OT - Sixers

[knowyourenemy]

I want Fox. That kind of speed is unteachable and goes well with all of our bulkiness on the rest of the team.

I'd be ok with Fox. Jackson/Fox/Smith. One of them has to be the option at #3. Fultz will be gone and Ball is a bad fit and has too many questions surrounding him (mostly ability to defend and whether his jumpshot will translate.)

 

[old duke]

Jackson or Fox. Smith is too short to take at 3. I just hope that BC doesn't give away the farm to trade up for Fultz.

 

[Iggloo]

It doesn't make any sense for us to trade with Sac unless we are dealing Okafor or other players. We have to unload some guys as part of "the process" at this stage.

 

[Funk]

Jackson or Fox. Smith is too short to take at 3. I just hope that BC doesn't give away the farm to trade up for Fultz.

In what world is a 6'2" PG too short? Especially one thats the most explosive athlete in the draft... I dont get it.

Ainge isnt trading Fultz for any of the junk on the 6ers roster that'd be availbe, so I dont think you have to worry about that part.

Still think if Simmons is supposed to be the PG, Malik Monk fits that roster the best, gotta have someone that consistently shoot it from the perimeter, and he's about as good as it gets, plus his ability it finish above the rim and in transition would help Simmons a ton.

 

[Rey]

Smith's height imo is just fine for a Point ... same height as Curry and Irving. Maybe a half inch shorter, but that makes almost no difference when you consider Smith has Russell Westbrook type explosiveness. You have to keep in mind that Smith played on a really bad team last season where he often had to force things despite defenses focusing all their attention on him. If he had a better team around him like De'Aaron Fox had ... we may be talking about him in the mix as the #1 pick in the draft; he's that talented.

 

[old duke]

If he is 6'2" - that's OK. I saw somewhere that he is really about 6'0". Who knows, unless he was measured at the combine. Does anybody here know?

 

[LegoDoom]

Smith's height imo is just fine for a Point ... same height as Curry and Irving. Maybe a half inch shorter, but that makes almost no difference when you consider Smith has Russell Westbrook type explosiveness. You have to keep in mind that Smith played on a really bad team last season where he often had to force things despite defenses focusing all their attention on him. If he had a better team around him like De'Aaron Fox had ... we may be talking about him in the mix as the #1 pick in the draft; he's that talented.

Height isn't an issue for Smith as a PG, but he isn't long and if the offense is running through Simmons, then a guy who isn't long defensively and didn't put up great shooting numbers may not be the best fit. Honestly, if you want Smith, then trade for #5 and #10 and take Isaac and Smith.

 

[Rey]

Height isn't an issue for Smith as a PG, but he isn't long and if the offense is running through Simmons, then a guy who isn't long defensively and didn't put up great shooting numbers may not be the best fit. Honestly, if you want Smith, then trade for #5 and #10 and take Isaac and Smith.

I don't disagree about the fit. If Simmons is going to dominate the ball then it takes PG's out of the picture as picks. That's why I think they have real interest in Monk as he can play "some" Point when Simmons isn't in the game and can be the shot guy when Simmons is in. I do however think "in general" that Smith will be a fine NBA Point somewhere.

 

[LegoDoom]

I think Monk would be a really good fit and his defense seems at least passable (although he's not long, either). Ntilikina could be a great fit, as well. I'm not taking either at #3.

If only Fox could shoot, then none of this would matter.

 

[eaglesnut]

I don't disagree about the fit. If Simmons is going to dominate the ball then it takes PG's out of the picture as picks. That's why I think they have real interest in Monk as he can play "some" Point when Simmons isn't in the game and can be the shot guy when Simmons is in. I do however think "in general" that Smith will be a fine NBA Point somewhere.

No way. Then who guards other PGs?? This pick has to be a guy that can defend PGs! The first guy on that list is Fox.

 

[eaglesnut]

I think Monk would be a really good fit and his defense seems at least passable (although he's not long, either). Ntilikina could be a great fit, as well. I'm not taking either at #3.

If only Fox could shoot, then none of this would matter.

He'll shoot fine. He's never had to before because he's been faster than everyone his whole life.

Fox shot 43.8% from 3 in March.

