RealGM

I just want to push back on the sentiment that this draft, or any draft, is ever an (X) player draft. People are really attached to something which has just been a media label, but history has shown us time and again that the pundits are wrong.

To be clear, I’m not saying this draft is 4, 5, 6 or whatever deep. I just want people to take a step back from this headline narrative that we seem to be falling into.

Think of last year’s draft. It was a supposed “3 player draft”, with Edwards, Wiseman and Ball the top prizes. Early results would suggest there were 3 top performers from that class, but Haliburton was that 3rd player, not Wiseman - and Haliburton went 12th.

Other early standouts are guys like Bey, Maxey and Quickley - all taken outside the lottery. But some of those lottery guys seem set to keep improving so time will show how deep and impactful it was. Before the college season, Cole Anthony was a top prospect - and then he slid to 16.

2019 was a 3 player draft of Zion, Ja and Barret. Cam Reddish was in early talks of it being a ‘top 4-5 draft’. By the end of last season Herro looked like the steal and more of a top 3 guy than Barret. Since then he’s underwhelmed, and Garland, Cam Johnson and others are rising.

2018 was a “6 player draft”, where we got Bamba at 6. We would all agree he hasn’t looked the part since then. JJJr is a very good player, but he was sandwiched between two bonafide star players in Luka and Young. Bagley has probably been even more underwhelming than Bamba, relative to his draft position. Since then SGA, MPJ, Sexton and others have made it clear they were amongst the top players drafted that year despite none being considered part of the ‘top 6’.

The same could happen for this draft. Cade is the only safe bet I see. Mobley might be good, but like JJJr he might later find himself taking a drop in a redraft. Green might be Wiggins. Suggs might be George Hill. Kuminga might be Anunoby. At the same time, Sengun might be Jokic, JT Thor might be Anthony Davis, Tre Mann might be Steph Curry, Giddey might be Doncic ( ).

These aren’t guarantees, but neither is being labelled part of a “top whatever” by media talking heads. Form your own opinion. If that means Barnes, Bouknight, Moody or whoever is your guy at 5, cool. Don’t let yourself fall into the trap of believing we’re safe in getting one of the top players just because a whole lot of people have started parroting the same story.

subtract all the wasted picks on bigs and the statement has merit

Then subtract 'potential' players like Cam who are almost always trash, and the filter gets even better

Of course there might be better players outside the top 5 or whatever for a given year. The "X player draft" is just a projection of who they think is the best. But if I had a pick between the members of the "X player draft" or the field I would chose from the "X player draft" category.

Bensational wrote:I just want to push back on the sentiment that this draft, or any draft, is ever an (X) player draft. People are really attached to something which has just been a media label, but history has shown us time and again that the pundits are wrong.

To be clear, I’m not saying this draft is 4, 5, 6 or whatever deep. I just want people to take a step back from this headline narrative that we seem to be falling into.

Think of last year’s draft. It was a supposed “3 player draft”, with Edwards, Wiseman and Ball the top prizes. Early results would suggest there were 3 top performers from that class, but Haliburton was that 3rd player, not Wiseman - and Haliburton went 12th.

Other early standouts are guys like Bey, Maxey and Quickley - all taken outside the lottery. But some of those lottery guys seem set to keep improving so time will show how deep and impactful it was. Before the college season, Cole Anthony was a top prospect - and then he slid to 16.

2019 was a 3 player draft of Zion, Ja and Barret. Cam Reddish was in early talks of it being a ‘top 4-5 draft’. By the end of last season Herro looked like the steal and more of a top 3 guy than Barret. Since then he’s underwhelmed, and Garland, Cam Johnson and others are rising.

2018 was a “6 player draft”, where we got Bamba at 6. We would all agree he hasn’t looked the part since then. JJJr is a very good player, but he was sandwiched between two bonafide star players in Luka and Young. Bagley has probably been even more underwhelming than Bamba, relative to his draft position. Since then SGA, MPJ, Sexton and others have made it clear they were amongst the top players drafted that year despite none being considered part of the ‘top 6’.

The same could happen for this draft. Cade is the only safe bet I see. Mobley might be good, but like JJJr he might later find himself taking a drop in a redraft. Green might be Wiggins. Suggs might be George Hill. Kuminga might be Anunoby. At the same time, Sengun might be Jokic, JT Thor might be Anthony Davis, Tre Mann might be Steph Curry, Giddey might be Doncic ( ).

