OT: Andrew Wiggins Discussion Thread

[Griff83]

Oh man the excuses for his undwhelming play are starting to mount.

Yes, shooting 55% from the field...terribly underwhelming.

Most of his baskets have come on dunks/ally oop plays.
He has shown almost no mid range game and his handle looks very average to below average.
He has played passive for long stretchs and I dont buy this "oh hes playing for a winning program, he needs to buy in and play team ball" excuse. Both Parker and Randle play for just as powerfull programs and they have come out of the gate all alpha and been looking to dominate and have.

I guess most of the criticism comes from the insane amount of hype hes gotten. He looks massively overrated in comparison to how good he was supposed to be. Right now he looks like a kid with a very interesting skillset but is EXTREMELY RAW, way more raw then you'd want from someone that was supposed to be a slam dunk #1 overall pick and a future great. Like someone previously said, its not a good combo when your supposed to be a elite wing player and you have a weak handle combined with a passive personality.

[carl_english]

In my eyes:

Has Wiggins dominated offensively? No.
Has Wiggins dominated defensively? Arguably yes.
Has Wiggins shown a killer instinct? Somewhat, but probably a no.
Does Wiggins play within the structure of the offense? Yes.
Does Wiggins force the play? No.
Has Wiggins been willing to defer to other players on his team? Yes.
Has his team lost? No.
What does Wiggins FG% look like? Good/Great for a 3
What does Wiggins 3FG% look like? Good/Great for a 3
What does Wiggins FT% look like? Mediocre.

Now take away the name Wiggins and I'm thinking we still have a really nice player on our hands.

If LeBron went to college, I'm sure above would look about the same as Wiggins (LeBron may force a bit more, but would likely shoot a worse %). You can take over a game without having to score 40 points. Being efficient and having only 3 turnovers over 3 games playing at a high level and a lot of minutes is awesome. Since when did playing team-ball, playing defense and winning become so despised?

I mean, Tim Duncan took under 7 shots a game during his freshman season at Wake; Wiggins is currently taking 11/FGA per game (they're shooting the same percentage interestingly). My point is not to compare Wiggins to Duncan as players, but to suggest there's more to the game of basketball than points and his lack of "alpha" isn't necessarily a bad thing. In fact, I believe it's an excellent thing. I'd be happy if Wiggins became a reliable, coachable, team-guy like Duncan, far more than a me-first chucker like McGrady.

Oh, and did I mention we're talking about three games!? THREE! lol

He will be asked to do the things you said No to in this team.

[OakleyDokely]

Oh man the excuses for his undwhelming play are starting to mount.

Yes, shooting 55% from the field...terribly underwhelming.

Most of his baskets have come on dunks/ally oop plays.
He has shown almost no mid range game and his handle looks very average to below average.
He has played passive for long stretchs and I dont buy this "oh hes playing for a winning program, he needs to buy in and play team ball" excuse. Both Parker and Randle play for just as powerfull programs and they have come out of the gate all alpha and been looking to dominate and have.

I guess most of the criticism comes from the insane amount of hype hes gotten. He looks massively overrated in comparison to how good he was supposed to be. Right now he looks like a kid with a very interesting skillset but is EXTREMELY RAW, way more raw then you'd want from someone that was supposed to be a slam dunk #1 overall pick and a future great. Like someone previously said, its not a good combo when your supposed to be a elite wing player and you have a weak handle combined with a passive personality.

The only time a game was close for Kansas, 2nd half against Duke, he dominated Parker offensively and defensively.

Just a fluke I guess.

[Griff83]

Yes, shooting 55% from the field...terribly underwhelming.

Most of his baskets have come on dunks/ally oop plays.
He has shown almost no mid range game and his handle looks very average to below average.
He has played passive for long stretchs and I dont buy this "oh hes playing for a winning program, he needs to buy in and play team ball" excuse. Both Parker and Randle play for just as powerfull programs and they have come out of the gate all alpha and been looking to dominate and have.

I guess most of the criticism comes from the insane amount of hype hes gotten. He looks massively overrated in comparison to how good he was supposed to be. Right now he looks like a kid with a very interesting skillset but is EXTREMELY RAW, way more raw then you'd want from someone that was supposed to be a slam dunk #1 overall pick and a future great. Like someone previously said, its not a good combo when your supposed to be a elite wing player and you have a weak handle combined with a passive personality.

