2026 NBA draft thread

[Knutsen]

Nice article about Acuff with some quotes of Calipari on his character and work ethic:

https://andscape.com/features/arkansas-g...ournament/

[Winter]

You almost need to look at these later NCAA tournament games without the expectation of "scoring average" in a players box score. It's hard to be "typical" in these games. The pressure is intense. None of Wagler, Flemings, or Acuff had really typical shooting nights. Burries did, but as someone pointed out, his responsibilities might be less (and his team much better).

I like both Wagler and Burries over Flemings for the flexibility. Naturally I would prefer the top 3 players.

And rather than someone like Flemings, Brown or Acuff, the Mavericks might be better off trying to get a veteran PG in free agency. I think that eases the demands of someone like Wagler or Burries. And if you are lucky enough to grab a top 3 pick, you'll need a trade or free agency to supply you with a better PG anyway.

[vfromlmf]

"he still put up historic numbers for a freshman" -- What is this all about? "Historic"? I don't see anything in the year he had to label in that way, and in fact I think many would call his season disappointing. There was an awful lot of meh and nonsense to wade through, if you were a fan of his.

[*]From Google:

[*]Highest Efficiency Ever: finished the season with a Box Plus-Minus (BPM) of 12.6, the highest ever recorded for a freshman guard in college basketball history.

KU Scoring Record: He averaged 19.8 points per game, which ranks first all-time among Kansas freshmen.

One of only two freshman along with Antoine Davis to achieve:
-Free Throws: Attempted >100 and shot >80% (Peterson: 132 attempts, 82.6%).
-Non-Rim Two-Pointers: Attempted >100 and shot >40% (Peterson: 124 attempts, 42.7%).
-Three-Pointers: Attempted >100 and shot >38% (Peterson: 165 attempts, 38.2%).
-Volume Frequency: Recorded more than 13 three-pointers per 100 possessions (Peterson: 13.9)

[DanSchwartzgan]

I haven't looked at anything from The Ringer in a while, but happened to look at their mock from 3/18 and like some things about it.  After the "Big Four", they have it:

5.  Wagler
6.  Acuff
7.  Burries
8.  Flemings
9.  Brown 

I'm not sure what I'd do at 9 if that happened.  Let's hope it isn't an issue.  I also hope Acuff is not a consideration whenever Dallas drafts.  As I've said before, I don't want to have to compensate for his lack of D for the next decade.  As good as he is offensively, I just don't like his archetype in terms of championship upside.  If I'm Sacramento and need someone to fill seats, great.  But, I have higher hopes for the Flagg Era.  If we don't move up, I hope we have some choice between Wagler, Burries and Flemings...possibly in that order.

I only watched the second half of the Illinois game and I've avoided commenting on Wagler since I'd only seen highlights.  I thought he did a masterful job of running the team.  His shot looks like money and he was a very good rebounder.  I thought he defended well, but I think he'll have trouble fighting through picks at the next level.  He isn't particularly explosive, but neither is Austin Reeves.  He makes the right play and can draw a lot of defensive attention.  I think the next decade of Flagg and Wagler would be some really smart/fun basketball to watch.

I have seen full games of Burries before.  I really like this kid as he's good at just about everything.  High motor Swiss army knife who can defend the POA.  I don't know about this "less responsibility" argument.  He completely shut Acuff down on the possessions where he was the primary defender on him.  Also, I think there is more there that we don't get to see BECAUSE Arizona has so many mouths to feed.  BTW, he looks to be 3" taller than Acuff.  He is another one I can see being a real complement to Flagg for years to come.  I also think he's less risky of a pick than some of the others in this range.

I've been underwhelmed regarding Flemings when I've watched him...at least compared to his typical draft rank of about 5th.  I'd have a hard time taking him over Acuff, but I'd rather have him than Acuff (if that makes sense).  He floats too much, which makes me wonder if he's deferring to the older players on the team.  Toward the end of each half last night he turned it on and you wonder where that was the entire game.  He'll benefit from the greater spacing of the NBA.  His shooting when he self creates isn't nearly as good as his catch and shoot.  I think his ability to attack the rim and hit off ball shots from outside...will be quite valuable in the NBA.  But, he'll have to get more efficient on his self created mid/long range shots to be a star.

