Jabari Parker will emerge as the best ... according to Mike Wilbon

[url]http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/9969339/college-basketball-needed-night-champions-classic[/url]

Sure Wilbon tends to be a bit of a Chicago homer. But he does make some great points. And he believes Parker is the best player of the bunch [U]and it is not even close.[/U]

Steven A. Smith and Chris Broussard also have Parker as the best of the three. Steven A. says that Wiggins is too raw and lacks poise. He says Randle is all left hand.


...

He also thought Melo would be better than LeBron.

I agree that Parker will end up being a better pro than Wiggins.

Right now, Wiggins is extremely raw (great athleticism, but shakey handles, shakey jumper, limited playmaking skills, limited left hand, mediocre leadership, etc) and doesn't seem to have a Kobe type desire to be the best. I'm sure he'll get bigger as he gets older, and will improve overall, but I just don't see this guy working his butt off to become one of the best ball players ever. When I see him on the court, it looks like he's not even excited to be there.

As a side note, I don't value the opinion of most scouts these days. Why? Because these are the same people who thought guys like Kwame Brown, Marvin Wiliams, Darko Milicic, Michael Olawokandi, and Shabazz Muhummed would turn out to be great pros.

[QUOTE=midatlantic09]I agree that Parker will end up being a better pro than Wiggins.

Right now, Wiggins is extremely raw (great athleticism, but shakey handles, shakey jumper, limited playmaking skills, limited left hand, mediocre leadership, etc) and doesn't seem to have a Kobe type desire to be the best. I'm sure he'll get bigger as he gets older, and will improve overall, but I just don't see this guy working his butt off to become one of the best ball players ever. When I see him on the court, it looks like he's not even excited to be there.

As a side note, I don't value the opinion of most scouts these days. Why? Because these are the same people who thought guys like Kwame Brown, Marvin Wiliams, Darko Milicic, Michael Olawokandi, and Shabazz Muhummed would turn out to be great pros.[/QUOTE]

Great points. And how many guys have we seen through the years who can run like deer and jump out gym but can't make it in the NBA. Basketball is about much more than that.

[QUOTE=midatlantic09]I agree that Parker will end up being a better pro than Wiggins.

Right now, Wiggins is extremely raw (great athleticism, but shakey handles, shakey jumper, limited playmaking skills, limited left hand, mediocre leadership, etc) and [B]doesn't seem to have a Kobe type desire to be the best.[/B] I'm sure he'll get bigger as he gets older, and will improve overall, but I just don't see this guy working his butt off to become one of the best ball players ever. When I see him on the court, it looks like he's not even excited to be there.

As a side note, I don't value the opinion of most scouts these days. Why? Because these are the same people who thought guys like Kwame Brown, Marvin Wiliams, Darko Milicic, Michael Olawokandi, and Shabazz Muhummed would turn out to be great pros.[/QUOTE]

:oldlol: WTF does this even mean? The kid is 18 and has played 2 college bball games and you already know he doesn't have enough heart to be great?

[QUOTE=midatlantic09]I agree that Parker will end up being a better pro than Wiggins.

Right now, Wiggins is extremely raw (great athleticism, but shakey handles, shakey jumper, limited playmaking skills, limited left hand, mediocre leadership, etc) and doesn't seem to have a Kobe type desire to be the best. I'm sure he'll get bigger as he gets older, and will improve overall, but I just don't see this guy working his butt off to become one of the best ball players ever. When I see him on the court, it looks like he's not even excited to be there.

As a side note, I don't value the opinion of most scouts these days. Why? Because these are the same people who thought guys like Kwame Brown, Marvin Wiliams, Darko Milicic, Michael Olawokandi, and Shabazz Muhummed would turn out to be great pros.[/QUOTE]

What is your take on Wiggins wanting to guard Parker in the second half, but Self not allowing it and thus Wiggins chose to guard Parker against his coach's wishes (literally on his own accord mid game). I remember two plays where he guarded Parker. One was the bad foul called on Wiggins, the other he made Parker shoot an air ball.

This has been quoted in many articles since the game. What is your take on that? Or should it just be discounted for whatever reason? Personally it sounds like something a leader like Kobe would do. Small sample size, but that goes for you as well. So what do you take from that?

