# George lynch available to sixers



## Harry_Minge (Oct 4, 2005)

NO HORNETS sf George Lynch is available after demanding a trade and being banned from training camp

Sixers could pick him up for around 3 million and he would provide some much needed D at the SF position off the bench

opinioons???

http://hoopshype.com/rumors.htm


----------



## (-) 0 † § I-I () † (Jun 11, 2002)

George is getting up there, personally I dont see a real need for him on this team. I loved him when he was here, a great role player. Id like to hear everyone elses opinion on the matter.


----------



## musiclexer (Aug 30, 2005)

don't need him hes old as dirt and besides we already signed Lee Nailon to backup Korver or possibly start.


----------



## Harry_Minge (Oct 4, 2005)

musiclexer said:


> don't need him hes old as dirt and besides we already signed Lee Nailon to backup Korver or possibly start.



that is it your total reasoning of the situation???



if webber goes down and nailon plays the 4 who backs up korver then???

if webber goes down do u think that hunter can play starter minutes at the 4.......i think not

good experienced bench players with an inside knowledge of the organisation and previous experience playing with the team leader AI are invaluable

this makes lynch the perfect cheap pickup


----------



## musiclexer (Aug 30, 2005)

if webber goes down...Shavlik Randolph/Michael Bradley will be the 4


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

He was banned from training camp? Now that's just cold.


----------



## Harry_Minge (Oct 4, 2005)

musiclexer said:


> if webber goes down...Shavlik Randolph/Michael Bradley will be the 4



So you think that randolph or bradley can play major minutes in the nba

randolph is a college bust with no experience and limited ability,

michael bradley is a 10-12th man at best

if webber goes down expect to see nailon playing 35+ minutes at pf


----------



## Rayza (Jul 21, 2004)

I loved George Lynch when he was in phillly.

His stats last season :
04-05 NOH 44 27 21.2 .360 .297 .739 1.3 2.7 4.0 2.0 .73 .27 1.30 1.90 3.7 

I don't see an urgent need for him, we can fill up those numbers with our rookies. I really think his time is up. The only thing he will bring to this team is experience.

With that said, if we do pick him up, I would not sulk about it


----------



## Dizmatic (Apr 14, 2005)

Don't worry, Larry Brown (Knicks) will find a way to get him. He loves the guy.


----------



## Coatesvillain (Jul 17, 2002)

Harry_Minge said:


> that is it your total reasoning of the situation???
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I hate the combination of Hunter and Dalembert on the court together, but Hunter is definitely a more viable option to start if Webber goes down than Randolph, Nailon or Michael Bradley. Nailon's a big SF, Randolph is a rookie, and unless he stole someone's talent, Bradley is a stiff.


----------



## Sixerfanforlife (Jun 23, 2005)

SAD SAD sixers fans I'll say this. Number one:While I agree Randolph is a rookie and Bradley is a stiff but are we concentrating on offfensive potential? If so I'll admit at the 4 they suck. Yea there's no way they can replace Webber. 

Nailon's a big sf? Is that all you can say? No that's not true, he's a strong small forward with scoring ability and if he puts a little hustle into it, some valued defense. 

If you hated the combo of Daly and M-Jax (Which I did because M-Jax was by no means a center and nets fans don't understand he's a liability on defense) You'll love this combo. For one they both produce a good amount of offense. Hunter CAN I repeat CAN play defense.

I may not be the smartest person no the smartest fan in the world, and Yes I know my posts suck do you guys think I like them!? But this is sad, it's sad to see that fans will diss a front court that actually has potential to play on both ends of the floor.


----------



## (-) 0 † § I-I () † (Jun 11, 2002)

I haven't seen Stephen Hunter in a while, but from my understanding both him and Sammy love to block shots, which creates overcommittment and no boxing out, and leaves offensive rebounds. Thats what Id worry about. Not to mention they are a bit raw on offensive, still relying on athleticism rather then skill.

Now they could pan out and play well together, but id say its safe to have some skepticism.


----------



## Sixerfanforlife (Jun 23, 2005)

Is it me, or I want Jim O'Brien back? This is how bad the fanbase is


----------



## Your Answer (Jul 13, 2005)

Sixerfanforlife said:


> Is it me, or I want Jim O'Brien back? This is how bad the fanbase is


Dude get the heck out of here bring Jim O'Brien back thats about the stupidest thing ive heard yet that guy was horrible I'll never forget his press confrences after each playoff games he would see problems and refuse to try and correct them. Sixers were getting killed by the three and he says we are gonna let them shot the three as much as they want we are not concerned about that F Jim O'Brien for being a Defensive coach he sure didnt help us


----------



## Sixerfanforlife (Jun 23, 2005)

I'll admit we were killed by the three but did we have a choice? If we rotated out they would score points in the paint. Did we try and change things? Yes we did note game 3 when Willie was put in the game, that just made things worse when they shot 47.4 percent from the paint! We had to shoot better then 50 percent just to win.

