Looking back at the 2016 NBA Draft, I still get that familiar tingle of excitement mixed with professional curiosity. Having covered basketball prospects for over a decade now, I've learned that draft classes aren't just about individual talent—they're about connections, parallel journeys, and sometimes, the beautiful symmetry of players' paths crossing at the perfect moment. This particular draft class fascinates me because it reminds me of that intriguing dynamic from the UAAP where players who've known each other since childhood often develop similar trajectories toward stardom. That phenomenon of shared development paths isn't limited to Philippine basketball—we saw remarkable parallels throughout the 2016 draft class that made team evaluations particularly challenging and fascinating.
When I first started digging into the pre-draft analytics, the Ben Simmons versus Brandon Ingram debate dominated every conversation among scouts. Simmons, that 6'10" point forward from LSU with otherworldly passing vision, versus Ingram, Duke's slender but deadly scorer with a 7'3" wingspan that made defensive coaches drool. What struck me about both prospects was how their development arcs mirrored each other in fascinating ways—much like those UAAP stars who grew up competing against one another. Both were number one high school recruits, both dominated the college conversation despite playing in power conferences, and both faced questions about their physical readiness for the NBA. I remember sitting in draft war rooms and hearing the same argument repeatedly: "Do we want the guaranteed floor of Simmons or the ceiling of Ingram?" Personally, I was always team Simmons—that combination of size and playmaking just doesn't come around often, and I believed his shooting would develop better than critics suggested.
The middle of the first round presented what I consider the draft's most intriguing value propositions. Jaylen Brown at number three to Boston raised eyebrows at the time—I'll admit I was skeptical about his fit alongside Marcus Smart and Jae Crowder—but looking back, Danny Ainge saw what many of us missed: Brown's work ethic would transform his raw athleticism into All-Star production. Then there was Domantas Sabonis going eleventh to Orlando before being traded to Oklahoma City—a move I criticized initially but now recognize as savvy given how his game has blossomed. The Thon Maker selection at number ten still baffles me—Milwaukee reached for potential over production, and while I appreciate the gamble on unique physical tools, the return never justified the investment. What fascinates me about these mid-first round picks is how their professional journeys often reflect those early connections—players who faced each other in high school all-star games or AAU tournaments seemed to carry those rivalries into their NBA development.
As we moved into picks 15-30, the draft's depth began revealing itself. I distinctly remember arguing with colleagues about Pascal Siakam—most had him as a second-round prospect, but I loved his motor and believed Toronto found a gem at 27. The Caris LeVert selection at 20 was another favorite of mine—yes, the foot injuries concerned everyone, but his combination of size and shot creation screamed value if he could stay healthy. What made evaluating these later first-rounders particularly challenging was identifying which players had that special developmental curve ahead of them—the ones who, like those UAAP stars with shared histories, seemed destined for growth because of their competitive foundations. Malachi Richardson at 22 never quite found his rhythm, while Timothé Luwawu-Cabarrot at 24 showed flashes but never consistency—these were the calculated risks that separate championship rosters from also-rans.
The second round contained what I consider the draft's biggest steals—and I'm not just saying this with hindsight. Malcolm Brogdon at 36 was my personal favorite—a four-year college player with NBA-ready skills and maturity that screamed rotation player from day one. I remember telling anyone who'd listen that Brogdon would outperform at least half the first round, and his Rookie of the Year season validated that belief. The Ivica Zubac selection at 32 also impressed me—while he took time to develop, his soft hands and footwork suggested a player who'd stick around longer than many first-round big men. What these second-round successes taught me is that sometimes the best prospects are those with established competitive histories against top talent—much like players who develop through familiar rivalries, they arrive prepared for the NBA's mental challenges.
When I reflect on team-specific strategies from that draft, Philadelphia's approach stands out most dramatically. Selecting Ben Simmons first overall made sense—they needed a franchise cornerstone—but their trade-back into the first round to grab Furkan Korkmaz at 26 showed the international savvy that would later define their roster construction. Meanwhile, Golden State's selection of Damian Jones at 30 felt like the perfect luxury pick—a developmental big who could learn from their established stars without pressure. What impressed me about the most successful teams was how they identified players whose development paths suggested future growth—much like recognizing those UAAP connections, they saw how certain players' journeys had prepared them for specific roles.
Seven years later, the 2016 draft class has produced 4 All-Stars, 2 All-NBA selections, and approximately $1.2 billion in total career earnings—numbers that place it comfortably in the upper middle tier of draft classes this century. But what makes this class particularly memorable for me isn't just the talent—it's the stories of interconnected development, the parallel rises, and the way teams recognized those patterns. Just like those UAAP stars whose identical paths to stardom created special narratives, the 2016 draft class reminds us that basketball prospects don't develop in isolation—their connections and competitive histories shape their professional trajectories in ways we're still learning to properly evaluate.