Might 2002 end up being the best rookie class since 1984?

SJC,

They have some stiff competition. Take a look at these three drafts for example.

1999
1. Chicago Elton Brand Duke
2. Vancouver Steve Francis Maryland
3. Charlotte Baron Davis UCLA
4. L.A. Clippers Lamar Odom Rhode Island
5. Toronto Jonathan Bender Picayune (Miss.) H.S.
6. Minnesota (from N.J.) Wally Szczerbiak Miami (Ohio)
7. Washington Richard Hamilton Connecticut
8. Cleveland (from Boston) Andre Miller Utah
9. Phoenix (from Dallas) Shawn Marion UNLV
10. Atlanta (from G.S.) Jason Terry Arizona
13. Seattle (1) Corey Maggette Duke
16. Chicago (from Phoenix) Ron Artest St. John's
18. Denver (from Mil. and Pho.) James Posey Xavier
22. Houston (from Miami) Kenny Thomas New Mexico
24. Utah (from Orlando) Andrei Kirilenko CSKA (Russia)

1998
1. LA Clippers Michael Olowokandi Pacific
2. Vancouver Mike Bibby Arizona
3. Denver Raef LaFrentz Kansas
4. Toronto (1) Antawn Jamison North Carolina
5. Golden State (1) Vince Carter North Carolina
7. Sacramento Jason Williams Florida
8. Philadelphia Larry Hughes Saint Louis
9. Milwaukee (2) Dirk Nowitzki DJK Wurzburg (Germany)
10. Boston Paul Pierce Kansas
11. Detroit Bonzi Wells Ball State
12. Orlando Michael Doleac Utah
13. Orlando (from Wash.) Keon Clark UNLV
14. Houston Michael Dickerson Arizona
15. Orlando (from N.J.) Matt Harpring Georgia Tech

1997
First Round Player College
1. San Antonio Tim Duncan Wake Forest
2. Philadelphia (1) Keith Van Horn Utah
7. New Jersey (1) Tim Thomas Villanova
9. Toronto Tracy McGrady N/A
12. Indiana Austin Croshere Providence
13. Cleveland Derek Anderson Kentucky
14. LA Clippers Maurice Taylor Michigan
15. Dallas (3) (from Minnesota) Kelvin Cato Iowa State
16. Cleveland (from Phoenix) Brevin Knight Stanford
23. Seattle (4) Bobby Jackson Minnesota

I think well need a couple of years to rank this draft or to compare it 1984 or even to the 1999 draft.

There is alot of promise in this years crop. Hilario and T****isvillielielisnl have actually disappointed me considering how bad Denver is (i.e. they should be getting a ton of PT and they arent). Stoudamire and Wagner are better than I thought they would be. Williams and Gooden are on track with what most everyone predicted. Dunleavy is the big bust so far.

The others are probably going to end up as nice role players.

It will be alot of fun to look back on this class in 3 years like we can now with the 99 draft (that 99 draft might even rival the 84 one).

 

what about the 98 draft with carter, kandi, bibby, nowitzki, paul pierce, jamison and bonzi wells and among others jason williams and larry hughes? that was a pretty damn good draft if you ask me

same with the 96 draft
iverson,marbury,ray allen,steve nash, shareef,kobe,stojakovic, antoine walker and jermaine o'neal

not taking anything away from this years draft but I think these two years were very very strong draft years

 

Boozer is more than coming on. He's freaking lighting it up. That guy is playing at an unbelievable level right now. Maybe better than Ming.

 

the 1996 draft is hands down the best since '84. 10 years from now, it may surpass it.

Iverson, Abdur-Rahim, Marbury, Allen, Walker, Bryant, Stojakovic, Nash, O'Neal

 

Those four were all drafted at #13 or later ... and the worst GM in modern NBA history had to pick Todd Fuller ahead of all of them.

