I have been reading everything here (as usual), but I just haven’t been posting much (very unusual) because I’m not sure what I think or what solutions to the Sixers problems I can come up with. 

I am going to stick with what Dannie said and avoid talking trades.  I agree that talking trades is too open-ended.  We could talk forever about what this guy might do for us or what problem that guy solves, but we do not have this guy or that guy.  Plus, we would be moving someone in order to get someone which would probably create a problem for us in some other area.  Besides, all that talk is about possibilities—and need I remind anyone about all of the possibilities we discussed when visions of Elton Brand were dancing in our heads back in June and how those have yet to materialize—-and none of them will help the Sixers as they exist right now.

I have thought a lot about what combos/lineups to put out on the floor and how to better our rotations and substitutions so that everyone gets regular minutes and finds their niche, but my “answers” are no better than anyone else’s.  For example, even though most of us would likely concede that Miller-Iguodala-Young-Brand-Dalembert is our best 5, maybe they shouldn’t all be on the floor together for long stretches.  They can’t all play 48 minutes, so they then end up on the bench together for long stretches.  This necessitates playing too many bench guys together for too long.  I’ve thought that a starting lineup of Miller-Green-Iguodala-Brand-Speights is worth an extended trial period.  Then we would have Williams-Young-Dalembert coming off the bench (they can still play a lot of minutes) with, let’s say, Ivey and Marshall. That second unit could work pretty well without causing too much damage to the starting 5, IMO.  The scariest part of all this is that my “answers” are no worse than Cheek’s and I don’t like what that says about our chances of turning this thing around.

Saying we just need to play better (both individually and as a team) sounds like a cop out, but it’s true.  Every offense looks a heck of a lot better when it is making shots.  To be kind, we don’t have the greatest shooters to begin with, nor do we run the best offensive sets.  That said, we have had our share of open shots, we just haven’t made enough of them. 

I don’t know where to go with this.   Iguodala and Williams are both playing better after getting off to horrible starts.  This should help.  Will it be enough?  I doubt it because even if some of our individual players improve their game, all of those improvements need to be integrated in order for them to translate to improved team play.

This is where Cheeks, and his staff, come in.  I am no longer confident that they can get these players and this team playing up to it’s potential.  I’m certainly not suggesting that we are a championship caliber ballclub, but I do believe that we have the talent to play a lot better basketball than we are.  Also, we are almost 1/3 of the way through the season and I can’t shake the feeling that Cheeks is still throwing things against the wall hoping that something will stick, much like the suggestions we throw around here.  We need more than that at this point.  By the time Cheeks happens to come across the magical combination—if he ever does find it—there is a good chance that this season will be already lost.

I am going to take jjg’s titanic analogy one step further.  If the captain is maintaining a direct, collision course with the iceberg, everything else is nothing more than rearranging the deck chairs on a sinking ship.

(I’m going to stop typing…if I were to make a third lengthy post in one day, I think I’d have officially crossed the line from “sane” to “need help”.  Bski, carry the torch for me!)

Great point!

Based on early season evidence, Cheeks and staff might be the dance band on the Titanic now.  “Player’s coach” - a euphemism - hit iceberg of player personnel and player “status” changes, along with demanding realities of next-level requirements.  
 

I will say that, as a fan, you can tell an awful lot about the state of a team’s psychology from a lot of observation of games, and close watch on what others say about certain players, coaches, attitudes, etc, from the 10 zillion sources in the media.  So, in my opinion from the only information I have to go on, yes, I would say everyone of the above points is true. 

Also, the people that have those kind of Jekyl-Hyde personalities where the fans/media see one thing, and the team sees another, usually becomes regular news after a while in the media.  I really don’t see Mo falling in this category.  From watching him as our PG, as LB’s assistant, his four years in Portland, and back here…I think it’s pretty safe to say we all have an idea of his personality and what he’s about.

It might also be true that I have a very inflated expectation of what I want in a coach.   Saying we don’t have a smart basketball team, or we have such and such deficiencies, are excuses to me.  A REALLY good coach knows how to overcome these deficiencies by getting the team to play TOGETHER and be on the same page.  While it is true that this occurs more often at the high school, college, and European levels than the NBA, I see it as a total cop out when people throw out the “the NBA is a player’s league” thing (not that you did, just me babbling now!). 

If Larry Brown can take a Clippers team to the playoffs with inferior talent, maximize the mid 90’s Pacers talent, take our rag-tag Sixers crew (one of the worst offensive starting lineups in the last 20 years) to the 2nd round and beyond for FOUR straight years, and get a bunch of talented guys in Detroit with no stars to play together damn near telepathically…and if Bo Ryan can take lesser players and churn out 20 win seasons year in and out…I hold this expectation for any coach of a Philadelphia team.  Mo does not have this gene.  He’s an AMAZING assistant.  Not a boss. 

Also, Dannie…to your point of “it’s possible Mo has tried to teach/tell/yell instill everything he knows about bball to these guys”.  You’re probably 100% right.  And that’s EXACTLY my point…he’s a guy that knows basketball inside and out, that seems like he’s good with working with individual players one on one, and a great right hand man…but a HEAD COACH requires you to have the knowledge, AND communication skills, AND to be very firm, and gentle, when the time calls for it.  This mix is not in his genes. 

Phil Jackson: Done a lot of reading about him, and youre completely right, he’s not a “drill sergeant” type.  I more meant he is a coach that has a specific vision, holds true to it, and the way he teaches basketball is at one with his life philosophy.  He certainly holds players accountable (although he was a whole lot more emphatic during his Bulls years than now), and demands certain expectations from them. Mo, to me, has shown he does NOT do these things. 

It’s not in Mo’s character to take over a situation and assert his authority with an iron fist.  I’m not saying that’s necessary for every coaching gig…but it sure as hell is necessary with the makeup of our team. I feel we desperately need a guy that has a strong will, perhaps even overly strong, and is willing to sit a player if he pouts or doesn’t do what the coach wants, screams when necessary, has a better mastery of when to be gentle vs. firm, and will beat his system into the personell we have. 

We don’t have the luxury of having a single alpha dog player, that is a true veteran star with nuts of steel. Our PG is a quiet leader.  Our starting C whines and can be inconsistent.  Our PF is an amazing professional, good presence, and lockeroom leader…but not someone that will change the culture.  Our SF is too young.  Our SG does not command the respect.  If that’s true, then what does this mean?  We need a coach that is an alpha type to get guys in line and change this culture.

And Dannie, you are one of the best I know at explaining points clearly…so I for one cannot wait to see your “fire Mo” post if that’s in the works!!!