The only time a game was close for Kansas, 2nd half against Duke, he dominated Parker offensively and defensively.

Just a fluke I guess.

So we basically have a player that decides where and when he would like to play hard?

Like I said hes a extemely talented prospect but there are some glaring waekness's to this game and being passive and floating around is one of them.

If this kid wasnt canadian you wouldnt see half these excuses being made.

[Undefeated]

Wiggins didn't dominate Jabari defensively. It was only for one or two possessions.

[Chaos Engine]

Wiggins didn't dominate Jabari defensively. It was only for one or two possessions.

Yeah, people need to stop parroting that.

[noobcake]

Yes, shooting 55% from the field...terribly underwhelming.

Most of his baskets have come on dunks/ally oop plays.
He has shown almost no mid range game and his handle looks very average to below average.
He has played passive for long stretchs and I dont buy this "oh hes playing for a winning program, he needs to buy in and play team ball" excuse. Both Parker and Randle play for just as powerfull programs and they have come out of the gate all alpha and been looking to dominate and have.

I guess most of the criticism comes from the insane amount of hype hes gotten. He looks massively overrated in comparison to how good he was supposed to be. Right now he looks like a kid with a very interesting skillset but is EXTREMELY RAW, way more raw then you'd want from someone that was supposed to be a slam dunk #1 overall pick and a future great. Like someone previously said, its not a good combo when your supposed to be a elite wing player and you have a weak handle combined with a passive personality.

The only time a game was close for Kansas, 2nd half against Duke, he dominated Parker offensively and defensively.

Just a fluke I guess.

He didn't dominate Parker.

He hit a fluky midrange shot that has completely been overblown as to demonstrate his ability to hit a jumper. He has yet to reproduce any shot similar to the one he made. Most of his jumpers have been bricks so far. In that game, refs were absolutely nailing Duke with personal fouls. Parker had 4 fouls at that moment and was highly hesitant to play any kind of contact defense.

[Harold_and_Kumar]

In my eyes:

Has Wiggins dominated offensively? No.
Has Wiggins dominated defensively? Arguably yes.
Has Wiggins shown a killer instinct? Somewhat, but probably a no.
Does Wiggins play within the structure of the offense? Yes.
Does Wiggins force the play? No.
Has Wiggins been willing to defer to other players on his team? Yes.
Has his team lost? No.
What does Wiggins FG% look like? Good/Great for a 3
What does Wiggins 3FG% look like? Good/Great for a 3
What does Wiggins FT% look like? Mediocre.

Now take away the name Wiggins and I'm thinking we still have a really nice player on our hands.

If LeBron went to college, I'm sure above would look about the same as Wiggins (LeBron may force a bit more, but would likely shoot a worse %). You can take over a game without having to score 40 points. Being efficient and having only 3 turnovers over 3 games playing at a high level and a lot of minutes is awesome. Since when did playing team-ball, playing defense and winning become so despised?

I mean, Tim Duncan took under 7 shots a game during his freshman season at Wake; Wiggins is currently taking 11/FGA per game (they're shooting the same percentage interestingly). My point is not to compare Wiggins to Duncan as players, but to suggest there's more to the game of basketball than points and his lack of "alpha" isn't necessarily a bad thing. In fact, I believe it's an excellent thing. I'd be happy if Wiggins became a reliable, coachable, team-guy like Duncan, far more than a me-first chucker like McGrady.

Oh, and did I mention we're talking about three games!? THREE! lol

He will be asked to do the things you said No to in this team.

Now, sure. Long-term, hopefully not.

Again, I'd point you towards the bolded part.

[Randle McMurphy]

The fact that people are actually hating on Wiggins over 3 games in which he's actually played well on both ends within the team's system (and played a significant part in his team's victories) shows a tremendous lack of perspective. Kansas is trying to win basketball games, not give Wiggins a platform to have the ball in his hands on every possession. If he wanted to have that, he would have gone to some school with no expectations and lesser talent, not KU. To this point, he's shown the tools that could make him a very good wing player in the NBA and that's what really matters as far as his prospect status goes. Only time will tell whether he can bring all of those skills together. Like most raw prospects, it's likely going to take years (not a few games in college) before we see what he's fully capable of.

