Undefeated.

by Michael Levin on Jan 4, 2010 6:16 AM PST Comment 23 comments

This seems like a theme. We play one of the best teams in the league. I say there's no chance at us winning. One or two of the opponent's best players sit out. We win. That was the case against Boston, Portland, Sacramento, and now Denver.

With Melo and Chauncey out, Denver only played 7 guys more than 10 minutes, and basically tired out in the second half. We jumped out to an early 3rd quarter ~~deficit~~ lead (wait, what?), and despite all but coughing it up in the last few moments, held on for our 10th win of the season.

Eddie had a full cast of characters (it's an analogy for his players donchaknow) for the first time all season, resulting in no one playing 35 minutes. I think I like that approach more, as long as he keeps some of the starters in there with the reserves. Speaking of the reserves, they basically won the game for us. Jason Smith had a great run in 8 minutes of play, Jrue Holiday was +17 in 11 minutes, Willie Green dished out 6 assists, and Rodney Carney nailed three key 3's to spark a huge Sixers run. Elton Brand, who I don't count as a bench player as he led the team in minutes, had another efficient game going 7-11 with 7 boards and no turnovers. For a team that usually relies too heavily on its starters, improved bench production and rotations by Jordan could go a long way in winning some more ball games.

Because Samuel Dalembert decided to use all of his fouls as quickly as possible, he was out of the game 3 minutes in with already 3 fouls. He later fouled out in under 20 minutes of action. Because EJ had Elton at center for much of the game running a small lineup, we lost the rebounding battle by 9. They did force more turnovers and limit the three, and while they did decently on the defensive end, still gave up 105 points, which is, pathetically, close to average for this team.

Iverson played well, Williams, Young and Iguodala were mostly absent, but the point is we beat a very undermanned team, only by 3 points. Nothing to celebrate over. And for those of you who still harp on about Ty Lawson, the guy who could never play in the pro game put up 23 points on 13 shots with 9 assists and 0 turnovers.

Oh, and we haven't lost in a year.

0 recs | Comment 23 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

It’s only fair that we get to jump on teams with injuries, as they did to us with Lou, Mareese and Elton out. How teams deal with injuries is a big part of who they are.

Sixers have won 3 of their last 4 and a 5-5 over the last 10 games. New York is still ahead and has won 6 of their last 10.

Eddie Jordan is still the head coach, he should be the one most likely to lose his job; but the silence from the front office isn’t encouraging. There’s enough evidence that Eddie shouldn’t be the Sixers coach, but he’s still here.

by RickoT on Jan 4, 2010 9:27 AM PST reply actions

And if you know where to look the front office isn’t silent.

Jordan sees a 3-3 road trip as successful against teams missing key players

by jemagee on Jan 4, 2010 9:34 AM PST up reply actions

You do realize that was only 3 games right?

by MojoPharoah on Jan 5, 2010 2:48 PM PST up reply actions

The least you could do is share what you know.

All I can see is that Eddie gets a free pass, regardless of performance or results.

by RickoT on Jan 4, 2010 10:07 AM PST reply actions

That’s not the same as silence

The front office hasn’t been silent at all

They just haven’t said anything intelligent.

It’s not great inside sources it’s freaking philly.com

by jemagee on Jan 4, 2010 10:31 AM PST up reply actions

When did Kate ask anything related to Jordan’s job security? When did anyone say anything about how Ed Stefanski feels about the Sixers season so far? The Philly papers do a terrible job of covering the team, and Comcast which owns the team doesn’t say anything about it either, through other outlets or their own channels.

I haven’t heard squat from anyone except Eddie Jordan, and he is a clown.

by RickoT on Jan 4, 2010 10:50 AM PST reply actions

Kate Fagan isn’t the only person who covers the sixers or who gets quotes from Stefanski, but then again, you ask the wrong questions, there’s enough quotage out there from Stefanski recently that indicates that Jordan is in no danger of losing his job.

Course now that I know you’re the same guy from dereks board, I understand you a lot more, if only this had an ignore function like derek’s board – i haven’t read anything you wrote there in like 3 months

by jemagee on Jan 4, 2010 11:09 AM PST up reply actions

At least Kate wrote a nice stinging article about Jordan, but now that she’s insulted him, she’ll get even more cryptic answers. She needs to talk to Stefanski, because as she so ably demonstrated, the team is going nowhere.

by RickoT on Jan 4, 2010 11:04 AM PST reply actions

What happened to championship contenders? You say the same thing every time, yet I still don’t understand what your point is. Who does the blame go to: Jordan, Stefanski, or the players? If you answered any of those, you’re dead wrong because it is all of them. Oversimplifying that Eddie Jordan is the problem is a neat way to ignore the fact that we’re a bad team. But I already know what your response is going to be so why am I further risking carpal tunnel?

by Michael Levin on Jan 4, 2010 1:28 PM PST up reply actions

Oh, and we haven’t lost in a year.

Sure about that?

by jemagee on Jan 4, 2010 1:35 PM PST reply actions

Oh John you dog, you know what I meant. Wink smiley face.

by Michael Levin on Jan 4, 2010 1:46 PM PST up reply actions

The Sixers went in to Boston and won a game. They have the potential to be championship contenders, but not with this coach. I don’t have a problem with Stefanski other than Jordan.

I don’t expect the players to know how to run plays spontaneously either. If the coach gives them stupid plays to run, you can’t expect good results. The Sixers don’t seem to have any way to score if a team clogs the middle and dares them to shoot outside. They should have an attitude of wanting to attack that defense as a team and defeat it to get a good shot. That’s something that comes from a coach.

by RickoT on Jan 4, 2010 1:42 PM PST reply actions

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc is almost never an accurate logical progression.

the sixers won one game in boston so you think that makes them championship contenders.

play 100 games, if the sixers win 1/4 of them i’d be impressived

by jemagee on Jan 4, 2010 1:48 PM PST up reply actions

And here I was thinking the season was only 82. Free games!

by Michael Levin on Jan 4, 2010 1:49 PM PST up reply actions

What I meant was – play 100 games – sixers at Boston at the garden, both team 100% healthy….sixers would be lucky to win 25

I’m saying one win doesn’t mean much this is stll a 10-22 team

by jemagee on Jan 4, 2010 1:53 PM PST up reply actions

He asked for my opinion and I used this example to demonstrate the potential for the Sixers to contend. They clearly are not in contention now, nor have they played like a team capable of contending since they played Boston. They won two games somewhat convincingly, lost to a Clipper team twice and got lucky in the Boston game (a bucket difference means the game could have gone either way) and in Denver.

I think they have the players, but that’s hard to tell except when they play quality competition and play well. They have trouble playing well on any night against any team, that’s not something a contender does. I thought they proved something executing their offense against Boston, but how could that be when they couldn’t come close to duplicating that success against the Clippers?

by RickoT on Jan 4, 2010 5:30 PM PST up reply actions