Sadly, I don't see a star among this group...or anyone after 4th.  Good starters who won't make an All-Star game is about it.  Unfortunately, we need a second star next to Flagg and don't have many paths to get one.  I actually think if one of them becomes more than that it is probably Burries.  I think The Ringer was right to rate him this highly before the tournament started and he has done nothing to disappoint since then.  Booker was a bit hidden on a good Kentucky team that saw six players get drafted (three ahead of Booker).  You have to squint to see that much offensive upside, but I think Burries will be a better defender.  Maybe a Bains or the Atlanta version of NAW (but earlier than age 27) are more realistic comps.

[Smitty]

I haven't looked at anything from The Ringer in a while, but happened to look at their mock from 3/18 and like some things about it.  After the "Big Four", they have it:

5.  Wagler
6.  Acuff
7.  Burries
8.  Flemings
9.  Brown 

I'm not sure what I'd do at 9 if that happened.  Let's hope it isn't an issue.  I also hope Acuff is not a consideration whenever Dallas drafts.  As I've said before, I don't want to have to compensate for his lack of D for the next decade.  As good as he is offensively, I just don't like his archetype in terms of championship upside.  If I'm Sacramento and need someone to fill seats, great.  But, I have higher hopes for the Flagg Era.  If we don't move up, I hope we have some choice between Wagler, Burries and Flemings...possibly in that order.

I only watched the second half of the Illinois game and I've avoided commenting on Wagler since I'd only seen highlights.  I thought he did a masterful job of running the team.  His shot looks like money and he was a very good rebounder.  I thought he defended well, but I think he'll have trouble fighting through picks at the next level.  He isn't particularly explosive, but neither is Austin Reeves.  He makes the right play and can draw a lot of defensive attention.  I think the next decade of Flagg and Wagler would be some really smart/fun basketball to watch.

I have seen full games of Burries before.  I really like this kid as he's good at just about everything.  High motor Swiss army knife who can defend the POA.  I don't know about this "less responsibility" argument.  He completely shut Acuff down on the possessions where he was the primary defender on him.  Also, I think there is more there that we don't get to see BECAUSE Arizona has so many mouths to feed.  BTW, he looks to be 3" taller than Acuff.  He is another one I can see being a real complement to Flagg for years to come.  I also think he's less risky of a pick than some of the others in this range.

I've been underwhelmed regarding Flemings when I've watched him...at least compared to his typical draft rank of about 5th.  I'd have a hard time taking him over Acuff, but I'd rather have him than Acuff (if that makes sense).  He floats too much, which makes me wonder if he's deferring to the older players on the team.  Toward the end of each half last night he turned it on and you wonder where that was the entire game.  He'll benefit from the greater spacing of the NBA.  His shooting when he self creates isn't nearly as good as his catch and shoot.  I think his ability to attack the rim and hit off ball shots from outside...will be quite valuable in the NBA.  But, he'll have to get more efficient on his self created mid/long range shots to be a star.

Sadly, I don't see a star among this group...or anyone after 4th.  Good starters who won't make an All-Star game is about it.  Unfortunately, we need a second star next to Flagg and don't have many paths to get one.  I actually think if one of them becomes more than that it is probably Burries.  I think The Ringer was right to rate him this highly before the tournament started and he has done nothing to disappoint since then.  Booker was a bit hidden on a good Kentucky team that saw six players get drafted (three ahead of Booker).  You have to squint to see that much offensive upside, but I think Burries will be a better defender.  Maybe a Bains or the Atlanta version of NAW (but earlier than age 27) are more realistic comps.

I agree with a lot of this. BUT I've watched many full games on all of these guards throughout the season and one thing that I always come back to is "upside". Knowing that each of them has flaws and they aren't finished products yet, I tend to rank them based on upside, especially if we're talking pick 8 or so. I actually think Burries has the least upside of the group. Not that I don't like him, but of the 5 or so games I've watched, in all but one of them it was Bradley that was more impressive. I think Burries will be a good pro, I just think he's more of a high floor guy (safer) pick than the others. If I'm at 8, and I can pick between any of those guards listed or Burries, I'm picking the other guy. That's really what it comes down to for me.

I know we're splitting hairs, and all of these guards will be talked about at length, I think it's important to remember that none of them are without flaws.

[mvossman]

I watched most of the game vs HOU to look for this, and I saw something way different. 

What stood out to me was that to my eyes, Wagler was not a SG sometimes playing PG. He is DEFINITELY a PG. He was very capable in running the offense against a very good HOU defense. Never got rattled. Also I have been a bit concerned about his strength, yet he held up against these guys. And his size is a plus.

Based on that game, if I wanted to draft a PG and was choosing between Wagler and Flemings, I would take Wagler over Flemings, and it's not all that close. 

