Reed Sheppard and Rob Dillingham - 2024 NBA Draft

[King Ken]

This is a lot like Halliburton where some poeple see the talent but are too skeptical of the translation. That was definitely me. I’m not making that mistake twice.

I went back and fore with Hali and finally settled at #5. He was #4 but Deni passed him. That was a mistake. He was always the best player in that class but we didn't have a prototype like him

[FarBeyondDriven]

???. Sam Hauser consistently plays for the best team in the NBA. What do you mean he can barely get on the floor? Buddy Hield has started 400 NBA games so far in his career and he also has slow feet and below-average athleticism.

Most guards aren't great on-ball defenders and almost all of them require help defending. The exceptions are the top tier guards in the NBA like Holiday or Caruso. Unless Sheppard's defense is bottom-tier then I don't see the issue. Guard defense isn't that important, being able to help, communicate, and make smart decisions is more than enough for most teams. Very few teams need strong defensive guards to be successful.

His spot starts skew his minutes. As does the fact that they're actively trying to keep their rotation guys healthy and better rested for the playoffs. He's basically a 15-18 mpg off the bench guy. It's the same reason Pritchard's minutes are similarly up to 20 mpg. Come playoff time that will shrink to almost non-existent.

Buddy Hield and his ilk shouldn't start. That's my point. He actively hurts every team he's ever been on with his defense and lack of secondary playmaking. I'd say go look up his playoff numbers but he's never played in them and he's a major reason for that. Just because a player CAN start and can put up numbers based on whatever situation he's in does not mean he'll deserve to or amount to a winning player.

Sheppard's on-ball defense could very well be bottom tier in the NBA. He can't guard in college. What do you think will happen in the pros? Pritchard is an excellent point guard who can actually defend (despite the narrative) and he can't even start. I'll get a better sense of it once I see him at the combine. That will speak volumes.

What are you talking about? Hauser has started 6 games this season. Off the bench, he still plays 19.4 minutes a night his minutes are not skewed by anything. We'll see what happens in the playoffs, but last year Brogdon was a disaster on defense and he didn't get taken out of the rotation until the very end.

Oh, I agree but Sheppard isn't Buddy Hield, Hauser, or Pritchard. Sheppard is a significantly better playmaker than either Hield or Hauser and Sheppard is better on defense than all 3 were in college as a freshman. There are plenty of examples of bad defenders starting for good teams. The Lakers were starting Dlo and Reaves in the playoffs last season when they made the conference finals, both are negative defenders. CJ McCollum has started for multiple playoff teams it looks like he'll start for another one. It looks like OKC will be starting Giddey in the playoffs. The Warriors won a ring with Klay's corpse starting.

Why do you keep saying this? Sheppard's defense isn't perfect but he's not awful defensively in college. The only truly awful defender on that team is Dillingham. Jevon Carter, Jose Alvarado, and TJ McConnell are all small guards and none of them are cones. Conley is small and has been a solid defender for over a decade. There are examples of small guards being solid defensively in the NBA but you've already decided that Sheppard is destined to be bottom-tier.

do you know what "skew" means? In his 6 spot starts he averaged 37 mpg. That's way higher than his customary 19 mpg. Those starts skew the numbers making it seem like he's playing more than he actually is based on his customary role. The difference between 19 and 21 mpg isn't major but having a 1 before the number instead of a 2 is noteworthy. Point is, he has physical limitations that prevent him from being a starter on a good team and that's similar what I think awaits Sheppard.

