Wizenheimer wrote:I can't get over that 2017 draft. Portland could have had Donovan Mitchell and Dillon Brooks; or Bam Adebayo and Dillon Brooks; or John Collins, OG Anunoby, and Thomas Bryant/Dillon Brooks. Instead they got Zach and Swanigan.....yeeeeeesh
Three botched first round picks a year after the horrific 2016 off-season, and everyone is wondering why Dame is concerned that Portland can't build a contender around him.
Wickzki wrote:This was a dud draft pick before he was drafted.
I maintain to this day that they thought they were drafting John and got the name wrong.
I called it at the time. He was soft as butter in high school and college. Not deemed good enough to start on his high school team, even as a senior. Was mediocre at Gonzaga.
It's horrific how wrong Olshey was if he intended to draft Zach instead of John. One's a key piece of a conference final team and the other will be out of the league.
To be fair, at the time I didn't like the 15+20 for 10 trade. Draft is a crapshoot and the team was better off taking more shots, especially given the benefits of cheap rookie contracts after the 2016 spending spree. Once that trade was made, I wanted Malik Monk to continue Portland's tradition of drafting undersized shooting guards.
But I made the same mistake when the pick was made. "It's JOHN Collins". Had to look up who Zach Collins was. And soon as I saw he was a 17 minute per game bench player from Gonzaga, I had a strong feeling it wouldn't end well.
I was also pretty high on Jordan Bell, which would have been a wash drafting over Swanigan.
Roy The Natural wrote:Lots of weird revisionist nonsense here. Yes Collins didn't immediate impact.like some guys, but we really have no idea what he would've been if he remained healthy. I still maintain that he was going to be an Ibaka like player at the 4.
Nobody said he was injury prone pre-draft. Saying that now would be revisionist.
But Zach Collins was a very high risk/high reward pick. Super raw and unproven with a style projected to be an old-school center in an era where big man play was evolving. People being down on the idea of using the last lottery pick in the Dame era on a big that, best case, is three years away from developing into his potential if he remains healthy, puts in the work, and can adapt to a modern big-man game isn't revisionist.
And it goes beyond picking Collins. It's picking Collins at 10. Had the Blazers picked him at 20 or 26, you can make the argument that the risk/reward is worth it much more than at 10.
Because love can burn like a cigarette.
And leave you left with nothing.
Leave you left with nothing.