Clark. Alvin Williams as the PG, Mark Jackson backing him up, Dell Curry the 3 point bomber. This was a VERY good team.
-Milwaukee: Sam Cassell, Ray Allen, Glenn Robinson all in or entering their primes? You couldn’t have asked for a more talented, exciting Eastern Conference Finals match up that year. The Bucks were an offensive wrecking ball the 2nd half of that season, and truly a scary matchup.
Point: the landscape in the East as a whole was decent, not great…but the Sixers played three very tough teams.
DAVE T: I agree with much of what you say, but not all of it. You are right about the quality of the teams we beat to make it to the finals. There is no way you can discount what we did because of some perceived weakness in the eastern conference. I agree that Iverson never had much offensive help. Also, as time has gone on, Iverson has matured, has willingly shared the ball more, and become a great teammate. You have to admit though that his first few years in the league it wasn’t that way, or at least not nearly to the same degree as now.
What I do not agree with is your reasoning as to why Iverson never had any offensive players around him. I don’t think all of the blame can be placed at the feet of Larry Brown and Billy King, or the individual players for that matter. Larry Brown has been successful his entire career(except for the Knicks debacle, but we’re talking about ten years ago here). He has consistently been a good talent evaluator, motivator, and teacher. The man knows what he is doing. I find it difficult to believe he would bring in one inept player after another, year after year. Everyone misjudges here and there, but there’s no way he could be as successful as he has been if he made that many mistakes. I think the key is what Dannie said a while back. The team was deliberately built with defensive specialists. It was built around him. Iverson was predominantly the offense and they were predominantly the defense. I don’t think Iverson carried the offensive because he did not have any help. I think he didn’t get any help because he carried the offense. I think some of those guys certainly could have helped more than they did, if given the chance. Iverson didn’t trust anybody else very much so he didn’t give that many chances. Larry Brown is smart enough to know that you can’t really change a player. He certainly must have tried, based on all the times he threatened to quit, but in the end he allowed Iverson to be himself and did his best to build around it. Sure a player can improve his skills, decision making, maturity and such but he still is who he is. Even though Iverson has developed and matured and done all the things you said, he’s still Iverson at heart. Even now you can see it when you watch him and I would expect nothing different. (Another example would be Rasheed Wallace. He has matured and developed, but he’s still Rasheed.)
Please do not misunderstand me. I realize that Iverson has always been a devastating offensive weapon. What I’m saying is that I used to sense an attitude from him that said “I have a better chance of making a fadeaway 20 footer over a double team than you do of making a wide open 10 footer.” He probably was right many more times than he was wrong about that. I’m sure his attitude is a natural consequence of his tremendous ability and his great self-confidence. I don’t blame him for feeling that way about his game, but it certainly could not have helped his teammates very much. I really believe that, to some degree, his attitude prevented the Sixers from bringing in more offensive talent and limited the offensive contributions of the guys that were here. It just could not have been easy to play with the Iverson of ten years ago.
Remember, Stackhouse was here for one year before we drafted Iverson. We were high on Stack and when we got Iverson we felt like we’d have an all world backcourt for years to come. After one year together, Stack was gone. Iverson was clearly the alpha dog and even though we needed a second scorer to help him out, it was also clear that whoever we got would be a distant second. I just have a hard time believing that every player we brought in was either a bust or overrated or past his prime. Iverson has to bear at least some of the responsibility for this.
I have had my fair share of AI defenses so this will be my last thought.
In my opinion it is MUCH MUCH easier and wiser to strategically build around (’01 Sixers) a unique, freakish talent (AI) than it is to ask or expect that unique freakish talent to change their inherent style of play. In most cases it is that style that makes them great and changing it could likely be more detrimental than beneficial. You don’t draft an Allen Iverson with the intent to change his game.
Either by luck or purposely the Sixers front office was able to build “the right” team around AI for one season. The more I think about it the more I believe it was luck rather than my previous assertion that Billy King deliberately, knowingly brought that collection of players together. Why? 1. if he know that was the model he would have done so earlier 2. attempt to do it more often 3. attempted to build on the ‘01 teams success rather than reconfiguring it. And ultimately that is why I think that clown BK is no longer working in the NBA.
Back to Sixers core for me…
Bski – I hope you are wrong about “All of this tells me not to expect a major overhaul of the roster and that ES is going to be patient. I don’t foresee him moving several of the young guys before he knows what they’ve got.”
I think the core guys I mentioned should definitely remain on the team but I am ok with guys like Jason Smith, Carney, Evans being upgraded at the expense of some chemistry.
