The 2026 Point Guard Crunch!

The NBA Draft point guard debate is getting messy for a reason: the more you watch March Madness, the more the “best guard” question stops having an easy answer. We come in hot with tournament takeaways, including why Texas surprised, why Arizona’s size looks like a real problem, and how Michigan’s mix of rim protection and scoring gravity changes everything when the stakes rise. If you care about draft scouting, this is the part of the season where weaknesses stop being theoretical.

Then we run our full point guard crunch, ranking eight guard prospects across five categories that actually translate: scoring, defense, size, athleticism, and star appeal. We dig into why LeBairon Phylon’s efficiency and shot profile separate him as a scorer, why Darius Acuff looks like the purest “give him the keys” offensive engine, and why Braden Burries keeps winning the traits that keep players on the floor in the NBA. We also get honest about the risk cases, like Tyler Tanner’s size versus his nonstop rim pressure, and how players like Keaton Waggler and Kingston Flemings can add value without dominating the ball.

The twist is what happens when we compare the category rankings to the composite model scores. The model rewards efficiency, stability, and low mistakes, but the broader breakdown favors physical translation and two-way survivability. That gap creates the real question: do you trust the spreadsheet, your eyes, or the tension between both? If you want sharper NBA draft rankings and a clearer feel for point guard archetypes, hit play, then subscribe, share the episode, and leave a review with your current PG1 and why.

Transcript

Point Guard Debate Sets The Stage

SPEAKER_00 0:00

On today's show of the Draft and Sash Podcast, we are getting into the point guard crunch. There's been a lot of discussion so far in this draft cycle of who is the best point guard and why, and there's a whole bunch of data and eye test. So we're just gonna get into a little bit more specifically, and uh we're gonna break down some of our favorite performances of the first two rounds as we go into the final four, but before that, we gotta hit the intro. And the years I've been doing this. I think this program is the best. What is up, everybody? Uh, it's been longer than I wanted it to be. Uh, I've been working really hard on my modeler. Um, and it's like every time I would add something, something else would break, or some new data points would come in, and that would just throw things off. So it's been a lot of you know, give and take for me trying to get the scores where I want them to be. Um, it should be really close. I should have my big board in a little bit, uh, hopefully with a couple of other um draft gurus that will be coming on the show, and we're kind of gonna do a big board battle a little bit. Uh, but let's get into

