Official Anthony Edwards Thread

[theGreatRC]

*Sigh*

Ant has shown flashes of greatness and he's shown flashes of bustness...so has Ball, so has Wiseman...

Remember Ball going scoreless in his first game and everyone was like "HA! TOLD YA" Same thing with Wiseman taking it coast to coast and everyone saying "WOW, THIS DUDE IS GIANNIS"

Literally 10 games have been played and people act like they know how a player's career will turn out.

I actually wanted Lamelo Ball in the draft and i'm glad he's doing well...Edwards has had good/bad games just like all the other rookies in this class.

[PharmD]

Draft pick should be judged after 2-3 years. Jamal Murray was considered as meh selection at very beginning of his career. He was considered as a meh again when DEN re-sgned him to max contract.

So we can't talk about how it's looking right now then continue to revise as things progress?

[theGreatRC]

One thing I noticed is he doesn't play well with DLO, but he seems to have more memorable games with KAT in the lineup

I don't know if it plays a part, but he had a really good rookie debut, showed an arsenal of offensive moves against Utah & he finished the game well against San Antonio(despite the turnnover at the end)

I don't count the 26 point game because it was all garbage time buckets and he is 0-2 on good games on a the back end of a back to back

[minimus]

Draft pick should be judged after 2-3 years. Jamal Murray was considered as meh selection at very beginning of his career. He was considered as a meh again when DEN re-sgned him to max contract.

So we can't talk about how it's looking right now then continue to revise as things progress?

I prefer to measure progress rather than things in a vacuum.

[PharmD]

Draft pick should be judged after 2-3 years. Jamal Murray was considered as meh selection at very beginning of his career. He was considered as a meh again when DEN re-sgned him to max contract.

So we can't talk about how it's looking right now then continue to revise as things progress?

I prefer to measure progress rather than things in a vacuum.

I like to talk about progress too. But idk, people can talk about more than 1 thing imo.

[minimus]

So we can't talk about how it's looking right now then continue to revise as things progress?

I prefer to measure progress rather than things in a vacuum.

I like to talk about progress too. But idk, people can talk about more than 1 thing imo.

I am with you. I just mean we need to temper our expectations and also try to avoid overreactions.

[Jedzz]

Dude asked for it talking like this level was nothing for him to deal with after the first two wins. Team marketing jumped on that presumptuous display of rookie confidence in a 1 on 1 interview and labeled it charisma and started repeating that interview before mutliple games. Wish the culture was already in place to slide these guys in as rookie fodder and make them carry the gym bag for the vets or whatever so this junk didn't happen. But this team is always looking for some kind of positive to overhype which usually ends up as pressure on the new kid to be all world already. Coaches and Pobo made a big mistake to start the season letting him run possessions while Dlo/Rubio were around. It could have ended up more electric with Edwards getting spoon fed easy cuts to the basket for big scores and the hype could have built up naturally. That's not the Wolves way I suppose.

[Killboard]

Advanced stats suggest there is no comparison between Ball and Wiseman and Edwards.

Ball and Haliburton are head-and-shoulders above all other rookies... and essentially the only ones who are positive on the court right now.

That doesn't mean they're going to be the best long term. And that's not to suggest Edwards and Wiseman and others haven't shown impressive flashes... but they simply haven't been nearly as impactful or consistent.

The advanced metrics are staggering amid the early 10-game sample.

Most (if not all) advanced metrics take into account: team success, rebounds or need a big sample to be reliable.

Of all 3 Edwards only can control the rebounds, and he has been bad at it so far. If he is going to rebound like this the rest of his career I would be really concerned, but I don't think that will be the case.

Yes. As we both acknowledged, small sample size. But we're not talking fractions of a point here. It's a significant difference.

It's not like Haliburton and Ball are playing for juggernauts. But both are doing things to help their teams win.

Yes, the Kings and the Hornets are playing better basketball than the Wolves. But neither of those teams are missing their best player. And it's a pretty significant difference IMO, because that moves up the whole roster to different roles. You neither can't compare the spacing the Wolves provide with KAT than without KAT, and the Hornets are a good fit for LaMelo game. They have good shooters at all positions. And Hali is a role player, which isn't a problem at all, but has a totally different curve than a lead guard.

[AbeVigodaLive]

Most (if not all) advanced metrics take into account: team success, rebounds or need a big sample to be reliable.

Of all 3 Edwards only can control the rebounds, and he has been bad at it so far. If he is going to rebound like this the rest of his career I would be really concerned, but I don't think that will be the case.

Yes. As we both acknowledged, small sample size. But we're not talking fractions of a point here. It's a significant difference.

It's not like Haliburton and Ball are playing for juggernauts. But both are doing things to help their teams win.

