Andrew Wiggins is not a lock at #1?

[CablexDeadpool]

OMG

People are now saying Wiggins can be Kobe freaking Bryant, then laugh at the guy who said at best he could Paul George which is also somewhat silly because Paul George was always a shooter and always played with the ball in his hands in college...while Wiggins doesn't...but Paul George is at least realistic.

But Wiggins being Kobe Bryant.

Wiggins officially Deshawn Stevenson'ed

Wiggins officially the most overrated draft prospect of all time.

[LloydFree]

OMG

People are now saying Wiggins can be Kobe freaking Bryant, then laugh at the guy who said at best he could Paul George which is also somewhat silly because Paul George was always a shooter and always played with the ball in his hands in college...while Wiggins doesn't...but Paul George is at least realistic.

But Wiggins being Kobe Bryant.

Wiggins officially Deshawn Stevenson'ed

Wiggins officially the most overrated draft prospect of all time.

Wiggins has virtually the same numbers (TS%) as as a Freshman that Paul George had as a Sophomore in college. The Paul George ceiling is very realistic, based on athletic ability and the starting points of their skill development.

[sikma42]

OMG

People are now saying Wiggins can be Kobe freaking Bryant, then laugh at the guy who said at best he could Paul George which is also somewhat silly because Paul George was always a shooter and always played with the ball in his hands in college...while Wiggins doesn't...but Paul George is at least realistic.

But Wiggins being Kobe Bryant.

Wiggins officially Deshawn Stevenson'ed

Wiggins officially the most overrated draft prospect of all time.

Wiggins has virtually the same numbers (TS%) as as a Freshman that Paul George had as a Sophomore in college. The Paul George ceiling is very realistic, based on athletic ability and the starting points of their skill development.

I didn't watch Paul George in college but what you said, citing stats, does nothing to refute his post stating that they played nothing alike at the time. Similar stats do not necessarily mean similar playing styles. Again take this with a grain of salt because im not very familiar with young Paul George. However, I do agree that the Kobe Bryant comparison is laughable in every regard possible at this point. They just aren't very similar. By this age Kobe had a sick skill set.

[CablexDeadpool]

Wiggins has virtually the same numbers (TS%) as as a Freshman that Paul George had as a Sophomore in college. The Paul George ceiling is very realistic, based on athletic ability and the starting points of their skill development.

Wiggins got the same numbers as Moe Harkless too.


And no, Wiggins style of play is totally different than Paul George.

Paul George was way more advanced...Paul George could stroke it and always could stroke it. He was a shooter first.

Paul George always played with the ball in his hands...Wiggins doesn't.

Paul George was the Guy...Wiggins isn't.

Paul George wasn't just "Oh, now I got the ball in my hands in the NBA, watch me put up these numbers." All-Star Paul George style of play hasn't changed at all from college to the pros.

Paul George always been an average ball handling turnover prone super athletic defender shooter with decent court vision.

Paul George when he first came into the league, went from star wing player with the ball in his hands to a role player and he could do it because he had a stroke. His iso-handles and ball-handling handles were always pretty weak for a star wing but he can get away with it because he got the athleticism, good enough floor game and court vision and he got the size and the stroke to shoot it over you.

Wiggins becoming Paul George is highly unlikely, he's a Deng/Trevor Ariza type player all the way...that is a two dribble player in the half-court, relatively nice jumper, a staunch defender and dynamic in the fastbreak.

Wiggins handling the ball, dishing out assists and shooting 3s is a pipe dream but at least it's more realistic than a Kobe.

The narrative of Paul George just being some raw super athlete and goes to the NBA and somebody taught him how to dribble, how to shoot needs to stop because every single player that is above 6'5 and super athletic is now being compared to Paul George without actually playing anywhere close to Paul George in college.

Only reason Paul George didn't become a High School phenom because he got into the system late.

Paul George wasn't raw and the main area that he was raw in besides shooting off the the dribble - which made people question if he could translate being a star wing to college to pros was ball handling, is still pretty raw compared to somebody like a Lebron, Tracy Mcgrady or even Kevin Durant when it comes to iso-ing and that probably never will change. Even his ability to iso and shoot off the dribble is still really raw compared to a Kobe...only reason he can do it is because he is a pure shooter that is 6'9 with a 40 inch vert.