March Madness Standouts And Surprises

SPEAKER_00 1:22

our show today. Um, just like a quick uh first segment, which is gonna be on basically the March Madness so far. Um shout out to Texas. I fully thought they would get, I don't say get killed in the first round versus BYU, but I think a lot of us just assumed Agent Devansa was good for at least one win. And uh that team is just really, really played um into their strengths. They were very controlled. You got to see um the good and the bad of Swain, unfortunately, especially in the last game um when they went up against Purdue, where they had a chance, you know, to win. Uh, you know, Swain comes down and he he cuts the defense, he goes in, he scores at the rim, he scores through contact, and uh he ties it at 77. You're like, okay, cool. And then uh Purdue comes down um out of a timeout, and they score off of a missed basket because Swain is basically not boxing out his man correctly, and that's kind of just another thing that he doesn't do very well. And so it was really unfortunate to see him do something great and you kind of like nod your your head at and then go, oh my god, like you know, this is one of his things that he has to like fix up. He's just you know, he just doesn't steal his man correctly, and they go right just like right over him and you know get the tip back and they end up winning the game. Uh from there, um, I think a lot of people are probably I don't want to say surprised about Arizona. Um, I know all the people that really pay attention knew how good Arizona was. They have, I mean, it's almost like you know, them and Illinois are like a professional team almost, like that they have so many players that are from other countries just like and doing work. Um, but I think for your casual viewer, they fully expected Arkansas to come in, and Darius A. Cuff was just gonna do his thing and and and just chop down Burries and Crevis and do this, this, and this, and then all their athletes would just run on him. And I try to tell people um, you know, that I was around talking about the gang. So I was like, man, like Arizona's really good. There they have a lot of size. I mean, Mount Crevis is is a legitimate big man. Co-Pete uh can be a mismatch nightmare if you don't have um like you know, you look at you know uh Arkansas's Brazil, you know, he tried and there's just a cut above, you know, like with Brazil, like you know, he has size and and length and he can you know pop here and there, but Coa Pete is just built differently. He's thicker, he's younger, he's just like a man almost. Um, I think Ko has done a really good job at kind of showing what he could be. I I'm still a little confused about where his placement is. I just don't know what he does well enough right now to get on the court, but he's he's making a really a really good case for him um to be in that top 20 range for sure. Uh, and then of course, like you know, Brayton Burry's has just you know come on. A lot of people unfortunately didn't really know a lot about him. And he, you know, I I was telling people like I think he's just gonna take it to Acuff, and he did, man. Um, he's just bigger, he is a really strong uh combo guard, which we will get into obviously later when we're talking about all our point guards, but uh, you know, uh Duke loses in a crazy, you know, Brayton Mullen's like, you know, miracle, almost half-court shot. Uh that kid has been very inconsistent. He's been inconsistent this entire March uh you know tournament so far. Uh, you know, Reed has been really their their unsung, awesome hero. Um, I I definitely see his you know draft stuff going up now because he's getting like a lot more you know eyes on him and getting that buzz is really important. Uh some you know front offices like to go off of that. Um and they view that you know like in March as being this you know real like you know, testing ground. And so, you know, if that player is really good here, then maybe they're you know better. So you know, some people can get that like overinflated value and it can get them drafted. Um, you know, but beyond that, I think probably the best player has been Yaxel. Uh, you know, he is older. We know that, you know, I I hate I hate people saying, oh, like, you know, if if Yaxel was 19, you know, would he be first? It's like, yeah, he's not 19 though, right? You know, we we saw him at 19 in the league, and that's not what he was. You know, it took him you know three years to get where he is, and that's okay. You know, there's there's players, you know, you just have to figure out if Yaxel is closer to Jimmy Butler than he is to a you know Dalton Connect. You're hoping for the the the older prospect, like a butler who still has a lot of room to grow and can be like an all-star caliber player, uh, and as opposed to a guy who's completely tapped his talent and um is just gonna give you like a role player style, you know, um, you know, uh overall talent pool um for the next like you know five or six years. But you know, just in general, Yaxel has been awesome. Um, he's he's showing all of his traits, his his shot looks really good right now. He's his uh his his scoring gravity has been awesome for Michigan. Uh and just in general, that that that Michigan team has been great. I mean, like Mara has this insane, you know, block rate percentage, and it's on full display in March. Nobody's really scoring at the rim on him. Uh, you know, he moves really well, and then you know, you've got Merez Johnson just doing, you know, res Johnson things. Um, he has been a little uh taken advantage of at times because he doesn't have a real good shot. So he's um they've they've kind of say this. Uh Michigan's been hurt because he's not able to help, you know, pull uh you know his guy away. Um and so he's you know he's gotten bench at times because you know they're just they're not open enough enough space in lanes for you know guys like you know uh Cadeaux and Yaxel. But uh they they've looked really great. They they are still my pick to win it. I picked them at the very beginning. I hate that them in Arizona is probably gonna be our finals matchup, but Illinois looked really good. You know, you've got Keaton Waggler, who some people think is like maybe the next Penny Hardaway. Uh, you know, his he's obviously nowhere near as athletic, but size-wise, ball handling wise, he has these. It's weird because like I don't think he's crazy athletic, but his burst step is really impressive for his size. And then he's got this really herky-jerky left to right uh, you know, ball handling move and these stepbacks. And you're just like, okay, yeah, like I I can see this, you know, a part of me thinks he could be maybe Josh Giddy with like an actual good shot. And if that's the case, then then then him hitting All-Star is very, you know, uh, you know, possible. Um, but if he you know kind of never really fills out, if his body never gets stronger, you know, if he's never able to really be able to turn the corner on guys going to the paint, then and his his you know ability at the paint doesn't get better, then he he's gonna be very, very limited. Um some other guys that I think have had you know pretty pretty solid games. Uh I think Phylon has looked great and he's made himself a lot of money, probably. He's also gonna he should be moving up draft boards. Uh Kingston Flemings, uh, if if you weren't a fan of his, you you probably still aren't. Um if you are a fan, then you probably still are. He he he basically was Kingston Flemings. You know, he is a very competent guard, he's good on defense, he's very smart, but his lack of scoring, versatility, and burst was really what hurt them in that game versus Illinois. Keaton Wagler used his size really well against him. And Kingston and you know, they just weren't able to score from the outside. But again, Illinois is basically like you like a Euroball team based on all the players they have. So, you know, it's it's tough to really gauge. Um, but but Kingston, I think, will still be a top 10 pick. I just don't know where he goes now. Um, and then uh, you know, finally, uh, there's a couple of the guys, I think Vokaidis, uh Ibisevich, um, there and a couple of other players have really caught eyes, and I think that that will help them going towards, and maybe this you know, Crop of Bigman is a little bit deeper than we thought. Uh, but let's get into the more fun stuff. Um,

Setting Up The Eight-Guard Battle

SPEAKER_00 8:57

and that is gonna be our point guard crunch. Okay, so how this is gonna work is we are going to be talking about eight players uh in general. That is gonna be uh LeBairn Phylon, Darius Acuff, Michael Brown, uh Michael Brown, uh Bennett Sturts, Tyler Tanner, Braden Burries, Kingston Flemings, and Keaton Waggler. Um, I'm kind of gonna be going through a couple of just like broad categories. So scoring, defense, athleticism, uh, star appeal, and um size. And at the end, you know, we'll we'll kind of just get like a consensus raking of where all these guys are, and then I'll also have the ranking for their composite model scores in terms of of uh you know, to where all of the specific data and the projection models, all that stuff is is then in there as well. And we'll see kind of where these guys like you know, rank a little bit differently. So let's start with scoring.