The real thing to take away from last night's game is what Joel Embiid showed. He looks like he could be every bit as good of a prospect as Wiggins and the others in time.

[Randle McMurphy]

So we basically have a player that decides where and when he would like to play hard?

Is that somehow unusual? James Harden essentially floated around at ASU for two years, deciding to turn it on only when he felt like it. Now he's arguably one of the top five players in the NBA. Another huge talent, Rudy Gay, is also someone who could be described in the same way.

Sure, Wiggins is passive on court at this stage, but some perspective is clearly needed here. The kid is 18 years old, just 3 games into his college career, and very raw to boot. What he's doing right now is likely not going to be a reflection of what he's going to be 3-4 years down the road. And that's not making excuses, that's just recognizing the situation and what kind of prospect he is. Picking apart all his strengths and weaknesses (as if they will somehow remain constant) after every one of these games makes little sense.

[brownbobcat]

Wiggins has been playing smart. There's no doubt about that. However, when you're talking about throwing a season in one of the best drafts since the Lebron/Mello/Bosh/Wade draft then expectations are clearly sky high.

It may end up being better for Wiggins in the long run if he goes 2nd or even 3rd in June rather than 1st. There will be less pressure on him if he never does become that top 5 NBA takeover talent that so many hope/pray he becomes based on his freakish genetic gifts.

The hype can't be blamed on Wiggins. At the end of the day, the issue that matters most for draft purposes is how they compare to each other, not LeBron or Durant. Parker does look better than Wiggins from alpha-scorer perspective - in college - but that doesn't mean he'll be the better player in the NBA. Beasley put up insane numbers as a freshman, but his game wasn't as suited for the NBA (even if his head was screwed on right).

[OakleyDokely]

Most of his baskets have come on dunks/ally oop plays.
He has shown almost no mid range game and his handle looks very average to below average.
He has played passive for long stretchs and I dont buy this "oh hes playing for a winning program, he needs to buy in and play team ball" excuse. Both Parker and Randle play for just as powerfull programs and they have come out of the gate all alpha and been looking to dominate and have.

I guess most of the criticism comes from the insane amount of hype hes gotten. He looks massively overrated in comparison to how good he was supposed to be. Right now he looks like a kid with a very interesting skillset but is EXTREMELY RAW, way more raw then you'd want from someone that was supposed to be a slam dunk #1 overall pick and a future great. Like someone previously said, its not a good combo when your supposed to be a elite wing player and you have a weak handle combined with a passive personality.

The only time a game was close for Kansas, 2nd half against Duke, he dominated Parker offensively and defensively.

Just a fluke I guess.

So we basically have a player that decides where and when he would like to play hard?

Like I said hes a extemely talented prospect but there are some glaring waekness's to this game and being passive and floating around is one of them.

If this kid wasnt canadian you wouldnt see half these excuses being made.

No, we have a player who knows when he needs to force his offense and when he can play within the flow of the game.

[OakleyDokely]

Most of his baskets have come on dunks/ally oop plays.
He has shown almost no mid range game and his handle looks very average to below average.
He has played passive for long stretchs and I dont buy this "oh hes playing for a winning program, he needs to buy in and play team ball" excuse. Both Parker and Randle play for just as powerfull programs and they have come out of the gate all alpha and been looking to dominate and have.

I guess most of the criticism comes from the insane amount of hype hes gotten. He looks massively overrated in comparison to how good he was supposed to be. Right now he looks like a kid with a very interesting skillset but is EXTREMELY RAW, way more raw then you'd want from someone that was supposed to be a slam dunk #1 overall pick and a future great. Like someone previously said, its not a good combo when your supposed to be a elite wing player and you have a weak handle combined with a passive personality.

The only time a game was close for Kansas, 2nd half against Duke, he dominated Parker offensively and defensively.

Just a fluke I guess.

He didn't dominate Parker.

He hit a fluky midrange shot that has completely been overblown as to demonstrate his ability to hit a jumper. He has yet to reproduce any shot similar to the one he made. Most of his jumpers have been bricks so far. In that game, refs were absolutely nailing Duke with personal fouls. Parker had 4 fouls at that moment and was highly hesitant to play any kind of contact defense.