These aren’t guarantees, but neither is being labelled part of a “top whatever” by media talking heads. Form your own opinion. If that means Barnes, Bouknight, Moody or whoever is your guy at 5, cool. Don’t let yourself fall into the trap of believing we’re safe in getting one of the top players just because a whole lot of people have started parroting the same story.

BOOOOO this man!

Seriously you have your points but you are talking after the facts. I mean if we all.knew what their outcomes would be, why would we be even discussing this stuff. Its a X player draft because thats who the majority with basketball.knowledge think are gonna be the stars of the league.

I mean sure no one ever got it all perfectly correct but its the nearest most educated guess.

RookieStar wrote:
BOOOOO this man!

Seriously you have your points but you are talking after the facts. I mean if we all.knew what their outcomes would be, why would we be even discussing this stuff. Its a X player draft because thats who the majority with basketball.knowledge think are gonna be the stars of the league.

I mean sure no one ever got it all perfectly correct but its the nearest most educated guess.

It’s not “after the facts” talking. Mitchell, SGA and Haliburton have been high on my boards in each respective year, regardless of what “majority with basketball knowledge” think.

You’re a Bouknight fan. Would you be happy if we took Kuminga because “he’s top 5!!!!”, but then he flamed out like Bamba who was “top 6!!!”, whilst Bouknight goes on to become the next Booker? Will you be content that you followed the advice of people you seem to think have a higher level of basketball knowledge even though all they really have is a platform which gives them the pretence of authority? The real people with basketball knowledge who are making the decisions aren’t sharing their big boards - and they also get it wrong.

What I’m saying is pick the guy/s who stand out to you most, make a case for them, and have conviction in it. Don’t just fall in line with bs rankings which are all over the shop even amongst the talking heads.

It’s not a discussion if everyone is just repeating what media outlets say. Otherwise we may as well just read those articles and not bother discussing because “they have basketball knowledge and they said so…”.

Bensational wrote:

RookieStar wrote:
BOOOOO this man!

Seriously you have your points but you are talking after the facts. I mean if we all.knew what their outcomes would be, why would we be even discussing this stuff. Its a X player draft because thats who the majority with basketball.knowledge think are gonna be the stars of the league.

I mean sure no one ever got it all perfectly correct but its the nearest most educated guess.

It’s not “after the facts” talking. Mitchell, SGA and Haliburton have been high on my boards in each respective year, regardless of what “majority with basketball knowledge” think.

You’re a Bouknight fan. Would you be happy if we took Kuminga because “he’s top 5!!!!”, but then he flamed out like Bamba who was “top 6!!!”, whilst Bouknight goes on to become the next Booker? Will you be content that you followed the advice of people you seem to think have a higher level of basketball knowledge even though all they really have is a platform which gives them the pretence of authority? The real people with basketball knowledge who are making the decisions aren’t sharing their big boards - and they also get it wrong.

What I’m saying is pick the guy/s who stand out to you most, make a case for them, and have conviction in it. Don’t just fall in line with bs rankings which are all over the shop even amongst the talking heads.

It’s not a discussion if everyone is just repeating what media outlets say. Otherwise we may as well just read those articles and not bother discussing because “they have basketball knowledge and they said so…”.

TBF I was a JB fan when his ranking was anywhere from 10-15. Just started to like him when he went ham when i accidentally watched him waiting for a Duke game.

True.. but I would pick Kuminga at 5 over JB because over all I think he has a better chance to be a star which I really want for our team.

So if you are asking who would likely be a star after Kuminga in this darft.. then I dont think anyone is. Which I have to add Ive been wrong a lot before.

Generally speaking, guys projected to go in the lottery are players who can be game changers for any team.
Outside of that, you're going to find the occasional star who landed into the right situation.

We've all seen players leave one team as a star, go to a different team and then never recapture the original magic.

Bensational wrote:I just want to push back on the sentiment that this draft, or any draft, is ever an (X) player draft. People are really attached to something which has just been a media label, but history has shown us time and again that the pundits are wrong...

...These aren’t guarantees, but neither is being labelled part of a “top whatever” by media talking heads. Form your own opinion. If that means Barnes, Bouknight, Moody or whoever is your guy at 5, cool. Don’t let yourself fall into the trap of believing we’re safe in getting one of the top players just because a whole lot of people have started parroting the same story.

