CoolBreeze44 wrote:I'm out of these discussions. Have at it, pretend you're clairvoyant, I don't care anymore. I'll just leave with this: For every player you can name who's "outline" was established after 20 games, I will give you 5 guys whose wasn't.
Cool, I think you only read what you want to read and then conveniently ignore what doesn't fit the narrative you are trying to attach to me.
First, you take offense to the fact that I pointed out Zach's weaknesses thus far, but don't even acknowledge the skills I highlighted. I really do think Zach has some positive characteristics!
Second, no where in my write-up did I try to predict what Zach would eventually become, yet you keep trying to paint me as someone trying to come off as a basketball guru who can predict the future. Not only am I not clairvoyant, but I'm not even pretending to be!
Third, when I say "outline" of a player, I talk about tendencies and inherent strengths, not necessarily one's ultimate ceiling or floor. "Outline" is also different from "complete picture" - get it? Of course players can improve and refine their skills (although some never do). As for Magic and Bird, you better believe the outlines of who they would be as NBA players were bold and bright as collegiate players. Those two, of all players, are terrible examples for your argument.
Camden wrote:Funny, khans rips Abe for ripping sjm's opinion, but khans ripped Q for his opinions on LaVine and Wiggins. What a small world we live in.
And while work ethic is great, there have been plenty of guys with high potential and good "lunch pale" work ethic to never reach their heights as NBA stars. All we can do is discuss it, but I feel like some on here are a bit too optimistic in what Andrew will become (McGrady, Jordan-ish comparisons are odd to me).
Can you read? This is a direct quote from me: "I don't have any quarrel with the reports themselves. They are all true for an evaluation of 20+ games." I really ripped his opinion on that one. I ripped the fact that evaluating any player 20 games into their career is dumb. If you think there is any merit in it then all the more power to you. There's a reason draft grades don't come out after 20 games. Nobody's said what Lavine or Wiggins will become. We just aren't going to lower their ceilings because of 20 games like you are. They each have the physical tools to become anything so how can you seriously try to find caps for them this early in their career?
Also, ripping someone for not knowing something that only an insider would know is not something anyone should say unless you literally work for the Wolves (I'm guessing you wouldn't be allowed to post on here) or have contacts in the organization. Don't rip someone if you don't know either. Either come back with some evidence that backs up your opinion or don't post about it when the goal is to devalue someone's opinion.
Let's turn down the defensiveness and hostility here.
The central question in this thread (originally about Zach) is how much can you tell about a player after 20 games? The truth is, we don't really know. But it's better to make an analysis after 20 games than after 1 game, which seems to be a common trend for all of us here--myself included.
Check the board after Zach's 28 point game and you'd think we were all expecting the next Monta Ellis. Check it after one of his multiple turnover games with almost no points and we're saying he belongs in the D League. We do the same thing for almost every other player, especially in their first few years, when we don't really know for sure what they'll become. If they have a good game, we tend to be opTIMistic about them. A bad game, and we wring our hands.
Logic suggests the truth is always somewhere in the middle so we should never get too up about a guy after a good game or too down on them after a bad one. But where's the fun in that?! Lip's game reports often paint an optimistic picture of a player after a good game and a skeptical picture of a player after a bad game, and guess what? They've been the best part about this board for years.
So to me, it's even more justifiable to speculate about a player after 20 games, if we do, as Q does, acknowledge that it's an analysis based on 20 games. Nothing wrong with that at all, and it's actually more patient than most of us have been--myself included--in projecting how good Wiggins, LaVine, etc. will be. I'm probably a little more optimistic about LaVine than Q (if we move him to the 2), but I think his analysis is totally valid.
What's worth noting is that the guys who tend to be a little more skeptical of LaVine here are more comfortable talking about his outline as a player (not a bad concept, actually) so far, while the guys who tend to be more optimistic about his future seem to be saying it's too early to draw conclusions about him. What does that tell us? It tells us that overall, he hasn't been that great so far.