[QUOTE=Jailblazers7]:oldlol: WTF does this even mean? The kid is 18 and has played 2 college bball games and you already know he doesn't have enough heart to be great?[/QUOTE]

It's quite obvious just by watching him on the court and listening to him in interviews. I've been following Kobe since 1995 and even back then it was apparent that he had a burning desire to be the best. I remember in an interview how he talked about how back at Lower Merion, he used to get up at like 5am, workout for a few hours, go to school, then workout again after school (nearly every day). The guy was willing to do whatever it took to be the best and I just don't sense that same drive in Wiggins. The guy doesn't even seem excited to be on the court most of the time and looks like he's just going through the motions.

I could be 100% wrong, but my gut tells me I won't be and I won't be surprised if Wiggins ends up being another Andre Iguodala and not another Lebron.

College is one thing, NBA another.

Parker certainly looks the part of a perennial All-Star, every bit the Paul Pierce type he's been billed as... but Wiggins has a higher ceiling as a true, all-around 'impact player'. For example I don't think Parker will ever make a true defensive impact on the NBA - I could be wrong, but I don't see it - whereas Wiggins could become an absolute defensive monster.

And while Wiggins is rawer right now, he has exactly the sort of game that will allow him to thrive in the NBA, where things are more open (at least in regular season play). He'll get a lot of transition points and straight lines to the basket... he's got the ability to draw tons of fouls with his slashing game too, with the sort of agility and body control you just can't teach. In today's NBA, he only needs that and the occasional 3 pointer to be a star (if he has only that he'll be an overrated one, but no one will care). Besides, you can see that the scoring talent is there - just look at the Kobe-esque stepback he made late in the game.

Not sold on Randle yet. He gets a lot of his points by overpowering opponents, doesn't finish that well through contact, relies a lot on guys biting on fakes good defenders don't actually bite on. What he's got going for him in the NBA is his quickness. He's got the tools to do a lot of damage... but at best I see him as a 20/10 player, only not of the the sort that you'd actually want leading your franchise. The Antoine Walker, Derrick Coleman type (not saying he plays like them, just in terms of impact).

In terms of pure potential, not just looking at the small sample of college games we have, Wiggins would be the sort of guy that could conceivably lead your franchise to a title down the line, Parker would make it a perennial playoff contender, and Randle would put up stats but keep you in mediocrity.

[QUOTE=BoutPractice]College is one thing, NBA another.

Parker certainly looks the part of a perennial All-Star, every bit the Paul Pierce type he's been billed as... but Wiggins has a higher ceiling as a true, all-around 'impact player'. For example I don't think Parker will ever make a true defensive impact on the NBA - I could be wrong, but I don't see it - whereas Wiggins could become an absolute defensive monster.

And while Wiggins is rawer right now, he has exactly the sort of game that will allow him to thrive in the NBA, where things are more open (at least in regular season play). He'll get a lot of transition points and straight lines to the basket... he's got the ability to draw tons of fouls with his slashing game too, with the sort of agility and body control you just can't teach. In today's NBA, he only needs that and the occasional 3 pointer to be a star (if he has only that he'll be an overrated one, but no one will care). Besides, you can see that the scoring talent is there - just look at the Kobe-esque stepback he made late in the game.

Not sold on Randle yet. He gets a lot of his points by overpowering opponents, doesn't finish that well through contact, relies a lot on guys biting on fakes good defenders don't actually bite on. What he's got going for him in the NBA is his quickness. He's got the tools to do a lot of damage... but at best I see him as a 20/10 player, only not of the the sort that you'd actually want leading your franchise. The Antoine Walker, Derrick Coleman type (not saying he plays like them, just in terms of impact).[/QUOTE]

Parker is a much better athlete than you are giving him credit for. He went backboard high to dunk one last night on the ooop. And he has that jab step and first step that allow him to get wherever he wants to go. All his tools were on display last night.

Give me the guy who has the great skills plus good to great athleticism any day over the great athlete that may never develop skills.

Classic example... you would be hard pressed to find a guy more athletic EVER than James White... or even Gerald Green. And yet both guys are in and out of the league.

[QUOTE=midatlantic09]It's quite obvious just by watching him on the court and listening to him in interviews. I've been following Kobe since 1995 and even back then it was apparent that he had a burning desire to be the best. I remember in an interview how he talked about how back at Lower Merion, he used to get up at like 5am, workout for a few hours, go to school, then workout again after school (nearly every day). The guy was willing to do whatever it took to be the best and I just don't sense that same drive in Wiggins. The guy doesn't even seem excited to be on the court most of the time and looks like he's just going through the motions.

