For years, pro prospects were described and measured through comparisons to current and former greats. You heard things like "The Next Jordan" or "A Poor Man's Tim Duncan" or "A Carlos Boozer Type." This always made sense, because it is an easy way to categorize a player without using too many words. However, after the spate of failed Next Jordans (headlined by Harold "Baby Jordan" Miner), we started to see a backlash. Not just against the use of "Next Jordan," but against the whole concept of comparing players in general. Now, if you say a guy is like someone else or the next version of a current star, you are likely to be ridiculed for using such antiquated methods of evaluation.

I'm not sure that is fair. Just because we are too liberal with our comparisons or we miss the mark too often, it doesn't mean there isn't value in trying to follow a blueprint. By identifying the most similar established player, you are giving yourself the chance to visualize, predict, and simulate how an unproven prospect might perform at the next level. How else are you supposed to do it?

I think the backlash against calling someone the "next so-and-so" has hindered our ability to project players. Had we employed the old ways, we would have seen that Marvin Williams was "The Next Tim Thomas" and that Chris Paul was "The Next Isiah Thomas." Which Next Thomas would you rather have?

These days, scouts, GMs, and "experts" are so concerned with "length" and "upside" and "athleticism" that they are forgetting to hone in on whether or not a guy will be able to contribute in a defined role in the NBA. The best way to do that is to compare them to someone that is already doing it.

With that out of the way, here is how I would rate the top 10 prospects for the 2006 draft, based entirely on comparisons, offering the best and worst case comparisons and then drilling down on a prediction.

1. Tyrus Thomas. You are no doubt already hearing it. Despite the comparison taboo that hovers over the sports world like the curfew in Futuristic, Fascist London (V for Vendetta reference), people can't help blurting out "He's the next Amare Stoudemire!" when talking about LSU's star freshman. You see a similar frame, similar skills at the same age (Stoudemire was 19 as a rookie, Thomas' age now), the relentless athleticism, and the jarring agility. Then there are the dunks. Thomas throws down massive two-handed dunks off of lobs, crushes follow-up stuffs, and unleashes tomahawks off of the pick and roll. It's all very Stoudemire-esque. Of course, Thomas is at least an inch shorter than Amare. On the other hand, he seems to have better instincts and desire on the defensive end, and is quite possibly the best collegiate shot blocker to play in this decade.