People need to stop pretending that Brown was not considered a reach at the time of the draft. The very same people that are crucifying LarBrd for suggesting Brown was not the clear-cut #3 best player in the draft also acknowledged the fact that Brown was a flawed player with the potential to drop beyond 3.
You seem to be confused.
I had -- and have -- my doubts about Brown.
All of the concerns I had in the past I still have today, though I mostly liked what I saw in summer league.
Yet it was not my decision to draft Brown at #3. Regardless of my personal doubts, the fact remains that the Celtics chose to take Brown at #3.
I can only assume this means they determined that Brown was the best talent available in that spot. If Danny were drafting to trade the pick, the obvious choice would've been Dunn.
I'm mostly OK with that, because you know what, the Celts had a lot more information to go on regarding Brown than I did. That doesn't mean Brown won't be a bust, or that the issues I've noticed in his game won't end up being dealbreakers for him in the NBA. It does mean, however, that I know a lot less about what the Celtics and other NBA talent evaluators considered to be Brown's talent level and likelihood of success in the league, especially compared to other prospects in this year's draft.
You say "considered to be a reach at the time of the draft."
I ask you -- by whom?
LarBrd has been arguing that we should view Brown as a "reach" pick at #3, and the evidence he provides is that Brown was "mocked" at 8-9 in the days leading up to the draft. The premise here is that the mock drafts are more indicative of the "objective" value of the draft prospects than the actual draft, where the actual teams make actual choices based on their own internal scouting and information, based on actual workouts and interviews to which the draft sites are by and large not privy.
That is ... strange.
For the most part, I assume LarBrd is taking this stance just to drum up controversy and conversation in the dullest time of the NBA calendar. Witness his new rotating Chad Ford avatar. I think the jig is up.
If you think I'm trying to attack Brown or drum up controversy by sharing factual evidence Brown wasn't seen as the consensus #3 pick, I'm not doing a very good job of explaining my point of view. I'll try to clear it up:I'm not saying we should consider Brown a reach. However, yes, it's entirely 100% true that some "draftniks" called it a reach at #3 after the pick. It wasn't the dominant storyline, though. As I've pointed out with mountains of evidence, most "draftniks" said this was a two player draft. After Simmons and Ingram, there was a consensus that the guys in the 3-8 range were the best of the rest. Decent prospects who were unlikely to become stars. Everyone knew that the next 6 picks would be Murray, Hield, Chriss, Brown, Bender and Dunn in some order. There was no consensus on what the order would be, because none of them stood out.
Let's just put to rest any idea that Brown was the consensus #3 pick on anyone's board. And that includes Boston. There's multiple scenarios in which Boston wouldn't have selected Brown at #3. For one, had they traded the pick (as you point out) there's little chance we would have taken Brown on behalf of another team. Additionally, had Boston made a move on draft night that cut down our guard rotation (something involving Smart, Rozier or both) for a forward or big man, it's pretty unlikely Brown would have been our pick. We took Brown in large part because our desperate attempts to trade out of the draft fell short and we knew taking a 7th guard to fight for minutes with Thomas, Smart, Bradley, Hunter, Rozier and Young (not to mention Turner who was still possibly staying at that point) - would have been pretty freakin stupid. We would have been in the same terrible position Philly is allegedly in for having too many centers.
You could argue that taking Dunn would have put us in the best position to make a trade, but we'd be losing leverage since everyone knew Boston couldn't roll out 7 guard rotation next season.
So with a lot of those guards off the table, it narrowed down our choice of the 6 interchangeable options. Then it probably came down to who the team felt would be capable of making defensive contributions off the bench and would hopefully have upside. Who would lose the least amount of trade value by spending two years riding the pine? Who could they afford to take their time with?
I was and continue to be a fan of the Jaylen Brown pick. He's 19 and has a clear path towards minutes. He's young enough that he could get the ol Celtic redshirt treatment (spot minutes off the bench of a stint in d-league if he struggles) and he'll still presumably be an asset two seasons from now when he's 21 years old. That's the great thing about players who get the "project" and "raw" label - nobody expects them to contribute immediately. Hopefully he helps us defensively in the short-term, but it was a pick with the long-term in mind. If he contributes quickly, great... if not, they aren't hurting their leverage or positioning by having him come on slowly.