So everything about Paul George's offensive game starts with being a 6'9 super athlete with an elite stroke with enough ball handling ability and floor game to get where he wants to on the court and dish out some assists - which is a skill he has demonstrated his entire basketball playing career. Wiggins hasn't.

[LloydFree]

OMG

People are now saying Wiggins can be Kobe freaking Bryant, then laugh at the guy who said at best he could Paul George which is also somewhat silly because Paul George was always a shooter and always played with the ball in his hands in college...while Wiggins doesn't...but Paul George is at least realistic.

But Wiggins being Kobe Bryant.

Wiggins officially Deshawn Stevenson'ed

Wiggins officially the most overrated draft prospect of all time.

Wiggins has virtually the same numbers (TS%) as as a Freshman that Paul George had as a Sophomore in college. The Paul George ceiling is very realistic, based on athletic ability and the starting points of their skill development.

I didn't watch Paul George in college but what you said, citing stats, does nothing to refute his post stating that they played nothing alike at the time. Similar stats do not necessarily mean similar playing styles. Again take this with a grain of salt because im not very familiar with young Paul George. However, I do agree that the Kobe Bryant comparison is laughable in every regard possible at this point. They just aren't very similar. By this age Kobe had a sick skill set.

I agree with you. Numbers accumulated at the same level have little to do with future performance. I also prefer to look at the prospect and compare similar skills to star players, at the same stage. Statistical comparisons do not work in basketball. I only referenced TS% because the guy said Paul George was always a better shooter than Wiggins. That simply is/was not true.

My questions about Wiggins are related less with perceived skill deficiencies, and more with his personality and playing style. Wiggins doesn't play with any edge or anger. Most of the stars I've seen, even when they were raw, played with more edge, even at 19. Vince Carter is probably the only NBA star that played as passive as Wiggins, that I can think of off the top of my head. I really think I will be able to get a better feel for Wiggins' fire, when the NCAA tournament comes along.

[TheSuzerain]

6'9" super athletes with elite strokes and sufficient ball skills don't fall to 10th overall.

You are overstating things.

[crazy_me_87]

my thoughts as well

Paul George was nothing extremly special in most eyes nbadraft.net had him has something between Trevor Ariza and Danny Granger

main Weaknesses: poor handling and inability to create for himself


he was a solid all around player with great athletism and a solid but not good shot

acting like he was hyped at college would be in hindsight

his sophmore year stats are about the same as Wiggins

adding to that he was a year Older when he came to the NBA

i am not taking anything away from PG at all!... but he´s getting overrated here a little, espaccially at College and Draft times...



i agree Kobe as Comp. is off..

a Shorter Slashing/Defence version of Durant? ... i am trying to say.. he does not fit any mold..

[noobcake]

my thoughts as well

Paul George was nothing extremly special in most eyes nbadraft.net had him has something between Trevor Ariza and Danny Granger

main Weaknesses: poor handling and inability to create for himself


he was a solid all around player with great athletism and a solid but not good shot

acting like he was hyped at college would be in hindsight

his sophmore year stats are about the same as Wiggins

adding to that he was a year Older when he came to the NBA

i am not taking anything away from PG at all!... but he´s getting overrated here a little, espaccially at College and Draft times...

i agree Kobe as Comp. is off..

a Shorter Slashing/Defence version of Durant? ... i am trying to say.. he does not fit any mold..

Commonality: athletic NBA 3, decent shot, poor handles, poor vision, elite D potential, average basketball IQ

Wiggins: More athletic, a bit more passive, off ball player

George: A bit more ball dominant

Pretty much the same prospect as Paul George. George pretty much broke through his pre-draft ceiling, something that very few players manage to do. I think Wiggins' best case is George. He doesn't have the IQ, mentality or handles to become a Kobe or Jordan.

[Dr Positivity]

6'9" super athletes with elite strokes and sufficient ball skills don't fall to 10th overall.

