2nd Bulls game

In a good sign for the Sixers though a bad sign for, well, basketball,
the Sixers are only down 1 in the loss column to Milwaukee for 6th; so
the mentality for the team shouldn't necessarily be about beating out
Chicago. Washington's frontline is pretty thin right now and would be
a pretty good matchup to continue testing out a Dalembert/Hunter unit
in tonight's game. Maybe the Sixers can just keep Webber out the rest
of the season to 'rest him up' for the playoffs.

I'd say that if the Sixers can somehow go 4-2 over the final six (beat
Was, Orl, Cha, and split NJ; lose to Miami and NJ) they can probably
take 6 or 7. And even if they go 3-3, they still probably make the
playoffs if Indiana or Milwaukee continue playing as badly as they have
been. Interestingly enough, a lot will depend on if the frontcourt can
outplay New Jersey now since Iverson alone isn't going to be able to
counter NJ's starting perimeter unit. Now, on the serious side, Webber
will surely come back. Can he prove us wrong and pull together some
strong (literally and figuratively) games down the stretch? Or does
the season go away on a 20ft jump shot while avoiding the mighty Nenad
Krstic and Jake Voskuhl in the paint? If Webber plays like his usual
self, does Cheeks at least have the guts to only play him, say 25
minutes and go with Hunter or Randolph the rest of the time?


-IK
 >> Stay informed about: 2nd Bulls game 

covanus.DeleteThis@gmail.com wrote:
> In a good sign for the Sixers though a bad sign for, well, basketball,
> the Sixers are only down 1 in the loss column to Milwaukee for 6th; so
> the mentality for the team shouldn't necessarily be about beating out
> Chicago. Washington's frontline is pretty thin right now and would be
> a pretty good matchup to continue testing out a Dalembert/Hunter unit
> in tonight's game. Maybe the Sixers can just keep Webber out the rest
> of the season to 'rest him up' for the playoffs.
>
> I'd say that if the Sixers can somehow go 4-2 over the final six (beat
> Was, Orl, Cha, and split NJ; lose to Miami and NJ) they can probably
> take 6 or 7. And even if they go 3-3, they still probably make the
> playoffs if Indiana or Milwaukee continue playing as badly as they have
> been. Interestingly enough, a lot will depend on if the frontcourt can
> outplay New Jersey now since Iverson alone isn't going to be able to
> counter NJ's starting perimeter unit. Now, on the serious side, Webber
> will surely come back. Can he prove us wrong and pull together some
> strong (literally and figuratively) games down the stretch?

"Us"? Now wait a minute here . . . we're not all the in Webber is
Satan club here!

Or does
> the season go away on a 20ft jump shot while avoiding the mighty Nenad
> Krstic and Jake Voskuhl in the paint?

I do like the way you write. Not to mention other stiffs like Jason
Collins and Brendan Haywood.

If Webber plays like his usual
> self, does Cheeks at least have the guts to only play him, say 25
> minutes and go with Hunter or Randolph the rest of the time?

Howzabout Dalembert 36 minutes at center; Webber 32 minutes at PF; and
Hunter 16 minutes at PF? Oh yeah, we still need someone else who can
play center . . . .

----- Kurt Straub
 >> Stay informed about: 2nd Bulls game 

I think that Webber can play center fine in short runs when he accepts
the role. There have been a few games this year--I'm thinking of that
Wolves game and one of the Bucks games (I think) specifically--in which
he surprisingly provided some top-notch interior defense in the last 3
minutes or so. When the effort is there he can still get the job done
when he's not totally worn down from the 40+ minute games. He has the
size and I think he has the strength to take on anyone outside the
likes of Shaq and B. Wallace but for whatever reason he just despises
the contact these days. The only thing I can think of is that somewhere
in his head he thinks he's this great playmaker/all-court player and
that somehow doing the dirty work down low is for lesser players than
himself.

