Identity crisis?

[KGdaBom]

What a pathetic attempt to justify the "wild overpayment" of Naz Reed, he turns out to be a better player than Garford, the most he could expect was to be paid the same as his successor, Kelley OlyniK

Bro, you have messed up everything, including every name, lol

Yep. He couldn't even spell.

[Slim Tubby]

What a pathetic attempt to justify the "wild overpayment" of Naz Reed, he turns out to be a better player than Garford, the most he could expect was to be paid the same as his successor, Kelley OlyniK

Bro, you have messed up everything, including every name, lol

DigDug scored a perfect trifecta for poor spelling with that rage post. Always an amazing feat.

Sent from my N152DL using RealGM mobile app

[minimus]

Read on Twitter

This is a recipe for our NBA worst transition offense:

- 7'3" Zikarsky is able two times get back in defense, which resulted in one his steal and one Rob steal
- 6'1"Rob gives effort in defense and flies in transition

This is 8-10pts swing in short of 30 seconds. Add different type of events that can spark a fast break:

Clark aggressive defense

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Joan rebound + outlet pass

Read on Twitter

Joan rim deterrence + TJ speed

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

All in one possession: Joan rim deterrence + Clark aggressive defense + TJ speed

Read on Twitter

[minimus]

I feel like Phoenix (PHO) is a perfect example for Minnesota (MIN) of how not to approach the point guard situation.

What PHO tried:

They had real success with a traditional setup: Booker at SG and CP3 at PG. CP3 averaged nearly 11 assists per game, Booker chipped in around 5, and they had a functional supporting cast: Cameron Johnson, Cam Payne, Shamet, Okogie, and Ayton at center. They were a well-balanced team.

But then they made a series of aggressive moves:
- Traded Mikal Bridges (a high-level 3&D player on a bargain contract) for Kevin Durant.
- Lost Ayton and CP3.
- Acquired Beal and later Jusuf Nurkić (who underwhelmed).
- Eventually brought in Tyus Jones to stabilize the PG position.

From what I understand, Phoenix’s (flawed) logic might’ve looked like this:

“We made the Finals with 36-year-old CP3. Booker’s improved as a passer. KD is one of the best scorers ever. Why not go all-in on offensive talent? Mikal’s not a star, so trading him for KD is a no-brainer. Ayton hasn’t developed into a star, so swapping him for Nurkić isn’t a big drop-off. And with KD/Booker/Beal, playmaking should come organically.”

But the result? It didn’t work.
- KD, Booker, and Beal failed to consistently generate offensive flow.
- Tyus Jones, despite an elite AST:TO ratio, couldn’t fix that either.

What went wrong?
1. Lack of size and physicality in the frontcourt.
They played KD at PF, but with no elite center, their interior was exposed. PoA (point-of-attack) defense was weak, and they went smaller at guard — Beal, then Tyus.
2. Not enough rim pressure.
KD, Booker, and Beal are good shooters and passers — but none consistently collapse the defense. Without downhill pressure, shooting advantages are wasted. Worse, none are elite decision-makers. KD in particular struggles with aggressive traps and double-teams.
3. Tyus was miscast.
Tyus thrives next to an aggressive slasher like Ja Morant — someone who draws multiple defenders. In Phoenix, he lacked that partner and couldn’t break defenses himself.


Why MIN’s situation is different
1. Elite defensive structure.
DPOY Gobert anchors the paint, McDaniels is a top PoA defender, Clark is a strong 3&D wing, and Beringer has elite physical tools.
2. Plenty of size and physicality.
Except at PG, MIN has above-average size at every position. With DDV sliding into some PG duties, spacing and defense are still preserved.
3. Rim pressure is real.
Both Edwards and Randle can attack downhill and draw help. Off the bench, there’s hope TJ and Rob can also apply rim pressure.
4. Promising young core.
Unlike PHO, MIN has Beringer, Dillingham, Shannon, and Clark — a developing nucleus with upside on both ends.


Lessons for MIN Front Office
1. Avoid score-first combo guards with weak defense or questionable decision-making (e.g., Sexton, Dejounte Murray, Coby White).
2. Double down on identity — size, physicality, and elite defense.
3. Don’t pursue PGs who need heavy usage, unless they offer rim pressure, defensive versatility, or high-level decision-making.



