I'm debating updating my Tiers after my latest draft hot take / philosophical question...
So tossing the cliche of race based comps to the side I am having an internal debating regarding how to rank Grady Dick. I currently have him ranked #14 in the middle of my 6th tier between Cason Wallace and Keyonte George. I am debating dropping him a tier towards the end of the first round based on positional/role replacement value.
Grady Dick is projected high first and mostly for his combination of size and shooting. Looking around the NBA for similar role and physical comps I come up with D Robinson, Max Struss, Sam Hauser. All three of these players went undrafted. In this draft B Sheppard is projected as a late 1st-early 2nd, Joe Hauser is projected to go undrafted, and Hunter Tyson is projected to go undrafted and all 3 project in the NBA into the same role as Dick.
One can argue age with these other players being older and Dick being 19 but looking back at the Hausers, Robinson and Tyson their shooting percentages didn't improve over the course of their college careers. These players like Dick came into college as elite shooters (around 40% from 3 and 80+% from FT) and remained at that level.
So the question is where does Grady Dick improve as a player to make him worth drafting 50 picks ahead of J Hauser or Hunter Tyson and 20 picks ahead of Sheppard? If I was the GM of a lottery team I would have to look really hard at the ceiling of Dick compared to other players in that range knowing that I can likely buy my way into the 50s to pick up a traditional floor spacing wing. For a GM in the 20s the safety of drafting Dick becomes a positive as he can plug in to a more established roster as a role player without the pressure of being a transcendent player associated with the lottery.