Minnesota Sports Forum

Q12543 wrote:Ben Simmons was not very engaged at LSU and he also has a somewhat ambivalent demeanor. But damn, the talent shines through. And that's without any sort of jump shot!

Wiggins has two issues: Motor and skill...not a good combination. I don't think we'd be too upset with Wiggins' motor if he was knocking down 40%+ of his 3s on high volume. Nor do I think we'd be as upset with his shooting inefficiency if he was all over the floor night in and night out getting rebounds, steals, locking guys down, and making chase-down blocks. The problem is neither has occurred.

As for the draft....I've got nothin'.

I remember the scouting reports on Simmons. But here's the key. Simmons averaged 19 points on 56% shooting and got to the line over 9 time a game. He also averaged 11.8 rebounds, 4.8 assists and 2 steals per game. When you see those kinds of dominant college stats as a Freshman, couple with obviously special physical talent, you can significantly discount motor concerns. In contrast, Wiggins averaged 17 points on 45% shooting to go with 5.9 rebounds, 1.5 assists, and 1.2 steals.

I don't know whether Simmons has more of a motor than Wiggins, although I think he does. But Simmons' college stats strongly suggested he would be elite at the next level. You don't pull down nearly 12 rebounds per game as a college freshman without a good motor. Then of course, as you mentioned, Simmons had a much better skill set than Wiggins in college -- particularly as a ballhandler.

There are two big red flags for me in evaluating prospective wings in the draft: (1) motor issues, and (2) ballhandling. I wouldn't pick a wing who has either one of these red flags unless he has stats that contradict one or the other. In the case of Simmons, his stats were a compelling counterpoint to his reported motor issues. His high field goal %, assists and trips to the line might have simply reflected his exceptional skill set, eclipsing any motor issues. But his rebounding and steals suggest that the motor concerns were grossly overstated if not false.

Reddish is one big red flag in my view.

lipoli390 wrote:

Q12543 wrote:Ben Simmons was not very engaged at LSU and he also has a somewhat ambivalent demeanor. But damn, the talent shines through. And that's without any sort of jump shot!

Wiggins has two issues: Motor and skill...not a good combination. I don't think we'd be too upset with Wiggins' motor if he was knocking down 40%+ of his 3s on high volume. Nor do I think we'd be as upset with his shooting inefficiency if he was all over the floor night in and night out getting rebounds, steals, locking guys down, and making chase-down blocks. The problem is neither has occurred.

As for the draft....I've got nothin'.

I remember the scouting reports on Simmons. But here's the key. Simmons averaged 19 points on 56% shooting and got to the line over 9 time a game. He also averaged 11.8 rebounds, 4.8 assists and 2 steals per game. When you see those kinds of dominant college stats as a Freshman, couple with obviously special physical talent, you can significantly discount motor concerns. In contrast, Wiggins averaged 17 points on 45% shooting to go with 5.9 rebounds, 1.5 assists, and 1.2 steals.

I don't know whether Simmons has more of a motor than Wiggins, although I think he does. But Simmons' college stats strongly suggested he would be elite at the next level. You don't pull down nearly 12 rebounds per game as a college freshman without a good motor. Then of course, as you mentioned, Simmons had a much better skill set than Wiggins in college -- particularly as a ballhandler.

There are two big red flags for me in evaluating prospective wings in the draft: (1) motor issues, and (2) ballhandling. I wouldn't pick a wing who has either one of these red flags unless he has stats that contradict one or the other. In the case of Simmons, his stats were a compelling counterpoint to his reported motor issues. His high field goal %, assists and trips to the line might have simply reflected his exceptional skill set, eclipsing any motor issues. But his rebounding and steals suggest that the motor concerns were grossly overstated if not false.

Reddish is one big red flag in my view.

Just because Simmons has worked out well doesn't mean the concerns weren't valid at the time. It sure didn't hurt Simmons that he came into an era where another big man had been given the ball and they let him do what he wanted. The Sixers or Brett Brown and his staff should probably get some credit too particularly on defense where it seems he was considered a positive pretty quickly. Also...maybe worth looking into is that LSU coach...

monsterpile wrote:

lipoli390 wrote:

Q12543 wrote:Ben Simmons was not very engaged at LSU and he also has a somewhat ambivalent demeanor. But damn, the talent shines through. And that's without any sort of jump shot!