Realistic moves MIN could consider
1. Target a big wing movement shooter — someone like Cameron Johnson (likely unrealistic).
Right now, Naz Reid fills this role out of necessity, but he’s not a natural movement shooter. A true big wing spacer would help flow and give Edwards and Randle consistent kickout targets. The best available free agent who checks some of those boxes was Caleb Houstan who signed with ATL

2. Sign a low-profile defensive guard with passing feel.
The ideal version of this was Lonzo Ball — a connector with size, elite outlet passing, defense, and spot-up shooting.
The best available free agent who checks some of those boxes is Delon Wright.


P.S. I always say that the problems you can clearly identify are usually the easiest to fix. While I understand the concern about decision-making (which is not the same as simply “filling the PG void”), I believe the next big step for this team’s offense is transition offense.

It’s low-hanging fruit.

Win the rebound battle. Win 50/50 balls. Win on the margins. Make consistent outlet passes. Run the floor. Finish strong.

Last season, MIN was dead last in transition frequency and second-worst (ahead of only Charlotte) in transition points. Fix that — and suddenly, your offense looks a lot better without reinventing the wheel.

And the tools are already there:
DDV, Reid, Rob, TJ, Clark, Beringer — all of them can run the floor and finish in transition.

[Klomp]

Excellent breakdown of the situation, minimus. I appreciate your ability to look at these situations with nuance.

[FrenchMinnyFan]

Great post Minimus!

[minimus]

Great post Minimus!

I need to thank deepl write website, that check all my grammar errors and improve style. Quite impressive how AI helps me! So all flowers to AI.

P.S. I also use AI to improve my post, so my old friend KGdaBom can enjoy my writing

[minimus]

Sorry, if again I dare to quote myself

Double down on identity — size, physicality, and elite defense.

Here’s a perfect example — and a reason why I completely disagree with anyone saying that MIN is a poorly coached team (aka “Finch is a bad coach”):

Read on Twitter

Even with an aging Gobert and no true backup center, MIN managed to be a top-4 NBA team in one key area:
Teams that sent 2+ players to the offensive glass were:
- More likely than anyone else to grab the OREB
- Less likely than anyone else to give up a transition scoring chance

This is a huge part of the Wolves’ identity — it shows clear coaching intent and execution. Now it’s about building on top of that.

P.S. I always say that the problems you can clearly identify are usually the easiest to fix. While I understand the concern about decision-making (which is not the same as simply “filling the PG void”), I believe the next big step for this team’s offense is transition offense.

It’s low-hanging fruit.

Win the rebound battle. Win 50/50 balls. Win on the margins. Make consistent outlet passes. Run the floor. Finish strong.

Last season, MIN was dead last in transition frequency and second-worst (ahead of only Charlotte) in transition points. Fix that — and suddenly, your offense looks a lot better without reinventing the wheel.

And the tools are already there:
DDV, Reid, Rob, TJ, Clark, Beringer — all of them can run the floor and finish in transition.

What happens when MIN either:
- Wins the offensive rebounding battle without giving up transition points, or
- Punishes opponents in transition?

In both cases, MIN forces opponents into tough decisions. One likely response is adjusting their roster or rotation, which in turn creates new matchup advantages for the Wolves — or even forces opposing big men out of the game entirely.

This is exactly what Britt Robson described as the idea of “moving big men” — originally used in the context of half-court offense, but it applies just as well to transition scenarios.

If MIN kills teams on the glass, and still runs with DDV, Reid, TJ, Rob, and Beringer, then opponents face a dilemma:
- Go small to defend in transition → MIN wins on the boards
- Stay big to rebound → MIN runs them off the floor

This ability to dictate terms — to force other teams out of their preferred lineups — is a hallmark of a well-built and well-coached team.

[KGdaBom]

Great post Minimus!

I need to thank deepl write website, that check all my grammar errors and improve style. Quite impressive how AI helps me! So all flowers to AI.

P.S. I also use AI to improve my post, so my old friend KGdaBom can enjoy my writing

Minimus I'm living in Dominican Republic now and just learning Spanish. Your English is a million times better than my Spanish. I only hope that AI doesn't completely eliminate your distinctive writing style because I will miss that when it's gone.

[minimus]

Double down on identity — size, physicality, and elite defense.

