Minnesota Sports Forum

Q12543 wrote:Yeah, I'm not suggesting that Towns and Wiggins won't continue to progress and get better. But to me it takes a few years to be truly the type of player that "imposes his will" on games. That is Westbrook, LeBron, Durant, Harden, Curry, Paul territory. Neither of these guys are even close to that yet. And these other guys do it every damn game (or almost every game).

I watched a lot of Wiggins in both the FIBA games and pre-season. He's just not there yet - we are getting way ahead of ourselves here.

Yeah, I don't know how much "will" those two will be able to impose in games. But in terms of development, Sam is putting them in position where they HAVE to impose their will, or the starters will struggle early on. Sam is trying to force them to grow up faster than they might otherwise grow. We will see how it plays out.

60WinTim wrote:

Q12543 wrote:Yeah, I'm not suggesting that Towns and Wiggins won't continue to progress and get better. But to me it takes a few years to be truly the type of player that "imposes his will" on games. That is Westbrook, LeBron, Durant, Harden, Curry, Paul territory. Neither of these guys are even close to that yet. And these other guys do it every damn game (or almost every game).

I watched a lot of Wiggins in both the FIBA games and pre-season. He's just not there yet - we are getting way ahead of ourselves here.

Yeah, I don't know how much "will" those two will be able to impose in games. But in terms of development, Sam is putting them in position where they HAVE to impose their will, or the starters will struggle early on. Sam is trying to force them to grow up faster than they might otherwise grow. We will see how it plays out.

I agree. I would put it differently though: He's forcing them to try to impose their will. It won't be pretty at times, but let's hope it pays dividends when these guys are 22 and 23 years old.

Somewhere Jay Bilas is reading this and nodding in approval

*drinks shot*

I am curious, Q. What would have been your development path for the current roster in terms of rotations? I believe you like a Bazz/Wiggins pairing. How do Zach, Kmart and Prince fit into your plan?

60WinTim wrote:I am curious, Q. What would have been your development path for the current roster in terms of rotations? I believe you like a Bazz/Wiggins pairing. How do Zach, Kmart and Prince fit into your plan?

I'm going to give you a way longer answer than you asked for....

First, I believe the collective physical attributes + skills + attitude + basketball IQ that a player brings into the NBA Day One (let's just call that collection of attributes "talent") is the number one factor in their subsequent success as a player. That might sound obvious, but there is a reason #1 picks ultimately end up being the best player (or one of the best players) from their class. What made them great prospects ultimately make them great pros. In other words, talent trumps mentorship, playing time, position, coaching, and rotations. This is all small-ball stuff compared to what that player has going for him before he even gets drafted.

With that being said, I would have started Towns/KG/Wiggins/Martin/Rubio. Wiggins and Martin are essentially tied as the first two options offensively and Towns is the #3 option. They both start and they both still get plenty of touches. I honestly don't see starting Prince as a revolutionary concept that is going to suddenly propel these guys any faster than the rate of growth they would see otherwise.

I would then have Zach and Bazz come off the bench as backup wings. Prince wouldn't really play much.

Again, I get what Mitchell is doing in terms of wanting to start games with a bigger lineup, but I absolutely hate the downstream effect of having Zach then play at PG. I feel like the consequences outweigh the benefits.

Yeah, I get what you are saying. My opTIMism comes from embracing the idea that size kills. If Zach can develop as a combo guard, our size becomes an advantage (although I realize the "bulk" part of size doesn't come around for a couple of years).

longstrangetrip wrote:There is a lot of talk about what the Wolves' roster doesn't have...players that aren't either too young or too old, bulk, sufficient number of reliable 3-point shooters, etc...but the final roster does appear to have something that maybe no other team can match. Length. 7 of the 15 players are 6'10" or taller, and the only two players shorter than 6'4" are not in the 10-man rotation. We're starting a front line that is 6-9, 6-11 (although most people have KG at 7-1) and 7-0, and our starting shooting guard is 6-8. That's a long starting team and a long overall roster.

Do you think any other team can match our height? Let's hope it eventually starts to show up in rebounding?

Have you seen the Bucks starters? Lets just say you put Henson in at PF instead of Jabari, yeesh thats a long team. Here is one of my favorite photos from last year when they still had Sanders