Q12543 wrote:Carlos Danger wrote:Q12543 wrote:Carlos Danger wrote:"motor", "fire" "heart"....what sort of metrics or devices are we using to measure these things? Is Wiggins heart two sizes too small like the Grinch? I have to believe the medical staff would have caught that in the pre-draft physical.
Hey, anything is possible. Perhaps with the new facility Flip installed, they can find out these things!
But actually, no miracle of modern medicine is needed. The things people are questioning are easily observed by how he plays. How hard does he run? How many charges does he take? How low of a stance does he get into defensively? Does he get back quickly off missed shots? Does he dive for loose balls? Does he win 50/50 balls?.
Interesting. I would bet that scouts, GMs and Coaches look at that stuff too. Would it be possible they have better eyes/evaluation skills than some on here? Because Wiggins was the #1 overall pick in the draft and pretty much a consensus #1 at that. If any of the things you listed were big concerns....wouldn't that have affected his draft status?
Also...guys like Corey Brewer get praised for going "all out" or "lunch pail" guys. But isn't there an advantage to playing under control in basketball? Because watching Brewer play....it seemed like for every great, hustle play - he would make a corresponding poor play by being out of control.
Finally, would you agree that being bench player/low minute guy - it would be easier to go 100 mph during your 10 minutes/game. But when you are one of the few threats on the team and need to log 35ish a game, then isn't it better to avoid stupid fouls and stay on the floor? Is that playing without fire? Or is that playing smart and doing what the team needs by avoiding foul trouble by being too aggressive?
First off, you conveniently left off the part where I clearly stated I didn't expect him to be the next Dennis Rodman in terms of hustle, so I will repost what I wrote:
I don't think he has to be the next Bobby Jones (or Jerry Sloan or Dennis Rodman or Tyler Hansborough or...fill in the blank with your favorite high-energy lunchpail player), as those guys didn't need to score 20+ PPG.
What I said is I would like to see more of the "5th gear Wiggins" beyond dunks.
Second, no one here is denying the very traits that made him the #1 pick: Elite athleticism, prototype wing length, promising jumper, high character. Almost all #1 picks have some flaw or flaws and Andrew is no different. Nothing I am saying detracts from those other strengths. The question is how far can he take these gifts?
And lastly, this isn't something that I'm just pulling out of thin air for the sake of giving Wiggins a hard time. Here are excerpts from various scouting reports on him prior to being drafted:
"To reach his full potential, NBA teams will want to see Wiggins become more aggressive with the way he approaches the game." - Draft Express
"The biggest issue is whether or not Wiggins has the mental make up to maximize his immense physical gifts. While some scouts are extremely high on him, there are just as many that question his focus and passion for the game." - NBAdraft.net
"A common critique of Andrew Wiggins has been that he is plays too passively, as he is not dominating nearly as much as projected. It could be counter argued that he playing within himself and merely needs more time to develop before taking the world by storm with his basketball abilities. My impression from watching him play has been that the former is the case." - Deanondraft
I think one big-time positive is how strong Wiggins took the ball to the hoop and tried to dunk as the season wore on. We did not see that often at Kansas or the first part of the NBA season. It somewhat addresses the "passivity" concerns some have voiced. But still, someone with his immense athleticism and upside leaves one wanting for more.
I had quoted the portion of your post that I wanted to respond to for the sake of brevity. I didn't think the last paragraph added anything - but I will give you the courtesy of full quotes going forward.
Regarding your second comment - the point is to view all of his traits in totality vs. micro analyzing to pull a perceived flaw. He was drafted #1 overall and became Rookie of the Year. He's doing fine. Personally, I'd like to see his continued improvement come from making a higher percentage of shots vs. diving on the floor or taking charges. He can't help the team if he's in foul trouble or gets hurt. We need him on the court. He can score and he guards the other team's best player.
And lastly - yes, if you scroll through the hundreds of scouting reports and dive deep into the minutiae, you can pull a few lines from the "weaknesses" sections as you posted. I've never read a scouting report that said a player had zero weaknesses. They are compelled to write something there. But the point I was making is that those comments are only blurbs from an overall and complete evaluation. I think it's better to consider the intent of the full evaluation. Obviously most everyone had him as #1 overall, so it wouldn't appear that any of the comments you pulled from the full scouting reports carried too much weight in the whole scope of things.