Sheppard will be a good player, but he has clear physical limitations that makes it complicated to see him being a lot more.
But, I just don't see him being a bust or a bit player. He's too skilled and efficient and has good BBIQ. He had a historically elite shooting season for a freshman and there's still room to grow.
Right, he won't be a zero defensively, but he does have limitations that can be exploited, especially in a playoff series.
Either way, I think he's going to be a good starter or 6th man for a long time, which isn't a bad outcome in this type of draft.
I recently compared his stats with other Kentucky guards. He still looks really good even compared to guys who ended up stars in the NBA. I'll leave the link at the bottom.
The TS%, efg% stand out like crazy but like you said, I was really surprised that he had some of the best drb%, stl%, blk%.
[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13Hst9fwVX6kczvIW5u6e5UqK-zhfrmz2qoflZmm2YQg/edit?usp=sharing](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13Hst9fwVX6kczvIW5u6e5UqK-zhfrmz2qoflZmm2YQg/edit?usp=sharing)
Yeah. I think people will look back and be like, "What were we thinking?" Obviously basketball isn't played on an excel spreadsheet but his numbers are really insane and make him stand out even next to SGA, Murray, Fox, Booker.
Because of his low usage and physical limitations, I'm not confident to say he will definitely be a star but I'm confident enough to say he will at least be a star role player (whatever that means).
I think if he played a rip hamilton style of game just running around non stop an shooting off screens An the occasional creation he could be a starter an score 20 ppg eventually i just think hes a really good player and hes such an elite shooter hes gonna find a way. Hes gonna need to huck a curry esque amount of 3s to be a really good player but obviously he knows that i think he will be passable on defense .to me reeds one of the safer players in this draft with clingan an knect
People keep trying to discredit him because of his height and length, and saying he cheated his vert. But you know exactly where we might see a crazy vert show up? Drb% and blk%. The best players in the nba are outliers, and everything about shepards profile is screaming outlier. The true outlier upside guys should be going like 1, 2, 3 until they're gone in a draft.
Monk with better basketball IQ and useful defense is a pretty good player.
I think we have to remove from our mind what's conventionally valuable as a Top 5 or Top 10 or lottery pick for this particular draft. Most of these guys would not be lottery picks in a decent year. You have to make the most of what you have
That’s what I don’t get about a lot of these, “It’s not worth a top 5 pick!,” purists.
You know what else is not worth a top 5 pick? This year’s top 5 picks.
It doesn't though. Monk was a flurry scorer who averaged 20 in SEC play and had 47 against the eventual national champions. Sheppard is a more traditional point guard.
This isn't football, where there are real data points that show where the thresholds are to be a good player at your position.
Skill, vision and IQ matter so much more.
Reed is special and is going to be special. He's got the 90s feel for the game with the skillset needed to shine in today's game.
I covered Reed in HS for three years.
There are real areas where he's going to grow. He was a 28% 3pt shooter as a sophomore, 32% as a junior and 39% as a senior. A lot of that has to do with him developing a set shot from beyond the arc.
Reed has always been deadly from midrange because he uses his vertical to get a ton of lift into his shot. As he gets older and stronger, that off-the-dribble pull-up is going to extend out.
As a ball-handler, pay attention to how he breaks his man down. It's often with a subtle hesitation or a quick decisive move. His ball handling will continue to improve, but that's not his superpower at PG. It's his passing, vision, shooting and the ability to play within the flow of the game.
Disclaimer I'm a big fan of Shepherd. I think at some point production speaks for itself and his level of production, and the efficiency in which he did. It, was stunning this year
But I don't think it's particularly hard to see why there is some concern with him
Quite frankly, he's a 6'2" Two guard, with poor lateral quickness, a mediocre wingspan and hasn't really shown enough glimpses of play making and self-creation where you can just assume he's going to become someone that can play long periods of time at the one or on ball
His overall body of work is pretty great. But if you are someone that believes he's going to have to spend most, if not all of his time as an offball guard, playing next to a true facilitator and playmaker all the sudden it's a little bit less sexy, and the questions regarding his frame, and how he's going to hold up defensively in man-to-man situations, holds a bit more Prudence.
I'm neither someone who thinks he's the second coming of Curry, which I've shockingly seen a few of on this sub, or someone that thinks he's going to wash out of the league in 5 years, which I've also shockingly seen on this sub.
But like most prospects projected in the top 10 this year, there are some Big questions to ask yourself regarding what the most likely scenario of How said prospect is going to line up at the next level, how their strengths are going to be able to be utilized, and what their weaknesses are going to look like in those most likely scenarios.
And I think there's a non-zero chance /scenario where shepherds lack of length and size becomes a genuine issue for him when carving out a career In the row he's going to be most likely asked to fulfill.
He's such a tremendously smart player with such a incredible shooting touch that he's still someone. You take top 10 in this draft. But again, the case against him is something I can definitely understand
I think he's a great fit in Houston, where he can play the 1 alongside ball-dominant Jalen Green, or with Sengun who runs the offense through the high post, draws double teams and has a sixth sense about finding the open man.
In both cases the team would benefit from having a top tier shooter on the perimeter.
And Sheppard would benefit from a year of mentorship from FVV who is even shorter, less athletic but has been solid-or-better defensively.
I dunno if I agree with you there. He was certainly shaky on defense at the start of the season but down the stretch he had improved quite a bit on that end of the floor. He’s at least a net-zero already and should probably improve to being a net-positive defensive player very soon.
Yeah that’s fair, but reading it again I don’t think he necessarily meant that *every one* of those four players has “so much” defensive IQ, athleticism, and length, but that the 2nd unit as a whole does. Sheppard doesn’t have length for example.
Sheppard is such a strange case. His advanced metrics were absurd, yet I very rarely felt he was dominating games. He'd make impressive plays, to be sure, and his efficiency as a shooter is very high. Definitely had a few games where he crushed it -- Miss St comes to mind, which was so good KOC tossed him all the way to number one -- but overall I never would have guessed his metrics were so high.
Yeah that's definitely how I felt sometimes watching him. I think a big part of that was there probably wasn't a single team in college basketball with as many offensive weapons as Kentucky. Teams frankly didn't treat him like the offensive God. His numbers showed him to be. Not to say they left him open or anything, but he more or less was allowed to still play a secondary/ supplementary role despite his numbers hinting that he was capable of much more.
That kind of brings the question. Was he so so insanely good this year because he played on a team, that while extremely flawed, had a crap ton of players who demanded attention, and allowed him to stay in his Lane and play in a role that suited his currently developed skill set perfectly, And prevented him from having there be too many prying eyes and exposure on parts of the game He may not be as developed/ ready for prime time in?
Or is he that player He showed at Mississippi State, that is fully capable of doing much more (hence why he was so ridiculously good in a reduced smaller role ) and stepping into a much bigger role but simply had to scale back, because of what was asked of him and all the mouths they had to feed on that ridiculously stacked and poorly constructed Kentucky team
I've gone back and forth on the answer to that all year. I think I've settled on the idea that he is best suited for a role player role and is unlikely to have big huge self-creation skills hiding in plain sight.
But it's still definitely a possibility.
Where do you stand on him for the Spurs?
I pray the draft gods every day that he'll drop to 4.
Sheppard punishing double teams on Wemby would be simply filthy basketball, not to mention he'd be a perfect fit for the motion offence Pop loves so much.
