Point guard is, quite easily, the biggest glamour position in the 2017 NBA Draft. The top overall player in the class functions at the position and five of the consensus top 10 players are included among the ranks. While it is possible or even likely that someone from the point guard spot will flame out to some degree, it is actually quite impressive that a position that is already flush with talent in the league is about to get even deeper.
How should the top five shake out on draft night? Are there players that might (or should) move off the point guard position permanently? Questions abound but, before we get to the top five, let’s roll through some honorable mentions, including a no-doubt first round pick.
Honorable Mention (In Alphabetical Order)
- Jawun Evans, Oklahoma State – Evans might be the best player at any position that was relegated to the honorable mention category. He was the engine of an uber-elite college offense and, if he was two inches taller, Evans would be a no-doubt lottery pick. The size questions are legitimate but he is polished and talented. Plug him in as, at worst, an above-average backup for a long time.
- Frank Mason, Kansas – Mason is small (6’0, 6’3 wingspan) and that keeps him out of the first round. With that said, he absolutely has the capability to be a long-term NBA backup and that is quite valuable. His shotmaking is wildly impressive and Mason’s intangibles are quite encouraging after a fantastic college career. A team will gain value in the second round.
- Monte Morris, Iowa State – The debate between Morris and Mason for “best veteran college point guard in the second round” rages on and teams can’t go wrong. Morris is much more of a facilitator when compared to the scoring-focused Mason but that isn’t a bad thing. He’s not as famous but Monte Morris should be a strong backup as well.
- Kobi Simmons, Arizona – Simmons was not fantastic during his one college season but the tools are impressive. He’s 6’5 and highly explosive with the ability to project as two-position defender. I’m not a huge fan but the upside is undeniable and a team could fall in love late in the second round.
- Edmond Sumner, Xavier – Sumner’s size (6’6, 6’9 wingspan) and athleticism are tantalizing, even if he isn’t the most polished player. If not for a knee injury this year, he may have been a borderline first round consideration and, if Sumner can improve as a shooter, there could be a steal to be had. Classic boom-or-bust type.
5) Frank Ntilikina, France
This is a very weird evaluation. For one, I was (very) tempted to place Jawun Evans ahead of Ntilikina on this list, which would have been well outside the conventional wisdom. In addition, I nearly ranked Ntilikina as a shooting guard.
The positives are obvious in that he is a legitimate 6’6 with a wingspan nearing 7’0 and real ability as a shooter. On defense, Ntilikina effectively uses his incredible length to deter defenders (both point guards and wings) and he is a very good athlete that is quick enough to stay with just about anyone. The questions, though, are also quite real.
At this stage, Ntilikina is extremely raw at the age of 18 and, while his jump shot has vastly improved, it isn’t a full-blown lock that he’ll be a plus shooter. Moreover, I am thoroughly unconvinced by the notion that he is a point guard, even if it is obvious to see the vision and skill level that could project him as such. There is a scenario where he simply morphs into a valuable role player as a shooting guard that can be a strong secondary ball-handler but, if that happens, Ntilikina’s jumper must be a sure thing. As a point guard, the length is tremendous but he’ll need some help and quite a bit of seasoning to take on that role for the long term.
4) Dennis Smith, NC State
If Dennis Smith was the best player in the 2017 NBA Draft class, I wouldn’t be surprised. Yes, you are reading that right.
I don’t think it’s particularly likely that Smith ascends beyond Markelle Fultz and others but his upside is absolutely unbelievable. While most players on this list are tremendously athletic, Smith is the most explosive of the bunch and that comes even after issues with his knees. His highs were unfathomably high at the college level and, for the most part, the lack of success at NC State doesn’t scare me. There are questions, though, with Smith’s attitude, effort, lack of overall polish and injury history.
On the top end, Smith could be a dynamic offensive engine with the ability to score 20-plus points per game while simultaneously engaging his teammates. That kind of player isn’t just laying around in NBA circles. If things go wrong, though, Smith’s knees could flare up and, perhaps more likely, his tools could fail to come together as simply a highly athletic player that can’t command an offense or deploy the craft needed to dominate the pro ranks.
I’m a fan of Smith and he doesn’t have the pure on-court question mark of someone like De’Aaron Fox with his jump shot. If teams are drafting for upside, an easy argument could be made that he is a top three player in the class. With that said, the draft community is divided on Smith and it will be very interesting to see where he lands on June 22.