I could be 100% wrong, but my gut tells me I won't be and I won't be surprised if Wiggins ends up being another Andre Iguodala and not another Lebron.[/QUOTE]

Idk, it seems awfully silly to me that you are making that assumption based on a few interviews and two games. He might just be a soft spoken kid who gets nervous in front of the camera during interviews. Just because he isn't outspoken about how he wants to be the best or how hard he works but that doesn't mean the drive isn't there.

People tend to forget that these are kids who's game AND personality that will grow with time and experience.

I didn't say Parker wasn't a good athlete, just that Wiggins is noticeably better in that category. I don't question Parker's offense at all, I think he will be a tremendous offensive player in the NBA.

The Gerald Green or James White comparison I just don't see. Wiggins is raw, but he has a natural basketball talent these two just don't have. I think James White played four years in college, and his freshman year averaged something like 6 ppg... without the 1 and done rule, Wiggins would have been drafted first straight out of high school. The scouts aren't just seeing athleticism, they're seeing pure talent.

[QUOTE=BoutPractice]I didn't say Parker wasn't a good athlete, just that Wiggins is noticeably better in that category. I don't question Parker's offense at all, I think he will be a tremendous offensive player in the NBA.

The Gerald Green or James White comparison I just don't see. Wiggins is raw, but he has a natural basketball talent these two just don't have. I think James White played four years in college, and his freshman year averaged something like 6 ppg... without the 1 and done rule, Wiggins would have been drafted first straight out of high school. The scouts aren't just seeing athleticism, they're seeing pure talent.[/QUOTE]

I hear you. But there is nothing in Jabari's past or present that says he is not a good defender. In fact, he is known to be a very good defender already. Will he get better? Sure. And is that something he works on? Sure. But that is more out of desire to be the best than because he is somehow deficient.

Now, can Wiggins end up being the better defender? No doubt. But I doubt if Wiggins will ever be the offensive player Parker is. It is rare to find someone as big as Parker who is that fluid, great handles, great passer, stroke it from deep plus drive it to the hole. He has it all. With that package as long as he is not a liability on "D" it is hard to go wrong.

Plus I must say, I do love his on-court demeanor. There is no disappearing for long stretches with him. The kid is coming for you every night so you better be ready.

[QUOTE=TheTruth11]I hear you. But there is nothing in Jabari's past or present that says he is not a good defender. In fact, he is known to be a very good defender already. Will he get better? Sure. And is that something he works on? Sure. But that is more out of desire to be the best than because he is somehow deficient.

Now, can Wiggins end up being the better defender? No doubt. But I doubt if Wiggins will ever be the offensive player Parker is. It is rare to find someone as big as Parker who is that fluid, great handles, great passer, stroke it from deep plus drive it to the hole. He has it all. With that package as long as he is not a liability on "D" it is hard to go wrong.

Plus I must say, I do love his on-court demeanor. There is no disappearing for long stretches with him. The kid is coming for you every night so you better be ready.[/QUOTE]

Parker disappeared in the last and most important stretch of the game.....Not trying to argue that he didn't have a great game, but I think it's worth correcting that point.

Comparing a freshman who can put up 20 ppg easily against top competition to James White doesn't show much IQ btw. It's like I said in this or another thread last night, the way people are comparing Wiggins with Parker/Randle you'd think Wiggins is one of those clumsy big men that average 8/10 and are projected lottery picks based PURELY on potential. Ya, Wiggins is rawer, but in case people didn't notice, he scored 22 points on 9/15 shooting whiles missing the last 11 minutes of the first half. I feel like Mugatu when he says "I feel like I'm taking crazy pills". lol

It's not about Wiggins being better or having the better pro career. It's the fact that people are seemingly trying to reduce him to the Candy Man....yes, that name was dropped in reference to Wiggins....lol

Wiggins' close-out ability is insane. He has the potential to be one of the best defensive players ever with the tools he has. His offensive game is obviously limited right now. Just look at his jumper and his free throw motion. Clunky right now but do you really think he won't improve in that aspect as time moves forward? Right now I think he knows he has a poor jumper, so when he gets a favorable match-up he seems to dish it out because of non-confidence rather than attempt to break his man down. I feel like I've seen the kind of player Parker will be in the NBA. I haven't seen anything close to the kind of player Wiggins will be.

after 2 games at 18 years old it's impossible to tell and statements like this are just silly

[QUOTE=Dolphin]Parker disappeared in the last and most important stretch of the game.....Not trying to argue that he didn't have a great game, but I think it's worth correcting that point.

