Last season I took things simple with the combo guards. I looked for players who could score both often and efficiently, showed an ability to play some PG in a pinch and put up an RSB40 in at least the 6.0-6.5 range. This year I’ve got a little better grip on the position, or at least I feel as if I do. When I originally separated past prospects, I had put them in the 5 traditional positions. This year I’ve isolated some combo guards and I’ve been able to come up with some better data on what successful combo guards looked like in college. There have been only 2 who have been wildly successful pros, Allen Iverson and Gilbert Arenas. Both entered the NBA after their sophomore seasons:
| Player |
FG Pct. |
2-point Pct. |
P40 |
A40 |
A/TO |
RSB40 |
| Allen Iverson |
.480 |
.546 |
30.5 |
5.7 |
1.2 |
9.3 |
| Gilbert Arenas |
.479 |
.519 |
22.3 |
3.2 |
0.8 |
7.8 |
Iverson was a terrific all-around player, but Arenas was a little more difficult to get a feel for. Everything looked OK, but the 0.8 A/TO would have scared me off some. He’s become a good enough passer in the pros, but he’ll never be mistaken for Jason Kidd or Steve Nash. The fact that as a sophomore he was able to score often and efficiently with a high RSB, should have gotten him drafted before early in round 2 though.
There are no CGs who compare to those 2 this year. Bayless is by far the best of the bunch. There are some potential surprises after him, but that’s about it. The non-Bayless players listed here also have some stiff competition from a deep SG class, so they all likely face a long road to their NBA dreams. OK, here are the numbers:
|
Player |
fgpct | 3pct | 2 pct | P40 | A40 | S40 | TO40 | A/TO | RSB40 | fga/a | PPS |
| Bayless, Jerryd |
0.458 |
0.407 |
0.489 |
22.75 |
4.65 |
1.11 |
3.42 |
1.36 |
4.38 |
3.12 |
1.57 |
| Hill, George |
0.545 |
0.450 |
0.580 |
24.04 |
4.79 |
1.99 |
3.28 |
1.46 |
9.99 |
2.95 |
1.70 |
| McKiver, Rob |
0.396 |
0.386 |
0.415 |
26.54 |
3.28 |
1.86 |
2.85 |
1.15 |
6.26 |
5.94 |
1.36 |
| Carroll, Jaycee |
0.530 |
0.503 |
0.551 |
24.89 |
2.42 |
1.04 |
2.15 |
1.13 |
8.08 |
6.65 |
1.54 |
| Smith, Jujuan |
0.462 |
0.383 |
0.604 |
19.88 |
3.10 |
2.34 |
2.34 |
1.33 |
7.51 |
4.65 |
1.38 |
| Roberts, Brian |
0.476 |
0.455 |
0.498 |
21.70 |
4.05 |
0.42 |
3.25 |
1.24 |
3.88 |
3.74 |
1.43 |
| McCalebb, Bo |
0.506 |
0.405 |
0.535 |
27.59 |
3.68 |
2.83 |
2.75 |
1.34 |
8.25 |
5.21 |
1.44 |
| Gordon, Jamont |
0.415 |
0.319 |
0.480 |
19.43 |
5.59 |
1.26 |
4.59 |
1.22 |
9.42 |
2.77 |
1.26 |
| Low, Derrick |
0.432 |
0.385 |
0.510 |
18.13 |
2.02 |
1.84 |
1.40 |
1.45 |
5.70 |
6.98 |
1.28 |
These comps are a little shaky, as far as being great information goes. There just weren’t a lot of CGs out there to glean information from. But this is what we have. I didn’t include George Hill, because the averages are for major college players only.
