Until Giddens shows something in games, he has no clear future in the NBA. At least Walker was brought into games before outcomes were already clear.
I wonder whether the Celtics will bother to pick up Giddens 3rd year.
At this point, Giddens has shown less than Pruitt after Pruitt's first season.
Now that's blatently ridiculous. Pruitt got no run his first year and and had to learn how to play point(something which he still hasn't learned yet). Pruitt went to the D-League. So did J.R. For what it's worth though, J.R. led the team to the D-League Finals. Don't revise history just because you have a grudge against Giddens.
This is ridiculous! Haha. Dude, check the stats! You have no idea what you are talking about!
Pruitt played over 90 minutes in his rookie season, Giddens played 8. Pruitt played 9 or more minutes in 6 games. Giddens didn't even have 9 minutes the entire season!
Why would I have a grudge against Giddens? D-league finals? That is an accomplishment? That just means he wasn't good enough to contribute in the NBA.
No. It simply means he didn't get a chance to play in the NBA. Wether he was good enough to contribute in the NBA or not, we can't really tell though I'm positive that he could've contributed to some degree, more so than Walker. But hey, Doc took a liking to Walker over Giddens early on... that much was evident, I'm quite convinced that's the main reason Walker was giving the chance over Giddens last year. To me, it has been quite evident that Gidden was/is the more complete player at the moment and more ready to contribute.
Basically, my original post stands. Fans have gut feelings about players all the time, but all Giddens is so far is a good d-league player. They convince themselves of all sorts of stories to explain why the player doesn't pan out. In the end though, it's put up or shut up.
Hopefully he can turn into something.
Being "complete" is insignificant if he is complete by being equally mediocre at many things.
I have to agree with this. and I've posted something similar before, that Giddens would probably win a game of 1-on-1 and can look like the more complete player against subpar competition, but, unfortunately, in the NBA a complete game is only worthwhile if you are someone like pierce, kobe, kg, duncan, etc. Otherwise, you just end up being not quite good enough at everything. the players that stick are the ones that are good enough or very good at everything or excellent at one or two things; I happen to think that due to his age, athletic ceiling and size, Walker has a better chance to be excellent at one or two things.
So I guess Giddens being a good defender, a great rebounder, a good finisher, a good passer aren't enough good enough skills?
That's the reason I like Giddens... because he's quite good at skills you can usually depend on night in and night out, and he brings a ton of energy. The next phase is seeing how he plays alongside real NBA players, which he hasn't, and also see him adapt to NBA speed, which he hasn't had the opportunity to do.
For someone with an unpolished offensive game (something he really needs to work on, particularly with his shooting), he has been very efficient with his shots and little by little improving his shot selection.
I agree with the premise that Walker has the better change to become excellent in some key areas, particularly on the offensive end... the difference is that Giddens currently is quite good at various skills that should be transferable to the NBA game, some quite useful.
