This is a lot to respond to but all I'm going to say right now is that I haven't found any of these insider takes or commentary pieces very useful. I've read some of the articles at The Stepien for instance and found the analysis to be overly generalized. I really just like to watch the games and make up my own mind. So if other scouts think Doncic's athleticism will limit his upside that's fine. I don't agree though. In some cases athleticism is very important. I would cite Gerald Wallace as an example. He was never a great shooter, he couldn't really create off the dribble. As a wing these are huge problems right? But he found his niche anyway as an athletic terror willing to jump over other players to get to blocks, dunks, and rebounds. But I also think it's overrated when it comes to evaluating prospects. If you think you're going to teach a 20 year old how to play basketball you've really got your work cut out for you. Players can and do improve on their skills but if there's nothing there to begin with they're just too far behind the curve.
As this relates to Doncic, I really don't understand what other people are seeing. He breaks down defenders and creates good looks all the time. Sure the NBA in general has some of the best athletes in the world but it's not like everyone in the league is a track-star/mega-dunker. There are also a lot of good athletes who just flat out know how to play the game. And this is where I think so many people (myself included) miss on prospects. They're looking for wow factor when they should really be looking for two things: (1) What is this player going to do consistently on the basketball court that contributes to helping a team win and (2) Do they have the tools to excel in those areas? It's not going to be the same for every player. And in that respect I don't understand any of the criticism levied at Doncic. It's like people think he's going to turn into a pumpkin and forget how to do all of the things he's doing already.
We saw this before with Steph Curry. He's too small, too weak, he won't be able to get that shot off in the NBA. He's an undersized shooting guard who'll struggle to lead a team. Did any of that turn out to be true? I hate to bring up examples which make it sound like I'm implying Doncic will succeed because Steph succeeded. I'm just saying that some of the criticism is really reaching in my opinion. Maybe Michael Porter is taller and has a prettier jumpshot but does that really give him a higher ceiling? Sometimes I feel like people make these overly simplistic assertions like "I'd rather have a Kevin Durant than a Gordon Hayward" but Porter is not Durant and Doncic is not Hayward. They may be similar players at a point in time but that's it.