| Freshmen |
FG Pct. |
2-pt. Pct. |
P40 |
A40 |
A/TO |
RSB40 |
| Jerryd Bayless |
.458 |
.489 |
22.8 |
4.7 |
1.4 |
4.4 |
| Rotation Regular |
.460 |
.491 |
19.0 |
4.0 |
1.2 |
6.0 |
| Journeyman |
.455 |
.500 |
17.9 |
4.7 |
1.4 |
7.2 |
| Never made it |
.428 |
.468 |
15.1 |
4.0 |
1.4 |
6.1 |
| Junior |
FG Pct. |
2-pt. Pct. |
P40 |
A40 |
A/TO |
RSB40 |
| Rotation Regular |
.474 |
.514 |
21.2 |
4.8 |
1.6 |
7.9 |
| Journeyman |
.463 |
.499 |
19.5 |
4.6 |
1.4 |
7.2 |
| Jamont Gordon |
.415 |
.480 |
19.4 |
5.6 |
1.2 |
9.4 |
| Never made it |
.450 |
.502 |
21.2 |
4.5 |
1.3 |
6.3 |
| Senior |
FG Pct. |
2-pt. Pct. |
P40 |
A40 |
A/TO |
RSB40 |
| Rotation Regular |
.470 |
.498 |
20.8 |
4.8 |
1.7 |
7.6 |
| Bo McCalebb |
.506 |
.535 |
27.6 |
3.7 |
1.3 |
8.3 |
| Jaycee Carroll |
.530 |
.551 |
24.9 |
2.4 |
1.1 |
8.1 |
| Journeyman |
.475 |
.515 |
23.7 |
4.4 |
1.3 |
7.5 |
| JaJuan Smith |
.462 |
.604 |
19.9 |
3.1 |
1.3 |
7.5 |
| Brian Roberts |
.476 |
.498 |
21.7 |
4.1 |
1.2 |
3.9 |
| Derrick Low |
.432 |
.510 |
18.1 |
2.0 |
1.5 |
5.7 |
| Never made it |
.438 |
.469 |
22.0 |
4.1 |
1.3 |
6.5 |
| Rob McKiver |
.396 |
.415 |
26.5 |
3.3 |
1.2 |
6.3 |
Now for the subjective rankings and comments. This is how I would rank the players, all other things being equal.
1. Jerryd Bayless, Arizona: This is a player with a couple of crazy extremes in his statistics. He’s a great scorer, both in frequency and efficiency. His P40 is 22.8, with percentages of .458 overall and .407 on treys. He gets to the line more than most and hits .839 on FTs. He produces 1.57 points per FG attempts, a number topped only by James Harden’s 1.63 among major college guards this season. Since scoring is the most important thing for guards who don’t play the point, it’s easy to see why Bayless resides in the top 5 in most mocks. The other extreme is what worries me. Bayless simply didn’t do the dirty work as a freshman, averaging a meager 4.38 RSB40. Historically it has been important for players to do both things well in college if they intended to go onto successful pro careers. I wanted to look at both extremes and players who were both PGs and SGs who were near these levels as college freshmen. First the bad news. Here are players who posted an RSB40 of less than 5.0 as college freshmen:
| Player |
Pos |
RSB40 |
FGA/Assist |
A/TO |
PPS |
| Jerryd Bayless |
CG |
4.38 |
3.12 |
1.36 |
1.57 |
| Mark Jackson |
PG |
3.98 |
0.98 |
1.35 |
1.65 |
| Travis Best |
PG |
4.47 |
1.70 |
1.96 |
1.28 |
| Kenny Smith |
PG |
4.08 |
1.40 |
1.61 |
1.31 |
| Scott Skiles |
PG |
3.79 |
1.96 |
1.25 |
1.31 |
| Negele Knight |
PG |
4.54 |
1.55 |
1.68 |
1.08 |
| Melvin Booker |
PG |
4.81 |
1.95 |
1.30 |
1.21 |
| Dejuan Wheat |
CG |
4.49 |
2.87 |
1.79 |
1.37 |
| Bobby Hurley |
PG |
4.35 |
0.91 |
1.73 |
1.28 |
| Litterial Green |
PG |
3.69 |
2.68 |
1.56 |
1.35 |
| Kevin Pritchard |
SG |
4.70 |
4.03 |
1.43 |
1.17 |
| Michael Jackson |
PG |
4.52 |
3.02 |
0.97 |
1.33 |
| Marcus Taylor |
PG |
4.69 |
2.68 |
1.68 |
1.19 |
| God Shamgod |
PG |
4.13 |
1.28 |
2.20 |
1.16 |
| TJ Parker |
PG |
4.89 |
3.26 |
1.17 |
1.32 |
| Allan Houston |
SG |
4.99 |
3.66 |
1.26 |
1.31 |
| Rex Chapman |
SG |
4.86 |
3.79 |
1.47 |
1.19 |
| Vern Fleming |
SG |
4.66 |
2.62 |
1.23 |
1.34 |
| Shawn Respert |
SG |
4.20 |
5.55 |
0.79 |
1.38 |
| JJ Redick |
SG |
4.74 |
5.37 |
1.27 |
1.33 |
Not exactly a stellar group, but the success of Mark Jackson, Smith, Best, Skiles and Houston suggests a sub 5.0 RSB40 as a freshman isn’t a fatal blow to any prospect. The fact that the list is a mix of 2nd-tier all-stars and busts tells us that starting out as a freshman with and RSB40 of less than 5.0 isn’t exactly jumping on the fast track to perennial all-stardom. There are other things to consider though. None of these players were the scorer Bayless was. Jackson was efficient, but scored less than 10 PPG. No other player came within 0.20 of him in PPS. That and the fact that there are no other serious flaws in Bayless’ game tells me he’s probably a better prospect than any of the players on this list at this early point in his career. A quick thing I want to point out here is Bayless’s FGA/Assist ratio. It looks much more like that of a SG than a PG and that’s the main reason I put him with the combos. He’s a scorer first and a passer second. That could change as he develops, but for now he’s a combo.