I agree with the sentiment because most people see it the way you are stating, but being a "#" player draft is a bit more complicated. The reality is it's a "#" player daft not because of the player talent, it's because of the player's draft value. It may not seem like these things all are all that different but they are. A player's draft position can be elevated due to media hype, buzz, flashy highlights, etc...

For example if you think a player mocked at #20 is going to end up being the best player to ever play basketball, you can't just draft him #1 or maybe anything before #12. You have to trade down obviously, but first you have to act as if the consensus #1 - 19 are exactly as they are supposed to be and use that idea to maximize your return. You have to play into the narrative.

So the rankings are about negotiating power and trying to out maneuver the other GMs. Making calls to "move up" puts you in a weak position IMO. You are just telling everyone you want a player slated above your draft position. The GMs in a higher position can use this against you even if they desperately want to move down. It's all smoke an mirrors, players, GMs, owners, agents, etc... trying to control the message to influence where all the players are going.

The best way to handle this IMO is to have a number of players you are willing to take at your draft position. Even if Kuminga isn't #1 on the Magic's big board, they should totally act like he is, that is the way to get a better deal moving up or down. Next be ready to draft any number of players based on the deals (or lack of deals) you are offered. You can make calls to try to move up but be ready to play some poker.

It is never an X player draft…. But you need a crystal ball to know who’ll pan out or not.

It’s not even about good scouting all the time. Sometimes its luck as well or circumstance.

I remember a Woj pod with Gobert and they were talking about how Gobert was like top 5 or a top 10 pick in mock drafts only to see his stock fade. Then he was surprised or something that he had to workout and he was out of shape at that time. So his workouts turned out pretty bad. That’s how he fell.

And player personality affects a player’s improvement.

BUT seeing that talent early on is what increases your chance of drafting a star. No one is guranteed but have a higher chance if they have the talent that separates them from the other draftees.

So… its an X player draft at the start.

But it is never an X player draft after year 1.

thelead wrote:subtract all the wasted picks on bigs and the statement has merit

Then subtract 'potential' players like Cam who are almost always trash, and the filter gets even better

Basically this.

Factor in Bigs, ‘potential’ players, and exceptions you can count on one hand.

[whistler] wrote:

Bensational wrote:I just want to push back on the sentiment that this draft, or any draft, is ever an (X) player draft. People are really attached to something which has just been a media label, but history has shown us time and again that the pundits are wrong...

...These aren’t guarantees, but neither is being labelled part of a “top whatever” by media talking heads. Form your own opinion. If that means Barnes, Bouknight, Moody or whoever is your guy at 5, cool. Don’t let yourself fall into the trap of believing we’re safe in getting one of the top players just because a whole lot of people have started parroting the same story.

I agree with the sentiment because most people see it the way you are stating, but being a "#" player draft is a bit more complicated. The reality is it's a "#" player daft not because of the player talent, it's because of the player's draft value. It may not seem like these things all are all that different but they are. A player's draft position can be elevated due to media hype, buzz, flashy highlights, etc...

For example if you think a player mocked at #20 is going to end up being the best player to ever play basketball, you can't just draft him #1 or maybe anything before #12. You have to trade down obviously, but first you have to act as if the consensus #1 - 19 are exactly as they are supposed to be and use that idea to maximize your return. You have to play into the narrative.

So the rankings are about negotiating power and trying to out maneuver the other GMs. Making calls to "move up" puts you in a weak position IMO. You are just telling everyone you want a player slated above your draft position. The GMs in a higher position can use this against you even if they desperately want to move down. It's all smoke an mirrors, players, GMs, owners, agents, etc... trying to control the message to influence where all the players are going.

The best way to handle this IMO is to have a number of players you are willing to take at your draft position. Even if Kuminga isn't #1 on the Magic's big board, they should totally act like he is, that is the way to get a better deal moving up or down. Next be ready to draft any number of players based on the deals (or lack of deals) you are offered. You can make calls to try to move up but be ready to play some poker.

Nice. Thanks for sharing this perspective. I hadn’t considered it in those terms, because as armchair GMs there’s no negotiation or manoeuvring to be made on our part. We all just want to add the best player/s in the draft, so it doesn’t make sense to me that we’d stick to whatever the regarded tiers are.

fendilim wrote:It is never an X player draft…. But you need a crystal ball to know who’ll pan out or not.

I It’s not even about good scouting all the time. Sometimes its luck as well or circumstance.