Wiggins has two issues: Motor and skill...not a good combination. I don't think we'd be too upset with Wiggins' motor if he was knocking down 40%+ of his 3s on high volume. Nor do I think we'd be as upset with his shooting inefficiency if he was all over the floor night in and night out getting rebounds, steals, locking guys down, and making chase-down blocks. The problem is neither has occurred.

As for the draft....I've got nothin'.

I remember the scouting reports on Simmons. But here's the key. Simmons averaged 19 points on 56% shooting and got to the line over 9 time a game. He also averaged 11.8 rebounds, 4.8 assists and 2 steals per game. When you see those kinds of dominant college stats as a Freshman, couple with obviously special physical talent, you can significantly discount motor concerns. In contrast, Wiggins averaged 17 points on 45% shooting to go with 5.9 rebounds, 1.5 assists, and 1.2 steals.

I don't know whether Simmons has more of a motor than Wiggins, although I think he does. But Simmons' college stats strongly suggested he would be elite at the next level. You don't pull down nearly 12 rebounds per game as a college freshman without a good motor. Then of course, as you mentioned, Simmons had a much better skill set than Wiggins in college -- particularly as a ballhandler.

There are two big red flags for me in evaluating prospective wings in the draft: (1) motor issues, and (2) ballhandling. I wouldn't pick a wing who has either one of these red flags unless he has stats that contradict one or the other. In the case of Simmons, his stats were a compelling counterpoint to his reported motor issues. His high field goal %, assists and trips to the line might have simply reflected his exceptional skill set, eclipsing any motor issues. But his rebounding and steals suggest that the motor concerns were grossly overstated if not false.

Reddish is one big red flag in my view.

Just because Simmons has worked out well doesn't mean the concerns weren't valid at the time. It sure didn't hurt Simmons that he came into an era where another big man had been given the ball and they let him do what he wanted. The Sixers or Brett Brown and his staff should probably get some credit too particularly on defense where it seems he was considered a positive pretty quickly. Also...maybe worth looking into is that LSU coach...

Monster- You're right that Simmons' NBA success doesn't mean he didn't have motor issues in college. That goes without saying and it doesn't tell us anything other than the obvious. I'm just looking at the evidence. Unlike Wiggins, Simmons had incredible compelling stats across the board. His incredible stats included great rebounding and steal stats, which usually indicate effort and intensity. My main point is that I'll discount written reports about motor issues when a player puts up the kind of monster stats Simmons put up in college. At some point, the stats are so good that they eclipse reports from some about motor issues. Neither Wiggins nor Reddish have put up college stats that come remotely close to the overwhelming stats Simmons displayed in his one college season.

Now I'll argue the other side, using Michael Beasley as an example. Scouting reports on Beasley described him as flaky and not always engaged. Yet, he put up stats at Kansas very close to the stats put up by Kevin Durant. As we've seen, Beasley has never been able to tap into his talent at the NBA level because of what goes on between his ears. He's but a pale shadow of what Durant has become. That would be a counter example to my thesis. That's why there's always danger in taking players who are widely regarded as having issues above the neck even if they put up great college stats.

I'll at least consider drafting someone with the stats we saw from Simmons and even (but less so) the stats that Beasley had at Kansas. But Reddish's stats don't move the needle enough for me to give him a second look if there are questions about his motor or effort. Perhaps I might change my mind about Reddish if I were to see him play more and notice that he has a tight handle and court skills we've never seen in Wiggins. But I'd have to be pretty overwhelmed by what I see to have any interest in drafting him.

Reddish looks better on YouTube than he does in live game action.

Camden0916 wrote:Reddish looks better on YouTube than he does in live game action.

I'm not surprised, Cam. He's shooting 36% from the field on 12 shots per game. That stat alone tells me to cross him off the Wolves draft board - even before looking at the scouting reports in his motor that look like the reports we saw on Wiggins.

I think Reddish will drop into the 20s if not lower.

lipoli390 wrote:

Camden0916 wrote:Reddish looks better on YouTube than he does in live game action.

