I'm calling it...our #3 draft pick for 2016. Buddy Hield. Boom.

[LarBrd33]

I think people are more willing to overlook Hield's flaws

I don't think people are overlooking Hield's flaws.  That is what is happening with Simmons, Ingram and Murray.  Simmons can't shoot a lick.  Ingram could probably get pushed around on court by most of the people who post here.  Murray is no better an athlete than Hield.

Mike

From what I understand, nobody is overlooking the flaws of Simmons or Ingram either.  This is why, as far as I understand, Ford's tiers will have Simmons and Ingram as tier 2 prospects (players with star potential, but not "can't miss" - though I suspect Simmons might get the tier 1 designation if he impresses), with the rest of the big names defined as tier 3 (starter potential) or tier 4 (quality role players).   There might not be a single tier 1 player in this draft.  Last year only Karl towns got the designation.

Okafor was listed as a tier 2 prospect and the articles I've read about Boston potentially trading for him have unanimously said Okafor would go 3rd at worst in this draft.

So again, if hield is defined as a 3rd/4th tier player, that puts him on the same level (or below) Doug McDermott as a prospect when McDermott was entering the league. 

Obviously we can look at any draft in retrospect and retroactively change our minds about it based on who underachieved or overachieved.  But the point of ford's article is that he speaks with front offices and scouts to get a read on how experts define these prospects when they are coming out.  Few guys are seen as can't miss.   Most years there are guys with star potential (there were none expected in 2013).  I'm guessing at this point because ford's article drops in late June after experts have more time to watch these guys in person, but my initial read is that Hield will be a Doug McDermott level prospect at best.

Big note:  Draft boards change considerably between May and July when NBA teams get to have these players in for visits.  Ultimately, this draft might be considered pretty poor a month from now.  We aren't sure yet.  Hield could rise or fall depending on what teams learn.

[PhoSita]

Oh, the other point of those quotes is, you can find quotes about anybody to support your belief that they are star material.

But especially, "He's a natural born scorer," "he has an amazing jumpshot" and "he's such a hard worker" seem to be particularly useful explanations for why a guy's perceived flaws, in particular the fact that a guy wasn't first round material until his senior year, should be discounted.

[PhoSita]

Ironically, when I first heard the name Buddy Hield during the early part of the recent NCAA season, I figured he was probably white.  I hadn't actually seen him yet, but kept hearing all the hype.

"Buddy Hield from Oklahoma"?  It sounded like such a good ole boy, white Southern name to me.

I'll give you that, Buddy does seem like a name for a guy who will offer you a lukewarm can of Miller Light from a beach chair on his front lawn on a Sunday morning, rather than a college basketball star.

[Celtics18]

I think people are more willing to overlook Hield's flaws

I don't think people are overlooking Hield's flaws.  That is what is happening with Simmons, Ingram and Murray.  Simmons can't shoot a lick.  Ingram could probably get pushed around on court by most of the people who post here.  Murray is no better an athlete than Hield.

Mike

From what I understand, nobody is overlooking the flaws of Simmons or Ingram either.  This is why, as far as I understand, Ford's tiers will have Simmons and Ingram as tier 2 prospects (players with star potential, but not "can't miss" - though I suspect Simmons might get the tier 1 designation if he impresses), with the rest of the big names defined as tier 3 (starter potential) or tier 4 (quality role players).   There might not be a single tier 1 player in this draft.  Last year only Karl towns got the designation.

So again, if hield is defined as a 3rd/4th tier player, that puts him on the same level (or below) Doug McDermott as a prospect.

Obviously we can look at any draft in retrospect and retroactively change our minds about it based on who underachieved or overachieved.  But the point of ford's article is that he speaks with front offices and scouts to get a read on how experts define these prospects when they are coming out.  Few guys are seen as can't miss.   Most years there are guys with star potential (there were none expected in 2013).  I'm guessing at this point because ford's article drops in late June after experts have more time to watch these guys in person, but my initial read is that Hield will be a Doug McDermott level prospect at best.

