Dat2U wrote:Wall didn't play well but I'm tired of every damn game being a referendum on whether he's a bust or not. I really don't think this is all about him but It's becoming painfully obvious that he may not develop while he's a Washington Wizard. Ruz is right, there's been absolutely no development among any of it's young players. In fact, we've seen more regression than development.
This franchise may be winning a few more games now, but it's on the backs of an old and outdated frontline that doesn't match our young core along with contributions from minimum free agents like Webster & Price and even last night, a career NBDL'er in Garrett Temple. While it may make Ernie & Ted feel better about the product they've put on the floor, these wins are simply window dressing for the rotten dying core that lies underneath.
I'm starting to think we've only seen the beginning of how bad this novel is going to be. If Ted is really as out of touch as his Ted's Take columns and interviews indicate he is, we may be looking at years of misery ahead.
Dat, I do share your overall pessimism. Normally, I'm pretty dismissive of criticisms of organization player development for a few reasons -- (1) we dont see the vast majority of what happens (2) quantity and quality of individual players' work is by far the biggest driver of their "development" and (3) picking the right talent is a hell of a lot more important than some magic formula to develop it.
That said, Nivek's recent discussion of Wall's shot selection strikes me as something the organization could and should be focusing on to help him be more productive. It''s an easy math problem, not to mention the fact that there are big schematic advantages to whatever adjustments a defense would naturally make should John actually hit 2 or 3 in a row (obviously happens from time to time even with bad shooters).
But the overarching problem isn't development. McGee and Young have not blossomed into special players now that they're in different environments. Blatche is more productive, but that;s all about his choice to show up in shape and act a little more like a grownup. The problem is TALENT. The problem is that our stable of "young players with upside" includes Seraphin, Singleton, Crawford, Vesely and Booker and none of Faried, Leonard, Parsons, Bledsoe, Avery Bradley, Klay Thompson, Jimmy Butler or Lavor Allen.
We're bad because our players are bad, and what's worse is that we have no asset base from which to trade. No Al Jefferson that helped land KG. No Eric Gordon for Chris Paul. No cache of picks and cap space for James Harden. No cap space for young good players like Ryan Anderson or Nik Pekovic.
Our "plan," from what I can surmise, is this:
(1)
Assume that Beal and Wall develop into a backcourt along the lines of Isiah & Dumars or at least Payton and Hersey Hawkins.
(2) Use overpaid veterans to transition the organization's profile from "laughingstock" to "afterthought" or maybe even "nonthreatening respectability." The old "first win, then get good."
(3) Based on 1 & 2, become a desired destination for free agents and/or disgruntled stars via trade. Upon maturation of some the the expensive veteran contracts, use cap space/flexibility and whatever other assets we need/have, to add impact players.
That's my best read on things. It strikes me as a decidedly dreadful plan that rests of several faulty premises. But hey, Wizards. Ya know?