Dominated Parker, at both ends. When it mattered.

[Randle McMurphy]

The only time a game was close for Kansas, 2nd half against Duke, he dominated Parker offensively and defensively.

Just a fluke I guess.

The game was also pretty close early in the 2nd half against Iona and that's when he played his best basketball last night. Will be interesting to see if that becomes a trend.

[arbsn]

Most of his baskets have come on dunks/ally oop plays.
He has shown almost no mid range game and his handle looks very average to below average.
He has played passive for long stretchs and I dont buy this "oh hes playing for a winning program, he needs to buy in and play team ball" excuse. Both Parker and Randle play for just as powerfull programs and they have come out of the gate all alpha and been looking to dominate and have.

I guess most of the criticism comes from the insane amount of hype hes gotten. He looks massively overrated in comparison to how good he was supposed to be. Right now he looks like a kid with a very interesting skillset but is EXTREMELY RAW, way more raw then you'd want from someone that was supposed to be a slam dunk #1 overall pick and a future great. Like someone previously said, its not a good combo when your supposed to be a elite wing player and you have a weak handle combined with a passive personality.

The only time a game was close for Kansas, 2nd half against Duke, he dominated Parker offensively and defensively.

Just a fluke I guess.

He didn't dominate Parker.

He hit a fluky midrange shot that has completely been overblown as to demonstrate his ability to hit a jumper. He has yet to reproduce any shot similar to the one he made. Most of his jumpers have been bricks so far. In that game, refs were absolutely nailing Duke with personal fouls. Parker had 4 fouls at that moment and was highly hesitant to play any kind of contact defense.

Fluky jumper that just so happened to be the biggest shot of the game...

Parker got a stupid foul for his 5th trying to block Wiggins who was 2 strides ahead of him... People say Parker's BBall IQ is leagues above Wiggins... Who had better IQ that play?

Obvious bias towards Wiggins for being Canadian but there's no definite argument that proves Jabari has been a significantly better all around player thus far

[Undefeated]

Dominated Parker, at both ends. When it mattered.

No he didn't lol. But that stepback J was sweet.

Kansas is trying to win basketball games, not give Wiggins a platform to have the ball in his hands on every possession. If he wanted to have that, he would have gone to some school with no expectations and lesser talent, not KU.

Thank you. Too many people think the college game is supposed to be play like the NBA game where highlight reels from individuals dominate the game. There's a lot more structure and set plays that you don't see in the NBA something called "winning basketball" and if you're true fan of ball you should love this. Teammwork dominates college ball and that's what we're seeing from Wiggins. I don't see how someone can hate on how smart he's been playing. You'd think he's a upperclassmen with the way he's been playing.

[almatic]

Remember people... OJ Mayo was a more polished player than Russell Westbrook going into the NCAA. OJ Mayo averaged 20 PPG playing on a more freeflow USC system.
Russell Westbrook wasn't as potent at UCLA, averaged 12 PPG and played with Kevin Love... in his sophomore year. Then entered the same draft. Mayo was picked before Westbrook, and Westbrook was still a surprise pick at 4.
How are their pro careers turning out?
This is the reason why GM's are valuing athleticism to foresee a player's upside.
This is why it's ludicrous to even judge Wiggins' NBA potential after only 3 games with a systematic & deep Kansas team. And to say Jabari is going to be the better prospect, just because his offensive game is a bit more polished right now and sees a lot more touches on his Duke team.

This is why I'd rather have Wiggins over Parker right now. He's looking like a better team player right now.
Look at the way Wiggins & Joel Embiid are feeding each other when on the floor together.
Embiid's been playing basketball for 3 years. Imagine Wiggins playing with someone like Jonas.
I don't get that vibe from Jabari, and he plays with a pretty good player in Rodney Hood.
I've watched Duke and it doesn't look like Jabari & Hood even play together, it just looks like they're taking turns going 1-on-1 on possesions, and getting by on talent.

[MikeM]

College stats mean nothing to me. All I care about is the players strengths/weaknesses versus men in the NBA.