O'Brien knew very damn well that team was no match FOR ANY team in that playoff bracket except for Indiana and Boston.

This team, a team that can rotate, defend the Pick and roll, and have enough speed to guard the three ball?

And Jim O'Brien's offensive system? Don't make me laugh


----------



## musiclexer (Aug 30, 2005)

Harry_Minge said:


> So you think that randolph or bradley can play major minutes in the nba
> 
> randolph is a college bust with no experience and limited ability,
> 
> ...



so what we not talking about skill we're talking about position and if webber went down Cheeks will have like 3 guys play 15 min at the 4 spot..Randolph,Bradley, Deng Gai or Nailon.

I'm sure he will pefer Bradley because hes 6-10..Nailon is 6-7.

T-mac is a Sg and hes 6-8

6-7 won't fit at the PF...

he won't be any better then Kenny Thomas

besides both Randolph and Bradley have gotten excellent reviews from Cheeks and other insiders.


----------



## Sixerfanforlife (Jun 23, 2005)

Those Insiders proabably know nothing..........And Maurice Cheeks is hoping to get everyone to understand he likes guys that don't bring 30/10 (10 turnovers btw)!


----------



## Your Answer (Jul 13, 2005)

Sixerfanforlife said:


> I'll admit we were killed by the three but did we have a choice? If we rotated out they would score points in the paint. Did we try and change things? Yes we did note game 3 when Willie was put in the game, that just made things worse when they shot 47.4 percent from the paint! We had to shoot better then 50 percent just to win.
> 
> O'Brien knew very damn well that team was no match FOR ANY team in that playoff bracket except for Indiana and Boston.
> 
> ...


but does that make sense They were making the Three Consistently so if we had to give something up wouldnt it make more sense to give up a 2pt Bucket instead of a 3pt it wasnt like they were making a few 3 pts and missing the majority anytime they were left open they made the shot and basically what Obrien said was we are gonna continue to leave them open and if they can make them good for him thats just pure Stupidity


----------



## SirCharles34 (Nov 16, 2004)

I say get him if he can still play D. He use to be a good defender, but I haven't been following him since he left us.

He'll be a good 1-year rental. At age 35, that's all he'll be good for. It doesn't hurt to have depth and he's cheap at only 3 million.


----------



## Kunlun (Jun 22, 2003)

I guess he would be okay to have on the team, but who would we give for him?


----------



## Harry_Minge (Oct 4, 2005)

alleninsf said:


> I say get him if he can still play D. He use to be a good defender, but I haven't been following him since he left us.
> 
> He'll be a good 1-year rental. At age 35, that's all he'll be good for. It doesn't hurt to have depth and he's cheap at only 3 million.



good post man


----------



## Harry_Minge (Oct 4, 2005)

Kunlun said:


> I guess he would be okay to have on the team, but who would we give for him?



well N.O definitly dont want him anymore so i`d say they would prolly let him walk away for nothing,so it would just be a case of absorbing his contract


----------



## Sixerfanforlife (Jun 23, 2005)

Would you want to give up the 3 ball, or penertration which would result in not only contact, or foul trouble, but worse More three pointers! Donyell marshall proved when we rotated to guard the three we were always a step slow. O'Brien's defense was the best it could be under that slow team


----------



## Harry_Minge (Oct 4, 2005)

Sixerfanforlife said:


> Would you want to give up the 3 ball, or penertration which would result in not only contact, or foul trouble, but worse More three pointers! Donyell marshall proved when we rotated to guard the three we were always a step slow. O'Brien's defense was the best it could be under that slow team


i cant see many 3 guards wanting to drive looking for contact with webber,hunter,dalambert in their way,george lynch is a hard nosed defender and i`d rather him force the guy to shoot a 3 than try to sag back and let the guy run


----------



## Sixerfanforlife (Jun 23, 2005)

Exactly, now if the 76ers were big enough to rebound:Which they are now btw. They would be able to get to the glass, the Pistons would be left vurnerable to the 76ers fast break game, and then. Chaos similar to the first 5 minutes of the first quarter begins.


----------