Comparing a freshman who can put up 20 ppg easily against top competition to James White doesn't show much IQ btw. It's like I said in this or another thread last night, the way people are comparing Wiggins with Parker/Randle you'd think Wiggins is one of those clumsy big men that average 8/10 and are projected lottery picks based PURELY on potential. Ya, Wiggins is rawer, but in case people didn't notice, he scored 22 points on 9/15 shooting whiles missing the last 11 minutes of the first half. I feel like Mugatu when he says "I feel like I'm taking crazy pills". lol

It's not about Wiggins being better or having the better pro career. It's the fact that people are seemingly trying to reduce him to the Candy Man....yes, that name was dropped in reference to Wiggins....lol[/QUOTE]

You missed the point. I was comparing them "athletically." And keep the conversation mature. There no need for the childish name calling.

As for disappearing, Wiggins failed to appear for a whole half. Just sayin. Parker carried his team on his shoulders for virtually the entire game until he got in foul trouble down the stretch.

Bottom line, both should be really good. I don't believe you can go wrong with either one. But for my money, I rank them like this: 1. Parker, 2. Randle, 3. Wiggins. It will really come down to who is drafting where and team needs.

...

[QUOTE=Bobby13]Wiggins' close-out ability is insane. He has the potential to be one of the best defensive players ever with the tools he has. His offensive game is obviously limited right now. Just look at his jumper and his free throw motion. Clunky right now but do you really think he won't improve in that aspect as time moves forward? Right now I think he knows he has a poor jumper, so when he gets a favorable match-up he seems to dish it out because of non-confidence rather than attempt to break his man down. I feel like I've seen the kind of player Parker will be in the NBA. I haven't seen anything close to the kind of player Wiggins will be.[/QUOTE]

It was just one game. Too early to tell if he can be an effective closer.

I don't think we have seen Parker before. And if we have, he has a chance to be +2 of almost anyone that you might want to compare him to

[QUOTE=Bobby13]Wiggins' close-out ability is insane. He has the potential to be one of the best defensive players ever with the tools he has. His offensive game is obviously limited right now. Just look at his jumper and his free throw motion. Clunky right now but do you really think he won't improve in that aspect as time moves forward? Right now I think he knows he has a poor jumper, so when he gets a favorable match-up he seems to dish it out because of non-confidence rather than attempt to break his man down. I feel like I've seen the kind of player Parker will be in the NBA. I haven't seen anything close to the kind of player Wiggins will be.[/QUOTE]


there's nothing wrong with his motion, he's just doesn't have that great of a jumper yet. Bron and D-Wade didn't at that age either, so it's nothing to be worried about. and his jumper is pretty damn good, he's got a quick release and can get it off against anyone - he's just streaky.

[QUOTE=midatlantic09]Right now, Wiggins is extremely raw (great athleticism, but shakey handles, shakey jumper, limited playmaking skills, limited left hand, mediocre leadership, etc) and doesn't seem to have a Kobe type desire to be the best. I'm sure he'll get bigger as he gets older, and will improve overall, but I just don't see this guy working his butt off to become one of the best ball players ever. When I see him on the court, it looks like he's not even excited to be there.[/QUOTE]


his ballhandling is really good. not sure what footage you've been watching. and I'm also not sure were you've heard he doesn't work hard, but that's entirely untrue. you're just making wild assumptions based on the fact that he's quiet

[QUOTE=outbreak]after 2 games at 18 years old it's impossible to tell and statements like this are just silly[/QUOTE]


yep. this was all really just a meaningless game in November.

[QUOTE=BoutPractice]College is one thing, NBA another.

Parker certainly looks the part of a perennial All-Star, every bit the Paul Pierce type he's been billed as... but Wiggins has a higher ceiling as a true, all-around 'impact player'. For example I don't think Parker will ever make a true defensive impact on the NBA - I could be wrong, but I don't see it - whereas Wiggins could become an absolute defensive monster.

And while Wiggins is rawer right now, he has exactly the sort of game that will allow him to thrive in the NBA, where things are more open (at least in regular season play). He'll get a lot of transition points and straight lines to the basket... he's got the ability to draw tons of fouls with his slashing game too, with the sort of agility and body control you just can't teach. In today's NBA, he only needs that and the occasional 3 pointer to be a star (if he has only that he'll be an overrated one, but no one will care). Besides, you can see that the scoring talent is there - just look at the Kobe-esque stepback he made late in the game.