I'm not surprised, Cam. He's shooting 36% from the field on 12 shots per game. That stat alone tells me to cross him off the Wolves draft board - even before looking at the scouting reports in his motor that look like the reports we saw on Wiggins.

I think Reddish will drop into the 20s if not lower.

I'll be shocked if he isn't a lotto pick. This is considered a terrible draft with no depth at all in it. A team is going to draft him when his NBA body, on a good team, projected good shooter, who was a high recruit who had moments this year.

*I'm not saying he will be good but I'll be shocked if he falls because of how bad the draft is projecting to be. I mean NBAdraft.net, SI, ESPN, The athletic all have him in the top 5

kekgeek1 wrote:

lipoli390 wrote:

Camden0916 wrote:Reddish looks better on YouTube than he does in live game action.

I'm not surprised, Cam. He's shooting 36% from the field on 12 shots per game. That stat alone tells me to cross him off the Wolves draft board - even before looking at the scouting reports in his motor that look like the reports we saw on Wiggins.

I think Reddish will drop into the 20s if not lower.

I'll be shocked if he isn't a lotto pick. This is considered a terrible draft with no depth at all in it. A team is going to draft him when his NBA body, on a good team, projected good shooter, who was a high recruit who had moments this year.

*I'm not saying he will be good but I'll be shocked if he falls because of how bad the draft is projecting to be. I mean NBAdraft.net, SI, ESPN, The athletic all have him in the top 5

Simple rule of thumb with a prospect like this....If the Wolves draft him, all of his flaws and question marks from college will come into full bloom and he will be a source of profound disappointment. If anyone else drafts him, his range is anywhere from solid starting wing to superstar.

Q12543 wrote:

kekgeek1 wrote:

lipoli390 wrote:

Camden0916 wrote:Reddish looks better on YouTube than he does in live game action.

I'm not surprised, Cam. He's shooting 36% from the field on 12 shots per game. That stat alone tells me to cross him off the Wolves draft board - even before looking at the scouting reports in his motor that look like the reports we saw on Wiggins.

I think Reddish will drop into the 20s if not lower.

I'll be shocked if he isn't a lotto pick. This is considered a terrible draft with no depth at all in it. A team is going to draft him when his NBA body, on a good team, projected good shooter, who was a high recruit who had moments this year.

*I'm not saying he will be good but I'll be shocked if he falls because of how bad the draft is projecting to be. I mean NBAdraft.net, SI, ESPN, The athletic all have him in the top 5

Simple rule of thumb with a prospect like this....If the Wolves draft him, all of his flaws and question marks from college will come into full bloom and he will be a source of profound disappointment. If anyone else drafts him, his range is anywhere from solid starting wing to superstar.

Lol. Yes Q. A rule of thumb rooted in a sad truth for Wolves fans. Seriously, I have a hard time seeing Reddish being anything better than a profound disappointment no matter where he lands. If it were just the scouting reports reporting questions about his motor and effort reminiscent of Wiggins I might not say that. But then I look at his stats, which include 35.6% FG shooting on 12 attempts. That's astoundingly bad, especially for a 6'6" wing. He has a decent 78.7% free throw percentage, but gets to the line only 3 times per game. He has only 2.2 assists and 3.5 rebounds per game - worse than mediocre. The only impressive stat is his 2 steals per game. I can't think of any elite player in the NBA who had comparable college stats. Wiggins had much better stats in college. And then you mix in the Reddish motor issue and you have to wonder.

If you draft him in the lottery, you're doing it based on raw talent that you see in highlight reels and on his high school career.

I disagree with you on his range. I agree he has a superstar ceiling. I can see the talent watching him play. But his stats and the scouting reports suggest a floor lower than solid starting wing. He's a true gamble. I hope someone takes him before the Wolves are on the clock. It's the sort of gamble the Wolves organization would likely take - and lose.

The only way I'd feel comfortable drafting Reddish is if and only if Glen were to sit down with him man to man and look him in the eye.

Duke13 wrote:The only way I'd feel comfortable drafting Reddish is if and only if Glen were to sit down with him man to man and look him in the eye.

Nice. All that weight that Glen pulls, clearly he's garnered a lot of respect in the league after all these years.