Re-reading the scouting reports, and think you are caught up in media hype in rating Barrett in 2nd tier. Dude has too many flaws in his offensive game, starting with bad shooting, too left hand dominant, inability to shoot off screens, etc. etc.
While he may be better than most in your tier 3, that speaks more to how weak/thin the draft is.
Put another way, the vast majority of NBA GM's very likely would take Morant over Barrett, and Morant himself has some acute questions.
This leads me to my conclusion that the Knicks trade package for Davis, spear headed by Barrett, is not going to be competitive with any package we have that includes Tatum.
I have debated my Tier 2 and came to this conclusion. Pre lottery if ATL or Cavs ended up with the #2 pick I think they would have gone with Barrett. For all of his flaws he was previously the #1 player in his class and dominated in FIBA. I really think he will thrive in the NBA's more open style.
Being the #1 HS recruit should make no difference in evaluating talent. Avery Bradley, Brandon Jennings, Harrison Barnes and Nerlens Noel are examples of #1 HS recruits. They were all rightfully evaluated lower because of their play and those evaluations were correct. You can't ignore what players do in their 1st year at ultra competitive basketball because they were rated highly coming out of HS playing extremely less competitive basketball.
I agree being the #1 player in a class isn’t a guarantee the a player will have NBA success. However it does represent a pretty comprehensive ranking of all the players in a given class over multiple years. I look at it as one tool when assessing prospects.
As for his 1 year in college, people love to not pick his production bottom like is that he filled the stat sheet as a freshman playing in the best conference in college basketball.
https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/rj-barrett-1.html
His statistical production was very similar at the FIBA U19 where he was named MVP.
https://www.fiba.basketball/world/u19/2017/player/RJ-Barrett
Does he need to show a better over all b-ball IQ. Yes.
Does he need to improve giant outside shot? Yes
But those facts can’t over shadow the fact that he has been very productive at ever level of competition, has excellent positional size, and is as close to a can’t miss prospect as you will find in this class.
Why should all those years before college be considered just because they were made for years while the player played at a very subpar level of competition? I don't get it. Does it really matter that in the 9th and 10th grades they were top 10 ranked for their class, then ranked top of their class in grades 11 and 12, if, once they get to play against real competition, they show they aren't as good as those who made the rankings thought?
It's for these reasons I never follow or watch high school ball. Those games are meaningless in evaluating pro talent. You have to get those players and their skills playing against players with at least similar size, athleticism and skill level to properly evaluate. And you want to see how they play with other similarly sized and skilled team mates, see how they act to adversity and how they perform in the limelight of big games over an entire season.
But to each their own. My way is obviously different. I just see HS ball as being of no real value once they get to the point of being drafted to the pros.
