Drafting Players Not Archetypes!

The NBA Draft is full of “we can fix him” bets and most of them fail for the same reasons. I break down the biggest prospect archetype traps I see every year, using a mix of film logic and model-driven indicators that actually translate when the game speeds up. If you’ve ever wondered why a hyper-athletic wing never learns to shoot, why a smooth wing never becomes real 3-and-D, or why a scoring guard’s highlights don’t turn into winning offense, this is the framework I use to avoid that mistake. 

We start with the athletic wing with no jumper and why touch tells on you. Free throw percentage, half-court efficiency, and offensive feel often predict whether a shot can become “good enough,” and I compare past outcomes to current prospects showing similar red flags and a few who survive the archetype with better touch and scalable rim pressure. From there, we hit the fake 3-and-D wing problem: when teams draft length and aesthetics while ignoring rim pressure, playmaking, defensive engagement, and whether the player is elite at any single NBA skill. 

Then we pivot to scoring guards with no feel, the kind of bucket-getters who stop the ball and struggle to fit next to other creators, and to toolsy bigs with “untapped potential” who lack scalable offense, processing, or shooting indicators. Finally, I dig into the small guard trap with hard historical context and a six-skill checklist, plus what separates a fun college guard from an NBA advantage creator. 

If you want a sharper NBA Draft process and fewer emotional bets on outliers, listen through and build your board with these red flags in mind. Subscribe, share the show with a draft friend, and leave a rating or review so more people can find it.

Transcript

Welcome And The Draft Trap Theme

SPEAKER_00 0:00

Welcome back to the Draft and Snash podcast. I am your host, Andrew. It is May 7, 2026. On today's episode, we are going to get into what players to avoid in certain archetypes. So the green and red flags that us hopefully you can make better decisions on the players that you like. Before you do that, we gotta hit the intro.

SPEAKER_02 0:41

One of the most exciting dramaps I can remember. And in the years I've been doing this, I think this drama is the best.

SPEAKER_00 0:47

What is up, everybody? I'm excited to be back. I've been kind of like under the weather a little bit. So this episode's come out a few days later than I wanted it to, but I was uh really excited because so today's episode is going to be on the traps to avoid when you get into certain archetypes. It's very common that, you know, teams will draft players and hope that they can fix something, right? So they'll draft the the prototypical really athletic wing who can't shoot, you know. They'll they'll draft the you know, really, you know, toolsy big, um, hoping that they can like, you know, develop those other traits in certain ways, you know, so just things like that. And then those things just kind of fail. So so I kind of just wanted to go into some numbers and some player types that I think are pretty interesting. So I've got four here, and then we'll end with a fifth one that I think is always always on the topic for discussion. So let's get into it.

