Apricot and Wyatt vote on the Draft Tourney
Wyatt is the creator of the CHAWBPM metric and a refined version of Clunky Comps
Here are all the Draft Tournaments and Live Draft Day threads since 2020. The 2026 pagedescribes how the field was chosen, analyzes the relevance of BPM and other gory details.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Wyatt is the creator of CHAW BPM, which is a tuned version of BPM for college that is supposed to give you a little more insight into how these players might be as pros.
BPM is a very well-known all-in-one statistic based on box score data. It’s widely available, through basketball-reference.com and also barttorvik.com, so it is useful even though it is limited.
What Is CHAW BPM?
Eric: Can you tell me a little bit about why CHAW BPM is different from BPM?
Wyatt: CHAW BPM, it will take in things that BPM doesn’t take in, like directly talking about height, in contrast to BPM which uses position. It takes age into account to try and rate people as prospects. And it takes into account different players’ teams that they play on and their conference to estimate how difficult their games might be compared to other players.
C stands for conference adjusted. H is height controlled. A stands for age. And I just added W because that’s the first letter of my name.
Eric: For trademark purposes.
Wyatt: And then, like originally it started off as just WBPM where I was using these like linear regression coefficients that I found online for box score stats to the NBA. And it worked out pretty well to try and figure out how much of each stat can be explained when translating to the NBA, just only using what can be explained for BPM. And then I added on all the other stuff like conference, height, and age.
Eric: So these coefficients, are they correlations between college statistics, like a specific college statistic and the equivalent NBA statistic?
Wyatt: Yes.
Eric: And it’s restricted to players who end up playing in the NBA.
Wyatt: Yes, I believe so.
Eric: I know that your formula only takes into account box score statistics and maybe some generated things that Bart Torvik can come up with, and that’s a good thing about its design that we know what the limitations are.
One side note is that CHAW BPM is only for people who play college in America, right? There’s no overseas pros, overseas leagues, overseas schools.
Wyatt: Yes, like Karim Lopez, for instance.
Eric: Yeah. I don’t have anything.
Wyatt: Okay, that’s understandable.
Eric: Well, CHAW 2, you can do some kind of translations between leagues and figure out, solve that difficult problem, right? International translation.
Wyatt: I wonder though, ‘cause all the international players that are like low first round, whatever, are gonna just be taking NIL in college like for the rest of history. So will there even be that many that are coming straight to the NBA out of their respective leagues?
Eric: That’s true. Karim could probably be paid more in American college than in the Australian League.
Draft Tourney Format
Eric: For the draft tourney we picked 15 players that are very likely to be in the Warriors range at #11. And then they were randomly put into five groups, and so people were asked just to select which of the three prospects in each group was gonna be the best to pick.
Group 1: Mikel Brown Jr., Allen Graves, Hannes Steinbach
Wyatt: Well, CHAW BPM actually has Mikel Brown Jr. as the number four prospect in the entire class.
Eric: Oh my god.
Wyatt: In general, CHAW is a very big fan of his expected points and how it can translate to the NBA, his scoring. And he has some very good assist numbers. He is not too bad in blocks, and he’s actually a little bit positive in steals, which has some good correlation with good positive defensive things. He is six foot five, listed six foot five, which is of course a positive thing.
His turnovers and rebounding are generally big negatives. However, as a guard, going from college to the NBA, it does turn out that having a lot of turnovers isn’t that big of a deal, and instead it generally means that the player is just on ball a lot of the time.
Similar players to Mikel Brown Jr. according to CHAW, there’s players like Anthony Edwards that pop out from college as highs, Coby White as maybe like a middle ground, and then maybe as like a floor type of thing... Javon Small.
Eric: Okay, so maybe we have to stop for a second. So you also have an algorithm to find similar players, and can you explain how that works?
Wyatt: Yeah, it’s like a cosine similarity between the players in their respective components of CHAW BPM. Major ones are their shot diet, general box scores, assists, turnovers, rebounds, steals, blocks, and then also their free throw percentage.