I just want to add this:

Read on Twitter

focus on the sticky stats if you want to learn something

As you can see Joan has the best ORB (one of the sticky stats) in Summer league

[Klomp]

I was thinking today about the PG discussion. I know it probably feels like I've beat a dead horse that I don't think the PG position matters as much these days, but I haven't really talked about why. To be honest, I haven't really even thought about it much.

But as I was watching some clutch-time moments from this year's playoffs, I think I have figured out at least some of the why.

Like it or not, the NBA has changed. It has devolved into a lot of 1-on-1 style basketball. But even moreso, it is about creating 2-on-1 and 3-on-2 advantages. One way to create advantages is by one player having that facilitation mindset, but what really matters is if a player can create his own advantage, either off the dribble or through spacing. Where a PG really matters in these instances is having someone who you could say creates a disadvantage on the floor without being set up. Rudy is a prime example here. His primary skill on offense is as a screener, so either the other 1 or 2 guys on his side of the floor need to be exceptional at creating an advantage or you have to pair him with a facilitator who can set things up. But as we saw more in the playoffs late in games, they opted to simply sub him out in favor of someone who can better create those advantages. There was no PG on the court. They didn't need to set up the offense. Ant wasn't playing PG, because no one really was. They were just giving the ball to their best player and letting him go to work.

[minimus]

I was thinking today about the PG discussion. I know it probably feels like I've beat a dead horse that I don't think the PG position matters as much these days, but I haven't really talked about why. To be honest, I haven't really even thought about it much.

But as I was watching some clutch-time moments from this year's playoffs, I think I have figured out at least some of the why.

Like it or not, the NBA has changed. It has devolved into a lot of 1-on-1 style basketball. But even moreso, it is about creating 2-on-1 and 3-on-2 advantages. One way to create advantages is by one player having that facilitation mindset, but what really matters is if a player can create his own advantage, either off the dribble or through spacing. Where a PG really matters in these instances is having someone who you could say creates a disadvantage on the floor without being set up. Rudy is a prime example here. His primary skill on offense is as a screener, so either the other 1 or 2 guys on his side of the floor need to be exceptional at creating an advantage or you have to pair him with a facilitator who can set things up. But as we saw more in the playoffs late in games, they opted to simply sub him out in favor of someone who can better create those advantages. There was no PG on the court. They didn't need to set up the offense. Ant wasn't playing PG, because no one really was. They were just giving the ball to their best player and letting him go to work.

Yeah, after OKC beat MIN convincingly in the playoffs, I feel like the point guard debate has become a kind of psychological trauma for Wolves fans. It also feels like a low-hanging fruit, because PG is clearly the weakest position on our roster in terms of talent. The logic is simple: replace Conley with someone like Garland, and we’re in the NBA Finals.

I recently listened to a new podcast and really appreciated some of Jake’s thoughts on this exact issue:

Watch on YouTube

Essentially, Jake argues that our roster has already evolved into a PG-less offense, with Randle and Edwards doing most of the advantage creation — which is just another word for playmaking. And based on the numbers, both are very effective in pick-and-roll. So, in a way, we either win or lose with Edwards or Julius handling the ball in crunch time.
That’s our PG situation in a nutshell.

I’ll admit — I’ve been one of those fans hoping a low-profile PG could solve our problems. Monte Morris, Shake Milton — players like that. But the truth is: IND had elite chemistry, coaching, and the best PG trio in the NBA (Haliburton, Nembhard, McConnell) — to challenge an all-time great defense.

It’s comparable to what MIN did in the frontcourt:
We didn’t bring in a “serviceable” center to compete with Jokic — we built an elite big rotation with Gobert, Towns, and Reid. Tim Connelly didn’t half-step. He brought in high-end talent to match the best.

Meanwhile, other teams have shown that just having a guy who plays PG isn’t enough:
- Terry Rozier had the perfect context in MIA — and still flopped.
- MIA’s best seasons came without a traditional PG, with offense running through Butler, Bam, and Herro.

So what matters more than a PG label is:
- Chemistry
- Basketball IQ
- High-level experience
- Complementary skillsets

That’s why Kyle Anderson was so important for us. And that’s how Mike Conley, despite his age, became so efficient — using his IQ to find his niche next to a ball-dominant Edwards.

The takeaway?
You don’t fix a PG “problem” by just slotting in a guy who plays the position on paper. You fix it by understanding how to win playoff possessions. And right now, that means trusting the system we’ve already built around Edwards, Randle, and high-IQ complementary players.

