El Duderino wrote:What we don't want is a Redd or Big Dog like situation where they'd score say 24 points, but their defensive shortcomings allowed the same number of points, thus creating a wash. That's a big reason why neither became upper tier players
But then there was Melo who did. The last couple of years he's had a big discrepancy between his and his opponent's production, still, and the Knicks have statistically been far better with him on the court. It's not his fault he wasn't provided a better supporting cast. Melo didn't use to be that impactful of a player in spite of his volume stats, but that's because he wasn't that efficient. He became one with added efficiency. So if Parker can become that kind of player offensively, he will be impactful.
And defensively I'm of the mind he can guard 4's fine. He measured 6'9" with shoes even going all the way back to 3 years ago. You look at him next to Wiggins and he's a good 1.5 inches taller or so. He's got bulk. And he's not slow for a 4. He was just slowish for a 3. Plus, he does get lift if you watch him to handle the verticality. And as Jay pointed out, he's known for having a good attitude and head on his shoulders, so he projects to improve. That's part of what gives a player upside. It's not just freakish athleticism and size for position. The kid's brain and skill-level should factor in to the that discussion too. There's only so far you can come realistically in those departments as well. I think it's fair to say he still has the least upside of the top 4 because of unideal size and athleticism, but some people act like it's the difference between Michael Jordan and Michael Redd. It's just not the case. Wiggins won't be close to Michael Jordan with his lack of handle, vision, passing, and intangibles. And Parker can easily be much better than Michael Redd, or even Paul Pierce, possessing all the tools Pierce had, while being quite a bit taller to create mismatch potential like Melo does or even then some.