I remember a Woj pod with Gobert and they were talking about how Gobert was like top 5 or a top 10 pick in mock drafts only to see his stock fade. Then he was surprised or something that he had to workout and he was out of shape at that time. So his workouts turned out pretty bad. That’s how he fell.

And player personality affects a player’s improvement.

BUT seeing that talent early on is what increases your chance of drafting a star. No one is guranteed but have a higher chance if they have the talent that separates them from the other draftees.

So… its an X player draft at the start.

But it is never an X player draft after year 1.

Good points on circumstance, but the rest doesn’t add up. It’s a perceived X player draft prior to the draft, and it’s a recognised X player draft afterwards. The job of scouting departments is to have well researched and reasoned projections to narrow the margins between those moments. You don’t expect a hit every time, but if your approach is to follow the herd and assume you need a crystal ball to figure out who will have success then you’re not really thinking or offering anything of value - from a professional standpoint. If you're doing that as a fan on a discussion board, then I’d say what I said in the OP - may as well just read articles and wait to see what happens. But we’re all capable of offering more than that, I reckon. We’ve at least got the passion to try, given how much time we spend here chatting.

MagicMatic wrote:

thelead wrote:subtract all the wasted picks on bigs and the statement has merit

Then subtract 'potential' players like Cam who are almost always trash, and the filter gets even better

Basically this.

Factor in Bigs, ‘potential’ players, and exceptions you can count on one hand.

Please show examples, because this just sounds like empty rhetoric to me. I’d like to see it applied to this draft and some past ones.

Bensational wrote:

MagicMatic wrote:

thelead wrote:subtract all the wasted picks on bigs and the statement has merit

Then subtract 'potential' players like Cam who are almost always trash, and the filter gets even better

Basically this.

Factor in Bigs, ‘potential’ players, and exceptions you can count on one hand.

Please show examples, because this just sounds like empty rhetoric to me. I’d like to see it applied to this draft and some past ones.

Ok. Let’s use a draft example that’s far enough out to make these assessments.

2016 draft Players of note.

1. Ben Simmons
2. Brandon Ingram
3. Jaylen Brown
4. Dragan Bender
5. Kris Dunn
6. Buddy Hield
7. Jamal Murray
8. Marquise Chriss
9. Poeltl
10. Thon Maker
11. Sabonis
12. Prince
13.Georgios Papagiannis
14. Denzel Valentine
15. Juan Hernangomez
16. Guershon Yabulsele
17. Wade Baldwin
18. Henry Ellison
19. Malik Beasley
20. Caris Lavert

Other notable picks.

27. Pascal Siakam
29. DaJounte Murray
32. Zubac
36. Brogdon
50. George Niang

So out of the lotto picks the players that “didn’t make it” are a bunch of bigs, Kris Dunn, and Wade Baldwin.

MagicMatic wrote:

Bensational wrote:

MagicMatic wrote:
Basically this.

Factor in Bigs, ‘potential’ players, and exceptions you can count on one hand.

Please show examples, because this just sounds like empty rhetoric to me. I’d like to see it applied to this draft and some past ones.

Ok. Let’s use a draft example that’s far enough out to make these assessments.

2016 draft Players of note.

1. Ben Simmons
2. Brandon Ingram
3. Jaylen Brown
4. Dragan Bender
5. Kris Dunn
6. Buddy Hield
7. Jamal Murray
8. Marquise Chriss
9. Poeltl
10. Thon Maker
11. Sabonis
12. Prince
13.Georgios Papagiannis
14. Denzel Valentine
15. Juan Hernangomez
16. Guershon Yabulsele
17. Wade Baldwin
18. Henry Ellison
19. Malik Beasley
20. Caris Lavert

Other notable picks.

27. Pascal Siakam
29. DaJounte Murray
32. Zubac
36. Brogdon
50. George Niang

So out of the lotto picks the players that “didn’t make it” are a bunch of bigs, Kris Dunn, and Wade Baldwin.

How does this apply to that draft being considered an top X draft? And what’s the retrospective redraft in comparison to those original rankings? And how does that measure to the statement of removing bigs and ‘players with potential’? Who were those players back then?

I don’t know if you’ve understood the premise of the OP.

Bensational wrote:

MagicMatic wrote:

Bensational wrote:
Please show examples, because this just sounds like empty rhetoric to me. I’d like to see it applied to this draft and some past ones.

Ok. Let’s use a draft example that’s far enough out to make these assessments.