Scoring Rankings And Shot Profiles

SPEAKER_00 9:49

Um, surprisingly, I I assumed one would be ACUF, but it's actually phylon. Uh Leberon Phylon is the most complete score in the class. Uh uh sorry, let me quantify that. When when I say like in the clash or things like that, I'm talking more about these guards, you know, specifically. Uh why he's number one, um, well, he's averaging 21.7 on um a 629 true shooting percentage, which is the best uh combo guard in the group. Um, he's on a uh 40 percentile from three on real volume and at like 5.8 attempts. Um, his his overall uh pressure for free throws is also really good. He averages right under like six a game, and his shot profile uh grade is also really good. Um, so what what his numbers are kind of saying is he checks efficiency, volume, shot diversity, and his free throw generation. Um his strengths, he is a three-level scorer, and that is not theoretical. Uh, he's efficient without sacrificing volume. He doesn't rely on this on just one scoring method. His concerns are his rim pressure is not elite, um, and or it's more like athlete driven. Uh, and then he can lean more on finesse than force. Uh, phylon doesn't just score a lot, he scores in the right ways, and that's why he separates from the others here. Number two, uh, who I thought it would be, would be Darius Acup. Uh, he is the best pure shot creator of these guys. Uh, he averaged 23.3 points per game, which is the highest in the group, um, on 44.6 from three. He uh has a six and a half assists per game. Uh, his scoring gravity, uh his scoring gravity and playmaking are very good. He has an elite offensive uh box plus minus. Um, he is very helicing engine, high usage, self-created offense, shot making from deep. Um, his strengths, you know, he can generate offense at any time. He's got an elite pull-up, perimeter scoring, high offensive ceiling. His concerns, though, are his shot diet is tough. Uh, he has real sustainability questions in that. Um, he's less efficient at the rim than um the other top-tier finishers. Acuff is the guy you hand the keys to. You better be ready to live with how he drives, though. Melcal Brown comes in at number three here, uh, basically based on volume and projection scoring. Uh, he averaged 18.2 a game, 7.6 three-point attempts, which is which you know is a very like high, high volume shooter type. Uh his free throw shooting is right at 82, which is really good. He has a overall like a really solid offensive profile. Um, he is a pro projection scorer, high volume. Um, you know, he signals confidence role. Um, he's efficiency is not elite yet, but his indicators are there. Um, he's a willing shooter, which will be huge for his like NBA translation. Uh, size and shot creation combo, offensive versatility. His main concerns are he's just not efficient right now. Um, he he lags behind everybody in the in these uh in like all these scoring rankings. Um his shot from three on is below 35. So he's gonna need to really hit like maybe like two to three percent higher in that clip based on his volume. Um, you're betting on what Michael uh Brown becomes as a scorer, not just what he is right now, the when you're taking him. Uh Keaton Wangler actually comes in at four. Um, he is an efficient modern scorer, uh, strong efficiency profile um with his high true uh true shooting percentage and his shooting splits. He has uh high volume shot selection, his balanced scoring, so he's not very uh heel centric, but he is very productive. Wallgare profiles uh as a modern efficiency score, good three-point shooting indicators. He doesn't waste possessions, he plays with a strong offensive structure, uh, clean shot diet, good decisions, reliable perimeter shooting. He doesn't need you know high usage to produce. Uh, some of his concerns, he's not a high pressure scorer, uh, really low rim pressure versus everybody else here. And he has limited self-creation compared to somebody like Acuff or Phylon. Uh Wagler isn't hunting shots, but he's taking the right ones, and that's why his efficiency pops. Uh, number five here is Bennett Sturts as an efficient operator. Uh, he averaged just under 20 points per game on 60 uh true shooting, strong points per possession, and a really good shot profile. High assistant turner for efficiency. Uh, you know, he really does smart shot selection, efficient scoring. He doesn't waste possessions either. Um, he's just consistently really efficient. Uh, strong decision making. He plays within his structure. Uh, his major concerns are he also lacks elite scoring pressure, and he's not really a bin the defense type of player. Um, so Sturts doesn't overwhelm you. He just quietly wins possessions over and over again. Uh Teller Tainer is at six. Uh, he's a really good pressure scorer. Um, he also averaged a little over 19 points per game with a uh 61 true shooting percentage. He has the highest rim pressure of anybody in this group, though. He's he's incredibly fast. Uh, he has a really good strong free throw generation as well. Um his speed, his aggression, and he has this constant downhill pressure. Uh for his strengths, you know, he gets in the pain at will. He forces defenses to react. He he's really efficient despite his size. Um, his concerns, though, are his size really caps his finishing upside the next level and his shot versatility. Uh, it's really more limited than everybody else. Uh, Tenor doesn't just attack the rim, he also lives there. Um, number seven is Braden Burries. Uh, he's a scalable scorer, but he's not going to be a primary for you. Um, he averaged just under 16 points per game, which is the lowest among all of his guards. His uh true shooting, though, is at 61. He has a lower usage. Um, and uh, but but for his like assist numbers is also you know pretty solid though. Uh what the numbers say, he's he's more of a secondary profile, efficient, plays off others, doesn't really dominate possessions. Uh he's a strong catch and shoot player, uh, good efficiency across the board. He doesn't need high usage, which will be good in the league. Uh concerns, um he's limited in terms of his own self-creation and um carrying like a lower offensive low currently. Burris is a guy who fits into an offense, not the guy who is the offense. And then last year, which is probably not a shocker for a lot of people, is you know, Kingston Flemings. Um, he's balanced but low scoring. Uh, he averages a little over 16 and a half points per game, uh, only about three three-point attempts per game, which is very low volume. Um, and his uh overall shot creation pressure is lower than the others. He is a connector scorer, he's not a driver of offense. Um, he's an efficient shooter at 36.6 from three, plays within the flow, he doesn't force bad shots. His concern, though, is just his low volume limits um really it just impacts his team overall. He doesn't pressure the defenses uh consistently, and he might live too much in that mid-range area. Uh Flumins can score, but he's not making defense worry about him. Um, so uh of those guys, we had uh phylon one, a cuff two, number three was Bennett's uh hold on three was Michael Brown, four was Keaton Waggler, fifth was Ben Sturz, uh six is Tyler Tanner, seven is Braden Burry's, and then eight is Kingdom Fleming. Okay, so moving on to defense.