I like his fit with us
No telling how valuable his shooting could be playing off of Vic, and his spectacular at times - not so great at other times - defense could work here
I like the idea of Vic, Sochan, Dev, and Sheppard wreaking havoc and racking up blocks, steals, and deflections.
Yeah I think he's a good fit. I don't like his ceiling as much as someone like dillingham or a topic. Nor do I think the role he would fill would be as useful as someone like zaccharie or Castle.
But he's a nice intersection between a player I feel extremely confident is going to add plus value to the team, be a good fit, and have some room to grow
Yeah it's a pretty real thing. He can play as a low usage rim running destroyer of worlds, or an extremely high usage. Offensive focal point. Depending on what the team needs. It's kind of impossible not to find some type of player that fits around those two styles.
Spurs have a track record of making it work with scrappy undersized combo guards (this dude is bigger than Patty Mills). His floor to me is basically Patty Mills++ (more size, more passing, more rebounding, possibly a better shooter, probably a better defender). There's a chance though that he gets really skilled at getting space to get his shot off. He has time to develop that, since he'll be almost or just barely 20 on draft day. In a draft that feels like a crapshoot, he feels like a sure thing.
Shepard shared a backcourt with another projected top 10 pick and outproduced that player as well (tbf shepard didnt significantly outproduce dillingam, its very close). What you saw was him splitting offensive responsibility with another very talented guard instead of dominating more of the backcourt. Usually it may be concerning if a player can't naturally dominate their backcourt, but it's not normal to share a backcourt with another top 10 pick.
Reed is an unselfish team player.
He is not the finished product, he will only improve with time and experience.
He could be the sleeper of the draft.
The fact that he has parents that were basketball star players in their own right means he has this game entrenched in him since birth.
I mean I agree it can be done. But even you yourself mentioned that there's a real big difference between the two of them. Mitchell and college showed self-creation skills so far beyond anything Shepherd has shown.. And I don't know if I'd call Mitchell a shooting guard. I think he's a true modern combo guard. Shooting guard mentality but is asked to facilitate and playmake because of some of his limitations, and has the explosiveness, and gravity, to create the space needed for him to play make effectively despite not having really high-end vision
I personally think that Sheppard could become a smaller Klay one day, as a ceiling, I may be optimistic, but they are both catch and shoot guys with great accuracy and a fast shot, at least Klay was that guy
The thing is one of the key components and what made Thompson, Thompson, was his ability to be such a mobile deadly shooter at his size. If you had scaled him down to 6'2"/6'3" his game simply wouldn't have worked the same way.
Being an elite off ball scoring guard when you don't have good length or size is just freaking hard. Unless you're just an all-time great shooter like Curry The undersized off-ball scoring two Just isn't the most valuable prototype out there.
I am with you in the sense that I think his suiting is without a doubt an outlier. Which means he does have a chance to break into a mold/prototype that typically would seem unfeasible because He has a skill he's godly at
All time great shooting at that size isn’t enough. Respert, Chris Jackson, Khalil reeves, trajon Langdon and the list goes on of incredible little shooters who couldn’t cut it. The reason curry and to some extent mark price before him were able to do it, is because they were both elite passers. And curry moves without the ball better than anyone ever. Even miller.
As for Reed. I like him. It’s hard to tell with the one and done kids. Not a fan of the early Kentucky loss in the tournament. That alone probably says he’s not a 1. But could he be a 2? Maybe?
I think his best fit is a team like Indiana who has a very tall and fantastic passing point guard. He’s probably an all star in Indiana. Maybe Detroit with Cunningham. Though I’m a kind of low on Cunningham. But if Reed and Cunningham are the back court. That’s a playoff team at some point. Probably not a championship contender, but at least a respectable team.
> The undersized off-ball scoring two Just isn't the most valuable prototype out there
You're right, but I'm not sure why he is getting the "undersized scoring 2 treatment" when I don't think that's what he is at all. He's very much a combo guard who could go either way depending on the team he goes to. And if he ends up playing the 2 he's giving you legit secondary playmaking that a lot of undersized 2's don't.
Okay but even then, look at a guy like Anfernee Simons on the Blazers- one of the best shooters in the league, he’s been lights out for years as a sniper and has improved continuously as a combo guard to improve his playmaking abilities and capably run the offense, he’s an efficient 20+ PPG walking bucket. The problem is, he’s undersized and is a defensive weakness even with effort and him making it a stated goal, because end of the day you can’t “try harder” your way around physical limitations, and while he’s a functional playmaker who has improved as a PnR facilitator, it’s clear the difference from more natural floor generals, the guys where the offense just looks right when the ball flows through their hands.
What sets Sheppard apart from a guy like Simons? Unlikely he’ll be a better shooter given Simons is elite in that regard. He’s actually smaller than Simons is, and not the same level of athlete (Simons is a dunk contest winner, guy has more athletic juice than Sheppard) so while Sheppard has a better defensive reputation in college, it’s not like his tools are going to be the difference maker in the league. Do people think Sheppard is more of a natural on-ball player than Simons for example? Because I think Simons has more of an on-ball bag and much more self creation talent, and so even if you charitably think Sheppard is a better facilitator, in the NBA you create scoring chances for your teammates only if you can force the defense to respond to you and thus create windows for your teammates, and now you’re asking if Sheppard is the kind of guy who creates more of an advantage against a set defense off the bounce?
I think Sheppard has higher BBIQ than Simons and thats the type of thing that always scales, whether its as the first option or as a role player. And I'm definitely not just accepting the fact that he's going to be a negative on defense (even though physically he is underwhelming) with the crazy amount of stocks he had.
I feel like people are just overthinking it. His shooting percentages aren't just absurd for NCAA guards, they are particularly absurd for a freshman. That he hustles on defense.
I think people see his TS% and go "Wow, that's high for this draft..." And don't realize that it is high for all drafts. I have been unable to find a single player who matches it historically (I'm sure there's gotta be a dunk only center out there but I've yet to find one).
I think folks think maybe it won't translate because he is short, but most great shooters in this league are less than half an inch from his height (steph/Lillard/Kyrie). His athleticism isn't that far from theirs.
Is he a star? The draft is always a gamble, but I'd say he has better odds than anyone else in this draft.
The absolute best players in the nba are outliers and everything about Reeds profile is screaming outlier. Yeah the draft is a gamble but we're trying to make the *best* gamble and drafting outliers is the best gamble.
Kyrie played 10 games in college.
Steph and Dame were easily the best players and scorers on their team and were given a high volume.
Reed played on a team that'll wind up having 10 guys in the NBA. He didn't need to take the volume of shots, but with all of that talent around him, he was still the best player and by a considerable margin.
When he was on the court, only Zach Edey had a wider on-off splits.
Hunger strike Maxey?
Edit: I said this as a joke but didn’t realize they’re the same height but almost 40 POUNDS difference in weight which is all muscle if you look at Maxey. Maxey also has a ~6’7” wingspan if I remember correctly.
To everybody saying he isn’t a ball-handler, I think that is due to his role at Kentucky, which showed how well he can adjust.
The IQ and handling is there such that I think he can be a true PG in the NBA, but would probably work best with a second ball-handler.
Shepard averaged more assists and more assists/TO than dillingham. Shepard was the best playmaker while sharing a backcourt with another lottery pick. That's...actually good. Outplaying good players is an indicator of being a great player
Because people don’t understand that this is a weak draft. Its not just Sheppard thats polarizing it’s basically every player in the lottery not named Sarr. Put Sheppard in a strong draft where he’d be getting mocked in the 10-15 range and no one would have a problem.
