Andrew Wiggins is not a lock at #1?

Draft talk all year round

Moderators: Marcus, Duke4life831

LloydFree
RealGM
Posts: 15,839
And1: 11,656
Joined: Aug 20, 2012
Location: Somewhere near the Jersey Turnpike, between exit 4 and 15E

Re: Andrew Wiggins is not a lock at #1? 

Post#361 » by LloydFree » Mon Jan 6, 2014 2:38 am

crazy_me_87 wrote:thanks finally some nice thinking

athletic wings without elite shooting never work in College...
hell
Look at guys like MJ,Carter,Pierce,etc
they all performed much better as Rookies in the NBA then they did in College
its a different game

im not all hype with Wiggins...

but the "anti hype" seems a bit too much..

the whole over-analysing is a bad new thing in my opinion...



It's really not a new thing. Lebron James got a worst backlash heading into the 2003 draft, because of all his hype. With guys all over every basketball message board trying to push Carmelo Anthony as the rightful #1 pick, due to his more "polished" all-around game and that he was a good teammate and "winner".

Ironic, right? :lol:

When guys were comparing this draft to 2003, I didn't anticipate that the conversation about it would follow similar themes...

Parker is the "polished good teammate winner": Carmelo Anthony
Wiggins is the "overhyped unskilled athlete" : Lebron James
Exum is the foreign player all of the smart guys know should be picked #3: Darko
Fischella wrote:I think none of you guys that are pro-Embiid no how basketball works today.. is way easier to win it all with Omer Asik than Olajuwon.
Actually if you ask me which Center I want for my perfect championship caliber team, I will chose Asik hands down
crazy_me_87
Analyst
Posts: 3,238
And1: 1,877
Joined: Jul 08, 2010
 

Re: Andrew Wiggins is not a lock at #1? 

Post#362 » by crazy_me_87 » Mon Jan 6, 2014 2:41 am

@Jazzfan12


ill give you that it seems that way recently but the NBA existed before 2006

hows about:

MJ
Vince Carter
Paul Pierce
Grant Hill
Dominique Wilkins


all were not that much better at college FRESHMAN level as Wiggins... and you got a 100% HOF rate there...

you can turn that argument either way

for every "good but not great college player wich turned HOF NBA Pro" you can find a Gerald Green,Shabazz,Desmond Mason etc...


i am not the Biggest Wiggins fan...

but the bashing really starts to annoy me...

not even half a college season

thats what kids get now before they get dumped?

cool....... not...
crazy_me_87
Analyst
Posts: 3,238
And1: 1,877
Joined: Jul 08, 2010
 

Re: Andrew Wiggins is not a lock at #1? 

Post#363 » by crazy_me_87 » Mon Jan 6, 2014 2:45 am

LloydFree wrote:
crazy_me_87 wrote:thanks finally some nice thinking

athletic wings without elite shooting never work in College...
hell
Look at guys like MJ,Carter,Pierce,etc
they all performed much better as Rookies in the NBA then they did in College
its a different game

im not all hype with Wiggins...

but the "anti hype" seems a bit too much..

the whole over-analysing is a bad new thing in my opinion...



It's really not a new thing. Lebron James got a worst backlash heading into the 2003 draft, because of all his hype. With guys all over every basketball message board trying to push Carmelo Anthony as the rightful #1 pick, due to his more "polished" all-around game and that he was a good teammate and "winner".

Ironic, right? :lol:

When guys were comparing this draft to 2003, I didn't anticipate that the conversation about it would follow similar themes...

Parker is the "polished good teammate winner": Carmelo Anthony
Wiggins is the "overhyped unskilled athlete" : Lebron James
Exum is the foreign player all of the smart guys know should be picked #3: Darko



are you sure?? :o

i didnt read much message boards back in 2003 so i cant remember

in my memory Lebron was known as amazingly skilled for his age

the projection i heard at the time was Magic´s Game with MJ´s Athletism

but maybe i recall incorectly
sikma42
Head Coach
Posts: 6,805
And1: 6,036
Joined: Nov 23, 2011

Andrew Wiggins is not a lock at #1? 

