RealGM

I think it's still pretty impossible for any GM to have picked Stephen Curry #1 in 2009 - I think there is just some mental block with drafting a scoring, jump shooting guard number 1.

I think Jokic would also have been an impossible sell at number 1. Although you could argue Embiid should have gone number 1.

giordunk wrote:I think it's still pretty impossible for any GM to have picked Stephen Curry #1 in 2009 - I think there is just some mental block with drafting a scoring, jump shooting guard number 1.

I think Jokic would also have been an impossible sell at number 1. Although you could argue Embiid should have gone number 1.

Interesting. A few thoughts:

1. I think Curry makes sense to bring up as someone who, knowing what people understood about the game at the time, just wasn't going to be the top prospect in 2009 over Blake Griffin.

2. But I could also have seen an owner specifically want Curry because they thought he could excite the fanbase with him. In Curry, you're talking about one of the most beloved college stars of the modern era - someone whose celebrity in college actually benefitted from him spending multiple years in college as a big name.

3. I want to point out that the big shift toward valuing guards as a #1 pick actually had already occurred as of the prior draft. In the wake of Kidd, Nash & Paul's success, we saw Derrick Rose rise up to the #1 spot despite the traditional rebuttal of "can't teach height".

4. Certainly though, Jokic probably represents the apex of someone who you couldn't take at #1 unless you had great job security. Can't imagine there's someone more dramatic on that front.

Giannis would have been impossible.
Dirk -- impossible
And while some may think AD or Dame should still be drafted before him....Draymond, impossible

Texas Chuck wrote:Giannis would have been impossible.
Dirk -- impossible
And while some may think AD or Dame should still be drafted before him....Draymond, impossible

At the same time though don't you think its highly likely that Draymond ends up as a bust for a top 10 pick on many if not most teams?

Cavsfansince84 wrote:

Texas Chuck wrote:Giannis would have been impossible.
Dirk -- impossible
And while some may think AD or Dame should still be drafted before him....Draymond, impossible

At the same time though don't you think its highly likely that Draymond ends up as a bust for a top 10 pick on many if not most teams?

I do not.

I do recognize the symbiotic nature of he and Steph and believe both guys to have benefited greatly from the other, but Draymond is simply too good and too smart not to have found a way to be a really good player even if not drafted by the Warriors.

Cavsfansince84 wrote:

Texas Chuck wrote:Giannis would have been impossible.
Dirk -- impossible
And while some may think AD or Dame should still be drafted before him....Draymond, impossible

At the same time though don't you think its highly likely that Draymond ends up as a bust for a top 10 pick on many if not most teams?

Doubtful, his iq would translate to any context defensively, he was already making strides pre-kerr in a more traditional system

Maybe he develops a different skillset offensively

I'll throw Siakam in here as someone with a reasonable chance of being the best player in his class though I think it'll likely be BI. He leads his class in All-NBA selections though he is a little older. Kawhi is another one that would have been very hard to pick though not out of the realm of possibility and from the same class there's no way anyone was taking Jimmy number 1. Another one I'll toss out is the always overlooked and underrated Lowry who I think is at this point the clear best player in his class and no one could've seen him turning into a HOFer even after a few years in the league leave alone on draft night. Then lastly Ginobili is the best player in his class and well that one's even more impossible than Jokic.

Mike Miller in 2000.

Doctor MJ wrote:

giordunk wrote:I think it's still pretty impossible for any GM to have picked Stephen Curry #1 in 2009 - I think there is just some mental block with drafting a scoring, jump shooting guard number 1.

I think Jokic would also have been an impossible sell at number 1. Although you could argue Embiid should have gone number 1.

Interesting. A few thoughts:

1. I think Curry makes sense to bring up as someone who, knowing what people understood about the game at the time, just wasn't going to be the top prospect in 2009 over Blake Griffin.

2. But I could also have seen an owner specifically want Curry because they thought he could excite the fanbase with him. In Curry, you're talking about one of the most beloved college stars of the modern era - someone whose celebrity in college actually benefitted from him spending multiple years in college as a big name.

3. I want to point out that the big shift toward valuing guards as a #1 pick actually had already occurred as of the prior draft. In the wake of Kidd, Nash & Paul's success, we saw Derrick Rose rise up to the #1 spot despite the traditional rebuttal of "can't teach height".

4. Certainly though, Jokic probably represents the apex of someone who you couldn't take at #1 unless you had great job security. Can't imagine there's someone more dramatic on that front.

Jokic probably wasnt considered the best player in his draft class for 4 years, and Curry maybe 5. I think it's not really plausible to say there was a case to pick someone at the time number 1, when you dont identify him as number 1 until 4 or 5 years later.

Jokic was a 2nd round pick, how should he had been #1?