If you squint, can you see a path to Haliburton Jr? I dunno. But maybe, I think. And that's the appeal.

This is what I saw too.  I was particularly impressed early in the second half when Houston tried to blitz him for several possessions in a row.  He made the right pass every time and Illinois when on a run.  Houston never recovered.  He has been comped to Haliburton quite a bit.  That is probably his ceiling, but that would be perfect next to Flagg.

[Winter]

I agree with a lot of this. BUT I've watched many full games on all of these guards throughout the season and one thing that I always come back to is "upside". Knowing that each of them has flaws and they aren't finished products yet, I tend to rank them based on upside, especially if we're talking pick 8 or so. I actually think Burries has the least upside of the group. Not that I don't like him, but of the 5 or so games I've watched, in all but one of them it was Bradley that was more impressive. I think Burries will be a good pro, I just think he's more of a high floor guy (safer) pick than the others. If I'm at 8, and I can pick between any of those guards listed or Burries, I'm picking the other guy. That's really what it comes down to for me.

I know we're splitting hairs, and all of these guards will be talked about at length, I think it's important to remember that none of them are without flaws.

There is a problem for fans to get a good evaluation out of a player who is nether a PG nor a centerpiece of their respective college team. I have the same problem with Burries in this way as I do with Brayden Mullins. Neither of them feel like they are the alpha players to watch on their respective teams.

To put it another way, how would fans evaluate Devin Booker when he was drafted from Kentucky? He was drafted 13th, and not considered the Kentucky's star player (KAT was Kentucky's star along with Willie-Cauley Stein). So Burries is a harder evealuation for me than someone like Acuff or Wagler.

[RasheedsBigWhiteSpot]

Burries is having a pretty nice game.

Burries reminds me of college Donovan Mitchell.  Mitchell wasn't super dynamic in college, but you could see that he could develop into more in the NBA. And, like Mitchell, I can see see a future where people look back and wonder how he slipped to the late Lottery.

[numnuts23]

Burries reminds me of college Donovan Mitchell.  Mitchell wasn't super dynamic in college, but you could see that he could develop into more in the NBA. And, like Mitchell, I can see see a future where people look back and wonder how he slipped to the late Lottery.

Mitchell is a much more explosive athlete than Burries.  His vertical was over 40 I believe.

[mvossman]

I agree with a lot of this. BUT I've watched many full games on all of these guards throughout the season and one thing that I always come back to is "upside". Knowing that each of them has flaws and they aren't finished products yet, I tend to rank them based on upside, especially if we're talking pick 8 or so. I actually think Burries has the least upside of the group. Not that I don't like him, but of the 5 or so games I've watched, in all but one of them it was Bradley that was more impressive. I think Burries will be a good pro, I just think he's more of a high floor guy (safer) pick than the others. If I'm at 8, and I can pick between any of those guards listed or Burries, I'm picking the other guy. That's really what it comes down to for me.

I know we're splitting hairs, and all of these guards will be talked about at length, I think it's important to remember that none of them are without flaws.

I agree with the upside mindset, especially given that this the best chance to get a star next to Flagg.  My guess is that is why you like Brown more than most folks on this board.  Because despite his red flags, he probably has higher upside than most of these guards we are talking about.

Another point on Burries, he is a year older than the rest of these guys.  I don't know how big of a deal that is, but it seems like its at least some hit on his upside.

This is why I keep coming back to Wagler.  This guy was not a PG in high school, did not get recruited as a PG (he barely got recruited at all) and didn't start the year as a PG.  What you are seeing started mid season when their PG went down.  Given that physically he is a late bloomer, and that he has only been playing the PG position for half a season, its not hard to imagine significant upside.

[Winter]

This is why I keep coming back to Wagler.  This guy was not a PG in high school, did not get recruited as a PG (he barely got recruited at all) and didn't start the year as a PG.  What you are seeing started mid season when their PG went down.  Given that physically he is a late bloomer, and that he has only been playing the PG position for half a season, its not hard to imagine significant upside.

I think this a point that shouldn't be overlooked.

[RasheedsBigWhiteSpot]

What's funny is that we're in middle of Draft season for both the NBA and NFL. There's discussion about all these traits for both. On one hand, I coached AAU/Select for years and understand basketball players and breaking them down. And, yet, as much I try and immerse myself in the football things I get lost with terms like "bendy", "hip swivel" and "(insert positional technique)", And, when it comes to the NHL draft? Hooboy!!! I just sit back and judge mullets as they announce, "The Dallas Stars select Pierre Mantooth from Moose Scrotum, Saskatchewan, Canada."

