NBA Draft: What Kind of Player Should the Charlotte Hornets Target With the 32nd Pick?
1. Savvy upperclassmen guards
Recent picks in this mold:
- Allen Crabbe (31st)
- Joe Harris (33rd)
- Shelvin Mack (34th)
- Malcolm Brogdon (36th)
- Jalen Brunson (33rd)
- Devonte Graham (34th)
There’s no question that the NBA has become an increasingly perimeter-centric league. Prior to the last decade, taking a guard within the top three picks of the draft was uncommon and usually seen as risky. While a solid backcourt used to be considered a luxury to unlocking a superstar frontcourt, the explosion of three-point shooting and the slow descent into novelty of the midrange and post-game has flipped this paradigm somewhat.
Guards that can be found outside of the first round usually fall into two categories: those who lack the elite athleticism to readily blow by defenders, or those severely lacking in some fundamental guard skills like shooting and passing.
There are cases of raw athletes developing into nice players out of the second round. As investments, though, they’re more like lottery tickets than savings bonds (might I recommend the high-flying Cassius Stanley for a team that finished dead last in pace if the team goes this route?).
The far safer bet is on the more workmanlike variety. Safety may sound like a bad initiative for a team that lacks a true star, but good players can always be traded—maybe even for better picks down the line (wouldn’t someone offer a decent first-rounder for Devonte Graham, selected at 34 a few seasons ago?)
By the number of quality players with a history of sticking in the NBA, savvy upperclassmen guards are a solid bet for finding a long-term asset in this range. The best recent example is:
Virginia Cavaliers. MALCOLM BROGDON. 36th. <span style=. Combo Guard
Coming out of his senior season at Virginia, Brogdon was the college basketball equivalent of a full-bird colonel. As the leader of some of Virginia’s most successful teams, he was seen by scouts at the time as probably the safest pick in the draft outside of the first round as the quintessential glue guy who could play good minutes off the bench, or perhaps make it as an unremarkable starter at best.
After being drafted by Milwaukee and winning rookie of the year, it became apparent Brogdon could be a little more. He soon outgrew his complimentary role there and signed last season with the Indiana Pacers to pair with backcourt star Victor Oladipo. Oladipo missed the majority of the season with a prior injury, and Brogdon stepped up and proved his ability to be a quality lead guard in the NBA.
This year’s draft has a few players that fit Brogdon’s physical profile, skills, and advanced age for a draft pick.
TCU’s Desmond Bane is a good example of a combo guard with a strong body and good shooting numbers similar to Brogdon. However, Bane is sorely lacking in a more crucial area—winning. He led his team to the NCAA tournament only one time (losing in the first round), and never placed the Horned Frogs above 5th in the Big 12. Beyond that, he may not even fall out of the first round.
Malachi Flynn led San Diego State to as high as the number four ranking in national polls in his lone breakout transfer season with the Aztecs, nabbing several conference accolades along the way. He’s a good example of a player who may have benefitted tremendously from a deep NCAA Tournament run (a la Kemba Walker in 2011) had it actually taken place. Although Flynn had two of his five best scoring performances against power six conference teams in Creighton and Iowa, SDSU’s strength of schedule was rather underwhelming overall.
There are a few other experienced second round guards that fit Brogdon’s profile as well: Payton Pritchard, Ty-Shon Alexander, Grant Riller. However, each lacks either the sustained dominance or level of competition that he faced at Virginia—an important litmus test for a player’s ability to match up against NBA talent. In fact, almost all of the picks this archetype is modeled after played for high-level, winning teams.
There’s only one prospect in this group who consistently led his team to great success against the best competition the way Brogdon did:
Senior. <h2>Pre-Draft Strengths</h2> <ul> <li>Good lead guard skills passing and operating out of pick and roll</li> <li>Good shooter who can play on and off ball</li> <li>Great leader who plays tough and raises his level of performance in the clutch.</li> </ul> <h2>Pre-Draft Weaknesses</h2> <ul> <li>Not a standout athlete, and may not have the size to make up for it</li> <li>Not a good on-ball defender</li> <li>Will turn 24 during the season, and has a nagging injury history</li> </ul> <p><em>Draft profile courtesy of NBAdraft.net</em></p>. Point Guard. Michigan State Spartans. CASSIUS WINSTON
Winston doesn’t quite have the frame that Brogdon did coming out of college. While he has a positive wingspan-to-height ratio (6’1” to 6’5”), he doesn’t have the length or stoutness to defend multiple positions like Brogdon. His level of athleticism isn’t doing him any favors there either.
Looking beyond the one-to-one physical comparison, Winston is heavy on the kind of leadership, smarts, and intangibles that can make a winning player in the NBA. Like Brogdon, Winston’s personal success in college was conducive to team success at a high-level year-in and year-out. He took and made winning shots.
On top of that, he did it playing in perhaps the only conference with a comparable level of competition to the ACC in the Big 10. He may not be a dominant physical specimen, but there’s something to be said for a guy being arguably the best player in arguably the best conference.
I’d be remiss not to mention Winston’s striking resemblance to current Charlotte Hornets guard Devonte Graham—similar heights, similar weights, similar pedigree, similar awards stuffing their mantles, similar shooting numbers, similar age concerns. It might seem redundant to take Winston; but worst-case scenario, he turns out to be a great player and the front office has to decide between him and Graham and trade the other for assets. That kind of worst-case scenario is actually a best-case scenario.