I skimmed the last couple pages. Saw my name a bunch. Instead of responding to everyone, I'll keep it simple.
Translation: Celticsclay called me out and I don't know how to respond to that, so here, let me say a bunch of irrelevant stuff I've already said before.
Haha I am glad someone else noticed it. My points were pretty straight forward and valid and I guess without a valid response he slithered off into a topic change with his tail between his legs. TP for noticing.
Clay, I assume you wrote more of the same. I didn't read it. Rather stick on topic this time. Ping me if you have a direct question.
i did ping you, but others would like to see your answer to this inconsistency. In simple terms
1) chad ford presents tiers as way of projecting career path - larbrd says this is good and presents as evidence
2) chad ford says okafor trade value low, sixers cant get top 6 pick in draft, ranks him 6th in rookie class - larbrd says chad ford is making up stuff and idiot
3) celticsclay and rest of forum =
Ford: "Teams group players based on overall talent and potential. Then, the teams rank the players in each tier based on need. After talking to several GMs and scouts whose teams employ this system, here is how the tiers look this year."
The annual draft tier article is not the same as his mock draft. It usually comes out a day or two before the actual draft and the draft typically shakes out as the "Draft Tier" article lays out... with the guys projected "Potential Franchise Players" going at the top... the guys projected "Potential all-stars" going next, the guys projected "NBA Starters" going next, etc.
I'll use the 2013 example again. In 2013, scouts/GM's didn't feel there was any single player in the top 2 tiers (potential franchise players/potential all-stars). Hence, Anthony Bennett went #1. The purpose of that article is to tell us how scouts feel about these guys when they enter the draft. No scouts or GMs saw Anthony Bennett as a potential franchise player. Yes, he went 1st. Yes, in a mock draft he would have been seen as being selected in the "Top tier"... and I can see how that confuses some folks. Ford's annual draft article doesn't refer to where the player is selected... it refers to the quality of the player as a prospect in comparison to every prospect who has ever entered the draft. Maybe he should call it something other than a "tier". But the point is, Anthony Bennett (despite being a #1 pick) was seen as a far lesser prospect than Karl Anthony Towns last year or Andrew Wiggins in 2014 or Anthony Davis in 2012. THe point is, if those guys were all coming out at the same time, it wouldn't be a toss-up between taking Anthony Bennett and Karl Towns. NOBODY would have taken Bennett over those guys. Why? BEcause he was a lesser prospect.
You accept that, yes? You aren't arguing that all #1 picks are made equally, are you? Do you think Tim Duncan was seen as the same level of prospect as Kenyon Martin? Do you think that Shaq was seen as the same level of prospect as Joe Smith? They were all #1 picks... I assume you are aware that not all prospects are created equally in the eyes of scouts/GMs, right?
You're aware that Blake Griffin, Yao Ming and LeBron James were seen as vastly superior prospects to Michael Olowakandi and Kwame Brown, right? They were all #1 picks... But they were different level prospects.
Are you disputing this entire concept? Do you think all #1 picks are created equally? All #2 picks are created equally? Surely, you're aren't that oblivious.
So, based on that annual draft article (unless you're assuming Ford is completely lying every year in spite of the fact the draft shakes roughly in line what what the tiers suggest), Jaylen Brown was seen as Tier3/4 prospect. Marcus Smart was seen as a Tier 2 prospect. Meaning, if they came out at the same time, Brown would likely be drafted after Smart, because Scouts/GMs (according to Ford) saw Marcus Smart as a higher caliber prospect than Jaylen Brown.
You can stomp your feet and try to discredit Chad Ford's reporting in general... and that's fine. But until someone else claims to speak directly to a ton of scouts/gms to form a consensus "Tier" article, he's our Go-To. And discrediting Chad Ford's reporting isn't going to change the fact that the Brown selection at #3 was widely seen by the majority of people covering the draft as a reach. The majority of the media had him going later than #3. Why? Because that's the info they got from scouts/gms... just like Ford.
It's also not going to change the fact that the 2014 draft was WIDELY seen as a better draft than 2016. That doesn't mean that 2014 was a lock to be great and 2016 is a lock to be underwhelming. It just means that expectations for guys picked after Ben Simmons are far lesser than expectations for guys picked after Wiggins in 2014. This year, after Simmons (and maybe Ingram) it was seen as more or less a crap shoot. Some thought Dunn should go next. Some thought Marquis Chriss should go next. Some thought it should be Hield. Some thought it should be Murray. Some thought it was Brown. Nobody really thought anyone from that group projected as a lock as an all-star. Whereas, in 2014 the expectations were that Parker, Embiid and Wiggins were all possible franchise talent, while guys like Smart, Gordon, Exum and Randle all had definite all-star potential.
If the fact we're talking about two Boston Celtics makes this conversation too hot for you to handle, we can use a non-Celtic example. Based on the info Ford has relayed from Scouts/GMs, we can come to the conclusion that if Doug McDermott was coming out the same year as Buddy Hield, there's a chance McDermott would have been selected over Hield based on how Scouts/GMs apparently saw them as prospects.