Who Was the 2007 NBA Draft 1st Pick and How Did It Shape the League?
I still remember watching the 2007 NBA Draft like it was yesterday. The anticipation was electric, with sports analysts and fans alike debating who would be the first pick. When David Stern stepped to the podium and announced Greg Oden's name, the basketball world collectively held its breath. As someone who's followed the NBA for over two decades, I've rarely seen a draft pick carry such enormous expectations while simultaneously generating so much debate. The Portland Trail Blazers faced what many called the easiest and hardest decision in draft history - choose between the once-in-a-generation big man in Oden or the scoring phenom Kevin Durant. They went with the conventional wisdom of building around a dominant center, and honestly, at that moment, I agreed with the choice.
Looking back now with the benefit of hindsight, that decision didn't just alter the course of two franchises - it fundamentally reshaped how teams evaluate talent and approach the draft process. Oden's career was tragically derailed by injuries, playing only 105 games over his entire NBA career, while Durant became one of the greatest scorers in league history with four scoring titles and an MVP award by 2014. What fascinates me about this draft isn't just the "what if" scenario, but how it represents a pivotal moment in basketball philosophy. Teams started questioning whether you truly need a dominant big man to win championships, and the league began its gradual shift toward positionless basketball where skills mattered more than traditional roles.
The quote from Coach Tiongco about team chemistry and player development resonates deeply when I think about Oden's situation. He mentioned how lapses happen, especially with new players, and how crucial it is for rookies to mature into their roles. Portland had built what seemed like a promising young core, but the integration of a number one pick carries unique challenges. Oden missed his entire rookie season after microfracture surgery, which immediately disrupted the team's development timeline. When he finally did play, the pressure was immense - this wasn't just any rookie, this was supposed to be the franchise savior. I've always believed that environment matters tremendously for young players, and Oden entered what might have been the worst possible situation for his development - enormous expectations combined with immediate physical setbacks.
What's particularly striking to me is how Durant's development path differed so dramatically. Seattle (which became Oklahoma City) gave him the freedom to grow through his mistakes, allowing him to take 17.1 shots per game as a rookie despite his inefficient 43% shooting. They understood that short-term struggles were acceptable for long-term development, whereas Portland needed immediate contributions from Oden to justify their investment. This contrast highlights a crucial lesson about draft picks - context and development systems matter as much as raw talent. The Thunder built around Durant's unique skills rather than forcing him into a predefined role, which reminds me of Tiongco's point about players needing to find their specific roles within a team structure.
The ripple effects of that draft choice extended far beyond just two franchises. It made general managers more cautious about drafting players with injury concerns, but also more willing to take calculated risks on unconventional prospects. We started seeing teams prioritize skill sets over physical prototypes - the success of players like Stephen Curry (drafted two years later) might have been viewed differently if not for the lessons learned from the Oden-Durant dilemma. Personally, I believe this draft accelerated the analytics movement in basketball, as teams sought more sophisticated ways to evaluate talent beyond traditional scouting methods.
When I reflect on how this shaped the modern NBA, the evidence is everywhere. The center position has been completely transformed - today's big men need to shoot threes and switch defensively rather than dominate in the post. The value of durability and availability has been recalibrated in draft evaluations. Most importantly, teams now understand that drafting isn't just about selecting the best player, but about finding the right player for their system and development pathway. The 2007 draft taught us that even the most consensus number one pick carries significant risk, and that sometimes the second option becomes the transformational talent.
The legacy of that draft continues to influence how teams approach building their rosters. We've seen more teams embrace long-term development plans rather than expecting immediate impact from high draft picks. The success stories of players who needed time to develop, like Giannis Antetokounmpo, might not have been possible in the pre-2007 draft environment where patience was scarcer. As someone who analyzes team-building strategies, I've noticed front offices now place greater emphasis on organizational fit and development resources when evaluating prospects, recognizing that the draft is just the beginning of a player's journey rather than the destination.
In many ways, the 2007 draft represents a cautionary tale but also an educational moment for the entire league. It taught us about the fragility of potential, the importance of organizational patience, and the need to balance immediate needs with long-term vision. While we'll always wonder what might have been if Oden had stayed healthy, the lessons from that draft have made the NBA smarter about player development and team construction. The league's evolution toward valuing versatility and skill over traditional positional requirements can trace part of its origin to that fateful night in 2007 when the Blazers chose the conventional path, and the basketball universe forever changed course.