Defense Translation And Real Weaknesses

SPEAKER_00 16:46

Uh we have got Braden Burries at one. Uh he is a true two-way defensive foundation. Um, he's the best defensive total in my model. He's at 6'4, 205. He's got a really good wingspan as well. He uh is our strong defensive rebounder for a guard, and he's got really high versatility indicators. Uh, this is the only player in this group whose defensive profile translates um actually translate up levels, uh, not just across. Um, he doesn't just stay in front or contest, he absorbs mismatches, switches, and wins physical battles. His strengths here are positional versatility. He can guard one through three comfortably, uh, which is really rare. Uh, his uh physical disruption without gambling, he doesn't need steals to impact possessions. Uh his rebounding impact, uh, it will you know help in possessions. It's a huge underrated defensive trait. Uh, his frame uh is very defensive driven, his body alone will change a lot of mass uh matchups. His concerns are uh he's not a high steel block playmaker. Um, he's more of a contain of control than a blow-up plays type of guy. Uh, he relies on you know positioning and strength over elite quickness, which you know could burn him in the league. Uh Burried doesn't just defend his man, he defends lineups. Tyler Tanner comes in at number two, high disruption, high risk defender. He has really elite still numbers, strong activity, disruption metrics, uh, high engagement defensively. Well, the numbers say uh Tanner's defense is built on chaos and pressure. He creates extra possessions, turnovers, tempo swings, uh, strengths, elite point of attack disruption. Uh ball handlers will feel him every possession. He does really great at turn for creation, one of the few players here who actually flips possessions. His motor and his competitiveness uh effort shows so consistently in all of his numbers. His concerns, though, of course, obviously are his size. Um, he's most likely below six foot, which will be a defining issue, and that's not theoretical. Uh, he will be targeted physically with bigger guards, and they will hunt him. Uh, aggression can backfire, uh, overplays and breakdowns. Talking points, uh, Tanner creates problems, but the next level, he might also be one defensively. Kings of Fleming comes in at number three here. Uh, quietly strong positional defender, uh, balanced defensive metrics across the board, solid defensive block, uh, box plus minus, rebounding, consistency indicators. Fleming's is a low error defender. He doesn't gamble, he doesn't overextend, he executes assignments consistently. Uh, his strengths are rotational discipline. He's always in the right place, uh, which is really huge for team defense. Positional awareness, understands angle spacing, uh, he help uh help responsibilities, reliable containment. He doesn't give up easy breakdowns, uh, concerns low playmaking defensively. He doesn't generate a lot of steals or blocks uh either. He doesn't impose himself physically, and he's more reactive than he is disruptive. Uh, he's not making the highly plays, but he's also not making mistakes for the most part out there. Keaton Waller comes in at number four. He's structured, uh system-friendly defender, uh, strong defensive rating context overall. He's balanced across most of the categories. He has no major weaknesses. Wagner is a system defender. He's gonna uh he thrives when the roles are clear uh and that the structure is really intact. He doesn't create chaos, he stabilizes possessions, if that makes sense. Um, strengths, um, positional integrity. Uh, he stays within his scheme consistently. His awareness and his positioning, he understands rotations and spacing. He's a low mistake rate. Uh, he doesn't give um offenses really like any easy advantage and doesn't really gamble a lot. Uh concerns, um, he is limited defensive playmaking. Uh, he's not really disruptive either. He kind of just tries to contain. Uh, he has really average physical tools, so he's not really his frame hasn't really gripped out yet. He's he's light on his feet. People might be able to just play through him as well at the next level. Um, and he doesn't really elevate a defense currently. He he really just holds it with like a nice floor. That also makes sense. Um, so he he's not gonna fix any defenses, but he's not gonna break them either. Uh Bennett Sturts comes in at number five. He's disciplined, but low impact defender. Uh, strong metrics, low foul rates, solid position indicators. This is similar to his offensive profile as well. Um, he executes assignments, he avoids mistakes, but he doesn't change possessions as well. Uh strengths, he has a very high defensive IQ uh to replace well. He's positionally sound, so he's rarely out of place. And he's a very low risk defender. His concerns, though, are his low disruption. He does also doesn't generate a lot of steals or blocks. He's also very limited in terms of physical tools, um, just his size and his lower level of athleticism. Um, so he has very low defensive upside. Uh, he defends correctly, but not very impactfully. Uh, Michael Brown comes in at six. Uh, tools present impact is inconsistent. Good size at 6'5 with the wingspan probably around like 6'7, maybe a little bit longer. Uh, moderate defensive metrics, not great ones. Um, he is a tools right now versus a production defender. Um, he should be a better defenser. I'm sorry, he should be a better defender than he is just based on on all of his size metrics. Um, his size resistan, uh, he can contest and switch more than smaller guards. His rebounding helps uh from the guard spot, flashes of a defensive. Upside. The concerns though are um his effort really fluctuates, which gives him this inconsistent like engagement overall, low disruption relative to his size, and he doesn't consistently leverage his size in any type of meaningful advantage. He has the tools to be a good defender, but the numbers say he just isn't there yet, and he might not ever really get there. Uh number seven is LeBair and Phylon. Uh offensive focus shows up defensively. Um, he has lower defensive impact metrics, limited disruption, inconsistent engagement indicators. Uh phylon defensive profile reflects his offensive role. Energy is tilted towards scoring, obviously, not towards defense. His uh strengths are capable when he's engaged. Um he's not completely lost defensively. Uh solid baseline awareness. His concerns, though, are low defensive playmaking, inconsistent effort, doesn't impact possessions uh defensively. Um, you're drafting his offense and hoping the defense at some point kind of catches up. Darius Acuff, which we all expected to be uh last here, is a clear defensive liability. Um he has the lowest defensive total in the group, minimal disruption, uh neutral to negative defensive box plus minus. Uh, this is a one-way profile right now. He doesn't create defense uh defensive events, he doesn't anchor possessions, he has occasional on-ball flashes uh when he's not completely disengaged, and you know, he can get some you know really uh nice turnover numbers with steals and things like that, but his concerns are just uh you know low physical impact, limited defensive presence, and he's gonna get targeted. Um, he is if if he's your best player, you're if he's your best player, your defense has to work around him. Yeah, so uh going into the size breakdown. Uh