[Smitty]

I agree with the upside mindset, especially given that this the best chance to get a star next to Flagg.  My guess is that is why you like Brown more than most folks on this board.  Because despite his red flags, he probably has higher upside than most of these guards we are talking about.

Another point on Burries, he is a year older than the rest of these guys.  I don't know how big of a deal that is, but it seems like its at least some hit on his upside.

This is why I keep coming back to Wagler.  This guy was not a PG in high school, did not get recruited as a PG (he barely got recruited at all) and didn't start the year as a PG.  What you are seeing started mid season when their PG went down.  Given that physically he is a late bloomer, and that he has only been playing the PG position for half a season, its not hard to imagine significant upside.

Yes, I think Brown has "best Guard in this draft" upside. His medicals are the only thing that give me pause at the moment. To be transparent, I also think he has higher bust potential as well...

[Scott41theMavs]

I watched most of the game vs HOU to look for this, and I saw something way different. 

What stood out to me was that to my eyes, Wagler was not a SG sometimes playing PG. He is DEFINITELY a PG. He was very capable in running the offense against a very good HOU defense. Never got rattled. Also I have been a bit concerned about his strength, yet he held up against these guys. And his size is a plus.

Based on that game, if I wanted to draft a PG and was choosing between Wagler and Flemings, I would take Wagler over Flemings, and it's not all that close. 

If you squint, can you see a path to Haliburton Jr? I dunno. But maybe, I think. And that's the appeal.

Sold. If you're on the Wagler bandwagon, make space for me to hop aboard.

[DanSchwartzgan]

I agree with a lot of this. BUT I've watched many full games on all of these guards throughout the season and one thing that I always come back to is "upside". Knowing that each of them has flaws and they aren't finished products yet, I tend to rank them based on upside, especially if we're talking pick 8 or so. I actually think Burries has the least upside of the group. Not that I don't like him, but of the 5 or so games I've watched, in all but one of them it was Bradley that was more impressive. I think Burries will be a good pro, I just think he's more of a high floor guy (safer) pick than the others. If I'm at 8, and I can pick between any of those guards listed or Burries, I'm picking the other guy. That's really what it comes down to for me.

I know we're splitting hairs, and all of these guards will be talked about at length, I think it's important to remember that none of them are without flaws.

It has been a while since I read this, but I believe the 8th pick has one of the worst history of success (not positive, but something in the 6-8 range).  The theory is that the very best guys are gone and it is too early to start picking role players (or single skill players you hope develop other things).  So, teams take the projects who “might” put it all together and become a star in this range and often come up empty handed.

So, the multi-tool high floor guy is actually appealing to me in this range.  At the very least he’s a better version of Max Christie with more POA D and on ball creation.  I do think the Booker/Kentucky thing might be instructive here.  I’m not saying Burries gets 25 a game on a different team.  But, there may be upside that we don’t see because Arizona is so deep they don’t need him to do more.

[Scott41theMavs]

I haven't looked at anything from The Ringer in a while, but happened to look at their mock from 3/18 and like some things about it.  After the "Big Four", they have it:

5.  Wagler
6.  Acuff
7.  Burries
8.  Flemings
9.  Brown 

I'm not sure what I'd do at 9 if that happened.  Let's hope it isn't an issue.  I also hope Acuff is not a consideration whenever Dallas drafts.  As I've said before, I don't want to have to compensate for his lack of D for the next decade.  As good as he is offensively, I just don't like his archetype in terms of championship upside.  If I'm Sacramento and need someone to fill seats, great.  But, I have higher hopes for the Flagg Era.  If we don't move up, I hope we have some choice between Wagler, Burries and Flemings...possibly in that order.

I only watched the second half of the Illinois game and I've avoided commenting on Wagler since I'd only seen highlights.  I thought he did a masterful job of running the team.  His shot looks like money and he was a very good rebounder.  I thought he defended well, but I think he'll have trouble fighting through picks at the next level.  He isn't particularly explosive, but neither is Austin Reeves.  He makes the right play and can draw a lot of defensive attention.  I think the next decade of Flagg and Wagler would be some really smart/fun basketball to watch.

I have seen full games of Burries before.  I really like this kid as he's good at just about everything.  High motor Swiss army knife who can defend the POA.  I don't know about this "less responsibility" argument.  He completely shut Acuff down on the possessions where he was the primary defender on him.  Also, I think there is more there that we don't get to see BECAUSE Arizona has so many mouths to feed.  BTW, he looks to be 3" taller than Acuff.  He is another one I can see being a real complement to Flagg for years to come.  I also think he's less risky of a pick than some of the others in this range.

