Probably, if he a player cannot develop or look good on the Warriors, they likely suck.
Warriors have winning culture, impeccable player development, and solid coaching.
Is James Wiseman a bust?
Moderators: Duke4life831, Marcus
Re: Is James Wiseman a bust?
-
CptCrunch
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 4,671
- And1: 4,696
- Joined: Jun 30, 2016
-
Re: Is James Wiseman a bust?
-
The-Power
- RealGM
- Posts: 10,493
- And1: 9,918
- Joined: Jan 03, 2014
- Location: Germany
-
Re: Is James Wiseman a bust?
Wiseman isn't Embiid but some of the comments are just odd.
Which Wiseman couldn't because he didn't play in college (the few games he did versus subpar competition, he looked excellent).
Embiid played his first 30 games as a 22-year old. Wiseman was 20. If you want a fair comparison, compare Wiseman's next 30 games to Embiid's first 30 games (even though Wiseman will still be younger in those).
He won't be as productive as Embiid, but to insinuate that comparing 20-year old Wiseman's first 30 NBA games without a college or NBA pre-season to 22 year-old Embiid's first 30 games after being around the team for two years and having a full pre-season simply doesn't make sense.
As for the question: too early. Because obviously it is. His odds of becoming a bust have clearly increased with the recent injury woes but no player can be deemed a bust – or success for that matter – after being two years in the league and injured most of the time. That's just not logical. We'll see what Wiseman looks like to start the next season if healthy. If he has a chance to be a great player, we should see it fairly quickly after he had plenty of time to study film, work on his body, and learn about what he needs to do in the modern NBA – although he will need some time to adapt to the speed of the game still. If he still struggles similarly to his Rookie season, he'll have to work hard on becoming a starting level Center or at least a rotational player and probably won't ever become truly great. Next season is key for him, in many ways (future contract, trust in his body, and taking steps in his development).
God Squad wrote:Except Embiid looked amazing at Kansas
Which Wiseman couldn't because he didn't play in college (the few games he did versus subpar competition, he looked excellent).
K_chile22 wrote:In Embiids first 30-something games he put up 20-8-2-2.5 in 25 minutes a game on 58% TS.
Wiseman was about half as productive, less efficient and per impact stats about the most damaging guy in the league while playing off Steph freaking Curry.
Embiid played his first 30 games as a 22-year old. Wiseman was 20. If you want a fair comparison, compare Wiseman's next 30 games to Embiid's first 30 games (even though Wiseman will still be younger in those).
He won't be as productive as Embiid, but to insinuate that comparing 20-year old Wiseman's first 30 NBA games without a college or NBA pre-season to 22 year-old Embiid's first 30 games after being around the team for two years and having a full pre-season simply doesn't make sense.
As for the question: too early. Because obviously it is. His odds of becoming a bust have clearly increased with the recent injury woes but no player can be deemed a bust – or success for that matter – after being two years in the league and injured most of the time. That's just not logical. We'll see what Wiseman looks like to start the next season if healthy. If he has a chance to be a great player, we should see it fairly quickly after he had plenty of time to study film, work on his body, and learn about what he needs to do in the modern NBA – although he will need some time to adapt to the speed of the game still. If he still struggles similarly to his Rookie season, he'll have to work hard on becoming a starting level Center or at least a rotational player and probably won't ever become truly great. Next season is key for him, in many ways (future contract, trust in his body, and taking steps in his development).