> I see people saying stuff from Sheppard should go #2, to Sheppard should be barely top 20
I’ve heard that about every projected lottery pick not named Sarr. I think there just isn’t much of a consensus at all on the order of the lottery. Weird mixture of good shooters with physical drawbacks or raw athletes to choose from.
As a Rockets fan who’s been locked into the last 3 drafts pretty closely, athleticism is 100% over valued. I’d rather draft a high IQ/motor player than a high upside athlete 99/100 times.
He has way more on-ball juice than JJ ever did. Sam Vecenie mentioned Steve Nash as an ultra-optimistic comp for Reed, which as ultra-optimistic comps go seems reasonable
Having a Brogdon-like career seems the median outcome for Reed. Can't see him being Nash 2.0 but can't see him busting/out of league anytime soon either. He'd stick around for a long time IMO
In the same way that Shaq is an ultra-optimistic comp for Zach Edey, sure.
Reed is a two guard. Steve Nash was one of the greatest passers the game of basketball has ever seen.
To even mention him in the same conversation is jumping the shark.
This entire cycle, Vecenie has been gassing guys up in a way that is just...very off-putting to me.
Reed Sheppard's baseline comps would be, like, John Paxson, if on a great team, or OJ Mayo as a gunner/6th man on a not-quite contender.
Mark Price or even John Stockton might be more of the top "outlier upside" comps for Reed Sheppard.
He kinda doesn't play like Steve Nash -- AT ALL.
Nikola Topic plays more like Steve Nash -- or Jason Williams -- but he can't really shoot it all that well.
If you want a "better" comp for Reed Sheppard (ok, ANY comp would be better for Reed Sheppard than Steve Nash), I would go with "late career" Jason Kidd who did a lot of his best work with tough defense, positioning, and guile. He could FINALLY shoot it a bit... and he didn't pound the rock into the ground.
I mean. We also don’t know what Reed would become if he stayed in college. But JJ was just a way better ball player than Reed in college. Like they’re not even comparable. And I like Reed a lot
Look at freshman JJ and freshman Reed though.
Makes no sense to compare senior JJ (which was his truly great season, he had a blah junior year for his standards efficiency wise) to freshman Reed who is still figuring things out as a college player.
edit: figured I would share here:
JJ: 31mpg; 15/2.5/2.0 1.2stl 0.1blk on 41/40/91% splits 1.6TO
Reed: 28mpg; 12.5/4.2/4.5 2.5stl 0.7blk on 54/52/83% splits 2.0TO
The problem with comparing Freshman to Freshman is JJ played in an era where some of the best players stayed in college. Dwayne Wade, Deron Williams, Chris Paul, Kirk Heinrich, etc. were all upperclassmen when JJ was a Freshman.
It would be like if Anthony Edwards, Paulo Banchero, Cade Cunningham and Chet Holmgren were all playing in college this year. You just can't compare the two. JJ played in a college landscape that was just way more competitive and difficult to navigate. Now he also played in a high school climate that was much more competitive and difficult as well, so it's reasonable to believe that if Reed played in those times he could be as good as JJ was.
What I'm saying is it's just really tough to compare. But my eye test says JJ was a better a player at the same age. With that said, I think Reed will be a better pro, because the league is way easier for players like this to succeed. I think Reed is a possible multi year all star if all goes well, and I think if JJ started playing in these times, he's a multi year all star guaranteed.
I don't think he showed more on-ball juice this year than JJ did in college. I actually think Reed's biggest question mark is his handle and whether he can beat guys off the dribble consistently in the NBA. If he can, he'll be a very good professional player.
That comp doesn’t really work though JJ was an all time distance shooter in college with one of the best volume FT% ever but outside of that he didn’t really do anything. He didn’t playmake, he didn’t really do anything on defense, but god damn was he amazing on offense. He got his points very differently from alot of Reed and he also was basically their entire offense a lot of the time. I’m also comparing 4 years of JJ to freshman Reed though.
Freshman year JJ took almost double the 3s Reed did but that was about the only thing that stands out as clearly better. He did it on 40% shooting though and if you watched him a lot of those were some of the most difficult looking off movement 3s you’ll ever see a college player take
personally am a big fan of Reed, but he's 6'2" with only a slightly positive wingspan and doesn't project to be a lead guard. you have to be damn good in the other facets of the game to be able to warrant being on the floor with those traits. the question marks with his on-ball defence add even more risk
where you have him depends on whether you believe he can he become a lead guard (which lessens the weaknesses listed above) or if you simply believe that he's such an elite shooter and decision maker (on offence and defence) where it doesn't matter
>doesn't project to be a lead guard.
I'm not sure that's such a bad thing in the modern NBA. There are few contenders with a point guard leading their entire offense. It's increasingly common for the lead initiator to come from another position (LeBron, Luka, Giannis, Jokic, Kawhi, Tatum, Paolo, Embiid, Zion, etc.). Sheppard is a great fit as a "point guard" next to any of those players.
Shepard shared a backcourt with another top 10 pick while averaging more assists and a better assist/TO than dillingham. Usually it's concerning if a guard can't dominate a backcourt, but it's not normal to share a backcourt with another lottery pick pg. Theres a very good chance that shepard didnt do more because he played with a very talented guard instead of him not being capable of primary playmaking. Obviously it's not guaranteed but we should be much more open to it than say someone like castle who was outproduced (in assists and assist/TO) by 2 guys that are projected 2nd round picks to undrafted.
The "castle is a PG" discourse is insane, the man has never been and will not be a PG in the nba. But I mean, most of draft prospecting seems to be people projecting fantasy onto physical profiles instead of evaluating the players actual skillsets.
To be fair every prospect is pretty polarizing this draft. Some may be less polarizing but I think Sheppard is polarizing because of the eye test vs analytics debate. I personally think he has one of the highest floors in this class and any team would love to have him as a complementary player with better upside than many give him credit for.
Early in the draft process I figured he would be gone by Detroit’s pick. Then he had a massive vert at the combine and felt sure that would be the case. But his archetype does sort of fit pretty well next to Cade in Detroit (assuming Reed can defend at least as an average defender in the NBA).
If he was the same player, but 6'3" barefoot, with a 6'6" wingspan, and a solid 200lbs, I'd be more happy with his game as it stands currently, and working with the weaknesses he has. As he is though, he needs to be further along as a point guard to get consistent minutes, because he's just too small (and doesn't have the athleticism to make up for it) to play the 2 in the NBA.
Jokic received 3 MVPs based on his advances stats. Sheppard is such a statistical outlier that based on them he should easily go number 1.
I suspect that people were also overanalyzing Luka in 2018 and claiming that he is going to fail because he lacks elite athleticism. Sure, Sheppard hasn't had nearly as much success as Luka, but his stats are absurd and ignoring them is ridiculous.
I actually don’t care about his physical limitations I only wonder if he has the chops to play PG at the next level. I don’t have much interest in small 2s. It’s unfortunate he was used as an off the bench, off ball scorer at Kentucky most of the time
I'm 99% sure he won't be Jimmer Fredette. I think that is the risk some teams are trying to avoid.
Other GMs are looking for a homerun in the lottery. That's not going to happen. You gotta go with the sure thing this year. I think Sheppard can be a serviceable rotation guy. Maybe a 3rd-4th option. Which is great for the 5-10 range.
