Would Ben Simmons be the last piece of our puzzle?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
illmatic99 said:
A Giannis centric Milwaukee type offense is the current template, but I think even they will struggle later in the playoffs when they have to rely on the likes of Eric Bledsoe creating shot opportunities. While Middleton is good, he's not much more than a scorer who could get easily taken out with extra defensive attention.

I think we are all overthinking this fit with Simmons. Just looking through basketball reference comps, it's crazy how similar Simmons' numbers look like Magic's. Putting a guy like that next to Dame in multiple roles on the offense is unique and nearly impossible to guard, especially with Nurk's high post passing ability and a good shooting SG next to them.
Click to expand...
[Broken record] The Sixers are not going to give us Simmons for anyone BUT Dame, so it's pointless imagining them next to each other.
 
illmatic99 said:
how is what i said "nonsense" but you can openly compare simmons to evan freaking turner?
Click to expand...

Once again, I addressed all your nonsense, and will do so again. I'm comparing the hole they have in their game, which will lead to the same known problems we've seen in the past.

Now you:
Why do you think we need to add Simmons at the 'dunker spot' and how the hell did you come up which such a position?
 
Rastapopoulos said:
Trying to imagine the perfect supporting cast for Simmons. They should all be shooters, and the advantage of Simmons is that you can have short shooters who aren't PGs on your team - you know, like CJ. Also you can have a big who likes to stand outside and shoot - Brook Lopez or Porzingis. And all of them should be low usage because Simmons is useless on offense if he isn't controlling it. He just doesn't fit with our guys very well, except if you swap him for Dame, and no Blazer fan would go for that.

I know the PERFECT Simmons trade...
Click to expand...

This, you trade for Simmons if you have the roster to maximize his skillset, you don't trade for him hoping that he learns to shoot in 2-3 years, because you will end up wasting those 2-3 years while he tries to learn how to go 33% from 3 on 3 attempts per game.
 
Rastapopoulos said:
Ironically, the real Rubio has adapted perfectly and is shooting great from three and playing off the ball well with Booker.
Click to expand...
This makes me think of getting a perhaps a different big guard like Lonzo Ball who HAS increased his 3 pt shooting a lot to almost 38% this yr, defends well at 6'6 and is a great passer as well.
 
perkinsfor3 said:
Once again, I addressed all your nonsense, and will do so again. I'm comparing the hole they have in their game, which will lead to the same known problems we've seen in the past.

Now you:
Why do you think we need to add Simmons at the 'dunker spot' and how the hell did you come up which such a position?
Click to expand...
Again with snark. I honestly don't get it. Literally nothing I commented on warrants this kinda response. We don't really do this kinda shit in this forum. Not anymore, anyway.

And not sure why you're hanging on to that dunker thing. That's what Moe should have done more of, as in cutting on the weakside while our big was on the short roll. We got a few buckets last night off that same action. Dwyane Wade was so impactful after Lebron came to Miami by embracing cutting and moving off the ball. Not sure why Simmons couldn't assume a similar role, in addition to creating for others.
 
ehizzy3 said:
you never know. Let’s see how they go out this year


I’d love to get Simmons tho, I don’t think enough people watch him on here
Click to expand...
Right, this injury might bring his value down a bit.
 
I'm really not sure is Simmons would be an optimal fit at SF. I think he would probably be a better fit at SF than CJ is at SG, especially if Trent keeps up his development. That could make CJ expendable for a better fit

But Simmons has an even bigger contract than CJ...34M/year for the next 5 years. Is Simmons worth that much and would he change Portland's trajectory that much?

if the answer to those questions is yes, then Portland would have to pay a lot more than CJ

by the way, the Simmons/Evan Turner comparison is kind of loopy
 
perkinsfor3 said:
Once again, I addressed all your nonsense, and will do so again. I'm comparing the hole they have in their game, which will lead to the same known problems we've seen in the past.

Now you:
Why do you think we need to add Simmons at the 'dunker spot' and how the hell did you come up which such a position?
Click to expand...
holy hell, i just realized the reason for your dumbass responses. You must clearly be new to basketball, but it's an actual thing: Let me educate you.

https://hoopgrind.com/better-coaches/draymond-green-short-roll-playmaking/

An example:


Brett Brown even commented on how he's shifting Simmons OUT of that spot: https://nba.nbcsports.com/2019/09/2...in-dunkers-spot-more-in-corner-when-off-ball/

Maybe before making snarky comments, don't talk down to people who have been here quite a bit longer than you?
 
illmatic99 said:
Again with snark. I honestly don't get it. Literally nothing I commented on warrants this kinda response. We don't really do this kinda shit in this forum. Not anymore, anyway.

And not sure why you're hanging on to that dunker thing. That's what Moe should have done more of, as in cutting on the weakside while our big was on the short roll. We got a few buckets last night off that same action. Dwyane Wade was so impactful after Lebron came to Miami by embracing cutting and moving off the ball. Not sure why Simmons couldn't assume a similar role, in addition to creating for others.
Click to expand...