Next table is PGs and SGs who posted a PPS of over 1.50 as freshmen.
| Player |
PPS |
A40 |
P40 |
A/TO |
RSB40 |
| Chris Paul |
1.69 |
7.0 |
17.7 |
1.8 |
7.49 |
| Mark Jackson |
1.65 |
5.1 |
8.2 |
1.4 |
3.98 |
| Andre Miller |
1.50 |
7.2 |
13.4 |
1.7 |
8.49 |
| Rumeal Robinson |
1.54 |
7.4 |
15.0 |
2.0 |
6.99 |
| Chris Corchiani |
1.68 |
11.9 |
10.3 |
3.0 |
5.38 |
| Richard Midgely |
1.53 |
4.3 |
14.5 |
1.1 |
6.07 |
| Bryant Stith |
1.55 |
2.1 |
21.8 |
0.7 |
11.30 |
| Doug Christie |
1.50 |
6.5 |
14.6 |
1.1 |
11.24 |
| Lawrence Moten |
1.50 |
2.3 |
21.6 |
0.8 |
10.07 |
| Lance Hughes |
1.62 |
2.0 |
18.5 |
0.6 |
5.59 |
| Damon Bailey |
1.51 |
4.5 |
17.5 |
1.8 |
6.81 |
| Daryl Wilson |
1.50 |
3.7 |
23.5 |
1.1 |
7.24 |
| Jerryd Bayless |
1.57 |
4.7 |
22.8 |
1.4 |
4.38 |
Even though there have been some pretty good players who posted a PPS over 1.50 as a freshman, it’s hardly been a ticket to the big time. Even doing it with a 20+ P40 is no guarantee of success. The only player who went from a 1.50+ PPS as a freshman to superstar was Chris Paul. Paul was a much more complete player than Bayless at this point in their careers. I wouldn’t call this a bad sign, just a warning to temper any enthusiasm caused by the 1.57.
Before I get into assessing Bayless, I wanted to take a quick tangent to look at the career of Stephon Marbury. Like Bayless, Marbury lasted one season in college before turning pro. He went in the top 5 as Bayless is projected to. Also like Bayless he was an elite athlete who put up terrific scoring numbers as a freshman, but was a little weak on the passing and RSB numbers. Their numbers are very similar, with one notable exception:
|
FG Pct. |
3 Pct. |
P40 |
A40 |
RSB40 |
A/TO |
FGA/A |
PPS |
FTA/40 |
|
| Marbury |
.457 |
.370 |
20.2 |
4.8 |
5.4 |
1.4 |
3.2 |
1.32 |
4.9 |
| Bayless |
.458 |
.407 |
22.8 |
4.7 |
4.4 |
1.4 |
3.1 |
1.57 |
8.6 |
Marbury made an interesting transition from frosh phenom to NBA star. While he was more of a scorer than a passer in college, in the pros he was a mainstay in the top 10 assist leaders for most of his career in addition to averaging over 20 PPG several times. Marbury made 2 all-star teams and earned well over $100 million playing professional basketball. He also consistently posted weak numbers in every category not involving points or assists, like Bayless did as a freshman. The main characteristic of Marbury’s career wasn’t stats, but team failure. Stephon Marbury played on 4 different teams and joined each one with a certain amount of fanfare and anticipation. All four teams were disappointing with Marbury as their leader. The 4 teams he departed from all improved their lot without him. He has experienced very little playoff glory in his career. In short Stephon Marbury has had a NBA career that’s been both very profitable for him and very disappointing for his teams an fans of his teams. My impression of Marbury was that a lot of the team problems that followed him seemed to stem from an attitude that wouldn’t let him accept being anything other than the star of the team. That he was a 3rd-banana talent who insisted on top dog status. At this early point in his career Bayless looks like have at least have some similarities to Marbury as a pro. Whether he brings the same me-first attitude that doomed Marbury’s career remains to be seen. I’m certainly not condemning him as another Marbury, just pointing out the similarities. The fact that he didn’t seem to concentrate on the defensive part of his game as a freshman is a bad sign though.
