# 2006 Draft will not be weak (esp. in lotto)



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Let's put an end to the "2006 draft is going to weak" speculation, can we?

b\c if underclassmen declare, and they most usually ALWAYS do, the 2006 draft will not be nearly as weak as some people are claiming it will be..

True, if Oden were in the draft it would have that "Star" power at the top of the draft to further strengthen\solidify it...but then again several of the last few drafts have not had such a player either and have appeared to be pretty good drafts...

*TOP 14 (lottery) players taken in the last five drafts:*

*2005* - A.Bogut, M.Williams, D.Williams, C.Paul, R.Felton, M.Webster, C.Villanueva, C.Frye, I.Diogu, A.Bynum, F.Vasquez, A.Korolev, S.May, R.McCants

*2004* - D.Howard, E.Okafor, B.Gordon, S.Livingston, D.Harris, J.Childress L.Deng, R.Araujo, A.Iguodala, L.Jackson, A.Biedrins, R.Swift, S.Telfair, K.Humphries

*2003* - L.James*, D.Milicic, C.Anthony, C.Bosh, D.Wade, C.Kaman, K.Hinrich, TJ.Ford, M.Sweentney, J.Hayes, M.Pietrus, N.Collison, M.Banks, L.Ridnour

*2002* -Y.Ming*, J.Williams, M.Dunleavy, D.Gooden, N.Tkitishvilli, D.Wagner, N.Hilario, C.Wilcox, A.Stoudamire, C.Butler, J.Jeffries, M.Ely, M.Haislip, F.Jones, 

*2001* - K.Brown, T.Chandler, P.Gasol. E.Curry, J.Richardson, S.Battier, E.Griffin, S.Diop, R.White, J.Johnson, K.Brown, V.Radmanovic, R.Jefferson, T.Murphy, S.Hunter

* - So in the last 5 drafts there have been TWO "franchise" players whom were defined BEFORE the draft...LeBron James and Yao Ming....That is not a lot...

The biggest difference of course is the influx of HS players, which will be missing in this years' draft...However, I think that the loss of HS players, will be offset in 2006 by the inclusion of more top underclassmen...particularly Fr\So....Guys like Tyrus Thomas, Rudy Gay, Joakim Noah, LaMarcus Aldridge, Marcus Williams (Jr), P.O'Bryant, A.Horford, G.Davis to name a few...

There is no doubt that Oden & other HS guys like Kevin Durant & Brandan Wright would significantly strengthen the 2006 draft...but there still will be _several_ good NBA prospects available in 2006...If Oden\Wright\Durant were in this draft some of these guys probably wouldn't declare....

I broke out the last few drafts in groups of players...Players who established themselves or rose their stock considerably through their play, players whom were already highly regarded and played well or stellar throughout the year & highly regarded european players...what is missing of course is HS players, but this can and will IMO, be partially offset in the 2006 draft by the inclusion of more college underclassmen....

*Not as well known college players whose play either during the year or through tournament play established themselves as lottery players:* D.Wade, C.Frye, D.Harris, D.Williams, I.Diogu - *2006* Tyrus Thomas, Joakim Noah, Brandon Roy, Randy Foye, Patrick O'Bryant

*Highly recruited college players whose play either during the year or in tourney play established themselves as lottery players:* M.Williams, C.Anthony, C.Paul, E.Okafor, B.Gordon - *2006* Rudy Gay, LaMarcus Aldridge, Adam Morrison, Rodney Carney, S.Williams, M.Williams, A.Horford

*Highly regarded eurpoean prospects:* D.Milicic, F.Vasquez, N.Tskitishvilli, N.Hilario - *2006*- A.Bargnani, T.Splitter 

Now I may not have every player in the right group, but it is close enough to make a point. I think the "theme" for lack of a better word, for the 2006 draft will be the inclusion of more (relatively) "unheralded" players...

IMO, here is how I see the top lottery prospects (rankings wise, and for whom I would like to see POR get)
1) Tyrus Thomas
2) Adam Morrison
* These two are really close IMO..as I place both of them a tier above any other prospect. As much as I like Morrison, I do think POR would be better served with Thomas as their pick.
3)R.Gay
4)J.Noah
5)L.Aldridge
6)B.Roy
7)A.Bargnani
8) Shelden Williams
9)A.Horford
10)R.Foye
11)Marcus Williams
12)R.Carney
13)T.Splitter
14)JJ Redick

** - and that is leaving out guys like Mardy Collins, Ronnie Brewer, Patrick O'Bryant, Glen Davis & Josh Boone

and what if guys like Shawne Williams, Jordan Farmar, Kyle Lowry, Brandon Rush, Jeff Green, Marcus Williams, Roy Hibbert, Josh McRoberts, Darius Washington Jr, Rajon Rondo, Ron Steele, etc... declare? It is very possible that a few of them will...

But overall, I look at the possible\probable 2006 lotery and I see it as strong (and in some cases stronger) than ANY of the last five drafts...Of Course ANY draft that has LeBron James or Yao Ming in it, has an element to it that the 2006 draft just cannot match, but even in those drafts, I would argue that the OVERALL DEPTH is not as strong as the 2006 draft will potentially be...

I think the 2003 draft was a very good "overall" draft in retrospect and is a good comparison to the potential 2006 draft....So let's take a closer look at the 1st 10 picks, outside of Lebron James, and in terms of overall depth (lottery wise): 

*Darko Milicic meet Andrea Bargnani* - Whom many think is a much better prospect than Milicic ever was. One big difference b\t Bargnani and Milicic is that Andrea plays for a top tier Euroleague team and is putting up some eye popping performances...he appears much more refined than Milicic was at this point.

*Carmelo Anthony met Tyrus Thomas & Rudy Gay* - Now Anthony was much better known as a prospect than Thomas was, but both them have played huge roles and put up eye popping performances in leading their teams throughout the year and through the tourney...Carmelo was more polished, but Thomas' potential upside is significant to merit IMO...Thomas can do things Melo could only dream of doing...Gay has been hyped as much as Anthony was, but his tourney production was not nearly the same, yet the skillset is as good or better than Anthony's....

*Chris Bosh meet Joakim Noah or LaMarcus Aldridge* - Both had good years, both are still young and both look to get only better over time...just like Bosh has. Aldridge was rather unspectacular in tourney play (same as Bosh if I recall correctly), whereas Noah has had a great tourney run....