3) De’Aaron Fox, Kentucky
Can De’Aaron Fox shoot? That is one of the overwhelming questions in the 2017 NBA Draft. If you believe that he can become a shooter along the lines of Mike Conley (of whom he is often compared), then Fox is underrated. If you believe that his current ability as a jump shooter is likely to continue or only slightly improve, he might have trouble being more than a league-average starting point guard.
What we do know, however, is that Fox is a tremendous athlete that is arguably the single fastest player in the class. He has drawn comparisons to John Wall in that regard and Fox’s quickness translates quite well defensively. There are some (justified) concerns that Fox is too slight right at about 180 pounds but most players are able to put on some mass and that will almost certainly be a point of emphasis for whichever team drafts Fox.
Because of the safety that his defense, ball-handling and overall tenacity provide, Fox is a no-doubt inclusion among the top 10 players in the draft for me. Is his ceiling as high as Dennis Smith’s? Probably not, but Fox can live on his defensive ability and general magnetism in a way that many prospects can’t. I’m a big fan and, personally, I believe the shooting will progress enough to make him an above-average NBA starter.
2) Lonzo Ball, UCLA
The emergence of Lonzo’s own personality (and not that of his father) has been huge in aiding a lot of basketball fans to buy in to his stock. That is, of course, rather silly but LaVar’s presence has colored the proceedings for better or worse. In an effort to move beyond that in this evaluation, I don’t believe LaVar Ball will be a problem for Lonzo Ball’s career trajectory on the floor. Done and done.
As for the player himself, Ball is very intriguing and a very rare blend of skills. He has shooting guard size and isn’t the greatest lateral athlete in the world. On the flip side, Ball is the best passer in this class by a wide margin and his feel for the game is off the charts. In truth, it probably helps his evaluation that “true” positions aren’t really a thing at this point but, for a brief moment, I considered labeling him a shooting guard before fearing revolt toward that stance.
Ball can absolutely operate an offense as its point guard but he might be best off the ball. His jump shot is unconventional and might be a challenge to deploy off the dribble. If playing off the ball, the 6’6 guard could also utilize his incredible ability as a cutter and showcase the shooting range that makes him an even more interesting prospect. Ball’s offensive profile is tantalizing and, frankly, divisive but it seems like a lock that he’ll be a plus on that end, if only because the passing and knowledge are borderline transcendent.
The big question, at least for me, comes defensively in that Ball isn’t the greatest athlete and will have trouble staying in front of point guards. His match-up against De’Aaron Fox famously did not go well and an NBA team will probably need to pair him with a smaller, quicker type to defend well. On the bright side, Ball’s basketball IQ also translates quite well to the defensive end and he is fantastic positionally. He gambles too much for steals right now but, in the future, Ball is big enough and smart enough to deal effectively with some point guards and more than enough shooting guards. I don’t think he’ll be a negative defender and that combination is good enough to land him (slightly) ahead of the Fox/Smith tier for me.
1) Markelle Fultz, Washington
In my mind, there is absolutely no debate about the top point guard and, almost by proxy, the top player in this class. Fultz is head and shoulders above the rest, even if there are a few (minor) concerns about the 6’4 lead guard from Washington. The only real “knock” on Fultz comes with his effort level, or lack thereof, on the defensive end.
Fultz’s block and steal rates are actually strong for the position but he certainly did not put forth full effort on that end on a full-time basis. Some of that can be traced a lack of team success and support but that isn’t something I’m going to punish him for and it is a safe bet to translate him as at least an average NBA defender based on the tools.
Offensively, he is a full-blown monster. Fultz can operate as the primary ball-handler and “true” point guard while simultaneously bringing a scorer’s mentality and the versatility to play away from the ball. He may not be an elite three-point shooter but Fultz certainly isn’t a slouch in that area and he brings high-end feel for the game in pick-and-roll settings that dominate the great majority of NBA offenses. His length is also quite encouraging, as Fultz is 6’4 with a wingspan nearing 6’10 and that helps him to finish effectively against larger players around the rim and get his jumper off on the perimeter.
For me, it would be a surprise if Fultz was not an All-Star level player in the future and his ceiling is that of a top-ten player in the NBA.