There’s great potential in Jerryd Bayless, but also the potential to become an overpaid, overrated player who doesn’t push his team toward a championship. He should become an excellent scorer at the next level and might be able to be an effective PG. At the very least he should be able to do a decent impression of Leandro Barbosa or Ben Gordon as a scoring 6th man. If he can handle the point, a big if to be sure, Bayless will be a long time starter. It’s very unlikely he’ll become a superstar. Superstars typically have few, if any weaknesses from the start. Bayless has some big defensive weaknesses going in.
2. George Hill, IUPUI: That palindrome school. Hill’s numbers are eye-popping. I don’t know that there has ever been a small college guard with numbers this impressive. Bonzi Wells was, but he was more of a forward in college. There have been some good small college guards in recent years, but each had some flaw that kept them from succeeding. Doremus Bennerman and Eddie Benton scored often, but not efficiently enough. Andrew Wisniewski and Jermaine Boyette were efficient scorers, but had weak defensive numbers. Kyle Hill had great numbers, but also had trouble with turnovers. George Hill has no statistical issues that have traditionally been red flags for prospects. His shooting percentages are .545, .450 and .580 overall, on 3-pointers and 2-pointers respectively. He gets to the line a lot, pushing his PPS up to an amazing 1.70. This would be great for any player at any position, but it’s incredible for a player like Hill who scores 21.5 PPG. The other numbers are also terrific. A 10.0 RSB40 shows he can handle the defense and is won’t be too overmatched early by the athletic challenges of the NBA. His 4.8 A40 and 1.5 A/TO suggest could handle the point for short stretches and maybe able to develop into a full time PG. down the road.
The small college thing has to be looked at though. There haven’t been too many PGs or CGs who have made a successful transition from small college to the NBA. Here are the most successful of recent years and their college stats compared to George Hill:
| Player |
FG Pct. |
2 pt. |
3 pt. |
P40 |
A40 |
A/TO |
RSB40 |
PPS |
| Earl Boykins |
.472 |
.511 |
.407 |
27.9 |
6.0 |
2.1 |
6.6 |
1.33 |
| Antonio Daniels |
.547 |
.576 |
.433 |
26.4 |
7.4 |
2.1 |
6.0 |
1.50 |
| Derek Fisher |
.410 |
.430 |
.383 |
16.1 |
5.7 |
1.9 |
7.9 |
1.39 |
| Anthony Johnson |
.505 |
.536 |
.405 |
16.2 |
8.3 |
2.5 |
6.4 |
1.42 |
| Speedy Claxton |
.470 |
.500 |
.381 |
25.9 |
6.8 |
1.8 |
10.1 |
1.31 |
| George Hill |
.545 |
.580 |
.450 |
24.0 |
4.8 |
1.5 |
10.0 |
1.70 |
There’s little doubt that Hill is the best scorer of the bunch, considering his lights-out efficiency. He also has better defensive numbers than all except Claxton. The low assists should be a concern, because he’s significantly lower than any player here. This could be one of those red flags. Hill is only 6’2”, so some ability to play the point would help his cause a lot. Another concern is his 3-point shooting. He was at .450, which is great. But that was on only 109 attempts and after he hit .320 in his only other full season. The small college hurdle is always a big one to overcome. In Hill’s case it will be more difficult, because he has PG size, but has been more of a scorer than a distributor. He’s a terrific scorer though and has enough versatility that he should be able to find work in the NBA. His ultimate success or failure will probably rest on his ability to play some PG. If he can make that jump, his other skills should make him a pretty good one, so he’s definitely a great sleeper pick and a player worthy of a low first round selection.
