Are these the "straight-forward" questions you are referring to?
#1 Why do you choose to believe that he (Ford) is not embellishing and exageratting things when he says these tiers are developed by talking to a large group of scouts and league executives? [/b]
Answer: I believe Ford talks to scouts/execs.
#2 how come you have constantly refused to believe him (Ford) when he said: [/b]
a) [okafor] "just doesn't fit the schemes that most NBA coaches are after, including I think the 76ers. So I think there was a major miscalculation on the part of Sam Hinkie when he selected him at [three]"
b) "Philly asked would we trade for the No. 3 pick, or the No. 4 pick or the No. 5 pick for a guy like Okafor, would that be good value for us?' And I think they've walked out of that scenario saying, 'We don't think we can actually get that for Okafor right now."'
c) He didn't rank Okafor as one of the top rookies based on simulated convesations with scouts
http://www.espn.com/nba/insider/story/_/id/14448751/ranking-karl-anthony-towns-kristaps-porzingis-2015-rookies-future-potential-nba
Answer: I never suggested Ford is fabricating reports. There's a misconception perpetuated by the squak squadron that I am in denial about how rival teams see Okafor's current trade value. I'm keenly aware that there's a widespread narrative that Okafor's trade value is very low. It means very little if Philly is unwilling to trade him for very little. Last I checked, Okafor hasn't been traded for very little. For clarity: I believe rival teams are telling guys like Ford that Okafor has minimal trade value. Further clarity: I've been saying that Philly is probably just going to keep Okafor if nobody is willing to give them anything significant for him. If Philly was willing to give him away for minimal return, he wouldn't still be a 76er.
Why do you pick and choose when to believe him when it suits your agenda, but then completely dismiss his insider knowledge when it goes against what you have been arguing for?
Answer: I don't.
Aren't his tiers predictive powers an absolute embarrassment?
Answer: Nope. They seem to be a fairly accurate representation of how scouts/Gms see those prospects prior to the NBA draft. You're attempting to attack Ford here, but really what your issue seems to be is that NBA scouts, in general, has no excuse for Greg Oden busting (despite being picked #1) and Giannis playing well (despite being picked #15). Direct your frustration at the right target.
You say the point of them is not to predict, but if it is a sampling of scouts and executives predicting a guy's NBA future and they are consistently off what is the point?
Answer: Good question, Clay. That's the first one that is actually relevant to this topic. TP!
First of all, they aren't "Consistently off". It's fairly obvious that sports scouts can't 100% accurately predict how a player will project long term. There will be guys who surpass expectations (like Giannis) and guys who will disappoint (Marcus Smart so far). That said, pro scouting is actually a lot better than it gets credit for. You need look no further than the correlation between top NBA players and where they were drafted. Unsurprisingly, the majority of all-star players are taken towards the top of the draft. That suggests that teams have a better-than-average understanding of which amateur players will transition well to the pros. When scouts peg a player as having star potential, it tends to happen far more often than the players they peg as not having star potential. Otherwise, the majority of the all-star team would be made up of late 1st round/2nd round/undrafted talent... and that's not the case. It seems you're attempting to say that the NBA draft from top to bottom is a crap shoot. Guys projected as superstars (the Karl Towns of the world) are no better than guys not projected as superstars (the Fab Melos of the world). That's kinda silly. Scouts have a better than average understanding of how prospects compare within a draft... and scouts have a better than average understanding of how prospects compare across all drafts. That's how they can peg someone like "LeBron James" to be a potential transcendent talent in high school. Nobody was calling Anthony Bennett a potential transcendent talent. Not all prospects are created equally. The #3 pick in 2003 (Carmelo Anthony) was seen as a vastly superior prospect to the #3 pick in 2013 (Otto Porter).
This thread was started with the question: "Are you more excited about seeing Brown than you were about seeing Marcus".
Short answer: "Yes"
Long answer (I'll leave out Chad Ford since it was a trigger for you): The 2014 draft was widely seen (at the time) as being a much higher caliber draft than the 2016 draft. It was thought to have as many as 8 potential all-stars at the top of the draft. Marcus Smart was one of those players. Several analysts called him one of the two most "NBA-Ready" prospects in the entire draft. Guys like David Thorpe believed Marcus Smart (based on how NBA-ready he was) was a rookie of the year candidate and suggested that he could be the best player from the class in the first 5 years (with other more raw prospects like Wiggins, Gordon, Exum needing more time to adjust). There were high expectations for him in the short-term. Many compared him to Tyreke Evans. Some thought he'd be the next Westbrook. Some thought he would be more in the Oladipo territory. The common narrative at the time was that Smart made Rondo expendable and Rondo's days were numbered (they were). Long-term, he was widely seen as having all-star potential, but few thought he could become a franchise player. On a personal level, I was excited about the pick and thrilled to have a true star prospect (I was one of the first guys to jump on the tank bandwagon). There were guys I liked more than Smart, though... such as Julius Randle. And I worried about us selecting another undersized shooting guard who couldn't shoot. I was thrilled to have him, though. And I'm still excited to see if he makes a leap in year 3 after two disappointing seasons. I'm happy he's become a great defensive role player, but if we're being truthful, all of us expected more than a Tony Allen clone with our #6 pick.
As for Jaylen Brown, while some instantly got drunk on the green Kool Aid as soon as he put on the Celtic cap, the consensus was that the 2016 draft had at most two true star prospects. Brown wasn't one of them. They had been calling it a two player draft for a while and there was no consensus #3 pick. I wouldn't say Brown's selection at #3 was entirely surprising (he was a good selection considering our roster makeup and long-term goals), but it wouldn't have been all that surprising to see him fall to #8 either. Right now, expectations for him in the short-term are relatively low. He struggled offensively in the D-League. He's raw. He's a 19 year old kid that we hope will make an impact off the bench defensively. He's not seen as the same level of prospect as Smart was in 2014. That said, I'm very excited to watch him develop. I'm more optimistic about his long-term future than I was about Smart. Maybe it's because Brown is more of an unknown. A 19 year old kid making the leap after a Freshman season. Maybe he ends up a total bust. Maybe he ends up a true superstar. He probably ends up somewhere in the middle... but right now I'm pumped. The "unknown" is always more exciting.