ImageImageImage

Official Anthony Edwards Thread

Moderators: Domejandro, Calinks, Worm Guts

TheZachAttack
Pro Prospect
Posts: 854
And1: 668
Joined: Jul 23, 2014
       

Re: Official Anthony Edwards Thread 

Post#461 » by TheZachAttack » Wed Jan 13, 2021 6:18 pm

PharmD wrote:
AbeVigodaLive wrote:
Jedzz wrote:Not easy to find players that are equally at home on ball or completely off on a smaller role. Definately not easy to find shooters of that quality that also have good game IQ and passing skills. People can call them role players all they want. He's not limited in skills. He's just not overly overbeating in nature. Doesn't mean he won't slide into a leadership role in a year or two and start taking over. Like a Murray in Denver.



Yep.

Meanwhile, I'm struggling to think of many of those easy-to-find versatile, smart, highly efficient young role players in the historic annals of Wolves lore...

Tyus Jones!


Bjelica! Although, we ran him out of town and wouldn't let him shoot lol.

To a previous poster, I would consider Rubio this mold of ultra-supporting player. Dieng, to some degree, though he is or was more ideally a bench piece rather than sort of an uber role player. Both are important, but I think different levels.

Edit - I guess I'd add that Rubio was drafted initially to be more than that and maybe that's the whole reason why Rubio was or is divisive to this fanbase especially his first time arouhd.
User avatar
AbeVigodaLive
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,904
And1: 2,348
Joined: Nov 24, 2008

Re: Official Anthony Edwards Thread 

Post#462 » by AbeVigodaLive » Wed Jan 13, 2021 7:14 pm

TheZachAttack wrote:
PharmD wrote:
AbeVigodaLive wrote:

Yep.

Meanwhile, I'm struggling to think of many of those easy-to-find versatile, smart, highly efficient young role players in the historic annals of Wolves lore...

Tyus Jones!


Bjelica! Although, we ran him out of town and wouldn't let him shoot lol.

To a previous poster, I would consider Rubio this mold of ultra-supporting player. Dieng, to some degree, though he is or was more ideally a bench piece rather than sort of an uber role player. Both are important, but I think different levels.

Edit - I guess I'd add that Rubio was drafted initially to be more than that and maybe that's the whole reason why Rubio was or is divisive to this fanbase especially his first time arouhd.




I can see Rubio as that type of player. A key cog... a positive player overall... but one who played a smaller part and was not a high usage player.
Klomp
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 56,270
And1: 12,325
Joined: Jul 08, 2005
Contact:
   

Re: Official Anthony Edwards Thread 

Post#463 » by Klomp » Wed Jan 13, 2021 7:21 pm

AbeVigodaLive wrote:Yep.

Meanwhile, I'm struggling to think of many of those easy-to-find versatile, smart, highly efficient young role players in the historic annals of Wolves lore...

Get rid of them too quickly.

In 32 seasons, only 21 players have played here 3 full seasons (246 games).
tsherkin wrote:The important thing to take away here is that Klomp is wrong.
Esohny wrote:Why are you asking Klomp? "He's" actually a bot that posts random blurbs from a database.
User avatar
AbeVigodaLive
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,904
And1: 2,348
Joined: Nov 24, 2008

Re: Official Anthony Edwards Thread 

Post#464 » by AbeVigodaLive » Wed Jan 13, 2021 7:34 pm

Klomp wrote:
AbeVigodaLive wrote:Yep.

Meanwhile, I'm struggling to think of many of those easy-to-find versatile, smart, highly efficient young role players in the historic annals of Wolves lore...

Get rid of them too quickly.

In 32 seasons, only 21 players have played here 3 full seasons (246 games).