For example if people think Carney is a value I would be ok with using him as part of a trade to get a back-up PG or solid PF, back-up Center or even as part of a deal to move up in the draft or acquire another pick in this years draft because I think it is pretty deep with quality prospects. Because again I think he among most of the other non-core guys fits in the category of easily replaceable.
DANNIE: You certainly are a staunch defender of Iverson. I wasn’t saying that I thought Larry Brown SHOULD have changed Iverson, or that I thought the team would have been better off if he changed. I think you are absolutely correct in saying that it is much easier and wiser to build around a unique talent like Iverson than to try to change his style of play. I was refuting Dave T’s assertion that it was none of Iverson’s fault that he didn’t have any offensive help and that he was thrust into the role of the go to guy, 2nd option and 3rd option.
I still say that Iverson, because of his phenomenal ability and self confidence, deliberately took over the role of go to guy, 2nd option and 3rd option. He wasn’t asked to step up or forced into it. It is completely understandable why he did it when you look at the state of the team when he was drafted. I’m not blaming him in any way for that.
My point was, and still is, that Iverson cannot be totally blameless for the team’s struggles. I don’t think every guy that was brought in over the years was a stiff. It seems a bit odd that none of them were really able to play well enough alongside him for us to go anywhere. Even Iverson, no matter how much he busted his tail, could not win enough games 1 on 5 to win a title. He needed his teammates to be there. I think the fact that they were not is partially his fault. I don’t know if his attitude was “I’m so much better than all of you, why should I waste my time?”, or “No matter what I do to help you, you’re not good enough so I’ll just do it all myself.”, or even something as simple as “How could I possibly help you? You’ve got to do it for yourself.” It could be that he just didn’t know how to make his teammates better back then or he thought that he could make it easier for them by taking all the weight. Whatever the case, it just didn’t work out for us.
I do think you are right about the luck, otherwise we would have had more than just that one year.
BACK TO THE CORE: That quote from ES about how he thinks they will add a player to the team with their draft pick but starting right away would be tough because of all the young guys is what really stuck out to me. It sounds like he is comfortable going forward with them. Of course, he could just be blowing smoke to avoid tipping his hand or putting too much pressure on an incoming draft pick.
I’m with you on trading to move up in the draft or to upgrade an area of need. We have several pieces and moving a couple to get better now is the right play, especially if we are keeping Miller.
The point remains that the Sixers came out of the worst East of the past 10 years at least. Noone has attempted to dispute this so I assume you accept it. In reality, the Sixers were not a top 6 team in the NBA, even though they made it to the NBA finals. Sorry, it is the truth.
@Dave T
As far as their competition… Pacers weren’t a top 20 NBA team probably. Toronto wasn’t a playoff team in the West and the Sixers barely won against them. If Vince Carter had a clutch bone in his body he wouldn’t have come up 6 inches short on his game winning shot after his graduation lol. VC is a bigger joke than Iverson by A LOT. Bucks were a legit solid top 10 NBA team that year. Nothing special. Their front court was scrubs.
I don’t blame Melo for the downfall. I blame management. Substitute Miller and Evans for Iverson and you have a better overall team in Denver by a lot. They would sell less seats and jerseys though… so maybe management was right to bring in Iverson, the seat seller.
@DANNIE
I think the Sixers drafting Iverson was based on 2 things. #1 was the fact that he was going to sell out every game for them and revitalize basketball in Philly. #2 was that he might be a great player. From a business standpoint, Allen Iverson is one of the top 20 players to ever play the game.
The “right” team behind Iverson was still not a top 5 NBA team. Plain and simple fact.
@bski
Iverson played 1 on 5. Opponents played 5 on 4. That is how Iverson’s career should be defined.
I guess I am done. People are constantly blinded by Iverson’s 30 ppg and him falling all over the court. They ignore his lack of defense and overall neglect for ball movement.
Lets just hope that Lou Williams goes the Tony Parker route with a jump shot and not the Allen Iverson route, since AI’s route never contends.
Actually Joe your assumption that I (can only speak for myself) accept your point is false. I stated I was moving on to get back on topic with what this open discussion was about. I already made my point about the ‘07 Eastern Conference and you made your point and we end on that. Comparing different seasons will usually end with two people holding their side because you can’t really compare eras or seasons like that and come up with a definitive 100% fact based conclusion.
I don’t even know what you are talking about when you say top xx team? That season, ever, in the last 10 years, what? Regardless no one said they were, what we said was that was the right model to build around Iverson’s unique talent and it worked. No one can predict how that team would have faired in subsequent NBA seasons its all speculation and until you understand what you say is not “truth” but simple opinion and speculation based on some facts and personal subjective reasoning we will just have to agree to disagree.
