One thing about 2 picks - Lance and Danny.
Both were taken with LOW COST picks relative to their risk/reward. Granger was seen by most as a top 10 talent that dropped due to knee injury fears. By #17 it was becoming silly that he was still on the board. This was NOT an evaluation of talent but an evaluation of risk (knee) vs reward (known talent level). The percentage of risk for a #17 pick was very low in comparison to the reward level.
Ditto Lance. By the 2nd round his draft spot was low enough to make the risk level (cost of pick * PCT for failure) much lower than the chances of positive upside. No one doubted Lance's talent level, the guy was nicknamed Born Ready. They doubted his mentality and how that might keep him from using his talent level.
Now I champion the idea of not overpaying, but that doesn't mean that when you get a great price it means you were a great talent evaluator.
A new Porsche that has a 20% chance of not working for the price of $5K? That's an obvious choice, not a sign of my car evaluation skills.
To me AJ Price, Hibbert and Paul George are the best "evaluation" picks they've made. They were taken at roughly the market value and selected from similarly valued players, most of whom have not been nearly as good as they have.