Wiggins will have no disadvantages against anyone. All star players share that common trait. There are no questions over whether this defender is faster or stronger or bigger. None of it matters. None of it will matter to Wiggins.

McGrady was all athleticism with us and in a couple years in ORL he was suddenly playing point forward and shooting from 2 feet behind the line.

A regular #1 overall pick does nothing for your team. It just puts you on the treadmill faster. Irving, Wall, Griffin type players don't lead to championships. It's the generational guys like Duncan, Jordan, Kobe, Lebron, Shaq that will win you championships. They all fit the archetypes of their position which is why a guy like Randle is a non-starter for me. You have to find that generational guy.

The generational guy usually has no physical limitations or mismatches and has a set in stone preferred position. I know for a fact that Wiggins will at least fit that part of the mold. Does he have some development left? Absolutely. But if he develops his ceiling is higher than Parker's IMO.

I will also say that right now I like Parker more than Wall, Irving, Griffin territory of #1s because it looks like he's a set in stone SF. So he would not be a bad consolation prize.

[Double Helix]

Some fair counterpoints in this thread although I don't see how it's at all an insult to suggest he may end up going 2nd or even third in a draft that's as heralded as this. I don't disagree that it's early. I actually love the Westbrook vs OJ Mayo comparison above that Almatic just brought up. Terrific comparison in terms of raw talent/freakish athleticism/uspide (on both ends of the court) winning out and catching up to polish. I also like the points being made about Self's system and Kansas trying to encourage fundamental team basketball early on in the year. That's true as well.

My criticisms aren't reserved to these few games I've seen of Wiggins but what I've noticed in showcase events and HS basketball games for years now. At a certain point his lack of a handle (By superstar SG/SF standards), and low assist totals, should become concerning for scouts who've been criticizing him about this and passivity for years. The idea of dominating with freakish athleticism and without an above average handle is why I brought up the Dominque comparison in the NBA prospects thread which was created sometime in the summer. Dominique was a hell of a player without an elite handle. Vince Carter developed his handle pretty dramatically from his freshmen year to his sophomore NBA season. Paul George has developed his handle pretty dramatically over the past few years. Some greats have become great without it. A small amount have developed it and become better players. Wiggins could be the next of that ilk. And it's possible that he's just trying to fit in to help Kansas win and get others involved and not force anything. If passiveness wasn't already a red flag on him since HS I could probably accept that but I'm starting to wonder if he's content being the guy who plays next to a dominant, high-usage guy rather than being that dominant high usage guy himself.

We should be allowed to talk about these things, or whether he might be passive to a fault, and discuss the possibility of him going 2nd or even 3rd in a draft this special. I want him to dominate the NBA and become the greatest player from this country since Steve Nash as much as anybody and that's probably why I'm being so hard on him. I see the talent but I also see some small red flags. They're not massive but in a great draft they could end up being the difference between first and second.

[brownbobcat]

College stats mean nothing to me. All I care about is the players strengths/weaknesses versus men in the NBA.

Wiggins will have no disadvantages against anyone. All star players share that common trait. There are no questions over whether this defender is faster or stronger or bigger. None of it matters. None of it will matter to Wiggins.

McGrady was all athleticism with us and in a couple years in ORL he was suddenly playing point forward and shooting from 2 feet behind the line.

A regular #1 overall pick does nothing for your team. It just puts you on the treadmill faster. Irving, Wall, Griffin type players don't lead to championships. It's the generational guys like Duncan, Jordan, Kobe, Lebron, Shaq that will win you championships. They all fit the archetypes of their position which is why a guy like Randle is a non-starter for me. You have to find that generational guy.

The generational guy usually has no physical limitations or mismatches and has a set in stone preferred position. I know for a fact that Wiggins will at least fit that part of the mold. Does he have some development left? Absolutely. But if he develops his ceiling is higher than Parker's IMO.

That's overstating the physical side of things. Guys like Duncan, Kobe and even Jordan owed their success much more to skill than athleticism. The NBA landscape is littered with great athletes who weren't great basketball players - Gerald Green, James White, Darius Miles, Stromile Swift, Marvin Williams, etc. I find it funny that John Wall is on your "non-generational" list, seeing as he has every physical gift you could want in an archetypal PG.