Post#364 » by sikma42 » Mon Jan 6, 2014 2:48 am

crazy_me_87 wrote:ill give you that it seems that way recently but the NBA existed before 2006

hows about:

MJ
Vince Carter
Paul Pierce
Grant Hill
Dominique Wilkins


all were not that much better at college FRESHMAN level as Wiggins... and you got a 100% HOF rate there...

you can turn that argument either way

for every "good but not great college player wich turned HOF NBA Pro" you can find a Gerald Green,Shabazz,Desmond Mason etc...


i am not the Biggest Wiggins fan...

but the bashing really starts to annoy me...

not even half a college season

thats what kids get now before they get dumped?

cool....... not...


Is this it really bashing to say he isn't a lock for #1? I think he is an all star talent, maybe even HOF, but he isnt the best prospect on his team in my eyes. I'm very high on him tho and would draft him number 2 at this moment. He has elite tools and I think he just needs to time in the gym.
LloydFree
RealGM
Posts: 15,839
And1: 11,656
Joined: Aug 20, 2012
Location: Somewhere near the Jersey Turnpike, between exit 4 and 15E

Re: Andrew Wiggins is not a lock at #1? 

Post#365 » by LloydFree » Mon Jan 6, 2014 2:51 am

crazy_me_87 wrote:
LloydFree wrote:
crazy_me_87 wrote:thanks finally some nice thinking

athletic wings without elite shooting never work in College...
hell
Look at guys like MJ,Carter,Pierce,etc
they all performed much better as Rookies in the NBA then they did in College
its a different game

im not all hype with Wiggins...

but the "anti hype" seems a bit too much..

the whole over-analysing is a bad new thing in my opinion...



It's really not a new thing. Lebron James got a worst backlash heading into the 2003 draft, because of all his hype. With guys all over every basketball message board trying to push Carmelo Anthony as the rightful #1 pick, due to his more "polished" all-around game and that he was a good teammate and "winner".

Ironic, right? :lol:

When guys were comparing this draft to 2003, I didn't anticipate that the conversation about it would follow similar themes...

Parker is the "polished good teammate winner": Carmelo Anthony
Wiggins is the "overhyped unskilled athlete" : Lebron James
Exum is the foreign player all of the smart guys know should be picked #3: Darko


are you sure?? :o

i didnt read much message boards back in 2003 so i cant remember

in my memory Lebron was known as amazingly skilled for his age

the projection i heard at the time was Magic´s Game with MJ´s Athletism

but maybe i recall incorectly


Lebron caught a lot of flack on basketball blogs, because he wasn't a good shooter, and passed the ball too much.
Fischella wrote:I think none of you guys that are pro-Embiid no how basketball works today.. is way easier to win it all with Omer Asik than Olajuwon.
Actually if you ask me which Center I want for my perfect championship caliber team, I will chose Asik hands down
User avatar
TheSuzerain
RealGM
Posts: 17,389
And1: 11,404
Joined: Mar 29, 2012

Re: Andrew Wiggins is not a lock at #1? 

Post#366 » by TheSuzerain » Mon Jan 6, 2014 2:52 am

sikma42 wrote:
TheSuzerain wrote:
sikma42 wrote:
It not KUs job to showcase Wiggins strengths. I think self is doing a good job coaching, he just messed up putting this team together. Wiggins in position to do thingse very night and he doesn't do anything. This entire game the bigs were getting doubled...defense paid very little attention to Wiggins and he couldn't make anything happen. It happens game after game.

It's not like Self isn't getting Wiggins easy baskets. He gets him almost an opp a game. He is getting open jumpers, where he could decide to take the open lane. It's on Wiggins for not being able to shoot from the perimeter or pass.

The one who should be disappointed is Embiid. These guards are doing him zero favors. Bad entry passes, not enough drop off passes, poor cuts off the ball and they all lack the ability to shoot open kick out 3s. Yes, this all includes Wiggins today.

Of course it is KU's job to leverage Wiggins' strengths.

Wiggins has basically become a jumpshooter. That's like making Jabari Parker into a defensive specialist.