If he doesn't like it, then he should see how he likes just 17 minutes
a game while Hunter or Bradley stink even more at the position.
Actually, he kind of did that already and his bitchy reaction went a
long way to running the coach out of town.

-IK
 >> Stay informed about: 2nd Bulls game 

covanus.DeleteThis@gmail.com wrote:

> How about:

I salute your brave try. But . . .
>
> Dalembert: 35 minutes at center (possibly more if no early foul
> trouble)

Sure! Too bad the premise is almost in the "when pigs fly" category.


> Webber: 17 at PF, 13 at center (while at center, Webber has to promise
> to stay within . .
> free-throw line)

I'm a Webber fan, but even so, don't want to see him playing 13
minutes at center. In a pinch, 3, tops.

> Hunter: 23 at PF
> Randolph: 8 at PF
> [Hunter/Randolph get extra play at center when Dalembert gets in foul
> trouble]

Problem: Hunter can't play center. Too wussy. Randolph can't play
center. Too small. Webber can't play center against anybody bigger
than him, which is most every center in the NBA. This is what
confounds all efforts to make a rotation. There's nobody who can play
the 5 on this team except Dalembert (sometimes). Which reminds me,
where did Zendon Hamilton go? With any luck the Bucks will want to
make Bogut a full time center, and will deal Magloire, whom I would
happily give 18-20 minutes a game at center on the Sixers roster
behind Dalembert. Who would you like, Mr. Stotts? Hunter, Randolph,
Barnes, Salmons, Bradley, all of them?

------ Kurt Straub
 >> Stay informed about: 2nd Bulls game 

Kurt Straub wrote:
> covanus RemoveThis @gmail.com wrote:

> In the Wolves game, he stopped Garnett cold. I don't remember the
> Bucks game.

Sorry, I was thinking of the Boston, triple overtime game. I guess it
got conflated with all those Bucks games that went down to the wire.

> You're thinking of Mr. Hunter. C-Webb is averaging 10 boards a game
> this year, you can't do that if you shie away from contact.

Well, I will again contend that Webber's rebound numbers are somewhat
inflated because the team rebounding has been quite bad. When
Dalembert's out, which has been often, he's the only guy on the team
even remotely skilled at rebounding. And though 8th overall in
rebounding per game, he falls all the way to 19th in per-48.
Additionally, in Offensive rebounding, which is a better sign of
someone willing to mix it up and fight for the board, he's only 18th
overall and falls out of the rankings entirely per-48 (says nba.com;
for some reason it wouldn't give full league rankings of Oreb-48).

Anyway, rebounds aside, how do you explain Webber not going in for the
many Hunter-like shots he could have and settling for jump shots. It's
not that he shoots them particularly well. If he's not shying away
from contact, has he just developed an abnormal fear of the rim itself?

> He may well have a swelled head, I don't know, but objectively, I
> think he is a fine playmaker and passer.

I don't deny this. But Shaq is a pretty good one too and still finds
the time to play inside. Webber has never accepted that this situation
is not Sacramento. He can still use his talents at other areas of the
floor.

>
> Question for the group: if Hunter is the real deal at PF, do you want
> to play C-Webb at the 3 and let him play the high post all night?
> My answer would be no, because while that might give you an
> interesting offense, the opposing 3 would kill us. On any Sixer
> missed shot, the opposing 3 could beat Webber down the court by ten
> yards. C-Webb can play good inside defense, but you don't want force
> him to play fullcourt D or out on the open court with a 3 that's way
> faster than him.

Absolutely not. The knock on Korver was that he couldn't keep up as a
starter at the 3. Webber would be disastrous. And even if somehow
Hunter is able to play the 3 on defense, it still moves AIg back to the
2 and there is still no spacing on the floor at the offensive end,
which was the whole problem when Korver was getting limited minutes.
If there's going to be a total defensive liability on the floor for
30-35 minutes a game, I want it to be Korver.

