As if you didn't already know... https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2898650-re-drafting-every-nba-teams-worst-draft-pick-since-2000 The Pick: Greg Oden (No. 1 in 2007) We can debate whether Oden should qualify as a poor draft decision, since most experts considered him the top prospect in his class. The NBA hadn't fully emphasized perimeter play yet, so it wasn't outlandish to think a defensive anchor could be more valuable than a scoring wing. But injuries prevented Oden from even having a chance to justify this draft spot. He missed his entire rookie year after undergoing microfracture surgery on his knee and had multiple knee surgeries later in his career. He was on an NBA payroll for six seasons (five in Portland, the last in Miami), but he played only 2,028 minutes across 105 games. "I'll be remembered as the biggest bust in NBA history," Oden told ESPN's Outside the Lines in 2016. The Re-Draft: Kevin Durant (No. 2) What made the Oden selection look even worse in hindsight was the incredible height Durant reached. He averaged 20.3 points per game as a rookie, which was the first of many indications we were witnessing an all-time great. Now 13 seasons into his career, he's a 10-time All-Star, a four-time scoring champion, a two-time NBA champion, a two-time Finals MVP and a regular-season MVP. His career scoring average of 27.02 points ranks sixth in NBA history, and he also holds top-10 all-time spots in career player efficiency rating (25.20, eighth) and box plus/minus (6.74, 10th).
That's stupid, when we have Nolan Smith sitting right there. Actually, Martell Webster has a shot, provided we take into account that he could have been Chris Paul.
Leonard? Really? Were there a ton of significantly better options available at 11? (Let's not bring up Draymond Green, since he wasn't even a first-rounder)
Fournier's the only one of those that is a reasonable argument. Middleton and Barton were also 2nd round picks, so to suggest that the Blazers were "dumb" to not know they were lottery talents is silly. And Wroten? Just...no.
There're so many different ways to interpret this. Most obvious distinction is between "objectively worse in retrospect" and "dumbest given what they could have known at the time" (which is presumably the distinction you're making). Key test case: was Len Bias a bad pick? But even then, there's a distinction between "worse in terms of the career they had" or "worse relative to whom we COULD have had". So, for example, Zach Collins isn't that bad of a pick, unless you think Bam Adebayo is the bees knees and we could have had him. (Same thing with CJ vs. Giannis.) I think the Len Bias example shows that talking in terms of "objectively worse in retrospect" is a stupid way to think of "bad pick". It makes perfect sense when you're making lists like "best player taken at ____" but when you use the phrase "bad pick" it implies something about the person/front office making the pick, and the only way to judge them is in terms of what they could know. Of course, things are muddied a little when you talk about someone like Brandon Roy, if it was true that he had flagged knees AT THE TIME. Then it looked like it was a great gamble...until it wasn't. Also, I guess you could even make a case that Oden was a dumb pick given what could be known. Certainly Oden was an old fashioned pick. Centers were just starting to go out of fashion, and a team that had Durant and prime Roy AND Aldridge would be an offensive juggernaut. But I think that's a fairly weak case, particularly given how dominant Oden was in college (certainly compared to Durant, whose Texas team actually did better in the seasons both before and after he played there). Final point: it's obviously much easier to be a "bad" #1 pick than a bad #60 pick. So by default, Oden is likely to win. But given that we had the #2 pick in a draft where Chris Paul was available, and we traded down for a player who even when healthy was barely adequate (except for that one quarter), I vote that draft.
But it was #13 pick! And he was ranked one of the greatest high school players in recent memory. Much dumber was, after watching him struggle for a season, deciding not to take Chris Paul BECAUSE of Telfair. (2004 was a pretty shitty draft all round - Telfair actually lasted more games in the NBA than most of the players chosen round him [sidenote: Iguodala is OLD]
Again, if you're talking about OBJECTIVELY better, then why NOT bring up Draymond Green? And even if we're talking SUBJECTIVELY better, who gives a shit if he was ranked low in mock drafts - he had a great college career and don't we praise front offices who take players much higher than where they were projected and turn out to be right? (E.g. Sam Presti taking both Westbrook and Harden higher than most had them ranked.)
But but but but SUMMER LEAGUE! Also: https://www.fandor.com/films/gunning_for_that_number_1_spot https://www.videodetective.com/movie/gunnin-for-that-1-spot-20171
Because he called Leonard a "dumb" pick, which in my mind suggests that there were others right around that same basic valuation at that time that were significantly better options. Whereas something like taking a perceived second-round talent earlier than anyone else would have expected because you saw something others didn't makes for a "brilliant" pick. Taking one dud in the midst of several other duds, all of whom were perceived similarly seems to me to simply be an average pick.
We should have taken Big Al. I argued that repeatedly at the time. Telfair was a PG straight out of high school. STOOOOPID!
Big Al was a big tease who never amounted to anything. Best you can say for him is that he helped Boston get KG. But then Telfair helped us get Brandon Roy!
Big Al had 10 times the career that Telfair had! His career was cut short due to injury, but maybe he doesn't have that injury if he played for us?
I agree. If the Blazers knew Oden was physically flawed, then that , BY FAR, is the dumbest pick. After the history with Sam Bowie, any doubt with Oden's health should have redirected them to Durant. Fool me once......
