webber not thrilled with cheeks system

[Fillmoe]

Salmons wants to start, but ...


By TOM MOORE
phillyBurbs.com
PHILADELPHIA - John Salmons experienced a bittersweet feeling upon learning he would be inserted into the Sixers' starting lineup Wednesday night.
He appreciated being a starter, but felt bad that he was replacing Kyle Korver.
"Me and Kyle are good friends," Salmons said. "To replace a friend's spot ... I know he wants to start. Everybody wants to start."
Salmons, who started one game in place of Chris Webber earlier this month, said the main change as a starter is being ready from tip-off, as opposed to sitting on the bench for the first four to nine minutes before taking the floor.
Asked if he thinks he earned the position, Salmons said, "I think we're just trying to find a way to win games."
He is a much better man-to-man defender than Korver. That is significant for a team that ranks second-worst in the league in points allowed.
Coach Maurice Cheeks can use Salmons on either opposing wing player. On Wednesday night, that meant Richard Jefferson or Vince Carter. Salmons started on Jefferson, with Andre Iguodala on Carter.
The other thing Salmons provides is another ball-handler. When Salmons dribbles up the floor, which Cheeks wants him to do regularly, Allen Iverson can play off the ball and work off screens from both sides of the offensive end.
DisplayAds ('Middle');
"With Johnny, he'll have the ball in his hands," Cheeks said. "Allen won't have it all the time. You have to direct Johnny to go do that. I think the more he does that, the more comfortable he'll be doing it."
Webber not thrilled
Webber doesn't sound like he's as thrilled to be a Sixer as he was in training camp.
Prior to Monday's blowout loss to the Wizards, he told the Baltimore Sun that he "can't say [Cheeks' system] is that much better" than former coach Jim O'Brien's, but "it's producing better."
During camp at Duke in early October, Webber called his two months with O'Brien and the Sixers at the end of last season "timeout, times 50."
That was in reference to the timeout he tried to call in the closing seconds of Michigan's 1993 NCAA title game loss to North Carolina. The only problem was Michigan had none left, which resulted in a technical foul and two free throws to end the Wolverines' chances.
Tom Moore can be reached at tmoore@phillyBurbs.com.

 

[VF21]

Looks like some writers in Philly are as ridiculous in their interpretations and partial quoting of Webber as at least one writer in Sacramento.

Talk about a non-story.

 

[SacTownKid]

AI walked off the court early in the last game too. Some bad stuff goin' on in Philly. Maybe Chris can inherit the team. Bet they would be better with CWebb running the show.

 

[KP]

If you'd rather hear it from Webbs mouth instead of some writers, here he is after the game.



http://philadelphia.comcastsportsnet.com/media/video/sixers/011806-cwebb.wmv

He takes responsibility, says Cheeks postgame speech was relevant, and that things are going to turn around. Not sure where this^ writer gets his info...

 

[BMiller52]

They should trade iverson, his value is never going to be higher and once he loses his first step he'll decline pretty fast. He's a small, fast guard that isn't a great shooter. They could get A LOT for him and they'd be better off for it because if they put the ball in chris' hands and run something kinda similar to the princeton they'll still be good.

 

[Coach]

Oh my.

 

[FullAB]

if philly trades iverson the fans will burn down something....

 

[love_them_kings]

If you'd rather hear it from Webbs mouth instead of some writers, here he is after the game.



http://philadelphia.comcastsportsnet.com/media/video/sixers/011806-cwebb.wmv

He takes responsibility, says Cheeks postgame speech was relevant, and that things are going to turn around. Not sure where this^ writer gets his info...

and from that the writer gets that Webb is not happy with Cheeks system?? Some people have active imaginations.

 

[bdouble013]

KT, Corliss and Skinner for Webb and Matt Barnes?


Does that work on realgm?

 

[Mad Iron]

Throw in Michael Bradley and you've got yourself a deal!

 

[love_them_kings]

KT, Corliss and Skinner for Webb and Matt Barnes?


Does that work on realgm?

works for me!

 

[thesanityannex]

They should trade iverson, his value is never going to be higher and once he loses his first step he'll decline pretty fast. He's a small, fast guard that isn't a great shooter. .

Care to explain this one? Last I checked, he's shooting 45% and averaging 33 points a game. Iverson is probably the best little man to play the game.

