Moderators: Marcus, Duke4life831
NO-KG-AI wrote:Even if it's the worst class ever, there will still be quality players on rookie contracts and potentially stars. Draft picks are still valuable tickets.
Fight the good fight though bro. lmao.
HadAnEffectHere wrote:Matas just has huge loser energy at all times, lol
https://www.reddit.com/r/NBA_Draft/comments/1bqsyyb/matas_buzelis_says_risacher_does_not_want_to_1v1/
Big J wrote:HadAnEffectHere wrote:Matas just has huge loser energy at all times, lol
https://www.reddit.com/r/NBA_Draft/comments/1bqsyyb/matas_buzelis_says_risacher_does_not_want_to_1v1/
That was awesome. I love the kid's confidence.
clyde21 wrote:nobody is saying it's "tragically bad" whatever that means, even the worst classes can produce good players like 2013....development is never linear for cats this young and there is always a chance a couple of players got overlooked.
But, by almost any measure, this is not a good class. When my top player this year I would have no higher than #5 or #6 in a previous year, it's not a good class, and we've had markers for years now that it wasn't gonna be good based on the talent in HS. none of this is rocket science.
this year's HS class doesn't even look that great either outside the top few guys and it itself got a push because Coop reclassed.
FarBeyondDriven wrote:clyde21 wrote:nobody is saying it's "tragically bad" whatever that means, even the worst classes can produce good players like 2013....development is never linear for cats this young and there is always a chance a couple of players got overlooked.
But, by almost any measure, this is not a good class. When my top player this year I would have no higher than #5 or #6 in a previous year, it's not a good class, and we've had markers for years now that it wasn't gonna be good based on the talent in HS. none of this is rocket science.
this year's HS class doesn't even look that great either outside the top few guys and it itself got a push because Coop reclassed.
except most ARE saying it's one of the weakest draft classes ever. Don't try and couch your statements and leave outs in case there are great players coming out of it. Either you think it's a terrible draft or you don't. If you're good at evaluating prospects there are no "overlooked" guys. Maybe YOU and the gurus are overlooking them but I'm not.
and by what measure exactly have you determined it's not a good class when you say "by any measure" lmao? Please use any other measure except your subjective and laughable idea that there are less 5 star recruits because a bunch of frauds said there were which doesn't address foreign born players nor the returning class, both of which look to be stellar? Because that's not a measure. Please...just provide one "measure" you claim exists. I'll be patiently waiting for a reply that will never come
clyde21 wrote:FarBeyondDriven wrote:clyde21 wrote:nobody is saying it's "tragically bad" whatever that means, even the worst classes can produce good players like 2013....development is never linear for cats this young and there is always a chance a couple of players got overlooked.
But, by almost any measure, this is not a good class. When my top player this year I would have no higher than #5 or #6 in a previous year, it's not a good class, and we've had markers for years now that it wasn't gonna be good based on the talent in HS. none of this is rocket science.
this year's HS class doesn't even look that great either outside the top few guys and it itself got a push because Coop reclassed.
except most ARE saying it's one of the weakest draft classes ever. Don't try and couch your statements and leave outs in case there are great players coming out of it. Either you think it's a terrible draft or you don't. If you're good at evaluating prospects there are no "overlooked" guys. Maybe YOU and the gurus are overlooking them but I'm not.
and by what measure exactly have you determined it's not a good class when you say "by any measure" lmao? Please use any other measure except your subjective and laughable idea that there are less 5 star recruits because a bunch of frauds said there were which doesn't address foreign born players nor the returning class, both of which look to be stellar? Because that's not a measure. Please...just provide one "measure" you claim exists. I'll be patiently waiting for a reply that will never come
Bad classes can have good players, people here already pointed out to you 2013 as an example of a terrible class that produced Giannis and Gobert as guys who no one saw coming, but that doesn't change the predraft calculous at all
and it's not a good class by any measure, i.e. lotto talent, depth, archetypes, raw athleticism, etc. there is nothing that stands out about this class at all. MAYBE you can make an argument that the saving grace is the international crop but I am not overly impressed and that's always a gamble.