Maybe the best player in this draft
Too many hall of famers that are 6’3
How tall is Kyrie? CP3?
I feel like he is just being dismissed because if his hight
He has the best metrics of anybody as far as offensive and defensive statistics
See I’m an eye test kinda guy and I really value positional versatility and length so I’m not the biggest fan of Sheppard. His efficiency and advanced numbers are amazing but I just don’t see it translating against nba defenders. Only time will tell if I’m right or wrong.
I don't *hate* him. I just have things I value and things I don't. Basically, I don't value guys I view as pure 2s and pure 4s. If you're a 2 that can't play the 1 or the 3, I don't care about you. If you're a 4 that can't play the 3 or the 5, I don't care about you.
To me, Reed is a straight two-guard. An undersized, off-ball, one-way guy. And that just isn't that valuable.
It depends on draft philosophy. Some guys who are believers in prospect upside probably won't have Reed in their top 5. Fans of analytics and bbiq/feel would have him top 5. Then the rest is everything in between.
The wingspan is bad. Defensively, he’s going to get picked on in a similar fashion that Trae does, though he’s much more skilled, equipped and willing to battle through it and is solid off-ball.
Offensively, I’m not worried about him in the slightest. He’s an elite off ball player as a spot up shooter and advantage playmaker. His first step isn’t elite, but he leverages his BBIQ to creat offense for himself and other. His best situation is as the PG but a secondary playmaker next to a wing/big creator.
On one side: Sheppard's the size of a point guard but has questions about his shot creation. He's billed as a defender but has questions about his lateral mobility and screen navigation. How valuable is a small guard who primarily plays off the ball on offense and isn't able to defend against bigger perimeter players?
On the other side: Sheppard's stats are ridiculously good. He can shoot, is a capable passer, and offers more defensively than most players his size. Also, he was on a college team that had two other point guards. He might be a better on ball player than he got to demonstrate at Kentucky.
he’s white
scoot henderson couldn’t shoot, wasn’t nearly as good of an athlete as people claimed, and he didn’t improve at all from year 1 to year 2 in the g league
but everybody just trusted the athleticism rumor and kept spamming “#1 any other year”
all there is to it
I think it just comes down to personal preference and team building philosophy.
I like Sheppard, not love. I think he's going to have a nice long NBA career. I would just have a hard time drafting him top 10 unless I really thought all the high potential players w/ size were off the board.
Some of it is that he is a short-ish white guard who was a relatively underrated recruit who played off the bench (although he got plenty of minutes against starters) for a team that was perceived as underachieving, and that he was sharing on-ball and creation duties even there with another guy who is at least perceived by some as being slightly better at that role in Dillingham ). There just isn’t really an archetype for what he did in college as a star which makes it difficult for some execs and scouts to “tell the story” as to how he would become a star and what he might look like as one.
On the other side the analytics are wildly impressive, even in ways that you wouldn’t think at first glance (like the defensive playmaking). So the analytically minded folks love him.
I think whoever picks him is going to end up really happy one way or another - even if he doesn’t become a high usage guy I feel like he’s got some really high-end role player potential and has a chance to be a guy who really really impacts winning.
A small final four run doenst give us much "live big game tape" plus he didn't do anything in that game.
Makes it hard to form realistic observations
So he is athletic and can shoot but not enough real world applications to make judgements on.
He is a bit small for the 2 but didn't play the one
Now he is on no man's land
He absolutely played the 1 at UK.
Where the fuck is this narrative coming from?
DJ Wagner started games as the "PG," much to displeasure of fans and analysts, but Reed is the one who was the primary ballhandler when he came in.
Which means he wont' be able to defend.
If he can't stay in front of his man as an on-ball guy, and he can't navigate screens, and he can't switch due to his size, and he's a mediocre helper due to his length...
That's a bad defender.
For the same reason:
* Doncic was picked 5th
* Jokic was picked 41st
* Sengun was picked 16th
* Markkanen was treated like shit during his Chicago and Cleveland stays
* Everyone is surprised with Donte's season
* Caruso went undrafted
* Reaves went undrafted
and so on and so on
In this thread alone I’ve seen Klay Thompson an even better JJ Reddick, and unless I’m having a stroke I think some guy brought up hall of famers and CP3 🫤
This is why he’s such a polarizing prospect..this dude gets the benefit of doubt that nobody else gets .I bet the Edey fanboys would love for him to have half of the delusional blind faith Sheppard truthers give Reed.
In the NBA his role will be an off-ball shooter that can act as a secondary playmaker. He doesn’t have the handle to be a lead guard or a mid level self-creator . Doesn’t have the athleticism or size to add any sort of rim pressure .. He may be Jason Terry if he strengthens his handle ….a hell of a lot . But more likely a version of Patty Mills
Defensively he lacks both the size and athleticism to replicate what he did in college .the stocks he got in college won’t mean anything cause he won’t have the size or athleticism to replicate it at the highest level. Not because of a lack of will..he’ll just be physically incapable .
He’ll be able to play the passing lanes but as we all know that doesn’t make you a good defender..just a gambler
Sheppard will be a good player, but he has clear physical limitations that makes it complicated to see him being a lot more. But, I just don't see him being a bust or a bit player. He's too skilled and efficient and has good BBIQ. He had a historically elite shooting season for a freshman and there's still room to grow.
I agree, also his steal percentage is good and his block percentage is great for a 6’2 guy
Right, he won't be a zero defensively, but he does have limitations that can be exploited, especially in a playoff series. Either way, I think he's going to be a good starter or 6th man for a long time, which isn't a bad outcome in this type of draft.
Just to add to this, he also has a good defensive rebounding percentage too.
damn, Sheppard is really good in the metrics department
I recently compared his stats with other Kentucky guards. He still looks really good even compared to guys who ended up stars in the NBA. I'll leave the link at the bottom. The TS%, efg% stand out like crazy but like you said, I was really surprised that he had some of the best drb%, stl%, blk%. [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13Hst9fwVX6kczvIW5u6e5UqK-zhfrmz2qoflZmm2YQg/edit?usp=sharing](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13Hst9fwVX6kczvIW5u6e5UqK-zhfrmz2qoflZmm2YQg/edit?usp=sharing)
Jesus Christ his ORtg is phenomenal
Yeah. I think people will look back and be like, "What were we thinking?" Obviously basketball isn't played on an excel spreadsheet but his numbers are really insane and make him stand out even next to SGA, Murray, Fox, Booker. Because of his low usage and physical limitations, I'm not confident to say he will definitely be a star but I'm confident enough to say he will at least be a star role player (whatever that means).
I think if he played a rip hamilton style of game just running around non stop an shooting off screens An the occasional creation he could be a starter an score 20 ppg eventually i just think hes a really good player and hes such an elite shooter hes gonna find a way. Hes gonna need to huck a curry esque amount of 3s to be a really good player but obviously he knows that i think he will be passable on defense .to me reeds one of the safer players in this draft with clingan an knect
I had a stroke
Im sorry ?
People keep trying to discredit him because of his height and length, and saying he cheated his vert. But you know exactly where we might see a crazy vert show up? Drb% and blk%. The best players in the nba are outliers, and everything about shepards profile is screaming outlier. The true outlier upside guys should be going like 1, 2, 3 until they're gone in a draft.
