Minnesota Sports Forum

crazy-canuck wrote:

lipoli390 wrote:

KiwiMatt wrote:

Q12543 wrote:Toronto drafts:

2015 - Norman Powell, 2nd round, Pick 46
2016 - Pascal Siakam, 1st round, Pick 27 and Fred Van Fleet, undrafted FA
2017 - OG Anunbody, 1st round, Pick 23

Those three years yielded more productive players with cheap picks than the Wolves have gotten in the entirety of their 30 year history.

We could have drafted those players but they wouldn't be half the players they are today with our inability to develop players within this franchise.

It's not like those four players came out of nowhere. VanVleet was a career 38.6% 3-point shooter in college. Powell averaged 16.4 points on 45.6% FG shooting his last season in college. Siakam averaged 20.3 points and 11.6 rebounds his last college season as as sophomore. Anunoby was slotted as a high lottery pick by most draft experts until his knee injury. Draft good players and your player development will look good. Other than Billups, have the Wolves ever drafted a player who played poorly here, left the team and ended up a really good NBA player?

Powell was considered one of the worst players the last couple of years.

Masai and nurse deserve alot if credit for developing players. The players are well coached and are put in roles to make best use of them.

While we often look disorganized and the players are inconsistent. I dont think we are an untalented team, but we are a low iq and poorly coached team.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I believe that players largely develop themselves. The organization can help by giving them playing time and implementing a system that maximizes use of their talents. It took Powell a few years to develop. That's not unusual. The point is that he was a very good player in college, so it shouldn't be a shock that he's playing well now in his 3rd NBA season. What the Raptors did with him, as well as VanVleet and Siakam, is show patience while they developed.

Can I ask how Towns was 4th on the team in shots. Also why do we refuse to play 2 bigs. I didn't watch the game

Kek -

On your KAT question, the reason he is 4th in shots is because of the system. Basically his primary job on offense is to pull the big out of the lane and allow for cutting and dribble drives to the hoop. Obviously guards and wings are more likely to do this than bigs, although KAT himself does occasionally take his guy off the dribble. The result of this system is that because plays aren't explicitly designed for him in the post or elbows, he rarely gets a chance to just go to work in isolation. And when he does, he's much easier to double from those spots, so he has to give it up.

On why they don't play two bigs, I wish Saunders would offer a more clear reason, but I have yet to hear it. My guess is that when you do that, it takes away from their switching strategy. They switch almost everything now and if you have two bigs and a little PG, it's easier than ever to hunt for a mismatch. There is one less mismatch option to exploit if you essentially play three wings instead of two. The benefit of having multiple wings on the floor defensively is that they are big enough to hold their own against bigs and quick enough to guard PGs. And switching greatly simplifies stopping open 3's since you are always handing off your guy on off ball screens.

I'm not defending the system, just trying to answer your question objectively.

Part of KAT's issue was he was being guarded by perhaps the best post defender in the game.

Do we hate Wiggins so much that no one will acknowledge his triple double last night?

CoolBreeze44 wrote:Do we hate Wiggins so much that no one will acknowledge his triple double last night?

It was in a loss so it's hard to be "happy" a guy got his first triple double. Next miracle Wiggins takes a charge.

CoolBreeze44 wrote:Do we hate Wiggins so much that no one will acknowledge his triple double last night?

Instead we praise Culver for getting that FT% above 50%.

CoolBreeze44 wrote:Do we hate Wiggins so much that no one will acknowledge his triple double last night?

I thought Wiggins was terrific last night. Obviously the triple double was a career milestone for him. I don't think there are many on this Board who hate Wiggins. It's just his production over 6.5 years relative to his current contract that attracts criticism and limits praise.

I don't mean to be snarky towards Andrew, but I can't get too excited about his first triple-double in 6.5 years knowing that Doncic recently posted his 12th triple-double just this season.

However, Wiggins has clearly stepped up this season and seems to be doing everything the coaching staff wants from him. I hope it raises his trade value and leads to a decent deal for the Wolves.