2016 draft Players of note.

1. Ben Simmons
2. Brandon Ingram
3. Jaylen Brown
4. Dragan Bender
5. Kris Dunn
6. Buddy Hield
7. Jamal Murray
8. Marquise Chriss
9. Poeltl
10. Thon Maker
11. Sabonis
12. Prince
13.Georgios Papagiannis
14. Denzel Valentine
15. Juan Hernangomez
16. Guershon Yabulsele
17. Wade Baldwin
18. Henry Ellison
19. Malik Beasley
20. Caris Lavert

Other notable picks.

27. Pascal Siakam
29. DaJounte Murray
32. Zubac
36. Brogdon
50. George Niang

So out of the lotto picks the players that “didn’t make it” are a bunch of bigs, Kris Dunn, and Wade Baldwin.

How does this apply to that draft being considered an top X draft? And what’s the retrospective redraft in comparison to those original rankings? And how does that measure to the statement of removing bigs and ‘players with potential’? Who were those players back then?

I don’t know if you’ve understood the premise of the OP.

How this relates. People could say 2016 is an X player draft, but it’s never the case because it depends on what people mean by that statement.

Why? Because I don’t believe when people say “it’s an X player draft” they are discounting the fact players like Siakam at #27 or Brogdon at #36 don’t exist outside of the lotto.

I’d say it’s players that are at the top of the draft that have higher potential to be all star caliber IMO. That’s not to say that there aren’t players like Siakam or Lavert found later, just like we know the top 10 picks won’t all pan out. It would be extremely unlikely the 2021 draft doesn’t produce at least 2 VERY good players maybe allstars from the projected top 4.

Well, every draft is 60 men deep, until it isn't.

2014 was pegged as "deepest draft" , and you can hardly scrap 15 playable, good names from it.
2018 was also viwed as "deep" , but if you look back, it's super top heavy, and after you move usual suspects : Trae, Luka, SGA, Porter, few ok role players ,it's complete s*** after.

Let's face it, 2021 draft in top 14 will probably have 3,4 complete busts. Every draft has.
Among top 30 first round picks, at least 8 men will land on rosters where they will get buried. Happends every year.
Among top 5 picks, probably 1 or 2 will be allstars, one will most likley be bust.

To push back on "bigs are busts more than guards"
2017:

1. Fultz
2. Ball
3. Tatum
4. Jackson
5. Fox
6. Isaac
7. Lauri
8. Ntkilina
9. Smith
10. Collins
11. Monk
12. Kennard
13. Mitchell
14. Adebayo

Rebuild via draft is most unrealiable strategy out there .You have to land good pick, than you have to choose well, than you have to give that player structure & support required for development and pray he doesn't turn into d*** as person and stops working hard once he gets first $10M on his bank account.

Also, imo, draft quality can't be viewed through some random Jokic 41# pick and yell "see i told you it's a good draft, it has mvp". He was passed on every single team, twice or even three times by some teams. Philadelphia 76ers, for example, passed on Jokic 4 times in same draft and drafted his countryman Nemanja Dangubic instad

MagicMatic wrote:

Bensational wrote:

MagicMatic wrote:
Ok. Let’s use a draft example that’s far enough out to make these assessments.

2016 draft Players of note.

1. Ben Simmons
2. Brandon Ingram
3. Jaylen Brown
4. Dragan Bender
5. Kris Dunn
6. Buddy Hield
7. Jamal Murray
8. Marquise Chriss
9. Poeltl
10. Thon Maker
11. Sabonis
12. Prince
13.Georgios Papagiannis
14. Denzel Valentine
15. Juan Hernangomez
16. Guershon Yabulsele
17. Wade Baldwin
18. Henry Ellison
19. Malik Beasley
20. Caris Lavert

Other notable picks.

27. Pascal Siakam
29. DaJounte Murray
32. Zubac
36. Brogdon
50. George Niang

So out of the lotto picks the players that “didn’t make it” are a bunch of bigs, Kris Dunn, and Wade Baldwin.

How does this apply to that draft being considered an top X draft? And what’s the retrospective redraft in comparison to those original rankings? And how does that measure to the statement of removing bigs and ‘players with potential’? Who were those players back then?

I don’t know if you’ve understood the premise of the OP.

How this relates. People could say 2016 is an X player draft, but it’s never the case because it depends on what people mean by that statement.