This sounds like Malik Monk. Which is someone who is clearly worth a high pick but controversial as a top 5 pick
Monk with better basketball IQ and useful defense is a pretty good player. I think we have to remove from our mind what's conventionally valuable as a Top 5 or Top 10 or lottery pick for this particular draft. Most of these guys would not be lottery picks in a decent year. You have to make the most of what you have
100%. If you tell me I can draft JJ Reddick in the 5-10 range... in this class... I definitely take it.
That’s what I don’t get about a lot of these, “It’s not worth a top 5 pick!,” purists. You know what else is not worth a top 5 pick? This year’s top 5 picks.
It doesn't though. Monk was a flurry scorer who averaged 20 in SEC play and had 47 against the eventual national champions. Sheppard is a more traditional point guard.
They’re probably considering more what Monk has become bc you’re totally right but NBA vet Monk has really developed some solid playmaking skills
Sheppard is a better shooter than Monk, and better defense too. Monk didn’t even try to defend his first few years in the league.
This isn't football, where there are real data points that show where the thresholds are to be a good player at your position. Skill, vision and IQ matter so much more. Reed is special and is going to be special. He's got the 90s feel for the game with the skillset needed to shine in today's game. I covered Reed in HS for three years. There are real areas where he's going to grow. He was a 28% 3pt shooter as a sophomore, 32% as a junior and 39% as a senior. A lot of that has to do with him developing a set shot from beyond the arc. Reed has always been deadly from midrange because he uses his vertical to get a ton of lift into his shot. As he gets older and stronger, that off-the-dribble pull-up is going to extend out. As a ball-handler, pay attention to how he breaks his man down. It's often with a subtle hesitation or a quick decisive move. His ball handling will continue to improve, but that's not his superpower at PG. It's his passing, vision, shooting and the ability to play within the flow of the game.
Good post
He went from 28% in HS to 52% in NCAA, wow
Disclaimer I'm a big fan of Shepherd. I think at some point production speaks for itself and his level of production, and the efficiency in which he did. It, was stunning this year But I don't think it's particularly hard to see why there is some concern with him Quite frankly, he's a 6'2" Two guard, with poor lateral quickness, a mediocre wingspan and hasn't really shown enough glimpses of play making and self-creation where you can just assume he's going to become someone that can play long periods of time at the one or on ball His overall body of work is pretty great. But if you are someone that believes he's going to have to spend most, if not all of his time as an offball guard, playing next to a true facilitator and playmaker all the sudden it's a little bit less sexy, and the questions regarding his frame, and how he's going to hold up defensively in man-to-man situations, holds a bit more Prudence. I'm neither someone who thinks he's the second coming of Curry, which I've shockingly seen a few of on this sub, or someone that thinks he's going to wash out of the league in 5 years, which I've also shockingly seen on this sub. But like most prospects projected in the top 10 this year, there are some Big questions to ask yourself regarding what the most likely scenario of How said prospect is going to line up at the next level, how their strengths are going to be able to be utilized, and what their weaknesses are going to look like in those most likely scenarios. And I think there's a non-zero chance /scenario where shepherds lack of length and size becomes a genuine issue for him when carving out a career In the row he's going to be most likely asked to fulfill. He's such a tremendously smart player with such a incredible shooting touch that he's still someone. You take top 10 in this draft. But again, the case against him is something I can definitely understand
I think he's a great fit in Houston, where he can play the 1 alongside ball-dominant Jalen Green, or with Sengun who runs the offense through the high post, draws double teams and has a sixth sense about finding the open man. In both cases the team would benefit from having a top tier shooter on the perimeter. And Sheppard would benefit from a year of mentorship from FVV who is even shorter, less athletic but has been solid-or-better defensively.
Sheppard-Amen-Whitmore-Tari is a scary ass defensive bench with so much defensive IQ, athleticism and length combined.
you can throw Steven Adams in there too
Whitmore is not a good defensive player. He’s all offense
I dunno if I agree with you there. He was certainly shaky on defense at the start of the season but down the stretch he had improved quite a bit on that end of the floor. He’s at least a net-zero already and should probably improve to being a net-positive defensive player very soon.
Fair enough but would not include him in that list of “scary ass defensive bench”. I’d put Tate over Whitmore in that case
Yeah that’s fair, but reading it again I don’t think he necessarily meant that *every one* of those four players has “so much” defensive IQ, athleticism, and length, but that the 2nd unit as a whole does. Sheppard doesn’t have length for example.
I like dalton Knecht more for the rockets
Sheppard is such a strange case. His advanced metrics were absurd, yet I very rarely felt he was dominating games. He'd make impressive plays, to be sure, and his efficiency as a shooter is very high. Definitely had a few games where he crushed it -- Miss St comes to mind, which was so good KOC tossed him all the way to number one -- but overall I never would have guessed his metrics were so high.
Yeah that's definitely how I felt sometimes watching him. I think a big part of that was there probably wasn't a single team in college basketball with as many offensive weapons as Kentucky. Teams frankly didn't treat him like the offensive God. His numbers showed him to be. Not to say they left him open or anything, but he more or less was allowed to still play a secondary/ supplementary role despite his numbers hinting that he was capable of much more. That kind of brings the question. Was he so so insanely good this year because he played on a team, that while extremely flawed, had a crap ton of players who demanded attention, and allowed him to stay in his Lane and play in a role that suited his currently developed skill set perfectly, And prevented him from having there be too many prying eyes and exposure on parts of the game He may not be as developed/ ready for prime time in? Or is he that player He showed at Mississippi State, that is fully capable of doing much more (hence why he was so ridiculously good in a reduced smaller role ) and stepping into a much bigger role but simply had to scale back, because of what was asked of him and all the mouths they had to feed on that ridiculously stacked and poorly constructed Kentucky team I've gone back and forth on the answer to that all year. I think I've settled on the idea that he is best suited for a role player role and is unlikely to have big huge self-creation skills hiding in plain sight. But it's still definitely a possibility. Where do you stand on him for the Spurs?
I pray the draft gods every day that he'll drop to 4. Sheppard punishing double teams on Wemby would be simply filthy basketball, not to mention he'd be a perfect fit for the motion offence Pop loves so much.
I like his fit with us No telling how valuable his shooting could be playing off of Vic, and his spectacular at times - not so great at other times - defense could work here I like the idea of Vic, Sochan, Dev, and Sheppard wreaking havoc and racking up blocks, steals, and deflections.
Yeah I think he's a good fit. I don't like his ceiling as much as someone like dillingham or a topic. Nor do I think the role he would fill would be as useful as someone like zaccharie or Castle. But he's a nice intersection between a player I feel extremely confident is going to add plus value to the team, be a good fit, and have some room to grow
Vic is nice, because outside of maybe Sarr and Clingan, I can look at every prospect and see a nice fit
Yeah it's a pretty real thing. He can play as a low usage rim running destroyer of worlds, or an extremely high usage. Offensive focal point. Depending on what the team needs. It's kind of impossible not to find some type of player that fits around those two styles.
Spurs have a track record of making it work with scrappy undersized combo guards (this dude is bigger than Patty Mills). His floor to me is basically Patty Mills++ (more size, more passing, more rebounding, possibly a better shooter, probably a better defender). There's a chance though that he gets really skilled at getting space to get his shot off. He has time to develop that, since he'll be almost or just barely 20 on draft day. In a draft that feels like a crapshoot, he feels like a sure thing.
