The-Power wrote:BostonCouchGM wrote:Duke4life831 wrote:Thought I’d give this a little bump with the all American game tomorrow.
The practices have been going on (which are viewed as the more important aspects of the week) and from what it sounds like, no standouts so far. Which isn’t surprising with how weak the class is viewed.
the people that are saying "how weak the class is" get it wrong every year then that gets regurgitated on here and despite you all being wrong all the time you keep doing it. You'd think you'd eventually learn your lesson. 2023 is weak. 2024 is loaded aka the opposite of the prevailing narrative.
Here's what you called the previous draft classes:
2017 – all-time great
2018 – all-time great
2019 – good
2020 – good
2021 – weaker than 2020 but still deep
2022 – great
2023 – weak (now) / pretty decent (late January)
2024 – loaded
At some point, calling most draft classes varying degrees of good or great doesn't make a lot of sense. Because for the draft, ‘good’ or ‘great’ is inherently comparative. If everything is good then nothing is. You complain that every year people are complaining about how weak the class is (which definitely isn't true but let's put that aside), yet here you are on the other side of it describing virtually all draft classes in very positive terms. That's not very meaningful either.
I bet that virtually everyone who describes a draft class as ‘good’, ‘weak’, ‘great’ ‘ deep’, ‘shallow’ or what have you understands that a) it can change over the course of the season with prospects breaking or flaming out; b) it can change with the benefit of hindsight depending on player development; and c) every weak class still has good players and some positive attributes, just as every strong draft has some negative attributes.
I'm not sure why
every single year you complain about other people assessing the strength of draft classes based on their opinions. You can disagree with these assessments but it feels futile to get all up in arms year after year about something that is inherently subjective and highly unreliable either way (good or bad).
Was this supposed to be some kind of "gotcha". I'm spot on with every single one of them and I was alone believing that the 2016 class was good btw as well. How dumbed down must I make these descriptors? I'm saying, for the past several years since I've been here, the more prolific posters and the "experts" and "scouts" have said one thing and for the most part, I've been on the opposing end and I've been right!
draft classes with approximately 5 all-stars are rare. To also have numerous starters and borderline all-stars make those classes all-time greats. So I'm right about 2017 and 2018.
2019 has just three all-stars and a few good players. It's not bad. It's good. Again, I was right.
2020 has just three all-stars and a few good players. It's not bad. It's good. Again, I was right.
2021 might not get a single all-star but certainly not more than three but it's deep with starters and role players. So weaker than 2020. Right again.
2022 is great. Is this not already obvious despite it only being a year and not having Chet healthy?
2023 is decent to weak. It will have standouts (Wembanyama, Scoot and the twins) but almost every single one and done disappointed or have major flaws. Did people not watch this college season?