You are overstating things.

George was essentially Giannis 2010, though. Putting up "just" 17, 7 and 3 .57 TS on a below .500 WAC team that could never get on TV, gave him nearly as much of a mystery box and "international man of mystery" reputation as playing in a Greek league - and was called a high upside player who was the riskiest in the draft, because nothing about picking him came from production. This except from Simmons draft diary sums up why George likely fell

5:31: I present two athletic perimeter guys for you, both freshmen:

• Xavier Henry (born March 1991), 2-guard: a top-3 college recruit in 2009, started on the No. 1 college team (regular season), averaged 13.4 ppg (27.5 mpg), shot 45.5 percent and 41.8 percent on 3s, didn't get a ton of touches on a veteran team, did everything he could to fit in.

• Paul George (born May 1990), small forward: not a top-100 college recruit, best player on a 15-18 team in the WAC, averaged 16.8 ppg (33.2 mpg), shot 42 percent and 35 percent on 3s, played inferior competition.

Whom did the Pacers take? Naturally, George. Did I mention that their best player (Danny Granger) is a small forward? I love the NBA.

Essentially there's two ways to rate players, one is talent evaluation (of which I have an extreme position of only using) and the other is production evaluation when judged against competition and age. The production evaluation camp is still HUGE and in fact growing with analytics statguys surging in relevance lately.

ESPN in particular leans heavily on production for what makes a player safe or risky. It's why they more or less called Otto Porter the safest prospect in the draft and Giannis the riskiest and the same for Thomas Robinson/Drummond year before, or Wes Johnson/George. It's why the chances of drafting a Drummond, George or Giannis if he becomes a star, may increase as time goes on because no purely numbers-based system will ever be able to take what they did in college/Europe and punch out "future star"

[CablexDeadpool]

6'9" super athletes with elite strokes and sufficient ball skills don't fall to 10th overall.

You are overstating things.

No I am not. And BTW...Paul George rose to 10th, he didn't fall.

The reason why Paul George was pick 10th was because that's all he had that people thought would totally translate to the NBA

A 6'9 athlete with an elite stroke and a potential to play elite defense. He wasn't necessarliy projected to be a star wing player, which is the role he had in college...because of

His inability to effectively use an iso handle to get to the lane

He is turnover prone

The fact that he struggles shooting off the dribble

The fact that he became a 3 point bomber in his second year and didn't see a shot he didn't like

He played against crappy competition and his team didn't even win much

He still has a shaky handle, still bombs 3s and he still is extremely turnover prone, those things hasn't changed about Paul George. What has changed is he improved on his shaky handle enough that it isn't detriment to his offensive game like it was in college. His ability to shoot over defenses and actually make the shot has improved. His 3 ball currently has more consistency. He gets to the line more...that's about it.

PACERS accurately and successfully picked up Paul George where is supposed to be drafted and he turned out to be a Star.

It was an excellent pick because if he turns out to be just a shooter and defender...he is a 6'10 shooter and defender.

If he irons out his game and turns out to be star wing player...well you got a star wing player.

My point is, players don't change. You not gonna get a player that has demonstrated a lack of range throughout his entire life and he turns into volume 3 point shooter attempting 6 threes making 40 percent. You not gonna get a player that can't pass for crap and he suddenly turns into a 8 assist a game 3 TOs player. Not gonna get a player that can't post up...and then he lives in the post.

Players don't dramatically improve, they really just become better versions of what they already are. So adding these new skills to guys, like becoming a 3 point shooter, or getting a handle or getting a post game is silly.

The whole, "wait til player x gets skill x then he'll be unstoppable" needs to stop because it doesn't happen.

George was essentially Giannis 2010, though. Putting up "just" 17, 7 and 3 .57 TS on a below .500 WAC team that could never get on TV, gave him nearly as much of a mystery box and "international man of mystery" reputation as playing in a Greek league - and was called a high upside player who was the riskiest in the draft, because nothing about picking him came from production. This except from Simmons draft diary sums up why George likely fell.