*D.Wade meet Randy Foye & Brandon Roy * - Now Wade is unbeleivable, but Foye was spectacular during the tourney and througout the year just as Wade was, same can be said for Roy who like Wade appears to have the complete package and abilitiy to take over a game...

*C.Kaman meet Patrick O'Bryant & Tiago Splitter* - Kaman has been much better than I certainly thought he would be...2006 potentially has several solid if unspectacular big man prospects, Splitter and O'Bryant being two of the better ones IMO

*K.Hinrich meet Adam Morrison and JJ Redick* - Hinrich too was questioned for his athleticism, but his IQ and other intangibles are unquestioned now. Niether Morrison or Redick have Hinrich's overall package\skillset, but each excels over Hinrich in certain areas. All three were very good college players whose NBA projections were all over the place.

*TJ.Ford meet Marcus Williams (and\or Rajon Rondo\Darius Washington Jr if they declare)* - A speedy PG who established himself as the best player on a talented team. On a team with Rudy Gay, Josh Boone & other top level talent, M.Williams was simply spectacular and often the best player on the floor, he doesn't have close to Ford's speed (or slight build) but he has very good size for a PG, and is just an overall very good prospect...

* M.Sweetney meet Shelden Williams* - I think Williams is underated, and I think his career will more closely resemble Elton Brand's than it will Sweetney's...A great college player and hustler who will be effective in the NBA...

Now I am NOT trying to make player vs player comparisons per se, nor am I trying to say Randy Foye for example will be a Dwayne Wade type player\impact in the NBA, b\c who knew that Wade would be as spectacular as he has been? What I am trying to point out is that the overall DEPTH in terms of quality lottery prospects is every bit as good and quite possibly better than it was in other drafts, even 2003 which was a very strong draft in retrospect...

Now 2003 will always be better regarded than 2006 b \c I conveniently left out a guy named LeBron James, and that is the one legacy of 2006...No Oden....But I do think there are MORE potential quality players available in 2006 than there was in 2003...

Having said that, ask yourselves this....If James wasn't in the 2003 draft would you, looking back on it, still view it as a relatively strong draft?

I think the answer is yes...most people would....Dwayne Wade...Chris Bosh...Carmelo Anthony...Kirk Hinrich& TJ Ford have all become very good NBA players, some would even argue the best players on their respective teams....

I think 2006 has a very good chance to be a better version of that draft, which in terms of draft history is pretty damm good, and nowhere near the "weak" label being attatched to it....

As a POR fan, all I can hope is that the 2006 draft IS a similiar\better version of a James'-less 2003 draft and that POR finds one of those players.....


----------



## tradetheo (Feb 24, 2005)

when we say weak, there are no team makers or franchise guys. Theres no lebron,jordan,shaq,duncan, and so on. Since we are losing to get the best possible draft pick, I would like that to happen when theres some players who might actually help us out. All I see are a bunch of guys will need time to mature, like we don't have enough guys on the team who need time. Our whole team is young. We need older guys to show them the ropes. Not more rookies. Who's gonna help em, darius miles? that guy still has the mentality of a spoiled teenager.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

Nice summary of the draft picks.

While there are no automatic stars in this draft, there are a number of players who should be complementary pieces of a successful team. The key for the Blazers is to determine their greatest need and draft to fill that need.

As I have said, I believe the greatest need is at SG, where Brandon Roy is the best fit. Also, this team needs a proven player, not a project who will need time to develop.

Roy plugs right in at the 2 guard spot, moving Dixon to the bench and sliding Martell over to the 3. Martell and Roy will be able to allow the Blazers to spread the floor, creating more opportunities for Telfair and Jack to create and allowing more room for Zach to operate. Joel cleans up the misses at the 5.


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

You know...I just hate it when someone posts without much thought. You know what I mean, Kmurph??






:biggrin:


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Thank you for the nice summary.
In truth, we really don't know how strong or weak a draft is until the players are in the NBA a year or two. Remember, the talk was all LeBron James and Carmelo Anthony, but Dwyane Wade is perhaps the cream of that bunch. Looking over your years, I see high picks who did not do much and middle picks who were better than expected.
IMHO, the Blazers need to do a couple of things pre-draft:
1. Decide who on the present roster they want to keep
2. Make a list of needs, and prioritize them
3. Draft accordingly.

Also, don't the Blazers have 2 #1 picks? True, one of them is the Pistons, if I recall, so not a high pick but who knows, they may find a John Stockton or a Michael Finley or a Tony Parker with a low pick and that would not bother me at all.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

i wish i had as much free time as kmurph


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> when we say weak, there are no team makers or franchise guys.


Going INTO the draft there doesn't appear to be such a player...but there wasn't a "franchise" player in 3 of the last 5 drafts either. Sure, I...like you would LOVE for there to be a CLEARLY DEFINED one in this draft, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a very good player available for POR in this draft, or that a guy not VIEWED as a "franchise" player will become one....

Is Dwayne Wade a "franchise" player, Chirs Bosh? Amare Stoudamire? I don't remember any of those 3 guys being labeled as can't miss "franchise" players prior to their drafts...

What about Kirk Hinrich? TJ Ford? J.Richardson? B.Gordon? E.Okafor? P.Gasol? Would any of these guys help POR? Even if POR can't find their "franchise" guy, I disagree that a guy with the impact of let's say a Kirk Hinrich or Emeka Ofafor wouldn't significantly help this team.

I think that you are missing the bigger picture here. POR needs A LOT of help, I think there are potentially similiar impact type players in the 2006 draft and for POR to pass up a chance to get one b\c there isn't a clearly defined "franchise"" player would be foolish IMO.



> We need older guys to show them the ropes. Not more rookies. Who's gonna help em, darius miles?


You mean guys like Damon Stoudamire, Shareef Abdur Rahim, Bonzi Wells, Nick Van Exel, Derek Anderson and Ruben Pattereson?

Or do you mean Steve Blake, Juan Dixon, Theo Ratliff and Brian Skinner?

How much success has the team had with all of those veterans?



> You know...I just hate it when someone posts without much thought. You know what I mean, Kmurph??


Well I am not an expert...but I did stay at a Ramada Inn last night.....

Was it Ramada? lol....