He's definitely shown flashes. And for a late lottery pick he definitely brings excitement and hope. But he just hasn't been that great so far. And you can't blame the guy. He's a 19 year old rookie playing the point for the first time with a team rattled by injuries. Few people ever succeed in that context. But we can, as Q said, start to see an outline of what sort of player he could become based on his skill set, and right now, that could be good or bad but we definitely know more about the guy than 20 games ago!
For what it's worth, I actually think position is important for him, and I think moving him to the 2 and playing him off the ball more would minimize his weaknesses and allow him to develop his offensive strengths more. His experience, his skill set, and the history of previous guys who tried the point and later found a home at the 2 suggest that's the best place for him.
Nice write-up Drew. I think it's an interesting conversation around whether players come in to the league with the base foundation of what they will become, or if players skill sets are created and developed once they get to the NBA.
I think most players improve and add facets (i.e. especially as they age and round out their "old man" game). That's just a product of figuring out what works and what doesn't against NBA caliber competition. But I strongly believe that many/most players that are considered elite players in the NBA already carried most of their game-changing skills with them into the NBA. While Anthony Davis has certainly gotten better, his strengths are still exactly the same as they were in college, and they are the reasons he was taken #1. LBJ, while he certainly has added some facets, was always dominant because of a freakish mix of size-ball handling-athleticism, which have always given him an advantage....and this hasn't changed. D-Wade was the exact same player in college as he has been throughout his career with Miami....great scorer and ferocious defender. Chris Paul, Duncan, Blake Griffen, etc. Westbrook is a good example of someone that was raw, but had elite skills evident immediately in his athleticism, speed and ability to get to the rack at will. Has he improved....IMMENSELY! But those traits are exactly the same today as they were 5-6 years ago at UCLA. Heck, even guys like Korver defined themselves before they made it to the NBA.
I think the overall point made by some is that it is RARE (there are always exceptions) to find a player that entered the NBA completely void of a skill (i.e. Rubio and his scoring), and made that into a strength. Many make it passable (as Kahns is stating about Wiggins), but that doesn't change the fact that it will probably not ever be a strength. As stated, it may simply ALLOW for the REAL strengths of his game (i.e. athleticism, defense, or whatever those things are) to carry him to the level many expect. Nothing wrong with this, but just don't confuse the conversation.
Neither Zach nor Wiggins are completely void of any of the skills required to be a star in the NBA. Both need to tighten up their handles, add a little more beef to their frames, and continue to hone the jump shot. Wiggins already has the confidence to shoot the 3, post up and drive to the hoop. That is the biggest hurdle for this kid imo. Most drives require one to three dribbles, and I have watched AW dribble behind his back, and use both hands while being engaged by his defender. He certainly needs to improve this skill, but it isn't like we are looking at Wes Johnson, who literally couldn't put the ball on the floor for one dribble when being pressed.
I believe Q pointed out (as did JimPete) that Zach uses his right hand almost exclusively. That should have read finishes with his right hand, because he handles the ball well enough with his left to take guys off the dribble. Ricky had the same problem, and has fixed this issue, so there is no reason to believe that Zach can't do the same. It is a common problem with younger guys in the NBA. Harrison Barnes still doesn't finish with his left.
Zach and AW both need to improve on attacking the rim, but keep in mind that it isn't a skill that is common in today's college programs with most defenses packing the paint and playing a lot of zone. Zach handles the ball well enough that it only requires a change in his mindset, and getting more comfortable with NBA defenses. Once he realizes that he has a lot more room to work with, I think you will see him penetrate at a much higher rate. He is clearly too comfortable pulling up for jumpers right now.
I think we are overlooking that both already have a nice step back jumper, which seems like a skill that the top SG's make a living at. They both have very good form on their jump shot as well. What we are really looking at in terms of improvement are minor in the overall game. At 20 games in I don't place much stock in the numbers, but look more at the total skill set, and I don't see the huge holes that some are trying to point out.