Yes, the Kings and the Hornets are playing better basketball than the Wolves. But neither of those teams are missing their best player. And it's a pretty significant difference IMO, because that moves up the whole roster to different roles. You neither can't compare the spacing the Wolves provide with KAT than without KAT, and the Hornets are a good fit for LaMelo game. They have good shooters at all positions. And Hali is a role player, which isn't a problem at all, but has a totally different curve than a lead guard.

Can you explain what you mean by this?

[Killboard]

Yes. As we both acknowledged, small sample size. But we're not talking fractions of a point here. It's a significant difference.

It's not like Haliburton and Ball are playing for juggernauts. But both are doing things to help their teams win.

Yes, the Kings and the Hornets are playing better basketball than the Wolves. But neither of those teams are missing their best player. And it's a pretty significant difference IMO, because that moves up the whole roster to different roles. You neither can't compare the spacing the Wolves provide with KAT than without KAT, and the Hornets are a good fit for LaMelo game. They have good shooters at all positions. And Hali is a role player, which isn't a problem at all, but has a totally different curve than a lead guard.

Can you explain what you mean by this?

That high usage guards are usually asked no initiate offense and create gravity, where role players use that gravity created for others to make plays. It's a different learning curve.

[AbeVigodaLive]

Yes, the Kings and the Hornets are playing better basketball than the Wolves. But neither of those teams are missing their best player. And it's a pretty significant difference IMO, because that moves up the whole roster to different roles. You neither can't compare the spacing the Wolves provide with KAT than without KAT, and the Hornets are a good fit for LaMelo game. They have good shooters at all positions. And Hali is a role player, which isn't a problem at all, but has a totally different curve than a lead guard.

Can you explain what you mean by this?

That high usage guards are usually asked no initiate offense and create gravity, where role players use that gravity created for others to make plays. It's a different learning curve.

Still not really following you, other than it seems like you're trying to justify Edwards and dismiss Haliburton.

In the end... maybe we can agree that the Wolves simply need more "role players" and not as many "lead" guys.

Haliburton:
12.1 ppg
5.3 apg
1.0 TO
52.0% fg
50.0% 3fg

[TheZachAttack]

Can you explain what you mean by this?

That high usage guards are usually asked no initiate offense and create gravity, where role players use that gravity created for others to make plays. It's a different learning curve.

Still not really following you, other than it seems like you're trying to justify Edwards and dismiss Haliburton.

In the end... maybe we can agree that the Wolves simply need more "role players" and not as many "lead" guys.

Haliburton:
12.1 ppg
5.3 apg
1.0 TO
52.0% fg
50.0% 3fg

This was my logic pre-draft for wanting to somehow use #1 and #17 to say end up with Vassell and Halliburton. Now, does that outcome lead to the same ceiling as if Edwards is D wade? No. But it seems more realistic and it seems clear that we need players that can play with KAT and D lo and players whose games are optimized by playing off of KAT and D lo and thus optimize D Lo.

All of a sudden you're essentially a 6th man/Jordan Clarkson type and a Bjelica type away from being a Mavs type team and you've got a bunch of wings who can play defense and space off of Towns/D lo.

[AbeVigodaLive]

That high usage guards are usually asked no initiate offense and create gravity, where role players use that gravity created for others to make plays. It's a different learning curve.

Still not really following you, other than it seems like you're trying to justify Edwards and dismiss Haliburton.

In the end... maybe we can agree that the Wolves simply need more "role players" and not as many "lead" guys.

Haliburton:
12.1 ppg
5.3 apg
1.0 TO
52.0% fg
50.0% 3fg

This was my logic pre-draft for wanting to somehow use #1 and #17 to say end up with Vassell and Halliburton. Now, does that outcome lead to the same ceiling as if Edwards is D wade? No. But it seems more realistic and it seems clear that we need players that can play with KAT and D lo and players whose games are optimized by playing off of KAT and D lo and thus optimize D Lo.

All of a sudden you're essentially a 6th man/Jordan Clarkson type and a Bjelica type away from being a Mavs type team and you've got a bunch of wings who can play defense and space off of Towns/D lo.

Yep.

The Wolves have two max players already... guys the Wolves have mortgaged part of the future to build around. It would seem wise to lean on them and support them with complementary players... than to take HR swings on guys who could ultimately fight for that lead dog role on the team.

[Klomp]

The Wolves have two max players already... guys the Wolves have mortgaged part of the future to build around. It would seem wise to lean on them and support them with complementary players... than to take HR swings on guys who could ultimately fight for that lead dog role on the team.

If the two max players were LeBron James and Anthony Davis maybe, but they're not and Minnesota will never be a free agent destination to lure someone of that caliber to join them.