Paul George didn't fall. PG rose to the 10th because his production, his physical profile and his age. Nobody was really interested in him the end of his freshmen season.

Like I said, he already had stroke and he was used to playing with the ball in his hands and he was a ridiculous athlete.

So if he doesn't become a star...he'll be 3 and D guy at 6'9...which is a role he played when he first got to the NBA and he was pretty good at it.

So how is that risky at 10? And Giannis went 15...so how much of a risk are you taking with 6'9 guys with some ball skills and defensively ability.

Paul George and Giannis would be easy picks for me if they were outside the top 8, which they were.

[Mik317]

I think people from both "sides" are exagerrating their views.

Wiggins isn't Kobe...no ****. What makes Kobe, Kobe and not Nick Young is the mentality and drive to be great and all that cliche ****. The fact that Kobe has little else going on in his life besides Basketball (seriously does dude do anything? Before twitter, Kobe was like the basketball version of a shut in lol). That is what Wiggins' lacks and it is tough to say if he will ever get that..or if that is possible (one could argue Bron gained this..bu idk).

However, Wiggin's isn't a bum,. The fact that he's putting up the stats he is despite being super passive, having **** guards, and no real go to moves, is actually kinda impressive IMO. Wiggins is all toolset right now. He has a solid jumper (it looks good), he is a crazy athlete, pretty good defender, seems like a good kid. His only flaws are his aggression and his handle. I think the handle can be fixed. And I think most coaches think they can fix his aggression problems.

It is just tough to pass on his toolset. With Embiid's rise, it is made easier as a big man with a great toolset is almost a no brainer. It is one of those things you don't want to look back on and be on the wrong side of things. Kinda like the Okafor and Howard debates. You don't want to miss out on a guy panning out with all the tools Wiggins posess.
Personally, I'd only take Embiid over him...and that's tenuous at best with my **** ability to see if a big will pan out or not.

I also think the NBA game and having actual spacing and point guard play will help Wiggins a ton.

[Dr Positivity]

Paul George didn't fall. PG rose to the 10th because his production, his physical profile and his age. Nobody was really interested in him the end of his freshmen season.

Like I said, he already had stroke and he was used to playing with the ball in his hands and he was a ridiculous athlete.

So if he doesn't become a star...he'll be 3 and D guy at 6'9...which is a role he played when he first got to the NBA and he was pretty good at it.

So how is that risky at 10? And Giannis went 15...so how much of a risk are you taking with 6'9 guys with some ball skills and defensively ability.

Paul George and Giannis would be easy picks for me if they were outside the top 8, which they were.

The weird part about Giannis is I swear he's more athletic than he was last year. I'm not a body expert, is it far fetched to say at the same time he grew a few inches since the draft, he grew some muscles in his legs making him more explosive? I swear he only looked as fast and explosive as Batum before the draft and now he's exploding like Durant

[CablexDeadpool]

The weird part about Giannis is I swear he's more athletic than he was last year. I'm not a body expert, is it far fetched to say at the same time he grew a few inches since the draft, he grew some muscles in his legs making him more explosive? I swear he only looked as fast and explosive as Batum before the draft and now he's exploding like Durant

It's probably because European basketball is more of a grind it out game and he's learned how to harness his jumping power.

The game playing athleticism is weird.

Like you have guys like OJ Mayo that got a 40 inch vert and don't play like a 40 inch vert player.

Then you have a guy like Harrison Barnes...that was grounded for most of his college career and now he is running and dunking over people in NBA and tested ridiculously in the combine.

I realize, you don't know what the hell to expect when players transfer to different levels of play in regards to their athletic ability because a lot of it is really dependent on the environment, body type and their game.

A lot of wing players are freak athletes but they can't do anything with it because they might have a slow first step or they can't dribble.

Players like Kevin Durant really improved their athleticism by shoring up their handles and learning how to jump so KD looks more athletic when he just using what he got properly. Then you have players like Rudy Gay or Demar Derozan that never bettered their ball handling ability and look slow.