I re-iterate;  according to Ford there were eight "can't-miss" prospects in 2014.  In 2013, there were none. 

Yet, in NBA reality, the 2013 class has shown more both in terms of star potential and solid pro potential.

Ford didn't just miss on a couple.  He was completely off-base.  That's what happens, though, with draft prognostications about young athletes.  It turns out they are humans and not numbers and measurables.  As such, they end up being unpredictable despite the fact that those who get paid to guess right continually try to convince us they found The Formula.

[LarBrd33]

Mike, your attack wasn't warranted.  I'm genuinely asking questions.  I freely admit to not watching College ball.

McDermott went 11th in a what was believed to be an epic draft 8 stars deep.   

Here is why every attack you get is deserved.

Drafted before McDermott in 2014...

10.  Elfrid Payton.
9.  Noah Vonleh.
8.  Nik Stauskus.
7.  Julius Randle.
6.  MARCUS SMART
5.  Dante Exum.
4.  Aaron Gordon.
3.  Joel Embiid.
2.  Jabari Parker.
1.  Andrew Wiggins.

2014 was a three star draft.  That's what everyone said at the time.  That's what everyone thinks now, unless Embiid can't ever play and then they think of it as a two star draft.  Aaron Gordon was not a star.  Dante Exum was intriguing but not a star.  You've spent the last two years constantly whining about Marcus Smart.  Julius Randle was not a star.  Nik Stauskus was surely not a star.  Some of these guy may turn out to be very, very good, even great players but NO ONE thought the 2014 draft was "epic" that went 8 stars deep.

You are just flat out making stuff up about a draft that only happened two years ago.  So, you're either trolling or you have some sort of a brain disorder.

Mike

While I don't think the name calling was necessary here, this is an accurate post.

There were only three guys in the 2014/15 draft that were being considered as star prospects - Wiggins, Parker and Embiid.

It's frankly extremely weird to me that you think his post was accurate.  It wasn't. At all.  Are you looking at the draft in retrospect or something?  His point was the furthest from the truth and it's extremely easy to prove him wrong.

Prior to the 2014 draft we were well aware it was an "epic" draft with multiple elite prospects.  Most thought it was 8 players deep - which is why I was driving the tank bandwagon that everyone eventually hopped onto.  It was the acknowledgement that while there were a few possible transcendent prospects, there were several others with star potential.

This is backed up by Chad ford's pre-draft tier article.  As he said, there were a total of 9 prospects who were in the top two "tiers" (tier 1 reserved for players who are can't miss.  Tier 2 reserved for prospects who have star potential).   Per Ford's article, all 9 of those players would have been picked ahead of every single 2013 draft prospect (the top players in that class were only tier 3). 

So he's wrong.  Dead wrong.  And his attitude is shameful.  Accusing me of having brain damage because he himself doesn't remember facts correctly.   

My point is that we haven't yet had a conclusive read on this draft.  From what I understand, Simmons might be considered a tier 1 project.  Ingram is probably a tier 2 prospect.  The rest of them are tier 3 at best.    If buddy hield is considered a tier 3 prospect as I expect, that puts him on a par with Nik stauskas, Doug McDermott and the best of the 2013 draft class.   Those prospects project as starters.  It's nothing to sneeze at.  And like I said, Doug is proving to be an NBA player - I'm sure we could use someone with his shooting ability.   

It's pretty clear from this thread though that folks are super defensive of Hield as if he's the next Celtic superstar and can't fathom he might be a Doug McDermott level prospect.   I'd understand this more if hield was wearing Celtic green, but he's not.  Most mocks I see have him going 6th or 7th.  I wonder if these folks will remain this defensive of hield if he ends up putting up mediocre rookie stats on the 76ers next season.

This just all goes to show how inaccurate Ford and the rest of the professional draft prognosticators often are.