Agree, Sheppard is better than all three on defense at the same age (still better than Hauser and Hield tbh) That said, he's surrounded by multiple NBA talents unlike them and it allows him to gamble way more leading to steals and blocks

Lakers have a DPOY big in AD and GOAT level player in Lebron. I think that plus other teams having injuries and the league being rigged had much more to do with Lakers success than DLO or Reaves. Both of them at least have the requisite size for their position unlike Sheppard. They're each around 6'5" and in Reaves case he has effort and BBIQ going for him. DLO is a lost cause imo. McCollum's defense has been one of the main reasons his teams have never won. Warriors were loaded with vets that knew the system, had Green and Wiggins and Klay, as washed as he was, was still serviceable at worse

No, Sheppard isn't awful overall on defense because he has elite BBIQ, is allowed to gamble because of the talent disparity he enjoys so he racks up steals and blocks and while he gets cooked by good point guards he holds his own against more than he doesn't. Dillingham really is awful on defense. No argument there. There are plenty of small guards that are not poor defensively but size isn't universal. Just because they're all 6'2" or below does not mean they have the same foot speed, length, lateral quickness, build or athleticism. So comparing him to them isn't necessarily apples to apples. Though, in Sheppard's defense, he does have some of the best hands I've ever seen at the college level.

He'll be bottom tier defensively for starters. Meaning, of the 30 starting NBA point guards he'll be just about the biggest defensive liability in the league if he started. As a backup he'll be perfectly fine or in short stretches as a spot starter. Just like McConell and Pritchard (who is better imo) Who knows, maybe he isn't done growing and has a growth spurt giving him another inch in height and length. That's make a difference. Or maybe he hits the sauce and increases his athleticism. I can't account for that.

[OriAr]

BTW. I just saw a clip from the game vs Miss State where he blocked a 3 pt shot with a jump that's got to be somewhere around 38" - 39" . His first step is pretty decent, he's got good agility and exceptional body control. He might not be a superquick or uberexplosive athlete like a Ja Morant or Fox but the statement about him being unathletic is 100% racial bias. There are many guards in the NBA with similar or lesser athletic abilities.
He's a bit short for the SG position, and doesn't seem to have the freakish wingspan guys like Donovan Mitchell or Eric Bledsoe have to make up for it but the potential to be a solid NBA player at least is there.

38-39" vertical? :lol

Look at this dunk, Reed's head is maybe 5-8 inches or so short of the rim, and remember that he's 6'3.
That's at least a 35" vertical leap here, and perhaps even closer to 40+.
I wouldn't be totally shocked if Reed has a 40+ inches vertical leap recorded in the combine, he's gonna shock some people when he does the combine.

Watch on YouTube

[FarBeyondDriven]

Well Reed defends for one. Curry had the physique of a strong high school girl.

Steph Curry, in his freshmen season at Davidson, averaged 22/5/3 while shooting 46/41/86 on absurd volume (esp for that time), who single handedly led Davidson to a 29-5 record?

but you think Reed, who barely takes 8 shots a game, who averages 12/4/4 on a stacked roster that already lost 3 more games than Curry's team did that year, is "much better as a freshmen" because he has 1 more steal per 40?

i gave you a chance to rescind this ridiculous take but you decided to double down instead.

Curry wasn't a great prospect. Tripled down here. You are being influenced by post-draft NBA development.

Curry was without a doubt a great prospect and one of college basketball's biggest stars. His Dad played in the NBA and they brought it up every game i.e. "genetics". He was leading a small program to the tournament. It was a big deal man.

[FarBeyondDriven]

This is a lot like Halliburton where some poeple see the talent but are too skeptical of the translation. That was definitely me. I’m not making that mistake twice.

There's a massive difference between being wary of Sheppard's defense at 6'2" with a 6'3" wingspan and Haliburton at 6'5" with a 6'8" wingspan plus he was a true PG with a 3:1 assist to turnover ratio whereas Sheppard hasn't shown PG to be his natural position.

[CptCrunch]

Steph Curry, in his freshmen season at Davidson, averaged 22/5/3 while shooting 46/41/86 on absurd volume (esp for that time), who single handedly led Davidson to a 29-5 record?

but you think Reed, who barely takes 8 shots a game, who averages 12/4/4 on a stacked roster that already lost 3 more games than Curry's team did that year, is "much better as a freshmen" because he has 1 more steal per 40?

i gave you a chance to rescind this ridiculous take but you decided to double down instead.

Curry wasn't a great prospect. Tripled down here. You are being influenced by post-draft NBA development.

Curry was without a doubt a great prospect and one of college basketball's biggest stars. His Dad played in the NBA and they brought it up every game i.e. "genetics". He was leading a small program to the tournament. It was a big deal man.