Size And Frame Projection Risks

SPEAKER_00 23:40

number one here is Braden Burries. He is a prototype NBA guard frame, uh, six foot four, two oh five. His wingspan, I think, is around 84, um, based on just um online reports. Uh, he has a really strong frame, the physical profile. He is the best positional size of anybody um in this model. Burries isn't just good size for his guard. He is a mismatch resistant and matchup flexible. His size is two major things. He raises his defensive ceiling and he lowers his bust risk. Uh, strength, elite wingspan relative to height allows him to contest above his size, disrupt passing lanes, uh, and guard bigger players. NBA ready strength, he's already built to absorb contact, positional flexibility. He can realistically guard up uh position without breaking, physical durability, projection, body suggest ability to handle NBA wear and tear, which will be good over that like 82 game stretch, which apparently is never gonna get lower below 82. Uh concerns, uh not oversized in height. Uh, he wins his length and strength, uh, not with a height advantage. Uh, frame is strong but not freakish beyond wingspan. Um, he doesn't just have good size, he has useful size that will translate on both ends. Michael Brown is number two here in size. Um, he has the ideal modern guard size, uh, six five with around a six foot seven wingspan, lean but functional frame, strong positional size metrics. Uh, brown fits the modern NBA guard blueprint. Size allows offensive freedom and defensive survivability. Uh, strengths, you know, height advantage at his guard spot. He's gonna get easier shot creation on his release points. Uh, he can bother shots even without elite defense. Uh, he can slide across guard spots more comfortably. Um, his size supports his shot heavy profile as well, which you know, he is a high volume you know type of shooter. Concerns, um, his frame is not fully filled out yet. He can still be physically challenged. He doesn't really dominate physical, uh, despite size. Uh, size advantage, not always leveraged, unfortunately. Um, he has a size you want, and now it's just about whether he learns to use it, basically. Uh, moving on to number three, which is LeBairn Phylon. Um, six foot four. Uh I've got his wingspan around six six, balanced physical profile. Um, no real size-related red flags for him. Uh, phylon sits in that safe size tier. He's not winning the size, but he's also not losing because of it. You know, he's got um his baseline fits really cleanly into the NBA guard mold. Um, his balance length is enough to two survive on both ends. He doesn't require lineup protection, uh, supports his scoring versatility, concerns, uh, no standout physical advantage. He won't create mismatches uh because of his size, and he will be average for projection, not really a separator. Uh he checks the size box, but he doesn't win because of it. Uh Keaton Waggler comes in at number four, functional, neutral size profile, uh, solid guard measurements, average wingspan though for his frame. Uh no major positives or negatives. Waggler's size, you know, it's very neutral. It won't define its career either way. It's really, so his size is really, I mean, like his height is nice, but his weight is he's so thin right now that that that's really what is is gonna like hold him back currently. So he's just not gonna have a physical advantage anywhere. Um, he's not gonna be able to help, you know, create separation or mismatches. Uh limits his defensive upside currently, but his his frame work should be good. It should allow him to put on about 15 pounds. And if he's able to do that, I think that he could easily be one or two on this list, um, you know, within a year or two. Uh, moving number five is Kingston Flemings. He's slightly below impact threshold. Um, they're saying 6'4, he might be shorter than that. Um, and I've got his wingspan a little bit around like six five. Uh, he has a very lean frame, which is slightly below for his average strength profile. Uh from Flemings is right on the line of playable size versus impact size, adequate height for position, can survive in standard matchups, doesn't immediately limit his role. His concern is his limited strength profile. He can get moved by stronger guards. His uh average wingspan is relative to his peers. He doesn't really add defensive value physically. Um, he's big enough to play, but not big enough to matter really um where it matters. That was kind of redundant. Number six is Bennett Sturz. Adequate, but a limiting physical profile. Uh solid height, but limited strength, impact, a below average physical influence metrics. Uh Sturz's size is functionally playable, but it's not really additive. Um, he meets minimum NBA guard thresholds. He doesn't need to be high, uh, he doesn't need to be hidden defensively, and he supports his control-based game. Concerns is uh he doesn't really hold any type of physical edge. Limited ability to absorb contact, uh, doesn't enhance his offense or his defensive ceilings. Uh, he has enough uh size to survive, but not enough to really elevate. Uh number seven is Darius A cup, below average physical profile for his role. He has a smaller frame, limited wingspan impact, below average strength indicators. Uh, this is where A Cup's profile starts to show real weakness. Uh his game demands size, but his body doesn't fully support it. Uh, strength is uh quickness, helps compensate somewhat, can still function offensively. His concerns are lack of strength, limits his finishing, defensive targeting risks, and lower margin for error as a primary guard. Um, he plays like a big usage guard, but doesn't have the body for one. Uh Tyler Tanner obviously comes in at number eight. Um, size outlier with real translation risk. Um, I've got him at six foot. He's probably 5'10, but you know, uh he's I'm just I'm just trying to like you know go up a little bit, but he is uh probably smaller than that. Uh Tanner size isn't just below average, it's a defining variable in his projection. Everything in his game must overcome it. Um, his low center of gravity will help with his speed, his quickness offsets some physical limitations, but his concerns are finishing versus size becomes much harder at the next level. Defensive targeting will definitely happen at the next level. Um, his limited positional versatility requires specific roster construction. He's not just small, he's the kind of small that changes how you have to build a team. Um then you just kind of like here, just like something like final talking points on the size. Uh, you know, Burries has a clear separation. Uh, Michael has a really great um modern guard look. You know, he just hasn't figured it out. Safe of the size will be phylon. The uh and the person who's neutral is just Wagler, and the biggest concern is Tanner there. Um, and then our I think one of our last ones here, uh, athleticism.