Despite Ford's tiers, it is actually currently looking like the players from the 2013 draft could end up being more successful as a group than their counterparts from 2014.

Why do you see arguing for Buddy Hield as being "defensive"?  We are simply discussing the merits of a player we like.  That seems like a reasonable pursuit on a basketball forum.

Anything can happen in retrospect.    A guy like Rudy Gobert can exceed expectations while a player with "star potential" like Marcus smart can dramatically disappoint and pan out as a defensive bench player. 

But that doesn't change the fact that these scouts/experts have an initial read on these prospects when they enter the draft and have expectations for them.   2014 was seen as having 9 players in the top 2 tiers.  This draft might have two players in those tiers.   That doesn't mean a tier 3/4 prospect like hield is incapable of exceeding expectations.

In defense of 2014, it's still too soon to count out that draft.  You are comparing it to 2013 based on 3rd year performances of guys like McCollum.  Let's wait and see what these 2014 guys do in year 3, because it seems to me players like Jabari Parker, randle and Gordon were showing up in a huge way at the end of last season.  And the jury is still out on guys like exum and embiid... And hopefully Marcus smart has some potential left in him too.

[PhoSita]

It can be true that the 2014 draft class had a number of players with high ceilings AND also be true that more players from the 2013 draft actually turned into useful NBA rotation pieces.

[LarBrd33]

I think people are more willing to overlook Hield's flaws

I don't think people are overlooking Hield's flaws.  That is what is happening with Simmons, Ingram and Murray.  Simmons can't shoot a lick.  Ingram could probably get pushed around on court by most of the people who post here.  Murray is no better an athlete than Hield.

Mike

From what I understand, nobody is overlooking the flaws of Simmons or Ingram either.  This is why, as far as I understand, Ford's tiers will have Simmons and Ingram as tier 2 prospects (players with star potential, but not "can't miss" - though I suspect Simmons might get the tier 1 designation if he impresses), with the rest of the big names defined as tier 3 (starter potential) or tier 4 (quality role players).   There might not be a single tier 1 player in this draft.  Last year only Karl towns got the designation.

So again, if hield is defined as a 3rd/4th tier player, that puts him on the same level (or below) Doug McDermott as a prospect.

Obviously we can look at any draft in retrospect and retroactively change our minds about it based on who underachieved or overachieved.  But the point of ford's article is that he speaks with front offices and scouts to get a read on how experts define these prospects when they are coming out.  Few guys are seen as can't miss.   Most years there are guys with star potential (there were none expected in 2013).  I'm guessing at this point because ford's article drops in late June after experts have more time to watch these guys in person, but my initial read is that Hield will be a Doug McDermott level prospect at best.

I re-iterate;  according to Ford there were eight "can't-miss" prospects in 2014.  In 2013, there were none. 

Yet, in NBA reality, the 2013 class has shown more both in terms of star potential and solid pro potential.

Ford didn't just miss on a couple.  He was completely off-base.  That's what happens, though, with draft prognostications about young athletes.  It turns out they are humans and not numbers and measurables.  As such, they end up being unpredictable despite the fact that those who get paid to guess right continually try to convince us they found The Formula.

Two years in you can make a case that the experts who ford based his tiers on were wrong.   And for all we know, hield will slip out of the lotto and spend his time in Europe, because these are the same experts who are ranking hield.

But in general, I actually think scouts do a pretty solid job of pinpointing the guys with star potential.  That 2014 draft is still shaping up to be epic.   Let's see what they do in year 3.

[Celtics18]

Mike, your attack wasn't warranted.  I'm genuinely asking questions.  I freely admit to not watching College ball.

McDermott went 11th in a what was believed to be an epic draft 8 stars deep.   

Here is why every attack you get is deserved.

Drafted before McDermott in 2014...

10.  Elfrid Payton.
9.  Noah Vonleh.
8.  Nik Stauskus.
7.  Julius Randle.
6.  MARCUS SMART
5.  Dante Exum.
4.  Aaron Gordon.
3.  Joel Embiid.
2.  Jabari Parker.
1.  Andrew Wiggins.