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

crandc said:


> Thank you for the nice summary.
> In truth, we really don't know how strong or weak a draft is until the players are in the NBA a year or two. Remember, the talk was all LeBron James and Carmelo Anthony, but Dwyane Wade is perhaps the cream of that bunch. Looking over your years, I see high picks who did not do much and middle picks who were better than expected.
> IMHO, the Blazers need to do a couple of things pre-draft:
> 1. Decide who on the present roster they want to keep
> ...


I'm starting to hope if we don't get a top 3 pick - we should trade the pick(s) for future or some other player to fill needs. Adding a low first rounder to this roster would be stupid. We have projects at all positions except PF. 

Blake, Telfair, Jack - PG - keepers for next year - no additions/subtractions needed.

Dixon, Webster, Jack - SG - MW is the future, Dixon the present - it would be nice to add a better 1-3 year starter here - depending the cost of course.

Outlaw, Miles, Khryapa - SF - Outlaw is the future, Khryapa super-sub, Miles needs to go - it would be nice to add a better 1-3 year starter here as well - depending on cost. Simply drafting Morrison might be the right answer. Not convinced though.

Zach, Skinner - PF - up in the air on this position - if we could improve or change - my feeling is we should do it.

Joel, Theo, Ha - C - up in the air on this position - if we could improve or change - Joel, if at MLE should be resigned, otherwise let him walk.

This season did so little in regard to establishing who to keep - its not really funny. I only believe Telfair, Jack, Webster, Outlaw, Khryapa, Zach, Skinner, Joel and Ha are worth building futures with. The rest are trade bait or stop-gaps if you ask me.

Again this off season we need strong negotiating and trading capability - if all we do is draft where we have picks - its gonna be a long, long, long recovery.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

its 30th but we also have the 33rd so if we can trade the two for a higher pick.

I would say pick the best player aviable with the high pick, be it naoh tyrus or ammo then trade for a higher pick for a sg sf pf or c depending on who we draft prior.

IF we go for naoh/tyrus we get a sf or sg 
if we go for ammo then we draft a pf, pf/c, center


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Something to think about as well, the draft should be getting stronger over the next few years as more players go to school. In about 2 years it should be back to the strength it was before all the high schoolers starting coming out in droves.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

The draft is weak no doubt about it. I would trade my first round pick for a pick next year, if I could. Many of these guys are bench players (to say probably 80%) before underclassmen declare.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

HKF - 

You think Tyrus Thomas will be a bench player? 

Rudy Gay?

I completely disagree, particulary when outside 3 or so HS guys the rest of the early 2007 mock drafts are comprised of many of the SAME players that could be in the 2006 draft...


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

When they hit the league, you'll change your tune, that's all I'll say. Tyrus Thomas is more raw then Stromile Swift was. This draft has disaster written all over it, unless guys like Ronald Steele, Jeff Green, Sammy Mejia, Cedric Simmons, Malik Hairston and a few others enter. I would rather have a pick next season, then this season.

The potential of a lot of these guys is limited. Rudy Gay is the equivalent of a 2nd banana. I have never been overly enamored with him.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Well,, outside of Oden, Brandan Wright and Kevin Durant (wher is he in the list in your sig?)...I don't see any of the other "potential" players in the 2007 draft having more upside than many of the guys mentioned in my 2006 list above...

I agree with you about Rudy Gay, a team picking him high is banking that he becomes something he has not shown himself to be...a go-to-guy...I don't think he will suddenly become such a player...

I know a lot of people don't like Morrison, but I really do think he will be able to score on guys in the NBA just like he did in college...I thought Don McLean's point about Morrison today on the Rome show was very accurate in stating that Morrison mkaes difficult shots\plays look much easier than they are...He will do so in the pro's as well.

Tyrus Thomas\Joakim Noah are both big, athletic and young, I don't see how anyone could immediately discount them as bench players...

I don't know a lot about Bargnani, but he has gotten a lot of positive talk from scouts and unlike many previous european wonders, he IS performing in high level european league bball....

I don't think Aldridge will be a star player, but he will be an effective starter at some point in the NBA, you don't agree?

Brandon Roy, Al Horford, Randy Foye, Shelden Williams and Marcus Williams.....Someone out that list is going to be a better pro than everyone thinks they will be, that is usually ALWAYS the case...

Look, no one thought Dwayne Wade, Kirk Hinrich or Pau Gasol would be the players they turned out to be, and yet they all (and many more like them) proved to be far better players than peoiple gave them credit for being.


If Marquette hadn't made the tourney in 2003, would Wade still have been a top 5 pick? I don't think he would have been...I don't see why players cannot emerge like Wade did, or blossom into better pro's than college players, like Hinrich did....

I think there are a few such players in this draft...I am surprised you don't...


----------



## vadimivich (Mar 29, 2004)

Bosh was a true freshman who had a far superior season to either Noah, Aldrige or Thomas. Aldrige is a sophmore. Noah is the age of a college senior (he's like 2 months younger than Hilton Armstrong and only 9 months younger than Bosh). Thomas is a redshirt freshman who's played 3 years of basketball.

Comparing any of these guys to Bosh is just ridiculous. None of them will be in an All-Star game within 3 years of being drafted at age 21, or even close. Don't get over excited because of a couple of weeks in the NCAA tournament.


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

kmurph said:


> 1) Tyrus Thomas
> 2) Adam Morrison
> * These two are really close IMO..as I place both of them a tier above any other prospect. As much as I like Morrison, I do think POR would be better served with Thomas as their pick.


thats funny we have some many zags fans that u are afraid people will jump on u so u have to love morrison just because he is well liked.U might not be doing this but it was funny to me.


----------



## deanwoof (Mar 10, 2003)

Watching the tourney back when Kansas made their run and rooting for them cuz I'm friends of friends of Aaron Miles, I flat out said Hinrich would be the best of the group (Collison, Miles, Gooden, Hinrich and their left-hand shooting guard who I can't think of at the moment. Langdon?). He had it all - he was clutch, he could shoot, had ball handling skills and came from a great program.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

You're thinking of Keith Langford...


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> thats funny we have some many zags fans that u are afraid people will jump on u so u have to love morrison just because he is well liked.U might not be doing this but it was funny to me.


I don't know what you are talking about here...I could care less how many Zag fans there are...I like Morrison a lot, and think he is going to be a good possibly very good NBA player....

But I was pretty amazed watching Tyrus Thomas in the tourney, he was simply unbelievable...


I heartily disagree with those who think that players drafted in the 2006 draft will never amount to anything...quite frankly, it is an easy position to take, but the reality is EVERY YEAR a few guys, whom no one thought would be anything in the NBA, suddenly are...yet we are supposed to believe that this year is different?