But if they're so easy to find... wouldn't they have had the immediate impact of a Haliburton type a lot sooner? That's sort of the point the poster was making... we don't need to play the waiting game with those guys like we do with "lead guys."
Klomp
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 56,270
And1: 12,325
Joined: Jul 08, 2005
Contact:
   

Re: Official Anthony Edwards Thread 

Post#465 » by Klomp » Wed Jan 13, 2021 8:22 pm

AbeVigodaLive wrote:
Klomp wrote:
AbeVigodaLive wrote:Yep.

Meanwhile, I'm struggling to think of many of those easy-to-find versatile, smart, highly efficient young role players in the historic annals of Wolves lore...

Get rid of them too quickly.

In 32 seasons, only 21 players have played here 3 full seasons (246 games).




But if they're so easy to find... wouldn't they have had the immediate impact of a Haliburton type a lot sooner? That's sort of the point the poster was making... we don't need to play the waiting game with those guys like we do with "lead guys."

I don't think they're so easy to find. Especially since oftentimes you have to develop them too.
tsherkin wrote:The important thing to take away here is that Klomp is wrong.
Esohny wrote:Why are you asking Klomp? "He's" actually a bot that posts random blurbs from a database.
User avatar
AbeVigodaLive
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,904
And1: 2,348
Joined: Nov 24, 2008

Re: Official Anthony Edwards Thread 

Post#466 » by AbeVigodaLive » Wed Jan 13, 2021 8:25 pm

Klomp wrote:
AbeVigodaLive wrote:
Klomp wrote:Get rid of them too quickly.

In 32 seasons, only 21 players have played here 3 full seasons (246 games).




But if they're so easy to find... wouldn't they have had the immediate impact of a Haliburton type a lot sooner? That's sort of the point the poster was making... we don't need to play the waiting game with those guys like we do with "lead guys."

I don't think they're so easy to find. Especially since oftentimes you have to develop them too.



Yeah. You and I agree.

The other guy was presenting a very different take... and I was being sarcastic.
TheZachAttack
Pro Prospect
Posts: 854
And1: 668
Joined: Jul 23, 2014
       

Re: Official Anthony Edwards Thread 

Post#467 » by TheZachAttack » Wed Jan 13, 2021 10:16 pm

AbeVigodaLive wrote:
TheZachAttack wrote:
PharmD wrote:Tyus Jones!


Bjelica! Although, we ran him out of town and wouldn't let him shoot lol.

To a previous poster, I would consider Rubio this mold of ultra-supporting player. Dieng, to some degree, though he is or was more ideally a bench piece rather than sort of an uber role player. Both are important, but I think different levels.

Edit - I guess I'd add that Rubio was drafted initially to be more than that and maybe that's the whole reason why Rubio was or is divisive to this fanbase especially his first time arouhd.




I can see Rubio as that type of player. A key cog... a positive player overall... but one who played a smaller part and was not a high usage player.


Oh, it's absolutely critical to have those types of players--Andre Iquodala's/etc on championship teams. It's not as easy to find great role players as a lot of folks make it think either. Too many times you get someone like Wiggins... who is best playing like a key cog, but isn't a good enough key cog to be good and if you try and scale them down...their game doesn't fit. Being able to score or support off ball or the couple of different ways this player can be is absolutely a high-value skill.

The only debate is whether it's worth getting and targeting these guys unless you think you have your key cog. I think there's an in between. For example, a poster made the point that Towns/D lo aren't good enough key cogs (think Lebron/Davis). However, I'd argue that while that's true... that almost makes it more important to get supporting players because no matter what the ball is going to be in their hands a lot... you need to maximize both their games but also it's EXTREMELY important to nail your role players and have them be efficient. Lebron/Davis can mask inefficiencies of poor roster construction or non-maximized roster construction around them.

I did a big long analysis awhile back, I can't remember if it was here or reddit. However, essentially our top scorer (Towns) and our big 3 (D Lo/Towns/Beasey) is or was more efficient than the Mavs/Houston big 3 (Harden/Luka and then Gordon/Westbrook and Hardaway/Porzingis)... the biggest difference from us being them was the efficiency of our role players. Houston's like 5-6 players playing around them averaged 38+% 3 point shooting and Dallas was over 40%. The Wolves role players were struggling to be above 30% from 3.