FarBeyondDriven wrote:clyde21 wrote:FarBeyondDriven wrote:
except most ARE saying it's one of the weakest draft classes ever. Don't try and couch your statements and leave outs in case there are great players coming out of it. Either you think it's a terrible draft or you don't. If you're good at evaluating prospects there are no "overlooked" guys. Maybe YOU and the gurus are overlooking them but I'm not.
and by what measure exactly have you determined it's not a good class when you say "by any measure" lmao? Please use any other measure except your subjective and laughable idea that there are less 5 star recruits because a bunch of frauds said there were which doesn't address foreign born players nor the returning class, both of which look to be stellar? Because that's not a measure. Please...just provide one "measure" you claim exists. I'll be patiently waiting for a reply that will never come
Bad classes can have good players, people here already pointed out to you 2013 as an example of a terrible class that produced Giannis and Gobert as guys who no one saw coming, but that doesn't change the predraft calculous at all
and it's not a good class by any measure, i.e. lotto talent, depth, archetypes, raw athleticism, etc. there is nothing that stands out about this class at all. MAYBE you can make an argument that the saving grace is the international crop but I am not overly impressed and that's always a gamble.
YOUR measures sound an awful like subjective opinions. YOU feel there isn't great lotto talent. YOU feel it lacks depth. YOU feel it lacks archetypes and raw athleticism. YOU can't speak for everyone and claim it lacks "any" measure since there are people that clearly disagree with you. When this class ends up having all-stars and good depth I don't want to hear a word from anyone on here except "I was wrong". You've all made your stances abundantly clear over a year ago. Don't go changing your stories and moving goal posts.
Draft classes that have all-star caliber players, Hall of Famers and starters isn't "weak" no matter what the "experts" said before with their "pre-draft calculus". The guys "who nobody saw coming" sounds an awful lot like scouts getting it wrong like they do every year.
If not for some major injuries injuries to four of the draft classes' better players the narrative that 2013 was weak wouldn't even exist. Oladipo was entering his prime and was an all-star and considered one of the best two-way players in the league before his injury. Otto Porter Jr. was a max player and one of the league's best 3 and D players just entering his prime before his injury. Michael Carter-Williams was an excellent glue guy and defender that filled up the stat sheet nightly, still just 24 y/o, when he his mounting injuries derailed his career. Noel was a starter and excellent defender when his career was derailed at 22 y/o. People just look at that draft now with no context and throw out hot takes. Was it great? No. Was it even good? Maybe not. But it certainly was not "weak" like it appears to be looking back on it.
McCollum has been a borderline all-star during his career. Adams, Schroder, Hardaway Jr., Olynyk, KCP, Zeller, Plumlee, Covington, Curry and Theis all started for multiple seasons on some great teams and even helped reach deep playoff runs or even win championships. Snell, Muscala, Ennis, Dellavadova, and Dedmon are all role players have had long careers. Like I've said before, people's recollections of prior drafts is so twisted. They remember great players at the top and completely overrate the draft class or they think because it lacks multiple all-stars that it means it's weak.
Big J wrote:FarBeyondDriven wrote:clyde21 wrote:
Bad classes can have good players, people here already pointed out to you 2013 as an example of a terrible class that produced Giannis and Gobert as guys who no one saw coming, but that doesn't change the predraft calculous at all
and it's not a good class by any measure, i.e. lotto talent, depth, archetypes, raw athleticism, etc. there is nothing that stands out about this class at all. MAYBE you can make an argument that the saving grace is the international crop but I am not overly impressed and that's always a gamble.
YOUR measures sound an awful like subjective opinions. YOU feel there isn't great lotto talent. YOU feel it lacks depth. YOU feel it lacks archetypes and raw athleticism. YOU can't speak for everyone and claim it lacks "any" measure since there are people that clearly disagree with you. When this class ends up having all-stars and good depth I don't want to hear a word from anyone on here except "I was wrong". You've all made your stances abundantly clear over a year ago. Don't go changing your stories and moving goal posts.