No..it's KUs job to make Kansas the best basketball team possible. Going to a certain players strengths isn't always in line with that. Wiggins is playing like a slasher when he plays aggressive. The fact that he isn't always aggressive isn't on Self. You want him in the post, that isn't in Kansas best interest as a team because they have better post players. Wanna play run in gun, it isn't always gonna work, and right now that is pretty much Wiggins only strength. Wiggins should be able to attack off the doubles that Embiid is seeing but it seems like he has forgotten how to cut to open spots.

Wiggins has ample opportunity to handle the ball and do whatever he needs to do to get off. He needs more floor spacing the same way the bigs do...however, that is a personnel problem and I don't mind blaming that on Self. They need a shooter to balance everything out. Problem with that is Mason is as low Iq as they come and I don't know if he has the balls to bench Selden or if they even has a player on the bench that could even fill in for Selden and light I yup.

I don't think that Self's job is to make Wiggins as successful as possible, but you can't tell me with a straight face that having zero shooters around Wiggins and Embiid is making the best basketball team possible.

I'd be tempted to give Selden a look at PG. Selden is better at facilitating than scoring.
sikma42
Head Coach
Posts: 6,805
And1: 6,036
Joined: Nov 23, 2011

Re: Andrew Wiggins is not a lock at #1? 

Post#367 » by sikma42 » Mon Jan 6, 2014 2:56 am

TheSuzerain wrote:
sikma42 wrote:
TheSuzerain wrote:Of course it is KU's job to leverage Wiggins' strengths.

Wiggins has basically become a jumpshooter. That's like making Jabari Parker into a defensive specialist.


No..it's KUs job to make Kansas the best basketball team possible. Going to a certain players strengths isn't always in line with that. Wiggins is playing like a slasher when he plays aggressive. The fact that he isn't always aggressive isn't on Self. You want him in the post, that isn't in Kansas best interest as a team because they have better post players. Wanna play run in gun, it isn't always gonna work, and right now that is pretty much Wiggins only strength. Wiggins should be able to attack off the doubles that Embiid is seeing but it seems like he has forgotten how to cut to open spots.

Wiggins has ample opportunity to handle the ball and do whatever he needs to do to get off. He needs more floor spacing the same way the bigs do...however, that is a personnel problem and I don't mind blaming that on Self. They need a shooter to balance everything out. Problem with that is Mason is as low Iq as they come and I don't know if he has the balls to bench Selden or if they even has a player on the bench that could even fill in for Selden and light I yup.

I don't think that Self's job is to make Wiggins as successful as possible, but you can't tell me with a straight face that having zero shooters around Wiggins and Embiid is making the best basketball team possible.

I'd be tempted to give Selden a look at PG. Selden is better at facilitating than scoring.


That is a personnel issue and you can plan him for that. But in game coaching, what I was referring to, is a different issue. The only thing I could see doing is benching Selden for that shooter(light skinned dude) on the bench. But benching your all American could have long term repercussions. Maybe some of the fault has to fall on Wiggins for not being able to shoot open 20 foot jumpers or find opportunities to slash when your 7 footers is drawing 3 defenders leaving you huge lanes.
User avatar
TheSuzerain
RealGM
Posts: 17,389
And1: 11,404
Joined: Mar 29, 2012

Re: Andrew Wiggins is not a lock at #1? 

Post#368 » by TheSuzerain » Mon Jan 6, 2014 2:57 am

One issue I have with Wiggins is that he seems to prefer to explode laterally, taking off from very far away from the basket. This has resulted in lots of missed layups.

He should work on taking 1 more dribble and exploding vertically.
crazy_me_87
Analyst
Posts: 3,238
And1: 1,877
Joined: Jul 08, 2010
 

Re: Andrew Wiggins is not a lock at #1? 

Post#369 » by crazy_me_87 » Mon Jan 6, 2014 3:01 am

//doublepost
crazy_me_87
Analyst
Posts: 3,238
And1: 1,877
Joined: Jul 08, 2010
 

Re: Andrew Wiggins is not a lock at #1? 

