Dybantsa missed a lot of shots that I wouldn't ascribe to the defense. He just had a bad shooting night.
Mock draft 2026
- Thread starter iowamcnabb
- Start date
I am watching it now, only saw the end.
In general he has been extremely foul prone on that end.
Joshyjosh31
Starter
He needs to go Iggy en his handle but that’s a small thing what I loved is how he plays in the mid post teams won’t be able to put smaller faster guards on him or guys close to his height.
Joshyjosh31
Starter
Really like him
Tell you what, let Dybantsa fall to wherever the Kings pick and we can teach those early-clock mistakes out of him.
QWERTYLICIOUS
Starter
I am going to preface this post by saying that I really don't know a lick about this year's draft prospects other than those that have been heavily discussed here on KingsFans.com...
But, is there anyone out there who would feel comfortable with us trading down in the 1st round and acquiring an additional 2nd round pick in the process? And, if so, who would you feel comfortable trading down for in order to do that?
My guess here is that we won't be trading down, nor would most, if not all, of you suggest that we do (especially considering that this draft does seem to be very top-heavy, and the drop in talent is significant after the first handful of picks). I am just asking to see if there is someone who is projected to go later in the first round that you would be ok seeing the Kings trade down in order to grab, as long as we acquire additional assets in the process.
I will tell you this much, based on the little knowledge that I do have about this year's prospects, and that is...I wouldn't trade down.
But, is there anyone out there who would feel comfortable with us trading down in the 1st round and acquiring an additional 2nd round pick in the process? And, if so, who would you feel comfortable trading down for in order to do that?
My guess here is that we won't be trading down, nor would most, if not all, of you suggest that we do (especially considering that this draft does seem to be very top-heavy, and the drop in talent is significant after the first handful of picks). I am just asking to see if there is someone who is projected to go later in the first round that you would be ok seeing the Kings trade down in order to grab, as long as we acquire additional assets in the process.
I will tell you this much, based on the little knowledge that I do have about this year's prospects, and that is...I wouldn't trade down.
No, no, no, no, no. Being top-4 in this draft is crucial. Even at 5 I'm standing pat, and maybe for a few more spots. If we end up #10 after the lottery, I could reassess, but for now it's a dead no.
Joshyjosh31
Starter
Even at 6 I’m standing pat, Wagler has a chance to hit the second tier group and some pundits already have him there
Nope. Not even if a future NOP unprotected FRP type of deal was on the table if we're in the top 5 of this class. And the 6-10 prospects are starting to really rise too like Wagler, Brown, Acuff, etc.
SacTownKid
Hall of Famer
And some Zaire Williams. Williams is a better athlete though. Ament has a decent ceiling but huge bust potential too. He's basically a big guard without the speed much like Williams.
LoungeLizard
Starter
Hypothetical. With the draft class this year being as strong as it is, could you see one of these “2nd tier” prospects maybe slotted for the 6-10 range going back to school collecting NIL to wait til next year and be potentially top 3. Is there value in that? If you were an agent for one of these guys would you advise that? Or is it better in the long run to just get your initial guaranteed rookie contract and be a year earlier to your max extension?
Sam Vecenie was discussing a similar topic in The Athletic recently. He didn't reference players nearly so high in the draft, but he did point out that players towards the very bottom of the first round (and of course in the second round) are likely to make more money coming back to school than hitting the draft. And he does suggest that next year's draft is weaker than this year's, which is one reason why fringey players might wait a year.
But in memory, very few players that have been slotted for that 6-10 range have returned to school, Yes, NIL changes things, but maybe not that much, as it sounds like big NIL deals will be in the $3M range - still below the slot values for the lottery. And keep in mind that the rookie deals are for two years minimum, so from an "insurance" point of view, they're definitely bigger than a year of NIL. Imagine you're bound to be drafted at #10. You can hope to get about $3M going back to school, or a minimum two-year deal in the NBA that is worth about $12-13M overall. And then what if you blow your ACL out and never play again? I don't imagine anybody would trade off like $3M for next year alone and perhaps $10M guaranteed to try to climb the ladder in the draft the next year.