 

[knowyourenemy]

Height isn't an issue for Smith as a PG, but he isn't long and if the offense is running through Simmons, then a guy who isn't long defensively and didn't put up great shooting numbers may not be the best fit. Honestly, if you want Smith, then trade for #5 and #10 and take Isaac and Smith.

Agreed about length being the issue. As far as great numbers shooting, I'm going to have to disagree a bit. Smith has good catch-and-shoot numbers -- and he also has the ability to create his own shot. If we ended up with #5 and #10, I don't think we could risk Smith falling to #10.

Assuming he is available at #3, I think Jackson is the pick because of his defensive projections. But . . . who knows.

 

[LegoDoom]

He'll shoot fine. He's never had to before because he's been faster than everyone his whole life.

Fox shot 43.8% from 3 in March.

And didn't break 25% in the other 4 months.

I actually think he'll be a better shooter than he was in college, but don't think he'll create the spacing the team needs like Monk or Markkanen would.

 

[LegoDoom]

Agreed about length being the issue. As far as great numbers shooting, I'm going to have to disagree a bit. Smith has good catch-and-shoot numbers -- and he also has the ability to create his own shot. If we ended up with #5 and #10, I don't think we could risk Smith falling to #10.

Assuming he is available at #3, I think Jackson is the pick because of his defensive projections. But . . . who knows.

I didn't say he wasn't a good shooter, but I wouldn't say a great one.

Personally, I'd be fine with Isaac at #5 and taking whoever falls to #10 out of Monk, Ntilikina, Markkanen, and Smith. Obviously, the team would need to make another move to bring in a SG if Markkanen is the only one left out of those four.

I wouldn't be upset with Jackson at #3, but think Fox is the better fit and is a very good defender, as well.

 

[eaglesnut]

And didn't break 25% in the other 4 months.

So he got better at it as the year went on. He's a young developing player. And his game isn't to jack up threes. Instead he got to the line 15 TIMES twice during the month!

I actually think he'll be a better shooter than he was in college, but don't think he'll create the spacing the team needs like Monk or Markkanen would.

This team is SLOW. If you add those guys it is STILL SLOW!

 

[eaglesnut]

Fox shot 37.5 percent over his last 15 games of the year from 3, and a gaudy 47.4 percent in his last 10.

NBA Draft 2017: De'Aaron Fox's biggest weakness might not be a weakness after all

And he plays bad ass defense.

 

[eaglesnut]

Here is another good piece of analysis on Fox.

De'Aaron Fox's jump-shot & free-throw shooting mechanics:

He'll develop the shot as he gets stronger, and it won't be shocking.

 

[LegoDoom]

Fox shot 37.5 percent over his last 15 games of the year from 3, and a gaudy 47.4 percent in his last 10.

NBA Draft 2017: De'Aaron Fox's biggest weakness might not be a weakness after all

And he plays bad ass defense.

Is there any reason that you're picking a random span of games (other than that it proves your point that he's a good shooter)? Or is your point that he developed his shot as the year went on? By month: 13.3%, 15.4%, 23.1%, 25%, and 43.8%. What number does not look like the other? He must have been seriously coached up in order for you to not consider the end of the season to be the outlier. And formulating your point on 16 shots seems pretty weak to me.

Heck, Josh Jackson shot 47.8% and 40% over the last two months. Do you consider him a good shooter?

 

[LegoDoom]

This team is SLOW. If you add those guys it is STILL SLOW!

I'm not sure I'd consider Monk slow.

And the team still needs spacing. Covington and Embiid can shoot from 3 point range. That's it.

 

[eaglesnut]

Is there any reason that you're picking a random span of games (other than that it proves your point that he's a good shooter)? Or is your point that he developed his shot as the year went on? By month: 13.3%, 15.4%, 23.1%, 25%, and 43.8%. What number does not look like the other? He must have been seriously coached up in order for you to not consider the end of the season to be the outlier. And formulating your point on 16 shots seems pretty weak to me.

Are you trying to claim he's not a better shooter now than he was in November? And what would you be basing that on? I have a whole month of his most recent games.

And no I'm not just using his best month. That accusation is pure chicken shit. I'm using his most recent month. Are you assuming he has not been developing and getting stronger at all since high school? It's very likely he has.

If you were paying attention you would notice a progression instead of whatever the hell you're seeing.

Heck, Josh Jackson shot 47.8% and 40% over the last two months. Do you consider him a good shooter?

Better than he was earlier in the season.