Eric: Is each statistic normalized into a Z-score or something like that?
Wyatt: Yes, it is normalized into a Z-score.
[FYI This is a lot like how my old Clunky Comps algorithm worked. - EA]
Eric: Mikel Brown Jr., I noticed that at the NBA combine, according to this report, he actually measured six three and a half. Now, it made me curious about two things. One is what it would look like if you change your formula to six three and a half. But then in some ways that’s unfair because everyone else on your chart probably has inflated stats, in some sort of somewhat random way.
Wyatt: Well, Mikel Brown Jr., I can plug it in right now and see what he’d look like…. Okay, so after taking the low end of his height, he is number seven on the board.
And is now zero point one CHAW Z scores ahead of Allen Graves. So I would probably take those two as even with each other given the six foot three height.
Eric: But I’d have to also check how Allen Graves measured out in the combine. It’s a little unfair just to punish Brown for the height reduction.
… And Allen Graves is measured at six foot seven and a little bit extra.
Eric: Okay. He’s listed as six foot nine, so he lost an inch.
Wyatt: So changing his height, Allen Graves drops one spot. And he’s still within 0.2 Z scores of Mikel Brown.
Eric: So I was shocked that Mikel Brown Jr. was rated above Allen Graves. To me, that’s some high praise because I know BPM just loves, loves, loves Allen Graves. And CHAW BPM loves Allen Graves a little less but still loves him, right?
Wyatt: Yeah, but the interesting thing about Mikel Brown Jr. is his BPM is 5.4.
Eric: That’s so low actually.
Wyatt: And CHAW BPM has him at three Z scores higher than BPM has him.
Eric: Wow. so CHAW BPM is betting the bank that Mikel Brown Jr. is better than BPM thinks.
Eric: Okay, well why don’t we talk a bit about Allen Graves? So why is he such a analytics darling? But Allen Graves seems like an unassuming prospect, clearly very good at defense, very heady, but he didn’t even start on his Santa Clara team, so it’s very—what are the statistical things that are making BPM and CHAW BPM love him?
Wyatt: Well, Allen Graves, he kind of has like a... from just the things that stand out about him are very, very, very low turnovers with completely normal assist numbers. Extremely good offensive rebounding, above average defensive rebounding, and extremely, extremely good steals. And then like the things that he’s negative at—assists, projected scoring, and three-pointers made—he’s really not that much negative at all. And just all of the other stuff, all of the auxiliary non-scoring stuff, he just stands out so unbelievably much, and that’s the main reason why he pops out.
Eric: So in addition to steals, his blocks—how are his blocks?
Wyatt: His blocks are above average. Compared to the NBA drafted players So he’s about 0.7 Z scores higher than average NBA draftees.
Eric: Okay. Alright. any opinion about Hannes Steinbach? Big guy, skilled, played at Washington, actually measured six foot ten at the combine, seven foot two wingspan, so a lot of people are salivating at his shape, but how does CHAW BPM feel about the statistics?
Wyatt: Steinbach has completely normal scoring projections for a center. Still, CHAW BPM projects him at twenty-fifth in the class, which is very low compared to Mikel Brown and Allen Graves, but it’s not like he’s necessarily a bad prospect. Of course, like you said, he’s very tall and he has very good rebounding numbers. His turnovers were good, but weren’t very good considering that he is a big man with low assists. And he didn’t really shoot threes at all, and his free throw percentage is actually above average probably for centers, I’d say 76%, which is potentially a positive, but lack of three-point volume or a lot of the self-creation stuff with long twos are why he gets punished a lot. And like, at the end of the day, he only really stands out in rebounding, and there’s a lot of people that can rebound that are tall.
Eric: Okay. Yeah. he was considered by some the best rebounder in the draft, but to me I’m not sure that that’s a lottery pick feature.