Plus, long players always look more athletic because they cover more ground and vertical space. Look at D Wade, Andre Iguodala or Russell Westbrook. Wade, Westbrook and Dre barely gets his head towards the rim but they got freaky long arms, open court ball handling ability and fast and they just yam it on defenders. Kevin Durant can cover the floor with his long strides and then he got ridiculously long arms while being 6'11 so he doesn't even got to jump that high or reach that far.

I think Giannis just got more space and tightened up his handle so he can explode better because when I saw him play in Europe, players were all over him, now I see him running in space in the fast break. He still looks ridiculously skinny to me and long.

Damn he is creepy Slender Man skinny.

[lilojmayo]

The weird part about Giannis is I swear he's more athletic than he was last year. I'm not a body expert, is it far fetched to say at the same time he grew a few inches since the draft, he grew some muscles in his legs making him more explosive? I swear he only looked as fast and explosive as Batum before the draft and now he's exploding like Durant

It's probably because European basketball is more of a grind it out game and he's learned how to harness his jumping power.

The game playing athleticism is weird.

Like you have guys like OJ Mayo that got a 40 inch vert and don't play like a 40 inch vert player.

Then you have a guy like Harrison Barnes...that was grounded for most of his college career and now he is running and dunking over people in NBA and tested ridiculously in the combine.

I realize, you don't know what the hell to expect when players transfer to different levels of play in regards to their athletic ability because a lot of it is really dependent on the environment, body type and their game.

A lot of wing players are freak athletes but they can't do anything with it because they might have a slow first step or they can't dribble.

Players like Kevin Durant really improved their athleticism by shoring up their handles and learning how to jump so KD looks more athletic when he just using what he got properly. Then you have players like Rudy Gay or Demar Derozan that never bettered their ball handling ability and look slow.

Plus, long players always look more athletic because they cover more ground and vertical space. Look at D Wade, Andre Iguodala or Russell Westbrook. Wade, Westbrook and Dre barely gets his head towards the rim but they got freaky long arms, open court ball handling ability and fast and they just yam it on defenders. Kevin Durant can cover the floor with his long strides and then he got ridiculously long arms while being 6'11 so he doesn't even got to jump that high or reach that far.

I think Giannis just got more space and tightened up his handle so he can explode better because when I saw him play in Europe, players were all over him, now I see him running in space in the fast break. He still looks ridiculously skinny to me and long.

Damn he is creepy Slender Man skinny.

Giannis would be #1 Pick in this draft, he has a better chance of being a generational player than either Jabari Parker and especially Andrew WIggins.

Giannis is only 19, his body is still growing, and he is lifting weights hard, so is getting more athletic. He said in a recent interview that is he now 6'10.25 and the doctors said he will grow to 7 ft tall. Players gain athleticism all the time between the ages of 18-19 to 24-25. I mean look at Blake Grfiin then and now. Let's hope his Giannis
game continues to grow , he has purely freakish measurements.

I do agree with the notion that there is a big difference between measurement athleticism and in game athleticism due to varies reason like you mentioned.



[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bdOnNXTtb4[/youtube]

OJ Mayo has never been an super explosive athlete though. He has a pretty good athlete as you seen in the dunk above, when he was lighter at 185-190 lbs in HS. But as he gained muscle mass , his body didn't react well to it in terms of athleticism. At that Combine your referring to when he record 40 inch max vertical, he was at 200 lbs ( now around 215 lbs ). And that was his max vertical, his standing vertical was just above average at 30 inches ( which is much better depiction of pure vertical explosion). His agility times were average. He had a relatively low/average standing reach, wingspan + small hands. Not to mention he doesn't get off the ground fast, or possess a quick first step. I've seen him throw down some pretty nasty windmill dunks in warms up and stuff. People dont realize just how athletic NBA players are.

Not to Mention as Kyrie Irving said , in the NBA you play 82 games. If your not known for being a dunking highlight reel, you tend to save your energy vs when you were in HS/College. Kyrie barely be lookin like he can dunk in games, but you see him in these Pro-Am games throwing off the glass dunking on people with ease.

[MGrand15]

I think people from both "sides" are exagerrating their views.

