Scraptor wrote:A consensus builds around a false narrative:
Lillard is not a true point guard, Drummond doesn't have the mental makeup for the NBA.
Teams who fail to do their diligence end up messing up their picks, like we did.
Scraptor wrote:A consensus builds around a false narrative:
Lillard is not a true point guard, Drummond doesn't have the mental makeup for the NBA.
Teams who fail to do their diligence end up messing up their picks, like we did.
Perfect!
Seems
when a player becomes noticed is crucial to their ultimate perception come draft day. Guys like PJ3, Drummond, Sullinger, Barnes all suffered from unfair expectations on draft-day. Each was once touted as a sure-fire high lotto lock and maybe top overall pick. But all also lingered a little too long in this discussion to the point where what/who they are as basketball players became lost and what/who they were supposed to be, or failed to be, became their identity. In hindsight guys like Jonny Flynn, Thabeet, Derrick Williams, Wes Johnson, Kendall Marshall, Biyombo, and more were just a little bit late to the party. Hard to see that when it happens, but the best GMs are paid the big bucks because they have incredible instincts and safety nets to ensure they don't fall victim to the pretenders.
Lillard was a unique case because he played at mid-major and was the only really good PG prospect. He was scouted for his talent not psycho-analyzed for his weaknesses as other players who are hyped too early often are. Drummond is a perfect example of this. He was for awhile the closest thing to Dwight since Dwight and then, inexplicably and seemingly overnight, his lack of stats at UCONN on a dysfunctional team with a quack for a coach turned his value around 180. He was not Andre Drummond anymore but another disinterested 7 footer who at best might turn into Javell McGee.
I bought into each of these cases mostly as i dont watch/read enough to see through the smokescreens and other variables. But the point is, GMs have to be willing to go against the grain to build a winner. Yes you take the sure-thing if he is there but you don't settle for the Wes Johnson type guys who everyone is terrified to fully endorse but yet still is constantly listed as a Top 5 lock. Poor Wesley was put in that position because of false pretenses and the GMS and coaches who see through the fads and trends which dictate the way media and even scouts rate prospects are the ones who build winners.
Detroit did this with Drummond and considering how terrible the rest of that team is it was a huge risk but it looks to be paying off. Sacramento, on the other hand, went for Thomas Robinson who was considered a lock to be a good player. He's been invisible. Every year the teams who are afraid to risk complete failure end up getting the better results as a whole. Barnes was a risk because his game was so well-known. It was said he will clearly find a role in the NBA but lacks any upside for a top 8 pick in a deep draft. Well, about a year ago or so he was the best wing since LeBron and a surefire franchise scorer. Golden State saw the inconsistencies and the value of both extreme takes on Barnes and struck gold in my opinion. He's still Harrison Barnes, the 6-8 wing with a perfect NBA body and a smooth game that screams NBA SF - but to many he lost that when he couldn't lead a stack UNC team to glory and he became that player instead. Wes Johnson was the opposite. Instead of the 24 year old athlete who can occasionally hit an open 3P he really was, Wes became the two-way force that Syracuse's system and good shooting luck made him look like. Any Wolves fan can tell you that Wes was never going to make it. He himself looked shocked that he was given all the attention.