Draft classes that have all-star caliber players, Hall of Famers and starters isn't "weak" no matter what the "experts" said before with their "pre-draft calculus". The guys "who nobody saw coming" sounds an awful lot like scouts getting it wrong like they do every year.
If not for some major injuries injuries to four of the draft classes' better players the narrative that 2013 was weak wouldn't even exist. Oladipo was entering his prime and was an all-star and considered one of the best two-way players in the league before his injury. Otto Porter Jr. was a max player and one of the league's best 3 and D players just entering his prime before his injury. Michael Carter-Williams was an excellent glue guy and defender that filled up the stat sheet nightly, still just 24 y/o, when he his mounting injuries derailed his career. Noel was a starter and excellent defender when his career was derailed at 22 y/o. People just look at that draft now with no context and throw out hot takes. Was it great? No. Was it even good? Maybe not. But it certainly was not "weak" like it appears to be looking back on it.
McCollum has been a borderline all-star during his career. Adams, Schroder, Hardaway Jr., Olynyk, KCP, Zeller, Plumlee, Covington, Curry and Theis all started for multiple seasons on some great teams and even helped reach deep playoff runs or even win championships. Snell, Muscala, Ennis, Dellavadova, and Dedmon are all role players have had long careers. Like I've said before, people's recollections of prior drafts is so twisted. They remember great players at the top and completely overrate the draft class or they think because it lacks multiple all-stars that it means it's weak.
Drafts can be fluid. Right now it is weak, but it could turn into a strong draft if multiple guys improve or outperform expectations. So it's not wrong to say a draft is weak pre draft, and technically still be right about that even if it ends up being strong after the fact.
FarBeyondDriven wrote:Big J wrote:FarBeyondDriven wrote:
YOUR measures sound an awful like subjective opinions. YOU feel there isn't great lotto talent. YOU feel it lacks depth. YOU feel it lacks archetypes and raw athleticism. YOU can't speak for everyone and claim it lacks "any" measure since there are people that clearly disagree with you. When this class ends up having all-stars and good depth I don't want to hear a word from anyone on here except "I was wrong". You've all made your stances abundantly clear over a year ago. Don't go changing your stories and moving goal posts.
Draft classes that have all-star caliber players, Hall of Famers and starters isn't "weak" no matter what the "experts" said before with their "pre-draft calculus". The guys "who nobody saw coming" sounds an awful lot like scouts getting it wrong like they do every year.
If not for some major injuries injuries to four of the draft classes' better players the narrative that 2013 was weak wouldn't even exist. Oladipo was entering his prime and was an all-star and considered one of the best two-way players in the league before his injury. Otto Porter Jr. was a max player and one of the league's best 3 and D players just entering his prime before his injury. Michael Carter-Williams was an excellent glue guy and defender that filled up the stat sheet nightly, still just 24 y/o, when he his mounting injuries derailed his career. Noel was a starter and excellent defender when his career was derailed at 22 y/o. People just look at that draft now with no context and throw out hot takes. Was it great? No. Was it even good? Maybe not. But it certainly was not "weak" like it appears to be looking back on it.
McCollum has been a borderline all-star during his career. Adams, Schroder, Hardaway Jr., Olynyk, KCP, Zeller, Plumlee, Covington, Curry and Theis all started for multiple seasons on some great teams and even helped reach deep playoff runs or even win championships. Snell, Muscala, Ennis, Dellavadova, and Dedmon are all role players have had long careers. Like I've said before, people's recollections of prior drafts is so twisted. They remember great players at the top and completely overrate the draft class or they think because it lacks multiple all-stars that it means it's weak.