Sure, you can always try to bring in a star-caliber PG. And I actually find the De’Aaron Fox example very illustrative — because it shows just how high the price really is.

To get someone like Fox, you’re likely talking about parting with at least Randle and DDV, which already amounts to $40–50M in outgoing salary (and probably sets expectation for first year of new Fox contract at $45-50M). And that’s before you even get into:
- bidding wars with other teams
- max extension negotiations
- long-term fit concerns
- injury risks
- and the risk of messing up the existing locker room dynamics

There’s no guarantee MIN would even have a real shot at acquiring such a player — and even if we did, it comes at the cost of two of our productive players with valuable contracts.

That’s why I’m leaning heavily toward continuity.

Rather than chasing something that may not exist — or trading proven two-way players for theoretical upgrades — the better path is the one our front office and coaching staff have already committed to:
- Building something special around Gobert, Randle, and Edwards
- Trusting internal development
- Doubling down on identity, chemistry, and high-effort players on sustainable contracts

This is the path that gives us a real competitive window, especially in a Western Conference that’s only getting more physical and defensively oriented.

[FrenchMinnyFan]

I totally agree with that. PG is a fake problem for me. Randle, ANT carry the ball and initiate offense more often than any other player. The current roster is well balanced as neither Jaden, Mike ( i don't count Rudy on offense side) need the ball a lot.

You made a point when you say :
So what matters more than a PG label is:
- Chemistry
- Basketball IQ
- High-level experience
- Complementary skillsets

I think Chemistry is starting to be really good.
Basket IQ will mostly depend on ANT and Jaden improvement. I doubt Randle become more smarter considering his age.
High level experience: Each passing year we got more and more. Enough?

If i was the FO, i would try this year one more time with this group. Il planets are aligned, we can win. If we failed, then i will trade Randle and another player for a star PG, Fox being a good name to put on.

[TimberKat]

I totally agree with that. PG is a fake problem for me. Randle, ANT carry the ball and initiate offense more often than any other player. The current roster is well balanced as neither Jaden, Mike ( i don't count Rudy on offense side) need the ball a lot.

You made a point when you say :
So what matters more than a PG label is:
- Chemistry
- Basketball IQ
- High-level experience
- Complementary skillsets

I think Chemistry is starting to be really good.
Basket IQ will mostly depend on ANT and Jaden improvement. I doubt Randle become more smarter considering his age.
High level experience: Each passing year we got more and more. Enough?

If i was the FO, i would try this year one more time with this group. Il planets are aligned, we can win. If we failed, then i will trade Randle and another player for a star PG, Fox being a good name to put on.

I would agree with your take on Chemistry if not for such bad showing against OKC. Our offense looked completely out class and had no answer to OKC defense. We got lots of money lock up with Gobert, Randle, and Naz. They can't get much going. We turn over the ball like crazy.

[minimus]

I would agree with your take on Chemistry if not for such bad showing against OKC. Our offense looked completely out class and had no answer to OKC defense. We got lots of money lock up with Gobert, Randle, and Naz. They can't get much going. We turn over the ball like crazy.

I would agree with your take on chemistry, but Nicola Jokic had 41 assists and 31 turnovers against OKC. Just saying.

[frankenwolf]

I would agree with your take on Chemistry if not for such bad showing against OKC. Our offense looked completely out class and had no answer to OKC defense. We got lots of money lock up with Gobert, Randle, and Naz. They can't get much going. We turn over the ball like crazy.

I would agree with your take on chemistry, but Nicola Jokic had 41 assists and 31 turnovers against OKC. Just saying.

What we need, as Mike demonstrates, is someone who will look at the court, analyze what is going on and then counteract it with precision. That is why we think we need a PG because that is what the good ones do. Can Ant grow into that, or Dilly? Someone who has a level head, no matter the situation, because the coach can coach, but he can't make the players play. Mike sees what's gong on and can direct traffic on the court. Very hard to direct when you are standing on the sidelines.

I'm still in favor of a high IQ PG, but Dilly, I think, is getting there.

[TimberKat]

I would agree with your take on Chemistry if not for such bad showing against OKC. Our offense looked completely out class and had no answer to OKC defense. We got lots of money lock up with Gobert, Randle, and Naz. They can't get much going. We turn over the ball like crazy.