I don't think so...


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

I disagree. This draft is the weakest in several years.


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

tlong said:


> I disagree. This draft is the weakest in several years.


WHY? Looks like you put as much thought into that statement as Kmurph, I guess. I don't even know the players and I disagree with you. You have valid opinions, share them.

gatorpops


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

Great post Kmurph! Makes a good thread to discuss. Thanks from most of us any way.

gatorpops


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

gatorpops said:


> WHY? Looks like you put as much thought into that statement as Kmurph, I guess. I don't even know the players and I disagree with you. You have valid opinions, share them.
> 
> gatorpops



Sorry. I don't have time to write a book. Only time enough to give my opinion. The exclusion of high-school talent is the biggest single reason. It simply cannot be offset by more early entrants.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

If the draft is "weak" due to the exclusion of HS players, the Blazers are better off for it, Oden not withstanding.

This will cause the Blazers to focus on the BPA now, not 4-5 years from now. This team needs an infusion of proven talent, not High School potential. Drafting the likes of Woods/Outlaw/Telfair/Webster have placed the team in the hole they are in. 

The addition of 2-3 picks who can contibute immediately are essential to any improvement.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

tlong said:


> Sorry. I don't have time to write a book. Only time enough to give my opinion. The exclusion of high-school talent is the biggest single reason. It simply cannot be offset by more early entrants.


This is totally, totally accurate.

kmurph's assertion that this isn't a weak draft seems based on two things:
-- underclassmen will still declare. Of course, underclassmen (as he admits) declare _every_ year. This isn't an argument for why the draft isn't weak this year IMO.
-- comparisons of 2006 prospects to previous years. Most of his comparisons strain credibility.

He's assuming that _every_ underclassman of note will be declaring and using that as his basis for comparison. He also seems to be taking best-case scenarios for 2006 prospects while ignoring similar contemporaneous thoughts about previous years' prospects.

I'm not going to go through case by case, but to say that Bargnani is a better prospect than Milicic ever was is patently absurd and flies in the face of almost every bit of analysis done at the time. Darko was considered to be the best Euro prospect at least since Kukoc and his selection over Carmelo Anthony wasn't considered a stretch by many at the time. Heck, most years Darko would have been #1 overall, but Mr. James was in the draft so he wasn't.

I appreciate the amount of time and energy kmurph put into his post, but nothing he opines in it changes the fact that there is a year of prospects missing and that weakens the draft relative to both previous and future years, making it a weak draft.

Ed O.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

I was under the impression that recent drafts were considered weaker as so few of the High School plyaers were ready to make an impact, or could even possibly not pan out. 

Interesting how a weakness in the recent past is considered an absent strength of the current draft.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> I was under the impression that recent drafts were considered weaker as so few of the High School plyaers were ready to make an impact, or could even possibly not pan out.
> 
> Interesting how a weakness in the recent past is considered an absent strength of the current draft.


In 2004, 5 of the 29 first rounders were prep players. There were 4 in 2003 (including LeBron). 

Some of the previous prep classes, particularly last year, have not been strong. But even a weak prep class (last year saw Webster and Bynum go in the lottery, and Green go later in the first round) does more to strengthen the draft than no prep class.

Ed O.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> In 2004, 5 of the 29 first rounders were prep players. There were 4 in 2003 (including LeBron).
> 
> Some of the previous prep classes, particularly last year, have not been strong. But even a weak prep class (last year saw Webster and Bynum go in the lottery, and Green go later in the first round) does more to strengthen the draft than no prep class.
> 
> Ed O.


Not necessarily

2004
Dwight Howard
Shaun Livingston
Robert Swift
Sebastian Telfair
Al Jefferson
Josh Smith
JR Smith
Dorrell Wright
8 of 29 were HS players

Dwight is a very good player, but outside of that, none of these other guys are proving to be much more than good players. Dorrell Wright is playing in the D-League.

Can they still prove to be more? Absolutely. Does it make the draft stronger because they were included? We honestly can't tell yet.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

2003 
Lebron James
Travis Outlaw
Ndubi Edi
Kendrick Perkins

Lebron Super-stud
Outlaw and Perkins are finally starting to look like players in the league.
Ebi is out of the league.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Blazer Maven said:


> If the draft is "weak" due to the exclusion of HS players, the Blazers are better off for it, Oden not withstanding.
> 
> This will cause the Blazers to focus on the BPA now, not 4-5 years from now.


Not quite. The "BPA now" are players like LeBron James, Amare Stoudemire, etc. High schoolers who were drafted 2-3 years ago. The Blazers will get to pick from "the best players now who weren't talented enough to make the jump from high school a few years ago."


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

But it has really only been in the last few years that we have seen significant numbers of high schoolers in the draft. There was Garnett, then Bryant and J O'Neal, then the trickle became a flood. There were plenty of strong drafts before Garnett.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> Not necessarily
> 
> 2004
> Dwight Howard
> ...


Oops. Yeah. I didn't do the math there, did I? 



> Dwight is a very good player, but outside of that, none of these other guys are proving to be much more than good players. Dorrell Wright is playing in the D-League.
> 
> Can they still prove to be more? Absolutely. Does it make the draft stronger because they were included? We honestly can't tell yet.


Sure we can. We can with absolute certainty.

There would have been 8 guys drafted in the NBA first round that were drafted in the NBA second round if those players we unavailable. There would have been 8 guys drafted that went undrafted if they hadn't been available.

It's way, way too early to say how any of those guys are going to turn out, IMO, except perhaps Dwight Howard. But *even if* they're just "solid" players, they strengthened the draft. Solid NBA players don't grow on trees.

I fail to see how people don't grasp this.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

crandc said:


> But it has really only been in the last few years that we have seen significant numbers of high schoolers in the draft. There was Garnett, then Bryant and J O'Neal, then the trickle became a flood. There were plenty of strong drafts before Garnett.


Totally. Just like there will be plenty of strong drafts after this one.

This draft is _unique_. There is no other draft on the horizon where an entire year of prospects is denied to the NBA draft.

And the clear difference between this year's draft and pre-KG (or pre-prep flood, whenever you want to define it) is that the college ranks have been drained of talent by the consistent prep-to-pros movement. Even with an off year of prepsters (again, with only Webster, Bynum, and Green going in the first round last year) last year, this year's draft would be stronger for having those guys, just like next year's draft (and every succeeding one) will have the benefit of the "one year of college" rule in place.