And thats what you want to tie up that much money for?
 
wizenheimer said:
I'm really not sure is Simmons would be an optimal fit at SF. I think he would probably be a better fit at SF than CJ is at SG, especially if Trent keeps up his development. That could make CJ expendable for a better fit

But Simmons has an even bigger contract than CJ...34M/year for the next 5 years. Is Simmons worth that much and would he change Portland's trajectory that much?

if the answer to those questions is yes, then Portland would have to pay a lot more than CJ

by the way, the Simmons/Evan Turner comparison is kind of loopy
Click to expand...
Swapping Simmons for CJ would significantly improve the team (primarily on the defensive side & generating more transition opportunities).

Also the difference between Simmons' contract and CJ's is negligible (< $500k) for the next 4 years. It's the 5th year where Ben is still under contract and CJ becomes a FA that there is a difference.

The skill level gap between Ben & CJ is large. I'd make that trade every day of the week without thinking twice.
 
tester551 said:
I'd honestly rotate Ben & Nurk as the roll man with Dame in the P&R.

Dame's shooting ability & Ben's ball handling/decision making/ mid-range shot could be a think of beauty.
Click to expand...
Exactly, and Philly figured that out a bit this year, but they don't have a guard as dynamic as Dame to just make that a 4 on 3 situation everytime. We would be replacing Zach with Simmons. Just a ridiculous upgrade in skill and versatility. With proper spacing on the weakside, that action is absolutely unstoppable.

But this guy is comparing Simmons to the likes of Aminu/turner and Harkless, so no point in explaining when he's coming from that mindset.
 
I'd be interested to see a Lillard/Simmons pairing (though I agree with Rasta that it's unlikely Philadelphia considers any trade for Simmons that doesn't involve Lillard), but I think if you bring in Simmons, you have to commit to a Simmons-oriented offense. Simmons can certainly contribute to some extent in the dunker's spot and as the screen-setter in some pick-and-pop/pick-and-roll action, but by and large the ball would need to be in his hands with at least three shooters spacing the floor around him and Nurkic or another big in the dunker's spot or setting a screen. Acquiring Simmons and making him mostly an off-ball player would be a complete waste of his talent, especially when Lillard can function as an off-ball player. So how would Lillard accept the offense revolving more around Simmons than Lillard?
 
Minstrel said:
I'd be interested to see a Lillard/Simmons pairing (though I agree with Rasta that it's unlikely Philadelphia considers any trade for Simmons that doesn't involve Lillard), but I think if you bring in Simmons, you have to commit to a Simmons-oriented offense. Simmons can certainly contribute to some extent in the dunker's spot and as the screen-setter in some pick-and-pop/pick-and-roll action, but by and large the ball would need to be in his hands with at least three shooters spacing the floor around him and Nurkic or another big in the dunker's spot or setting a screen. Acquiring Simmons and making him mostly an off-ball player would be a complete waste of his talent, especially when Lillard can function as an off-ball player. So how would Lillard accept the offense revolving more around Simmons than Lillard?
Click to expand...
I don't think this as binary as you say. Both players have sufficient skill and BBIQ to make it so they're both maximized. Whether Terry is the guy to make that happen is another question, but I can unequivocally predict that a Dame/Simmons duo is a better pairing than Simmons/Embiid or even Dame/CJ. If Lebron and Kyrie duo could be the key cogs of a historically great offense in 2016, I don't see why this duo wouldn't be able to.

Likewise, I'd say a CJ/Embiid combo is better than Simmons/Embiid as well, even with the downgrade in overall talent.
 
Last edited:
illmatic99 said:
I don't think this as binary as you say. Both players have sufficient skill and BBIQ to make it so they're both maximized. Whether Terry is the guy to make that happen is another question, but I can unequivocally predict that a Dame/Simmons duo is a better pairing than Simmons/Embiid. If Lebron and Kyrie duo could be the key cogs of a historically great offense in 2016, I don't see why this duo wouldn't be able to.

Likewise, I'd say a CJ/Embiid combo is better than Simmons/Embiid as well, even with the downgrade in overall talent.
Click to expand...

I'm not a fan of the hypothetical idea of trading CJ for Simmons. His playmaking and other obvious skills come with the expense of crappy shooting. I just don't like that weakness in today's NBA. If CJ were going to be traded, I'd much rather it be for a stud SF who can shoot. Sign me up for a starting lineup like Lillard, Trent, Michael Porter Jr., Collins and Nurk.
 
e_blazer said:
I'm not a fan of the hypothetical idea of trading CJ for Simmons. His playmaking and other obvious skills come with the expense of crappy shooting. I just don't like that weakness in today's NBA. If CJ were going to be traded, I'd much rather it be for a stud SF who can shoot. Sign me up for a starting lineup like Lillard, Trent, Michael Porter Jr., Collins and Nurk.
Click to expand...
I dont see Denver trading Porter. Unless you included Dame.
 
illmatic99 said:
If Lebron and Kyrie duo could be the key cogs of a historically great offense in 2016, I don't see why this duo wouldn't be able to.
Click to expand...