Athleticism That Shows Up In Games

SPEAKER_00 29:53

Uh Braden Burries gets this one as well. Um, he's also number one here. Um, he has the highest athleticism total in my model. Um, he has strong tool scores plus activity metrics. He has 16 dunks, which is you know a really good indicator. Uh, he also has high rebound activity for his position. Uh Burries isn't just athletic, he is an impact athletic. Uh, this shows up in his finishing through contact, his rebounding above his position, and defensive physicality. He combines his strength, his length, and he has enough burst. That's the exact archetype that translates really cleanly. Uh, his strengths are power, but it's a balanced combination. He doesn't get knocked off drives or defensive positioning, functional explosiveness. Uh, he's not just vertical, he's usable in game athleticism. Uh, plays through contact, huge for both ends of the floor. And his rebounding athleticism indicates timing strength, uh, you know, not just being able to jump, but he like he really focuses and understands when and how to get around players and where to like jump and time. So just really cool, smart stuff from him. And he's like, you know, he's not very old. So that's that that's just it really tracks well. Um concerns would be uh he's not a pure twitch burst style athlete. So he wins more with his strength than his elite speed. And he doesn't have that elite first step separator. Talking point, he's not a flashy athlete, but he's the one who actually affects the game physically. Uh, number two here is Michael Brown, uh, smooth athlete with scalable tools. Um, he's got a really strong tool score, good size, plus movement combinations, uh, solid activity indicators. Brown is a fluid, scalable athlete. He's not overwhelming physically, but he is consistently effective athletically. Uh his movement, profile supports, uh, shot creation, defensive potential, uh, translation, uh, transition plays, sorry. Uh his strengths, fluid movement mechanics, easy change of direction, balance movement, functional burst, enough speed to create his advantages. He's got a good uh combination of size and athleticism, which makes him uh you know more valuable on that end. His uh translatable mobility, he doesn't really rely on one athletic trait, which will be good at the next level as well. His uh only real concerns here, he's not explosive vertically. Um he doesn't dominate athletically, and he kind of relies on his skill and rhythm as much as his other tools. He's not blowing past everyone, but he's uh never uh gee, sorry, he's not blowing past everyone, but he's never physically outmatched either. Uh number three here was Kingston Flemings, uh balanced athlete with no real gaps, strong activity, movement, balance across categories, no major athletic weaknesses. Fleming's is a complete balanced athlete. He's not elite in any one area, but there are no holes in his movement profile. His strengths, uh consistent movement ability, he can handle both ends without breaking, solid lateral mobility, helps defensive reliability, good overall coordination, plays at a controlled athletic pace. His concerns is he has no standout athletic trait. He doesn't really create advantage uh through burst, and he relies more on positioning than physical dominance. He's not winning with athleticism, but he's never losing because of it. Uh, number four here is LeBairon Phylon, uh functional athlete driven by skill and control, strong rim pressure, uh numbers, good offensive uh movement indicators, limited dunk vertical indicators. Uh, phylon athleticism is skill supported. It's not really tool driven. He creates vantages through timing, footwork, and control, more than his explosive burst. Uh, his strengths uh are a controlled downhill movement, gets to his spots pretty consistently, functional quickness, enough to create his separation. Uh, he's got balance and body control, helps finishing and shot creation, and uh his athletic efficiency, so he doesn't really waste any movement. Uh his concerns here are he just has a limited vertical pop. Uh, no, uh, he's not very overwhelmingly physical, uh, and his rim pressure isn't really based on his burst. Um, he gets where he wants, but not because he's faster or stronger than everyone. Uh Keaton Waldger actually comes in at number five here. Um, he has a he's a baseline functional athlete. He has very average tool scores, uh, balance but unspectacular movement metrics. Waldler is athletically sufficient, but he's not really impactful. Um, he's at his athleticism allows him to play his role and execute his style, but he doesn't really know how to create advantages. His strengths, uh stable movement profile. There's no major athletic flaws here for him. Um, he has a good balance and coordination, enough mobility to stay playable. His concerns are he just has no, he doesn't really have a burst advantage yet beyond his his you know stepbacks. Uh limited ver uh he has a very limited verticality, he has no dunks, uh, which you know people will talk about you know all the time. And he doesn't really pressure defenses physically. You know, he gets the rim a lot, but he's just hasn't really been able to finish, which you hope that he gets stronger. He has enough athleticism to play, but not enough to change games. Bennett Starts comes in at number six. He's a very control-based athlete. He has a lower tool score, limited explosive indicators, strong control and efficiency markers. Starts is similar to phylon, but less physical upside. Um, he has got really good processing and control, uh, more than it really like having a physical advantage. Uh his strengths are movement, efficiency. He's rarely out of control, good pace manipulation, uh, functional quickness and short spaces. Uh his concerns, though, he has very limited burst, uh, minimal vertical threat as well. He doesn't really create separation athletically, relies heavily on decision making over tools. I think he has like 10 or 11 dunks, which you know does does track you know better than than other guys here, but you know, um, he doesn't really have other functional like athleticism. Uh he's not winning, uh he wins with his timing and not with the speed, basically. Uh Tyler Tanner comes at number seven. Uh high he's got very high rim pressure, lower tool score overall, limited vertical and strength indicators. Tanner is a single athlete trait. I'm she's ugly single trait athlete. Man, I'm sorry, my words are not working today. Uh his speed is very elite. Everything else is very limited, basically. Um his strengths are elite quickness, plus acceleration. First step is dangerous, uh, ability to pressure the rim. He plays fast consistently. Uh, concerns though are let his lack of strength, his lack of verticality. His finishing becomes harder versus size. His speed advantage shrinks at the next level, limited versatility athletically. He's fast, but speed alone will not always translate. Uh, and then Darius Acuff was I was a little surprised that he was um ranked this low in the athletic tool, but um he has the lowest athletic oh my god, he has the lowest athleticism score in the group, um, really limited tool indicators, and he relies heavily um on his shot making ability. Uh his almost entire skill-driven offense, it's as his athleticism, uh, it doesn't really create separation consistently. It doesn't really provide uh defensive value. His strengths, uh functional movement for scoring can operate within his athletic limits. His concerns, though, limited bursts and his lack of vertical ability. He struggles to create easy advantages physically, heavy reliance on tough shot making, low margin for error at next level. He doesn't win fit uh physically, he wins because he can make shots others can't.