Once again, if Curry was a great prospect, he wouldn't have been #7 his year, and wouldn't have been considered a non-prospect, literally non-NBA his first year, and borderline first rounder his second year.

You guys are taking Curry's career into consideration and letting that influence your perception of the past. If you actually thought Curry was a top pick his freshman year 17 years ago while literally every NBA scout was sleeping on the job, then congratulations you would be nostradamus. Shouldn't even be posting on a draft forum or even working for a NBA team as a scout, but rather go pick stocks and buy 0-day options.

There is literally no case to be made here that Curry in his freshman year playing in a non-competative A10 conference was a great prospect in the 2017.

[clyde21]

Curry wasn't a great prospect. Tripled down here. You are being influenced by post-draft NBA development.

Curry was without a doubt a great prospect and one of college basketball's biggest stars. His Dad played in the NBA and they brought it up every game i.e. "genetics". He was leading a small program to the tournament. It was a big deal man.

You guys are taking Curry's career into consideration and letting that influence your perception of the past.

no, i'm not. you're just assuming that because you got caught with your pants down. i never said anything about them as prospects or anything about Steph's NBA career. I only compared them as freshmen in their respective years. that's it.

I'll ask you for the 5th time - what is this based on:

Reed isn't Curry as he is way better than Curry as a freshman.

[CptCrunch]

Curry was without a doubt a great prospect and one of college basketball's biggest stars. His Dad played in the NBA and they brought it up every game i.e. "genetics". He was leading a small program to the tournament. It was a big deal man.

You guys are taking Curry's career into consideration and letting that influence your perception of the past.

no, i'm not. you're just assuming that because you got caught with your pants down. i never said anything about them as prospects or anything about Steph's NBA career. I only compared them as freshmen in their respective years. that's it.

I'll ask you for the 5th time - what is this based on:

Reed isn't Curry as he is way better than Curry as a freshman.

Maybe if you read my post, you would understand instead of asking the same questions over and over. I've already completely disemboweled your assertion that a non-first round prospect from 17 years ago is somehow better than a lottery concensus prospect. Any attempt at arguing that Curry as a freshmen at Davidson was somehow a good prospect is utterly ridiculous. Link me to your post from 2007 showing that Curry is a top prospect.

[Colbinii]

You guys are taking Curry's career into consideration and letting that influence your perception of the past.

no, i'm not. you're just assuming that because you got caught with your pants down. i never said anything about them as prospects or anything about Steph's NBA career. I only compared them as freshmen in their respective years. that's it.

I'll ask you for the 5th time - what is this based on:

Reed isn't Curry as he is way better than Curry as a freshman.

Maybe if you read my post, you would understand instead of asking the same questions over and over. I've already completely disemboewled your assertion that a non-first round prospect from 17 years ago is somehow better than a lottery concensus prospect. Any attempt at arguing that Curry as a freshmen at Davidson was somehow a good prospect is utterly ridiculous.

If Curry was a prospect now he would be much more highly regarded than he was then. Remember, Jump Shooting teams couldn't win a Finals until 2015. It doesn't take much to think just how archaic analysis was about basketball in 2007. It isn't like most people were looking at those SSOL Suns teams and thinking "This is the future".

Curry as a Freshman put up 22/5/3 with 2 steals and 3 turnovers on 54/41/86 shooting on > 8 3PA/G.

During Curry's last 14 games of the season, including an incredible conference tournament and posting 30/4/3 with 3 steals in the NCAA Tournament, posted 25/5/2 on a ridiculous 67% TS% and 44% from 3 on 10 3PA/G.

If he put that up today, he would be a Top 3 pick in any draft.

So yeah, it is fair to say when looking back at him, everyone was caught with their pants down and had no idea how to evaluate a player who shot so many times. Why? Because everyone thought Post-Play and Size won championships [It sort of still does--at least size does].

