Cammo101 wrote:Orlwillbeback wrote:please explain
I think Wiggins has all the tools to be a yearly all star. He is a freak athlete and runs like a gazelle. He is a little more raw offensively than Parker, but that didn't stop him from going for 17 a night as a freshman. He is also a much better defender than Parker.
Parker is going to find some challenges in the NBA. He lacks the lateral quickness to stay in front of SFs and will need to really toughen up to defend NBA PFs. Add to that that it's going to be a lot harder for him to score inside in the NBA, because he isn't a great athlete (he is a good one though) and he doesn't have the quickest first step.
I like Parker a lot, and do think his skill and shooting will make him a good NBA player. But, I do not see greatness there. Wiggins, while not an all star out of the box, has all the pieces needed to become a great player. If you are picking in the top 3, you need to aim for the fences.
Good discussion on Parker vs Wiggins. Personally, I have a bigger lean towards Parker than Wiggins. I think the whole lateral quickness thing on Parker is being a bit overblown. What he lacks in quickness, he makes up for in other areas. I think we can both admit that he's not exactly terrible or anything, so when I hear the word "liability" I'm not going to assume that you mean he's a complete turnstile on defense. I have heard people bringing this up in the past, so I've thought about it a little bit.
But personally, I think he's surprisingly adequate for NBA Star standards based on the whole "lateral quickness" criticism. If we looked at other SF/PF Superstar types like Carmelo Anthony, Paul Pierce, Kevin Love, Dirk Nowitzki... nobody is going to say that these Superstars possess great lateral quickness or even particularly great athleticism. There are other aspects of their games that make them Superstars and it mostly begins with Offense. Parker has an offensive game that is diverse and he has a lot of confidence in his shot (deservingly so).
When you put his whole package together... it's easy to see why many people think he has the highest floor of any prospect and is already considered the most "NBA ready". ...and while that idea sounds good, I actually think it hurts him in a way because it establishes a stigma that he doesn't have a lot of upside. Who knows? Maybe he turns into the next Carmelo or Paul Pierce. Or maybe he ends up at PF and when you think of the kind of upside a PF with his game could be like, then there is actually a HUGE ceiling to his potential. A lot depends on how he grows and develops his game. The mistake would be judging him as a finished product or focusing too hard on a perceived fault.
----------
I love all the tools in Wiggins' game, but I have a harder time falling in love with him because of the passiveness in his game and all the hype about his potential. I can't help but be reminded of other similar players who went high based on tools and athletic upside, flashy moments and elite measurables, but didn't show hunger for real excellence while in college... Wesley Johnson, Marvin Williams, Jeff Green come to mind... All heavily lauded players and the thing they all 4 share is that quietness in their games. I don't know how to explain it. You see the potential and the flashy moments that make you think there is so much upside, but there is no hunger. No burning in the belly. No eye of the tiger type drive. I wish Wiggins would have shown the ability to just take over games and dominate, but it was hard to get out of him. Even his coach had to harp on him for that exact thing. Very naturally talented and the game looks easy for him at times, but I think he really needs to take it up a notch on the next level otherwise he will end up being a complimentary player instead of a lead dog.