Group 2: Jayden Quaintance, Cameron Carr, Karim Lopez
Wyatt: Okay, so, Jayden Quaintance, I believe actually does not meet the playing time thresholds for this year.
He played four games. However, last year there is stuff for him as a freshman, where he was put at 66th in overall CHAW BPM among all college players last year.
Eric: That doesn’t sound that high to me.
Wyatt: Yeah, it isn’t that high. As a freshman, negative projected scoring. A lot of turnovers given the fact that he did not have basically any assists, no three-pointers, slightly above average rebounding for a big man but not really anything impressive, although he did get quite a lot of blocks. In general, it’s not the most supportive of him.
Eric: And a steal rate?
Wyatt: Steals are very slightly above average.
Eric: Okay.
Wyatt: And CHAW gives a lot of bonuses to younger players, and to be a freshman and like, he just didn’t really have any production to make the bonuses mean anything.
Eric: I think people are wowed by his seven foot five wingspan and his athleticism and jumpiness and defensive explosiveness. But I’m a little surprised and sad for him that even as a freshman he was rated pretty low in statistics. And then you throw in this ACL tear, and you have no idea what you’re going to get with him.
Well almost by default that means that Cameron Carr is going to win this group.
Wyatt: Well, Cameron Carr is at 45th in CHAW BPM.
Eric: Oh my god.
Wyatt: He’s actually good overall projected scoring stuff, but low assists for a guard, whatever rebounding, and then probably what I’d call negative steals and blocks. And pretty good above average shooting stuff, however it’s not that heavily backed up. he had a good amount of threes taken, definitely above average amount of threes taken, at 80% free throw percentage, which is definitely fine. But it’s not really outstanding in any way. And to top it all off, he’s a sophomore doing this. Playing in a fine place, but as a sophomore it’s kind of expected to do better, especially compared to some of the other standout guards that CHAW loves a lot more than him in the class.
Eric: It makes me feel like CHAW agrees with this very glib idea “never draft a shooting guard because shooting guards are either a bad point guard or a small forward wing.” And it’s almost like CHAW’s believing that, because it feels like Carr is a really prototypical shooting guard, almost three-and-D-ish kind of guy, and CHAW’s just not all that impressed by him.
Wyatt: Yeah, he’s slightly on the smaller side and doesn’t really get that many steals or blocks or rebounds. So I think, at least just looking at the box score, it’s hard to project being a good defender in any notable way.
So basically out of the three, it’s like pick zero out of them.
Eric: Okay, so CHAW abstains from this group. Well, Cameron Carr has a huge fan base in Dub Nation, so this is not going to be happy news. So Carr will advance, but I can see he’s not gonna win in the next round.
Group 3: Morez Johnson Jr., Bennett Stirtz, Nate Ament
Wyatt: There’s a lot of people that are not big Nate Ament fans, but he is the number one player box-score-wise out of those guys. But it’s not that impressive.
Just looking at people who are in the draft, Nate Ament is at number 14. Stirtz is at number twenty. And Morez Johnson is at number 46.
Eric: Ouch. All right, so CHAW loves Nate Ament most.
Wyatt: Yes. But not that much. Nate Ament, of course, is a freshman that is tall and fairly athletic. He has—although he did not shoot very well from anywhere in college, his free throw percentage on a very good amount of attempts suggests that he can be a lot better at shooting than he was. He has good projected scoring. And then alongside the strengths of his body and age and projected scoring, he doesn’t really have any other weaknesses. he is above average, although very slightly, in rebounding, slightly below average in the defensive metrics, and about average in both assists and turnovers. It is maybe a little bit worrying to think about someone that’s that tall and supposedly that athletic not being able to get that many steals and blocks, although there are other players in the draft that are ranked higher than him that are similarly athletic that have struggled in similar ways, and at some point it’s not something that it seems like that many people care about.