I would agree with your take on chemistry, but Nicola Jokic had 41 assists and 31 turnovers against OKC. Just saying.

What we need, as Mike demonstrates, is someone who will look at the court, analyze what is going on and then counteract it with precision. That is why we think we need a PG because that is what the good ones do. Can Ant grow into that, or Dilly? Someone who has a level head, no matter the situation, because the coach can coach, but he can't make the players play. Mike sees what's gong on and can direct traffic on the court. Very hard to direct when you are standing on the sidelines.

I'm still in favor of a high IQ PG, but Dilly, I think, is getting there.

Agree for most part, except I am not sure if Dilly is that precision guy. I still see him more like Jamal Crawford, Clarkson, Isaiah Thomas (Celtics) shoot first before ask any question type player.

[minimus]

I would agree with your take on Chemistry if not for such bad showing against OKC. Our offense looked completely out class and had no answer to OKC defense. We got lots of money lock up with Gobert, Randle, and Naz. They can't get much going. We turn over the ball like crazy.

I would agree with your take on chemistry, but Nicola Jokic had 41 assists and 31 turnovers against OKC. Just saying.

What we need, as Mike demonstrates, is someone who will look at the court, analyze what is going on and then counteract it with precision. That is why we think we need a PG because that is what the good ones do. Can Ant grow into that, or Dilly? Someone who has a level head, no matter the situation, because the coach can coach, but he can't make the players play. Mike sees what's gong on and can direct traffic on the court. Very hard to direct when you are standing on the sidelines.

I'm still in favor of a high IQ PG, but Dilly, I think, is getting there.

Well, what you’re describing was exactly Chris Paul’s role next to Devin Booker in Phoenix. He was the “coach on the floor” — orchestrating everything, reading defenses, directing traffic, and slowing the game down when needed.

But that’s not the role Mike Conley has played in Minnesota. His responsibilities have been quite different, especially with the way the roster is constructed:
- He’s been an extremely efficient 3-point shooter, especially off the catch and in pick-and-pop/pull-up actions.
- He serves more as a secondary playmaker, often executing empty side pick-and-rolls with Gobert, or attacking off the advantage created by Ant or Randle.
- He helps organize the offense, but he’s no longer the primary initiator.

That was true before Randle arrived — and now, Randle alone soaks up a huge number of on-ball possessions, even more than Towns or Kyle Anderson did before. Edwards and Randle are now the clear top decision-makers in this offense.

Which brings me to the bigger point:
In today’s MIN roster, there just isn’t enough usage available for a traditional high-usage point guard — especially one who needs the ball in his hands all the time to be effective. So the realistic “ideal PG” in this structure might be someone more like Lonzo Ball:
- Elite defender
- High-level passer
- Doesn’t dominate usage
- Plays in flow and transition
- On a reasonable contract (e.g., $10M AAV)

That’s the type of point guard who would complement what MIN already has — not compete with it.

[winforlose]

I was thinking today about the PG discussion. I know it probably feels like I've beat a dead horse that I don't think the PG position matters as much these days, but I haven't really talked about why. To be honest, I haven't really even thought about it much.

But as I was watching some clutch-time moments from this year's playoffs, I think I have figured out at least some of the why.

Like it or not, the NBA has changed. It has devolved into a lot of 1-on-1 style basketball. But even moreso, it is about creating 2-on-1 and 3-on-2 advantages. One way to create advantages is by one player having that facilitation mindset, but what really matters is if a player can create his own advantage, either off the dribble or through spacing. Where a PG really matters in these instances is having someone who you could say creates a disadvantage on the floor without being set up. Rudy is a prime example here. His primary skill on offense is as a screener, so either the other 1 or 2 guys on his side of the floor need to be exceptional at creating an advantage or you have to pair him with a facilitator who can set things up. But as we saw more in the playoffs late in games, they opted to simply sub him out in favor of someone who can better create those advantages. There was no PG on the court. They didn't need to set up the offense. Ant wasn't playing PG, because no one really was. They were just giving the ball to their best player and letting him go to work.

Yeah, after OKC beat MIN convincingly in the playoffs, I feel like the point guard debate has become a kind of psychological trauma for Wolves fans. It also feels like a low-hanging fruit, because PG is clearly the weakest position on our roster in terms of talent. The logic is simple: replace Conley with someone like Garland, and we’re in the NBA Finals.

