'14 Draft Thread - Now With a Poll: VOTE OR DIE.

[skones]

Again, it's not the exact same argument regarding Wiggins v. Davis because they play two completely different positions.

Yeah, it really is. Like Davis and Rose before him, WIggins is placed on a championship team and put certain abilities on the backburner. People didn't think Davis could score in the post, people didn't think Rose would be a good team leader, people didn't think Davis would be able to shoot from range, people didn't think Rose had enough tenacity to be a premier player etc etc etc etc. They weren't asked to do those things but if you watched you knew that each showed glimpses of high level of play in those areas, just like Wiggins is doing in Kansas. The argument being made has absolutely nothing to do with the position being played.

Again, no it's not. The argument being made was the limitations being made offensively with Davis and directly applying them to Wiggins. They are not the same argument at all. What made Davis special was his ability to completely change a game on the defensive end. He could have given you a career 15 points per game and still be worthy of that pick based upon his defensive impact and rebounding. What you got out of his offense was going to be gravy. That's NOT the case with Wiggins, because what you're getting with him is a wing player. You cannot anchor a defense from the wing, therefore Wiggins needs to bring other things to the table, meaning, an advanced offensive arsenal, something he has yet to demonstrate, in order to be a superstar in the NBA.

[Baddy Chuck]

Again, it's not the exact same argument regarding Wiggins v. Davis because they play two completely different positions.

Yeah, it really is. Like Davis and Rose before him, WIggins is placed on a championship team and put certain abilities on the backburner. People didn't think Davis could score in the post, people didn't think Rose would be a good team leader, people didn't think Davis would be able to shoot from range, people didn't think Rose had enough tenacity to be a premier player etc etc etc etc. They weren't asked to do those things but if you watched you knew that each showed glimpses of high level of play in those areas, just like Wiggins is doing in Kansas. The argument being made has absolutely nothing to do with the position being played.

Again, no it's not. The argument being made was the limitations being made offensively with Davis and directly applying them to Wiggins. They are not the same argument at all. What made Davis special was his ability to completely change a game on the defensive end. He could have given you a career 15 points per game and still be worthy of that pick based upon his defensive impact and rebounding. What you got out of his offense was going to be gravy. That's NOT the case with Wiggins, because what you're getting with him is a wing player. You cannot anchor a defense from the wing, therefore Wiggins needs to bring other things to the table, meaning, an advanced offensive arsenal, something he has yet to demonstrate, in order to be a superstar in the NBA.

Yeah, that's not the argument I'm making at all.

[LUKE23]

Wiggins is legit. He's taken all the hype he's gotten, and still managed to play extremely under control on offense. People are acting like nearly 17 ppg at insane efficiency on a really damn deep team at age 18 is somehow a disappointment. Frankly, it's really damn stupid. I give him credit for actually showing his talent while also fitting into a team concept and not taking terrible shots. He's going to be a stud.

[skones]

Yeah, that's not the argument I'm making at all.

Well, that's because YOURE NOT MAKING THE ARGUMENT HERE. You're making this all about yourself. Stop making this all about yourself.

[Baddy Chuck]

Yeah, that's not the argument I'm making at all.

Well, that's because YOURE NOT MAKING THE ARGUMENT HERE. You're making this all about yourself. Stop making this all about yourself.

You are saying Wiggins shouldn't be a top pick because he does not have the skills of a top pick. I'm not arguing that Davis had the defense to make his the #1 despite his offense, I'm saying that the people downplaying his offense were dumb. Though limited, he showed great ability on the offensive end. I'm not saying Rose didn't have the talent of a #1 pick, I'm saying the people downplaying his takeover/leadership abilities were dumb. Despite the limited circumstances, he still showed that ability.

I'm saying you are dumb for saying Wiggins shouldn't be #1 because of his takeover ability/isolation isn't there. Like Davis' offense and Rose's ability, though limited it is there and it is extremely talented.

[ReasonablySober]

Dudes that have seen them play, what do you make of Ennis, Bird and Grant? Ford mentioned them tonight and all three appear to have had nice starts to their seasons. Grant had a ridiculous put back and Bird's youtube highlights are pretty impressive.

[ReasonablySober]

Davis's offensive game wasn't limited, but I agree with your overall point.

[LUKE23]

Davis wasn't limited, he just didn't need to take many shots on that team. His strongest value was on defense and the boards.

[Baddy Chuck]

Davis's offensive game wasn't limited, but I agree with your overall point.

Davis wasn't limited, he just didn't need to take many shots on that team. His strongest value was on defense and the boards.

I meant limited in the amount of uses, not ability.

[skones]

Yeah, that's not the argument I'm making at all.

Well, that's because YOURE NOT MAKING THE ARGUMENT HERE. You're making this all about yourself. Stop making this all about yourself.

You are saying Wiggins shouldn't be a top pick because he does not have the skills of a top pick. I'm not arguing that Davis had the defense to make his the #1 despite his offense, I'm saying that the people downplaying his offense were dumb. Though limited, he showed great ability on the offensive end. I'm not saying Rose didn't have the talent of a #1 pick, I'm saying the people downplaying his takeover/leadership abilities were dumb. Despite the limited circumstances, he still showed that ability.

I'm saying you are dumb for saying Wiggins shouldn't be #1 because of his takeover ability/isolation isn't there. Like Davis' offense and Rose's ability, though limited it is there and it is extremely talented.