That's the difference between us and the most efficient offenses in the league and actually ever with Towns in the lineup. A lot of the Wolves defensive issues stem from being out of contention in my mind. That is, issues preventing them from being in the 15-18 range that Houston/Dallas was versus the 22-25 range.

Now maybe we hit a Donovan Mitchell with Edwards and that's great if we did.
TwolvesFanRome
Pro Prospect
Posts: 860
And1: 252
Joined: Aug 25, 2014
Location: Roma
   

Re: Official Anthony Edwards Thread 

Post#468 » by TwolvesFanRome » Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:48 am

He is shooting very bad every night....
"...I want to compliment him, we all expected that he would take up the game, we have prepared the plan race on him, we have doubled. And, as usual, he did what he wanted..."

Zelimir Obradovic, talking about Dejan Bodiroga
Rookie-Mistake
Senior
Posts: 708
And1: 218
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
         

Re: Official Anthony Edwards Thread 

Post#469 » by Rookie-Mistake » Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:52 am

I didn't watch. From what I've seen so far I am not impressed.
TwolvesFanRome wrote:He is shooting very bad every night....


Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using RealGM mobile app
Little Digger
Head Coach
Posts: 6,837
And1: 2,702
Joined: Aug 01, 2010
 

Re: Official Anthony Edwards Thread 

Post#470 » by Little Digger » Thu Jan 14, 2021 7:32 am

He’s playing exactly like he did in high school and at Georgia ..
ILOVEIT—Good 'ol Bob. Two things that will survive the next apocalypse - Cockroaches and Fitz.
User avatar
PharmD
Head Coach
Posts: 6,392
And1: 5,126
Joined: Aug 21, 2015
 

Re: Official Anthony Edwards Thread 

Post#471 » by PharmD » Thu Jan 14, 2021 7:40 am

Little Digger wrote:He’s playing exactly like he did in high school and at Georgia ..

Nah, he scored back then.
User avatar
Foye
Club Captain- German Soccer
Posts: 23,398
And1: 2,716
Joined: Jul 29, 2008
Location: Frankfurt
 

Re: Official Anthony Edwards Thread 

Post#472 » by Foye » Thu Jan 14, 2021 8:46 am

PharmD wrote:
Little Digger wrote:He’s playing exactly like he did in high school and at Georgia ..

Nah, he scored back then.


Not very efficiently if anyone including Rosas would've taken a look at the stats...
Rookie-Mistake
Senior
Posts: 708
And1: 218
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
         

Re: Official Anthony Edwards Thread 

Post#473 » by Rookie-Mistake » Thu Jan 14, 2021 9:01 am

This must be apart of gerssons analytics.

Draft two 6ft5 guards that can't shoot.. Fml.
Foye wrote:
PharmD wrote:
Little Digger wrote:He’s playing exactly like he did in high school and at Georgia ..

Nah, he scored back then.


Not very efficiently if anyone including Rosas would've taken a look at the stats...


Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using RealGM mobile app
Jedzz
RealGM
Posts: 10,541
And1: 2,236
Joined: Oct 05, 2018
   

Re: Official Anthony Edwards Thread 

Post#474 » by Jedzz » Thu Jan 14, 2021 9:05 am

AbeVigodaLive wrote:
Klomp wrote:
AbeVigodaLive wrote:


But if they're so easy to find... wouldn't they have had the immediate impact of a Haliburton type a lot sooner? That's sort of the point the poster was making... we don't need to play the waiting game with those guys like we do with "lead guys."

I don't think they're so easy to find. Especially since oftentimes you have to develop them too.



Yeah. You and I agree.

The other guy was presenting a very different take... and I was being sarcastic.


Oh here we go.