Ed O.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Even with an off year of prepsters (again, with only Webster, Bynum, and Green going in the first round last year) last year, this year's draft would be stronger for having those guys, just like next year's draft (and every succeeding one) will have the benefit of the "one year of college" rule in place.


I wonder where those three would have projected if they'd gone to college and were coming out this year... obviously there's no way to know what sort of year they'd have had, but I think it's just as obvious that their inclusion in this upcoming draft would have made it a stronger one. Besides Oden, I'm sure at least a few of the other prospects from the class of '06 would have declared... it happens every year. That talent is largely whats missing and what the "experts" are refering to when they pretty unanomously point to this being a weak draft. I don't think the in college talent is all that spectacular either. I'll be very happy if Portland is able to pull a down the road above average starter from the available pool. 

STOMP


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> The exclusion of high-school talent is the biggest single reason. It simply cannot be offset by more early entrants.


Why not? You and Ed keep dragging this point out like it is a defacto end to the arguement...and it certainly isn't...

Again, let's take the 2003 draft...Let's take LeBron James out of that draft...Is it a weak draft in retrospect?

D.Milicic, *C.Anthony*, *C.Bosh*, *D.Wade*, C.Kaman, *K.Hinrich*, TJ.Ford, M.Sweentney, J.Hayes, M.Pietrus, N.Collison, M.Banks, L.Ridnour

I see FOUR players there who are arguably the BEST players on their respective teams
A weaker draft w\o Lebron? YES 

An overall weak draft w\o HS players and Lebron? NO....

Contrary to EdO. opinion, there is a difference...



> -- underclassmen will still declare. Of course, underclassmen (as he admits) declare every year. This isn't an argument for why the draft isn't weak this year IMO.


If MORE of them declare than they normally would then yes it does matter...and that is my arguement...that more will declare for that golden lottery ticket this year BECAUSE Oden\Wright and Durant are not in it...

The exclusion of HS guys, and come on Ed, we are mainly talking about 3 guys here (Oden, Durant and Brandan Wright) weakens this draft for sure, but it doesn't mean that suddenly this draft is WEAK as a whole ...You act like the only decent talent was coming from HS players, that is a bunch of bs. You SHOULD be well aware of it...

Was Wade drafted as a HS player? Hinrich? Anthony? Bosh? Ford? Kaman? Paul? Frye? Villanueva? Diogu? Okafor? Gordon? Deng? Richardson? Battier? Jefferson? Murphy? Johnson?

Should I continue?

ANY draft that has one or more percieved "franchise" players in it will be considered a stronger draft than one w\o such players....but that DEFINITELY doesn't mean that a draft w\o a franchise player is solely weak b\c of the lack of a "franchise" player or a few HS players.....

I'd say Dwayne Wade has become a franchise player, wouldn't you? He was a guy from a smaller school whose NCAA play raised his stock, similiar to Antonio McDyess as pointed out in another thread....Why is it so unfathomable to believe that a Tyrus Thomas, Joakim Noah or Randy Foye could be such players? 

The draft is an inexact science remember? If it wasn't then Dwane Wade would be in DET right now and Gilbert Arenas would'nt have been a 2nd round pick..



> -- comparisons of 2006 prospects to previous years. Most of his comparisons strain credibility.


First off, I stated they were not DIRECT comparisons, but moreso in terms of potential and circumstances before they were drafted...Some of the 2006 guys are clearly not as talented as the guys I listed them next to in 2003, and others ARE better IMO.

I'd love to hear your logic on why\which ones "strain" credibility....



> He's assuming that every underclassman of note will be declaring and using that as his basis for comparison. He also seems to be taking best-case scenarios for 2006 prospects while ignoring similar contemporaneous thoughts about previous years' prospects


Wrong on both counts. I assuming the best of those underclassman WILL declare and those who may not get their lottery ticket will more than likely NOT declare....

Roy Hibbert could declare.... as could guys like Shawne Williams, Jordan Farmar, Kyle Lowry, Brandon Rush, Jeff Green, Marcus Williams, Josh McRoberts, Darius Washington Jr, Rajon Rondo & Ron Steele to name just a few...

I suspect some of them will declare and a few of the guys on my initial list will not declare...either way it will be a stronger group of players at draft time than many here are giving it credit for....Also, I disagree with the insinuation that a player who didn't declare as a Fr\So\etc.. is somehow now...an inferior prospect, b\c that is what you and others are intentionally or unintentionally implying by overstating the loss of HS prospects as making such a huge impact...I completely disagree with that premise...

As for using best case scenarios, isn't that what every scout does? Looks at what a players' potential COULD BE? Regardless, I would argue only 4-5 of the lottery players need to become good pros to equal \exceed other drafts and make my point...and that is what USUALLY does occur, I don't see this year as ANY different....Some players will hit\exceed their best case projections and others will not...Again, this is no different than ANY other draft 



> but to say that Bargnani is a better prospect than Milicic ever was is patently absurd and flies in the face of almost every bit of analysis done at the time.


Milicic played for Hemofarm...Bargnani plays for Benetton, one of the best teams in euroleague...Both played well for their respective teams...I would argue that Bargnani plays against better competition than Milicic did and that he has put up better and more frequent performances than Milicic did...

I compared them as equals in terms of "highly regarded european prospects"..as in 2003 had one, and so does 2006...I would agree that the "ever was" comment was a little superfluous on my part, but many draft experts do think he is one of the best prospects to come out since Nowitzki...

Maybe someone who knows more about euroleague can comment...


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Kmurph said:


> Again, let's take the 2003 draft...Let's take LeBron James out of that draft...Is it a weak draft in retrospect?


You cherry-picking a single strong year doesn't change anything, kmurph. The facts remain that:

-- there is no consensus #1 player in the draft
-- there is an entire year of prospects (including three probable lottery picks) unavailable

At this point, prospects can all look good. We can compare Foye to Wade and forget about Respert. We can compare Noah to Bosh and forget about Melvin Ely.

There is nothing to indicate that the players that you're trumpeting are good enough to compensate for the lack of a high school class. There is nothing systematic that I see that would lead me to believe that this year, of all years, should be the one that can be so talent-rich that it can absorb the loss of the prep players without being weakened relative to the surrounding years.

