2025 NBA Draft Class

[FarBeyondDriven]

Just for reference, I am still working on my BB right now which is why it hasn't been posted.
As of right now, I have:
1 - Tier 1
1 - Tier 2
1 - Tier 3
10 - Tier 3.5, which might be a record.
22 - Tier 4, which isn't the best I've seen but when you think about the fact that 13 players are already in the other tiers, that's pretty good.

But where this class is insane
5 - Tier 4 or better PGs
9 - Tier 4 or better SGs - This is the draft to land a SG if you need one.
5 - Tier 4 or better SFs
4 - Tier 4 or better PFs
10 - Tier 4 or better Cs and that's not including Hansen Yang and Rocco who I am still evaluating to see if I need to push them up to Tier 4. This is by far the strongest center class since last year and 2018 which had 5 a piece. This is by far the strongest center class in NBA draft history. 1970 was top-heavy. 2007 caught everyone off guard, the best centers were guys we didn't expect. 2001 from a talent level even though the NBA readiness was horrendous. Really hasn't been that many good center classes ever. The Embiid/Joker/Capela/Nurkic class looks amazing right now but it was seen as a 3 center class at the time, with Embiid having medical scares.

This draft class is special. You have some tremendous classes in the previous years of late. 2018, 2021, and 2022 but this is the best by far.

How risky is the positional value?
PG - Low, of the 5 PGs with tier 3.5 or 4 grades, none have much of a bust potential.
SG - Fairly risky, outside of the top two (Harper and Coward) it can get shaky. You do have some safe bets as well with less perceived upside.
SF - Outside of Flagg, it's risky as hell, high alert.
PF - All tier 4 but CMB and all have low bust potential
C - All of them have bust potential. Every last one of them.

Apologies if you've provided it already, but what do your tiers mean?

Tiers:

Tier 1: Elite Cornerstone Prospect: Greg Oden, Zion Williamson, LeBron James, Kevin Durant. Should be top 25 or better.

Tier 2: Tier 2: All-Star potential – Ja Morant, Cade Cunningham, Evan Mobley, Luka Doncic (yeah, I got that one wrong), Carmelo Anthony, R.J. Barrett, DeAndre Ayton, AD, Ben Simmons, Brandon Ingram, Kyrie, O.J. Mayo (I know, don’t ask), KAT, etc. Potential for top 25-50 range.

Tier 3: All-Star Possibilities – Mikal Bridges, Bradley Beal, Victor Oladipo, James Harden, Hasheem Thabeet(bustaroo), Al Horford, Dwight Howard, and Emeka Okafor. Tier 3 is difficult for me because very few guys have been on this list over the last 20+ years for me. Top 100 guy with top 25-50 potential

Tier 3.5 - Decent Role player potential with All-Star possibilities down the road. I do see these guys as Day 1 contributors to a degree. This list is massive, it includes guys like Fultz, Tatum, Brown, Garland, Rui, Cam Reddish, Bargnani, LMA, Lillard, Okafor, KP, man, so many guys. Usually, like 5-8 a year. Of course, the miss rate is high. Top 200 guy with the potential of 25-50.

Tier 4 - Tier 4: Decent Role player potential or raw with AS possibilities. This is most players in the NBA. Some get a high-end tier 4 status which is like, a really good role player who usually dominated college or showcases their NBA role at a very high level with the potential to be more. Top 150-200 guy with top 100 potential or top 250-300 guy with the potential to be top 25-50

Tier 5 – Backups and G-Leaguers – A lot of players. Potential to be rotational but not starters.

Tier 6 – International Pros who don’t have much of a shot at the NBA.

thanks. I wish we could all agree on a tier system so when we refer to tiers we're all on the same page.

[eminence]

Haven't followed college very closely at all, and don't follow international (exceptions for phenoms like Luka/Wemby, so nobody this year). But thoughts on few guys I seem to depart the norm from the most and then my top 3 tiers. Leaving Coward off as well, but every team from mid lotto down should be bringing him in for a workout.

Bailey - Don't mind him, he's an interesting lotto guy, but don't see the clear #3 he seems to be thought of as. Not enough of a playmaker for others for me to really love him.

Demin - Forward sized guys who can make plays, that's where it's at.

Sorber - Assuming the medical team approves, he's my clear favorite big in the draft. Great measurements, very smart player. Skill level is solid.

