DCZards wrote:What they see is a lot more data, a lot more film, and a lot more live performances when it comes to these draft picks.gambitx777 wrote:Which is what I think too . But then I'm like what am I missing ? What am I not seeing that they see?Benjammin wrote:My guess is if there were a player they really liked in the second round they would have peeled off a few of those future second round picks to move up..
And then they pick Troy Brown, and Corey Kispert, and Johnny Davis and Rui Hachimura, with 4 of 5 picks in tanking miserable MOR styled crap years. I agree they see all that, but appeal to authority isn't terribly helpful either. For all they see, they make the same misses we all make, and sometimes worse (this entire board had Halliburton as what, the #3 or 4 prospect in '20? I had Deni ahead of him, but Halliburton next on my board). These guys have more information, but that can also lead to getting lost in the basics right in front of them at times too, and it can also lead to thinking your scouting is better then basic math like NFL GM's (who still think their genius trumps having more draft picks)......
The biggest thing I think they have that we don't is as complete as possible dossier's and reports on player mental make ups, off the court commitment vs stupidity and immaturity, ability to work with others, study etc....along with medicals. Those are the key advantages over us couch internet scouts. The Med reports, and the due diligence interviews with the player and people who knew the player to get background on who they are as people (which is why I love the stories about Tre being a super hard worker at his craft, and hate pretty much everything that's come out of Bailey's mouth, and his team's mouth the past 2 months).