Eric: So I see that he was measured at the combine at six foot nine point five, which was taller than people expected, so that was good for him. So I’m getting the sense that CHAW thinks of him as a good player, but really young, so there’s potential there, and so it gives them a bump.
Wyatt: Well, I think that the best match prospect-wise for him, for the super Nate Ament believers, is Jayson Tatum. Who also was similarly very average or negative actually in all of the box score stuff. And he struggled from shooting from a lot of the floor, but he had an 85% free throw percentage. Of course we know he learned how to shoot. And of course he had the size to be able to be a very, very, very, very, very good player in the league.
Wyatt: Given the filtering, actually the closest projection for him is Jabari Smith Jr.
Eric: Oh, okay. So somewhere between Jabari Smith Jr. and Jayson Tatum.
Wyatt: Yeah. And then Harrison Barnes, Maxime Reynaud, and Paolo Banchero are the next ones.
Eric: Whoa, those are very different players, so we should be cautious about similarity measures…
So Bennett Stirtz was a real BPM darling last year. He played for I think Drake. And then there’s this question whether he could stay a BPM darling playing at Iowa in a more powerful conference, and he did pretty well.
Wyatt: Well, I was looking in 2025, Bennett Stirtz was 44th out of all college players. 2026 Stirtz is 31st out of all college players, which was a bump up.
Eric: Okay. in general the biggest knock on him is just that he’s a senior. How does CHAW feel about him compared to BPM?
Wyatt: CHAW is 0.2 Z scores higher on him.
Eric: Oh really, higher than BPM? You’d think his being a senior would bump his stock down, but there’s something else that CHAW recognizes?
Wyatt: He’s obviously a very good three-point shooter. At least he took a lot of them, which is—that’s a good thing. Like being able to take a lot of threes is a very good thing.
Eric: Yeah, it signals that a coach let you do that.
Wyatt: Yeah, and 85% free throw shooter and on a good amount of attempts. it’s just good shooting, good shooting overall. He also has both above average assist numbers and above average turnover numbers.
Assist to turnover, which is good as a lead guy. Low rebounding numbers probably are the thing that makes him a lot lower. If he had like net neutral or neutral rebounding numbers, then I would guess that he’d probably be somewhere in like the top 15. But he’s actually very, very, very low in rebounding. And then he’s like fine, fine defensive stuff, fine steals and blocks.
Eric: Okay. That’s interesting. But in general, like he has good things about him, bad things about him. The biggest problem is just that he’s a senior and he’s not really standing out in any of these things.
Okay, what about Morez Johnson? So he had a good combine and he measured six foot nine barefoot and had good agility and vertical and all that kind of stuff. And his reputation is that he’s not all that skilled creatively on offense, but...
Wyatt: Okay. Well, Morez Johnson is 131st out of all college players in CHAW BPM.
Eric: How rude.
Wyatt: His projected scoring is bad. Negative assists.
Eric: Yeah. Okay. I think we’ve given up on his offense here.
Wyatt: negative threes, negative steals. Above average rebounding, above average blocks. In general, he’s a tall guy, six foot nine, but as a sophomore. And I guess he’s like a fairly strong free throw shooter, but like his shot diet is not exactly a self-creation type of thing. Listed at six foot nine, not being a self-creator is kind of sketchy, which is not necessarily a downside. It’s not something that CHAW takes into account, him being six foot nine and not this, but it’s like his playstyle comparisons are all players that are tall. Like he plays like a center, except he’s six foot nine.
Eric: Yeah, I think he kinda has to be a small ball center if he’s not gonna create anything. But that’s really low. So, people in theory love his defense. So how do his blocks look?
Wyatt: Above average.
Eric: It’s a little surprising to me too because I feel like BPM in general overrates bigs. So for CHAW BPM to be putting a big at 131st, that’s a mega red flag.
Wyatt: Well, I don’t know if CHAW BPM overrates bigs. I think in a lot of ways CHAW BPM overrates wings, is what I’d say.