Tier 1 (All-NBA upside)
1. Cooper Flagg

Tier 2 (Allstar upside)
2. Dylan Harper
3. Thomas Sorber
4. Egor Demin

Tier 3 (Starter upside)
5. Kon Knueppel
6. Tre Johnson
7. VJ Edgecombe
8. Ace Bailey
9. Kasparas Jakucionis
10. Khaman Maluach
11. Derik Queen
12. Collin Murray-Boyles
13. Asa Newell
14. Jase Richardson (really more of a good 6th man than a starter, but ehh)
15. Jeremiah Fears (same)

[tmorgan]

Oooo, my guys at Michigan could be title contenders next year. Yaxel just withdrew from the draft, he’s gonna go bonkers under May. He’ll be pretty old, and it’s a top-heavier draft next year, but expect him to be a top 10 pick next time. Super talented and still learning the game.

[Chi town]

I wonder why Wiz would not draft Maluach and put Sarr at PF and back up C?

I’m sure they’d take Tre if he fell but think his floor is 5 to the Jazz.

Do they consider Fears?

[FarBeyondDriven]

I wonder why Wiz would not draft Maluach and put Sarr at PF and back up C?

I’m sure they’d take Tre if he fell but think his floor is 5 to the Jazz.

Do they consider Fears?

I think they should take Essengue at #6 and address a center at #18 with either Yang, Raynaud or Sorber which would allow Sarr to be a 4/5. Maluach is definitely an option but for someone with incredible size and length he was very pedestrian at Duke which gives me cause for concern. I know people are getting excited about him shooting threes in workouts but centers doing this predraft almost never shoot threes once they reach the NBA so it's all theater.

Not sure why they'd consider Fears who isn't better than either Carrington or Johnson. And even if you convinced me he was it's not so much so that you'd essentially be ready to write off both your existing young PGs you spent high draft capital on.

[Chi town]

I wonder why Wiz would not draft Maluach and put Sarr at PF and back up C?

I’m sure they’d take Tre if he fell but think his floor is 5 to the Jazz.

Do they consider Fears?

I think they should take Essengue at #6 and address a center at #18 with either Yang, Raynaud or Sorber which would allow Sarr to be a 4/5. Maluach is definitely an option but for someone with incredible size and length he was very pedestrian at Duke which gives me cause for concern. I know people are getting excited about him shooting threes in workouts but centers doing this predraft almost never shoot threes once they reach the NBA so it's all theater.

Not sure why they'd consider Fears who isn't better than either Carrington or Johnson. And even if you convinced me he was it's not so much so that you'd essentially be ready to write off both your existing young PGs you spent high draft capital on.

Simply BPA. I forgot about Johnson. I like Bub dont ever see him being a lead guard 1st option.

[FarBeyondDriven]

I wonder why Wiz would not draft Maluach and put Sarr at PF and back up C?

I’m sure they’d take Tre if he fell but think his floor is 5 to the Jazz.

Do they consider Fears?

I think they should take Essengue at #6 and address a center at #18 with either Yang, Raynaud or Sorber which would allow Sarr to be a 4/5. Maluach is definitely an option but for someone with incredible size and length he was very pedestrian at Duke which gives me cause for concern. I know people are getting excited about him shooting threes in workouts but centers doing this predraft almost never shoot threes once they reach the NBA so it's all theater.

Not sure why they'd consider Fears who isn't better than either Carrington or Johnson. And even if you convinced me he was it's not so much so that you'd essentially be ready to write off both your existing young PGs you spent high draft capital on.

Simply BPA. I forgot about Johnson. I like Bub dont ever see him being a lead guard 1st option.

He's already proven to be a lead guard but who are these lead guard first options you're referring to?

Trae
SGA
Luka
LaMelo
Cade
Hali?
Steph
Ja
Brunson
Harden?

you think Fears will be one like these guys? I definitely don't, but certainly no more of a chance at that than Bub but I guess we'll find out. I think every PG in the NBA could be a lead guard and #1 option if allowed to be. Give any of them 18-20 fga and don't bench them for their turnovers and defense no matter what and they'll produce like these guys. Just look at Brunson. He was a pedestrian starter/6th man like Nembhard and then he was given all the shots he wanted and suddenly he's the #1 option simply because of where he landed and the current makeup of that roster. Nothing changed except usage.

[JMAC3]

He's already proven to be a lead guard but who are these lead guard first options you're referring to?