Not sold on Randle yet. He gets a lot of his points by overpowering opponents, doesn't finish that well through contact, relies a lot on guys biting on fakes good defenders don't actually bite on. What he's got going for him in the NBA is his quickness. He's got the tools to do a lot of damage... but at best I see him as a 20/10 player, only not of the the sort that you'd actually want leading your franchise. The Antoine Walker, Derrick Coleman type (not saying he plays like them, just in terms of impact).

In terms of pure potential, not just looking at the small sample of college games we have, Wiggins would be the sort of guy that could conceivably lead your franchise to a title down the line, Parker would make it a perennial playoff contender, and Randle would put up stats but keep you in mediocrity.[/QUOTE]

Kobe-esqe this is getting silly.

Or Melo-esque, or Crawford-esque, whoever you want. Point is, it was the move of someone with scoring instincts.

[QUOTE=BoutPractice]College is one thing, NBA another.

Parker certainly looks the part of a perennial All-Star, every bit the Paul Pierce type he's been billed as... but Wiggins has a higher ceiling as a true, all-around 'impact player'. For example I don't think Parker will ever make a true defensive impact on the NBA - I could be wrong, but I don't see it - whereas Wiggins could become an absolute defensive monster.

And while Wiggins is rawer right now, he has exactly the sort of game that will allow him to thrive in the NBA, where things are more open (at least in regular season play). He'll get a lot of transition points and straight lines to the basket... he's got the ability to draw tons of fouls with his slashing game too, with the sort of agility and body control you just can't teach. In today's NBA, he only needs that and the occasional 3 pointer to be a star (if he has only that he'll be an overrated one, but no one will care). Besides, you can see that the scoring talent is there - just look at the Kobe-esque stepback he made late in the game.

Not sold on Randle yet. He gets a lot of his points by overpowering opponents, doesn't finish that well through contact, relies a lot on guys biting on fakes good defenders don't actually bite on. What he's got going for him in the NBA is his quickness. He's got the tools to do a lot of damage... but at best I see him as a 20/10 player, only not of the the sort that you'd actually want leading your franchise. The Antoine Walker, Derrick Coleman type (not saying he plays like them, just in terms of impact).

In terms of pure potential, not just looking at the small sample of college games we have, Wiggins would be the sort of guy that could conceivably lead your franchise to a title down the line, Parker would make it a perennial playoff contender, and Randle would put up stats but keep you in mediocrity.[/QUOTE]


Best post i've seen on these board. Someone find him job in basketball operations.

[QUOTE=EllisGW]Best post i've seen on these board. Someone find him job in basketball operations.[/QUOTE]

Whenever I have seen Parker play (no matter where he plays) he plays like he owns the place. That is the best way to describe it. That is something you can't teach. The great ones have that

[QUOTE=TheTruth11]You missed the point. I was comparing them "athletically." And keep the conversation mature. There no need for the childish name calling.

As for disappearing, Wiggins failed to appear for a whole half. Just sayin. Parker carried his team on his shoulders for virtually the entire game until he got in foul trouble down the stretch.

Bottom line, both should be really good. I don't believe you can go wrong with either one. But for my money, I rank them like this: 1. Parker, 2. Randle, 3. Wiggins. It will really come down to who is drafting where and team needs.

...[/QUOTE]

Wiggins sat on the bench for the last 11 minutes due to foul trouble. Parker had 8 pts and Wiggins had 6 at that point. I don't think you understand what I mean by "disappearing". lol

BTW stating that something someone says doesn't show much IQ isn't name calling. Someone who compares athletic scrubs to Wiggins is showing a lack of IQ. If you weren't directly comparing, then that's fine....what you implied by dropping James White and Gerald Green was left very vague is all.

lets talk about facts.

Wiggins entered a virtual tie with around five minutes left and his team won by eleven. Wiggins scored much of those points in different manners, including a step back J.

So, the idea he isn't clutch, not a leader etc. is factually incorrect.

Parker did most of his damage when Wiggins was on the bench in the 'second quarter' (aka the last ten minutes of the first half).

His frame can fill out, his skill set will smooth out, but lets be real, his ceiling is at a different level.

When the pressure was on and the game was on the line, Wiggins was better and lead his team to victory.

THAT my friends is all you need to know.