Eric: Okay. But CHAW likes Zach Edey and Donovan Clingan, right?
Wyatt: So, yeah. But like, those guys are kinda special. Are they not? I guess it also likes Caleb Wilson.
Wyatt: Yeah, sadly that’s not relevant to our little tourney, but it is cool that Caleb Wilson is doing well statistically.
Eric: Alright, we’re gonna move on. So the winner of that was Nate Ament, but not all that enthusiastic from CHAW. But CHAW thinks that Nate Ament is a very fair pick to be picked at #11 where the Warriors are picking.
Wyatt: I think that CHAW would be very disappointed in Morez Johnson being picked.
Eric: Okay. We have to have an avatar for CHAW. It has to be some old cowboy chewing tobacco. Looking sad at the Warriors’ pick.
Group 4: Yaxel Lendeborg, Brayden Burries, Ebuka Okorie
Wyatt: So Brayden Burries and Yaxel Lendeborg are at 22nd and 23rd. Out of players in the draft. Out of players overall, Burries and Lendeborg are at 33rd and 34th.
Eric: Okay.
Wyatt: And Ebuka Okorie is at number nine.
Eric: Whoa, what a shock! Because Lendeborg has fairly godlike BPM, I think.
Wyatt: He does.
Eric: But you just discount the heck out of that because he’s very ancient.
Wyatt: Yeah, and he’s ancient. Like the amount discounted is 2.42 Z scores less. Just to summarize, slightly above average projected scoring, solid assists and turnovers, very middling rebounds for a big and fairly middling defensive stats for someone who’s supposed to be athletic, above average three-point scoring. Definitely—now that sounds pretty good overall. Pair that with the fact that he’s also an 82% free throw shooter. Sounds all pretty good, but then like he is really old. Like he’s really old. Which is just a struggle to believe in.
Eric: Brayden Burries?
Wyatt: So Brayden Burries, of course, he’s a lot younger. But Brayden Burries is, he’s just like compared to the other guards in the class, like Brayden Burries just looks like a run-of-the-mill guard, right? Like CHAW has him at the end of the first round, which is not—it’s not necessarily means that CHAW thinks Brayden Burries is some terrible player or whatever. But it’s like slightly above average scoring projections, and then middling assists and turnovers, negative rebounding, probably above average steals and blocks with not being a super standout three-point shooter. Just doesn’t really add up to being a standout top 15 player.
Eric: As a little side question, it’s interesting that you bring up rebounding repeatedly with CHAW. I know rebounding is supposed to carry over pretty well and be a good indicator of general productivity. And so the uber example is our guy, Brandin Podziemski. So how did CHAW rate Podziemski in his draft?
Wyatt: …. Podziemski was 23rd and Podziemski was rated as number 14 in his class.
Eric: Okay, so CHAW thought Podziemski was a solid, even slight steal at number 19.
Wyatt: Although that doesn’t count for all the overseas players, but yes. It was of course Wembanyama at number one, and then it was three G League Ignite players with Scoot and then the Thompson twins.
Eric: Ha, so that would put Podziemski right at #19. Okay, let’s talk about Okorie who is a real cult figure. Some people absolutely love him, and he is a creator. He is short, but not that short. Like six-two.
Wyatt: Well, that is pretty short, I would say. I’ve listed at 6-2. The combine has him at six one and a half.
Eric: That is definitely short.
Wyatt: And that’s a lot of the negatives about him. Because he’s a freshman. He’s projected to be a very good scorer according to CHAW. He has very good assist numbers while being very, very, very notably good at turnover numbers for someone that’s handling the ball as much as he is. He had an assist to turnover of about two. Then his rebounding numbers are not good. Okay. His steals are definitely above average. His blocks are meh, and his three-pointers are definitely above average. And with the notable scoring, super notable scoring projection alongside assist-to-turnover, it all evens out to make him a CHAW-considered definitely good individual player, and then bumping up that from his low height and age… those two cancel out in a sense as a prospect.