Trae
SGA
Luka
LaMelo
Cade
Hali?
Steph
Ja
Brunson
Harden?

you think Fears will be one like these guys? I definitely don't, but certainly no more of a chance at that than Bub but I guess we'll find out. I think every PG in the NBA could be a lead guard and #1 option if allowed to be. Give any of them 18-20 fga and don't bench them for their turnovers and defense no matter what and they'll produce like these guys. Just look at Brunson. He was a pedestrian starter/6th man like Nembhard and then he was given all the shots he wanted and suddenly he's the #1 option simply because of where he landed and the current makeup of that roster. Nothing changed except usage.

Yes, KJ Simpson and Tyler Kolek could be lead guards if it doesn't matter if they are good or if you don't want to win games so why would you draft Fears, sound logic all around lol

[clyde21]

I think they should take Essengue at #6 and address a center at #18 with either Yang, Raynaud or Sorber which would allow Sarr to be a 4/5. Maluach is definitely an option but for someone with incredible size and length he was very pedestrian at Duke which gives me cause for concern. I know people are getting excited about him shooting threes in workouts but centers doing this predraft almost never shoot threes once they reach the NBA so it's all theater.

Not sure why they'd consider Fears who isn't better than either Carrington or Johnson. And even if you convinced me he was it's not so much so that you'd essentially be ready to write off both your existing young PGs you spent high draft capital on.

Simply BPA. I forgot about Johnson. I like Bub dont ever see him being a lead guard 1st option.

He's already proven to be a lead guard but who are these lead guard first options you're referring to?

Bub has already proven to be a lead guard?

how? the assist/to ratio is good (which is why I am assuming you're saying that) but he's doing it on a terrible team, with a negative 17 net rating and -8 On/Off when the ball is in his hands essentially

he needs to to prove he can be a lead guard on a winning team. that's what matters. not saying he won't get there but to say he's proven it already is a huge stretch. leading a successful team/offense is a lot different than accumulating assists on a bad one (see the fraud that is LaMelo)

[FarBeyondDriven]

Simply BPA. I forgot about Johnson. I like Bub dont ever see him being a lead guard 1st option.

He's already proven to be a lead guard but who are these lead guard first options you're referring to?

Bub has already proven to be a lead guard?

how? the assist/to ratio is good (which is why I am assuming you're saying that) but he's doing it on a terrible team, with a negative 17 net rating and -8 On/Off when the ball is in his hands essentially

he needs to to prove he can be a lead guard on a winning team. that's what matters. not saying he won't get there but to say he's proven it already is a huge stretch. leading a successful team/offense is a lot different than accumulating assists on a bad one (see the fraud that is LaMelo)

I don't add qualifiers or judge stats and wins because so much of that is out of their control. I can't expect a 19 y/o, playing with other young guys and veterans that are buffoons on a tanking team to put up great stats or win games. That wouldn't be fair. If a guard is good enough to start and/or run an NBA offense while playing major minutes, then to me, they're a lead guard. Obviously not a lead guard first option. That's obviously a completely different thing. We clearly have different definitions of it and that's okay

[clyde21]

He's already proven to be a lead guard but who are these lead guard first options you're referring to?

Bub has already proven to be a lead guard?

how? the assist/to ratio is good (which is why I am assuming you're saying that) but he's doing it on a terrible team, with a negative 17 net rating and -8 On/Off when the ball is in his hands essentially

he needs to to prove he can be a lead guard on a winning team. that's what matters. not saying he won't get there but to say he's proven it already is a huge stretch. leading a successful team/offense is a lot different than accumulating assists on a bad one (see the fraud that is LaMelo)

I don't add qualifiers or judge stats and wins because so much of that is out of their control. I can't expect a 19 y/o, playing with other young guys and veterans that are buffoons on a tanking team to put up great stats or win games. That wouldn't be fair. If a guard is good enough to start and/or run an NBA offense while playing major minutes, then to me, they're a lead guard. Obviously not a lead guard first option. That's obviously a completely different thing. We clearly have different definitions of it and that's okay

i'm not expecting it either, but I'm also not the one that said Bub has already proven he can be a lead guard in the NBA. by definition he hasn't.

[FarBeyondDriven]

He's already proven to be a lead guard but who are these lead guard first options you're referring to?

Trae
SGA
Luka
LaMelo
Cade
Hali?
Steph
Ja
Brunson
Harden?

you think Fears will be one like these guys? I definitely don't, but certainly no more of a chance at that than Bub but I guess we'll find out. I think every PG in the NBA could be a lead guard and #1 option if allowed to be. Give any of them 18-20 fga and don't bench them for their turnovers and defense no matter what and they'll produce like these guys. Just look at Brunson. He was a pedestrian starter/6th man like Nembhard and then he was given all the shots he wanted and suddenly he's the #1 option simply because of where he landed and the current makeup of that roster. Nothing changed except usage.