Star Appeal And Offensive Engine Bets

SPEAKER_00 36:58

Um, yeah, and then our final category here is uh the star appeal, like you know, which which player you know might you know you know potentially translate the most at the next level. Uh number one here is Darius Acuff. I don't think that's a shock to anybody. Um, he's a pure give him the keys upside. Uh his uh he has the highest offensive load in the group, he is the best at elite shot creation metrics, his strong offensive box list minus and his uses his usage indicators. Uh, and he has a proven ability to carry offenses. Acuff is the only player here who clearly profiles as a primary offensive engine. He's not just because he's the best player on a team, but because the offense will run through him at all times. Strengths, uh, self-creation at an elite volume. He can generate offense regardless of coverage, shot making ceiling, uh, tough shot ability translates to a lack of I'm sorry, to late clock situations. His offensive gravity, um, defenses must adjust to him, not the other way around. Playmaking through pressure, assist numbers come from defensive collapse, not just his reads. His concerns, though, he has a heavy reliance on difficult shot making, doesn't create easy offense consistently. Defensive liabilities lower his overall star value, requires rosters to build around him. Uh, if you're betting on a star, this is the bet, but it's not a safe one. Uh, Tyler Tanner actually comes in at number two here. Uh, he has a high impact production with visibility. Um, he has really strong scoring and playmaking production, elite rim pressure, high involvement and offense. Uh, Tanner generates constant offensive action. He's always driving, creating, forcing decisions. That creates a perception and reality of real star impact. Strengths, um, he has a high usage effectiveness. He can carry offense, uh, um, offensive stretches. He forces defenses into rotations. Uh, his game pops, fans and scouts feel it. He has a real competitive edge as well. Uh, concerns though, um his size obviously uh it caps his star shielding significantly. His finishing versus NBA length becomes much harder. His defensive limitations affect total value, and he will require a specific system to fit. He plays like a star. The question is whether his body um lets him actually become one. Uh number three here is Kingston Flemings. Um, he is a subtle star, pathway through control. Uh balance profile across all categories, strong decision making plus efficiency, no major weaknesses. Flemings is not a traditional star. He's a control-based upside player. The type that elevates a team, wins possessions, doesn't dominate headlines, strengths, complete skill profile, no holes, um, offensive, defensive decision making. Um, they're all stable. Scalable impact, uh, he can play with or without the ball. Consistency, uh, rarely has low impact games. His game is just overall very translatable. Uh, concerns, he really lacks one defining elite trait. Um, he doesn't really dominate on uh offensively, and his star ceiling will, I mean, pretty much depend on his efficiency and not his ability to actually take over. He might not look like a star, but he plays uh but but he might play like one um over time. Number four here is Michael Brown, um, who has really great size and scoring volume, uh high three-point volume, offensive versatility. Uh Brown has a blueprint for a modern scoring guard upside. The ingredients are all there. Size, uh shot creation, volume, but they're not really defined yet. Uh his strengths are his scoring R type will translate. High volume shooters get um really great opportunities in the NBA. His size supports usage, uh, shot versatility, upside tie to development curve. Uh his concerns, though, are his efficiency is very inconsistent. Uh his impact, um, not really matching his tools yet. He's still more projection than production. Uh, he has his star blueprint, he just hasn't fully built it yet. Braden Burry's uh comes at number five here. Uh two-way impact over offensive dominance. Um, he has a really strong two-way profile, elite size and athleticism, lower offensive usage. Burry's appeal is his impact, not his takeover. He will affect uh defenses, uh physical matchups, winning plays, but he will not dominate on offense. His strengths, um, he has really great two-way value. He really contributes across uh just a whole bunch of different categories. He has a really great physical preference preference. Sorry, a really great physical presence. Man, uh low risk projection, he fits winning environments. Concerns are basically just gonna be his limited offensive creation ceiling. Um he's not gonna be a primary option. His star path will depend on his role expansion. He might be the best player on a good team, but not the reason that you actually built it.

unknown 41:26

All right.

SPEAKER_00 41:27

Uh LeBron Phylon comes in at number six. He's elite score, but limited star indicators, uh, best uh scoring profile, uh, lower defensive and athletic impact, moderate usage relative to ACUF, what the numbers say. Uh, phylon is an elite skill player, not a full star profile. His value is tied heavily to scoring, but star players usually bring multiple uh multiple impact areas. Strengths, um, high level scoring skill, efficient production, reliable offensive uh output. His concerns are his defensive limit tool, uh limits his total value. Athletic ceilings, not elite, doesn't dominate outside scoring, more elite role score than a primary engine. Uh, he might be the best score here, but that doesn't always mean star. Number seven, Keaton Waggler. Uh, he has a very efficient profile uh with low usage, uh, limited creation indicators. Waggler is a role player archetype at scale. He helps teams win and offenses function, but he doesn't really drive them. His strengths currently are efficiency and reliability. He fits next to stars easily, and he's a low variance player. His concerns are his limited shot creation, his low offensive gravity, uh, no real takeover ability, and star path is going to be extremely narrow. He makes stars better, he was just probably not becoming one. Uh, Bennett Sturts, uh, control without taking over. Um, he has uh strong efficiency in decision making, low usage, and low creation pressure, limited physical tools. Um he is a high-level connector, not a star archetype. Even with his great control and strong IQ, he still lacks force, physical edge, and a really good scoring gravity. Uh strengths, uh elite decision making, offensive control, scalability, uh concerns are low usage ceilings, limited creation pressure, not elite physical traits. Uh, star pathway will be extremely limited. He might run your offense, but he probably won't be the face of it. So, our final um kind of like consensus