2014 was a three star draft.  That's what everyone said at the time.  That's what everyone thinks now, unless Embiid can't ever play and then they think of it as a two star draft.  Aaron Gordon was not a star.  Dante Exum was intriguing but not a star.  You've spent the last two years constantly whining about Marcus Smart.  Julius Randle was not a star.  Nik Stauskus was surely not a star.  Some of these guy may turn out to be very, very good, even great players but NO ONE thought the 2014 draft was "epic" that went 8 stars deep.

You are just flat out making stuff up about a draft that only happened two years ago.  So, you're either trolling or you have some sort of a brain disorder.

Mike

While I don't think the name calling was necessary here, this is an accurate post.

There were only three guys in the 2014/15 draft that were being considered as star prospects - Wiggins, Parker and Embiid.

It's frankly extremely weird to me that you think his post was accurate.  It wasn't. At all.  Are you looking at the draft in retrospect or something?  His point was the furthest from the truth and it's extremely easy to prove him wrong.

Prior to the 2014 draft we were well aware it was an "epic" draft with multiple elite prospects.  Most thought it was 8 players deep - which is why I was driving the tank bandwagon that everyone eventually hopped onto.  It was the acknowledgement that while there were a few possible transcendent prospects, there were several others with star potential.

This is backed up by Chad ford's pre-draft tier article.  As he said, there were a total of 9 prospects who were in the top two "tiers" (tier 1 reserved for players who are can't miss.  Tier 2 reserved for prospects who have star potential).   Per Ford's article, all 9 of those players would have been picked ahead of every single 2013 draft prospect (the top players in that class were only tier 3). 

So he's wrong.  Dead wrong.  And his attitude is shameful.  Accusing me of having brain damage because he himself doesn't remember facts correctly.   

My point is that we haven't yet had a conclusive read on this draft.  From what I understand, Simmons might be considered a tier 1 project.  Ingram is probably a tier 2 prospect.  The rest of them are tier 3 at best.    If buddy hield is considered a tier 3 prospect as I expect, that puts him on a par with Nik stauskas, Doug McDermott and the best of the 2013 draft class.   Those prospects project as starters.  It's nothing to sneeze at.  And like I said, Doug is proving to be an NBA player - I'm sure we could use someone with his shooting ability.   

It's pretty clear from this thread though that folks are super defensive of Hield as if he's the next Celtic superstar and can't fathom he might be a Doug McDermott level prospect.   I'd understand this more if hield was wearing Celtic green, but he's not.  Most mocks I see have him going 6th or 7th.  I wonder if these folks will remain this defensive of hield if he ends up putting up mediocre rookie stats on the 76ers next season.

This just all goes to show how inaccurate Ford and the rest of the professional draft prognosticators often are.

Despite Ford's tiers, it is actually currently looking like the players from the 2013 draft could end up being more successful as a group than their counterparts from 2014.

Why do you see arguing for Buddy Hield as being "defensive"?  We are simply discussing the merits of a player we like.  That seems like a reasonable pursuit on a basketball forum.

Anything can happen in retrospect.    A guy like Rudy Gobert can exceed expectations while a player with "star potential" like Marcus smart can dramatically disappoint and pan out as a defensive bench player. 

But that doesn't change the fact that these scouts/experts have an initial read on these prospects when they enter the draft and have expectations for them.   2014 was seen as having 9 players in the top 2 tiers.  This draft might have two players in those tiers.   That doesn't mean a tier 3/4 prospect like hield is incapable of exceeding expectations.

In defense of 2014, it's still too soon to count out that draft.  You are comparing it to 2013 based on 3rd year performances of guys like McCollum.  Let's wait and see what these 2014 guys do in year 3, because it seems to me players like Jabari Parker, randle and Gordon were showing up in a huge way at the end of last season.  And the jury is still out on guys like exum and embiid... And hopefully Marcus smart has some potential left in him too.