I recently listened to a new podcast and really appreciated some of Jake’s thoughts on this exact issue:

Watch on YouTube

Essentially, Jake argues that our roster has already evolved into a PG-less offense, with Randle and Edwards doing most of the advantage creation — which is just another word for playmaking. And based on the numbers, both are very effective in pick-and-roll. So, in a way, we either win or lose with Edwards or Julius handling the ball in crunch time.
That’s our PG situation in a nutshell.

I’ll admit — I’ve been one of those fans hoping a low-profile PG could solve our problems. Monte Morris, Shake Milton — players like that. But the truth is: IND had elite chemistry, coaching, and the best PG trio in the NBA (Haliburton, Nembhard, McConnell) — to challenge an all-time great defense.

It’s comparable to what MIN did in the frontcourt:
We didn’t bring in a “serviceable” center to compete with Jokic — we built an elite big rotation with Gobert, Towns, and Reid. Tim Connelly didn’t half-step. He brought in high-end talent to match the best.

Meanwhile, other teams have shown that just having a guy who plays PG isn’t enough:
- Terry Rozier had the perfect context in MIA — and still flopped.
- MIA’s best seasons came without a traditional PG, with offense running through Butler, Bam, and Herro.

So what matters more than a PG label is:
- Chemistry
- Basketball IQ
- High-level experience
- Complementary skillsets

That’s why Kyle Anderson was so important for us. And that’s how Mike Conley, despite his age, became so efficient — using his IQ to find his niche next to a ball-dominant Edwards.

The takeaway?
You don’t fix a PG “problem” by just slotting in a guy who plays the position on paper. You fix it by understanding how to win playoff possessions. And right now, that means trusting the system we’ve already built around Edwards, Randle, and high-IQ complementary players.

Sure, you can always try to bring in a star-caliber PG. And I actually find the De’Aaron Fox example very illustrative — because it shows just how high the price really is.

To get someone like Fox, you’re likely talking about parting with at least Randle and DDV, which already amounts to $40–50M in outgoing salary (and probably sets expectation for first year of new Fox contract at $45-50M). And that’s before you even get into:
- bidding wars with other teams
- max extension negotiations
- long-term fit concerns
- injury risks
- and the risk of messing up the existing locker room dynamics

There’s no guarantee MIN would even have a real shot at acquiring such a player — and even if we did, it comes at the cost of two of our productive players with valuable contracts.

That’s why I’m leaning heavily toward continuity.

Rather than chasing something that may not exist — or trading proven two-way players for theoretical upgrades — the better path is the one our front office and coaching staff have already committed to:
- Building something special around Gobert, Randle, and Edwards
- Trusting internal development
- Doubling down on identity, chemistry, and high-effort players on sustainable contracts

This is the path that gives us a real competitive window, especially in a Western Conference that’s only getting more physical and defensively oriented.

Fun fact, certain stage 4 cancers can never be cured. You can live for years with them, keep them from spreading or advancing, but never truly eliminate it. The notion that because a team can succeed without a PG that it is better not to have one is an example of this. Yes we can without one, but we have not been out of the WCF in three attempts without one.

The notion that teams who have Star PGs are not really using them as PGs is flawed as well. SGA is a PG, so is Brunson, and so is Hali. Teams who lack PGs often get eliminated in the conference finals, whereas teams that have good ones (not necessarily superstar, but high end PGs,) tend to win chips. When a non PG star with PG skills can play PG (LeBron,) it accomplishes the same thing. PGs role is to make others better, and to score when the defense sags off. They also run the offense and execute the sets. Ant has expressed he does not want to this, he did so publicly and not for the first time. We need someone to get Ant off ball more, and get him the ball with only one defender and driving lanes.

[Klomp]

The notion that teams who have Star PGs are not really using them as PGs is flawed as well. SGA is a PG, so is Brunson, and so is Hali. Teams who lack PGs often get eliminated in the conference finals, whereas teams that have good ones (not necessarily superstar, but high end PGs,) tend to win chips.

How many championships have Haliburton and Brunson won?

Ant is closer to SGA in role than you think. Yes, there is a talent gap, but there is also an age gap. I'm not ready to say Ant will never be as good as SGA is now, are you?