Not much seperates Andrew Wiggins from being the next Kwame Brown

Eye Cue DA COLI GAWD

Eye Cue DA COLI GAWD

<--- Cleveland Browns winning that many, boi!
Joined
Jul 28, 2012
Messages
15,981
Reputation
-8,516
Daps
43,429
The Cavs only took Wiggins because Embiid got hurt and they knew LeBron was coming back. If that wasn't the case, then Embiid was the pick with Parker being the #2 player on their board.

To tremont's credit, he just broke down Wiggins game to a T. Its just not his lack of overall skill, it's the fact the guy is a terrible passer and mediocre rebounder for his position. Many of his points come off energy type plays and ball reversal opportunities. Dude's touch around the rim is shytty and he does not finish well around contact.
 
mbewane

mbewane

Knicks: 93 til infinity
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
19,022
Reputation
4,104
Daps
54,661
Reppin
Brussels, Belgium
tremonthustler1 said:
the idea that being chosen #1 doesn't necessarily mean you're NBA ready. A team like Cleveland took guys that weren't NBA ready but had the potential to be good whenever they decided to compete. Wiggins fell into that label. When Cleveland signed LeBron, nobody was realistically expecting Wiggins to set the world on fire immediately. They thought he'd be able to learn and have his role minimized. He's on a different team now, but those same expectations are the same here.

What I guess some thought was that he'd come here and average 20 out the gate because somebody had to when in reality Flip tried (and is trying) to minimize his impact so that he's not feeling like he has to shoulder the load. Ultimately he's a ridiculously talented project. It just seems odd that for a bunch of fans that feel like the Wolves can wait forever to compete can't give him 15 games, which is beyond ridiculous (yet will give LaVine 15 years, 3 stints in China, 6 D-League assignments and 20 10-day contracts to figure it out because, hey, them dunks :ohlawd:)
Click to expand...

I understand all of that, I just don't understand the logic in drafting players who clearly are not NBA ready (they're being drafted to play in the NBA, aren't they?). I mean there are tons of players drafted high who don't produce over the years, I understand that, but why keep on drafting "potential" and not look for players who are better rounded that go later in the draft?

Malta said:
Those guys were a lot older, Allen & Robinson were 21 and 22 as rookies, generally speaking rookies 15+ years ago almost always had 2-3 years of college behind them. Also, just cause you stay a couple years doesn't mean much, Michael Carter Williams is older than Kyrie Irving, despite the fact he's played 2 less seasons, Harrison Barnes stayed 2 years at UNC and the Warriors would trade him in heartbeat for Giannis.

The success rate on these "potential" guys in the top of the draft is pretty high when you really look at it, hell the high school guys were wildly successful.
Click to expand...

All true, I'm just one who had higher expectations from number one picks, I understand the standard has been lowered now to hoping they average 15-20 points after 3 or 4 years in the league, but I'm obviously biased from watching the NBA when most top picks were game-changers and could produce almost out of the gate. It started in the early 2000s so it's not even about the whole one and done era either. It is a different system now, in which we have NBA players playing alongside teenagers "with potential" :yeshrug:
 
tremonthustler1

tremonthustler1

aka bx_representer
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
85,206
Reputation
9,477
Daps
211,262
Reppin
My Pops Forever RIP
mbewane said:
I understand all of that, I just don't understand the logic in drafting players who clearly are not NBA ready (they're being drafted to play in the NBA, aren't they?). I mean there are tons of players drafted high who don't produce over the years, I understand that, but why keep on drafting "potential" and not look for players who are better rounded that go later in the draft?
Click to expand...
I can't speak on Wiggins since he didn't wind up with the team that picked him, but Flip picked LaVine because he wanted a potential "destination player", someone who has an upside so big that players will wanna play alongside him. And what others have said is that for some teams it's the only way you can get guys like that to go certain markets, even if they're not ready. The obvious downside is that you wind up picking a guy who isn't a basketball player like LaVine, let alone someone who isn't ready.

The more "NBA ready guys" are perceived to have lower ceilings, which is why they either wind up on contenders in a more limited role or drafted later, and it's why they don't stay in college.
 
mbewane

mbewane

Knicks: 93 til infinity
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
19,022
Reputation
4,104
Daps
54,661
Reppin
Brussels, Belgium
tremonthustler1 said:
I can't speak on Wiggins since he didn't wind up with the team that picked him, but Flip picked LaVine because he wanted a potential "destination player", someone who has an upside so big that players will wanna play alongside him. And what others have said is that for some teams it's the only way you can get guys like that to go certain markets, even if they're not ready. The obvious downside is that you wind up picking a guy who isn't a basketball player like LaVine, let alone someone who isn't ready.