3. JaJuan Smith, Tennessee: Smith is one of those player who the more I look at his numbers, the more I like about him. All his numbers are either good or can be spun as good enough. His .604 2-point pct. led all combo and point guards. This is an important stat, because it shows an ability to become a scorer at the next level. It shows he can score inside and is a good finisher. It’s a much better predictor of success than 3-point pct. It’s also a pretty rare number for a guard to reach. Here are junior and senior guard prospects who have hit .600+ on 2-point FG:
| Player |
2 pt. pct. |
P40 |
A40 |
A/TO |
RSB40 |
| Andre Miller |
.600 |
18.2 |
6.6 |
2.1 |
10.2 |
| Tim Hardaway |
.644 |
21.4 |
6.1 |
2.0 |
7.9 |
| Kenny Smith |
.602 |
19.3 |
7.0 |
3.5 |
4.4 |
| Drew Barry |
.600 |
15.0 |
7.5 |
2.2 |
7.8 |
| Justin Hamilton |
.652 |
9.9 |
4.6 |
2.4 |
6.8 |
| Brandon Dean |
.609 |
18.9 |
3.1 |
1.6 |
7.5 |
| Dee Brown |
.611 |
16.3 |
5.6 |
2.4 |
5.6 |
| Kerry Kittles |
.603 |
23.2 |
3.8 |
1.6 |
9.4 |
| Wesley Person |
.607 |
21.2 |
4.3 |
1.5 |
9.6 |
| Rex Walters |
.664 |
22.4 |
5.4 |
1.7 |
7.3 |
| Jitim Young |
.625 |
18.8 |
2.2 |
0.9 |
8.7 |
| JaJuan Smith |
.604 |
19.9 |
3.1 |
1.3 |
7.5 |
I didn’t include the freshmen seasons of Baron Davis, Doug Christie or Scoonie Peen. All 3 were over .600, but none were big scorers at the time and the comp didn’t seem appropriate. The top 3 are PGs. The next 4 were combo guards. The final 4 are SGs. What I’m seeing here is for CGs and SGs, success seems to come with scoring points, preferably over 20 per 40 minutes. Smith is at 19.9, which is a little low. Anything below 20 has always been a little low for successful CGs and SGs. Smith’s is 19.88, so I can’t even round up and pretend it’s 20.0. At this point, I’d like to be able to explain that Tennessee’s offense held Smith back some. That he was asked to be a 3-point shooter when efficiency-wise the two was a better option for him. I would add that his other numbers were all strong and that, gee whiz 19.9 is almost 20. But that won’t change the fact that successful scoring guard prospect almost always top 20 P40 as college seniors. The last player who didn’t was Jeff Hornacek and he was more of a PG in college. Subjectively I like JaJuan Smith a lot, but I don’t like going against history. So despite showing he’s an efficient scorer and a solid all-around player, JuJuan Smith comes up just short in the most important statistic. I wouldn’t write him off though. Smith started as a walk-on, so he knows how to beat the odds.
4. Bo McCalebb, New Orleans: I had forgotten this guy existed. He first appeared on my radar as a sophomore in 2005. As a sophomore he pumped in 22.6 PPG with a .480 FG pct. A good player, but being short and a poor 3-point shooter with weak PG skills, his status as a prospect was weak. He missed most of his next season and redshirted. His junior season was pretty much a mirror image of his sophomore year. As a senior, he stepped up his 3-point shooting to a career-high .405. With that problem seemingly corrected, all his numbers suggest he’s a decent CG prospect. He has the scorer’s mentality, pumping in well over 20 PPG his entire career. He’s a decent enough passer that it’s not a stretch to think he could handle some PG duties. His RSB40 is a solid 8.25.
There are some issues though. Most important is his height, only 6’ tall. Short for a PG and he’s more suited to be a combo guard. He is a solid, athletic 6’0”, but 6’0” is 6’0” and it’s going to be a problem. He’s a year older than most prospects, having redshirted a season. That shouldn’t matter if someone can play, but historically 5th-year seniors have had a tougher time making it. There’s also the level of competition. New Orleans is in the Sun Belt conference, which is on the lower end of the mid-majors when it comes to overall strength. It’s not quite a small college in terms of competition, but just one level up from that. My rule for small college players as prospects is they should be dominating their competition at an almost ridiculous level. There should also be no statistic in the line that stands out like a red flag, say a negative A/TO for a guard or very few blocked shots for a center. McCalebb does fit that description, with 23.2 PPG, 2.4 SPG and a .506 FG pct. For that reason I can’t discount his chances. He’s a longshot to be sure, but if he gets in the right place and impresses the right people at the right time, he certainly could stick somewhere as a 4th or 5th guard.
