Quote from: Boris Badenov on May 17, 2016, 11:34:06 PM

While we all wanted top 2 with varying degrees of desperation, here is some perspective from recent drafts in which there was a consensus top 2, with a significant drop after that:

2014: Wiggins/Parker. Too early to tell, though these guys would probably go #1 and #2 again.

2008: Rose/Beasley. Beasley was a clear bust, with Westbrook (#4) and Love (#5) ending up as far superior players.

2007: Oden/Durant. Horford and Conley (#3 and #4) both ended up better than Oden. Durant is the clear #1.

2004: Howard/Okafor. Howard would go #1 again without question. Okafor was eclipsed by a few other players including Deng and Iggy.

Takeaways:
1. in almost every instance, the top 2 in those drafts ended up yielding an MVP-level player.
2. However, in the three drafts where we have the most data, the "hit rate" on those picks was only 50%. Half of those guys ended up worse than players taken after them, even though they were initially perceived to be far better than the field.
3. The consolation prizes in those drafts always include all-stars, but often of the "he's a good #2 on a championship team" type.

Take if for what you will. But to me these seem like decent analogies for the situation we are in now.

I'm interested in what the scouting reports said about the guys in the next tier of players.  Why were they considered a clear cut below the top two, and why did that turn out to be wrong?

Wasn't last year's draft a two player draft at one time? Okafor and Townes and then Okafor dropped to three and it became a three player draft.