Wiggins isn't Kobe...no ****. What makes Kobe, Kobe and not Nick Young is the mentality and drive to be great and all that cliche ****. The fact that Kobe has little else going on in his life besides Basketball (seriously does dude do anything? Before twitter, Kobe was like the basketball version of a shut in lol). That is what Wiggins' lacks and it is tough to say if he will ever get that..or if that is possible (one could argue Bron gained this..bu idk).

However, Wiggin's isn't a bum,. The fact that he's putting up the stats he is despite being super passive, having **** guards, and no real go to moves, is actually kinda impressive IMO. Wiggins is all toolset right now. He has a solid jumper (it looks good), he is a crazy athlete, pretty good defender, seems like a good kid. His only flaws are his aggression and his handle. I think the handle can be fixed. And I think most coaches think they can fix his aggression problems.

It is just tough to pass on his toolset. With Embiid's rise, it is made easier as a big man with a great toolset is almost a no brainer. It is one of those things you don't want to look back on and be on the wrong side of things. Kinda like the Okafor and Howard debates. You don't want to miss out on a guy panning out with all the tools Wiggins posess.
Personally, I'd only take Embiid over him...and that's tenuous at best with my **** ability to see if a big will pan out or not.

I also think the NBA game and having actual spacing and point guard play will help Wiggins a ton.

I hate when people say this. The only difference between Kobe (HOFer, one of the best of all time) and Nick Young (career bench player) is mentality and drive to be great? Are you kidding me? People tend to not properly evaluate talent - then blame their mistakes on cliches like "will" and "wanting it more". Nick Young is athletic, can shoot open 3s and can occasionally hit fadeaway jumpers while contested. He's not, nor was he ever, in the same galaxy as Kobe talent wise.

Wiggins turning great doesn't hinge on him not having any interests outside of basketball. It hinges on him figuring out how to use his athleticism to impact the game consistently and getting his handles up to the point where he can get to the rim. Plenty of guys work hard and can't improve to superstar level. On the bright side for him - once he gets NBA level weight-training, he should become an even better athlete.

[EricAnderson]

The weird part about Giannis is I swear he's more athletic than he was last year. I'm not a body expert, is it far fetched to say at the same time he grew a few inches since the draft, he grew some muscles in his legs making him more explosive? I swear he only looked as fast and explosive as Batum before the draft and now he's exploding like Durant

It's probably because European basketball is more of a grind it out game and he's learned how to harness his jumping power.

The game playing athleticism is weird.

Like you have guys like OJ Mayo that got a 40 inch vert and don't play like a 40 inch vert player.

Then you have a guy like Harrison Barnes...that was grounded for most of his college career and now he is running and dunking over people in NBA and tested ridiculously in the combine.

I realize, you don't know what the hell to expect when players transfer to different levels of play in regards to their athletic ability because a lot of it is really dependent on the environment, body type and their game.

A lot of wing players are freak athletes but they can't do anything with it because they might have a slow first step or they can't dribble.

Players like Kevin Durant really improved their athleticism by shoring up their handles and learning how to jump so KD looks more athletic when he just using what he got properly. Then you have players like Rudy Gay or Demar Derozan that never bettered their ball handling ability and look slow.

Plus, long players always look more athletic because they cover more ground and vertical space. Look at D Wade, Andre Iguodala or Russell Westbrook. Wade, Westbrook and Dre barely gets his head towards the rim but they got freaky long arms, open court ball handling ability and fast and they just yam it on defenders. Kevin Durant can cover the floor with his long strides and then he got ridiculously long arms while being 6'11 so he doesn't even got to jump that high or reach that far.

I think Giannis just got more space and tightened up his handle so he can explode better because when I saw him play in Europe, players were all over him, now I see him running in space in the fast break. He still looks ridiculously skinny to me and long.

Damn he is creepy Slender Man skinny.

Miles Plumlee is a guy who i ddint think was that athletic then they claimed he tested as an athletic freak at the draft camp adn im thinkign to myself that hes never showed it on the court then he gets playing time this year and shows hes a hell of an athlete..

