Murray vs. Andrew Wiggins
- Thread starter smooth as butter
- Start date
They're different type players. But I mean I think most of us agree the answer would be Wiggins. But dude. This is a pretty dumb thread. Jamal Murray's gonna be a superstar but Wiggins was one of the most highly touted players to come out in the last several years.
Murray is gonna make a major impact this year. That being said, Wiggins is better.
Is the OP just trolling to see if he can get UK fans to overvalue Murray?
Is the OP just trolling to see if he can get UK fans to overvalue Murray?
Wiggins without question. His upside is ridiculous. Now he has young talent surrounding him, Minnesota could be a force if everyone stays in place for 3-4 years.
Minnesota could be a force if everyone stays in place for 3-4 years
I hope they are
I hope they are
Aright, aright. It just made me think. If I wanted to try to get a fanbase to make a fool of themselves by strongly overvaluing a recruit, that's how I'd do it.
"Who do you Duke fans think is better? Brandon Ingram or Kevin Durant?"---as soon as any one of them says Ingram, I could mock them to the moon.
Entering college, Murray is the better player but Wiggins the much better athlete. Wiggins had tons of upside, insane length and athleticism; but was really raw.
If the question compares them both today? Its Wiggins no doubt. Still not convinced hes the next big thing, but the kids come a long way. Drafting KAT will help him ALOT. KAT makes everyone better. Hes also a facilitator. Thats helps Wiggins, because he still struggles creating, although hes gotten much better.
If the question compares them both today? Its Wiggins no doubt. Still not convinced hes the next big thing, but the kids come a long way. Drafting KAT will help him ALOT. KAT makes everyone better. Hes also a facilitator. Thats helps Wiggins, because he still struggles creating, although hes gotten much better.
I agree. Asking for a comparison of the two, or a comparison of their styles of play would be legit and make for some interesting discussion. But I can't see how it's anything but baiting to ask straight up who is better especially before Murray has played a college game.
...it's significant that this thread was started by someone who in the past really has started similar threads here, then quoted select posters' responses on other fan sites in the form, "Can you believe Kentucky fans are saying..." You're not hated here, Smooth. But try to keep it real and keep it in perspective.
Thanks Blue will do I will chill out with the post okay.
I am cool to chill out. I really would like to see a comparison of the two. I see Murray as less of an inside presence, even less of a penetrator. With even less ability to really take over a game from outside, but with probably more production from outside overall and with much better passing and play creation.
Sure thing but that's just my uneducated take. Would like to hear more from people who really know his game well.
Didn't know who he was until I saw him light up the USA team in that game that featured Ben Simmons and others, I was very impressed no one could stop him he scored at will.
Who is better , UNC before cheating or UNC after cheating ? Fire that puppy up .
I disagree. He wasn't a finished product, no one is at 17, but there was very little "raw" about Wiggins' game. That kid is the second best prospect to come into college since Cal has been here, and it wasn't all projection and upside.
Like Anthony Davis, you knew the ceiling was astronomical, but he was a damn good player already. He put on a great show at the Hoop Summit, just like Murray did, but his chops were well established all across the circuit before that.
A really interesting facet of Murray's game that I hope isn't trivialized: he looks like he can hit contested layups. I don't think I've seen Wiggins play 10 seconds, but I've seen lots of highly touted kids -- several of whom have played here -- who had trouble finishing through contact. Some players just seem to lose concentration or balance. Murray (in the ridiculously small subset of games I've seen of his) seems capable of adjusting his shot. Considering the nature of the game these days, that's an impressive skill. I've read of Wiggins that he sometimes plays soft. Running fast and jumping high can easily be valued more than keeping one's composure probably because those are visible skills.
Meh, I'll answer.
AT THE SAME POINT IN THEIR CAREERS, based on what I've seen, Murray's all-around game is better, but Wiggins had a special ability, and incredible athleticism to boot. That put him on another level. His shooting wasn't impressive, he was an average passer, and an average defender. Murray, I'm going to assume, doesn't have any transcendent talents, but he may not need one. Towns didn't have an elite skill either, he was just very sound, and very well rounded, and that's what elevated him to the player that he is, and will continue to elevate him.
Murray's passing is better, Murray's shooting is better, and Murray's ball handling is better. Wiggins' slashing ability is much better, and Murray's slashing ability looks to be pretty good. That says more about Wiggins that it does about Murray. I'm curious to see how well Murray defends. I'm sure that he'll learn to defend very well under Cal, because Cal is undeniably one of the elite defensive coaches in the game.
At the end of the day though, I'm going to reserve judgement for when I actually see Murray ball in college. It comes down to who has the better production. As of today though, Andrew Wiggins is the better player, and this was a very dumb question to ask. Wiggins gets paid a lot to do this, every day, for many hours a day. He's more physically mature, he has more experience, and he's picked up some tricks of the trade that Murray simply could not know at this time.