Within the last month, there's been a couple goofs on this forum who have tried to re-write history and pretend like Jaylen was some highly touted consensus top pick coming out. That wasn't the case. Anyone who wasn't living under a rock leading up to the draft is aware of this. Feel free to scoff at the consensus from the "draftniks", but accept that the "draftniks" saw Brown as a lesser prospect than Simmons/Ingram. He appeared in the 7-9 range in the vast majority of mocks. Essentially all of them were quick to admit that the players in the 3-8 range could go in any order depending on who owned the picks. He was seen as a lesser prospect than Marcus Smart when Marcus came out two years ago. Had Boston not taken Jaylen at #3, Denver at 7 is the earliest he gets taken. It looks like he would end up going to the Raptors at #9.
All this said, it doesn't matter... Jaylen might end up the best player in this draft 5 years from now. Nobody has really any idea. That includes every single person on this forum, the mass consensus of draftniks, and the entire staff of the Boston Celtics. Nobody knows what he'll turn into. Jaylen is raw. He's didn't look NBA-ready yet. Nobody can magically predict how he develops. He seems like a great kid, seemingly has the right mentality, and he's coming into the perfect system. It's a winning team with talented defense-first NBA players to compete with and learn from nightly. The coaching staff is outstanding.
I'm a big proponent in the idea that Rajon Rondo wouldn't have become the Rajon Rondo we know (multi-time all-star) had he been drafted by another team. Rondo ended up in the perfect situation. His GM was a former all-star guard. His coach was a former all-star guard. During his second he had three hall-of-fame mentors each with uniquely different approaches and mentalities to learn from (Pierce the Gifted, Ray the Meticulous, KG the Intense). He was able to learn from Sam Cassell. He was probably even able to pick up some things from Stephon Marbuary. All on a dedicated defense-first contender and a strong winning culture. All of that likely increased Rondo's ceiling.
I've said this many times before. If you simplify things and imagine players as their videogame counterparts... some prospects probably enter as a 2.5 star with 5 star potential. Others might enter as a 3 star with 4 star potential. Often players fail to live up to their potential. In some rare cases, I think they exceed their potential. In the case of Rondo, I think he entered the league with 3 star potential - but thanks to a perfect system and surrounding talent, he vastly exceeded it and ended up a 4 star player in his peak. Whereas, someone like Darius Miles probably had 5 star potential, but thanks to a disaster of a system (those early Clippers teams were ghastly), he never came close to reaching it.
Point is, regardless of how the "draftniks" saw Brown or what the consensus expectations are (believed he was in a "tier" that was unlikely to develop into stars), I have the utmost faith in this coaching staff and system. Everyone consistently said Brown was physically gifted and had tools. If any team is going to harness those gifts/tools, it's this Boston Celtic team. Yes, Jaylen was described in a similar manner to Anthony Bennett prior to the 2013 season (all the same descriptions that got Bennett taken 1st in a down-draft). The difference being, Bennett went to a Mike Brown-coached dumpster-fire of a lotto-bound Cavs team, wasn't properly motivated, and had his confidence shattered. Luckily for Brown, he's going to a place that will get the most out of him.
This is why I'm excited about Brown. This is why I have continued to admit, "yeah, others (Smart, Darius Miles, etc) were seen as greater prospects, but I'm more excited about Brown"... Because I desperately wanted us to take a 19 year old with physical gifts. I see Brown as a blank page. I can't wait to see what we do with him.
Here's the thing, my great hope is that Brown ends up a superstar someday. I'm not being cheeky when I say 5 years from now I think he can be better than Jimmy Butler. If he gets to that level, don't bother coming back to a thread like this, taking some out-of-context quote of mine to suggest I thought Brown was a bad prospect. That wouldn't capture the points I'm trying to make. I don't think players have a set development path. So much of it depends on the situation and how that player reacts to that situation. Maybe Chriss is a slightly better prospect than Brown, but maybe Chriss fails on a crappy Suns team while Brown flourishes. Perhaps Brown would fail if he was going to the Suns. Maybe the opposite will happen... maybe Chriss' greater opportunity in Phoenix will allow him to develop quicker. Maybe Brown will struggle to make an impact on a loaded contender, similar to Darko Millicic's struggles on a Pistons contender.
Look, if you're going to continue to pretend like I'm talking out of my butt when I say the consensus was the players in the 3-8 range were interchangeable prospects, I'll continue to stand my ground. Ultimately, it doesn't freakin matter though. And I've continued to say it doesn't matter. Brown is a Celtic now. We're all hoping for the best. How he was perceived prior to the 2016 draft is irrelevant. There's no need to be defensive about it. The opposite is true as well... if by some miracle I'm wrong about this and Brown was widely believed to be the 3rd best prospect - so what... that's not going to impact whether or not he actually lives up to that position.
Topic: If Boston didn't take Brown where do you think he would have gone? (Read 29792 times)