Here's one they did from the 2012 draft, slightly different model though. (I'm guessing these models don't do that well so they come up with a new one every year?)
Interesting to see how off they can be. This is no science! Also, below that is a link to another model trying to predict booms or busts for the 2013 draft. Also quite off.
1. Andre Drummond, Connecticut HuskiesThe reward: Drummond has the potential to be a dynamic 21st century center. He is 270 pounds, laterally and vertically athletic, and while his offensive game is underdeveloped, he has good footwork and hands. He's a relatively blank canvas. A logical best-case scenario for Drummond is somewhere in the Tyson Chandler, DeAndre Jordan category, with the potential to develop more low-post scoring depending on his work ethic.
The risk: Drummond does not have any one thing that he actually does well on a basketball floor. He is not a great rebounder, his shot-blocking is erratic and his timing is not natural. While the athleticism is obvious, it hasn't yet translated into his having an elite skill on the floor.
Drummond shoots like a beginning player, his free throws are awful, and while he is still young, so are several other prospects. Anyone who compares him to Dwight Howard never watched Howard play in high school before he was taken No. 1 in the draft, because he was far more developed than Drummond is at this point.
Where he should go: Middle of the first round, to a team with quality veterans where he can sit and learn, all while trying to develop in practice and the D-League.
2. Jared Sullinger, Ohio State Buckeyes
The reward: Sullinger has long been admired by NBA scouts and college coaches alike for his versatile low-post game, soft hands and "Elton Brand-like" ability to maneuver around longer bodies despite a shorter frame. Sullinger compares somewhat to how Kevin Love was viewed, although Love was bigger and more dominant when he came out. Sullinger's ceiling is that of a fit Brand, an All-Star-level power forward with face-up abilities out to 20 feet.
The risk: Sullinger is not the athlete that Love is; he struggles to guard ball screens (the primary offense of the NBA) and score over length, which is more present in the league every year. Sullinger was an unathletic, overweight mess in Chicago. His agility drills were embarrassing -- and if that was just training for the combine, imagine what he will look like in an NBA camp. Sullinger's propensity to gain weight, struggle with length and his dominance at the college level reminds me of Michael Sweetney.
Where he should go: Truthfully, late in the first round. Sullinger has a lot of basketball skill, but he is not only smallish, he lacks athleticism. Combine that with his not being a good defender and it takes a unique need to bring him in.
There were times in college when Jones looked unguardable. Peter G. Aiken/US Presswire
3. Perry Jones III, Baylor Bears
The reward: Jones is a good person -- bright, hardworking and solid in almost every way. He is huge at 6-foot-11, and he played a lot of center and some power forward at Baylor. He can shoot, run, handle and pass (he likes to distribute, too). Jones' movement as an athlete looks like an NBA stud, and his jumper has improved. Though he is not an alpha male, an NBA team is not made up of all alpha males.
Jones, a top-10 prospect last year, improved this season, yet many still aren't in love with him -- partly because his team did not get him the ball. Against Kentucky in the Elite Eight, there was a stretch during which Jones looked unguardable and very much at home against the length of the Wildcats, unlike most college players.
The risk: Jones could easily get a GM or a coach fired. His skill seems obvious, but something is missing. Call it guts, drive or competitive spirit, Jones is just missing that something a competitor needs to be great against the best. Also, Jones will be switching positions and handling the ball more, as well as guarding on the perimeter. While he can dribble, and his foot speed says he should be able to defend, he has done neither at the college level, playing the 4 and 5 and a lot of zone during his time in Waco, Texas. Jones very well could end up a tweener, with no position to call home, and get down on himself if his minutes are limited early.
Where he should go: In the lottery. Jones needs to be on a team with a creative point guard and another lead player.
4. Austin Rivers, Duke Blue Devils
The reward: Coming in somewhere between Dwyane Wade, Ben Gordon and Jason Terry, the ceiling should be high for Rivers. With an explosive first step, a fearless attitude and the ability to get rolling from the 3-point line, Rivers possesses a game that may be better suited for the pros than college. On the right team, Rivers could be an undersize 2 who can come off ball screens in attack mode and even play some backup point in much the same role.
Bloodlines are important to many GMs, and Rivers obviously has them through his father, Doc. He can score, sometimes in bunches, and occasionally will pass. Rivers likely will do much more than merely stick in the league.
The risk: Rivers has plenty of detractors. Coaches talk about how "challenging" he is to coach and how his Duke teammates never seemed to warm up to him.
Though Rivers patterns his game after Wade, he is not the athlete Wade was when he entered the league. Rivers also shoots a lot considering how streaky he can be. He might not have "bust" written on him, but he easily could bounce around the league looking for the right fit if he doesn't find it with the team that drafts him.
Where he should go: To a team that needs scoring or one that really needs points off the bench. I think his value is in the 18-25 range.
5. Tony Wroten, Washington Huskies
The reward: Wroten is a stud athlete with good vision and awesome potential going to the rim or playing in transition. Though he doesn't defend as well as Rajon Rondo, he is Rondo-like in his ability to get to the rim despite teams giving him a cushion because they don't respect his jump shot. Wroten's body and vision look like that of an NBA starting point guard.
The risk: Wroten can't shoot and doesn't seem to know it. He shoots terribly and often -- a lethal combination. Additionally, he is a lazy defender despite his enormous physical gifts. Wroten struggled to lead UW, and there were plenty of times when the team was actually better with him on the bench. A nonshooting NBA point guard, even a backup point guard, has to change the tempo while defending for 94 feet -- two things Wroten has yet to show he can do.
Where he should go: In the second round. I want to see whether Wroten works to fix his jumper, but I don't want to be locked in for it.
6/18/2015 3:19 PM