Athletic Wings Who Cannot Shoot

SPEAKER_00 1:43

So our first archetype here is the athletic wing with no jumper. So a few players that I wanted to kind of put in uh as the comparison, I guess, right? So we've got Stanley Johnson, who was highly recruited, he was highly touted out of Arizona. I believe he was drafted number four, number eight in his draft. And then the other person is Joshua Jackson, who played out of Kansas. He was drafted number four. Both of these players just, you know, they they looked the part, right? They were both six foot six to six foot eight. They were athletic, they had, you know, a really good upside model in terms of defense. They looked great in transition, a lot of highlight plays. I think Joshua Jackson had like 50 dunks in his year, which is just crazy. Like he was so good all like on the break, right? So, you know, teams just assumed, you know, these guys' jumpers will come later. But historically, it usually doesn't. And that's kind of something that I also want to, you know, to just kind of put out there is for me personally, I'm not saying that you should do this, but for me, I believe in Occam's razor, which is if you, you know, if you're following all of the symbols, all of the all the traits, all of you know, this and that, you know, if something is telling you something one way, you know, do not expect the outlier, right? So if you're reading everything and it's saying that that the pen is green, don't just be like, well, yeah, it's green now, but maybe like it'll turn blue. Just just assume that if a player is showing you a long history of not being good at something, do not assume that, you know, in an NBA, that he's just gonna all of a sudden turn it around. It is very rare that you get a person that kind of shows you who they are, and then they get in the league and they're able to transform how they were supposed to have been. In most you know, opportunities and most times with players, they just continue to be exactly who we thought they were in college. So, with that said, so with Stanley Johnson, you know, he looked like a really powerful athlete. He looked to have really elite defender potential. You know, I think he was SEC freshman of the year, but kind of like hidden and all that, you know, he only shot 37 field goal percentage in like half-court type of settings. He had really poor touch, like he had really poor touch indicators overall with like with his you know free throw and things of that nature. And just in general, he had a really limited offensive feel. You know, so he very much looked like an NBA wing before he actually played like one. With Joshua Jackson, you know, he was an elite athlete. He was great, he had a really huge defensive upside. I think he had over a block and a half and over maybe like a like a steal and a half as well. Uh he was a monster in transition, you know, he just on the break, he was so unstoppable. But you know, you look a little deeper, you know, he shot 56%, you know, from from free throw, which is really, you know, scary. Uh he had you know these inconsistent shooting mechanics, you know, where it just never really, you know, some nights it looked good, but there's a lot of nights where it just did not look good at all. Uh his offense did not look very scalable as well. Uh, you know, so to me, free throw percentage is a pretty big uh indicator. And, you know, it's this lie detector to a certain degree that that you should really pay attention to. So there are some players in my current model that that kind of you know compare pretty well. The first one is Coa Pete out of Arizona, you know, six foot nine or so. Ford, I I we I don't think anybody really knows quite yet what his his role is going to be at the next level. You know, maybe people think he can be like a almost like a jumbo, you know, wing, but he'll probably land in that power forward style. Um, some reasons why my model and myself are kind of skeptical, his shooting projection numbers are not good. He's one of the lowest, and it's just because he just doesn't do a lot outside of the paint and and in like your transition. His his offensive just overall total numbers were not very good. You know, he was one of the lowest for somebody being drafted where he is, his you know, law, his low offensive, you know, portability in terms of like how it's gonna scale, you know, he just has no real creation value. And I don't know if that's because the team he was playing for. I mean, if you want to use that as a crutch, but he, you know, he would score over people that he could overpower. And you know, it's it's funny because people attack Cameron Boozer for that, but Koa Pete was was much more evident as a person that that was really just using his tools physically to you know earn points in the paint while Yabouger was doing a lot more. But you know, so he he has a very strong you know profile in terms of of how he's built athletically, you know, and I just feel like