If there were a single great player coming out... Shaq, or Duncan, or LeBron, or Odom... then I could see arguing in a non-systematic way about the strength of the draft. If there were a particularly strong and deep international pool, I might be able to see that argument. But without that player, and without the deep international pool, we're all just guessing (to a certain extent) as to which prospects are going to pan out and which are not. The same as every other year.

But this year there are fewer prospects to choose from, so I think that it's weak.

Ed O.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> But this year there are fewer prospects to choose from, so I think that it's weak.


weak*er*


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Kmurph said:


> Roy Hibbert could declare.... as could guys like Shawne Williams, Jordan Farmar, Kyle Lowry, Brandon Rush, Jeff Green, Marcus Williams, Josh McRoberts, Darius Washington Jr, Rajon Rondo & Ron Steele to name just a few...


That has almost no impact on the lottery, which is what this thread is about. Other than McRoberts I doubt any of the guys would crack the top 10.

But the fact that underclassmen still might declare doesn't matter. They declare _every year_.



> Also, I disagree with the insinuation that a player who didn't declare as a Fr\So\etc.. is somehow now...an inferior prospect, b\c that is what you and others are intentionally or unintentionally implying by overstating the loss of HS prospects as making such a huge impact...I completely disagree with that premise...


So you're saying that prospects are treated equally irrespective of their class?

It doesn't make sense when you consider that most of the best players come out as early as they can, and your assertion doesn't seem to stand up to how NBA teams draft, either. 

Let's look at the last few lotteries:

2005: 
1 college seniors
5 college juniors
3 college sophomores
1 college freshman
2 prep players
2 international

2004:
2 college seniors
4 college juniors
1 college sophomores
2 college freshman
4 prep players
1 international

2003:
3 college seniors
5 college juniors
1 college sophomores
2 college freshman
1 prep players
2 international

2002: 
2 college seniors
4 college juniors
2 college sophomores
1 college freshman
1 prep players
3 international

2001
1 college seniors
2 college juniors
3 college sophomores
2 college freshman
4 prep players
2 international

So for 5 years the total lottery looks like this:
9 college seniors
20 college juniors
10 college sophomores
8 college freshman
12 prep players
10 international

While juniors have the most selected, the numbers clearly skew towards the young guys given the fewer number of eligible players. But let's look at the top 4 from each of these past five drafts:

2005: 
0 college seniors
1 college juniors
2 college sophomores
1 college freshman
0 prep players
0 international

2004:
0 college seniors
2 college juniors
0 college sophomores
0 college freshman
2 prep players
0 international

2003:
0 college seniors
0 college juniors
0 college sophomores
2 college freshman
1 prep players
1 international

2002: 
0 college seniors
3 college juniors
0 college sophomores
0 college freshman
0 prep players
1 international

2001
0 college seniors
0 college juniors
0 college sophomores
0 college freshman
3 prep players
1 international

So for 5 years the total lottery looks like this:
0 college seniors
6 college juniors
2 college sophomores
3 college freshman
6 prep players
3 international

The top 4 picks skew even younger than the overall lottery picks for the same period, and *no* college seniors have gone top 4 in the last five years. Given that there are many, many more college seniors that are draft eligible than there are for any other class, that would seem to blow a massive hole in your statement that "... a player who didn't declare as a Fr\So\etc.. ... [is not] an inferior prospect..."



> As for using best case scenarios, isn't that what every scout does? Looks at what a players' potential COULD BE?


They shouldn't. They should look at how good they currently are, how good they could be, and the likelihood that they will achieve some portion of that potential.



> Regardless, I would argue only 4-5 of the lottery players need to become good pros to equal \exceed other drafts and make my point...and that is what USUALLY does occur, I don't see this year as ANY different....Some players will hit\exceed their best case projections and others will not...Again, this is no different than ANY other draft


Except there is an entire year of prospects missing this year and ONLY this year. Other than that, yeah. Exactly the same.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Kmurph said:


> weak*er*


That's all that matters. None of us know how any draft turns out ahead of time, so all you can do is compare the draft to previous and succeeding years.

Therefore, this draft is weak.

Ed O.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> Therefore, this draft is weak.


weak*er*



> The top 4 picks skew even younger than the overall lottery picks for the same period, and no college seniors have gone top 4 in the last five years. Given that there are many, many more college seniors that are draft eligible than there are for any other class, that would seem to blow a massive hole in your statement that "... a player who didn't declare as a Fr\So\etc.. ... [is not] an inferior prospect..."


No doubt, younger and younger players have been declaring...each and every year, and this certainly dilutes the quantity of upper classman who do\would declare....But you can't tell me that Dwayne Wade who was a Jr, Hinrich who was a Sr, Okafor and Gordon who were Jr's...were inferior prospects...they certainly aren't inferior players....

Just b\c a guy doesn't declare one year, doesn't make him an inferior prospect the next...just not buying that


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Kmurph said:


> weak*er*


See my post above. Adding the "er" is worthless.



> Just b\c a guy doesn't declare one year, doesn't make him an inferior prospect the next...just not buying that


Please explain the dearth of college seniors in the lottery, and especially in the high lottery. I'd love to hear the alternate theory explaining why they are, as a percentage of total possible draftees, such a shockingly low portion of lotter picks.

Ed O.


----------



## Toxicity (Jul 21, 2004)

Kmurph said:


> Milicic played for Hemofarm...Bargnani plays for Benetton, one of the best teams in euroleague...Both played well for their respective teams...I would argue that Bargnani plays against better competition than Milicic did and that he has put up better and more frequent performances than Milicic did...
> 
> I compared them as equals in terms of "highly regarded european prospects"..as in 2003 had one, and so does 2006...I would agree that the "ever was" comment was a little superfluous on my part, but many draft experts do think he is one of the best prospects to come out since Nowitzki...
> 
> Maybe someone who knows more about euroleague can comment...


Milicic played for Hemofarm, way weaker team than Benetton Treviso. Then, Milicic never played in Euroleague (the toughest league outside NBA) but only in a not high level league (serbian one). He put decent numbers but lowers than Bargnani is putting now in a much stronger leagues (both Euroleague and Italian). The sure thing is: Milicic was picked only given his potential while Bargnani is producing right now and will be selected not only based on his (still great) upside.

I don't know if Darko was considered more than Bargnani now when he played for Hemofarm, probably yes because he was the 2nd pick overall in a draft with great players like Melo, Wade and Bosh... but that was a mistake by GMs.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> Adding the "er" is worthless.