[clyde21]

You guys are taking Curry's career into consideration and letting that influence your perception of the past.

no, i'm not. you're just assuming that because you got caught with your pants down. i never said anything about them as prospects or anything about Steph's NBA career. I only compared them as freshmen in their respective years. that's it.

I'll ask you for the 5th time - what is this based on:

Reed isn't Curry as he is way better than Curry as a freshman.

Maybe if you read my post, you would understand instead of asking the same questions over and over. I've already completely disemboweled your assertion that a non-first round prospect from 17 years ago is somehow better than a lottery concensus prospect. Any attempt at arguing that Curry as a freshmen at Davidson was somehow a good prospect is utterly ridiculous. Link me to your post from 2007 showing that Curry is a top prospect.

dawg are you drunk? you never said anything about prospects. you straight up said Reed is a better player as a freshmen than what Steph was as a freshmen...not just better but "much better".

it's a categorically **** take, and now you're trying to weasel out of it by passing it off on what "scouts" thought of Steph back in 2007 as if that somehow proves your point, or that I once mentioned anything about NBA Steph.

Steph is one of the greatest college players we've ever seen and was a star literally on day one at Davidson. That's not revisionist history it's fact, and the idea that "Reed is much better as a freshmen" despite being half as productive and while having half the usage on a more talented but somehow worse team is fkn hysterical.

the dude, as a true FS, dropped 28/6/4 per 40 on unprecedented efficiency/volume at the time, has TWICE the usage/volume as what Reed has, on a much worse team, and led Davidson to a better record than what Kentucky got this year as THE driving force behind that team.

there is literally ZERO argument behind Reed being better than Steph as a freshmen, let alone "much better". just absurd dawg. it was a bad take and you've had the chance to take it back now for two pages but you're still trying to gaslight because your ego won't let you.

[clyde21]

Reed "much better than Curry" lmao

Watch on YouTube

;t=7s

[FarBeyondDriven]

Curry wasn't a great prospect. Tripled down here. You are being influenced by post-draft NBA development.

Curry was without a doubt a great prospect and one of college basketball's biggest stars. His Dad played in the NBA and they brought it up every game i.e. "genetics". He was leading a small program to the tournament. It was a big deal man.

Once again, if Curry was a great prospect, he wouldn't have been #7 his year, and wouldn't have been considered a non-prospect, literally non-NBA his first year, and borderline first rounder his second year.

You guys are taking Curry's career into consideration and letting that influence your perception of the past. If you actually thought Curry was a top pick his freshman year 17 years ago while literally every NBA scout was sleeping on the job, then congratulations you would be nostradamus. Shouldn't even be posting on a draft forum or even working for a NBA team as a scout, but rather go pick stocks and buy 0-day options.

There is literally no case to be made here that Curry in his freshman year playing in a non-competative A10 conference was a great prospect in the 2017.

you've managed to do the impossible and get me and Clyde to agree on something

The undersized shooting guard archetype didn't exist back and scouts sucked at their jobs back then. Those same frauds that people use to justify their current takes on here are the same guys who got it wrong back then. They saw Steph as a defensive liability and an undersized shooting guard instead of the obvious point guard in the making with adequate size where his defense wouldn't be quite as big of an issue. Steph as a freshmen was a better prospect than Sheppard is now. Better handle, quicker, taller, longer and he did it as the focus on opponent's defense unlike Sheppard. He would have probably been taken in the late teens or twenties had he come out. He returned to get bigger, work on his handle, his mom wanted him to, he loved his coach and he felt Davidson had unfinished business. He was right, he'd grow slightly taller, put on some muscle, developed his handle and PG skills and took Davidson to the Elite 8.

He was drafted #7 because of team needs and it was a loaded draft class. A couple of poorly run teams preferred traditional point guards and didn't view Steph as one and took Rubio and Flynn over him. But Griffin, Harden, Thabeet and Evans were chosen for team needs. That was no slight on Steph that any of those guys went before him. It was a hot topic back then that Rubio and especially Flynn were taken over him though

[MemphisX]

Steph was like a combo of Reed and Rob.