somebody's gonna look at him and think, oh, the body and his athleticism, his athleticism screams the NBA player, but the offensive scalability numbers are are really flashing these these warning signs that I hope. I mean, I assume that people know way, way, you know, way way more than I do. So I'm sure that you know certain teams will fade him, but it only takes one to really, you know, see what you could maybe be and ignore everything. The next person in this model that I think is is um you know kind of flashing right here, which I feel bad because Parker really likes this guy, and that is Billy Richmond. Some of his like hidden red flags here, right? He only shoots 24.5% from three. So his shooting projection is only like a point higher than Koa Pete's, which is just not great. His offensive total is a little bit higher than Koa's, but it's really screaming that he's gonna need other people to help him score. So basically, my my model sees a wing being drafted for his theoretical offense instead of what what he's actually shown what he can do. He is young, so maybe they can get him with the right people. But again, that's you know, for me, I I don't want to bring somebody on as a pure like project. But, you know, to be fair, Billy's probably gonna go in round two. So, you know, there's there's definitely a lot more grace there. But some people on the other end of this that are showing green flags first is Dalen Swang. So he kind of survives this archetype because his free throw touch is much stronger than than everybody else here. He has awesome rim pressure. His his offense looks to be very scalable on and off the ball. He's also very good in in like in you know fast break settings, you know, kind of just like a like a I don't say this, a a slight tangent on the side here. I I was looking at some Kareem Lopez here recently and then kind of comparing him to Swain. And it's funny because everybody talks about how Lopez is his you know killer athlete and this and that, and it's got this big body. And I watch him, and my first thought is I don't think he knows how to run. And I don't say that to be funny. You you watch him in transition and how he times his steps and his gait and you know his stride, and he doesn't explode like he should for a person of his size. So, you know, he really misses a lot of easy buckets in transition because I he might be jumping off of the wrong foot, you know, because at times he does these, these like you know, two foot, you know, jumps, and but then he'll he'll kind of do things in transition where he doesn't quite time it correctly, and then he just gets no lift. So that I don't know, so but but you know, you look on the opposite end with Swain, and man, he just understands how to get to his spots and he takes his steps really, really in these ways that are obviously you know very deliberate. He he's able to like put the ball on on like certain angles and he just gets to the rim in really creative ways. And that's that is something that that will scale him being able to go to that even when it's late in these like in these you know late game, you know, shot clock, you know, type of things. His defense also shows a lot of versatility. Now he's not he wasn't as good on defense as we all would have hoped that that he would have been, you know, but there is stuff there that shows enough projection that you think he could be at least an average defender at the next level. So he is a athletic wing that already impacts winning without needing everything to break perfectly. The next person, which I was kind of you know, happy here because I've been very high on this person, that is Caleb Wilson. You know, his defensive totals, his his composite score, he has some elite activity, his uh defensive projection translation looks really good. But you know, you think, okay, but you know, his jumper's not very good. So, like, you know, why is he on here? And it's because uh his his shooting projection looks pretty strong based on his free throw you know percentage being better than the other people that were flagged. So, you know, it's kind of saying at worst, he should be able to be a really helpful, uh, you know, offensive player in some degree. So he shouldn't need other people to get his shot so much. He should be able to at some point score uh you know, at least at two levels. And then, you know, I I get it that if you want him to be a wing at some point or play some of that, he might have to, you know, get really good at the three. But I I kind of think, you know, if you just use him in that, you know, Pascal Siakam saw role, where where you know Pascal, you know, at some point, you know, got somewhat of like a three ball, but he's so good in other things, you know, I think you know it's not as valuable as it should be. So, yeah, so just the the difference in Caleb Wilson already affects the game at these high levels without having to score, which is what these other people kind of