Drafts can be fluid. Right now it is weak, but it could turn into a strong draft if multiple guys improve or outperform expectations. So it's not wrong to say a draft is weak pre draft, and technically still be right about that even if it ends up being strong after the fact.
that's your opinion. And people are obviously entitled to that. I just like to wait for as much information before I make these kinds of declarations. Even now, before we've seen them at the combine, got their timed speeds, verticals, and measurements, it's too early, let alone a year ago when you all decided this.
"So it's not wrong to say a draft is weak pre draft, and technically still be right about that even if it ends up being strong after the fact."
What kind of logic is this? Right now, 9/10 of you on here and in the media are saying it's weak. If 1/10 is saying it's not then when it turns out to be strong that 1/10 guy is right and those 9/10 are wrong. There's no gray area. If you think there's a possibility it could be strong "after the fact" you have the opportunity before draft night to say the draft class is average or even good instead of weak. You declaring it's weak negates that possibility. You can't say "well...everyone else said it was weak so now that it's strong after the fact I'm TECHNICALLY still right". No...just no. That makes zero sense
Big J wrote:Yea, but every draft has the possibility to be strong. A guy like Giannis growing 3 inches and gaining 50 lbs post draft isn’t something that can be predicted. When we say that a draft is weak it kind of gives us a free pass if we miss a diamond in the rough.FarBeyondDriven wrote:Big J wrote:
Drafts can be fluid. Right now it is weak, but it could turn into a strong draft if multiple guys improve or outperform expectations. So it's not wrong to say a draft is weak pre draft, and technically still be right about that even if it ends up being strong after the fact.
that's your opinion. And people are obviously entitled to that. I just like to wait for as much information before I make these kinds of declarations. Even now, before we've seen them at the combine, got their timed speeds, verticals, and measurements, it's too early, let alone a year ago when you all decided this.
"So it's not wrong to say a draft is weak pre draft, and technically still be right about that even if it ends up being strong after the fact."
What kind of logic is this? Right now, 9/10 of you on here and in the media are saying it's weak. If 1/10 is saying it's not then when it turns out to be strong that 1/10 guy is right and those 9/10 are wrong. There's no gray area. If you think there's a possibility it could be strong "after the fact" you have the opportunity before draft night to say the draft class is average or even good instead of weak. You declaring it's weak negates that possibility. You can't say "well...everyone else said it was weak so now that it's strong after the fact I'm TECHNICALLY still right". No...just no. That makes zero sense
FarBeyondDriven wrote:Big J wrote:Yea, but every draft has the possibility to be strong. A guy like Giannis growing 3 inches and gaining 50 lbs post draft isn’t something that can be predicted. When we say that a draft is weak it kind of gives us a free pass if we miss a diamond in the rough.FarBeyondDriven wrote:
that's your opinion. And people are obviously entitled to that. I just like to wait for as much information before I make these kinds of declarations. Even now, before we've seen them at the combine, got their timed speeds, verticals, and measurements, it's too early, let alone a year ago when you all decided this.
"So it's not wrong to say a draft is weak pre draft, and technically still be right about that even if it ends up being strong after the fact."
What kind of logic is this? Right now, 9/10 of you on here and in the media are saying it's weak. If 1/10 is saying it's not then when it turns out to be strong that 1/10 guy is right and those 9/10 are wrong. There's no gray area. If you think there's a possibility it could be strong "after the fact" you have the opportunity before draft night to say the draft class is average or even good instead of weak. You declaring it's weak negates that possibility. You can't say "well...everyone else said it was weak so now that it's strong after the fact I'm TECHNICALLY still right". No...just no. That makes zero sense
don't believe that's how prognostication works. We gather all the information available to us then compare our knowledge and predictions to one another and discuss. Everyone has the same amount of time and access to info to arrive at an opinion. Once you make that opinion known before/on draft night that is your take. If you claim a draft class is weak that means it shouldn't approach the average number of all-nba (4), all-stars (6-7) and total starters (20+) most draft classes have. If it does, you're wrong. If you think it MIGHT have one or more of these things, you're free to claim it's average instead of weak. So sorry, no free passes
What isn't acceptable is for you all to say it's weak for a full year then if proven wrong, shrug your shoulders and then claim "well, who could have seen it?" or "he came out of nowhere" Like, if I declare this is a strong draft class on draft night, and it turns out to be terrible, I'll own it. I can't then say "well, he was never given a chance" or "he was a knucklehead with work ethic issues that never developed and how could I have predicted that?!"