5. Jaycee Carroll, Utah State: Carroll is a scorer first and foremost. He scores often and efficiently and has done so for 4 seasons. He’s shot over .500 for 3 of his 4 seasons and over .450 on treys for 3 of 4 seasons. His PPS the last two seasons were 1.53 and 1.55. He’s scored over 20 PPG the last two seasons and scored from all over the floor. The rest of his numbers are weak. His RSB40 is fine, but it’s mainly fueled by strong rebounding numbers. He’s averaged less than a steal per game. The only time he looked like he might be able to play PG was his sophomore season, when he averaged 2.6 APG and a 1.5 A/TO. Not great numbers, but they offered a glimmer of hope. After that Kris Clark, a floor general type, took over at PG and Carroll’s scoring numbers soared, but his passing numbers suffered. Carroll is a great scorer who can score in every way imaginable. He doesn’t get a lot of steals, but his high rebounding numbers suggest that there is some defensive ability and NBA athleticism there. As for playing PG, there’s scant evidence he can do it. It would be a stretch to use his sophomore numbers to argue that he’s a PG. His role would be that of a situational gunner. I think he could excel in such a role, but that would seem to be about all he could handle.
6. Rob McKiver, Houston: Normally when a player is below .400 on his FG percentage I eliminate him from consideration based on this alone. McKiver was at .396, but is worth mentioning here. What was impressive about McKiver is how he made himself into an efficient scorer, even though he posted the lowest 2-point FG pct. of any player I evaluated. He did this by hitting .386 on 376 treys and somehow getting more FT attempts than 2-point attempts. It didn’t hurt that he hit .884 from the line either. When he shot from behind the arc or the FT line, McKiver helped the team, because his percentages and efficiency were so much better there than when he took a 2-point shot. Of course simply being a cagey cager doesn’t make a player a prospect. McKiver’s other numbers are also on the low side: 6.26 RSB40 and 1.15 A/TO. And even though he was able to mask a weakness, the .415 on 2-pointers is a flashing red light with sirens blaring. But I can’t just dismiss him. The A/TO and RSB40 numbers are weak, but not deal-killers. That coupled with the fact that he was not only an efficient scorer, but pumped in 23.6 per game tells me he does have a chance. That chance certainly the longest of longshots, but I can’t dismiss him as hopeless.
7. Jamont Gordon, Mississippi State: There isn’t much here that says prospect. He’s big for a guard, listed at 6’4” 230. He’s listed as a G-F on the roster and his numbers look like that of a player who has played some forward and played it pretty well. Gordon did run the point for the Bulldogs and is listed as a SG in most mock drafts. He has yet passed the ball well enough that I’d think he could handle PG in the pros. Gordon’s biggest problem is he’s a very inefficient scorer. He hasn’t hit over .420 ever. He hit only .319 on 3-pointers, after a career high of .347 last season. He does get to the line a lot, and that’s the only thing that keeps him above water offensively. Even with the FTs, his .415 FG pct. and .480 2-point pct. are just too low. SGs and CGs get a little more leeway with these numbers than other positions, but .420 and .490 are the minimum for serious prospects. Gordon offers some good size and versatility in the backcourt, but simply doesn’t score efficiently enough for me to consider him much of a prospect.
8. Brian Roberts, Dayton: Roberts started the season with a flurry. He dropped 28 and 31 on Louisville and Pittsburgh respectively in a couple of early season upsets that got a nice buzz going about him and the Flyers. That turned out to be the high point of his season and probably his career. Roberts slipped some as the season progressed, but still managed to match the strong scoring numbers he put up as a junior. Hitting over 45% on treys and a PPS of 1.43 is pretty stellar and should get Roberts a look at the very least. The problem is his defense. He averaged 0.4 SPG, which contributed to his sorry 3.88 RSB40. If he were a freshman, I could look past this with the thought he might improve. Since he’s a senior this is almost a deal-killer, no matter how great a scorer he is.
9. Derrick Low, Washington State: I was surprised his numbers were so weak. Whenever I watched Washington State play, Low seemed like the main guy on offense. He handled the ball in just about every possession and seemed to initiate the offense most of the time. His 1.6 APG was surprisingly low. His numbers look more like that of an inefficient, low-scoring SG. He’s too small and not athletic enough to make it there. He wasn’t the efficient scorer that McCalebb and Smith were and his defensive numbers are poor. Even adjusting the Cougars’ slow pace can’t turn Derrick Low into a prospect.