Will this NBA Draft be as bad as the 2001 NBA Draft (Kwame Brown Draft)?

by jmpalomo on May 10, 2011 5:13 AM EDT

Kwame Brown, Eddie Curry, Eddie Griffin, Desagan Diop and Rodney White. 5 of the Top 10 picks of the 2001 NBA Draft that were just absolute BUSTS. This draft is said to be a very mediocre draft. At my count only 13 out of the 28 First Round Draft picks from 2001 did anything in the NBA. It produced exceptional players in Gasol, Joe Johnson, Gerald Wallace and Zach Randolph, but 15 of the rest of the first round picks did not make it. The 2nd round produced Gilbert, Okur, an OK backup in Bobby Simmons and 24 flat out BUMS.

So before we think about passing on a Brandon Knight if we end up with the 4th pick to take a need position player such as Vesely or the Lithuania player we should ask ourselves if we will be drafting the next Eddie Griffin or Rodney White.

My feeling is in a very weak draft you take the highest rated player on your board and you don't worry about position. You can always trade a talented point guard later. If a miracle happens and Derrick Williams falls on our lap then Alleluia, otherwise just take the best dang player. If 2001 is the comparrison for this draft then we have a 20% chance to land an all star with our first pick and a 50% chance that our pick will be a BUM.

This represents the view of the user who wrote the FanPost, and not the entire Bullets Forever community. We're a place of many opinions, not just one.

Tweet Comment 9 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I actually think Brandon Knight will be a bust

He doesn’t make many plays on defense, doesn’t rebound all that well, and he shoots a low percentage from the floor, all of which seems to point to him not being particularly athletic. The Kwame draft wasn’t actually that awful, I’d be more than happy to get a Tyson Chandler or Gilbert Arenas caliber player out of this. I’m more worried about it being like the 2000 draft where even the good players (Redd, Crawford, Martin) were highly flawed in at least one way.

Follow me on twitter -
http://twitter.com/TheRealTPruitt

by pantslessyoda1 on May 10, 2011 10:36 AM EDT reply actions

Why do folks think that the PGs of this draft have lower bust potential than other positions?

by MR on May 10, 2011 11:37 AM EDT reply actions

because most people have seen the PGs

but have not seen a lot of the bigs.

the OP refers to “Vesely or the Lithuania player” so i am guessing that he, like me, does not have super-satellite television broadcasting Soviet-bloc sporting events.

I watched Kentucky play about five times. B. Knight looked better than I have ever seen Darko, Tskitishvili, or Yi Jianlian play. Thus, I’d draft Knight before drafting the Euros. Its unfair to foreign players, but if I had better info, I’d be more open to them.

by John Park Williams on May 10, 2011 12:40 PM EDT up reply actions

much less of a transition for them

than a european player who’s used to different rules and much different game. In some cases theses PGs will now get less contact and hand-checking than they did on college.

by Jheiser3 on May 10, 2011 1:37 PM EDT up reply actions

Easier now to be a good PG than it ever was in the past?

by DCrez on May 10, 2011 2:35 PM EDT up reply actions

2001 gets a bad rap based on the top of the draft . . .

In particular Kwame.

But looking at the list of picks now, I’m really surprised by just how many quality players ended up in the draft.

A bunch of All-Stars (5 in the first round, 7 total, plus a 2nd Team All-Defense player in Chandler) — at least one likely Hall of Famer (Tony Parker); a borderline franchise player in Joe Johnson — Arenas might have also fallen in that category before the injuries.

Several of the players who don’t fit in the All-Star group have still been quality players who have either worked as starters or have found a niche.

e.g. Richard Jefferson, Troy Murphy, Battier, Jason Richardson, even Haywood.

You also had a guy like Eddy Curry who had some quality seasons before his flame out.

If this years draft plays out like 2001, then that could actually be OK news for the Wizards, because it means that there are starting caliber 2nd and 3rd options available and there’s a chance that they’ll drop to wherever the Wizards are picking.

2000 and 2002 were bigger disappointments in my view. In 2002 there was nothing outside of the lottery; and in 2000 there was next to nothing. Even in terms of NBA-quality starters there was next to nothing outside of the lottery. If 20 picks out of 60 are still playing 10 years after a draft than that draft wasn’t a complete bust.

by Vegas010 on May 10, 2011 2:14 PM EDT reply actions