Why Charles Barkley’s Critique of Anthony Edwards Might Be Spot On?

Anthony Edwards has been one of the most exciting young talents in the NBA, known for his explosive athleticism and scoring ability.

Yet, despite his undeniable talent, there’s been ongoing debate about the direction of his game, especially regarding his increasing reliance on three-point shooting.

NBA legend Charles Barkley recently voiced concerns that Edwards may be regressing by taking too many threes, potentially limiting his overall impact on the court.

Is Barkley’s criticism justified, or is Edwards simply evolving with the modern game?

Edwards’ evolution into a prolific three-point shooter is clear.

This season, he ranks second in the entire NBA for three-point attempts, trailing only behind Steph Curry and just ahead of stars like Jayson Tatum.

His volume and efficiency from beyond the arc—shooting nearly 40% on around 10 attempts per game—are impressive by any standard.

On paper, this seems like a positive development, as the NBA increasingly values long-range shooting from all positions.

However, Barkley’s argument hinges on the idea that Edwards’ skill set is better suited to attacking the basket rather than settling for jump shots from distance.

Edwards was initially celebrated for his explosive drives, ability to finish at the rim, and drawing fouls—skills that create havoc for opposing defenses.

By focusing more on threes, Barkley suggests Edwards is losing the aggressive mentality that made him so dangerous and unique.

Instead of forcing defenders to collapse and risk foul trouble, Edwards’ long-range shooting invites defenders to relax and play off him, reducing pressure on the defense.

This tactical shift changes the dynamic of Minnesota’s offense.

When Edwards attacks the rim, defenders scramble to help, creating open shots for his teammates and forcing opponents into foul trouble.

But when he pulls up from 25-30 feet, defenders can comfortably stay home, and the team’s offensive threat diminishes.

Barkley points out that this isn’t just about shot selection but about Edwards’ overall mentality—he needs to be an attacker first, not a shooter waiting for the perfect moment.

The numbers from the recent Western Conference Finals highlight this concern.

Edwards’ drives per game and attempts at the rim have dropped significantly, while his reliance on threes has increased.

Against the Thunder and Lakers, his shooting percentages from the floor have been solid, but his impact seems muted compared to when he aggressively attacks the basket.

In crunch moments, especially in must-win games, settling for contested or step-back threes has hurt his team more than helped.

Edwards himself defends his style, arguing that his three-point shooting has improved and that he’s making smart plays by taking high-quality shots.

He insists that he hasn’t struggled and that the shots he takes are the right ones.

Yet, critics see this as a classic deflection, reminiscent of how some players pass responsibility onto teammates rather than owning their struggles.

In crucial games, Edwards’ performance has often been described as a “no-show,” with poor shot selection and a lack of aggression.

Comparisons to Michael Jordan have been made, but Barkley and others caution against equating Edwards to the legendary superstar.

Jordan’s brief flirtation with three-point shooting in the 1992 playoffs was strategic and limited; he used it to complement an overwhelmingly dominant inside game.

For Jordan, driving to the basket and creating opportunities for others was the core of his effectiveness.

Edwards, at 24, still has time to refine these nuances, but the current trend suggests he might be prioritizing the wrong aspect of his game.

The broader NBA context is important here.

Many superstars have expanded their range and incorporated more threes into their arsenal.

This evolution is not inherently bad—it’s often necessary to stay competitive.

But the key question is whether Edwards’ heavy reliance on threes maximizes his unique talents and benefits his team.

Barkley’s critique is that it doesn’t.

Instead, it risks turning Edwards into a more predictable and less impactful player.

Defenders welcome Edwards’ long-range attempts because it reduces the likelihood of him attacking the basket and drawing fouls.

When Edwards drives, he forces defenses to collapse, which opens up passing lanes and scoring opportunities for teammates.

When he shoots from deep, defenders can relax and conserve energy, which ultimately helps the opposing team’s defense.

This strategic disadvantage is compounded by the fact that Edwards’ best attribute is his explosiveness and ability to finish at the rim.

His first step and vertical leap make him a nightmare for defenders when he chooses to attack.

Settling for threes, especially contested or off-balance shots, is a waste of his natural gifts and can stunt his growth as a player.

The postseason has exposed these issues more starkly.

Edwards’ reduced aggression and increased reliance on perimeter shooting have coincided with less impactful performances.

Analysts and fans alike have noticed that when Edwards is not attacking, the Timberwolves’ offense suffers.

This has fueled calls for him to return to a more aggressive style of play that leverages his strengths.

Ultimately, Charles Barkley’s critique serves as a reminder that volume three-point shooting isn’t a guaranteed path to success, especially if it comes at the expense of a player’s natural game.

Anthony Edwards has the talent to be a dominant force by attacking the basket and creating chaos for defenses.

If he can balance his improved shooting with his explosive driving ability, he could become one of the league’s most dangerous offensive players.

For now, Edwards stands at a crossroads.

Will he continue to lean heavily on threes, or will he heed the advice of veterans like Barkley and rediscover the aggressive mentality that made him a rising star?

The answer could define his career trajectory and the future success of the Minnesota Timberwolves.

In the high-stakes world of the NBA playoffs, the difference between settling and attacking can mean the difference between victory and defeat.

Anthony Edwards’ journey is a compelling case study in how modern basketball players must evolve without losing sight of their core strengths.

As the season progresses, all eyes will be on Edwards to see if he can strike that crucial balance and fulfill his immense potential.