My honest opinion is this. Parker's ceiling is a 27-30/6/5 type of guy who will be a lights out scorer. That's it.

Wiggins on the other hand? Well he can go as far as he wants to, and become a terrific two way player who is a defensive beast and an offensive juggernaut.

[QUOTE=EnoughSaid]My honest opinion is this. Parker's ceiling is a 27-30/6/5 type of guy who will be a lights out scorer. That's it.

Wiggins on the other hand? Well he can go as far as he wants to, and become a terrific two way player who is a defensive beast and an offensive juggernaut.[/QUOTE]

I would hope my GM drafts a guy who peaks at 30/6/5 and that's it. lol

[QUOTE=TheTruth11]Whenever I have seen Parker play (no matter where he plays) he plays like he owns the place. That is the best way to describe it. That is something you can't teach. The great ones have that[/QUOTE]


He owns the place where? not trying to discredit parker he will be a great nba player... but something tells me that you love him so much because he plays like melo or pierce.. if wiggins is not there sure he may be the 1st pick..

[QUOTE=JtotheIzzo]lets talk about facts.

Wiggins entered a virtual tie with around five minutes left and his team won by eleven. Wiggins scored much of those points in different manners, including a step back J.

So, the idea he isn't clutch, not a leader etc. is factually incorrect.

Parker did most of his damage when Wiggins was on the bench in the 'second quarter' (aka the last ten minutes of the first half).

His frame can fill out, his skill set will smooth out, but lets be real, his ceiling is at a different level.

When the pressure was on and the game was on the line, Wiggins was better and lead his team to victory.

THAT my friends is all you need to know.[/QUOTE]

QFT repped

[QUOTE=midatlantic09]It's quite obvious just by watching him on the court and listening to him in interviews. I've been following Kobe since 1995 and even back then it was apparent that he had a burning desire to be the best. I remember in an interview how he talked about how back at Lower Merion, he used to get up at like 5am, workout for a few hours, go to school, then workout again after school (nearly every day). The guy was willing to do whatever it took to be the best and I just don't sense that same drive in Wiggins. The guy doesn't even seem excited to be on the court most of the time and looks like he's just going through the motions.[/QUOTE]

from watching interviews with tim duncan, can you tell that he has a burning desire to be the best?

i certainly cant, but things have worked out well for him.

Randle is a beast, Wiggins is very athletic.

But Parker is the truth.

Been saying it since I went to the McDonald's All America game and saw it first hand, there is just something that Parker has that is beyond special.
Not even judging by numbers in that game, this last game, or even what might happen in the next games, but he transcends these other guys with his game and presence and persona.

Glad to see Steve Kerr, Stephen A., Jay Bilas, Chris Broussard, and many others now all coming on board.

Been saying it all along from day one, Parker without a doubt to me is the truth.

I really think the parallells between Wiggins and Young Tracy McGrady are huge.

The early part of McGrady's career he was a dominant, destructive, defensive presence based on his height and length, combined with A+ athleticism. He lacked full focus on it, so it was spotty, but at it's best, he was dominant.
They had similar dispositions. A bit soft spoken. Perhaps shy. And not as assertive as one would want from their star player. There was actually a pretty interesting article on Grantland a few months ago upon TMac's retirement that touched on his personality.
McGrady eventually supplemented his elite physical set with a premier jumpshot, which due to his length, was all but unguardable. I can totally see Wiggins going the same way. And once you see that jumper develop, and have to get close to him, his handle, which will improve, will look dynamic, even if it's not, based solely on his physical get off.
He won't overpower people near the rim very often, just like TMac, but his body control and length are all worldly unique, that should create a ton of hanging and one type hoops.
As the offense improves, it's likely the defense will devolve, if only for energy conservation reasons. But that's assuming Wiggins becomes a league leading scorer. Otherwise you may see more continued balance. And it's possible that Wiggins never fully develops the jumper, and falls somewhere in between, but what he brings physically will keep him relevant offensively regardless.

Parker to me still has some physical questions. He's bigger than Pierce was. It's possible he's a small ball four. What he brings to the table seems to be a unique instinct for the game. I just hope he finds a way to fit into a rotation because he is a classic tweener. I can totally see the Pierce comps. I can also totally see the Melo comps, who has a similar plays bigger sense to him. But a guy who struck me when watching the other night, maybe in part because of the uniform, was Shane Battier. That may seem like a knock, but remember that Battier was in the conversation as the top pick in his draft among some elite HS athletes (the fact none of them panned out as hoped is a different story). And Battier was an elite, national HS POY level prospect by all accounts. Parker already has a more refined offensive game than Battier probably ever had, but there's a similar sense to him on the floor in terms of feel. And that makes me think he could be a much better defender than people are giving him credit for. And as the league continues to get smaller, it's possible he turns out to be true stretch four mismatch type of a guy, bringing the best of a bunch of really good players to the table.