I'll disagree. It is much easier to find these guys if you are actually looking for them instead of looking for moonshots.

Two requirements up your odds. Proven shot consistency, proven game IQ you can see in games. These two things aren't so difficult to spot for Pro evaluators, or shouldn't be.

Draft players without those two requirements proven at any time in their past and you are asking for a project. Find a large set of players with those requirements and start widdling them down based on other characteristics until you find a couple you believe in. Hello successful draft. Successful in finding a player that can very quickly pick up your scheme and produce something. What their ceiling actually will be is never known even if people love claiming they know that all the time.

I still remember chatter on Murray his draft year, glossed over...just a shooter. Herro?

I was talking this summer about finding players that fit. Oh no! You don't draft for need! Nobody drafts for need! Wolves aren't good enough to draft for need! Same story every year. As if some magic jumping bean is going to be passed over because we drafted a SF or PF with size that both shoots well and has game IQ. What exactly is a moon shot pick hoped to turn into anyway but exactly a player that can shoot and has enough game IQ, just enough athletics and mentality to become special? That was our moonshot because it puts our team in contention. We went looknig for random project moonshots, the moonshot.

Our team, with one eye already buried deep in a possible future where we overlooked someone great because we already had guards, chose to draft another guard to assure that future we saw coming didn't happen. In fact, most fell in luv with the mass hype choices of the two guards or the center dreams. Perfect set of players in positions we already have filled. So none of them present the possibility of us choosing for need, right? At least we won't screw up the draft that way, right? Never gets old.

The one thought that matters to me in this book if you read nothing else is...
If you draft someone with proven good shooting and game IQ then at worst you will likely have someone that can be used as a rotation role player early and could exist around others. But your choice still has the possibility of being so much more. Because the things that make great players great usually aren't knowable predraft.
Jedzz
RealGM
Posts: 10,541
And1: 2,236
Joined: Oct 05, 2018
   

Re: Official Anthony Edwards Thread 

Post#475 » by Jedzz » Thu Jan 14, 2021 9:58 am

Edwards has an interesting combination of someone with the mentality that wants to lead and be a star player (easy to see) combined with size/athletics and some shown flashes of being able to shoot and ball skills. What was possibly missing as proven was gameIQ and consistent shot. Could he be taught that yet? Could a couple seasons of play and good coaching bring that to his table? If it can, he's got a great shot to be a special player. But in allowing him to initiate early on in what I can only describe as a show-off period we saw the good occur with the very bad in doing so. High confidence and occasional warm shooting with otherwise low efficiency and low ability to actually play with others in the offense unless he's calling all the shots. But that only works in the NBA if your own shooting is consistent. Got to give him the time to learn the rest of the game. This was the choice they made.

I am still concerned about the avoidance of driving completely at net we saw. We saw that when he does, he can get there and get up easy. Finishing strong moreso is going to prove he's someone that can finish the score and draw fouls. Something very rare in these parts! He also has shown more than a little touch to the ball around the rim in various ways already. But finishing strong at the rim is needed to draw those foul shots and earn that ref respect.

I look at someone like Luka and don't see great shooting percecntages. In fact his 3pt shot has gotten worse each year. But still, 20 shots/g is getting him 27-28 points because of the foul shots he's earning. He's also able to get other involved and fills up the stat sheet across the board. 9 rebounds, 8 assists, 2+ stocks, and commits low number of fouls himself. He's only a 111/109 off/def player right now. What is so special? Ant needs to bring the rest of his game up to par and then whether his shooting skyrockets or not he can still pan out. He's got a ways to go starting out already at 92/119. Game IQ taught/learned will change it all for him. He's got 120/110 in him if they can find it. Moonshot.
User avatar
Foye
Club Captain- German Soccer
Posts: 23,398
And1: 2,716
Joined: Jul 29, 2008
Location: Frankfurt
 