Post#370 » by crazy_me_87 » Mon Jan 6, 2014 3:03 am

sikma42 wrote:
crazy_me_87 wrote:ill give you that it seems that way recently but the NBA existed before 2006

hows about:

MJ
Vince Carter
Paul Pierce
Grant Hill
Dominique Wilkins


all were not that much better at college FRESHMAN level as Wiggins... and you got a 100% HOF rate there...

you can turn that argument either way

for every "good but not great college player wich turned HOF NBA Pro" you can find a Gerald Green,Shabazz,Desmond Mason etc...


i am not the Biggest Wiggins fan...

but the bashing really starts to annoy me...

not even half a college season

thats what kids get now before they get dumped?

cool....... not...


Is this it really bashing to say he isn't a lock for #1? I think he is an all star talent, maybe even HOF, but he isnt the best prospect on his team in my eyes. I'm very high on him tho and would draft him number 2 at this moment. He has elite tools and I think he just needs to time in the gym.


oh i agree with the not a lock for 1.

thats not what annoys me a bit in this and other threads(no one personally more the genearl "vibe")
what ticks me off is that many here are saying he has no skills at all.. and is basically a surefire bust or that he never under no circumstances would be more than a Cross betwen Loul Deng and Rudy Gay...
everyone is entitled to his own opinion... but putting a stigma on a 18 year old kid in(not even after) his first year in college...

MJ wasnt great in College(Statwise)
Grant Hill,Vince Carter neither.. etc...

the point is a freshman year of a 18 year old kid is just not the best way to judge somebodys ceilling...

i feel like im in a major minority wich just expected this production level... and are NOT dissapointed but see his long term potential unchanged

i have learned nothing new since he entered college

what i saw from high school highlights and the full All American Game:

Moster Athlete: Check
solid at shot creating all around and great around the rim: Check
solid jumper,not extremly reliable now but good form: Check
Ultimate Team Guy,Quiet Humble Kid: Check
Amazing Defender for his age: Check
Mediocre at Best Ball Handler: Check

nothing new here on my part..
so i just dont get where the huge drop of in many peoples eyes come from.. if you watched him more than 4 minutes of higlights you knew what you get

am i suddenly good at judging Talent?? o.O i thought i would be pretty normal in that regard..
CablexDeadpool
Head Coach
Posts: 7,006
And1: 1,686
Joined: May 04, 2011

Re: Andrew Wiggins is not a lock at #1? 

Post#371 » by CablexDeadpool » Mon Jan 6, 2014 3:22 am

LloydFree wrote:
Not really. Because Wiggins is a better jump shooter than Jabari Parker is a defender. :)

Seriously though, It's not Bill Self's job to showcase Andrew Wiggins. It's college basketball. Wings that are slashers never look great in their Freshman years. Dean Smith didn't showcase Jordan or Vince Carter. Coach K didn't showcase Grant Hill. Roy Williams didn't showcase Paul Pierce. All of those players looked like their teams' 2nd or 3rd best player their Freshmen years. It was inevitable that Wiggins would not live up to ridiculous expectations, because he isn't an advanced 3 point shooter.

College basketball is a glorified 3 point shooting contest. It's up to GMs to recognize NBA tools that will translate to next level. The amateur talent evaluators don't understand the differences of the pro and college games, so every few years we get a big time wing prospect, that get's downgraded in the fans eyes, because they aren't an advanced shooter yet.



It's not because he isn't an advanced 3 point shooter, it's because he can't dribble in the half court, he can't pass, he can't shoot the midrange J...

He has 0 and absolutely 0 perimeter skills that in the Half Court.

He just stands there.

He doesn't do anything with the ball.

And the best perimeter players in college basketball...were not advanced shooters...they were able to iso and break down a defense and get to the line.

Michael Jordan, Grant Hill, Vince Carter, all stayed 3 years, better their games and went top 3. Michael Jordan also had ball skills in the half court, like passing and ball handling. Grant Hill had ball skills in the half court, Vince Carter had ball skills.

And lets not forget about their teams, their teams were stacked and Michael averaged 19 and 20 points after his freshmen year and Grant Hill was putting up all around numbers after his freshmen year.