The Fake Three And D Problem

SPEAKER_00 11:05

needed to do. Uh, moving on to the next archetype, that is the fake three ND wings. So the people that I put in here to kind of be like these, you know, us style you know, comparisons would be Jarrett Culver and Cam Redish. Some reasons why these you know teams got fooled is NBA teams love wings. You know, these guys you know both looked long, smooth, very switchable. They both had this you know theoretical ability to scale, but you know, neither sure neither the three-point shot or the the defense became elite enough to kind of carry the other side. So with Cam Reddish, you know, people people really focused on his archetype, his tools, and and how smooth he was, but they kind of also ignored, you know, how inefficient he was at scoring. He he had almost no real rim pressure uh as well, and he he had a very low uh engagement rate on offense. You know, he just didn't really do a lot besides you know shoot like a thousand threes. So it was more of less, I think people thought, oh, you know, this guy's a the this obvious gunner, you know, he had these low percentages, but you know, but like in high school, he looked great, and this is this, and it's one of those players that got kind of drafted on those priors and his size, which is why I was really worrisome about you know Brelo Mullins. And you know, Cam just got to a certain point where his talent ran out and and people just kind of like overhyped him. You know, sometimes the teams draft the idea of a player instead of the actual player. Jarek Culver, people saw a really versatile wing creator. He had really good defensive upside, his size is really good, but you know, people ignored his obvious concerns with his jumper, his his processing wasn't very fast, you know. He he tended to kind of hold the ball and think, you know, as opposed to just really understanding how to move, uh, you know, and his his role was really on offense, it was like super questionable. Like, you know, you didn't really know kind of where you could put him to expect some kind of offense out of him, and it just, you know, eventually it just caught up and he didn't stick. So, some current players that are in this draft and in my model that show these same flags, we've got Isaiah Evans. He is a shooting heavy profile, but with very limited playmaking. His offense depends heavily on his shot making. So, of note, you know, his his shooting projection is very good. You know, so he looks like a person who is gonna come in, he's gonna scale. And especially in this league that, you know, currently values being able to shoot on the wing at like a really, really high marker. You know, I mean, like he's gonna get drafted based on that, but his playmaking is really bad. And not only is his playmaking bad, his defense is not very good either. He he tends to show low effort at times as well, you know. So he, you know, he just doesn't bring the other intangibles that I think are, you know, needed for a person who's gonna get drafted, probably low 20s at this point, with everybody that has currently gone back. Maybe somebody takes a chance higher on him, but for me, I'm currently gonna be fading him into round two now. And then another player that I think is getting almost this like laxadaisical just assumption that he'll be good enough to take in round two, and that is Alex Caraban, who I have been hating on for like a month now. But you know, I hate that because I don't hate him as a player. I just I think that he just doesn't do enough, and it's obvious that he doesn't do enough, but people are going to draft him because he's he's he's an older player and he's got good size and he shoots, but he has a really low athletic translation. Like he he was already not a great athlete in college, and at his size, where he's gonna have to guard, probably on that 3-4 tweener style thing, I think he's gonna get killed both ways. He he he's not gonna be athletic enough to get around people, and then he's not gonna be athletic enough on defense to really get in the way of people. Just in terms of offense, he was a like a really low pressure offense guy, like he never got to the rim, you know, unless it was in these like really easy, you know, spots. He tended to just you know kind of fade towards the the arc and just shoot. So I just I don't know what he does, you know. I mean, smart role players still need to be one, still need to be elite at at least one NBA skill. And I don't think he is elite at anything. Like you you can point to you know his shooting because of his size, and so that you know maybe give him like a little bit more, you know, higher marks there, but I I wouldn't, you know, in this current day, that there's so many people of his size that shoot better and also do other things. And you know, if he's gonna be like if he was shooting 45% from three and shooting like nine a game, I mean I at that at that point on his age and his size, I'm like, okay, like with that, I can see him being almost like a Joe Ingalls or something. But I think he's gonna unfortunately get drafted in the high in like probably like like the 30 range, you know, maybe like 35 or something, and it's gonna be a really bad pick. But some people on the other end that I think are showing really good flags in terms of that, you know, 3 and D style, you know, player here is Christian Anderson. You know, he has a really great shooting projection, his offensive total is really good. His he looks just in general very scalable. He does enough on defense to give you some disruption here and there. So, you know, maybe he gets targeted from time to time because he's not very big, but I think he'll be able to win you more possessions where it's not as you know as as much of a hindrance as it might look look like. He is a great shooter. Yeah, I think he'll he'll be able to come in and have a role either as because because of his his his overall offensive, you know, you know, style, you know, for from like you know, scoring inside outside, he can play off the ball. Uh you know, and you know, maybe at that point you you have to do some defensive switching so that he doesn't get trapped on anybody. But you know, I I can see him playing with another point guard and and then having this really you know fun you know uh dynamic feel to them. Another person that I was happy to see on here is Keaton Waggler. He is elite offensive, you know, just all around. His he's got real spacing value. You know, I I get that his you know his rim pressure is not great, but he has a really great you know 3 and D archetype. You know, we've already talked about how his defense is not you know great, and it's it's borderline like above average to maybe good at the best. And that's kind of just all you need. If he's gonna be playing that that that one or two role for you, you really just want a person that can you know kind of just like guard their yard, right? You know, like like I don't need him to be some kind of like you know, Andre Iguadala type going around like being able to guard fives and fours and this and that. I you know, you really just want a guy who's not going to get attacked because you know they because the the the other team's offense doesn't see like an easy bucket every time. So you know, you just don't want him to be this, you know, Luke Connard type that will come down and get a three and then he'll give up you know points immediately. So, you know, I think that this kind of just puts another feather in you know Keaton Walter's