Re: Official Anthony Edwards Thread 

Post#476 » by Foye » Thu Jan 14, 2021 11:50 am

Jedzz wrote:Edwards has an interesting combination of someone with the mentality that wants to lead and be a star player (easy to see) combined with size/athletics and some shown flashes of being able to shoot and ball skills. What was possibly missing as proven was gameIQ and consistent shot. Could he be taught that yet? Could a couple seasons of play and good coaching bring that to his table? If it can, he's got a great shot to be a special player. But in allowing him to initiate early on in what I can only describe as a show-off period we saw the good occur with the very bad in doing so. High confidence and occasional warm shooting with otherwise low efficiency and low ability to actually play with others in the offense unless he's calling all the shots. But that only works in the NBA if your own shooting is consistent. Got to give him the time to learn the rest of the game. This was the choice they made.

I am still concerned about the avoidance of driving completely at net we saw. We saw that when he does, he can get there and get up easy. Finishing strong moreso is going to prove he's someone that can finish the score and draw fouls. Something very rare in these parts! He also has shown more than a little touch to the ball around the rim in various ways already. But finishing strong at the rim is needed to draw those foul shots and earn that ref respect.

I look at someone like Luka and don't see great shooting percecntages. In fact his 3pt shot has gotten worse each year. But still, 20 shots/g is getting him 27-28 points because of the foul shots he's earning. He's also able to get other involved and fills up the stat sheet across the board. 9 rebounds, 8 assists, 2+ stocks, and commits low number of fouls himself. He's only a 111/109 off/def player right now. What is so special? Ant needs to bring the rest of his game up to par and then whether his shooting skyrockets or not he can still pan out. He's got a ways to go starting out already at 92/119. Game IQ taught/learned will change it all for him. He's got 120/110 in him if they can find it. Moonshot.


I firmly believe that basketball iq is the skill that can be taught the least. Either you already have that skill when you enter the league or the best you can hope for is becoming average in that aspect of the game.
I can't think of any cases where it was clearly evident that their decision making improved from poor to super amazing tbh.

That's also why I am not too high on Edwards.
He will certainly get to a point where he understands the game better in the next years and use his bulldozer body better but most definitely never to the point required to be among the elite player in the league.
mercgold3
General Manager
Posts: 9,453
And1: 3,197
Joined: Nov 21, 2013
   

Re: Official Anthony Edwards Thread 

Post#477 » by mercgold3 » Thu Jan 14, 2021 12:27 pm

We really wanted to trade down right? I can see why...

What a lame top-10 players so far.
Only Deni and Ball (not a top-3 talent) are showing all-star / above average talent.

Too early, ok. But this is not JA/Zion, Doncic/Trae kind of level. So, i don't get when people say the 3 top prospects are looking good.
User avatar
AbeVigodaLive
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,904
And1: 2,348
Joined: Nov 24, 2008

Re: Official Anthony Edwards Thread 

Post#478 » by AbeVigodaLive » Thu Jan 14, 2021 2:29 pm

Jedzz wrote:
AbeVigodaLive wrote:
Klomp wrote:I don't think they're so easy to find. Especially since oftentimes you have to develop them too.



Yeah. You and I agree.

The other guy was presenting a very different take... and I was being sarcastic.


Oh here we go.

I'll disagree. It is much easier to find these guys if you are actually looking for them instead of looking for moonshots.

Two requirements up your odds. Proven shot consistency, proven game IQ you can see in games. These two things aren't so difficult to spot for Pro evaluators, or shouldn't be.

Draft players without those two requirements proven at any time in their past and you are asking for a project. Find a large set of players with those requirements and start widdling them down based on other characteristics until you find a couple you believe in. Hello successful draft. Successful in finding a player that can very quickly pick up your scheme and produce something. What their ceiling actually will be is never known even if people love claiming they know that all the time.

I still remember chatter on Murray his draft year, glossed over...just a shooter. Herro?