Eric: Right. So his age, well, I have here he’s twenty and a half years old. He’s not of course very young compared to the other freshmen, which is definitely a knock on him, but he’s more like a sophomore.
Wyatt: Even if he’s not literally. As a sophomore, if he was listed as a sophomore with just like the extra year of experience, he’d probably be closer to the other guys, Yaxel and Brayden, but he’s solidly above them. And so he would still be above them but maybe maybe not top ten.
Group 5: Labaron Philon, Kingston Flemings, Aday Mara
Eric: And our last group is Labaron Philon, Kingston Flemings, and Aday Mara.
Wyatt: Okay. Well, Aday Mara is listed as number twenty among all college players. And number fifteen out of all drafted players.
He’s not a scorer. He shot 56% from free throw, which is not good. His points per possession or expected points is negative, and negative turnovers given not very much assists. Above average rebounding of course, negative steals, super good blocks, but also negative three-pointers. There’s not really anything that’s like middle of the pack at. He’s either just super positive at stuff or super negative at stuff, and overall not the best projection. Although of course I have him listed here at seven foot three.
Eric: I have here that it is seven three barefoot. Yeah, so that is really tall.
Wyatt: Yeah, that is hecka tall. That is quite tall, and especially being talented at getting blocks. It’s not like he’s a necessarily bad prospect. Again, out of drafted players, number fifteen doesn’t mean he’s a very great prospect either.
Eric: One reviewer really likes his blocks, his big blocks plus good assist percentage.
Wyatt: Good relatively but not great turnovers at the same time. It feels like not great turnovers. A twenty percent turnover percentage.
Eric: Alright. what about Labaron Philon?
Wyatt: Labaron Philon is number eleven in CHAW BPM. He is the highest rated non-freshman.
And just going through the things that he’s good at. Philon is projected to be a good scorer. He had a lot of good self-creation stuff. 80% free throw shooter, which is fine. 40% three-point percentage, which is a little bit better, and he shot a bunch of threes. Very, very, very a lot of assists, not very much turnovers, just overall good playmaker. Negative on the rebounds, like most guards. And then negative on the steals and blocks, which is worrying to some extent, but then also very good threes, like I mentioned earlier.
So offensively, I don’t even know if there’s a player that, disregarding age, has straight up better numbers than him. Maybe Darryn Peterson or Darius Acuff. But being among those two who seem to be projected top five, top six, is definitely not a bad thing.
Struggling defensively and being a sophomore are not positives, but he is six foot four listed here. Is that what you have?
Eric: Yeah, I have six two and a half in the combine. Plus four wingspan.
Wyatt: Yeah. Although, one thing to note about him was that he was projected 30th in CHAW 2025, which is something that I like to personally think about.
Eric: Because it means that his profile’s been improving each year?
Wyatt: Well not only that his profile been improving each year, but he’s not a sophomore that just suddenly had some standout season. It’s like he had some credibility as a playmaker last year maybe, and then this year he improved a lot in scoring, which made him jump up a lot despite getting older, which is very, very good. But just very good offensively. Definite question marks defensively, especially with height.
Eric: And what about Kingston Flemings?
Wyatt: And then Kingston Flemings is the CHAW BPM number three prospect in the entire draft.
Eric: In the entire draft. So Kingston Flemings is projected to score a little bit less than Philon. But very positive assist numbers, good turnover numbers, assist to turnover of almost three as a freshman playing for Houston, extremely notable. 85% free throw shooter is very good. Took a good amount of three-pointers. Negative on the rebounds. However, his steals actually are very, very, very solid. Blocks are negative but not negative for a young point guard.
Eric: So when you say solid, do you mean like above average?
Wyatt: His steals are a Z score above average.