 

[BMiller52]

I meant like not a great 3 point shooter. He gets a lot of points driving to the basket. He is a great scorer, not a great 3 shooter. When he loses his first step he's not going to be able to get as many points at the line and at the basket.

 

[thesanityannex]

When he loses his first step he's not going to be able to get as many points at the line and at the basket.

That is usually true for everyone.

 

[BMiller52]

Yeah it is. However Iverson's not tall, not a great shooter, not a great passer, HE'S FAST. He's good at getting to the line and scoring by the basket. Once he loses his first step he's going to decline really fast. His value's never going to get higher. They should trade him IMO.

 

[thesanityannex]

Iverson is averaging more assists than Bibby. That would lead me to believe he is not a poor passer.

 

[BMiller52]

Did I say he was a bad passer? No. I said he wasn't a great passer like a Nash, Kidd, or a Billups. Besides he has the ball 90% of the time on that team.

 

[Superman]

No he doesn't. And you don't average 7.5 assists a game (7th in the NBA, and just .4 behind Kidd, who has the ball plenty himself) if you're not a good passer.

Iverson is one of the most capable players in the game. His major drawback is that he is almost always the focus of the defense, gets double and triple teamed as often as any other player in the NBA, and as a result doesn't get off a lot of good shots. I'd bet that of the 457 field goals he's made this season, he had at least one hand in his face for 400 of them, and 100 of those were probably "and-1's". And of the 550 or so that he's missed, not too many of them were wide open shots.

Iverson is the type of player who's numbers are inflated because he has the ball so much, but his percentages aren't a valid way of judging his abilities because he gets so much defensive attention.

 

[Coach]

So pay attention to his assist percentages, but don't pay attention to the other percentages because of all the defensive attention? That makes no sense. Should not we pay attention to Shaq's FG% (which is always excellent) because he gets so much defensive attention too?

Sorry, couldn't disagree more. Iverson's numbers tell the precise story. He takes a ton of shots (as reflected in his numbers), misses a ton of shots (as reflected in his numbers and percentages) and draws a ton of fouls (as...you know). He is an elite player because he scores a lot and plays great defense. Even though he takes a boatload of shots, he is an efficient scorer because he, unlike his teammate, gets to the free throw stripe so often.

 

[loopymitch]

Is anyone else watching this snoozefest with the Wolves? geez, they really suck today. TO's, lack of rebounds. 5 assists in 3 quarters. I think someone forgot to tell them the game started at 1, they haven't showed up yet. Nothing like the last game they played against each other.

 

[nbrans]

^Yeah, everyone has sucked in this game except Iverson. Garnett can't get his own shot when it matters.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

 

[nbrans]

Holy crap, Iguodala!

 

[loopymitch]

Wow what an ending! Good for Iggy, boy was he excited. I can't believe thye won that game. I know Wolves were mad they let them back in it. They shouldn't have won that game but I'm glad they did.

 

[Purple Reign]

Written By ESPN's Chris Broussard

Clash of the stars in Philly


posted: Sunday, January 22, 2006

Now it all makes sense. Now I understand why Allen Iverson told Philly reporters after Monday's embarrassing 28-point loss to Washington that he was unsure of his role with the 76ers.


A league source told me Chris Webber went off in the Sixers' locker room after the demolition by the Wizards. Frustrated by the team's mediocrity, Webber yelled at coaches and players alike while saying, in essence, he never gets the ball.
I'm not sure if he named Iverson directly, but I'm told it was clear he was calling out A.I., who dominates the rock and is averaging a whopping 25.8 shots a game, second only to King Kobe.


Apparently, the episode made Iverson wonder if he's leading the Sixers correctly. Why else would he question his role, which has been to hoist and hoist and hoist since he set foot in Philly 10 years ago?
Coach Maurice Cheeks was stunned by A.I.'s assertion, but certainly understood where it was coming from. That's why he spoke for 27 minutes after Wednesday's loss to New Jersey about the importance of "sticking together'' through tough times. Then on Thursday, Cheeks cancelled practice and instead, in an obvious attempt at bonding, took the team paint-balling.


The irony in this situation is that while A.I. and C-Webb are undeniably productive, they both have major roles in Philly's struggles. The Sixers are 20-20 for one reason and one reason only: they couldn't guard a statue.
They give up 102.9 points a game and allow opponents to shoot 46 percent. In other words, you're always hot, always "in the zone'' when playing the Sixers.