The jury is definitely still out, but I was actually comparing 2014's performance this year to last year's performance by the 2013 class.  Not accounting for Giannis and McCollum's respective jumps this past season, the 2013 class was still ahead after their sophomore NBA season.

[LarBrd33]

It can be true that the 2014 draft class had a number of players with high ceilings AND also be true that more players from the 2013 draft actually turned into useful NBA rotation pieces.

having the benefit of hindsight doesn't change the fact that if McDermott and Hield were coming out at the same time, McDermott might have gone ahead of Hield. 

I suspect that experts see hield as a tier 3 prospect.  This would mean he's seen as being on the same level as guys like stauskas, McDermott and mclemore when those players entered the draft.  The good news is, hield might have been taken as high as 1 in 2013.  The bad news is, he would have been taken after all 9 guys at the top of the 2014 draft board. 

[ahonui06]

It can be true that the 2014 draft class had a number of players with high ceilings AND also be true that more players from the 2013 draft actually turned into useful NBA rotation pieces.

having the benefit of hindsight doesn't change the fact that if McDermott and Hield were coming out at the same time, McDermott might have gone ahead of Hield. 

I suspect that experts see hield as a tier 3 prospect.  This would mean he's seen as being on the same level as guys like stauskas, McDermott and mclemore.  The good news is, hield might have been taken as high as 1 in 2013.  The bad news is, he would have been taken after all 9 guys at the top of the 2014 draft board.

The reason I believe Hield would be a better prospect than McDermott is because he played in a power conference and had a deep March Madness run. Hield is also more athletic than McDermott, better measurables.

[Boris Badenov]

Fords Tiers are not just one dudes rankings. I mean he's pretty solid, but it's not like his word is law. From what I've seen and read Hield is superior to McBuckets and Redick in both work ethic and defensive ability/potential

Just to clarify, Ford's tiers comes from GMs and scouts. Not "just one dude."

They're not foolproof, because no ranking could be, but they are consensus opinions from the most-informed people out there.

[LarBrd33]

Mike, your attack wasn't warranted.  I'm genuinely asking questions.  I freely admit to not watching College ball.

McDermott went 11th in a what was believed to be an epic draft 8 stars deep.   

Here is why every attack you get is deserved.

Drafted before McDermott in 2014...

10.  Elfrid Payton.
9.  Noah Vonleh.
8.  Nik Stauskus.
7.  Julius Randle.
6.  MARCUS SMART
5.  Dante Exum.
4.  Aaron Gordon.
3.  Joel Embiid.
2.  Jabari Parker.
1.  Andrew Wiggins.

2014 was a three star draft.  That's what everyone said at the time.  That's what everyone thinks now, unless Embiid can't ever play and then they think of it as a two star draft.  Aaron Gordon was not a star.  Dante Exum was intriguing but not a star.  You've spent the last two years constantly whining about Marcus Smart.  Julius Randle was not a star.  Nik Stauskus was surely not a star.  Some of these guy may turn out to be very, very good, even great players but NO ONE thought the 2014 draft was "epic" that went 8 stars deep.

You are just flat out making stuff up about a draft that only happened two years ago.  So, you're either trolling or you have some sort of a brain disorder.

Mike

While I don't think the name calling was necessary here, this is an accurate post.

There were only three guys in the 2014/15 draft that were being considered as star prospects - Wiggins, Parker and Embiid.

It's frankly extremely weird to me that you think his post was accurate.  It wasn't. At all.  Are you looking at the draft in retrospect or something?  His point was the furthest from the truth and it's extremely easy to prove him wrong.

Prior to the 2014 draft we were well aware it was an "epic" draft with multiple elite prospects.  Most thought it was 8 players deep - which is why I was driving the tank bandwagon that everyone eventually hopped onto.  It was the acknowledgement that while there were a few possible transcendent prospects, there were several others with star potential.