Why? Because I don’t believe when people say “it’s an X player draft” they are discounting the fact players like Siakam at #27 or Brogdon at #36 don’t exist outside of the lotto.

I’d say it’s players that are at the top of the draft that have higher potential to be all star caliber IMO. That’s not to say that there aren’t players like Siakam or Lavert found later, just like we know the top 10 picks won’t all pan out. It would be extremely unlikely the 2021 draft doesn’t produce at least 2 VERY good players maybe allstars from the projected top 4.

So when people say this is a 5 player draft, in regards to Cade, Mobley, Green, Suggs and Kuminga, you think what they’re saying is that 5 is the magic number of studs in this draft and they’ll come from anywhere in the draft?

Sorry, but that’s absolutely absurd, and you know it. They’re talking about those specific players not an arbitrary guess at how many good players will eventuate from the draft class. Otherwise you wouldn’t be making arguments that Kuminga is the BPA at 5 because that #5 player could come from anywhere in the draft.

Bensational wrote:

MagicMatic wrote:

Bensational wrote:
How does this apply to that draft being considered an top X draft? And what’s the retrospective redraft in comparison to those original rankings? And how does that measure to the statement of removing bigs and ‘players with potential’? Who were those players back then?

I don’t know if you’ve understood the premise of the OP.

How this relates. People could say 2016 is an X player draft, but it’s never the case because it depends on what people mean by that statement.

Why? Because I don’t believe when people say “it’s an X player draft” they are discounting the fact players like Siakam at #27 or Brogdon at #36 don’t exist outside of the lotto.

I’d say it’s players that are at the top of the draft that have higher potential to be all star caliber IMO. That’s not to say that there aren’t players like Siakam or Lavert found later, just like we know the top 10 picks won’t all pan out. It would be extremely unlikely the 2021 draft doesn’t produce at least 2 VERY good players maybe allstars from the projected top 4.

So when people say this is a 5 player draft, in regards to Cade, Mobley, Green, Suggs and Kuminga, you think what they’re saying is that 5 is the magic number of studs in this draft and they’ll come from anywhere in the draft?

Sorry, but that’s absolutely absurd, and you know it. They’re talking about those specific players not an arbitrary guess at how many good players will eventuate from the draft class. Otherwise you wouldn’t be making arguments that Kuminga is the BPA at 5 because that #5 player could come from anywhere in the draft.

Not really. I think they’re saying “5” because it gets murkier after that based on recency bias. All of these guys were slotted this way for a WHILE in some configuration based on draft experts rankings, not to say they’re always right.

I think it would be more absurd for someone to say “This is a 14 player draft” using no real metric or determination of what prospect lands where based on their personal opinions of players they like. That might be closer to the truth in some capacity, but it’s complete speculation.

Put it this way, if you are picking 16th and you select a player projected in most mocks to go in the late 20’s are you saying he was part of the X players the draft was only capable of producing or becoming a star? No. Because that would be absurd, but as a GM you would want to believe he is one of them.

Just say you don’t like that people label something a certain way even though the consensus has always been the same 4-5 players ranked in a different combination for months.

I actually agree with you that the draft is “more than 5 players” because every draft obviously does produce more than the expected consensus. I think you are taking the X player thing too literally. I take it to mean “more of a known commodity” instead of weeding through to find that Siakam or Draymond while teams whittle down their big boards of players being taken.

MagicMatic wrote:I actually agree with you that the draft is “more than 5 players” because every draft obviously does produce more than the expected consensus. I think you are taking the X player thing too literally. I take it to mean “more of a known commodity” instead of weeding through to find that Siakam or Draymond while teams whittle down their big boards of players being taken.

That’s the crux of it. It’s fine if people use that as a rule of thumb, but some seem to consider it a lock to land a star. Ultimately we all want a star, so we’re all on the same page. But the same voices that lament that we didn’t pick SGA or Booker are a lot of the same voices now saying we need to pick one of the commonly top 5 ranked guys, forgetting their recent complaints about Bamba (that’s not you specifically, there’s a large chorus of those voices).

I just think there’s far too many examples of some of the best players in a draft emerging from picks outside of the top 3-5 picks. Jokic, Mitchell, Booker, Murray, Curry, Giannis, Kawhi, etc etc etc. All taken outside of consensus top X rankings. But here we find ourselves with many people wanting to keep following the same footsteps and repeat history because… well I don’t know why. I guess that’s what I’m trying to figure out.