Stephen A. says the Knicks need to adapt to Wemby’s physicality | First Take

Victor Wembanyama’s impact in Game 3

• Wembanyama’s 30-point, 5-rebound, 5-assist performance is presented as evidence that he’s fully arrived at this Finals level—noting he’s among the youngest ever to do it.
• The atmosphere in New York is also highlighted, with Wembanyama growing into a “villain” figure for Knicks fans.

Physicality matchup favors the Spurs (San Antonio)

A major theme is that Wembanyama and the Spurs’ bigger, more physical perimeter group can overwhelm the Knicks if the refs allow contact.

• Stephen A. argues the Spurs won’t change their physical identity.
• If the Knicks can’t match that physicality, they’re likely to struggle.

Spurs’ size and perimeter toughness

Kendrick Perkins emphasizes the Spurs’ perimeter physicality, describing multiple players as:

• Tall and thick enough to consistently pressure on both ends.

The argument is that this style forces the Knicks into uncomfortable decisions, especially around:

• Denying and disrupting Jaylen Brunson.

Counterpoint: The Knicks can win by adapting (like Games 1/2)

Another voice (with Stephen A. pushing back at points) suggests the Knicks need to return to the tougher approach they used earlier in the series.

• The discussion frames it as “accept reality”: Wembanyama is 7’5 and highly impactful.
• The Knicks must handle him through both:
  • Tempo
  • Physical engagement

Tempo and conditioning: wearing down Wembanyama

Stephen A. highlights how the Knicks increased their pace for stretches in the series.

• The pace helped create moments where Wembanyama looked like he was breathing heavily early—particularly when the Knicks push after rebounds and scores.
• Theory: if the Knicks can neutralize Wembanyama by forcing him into extra running and contact, they can gain an edge.

Key strategic adjustment in Game 3 (defensive assignment)

The panel credits a Game 3 defensive tweak by Mike Brown / Rob Johnson (listed as “M. Johnson” in captions).

• Instead of allowing the same level of exposure that happened with Carl-Anthony Towns, they had Wembanyama spend more effort guarding Josh Hart.
• The plan also avoided certain heavy paint matchups.
• Claim: conserving Wembanyama’s energy helped prevent Towns from exploiting him repeatedly.

Carl-Anthony Towns and physical mismatches

The discussion weighs whether Towns should be able to handle the matchup physically.

• One perspective frames it as “boxing”: big men hate getting disrupted in the legs.
• Another perspective argues the Knicks still must prevent Towns from getting to preferred angles and touches, especially since the Spurs allow physical contact.

Carl-Anthony Towns’s offensive improvements tied to scheme

Subtitles point to scheme-driven success for Towns, including when the Knicks:

• Isolated him at the top of the key
• Spread the floor to improve entry passing and reduce double-team pressure
• Compared to Jokic-like creation at the “nail” area

Boxing analogy for defending Wembanyama

A long segment compares defending Wembanyama to boxing.

• The idea is to target his leverage and “legs” to wear down his frame.
• The panel suggests his physiology—lots of height but less mass—could make him vulnerable to fatigue if opponents apply sustained physical pressure at the right times.

Wembanyama’s improvement over time

The show credits Wembanyama’s growth:

• He’s added roughly 20 pounds since entering the league.
• Even with that progress, defenders may still try to exploit his relative thinness.

Stats showing Wembanyama’s defensive/impact presence

Game 3 impact is reinforced by shot contest numbers:

• 2-for-1 on shots contested by Wembanyama in Game 3
• 0-for-4 in the fourth quarter
• This is used to illustrate that he affected late-game possessions and finish opportunities.

Presenters or contributors

• Stephen A. Smith
• Kendrick Perkins
• “Perk” (referenced as Kendrick Perkins)
• “Cam” (panelist referenced in subtitles; full name not provided)