This is backed up by Chad ford's pre-draft tier article.  As he said, there were a total of 9 prospects who were in the top two "tiers" (tier 1 reserved for players who are can't miss.  Tier 2 reserved for prospects who have star potential).   Per Ford's article, all 9 of those players would have been picked ahead of every single 2013 draft prospect (the top players in that class were only tier 3). 

So he's wrong.  Dead wrong.  And his attitude is shameful.  Accusing me of having brain damage because he himself doesn't remember facts correctly.   

My point is that we haven't yet had a conclusive read on this draft.  From what I understand, Simmons might be considered a tier 1 project.  Ingram is probably a tier 2 prospect.  The rest of them are tier 3 at best.    If buddy hield is considered a tier 3 prospect as I expect, that puts him on a par with Nik stauskas, Doug McDermott and the best of the 2013 draft class.   Those prospects project as starters.  It's nothing to sneeze at.  And like I said, Doug is proving to be an NBA player - I'm sure we could use someone with his shooting ability.   

It's pretty clear from this thread though that folks are super defensive of Hield as if he's the next Celtic superstar and can't fathom he might be a Doug McDermott level prospect.   I'd understand this more if hield was wearing Celtic green, but he's not.  Most mocks I see have him going 6th or 7th.  I wonder if these folks will remain this defensive of hield if he ends up putting up mediocre rookie stats on the 76ers next season.

This just all goes to show how inaccurate Ford and the rest of the professional draft prognosticators often are.

Despite Ford's tiers, it is actually currently looking like the players from the 2013 draft could end up being more successful as a group than their counterparts from 2014.

Why do you see arguing for Buddy Hield as being "defensive"?  We are simply discussing the merits of a player we like.  That seems like a reasonable pursuit on a basketball forum.

Anything can happen in retrospect.    A guy like Rudy Gobert can exceed expectations while a player with "star potential" like Marcus smart can dramatically disappoint and pan out as a defensive bench player. 

But that doesn't change the fact that these scouts/experts have an initial read on these prospects when they enter the draft and have expectations for them.   2014 was seen as having 9 players in the top 2 tiers.  This draft might have two players in those tiers.   That doesn't mean a tier 3/4 prospect like hield is incapable of exceeding expectations.

In defense of 2014, it's still too soon to count out that draft.  You are comparing it to 2013 based on 3rd year performances of guys like McCollum.  Let's wait and see what these 2014 guys do in year 3, because it seems to me players like Jabari Parker, randle and Gordon were showing up in a huge way at the end of last season.  And the jury is still out on guys like exum and embiid... And hopefully Marcus smart has some potential left in him too.

The jury is definitely still out, but I was actually comparing 2014's performance this year to last year's performance by the 2013 class.  Not accounting for Giannis and McCollum's respective jumps this past season, the 2013 class was still ahead after their sophomore NBA season.

players traditionally make leaps in year 3.  If you want to compare the classes, compare their rookie and sophomore seasons in the NBA.  Or wait to see how the 2014 draft class performs in year 3, because as I said, Jabari Parker and Aaron Gordon looked outstanding down the stretch.  Embiid and exum didn't even play.  Randle played well in his first games.   And guys like Smart, hopefully, will see McCollum-Esque leaps in their 3rd season.   Even ol Dougy McBuckets could make a leap with minutes on Chicago next season.  In which case, maybe Hieldaholics will be less cranky at the comparison.

[Celtics18]

I think people are more willing to overlook Hield's flaws

I don't think people are overlooking Hield's flaws.  That is what is happening with Simmons, Ingram and Murray.  Simmons can't shoot a lick.  Ingram could probably get pushed around on court by most of the people who post here.  Murray is no better an athlete than Hield.

Mike

From what I understand, nobody is overlooking the flaws of Simmons or Ingram either.  This is why, as far as I understand, Ford's tiers will have Simmons and Ingram as tier 2 prospects (players with star potential, but not "can't miss" - though I suspect Simmons might get the tier 1 designation if he impresses), with the rest of the big names defined as tier 3 (starter potential) or tier 4 (quality role players).   There might not be a single tier 1 player in this draft.  Last year only Karl towns got the designation.