Everytime we get of these overhyped high school perimeter player prospects...we see how unadvanced they are, like Shabazz Muhammad who was supposed to be the next Kobe Bryant...but he can't dribble nor shoot off the dribble...how is that supposed to be a star wing player?

Andrew Wiggins just doesn't have a star wing skillset point blank.

Look at these recent high school and college phenoms that were star wing players in their freshmen year then went to the pros.

Carmelo Anthony

Kevin Durant

Donte Greene

Demar Derozan

Bradley Beal

Austin Rivers

Michael Kidd Gilchrist

Shabazz Muhammad

Kevin Durant and Carmelo Anthony had complete offensive games and could do everything on the court.

Donte Green was average driver and mid range shooter and a three point bomber

Demar Derozan only had the midrange shot and athleticism, couldn't do anything else on the court.

Bradley Beal was shooter and finisher

Austin Rivers was a one dimensional driver and a shooter and made his own shot

Michael Kidd Gilchrist was an athletic finsher and defender

Shabazz Muhammad was a finisher and shooter

Demar Derozan had the most expansion of his skillset and it took years to get to where he is now and he still a second rate player. KD and Melo were stars out of the gate. Donte Greene dropped out the league after becoming a bench player that just played defense and ineffectively shoot 3s. Bradly Beal is a complimentary player, mostly a 3 point shooter. Austin Rivers is about to be out of the league. MKG is just a complementary defensive all around player. Shabazz Muhammad is on the bench.

So if people really wanna believe that Andrew Wiggins is gonna become a star franchise changing offensive player...they can keep dreaming with the skills he is demonstrating his freshmen year.

Only thing he has going for him is being a number top 3 pick and whoever gets him probably gonna pull a Toronto Raptors and be extremely patient and extremely hopeful he can pull a Westbrook and at least be a serviceable offensive player and an athletic force of nature that impacts the game...which is unlikely but possible.

I'll take the one and done player that has a close to possible complete game top 3 over the "most ceiling pick".

Those that can do it in college, tend to do it all in the NBA.
ken6199 wrote:A Rocket's loss really brought out the best of people. It makes me realize this forum is filled with jobless scumbags with their only intention to come hate the team they hate and realize their anger from their life/job/wife/kids or whatever.


:lol:
Ayt
RealGM
Posts: 59,182
And1: 15,044
Joined: Jun 27, 2005

Re: Andrew Wiggins is not a lock at #1? 

Post#372 » by Ayt » Mon Jan 6, 2014 8:09 pm

crazy_me_87 wrote:@Jazzfan12

ill give you that it seems that way recently but the NBA existed before 2006

hows about:

MJ
Vince Carter
Paul Pierce
Grant Hill
Dominique Wilkins

all were not that much better at college FRESHMAN level as Wiggins... and you got a 100% HOF rate there...



College basketball is a lot different now to the point that comparing him to those guys as freshman tells you nothing.
LloydFree
RealGM
Posts: 15,839
And1: 11,656
Joined: Aug 20, 2012
Location: Somewhere near the Jersey Turnpike, between exit 4 and 15E

Re: Andrew Wiggins is not a lock at #1? 

Post#373 » by LloydFree » Mon Jan 6, 2014 9:05 pm

Ayt wrote:
crazy_me_87 wrote:@Jazzfan12

ill give you that it seems that way recently but the NBA existed before 2006

hows about:

MJ
Vince Carter
Paul Pierce
Grant Hill
Dominique Wilkins

all were not that much better at college FRESHMAN level as Wiggins... and you got a 100% HOF rate there...



College basketball is a lot different now to the point that comparing him to those guys as freshman tells you nothing.


You cant compare him perfectly to Dominique, and Jordan, but the rules and dimensions of college basketball are all pretty much the same for the last 20 years. They didnt have a 3 point line when Domonique played. They had the 3 pointer in the ACC when Jordan played, but UNC didnt shoot 3's back then. Vince Carter and Paul Pierce are modern players. They suffered the same way a non-3 point shooting slasher, suffers today.