A scout told me this week that Philly's defensive problems begin with A.I. and end with C-Webb. He said the fact that A.I. applies no pressure whatsoever when opposing point guards bring the ball up court allows teams to get into their offense too easily.
Then, C-Webb doesn't front the post, so entry passes down low are pudding. Teams can also pick-and-roll C-Webb to death because of his mobility problems. In the middle of the A.I./C-Webb spectrum is Kyle Korver, who gets toasted nightly by whichever 2- or 3-man Andre Iguodala's not guarding.


For all of C-Webb's complaints about not getting the ball, the Sixers' offense is not really the problem. Philly is averaging 101.8, second in the league, on 46 percent shooting.
Still, I (and to be honest, most execs around the league) wonder if you can win big with A.I. dominating the rock so much. There's no doubt he is spectacular, arguably the best little man ever next to Isiah (he's ahead of Tiny in my book and only John Stockton compares).
I said before the season that A.I. probably should let Webber handle it more (because of his passing ability) and drop to about 24 ppg so Iguodala and John Salmons can get more involved. I don't know if that would make the Sixers win more, but a coach told me this week that A.I.'s dominance has stunted the growth of Iguodala, who just about everyone thinks can be a star.


If the Sixers are going to have A.I. continue to play as he does, they will have to go back to the Larry Brown-concept to regain contender status. The one year the Sixers were legit was when Brown put a bunch of gritty, hard-nosed defenders, rebounders and spot-up shooters around A.I.
These are the best types of teammates for Iverson. Any player who can really do things on his own offensively will get frustrated next to A.I. because he always has the rock. If you can take it to the rack and create on your own, you won't mesh well with A.I. -- not because of his personality but because of his game.


That's why none of the so-called "second stars" have panned out in Philly. Keith Van Horn, Toni Kukoc, Glenn Robinson, Larry Hughes and now C-Webb. Granted, those guys were either too young, beyond their prime, or better suited to be third or fourth options. But fact is, none of them played to their offensive potential in Philly.


If A.I. pulled back a bit offensively, it would allow him to exert more energy on defense, which would go a long way in solving the Sixers' No. 1 problem.
My guess is that nothing will change in Philly: They'll deny that any rift, or tension, exists between their stars; A.I. will challenge Kobe for the scoring and launches-per-game titles; and the Sixers will finish around .500, 7th in the East.
Then they'll get shellacked by Miami in the first round of the playoffs.

 

[Superman]

So pay attention to his assist percentages, but don't pay attention to the other percentages because of all the defensive attention? That makes no sense. Should not we pay attention to Shaq's FG% (which is always excellent) because he gets so much defensive attention too?

I don't know how you get that out of what I said.

No player, no matter how often they have the ball, can average 7.5 assists a game without being a good passer. Which is why there are only six other players in the League - all of which are solid passing point guards - who average more assists than Iverson.

Shaq's FG% is a direct reflection of his size and how close to the basket his shots are. If Iverson was a foot taller and took 90% of his shots within 8 ft of the rim, he'd have an excellent percentage as well, defensive pressure or not.

Sorry, couldn't disagree more. Iverson's numbers tell the precise story. He takes a ton of shots (as reflected in his numbers), misses a ton of shots (as reflected in his numbers and percentages) and draws a ton of fouls (as...you know). He is an elite player because he scores a lot and plays great defense. Even though he takes a boatload of shots, he is an efficient scorer because he, unlike his teammate, gets to the free throw stripe so often.

Iverson's percentages tell you how many shots he makes versus how many he takes, but they are NOT an accurate indicator of how well he can or can't shoot. If you look at Shaq's shooting percentage and assume that he's a great shooter, you'd be wrong. And I think that it's wrong to look at Iverson's shooting percentage and assume that he's a poor shooter.

 

[VF21]

A league source told me Chris Webber went off in the Sixers' locker room after the demolition by the Wizards. Frustrated by the team's mediocrity, Webber yelled at coaches and players alike while saying, in essence, he never gets the ball.

You gotta love the unnamed source citations. BSPN strikes again. Take a bit of a story out of context, twist it to reflect the worst possible light and run with it.

Way to go, Broussard.

 

[Gargamel]

Oh my.

Butt cheeks is good!