Right now I'd still take Wiggins' upside over anything else. Parker's definitive skills that he brings to the table may jump Randle, who I was all over preseason, if Randle continues to look as lefty dominant, and not the A++ athlete I was hoping for, but my sense is that Randle will play out by years end.

Over three games I think the big move to me is that I have been entirely unimpressed with the Harrisons, and I totally believe at this point the fourth pick will come down to Marcus Smart vs. Dante Exum, or someone falling for Joel Embiid as the best true big prospect available.

I don't see the Battier comp at all.

NBA Scouts are now sceptical of Wiggins... they like Parker and Randle better.

[url]http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2013/11/12/5094942/andrew-wiggins-julius-randle-jabari-parker-champions-classic-scouts[/url]



....

Parker is my guy. If the Wiz suck again this year, then Randle is the one I want though

[QUOTE=TheTruth11]NBA Scouts are now sceptical of Wiggins... they like Parker and Randle better.

[url]http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2013/11/12/5094942/andrew-wiggins-julius-randle-jabari-parker-champions-classic-scouts[/url]



....[/QUOTE]

Criticism is fine, but even some GM's and scouts are crossing the line into stupidity. "Third or fourth best player right now on Kansas". "Third best freshmen until he tries hard".....we gotta remember GM's and scouts get fired all the time for a reason lol. It's one thing to say Randle and Parker outdid Wggins, it's another thing to say he's a complimentary player for Kansas. lol

What's your opinion on those quotes, Truth11?

[QUOTE=TheTruth11]NBA Scouts are now sceptical of Wiggins... they like Parker and Randle better.

[url]http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2013/11/12/5094942/andrew-wiggins-julius-randle-jabari-parker-champions-classic-scouts[/url]



....[/QUOTE]

FWIW, the quotes from that story came from a story published on the 9th of november, so just after their first games', but before the games in chicago

[QUOTE=Dolphin]Criticism is fine, but even some GM's and scouts are crossing the line into stupidity. "Third or fourth best player right now on Kansas". "Third best freshmen until he tries hard".....we gotta remember GM's and scouts get fired all the time for a reason lol. It's one thing to say Randle and Parker outdid Wggins, it's another thing to say he's a complimentary player for Kansas. lol

What's your opinion on those quotes, Truth11?[/QUOTE]


That was written before the games were played.

The 'controversy' over who is best is great media fodder and great for interest, expect to hear it all year, but after watching those games, you'd have to have one huge ******* not to take Wiggins first.

I really dislike the characterizations that he isn't a leader or is not driven to win because he is mild mannered. He isn't American, is not going to have the personality of a black American player.
On the court he took the game over and drove his team to win. He's gone head to head with both Randle and Parker and owned them, even in this game when he was guarding Parker he had him in a pretzel.

[url]http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2013/11/...classic-scouts[/url]

The analysis in the article above was BEFORE Parker got off to his amazing start. Something like 58% from the field and an amazing 68% from 3 point land. All while showing outstanding athleticism.

I don't think Parker liked being looked at as the #2 or #3 player in the land. He is playing like a man possessed right now. He is playing like the # 1 player in the country. These guys may flip flop and change positions all year but there can be no doubt that if the draft were held today Jabari Parker would go #1.

...

[QUOTE=TheTruth11][url]http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2013/11/...classic-scouts[/url]

The analysis in the article above was BEFORE Parker got off to his amazing start. Something like 58% from the field and an amazing 68% from 3 point land. All while showing outstanding athleticism.

I don't think Parker liked being looked at as the #2 or #3 player in the land. He is playing like a man possessed right now. He is playing like the # 1 player in the country. These guys may flip flop and change positions all year but there can be no doubt that if the draft were held today Jabari Parker would go #1.

...[/QUOTE]



Yea, there would be huge doubt actually. it's a small minority who thinks Parker should go first, not the other way around. NBA drafts on potential, and not only does Wiggins have far more potential than Parker, he has played just as well (or better, depending on who you ask) in the few meaningless games that have been played thus far.