Wiggins is played a lot like Vince Carter was played, when he was in college. Vince Carter never looked like the Tar Heels best player at any point, but now he is an NBA Hall of famer. Paul Pierce played 2nd or 3rd banana ( to Raef Lafrentz and Jaque Vaugn, no less) at Kanasas and now he is an NBA Hall of famer. Wings who are not 'spot up' 3 point shooters, never look great in college ball, because of the zone. All of those guys learn to shoot in the NBA.
Fischella wrote:I think none of you guys that are pro-Embiid no how basketball works today.. is way easier to win it all with Omer Asik than Olajuwon.
Actually if you ask me which Center I want for my perfect championship caliber team, I will chose Asik hands down
sikma42
Head Coach
Posts: 6,805
And1: 6,036
Joined: Nov 23, 2011

Re: Andrew Wiggins is not a lock at #1? 

Post#374 » by sikma42 » Mon Jan 6, 2014 9:12 pm

LloydFree wrote:
Ayt wrote:
crazy_me_87 wrote:@Jazzfan12

ill give you that it seems that way recently but the NBA existed before 2006

hows about:

MJ
Vince Carter
Paul Pierce
Grant Hill
Dominique Wilkins

all were not that much better at college FRESHMAN level as Wiggins... and you got a 100% HOF rate there...



College basketball is a lot different now to the point that comparing him to those guys as freshman tells you nothing.


You cant compare him perfectly to Dominique, and Jordan, but the rules and dimensions of college basketball are all pretty much the same for the last 20 years. They didnt have a 3 point line when Domonique played. They had the 3 pointer in the ACC when Jordan played, but UNC didnt shoot 3's back then. Vince Carter and Paul Pierce are modern players. They suffered the same way a non-3 point shooting slasher, suffers today.

Wiggins is played a lot like Vince Carter was played, when he was in college. Vince Carter never looked like the Tar Heels best player at any point, but now he is an NBA Hall of famer. Paul Pierce played 2nd or 3rd banana ( to Raef Lafrentz and Jaque Vaugn, no less) at Kanasas and now he is an NBA Hall of famer. Wings who are not 'spot up' 3 point shooters, never look great in college ball, because of the zone. All of those guys learn to shoot in the NBA.


Dwyane Wade looked good. Allen Iverson looked good. However, I do agree that people are exaggerating with some of the criticism. I think he looks fine, just that Embiid looks better.
crazy_me_87
Analyst
Posts: 3,238
And1: 1,877
Joined: Jul 08, 2010
 

Re: Andrew Wiggins is not a lock at #1? 

Post#375 » by crazy_me_87 » Mon Jan 6, 2014 9:22 pm

wich is more a compliment to Embiid as a bash on Wiggins

nice to see some see it^^
LloydFree
RealGM
Posts: 15,839
And1: 11,656
Joined: Aug 20, 2012
Location: Somewhere near the Jersey Turnpike, between exit 4 and 15E

Re: Andrew Wiggins is not a lock at #1? 

Post#376 » by LloydFree » Mon Jan 6, 2014 9:52 pm

sikma42 wrote:
LloydFree wrote:
Ayt wrote:
College basketball is a lot different now to the point that comparing him to those guys as freshman tells you nothing.


You cant compare him perfectly to Dominique, and Jordan, but the rules and dimensions of college basketball are all pretty much the same for the last 20 years. They didnt have a 3 point line when Domonique played. They had the 3 pointer in the ACC when Jordan played, but UNC didnt shoot 3's back then. Vince Carter and Paul Pierce are modern players. They suffered the same way a non-3 point shooting slasher, suffers today.

Wiggins is played a lot like Vince Carter was played, when he was in college. Vince Carter never looked like the Tar Heels best player at any point, but now he is an NBA Hall of famer. Paul Pierce played 2nd or 3rd banana ( to Raef Lafrentz and Jaque Vaugn, no less) at Kanasas and now he is an NBA Hall of famer. Wings who are not 'spot up' 3 point shooters, never look great in college ball, because of the zone. All of those guys learn to shoot in the NBA.


Dwyane Wade looked good. Allen Iverson looked good. However, I do agree that people are exaggerating with some of the criticism. I think he looks fine, just that Embiid looks better.


