Is this the weakest NBA draft in several years?
I am hoping for that future franchise player for my Pistons, but reading this article....you have to ask if any of the lottery candidates are even borderline sure thing?
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2942686-biggest-red-flags-for-projected-2021-nba-draft-lottery-picks
I can guarantee a conference championship for the Pistons if they trade down and grab Franz Wagner, Isaiah Livers, and Mike Smith.
I feel like you could recycle this headline every year since Lebron was drafted.
And then non-lottery superstars emerge 'out of nowhere'.
I think this year's pool of talent is fine, compared to last year in particular. The article you cite specifically points out red flags for each prospect, and pretty much every guy coming into the NBA is going to have at least a few pain points.
Cunningham in particular stands out as a franchise changing guy. Wing defensive size with point guard ability is super rare, on top of the fact that unlike Simmons, he actually has a jumper. When this article points out his low shooting percentage, it's pulling it from out of context. Mobley and Green have sky high potential as well. Not sure things, but with good development should be key contributors on playoff teams.
None of these guys will make the Pistons an instant playoff contender, but honestly out side of Lebron, that just doesn't happen. Even generational talents like Zion and Anthony Davis haven't bailed out the Pelicans. It's up to the franchise to take their high draft picks and craft a good team around them.
I wish someone would ban the term "generational talent" because the word generational doesn't mean what the writer or speaker seems to think it means.
Yes, "generational talent" has sort of become synonymous with "all-decade player." The latter is great, but there are still about 10 of them every 20 years.
I'm in my early 40s, I'd argue there have been only 2 generational talents since I started following the NBA. MJ and LeBron. Not even Kobe, though he'd be 3rd.
Karl Malone and Hakeem make the all-1990s NBA team. KD and Steph will make the all-2010s NBA team, Zion will likely make the all-2020s NBA team. But none of those players are MJ or LeBron.
Yes, Zion and Davis are not "generational" if we're talking about some semblance of an actual generation and frankly, they're just not good enough...yet.
I would argue that Kobe qualifies though. Some overlap with Kobe and Lebron but Kobe was the best player in the NBA for nearly a decade in the 00s when he won five (!!) rings with two entirely different rosters, something even Jordan never did. A decade isn't quite a generation and Lebron was competing with him as best player by the end of that decade, but that's enough in my book.
Durant, Harden and Curry are closer to the convo as guys that could take over the mantle from Lebron than Davis and Zion at this point. If one of those guys anchored a few more title teams as the best player in basketball over the next half decade, they would have an argument.
I don't think Kobe does qualify; he certainly wasn't "the best player in the NBA for nearly a decade". He did win five titles, but for those first three he was playing alongside the actual best player in the NBA (Shaq). For most of 2000-2012 or so (whichever ones you want to pick as his 8 best, probably like 02-10) I'd argue some combination of Duncan/Dirk/LeBron were pretty much always better, and Garnett/Wade/Paul/Nash/Durant probably beat him out some years.
Kobe was great and some of the haters definitely go too far, but so too does the pro-Kobe crowd with stuff like "best player for nearly a decade" (to be fair, the real stans probably wouldn't say "nearly").
Dirk was never better than Kobe! During Kobe’s heyday...Durant and CP3 were youngsters and couldn’t hold a candle to him at that juncture. The fact that he was a consistent presence from 00-12 solidifies his greatness to me. Most of those players faded(outside of the younger guys), well before he did.
Totally agree with the quotation marks on generational talent and I should have included them in my comment. It's not clear who falls into that bucket until they've actually established themselves as the real deal.
LeBron (the do it all player) and KD (tall guy who can score at every level) are the two modern comparisons that get thrown around way to easily, and it's not fair to put that sort of expectation on anyone, let alone teenagers who've yet to play at the NBA level.
Bates is undoubtably a talented prospect with great upside, but I would be floored if he lives up to the Lebron/KD comparisons. It's not fair to put those expectations on him, even before factoring the alleged ego/parent handling issues.
It all depends on how the term generational is used. If we are talking greatest of the era then you'd be right with just Jordan and James though Kobe spans those two eras enough to warrant discussion.
I would include Curry, even though there are players greater than him in his era, simply because of the impact he has had on the game is perhaps only rivaled by James in this era. Harden not so much. Durant is hard to ignore simply because he is so good, but he's parallel to James who has a much bigger impact on the game.
That almost sounds like you can only have one generational talent at a time. The new guy might have the talent, but if there is already a generational talent, he's going to have to wait his turn?
Fair. Maybe a better way to think of "generational talents" is in 10-year blocks. That would allow for some overlap.
I'd guess that recently (23 to 30 teams, 12-15 player rosters), for each decade approximately 1000 guys have played in at least one NBA game.
100 of them would have been very good. Consistent starters, a good chunk of them would have played in at least one all-star game.
10 of them would be fairly classified as "elite." Literally the 1% of the 1000.
But only 1 of those 10 is the "elite of the elite." A "generational talent", under a looser but still fairly tight definition of a "generation."
-----------------
That would allow for 6 generational talents in the last 60 years, 2010s to 1960s: LeBron, Kobe, MJ, Magic, Kareem, Bill Russell.
Yeah, I feel like Cunningham is certainly a borderline can't-miss prospect. There are others that will pan out, but it is a down draft, IMO. There will be breakout guys but without many near can't-miss guys, it's hard for lottery teams to do anything but....play a lottery.
I don't know, a lot of people were shitting on last year's talent, but they're having a pretty good year. Tyrese Haliburton, IQ, Tate, Weisman and Anthony figure to be at the least contributors while it looks like Edwards and Ball could be stars.
For the Pistons, Bey could easily become an All-Star, and Stewart has some star potential as well.