[2weekswithpay]

His spot starts skew his minutes. As does the fact that they're actively trying to keep their rotation guys healthy and better rested for the playoffs. He's basically a 15-18 mpg off the bench guy. It's the same reason Pritchard's minutes are similarly up to 20 mpg. Come playoff time that will shrink to almost non-existent.

Buddy Hield and his ilk shouldn't start. That's my point. He actively hurts every team he's ever been on with his defense and lack of secondary playmaking. I'd say go look up his playoff numbers but he's never played in them and he's a major reason for that. Just because a player CAN start and can put up numbers based on whatever situation he's in does not mean he'll deserve to or amount to a winning player.

Sheppard's on-ball defense could very well be bottom tier in the NBA. He can't guard in college. What do you think will happen in the pros? Pritchard is an excellent point guard who can actually defend (despite the narrative) and he can't even start. I'll get a better sense of it once I see him at the combine. That will speak volumes.

What are you talking about? Hauser has started 6 games this season. Off the bench, he still plays 19.4 minutes a night his minutes are not skewed by anything. We'll see what happens in the playoffs, but last year Brogdon was a disaster on defense and he didn't get taken out of the rotation until the very end.

Oh, I agree but Sheppard isn't Buddy Hield, Hauser, or Pritchard. Sheppard is a significantly better playmaker than either Hield or Hauser and Sheppard is better on defense than all 3 were in college as a freshman. There are plenty of examples of bad defenders starting for good teams. The Lakers were starting Dlo and Reaves in the playoffs last season when they made the conference finals, both are negative defenders. CJ McCollum has started for multiple playoff teams it looks like he'll start for another one. It looks like OKC will be starting Giddey in the playoffs. The Warriors won a ring with Klay's corpse starting.

Why do you keep saying this? Sheppard's defense isn't perfect but he's not awful defensively in college. The only truly awful defender on that team is Dillingham. Jevon Carter, Jose Alvarado, and TJ McConnell are all small guards and none of them are cones. Conley is small and has been a solid defender for over a decade. There are examples of small guards being solid defensively in the NBA but you've already decided that Sheppard is destined to be bottom-tier.

do you know what "skew" means? In his 6 spot starts he averaged 37 mpg. That's way higher than his customary 19 mpg. Those starts skew the numbers making it seem like he's playing more than he actually is based on his customary role. The difference between 19 and 21 mpg isn't major but having a 1 before the number instead of a 2 is noteworthy. Point is, he has physical limitations that prevent him from being a starter on a good team and that's similar what I think awaits Sheppard.

Agree, Sheppard is better than all three on defense at the same age (still better than Hauser and Hield tbh) That said, he's surrounded by multiple NBA talents unlike them and it allows him to gamble way more leading to steals and blocks

Lakers have a DPOY big in AD and GOAT level player in Lebron. I think that plus other teams having injuries and the league being rigged had much more to do with Lakers success than DLO or Reaves. Both of them at least have the requisite size for their position unlike Sheppard. They're each around 6'5" and in Reaves case he has effort and BBIQ going for him. DLO is a lost cause imo. McCollum's defense has been one of the main reasons his teams have never won. Warriors were loaded with vets that knew the system, had Green and Wiggins and Klay, as washed as he was, was still serviceable at worse

No, Sheppard isn't awful overall on defense because he has elite BBIQ, is allowed to gamble because of the talent disparity he enjoys so he racks up steals and blocks and while he gets cooked by good point guards he holds his own against more than he doesn't. Dillingham really is awful on defense. No argument there. There are plenty of small guards that are not poor defensively but size isn't universal. Just because they're all 6'2" or below does not mean they have the same foot speed, length, lateral quickness, build or athleticism. So comparing him to them isn't necessarily apples to apples. Though, in Sheppard's defense, he does have some of the best hands I've ever seen at the college level.

He'll be bottom tier defensively for starters. Meaning, of the 30 starting NBA point guards he'll be just about the biggest defensive liability in the league if he started. As a backup he'll be perfectly fine or in short stretches as a spot starter. Just like McConell and Pritchard (who is better imo) Who knows, maybe he isn't done growing and has a growth spurt giving him another inch in height and length. That's make a difference. Or maybe he hits the sauce and increases his athleticism. I can't account for that.