Yes, KJ Simpson and Tyler Kolek could be lead guards if it doesn't matter if they are good or if you don't want to win games so why would you draft Fears, sound logic all around lol

moronic misrepresentation

[FarBeyondDriven]

Bub has already proven to be a lead guard?

how? the assist/to ratio is good (which is why I am assuming you're saying that) but he's doing it on a terrible team, with a negative 17 net rating and -8 On/Off when the ball is in his hands essentially

he needs to to prove he can be a lead guard on a winning team. that's what matters. not saying he won't get there but to say he's proven it already is a huge stretch. leading a successful team/offense is a lot different than accumulating assists on a bad one (see the fraud that is LaMelo)

I don't add qualifiers or judge stats and wins because so much of that is out of their control. I can't expect a 19 y/o, playing with other young guys and veterans that are buffoons on a tanking team to put up great stats or win games. That wouldn't be fair. If a guard is good enough to start and/or run an NBA offense while playing major minutes, then to me, they're a lead guard. Obviously not a lead guard first option. That's obviously a completely different thing. We clearly have different definitions of it and that's okay

i'm not expecting it either, but I'm also not the one that said Bub has already proven he can be a lead guard in the NBA. by definition he hasn't.

by YOUR definition he hasn't

[JMAC3]

He's already proven to be a lead guard but who are these lead guard first options you're referring to?

Trae
SGA
Luka
LaMelo
Cade
Hali?
Steph
Ja
Brunson
Harden?

you think Fears will be one like these guys? I definitely don't, but certainly no more of a chance at that than Bub but I guess we'll find out. I think every PG in the NBA could be a lead guard and #1 option if allowed to be. Give any of them 18-20 fga and don't bench them for their turnovers and defense no matter what and they'll produce like these guys. Just look at Brunson. He was a pedestrian starter/6th man like Nembhard and then he was given all the shots he wanted and suddenly he's the #1 option simply because of where he landed and the current makeup of that roster. Nothing changed except usage.

Yes, KJ Simpson and Tyler Kolek could be lead guards if it doesn't matter if they are good or if you don't want to win games so why would you draft Fears, sound logic all around lol

moronic misrepresentation

"I think every PG in the NBA could be a lead guard and #1 option if allowed to be. Give any of them 18-20 fga and don't bench them for their turnovers and defense no matter what and they'll produce like these guys. Just look at Brunson."

- Was this not you^

Tell me how that makes any sense or means anything in terms of evaluating draft prospects? This is just some weird tangent you went off on and then get mad if someone makes fun of the terrible logic.

[codydaze]

Yes, KJ Simpson and Tyler Kolek could be lead guards if it doesn't matter if they are good or if you don't want to win games so why would you draft Fears, sound logic all around lol

moronic misrepresentation

"I think every PG in the NBA could be a lead guard and #1 option if allowed to be. Give any of them 18-20 fga and don't bench them for their turnovers and defense no matter what and they'll produce like these guys. Just look at Brunson."

- Was this not you^

Tell me how that makes any sense or means anything in terms of evaluating draft prospects? This is just some weird tangent you went off on and then get mad if someone makes fun of the terrible logic.

Yeah, and Brunson is a strange example to use here as well. Improving to 59.8% TS% in New York vs 58.0% in Dallas despite a 9.3% increase in Usage is not something that just any point guard can do, Brunson was always a pretty clearly talented player. His TOV% has actually dropped in New York as well.

[babyjax13]

Miles Byrd withdrawing, RJ Luis and Jamir Watkins staying in draft. Waiting to here about Konan.

[FarBeyondDriven]

moronic misrepresentation

"I think every PG in the NBA could be a lead guard and #1 option if allowed to be. Give any of them 18-20 fga and don't bench them for their turnovers and defense no matter what and they'll produce like these guys. Just look at Brunson."

- Was this not you^

Tell me how that makes any sense or means anything in terms of evaluating draft prospects? This is just some weird tangent you went off on and then get mad if someone makes fun of the terrible logic.

Yeah, and Brunson is a strange example to use here as well. Improving to 59.8% TS% in New York vs 58.0% in Dallas despite a 9.3% increase in Usage is not something that just any point guard can do, Brunson was always a pretty clearly talented player. His TOV% has actually dropped in New York as well.