Consensus Board Versus Composite Model

SPEAKER_00 43:25

here. So, I I wanted to have um the actual like data numbers for for their final composite scores to see kind of you know where where things you know should have ended up. So, based on these categories, uh, we've got Braden Burries at one. Um, he was number one in uh defense, number one in size, number one in athleticism, which was strong across every category. Uh Burries didn't dominate one uh offensive category, he dominated translation traits. Uh Burries is the best bet to translate cleanly to the NBA, even if he's not the flashiest player. Uh number two was LaBaron Phylon. Uh he was the top scorer, he was very elite efficiency. Uh shot profile, no major weaknesses. Um, he's the most complete offensive player. Number three was Michael Brown. Um, he's got great uh top-end size, athleticism combos, strong scoring projections, uh, you know, solid across all the categories. Uh number four was Keaton Waggler. Um he was also strong across all categories, no real weaknesses, but not really with no elite traits. Um so the the model, this is kind of crazy. The model loves for mine, um, the efficiency, uh, stability and low mistakes. But when you look into other scouting factors, um it's there's there's like a this you know wider range. So you know uh Keaton Walker was number one in terms of scoring output on the model at a at a 7.7, um, but he's fourth on the list. Uh Kingston Flemings uh comes in at five. Uh he was top three in defense, athleticism, balance across every category, no real holes. Number six is Tyler Tanner uh with elite rim pressure, scoring production, uh, but last in size and body chair athleticism. Number seven was Darius Acuff, um, who has he was top in star appeal, top in scoring, but his defense, you know, and his athleticism were both not very great. And then Bennett Surtz comes in at eight. Um, he's really middle of the pack everywhere, no elite category wins, lowest physical upside. So if we're looking at just the the composite stuff, though, it's crazy. Um so Keaton Walger was one with a 7.7, Darius Acuff was uh number two with like um based on decimals, like like 7.2, something, something, something. Uh, and then behind him was uh Braden Burries, and then it's LeBaron Phylon. Um, and then the fifth was Kingston Flemings, and then sixth was Tyler Tanner, and then Michael Brown, and then Bennett Sturt. So it's just kind of weird that I took you know other data and put it into these basic categories, and then it was like, okay, just based on on this stuff that that that that might be translatable, this is who's best at these things. But if you look at like the, I don't know, man, like the 150 types of data points that I've been putting in, just all this code, oh my God. Um, you know, when you look at all that stuff where everything kind of projects based on, you know, size and and pace and usage and all types of like uh just all types of you know, blot percentage, still percentages, just on and on and on, and like, you know, uh, you know, the health factors and da-da-da, you know, those guys are just ranked a little bit differently. So it's very much this, you know, do you trust um you know what the model says, or do you trust the the the the more broad, like you know, breakdown, right? Like I mean, like is the model too lost in translation with this like analysis paralysis almost? And then you know, you kind of just trust a more you know broad approach here. Because if you if you you know go that way, I would say you know that that that Burries might you know currently track the best out of all these guards, with you know Wagler being you know much lower. But on that note, I mean like Darius Acuff, you know, is definitely you know, probably gonna go fifth or sixth. Um, but on this list, you know, he you know, he would be the you know sixth or seventh best guard. So I don't know. This stuff is just it's always fun. Um I I I love data and just talking. I love basketball. Um, and and obviously, you know, you don't do one or the other. You don't think like, oh, it's only eye test, oh, it's only data. Like uh, you know, Seth Partner had said, you know, basically the the data is the is the outcome of how the player plays. You know, you shouldn't, you shouldn't use the data to explain a player. It makes no sense, you know. So so you're like like what what you what a person plays really hard on the court, you know, these are the quantifiable factors that we can see uh in terms of why they're affecting the game, how they are. Um, you know, so so some people can really take all those numbers and and use those as these weird, like, you know, tools, you know, to explain things, but it's really the other way around. Uh and so much fun. Hope you guys enjoyed all that all that point guard crunch. Um hopefully, uh maybe it answers some questions, or maybe you're you're you're still just you know just drawn, you know, your line in the sand and you think, you know, no man, like you know BitStarts is still the best, or no, liking to Derrick's A Cup's still the best, but hopefully you can just hear this and it's like maybe it opens up your eyes in other ways.

Next Week Plans And Sign Off

SPEAKER_00 48:12

Uh join us next week. We will be breaking down um, I guess, just really all of the best performances of March Madness. Um, and then we're gonna be shooting um towards the draft lottery, I think, in like a month, which that's really exciting. I'm gonna have a guest on for that. Um, and then at some point, what I want to do is kind of like maybe like a few episodes where I I kind of put on team caps and talk about how they should approach the draft and some really good prospects in terms of their ranges and stuff. And we'll get more into you know, you know, player battles and big boards and mock drafts and stuff. So a whole bunch of exciting stuff. Uh, we're really gonna bring it up. As soon as I get all of this modeler stuff done, I'll really be able to start doing hopefully one to two episodes a week so we can really have some fun here. Um, you guys have a great week, and as always, never stop watching basketball.

SPEAKER_01 49:03

I've been doing this for 10 years. This is he's two years away from being two years away, and then we'll see.