The irony is I very well might agree with you all about it being weak come draft night. I'm worried that half the guys I expect to come out won't and if they don't then the class will take a major hit. I just mostly hate how for a year it's been "historically weak" from most of you before any of you saw these guys play and knew a dozen of the best prospects existed. It wreaks of you all reading a Givony Big Board and parroting his opinion.
Let's take a look at some Big Boards that likely informed much of this board's opinions about this class long before the season even began. And don't pretend otherwise, you got your opinions from somewhere and these were the drivers of the narratives that get regurgitated on here. I can go back through old posts if I must.
Givony Top 20 - ESPN (2/23/23) "This has been considered a weak incoming freshman class for some time, but the assumption was that reclassifications and late-bloomers would emerge to change the trajectory of the conversation, something that hasn't happened thus far."
1. Buzelis
2. Williams
3. Risacher
4. Edwards
5. Collier
6. Holland
7. Wagner
8. Coulibably
9. Evans
10. James
11. Bufkin
12. Walter
13. Johnson
14. Phillips
15. Clowney
16. Almansa
17. Sarr
18. Durisic
19. Arecenaux
20. Gueye
Wasserman - Bleacher Report (7/19/23)
1. Holland
2. Buzelis
3. Wagner
4. Edwards
5. Jackson
6. Collier
7. Clingan
8. Castle
9. Proctor
10. Ware
11. Foster
12. Risacher
13. Bradshaw
14. Darlan
15. Filipowski
16. Bona
17. Walter
18. Sarr
19. Mara
20. Ajinca
21. McCain
22. Mintz
23. Brazile
24. Almansa
25. Miller
26. Cadeau
27. Williams
28. da Silva
29. Booker
30. Mgbako
KOC - The Ringer (8/2/23) "many analysts have said this is a weak class, lacking top-end talent and depth...and to an extent, that's true"
1. Buzelis
2. Holland
3. Walter
4. Castle
5. Almansa
6. Mara
7. Cadeau
8. Edwards
9. Clingan
10. Proctor
11. Jackson
12. Foster
13. Wagner
14. Collier
15. Ajinca
16. Darlan
17. Sarr
18. McCain
19. Filipowski
20. Williams
21. Ware
22. Kugel
23. Buyuktuncel
24. Miller
25. Risacher
26. Klintman
27. Johnson
28. Brazile
29. Bona
30. Biliew
These boards were laughable then and they're even worse now. Now it makes sense why you all felt it was weak back then. The problem is, barely a 1/3 of the players on these boards are still considered first rounders. That means 2/3 of these boards are full of guys none of you considered when evaluating this class and its strength. THAT is why I've pushed back for months because as new and more information poured in, almost none of your opinions have changed one bit. This deserves pushback. All of these guys have updated their Big Boards to reflect most of these new additions (and subtractions) and it's a vastly different landscape, yet they've stuck with their original premise that it's a weak class. Seems odd.
Players they (and you) didn't consider as first round talents THEN that ARE first round talents NOW when they created the "weak" narrative
Topic
George
Furphy
Missi
Knecht
Watkins
Sheppard
Dillingham
Ivisic
Salaun
Smith
Carter
Carrington
Ighodaro
Mitchell
Grant-Foster
How does adding this much talent to the pool you were considering when deciding this was a weak class...NOT alter your opinion of this class? Most of these guys weren't even considered for 2nd rounders back then so it's not like you're just shuffling the deck chairs. These are legit additions to the talent pool. Even if you're still not convinced it has any potentially great players, you have to admit it's deep af right? There's still a slew of returners that likely go in the second round that should also make NBA rosters like Ware, Bona, Proctor, Shannon, Scheierman, Kolek, da Silva, Karaban, Halls, Sears, Dante, etc.