Best-case scenario that I see, which is unlikely, is to make Webber
something of a nominal starter like Ollie was. If he has energy and
gets off to a good shooting night, great, keep him in. If not, pull
him after 5 or 6 minutes and put in Hunter. Then let Webber come back
in if Dalembert gets in some foul trouble or to backup Hunter. The
problem of course is that there's no way in hell that Webber accepts
such a role and will immediately become a cancer of Marbury/Artest like
proportions.

It will be interesting since I think that Hunter may be able to keep it
up. Since he is getting all his shots on opportunity stuff and he's
not even being asked to be a top notch rebounder, I think it's
reasonable to think he can continue getting 12-15 points and 7-8 boards
a game, while making an active defensive counterpart with Dalembert.
And again, if AIg makes up the rest of Webber's points, that more than
compensates for Webber not being in. Will Cheeks have the guts to go
with the same kind of logic he had in staying with Hunter over
Dalembert when there's a lot more justification of Hunter over Webber?
Now keep in mind that I'm not really worried about who's starting
(since thankfully it doesn't appear that Hunter has
Dalembert-non-starting-syndrome) but if Hunter can't get 25 minutes at
the 4 after this, it may be a mistake.

--IK
 >> Stay informed about: 2nd Bulls game 

covanus.DeleteThis@gmail.com wrote:

> I think that Webber can play center fine in short runs when he accepts
> the role. There have been a few games this year--I'm thinking of that
> Wolves game and one of the Bucks games (I think) specifically--in which
> he surprisingly provided some top-notch interior defense in the last 3
> minutes or so.

In the Wolves game, he stopped Garnett cold. I don't remember the
Bucks game. Yes, Webber can play good inside defense, and often does,
against other guys his size, but he's only 6-10, 240, and can't really
do that against most centers in the league.

When the effort is there he can still get the job done
> when he's not totally worn down from the 40+ minute games.

Yes, also an important factor.

He has the
> size and I think he has the strength to take on anyone outside the
> likes of Shaq and B. Wallace but for whatever reason he just despises
> the contact these days.

You're thinking of Mr. Hunter. C-Webb is averaging 10 boards a game
this year, you can't do that if you shie away from contact.

The only thing I can think of is that somewhere
> in his head he thinks he's this great playmaker/all-court player and
> that somehow doing the dirty work down low is for lesser players than
> himself.

He may well have a swelled head, I don't know, but objectively, I
think he is a fine playmaker and passer.

Question for the group: if Hunter is the real deal at PF, do you want
to play C-Webb at the 3 and let him play the high post all night?
My answer would be no, because while that might give you an
interesting offense, the opposing 3 would kill us. On any Sixer
missed shot, the opposing 3 could beat Webber down the court by ten
yards. C-Webb can play good inside defense, but you don't want force
him to play fullcourt D or out on the open court with a 3 that's way
faster than him.

----- Kurt Straub
 >> Stay informed about: 2nd Bulls game 

covanus DeleteThis @gmail.com wrote:

> Additionally, in Offensive rebounding, which is a better sign of
> someone willing to mix it up and fight for the board, he's only 18th
> overall and falls out of the rankings entirely per-48 (says nba.com;
> for some reason it wouldn't give full league rankings of Oreb-48).
>
> Anyway, rebounds aside, how do you explain Webber not going in for the
> many Hunter-like shots he could have and settling for jump shots. It's
> not that he shoots them particularly well. If he's not shying away
> from contact, has he just developed an abnormal fear of the rim itself?

You keep forgetting that, rightly or wrongly, Webber plays the high
post most of the time in the half-court offense--- what, maybe 80% of
the time, compared to the low post? (Just my best estimate.) I don't
agree that offensive rebounds is a "better" sign of a willingness to
mix it up under the backboard as compared to defensive rebounds, but I
will surmise that Webber's relative disparity of offensive vs.
defensive rebounds has something to do with the fact that, on offense,
he is asked to set up 15-20 feet away from the basket.