As a Pistons fan, the goal is a top 3 pick and the worst case scenario is anything outside of the top 5. To me this seems pretty normal for a draft, there being a clearly defined first tier with 3≥ prospects, a 2nd tier of 3≥ more, and then another 'lottery' tier with another 7 or so. This year doesn't feel significantly weaker than others imo, I think guys like Davion Mitchell and Scottie Barnes are still going to make decent pros and can be had in the 6-12 range.
I'm sure there will be plenty of players who churn out decent careers outside of the lottery too. The Pistons have a very highly-regarded rookie class this season and it's mostly been built on the back of performances of non-lottery picks like Bey, Stewart, and Lee.
With all this said, the Pistons have notoriously bad luck in the lottery, so here's to picking 6th! Welcome to Detroit Scottie!
Agreed. I think Cade/Mobley/Suggs are a strong top 3 - I think Cade is more of a sure thing than anybody in last year's draft. Green/Kuminga I know nothing about since they played on the G League team, but people seem high on Green, specifically.
My initial reaction is this is a pretty average draft. Certainly not the worst draft every.
Yeah, I think Cade, Mobley and Green are all better prospects than anyone in the last draft looked to be a year ago..
I thought Barnes sucked when I saw him play. No thanks.
If you can't shoot, you can't play in today's game.
The top 5 guys in this year's draft would rank ahead of anybody in last year's, pre draft. There's no slam dunk hall-of-famer, but the top 5 are very good. If the pistons finish with a bottom 3 record they're guaranteed a Top5 pick.
They are definitely not. Only the rockets have a guaranteed top 5 pick. If the pistons have the 3rd worst record they could fall all the way to 7th
7th it is!
No.
This article is literally just pointing out the biggest flaws of each prospect. The top 4 this year are possible all better prospects than Anthony Edwards last year
The athleticism and talent level is off the charts for the draftee cohort. "Weak" is a terrible description of them. The real answer to the OP question is: I'll let you know in a couple years.
I think it's a pretty decent article but there's this:
"Wagner...didn't make a ton of improvement from his freshman to sophomore season, finishing with fewer made threes while making only 11-of-32 pull-ups."
Maybe not by the numbers but anyone who watches the games saw huge improvement in his game this year. Plus he's added muscle and is really young, maybe still growing.
Agree on the age issue. As a red flag article, they pointed out the 22 year olds but not the 19 year olds. I think Franz is a great bet for an early teen-range pick especially with his strong potential as a 3 and d guy if he can get a more consistent shot from behind the arc.
Did you see last year's draft? That one was TERRIBLE.
This one has a super talented top 5.
To find a worse draft you would only have to go back to last year. This year's talent is much better than a year ago
This honestly might be one of the stronger drafts in the last few years. Quite a few potential franchise players up top and solid role players throughout
It seems top heavy, but I do feel like the top 3 or 4 are probably better than this past year, which has proven to be unexpectedly good. Maybe nobody generational, which is likely what the Pistons really need, but building around “just an All Star” also seems reasonable
I don't think it's a particularly deep draft but has there been a clear-cut elite player in recent years outside of Zion? And even Zion had questions about if his frame could handle the grind of an NBA season and if he could develop an outside shot. Feels like every guy coming out most years has questions about their handle, the jump in athleticism, shot creation, etc.
Huh? This is one of the better classes in recent memory. The NBA draft is about getting a potential star, and this class has more shots at that than the usual class.
Weakest???? Most Scouts are saying the top 4 picks(Green, Cunningham, Mobley & Suggs) are pretty sure bets.
This^^^. There are these four and maybe a one or two more that could be future All-Stars. Bottom line is if the Pistons do not fall out the Top 5 they should be in good shape. But, you know, it's Detroit and they will probably pick 29th.
I wonder when the Pistons will be good again? I usually only watch the NBA when the pistons are worth watching but this had been the 3rd season where I just have no interest. I watch a few games at the beginning of the season and can tell, well they will not be any good this year. They've had some higher draft picks but these younger players are not making a difference. Looks grim for the pistons for years to come!
The Pistons have a talented young core: Bey, Stewart and Grant, plus the possibly emerging Hayes. It's still early on him. Seems like most NBA insiders think the team is finally in a good position to grow into an exciting team. But they could use Cunningham-level talent to kickstart things.
There are no sure things, ever. That being said there are surely stars in this draft.
It's the weakest NBA in several years.
No. - Short answer.
Medium answer: Top five of Cade, Mobley, Suggs, Green and Kuminga are all talented and enticing. Next level guys like Franz and some others should at least be solid. Overall, pretty strong draft, main issue with everyone is just lack of playing over the last year due to Covid situations.
Huh? I believe it is actually considered quite a strong draft. Last year was considered very weak
I'm still waiting for Tacko Fall to come into form.
As a Celtics fan, me too.
I think it’s a reasonably good draft, but I also think there will be more misses than normal up top and more later picks hitting. The disparity in situations from team-to-team in terms of Covid restrictions are going to hide some really talented players, while making others who didn’t experience the same disruption look comparably better. In addition, there were fewer games, less inter-conference competition (meaning some conferences might be collectively overrated or underrated), and scouts did not have the ability to attend games or practices in person.
So decent draft, but high variance. Not the one I’d want a top pick in, to be honest. If some team calls because they love a pick, and can give good future draft compensation (the next two drafts look at least as strong), I’m trading back and out.
No. I actually think it's far better than last year. I think the top 5 are all very good, and while there's a dropoff after that there is still good depth and value. Every player has a flaw. Just two weeks ago this author wrote a piece that talked about the strengths of this group. Clearly he's desperate for content.
If the Pistons land Cunningham or Suggs, they'll have a franchise player to go with all the young talent they've assembled. They've been fun to watch this season, despite the record and next year would be pretty exciting with one of those two guys on the roster.