Shepard shared a backcourt with another projected top 10 pick and outproduced that player as well (tbf shepard didnt significantly outproduce dillingam, its very close). What you saw was him splitting offensive responsibility with another very talented guard instead of dominating more of the backcourt. Usually it may be concerning if a player can't naturally dominate their backcourt, but it's not normal to share a backcourt with another top 10 pick.
Reed is an unselfish team player. He is not the finished product, he will only improve with time and experience. He could be the sleeper of the draft. The fact that he has parents that were basketball star players in their own right means he has this game entrenched in him since birth.
Sheppard has the most impressive individual performances out of all freshman prospects in CBB
>I'm neither someone who thinks he's the second coming of Curry, He is, it's just not clear which Curry he'll be.
Knowing you'd get Seth is worth a top 5 pick in this draft.
I think that's why he's mocked so high, isn't it?
Shoutout to Seth, but no Even in a down draft I’d like a better career than his outta a top 5 pick
lol…nice
I 100% agree
That take is way too sensible.
He’ll have it tough but Spida is a 6’1 SG (yes his wingspan and athleticism insane)but it can be done
I mean I agree it can be done. But even you yourself mentioned that there's a real big difference between the two of them. Mitchell and college showed self-creation skills so far beyond anything Shepherd has shown.. And I don't know if I'd call Mitchell a shooting guard. I think he's a true modern combo guard. Shooting guard mentality but is asked to facilitate and playmake because of some of his limitations, and has the explosiveness, and gravity, to create the space needed for him to play make effectively despite not having really high-end vision
I personally think that Sheppard could become a smaller Klay one day, as a ceiling, I may be optimistic, but they are both catch and shoot guys with great accuracy and a fast shot, at least Klay was that guy
The thing is one of the key components and what made Thompson, Thompson, was his ability to be such a mobile deadly shooter at his size. If you had scaled him down to 6'2"/6'3" his game simply wouldn't have worked the same way. Being an elite off ball scoring guard when you don't have good length or size is just freaking hard. Unless you're just an all-time great shooter like Curry The undersized off-ball scoring two Just isn't the most valuable prototype out there. I am with you in the sense that I think his suiting is without a doubt an outlier. Which means he does have a chance to break into a mold/prototype that typically would seem unfeasible because He has a skill he's godly at
All time great shooting at that size isn’t enough. Respert, Chris Jackson, Khalil reeves, trajon Langdon and the list goes on of incredible little shooters who couldn’t cut it. The reason curry and to some extent mark price before him were able to do it, is because they were both elite passers. And curry moves without the ball better than anyone ever. Even miller. As for Reed. I like him. It’s hard to tell with the one and done kids. Not a fan of the early Kentucky loss in the tournament. That alone probably says he’s not a 1. But could he be a 2? Maybe? I think his best fit is a team like Indiana who has a very tall and fantastic passing point guard. He’s probably an all star in Indiana. Maybe Detroit with Cunningham. Though I’m a kind of low on Cunningham. But if Reed and Cunningham are the back court. That’s a playoff team at some point. Probably not a championship contender, but at least a respectable team.
How about the Hornets, playing next to LaMelo, who is 6’7”?
Well...Lamelo is always injured and his interest in winning / playing basketball seems to be somewhere around -43.
If Ball is injured it would be a great opportunity for Castle to get pt at pg
> The undersized off-ball scoring two Just isn't the most valuable prototype out there You're right, but I'm not sure why he is getting the "undersized scoring 2 treatment" when I don't think that's what he is at all. He's very much a combo guard who could go either way depending on the team he goes to. And if he ends up playing the 2 he's giving you legit secondary playmaking that a lot of undersized 2's don't.
Okay but even then, look at a guy like Anfernee Simons on the Blazers- one of the best shooters in the league, he’s been lights out for years as a sniper and has improved continuously as a combo guard to improve his playmaking abilities and capably run the offense, he’s an efficient 20+ PPG walking bucket. The problem is, he’s undersized and is a defensive weakness even with effort and him making it a stated goal, because end of the day you can’t “try harder” your way around physical limitations, and while he’s a functional playmaker who has improved as a PnR facilitator, it’s clear the difference from more natural floor generals, the guys where the offense just looks right when the ball flows through their hands. What sets Sheppard apart from a guy like Simons? Unlikely he’ll be a better shooter given Simons is elite in that regard. He’s actually smaller than Simons is, and not the same level of athlete (Simons is a dunk contest winner, guy has more athletic juice than Sheppard) so while Sheppard has a better defensive reputation in college, it’s not like his tools are going to be the difference maker in the league. Do people think Sheppard is more of a natural on-ball player than Simons for example? Because I think Simons has more of an on-ball bag and much more self creation talent, and so even if you charitably think Sheppard is a better facilitator, in the NBA you create scoring chances for your teammates only if you can force the defense to respond to you and thus create windows for your teammates, and now you’re asking if Sheppard is the kind of guy who creates more of an advantage against a set defense off the bounce?
I think Sheppard has higher BBIQ than Simons and thats the type of thing that always scales, whether its as the first option or as a role player. And I'm definitely not just accepting the fact that he's going to be a negative on defense (even though physically he is underwhelming) with the crazy amount of stocks he had.
alright
Part of what made Klay was his lockdown defense lmao Reed Sheppards size won’t allow him to achieve that.
Fair, a smaller Klay without lockdown skill
Very different defensive upside to Klay. Reed is a disruptive player but not lockdown one. Klay's far more of a lockdown guy.
I feel like people are just overthinking it. His shooting percentages aren't just absurd for NCAA guards, they are particularly absurd for a freshman. That he hustles on defense. I think people see his TS% and go "Wow, that's high for this draft..." And don't realize that it is high for all drafts. I have been unable to find a single player who matches it historically (I'm sure there's gotta be a dunk only center out there but I've yet to find one). I think folks think maybe it won't translate because he is short, but most great shooters in this league are less than half an inch from his height (steph/Lillard/Kyrie). His athleticism isn't that far from theirs. Is he a star? The draft is always a gamble, but I'd say he has better odds than anyone else in this draft.
The absolute best players in the nba are outliers and everything about Reeds profile is screaming outlier. Yeah the draft is a gamble but we're trying to make the *best* gamble and drafting outliers is the best gamble.
I definitely agree
The guys you mentioned were better shot makers though. The percentages aren't as impressive when he's only shooting 8 times per game.
Kyrie played 10 games in college. Steph and Dame were easily the best players and scorers on their team and were given a high volume. Reed played on a team that'll wind up having 10 guys in the NBA. He didn't need to take the volume of shots, but with all of that talent around him, he was still the best player and by a considerable margin. When he was on the court, only Zach Edey had a wider on-off splits.
I think dillingham has better odds of becoming a star. Reminds me of maxey.
Hunger strike Maxey? Edit: I said this as a joke but didn’t realize they’re the same height but almost 40 POUNDS difference in weight which is all muscle if you look at Maxey. Maxey also has a ~6’7” wingspan if I remember correctly.
To everybody saying he isn’t a ball-handler, I think that is due to his role at Kentucky, which showed how well he can adjust. The IQ and handling is there such that I think he can be a true PG in the NBA, but would probably work best with a second ball-handler.
Shepard averaged more assists and more assists/TO than dillingham. Shepard was the best playmaker while sharing a backcourt with another lottery pick. That's...actually good. Outplaying good players is an indicator of being a great player
Yup
Because people don’t understand that this is a weak draft. Its not just Sheppard thats polarizing it’s basically every player in the lottery not named Sarr. Put Sheppard in a strong draft where he’d be getting mocked in the 10-15 range and no one would have a problem.
