will wrote:BilboBanginz wrote:Sam Vecenie wrote a little bit on Darling's decision to stay in the draft
https://theathletic.com/1966426/2020/08/03/2020-nba-draft-early-entry-deadline-decision-tracker-with-analysis/?source=emp_shared_articleNate Darling, W, Delaware | Vecenie Big Board Rank: NR (for now) | Decision: Staying in 2020 NBA Draft
Darling has been a sneaky real prospect all season in the CAA, the third of which in that league who will likely end up on my final top-100 list. For those unacquainted, he’s a 6-foot-5 shooter out of Canada who started his career at UAB, and has blossomed in his time with the Blue Hens.
He averaged 21 points per game this year, while morphing into one of the most feared shooters in college basketball. He’s made over 40 percent of his 400-plus attempts over the last two years he’s played (having sat out the 2018-19 year after transferring). Over his final 12 games, he averaged over 24 points while shooting an absurd 47.6/43.0/90.5 line. With teams all over the NBA looking for the next Duncan Robinson, Darling stands out as a real option. And he’s someone who actually has a bit more ball creation skill than guys like him typically get credit for. He can play in pick-and-roll, and he finished at the rim at a high level this season.
I wasn’t sure what his intentions were, so I chose to rank older players who guys near the bottom of my rankings. But he’s deserving of being there. I wouldn’t at all be surprised to see him be on a two-way contract next season. It’s not out of the question that he could be picked in the draft on such a deal with a team ahead of time. If not in America, I think he has a high-level European career ahead of him. The shooter-plus skill set is one that fits everywhere worldwide, and given that Darling has been in college for four years and turns 22 later this month, it’s a total reasonable decision for him to be ready to start his pro career.
Like Carl English?
Very similar - I bet Darling has a bit better profile and upside. Nate and Carl had very similar final seasons. Nate 21ppg, 4r, 3a on great high volume three point shooting (40% on 8.4 threes attempted a game). Carl was 20ppg, 5r, 2a, and 40% from three on 7 attempts per game. Both played in very weak conferences. Difference is Carl got the hype as he was the best player Canada produced in a while. Nate seems to be way under the radar as he is one of dozens recently. Carl could have been a 2way type player back in the day if those contacts existed.