Like I said I am trying to get this conversation back on track with the Sixers current core players and won’t even bother going into why I don’t agree with this statement at all “I think the Sixers drafting Iverson was based on 2 things. #1 was the fact that he was going to sell out every game for them and revitalize basketball in Philly. #2 was that he might be a great player. From a business standpoint, Allen Iverson is one of the top 20 players to ever play the game.”
JOE: I disagree with pretty much everything you’ve just said. I think you’ve developed an intense dislike of Iverson and it colors your opinion to the point that you cannot allow anything good to be associated with him.
Look, even if the east was as weak as you say back then, it was a relative weakness. It’s not like the east was the equivalent of the CBA or the D-league. It happens often in many sports where a team from the “weaker” conference wins the title. Here’s a recent baseball example, the 2006 St. Louis Cardinals. Sticking with 2006, How about the NBA champs, Miami? By your measurements, the east wasn’t too strong then either. The east had one 60 win team(Pistons), two .500 clubs (Indiana and Chicago), and one sub .500 club(Milwaukee) make the playoffs. By comparison, the west had two 60 win clubs(San Antonio and Dallas), and the bottom two teams (Denver and Sacramento) had 44 wins. Top to bottom the west’s playoffs teams had better records even though they played in the “tougher” conference. What happened? Miami “got lucky” and had an “easier” route, only having to defeat “weaker” teams to reach the finals. Meanwhile Dallas had to fight through “tougher” teams in the “stronger” conference to make it. Well, the Heat not only made it but also beat the Mavs for the title. Do you discount Miami’s title? The difference between the ‘05-’06 Heat and the ‘00-’01 Sixers is that Miami had Shaq and Wade while we had only Iverson. That is also the main reason we fell short in the ‘01 finals. The Lakers had Shaq and Kobe while we only had Iverson. Two superstars beats one almost every time.
As far as why the Sixers drafted Iverson, at a minimum, you’ve got it backwards. They drafted him because he was an unbelievably talented basketball player. One that doesn’t come along very often and who could indeed revitalize Philly basketball. Also, one that they needed very badly at the time. The business side and selling tickets was secondary.
I certainly am not blinded by Iverson’s 30 ppg. If you’ve read my posts here, you know that I believe Iverson should bear some responsibility for the team’s struggles. I don’t think he deserves a free pass because of his numbers. I think that part of the reason the team was not better is that he was not a better teammate back then. As difficult as it is to make your teammates better, as the unquestioned leader of the team and an MVP caliber player, it was up to him to do it. That being said, you cannot dismiss out of hand what he has done and continues to do in this league at 5′11″ and 165lbs. He deserves respect for his ability, heart, determination, and accomplishments.
Bski, I really like reading your comments; always thoughtful and well written. But…I actually disagree with your disagreement of my last post.
First…I didn’t say every player the Sixers brought in was a stiff. Far from it. My point is that the Sixers tried numerous times to bring in a legit 2nd offensive option…and NONE of them panned out in that role. You said Larry Brown was a good talent evaluator…I strongly disagree. LB is a prime example of a coach that should never, EVER be a GM. He was fickle, could change his attitudes on players in a heartbeat, and readily gave up on young players too quickly, and was manic on his views on certain veterans.
The way our team was structured was the large reason we could never land a real #2. We gave AI the max, overpaid the role players around him, and struck out or did mediocre with draft talent, giving us no real pieces to move for anyone. The best we could hope for was one of two things: veterans on the tail end of their career, young draft picks, or blue chip players that were solid talents but not equipped for a spotlight role. I’ll go through every one of AI’s sidekicks LB/King brought in and categorize them:
-Stackhouse: A legit 2nd option on any team in his prime, but he, like AI then, was young, trigger happy and immature, and as these two could obviously not coexist, we chose the better talent to stick with.
-DC, pt I: At this time DC still could have been a legit bona fide all star and true #2 option…unfortunately, DC had not matured (relatively for his career, anyway lol), was a ballhog, whiny, played no D, destroyed chemistry.
-Jim Jackson: A great #3 option and versatile NBA guy…of course, since we already had Stack and AI, he couldn’t have worked, minutes went down, he got pouty…fell in LB’s dog house, and was never effectively used. Absolutely LB’s fault here…he stubbornly didn’t change his system to help J Jax out at all, he could have easily shined for us.
-Matt Geiger: If he had a career year, a #4 option at the very best. Nice role player though.
-Tim Thomas: Do I really need to say anything here? On the starting five for “Supreme bball talent that squandered his career due to a horribly work ethic and lazyness” team. Great draft pick at the time…just didn’t pan out.