 

Oh. My. God. The only explanation is that he was deliberately trying to derail his franchise, and was succeeding. Scott Layden, I believe, is just a moron when it comes to these sort of transactions. However, my vote would go to a GM/coach (i.e. control freak) like Rick Pitino who sincerely believed he was building a successful franchise by modeling it after his system (trapping, pressing, tempo-control, a backcourt rotation of nothing but combo-guards, a defense that feeds the offense, etc.) Unfortunately this led to his gutting the entire roster (giving away Chris Mills, Rick Fox, Eric Williams and David Wesley - all quality players), overvaluing mediocre players on the trading block (Ron Mercer, Danny Fortson), making very short-sighted decisions (believed his team was only lacking a terror in the lane, so he trades a lottery pick for Vitaly Potapenko) and just signing the worst players (Travis Knight to a 7-year $22 million deal, signing Dwayne Schintzius over Ben Wallace, countless other horror stories). NBA management requires common-sense over genius and principle.

 

Cod,

How on earth is 97 good, sure Duncan, and McGrady are special but the rest of them are either inconsistent or malcontents

Smeg

 

poor Swopa... sorry for the memories, now he has to put the white reverse jacket on again

 

There's one of the worst drafts of the 90s.

 

You think I'm ever allowed to take it off?!? I'm flattered.

 

Dude, that GM sucked. What the F was he thinking?

By the way, the 1999 draft was incredible.

 

1997 isn't a good draft. 1999 is a verry good draft. i also thought this year will be great,we will see in time.

 

No draft will ever top '84. That draft defined the pure stars in the NBA.

 

99 draft... if the clips got steve they would have half of the top 10 on their team DAMN,. but if u had half the top 10 players from the 84 draft you would for sure have the best team ever. but the clips arent that good,

but i think the 99 draft is gr8 and deeper than the 84 draft

 

Why don't you have a point system
6 points for a Top 10 player (Jordan)
5 points for a Top 50 Players (Pippen)
4 points for an All star (Hornacek)
3 points for a quality starter (Vernon Maxwell)
2 points for an average player - starter or bench (Robert Horry)
1 point for a perennial bench player (Scott Brooks)
0 points for a scrub

Or whatever, and try to put a number on it. That's an easy way to add value.

Or you could simply find out the career averages of each draft class in the major stat categories. Then rank those stats between draft classes and take averages.

 

i just like the vernon maxwell over horry part

 

This was at the time when the Bulls were winning championships and the conventional wisdom began to arise that what you needed to win was 2 dominant superstars (a la Jordan and Pippen) surrounded by role players, rather than other players who would demand shots/touches/etc.

So Twardzik came to the (now-laughable) conclusion that GS had too much talent, and embarked on a plan to build the Warriors in the Bulls' image, with Sprewell and Smith as the cornerstone players. Thus Hardaway and Seikaly were sent packing for the likes of Bimbo Coles and Felton Spencer, who were seen as "better fits" for the new era.

Even if one could find a way to accept the philosophy, one glaring problem with its execution was that Twardzik was drastically overrating the abilities of Sprewell and Smith (as I pointed out at the time).

Another, evidenced by the selection of Smith at #1 overall, is that Twardzik simply had an abysmal eye for draft talent. Not only did he think that Smith was a potential franchise cornerstone and Todd Fuller a legitimate NBA player, he told Ric Bucher before the '96 draft that he had personally scouted one of Kobe Bryant's high school games, and he didn't think Kobe was all that good ("not even the best player on the high school floor" were the words Bucher attributed to Twardzik).

Beyond that, even though he'd played in the NBA, Twardzik apparently didn't understand the interaction effects of one player upon others -- for example, that Smith's early good numbers were inflated by the presence of Seikaly, who for all his flaws drew not just the opponent's best interior defender but double-teams that allowed Smith open shots and lanes to crash the offensive boards. Or that with Smith being only 20 and Spree 27, the former wouldn't come into his prime until the latter was starting to decline.

On the plus side, I learned a lot about basketball by asking the same question you did.

 

I would disagree. The two top players in the NBA right now (argueably), came out of this draft. Therefore, I felt it is significant. Not necessarily based on quantity, but quality.