Today on SB Nation D.C., I wrote about John Wall and how the worst part of the NBA lockout is that Wizards fans like us won't be able to see him play. Earlier today, BNIE wrote about John Wall as well. All summer, we've been chronicling John Wall's summer-league exploits.
That's a lot of John Wall.
Sometimes, I wonder if we write too much about Wall here. This is a team, after all, and the team has 15 (or so) members on it. As a writer, this is an interesting quandary to me. When Gilbert Arenas was the star of the team, we wrote a lot about Gilbert Arenas, and even that was causing a bit of an inner conflict. I suppose the difference is that Arenas, even at his peak, was more polarizing than Wall, but even that works both ways. With Arenas, there's a lot more to discuss. With Wall, it's almost like we are an echo chamber repeating how awesome he is. It's an odd situation and one that we should be cognizant of as it happens.
But at the same time, the relative importance of Wall is so huge for this franchise, which is why I keep coming back to this point when thinking about Wall and the lockout. From the SB Nation D.C. piece:
Having a star player is a huge factor in making sports teams profitable and well run. Leonsis has one with the Capitals in Alex Ovechkin, and thanks to smart team-building to surround him, he has a team that sells out his building every night. What has become clear this summer is that Leonsis and the Wizards also have an Ovechkin-like star in John Wall. To take advantage of this, though, Wall and the Wizards need to be playing.
In other words, to me, 2011/12 was supposed to be the year where Wall began to climb to superstardom. Now, the year has been wiped away, and sometimes, it's hard not to write a ton about Wall.
Anyway, I'm curious to get your thoughts here. Is it overkill sometimes with Wall coverage on the site, or is it appropriate?