The difference between 19.4 MPG off the bench and his 20.7 MPG overall is marginal. You claimed that Hauser had trouble getting on the court.

He can barely get on an NBA floor because he's such a defensive liability. While in college, like Sheppard, he started and produced at a high level because he wasn't facing NBA talent every game.

He does not have trouble getting minutes for the best team in the NBA as he plays almost 20 a night. I don't know why you mentioned his spot starts as if it matters, he's in the rotation and gets consistent playing time. He's not struggling to get on the court as you claimed.

You can evaluate defense irrespective of one's teammates. Hield would be a terrible defender even if he had better teammates. Sheppard has a knack for being in the right position to force turnovers, playing for a worse team wouldn't change that although he might gamble less.

Lebron isn't the defender he used to be, he can't clean up after others like he used to. Size is important but it isn't the only factor that determines a player's defensive capabilities. Good teams can compensate for bad defenders, it happens all the time and will continue to happen. Poole played a big role in the Warriors championship run and it doesn't get much worse defensively than that.

The team helps but his BBIQ is the reason he gets some many TOs. I don't think any skill or trait is universal but I would love to know what disqualifies Sheppard from being solid defensively like the other small guards.

I find it difficult to imagine Sheppard can't be better than players like Simons, Poole/Tyus, Trae, Haliburton, Dlo, and Dame on defense. He can be better than those guys and like a third of the guards in the NBA by playing hard and making smart decisions. Sheppard could continue to improve defensively which is common with young players.

[crows2]

Anyone who thinks Curry wasn’t a great player in college (even early on) is clearly too young to remember. He was a MAJOR deal in college, a phenom even.

[EvanZ]

I see the mistake people are making with Reed. They see him as a shooting guard. Same mistake people made with Steph. They didn't see the huge advantage in a player that can play on and off the ball so fluidly. I think in a similar way to Steph, Reed is going to need a system that takes advantage of this duality. That might be the hardest part about his translation. If a team sticks him entirely in an off ball or on ball role, it's probably not ideal.

[Colbinii]

I see the mistake people are making with Reed. They see him as a shooting guard. Same mistake people made with Steph. They didn't see the huge advantage in a player that can play on and off the ball so fluidly. I think in a similar way to Steph, Reed is going to need a system that takes advantage of this duality. That might be the hardest part about his translation. If a team sticks him entirely in an off ball or on ball role, it's probably not ideal.

Great post.

Jamal Murray is another example of this type of player.

[EvanZ]

I see the mistake people are making with Reed. They see him as a shooting guard. Same mistake people made with Steph. They didn't see the huge advantage in a player that can play on and off the ball so fluidly. I think in a similar way to Steph, Reed is going to need a system that takes advantage of this duality. That might be the hardest part about his translation. If a team sticks him entirely in an off ball or on ball role, it's probably not ideal.

Great post.

Jamal Murray is another example of this type of player.

The Spurs have the 3rd pick and maybe the 7th. Probably his ideal landing spot. Wemby and Reed...whoo boy.

[OriAr]

I see the mistake people are making with Reed. They see him as a shooting guard. Same mistake people made with Steph. They didn't see the huge advantage in a player that can play on and off the ball so fluidly. I think in a similar way to Steph, Reed is going to need a system that takes advantage of this duality. That might be the hardest part about his translation. If a team sticks him entirely in an off ball or on ball role, it's probably not ideal.

He sounds like the perfect fit for the Spurs.
Have him on the ball sometimes and off it when Spurs go with Point Wemby set up.
Pop never believed in having one main playmaker either.

[King Ken]

I see the mistake people are making with Reed. They see him as a shooting guard. Same mistake people made with Steph. They didn't see the huge advantage in a player that can play on and off the ball so fluidly. I think in a similar way to Steph, Reed is going to need a system that takes advantage of this duality. That might be the hardest part about his translation. If a team sticks him entirely in an off ball or on ball role, it's probably not ideal.

That's the problem with all prospects, situation is key