In response to your weak misrepresentation of what I said i.e.

"Yes, KJ Simpson and Tyler Kolek could be lead guards if it doesn't matter if they are good or if you don't want to win games so why would you draft Fears, sound logic all around lol" hur dur

You made a dumb analogy that made no sense using Simpson and Kolek being bad but somehow still lead guards as if that's at all that was implied. jfc. Obviously (can't believe this needed to be emphasized) the lead guard would be talented enough to hold the job which would make thus make them "good" And since they're good and talented, if they were given 18-20 fga per game imho they'd replicate supposed #1 options like Brunson's production. You're laughably trying to make it seem like I said literally any guard regardless of talent or whether they're deserving of being a starter could do it. But this is par for the course in here

Regardless, to make it even easier to understand:

I think the current NBA is a joke. It caters to the offense too much, especially guards, by allowing illegal moving screens which force bigs onto them they can then take advantage of using travels, carries and push offs with foul-baiting on top of it all. Any talented guard with high usage can't help but put up numbers. The difference between a #1 option and not, often comes down to circumstance not necessarily talent as is the case with Brunson imo.

The NBA badly needs to expand by two teams because there's simply not enough spots for everyone. There are too many potentially productive starters as backups (like Brunson was once upon a time) or languishing on NBA benches/G-League. I think most point guards entering the league that are drafted could, if given 18-20 shots a game and their efficiency, turnovers and bad defense was ignored could produce like a supposed #1 option because most are talented enough to be NBA starters but there's not enough jobs to go around and who ends up with those jobs there's often no rhyme or reason to it.

Brunson entered the league as the 8th PG taken and was a 2nd rounder. Very few people including draft "experts" thought he was a lead guard let alone a #1 option on top of that. Even less still thought that after his 9/2/3 rookie season and fewer still after his 8/2/3 second season. He became a #1 option, like those before him throughout NBA history, due to a set of circumstances that allowed it. Could be draft capital, acquisition cost, team needs/roster construction and of course talent. Clearly the NBA scouts and teams didn't think he was such otherwise he would have been drafted very high. So being a #1 option doesn't impress me since I believe anyone with talent could be in the right circumstances.

Now, legit #1 option lead guards are few and far between. And let me tell you, they're not 6'1" scoring point guards that are defensive liabilities like Brunson. They are guys like Steph, Harden, Luka, and Cade. Game changers. What troubles me is that people seem to put guys like Brunson or prospects like Scoot and Harper in that group which I find laughable. They may be #1 options eventually but they'll be fraudulent ones like Brunson not legit ones like Steph, Harden or Luka.

But if we're using Brunson as a barometer for lead guard #1 options and all that entails good and bad, I'd only have Harper in that tier from the 2025 draft class. I had McCain, Collier and Dillingham in that tier from 2024 and Scoot from 2023.

That brings me to why this is an on-going discussion. Fears. I view Fears as a #3 option for a lead guard. I view Bub and Johnson as #3 options too. Which is why it doesn't make sense to draft him if you're the Wizards. They are two deep with young point guards already. For this to trigger you you either have to view Fears as a #1 option and/or Bub as lower than a #3 option. Going by the awful 2024 draft class takes in here for the past year I imagine it's more of the latter with you not viewing Bub as even a starting/lead guard at all let alone #3 option moreso than you believe Fears is a #1. Either way, I think you're dead wrong.

imho it'd be better for the wings to draft a wing (Essengue/Carter) to either backup or potentially supplant either George or Coulibaly so those positions could have young talented depth like the PGs do that pushes everyone to excellence.

It always seems to harken back to the 2024 class doesn't. Either I or the 95% of you are going to look like fools when we look back in a few years.

that's all the energy I can put towards this discussion

[babyjax13]

Philon going back to Bama.

[76ciology]

I think in this draft, we’re put too much value in age, size and athleticism. You look at VJ and get impressed by his physical tool, only to realize he’s a terrible halfcourt finisher. Or Ace Bailey, who’s still clinging to a top 3 spot despite putting up awful numbers across the board, simply because of his size and age.

[JMAC3]

"I think every PG in the NBA could be a lead guard and #1 option if allowed to be. Give any of them 18-20 fga and don't bench them for their turnovers and defense no matter what and they'll produce like these guys. Just look at Brunson."