Now that may be a good idea or a bad idea, but if you don't like it,
your beef is with Coach Cheeks, not Webber. Personally I like Webber
in the high post just fine, but I do think you would get more out of
the offense if Webber played the low post more than he does now, a
better balance between high and low post.

The fact that Webber is 80% of the time playing high post on offense
is also the answer to your question, why doesn't he get more easy
putbacks like Hunter does. I've never seen Webber shy away from
contact--- as Hunter often does. The point is that most of the time
on offense Webber is starting out 20 feet away from the rim.

------ Kurt Straub
 >> Stay informed about: 2nd Bulls game 

Well, I think it's a combination of Webber and Cheeks. Webber is
mainly in the high post because he personally *insists* on being there
even when it's not in the best interests of the team. O'Brien tried to
make Webber more of a low post player and Webber complained so much
about how that's not his game that it was a primary motivation for
firing O'Brien. However, I don't think he's really cut out for it
anymore. He doesn't move well enough to do more than shoot jump shots
and on defense, where he has in turn refused as much as possible to
play center, he can't move around screens and provide weak side D while
guarding other PFs who tend to play further away from the basket. At
his point in his career and with his limited mobility, I think he would
be much better closer to the basket, where he *is* actually big and
strong enough to mix it up and provide some dirty work, and still has
some decent moves/savvy to score. He could still do some good
passing/playmaking there too, in the same way that Shaq does. But *he*
doesn't want to be that player and attacks coaches who want him to be
that player.

It's somewhat of a domino effect going all the way to the top: Webber
doesn't have the strength of will to accept his physical shortcomings
and age--that he can and should no longer be 'the man'; Cheeks was
hired as something of a patsy 'players-coach' and will roll over to
Webber's bitching; King, being responsible for decimating the team's
bench and cap mobility to get Webber can't really say that Webber isn't
good for the team nor the very coach he hired to accommodate him; and
Snider apparently doesn't have the basketball acumen to realize that
King has done an extremely bad job shaping the team.


-IK
 >> Stay informed about: 2nd Bulls game 

There's only one way to test this hypothesis, and that's to actually
play Webber in the low post! Which would actually be fine with me, or
at least a better balance between high and low post than we have now.
If there is one thing to learn from the Sixers' recent success with
Hunter playing the 4, it's that they can run a nice "twin tower"
offense, with two big men down low--- at least against the inferior
teams they were playing.

----- Kurt Straub

Ian Kognitow wrote:
> Well, I think it's a combination of Webber and Cheeks. Webber is
> mainly in the high post because he personally *insists* on being there
> even when it's not in the best interests of the team. O'Brien tried to
> make Webber more of a low post player and Webber complained so much
> about how that's not his game that it was a primary motivation for
> firing O'Brien. However, I don't think he's really cut out for it
> anymore. He doesn't move well enough to do more than shoot jump shots
> and on defense, where he has in turn refused as much as possible to
> play center, he can't move around screens and provide weak side D while
> guarding other PFs who tend to play further away from the basket. At
> his point in his career and with his limited mobility, I think he would
> be much better closer to the basket, where he *is* actually big and
> strong enough to mix it up and provide some dirty work, and still has
> some decent moves/savvy to score. He could still do some good
> passing/playmaking there too, in the same way that Shaq does. But *he*
> doesn't want to be that player and attacks coaches who want him to be
> that player.
>
> It's somewhat of a domino effect going all the way to the top: Webber
> doesn't have the strength of will to accept his physical shortcomings
> and age--that he can and should no longer be 'the man'; Cheeks was
> hired as something of a patsy 'players-coach' and will roll over to
> Webber's bitching; King, being responsible for decimating the team's
> bench and cap mobility to get Webber can't really say that Webber isn't
> good for the team nor the very coach he hired to accommodate him; and
> Snider apparently doesn't have the basketball acumen to realize that
> King has done an extremely bad job shaping the team.
>
>
> -IK
>
 >> Stay informed about: 2nd Bulls game