History's Weak Drafts Reconsidered To be Good Drafts
With all experts proclaiming this to be a weak draft class I would like to bring attention to the past. How experts considered other drafts to be weak as well and turned out to be good.
2011: Considered weak by many analyst provided the NBA with many dependable starters, role players and future stars. Outside of the Overall #1 pick there was
2006: Couldnt decide on a #1 Overall was considered extremely weak and should look to tank for the Greg Oden Sweepstakes. Produced such talents as
With most other drafts having a for sure #1 overall pick and atleast 2-3 potential superstars( Or atleast speculated) These weak draft classes have provided the NBA with "missing piece" players. There are some other drafts that would be considered on this such as the 09 draft. With no definite superstar outside of Blake Griffin to consider.
So before we write off this draft as being a wash and everyone selling or trading away picks for the Wiggins sweepstakes. Look back and see the talents that come from Weak Classes.
There has never been a draft that didn't have potential available. That's why after time has passed and the top players break out most weak drafts are shown to have more studs than what was originally though.
I remember people said 2001 was weak because Kwame Brown and Eddy Curry were busts but it produced a fair amount of good talent too:
Gilbert Arenas (in the second round)
Also had some solid role players. To name a few:
And of course, the legend himself, Brian Scalabrine.
I think when scouts say a draft is weak, they are looking at the draft in terms of potential all-star type players. Look at the 2000 draft. Its the worst of all time but there was still 8 or so guys who are currently having solid careers or who had solid careers.
I think that all star potential is part of it, but I think the main thing that's looked at when classifying a draft class for analysts is how the college players stack up to the current pros. Drafts classified as strong have players who are in most peoples opinion better than a majority of current players as well as a bunch who are at least as good as the majority of current players. The weaker drafts generally don't have anyone clearly as good as or better than the majority.
The hard thing to measure is how will the other guys will develop. If teams and analysts could clearly identify how good everyone would be than guys like Carlos Boozer, Gilbert Arenas, and Michael Redd go in the lottery rather than the second round. Teams like Phoenix wouldn't have dealt Rajon Rondo and Luol Deng for little return after drafting them. Analysts and GM's blow picks every year on potential that doesn't pan out. The strength a draft class is assigned by analysts just gives people ammo when someone far exceeds expectations and turns a "weak" class into a strong one...at least a strong one for the team that picked them.
I agree. Strength of a particular draft is mostly based on the amount of potential all-star and/or franchise players that are available. You can always expect some players to pan out as decent starters or role players unless there are a significant number of them, which in that case, it shouldn't be considered at the least "weak".
Can anybody tell me of a more worse draft class in the history of the NBA that wasn't the 2000 draft class? I can't fathom it getting any worse than that. 4 busts in the top 6... Only player to make an All-NBA team was drafted 43rd...
I remember 2009 being a "One player draft" and looking back, the fact Thabeet went #2 re-enforces that. But Harden, Curry, Jennings, Lawson, Rubio, Evans, a lot of rock solid NBA players came out of it.
Beat me to it.
2009 was supposed to be Blake Griffin then everybody else. Jennings and Harden ended up being better players than Griffin.
Jennings? Umm im a fan of him more than most but he's not better than Blake. He's not better than curry, lawson or holiday either. He's possible the 6th best player in that draft after Harden, Curry, Griffin, Lawson and Holiday for sure and guys like Evans, DeRozan and Rubio fighting for the next few spots.
Even after last season people were saying that the 2011 class wasn't good besides Kyrie. This season last year's decent rookies like Parsons, Faried, and both of the Thompsons got even better while we saw the emergence of guys like Vucevic, Tobias Harris, and Jimmy Butler. You gotta give it at least a few years before you judge a class as a whole.
I agree with how bad drafts can be good, we'll just have to wait and see about this one. But when drafts are bad, they can be really really bad, remember 2000?
All taken in the top 10, and more busts in the top 15. Though it depends on how you look at it, that draft produced Michael Redd, Kenyon Martin, Jamal Crawford, Hedo Turkoglu and Mike Miller, all good players. But still those are all mainly role players with few exceptions and there were way too many busts so this has to be considered one of the worst drafts in recent memory (I know not that recent).
To the original post- agree with you generally but you also have to recognize that drafts are judged by the amount of superstar potential, not the amount of quality starters and role players. By that standard, 2011 WAS an weak to average draft, where as 2006 was better than advertised, but not strong. Many people are now saying that 2012 may actually turn out to be a OVERrated draft, considering the predraft hype from that year and the initial results.
I would say 2009
Also , I still don't think either 2006 or 2011 are good drafts ,2011 still has potential with the likes of Kanter / Jonas /Klay and others improving
but 2006 is still considered a bad one , I mean how many times you read "this draft is the worst since 2006"in the last few years
people shouldn't forget that drafts most likely remembered by its superstars and All stars ,not just their solid players