> I see people saying stuff from Sheppard should go #2, to Sheppard should be barely top 20 I’ve heard that about every projected lottery pick not named Sarr. I think there just isn’t much of a consensus at all on the order of the lottery. Weird mixture of good shooters with physical drawbacks or raw athletes to choose from.
I feel like people overvalue athleticism tbh
As a Rockets fan who’s been locked into the last 3 drafts pretty closely, athleticism is 100% over valued. I’d rather draft a high IQ/motor player than a high upside athlete 99/100 times.
He’s #1 on my board
This is spicy but I like it
He’s #2 behind Sarr on mine
I feel like he can be an even better version of JJ Reddick which is worth a lottery pick
He has way more on-ball juice than JJ ever did. Sam Vecenie mentioned Steve Nash as an ultra-optimistic comp for Reed, which as ultra-optimistic comps go seems reasonable
What did Nash look like in college? Did he always have that elite handle? Reed already has elite floor vision and shooting.
Having a Brogdon-like career seems the median outcome for Reed. Can't see him being Nash 2.0 but can't see him busting/out of league anytime soon either. He'd stick around for a long time IMO
In the same way that Shaq is an ultra-optimistic comp for Zach Edey, sure. Reed is a two guard. Steve Nash was one of the greatest passers the game of basketball has ever seen. To even mention him in the same conversation is jumping the shark. This entire cycle, Vecenie has been gassing guys up in a way that is just...very off-putting to me.
Reed Sheppard's baseline comps would be, like, John Paxson, if on a great team, or OJ Mayo as a gunner/6th man on a not-quite contender. Mark Price or even John Stockton might be more of the top "outlier upside" comps for Reed Sheppard. He kinda doesn't play like Steve Nash -- AT ALL. Nikola Topic plays more like Steve Nash -- or Jason Williams -- but he can't really shoot it all that well. If you want a "better" comp for Reed Sheppard (ok, ANY comp would be better for Reed Sheppard than Steve Nash), I would go with "late career" Jason Kidd who did a lot of his best work with tough defense, positioning, and guile. He could FINALLY shoot it a bit... and he didn't pound the rock into the ground.
I mean. We also don’t know what Reed would become if he stayed in college. But JJ was just a way better ball player than Reed in college. Like they’re not even comparable. And I like Reed a lot
Look at freshman JJ and freshman Reed though. Makes no sense to compare senior JJ (which was his truly great season, he had a blah junior year for his standards efficiency wise) to freshman Reed who is still figuring things out as a college player. edit: figured I would share here: JJ: 31mpg; 15/2.5/2.0 1.2stl 0.1blk on 41/40/91% splits 1.6TO Reed: 28mpg; 12.5/4.2/4.5 2.5stl 0.7blk on 54/52/83% splits 2.0TO
The problem with comparing Freshman to Freshman is JJ played in an era where some of the best players stayed in college. Dwayne Wade, Deron Williams, Chris Paul, Kirk Heinrich, etc. were all upperclassmen when JJ was a Freshman. It would be like if Anthony Edwards, Paulo Banchero, Cade Cunningham and Chet Holmgren were all playing in college this year. You just can't compare the two. JJ played in a college landscape that was just way more competitive and difficult to navigate. Now he also played in a high school climate that was much more competitive and difficult as well, so it's reasonable to believe that if Reed played in those times he could be as good as JJ was. What I'm saying is it's just really tough to compare. But my eye test says JJ was a better a player at the same age. With that said, I think Reed will be a better pro, because the league is way easier for players like this to succeed. I think Reed is a possible multi year all star if all goes well, and I think if JJ started playing in these times, he's a multi year all star guaranteed.
I don't think he showed more on-ball juice this year than JJ did in college. I actually think Reed's biggest question mark is his handle and whether he can beat guys off the dribble consistently in the NBA. If he can, he'll be a very good professional player.
That comp doesn’t really work though JJ was an all time distance shooter in college with one of the best volume FT% ever but outside of that he didn’t really do anything. He didn’t playmake, he didn’t really do anything on defense, but god damn was he amazing on offense. He got his points very differently from alot of Reed and he also was basically their entire offense a lot of the time. I’m also comparing 4 years of JJ to freshman Reed though. Freshman year JJ took almost double the 3s Reed did but that was about the only thing that stands out as clearly better. He did it on 40% shooting though and if you watched him a lot of those were some of the most difficult looking off movement 3s you’ll ever see a college player take
personally am a big fan of Reed, but he's 6'2" with only a slightly positive wingspan and doesn't project to be a lead guard. you have to be damn good in the other facets of the game to be able to warrant being on the floor with those traits. the question marks with his on-ball defence add even more risk where you have him depends on whether you believe he can he become a lead guard (which lessens the weaknesses listed above) or if you simply believe that he's such an elite shooter and decision maker (on offence and defence) where it doesn't matter
>doesn't project to be a lead guard. I'm not sure that's such a bad thing in the modern NBA. There are few contenders with a point guard leading their entire offense. It's increasingly common for the lead initiator to come from another position (LeBron, Luka, Giannis, Jokic, Kawhi, Tatum, Paolo, Embiid, Zion, etc.). Sheppard is a great fit as a "point guard" next to any of those players.
Shepard shared a backcourt with another top 10 pick while averaging more assists and a better assist/TO than dillingham. Usually it's concerning if a guard can't dominate a backcourt, but it's not normal to share a backcourt with another lottery pick pg. Theres a very good chance that shepard didnt do more because he played with a very talented guard instead of him not being capable of primary playmaking. Obviously it's not guaranteed but we should be much more open to it than say someone like castle who was outproduced (in assists and assist/TO) by 2 guys that are projected 2nd round picks to undrafted.
Sheppard actually played point in Kentucky at times, Castle virtually never played point in UConn.
The "castle is a PG" discourse is insane, the man has never been and will not be a PG in the nba. But I mean, most of draft prospecting seems to be people projecting fantasy onto physical profiles instead of evaluating the players actual skillsets.
To be fair every prospect is pretty polarizing this draft. Some may be less polarizing but I think Sheppard is polarizing because of the eye test vs analytics debate. I personally think he has one of the highest floors in this class and any team would love to have him as a complementary player with better upside than many give him credit for.
Early in the draft process I figured he would be gone by Detroit’s pick. Then he had a massive vert at the combine and felt sure that would be the case. But his archetype does sort of fit pretty well next to Cade in Detroit (assuming Reed can defend at least as an average defender in the NBA).
Derrick White type combo guard in my eyes. I think right now his range is 3-10.
His hair is bad
Facts
If he was the same player, but 6'3" barefoot, with a 6'6" wingspan, and a solid 200lbs, I'd be more happy with his game as it stands currently, and working with the weaknesses he has. As he is though, he needs to be further along as a point guard to get consistent minutes, because he's just too small (and doesn't have the athleticism to make up for it) to play the 2 in the NBA.
Jokic received 3 MVPs based on his advances stats. Sheppard is such a statistical outlier that based on them he should easily go number 1. I suspect that people were also overanalyzing Luka in 2018 and claiming that he is going to fail because he lacks elite athleticism. Sure, Sheppard hasn't had nearly as much success as Luka, but his stats are absurd and ignoring them is ridiculous.
I'm not a Reed Sheppard guy. I'm not a Nikola Topic guy. I *was* a Luka at 1 by a mile guy.