No it isn't...



> Please explain the dearth of college seniors in the lottery, and especially in the high lottery. I'd love to hear the alternate theory explaining why they are, as a percentage of total possible draftees, such a shockingly low portion of lotter picks.


Are we changing the discussion now? Your right their is a dearth of college seniors who end up as lottery picks, in fact fewer and fewer do...I fail to see how this helps your cause though....

YOU, have repeatedly stated that the loss of HS players THIS year has made this draft a weak draft...

I have repeatedly stated that the loss of HS players has made this draft WEAKER than it COULD normally be, but that the inclusion of more underclassmen (Fr\So & Jr) would HELP to offset that loss...

The best players usually DO declare early...be it out of HS (until this year), or as a Freshman, Sophmore or Junior...Again, I fail to see how this makes them "weaker" players or the draft "weak" b\c a particualr player decided to wait an year or two or three before he decalred...

Contrary to the misguided belief of a few people here, including you it appears....Not EVERY good player declares as a HS player, and several GOOD players do play 2-3 years in college....


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Kmurph said:


> Are we changing the discussion now? Your right their is a dearth of college seniors who end up as lottery picks, in fact fewer and fewer do...I fail to see how this helps your cause though....


You made what is a pretty silly assertion that prospects aren't adversely impacted by staying in school... when that is clearly the case, given that college senior prospects lag behind every other group.



> The best players usually DO declare early...be it out of HS (until this year), or as a Freshman, Sophmore or Junior...Again, I fail to see how this makes them "weaker" players or the draft "weak" b\c a particualr player decided to wait an year or two or three before he decalred...


Then you are blind. It's that simple.

I've demonstrated, above, that a significant portion of each year's lottery picks come from the high school ranks. This year there will be no high schoolers in the draft.

Therefore the draft is weaker.

"Weaker" than it could have been. Weaker than last year's (since there was prep players to choose from) and weaker than next year's (since there will be a stronger freshman crop).

Weaker is the same as weak because, systematically, it's difficult to project how a draft class is going to fare in the long run. All we can do, except in rare cases such as Duncan or James, is look at the depth of a draft, understanding that some players are going to pan out and some are going to fail.

This year's draft is shallower. Weaker.

Weak.



> Contrary to the misguided belief of a few people here, including you it appears....Not EVERY good player declares as a HS player, and several GOOD players do play 2-3 years in college....


That's ridiculous. Who's EVER said that all good players declare as a HS player? I certainly never have. Look at the research I did, above, and see that juniors clearly make up the single largest number of players in the recent lottery picks.

Ed O.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> You made what is a pretty silly assertion that prospects aren't adversely impacted by staying in school...


Was Dwayne Wade negatively effected? How about Kirk Hinrich? How about Ben Gordon or Emeka Okafor? 

Do I need to go through previous drafts and list all the Sophmore & Juniors who didn't declare as a HS player or as a Freshman in these particular cases? Or are we just going to focus on college seniors? 



> Then you are blind. It's that simple.


No you are...

There now we are equal...

Your right, as I think I said previously, that there are not a lot of college seniors who end up as lottery picks...but then again that wasn't my original point was it? Nor would the lottery portion of this draft be filled with such players, right? 

Again Ed, and to your credit, you excel at taking a small portion of an opinion\statement\point and attacking it....at the expense of the larger and MORE IMPORTANT point trying to be made...congrats....I guess...



> I've demonstrated, above, that a significant portion of each year's lottery picks come from the high school ranks. This year there will be no high schoolers in the draft.


Significant doesn't equal or come close to majority for most of those years though does it? Over that period, what is the total %? Around 17%? That is a lot of "adversely affected" propsects making up the rest of those lotteries....I'd say that is more significant, wouldn't you?



> Weaker is the same as weak because, systematically, it's difficult to project how a draft class is going to fare in the long run. All we can do, except in rare cases such as Duncan or James, is look at the depth of a draft, understanding that some players are going to pan out and some are going to fail.


Ed....at this point it is safe to say...I think...that you and I completely disagree on what the difference b\t weak and weaker is....and I don't either of us changing our opinions any time soon...


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Kmurph said:


> Was Dwayne Wade negatively effected? How about Kirk Hinrich? How about Ben Gordon or Emeka Okafor?


Where were they drafted again? Oh, yeah: behind younger players. Hinrich went behind six players that were younger than he was. Wade went behind four younger players. Gordon and Okafor each were selected behind a high school player. 



> Do I need to go through previous drafts and list all the Sophmore & Juniors who didn't declare as a HS player or as a Freshman in these particular cases? Or are we just going to focus on college seniors?


I don't know what your point is, to be honest. You bring up examples that are proving my point.



> Significant doesn't equal or come close to majority for most of those years though does it? Over that period, what is the total %? Around 17%? That is a lot of "adversely affected" propsects making up the rest of those lotteries....I'd say that is more significant, wouldn't you?


83% is lower than 100%. This year the draft will be at something less than 100%. 

That there are players who would have been in this draft whether the rules changed or not doesn't matter. Why you keep bringing that up is beyond me, because there are ALWAYS juniors that are in the lottery. There are ALWAYS underclassmen that surprise by declaring (or not). This year will be no different.

The thing that IS different is the lack of high school players. That's the ONLY thing that's different. That makes this draft weak.

Ed O.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

I think after March Madness begins, fans get to watching potential draftees a little more and they change their tune about the draft because everyone looks more familiar.

That doesn't make it a stronger draft though.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> Where were they drafted again? Oh, yeah: behind younger players.


Is that some meaningful point your trying to make?

Well wow...I guess since those guys were drafted behind HS players they must not have been very good huh?

Seriously Ed, can you stretch yourself any thinner?



> I don't know what your point is, to be honest. You bring up examples that are proving my point.


hmm...let me see here...nope...no I don't think so....



> 83% is lower than 100%. This year the draft will be at something less than 100%.


No...it can't be? can it? Real brilliant analysis there Ed....

Yes the draft will be less than 100%, but last time I checked an 83% wasn't a "weak" score either....



> That there are players who would have been in this draft whether the rules changed or not doesn't matter. Why you keep bringing that up is beyond me, because there are ALWAYS juniors that are in the lottery. There are ALWAYS underclassmen that surprise by declaring (or not). This year will be no different.