-Larry Hughes: THE move that destroyed our team’s future. We need a SF as a #2 option that can score 18-20 a game, pass, slash, and shoot…so we pass up P Pierce for…another athletic guy that can’t shoot, the same position as AI? Huh? And Pierce wasn’t even a case where then he was slept on…most people generally agreed he was one hell of a talent on the wing.
-Toni Kukoc: One of the most creative Billy King trades of his career, and very intriguing at the time. Unfortunately, Kukoc is the single worst player you would ever possibly want for Larry Brown’s offense he set up for AI teams. Brown is a controlling half court offensive coach that never liked the Sixers shooting threes, and puts guys in very particular spots with set plays. Kukoc thrives in a wide open, ball movement, free flowing style of play, and thrives under guys that let him use his natural bball intuition creatively. Just a horrible match of player talent and coaching.
-Dikembe Mutumbo: Obviously not a legit offensive weapon.
-Jumaine Jones: One of the many rookies underplayed and underutilized by LB, we should have groomed him as our 6th man scorer, he could have been a nice talent had we developed him properly.
-Matt Harpring: A great #4 offensive option for any team…scrappy, tough nosed. Horrible 2nd scoring option though, we asked him to do to much, and again LB’s controlling coach ways hampered his game (he went on to flourish under Sloan the next year).
-KVH: Scored 16.0 PPG, and one of the few guys AI actually trusted with passing the ball. Real productive season, but he was on a rebound year after his confidence being shattered on the Nets teams, not a long term solution.
-DC Pt II: Much more mature, loved LB as a coach, meshed with AI well…but on the decline. Nice vet-savvy player, but too little too late.
-Glenn Robinson: Again, another great vet in the waning years of his career. Injured a lot, horrible attitude, team cancer, we paid him eventually just to get him out of our locker room. Never had a shot of being a legit side kick due to his age.
-Chris Webber: See Glenn Robinson. Sum up of his Sixers career: OBrien: “Chris, we want you in the low post scoring the ball.” C-Webb: “No.” Obviously the wording is different, but this encounter actually took place. Wow. Having one leg, no athleticism, and no defense didn’t help either.
BSki I TOTALLY agree that in his 96 – 02 years (and the Randy Ayers/Chris Ford year, 04)…I couldnt stand how ball hoggy and trigger happy AI got. He didn’t make teamates around him better then, didn’t get the game like he does now.
But I genuinely think had he had a Paul Pierce, Elton Brand, Marion…SOMEONE roughly his age as a respectable 2nd talent, AI would have definitely given up the rock more. Sure a Chris Paul, KG, or the way Kobe plays now could have taken some of those teams and lifted them higher then AI could have given how they make people better…but given the player AI used to be before maturing…it’s more managements fault.
And also Joe Smith…great move at the time…but had a horrible attitude with us and hated coming off the bench. He whined, didn’t play up to potential, we traded him.
DAVE T: Thanks. Also, thanks for being thorough. I enjoy your comments very much as well. I have to say you’ve brought me around to your way of thinking on this. As I read along, I found myself in agreement every step of the way.
I was well aware of Larry Brown’s controlling ways and preference for playing veterans over younger players, but I really didn’t factor that into my assessment. LB is also culpable, which would lessen the blame I placed on Iverson. I think the expectations we place on superstars played a part as well. Many times those expectations are unreasonable, causing us to dismiss what the guy actually does. You know, fantastic player…but he never won a title.
All you can do is put the pieces together, keep trying to get better, and have some luck. Other than ‘00-’01 which, I agree with Dannie, was luck, the Sixers were never able to build a team that was good enough. Plenty of blame to go around for that.
NOW, let’s get back to the core. You still haven’t commented on how you feel about Dannie’s choice of four core players. Do you agree with the four? If not, who do you think belongs, who doesn’t, and why? What about our young guys? Who do you think we should keep and who should we try to move? We’ve got to get this discussion back on track.
Keep Miller, Sammy, Thad, Iggy and Lou Williams for chemistry and to evaluate him for a little longer. Other then those guys I am actually fine with any other player not being on the team next season if that means we get a needed piece we don’t currently have (shooter, inside scorer and PG) or is an upgrade over one of the other players.
I actually have a post I am researching that will likely be called Sixers Free Agent Watch. And it will be a list of players many have mentioned but also guys I have heard NO ONE talking about as well and see what you guys think. But that post won’t be until after the draft of course. I already have a list of 17 players.
DANNIE: C’mon, you can’t do that. The draft is 3 weeks away. You’re killing me. I’m in agreement with your last post. Definitely the smart way to proceed.
I’m still trying to call out Dave T. and see what he thinks. When Sixerzguy comes back, I’m confident he’ll stir it up a bit. Let’s keep this thing going.