Scoring Guards With No Feel

SPEAKER_00 17:57

hat here. So the third archetype is the scoring guard that has no feel. So some people that I put in here is Dion Waiters and Dennis Smith Jr. Some reasons why I think teams got fooled, you know, these guards were great at just getting buckets. They were awesome in highlights and they looked really explosive, right? But offense kind of stopped with them. They they they both showed a weak offensive, you know, translation at the next level. And they looked like really poor, you know, like poor fits in like certain like ecosystems. So, you know, it was very much, you know, they they needed things to be a certain way for them to be as successful as they looked. And you know, once they got to teams, I just don't think that they were able to, you know, fit in because they they were they'd always been the person that other teams just kind of like filled out around them. With Dion Waiters, you know, people kind of saw this great like you know, scoring in ISO. You know, he had this ability to to to like you know hit shots, he had a lot of confidence, but they ignored you know a lot of these you know poor efficiency marks. They they ignored his his ability to not really play make at the next level. They ignored his his tendencies to stop with the ball, you know. He kind of like it stopped passing as soon as he thought he could score, you know. So moving on to Dennis Smith, you know, people saw a person that was really explosive, a really flashy creator. I mean, to Dennis Smith in his first year with Dallas, uh, he was so fun to watch. He was so explosive, but they ignored a lot of his you know weak feel. Um, he had really limited off ball value, uh, you know, just his his lack of efficiency was just not going to be scalable, you know. And then, you know, I think Dallas kind of realized that by year two, year three, and they dumped him. And, you know, he just didn't add enough value, right? So some current players that are showing these, you know, same traits out of Arkansas with Malik Thomas. I feel bad because I'm talking about Richmond and Thomas. So Malik shows that he could be like a really strong scorer, but he's also showing these really weak connective indicators. His playmaking is just not good. He's also not a very good athlete. I think he has good size and he is of like a legitimate good shooter. Like he shows everything you want from a person who's gonna be able to shoot. I just don't know what else he's gonna be able to do out there because he's not somebody that is gonna be moving the ball around. He's not a great, you know, guy in terms of defense. So he can't really be that like, you know, that hopeful, you know, 3D wing. So, with that said, like he needs to be so good at shooting on offense to really make up for his other issues. And I just don't know if he's gonna be able to do it. The next person who's not in the draft anymore, but that was Juke Harris. And he just he was not also not a great playmaker, he was felt like a really lower impact in certain ecosystems. He had a lot of scoring first tendencies. So, you know, him going back, I think makes sense. I'm sure his camp saw that he was gonna go like middle of round two, so he might as well just get like another bag real quick. And now, some people on the other side of that that are green flags, I was very shocked by this. I for when I started to do this, uh, when I was going through all of Dennis Smith Jr.'s numbers, I was like, man, this sounds like Darius Acuff, like, you know, in terms of except for you know, his obviously his his like you know, offensive shooting was this and that. But I was like, man, you know, is this something that's going on? And so I was glad to see that it wasn't that. So like they have a similar archetype, but Darius Acuff, so my my model really likes him because he has a really great projection for his shooting. He looks like a guy who's gonna be legitimate from outside. He also has a really above average to, you know, good to maybe elite in terms of his playmaking. And then his ball security, his ability to just handle the like to handle the ball in these tight situations on the break and these half court situations, he's gonna be good enough that he's not gonna be giving away the ball, right? So he he's a really good scoring guard who will be also be able to organize the offense. So I think because of that, that will let him play on and off the ball. Uh, another person is LeBaron Filon. He's uh equally really scalable also on offense. He has really good. Connected playmaking ability, and he's really also really good at his his decision makings, you know, when he has the ball in terms of you know how to get the offense moving and things of that nature, which is really cool because I I think phylon is probably outside of some people's lotteries, you know, in terms of their draft. So it's cool to see that he won't fall into