This is where my Darryn Peterson skepticism comes from. He is undoubtedly a top 5 prospect in this draft and his shot creation skills and exceptional 3pt accuracy are worthy of all the praise but I don't understand how he can be labeled "the best guard prospect in a decade" when he only has a 16.8% assist percentage and he doesn't consistently put pressure on the rim. To be the best guard prospect in a decade I would expect his skillset to be more well-rounded than that.
I was really high on Ben McLemore when the Kings drafted him and I have to say, based on his statistical profile, I don't think it's a terrible comparison and not just because they both played for Kansas. It's hard to look past the player BenMac ultimately became, but if we could go back in time to 2013 a lot of us were very high on McLemore coming out of college. He was a super quick 6-5 shooting guard with a silky smooth outside jumper and above-the-rim athleticism. Granted "Ben McLemore with more muscle, a much tighter handle, and a leading scorer's mentality" is an intriguing prospect that I would be willing to take a chance on but is he a sure-thing future franchise player? That's where I'm not so sure. Without the lead guard assist rate he really needs to be not just good but elite as an NBA scorer to warrant the "franchise player" hype and he's only had 2 games so far (@ West Virginia and Vs. TCU) where he drew fouls at an elite rate.
There are extenuating circumstances worth mentioning here -- he's had various lower body injuries (hamstring, ankle) which may have temporarily robbed him of his extra burst but I don't like drafting on hypotheticals and HS performance. As of today I'd be nervous picking him over Dybantsa, Wilson, or Boozer and maybe even Flemings. I've seen who they are as players and believe in their skills/athleticism translating to the NBA while a lot of Peterson's projection is still coming from who he was in High School. Just my two cents. I hope we finally get to see him healthy at some point this season so we don't have to go into the draft with this same level of uncertainty. At least the NBA finally made participation in the Combine testing mandatory as otherwise his agent for sure would have held him out.
EDIT: Sorry, I quoted the wrong post the first time. I was referring to the Rim Frequency chart.
Yeah that's a bit concerning. How many true #1's in the NBA score in bunches but don't make their teammates better?
I know the injuries are real and usually they can explain the temporary fall of shooting accuracy and explosiveness but I've never really heard of injuries affecting playmaking abilities much.
iowamcnabb
Hall of Famer
Part of it is the team kinda sucks. They have largely been unranked this year with the number 1 recruit in the nation. Rutger vibes with Harper and the kid in Utah
iowamcnabb
Hall of Famer
I was checking in with Ament and discovered there is a guy name Nate Kingz. I’m sure y’all already knew about him.
Right. Either he needs to rediscover some of his around the basket athleticism or he needs to step up as a playmaker. If he can't do either then I think we're looking at more of a complimentary player than a star. I'm not locking in that assessment, there's time for him to course correct, but I'm concerned with what I've seen so far and surprised that very few other draft evaluators are talking about this.
Joshyjosh31
Starter
A 6’6 pg with elite shooting my and good decision making he’s gonna play himself into the top four
His shooting is legit but I don't see him driving by anyone in the NBA.
Tizzy Flip
Starter
I suggest watching the Purdue game before making that assessment. Purdue spent most of the season at #1 and put everyone on him. It was almost always a mismatch. He definitely needs to bulk up a little, but he can be a better shooting version of Deni.
Joshyjosh31
Starter
Yup also what people were saying about that fatass in LA before the draft
Yeah I certainly didn't think Luka would be as good at it as he is but I'll need to see more tape on Wagler. I usually don't spend a ton of time looking at prospects until I know where Kings are drafting.
It's easy to say, well hey Luka, Harden and Deni aren't quick and still get by their man, therefore every slow footed prospect has a shot at being that good as well. It's just taking an elite skill that only a select few players have and applying it to players that you like.
Drafting a non shooting center and saying, well Brook Lopez did it, therefore this random 7 footer should be able to develop a shot. I personally don't really play that game because it's nothing but wild speculation but if you guys say Wagler normally looks better than he did in that highlight tape, I believe you. I just didn't see anything in that tape that showed me a real ability to drive by an average NBA defender. He reminded me more of Nique than Deni.
Last edited:
SacTownKid
Hall of Famer
Not much of an athletic specimen though. Good skills.
Joshyjosh31
Starter
Wasn’t harden considered close to an elite athlete in his prime? I think wagler should be able to get to the rim his jump shot being elite will help offset the lack of athleticism. Watching him he has a lot of counter moves like Luka which helps get him to the basket and he’s never sped up.