So again, if hield is defined as a 3rd/4th tier player, that puts him on the same level (or below) Doug McDermott as a prospect.

Obviously we can look at any draft in retrospect and retroactively change our minds about it based on who underachieved or overachieved.  But the point of ford's article is that he speaks with front offices and scouts to get a read on how experts define these prospects when they are coming out.  Few guys are seen as can't miss.   Most years there are guys with star potential (there were none expected in 2013).  I'm guessing at this point because ford's article drops in late June after experts have more time to watch these guys in person, but my initial read is that Hield will be a Doug McDermott level prospect at best.

I re-iterate;  according to Ford there were eight "can't-miss" prospects in 2014.  In 2013, there were none. 

Yet, in NBA reality, the 2013 class has shown more both in terms of star potential and solid pro potential.

Ford didn't just miss on a couple.  He was completely off-base.  That's what happens, though, with draft prognostications about young athletes.  It turns out they are humans and not numbers and measurables.  As such, they end up being unpredictable despite the fact that those who get paid to guess right continually try to convince us they found The Formula.

Two years in you can make a case that the experts who ford based his tiers on were wrong.   And for all we know, hield will slip out of the lotto and spend his time in Europe, because these are the same experts who are ranking hield.

But in general, I actually think scouts do a pretty solid job of pinpointing the guys with star potential.  That 2014 draft is still shaping up to be epic.   Let's see what they do in year 3.

The experts do their best and they have a fantastic job, but they don't actually come all that close to pinpointing who are going to be the stars and who aren't.

We don't know on draft day.  For me, that's part of what makes it so exciting.

[Boris Badenov]

The experts do their best and they have a fantastic job, but they don't actually come all that close to pinpointing who are going to be the stars and who aren't.

We don't know on draft day.  For me, that's part of what makes it so exciting.

I'm not disagreeing that they get individual picks wrong, but the overall 2013/2014 comparison is not a great example of Ford "getting it wrong," because the guys from 2013 who've been really good weren't taken in the top picks. They were just total outliers.

The consensus top players from 2014 are better prospects right now than the guys drafted 1-5 in 2013. It's not even close.

And if you go back further, the other years deemed "transcendent" - notably 2007 and 2003 - have played out that way, and the ones viewed as weaker have indeed been weaker.

There are exceptions of course but I think that one thing the scouts do a pretty good job of is the year-to-year comparison of the overall talent pool. Which is why I find Ford's tiers so intriguing.

[Celtics18]

It can be true that the 2014 draft class had a number of players with high ceilings AND also be true that more players from the 2013 draft actually turned into useful NBA rotation pieces.

having the benefit of hindsight doesn't change the fact that if McDermott and Hield were coming out at the same time, McDermott might have gone ahead of Hield. 

I suspect that experts see hield as a tier 3 prospect.  This would mean he's seen as being on the same level as guys like stauskas, McDermott and mclemore when those players entered the draft.  The good news is, hield might have been taken as high as 1 in 2013.  The bad news is, he would have been taken after all 9 guys at the top of the 2014 draft board.

Your first sentence is highly plausible.  In a easily imagine that if Buddy Hield and Doug McDermott came out in the same class, MCDermott would be more highly ranked.

As a fan, I'm more concerned with who's going to be a more successful pro than who is ranked in a higher tier pre-draft or who goes higher in the draft.

I read what the experts have to say, I watch the videos, look at the measurements and, then, I pick guys I like.  It's not a fool-proof formula; I'm wrong all the time.  It seems to me that the mistake you are making is taking something like Chad Ford's tiers as approaching the gospel truth about the futures of given prospects.

There should be warnings attached to all these mocks and rankings with the label; "these rankings are for entertainment purposes only.  Do not take them as representative of the absolute truth about the players in question."