If teams in Minnesota's situation have championship aspirations, they need to build up the potential talent base as highly as possible.

[AbeVigodaLive]

The Wolves have two max players already... guys the Wolves have mortgaged part of the future to build around. It would seem wise to lean on them and support them with complementary players... than to take HR swings on guys who could ultimately fight for that lead dog role on the team.

If the two max players were LeBron James and Anthony Davis maybe, but they're not and Minnesota will never be a free agent destination to lure someone of that caliber to join them.

If teams in Minnesota's situation have championship aspirations, they need to build up the potential talent base as highly as possible.

But it's not realistic for this franchise to have championship aspirations right now.

Playoff aspirations are a nice, more reasonable start... no?

[Klomp]

The Wolves have two max players already... guys the Wolves have mortgaged part of the future to build around. It would seem wise to lean on them and support them with complementary players... than to take HR swings on guys who could ultimately fight for that lead dog role on the team.

If the two max players were LeBron James and Anthony Davis maybe, but they're not and Minnesota will never be a free agent destination to lure someone of that caliber to join them.

If teams in Minnesota's situation have championship aspirations, they need to build up the potential talent base as highly as possible.

But it's not realistic for this franchise to have championship aspirations right now.

Playoff aspirations are a nice, more reasonable start... no?

I think GMs would be doing their franchise a disservice if they're only looking at the current season, especially when analyzing draft prospects. That's how you draft Shabazz Muhammad over Giannis Antetokounmpo.

Free agency is to bring in complementary players, the draft is to take your chance at a star.

[AbeVigodaLive]

If the two max players were LeBron James and Anthony Davis maybe, but they're not and Minnesota will never be a free agent destination to lure someone of that caliber to join them.

If teams in Minnesota's situation have championship aspirations, they need to build up the potential talent base as highly as possible.

But it's not realistic for this franchise to have championship aspirations right now.

Playoff aspirations are a nice, more reasonable start... no?

I think GMs would be doing their franchise a disservice if they're only looking at the current season, especially when analyzing draft prospects. That's how you draft Shabazz Muhammad over Giannis Antetokounmpo.

Free agency is to bring in complementary players, the draft is to take your chance at a star.

If they're only looking at one season... sure. But I don't think anybody is suggesting that.

On that point though, this is not the NBA most of us grew up on. The windows are much shorter than ever before. The days of "we're going to be so good when all these young guys improve in a few years" simply isn't as tenable as it once was.

Mostly, I'm worn out from playing so many rounds of The Promise of Hope game. I've been sold that bill of goods many, many times already.

[KGdaBom]

Yes. As we both acknowledged, small sample size. But we're not talking fractions of a point here. It's a significant difference.

It's not like Haliburton and Ball are playing for juggernauts. But both are doing things to help their teams win.

Yes, the Kings and the Hornets are playing better basketball than the Wolves. But neither of those teams are missing their best player. And it's a pretty significant difference IMO, because that moves up the whole roster to different roles. You neither can't compare the spacing the Wolves provide with KAT than without KAT, and the Hornets are a good fit for LaMelo game. They have good shooters at all positions. And Hali is a role player, which isn't a problem at all, but has a totally different curve than a lead guard.

Can you explain what you mean by this?

I HATE the term role player. Every player has a role so every player is a role player. Haliburton is what he is and that's pretty good.

[KGdaBom]

Yes, the Kings and the Hornets are playing better basketball than the Wolves. But neither of those teams are missing their best player. And it's a pretty significant difference IMO, because that moves up the whole roster to different roles. You neither can't compare the spacing the Wolves provide with KAT than without KAT, and the Hornets are a good fit for LaMelo game. They have good shooters at all positions. And Hali is a role player, which isn't a problem at all, but has a totally different curve than a lead guard.

Can you explain what you mean by this?

That high usage guards are usually asked no initiate offense and create gravity, where role players use that gravity created for others to make plays. It's a different learning curve.

Every player plays a role whether it's Haliburton, Edwards, Ball or Wiseman. Time will tell which of them is the best.

[Krapinsky]

Draft pick should be judged after 2-3 years. Jamal Murray was considered as meh selection at very beginning of his career. He was considered as a meh again when DEN re-sgned him to max contract.

Young guys deserve time, but Lamelo has been a difference maker already and we don't need to wait 2-3 years to see he is going to be very good.

He is the same age as Edwards (to the month), playing a similar roll as Edwards coming off the bench, is averaging 12.4-7-6, and actually out shooting Edwards. I hope Edwards is as great as the next guy, but there isn't a team in the league that wouldn't trade Edwards for Ball right now.