Wiggins is a guy who watching clips of in hs looked like one of the best athlete ive ever seen and at Kansas while he looks to be a good athlete he hasnt showed that wow type athletic ability i saw in those clips from hs yet..

[Mik317]

I think people from both "sides" are exagerrating their views.

Wiggins isn't Kobe...no ****. What makes Kobe, Kobe and not Nick Young is the mentality and drive to be great and all that cliche ****. The fact that Kobe has little else going on in his life besides Basketball (seriously does dude do anything? Before twitter, Kobe was like the basketball version of a shut in lol). That is what Wiggins' lacks and it is tough to say if he will ever get that..or if that is possible (one could argue Bron gained this..bu idk).

However, Wiggin's isn't a bum,. The fact that he's putting up the stats he is despite being super passive, having **** guards, and no real go to moves, is actually kinda impressive IMO. Wiggins is all toolset right now. He has a solid jumper (it looks good), he is a crazy athlete, pretty good defender, seems like a good kid. His only flaws are his aggression and his handle. I think the handle can be fixed. And I think most coaches think they can fix his aggression problems.

It is just tough to pass on his toolset. With Embiid's rise, it is made easier as a big man with a great toolset is almost a no brainer. It is one of those things you don't want to look back on and be on the wrong side of things. Kinda like the Okafor and Howard debates. You don't want to miss out on a guy panning out with all the tools Wiggins posess.
Personally, I'd only take Embiid over him...and that's tenuous at best with my **** ability to see if a big will pan out or not.

I also think the NBA game and having actual spacing and point guard play will help Wiggins a ton.

I hate when people say this. The only difference between Kobe (HOFer, one of the best of all time) and Nick Young (career bench player) is mentality and drive to be great? Are you kidding me? People tend to not properly evaluate talent - then blame their mistakes on cliches like "will" and "wanting it more". Nick Young is athletic, can shoot open 3s and can occasionally hit fadeaway jumpers while contested. He's not, nor was he ever, in the same galaxy as Kobe talent wise.

Wiggins turning great doesn't hinge on him not having any interests outside of basketball. It hinges on him figuring out how to use his athleticism to impact the game consistently and getting his handles up to the point where he can get to the rim. Plenty of guys work hard and can't improve to superstar level. On the bright side for him - once he gets NBA level weight-training, he should become an even better athlete.

What I meant by that was the psycically and toolset wise Nick could be close to Kobe. I didn't mean to diss Kobe, but his best attribute is his dedication and willingness to add to his game. If Nick Young wasn't a goofy dude and actually had Kobe's same "IMMA BE DA BESS" attitude, He'd put up major numbers. He has stretches every season that makes you wonder (he had various 30pt game streaks with the Wiz for example) however, doesn't out it together full time. Basically it's nothing physical or talent wise (well one could say a great work ethic is a talent) but rather he just isn't that dude. It takes a special kind of person to be great. This isn't even just abut basketball but life in general. Just having the talent means nothing, you need to know how to best apply that...it's like an amazing singer "wasting away" as a backup singer because they lack the confidence to be a headliner.

So when I used Nick Young and Kobe as an comparison, I didn't mean Nick Young could be Kobe..because c'mon...I meant if he wasn't the goofy **** he is (and I love him for that lol), he could be considered really damn good. He has the toolset. He is pretty athletic. Can get his shot off at will. Nice size for his position and has tons of swag (lol). He has the toolset....just like Wiggins has the toolset to be great, its all about putting it together. I think he does...which is what I said in the rest of my paragraph..

[lilojmayo]

I think people from both "sides" are exagerrating their views.

Wiggins isn't Kobe...no ****. What makes Kobe, Kobe and not Nick Young is the mentality and drive to be great and all that cliche ****. The fact that Kobe has little else going on in his life besides Basketball (seriously does dude do anything? Before twitter, Kobe was like the basketball version of a shut in lol). That is what Wiggins' lacks and it is tough to say if he will ever get that..or if that is possible (one could argue Bron gained this..bu idk).