JazzMatt13 wrote:just because I think aliens probably have to do with JFK, doesn't mean my theory that Jazz will never get Wiggins, isn't true.
clyde21 wrote:1) combine is not gonna change much, we have game tape
2) no one was saying this was a bad class before the college season, what we were saying (at least me) was that it was a historically terrible HS class, and 1ADs are the bread and butter of the lotto...and if the 1ADs are underwhelming (which is exactly what ended up happening) then the lotto is gonna suck
3) no one here wants this to be bad class...great classes are more fun and it means more talent goes to the league...you keep acting like people WANT this to be a bad class and are overlooking all the evidence that its not?
4) not sure why you keep arguing with people about this. realize you're in the minority on this on move on. maybe you're right and everyone else is wrong and you see things that most people don't. you don't have to fkn bring this up every time someone says they don't like the talent in the draft, it's getting boring af.
FarBeyondDriven wrote:clyde21 wrote:1) combine is not gonna change much, we have game tape
2) no one was saying this was a bad class before the college season, what we were saying (at least me) was that it was a historically terrible HS class, and 1ADs are the bread and butter of the lotto...and if the 1ADs are underwhelming (which is exactly what ended up happening) then the lotto is gonna suck
3) no one here wants this to be bad class...great classes are more fun and it means more talent goes to the league...you keep acting like people WANT this to be a bad class and are overlooking all the evidence that its not?
4) not sure why you keep arguing with people about this. realize you're in the minority on this on move on. maybe you're right and everyone else is wrong and you see things that most people don't. you don't have to fkn bring this up every time someone says they don't like the talent in the draft, it's getting boring af.
1) absurd. This is when we get official measurements. This is when we get to find out how they perform in drills. How high they jump. We get to see their intelligence and personality when they're being interviewed and forced to answer questions. This is when we get to see these prospects we've been talking about on the same court together.
2) Yes...you all WERE saying it was a bad class because you in particular, seemingly judge draft classes mostly on OAD talent out of the United States. This is clearly a flawed premise since draft classes aren't only about OADs. There are so many talented international prospects and even the OAD weren't putting themselves in the best position to succeed and help their draft stock. And the talent pool you were judging, the OADs everyone had in the first round of their big boards, is completely different than the OAD we're left with in the first round currently. Half the kids you used to claim it was a weak OAD class were replaced with other OAD yet your opinion never changed to reflect that.
3) It just seems like everybody wants it to be a bad class because they've been saying it since last Summer and none of your opinons have changed despite the months of new information and a dozen prospects that weren't on anyone's radar revealing themselves. Like, you can't possibly admit your opinion based on flawed reasoning and a rush to judgment could be wrong.
4) It's rich that it's ME that has to curtail my posting habits. Everyone else can just freely say "weakest class ever" in all their posts but I'm not allowed to disagree and try to get people to see that perhaps they're being premature by writing it off a year ago.
JazzMatt13 wrote:just because I think aliens probably have to do with JFK, doesn't mean my theory that Jazz will never get Wiggins, isn't true.
