I understand that people are generally considering this a "weak" class just because the lack of stars at the top. Most experts believe the top players just dont have the qualities to be stars. I want to know why everyone is so quick to believe that is actually true. SOOO many players have become great, HOF caliber players without going first overall in a "strong" class.
KG and Ray Allen went 5th, Larry Bird was 6th, Dirk and TMac were 9th, Paul Pierce 10th, Reggie Miller 11th, DR J was 12th!, Kobe 13th, Clyde Drexler 14th, Steve Nash 15th, John Stockton 16th, Michael Finley 21st, Dennis Rodman 27th, and Tony Parker was 28th.
I have skipped a lot of guys, including every top second round player. But I think this list is good enough to show that we never really know how strong or weak a draft class is until these guys go out and play.
When all time greats like Bird, Dr J, Kobe, and Nash all go outside of the top 5, you know that anything is possible. For all we know, a guy like Ben McLemore could drop out of the top 5 like some people believe may happen then he goes on to be a perennial all star.
All of these players had something coming into the draft that made teams overlook them or second guess them. I think that is why this class is considered weak, because that is how teams view all of the top prospects. There is no player that is a surefire star. If you had to pick one player that could surprise people and turn into a true star and possible hall of fame player, who would it be? I am going with two people that could both surprise people and become great in Trey Burke and Victor Oladipo. they both could potentially go top 5, or at least top 10, so their could be high expectations for them, but I think most people view them as low ceiling, safe picks. I think they could both surprise people and explode onto the scene due to their insane work ethic and competitiveness.
Bird was drafted while still playing in college so he could have been drafted #1 or #2 had he entered the following year. Well said though with giving the players a chance to prove themselves first.
Obviously NBA scouts are pretty good at evaluating talent... it's their job and they get paid to do it.
BUT they sometimes fail miserably, they can't predict the future nor can they play out every scenario of how a particular prospect will fare in the NBA game.
I think the most accurate way to judge whether or not a draft is "strong" or "weak" is to wait at least 2-3 years after the draft and see how the players turned out.
What makes this draft unique is how loaded the bottom of the first/top of the second rounds are. There are some solid role players that could be drafted with the 35th pick.
Scouts say this about every draft that doesn't have a prospect that just totally dominated Cobb and won the national championship or guys like Tim Duncan and lebron James guys you know will produce because they are head and shoulders above the rest. Every scouts says its a weak draft so if they miss on a prospect they don't want to receive any flack and if they find a player they look like genuises.
Don't listen to those guys at ESPN, they just say every draft is weak to start an arguement.
Time will tell.
They don't realize that depth and role players are extremely important to make a run at a championship. This draft is loaded with potential stud role players. And there are a few that could even surprise and do much more.
I think a lot of the bad rap this class is getting is due to the fact we don't know who the top guy is...A lot of people rank McLemore 1st on their big boards but you see him going as low as 8th in some mock drafts. I think it is the uncertainty mixed with the lack of instant star quality that makes people claim this is a weak draft. I think there is quite a bit more talent then a lot of people think.
When looking at the top 40 guys there are a lot more guys I like than guys I don't like.