I've been underwhelmed regarding Flemings when I've watched him...at least compared to his typical draft rank of about 5th.  I'd have a hard time taking him over Acuff, but I'd rather have him than Acuff (if that makes sense).  He floats too much, which makes me wonder if he's deferring to the older players on the team.  Toward the end of each half last night he turned it on and you wonder where that was the entire game.  He'll benefit from the greater spacing of the NBA.  His shooting when he self creates isn't nearly as good as his catch and shoot.  I think his ability to attack the rim and hit off ball shots from outside...will be quite valuable in the NBA.  But, he'll have to get more efficient on his self created mid/long range shots to be a star.

Sadly, I don't see a star among this group...or anyone after 4th.  Good starters who won't make an All-Star game is about it.  Unfortunately, we need a second star next to Flagg and don't have many paths to get one.  I actually think if one of them becomes more than that it is probably Burries.  I think The Ringer was right to rate him this highly before the tournament started and he has done nothing to disappoint since then.  Booker was a bit hidden on a good Kentucky team that saw six players get drafted (three ahead of Booker).  You have to squint to see that much offensive upside, but I think Burries will be a better defender.  Maybe a Bains or the Atlanta version of NAW (but earlier than age 27) are more realistic comps.

You don't see a star after four because you devalue Acuff too much on the basis of defense. A guy who can take over a game on offense while serving as floor general is still a multi-year all-star in this league. Remember that the pre-apocalyptic Mavs were formed around two guys who were major liabilities on defense, and were still an NBA finals team with great hopes for the future. Flagg, in spite of the hand-wringing over his defensive metrics this year, is very much a two-way player. If they put the right guys around them, Flagg-Acuff would be a winning combo.

[Scott41theMavs]

Scott41 big board 2.0:

1) Dybantsa
2) Wilson
3) Acuff
4) Peterson (while still having a great deal of trepidation on him - picked 4 or after, I'm fine with him as a Mav)
5) Boozer
6) Wagler
7) Burries
8) Flemings

Hopefully we don't get pushed lower than 8, and these are the guys.

[Scott41theMavs]

Yes, I think Brown has "best Guard in this draft" upside. His medicals are the only thing that give me pause at the moment. To be transparent, I also think he has higher bust potential as well...

This. He's too risky of a pick. He has DSJ written all over him. 

There's a lot of talk with regard to Peterson's interviews being crucial. So are Brown's. If a GM can discern that he has the work ethic to overcome the somewhat obnoxious holes in his game, he might be worthwhile at the ninth pick; 100% nowhere before.

[mvossman]

It has been a while since I read this, but I believe the 8th pick has one of the worst history of success (not positive, but something in the 6-8 range).  The theory is that the very best guys are gone and it is too early to start picking role players (or single skill players you hope develop other things).  So, teams take the projects who “might” put it all together and become a star in this range and often come up empty handed.

So, the multi-tool high floor guy is actually appealing to me in this range.  At the very least he’s a better version of Max Christie with more POA D and on ball creation.  I do think the Booker/Kentucky thing might be instructive here.  I’m not saying Burries gets 25 a game on a different team.  But, there may be upside that we don’t see because Arizona is so deep they don’t need him to do more.

That makes sense.  Burries is definitely top of the role player list.  You could make an argument though that this draft is so deep that number goes a little farther out than usual.

[loki]

[*]From Google:

[*]Highest Efficiency Ever: finished the season with a Box Plus-Minus (BPM) of 12.6, the highest ever recorded for a freshman guard in college basketball history.

KU Scoring Record: He averaged 19.8 points per game, which ranks first all-time among Kansas freshmen.

One of only two freshman along with Antoine Davis to achieve:
-Free Throws: Attempted >100 and shot >80% (Peterson: 132 attempts, 82.6%).
-Non-Rim Two-Pointers: Attempted >100 and shot >40% (Peterson: 124 attempts, 42.7%).
-Three-Pointers: Attempted >100 and shot >38% (Peterson: 165 attempts, 38.2%).
-Volume Frequency: Recorded more than 13 three-pointers per 100 possessions (Peterson: 13.9)

I'm still on the Peterson train. If he can get fully healthy and regain the athleticism he had in high school that solves most of the issues that plagued him this year. He'd be able to blow by his defender again, create more open looks for teammates, and his efficiency would improve. Add that to the elite off-ball game he showed at Kansas and you've got a star in the making.