babyjax13 wrote:The thing is, though, a lot of the people you are arguing with have big boards and mocks posted based on watching games. Some players I expected to be good weren't (e.g., from watching some high school games I liked Castle, Edwards, and Williams --- but Edwards has been terrible...and he was the guy I felt like in high school had a chance to become a guy worthy of going 1 in an average draft), and others have stepped up and been good, yet it still doesn't look to have the high end talent of a lot of recent drafts to me. Using your metric of all-NBA, all-stars, and starters, I'd expect this to be below average in the first two categories and possibly average in the third. To me - and feel free to disagree - the quality of the draft is mostly determined by the top-end talent because that is ultimately what has the largest impact on the trajectory of the league. Even taking Wemby out of the equation, if any of Scoot/Amen/Miller were in this draft I would easily take them first. I think Ausar/Walker/Black would also be in the conversation. Hopefully, I'm wrong and you are right, I'd rather see a good draft than a bad one, but you are still beating on a strawman. We've seen most of these guys play, heck, I've posted links to some freely available international games for Saluan and Risacher so that other people could see them in professional game action, too ... so the problem is not that we haven't seen them play, it's that after seeing them the draft looks unimpressive.FarBeyondDriven wrote:Big J wrote: Yea, but every draft has the possibility to be strong. A guy like Giannis growing 3 inches and gaining 50 lbs post draft isn’t something that can be predicted. When we say that a draft is weak it kind of gives us a free pass if we miss a diamond in the rough.
don't believe that's how prognostication works. We gather all the information available to us then compare our knowledge and predictions to one another and discuss. Everyone has the same amount of time and access to info to arrive at an opinion. Once you make that opinion known before/on draft night that is your take. If you claim a draft class is weak that means it shouldn't approach the average number of all-nba (4), all-stars (6-7) and total starters (20+) most draft classes have. If it does, you're wrong. If you think it MIGHT have one or more of these things, you're free to claim it's average instead of weak. So sorry, no free passes
What isn't acceptable is for you all to say it's weak for a full year then if proven wrong, shrug your shoulders and then claim "well, who could have seen it?" or "he came out of nowhere" Like, if I declare this is a strong draft class on draft night, and it turns out to be terrible, I'll own it. I can't then say "well, he was never given a chance" or "he was a knucklehead with work ethic issues that never developed and how could I have predicted that?!"
The irony is I very well might agree with you all about it being weak come draft night. I'm worried that half the guys I expect to come out won't and if they don't then the class will take a major hit. I just mostly hate how for a year it's been "historically weak" from most of you before any of you saw these guys play and knew a dozen of the best prospects existed. It wreaks of you all reading a Givony Big Board and parroting his opinion.
Let's take a look at some Big Boards that likely informed much of this board's opinions about this class long before the season even began. And don't pretend otherwise, you got your opinions from somewhere and these were the drivers of the narratives that get regurgitated on here. I can go back through old posts if I must.
Givony Top 20 - ESPN (2/23/23) "This has been considered a weak incoming freshman class for some time, but the assumption was that reclassifications and late-bloomers would emerge to change the trajectory of the conversation, something that hasn't happened thus far."
1. Buzelis
2. Williams
3. Risacher
4. Edwards
5. Collier
6. Holland
7. Wagner
8. Coulibably
9. Evans
10. James
11. Bufkin
12. Walter
13. Johnson
14. Phillips
15. Clowney
16. Almansa
17. Sarr
18. Durisic
19. Arecenaux
20. Gueye
Wasserman - Bleacher Report (7/19/23)
1. Holland
2. Buzelis
3. Wagner
4. Edwards
5. Jackson
6. Collier
7. Clingan
8. Castle
9. Proctor
10. Ware
11. Foster
12. Risacher
13. Bradshaw
14. Darlan
15. Filipowski
16. Bona
17. Walter
18. Sarr
19. Mara
20. Ajinca
21. McCain
22. Mintz
23. Brazile
24. Almansa
25. Miller
26. Cadeau
27. Williams
28. da Silva
29. Booker
30. Mgbako
KOC - The Ringer (8/2/23) "many analysts have said this is a weak class, lacking top-end talent and depth...and to an extent, that's true"
1. Buzelis
2. Holland
3. Walter
4. Castle
5. Almansa
6. Mara
7. Cadeau
8. Edwards
9. Clingan
10. Proctor
11. Jackson
12. Foster
13. Wagner
14. Collier
15. Ajinca
16. Darlan
17. Sarr
18. McCain
19. Filipowski
20. Williams
21. Ware
22. Kugel
23. Buyuktuncel
24. Miller
25. Risacher
26. Klintman
27. Johnson
28. Brazile
29. Bona
30. Biliew
These boards were laughable then and they're even worse now. Now it makes sense why you all felt it was weak back then. The problem is, barely a 1/3 of the players on these boards are still considered first rounders. That means 2/3 of these boards are full of guys none of you considered when evaluating this class and its strength. THAT is why I've pushed back for months because as new and more information poured in, almost none of your opinions have changed one bit. This deserves pushback. All of these guys have updated their Big Boards to reflect most of these new additions (and subtractions) and it's a vastly different landscape, yet they've stuck with their original premise that it's a weak class. Seems odd.
