I don't have a problem with people like Cousins over Thomas. But I really wonder how justified it really is to like a guy you've seen in the NBA over one that you haven't seen in the NBA. We all know it's difficult to assess a guy in college. That's why there are always busts in drafts. The GMs have to imagine how the college guy, with in many cases only with one year of college experience, is going to play in the NBA. It's risky. I sometimes wonder if fans invest all the potentially good things in the college guy and dismiss the potential bad and all the unknowns, whereas they focus on all the bad stuff with the guy already in the NBA. It's almost like the grass is greener syndrome.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I try to be fair when I evaluate a college player. Which is one of the reasons I try to watch as many games as I can before making any kind of final judgement. To be honest, I wasn't that impressed with Cousins the first time I saw him. But about five games in I started to get a more complete picture of him. And after about 20 games I feel fairly comfortable with any conclusions I have of him. Obviously I haven't watched every player that many times. But most of the players I comment on I've probably seen a minimum of 4 to 5 times. Guys like Whiteside, Benson, Parakhouski, etc, because they play in lesser conferences and their just not on that many times. The rest I've seen somewhere around 10 to 12 times.
Now I realize that most people don't have the time to watch as many games as I do. Or don't have the desire. But to watch just one game, or perhaps even two games and then draw a conclusion is almost impossible. Unless you just get real lucky. It would be like watching one Kings game all year to scout Beno. If you happen to catch one of his good ones you'll see things one way, and if you just happen to catch one of his bad ones. Well you can see what I mean.
So when I watch a college player I don't give any more significance to a bad game than I do a great game. But if I watch 20 games, and 18 out of the 20 are all very consistant to one another, then I assume thats who the player is. Now I may rave about a player. Such as Turner. But I do point out that his outside shot is suspect and is his one real weakness. So I may like a player, but I do try to point out whatever flaws he may have.
As far as criticism reaching a higher level once a player gets into the NBA. I think fans have their own perception of what a players capabilities are. And they pass judgement based on that. It may not be realistic at times but thats the way it is. Also some fans have their own favorites that they wanted drafted, and their reasons why they wanted that player over the player that was drafted. So they have a tendecy to highlight any mistakes the player that was drafted makes. Personally I root for any player we draft to succeed. There's no reward for the team if one of our picks fails. And because I've seen so many teams give up on players too early, I'm probably more williing than some, to be more patient with young players.
Anyway, I've gotten too long winded here. One thing you said was very true though. Almost all draft picks are a crap shoot to a certain extent. By that, I mean the degree to which they meet expectations. Because success or failure is not determined by anything but those expectations. Which sometimes just aren't fair. Thabeet being a prime example. If Thompson for example ends up being a 15 and 9 guy, he may be a success in his own mind, but a failure in the minds of the fans. It all about perception..