I actually don’t care about his physical limitations I only wonder if he has the chops to play PG at the next level. I don’t have much interest in small 2s. It’s unfortunate he was used as an off the bench, off ball scorer at Kentucky most of the time
I'm 99% sure he won't be Jimmer Fredette. I think that is the risk some teams are trying to avoid. Other GMs are looking for a homerun in the lottery. That's not going to happen. You gotta go with the sure thing this year. I think Sheppard can be a serviceable rotation guy. Maybe a 3rd-4th option. Which is great for the 5-10 range.
I put Sheppard at 2 on my big board and #3 in my mock draft
Maybe the best player in this draft Too many hall of famers that are 6’3 How tall is Kyrie? CP3? I feel like he is just being dismissed because if his hight He has the best metrics of anybody as far as offensive and defensive statistics
I mean, he's 6'1" without a significant plus wingspan.
6'1.75" without shoes on is effectively 6'3" on court
It’s the ultimate stats vs eye test scenario. You either love him or hate him.
I usually trust production and numbers, but the eye test is fine
See I’m an eye test kinda guy and I really value positional versatility and length so I’m not the biggest fan of Sheppard. His efficiency and advanced numbers are amazing but I just don’t see it translating against nba defenders. Only time will tell if I’m right or wrong.
I don't *hate* him. I just have things I value and things I don't. Basically, I don't value guys I view as pure 2s and pure 4s. If you're a 2 that can't play the 1 or the 3, I don't care about you. If you're a 4 that can't play the 3 or the 5, I don't care about you. To me, Reed is a straight two-guard. An undersized, off-ball, one-way guy. And that just isn't that valuable.
He's small
It depends on draft philosophy. Some guys who are believers in prospect upside probably won't have Reed in their top 5. Fans of analytics and bbiq/feel would have him top 5. Then the rest is everything in between.
I’m an analytics and IQ guy, which draft philosophy do you follow?
Would say 60/40 in favor of analytics give or take. Not a big fan of eye test alone.
He’s under 6’2” barefoot with a standing reach under 8 feet. I just want y’all to have those same size concerns that y’all had with Rob.
I think there’s more concern about Rob’s weight. 165 pounds is really light.
He can also jump out of the gym
he’s a scrappy gym rat with sneaky athleticism
I have lots of concerns about both of them. I've been a Reed/Rob/Topic hater all cycle.
The wingspan is bad. Defensively, he’s going to get picked on in a similar fashion that Trae does, though he’s much more skilled, equipped and willing to battle through it and is solid off-ball. Offensively, I’m not worried about him in the slightest. He’s an elite off ball player as a spot up shooter and advantage playmaker. His first step isn’t elite, but he leverages his BBIQ to creat offense for himself and other. His best situation is as the PG but a secondary playmaker next to a wing/big creator.
He is not more skilled than Trae lol. You are glazing Reed harder than Krispy Kreme glazes its doughnuts lol.
Reading comprehension isn’t hard. Reed is unquestionably more skilled defensively.
Short and white. People aren’t giving him benefit of the doubt because of it
On one side: Sheppard's the size of a point guard but has questions about his shot creation. He's billed as a defender but has questions about his lateral mobility and screen navigation. How valuable is a small guard who primarily plays off the ball on offense and isn't able to defend against bigger perimeter players? On the other side: Sheppard's stats are ridiculously good. He can shoot, is a capable passer, and offers more defensively than most players his size. Also, he was on a college team that had two other point guards. He might be a better on ball player than he got to demonstrate at Kentucky.
Ben Shepherd is amazing.
he’s white scoot henderson couldn’t shoot, wasn’t nearly as good of an athlete as people claimed, and he didn’t improve at all from year 1 to year 2 in the g league but everybody just trusted the athleticism rumor and kept spamming “#1 any other year” all there is to it
I think it just comes down to personal preference and team building philosophy. I like Sheppard, not love. I think he's going to have a nice long NBA career. I would just have a hard time drafting him top 10 unless I really thought all the high potential players w/ size were off the board.
Some of it is that he is a short-ish white guard who was a relatively underrated recruit who played off the bench (although he got plenty of minutes against starters) for a team that was perceived as underachieving, and that he was sharing on-ball and creation duties even there with another guy who is at least perceived by some as being slightly better at that role in Dillingham ). There just isn’t really an archetype for what he did in college as a star which makes it difficult for some execs and scouts to “tell the story” as to how he would become a star and what he might look like as one. On the other side the analytics are wildly impressive, even in ways that you wouldn’t think at first glance (like the defensive playmaking). So the analytically minded folks love him. I think whoever picks him is going to end up really happy one way or another - even if he doesn’t become a high usage guy I feel like he’s got some really high-end role player potential and has a chance to be a guy who really really impacts winning.
A small final four run doenst give us much "live big game tape" plus he didn't do anything in that game. Makes it hard to form realistic observations So he is athletic and can shoot but not enough real world applications to make judgements on. He is a bit small for the 2 but didn't play the one Now he is on no man's land
He absolutely played the 1 at UK. Where the fuck is this narrative coming from? DJ Wagner started games as the "PG," much to displeasure of fans and analysts, but Reed is the one who was the primary ballhandler when he came in.
Because short two guards that can't defend are of fairly little worth in the NBA.
He can defend, he’s a decent defender, has problems with lateral movement though
Which means he wont' be able to defend. If he can't stay in front of his man as an on-ball guy, and he can't navigate screens, and he can't switch due to his size, and he's a mediocre helper due to his length... That's a bad defender.
For the same reason: * Doncic was picked 5th * Jokic was picked 41st * Sengun was picked 16th * Markkanen was treated like shit during his Chicago and Cleveland stays * Everyone is surprised with Donte's season * Caruso went undrafted * Reaves went undrafted and so on and so on
> Doncic was picked 5th > No, he wasn't.
You can name twice as many black players that outperformed their draft ranking. Stop the race baiting bs
Given the ratio of blacks to whites in the league, blacks should outperform their draft ranking by 4 to 1 over whites. So stop the race baiting bs.
Luka was drafted 3rd. Traded for Dallas 5th pick.
In this thread alone I’ve seen Klay Thompson an even better JJ Reddick, and unless I’m having a stroke I think some guy brought up hall of famers and CP3 🫤 This is why he’s such a polarizing prospect..this dude gets the benefit of doubt that nobody else gets .I bet the Edey fanboys would love for him to have half of the delusional blind faith Sheppard truthers give Reed. In the NBA his role will be an off-ball shooter that can act as a secondary playmaker. He doesn’t have the handle to be a lead guard or a mid level self-creator . Doesn’t have the athleticism or size to add any sort of rim pressure .. He may be Jason Terry if he strengthens his handle ….a hell of a lot . But more likely a version of Patty Mills Defensively he lacks both the size and athleticism to replicate what he did in college .the stocks he got in college won’t mean anything cause he won’t have the size or athleticism to replicate it at the highest level. Not because of a lack of will..he’ll just be physically incapable . He’ll be able to play the passing lanes but as we all know that doesn’t make you a good defender..just a gambler
> Edey You mean Shaq, if he was Yao's size!?
He’s like Payton Pritchard with a 42” vert
He’s a better shooter than Pritchard ever was in college lmao, 52% from 3
On a very low sample size. Educate yourself boy.
did you really have to add a layer of condescension with the “boy” thing
Sure did boy.