Toolsy Bigs And Untapped Potential

SPEAKER_00 22:20

that same trap. And then our last archetype here is the Toolsy Big with untapped potential. So kind of the player that I was looking at here was Marvin Bagley the third. I had tried to do Hashim Tabi because I thought it would be you know kind of fun, but there it's such an old you know draft in like 2008, I think, or nine. And so a lot of the data is just not there anymore. So his scores are just not really, I don't know, there I don't trust him as much. You know, he didn't score as bad as I thought he was gonna be, but it was probably too high based on the numbers that I just don't have the two, you put him in there. With that said, you know, he went, he was drafted number two, you know, and then look into the stuff that I do have, I think he was definitely a person worth taking in in the first round. A lot of people think he's one of the you know worst players of all time, but it's also another situation where, you know, if he goes maybe in the mid-20s and goes to a situation where he can really just train and and just you know kind of grow, as opposed to he was like immediately given the keys to to be in this person that needed to be like really great. And he just was not ready. Even as a junior, he just was not ready for that. You know, comboed with Marcus being clearly better than him, you know, it was just never gonna work out for him. So let's kind of move on here. And that is, you know, both these guys looked really dominant physically. They both had really elite size and some tools that they flash a lot of upside, but they lacked a scalable offense as well. They both had, you know, this like slower processing feel, they both looked a little limited in terms of how versatile that they could be. With Marvin Bagley, you know, people saw, you know, he was this, you know, 20 and 10 guy. He was he was going in, he was getting like all these like, you know, these awesome rebounds and he was scoring in the post and this and that. He was like very explosive, you know, for especially, I mean, I wouldn't say just for his size, but maybe just in general. But they didn't they ignored his feel on defense. They ignored that his passing wasn't very great. You know, they they they ignored that his his ability to scale to the next level and do more than just these two things. You know, it was one of those things where they thought that they could just, you know, just practice with him, like and help him like you learn all these things. So some players that are currently showing the same flags, which this first one kind of hurts, and that is uh Daimara. Um the reason why he's on here is he also shows elite size, elite tools on defense. He also moves very well for his size, but his shooting projection is very bad. His his ability to scale on offense is just just does not look good. His free throw percentage indicators really, really drag him down. His inability to shoot in any type of range really, really like also hampers him. He's gonna have to be, you know, so good that he can stay on the floor even when his offense is not working. There's gonna be times when he he's getting these these heavy doubles and he's not gonna be able to, you know, score out of them. There's gonna be these times where you know his his his point guard can get him the ball, and it's just like he's not able to really do anything else except just like stand there. So I don't know. You know, I I imagine some people will take him at a you know, probably in that lottery, I'm assuming. But but this kind of makes me think a little bit uh in terms of you know, if he's showing those same those you know, same things. So I just don't know if his offense is gonna be good enough for him to, you know, you know, maybe during the the the like in playoffs, which you know you're hoping that you know all these guys can be in players in the playoffs. You know, is he gonna be good enough to be on the floor during that? Another person was Mo Crievis, who has gone back since, you know, basically like I had these numbers, but he's another player that had the these really great physical profile, showed a lot of value on defense, but also showed this you know low scalability on offense where you just don't know what he's gonna be able to give you at the next level, you know, because he was in this really limited perimeter-like ecosystem. And it's you know, it's you know, obviously he wasn't asked to do those things in college. I neither was Mara. So it's hard to quantify that exactly in terms of what they'll be they'll you know be able to bring you on the offensive end. You know, are they able to score more creatively in these like you know, post-up, you know, new type of things? Or are they only going to be able to get you know the scoring through handoffs and pick and rolls and these like you know, dunker spots and stuff? So, but some some uh you know players on the other end that were you know very cool is Jaxel Lindeborg. You know, my my model really loves his defensive total was great, his you know, overall, like his you know composite score is awesome, his offense looks very scalable, he looks super versatile just in general. He just he's a modern winning big instead of like a tools only big. And I think this'll probably have me move him up. I I might have him around 12, and I think I might move him up to nine or something. Another player that I I've been talking about, and then is Hannes Steinbach. He is, you know, he shows to be like much better offensive portability going forward as well. He has really great, you know, passing indicators as well. He looked better in his like ecosystem fit, you know, he's stronger. This is like a big that helps offense flow instead of stopping it. Now, there are concerns, obviously, with Hannes. It's you know, how does he fit as a four or a five? Because you know, four, you know, you're like, okay, can he guard fours? Because you know, it's gonna kind of pull him away from the basket. And then you're like, you know, he's not a great rim protector, so he can't really play the five is like the main guy. So he's gonna be a weird fit for somebody, but I think he has too much talent to not, you know, just kind of like try it. And then you know what? Let's move into something that I think is always like a hot button thing.

