Some GM's are comparing this draft to 2006, saying the talent just isn't there. If this draft IS like 2006, that means there's a real opportunity for KP to work his magic. As much as I hate the idea of adding more rookies, I think our team is young enough that we shouldn't ignore an opportunity to upgrade our roster via the draft. My thinking, the last time there was a perception of a weak draft, KP was able to swing some deals and acquire our two best players for peanuts. Could this happen again? We need a point guard and a backup power forward. I'm sold on Bayless' talent, but not on his point guard skills. This team needs a distributor. Do we make a couple trades to move up and grab a point guard? I still love the idea of adding Rubio to our team. If we could get Rubio and sign Andre Miller via free agency, I would feel very good about our point guard rotation. Bayless would have to go, but I think that's okay if Rubio is coming in.
Continuing your comparison, if this is like 2006, then the overhyped Euro will prove out to be just that, as will the two white guys who battled to be college POY. So then, we wouldn't want Rubio (or Hansbrough, as some do); we'd want the multi-skilled player who's projected as being a little lower in the draft, but is actually the better player. So, who would that be--Flynn, Harden, Evans? Or looking down in our section of the draft--Maynor, Johnson, Collison?
The key with the '06 draft was that there wasn't a clear cut #1. The top four or so were interchangeable, which is where Pritchard's magic truly came into play... He picked the right two out of that group. I'm not sure I see the parallels to that this year.
After the consensus #1 - it's the exact same thing. So picks 2-...? are all interchangeable... Will Rubio translate, Is Thabeet a defensive monster or too slow? Is Curry a superior gunner with fantastic passing skills or is his too small and faced bad opposition? Is Flynn big enough to play in the NBA? etc... etc...
The methodology is clear. When there are a number of players of perceived equal talent, you simply choose the one with the best moustache. If none of them sport facial hair, then simply pick the one John Canzano and Gavin Dawson get behind.
I see some comparisons, but others make no sense. 1. Yes I agree that when it all said and done that Blake Griffin will probably not end up being the best player out of the draft. But I think he will end up being a servicable player, unlike Bargiani. 2. Yes I agree that some of the players taken in the top 5 will probably be stiffs. 3. I don't see anybody in this draft that is as versatile and talented as Aldridge on the front line. (I had him #1 in 2006). 4. I think a lot of guards picked in the teens will end up better than guys going in the lotto. 5. It will be very hard to duplicate the failure of Adam Morrison. It is even harder to fathom the scouting team that picked him to begin with. 6. There is no Dirk Nowitzki leading into the finals this year to add into the euro hype bullshit. 7. Is Curry this years Randy Foy? That remains to be seen.
I agree with hasoos. I think this year is more about the uncertainty with a lot of players' talent than picking which is the best of a fairly good, even group.
Last year (2008) was hyped as a great draft with both top talent and depth... and early returns show this was true as many of last years rooks look to be excellent players. 2006 was hyped as a poor draft, and not nearly as many starters (let alone stars) emerged... quite a few of the lotto picks look to be out of the league as soon as their guaranteed deals expire. STOMP
2007, as well, was held up as one featuring two can't-miss franchise-changing players, and the supporting cast of lottery picks was considered adequate. I think that in many years the draft is initially unfairly slighted, but when it's this close to draft day and people are STILL talking about its weakness, that's an indication that it's actually a weak draft. I remember arguing for some time in this community leading up to the 2006 draft... saying that it was going to be very weak because of the transitional year with the new draft eligibility requirements. I wish I could remember/knew who was arguing that the lack of prep players that year would not impact the quality of the draft... dammit. Ed O.
I can't count all the times in recent years when I've heard the so-called "experts" say "This is a weak draft." I recall people saying two years ago that after Oden and Durant that the talent level dropped way off, and I'll bet at least 75% of the time people say the draft isn't so strong "this year." It seems to be partly human nature, and partly the fact that no one knows how good college players are going to be in the NBA.
At the same time, is there anything that jumps out and says "This is not a weak draft"? I think it is a weak draft. I think it is a weak draft because I watched college hoops this year and nobody impressed me. Nobody. Not Blake Griffin, and definitly not any of the next 4 guys to be picked behind him. The guys that are behind that, are not that much worse, if any, then the guys before them. There are a few guards, and a few tough guys which will make it in the league, but I don't see much else. If anything to me, it is the lack of impact players that makes this draft weak. Blake Griffin is picked to go number 1, but he wasn't very impressive. It was the lack of players to compete with him that gave him the spot. Not his performance.
the talent level in the 2007 draft after Oden and Durant looks like it dropped way off in retrospect too as those two are about the only two from that class that seem to have All Star potential. About half of that 1st round has become at least rotation level players. Not only does this upcoming class lack sure fire star players along the lines of Oden and KD, but I doubt it will produce nearly the amount of rotation players. STOMP