I was talking this summer about finding players that fit. Oh no! You don't draft for need! Nobody drafts for need! Wolves aren't good enough to draft for need! Same story every year. As if some magic jumping bean is going to be passed over because we drafted a SF or PF with size that both shoots well and has game IQ. What exactly is a moon shot pick hoped to turn into anyway but exactly a player that can shoot and has enough game IQ, just enough athletics and mentality to become special? That was our moonshot because it puts our team in contention. We went looknig for random project moonshots, the moonshot.

Our team, with one eye already buried deep in a possible future where we overlooked someone great because we already had guards, chose to draft another guard to assure that future we saw coming didn't happen. In fact, most fell in luv with the mass hype choices of the two guards or the center dreams. Perfect set of players in positions we already have filled. So none of them present the possibility of us choosing for need, right? At least we won't screw up the draft that way, right? Never gets old.

The one thought that matters to me in this book if you read nothing else is...
If you draft someone with proven good shooting and game IQ then at worst you will likely have someone that can be used as a rotation role player early and could exist around others. But your choice still has the possibility of being so much more. Because the things that make great players great usually aren't knowable predraft.





You realize I'm not in the moonshoot camp, right?
Jedzz
RealGM
Posts: 10,541
And1: 2,236
Joined: Oct 05, 2018
   

Re: Official Anthony Edwards Thread 

Post#479 » by Jedzz » Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:48 pm

AbeVigodaLive wrote:You realize I'm not in the moonshoot camp, right?


That's not why I brought it up, whether you are or not. That's just what this team typically does, hunt moonshots. Someone like Klomp who you quoted, agreed with, and admitted some previous sarcasm to, is a regular supporter of whatever the team does and is good at excusing their flawed choices. As far as I can tell he was saying it's not easy to find high quality role players and then something odd about having to also develop those. I just see that as more excuses for not targeting this type of player. But I could have misunderstood his or your post.

Players already exhibiting solid game IQ and high level shooting consistency in college or where ever are likely going to take much less development to be usable. They may still need to develop their bodies and age up a bit yet. They may still need handles work, defense, or whatever individual thing yet. But being aware of themselves and others on the court with game IQ and being reliable for shots makes them instantly usable as positive additions to the court, and not just someone you have to dump minutes upon for development and try to cover for their negative impact.
User avatar
AbeVigodaLive
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,904
And1: 2,348
Joined: Nov 24, 2008

Re: Official Anthony Edwards Thread 

Post#480 » by AbeVigodaLive » Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:55 pm

Jedzz wrote:
AbeVigodaLive wrote:You realize I'm not in the moonshoot camp, right?


That's not why I brought it up, whether you are or not. That's just what this team typically does, hunt moonshots. Someone like Klomp who you quoted, agreed with, and admitted some previous sarcasm to, is a regular supporter of whatever the team does and is good at excusing their flawed choices. As far as I can tell he was saying it's not easy to find high quality role players and then something odd about having to also develop those. I just see that as more excuses for not targeting this type of player. But I could have misunderstood his or your post.

Players already exhibiting solid game IQ and high level shooting consistency in college or where ever are likely going to take much less development to be usable. They may still need to develop their bodies and age up a bit yet. They may still need handles work, defense, or whatever individual thing yet. But being aware of themselves and others on the court with game IQ and being reliable for shots makes them instantly usable as positive additions to the court, and not just someone you have to dump minutes upon for development and try to cover for their negative impact.



Just to be clear... I'm probably one of the fanbase's primary advocates for choosing guys who know how to play NBA basketball vs. uber-talented guys you have to teach how to play.

This team simply does not have (nor has had) enough of the former category of players.

Obviously, judging by the most recent draft and other moves, the current regime strongly disagrees.





[Note: There's some twisted irony in how this organization started. The first installment included a team of try-hards that simply didn't have the talent to compete... but they battled and battled and overachieved, relatively speaking. And then the coach was fired for winning too much.]

Return to Minnesota Timberwolves