AT THE SAME POINT IN THEIR CAREERS, based on what I've seen, Murray's all-around game is better, but Wiggins had a special ability, and incredible athleticism to boot. That put him on another level. His shooting wasn't impressive, he was an average passer, and an average defender. Murray, I'm going to assume, doesn't have any transcendent talents, but he may not need one. Towns didn't have an elite skill either, he was just very sound, and very well rounded, and that's what elevated him to the player that he is, and will continue to elevate him.
Murray's passing is better, Murray's shooting is better, and Murray's ball handling is better. Wiggins' slashing ability is much better, and Murray's slashing ability looks to be pretty good. That says more about Wiggins that it does about Murray. I'm curious to see how well Murray defends. I'm sure that he'll learn to defend very well under Cal, because Cal is undeniably one of the elite defensive coaches in the game.
At the end of the day though, I'm going to reserve judgement for when I actually see Murray ball in college. It comes down to who has the better production. As of today though, Andrew Wiggins is the better player, and this was a very dumb question to ask. Wiggins gets paid a lot to do this, every day, for many hours a day. He's more physically mature, he has more experience, and he's picked up some tricks of the trade that Murray simply could not know at this time.
I agree with a lot of this...but, Wiggins can defend at an elite level...but I love how Murray shoots it.
Murray will never be the athlete that Wiggins is, but he might be a more complete player. We'll see.
Negative, Wiggins has the potential to defend at an elite level. His defensive rating in college was 102.8 (which means he would allow that many points in 100 possessions). That's average. For comparison to an elite level defender, Alex Poythress' defensive rating was 85.5 before his injury last season. Another reference is Tyler Ulis, whose defensive rating is 90.3 for last season. Those two are elite defenders.
Can't believe y'all are making me defend Andrew Wiggins. This is him "at the same stage" in their development:
Oh no, I agree, he was a terrific player. Did one thing incredibly well, and he has the insane athleticism as I mentioned. I just don't think slashing and dunking alone translates to being a better all-around basketball player. For every couple of shifty drives that Wiggins makes, Murray can nail a 3 and make a solid assist. I think when you're talking about "all-around basketball", you have to account for all things. Shooting, slashing, free throws, defense, basketball IQ, passing ability, etc. I think Wiggins, at that point, was only a truly elite slasher, but I don't see any other skills that he has that stands out.
They will both be very good NBA players for a long time. They are a bit apples to oranges in their skill sets though. Wiggins is obviously better now, but in 10 years? Who knows.
And the OP comes up with such bizarre threads. I've heard he is a master troll that was banned before and was unleashed with the new site set up.
And the OP comes up with such bizarre threads. I've heard he is a master troll that was banned before and was unleashed with the new site set up.
Most players don't have any transcendent abilities at 17. Murray doesn't do anything as well as Wiggins slashes--very few players do. Even fewer have the physical tools to accompany that elite skill and a host of other above average skills.
As 17 year olds, Wiggins was a better slasher, defender, rebounder and athlete while Murray is a better shooter. I'd put the handles as a push, although you can watch the mixtape above and see that Wiggins could stake a claim there as well, and give a slight edge to Murray in passing although it isn't really something he's amazing at.
None of that is a knock on Murray at all. I think putting him in the 10-12 range in this class is too low, and there's no guard I'd rather have on this year's squad to accompany what we already have.
I'm just saying it's preposterous to compare him to Wiggins simply because they're from the same country, and this notion that Wiggins was an athletic freak with tons of upside but only average skills is incredibly inaccurate. Just because Self wasted him at Kansas and he's stuck in Minnesota now doesn't diminish what that kid can and could do.
As 17 year olds, Wiggins was a better slasher, defender, rebounder and athlete while Murray is a better shooter. I'd put the handles as a push, although you can watch the mixtape above and see that Wiggins could stake a claim there as well, and give a slight edge to Murray in passing although it isn't really something he's amazing at.
None of that is a knock on Murray at all. I think putting him in the 10-12 range in this class is too low, and there's no guard I'd rather have on this year's squad to accompany what we already have.
I'm just saying it's preposterous to compare him to Wiggins simply because they're from the same country, and this notion that Wiggins was an athletic freak with tons of upside but only average skills is incredibly inaccurate. Just because Self wasted him at Kansas and he's stuck in Minnesota now doesn't diminish what that kid can and could do.
Wiggins is in the NBA, a sure-fire All-Star. We expect Murray to make a major impact, but until he does it...
We thought guys like Harrow and Goodwin were going to dominate too.
If I could have Wiggins entering college this year or Murray entering college this year...I take Wiggins
We thought guys like Harrow and Goodwin were going to dominate too.
If I could have Wiggins entering college this year or Murray entering college this year...I take Wiggins
Yes you are. No matter how you look at it comparing a nba player to a high school kid and asking who is better is stupid.
Exactly. For whatever reason, people are having a hard time separating Wiggins' insane athleticism from his very raw basketball skill AT THE SAME STAGE.
Typical Smooth thread topic. Let's see where he runs off too and posts another thread making fun of UK fans.
I hope your kidding.............Wiggins number one draft pick with incredible skill, Murray is good but he's not even close to Wiggins. He'll will be All NBA this year
Similar threads