However, Wiggin's isn't a bum,. The fact that he's putting up the stats he is despite being super passive, having **** guards, and no real go to moves, is actually kinda impressive IMO. Wiggins is all toolset right now. He has a solid jumper (it looks good), he is a crazy athlete, pretty good defender, seems like a good kid. His only flaws are his aggression and his handle. I think the handle can be fixed. And I think most coaches think they can fix his aggression problems.

It is just tough to pass on his toolset. With Embiid's rise, it is made easier as a big man with a great toolset is almost a no brainer. It is one of those things you don't want to look back on and be on the wrong side of things. Kinda like the Okafor and Howard debates. You don't want to miss out on a guy panning out with all the tools Wiggins posess.
Personally, I'd only take Embiid over him...and that's tenuous at best with my **** ability to see if a big will pan out or not.

I also think the NBA game and having actual spacing and point guard play will help Wiggins a ton.

I hate when people say this. The only difference between Kobe (HOFer, one of the best of all time) and Nick Young (career bench player) is mentality and drive to be great? Are you kidding me? People tend to not properly evaluate talent - then blame their mistakes on cliches like "will" and "wanting it more". Nick Young is athletic, can shoot open 3s and can occasionally hit fadeaway jumpers while contested. He's not, nor was he ever, in the same galaxy as Kobe talent wise.

Wiggins turning great doesn't hinge on him not having any interests outside of basketball. It hinges on him figuring out how to use his athleticism to impact the game consistently and getting his handles up to the point where he can get to the rim. Plenty of guys work hard and can't improve to superstar level. On the bright side for him - once he gets NBA level weight-training, he should become an even better athlete.

What I meant by that was the psycically and toolset wise Nick could be close to Kobe. I didn't mean to diss Kobe, but his best attribute is his dedication and willingness to add to his game. If Nick Young wasn't a goofy dude and actually had Kobe's same "IMMA BE DA BESS" attitude, He'd put up major numbers. He has stretches every season that makes you wonder (he had various 30pt game streaks with the Wiz for example) however, doesn't out it together full time. Basically it's nothing physical or talent wise (well one could say a great work ethic is a talent) but rather he just isn't that dude. It takes a special kind of person to be great. This isn't even just abut basketball but life in general. Just having the talent means nothing, you need to know how to best apply that...it's like an amazing singer "wasting away" as a backup singer because they lack the confidence to be a headliner.

So when I used Nick Young and Kobe as an comparison, I didn't mean Nick Young could be Kobe..because c'mon...I meant if he wasn't the goofy **** he is (and I love him for that lol), he could be considered really damn good. He has the toolset. He is pretty athletic. Can get his shot off at will. Nice size for his position and has tons of swag (lol). He has the toolset....just like Wiggins has the toolset to be great, its all about putting it together. I think he does...which is what I said in the rest of my paragraph..

The difference between Kobe Bryant and Nick Young isn't mentality and/or drive. Nick Young works hard on #perfectinghiscraft, and to me it shows so far in the season he has been having. Yes, like you mentioned Young has unbelieveable tools being 6'6-6'7 , long, super athletic, can shoot, can put it on the floor, create his own shot etc. He is a really talented scorer that can really fill it up, and as you mentioned go on scorigng streaks.

However, having tools to be a great NBA player is only half the story. His basketball mentality, playing style, the way he approaches the game and lack of playing making instincts/feel to the game that is what really prevents Nick Young from being the player you think he is capable of.

He takes a lot of tough unncecessary off the dribble jumpers, his playing style isn't that efficient, doesn't read defense that well at all, and doesn't make anyone around him better, his defense is suspect at times and doesn't really get to the free throw line at a high rate.

Contrary to a guy like James Hardin who is a superstar in this league. He is a big time playermaking guard that can handle the rock , can get to free throw line, incredibly efficient etc etc

[rockmanslim]

ICYMI

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6srzIXTRaPQ[/youtube]

[noobcake]

ICYMI

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6srzIXTRaPQ[/youtube]

Dribble too high, can't dribble for his life, turnover on passes, jumper wasn't hitting. Half of those drives are walks. Plays solid D though.

Not impressed.