How many drafts that are billed as top-heavy like this one wind up having a player or two picked where supposedly things fall off a cliff winding up just as good or better than the hyped ones at the very top? A lot, I'd wager.
It's true.
Just look at the 2013 draft, which was supposed to be extremely weak. The best two prospects in the draft were taken in the second half of the first round, and one of the top two picks was an out-and-out bust. Yet plenty of quality role players and even a number of starter-caliber guys have come from that draft.
I think the way to look at it is that a "weak" draft is one where the prospects are very difficult to assess. A "strong" draft presents you with a deep selection of guys you feel very confident will turn into high quality players.
A "weak" draft might produce just as many good players as the "strong" draft, but it's more of a crap shoot, so having a high pick isn't as valuable.
Usually when there are drafts with 2-3 can't miss prospects, at least one of them ends up pretty good. It's not really fair to compare this year to a draft where people went "who? wait, really?" when the first pick was announced. That was a draft that people thought was weak overall (it was ok in retrospect, but not great or anything) and hard to scout (it was).
This draft starts off good for two picks, then there are like 8 guys who are all ranked dead even and people think could be ok, then it becomes hard to scout. Neither of the top 5 picks have medical concerns, which is another bonus. There certainly might be some players in the second part like Luwawu, LaVert or Zhou Qi, but you're certainly not reaching for any of them.
Even if they do end up good, how much of that will be because they end up on teams with good coaching that use them correctly from day 1? Like if Petr Corneile ends up on the Spurs, do you think he's a different player than if he ends up on the Kings?