Players they (and you) didn't consider as first round talents THEN that ARE first round talents NOW when they created the "weak" narrative
Topic
George
Furphy
Missi
Knecht
Watkins
Sheppard
Dillingham
Ivisic
Salaun
Smith
Carter
Carrington
Ighodaro
Mitchell
Grant-Foster
How does adding this much talent to the pool you were considering when deciding this was a weak class...NOT alter your opinion of this class? Most of these guys weren't even considered for 2nd rounders back then so it's not like you're just shuffling the deck chairs. These are legit additions to the talent pool. Even if you're still not convinced it has any potentially great players, you have to admit it's deep af right? There's still a slew of returners that likely go in the second round that should also make NBA rosters like Ware, Bona, Proctor, Shannon, Scheierman, Kolek, da Silva, Karaban, Halls, Sears, Dante, etc.
Also note 2013
All-NBA: 3 (Giannis, Gobert, Oladipo)
All-Star: 3 (same)
Starters: approx. 13 depending on how you define
So by your metrics that's a pretty terrible draft.
babyjax13 wrote:FarBeyondDriven wrote:clyde21 wrote:1) combine is not gonna change much, we have game tape
2) no one was saying this was a bad class before the college season, what we were saying (at least me) was that it was a historically terrible HS class, and 1ADs are the bread and butter of the lotto...and if the 1ADs are underwhelming (which is exactly what ended up happening) then the lotto is gonna suck
3) no one here wants this to be bad class...great classes are more fun and it means more talent goes to the league...you keep acting like people WANT this to be a bad class and are overlooking all the evidence that its not?
4) not sure why you keep arguing with people about this. realize you're in the minority on this on move on. maybe you're right and everyone else is wrong and you see things that most people don't. you don't have to fkn bring this up every time someone says they don't like the talent in the draft, it's getting boring af.
1) absurd. This is when we get official measurements. This is when we get to find out how they perform in drills. How high they jump. We get to see their intelligence and personality when they're being interviewed and forced to answer questions. This is when we get to see these prospects we've been talking about on the same court together.
2) Yes...you all WERE saying it was a bad class because you in particular, seemingly judge draft classes mostly on OAD talent out of the United States. This is clearly a flawed premise since draft classes aren't only about OADs. There are so many talented international prospects and even the OAD weren't putting themselves in the best position to succeed and help their draft stock. And the talent pool you were judging, the OADs everyone had in the first round of their big boards, is completely different than the OAD we're left with in the first round currently. Half the kids you used to claim it was a weak OAD class were replaced with other OAD yet your opinion never changed to reflect that.
3) It just seems like everybody wants it to be a bad class because they've been saying it since last Summer and none of your opinons have changed despite the months of new information and a dozen prospects that weren't on anyone's radar revealing themselves. Like, you can't possibly admit your opinion based on flawed reasoning and a rush to judgment could be wrong.
4) It's rich that it's ME that has to curtail my posting habits. Everyone else can just freely say "weakest class ever" in all their posts but I'm not allowed to disagree and try to get people to see that perhaps they're being premature by writing it off a year ago.
No one is saying it is the worst draft ever, though, and yet you continue to say that everyone is ... continue to disparage everyone you can, it's just silly. There is a difference between respectful disagreement and whatever it is you are doing.