Nobody knew Dwayne Wade his freshmen year. He wasn't any better than Wiggins. People didnt start talking about Wade for the lottery until midway through his Junior year. Allen Iverson looked like an All-timer from day one, but he wasn't a wing player. He played with the ball.
Fischella wrote:I think none of you guys that are pro-Embiid no how basketball works today.. is way easier to win it all with Omer Asik than Olajuwon.
Actually if you ask me which Center I want for my perfect championship caliber team, I will chose Asik hands down
Ayt
RealGM
Posts: 59,182
And1: 15,044
Joined: Jun 27, 2005

Re: Andrew Wiggins is not a lock at #1? 

Post#377 » by Ayt » Mon Jan 6, 2014 9:56 pm

LloydFree wrote:
Ayt wrote:
crazy_me_87 wrote:@Jazzfan12

ill give you that it seems that way recently but the NBA existed before 2006

hows about:

MJ
Vince Carter
Paul Pierce
Grant Hill
Dominique Wilkins

all were not that much better at college FRESHMAN level as Wiggins... and you got a 100% HOF rate there...



College basketball is a lot different now to the point that comparing him to those guys as freshman tells you nothing.


You cant compare him perfectly to Dominique, and Jordan, but the rules and dimensions of college basketball are all pretty much the same for the last 20 years. They didnt have a 3 point line when Domonique played. They had the 3 pointer in the ACC when Jordan played, but UNC didnt shoot 3's back then. Vince Carter and Paul Pierce are modern players. They suffered the same way a non-3 point shooting slasher, suffers today.

Wiggins is played a lot like Vince Carter was played, when he was in college. Vince Carter never looked like the Tar Heels best player at any point, but now he is an NBA Hall of famer. Paul Pierce played 2nd or 3rd banana ( to Raef Lafrentz and Jaque Vaugn, no less) at Kanasas and now he is an NBA Hall of famer. Wings who are not 'spot up' 3 point shooters, never look great in college ball, because of the zone. All of those guys learn to shoot in the NBA.


The fact that so many players leave after only one season makes the dynamics of the collegiate game completely different now. It was extremely rare for freshman to dominate back in the day. Almost all freshman were role players. Now freshman are expected to be the best players on the best teams from day one.

How much would we be talking about the freshman this year if all the early entrants from the previous couple drafts were still in college?
sikma42
Head Coach
Posts: 6,805
And1: 6,036
Joined: Nov 23, 2011

Re: Andrew Wiggins is not a lock at #1? 

Post#378 » by sikma42 » Mon Jan 6, 2014 9:57 pm

LloydFree wrote:
sikma42 wrote:
LloydFree wrote:
You cant compare him perfectly to Dominique, and Jordan, but the rules and dimensions of college basketball are all pretty much the same for the last 20 years. They didnt have a 3 point line when Domonique played. They had the 3 pointer in the ACC when Jordan played, but UNC didnt shoot 3's back then. Vince Carter and Paul Pierce are modern players. They suffered the same way a non-3 point shooting slasher, suffers today.

Wiggins is played a lot like Vince Carter was played, when he was in college. Vince Carter never looked like the Tar Heels best player at any point, but now he is an NBA Hall of famer. Paul Pierce played 2nd or 3rd banana ( to Raef Lafrentz and Jaque Vaugn, no less) at Kanasas and now he is an NBA Hall of famer. Wings who are not 'spot up' 3 point shooters, never look great in college ball, because of the zone. All of those guys learn to shoot in the NBA.


Dwyane Wade looked good. Allen Iverson looked good. However, I do agree that people are exaggerating with some of the criticism. I think he looks fine, just that Embiid looks better.


Nobody knew Dwayne Wade his freshmen year. He wasn't any better than Wiggins. People didnt start talking about Wade for the lottery until midway through his Junior year. Allen Iverson looked like an All-timer from day one, but he wasn't a wing player. He played with the ball.