- Was this not you^

Tell me how that makes any sense or means anything in terms of evaluating draft prospects? This is just some weird tangent you went off on and then get mad if someone makes fun of the terrible logic.

Yeah, and Brunson is a strange example to use here as well. Improving to 59.8% TS% in New York vs 58.0% in Dallas despite a 9.3% increase in Usage is not something that just any point guard can do, Brunson was always a pretty clearly talented player. His TOV% has actually dropped in New York as well.

In response to your weak misrepresentation of what I said i.e.

"Yes, KJ Simpson and Tyler Kolek could be lead guards if it doesn't matter if they are good or if you don't want to win games so why would you draft Fears, sound logic all around lol" hur dur

You made a dumb analogy that made no sense using Simpson and Kolek being bad but somehow still lead guards as if that's at all that was implied. jfc. Obviously (can't believe this needed to be emphasized) the lead guard would be talented enough to hold the job which would make thus make them "good" And since they're good and talented, if they were given 18-20 fga per game imho they'd replicate supposed #1 options like Brunson's production. You're laughably trying to make it seem like I said literally any guard regardless of talent or whether they're deserving of being a starter could do it. But this is par for the course in here

Regardless, to make it even easier to understand:

I think the current NBA is a joke. It caters to the offense too much, especially guards, by allowing illegal moving screens which force bigs onto them they can then take advantage of using travels, carries and push offs with foul-baiting on top of it all. Any talented guard with high usage can't help but put up numbers. The difference between a #1 option and not, often comes down to circumstance not necessarily talent as is the case with Brunson imo.

The NBA badly needs to expand by two teams because there's simply not enough spots for everyone. There are too many potentially productive starters as backups (like Brunson was once upon a time) or languishing on NBA benches/G-League. I think most point guards entering the league that are drafted could, if given 18-20 shots a game and their efficiency, turnovers and bad defense was ignored could produce like a supposed #1 option because most are talented enough to be NBA starters but there's not enough jobs to go around and who ends up with those jobs there's often no rhyme or reason to it.

Brunson entered the league as the 8th PG taken and was a 2nd rounder. Very few people including draft "experts" thought he was a lead guard let alone a #1 option on top of that. Even less still thought that after his 9/2/3 rookie season and fewer still after his 8/2/3 second season. He became a #1 option, like those before him throughout NBA history, due to a set of circumstances that allowed it. Could be draft capital, acquisition cost, team needs/roster construction and of course talent. Clearly the NBA scouts and teams didn't think he was such otherwise he would have been drafted very high. So being a #1 option doesn't impress me since I believe anyone with talent could be in the right circumstances.

Now, legit #1 option lead guards are few and far between. And let me tell you, they're not 6'1" scoring point guards that are defensive liabilities like Brunson. They are guys like Steph, Harden, Luka, and Cade. Game changers. What troubles me is that people seem to put guys like Brunson or prospects like Scoot and Harper in that group which I find laughable. They may be #1 options eventually but they'll be fraudulent ones like Brunson not legit ones like Steph, Harden or Luka.

But if we're using Brunson as a barometer for lead guard #1 options and all that entails good and bad, I'd only have Harper in that tier from the 2025 draft class. I had McCain, Collier and Dillingham in that tier from 2024 and Scoot from 2023.

That brings me to why this is an on-going discussion. Fears. I view Fears as a #3 option for a lead guard. I view Bub and Johnson as #3 options too. Which is why it doesn't make sense to draft him if you're the Wizards. They are two deep with young point guards already. For this to trigger you you either have to view Fears as a #1 option and/or Bub as lower than a #3 option. Going by the awful 2024 draft class takes in here for the past year I imagine it's more of the latter with you not viewing Bub as even a starting/lead guard at all let alone #3 option moreso than you believe Fears is a #1. Either way, I think you're dead wrong.

imho it'd be better for the wings to draft a wing (Essengue/Carter) to either backup or potentially supplant either George or Coulibaly so those positions could have young talented depth like the PGs do that pushes everyone to excellence.

It always seems to harken back to the 2024 class doesn't. Either I or the 95% of you are going to look like fools when we look back in a few years.

that's all the energy I can put towards this discussion

You are the one that said "I think every PG in the NBA could be a lead guard and #1 option if allowed to be." in defense for two guys who looked really bad in Collier and Bub. So yeah it reads pretty crass, you can't get mad when you make that statement that people are SUPPOSED to believe it is only the guards on a secret list stored in your head that this applies to... so yeah maybe just be better.