Small Guards And Tiny Margins

SPEAKER_00 27:50

So for the final archetype, I wanted to kind of get into the small guard trap. A lot of people, I I think that smaller guards are just more fun to watch in general, you know, because maybe we see ourselves in them because they're, you know, they're out there, you know, with all these giants and and they just look great. So the the EBA gives small guards almost no margin for error. If you're getting drafted, you better be awesome at four of six things. And so the six things that I I personally look into players is you know, shooting, dribbling, passing, rebounding, defense, and their ability to process things fast. You know, so for me, you know, you better have four of those things because if not, then you're just not gonna last. You know, if you only have like, you know, you know, passing and dribbling, but you can't do any of the other stuff, it's just not really gonna work out for you. With guards that are that have no size, it makes it that much harder, right? So I kind of started this because I was wondering how many guards had made the all-star team in the modern era, right? So I went back for the last 26 all-star games, and players that are six foot three or or shorter, only 34 different players made the all-star team, right? And you might think like, like, oh, but that's not that bad. That's only 4.92% in terms of all players that made the all-star team. If you go to six foot two and under, only 19 players made it, and that is 2.75%. And then if you go to six foot one, only 11 players made it, and that is a 1.59% chance. And if you go all the way down to six foot or less, only five players in the last 20, like six years, that is a 0.72%. So if you're going to use a pick on a player that is six foot three or less in the top 10, or maybe like the top 14, you better be damn sure that person is elite at four of those things because the odds of them giving you return on your draft equity investment is just not good. It's not at all. Uh, you know, and so like things like this are just super scary because, you know, there's guys that that look really great, but they're six foot one. And and like you're just constantly talking about, oh, like, you know, if if only, you know, you know, he's so good at all these things. And it's like, yeah, but at a certain certain point, you know, size really matters. And in the NBA, it it really matters. You know, that this is why like I've got Tyler Tanner lower, and it's not because I don't see all of his metrics, you know, he's a guy that's five foot ten. And, you know, if you can get him in round two, then cool. All right, great. But if you're taking him, you know, in the top 20, he he's just not gonna pan out for you. Like, you know, if you can get him, you know, super late, maybe as like a change of pace guard off of the bench, then I think that that could maybe also work. But yeah, so just in general, you know, teams get fooled because that they see small guards dominate in college basketball because, you know, for for the most part, they control most of the usage, they dominate the ball, they can exploit athletes that are are not as athletic as themselves, and and you can also hide them on defense. But the NBA is gonna ask you, is it's gonna ask these players, you know, can you survive switches? Can you score against length? Can can you defend physically? Can you play off the ball? Can you create efficient offense against elite athletes? So some of these key differences are just you know, bad small guards, they are gonna need the ball and they and without it, you know, can they still create elite offense? So good small guards are people that are gonna be able to offensively, you know, they're they're offensive, offensive organizers, excuse me. They are scalable shooters, they're gonna be elite decision makers, and they're the they're able to enhance the ecosystem that they're going into. Some you know, great college players that are gonna have, you know, really questionable like in translation that I've got in my model. Uh, the first one is uh Braden Smith out of uh I think Purdue, I think that's right. Uh, you know, he he's shorter, you know, he was in college for four years. People love him. He's this, he's he's such a great college point guard and this and that. And people, you know, people love him because he has, you know, really great college production, he had elite feel, he really controls the game, he has a very high IQ. But my my model is quite is quietly screaming caution because his athletic numbers are not good, his ceiling score is not very good, his his base composite score is very bad. You know, so my my model basically sees a an elite college floor general, but not necessarily a an NBA advantage creator. Another player that I'd like, but I don't know where he's gonna go, and that is Jacoby Gillespie out of uh Tennessee. So my my model really likes certain things from him, and that is he has a really great shooting volume. I think he's gonna be like a really great threat from outside. He's got a really good offensive IQ, he's a great playmaker, but his athletic scalability is just not very good. He just he's just not very athletic. He's gonna get a lot of you know harder defensive matchups. And so his rejection is not very great. He and just in general, he's gonna have a you know, this you know, lower ceiling, you know. So I I I like Jacoby Cook for a lot of reasons. You know, he does some things that are you know super impressive. I think he could be, man, like a really great scorer off the bench for you. And you know, if his wingspan comes out and it's you know four to five inches bigger, I think that that will give him a a really great chance at being pretty good in the league, you know, and because if he can just cause some turnovers here and there, then I think that'll make up for him getting targeted, you know, like you're here and there. Another player is Kylan Boswell. You know, he has a a lower offensive upside, he's got really weak, you know, his his indicators for being able to scale are not great. He has a really limited creation ceiling. I think he's a really, you know, like this is college guard that that's very solid, but I don't think he has any like NBA elite swing skills that will allow him to stick. But on the other side, so when I started this, I was like, I was like, I was kind of worried that you know, Darius Acuff, which is gonna get crushed and all this, but he comes out on the other side. He is a green, you know, flag for guards that are small. So he he is a rare small guard that is worth betting on. And in fact, he is the best green flag small guard in the entire model. So again, why why it trust him? He has great ball security, great playmaking, his his ability to shoot from the outside is awesome. You know, he he's not just gonna be a scorer, he is a player who can run an offense and do it in ways that that will really just overall elevate his team. Uh, and you know, and and you know, based on this, I'm thinking that, you know, defensively, while he is bad, and he had a quote a few days ago where a person was looking at his film and they were he was asking if he just doesn't care on defense. And Darius responded that, you know, he finds it insulting because obviously he cares a lot and he he plays plays hard. And to me, if that's Darius being being genuine and not just trying to get you know get like drafted higher, uh that is really scary because if that is him playing at his best defensively, he is gonna be really, really bad in the league. But so I I think the truth is in between there some somewhere probably, but but his offense is good enough, I think, for you to take him in the top 10, despite him being a smaller guard and you know, kind of banking on that. And then also Lil Baron Phylon is also on here. You know, he is another really good playmaker, really solid on offense. His he has a really like lower friction offensive style, so like he's able to play on and off the ball. He doesn't have to, you know, dominate the ball, you know, so he's able to, you know, so he's gonna scale very good around, you know, and then he's just he is one of the successful small guards that is gonna make the game easier for everyone else. And then there is Christian Anderson, is he is an elite, uh, just a great shooter. He's gonna have he's gonna create such a high volume of space for everybody. His offense is easily scalable. Um, you know, he is the type of small guard that is going to survive because his shooting becomes such a real weapon. You know, I just I I have faith in him going in that top 20 range and being a starter probably by like year three for somebody.