But, you are changes the argument you presented in the post I quoted. Is it that wings that arent spot shoooters never look great or they never look great as freshman.

it comes down to the fact if you can't shoot and you can't dribble then you aren't going to be effective as a wing in college basketball. if that is what your saying then i agree. If you lack 2 vital skills it is hard to succeed. These are Wiggins problems right now, he doesn't have the tools. None of this effect his projection tho imo. However, he did have these same problems in high school too.
LloydFree
RealGM
Posts: 15,839
And1: 11,656
Joined: Aug 20, 2012
Location: Somewhere near the Jersey Turnpike, between exit 4 and 15E

Re: Andrew Wiggins is not a lock at #1? 

Post#379 » by LloydFree » Mon Jan 6, 2014 10:55 pm

sikma42 wrote:
LloydFree wrote:
sikma42 wrote:
Dwyane Wade looked good. Allen Iverson looked good. However, I do agree that people are exaggerating with some of the criticism. I think he looks fine, just that Embiid looks better.


Nobody knew Dwayne Wade his freshmen year. He wasn't any better than Wiggins. People didnt start talking about Wade for the lottery until midway through his Junior year. Allen Iverson looked like an All-timer from day one, but he wasn't a wing player. He played with the ball.


But, you are changes the argument you presented in the post I quoted. Is it that wings that arent spot shoooters never look great or they never look great as freshman.

it comes down to the fact if you can't shoot and you can't dribble then you aren't going to be effective as a wing in college basketball. if that is what your saying then i agree. If you lack 2 vital skills it is hard to succeed. These are Wiggins problems right now, he doesn't have the tools. None of this effect his projection tho imo. However, he did have these same problems in high school too.


And to that, I go back to Vince Carter, who couldn't shoot and couldn't dribble in college as a freshman, and now he is a Hall of famer. More recently, Paul George performed worse than Wiggins as a freshman in college. Now he's the 3rd best player in the game. I really don't see what the debate is about. College basketball is a half court, 3 point shooting contest, that hides slashers who are raw shooters. Its been that way since the mid-80s.
Fischella wrote:I think none of you guys that are pro-Embiid no how basketball works today.. is way easier to win it all with Omer Asik than Olajuwon.
Actually if you ask me which Center I want for my perfect championship caliber team, I will chose Asik hands down
sikma42
Head Coach
Posts: 6,805
And1: 6,036
Joined: Nov 23, 2011

Re: Andrew Wiggins is not a lock at #1? 

Post#380 » by sikma42 » Mon Jan 6, 2014 11:05 pm

LloydFree wrote:
sikma42 wrote:
LloydFree wrote:
Nobody knew Dwayne Wade his freshmen year. He wasn't any better than Wiggins. People didnt start talking about Wade for the lottery until midway through his Junior year. Allen Iverson looked like an All-timer from day one, but he wasn't a wing player. He played with the ball.


But, you are changes the argument you presented in the post I quoted. Is it that wings that arent spot shoooters never look great or they never look great as freshman.

it comes down to the fact if you can't shoot and you can't dribble then you aren't going to be effective as a wing in college basketball. if that is what your saying then i agree. If you lack 2 vital skills it is hard to succeed. These are Wiggins problems right now, he doesn't have the tools. None of this effect his projection tho imo. However, he did have these same problems in high school too.


And to that, I go back to Vince Carter, who couldn't shoot and couldn't dribble in college as a freshman, and now he is a Hall of famer. More recently, Paul George performed worse than Wiggins as a freshman in college. Now he's the 3rd best player in the game. I really don't see what the debate is about. College basketball is a half court, 3 point shooting contest, that hides slashers who are raw shooters. Its been that way since the mid-80s.




I'm not saying he isnt a good prospect...I'm saying doesn't seem to be where many in the media thought he was. They said he was a prospect on the level of Lebron and Kobe...they made it seem like he was at their 17-18 year old level. Fact is, he isn't close to what either guy was at 17. Again, great prospect but that is likely where the backlash is coming from. People were expecting a Kobe or Lebron level talent and they are getting a guy who skillwise can't do much on the basketball court(i think his stats right now are actually a testament to his potential because he looks lost out there at times). The thing that concerns me about Wiggins the MOST is the fact that he is a bad passer. It isn't just seeing the passes, it is the actual touch and accuracy as well. I think the handle will come(it will be good enough for a two guard) and so will the jumper....but im concerned about his passing.

Return to NBA Draft