Big J wrote: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
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.