The more "NBA ready guys" are perceived to have lower ceilings, which is why they either wind up on contenders in a more limited role or drafted later, and it's why they don't stay in college.
Click to expand...

This is actually a point that makes much more sense than the whole "who cares if he can play basketball, he's getting paid" bs brehs throw around here.
 
Malta

Malta

Sweetwater
Hall of Fame
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
66,896
Reputation
15,170
Daps
279,743
Reppin
Now who else wanna fukk with Hollywood Court?
mbewane said:
I understand all of that, I just don't understand the logic in drafting players who clearly are not NBA ready (they're being drafted to play in the NBA, aren't they?). I mean there are tons of players drafted high who don't produce over the years, I understand that, but why keep on drafting "potential" and not look for players who are better rounded that go later in the draft?
Click to expand...

More often than not the guys with the high potential do pan out, and the upperclassmen in the last 15 years haven't been as good as the guys who come out early. The logic is this, why take a guy who is 22-23 and may not get much better beyond his first two years over a guy that's 18-19 that can post similar numbers in that same time period. Look at Dante Exum and Michael Carter Williams, similar players but Exum is viewed as the superior prospect even though MCW has a year of experience on him, one is 19 and the other is 23. It's really difficult drafting upperclassmen, just look at the 2013 draft Mason Plumlee was a senior, but would you really take him over Steven Adams who was a freshman or Alex Len a sophomore? Solomon Hill as a senior was a good pickup for a SF, but why would anyone take him over Giannis? Potential actually does pan out more than you'd expect, a lot of these guys have been scouted since they were in 6th grade.


All true, I'm just one who had higher expectations from number one picks, I understand the standard has been lowered now to hoping they average 15-20 points after 3 or 4 years in the league, but I'm obviously biased from watching the NBA when most top picks were game-changers and could produce almost out of the gate. It started in the early 2000s so it's not even about the whole one and done era either. It is a different system now, in which we have NBA players playing alongside teenagers "with potential" :yeshrug:
Click to expand...


I think defenses in the NBA have gotten so complex that expecting rookies to post major numbers right away isn't really realistic and we're still less than 15 games into the season, rookies usually start playing well after the break. Yeah, but at the same time you mentioned Ray Allen earlier, and his rookie year wasn't much different than what Wiggins and Parker are doing right now, he averaged 13ppg on 43%, and Robinson had a good rookie year, but what he was as a rookie was basically what he was for the rest of his career. These young guys can be molded and developed by a team.
 
mbewane

mbewane

Knicks: 93 til infinity
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
19,022
Reputation
4,104
Daps
54,661
Reppin
Brussels, Belgium
Malta said:
More often than not the guys with the high potential do pan out, and the upperclassmen in the last 15 years haven't been as good as the guys who come out early. The logic is this, why take a guy who is 22-23 and may not get much better beyond his first two years over a guy that's 18-19 that can post similar numbers in that same time period. Look at Dante Exum and Michael Carter Williams, similar players but Exum is viewed as the superior prospect even though MCW has a year of experience on him, one is 19 and the other is 23. It's really difficult drafting upperclassmen, just look at the 2013 draft Mason Plumlee was a senior, but would you really take him over Steven Adams who was a freshman or Alex Len a sophomore? Solomon Hill as a senior was a good pickup for a SF, but why would anyone take him over Giannis? Potential actually does pan out more than you'd expect, a lot of these guys have been scouted since they were in 6th grade.





I think defenses in the NBA have gotten so complex that expecting rookies to post major numbers right away isn't really realistic and we're still less than 15 games into the season, rookies usually start playing well after the break. Yeah, but at the same time you mentioned Ray Allen earlier, and his rookie year wasn't much different than what Wiggins and Parker are doing right now, he averaged 13ppg on 43%, and Robinson had a good rookie year, but what he was as a rookie was basically what he was for the rest of his career. These young guys can be molded and developed by a team.
Click to expand...

I understand all of that breh, but as a fan can't I just regret the time when we had young players like Webber, Penny, Mourning and them who didn't need "two to three years" before becoming relevant? I mean we discuss everything in the league but "because they're getting paid" it's like it's a no-no to talk on young players lol
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top