This is where the disconnect is for you I think...Yes there are ALWAYS underclassmen who declare...But what underlying reason propels a majority of them TO declare?

How about? "Where am I going to be drafted?" or more concisely "Will I be a lottery pick?"

GOOD players do stay in college Ed...Now many won't stay all 4 years...Just b\c a player stays 1...2...or 3 years doesn't make him a "weaker" prospect per se...

You on the other hand....apparently want to downgrade such players...b\c if they wouldn't declare b\c of the presence of HS players or if they did declare...they would be taken after a particular few HS projects...then they are cleary inferior...and a draft with only such players is therefore weak in nature...

But the funny thing is a draft with Dwayne Wade, Carmelo Anthony, Chris Bosh, & Kirk Hinrich isn't a "weak" one b\c L.James isn't in it...


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Kmurph said:


> Yes the draft will be less than 100%, but last time I checked an 83% wasn't a "weak" score either....


Compared to what?

There's no objective standard for a "weak draft" or a "strong draft." Drafts are strong or weak only relative to all other drafts. Yes, there may be unexpected gems from this draft but, based on expected value, this draft is less likely to produce those gems because an important class of talent is being removed. Not the only class of talent, but a very important one.

Prep-to-pro players aren't the only good players, of course, but they are often a selection of the best talent. Losing that, and losing the high schoolers who _would_ have been leaving college this year had they not jumped straight to the pros in years past, makes the draft weaker than other drafts...which is the definition of a weak draft, one that is weaker compared to the others.

If there was an exceptional class of international players or an exceptional class of underclassman or seniors that were entering the draft, that could even things. But no analyst believes that any of those things are true. The college crop is no better than average, the international pool this year is thin and there are no high school players.

The expectation, then, _should_ be for a weak draft. The reality could be different, but that would be surprising.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Kmurph said:


> Is that some meaningful point your trying to make?
> 
> Well wow...I guess since those guys were drafted behind HS players they must not have been very good huh?
> 
> Seriously Ed, can you stretch yourself any thinner?


I'm actually on very solid ground. Young players get drafted very highly each year. Players that are juniors and seniors are consistently drafted behind younger players. It doesn't mean they're not good players or prospects, but they ARE inferior.



> No...it can't be? can it? Real brilliant analysis there Ed....
> 
> Yes the draft will be less than 100%, but last time I checked an 83% wasn't a "weak" score either....


Sure it is, when every other year is 100%. How can 83% *not* be considered weak? What percentage would be considered weak to you, if not the freak draft that's so clearly underpowered because of the rules change?




> This is where the disconnect is for you I think...Yes there are ALWAYS underclassmen who declare...But what underlying reason propels a majority of them TO declare?


Money.



> How about? "Where am I going to be drafted?" or more concisely "Will I be a lottery pick?"


Sure. That, too. 



> GOOD players do stay in college Ed...Now many won't stay all 4 years...Just b\c a player stays 1...2...or 3 years doesn't make him a "weaker" prospect per se...


Sure it does, relative to prospects the same year. If they were equal prospects to the ones coming out, they would tend to come out. Further, if two players are at similar talent levels and other aspects at the time of the draft, the younger player is going to be considered the better prospect 9 times out of 10 because he still has a greater chance to grow as a player.



> You on the other hand....apparently want to downgrade such players...b\c if they wouldn't declare b\c of the presence of HS players or if they did declare...they would be taken after a particular few HS projects...then they are cleary inferior...and a draft with only such players is therefore weak in nature...
> 
> But the funny thing is a draft with Dwayne Wade, Carmelo Anthony, Chris Bosh, & Kirk Hinrich isn't a "weak" one b\c L.James isn't in it...


In retrospect that was a good draft. We don't have the advantage of retrospect on this year's draft, and I'm not going to let the exception define the rule.

Could this draft turn out to be strong? Absolutely. There's a chance it could be the greatest draft in NBA history. 

There's also a chance that I could roll 10 6's in a row with a normal 6 sided die. It doesn't mean that it's at all likely.

Ed O.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> Players that are juniors and seniors are consistently drafted behind younger players. It doesn't mean they're not good players or prospects, but they ARE inferior.


I think the point is they are not inferior players....an inferior prospect at that time to the uninformed fan and to some scouts?...yes...but if you think Dwayne Wade is an inferior player...well then there is not much more to say....


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

he means the upside is inferior but what players ever fill out thier upsides?


----------



## Rip City Road Blocker (Jul 23, 2004)

I don't really like Joakim Noah as a prospect. Maybe because I've never really seen anything like him. I think he has potential, but that leads to the fact that i hate hearing potential. You have to have some identity as a player and i dont see it on the offensive side. I think he's only going to be effective in certain styles where he can get up and down the floor. 

I like Tyrus Thomas but he is definently not going to be a small forward. He's an athletic 4 who plays stronger than he is. He should be succesful. 

My favorite in this draft if he enters is Josh McRoberts. I think a big man with his skills and more his basketball IQ and passing ability are very rare. 

But for the Blazers, you have to take Adam Morrison if hes available. I dont think hes the best player in the draft or anything, i really dont even think he will be an all star player ever, but you have to take that chance to get a potentially great scorer off the wing.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Just because there are no high school players in this draft does not mean it will be weaker than any other draft. It will be weaker than it would have been if high schoolers would have been allowed in the draft, but that does not neccesarily mean it will be weak overall. Although, to me, it looks like it IS a weak draft.


----------



## ballocks (May 15, 2003)

yeah, i dunno, it's good to have optimists to run alongside the murphys of the world, but the reality normally rests between the extremes (and we know that already). this year- and while i can only voice my opinion on the players i've seen- it does appear relatively dry. 

now, you can usually group the draft pool into several categories, and i only mean it appears dry in terms of sheer star talent- the can't miss variety, whatever. considering the basketball world these days, its widespread popularity, etc., i think nba drafts will continue to produce _contributors_ for the foresseable future... and every year- this year included. put differently, i wouldn't be surprised to see as many 'quality pros' emerge from this stock as usually do, but its legacy will probably be defined by its standouts. under that heading, i think you have more 'guesses' than normal this year. in that sense, i think 2006 is... well, considerably weaker than its predecessors.

so if you need an axis around whom to build your team, you probably picked the wrong year. but most teams aren't in that position, i think (or at least fewer are than normal), so i think a lot franchises can still achieve their draft night goals come june, modest as they are. 

peace


----------