You isolated the Davis argument I was having with Matt G. The Davis argument I was having was completely unrelated to the points you're currently making. And again, as stated previously, Davis's offense was completely besides the point, because ultimately he was going to get you about 15 points with his length and athleticism at that position. Anything else was gravy. It was not his offense that put him at the number one overall level. Therefore, his situation is not applicable to Wiggins because Wiggins will not achieve stardom in the same manner Davis would have if his offensive limitations were indeed a problem.

With Wiggins you are not afforded the same luxury as you were with Davis. If Wiggins doesn't become a terror on the offensive end, he will not be worthy of a number one overall pick because he will not be able to dominate a game from the wing defensively like Davis is and would have been able to from the interior. Therefore, those situations are not comparable when it comes to the importance of offense between the two prospects. When it comes to the way each will get their buckets at the next level, it becomes even more ludicrous. This is what I was arguing against, so if you're going to use phrases like "you are dumb" I'd make sure you know exactly what is being argued before you start butting your head in.

As far as Rose is concerned, he showed the ability to dominate games at times. It was his consistency in doing so which is where certain question marks arose. Wiggins has not, at any period, dominated a game. He's got more than enough time to make up for that, but as of yet, he looks nowhere near a surefire number one pick.

[Baddy Chuck]

I'd make sure you know exactly what is being argued before you start butting your head in.

As for Davis, when he was in college people said he was limited offensively because of how he was being used at UK. Played totally within the offense and didn't force anything or do anything fancy(he took 1 jumpshot he entire season). It's the exact same argument your using against wiggins right now.

Again, it's not the exact same argument regarding Wiggins v. Davis because they play two completely different positions.

I mean maybe you guys had two separate arguments that I'm not aware of?

The arguments being made by me and matt have nothing to do with position or other skills, it's simply about how people are saying they didn't have the certain aspects to their game (like you are saying with Wiggins) when in fact they were pretty damn talented just not being used.

[Ayt]

I don't see anything unreasonable about questioning how well Wiggins would do if asked to create more offense for himself or others. That is exactly the aspect of his game I was most interested in seeing in his transition from HS to college.

It is still early so we will get to see plenty more.

[Baddy Chuck]

I don't see anything unreasonable about questioning how well Wiggins would do if asked to create more offense for himself or others. That is exactly the aspect of his game I was most interested in seeing in his transition from HS to college.

It is still early so we will get to see plenty more.

Saying you want to see more and saying things like "he's only an athlete and he doesn't have the skills" are completely different things though.

[skones]

I don't see anything unreasonable about questioning how well Wiggins would do if asked to create more offense for himself or others. That is exactly the aspect of his game I was most interested in seeing in his transition from HS to college.

It is still early so we will get to see plenty more.

Saying you want to see more and saying things like "he's only an athlete and he doesn't have the skills" are completely different things though.

And I explicitly stated that he'll have to show much more than he has to remain in the discussion for the number one overall pick. I explicitly stated that we're only four games in and he'll have a lot of time to do that. This is absolutely true. If he continues to get the majority of his points off of ball cuts and in transition, that's going to raise a lot of red flags for scouts. As I also stated, he's still in this discussion because of the hype surrounding him prior to his first game at Kansas, not because he's setting the world on fire.

Putting Wiggins on a different tier than Parker and Randle at this point, based on his play thus far into the season, is unfounded.

[Baddy Chuck]

Putting Wiggins on a different tier than Parker and Randle at this point, based on his play thus far into the season, is unfounded.

If my rankings were based on their play thus far Doug McDermott might be in a tier above Parker at the top. And Beasley would've been drafted #1 over Rose.

[mattg]

Wiggins isn't on another tier from Parker, but I'd argue those 2 are firmly ahead of randle.

Skones can you at least admit that wiggins production for what his role is insane? Because it is. 17ppg in under 30 mins is high volume especially in the manner with which he is getting buckets. For what he is being asked to do you can't really do much better.

[skones]

Putting Wiggins on a different tier than Parker and Randle at this point, based on his play thus far into the season, is unfounded.

If my rankings were based on their play thus far Doug McDermott might be in a tier above Parker at the top. And Beasley would've been drafted #1 over Rose.

Well yeah, if play thus far were the same as statistical production sure.

[machu46]

Dudes that have seen them play, what do you make of Ennis, Bird and Grant? Ford mentioned them tonight and all three appear to have had nice starts to their seasons. Grant had a ridiculous put back and Bird's youtube highlights are pretty impressive.

Being a Syracuse student, I see pretty much every Syracuse game both in person and on TV. Grant is a legit NBA prospect. Syracuse fans seem to think he'll be a SF at the next level, and he does have solid ball-handling for a guy his size, but I see him more as a face-up PF when he adds a little bulk. He's got tremendous athleticism. Still very raw in every aspect of the game, but I think he could become a lottery pick when it's all said and done.

I don't really see Ennis as an NBA prospect. Don't think he would ever amount to anything more than a backup PG, if that. He's kinda small (or maybe it just seems that way after seeing MCW all the time last year), he's unathletic, doesn't exert much effort defensively, and at least now, his passing and vision pale in comparison to MCW.

[emunney]

Putting Wiggins on a different tier than Parker and Randle at this point, based on his play thus far into the season, is unfounded.

If my rankings were based on their play thus far Doug McDermott might be in a tier above Parker at the top. And Beasley would've been drafted #1 over Rose.

Well yeah, if play thus far were the same as statistical production sure.

Doug McDermott is statistically inferior to Parker.

[msiris]

I think the Bucks would be just fine if they get any of the top three. I just like Parker, because I think he will be the better scorer of the three.