Wiggins is way better than Paul George upside. He will be a star in the NBA. I think trading him and Bennett is a huge mistake.
Have you looked at Paul George before you made this comment? George is a top 10 player in the NBA right now. He is young and good defensively. If your saying Wiggins upside is better than George you are putting higher expectations than the scouts are.
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/r...l-scouts-on-wiggins-randle-embiid-and-parker/
"I think Embiid is the only difference-maker in the group. I like Parker and Wiggins, but if they are your best player, you are going to be in the lottery every year."
Scout 1: Don’t trust his shot or his ball skills. Can’t go left. There is no “ you” to him. Kobe’s like, “ you, I’m better than you.” Where was that? I think he is a content player. That’s not Bill Self’s fault — he didn’t tell him not to shoot.
He can be your third-best player, but not your best. Say he goes to Orlando. What’s he going to do as an offensive player? Shoot them to more wins? He has one of the best second/third jumps I’ve ever seen and he’ll have some “ … look at that” moments. But that’s not his personality.
He can be an elite defender. He can guard 1-3s.
Wiggins has offensive holes in his game — no dribble, no pass, streaky shooter. His sex appeal is only his athleticism. I’m not saying he’s one of these athletes that comes into the league and doesn’t know how to play basketball, but he’s behind the other three guys on my board.
Scout 2: I think in the draft, if Embiid is healthy, Wiggins goes no. 3. He will be lost in an NBA half-court offense. He is great in transition, but he has
no ball skills. All right hand, no idea what to do without the ball. He struggles with confidence. He actually reminds me more of Gerald Green than any of these studs he’s compared to.
He’s an erratic shooter and has no plan when attacking the rim. He will be easy to coach against with his limited game right now. Needs to find out what playing hard is. He
tries hard, but I don’t see that second gear. He would scare me as your franchise’s no. 1 pick, with all the stuff that will go along with being no. 1 in this class. Is he really a face of the franchise?
Defensively he can be a stopper right away. A lot of these coaches want to break down these young guys and limit their minutes because they don’t trust them defensively. With him you can play him the minutes you need to develop him because, defensively, he’s already there.
Scout 3: In general, interesting kid. In fairness to him he played in a very restricted system at Kansas. All interchangeable parts with designated spots, a lot of structure. When he got the ball, there wasn’t a lot of room to create. He didn’t force things, dealt with it well, but sometimes it hurt his rep. Not anywhere near ready, mentally, to take things over, which is unfair to say at this stage. Game isn’t to the level of his athleticism. Humble, coachable, a positive kid, all good things.
Needs go-to moves. He doesn’t have them yet. He has a high dribble. This is normal for a kid his age. Even Kobe and T-Mac struggled out of high school with go-to moves.
He needs to add a whole bunch of other stuff to be the scorer people think he can be. He needs to forget shooting 3s. His shot isn’t great, but it isn’t broken. It’s not as bad as Kidd-Gilchrist where you say, “Where do we start?”
Great natural movement. An NBA coach can still play him right away because he can defend. He defends the wings in isolation, which is extremely valuable. Physically he can do this right away.
This one is tough. I’ve changed my mind about him versus Parker a few times this season. He isn’t close to being as polished as Parker is on offense. So, the simple solution is to take Parker, right? Nope, it doesn’t work that way.
Athletically, he is off the charts, but it doesn’t do much for you if you can’t dribble. Right now, he can’t. The times he does get free on a drive, he doesn’t finish nearly as much as he should. It’s baffling; he gets by his man, beats the help, and then screws up the layup.
His personality comes off as timid. It’s not what you want from a guy that is supposed to be your leading scorer in a few years. It is worth mentioning that he played on a team that had two other scorers in Wayne Selden and Perry Ellis, plus the emergence of Embiid and Naadir Tharpe, who was supposed to be a point guard. There weren’t many shots to go around and he still dropped 17 ppg.
When LaMarcus Aldridge was coming out of Texas, I heard a lot of the same stuff: “timid” “doesn’t want it,” etc. I’d go back and look at the tape, and it was obvious Aldridge was playing with selfish guards who didn’t get him the ball, so it’s something to think about. I honestly have no idea if Wiggins is just a great athlete with a passive personality, or the next Tracy McGrady.
The thing about the draft that drives fans crazy is when a GM takes someone based on potential, but think about it this way: Sure, you could take a guy who just finished his junior year and put up big numbers. But the reason teams reach is because they need a star in this league. It’s why the Parker-Wiggins debate is frustrating for people. “If Parker is better, why take Wiggins?” It’s easy. Every front office will ask themselves the same question on draft night: “Can this guy grow, become an All-Star in our league?” If the answer is even close to a yes, the team will go for it. Role players aren’t winning you anything?
I mean I like Wiggins, but his isn't as great as people are making him out to be. Love helps you win for the next 5-6 years.