Sure, but if you're using that as the model, it goes to what I was saying--Simmons would be playing the LeBron role in the offense (as James was/is a big, gifted passer who has been a questionable shooter--better and much, much more willing than Simmons, but still not exactly an ideal floor spacer) with Lillard more similar to Irving as someone who can play the ball-dominant role but had to transition into more of an off-ball role for LeBron/Simmons. The difference there was that James is a living legend and in the argument for greatest ever, while Irving was just some punk kid. Irving really had no clout to challenge the set-up (but it obviously bothered him and he ultimately broke up the relationship).

I'm not saying the same thing would happen with Lillard, but no matter how smart Simmons, Lillard and whomever the coach was, Lillard couldn't be the constant central hub. Sometimes, sure...but mostly Simmons would have to be, because that's where the majority of his talents lie. So I'm not saying it's binary, that Lillard never gets to touch the ball except to shoot--I'm saying Lillard would have to give up a lot of ball-handling he currently does and he probably would have to give up being the central hub of the offense. And unlike the James/Irving pairing, Lillard wouldn't be clearly the inferior player--so how happy would he be with that? Maybe it doesn't matter--as long as Lillard isn't mutinous about it (and I wouldn't expect him to be), they could probably survive him not being thrilled.
 
e_blazer said:
So, pretty much the same situation as Simmons? I don't see either one as a reasonable target.
Click to expand...

No star that we would want (i.e. a star wing who plays good defense) is going to be available for CJ, because the same flaws that make him not ideal here make him not ideal elsewhere too, whereas star wings are the coin of the realm in this era.

To trade CJ in a way that could be fulfilling for us would involve taking on risk. We'd have to trade him for a pre-hype wing that meets his potential after the trade, like Brandon Ingram before his jump. The Warriors are making almost that exact kind of gamble in trading D'Angelo Russell (a pretty CJ-like player) for Andrew Wiggins (a wing who's currently not a star but they hope makes a jump with them).

If it works, we win. If it doesn't work, we're worse.
 
e_blazer said:
I'm not a fan of the hypothetical idea of trading CJ for Simmons. His playmaking and other obvious skills come with the expense of crappy shooting. I just don't like that weakness in today's NBA. If CJ were going to be traded, I'd much rather it be for a stud SF who can shoot. Sign me up for a starting lineup like Lillard, Trent, Michael Porter Jr., Collins and Nurk.
Click to expand...
He may be a poor outside shooter, but he's significantly more efficient from the floor overall than CJ. All in all though, the biggest improvement would be on defense, and I think the improvement on that end would be much bigger than whatever dropoff we might have offensively.

But as all have said, it's moot because there's no way Philly is dealing a healthy Simmons for CJ, and there's no way Olshey deals CJ for an injured Simmons.
 
Minstrel said:
Sure, but if you're using that as the model, it goes to what I was saying--Simmons would be playing the LeBron role in the offense (as James was/is a big, gifted passer who has been a questionable shooter--better and much, much more willing than Simmons, but still not exactly an ideal floor spacer) with Lillard more similar to Irving as someone who can play the ball-dominant role but had to transition into more of an off-ball role for LeBron/Simmons. The difference there was that James is a living legend and in the argument for greatest ever, while Irving was just some punk kid. Irving really had no clout to challenge the set-up (but it obviously bothered him and he ultimately broke up the relationship).

I'm not saying the same thing would happen with Lillard, but no matter how smart Simmons, Lillard and whomever the coach was, Lillard couldn't be the constant central hub. Sometimes, sure...but mostly Simmons would have to be, because that's where the majority of his talents lie. So I'm not saying it's binary, that Lillard never gets to touch the ball except to shoot--I'm saying Lillard would have to give up a lot of ball-handling he currently does and he probably would have to give up being the central hub of the offense. And unlike the James/Irving pairing, Lillard wouldn't be clearly the inferior player--so how happy would he be with that? Maybe it doesn't matter--as long as Lillard isn't mutinous about it (and I wouldn't expect him to be), they could probably survive him not being thrilled.
Click to expand...
Ben Simmons currently has a usage rate of 21%. CJ is at 27%, Dame at 30%. If we were to replace to two, even with an increased on-ball role for Simmons, I think Dame would be perfectly fine. FWIW, both Kyrie and Lebron were at 31% that season in CLE. Just had a look at the Rockets, and good Lord, Harden and Westbrook are at 36% and 34% respectively.

Needless to say, in today's NBA, there are enough possessions to make everyone happy. And with Simmons instead of CJ, I'd say our pace would only increase
 
when did all these other teams start thinking their MPJs n Simmons were worth Dame? not even with homer glasses on, they aren't even close.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top