Process Takeaways And What Is Next

SPEAKER_00 36:06

So, in general, you know, these are the archetypes, you know, all the flags are there. You know, you kind of just have to you know look at them here and there and figure out which ones matter to you. You know, so even if you like a player a lot, you still have to be able to see the certain warning signs that are staring you in the face. I you know, I get that the draft is about potential and you can't just you know go into it with a quote unquote you know safe thought process, which I to me like there is no safe role like process, you know, because you you can take players that you think are safe and they end up you know just being bad. To me, you you need to just have your process and go with it and like just you know trust your gut to this like a certain degree here because the the NBA draft isn't just about talent, it's about identifying which skills actually survive the jump to the NBA. You know, there there are so many years where teams fall in love with certain archetypes, and I'm just trying to figure out which players actually have the indicators that are that will historically translate. And no, and the best prospects aren't always the flashiest players. They are the players whose games still work when the athletic gap is gone. Very excited for next week, next week, excuse me. Even though the the the NBA hates us and they put the draft lottery on Mother's Day, which is gonna be hard for everybody to to try and watch. I'm very excited for us to finally figure out where the picks are gonna be being made from. And once that happens, I will be able to start doing mock drafts and big boards. I might have a live reaction to the lottery. I don't know. Uh I don't know if I'll be off fork in time. And then I'm supposed to have a special guest next week for a show, and we'll we'll probably be talking a little bit more specific teams after we know all the picks and the players that are really gonna fit. So a lot of fun stuff coming up, guys. Uh it's only getting started. So, as always, be sure to watch more basketball.

SPEAKER_01 37:51

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.