This is taken from Ford's "Tier" system last year: So, unless others see it differently, I would imagine we all agree that Davis is Tier One and Robinson, MKG, Beal (and maybe Barnes, now) are all Tier Two. Tier Three would be guys with either some risk from upside (like Sullinger or Marshall), motor (PJ3, Drummond), questions about their college play (Lillard, T.Jones) or that they haven't shown NBA skill yet (Zeller, Henson). Since Robinson, MKG, Beal and Barnes (I'll put him in there) are in the same tier, you still have to rank them on need. Robinson isn't far and away above the others in talent---he isn't in a tier by himself. Now, if we had, say, #2 and #7, and we took Barnes or MKG at #2 because we thought SF was our biggest need in that tier, and Robinson was available at 7...you'd take Robinson b/c he's a tier above everyone left. At that point you say "who cares if we need a C or PG: I'm not passing on Robinson for Lillard or Drummond b/c Robinson's a tier above." Personally, I think that both 6 and 11 are in the same tier. Trading with CLE allows us to move up a tier and take the (maybe?) the last Tier Two guy available, where trading with CHA allows us our pick of them. Staying at 6 and we miss out on Tier Two unless there's a major reach (like the Kings taking Sullinger or something). So I'd rank based on our needs the Tier Two like this: MKG, Barnes, Beal, Robinson. What say you?
My Personal Tiers: (I'm outside the box by being high on Ross and Barnes and Wroten and low on Marshall, Henson and Zeller) Tier One (This category is usually reserved for guys who are surefire All-Stars/franchise players.): Davis Tier Two projected to be starters and potential All-Stars. : MKG, Barnes, Beal, Robinson. (Note: if you don't like Barnes as much as some, you drop him a tier) Tier Three have NBA All-Star potential, but all six have significant weaknesses that could keep them from living up to it : Lillard, Drummond, Jones Boys, Waiters, Lamb, Sullinger, Ross Tier Four: Zeller, Henson, Leonard, Marshall, Rivers, Wroten
Great job. Had a nice dream about the draft last night, we traded with cleveland because Trobb was there at 4 and then grabbed Wroten at 24. Not gonna actually happen but would be awesome.
Interesting approach. I would say Robinson is tier 1.5. I would also move Beal to the top of tier 2 (based on him being the only one who can create his own offense). IMHO, there is no need to move up into the 3-5 range. The odds are very high that one (at least) of your tier 2 guys will fall to #6.
My problem with this approach is it all unravels when you can't precisely define the cut-off points between tiers. I strongly disagree that Drummond isn't a tier 2 guy, for example.
that's fine. Part of this thread is to see who people think are in which tiers. I have Drummond lower because I think there's a 60% chance that he's the 3rd-best C in the league in 3 years, and a 40% chance he's Oliver Miller.
Yes that was a good read. Thanks for that and I agree with a lot of your personal tiers. The main excepton being Rivers. To me he will be better than a few you have in tier 3. I was surprised he measured out as well as he did. I bet he is gone by 11.
And this is my issue as well. As an example, Sullinger is greatly debated if he is even an NBA caliber material. And one well reputed mock has Lamb in the second round. So it all comes down, again, to properly evaluating talent, because our needs are easy- we need talent at every position except PF.
This can be subjective as I would include Drummond in the Tier II group just because his upside is so high but his risk of course is higher as well. The other guys may be "safer" picks but they also likely do not have game/team changing upside potential, again IMO. So "for me", drafting 6, I would take Drummond if he fell.
The tier 2 guys should be guaranteed legit starters by next year. Do you think Drummond is a guaranteed starter?
I basically like Brian's tiers, but agree there are some tweeners: Tier One: Davis Tier 1.5: Robinson Tier Two: MKG, Barnes, Beal, Tier 2.2: Drummond*, Lillard* [*either could be better than MKG, Barnes] Tier Three: PJIII, Leonard, Marshall, Ross Tier Four: Zeller, Sullinger, Lamb, Rivers, Henson, Waiters, T. Jones, Moultrie
But if Drummond is in the Tier Two group, that means you'd take him at #2 since C is one of our bigger positions of need (moreso than a SF, SG or PF). Would you?
LOL, depends on the in depth anaylsis our scouts have done and the workouts and definitely the interview process as well. With Drummond much depends on his Motor/work ethic, if thru this analysy/interview process we got a good feeling about that then yes I take him at 2, if it's a bad feeling I don't draft him.
If you believe that he really loves basketball and was just not on a good team last year, then I think you could put him in Tier 2. That is more information than I have.
Good post, I understand why they do a tier system, but I don't necessarily agree that it serves a team the best....If you screw up just slightly on your tier rankings it could still have you reaching for a need over a better player..... Only given is Davis in Tier 1 Depending on a team Tier 2 could be as many as 8 or so players or as few as 2? I think there is a pretty good consensus of 5 players in Robinson, Beal, MKG, Barnes & Drummond Tier 3 IMO could be much larger...12+ players? and that is the problem with this sysytem the more players in the tier the less useful it becomes I would think....
Yes, I actually do. I think any team in the top-6 that drafts him will be starting him on opening night. That's not to say that I think he'll dominate his first year, but I do think he'll hold his own. (As long as he's not asked to shoot.)
And if you screw up in your BPA rankings, you can miss out on better players also. There's plenty of room for error in the draft, not just one way they can screw up. Often times, there isn't a lot of seperation between a couple of guys, which makes the tier system more useful than trying to just rank them 1 through 60.
Yeah that is true, but rather it be that than b\c I put that guy in a tier lower\higher as my reason\justification. I could see it have some use as a visual reminder not to to overeach for need.