Wyatt: Okay. That’s pretty good. Okay. Again, it’s box score whatever, but being projected to be scoring well and assisting well, and his weaknesses are really not that notable when taking him overall, just taking in overall. you can say, well, whatever defensive concerns about the blocks, he’s a standard deviation up on steals. And I have him here at six foot four listed.
Eric: So I do have see that in the combine he measured small at six foot two and a half with just plus one wingspan. But his athletic testing was good. Yeah, so I don’t know how that would even out.
Wyatt: I think that when I did put some stuff together for combine data, which I’m not reading off of since not every player has it. But the combine data stuff was still positive on him. Maybe not number three, but I think it’s top five.
And playing in competitive games like he went pretty far in the tournament.
Eric: Is that taken into account in CHAW BPM?
Wyatt: Only just through games played. Which also I don’t think is taken into account except for in very certain cases, but like filtering and things like that. But yeah, Kingston Flemings is definitely the number one prospect out of that group.
Final Rankings & Wrap-Up
Wyatt: Alright. So so far advancing to the final, we have Flemings, Okorie, Ament, Carr, and Mikel Brown Jr.
Eric: So of those prospects, who is the number one according to CHAW BPM?
Wyatt: Flemings is at number four with the adjustment and he’s not that much higher than Mikal Brown or Okorie. They’re all within 1 CHAW BPM of each other or 0.3 CHAW BPM Z scores.
Wyatt: And then Allen Graves is also right there. But of course he got knocked out earlier.
Eric: Okay, so CHAW puts Flemings, Brown, Okorie, and Graves roughly in the same tier.
Eric: And Philon as well.
Wyatt: Those guys, all of those guys according to CHAW projected top eleven.
Eric: I don’t know why, but when you were talking about Philon, it seemed more negative than that. I didn’t realize he was really in the same tier.
Wyatt: Maybe because he’s a sophomore. That’s just what it is. The other guys just have another year to grow, although of course you said Okorie is older than the rest, but right. He’s a year older maybe. He’s like a sophomore.
Eric: And then poor Cameron Carr is not even in the running.
Wyatt: Well, Cameron Carr is like yeah, he’s just not in the running. Nothing nothing bad. He got a lucky group.
Eric: So and in reality, probably Mikal Brown is not gonna fall to number eleven. Philon, Flemings. Flemings is not gonna fall probably to number eleven. Philon, outside chance that he’ll fall. But Okorie I figure’s gotta be there. Unless something weird has happened to his rep.
Eric: I wonder what the most recent batch of mocks is doing. I trust The Athletic’s Sam Vecenie the most (in terms of draft conventional wisdom and predictions), and then second to that is Jonathan Wasserman
Wyatt: The Athletic has Flemings going at number seven. And then Michael Brown going at number 10.
Eric: Oh, so close. I would have been okay with Brown. And then Okorie, Graves, Philon will definitely all be there. Okay, it’s never gonna be Graves.
Wyatt: Just to shout out CHAW BPM a little bit. Meleek Thomas and Christian Anderson are the next two in that range as well. Nothing wrong with Nate Ament as well.
Eric: It’s very tempting to try to trade down to get Okorie and someone else if you can.
So I’ll give you the last word. So the top four, Dybantsa, Peterson, Boozer, Wilson, that’s the consensus top four. What does CHAW BPM think that the order should be?
Wyatt: Boozer number one, Caleb Wilson number two, Darryn Peterson number three, and Kingston Flemings number four.
Eric: And where is Dybantsa?
Wyatt: Only number six, just behind Flemings and Acuff.
Eric: Alright, thank you for playing the tourney with me and I can’t say I’m feeling that encouraged by who we’re gonna get at number 11 unless someone falls. But I know it’s gonna be a good player.
Wyatt: Mikal Brown, Flemings, like all those people are generally in the same range.
Eric: But it feels like those guys are all gonna be gone.
Wyatt: Only ten of them can be gone.
Eric: That is true.
Wyatt: True. Trade your pick down with OKC to get to pick up both Allen Graves and Okorie!